Open Email to Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
I recently presented an essay concerning the persecution of a conservative professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW). I made the point that 52% of funding for university budgets is supplied by the federal government. With such high financial control, our Marxist federal government requires within the Universities an equal degree of Marxism. Note also that it is the House of Representatives who supplies the funding through various federal agencies.
Having considered my essay, one of our Political Associates had an additional comment. Since most universities have a liberal/Marxist agenda as established by the federal government, most students and their parents believe that is the norm. They then contribute to the situation by paying student tuition and unwittingly become liberal/Marxist oriented through their attendance as students.
Monday, July 21, 2014
The Futility of House of Representative Claims
Open Email to Political Associate:
Dear Political Associate,
You have been impressed with Ann Wagner, House of Representative for the Second District of Missouri.
I have read Rep. Wagner's recent newsletter and note the following:
1. She is supporting a bipartisan solution that will quickly and compassionately reunite border children with their families in their homeland.
2. It’s past time to secure the border. She is a cosponsor of legislation that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to finally secure our southern border. She is also calling for the President to send the National Guard to assist in these efforts.
3. House Republicans will not give the president a blank check - only limited funding to deal with this crisis.
This rhetoric is very similar to that of Sarah Palin, except that Sarah Palin goes somewhat further in calling for the impeachment of Pres. Obama.
Another similarity is that neither of their efforts will go anywhere.
Let's take Ann Wagner House Republican first.
A bipartisan solution to reunite border children with their families in their homeland will not go anywhere. It will be only a request to the President from the House, and Pres. Obama will ignore it. Cosponsoring registration that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to finally secure the southern border will equally go nowhere; Harry Reid in the democratically controlled Senate will not allow a floor vote. House Republicans may not give the Presiden t a blank check, but he will overspend the allocated amount by use of an executive order claiming that the border situation is a national crisis.
Now let's take a look at Sarah Palin's claim for impeachment of Pres. Obama.
The House may impeach the President by a simple majority vote. The impeached President is then subject to trial by the Senate. To remove the president from office, a two thirds vote is required in the Senate, which is impossible under Senate Democratic rule, with Harry Reid in charge.
Therefore, neither the proposals of Rep. Wagner nor Sarah Palin can effectively accomplish anything under present conditions of leadership in the Senate. The key will be the November election, with the necessity of strongly ousting Democrats from the Senate and replacing them with Republicans. At that point, an impeachment followed by a conviction could remove Pres. Obama from office. With respect to legislation, that will still go nowhere, because although bills may be passed by both the House and Senate, they will likely still be vetoed by Pres. Obama. He will similarly ignore all requests from the Legislature that he doesn't like.
Dear Political Associate,
You have been impressed with Ann Wagner, House of Representative for the Second District of Missouri.
I have read Rep. Wagner's recent newsletter and note the following:
1. She is supporting a bipartisan solution that will quickly and compassionately reunite border children with their families in their homeland.
2. It’s past time to secure the border. She is a cosponsor of legislation that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to finally secure our southern border. She is also calling for the President to send the National Guard to assist in these efforts.
3. House Republicans will not give the president a blank check - only limited funding to deal with this crisis.
This rhetoric is very similar to that of Sarah Palin, except that Sarah Palin goes somewhat further in calling for the impeachment of Pres. Obama.
Another similarity is that neither of their efforts will go anywhere.
Let's take Ann Wagner House Republican first.
A bipartisan solution to reunite border children with their families in their homeland will not go anywhere. It will be only a request to the President from the House, and Pres. Obama will ignore it. Cosponsoring registration that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to finally secure the southern border will equally go nowhere; Harry Reid in the democratically controlled Senate will not allow a floor vote. House Republicans may not give the Presiden t a blank check, but he will overspend the allocated amount by use of an executive order claiming that the border situation is a national crisis.
Now let's take a look at Sarah Palin's claim for impeachment of Pres. Obama.
The House may impeach the President by a simple majority vote. The impeached President is then subject to trial by the Senate. To remove the president from office, a two thirds vote is required in the Senate, which is impossible under Senate Democratic rule, with Harry Reid in charge.
Therefore, neither the proposals of Rep. Wagner nor Sarah Palin can effectively accomplish anything under present conditions of leadership in the Senate. The key will be the November election, with the necessity of strongly ousting Democrats from the Senate and replacing them with Republicans. At that point, an impeachment followed by a conviction could remove Pres. Obama from office. With respect to legislation, that will still go nowhere, because although bills may be passed by both the House and Senate, they will likely still be vetoed by Pres. Obama. He will similarly ignore all requests from the Legislature that he doesn't like.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Misleading Innuendos of the Obama Administration
Open email to House Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
A Political associate recently posed three questions as follows:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens while giving billions in foreign aid to countries that hate us.
I suppose the first two of these questions are a matter of propaganda originating from the Obama Administration and liberals in our society. I realize that the Congress is not in the propaganda business, but perhaps there is some way that you can refute those erroneous positions and present to the public a better perspective of the true facts.
With respect to the military the House supplies money and the House and Senate together tell Commander-In-Chief Obama what they expect him to do. Are you fulfilling your responsibility or are you letting Pres. Obama do whatever he wishes?
Dear Speaker Boehner and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
A Political associate recently posed three questions as follows:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens while giving billions in foreign aid to countries that hate us.
I suppose the first two of these questions are a matter of propaganda originating from the Obama Administration and liberals in our society. I realize that the Congress is not in the propaganda business, but perhaps there is some way that you can refute those erroneous positions and present to the public a better perspective of the true facts.
With respect to the military the House supplies money and the House and Senate together tell Commander-In-Chief Obama what they expect him to do. Are you fulfilling your responsibility or are you letting Pres. Obama do whatever he wishes?
Money Talks
A Political Associate brought to my attention a court case, reported in the journal for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). I believe it is significant, because it is illustrative of how the federal government is spending your taxpayer money in conversion of the US to a Marxist society and economy. It involves a professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW).
Dr. Michael Adams began his career at UNCW in 1993 as an outspoken atheist and liberal. During this period, he was widely praised in the university for his teaching and scholarship and achieved tenure in 1998 without any controversy.
In 2000, Dr. Adams began a conversion to conservatism. He began writing a column for Townhall.com that was often sharply critical of leftist excesses in universities nationwide, as well as in his own university.
In 2006, after compiling an impressive record of scholarship and accumulating multiple outside teaching awards and honors, Dr. Adams submitted an application for promotion to full professor. University officials, however, denied his promotion in a process where they applied a made-up promotion standard that contradicted the faculty handbook, passed along false information about his academic record, deceptively edited documents to influence the faculty vote, explicitly discussed his constitutionally protected viewpoint, and allowed a faculty member with an obvious and outrageous conflict of interest to cast a vote against him.
Dr. Adam sued the University and the case evolved into a jury trial. The jury unanimously found that UNCW retaliated unfairly against Dr. Adams, and the trial court awarded Dr. Adams a promotion to full professor, back pay, and attorneys’ fees. The case finally ended in a settlement agreement where UNCW agreed to drop its appeal, promote Dr. Adams to full professor, increase his salary to the appropriate rate, award him back pay, protect him from future retaliation, and award a substantial attorneys’ fee.
While many of us conservatives applaud the outcome of this controversy, the real question is why UNCW had an original liberal philosophy and later persecuted a conservative. This is especially significant, when we normally consider universities to be the basis of academic freedom.
The answer lies in the Obama Administration's political philosophy and in money.
The University of North Carolina Wilmington obtains 52% of its income from "funding provided by taxpayers". That money comes from the collection of state and federal taxes from individuals and corporations. The portion supplied by the federal government is passed along through the Department of Education. It also does not include government funding through student aid. In other words, the operation of the university depends primarily on funding from taxpayers passed along to the University through state and federal government. It is also well-known in any society that the person or organization supplying the money calls the shots. In this case, the "shots" are called by the federal government in the form of Marxist requirements. The federal government is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but the people apparently pay no attention, and the federal government proceeds with its Marxist policies unimpeded. In only a very few cases do we have some semblance of equality as determined in Dr. Michael Adams court case against UNCW.
Dr. Michael Adams began his career at UNCW in 1993 as an outspoken atheist and liberal. During this period, he was widely praised in the university for his teaching and scholarship and achieved tenure in 1998 without any controversy.
In 2000, Dr. Adams began a conversion to conservatism. He began writing a column for Townhall.com that was often sharply critical of leftist excesses in universities nationwide, as well as in his own university.
In 2006, after compiling an impressive record of scholarship and accumulating multiple outside teaching awards and honors, Dr. Adams submitted an application for promotion to full professor. University officials, however, denied his promotion in a process where they applied a made-up promotion standard that contradicted the faculty handbook, passed along false information about his academic record, deceptively edited documents to influence the faculty vote, explicitly discussed his constitutionally protected viewpoint, and allowed a faculty member with an obvious and outrageous conflict of interest to cast a vote against him.
Dr. Adam sued the University and the case evolved into a jury trial. The jury unanimously found that UNCW retaliated unfairly against Dr. Adams, and the trial court awarded Dr. Adams a promotion to full professor, back pay, and attorneys’ fees. The case finally ended in a settlement agreement where UNCW agreed to drop its appeal, promote Dr. Adams to full professor, increase his salary to the appropriate rate, award him back pay, protect him from future retaliation, and award a substantial attorneys’ fee.
While many of us conservatives applaud the outcome of this controversy, the real question is why UNCW had an original liberal philosophy and later persecuted a conservative. This is especially significant, when we normally consider universities to be the basis of academic freedom.
The answer lies in the Obama Administration's political philosophy and in money.
The University of North Carolina Wilmington obtains 52% of its income from "funding provided by taxpayers". That money comes from the collection of state and federal taxes from individuals and corporations. The portion supplied by the federal government is passed along through the Department of Education. It also does not include government funding through student aid. In other words, the operation of the university depends primarily on funding from taxpayers passed along to the University through state and federal government. It is also well-known in any society that the person or organization supplying the money calls the shots. In this case, the "shots" are called by the federal government in the form of Marxist requirements. The federal government is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but the people apparently pay no attention, and the federal government proceeds with its Marxist policies unimpeded. In only a very few cases do we have some semblance of equality as determined in Dr. Michael Adams court case against UNCW.
Illegal Immigrant Children at the Border
The Washington Times says that newly two-thirds of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children requesting asylum this year have had their initial applications approved by the "Asylum Officer".
What is an Asylum Officer?
There are eight Asylum Offices in the US. Asylum Officers conduct interviews with applicants for asylum at the eight US Asylum Offices, and also travel around the country performing asylum interviews at other government offices. The number of Asylum Officers is not easily determined, but last year there were 21 open positions for Asylum Officer.
Therefore, when it is stated that two thirds of the illegal immigrant children have been approved for asylum by the Asylum Officer, this is a misrepresentation.
Let's go a little further.
Asylum Officers work for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The Director of Homeland Security is a cabinet position reporting to Pres. Obama. Therefore, Pres. Obama calls the shots on what Asylum Officers are supposed to do.
The House Judiciary Committee suggests that according to the operations of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, those kids surging across the border who ask to stay will likely be able to gain admission to the U.S.
Why only two thirds approved for staying in the US, rather than all of them? Unclear. It's probably a political maneuver on the part of the Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration is claiming that the children are fleeing dangerous conditions that they cannot return to, and is signaling that it will be far tougher to deport most of the children.
Baloney. "Dangerous conditions" is a fact of life in the world, and compared to the United States, probably 90% of the world population is living under dangerous conditions. Does this mean we should be accepting asylum from all that 90% that might apply?
With respect to "far tougher to deport most of the children", that's also baloney. What could be simpler than putting them on an airplane and sending them back to their home countries. Let's remember they are not US citizens and are not entitled to court hearings or other mishmash that would normally delay their return to home countries.
What is an Asylum Officer?
There are eight Asylum Offices in the US. Asylum Officers conduct interviews with applicants for asylum at the eight US Asylum Offices, and also travel around the country performing asylum interviews at other government offices. The number of Asylum Officers is not easily determined, but last year there were 21 open positions for Asylum Officer.
Therefore, when it is stated that two thirds of the illegal immigrant children have been approved for asylum by the Asylum Officer, this is a misrepresentation.
Let's go a little further.
Asylum Officers work for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The Director of Homeland Security is a cabinet position reporting to Pres. Obama. Therefore, Pres. Obama calls the shots on what Asylum Officers are supposed to do.
The House Judiciary Committee suggests that according to the operations of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, those kids surging across the border who ask to stay will likely be able to gain admission to the U.S.
Why only two thirds approved for staying in the US, rather than all of them? Unclear. It's probably a political maneuver on the part of the Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration is claiming that the children are fleeing dangerous conditions that they cannot return to, and is signaling that it will be far tougher to deport most of the children.
Baloney. "Dangerous conditions" is a fact of life in the world, and compared to the United States, probably 90% of the world population is living under dangerous conditions. Does this mean we should be accepting asylum from all that 90% that might apply?
With respect to "far tougher to deport most of the children", that's also baloney. What could be simpler than putting them on an airplane and sending them back to their home countries. Let's remember they are not US citizens and are not entitled to court hearings or other mishmash that would normally delay their return to home countries.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
Pres. Obama is continually quoted as having had no response from Congress on Immigration Reform.
It appears that President Obama is like many people. If he doesn't like the answer to a question, he ignores the answer.
In the case of Immigration Reform, Pres. Obama interprets immigration reform as amnesty to new immigrants entering the US illegally and those who have also entered illegally as much as 20 or 30 years ago.
To better understand the situation, we need a clear understanding of amnesty. The US has immigration laws which basically say immigrants must apply for entrance to the US as immigrants through the US State Department. This puts them on a list of allowable entries and when their name comes up for approval, they may enter. We call that a legal entry. However, persons who do not want to go through the standard immigration procedure, may physically enter the US by secretive border crossing. We call that an illegal entry, because the action did not conform to US immigration laws.
There have been many millions of people who have entered the US under the secretive or illegal method and we call those persons illegal immigrants. They have broken the US Immigration Laws.
We also need to understand the meaning of "amnesty". It means that we recognize you have broken a law, but not only will we not prosecute, we will forgive you for the law breaking and allow you all the benefits and privileges that would accrue to you if you had not broken the law. This is similar to a robber taking $1 million from a bank and going into hiding. The authorities then say through public announcements that they forgive the robber for his action. He can keep the million dollars, and the authorities just would like to know who he is. Kind of ridiculous?
Going back to Pres. Obama versus Congress on the amnesty situation for illegal immigrants, Congress has already replied. It has not passed a law granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. That's an answer to Pres. Obama's request, whether he wants to accept it or not.
It appears that President Obama is like many people. If he doesn't like the answer to a question, he ignores the answer.
In the case of Immigration Reform, Pres. Obama interprets immigration reform as amnesty to new immigrants entering the US illegally and those who have also entered illegally as much as 20 or 30 years ago.
To better understand the situation, we need a clear understanding of amnesty. The US has immigration laws which basically say immigrants must apply for entrance to the US as immigrants through the US State Department. This puts them on a list of allowable entries and when their name comes up for approval, they may enter. We call that a legal entry. However, persons who do not want to go through the standard immigration procedure, may physically enter the US by secretive border crossing. We call that an illegal entry, because the action did not conform to US immigration laws.
There have been many millions of people who have entered the US under the secretive or illegal method and we call those persons illegal immigrants. They have broken the US Immigration Laws.
We also need to understand the meaning of "amnesty". It means that we recognize you have broken a law, but not only will we not prosecute, we will forgive you for the law breaking and allow you all the benefits and privileges that would accrue to you if you had not broken the law. This is similar to a robber taking $1 million from a bank and going into hiding. The authorities then say through public announcements that they forgive the robber for his action. He can keep the million dollars, and the authorities just would like to know who he is. Kind of ridiculous?
Going back to Pres. Obama versus Congress on the amnesty situation for illegal immigrants, Congress has already replied. It has not passed a law granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. That's an answer to Pres. Obama's request, whether he wants to accept it or not.
Illegal Immigrant Children in the White House
The US Border Control Is an agency of US Customs and Border Protection, which is an agency of the US Department of Homeland Security, the director of which is a cabinet position reporting to Pres. Obama. In simpler terms, Pres. Obama tells Border Control Agents what they must do.
From the actions of the US Border Control Agents, it is apparent that their orders from Pres. Obama are to allow illegal immigrant children access to the US, rather than immediate deportation back to their home countries.
Since Pres. Obama appears to be favorable to integrating illegal immigrant children into our society, I suggest he show a good example by taking a couple of them into the White House and handling the expense of their indoctrination to US culture, education, and room and board as an expense to his salary, as opposed to a cost to the taxpayers.
From the actions of the US Border Control Agents, it is apparent that their orders from Pres. Obama are to allow illegal immigrant children access to the US, rather than immediate deportation back to their home countries.
Since Pres. Obama appears to be favorable to integrating illegal immigrant children into our society, I suggest he show a good example by taking a couple of them into the White House and handling the expense of their indoctrination to US culture, education, and room and board as an expense to his salary, as opposed to a cost to the taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
