Pres. Obama has issued an Executive Order to "normalize" relations with Cuba. As a first step, the State Department will open a US Embassy in Havana.
I remind you that Cuba is under the complete control of Raul Castro, a communist dictator. Cuba is also on the list of countries that support terrorism.
However, this all makes sense. Obama is also a communist dictator, who is doing his best to use dictatorial methods in his present position as President of the United States.
Pres. Obama is an ideological communist and as such has an obligation to his ideology by promoting communism wherever he can. This is essentially the same as Muslims promoting their particular brand of culture.
If you like communism, you will be for this move by Pres. Obama. If you are a social conservative believing in individual opportunity and responsibility, you will be against Obama's move, as equivalent to developing the Borg in Star Trek.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Maintaining the Military
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader elect Mitch McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
The Washington Times says, "Politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze have left the Navy with a shipyard workforce incapable of maintaining even its most valuable hardware, including the fleet of hunter-killer submarines and aircraft carriers that are crucial to projecting U.S. force across the globe".
Whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of the United States to keep peace around the world through military capability. Decreasing military capability leads to world political unrest, as we have recently seen through the programs of Pres. Obama and military budget cuts through sequestering.
You have recently passed a $1.1 trillion budget, of which a large part was the Defense Bill. Consistent with my previous writings, is now time to review the details of the $1.1 Trillion Bill, not only to take out the pork and other irrelevant expenses, but also to beef up the military, which includes the Navy. If you can't do that now, because Democrats still control Congress, put it on your agenda for one of the first things to do for the new January Congress.
Total expenses are important, and a $1.1 trillion budget is excessive. It must be cut. In order to make the total cut and at the same time increase military budgets, consider those other items I have previously mentioned, such as eliminating the Department of Education and cutting back on grants and other public taxpayer expenditures for universities and healthcare. In simpler terms, cut food stamps and have the previous recipients start work in the shipyards. We did in World War II and we can do it again now.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
The Washington Times says, "Politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze have left the Navy with a shipyard workforce incapable of maintaining even its most valuable hardware, including the fleet of hunter-killer submarines and aircraft carriers that are crucial to projecting U.S. force across the globe".
Whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of the United States to keep peace around the world through military capability. Decreasing military capability leads to world political unrest, as we have recently seen through the programs of Pres. Obama and military budget cuts through sequestering.
You have recently passed a $1.1 trillion budget, of which a large part was the Defense Bill. Consistent with my previous writings, is now time to review the details of the $1.1 Trillion Bill, not only to take out the pork and other irrelevant expenses, but also to beef up the military, which includes the Navy. If you can't do that now, because Democrats still control Congress, put it on your agenda for one of the first things to do for the new January Congress.
Total expenses are important, and a $1.1 trillion budget is excessive. It must be cut. In order to make the total cut and at the same time increase military budgets, consider those other items I have previously mentioned, such as eliminating the Department of Education and cutting back on grants and other public taxpayer expenditures for universities and healthcare. In simpler terms, cut food stamps and have the previous recipients start work in the shipyards. We did in World War II and we can do it again now.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Blunting the Spending Bill
Open email to Speaker Boehner and Sen. Majority Leader Elect Mitch
McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
Congress has now passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which we needed to keep the government running. There is high probability that Pres.
Obama will sign the bill into law.
As the new Congress convenes in January with the Republican majority, it will be time to take the junk out of the Spending Bill.
As presently constituted, the Spending Bill provides funding for Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. The relatively short funding time was included by the Republicans in an obviously misguided effort to apply some sort of limit on Pres. Obama's amnesty program. With the new Congress in January, it will be time to face up to the fact that some drastically realistic action will be needed. For starters, funding for any amnesty involvement should be immediately terminated. Simply stated, the House must revoke any amnesty spending in the original bill, and the Senate must concur. In all probability Pres. Obama will veto the new bill, and it will be up to Congress to make every effort to override the veto. If that doesn't work, look for other ways to kill the amnesty program.
The Spending Bill also provided funding through September 30 for the Defense Department, the Department of Education, the IRS and Healthcare. We need Department of Defense spending and little effort should be made to find pork therein in order to eliminate it. But, any big money that stands out as pork should obviously be addressed and pushed out through a new bill from both the House and Senate. Pres. Obama will likely sign that bill, because he generally is opposed to military spending.
Handling the Department of Education funding is simpler. Eliminate it all. The Department of Education has done more to harm this country than many other actions of government. Defunding it will essentially eliminate it. Pres. Obama will likely veto, in which case you can consider overriding the veto, or if that is not practical, make some concessions that might be more palatable to the President.
Our tax system is abominable, but there's no question that we need a government department to collect taxes and there's no justification for eliminating completely the IRS. The IRS should be funded as necessary to do is its job as a tax collector, but try to eliminate funding for any political involvement that it seems to have undertaken in the past.
When we are talking about Healthcare, we are talking about Obamacare, which is a socialistic program basically involving redistribution of wealth and making healthcare more available to the underprivileged, under the guise of an entitlement rather than welfare, which it is. Healthcare is available to everybody in the country through private sector operations of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. Obamacare only juggles around the money.
We don't need that. Health insurance companies are prepared to do the job.
Obamacare has not yet forced them out of business. If healthcare insurance companys' charges appear high, they are only a reflection of charges from the healthcare industry, which are presently bloated through public attempts to obtain maximum service with minimum cost by way of government largess.
There are various ways that Congress can modify the healthcare program to make it more amenable to our Democratic/Republic financing. One way is to increase copayments. How about 50%? If you want to spend two days in the hospital, it might cost somebody $3000. If you had to pay $1500, you might think again before deciding on a hospital visit when you could be treated cheaper at home.
All in all, the new Congress should hack away at the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill and get it down to a manageable size by eliminating, as I said before, "junk".
McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. McConnell,
Congress has now passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which we needed to keep the government running. There is high probability that Pres.
Obama will sign the bill into law.
As the new Congress convenes in January with the Republican majority, it will be time to take the junk out of the Spending Bill.
As presently constituted, the Spending Bill provides funding for Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. The relatively short funding time was included by the Republicans in an obviously misguided effort to apply some sort of limit on Pres. Obama's amnesty program. With the new Congress in January, it will be time to face up to the fact that some drastically realistic action will be needed. For starters, funding for any amnesty involvement should be immediately terminated. Simply stated, the House must revoke any amnesty spending in the original bill, and the Senate must concur. In all probability Pres. Obama will veto the new bill, and it will be up to Congress to make every effort to override the veto. If that doesn't work, look for other ways to kill the amnesty program.
The Spending Bill also provided funding through September 30 for the Defense Department, the Department of Education, the IRS and Healthcare. We need Department of Defense spending and little effort should be made to find pork therein in order to eliminate it. But, any big money that stands out as pork should obviously be addressed and pushed out through a new bill from both the House and Senate. Pres. Obama will likely sign that bill, because he generally is opposed to military spending.
Handling the Department of Education funding is simpler. Eliminate it all. The Department of Education has done more to harm this country than many other actions of government. Defunding it will essentially eliminate it. Pres. Obama will likely veto, in which case you can consider overriding the veto, or if that is not practical, make some concessions that might be more palatable to the President.
Our tax system is abominable, but there's no question that we need a government department to collect taxes and there's no justification for eliminating completely the IRS. The IRS should be funded as necessary to do is its job as a tax collector, but try to eliminate funding for any political involvement that it seems to have undertaken in the past.
When we are talking about Healthcare, we are talking about Obamacare, which is a socialistic program basically involving redistribution of wealth and making healthcare more available to the underprivileged, under the guise of an entitlement rather than welfare, which it is. Healthcare is available to everybody in the country through private sector operations of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. Obamacare only juggles around the money.
We don't need that. Health insurance companies are prepared to do the job.
Obamacare has not yet forced them out of business. If healthcare insurance companys' charges appear high, they are only a reflection of charges from the healthcare industry, which are presently bloated through public attempts to obtain maximum service with minimum cost by way of government largess.
There are various ways that Congress can modify the healthcare program to make it more amenable to our Democratic/Republic financing. One way is to increase copayments. How about 50%? If you want to spend two days in the hospital, it might cost somebody $3000. If you had to pay $1500, you might think again before deciding on a hospital visit when you could be treated cheaper at home.
All in all, the new Congress should hack away at the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill and get it down to a manageable size by eliminating, as I said before, "junk".
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Nancy Pelosi's Nonpower
Open e-mail to Editor of Washington Times:
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Nancy Pelosi's Nonpower
Open e-mail to Editor of Washington Times:
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Dear Editor,
I am tired of hearing about the activities and/or comments of Nancy Pelosi. For example, one of your recent publications stated, "Pelosi sends holiday card to Democrats, praises them for bucking Obama in shutdown showdown".
That statement is not worth the paper it's written on. Nancy Pelosi is now a nothing. She had been Speaker of the US House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2011, when the Democrats held a majority in the house. She was deposed by the new speaker, John Boehner in January 2011, when the Republicans obtained a majority in the House. Suffice to say that the House Speaker has a lot of power in legislative action, which is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
In addition to the House Speaker, the majority party designates a Majority Leader. At present, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is primarily responsible for scheduling the House Floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.
The minority party designates a Minority Leader. At present, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is spokesperson for her party. It is her function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority. In other words, she has the power of complaining, as we all do. In effect, she has no power in government, except for name recognition and does not justify continuing news references to her. Such references only give the impression that she has power, when she does not.
Amnesty
By Executive Order, Pres. Obama has declared amnesty for more than 4 million immigrants who have broken US immigration laws by entering or remaining in the US illegally. With this action, I have not seen any large demonstrations of illegal immigrants praising the action of Pres. Obama and attempting to rebuild property previously destroyed in antigovernment riots. Conversely, there has been a rather large outcry in the law-abiding community against this action..
There are two issues with respect to the recent Executive Order. Can the President through Executive Order pass new laws, bypassing the Congress? Can the President and his various team members, such as the Justice Department, opt to enforce only certain laws which have previously been passed by Congress?
The Congress has recently entered a lawsuit challenging the President's position on these two issues, particularly the first. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, I'm wondering if this could have a significant outcome. Suppose for example that the Judicial Branch all the way to the Supreme Court declares Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty unconstitutional, what actually will be done about it? First, let's remember that Pres. Obama has control of physical enforcement procedures, such as the use of guns by the FBI and the military, including the National Guard. Will we have a physical revolt, which will actually come to bloodshed? I doubt it. The chances are that in spite of any condemnation by the Judicial, Pres. Obama will go merrily on his way with his amnesty program. In fact, the recently passed spending bill of the House includes money for Obama to implement his amnesty program and unless that is changed in the January sessions of Congress, there will be no stopping it.
This all makes me sad, because it is a major destruction of our society, as previously developed from our Constitution. The Constitution set us up as a country of laws and society has previously come to accept that position. If we are now able to give amnesty to 4 million immigration lawbreakers, one of a few million taxpayers decide not to pay their taxes, and the next President decides to give them amnesty, we will then have anarchy. While the excitement of anarchy may be interesting, the outcome for the continuance of the US as a Democratic Republic is bleak.
There are two issues with respect to the recent Executive Order. Can the President through Executive Order pass new laws, bypassing the Congress? Can the President and his various team members, such as the Justice Department, opt to enforce only certain laws which have previously been passed by Congress?
The Congress has recently entered a lawsuit challenging the President's position on these two issues, particularly the first. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, I'm wondering if this could have a significant outcome. Suppose for example that the Judicial Branch all the way to the Supreme Court declares Pres. Obama's Executive Order on amnesty unconstitutional, what actually will be done about it? First, let's remember that Pres. Obama has control of physical enforcement procedures, such as the use of guns by the FBI and the military, including the National Guard. Will we have a physical revolt, which will actually come to bloodshed? I doubt it. The chances are that in spite of any condemnation by the Judicial, Pres. Obama will go merrily on his way with his amnesty program. In fact, the recently passed spending bill of the House includes money for Obama to implement his amnesty program and unless that is changed in the January sessions of Congress, there will be no stopping it.
This all makes me sad, because it is a major destruction of our society, as previously developed from our Constitution. The Constitution set us up as a country of laws and society has previously come to accept that position. If we are now able to give amnesty to 4 million immigration lawbreakers, one of a few million taxpayers decide not to pay their taxes, and the next President decides to give them amnesty, we will then have anarchy. While the excitement of anarchy may be interesting, the outcome for the continuance of the US as a Democratic Republic is bleak.
Friday, December 12, 2014
$1.1 Trillion Spending Bill
According to the Washington Times, the House passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill. Too much! We will see what the Senate does with it, but Obama seems to be in favor of it and will probably sign it.
I'm hoping that Speaker Boehner is following a suggestion that either originated from other sources or was my contribution. That is, pass the major bill and then come back in January and piecemeal out all of the ridiculous pork and giveaways to Democrats, when both the House and Senate have a substantial Republican majority over the present Congress.
I have my fingers crossed, because of Congress's past record. Let's remember, that we didn't get into an $18 trillion national debt without substantial input from the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Republicans don't straighten out this spending bill in January when they have much improved majority in the Congress, we can look forward to another revolt in the 2016 elections, at which time many of us will be attempting to throw out the Republican leadership and go to Libertarians, Tea Party or whatever else is left.
I'm hoping that Speaker Boehner is following a suggestion that either originated from other sources or was my contribution. That is, pass the major bill and then come back in January and piecemeal out all of the ridiculous pork and giveaways to Democrats, when both the House and Senate have a substantial Republican majority over the present Congress.
I have my fingers crossed, because of Congress's past record. Let's remember, that we didn't get into an $18 trillion national debt without substantial input from the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Republicans don't straighten out this spending bill in January when they have much improved majority in the Congress, we can look forward to another revolt in the 2016 elections, at which time many of us will be attempting to throw out the Republican leadership and go to Libertarians, Tea Party or whatever else is left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
