A Sh_t List

May 19th, 2011

Senator Cantwell:

I am embarrassed to have you represent me and my state in the U.S. Senate.

Concerning the so-called “oil subsidies,” your mendacity and ignorance are equalled only by those of the president, himself, and your fellow Democrats.

You’ll have to forgive my opinion, ma’am. Your colleague, Senator John Kerry (MA-D) said people of my ilk – professional soldiers – were too stupid to do anything else.

First, the major cause in the rise of oil prices is not greed and not speculation, but the devaluation of the U.S dollar, upon which oil is priced. It has dropped around 20% on the world market in the last six months alone. A 20% drop takes a 25% increase to make up the difference. Do the math. No comment came from you.


Second, there are, as far as I know, no subsidies given to the oil companies. A subsidy is money given. What you mislabled “subsidies ” are depreciation and expense deductions, tax provisions given to every legal company in the country. The federal government probably makes 7 or 8 times the amount of money per gallon than does the oil company while producing absolutely nothing, but hindering production at the same time. No truthful comment came from you.

Third, oil companies pay $billions and $billions in taxes, while General Electric (CEO – Imelt – a bosom buddy of President Obama) paid NO taxes on $15 billion in profits. Something smells here, my dear Senator. No comment came from you.

Fourth, the president placed a moritorium on drilling in the Gulf while giving Soros and the Brazilians $billions to drill, promising them we’d be their best customers (while demanding Americans cut bank on imported oil). No comment came from you.

Fifth, you and Senator Patty Murray were instrumental in purchasing $34 billion worth of Boeing tankers for the Air Force, while the government will have to borrow countless $billions more from the Chinese to fill ‘em up. No comment came from you on the costs involved.

Sixth, there are never any complaints from the Democrats about President Obama spending about 1/6 of his life aboard Air Force One to fund raise, have photo ops, talk to a few selected union workers, and to take his family on countless vacations. Just to warm up the engines takes more fuel than I would use in many years. How many “poor” people would just the fuel costs, alone, feed? And this does not include the other concomitant planes, staff, and Secret Service personnel. No comment came from you.

Finally, You, President Obama, the Democrats and a few Republicans have issued credit cards to our children, grand children, und so weider. You do not give them the credit card, but, instead, charge hundreds of $millions every single hour to those cards. Some day, the credit card company will send the bill, not to you, but to the American people. I do not have the $50,000 for my ever-growing bill, nor will our children and grandchildren. They will never get the card, but they will get the bill. No comment came from you.

Yes, Senator, this dumb retired soldier has figured this out, but apparently you haven’t. “Mendacity” is not the best possible personal attribute, but it is nearly omnipresent among politicians, especially Democrats. It is too bad that you and your colleagues in Congress have never been able to practice, or believe in, “Duty, Honor and Country” like my fellow dumb-assed military retirees and I.

Yes, Senator, I am embarrassed.


Bill Schoonover
LTC, USA (Ret.)

3096 Angela Lane
Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Don’t Tread on ME

January 27th, 2011

Ben Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


Former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel said, “you never let a crises go to waste.” The Gifford shooting in Tuscon was indeed a crises; they are going to use it, and the emotions it has stirred, to roll out new federal gun control.

Please fire off an email to your congressman. Mark my words, many Republicans will vote for this gun control bill.


A Grave Unjustice and an Appeal to Reason

December 3rd, 2010

December 2, 2010

Dear Governor Christie,

I am a huge fan and supporter. Please keep up the excellent work combating unions and government spending excess.

I am writing to respectfully request that you pardon Mr. Brian Aitken for his conviction of illegally possessing firearms, ammunition and high capacity magazines in your state. In case you are not familiar with the case, here is an article to refresh your memory:


Please Mr. Governor, while Mr. Aitken was “felony stupid,” for having these items in his trunk, his stupidity doesn’t warrant a prison sentence. His sentence of seven years is unjust and draconian. That’s seven years of a person’s life who did/meant absolutely no harm to anyone. Child molesters get locked up for seven years.

Brian Aitkens

Governor, you have the capacity to free this man. I ask you to do what is clearly correct. Please pardon Brian Aitken.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner


You Cut. It rocks!

June 18th, 2010


Dear Congressman Hunter,

I have been following your votes on Eric Cantor’s “you cut.” I looked up your voting on other key bills too. I am thankful to have a representative who votes my conscience. I couldn’t find fault with any of you votes. Thanks for representing me well in our fragile republic.


I am very enthusiastic about the “you cut” process. The only frustrating part is picking just one proposal. Please keep up the good work, and I will do what I can to back you when it’s election time.

This note and any response from you will be on www.dailyletter.net.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

Sitting Ducks

May 31st, 2010

Pres. Barack H. Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

Recently you gave orders to General Stanley McChrystal that our troops in Afghanistan must now carry unloaded weapons lest there be civilian casualties.

soldiers on patrol

Can you tell me, sir, why you haven’t given the same orders to the Secret Service? Is there a message here about the value of the military lives versus your own?

Your most humble & ob’d servant.

William Schoonover

3609 Angela Lane

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Welcome to Alice in Wonderland

January 18th, 2010

January 18, 2010

Dear Mr. President,

We are arriving at your one year anniversary in office. It’s election eve once again, and we are facing another historic election. In 2008, America elected its first black president. Since today is Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, it is worth mentioning that Dr. King’s triumph in the civil rights era is connected to your historic presidential election. Dr. King and the civil rights movement represented a gigantic leap forward in American history.

Tomorrow, America will watch another historic election. However, what is happening in Massachusetts is so amazing, so unlikely, that it makes electing a black president seem like a breeze. For your one year presidential anniversary, Mr. President, we offer you a fiscally conservative republican senator, democratically elected by the people of Massachusetts, to replace Ted Kennedy. Go ahead and take a moment to let that sink in. You might want to assess again what the Democratic party considers a “safe” district. Are there any left?

One year ago!

Mr. President, America is about to undergo an enlightening. We are at the cusp of a Renaissance. In the America of tomorrow, there will be no place for corrupt politics, overreaching government, or redistribution of wealth. The silent majority is yawning and stretching, and we are about to beat the federal government back into its rightful place–cowering in the corner.

The libertarian push-back to your progressive policies will be so severe, that big-government bureaucrats will think it’s their worst nightmare. And I don’t mean violence or any illegal activity. What I have planned is much scarier than that: Flat taxes. Privatization. Profit. Distribution of wealth according to merit. Congress will work with sums of money numbing in the millions, not the billions.

I’ve painted a image of a Libertarian’s haven, and a progressives hell. If you think it can’t happen, please watch tomorrow’s election returns and then get back to me. If Massachusetts fields a Republican to the Senate, in Ted Kennedy’s place, anything is possible. It’s Alice in Wonderland. The guy flipping hamburgers today could usurp you in 2012.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

Privitize It…

January 4th, 2010


Dear Mr. President,

I’m writing to you as a free market capitalist. I’m not ashamed of that. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I want to go on record with my thoughts. In other words, it feels good to exercise an amendment now and then.

Since you took office, we have witnessed the government takeover of AIG and GM. You would take over our healthcare tomorrow if your constituents were willing. There are elements in the far left of our government who would like a government takeover of the media, energy, and anything else they can get their hands on.

But can government really do it better? I maintain that they cannot. A quick look at modern life will quickly show the truth. We rely on things like automobiles, cell phones, air conditioning, and the internet, MRI machines, and penicillin. We enjoy ipods, broadband, music, literature, and digital entertainment. The list of neat things available to Americans is endless, but the government hasn’t created any of them. Man’s ingenuity, in a free society, results in true “progress.”

Mr. President, I want to focus on the concept of ingenuity. Frankly, I believe that the government lacks it, and I would therefore privatize every sector of the government that could possibly be privatized. And when I say privatize, I mean literally, that I would cease to allow public funds. Privatized government entities would be responsible for making their own money.

Take NASA. NASA harbors ingenuity. I have never been to NASA, but I have always imagined NASA as a collection of the brightest individuals our nation can furnish. It is my opinion that, given the proper incentive, NASA should be capable of generating their own revenue. They have tremendous brain power. Compared to putting a man on the moon with slide rules, personal finance should seem tediously easy.

NASA should be taking their tax-payer money in this year’s budget, and investing that money however they see fit. I would free them up to invest that money any legal way they choose with no accountability to the taxpayer. They should have non-profit tax status. They should be informed that they have 5 years to be completely self sufficient. Sink or swim. After being privatized, they are free to self administer. They could set their own pay grades and administer their own retirement. They could go public and sell stock. They could mine minerals on asteroids. They could sell vacations to the moon for all I care. Only their goal, or their agenda would be determined by the public.


And it doesn’t stop with NASA. You need to put the taxpayer’s stake in GM, AIG, Freddy, Fanny, and every bank up for sale to the highest bidder. The taxpayers don’t want to be in those business. We especially don’t want to be in them while we are trillions in debt to China. And Amtrak…next year it’s sink or swim brother. Necessity is the mother of invention. They’ll never remove themselves from the public teat willingly. They must be weaned.

In the perfect nation, most of the bureaucracy would be privatized. Bureaucrats look at a federal prison population and they see an expense for which to tax. I see a work force. I see an opportunity to put money back in the pockets of the American people.

Mr. President, you’ve got to stop being squeamish about private industry and profit. I would like very much to read your thoughts on this commentary.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

Here’s lookin’ at you Ed… A Letter from LTC Bill Schoonover

December 14th, 2009

Congressman Edward Markey

2108 Rayburn House

Office Bldg

Washington, D.C. 20515

Easy Ed:

First, you use the term “representative. Here is whom you represent:


2. That piece of garbage in the White House flying on AF-One 5 times a week.

3. The democrat party – the most corrupt, vile organization in this country.

Saw you on Fox and can’t believe the ignorance you displayed. Perhaps sucking off the public tit for 30 years has dimmed your once keenly acute, shyster lawyer mind.

First of all, man-made CO2 plays a minimal role, if any, in the so-called global warming, now called climate change. Do you have any idea what the major culprit is? No, I thought not. It is water vapor, the same greenhouse gas that comes out of the tailpipe of the “eco-friendly” cars you dems are pushing, and the watered golf courses in the desert some of you play on.


And, what the hell do you think plants eat? Tofu? God, I think one must be a troglodyte to be in Congress!

Having spent 3 decades spending my Allah-damned money (you make easily 7 or 8 times what I do, not including your spouse) getting yourself re-elected by the unbelievably stupid Massachusetts Kennedy sycophants – the same people who keep re-electing Barney Frank – you know, your buddy whose sweety pie ran a whore house out of their home.

All of you in Congress would be criminals in prison if you hadn’t exempted yourself from the same laws you enact on us. Do you think my county commissioners could buy and sell votes by offering $millions to each other to secure votes? Hell, no. But that’s the scum you are.

Global warming is a hoax. The sole purpose is to control and tax the hoi polloi (that is everyone else who is not invited to your fancy DC cocktail parties) which you contend are basically riff-raff too stupid to think for themselves. Your president, your messiah, flying in AF-One, puts more CO2 and water vapor in the air in one week than most small cities do in a year just for photo ops or to take the missus shopping in Paris or London. Or Fancy Nancy’s 757. No bitch from you there – only sickening, fawning adoration by you and your party.

1 million dollar photo op

I could easily fill a book (as many pages as some of the bills you pass without reading) recounting the treasonous, unconstitutional, lying, hypocritical and arrogant – the last two are Jay Leno’s words, not mine – things you do to maintain your power and income.

How right Lord Acton was when he said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Most of you can only sleep at night because either you have no conscience, or believe the end justifies the means, or both.

I hope you and yours have a fantastic Christmas and Happy New Year. I also hope you find yourself in private practice doing what attorneys do best – screwing people.


Bill Schoonover


American Recovery Act 2009

December 9th, 2009


Dear Mr. President,

Recently I was flying out of the airport in Monterrey, California. I noticed that there was a sign near the parking lot which declared that the runway was being updated with funds provided by the Stimulus Bill. I snapped a picture of the sign, because I wanted to save an image of it to show my future grandchildren–because they are going to ask some very pointed questions when they mature enough to realize what we have just done, and how selfish it was


You see, Mr. President, the sign literally says that the project is stimulus-bill funded; however, reading between the lines, the wording speaks volumes about everything that’s wrong in Washington. I’m not a pollster, but I believe that most Americans who see “Recovery Act” signs incorrectly think that the US Treasury had some money, and benevolently spent the money on shovel-ready jobs so that unemployed Americans could go back to work. That’s how the average American, the American watching reality TV right now, sees it.

But is that an intellectually honest way to look at (Bush’s and your) stimulus spending? To maintain intellectual honesty, shouldn’t the signs have some sort of a footnote disclosing that the money is borrowed? In a day and age when Viagra television commercials have to list “delayed-onset lower back pain” as a possible “side effect” an old man might experience if he takes a hard-on pill, shouldn’t Recovery Act signs be upfront about borrowed money?

Clearly, Americans don’t see it that way–yet. Here’s how our grandchildren are going to see it: Between TARP and the American Recovery Act 2009 (That’s you and Bush), we borrowed $1,400,000,000,000.00 from Communist China. That’s $4,600.00 for every man woman and child presently in the United States. We are spending it on infrastructure building that will be gone, worn-out, or obsolete when our grandchildren grow up. And all of this is an effort to make new jobs in a society where cock-holster politicians like Senator McCain and President Bush insist that we must welcome illegal immigration because there are jobs that Americans won’t do.


Mr. President, I’m not easily intimidated by confrontational conversations. Frankly, I’ve talked my way out of some serious shit: as a child there were angry parents and school principles; later on there were suspicious girlfriends and my trouble with the boss at work. I have nerves of steel. But I can’t immediately see an angle to defend against the inquisition that’s certainly coming from the next generation who will be born into financial slavery, saddled with debt to a world that hates us. Help me out Mr. President. You’re a father. You’re smart. How do we pay the money back?


David Rasner

Teabagz McGuillicuddy on ClimateGate

December 6th, 2009

December 4, 2009

To my “green” friends,

While I am not deeply educated in the climate debate, the current unfolding story seems to support the notion that the climate “emergency” due to man-made atmospheric pollutants is indeed a total fraud—a plot to tax, fee, regulate, control and profit from the plebes.

The basics of the reports I have read indicate that the original global warming data set, that current proposed legislation is based on, is now tainted and invalid. This is the same data that the IPCC and the EPA use to make their lifestyle changing and redistributive recommendations. Gore’s hockey stick appears to be dead. I also understand that the baseline data, that the studies were based on, was revealed to be “absent.” Explanations suggest that the data was erased in an effort to “increase storage space for paper and magnetic tape” for the holding device back in the 1980’s. Obviously this is ridiculous.


The email chains between the scientists, or propagandists if you will, also show that computer systems were manipulated to show what the propagandists wanted to show.


A brief bit of research suggests that futures trading potential profits based on new regulatory measures when implemented could possibly be 2-3x more than what we have traditionally seen in the oil industry. All of this looks to be as many of us have thought all along, nothing more than an orchestrated shift in who will be calling the shots, who will be selling product and ultimately who will be profiting. I understand that even Al Gore’s affiliated company Kleiner Perkins may be an exchange holder for carbon credit trading.

The corruption here is seen worst in the special interests who stand to profit. The endgame is to ensure that every job the new green projects produce will be a union job. This greed and dishonesty is in my opinion a thousand times worse than exposed problems with big oil. Plus, the policy is clearly an economic loser for the country and its citizens. 3K extra out of our pockets a year in taxes, fees and increased energy bills is completely out of line when the population is already beaten down in this Obamanomics era of 10 plus percent unemployment.

Obama said it himself, “under my cap and trade proposed legislation, energy bills will necessarily skyrocket”. Not to mention the total government intrusion into our lives with a resulting loss of our freedoms over time.

Maybe Jimmy “I may turn out to be only the 2nd worst President in American history” Carter can come back and tell us to put on our sweaters again.

If Obama commits in Copenhagen to reduce CO2 by 17 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent towards the end of the century it is said that almost immediate EPA enforcement could follow. This effort, if implemented, would bypass Congress going on to punish taxpayers with increased costs in all areas of life. Even during a time when the citizens are against cap and trade and when the verdict on the anthropogenic science has never been in stronger refute.


The only way to prevent the EPA from ruling the plebes would be for Congress to pass law. We know this won’t happen because the politicians have a chance to get their way without having to pay the price for a vote against their constituents.

For all of this I believe these socialists will be promptly removed from office in the coming years. Most Americans are far too pissed off and far too informed to have these corrupt self-advancers dictating their will on us any longer. At this point a campaign motto of “repeal” will be enough for any candidate’s victory in 2012.

Lastly, are liberal Americans actually proud to look to Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barbara Mikulski, Harry Reid and Barney Frank, et al. for leadership on climate or ANY other issues? I could never dream up a bigger group of loser’s in a thousand years. Truly stunning. Of course, I would argue that the Republican incumbents are in large part stains as well.

In the near future I will enjoy drinking a fine scotch on the rocks to celebrate the day we remove this group of disgraceful human beings from power. Just as tonite I enjoy a sip o’ the fine as I toast the exposure of the green movements attempt at total fraud.

Maybe what the propagandists say is true regarding man made warming, but no action should be taken until the true data set is obtained and plugged into valid models, correct?

Yours Truly,

Teabagz McGuillicuddy

Elections Have Consequences

November 20th, 2009

November 20, 2009

CC: Carly Fiorina

CC: James Inhofe

Dear Senator Boxer,

I just watched the video of your exchange with Senator Inhofe. There was nothing particularly sensational about it, but your remark that, “elections have consequences” got me thinking.

History will show that you are wrong concerning the Cap and Trade Bill. I have written to you in the past, and you have never replied to my emails. You will vote for Cap and Trade and the Health Care Bill, even though both are unwanted by Americans.



Every now and then, however, they let us vote.

Your approval rating is only 41%.


You have a challenger who has demonstrated success as a tech company CEO, and she has battled and beat breast cancer. She will beat you.


Elections do indeed “have consequences.”

I’m in my twenties. I cannot remember when you were not Senator for California. In one year you will cease to be. If I am wrong, please feel free to rebuke me. I promise I will post your reply on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will see it.


David Rasner

A Day in the Life:

November 15th, 2009

November 13, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

Today, I spent the day in Salinas, CA. I had several hours to pass, so I decided to entertain myself with a self-guided Steinbeck walking tour. Salinas, being Steinbeck’s childhood home, and a common setting in his literature, is a destination for Steinbeck officianados. Salinas is also a great place to appreciate victorian architecture. I’m a fan of both, so I slathered on the sunscreen and hit the pavement.

The sightseeing was enjoyable. After paying homage to the official Steinbeck landmarks, I tracked off through a residential neighborhood searching for dilapidated old folk victorians. My choice of paths did not disappoint.

It is almost a universal truth that the most interesting victorian homes are found in run-down neighborhoods. Some, like the ones I sought today are in gang neighborhoods. The wealthy victorian-era citizens, who built near the downtowns of fledgling turn-of the century towns, left to seek their pleasures elsewhere; then, businesses sprang up among the aging homes.

I was sauntering along, enjoying myself big-time, and I walked past a liquor store (pictured below). A man came out of the store having just purchased about 1/2 dozen candy items. He had the candy in hand and he was enthusiastically dispatching with their plastic wrappings when he saw me and asked me for “some money for bus ticket.” I was speechless. He had the candy that he just bought in his hands. Was he kidding? No, he was not kidding. He said he needed a bus ticket to go visit someone at the local hospital. I was not happy. I told him that I was overtaxed by your administration, and I didn’t have much left over these days; I wished him a good day.

The whole experience bummed me out. In a way, it seemed like a snapshot of what’s wrong with the entitlement mentality in America. Take the healthcare debate. Millions of Americans (I am one of them) can afford health insurance, but choose to spend their money other ways. Should these Americans be counted in the statistics presented by the pro-reform side of the healthcare debate? Do we have a crises of uninsured Americans when tens of millions of Americans choose to be uninsured? It’s as silly as the panhandler holding his “luxury items” while begging me for money.

So I kept walking, but i was in lousy mood. In my frustrated state of mind, this poor old neighborhood was transformed into a huge sink for tax dollars. Tax-subsidized welfare seemed surely to be going to people with plasma-screen TV’s hanging on wall…Every car I saw, in my mind, became a cash-for-clunkers trade in. Every irritating thought a Libertarian can think ran in a loop inside my mind like, like a skipping record.

As is often the case, when I began thinking this way, God was happy to humble me. As I turned the corner, I saw a row of houses, or bungalows, that were humble. That’s the best way I know how to describe them, and it happened that, at that particular moment, I needed a lesson in humility. The houses were rectangular, and probably about 450 square feet. There were kid’s bicycles parked in front, and the front blinds were in tatters. No air conditioning.

humble abode

On two of the three houses, there were signs taped on the front door written on orange paper with black felt-tipped pen. I could remember just enough Spanish from school to translate the verse: “And Jesus said to them: I am the way, the truth and the life. John 14, 6.”


Is there any Christian, in any manner of foul mood who could see that sign without smiling? Today Jesus reminded me of what he meant when he said that, “the last shall be first and the first shall be last.” I pulled out my new blackberry, which cost more money than the mortgage on that house, and I took a picture of the sign to remind myself to be humble.

I thought that I would forward you the story. After all, you are the most powerful man in the world. And, you have the same Blackberry as me.


David Rasner

Killing Unborn Babies is OK. Declawing Cats is Not…

November 11th, 2009


Mayor Gavin Newsome


Dear Mayor Newsome,

I’m writing to you because I just heard something amazing about San Francisco. As a native Californian, I am used to San Francisco being different. But every now and then I hear something that shocks even me–the initiated. Apparently San Francisco has just outlawed the cat “declaw” procedure? Nice work San Francisco. I can’t tell you how much sleep I have been loosing over thoughts of all those kittens having their claws removed.


Run Kitty!

So let’s clarify: San Francisco can fine someone for declawing a cat, but killing an unborn baby is OK…no questions asked…Really? Our culture won’t survive if we continue to make policy based on up-side-down values (sorry to dust off the old “v word”). Even the cats would punk us for this if they could see the big picture.

Before I get emails about it, let me be clear; I love kitties. I would even say that I am a “cat person” more than a dog person. I have a picture to prove it:

Me! with a random kitten

So don’t call me a cat hater, or anything else. But I have no problem with people who declaw indoor cats. I understand that it causes the cat discomfort. Too bad. Life, for me, the cat–for everybody involves occasional moderate discomfort. Declawed cats can still be happy kitties.

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

America, Wake Up!

November 9th, 2009

November 9, 2009

Dear America,

This letter is different. I usually write to a politician, but they have shown that they apparently don’t care what we think. So this is a letter written to anyone willing to open their eyes. What concerns me is the healthcare bill, but I am not writing to tell you how to feel about healthcare. Scientific poles already show that most Americans don’t want government healthcare. There is no point trying to sway public opinion because legislators don’t care.

The House, under speaker Nancy Pelosi, passed a 2000 page healthcare reform bill at about 11PM E.S.T. last Saturday night. Please ask yourself these 4 questions:


Nancy Pelosi

What were you doing while Congress was approving $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayer money on a new entitlement? Watching Saturday Night Live? Sleeping? Reading a book? Having sex? There is no wrong answer; just think back.

If you weren’t watching C-SPAN, if you were doing one of the above activities instead, who was being unreasonable: you, or the Congress that was passing a HISTORIC new law in the middle of the night on a Saturday?

What if I told you that healthcare reform only had a public approval of about 45%, and they did it anyway–in the middle of the night?


Finally, what does this tell you about the disconnect between a body of 435 legislators, 237 of whom are millionaires, and the average american citizen who they claim to represent?


America, this bill says that if you are uninsured (I am) you must buy a new product, the government’s policy, or the governmernt can fine you or put you in jail.


You can’t take your eyes of off the government ever. America, what is it going to take to wake you up?

Kind Regards,

David Rasner for dailyletter.net

No…No You Can’t.

November 4th, 2009

November 4, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

It was an odd-year election day. You bet two horses in the race, and neither of them came in. Democrat Governors make lousy race horses. It’s no big deal really, it happens to everyone. We’ll all live to fight another day. Frankly, the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia mean very little to the country right now anyway.

What kills me though, is the White House’s response to your disappointing news. Admittedly, the silliness of George W. Bush’s live press coverage was often enough to make me shout at my TV. You can sympathize with me there. But watching your press secretary, Robert Gibbs is at least as painful. What in the world are you and Robert Gibbs thinking? Do you really think we are that stupid?

You make 3 trips to New Jersey to campaign for Corzine to be governor.


Obama Corzine

You have been campaigning for Deeds to be governor in Virginia since August. You made the trip at least 4 times.


Obama Deeds

This makes a total of 7 trips on Air Force 1 to campaign for these two governorships. That’s no small effort. And the White House wants me to believe that it wasn’t paying attention to the election results, or as Gibbs put it: “not watching the returns?”



If that’s really the case, if this was really such a small trifle, can the tax payers please recoup the travel costs for 7 Air Force 1 round trips?

I understand that there is precedent for presidents making trips to campaign for regional politicians. I am not criticizing the campaigning act. But to feign disinterest simply because the election results don’t suit your taste?

Mr. President, the average American, who you will need support from in 2012, simply can’t relate to politician who thinks Americans are this stupid. The average American does relate to men who can admit their mistakes and learn from them. Have you ever admitted to making a mistake? I’m not talking about making a humerous remark about the New York Air force 1 fly-by. I mean a real, humble admission of fault. Can you do it?

Mr. President, do you remember the kid on the childhood playground who could never admit their mistake? He shot the basketball and missed the hoop completely–total airball. Then, he would say, “I meant to do that!” That kid bugged everyone. Don’t be that guy.

It’s contrary to everything that politics has taught you, but I believe that you could turn your falling approval rating around today if you began a new policy of admitting, publicly, one mistake per week. Admit a mistake and convince the American people that you are humbled and wiser for it. More importantly, convince yourself. I personally don’t think you are man enough. Are you?

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


October 28th, 2009


Chicago City Hall

121 North LaSalle Street, Room 600.

Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Chicago,

I have read that you will begin offering an incentive to rat out people cheating on their taxes.


Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers lives in Chicago. He used to blow up government buildings, so it is likely that he might have withheld some of his income from the government too.

Photo from The Swamp

I am convinced that Bill Ayers has cheated on his taxes—call it a hunch.

Please remit payment to me. Please make the check payable to dailyletter.net.

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

From the Weimar Republic to the People’s Republic

October 26th, 2009

October 26, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you about inflation and the dollar. Our recent overspending, under President Bush and you, is inviting vast inflation and the demise of our dollar’s prestige. Surely this can’t be in our best interest.

I’ve been harshly critical of America’s overspending since January; I was critical of Bush’s overspending even when the economy was booming. As working Americans, we just can’t relate to a Congress and President that don’t limit their spending to the money in hand. If we citizens overspend, the consequences in our personal financial lives are devastating.

You wouldn’t allow your daughters to shop with borrowed money and fall into debt. How are you OK with the USA overspending by $1,400,000,000,000.00 in one year? There are signs at stimulus-funded construction sites which proudly read, “Funded by Stimulus Money.” Shouldn’t they read, “Funded by Your Great Grandchildren?”

Mr. President, very simply: How do we pay it back?

I don’t think you intend for the money to be paid back. I believe that you are going to inflate America’s way out of this debt. You are going to use inflation to administer another facet of “change.”

You have shown over and again that you believe in wealth redistribution, or as progressives say, “economic justice.”

Here are two great examples:

Let’s dig deep into the past. Who could forget this little Gem?

Anyone keeping score over the past year knows that you are a president who desires redistributive change. I’m not saying this makes you a bad guy. I think that you sincerely believe that wealth redistribution is a noble cause; but, I also know that this is the side of yourself that you hide from mainstream America. Americans, taken as a group, are not a people who desire to have our wealth redistributed. But you are out to do it, and inflation is your tool.

It is a fact that inflation makes the dollars in people’s banks accounts and investments worth less. It literally takes wealth away from them. On the other hand, people who are in debt, benefit from inflation. Their debt is in dollars, and the number of dollars will remain finite and static, while inflation makes the debt worth less. Inflation figuratively gives wealth to the indebted.

These two premises are very easy to accept and understand. From there, it’s a tiny step to understand that wealthy people, who have more dollars/investments and less debt, will suffer from inflation. On the other hand, poor people who have no money and oodles of debt will gain from inflation.

I believe that, in your mind, inflation will clandestinely administer wealth redistribution in America. You believe that the poor have everything to gain from inflation, and nothing to loose, while the wealthy will lose their wealth or take it and flee America.

But I have never been given a job by a poor person. If this is played out to its logical end, the only place left to work will be within the ranks of the bureaucracy. Does that basically some up your plan?

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Reefer Madness

October 21st, 2009

October 20, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you about your memo to federal law enforcement concerning enforcement of medical marijuana distribution in states where medical marijuana is legal. Apparently, federal agents will not be raiding medical marijuana establishments anymore. As a libertarian, I find no fault with your new enforcement policy.


The last administration’s stubborn enforcement of federal anti-medical-marijuana law was President Bush’s attempt to convince America that he was a conservative, though his massive spending betrayed that he was indeed a progressive.

Picture is from TIME Magazine

On the other hand, you have been quite candid about your progressivism. Though I disagree with you on policy, I can’t fault you with saying one thing and doing another like President Bush.

I recall your enthusiasm for your marijuana use in your younger days:

Since you appear to believe that there is a valid medical place for marijuana as a prescription drug, please answer this. Will you sign a healthcare reform bill which uses public funds to compensate medical marijuana users for their medical marijuana? If so, aren’t you afraid that people will lie to exploit the system? If you would not sign it, why would you withhold treatment from a patient if you believe that it is medically necessary or therapeutic?

Is this really about marijuana as a medical treatment, or is this a plan to initiate backdoor marijuana decriminalization? If it’s the latter, why not be honest? I would support and respect you for it. The people who wouldn’t respect you aren’t going to vote for you anyway. At least you could salvage intellectual honesty. If this is indeed strictly a medical issue…fair enough. Please do get back to me on the healthcare reform marijuana question though.

Picture is from TIME Magazine

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

The Adventures of Don Quixote, Secretary of State

October 18th, 2009

October 18, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton,

Today I read an article in which you claimed that the Europa Hotel in Belfast was partially devastated from a bombing attack when you last stayed there. The article stated; however, that the Europa was undamaged when you were there as first lady in 1995. Indeed the Europa hasn’t been attacked since 1993. No damaged remained in 1995.


Madam Secretary, this is emerging as a pattern for you. It’s been little more than 1 year since you dazzled us all with your account of landing amidst sniper fire in Bosnia, and the lies keep coming. Tell me, didn’t you learn from the Clinton/Lewinski scandal? You can’t afford to misspeak. Did you really believe that this embellishment was going to stand?


I guess I can’t really judge. I’ve embellished a few stories to make myself appear cooler than I really am. But I’m nobody: a somewhat less-than-average Joe. On the other hand, you are a Yale Law graduate, former first lady, former US Senator, present Secretary of State. Get over your insecurities; your job is to intimidate the likes of Vladimir Putin, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That said, enjoy Belfast. It is an interesting place. I spent some time there myself. Everyone remembers Belfast for its sectarian violence; however, Belfast also has the dubious distinction of being host to the world’s most recent tarring-and-feathering.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6966493.stm (With Pictures…Highly recommended!)


I have to admit, I find it fascinating. MODERN tarring and feathering! It’s not that I advocate vigilante justice or violent revolution. I don’t. But I have a hypothesis that every time a modern American politician, from either party, reads about a tarring and feathering, it’s like getting visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past…a chilling reminder that make’s one shudder. Is there any truth to that?

Don’t bother writing me back. I mostly asked all those questions rhetorically. I hope this finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Seniors Borrowing Money from their Grandchildren?

October 14th, 2009

October 14, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I just read from the Associated Press that you want to borrow 13 billion dollars to send a $250 check to every social security recipient. If I understand you correctly, this is supposed to be a cost of living adjustment for Social Security recipients because our lagging economy would not warrant a COLA using the existing formula. Mr. President, STOP BORROWING MONEY!


Your attempt at another way to redistribute wealth may seem harmless enough at first glance; after all, who doesn’t want to help out seniors and disabled folks? Wrong. You want them to believe that the government is stepping in to help, but the government doesn’t have any money. It’s borrowed money! We’re already running a deficit for 2009 of 1.4 trillion dollars. That’s $1,400,000,000,000…just in case the visual has any effect (it will when I show it to seniors). That’s $4,600 for every single American that future generations will have to pay back.



Mr. President, are you really going to try, with intellectual honesty, to convince seniors that they should put their grandchildren 13 billion dollars further in debt so that grandma and grandpa can have an extra $250 for 2010?

I don’t know a single social security recipient who would cash that check if they knew the truth. There are social security recipients who fought Nazis so that their grandchildren could enjoy freedom, and you are selling those same grandchildren into slavery to red China.

Mr. President, I will go door to door to alert and recruit every senior I know to help me spread the word that you are indebting future American generations to China. We’re going to change the language. We’re going to change your image. Your minions can call me a hateful racist, but if they try that with seniors, it’s going to backfire. Florida in 2012…not a chance. Seniors care about their grandchildren and great grandchildren; seniors vote. You can’t win this.

I know I have been all criticism. Want a solution? If you really want to boost the lifestyle of those on a fixed income, strengthen the dollar by balancing the budget. Make the dollars seniors already receive more valuable. Drill for domestic oil to deflate crude prices. STOP PRINTING MONEY!

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Is Health Coverage a Right?

October 12th, 2009

October 12, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We are at the cusp of healthcare overhaul. While most of America is fussing over failed Olympic bids for Chicago, and your Nobel Peace Price, lawmakers are scrambling to get their healthcare bill out of committee. I wanted to take the opportunity, as a concerned citizen, to address the progressive’s claim that health coverage is a right.

Clearly we can’t blame the founders for neglecting to mention health insurance. In the 18th century there was no health insurance. I believe however, that if there had been, the founders would not have chosen to burden the taxpayers with the responsibility of administering health insurance to the USA’s citizens.

Many will criticize me for my attempt to extrapolate the founder’s opinion, on a contemporary topic, from the founding documents. Clearly the founders can’t speak for themselves. I think, however, we will find that there is evidence in the constitution about how the founders would have decided this contemporary debate.

Your healthcare premise, if I understand it correctly is this: “Access to health insurance is a right; as a right, the government has the responsibility to provide it to all citizens.” I want very much to be fair. Is this more or less what progressives believe about healthcare? I don’t necessarily agree that healthcare is a right, but for the sake of discussion, I will continue as though it were.

In the interest of finding a precedent for healthcare as a right, please look with me at other rights, which are more explicitly outlined in the constitution. Perhaps we can find guidance on how government stewardship concerning the alleged right of healthcare should look.

Consider the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. As a citizen, I have the right to free speech. Indeed I am exercising my right…right now. This letter was typed on a computer, and I emailed it to you via the internet; both the computer and the internet cost me money. It was included as a blog post on my website. The website costs me money.

By writing/emailing you this letter, I was simply exercising my First Amendment right, but I still had to work hard and contribute money to disseminate my speech. Though I have a right to free speech, it would be ridiculous for me to ask the taxpayers to financially enable me to exercise this right. The government doesn’t lay out for pencils, paper, stamps, megaphones or anything else. At most, the military and police protect my rights. This is because the First Amendment is a charter of negative liberties. It states what the government cannot do. As president, you cannot impose on my freedom of speech.

How about the Second Amendment? I have a right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean that if I can’t afford to purchase my own firearm, the government will purchase one for me? Since the constitution specifies my right to “arms” (plural) will the taxpayers buy everyone two guns?

As attractive as the idea is, I must back away from it. The second amendment is also a negative liberty. The government shall make no law taking away my second amendment right. It would be absurd to insist that the government provide for my financial access to my right. It’s just not how America “does” rights.

Mr. President, presently it is illegal for hospitals to refuse emergency care to someone because they don’t have insurance. If someone chooses to skip paying for health insurance, and they get hurt or sick, they will wake up from emergency surgery with ten thousand dollars worth of debt. But they will wake up! They should consider themselves lucky that they had the “right” to receive the emergency surgery. They’re alive; money can be paid back. And while we’re at it, stop putting me tens of thousands of dollars in debt for AIG and GM.

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Obama’s Administration criticized for Bush-like Policies

October 5th, 2009

October 5, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you again about your similarities to President Bush. Mr. President, your platform: your promise, was “change” from the status quo of the Bush policies which you so vehemently criticized. Frankly, Mr. President, your policies could not be more Bush-like.

For instance, President Bush nationalized the banks, and you nationalized the car companies. President Bush added a huge new entitlement to Medicare with his Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program, and you seek to give Medicare to the entire nation with a public health insurance option. President Bush used Guantanamo Bay to house suspected terrorists, and you have failed to make any progress at closing the facility. Mr. President, when Rachel Maddow…when MSNBC: wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric turns on you, who do you have left to turn to?

She is saying that you are scarier than Bush/Cheney.

President Bush outsourced torture with the Special Rendition program, and you have continued the practice.



What is perhaps most surprising though, is your conspicuous lack of change concerning the implementation of the Patriot Act. It has been less than one year since every Democrat in the US had their panties in a bunch over Bush’s deplorable Patriot Act. Every leftist recreational marijuana user from Santa Cruz to Woodstock was convinced that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove were going to use the Patriot Act to “find their stash” and lock them in some FEMA concentration camp. I have had liberal university professors who are so critical of the Patriot Act that one could bring class progress to a halt by simply bringing it up. I suspect that just a few years ago you were one of those professors. You are going to extend the Patriot Act? Are you kidding me?


I am willing to admit my foolishness for neglecting to criticize practices under President Bush that I now criticize under your administration. I was asleep at the wheel, and I believed that they were OK then. I admit my foolishness, and I am thankful that America is a nation with a rich tradition of reconciliation and forgiveness. But although I might have shown foolishness then, by admitting my error, I rescue my intellectually honesty.

Are you really going to try to convince me, America—the world, with intellectually honest debate, that the practices for which you criticized Bush, as your campaign platform, are somehow OK when they are administered by your administration?

Perhaps history will record your first term as a 3rd Bush term. I am convinced that your policies are taking America in the same direction as President Bush, although perhaps at a faster pace. There is only one clear difference, and that’s image. You are the master of image, and your image is infinitely cooler than President Bush’s. Those lemmings watching your speech from the Rachel Maddow video, the one’s cheering and trying to shake your hand as you exit stage left, they didn’t understand a word you said. If they had to write an “extra-credit” report on the content of your message from that speech, they would have reported on the anti-Bush sentiment and nothing more. You haven’t got much longer to hide behind an image. When foreign leaders begin to mock, and Friday in Copenhagen was just a taste what’s to come, your rock-star image will evaporate overnight

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

President Obama is Bush 3

September 27th, 2009

September 26, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to remind you about the change you promised. Americans enthusiastically supported you in the last election because you promised diversion from the policies of President Bush, of which America and the world had grown weary. I’m not convinced that you have delivered on your promise in a way that the fickle American people will find satisfactory.

Of course, compared with President Bush, your speeches are delightful. But many of your policies are distressingly familiar. Take, for example, Bush’s borrow-and-spend governing tendencies. President Bush handed you a nation with an inflated national debt. You took America’s rudder shortly after Bush signed the TARP bill, which put every household in America thousands of dollars in debt to China. Then, you criticized (rightly) President Bush for inflating America’s national debt; however, half of the debt which you inherited was from TARP, which you voted for as a senator (McCain did too!). You contributed, with your vote, to doubling America’s national debt last fall.

And, as hypocritical as that was, one of your first feats as president was to push a $700,000,000,000 stimulus bill—of borrowed money. Forget that the bill was more pages long than the Bible. Forget that it had hidden within in: bonuses for AIG executives. The question that nobody was asking then is this: weren’t these just Bush’s policies continued? Weren’t these Bush’s policies accelerated? Mr. President, you double the national debt twice, once as a senator, and again as President. Don’t you know that the stability of our dollar has been a cornerstone to the world’s economic growth?

Your similarities to President Bush do not end there. You are fighting the war in Afghanistan in a restrained way that will prolong it into a lengthy campaign. You criticized President Bush for the Patriot Act, yet you are extending it. You criticized the Bush Administration for waterboarding and vowed to close Guantanamo Bay prison by January 2010, however, you are not going to come even remotely close to fulfilling this deadline.

Not only are there still prisoners locked up at Guantanamo, but you hypocritically criticize the Bush administration for administering pretend torture when faced with a ticking-bomb situation, but you continue to use the Special Rendition program which “outsources” torture to places off American soil.




Can you really engage in intellectually honest debate to try to convince America that there is a difference between waterboarding at Guantanamo, and flying a prisoner to Egypt or anywhere else to be tortured? Rendition is just USA torturing with a larger carbon footprint!

Mr. President, frankly, you are out of time. You had scores of voters in 2008 who voted for you thinking they would have free healthcare by now. It’s clear that they will not get it. There are countless others who voted for you to bring our troops home. They too will be disappointed.

You won the last election because you beat McCain by running against President Bush. Senator McCain, as an opponent, lent himself well to this strategy. I foresee that your 2012 opponent will find it handy to also run against Bush—again, by pointing out the countless ways you have shown yourself to be policy oriented in the “Bush” direction.

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

If Charity Was Sex, Wealth Redistribution Would be…

September 21st, 2009

September 21, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you again about progressivism. I have learned quite a bit about the American Progressive movement in the months since you took office. Until this year, I had never even heard the name Saul Alinsky or heard of Rules for Radicals; however, I have just learned that Secretary of State Clinton wrote her thesis on the subject. Mr. President, America is not a nation of progressives. If you continue to push a progressive agenda, you will not be re-elected. When are you going to realize that Americans have too much of the spirit of our founder’s left in us to embrace European style socialism?

European nation’s constitutions are hundreds of pages of bureaucratspeak guaranteeing rights to social programs like national medicine. Our constitution is short and to the point. Most of the sentences begin with: “The government shall make no law…” Our constitution is designed as an obstacle to leaders with agendas like yours; and it’s not going anywhere.

Our founder’s believed that their creation, a government with dramatically little interference, was divinely inspired. The founder’s believed in the God of the Bible. They believed that God’s plan for interacting with us is based on freedom of will. In other words, God gave us the freedom to do as we please, even if it is not charitable. They believed that God gave us a conscience, but left us with the freedom to fail or be selfish.

Our country came a long way operating under these guiding principles. I know that we were not a perfect nation. I wish we didn’t have slavery and pre-civil-rights racism and sexism in our past, but those cultural abominations were not caused by our constitution. They were cultural abominations.

If you and your progressive movement take the choice out of charitable giving and mandate government sanctioned redistribution of wealth, not only do you set up our society for mediocrity, you remove most of society’s countless occasions for courtesy, charity, and selflessness which are really what make life interesting and rewarding. Again, ask yourself if you feel the same on April 15th as you do when you voluntarily give to a charity or volunteer your time?

The other thing which government sanctioned wealth redistribution negates is the positive work done in the heart of the giver. I’m not talking about pride or even satisfaction. Truly charitable giving for altruistic reasons is a moving experience for the giver and the receiver when it is done at the personal level. I’ve known people to become emotional and cry tears of gratitude when another person came forward and fulfilled a financial need for them. Ask yourself if you believe that people who receive government checks which are funded by taxes gleaned from hard working middle and upper class citizens feel humbly grateful that others gave from their earnings to support the poor. Of course not. It’s not charity, not by a long shot. It’s closer to theft.

Let’s try an analogy. If charity was sex, government redistribution of wealth would be…masturbation? No…more like rape..

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Mr. President, We Aren’t Progressives.

September 9th, 2009

September 9, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you today about progressivism. It is clear that you are a progressive, after the tradition of the early twentieth-century progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. That’s fine. Even though we disagree, I respect your views and I would fight for your right to express any political opinion you choose. That’s the American way. I’m not part of the birth-certificate critic’s movement. I believe that you were fairly elected to the presidency, and you are entitled to all the powers and privileges of the office.

Having said this, I do not believe that you will win a second term as president. Please hear me out. It’s clear that your first campaign was executed with calculation and cunning. Indeed, I credit you and your team with a strategic victory that would make great military generals like Napoleon Bonaparte envious.

Your campaign team correctly assessed the contemporary pulse, fears, desires, and even guilt of the US populace; then, it implemented every literary, artistic and sales strategy known to science and business to sell you to America. The execution was exacting. If General Motors had your campaign team in their advertising dept, they could have staved off bankruptcy and avoided socialization.

Although the comparisons between your campaign execution and battle/business strategy are compelling, your strategies’ efficacy didn’t last, because you borrowed military and business moves which weren’t easily adaptable to the post-election political environment. If we view your campaign success on a timeline, it is flawless through November; however, once in office, the genius fades. Let me explain.

When a general wins a decisive battle, they must have a plan in place to retain their authority. It must be authoritarian, or they must win their subject’s hearts and minds. If they don’t, the conflict continues. Similarly, it would be shortsighted for a business to let down their guard after a customer has purchased the business’ widget. If the customer gets buyer’s remorse, they will look elsewhere for their next purchase. The Sun-Tzu Art-of-War cunning work’s great right up until Election Day. So does the MBA-executed sales campaign. But then what?

Your campaign was like President Bush executing the early days of the Iraq war. You had effective strategy and devastating resources. Like in Iraq, the initial battle was swift and decisive. You eviscerated a weak enemy. But then what? You were a brilliant genius in battle; did you never strategize beyond Election Day? America is a center-right nation, and you are a far-left president who won an election based on a sales pitch. Did you honestly believe your popularity was sustainable?

American participation in the political system is growing. I couldn’t be happier about it, and I largely credit the inspiration of your charisma. But the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with you on policy. Do you really want increased participation and awareness? The voter who couldn’t name the vice president didn’t vote for McCain. They voted for you, because you are attractive. Clearly it is in your best interest if voters don’t scrutinize your policies.

After you were elected, you stood before the American people and stated that American’s voted overwhelming for change. Let’s define “overwhelmingly.” The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that NASA astronauts did indeed land on the moon. 95% of Americans believe in the moon landing, and 5% do not. Your election victory margin, however, was less overwhelming.

Last November, you won about 52% of the vote. 47% of Americans held their noses and voted for McCain. In other words, you won by about 5%. Your “overwhelming” margin of victory is identical to the percent of the American population which doesn’t believe that we landed on the moon. In fact, the number of Americans who voted is smaller than the number of Americans who hold an opinion about the moon landing; therefore, you won the November election by fewer votes than there are Americans who don’t believe we landed on the moon. Overwhelmingly for change?

Perhaps I have you all wrong. Perhaps you are willing to sacrifice your chances of a second term to enact your progressive policies. If that were the case, I could respect you for it. History would remember you kindly for your willingness to self sacrifice. Was that the plan all along? If so, you would have quit reading a long time ago.

The problem is that we are not progressives. We’re not even liberals. I know that you have read all the important progressive ideological literature. Please allow me to give you another way to consider what you are doing. Specifically, please examine with me your self avowed desire for wealth redistributive practices administered by the State–“spreading the wealth around.”

Let’s look at the issue in the context of faith. You have stated many times that you are a man of faith. I take you at your word. Consider with me one of the church’s seven deadly sins: envy. Envy wants what someone else has, and it doesn’t want them to have it unless Envy can have it too. Judaism, Christianity, Islam…all of the world’s great religions “get” that it is unhealthy to spend one’s time dwelling on what other’s have. Thus, in your and my religion, Envy is great sin—a “deadly” sin, one of the big ones.

However, your progressive ideals: income redistribution, progressive tax structures, and social “justice,” are government sanctioned practices based on Envy. Please stop and consider that for a moment. Please compare the cardinal sin, Envy, with the cardinal virtue, “Charity.”

Ask yourself honestly: do you feel the same on April 15th as you do when you volunteer at an inner-city soup kitchen?

You had better ask yourself these questions, because between now and 2012, I will do everything in my power to make sure that Americans do.

Once Americans gain this perspective, it will become crystal clear why progressives seek so desperately to eliminate God from the public mind. It explains why your popularity can’t continue in a nation where something north of 80% of the populace believes in some form of God.

Progressives have tried to replace God with Earth and the environment, and it’s come the closest to progressive success thus far, but I believe that Americans are not wholly committed to the movement enough that they will suffer pain for it. Presently, the green movement is in vogue. Prius’ are cool. Eco-friendly is cool. Remember that, at one time, so were fanny packs and the cumber bun. When the cost of electricity “skyrockets” (your words, not mine) because of your cap and trade bill, and these prices infiltrate every product we buy during a down economy, Americans will turn on you. Democrats even. Try me.

So it’s clear that progressives need to stamp out God to bring their full agenda to fruition. It’s also clear that the progressive plan is to replace God with the environment, but there is another cornerstone of American life standing between progressives and their goal.

Socialists and progressives say that I and other conservatives are heartless because I don’t want my income redistributed to people who make less money. The word selfish is often thrown around. Interestingly, in these conversations, it’s never acknowledged, by the left, that the poor in America would still be counted among the world’s wealthiest. You want to take my money and redistribute it to people who have cell phones, TV, video games, and Medicaid that I am already paying for?

You see, Mr. President, mankind already has a model for putting aside one’s selfish desires to serve the interests of a collective. It’s called the family. It works. In fact, it works so well that it transcends borders and cultures. For progressives, who have the mentality that “it takes a village” to raise a child, the family is a big obstacle. Therefore, progressives, like you and Secretary of State Clinton will work tirelessly to undermine the traditional family in America.

Trust me, Mr. President; Americans don’t want the change you are trying to enact. You had better figure it out soon, or you will be out in 2012.

I would be very interested to read your response to this analysis. This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find them. I hope this finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

A Politician Responds…

September 9th, 2009

A few weeks ago, I wrote an email to my Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He responded today. My original letter is linked below.


Dear David

Thank you for writing to me about raising taxes.

In February, the Legislature and I came together to solve a $42-billion deficit. But as the global economic crisis continued to worsen and because of our outdated and volatile tax system, our revenues continued to plummet, and we soon faced a $24-billion deficit. This was a very tough budget, but we balanced it without raising taxes and by making the tough but necessary cuts to be fiscally responsible.

Earlier this year, I passed the largest tax increase in California’s history. I did not run for office to increase taxes on Californians or cut funding for crucial state programs. I hate taxes, and I am fundamentally opposed to raising them. Californians need a government that lives within its means and makes responsible choices, not one that taxes their way out of a budget deficit twice a year.

The budget I recently signed includes $16.1 billion in spending reductions. With this budget, California is navigating through the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. We reduced redundancies and streamlined government to make it more efficient, rooted out waste and fraud, and solved the entire deficit without asking hardworking Californians to foot the bill by paying more taxes.

As we move forward, we will do everything we can to create jobs and to bring our economy back. I know that we can do it because no problem is too large for this great state to conquer. And this is why we are and will always be the Golden State.


Arnold Schwarzenegger

A Politician Responds…

September 9th, 2009

A few days ago, I wrote a weird email to my congressman, Duncan Hunter. He responded today. My original letter is linked below.


Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the transfer of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi to the Libyan government. I welcome the opportunity to respond to you on this matter.

Like you, I am disgusted at the idea that the United Kingdom, one of the United States’ key allies, would release a convicted terrorist back to his home country. While their reason for doing this may have been out of compassion for his current state of health, I simply do not believe that murderers and terrorist have the right to that type of compassion. This right is forfeited when they take up arms against the U.S. or when they murder innocent people.

As you know, Megrahi is the only convicted terrorist in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. This horrendous act took the lives of 270 people, 187 of which were American citizens returning home, who never did see their families again like Megrahi is able to do so now. I will continue to monitor this situation and I appreciate hearing from you on any further developments.

In regards to health care reform, while I believe that reforming our nation’s health care system and entitlement programs must be among our top priorities, I do not support the creation of a universal health care system that limits consumer choice and is primarily funded through tax increases on working Americans. Instead, I believe we must focus on creating a system that provides Americans, including the uninsured, access to affordable health care options, reduces excessive or unnecessary costs, and continues to promote innovative technologies and treatments. As Congress continues to debate health care reform, rest assured that I will keep your specific thoughts firmly in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.


Duncan Hunter

Member of Congress

To Chancellor Merkel of Germany

August 30th, 2009

The Following letter is to Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel: Forbes 2008 world’s most powerful woman.”

August 29, 2009


Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Straße 1

10557 Berlin

Dear Chancellor Angela Merkel,

Greetings from the USA. Since I last wrote to you, you have realized another successful election. I offer my congratulations. As a libertarian in the USA, I now feel exiled in my own nation; however, I believe that Europe’s political climate is a leading indicator of what the USA’s political tomorrow will bring. Nobody can deny that EU popular opinion has shifted dramatically to the right since the beginning of the world’s economic woes.

I always regard you as a fiscally conservative leader in a socialist world region. A bright lamp in the darkness if you will. I am writing to you to ask you to take the lead in demonstrating the common sense sustainability of balanced-budget government.

Like you, I am educated in physics. I am not an economist; however, I do believe that economics is, at least sometimes, subject to common-sense principles. I can’t help but ask: If every major government in the west is printing/borrowing (I’m not even sure we can distinguish these anymore) significant money, unilaterally devaluing their own currencies, won’t the first government to shift right and balance their budget become the world’s new investment safe haven? Wouldn’t the very outward promise of a plan to balance the budget on a dedicated timeline bring trillions of dollars/euro/pounds/you-name-it from everywhere? Wouldn’t that be an honest economic stimulus for whichever nation steps up to claim the prize?

Am I missing something? Is there some complexity or nuance that I can’t see?

Though I have no credibility, this Idea isn’t mine. I got it from Ben Stein. He’s real smart. I used to hope that the USA would be the first nation to reach budget balance (or surplus), because I wanted my dollars pick up value. I also thought that we could bring our unemployment down and our Dow Jones Average up. Basically it would fix every economic woe in our sick Republic. Now, I just want somebody to take the lead and demonstrate fiscal responsibility. I have given up hope that the US dollar will emerge from the economic crisis as the world’s safest currency; I don’t care anymore if it’s the best. I am just desperate for the shift toward responsible government spending so my children won’t be economic slaves to China.

Chancellor, will you take my invitation to lead the way in a movement to balance budgets? Do you have what it takes to sell the idea to Germans? To other European leaders? To President Obama? Americans, taken as a whole, think Europeans are cooler than we are. You’re certainly a good-looking lot. If a strong respected European leader like you began criticizing the USA’s irresponsible fiscal policy, it won’t be long before we would begin to feel ashamed. The guilt would drive an enormous political change in the USA. This happened recently over American’s guilt which was fueled by European’s criticism of our foreign policy in Iraq. Please, call us out! Our egos can’t take it, and we will turn it around.

In the mean time, please get Germany’s budget balanced. I believe that you presently have enough support from your constituency to get some real work done. Please take the lead.

I would enjoy reading your remarks on my suggestions or ideas. This email and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of viewers per month will read them. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


To Representative Duncan D. Hunter on Prostate Exams

August 23rd, 2009

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/09/09/a-politician-responds/

August 23, 2009

Congressman Duncan D. Hunter

Dear Congressman,

I am writing to you about the terrorist who was recently allowed to return from Scotland to Libya. For the life of me I can’t imagine what Scotland was thinking. I suspect there was some vintage, single malt, Glen—something-or-another involved. I know you well enough to realize that you certainly join the world in criticizing this justice debacle. Even President Obama is on the correct (I can’t quite bring myself to say “right”) side of history on this issue. There is, however, something that has been bothering me. There is something blatant that I have never heard anyone bring up.

I understand that the terrorist has fatal prostate cancer. I am a cancer survivor, not a doctor, but I have spoken with doctors about prostate cancer. The consensus is, and I quote, “If you have to get cancer, prostate is the one to get.” The MD I spoke with about prostate cancer was being treated for prostate cancer himself when we spoke. It is my understanding that few men die in America from prostate cancer. It is slow-growing, and treatable. Prostate cancer progresses so slowly that 80-somethings who are diagnosed often voluntarily skip treatment because the odds are overwhelmingly likely that they will die from another cause before the cancer becomes life-threatening.

The point is that this prisoner of Great Britain has likely had prostate cancer for years. Had his cancer been diagnosed early, I suspect (if you have a doctor on staff who disagrees, please feel free to correct me) the cancer could have been successfully treated. Frankly, I understand that, in the USA, it is the exceptional case of prostate cancer that takes the patient’s life.

Normally none of this would be worth bringing up. After all, he is a terrorist about to join the 70 virgins (who have obviously been saving themselves for him since he joined Jihad). However, since we have begun a healthcare discussion here in America, the whole situation begs the question: did Britain’s universal healthcare system fail this “guest” of the British Commonwealth? Specifically, did he have adequate access to checkups? What treatment options was he offered after diagnosis? Finally, why would God inflict cancer on a man who has so faithfully done His will? Ok, perhaps that last question was not relevant to the discussion, but the first two certainly are. We need to be asking questions like these to politicians who are trying to ram a Britain-like health-care system down our throats.

As my congressman, you have well represented my interests thus far. Concerning healthcare, the progressives pushing the bill have shown that they will duck and dodge every logical point opponents bring fourth. Frankly, it’s what they do. What I want to hear from my representative are questions. It’s the questions they really fear. “How are you going to pay for healthcare in a deficit-neutral way, without breaking your campaign pledge concerning taxes and the middle class?” “How do you reconcile President Obama’s statement that he ‘has never said he was for single-payer,’ with his repeated statement that he is?”

Then watch him lie…Our president is a cameleon!

They said Bush lied, and it was iffy. We have President Obama lying—on camera.

Please trust me. The last thing Progressives want is to have to answer questions. They are like vampires. If you shine a bit of sunlight on them and what they are doing, it all goes down in flames. Nothing works in court like cross examination with questions that the defendant can’t answer; the repeated public questioning of closet socialists in a center-right nation will show more and more citizens, who are just waking up and rubbing their eyes, what far-left progressivism is really about. As annoying as Robert Gibbs is, I thank God for him. There is no way that a sensible person can watch a single White-house press interview session without seeing that Gibbs is hiding truth with every answer. He’s more painful to watch than George W. Keep him talking. It’s working. Same goes for Pelosi.

I have never heard President Obama questioned concerning his blatant lie, on camera, which I have linked above in this letter. That would be nice, but President Obama is not going to let it happen; however, if enough people hear the question, and he neglects to address it, the lack of transparency itself will take its toll. Please keep the questions coming.

I would very much enjoy reading your remarks on my analysis. This email and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find them. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

El Cajon, 92021

PS I wonder if Robert Gibbs has had a prostate check lately?

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/09/09/a-politician-responds/

To Senator Feinstein on Cap and Trade

August 22nd, 2009

August 21, 2009

Senator Dianne Feinstein


Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing to you about the Cap and Trade bill. I was recently on your web site; from what I saw, it appears that you believe global warming is man-caused. I suspect that you will support bills which you believe are environmentally friendly. Indeed, I believe you should. Frankly, I am not convinced that global climate change is man-caused. There might be a CO2 component; however, we cannot ignore the solar-cycle effects which have undeniably altered earth’s climate for millennia. We cannot ignore that we are now on a cooling trend (since 2001) which diverges from the CO2 climate change model.

I can’t determine climate change cause one way or the other. I’m just asking you to slow down. And don’t echo Al-Gore types who tell me I’m a flat-earth person. I’m not. And don’t align yourself with the politicians who tell America that the “debate is over.” Nobody who knew they could win a debate would ever say “the debate is over” while half the country is still unconvinced.

What you must understand is that I too am an environmentalist. I will back you on measures to protect clean air (sorry, CO2 isn’t a real pollutant), clean oceans, wetlands, forests, you name it. But Cap and Trade wasn’t ever about protecting the environment. If Politicians really wanted to end CO2 emissions they would build 100 new nuclear power plants. Problem solved.

Nuclear energy would supply us with a limitless energy supply for millennia. It would mean jobs. We could stop making electricity out of oil. OIL!!! Take a moment to consider how insane it is that we are buying oil from countries that hate us and using it to make electricity when we could be building nuclear power plants. Stop to consider that we offer to build Iran a nuclear power plant if they promise to play nice, but we won’t build them for ourselves!

Cap and Trade is about seizing control of industry and increasing bureaucracy and revenue to the federal government. It’s not going to decrease global CO2 emissions. Democrat leaders have even said that China and India are free from any moral obligation to participate. Specifically for President Obama, Cap and Trade is about paying back his campaign debt to General Electric, who will gain windmill contracts if the bill passes. I understand that Speaker Pelosi is also heavily invested in Cap and Tax projects.

I believe you are smart and I believe that you can see for yourself what Cap and Trade is. Most of America is focused on healthcare today, but the healthcare bill is dead. The one that matters now is Cap and Trade. It will not be as glamorous. Most Americans don’t even know what Cap and Trade is. Congress would love to keep it that way, but I will not let that happen. We will spread the word. If politicians who favored government option-healthcare thought the heat was on then, they will loathe the day that the public founs out the truth about Cap and Trade.

I can assure you that I will work tirelessly to end the careers of every representative in congress who votes for cap and trade. Remember Acorn rounding up bums to vote for booze bribes? Acorn won’t be able to find them because I will have already recruited them all to vote out Cap and Traders. We will not forget.

Anyone paying attention can see that the tides of political favor are slipping away from President Obama and far-left progressives. I hope you will recognize Cap and Trade for what it is. If you want to help the environment, there are countless positive measures a legislator can propose. Cap and Trade is nothing but a new tax and regulate for the government’s sake. I hope you will not give me a reason to work for your removal from office like many of our congressmen have.

I would very much enjoy reading your remarks on my analysis. This email and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find them. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

San Diego, CA 92101

Lou Pritchett writes to President Obama

August 18th, 2009


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Stamped Money…Just the Facts.

August 5th, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you today because I have an idea that just keeps nagging at me. I wanted to share it with you; perhaps you will be willing to offer us your thoughts on it. I’ll be up front; I disagree with your policies. In my opinion, your ideology is out of step with the dreams of our founding fathers, and the policies which have made the USA the most successful nation on earth. By no means do I assert that we have a perfect nation, but I insist that we are not the villains that modern progressives believe we are. However, if we were to consider American’s faults, one of the most egregious is our lack of appreciation for USA’s election process.

I have no statistical data to present to you Mr. President, but I maintain that tens of millions of Americans are identity voters with little knowledge of the candidates or where they stand on the issues. I further maintain that politicians like you rely on American’s identity voting habits to win elections. For instance, you certainly know that your charisma and public speaking skills, with their contrast to President Bush’s, won you enough identity approval to secure millions of votes. Clearly some ethnic groups voted along racial lines. Unions voted for you because you are a Democrat. Chris Matthews voted for you because he gets a “thrill” up his leg.

It troubles me that mere days before the election, there were still enough undecided voters to swing the outcome either way. These undecided voters were the least informed; yet they clenched the election for you! All scientific polling reveals that the USA’s citizens, taken as a whole, when asked about issues, make up a center-right nation. Mr. President, your charm and charisma captured the hearts of millions of Americans who were too preoccupied to read the fine print. You were like a car salesman who sold the customer by focusing on low monthly payments while neglecting the high-interest bottom line. You were brilliant at it. You still are.

However, there is such a thing as buyer’s remorse. And while a consumer can’t return their car because they later feel buyer’s remorse, Americans will reevaluate their purchase decision in four short years. I postulate that your greatest threat to reelection is an awakening of the center-right populace (America), a realization of your hard left policies/leanings. Here’s how I intend to facilitate that process.

Rubber stamps can be custom made. We have all seen writing or stamps on money. The brilliance of stamping money is that the person who finds their money stamped is going to do exactly what the stamper would want. They are going to read the message; then, they are going to pass the money along to another person. They aren’t going to throw it away, and if the bill is small, they aren’t going to hold on to it for long. One couldn’t think of a better way to transmit simple facts.

This idea isn’t mine. I recently saw a dollar bill stamped “legalize marijuana.” Indeed, I have even seen bills stamped “impeach Bush.” However, these are just ideas and opinions. They’re not even particularly profound or new ideas. They are not likely to change the mind of their reader. A Bush basher will agree with the “impeach Bush” message, and the republican will not, but nobody is going to be persuaded to change their position because someone else’s opinion is stamped on money. Similarly, an “impeach Obama” stamp would be equally silly. However, in a center-right nation which elected a president that they didn’t truly understand, in an election based on good looks and charm, consider a dollar stamped with what I like to call Obama facts. Try this one:

For example: “When you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” President Obama

This is not an idea, it’s a quote. It’s not opinion. In fact, depending one’s background, one will respond differently to the quote. Many progressives will smile when they read the above-stamped dollar. They will say, “yes, that’s my president.” They might even think that the person who stamped the dollar meant to add to your popularity. The danger for you, Mr. President, is that most American’s are not progressives. Indeed, around 6.5 out of 10 people are going to find the above-referenced quote distressing.

What I hope to see stamped on money will not be opinion, it will be information. The stamped bills will be tools to give citizens the foundation they need to arrive at their own informed opinions. Furthermore, they will challenge people to go “Google” something to investigate on their own. Nothing scares politicians more than informed constituents. Imagine stamps sold at every Wal-Mart (made in china of course) which can be used to stamp millions of dollar bills with the following:

“We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt” Joe Biden 7-16-09

“There’s nothing that we would have done differently.” President Obama 7-7-09 (this one is going to go over great in about 24 months)

Think I’m hurting this dollar? Obama prints them, and distributes them to his friends.

The annual cost of National-debt interest payments by far exceeds the annual cost of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard combined.

Interest paid on the national debt is the largest federal government expense.

So you there you have it. The sky’s the limit. Anyone willing to take time off to go to a tea party would be willing to take the time and effort to stamp bills. If 60,000 tea partiers all stamped 100 bills each, and those hundred bills changed hands 12 times each, the process would put info before the eyes of 72,000,000 voters. That ought to do it.

I recognize that it is probably against the law to stamp money, but consider this. Some laws are more-heavily enforced than others. In the same way that there is little political will to enforce America’s immigration laws, I doubt that conservative law-enforcement circles are going to track down money stampers. Furthermore, any legal action taken against money stampers will be reported in the media, and we can immediately see that the whole process has undertones and shades of “freedom of expression.” I suspect that media attention would be good for the cause of the stamper

This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

P.S. It must be incredibly stressful to know that you have fooled America, and their finding out would prevent your reelection. I personally don’t think you can pull it off. We’ll see.

Bill Schoonover Calls for a Clean Sweap

August 3rd, 2009

August 3, 2009

An Open Letter to All Members of the United States Senate and the United State House of Representatives and Their Various Staffs
Capitol Building and various offices
Washington, D.C.

Short Version:

You, for the most part, are a bunch of lying, thieving, self-serving scoundrels and power brokers whose sole ambition is to be re-elected, or elected to higher office. You will do almost anything to achieve that goal.

Long Version:

It has been said, politics is like making sausage. You know what it is, but you don’t want to know what went into it. And you, congresspersons and senators, don’t want us to know what goes into Washington politics, either.

A mere cursory examination shows us that you, Congress, are the mafia on steroids – make that triple steroids, and other self-enhancing drugs. (No wonder you all look like a bunch of “Smiling Bobs.”) Here, I might apologize to the mafia. At least it has a certain “honor code” where none exists on Capitol Hill. There is no one in those hallowed halls who can, or would, make the same vow as the signers of the Declaration of Independence to “Pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” None, nada, nary a soul.

Sacred honor? You have to be kidding! Besides, organized crime only cost us tens of $billions while Congress has raised the stakes to tens of $trillions and the loss of personal freedoms. Remember Lord Acton’s warning, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”?

In the darkness of night, in a quiet office, or in a deserted hall, in that secret arena where votes are obtained by bullying, threats, offers of future favors, and other nefarious acts, the buying and selling the souls of self-serving solons by political leaders, lesser members, and lobbyists, not to mention El Presidente, himself, is commonplace. You call it negotiations, compromise, or more nicely put, the “art of friendly persuasion.”

It was reported by Fox that one Ohio congresswoman’s vote for “cap and trade” was purchased for 3 $billion in earmarks! Can any of you tell me the difference between a “house of ill-repute” and your august body in which absolutely everything is for sale, depending on the price or threat? Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) refers to this as “shenanigans.” Purchasing a vote for 3 $billion is merely a shenanigan? I swear, there is more honor and morals to be found at the “Hookers’ Ball” than in that untreated sewage pond we call congress.

Remember the House post office scandal? Remember Ted Kennedy (D-MA) responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, as well as other undignified deeds? Well, Old Teddy is going to get the Medal of Freedom. How about all the tax cheats like Charlie Rangel (D-NY)? What about the Honorable William Jefferson (D-LA) who is accused of accepting $400,000 in bribes ($100,000 in cold cash in his New Orleans freezer)? “Spring butt” corrupt Speaker Nancy “Beads” Pelosi (D-CA), daughter and avid student of Baltimore’s corrupt mayor, Big Tom D’Alesandro, favoring her husband’s $17 million investment in Del Monte in Samoa.

Then there was the male prostitution ring run out of Barney Frank’s (D-MA) home. Don’t forget Christopher Dodd’s (D-CT) sweetheart mortgage deal with Countrywide. This doesn’t scratch the surface and includes ample representation from both major parties. Yet, no one in Congress condemns them.

The vast, vast majority of you are corrupt, not only in sins of commission, but those of omission, as well. Never will one “rat out” another for the most serious of crimes. Is this a secret oath all must take to take their seats in this cesspool? Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Congressmen such as J.C. Watts (R-OK) and Steve Largent (R-OK), whom we think of as honorable and decent people, refused to run for re-election. They were all “shoo-ins.” Why? They never publicly said anything about congress.

You have managed to indebt our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to $trillions. To quote Ronald Regan, “The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.” And how do you plan to pay our debt to China? Remember you write the tax laws (at least you are supposed to.) You begin by sending out your electronic “bagmen” to attach each paycheck. The rest, you hold up April 15th and four other times a year. And this just about covers the interest.

What you liberal members fail to see is: “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” –Presbyterian minister William J.H. Boetcker

There has been a “Kremlinization” of Congress. You hide behind your walls. Your staged events with only canned questions and shills no longer fool the people. You do not answer your e-mail (especially, you Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) whose box is always full), or one receives a totally meaningless form letter which never answers a specific question, or any question for that matter. Your staffers screen and protect you from angry constituents’ letters, calls and e-mails. If you don’t like what you hear at a town hall meeting [like Diane Feinstein (D-CA)], you call the police to remove them.

It will be an interesting August for your august group. Those of you who dare to have so-called “town meetings” will be deluged with angry shouts and angry questions. There will be angry signs and angry banners. You have become as unapproachable as the French nobility prior to the French Revolution. You have adopted the same attitude as Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake.”

You will either change your “we know what is best for you because we are better than you” attitude, or you will be unemployed – that is, until you can get a job as a lobbyist.

Finally, there is an organization, a party if you will, GOOOH (Get Out of Our House) which is rapidly growing by tens of thousands whose goal is to have a clean sweep of both the House and the Senate and have newly elected people who will impose term limits and sanity to this lunatic asylum. (See www.GOOOH.com)


Your time has passed. It is time to go home, count your $millions and enjoy the lucrative retirement, healthcare and benefits you have voted yourselves.


Bill Schoonover

U.S. Army (Ret.)

3096 Angela Lane

Oak Harbor, WA 98277



Visit Iran Today…Your Holiday’s Worth

July 30th, 2009

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

C/O Iranian Consulate

2209 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Sir,

I just visited the official website for the Iranian Consulate in Washington D.C. (to get the address), and, on the site, there is an Iranian Tourism Board internet advertisement which states: “Visit Iran Today…Your Holiday’s Worth.” The add displays lovely pictures of Iranian tourism attractions.


President Ahmadinejad, it’s as if you read my mind. I was just thinking about how great it would be to vacation in Iran. It could be a culturally enlightening experience for us all. As you know, in the USA, multi-culturism is all the rage. The predominant opinion here is that if we all make an effort to understand differing cultures, we will outgrow world conflict through maturity and respect.

For instance, to refine my cultural sensitivity, I could visit Iran to become better acquainted with the Iranian political process. I understand that Iranian politics have become quite interesting lately. I read a recent New York Times piece reporting that Iranian prisons are full of political prisoners who were rounded up while publicly protesting the last election outcome.

According to the Times, prisoners are being beaten to death; then, their broken bodies are returned to their families. Families also report finding that their loved ones bear unmistakable signs of torture, including fingernails which have been ripped off.


Clearly, this cultural diversity should be celebrated. I know that as an outsider, I might initially find torturing political dissidents to be repugnant; however, if the American understanding of multi-culturism is valid, I will surely learn to appreciate Iran’s cultural nuances after due exposure. I simply must make Iran my next vacation destination.

The wonderful thing about diversity is that we all benefit. Indeed, if I were to vacation in Tehran, I would feel called to expose Iranians to a small slice of western culture. Of course, in the interest of improved international relations, I would want to share the “the best” the west has to offer. This is particularly compelling with respect to the political process.

Here in the west, we have an old political tradition. We don’t do this every day; it’s reserved for rather special circumstances, but I expect that your constituents may agree that the present time will qualify as historically special for Iran. President Ahmadinejad, I present to you the “tar and feather.”

Not to be confused with a lynching, the tar and feather is not a deliberate attempt to kill a person. Instead, the goals lean toward humiliation, and exemplification of the impotence of the tarred and feathered party. And yes, there may be perceivable pain involved. Wikipedia describes the tar and feather as follows:

“In a typical tar-and-feathers attack, the subject of a crowd’s anger would be stripped to the waist. Hot tar was either poured or painted onto the person while he or she was immobilized. Then the victim either had feathers thrown on him or her or was rolled around on a pile of feathers so that they stuck to the tar. Often the victim was then paraded around town on a cart or a rail.”

As you can see, the whole affair is good clean fun, and best of all, it’s uniquely western. Iranians can take this opportunity to embrace diversity, and learn a whole new way to execute (forgive the pun) the political process. Western exposure could teach the Iranians that they need not fear their government; it could indeed be the other way around.

I’ve decided that I embrace the idea that sharing cultures will truly settle the world’s conflicts. While life’s obligations may temporarily prevent me from traveling to Iran to personally teach Iranian citizens about tar and feathering, I am thrilled to realize that technology can aid in facilitating communication. I understand that Iranian citizens have taken to using twitter and the internet to share news and Ideas. You will be pleased to note that I will publish this letter on dailyletter.net, where Iranians and the world will find it.

From the USA,


David Rasner

San Diego, CA

Feinstein On the Fence: She Can’t Say I Didn’t Warn Her

July 21st, 2009

July 21, 2009

Senator Dianne Feinstein


Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing to you about the current healthcare proposal in congress. I know that President Obama is pushing forcefully for quick passage of your party’s partisan proposal; however, I recently heard harsh criticism from Move-on.org directed at you which made me think that you might be on the fence concerning the socialized medicine proposal.

Perhaps AMA interest groups are pressuring you, or perhaps you believe that the bill is somehow flawed. Briefly surveying your website, I was unable to decode where you stand (or why); it doesn’t matter. If you are not totally committed to government-run healthcare, please read on.

I’ll be frank; we probably wouldn’t agree much politically. We have different motivations. However, our interests may intersect concerning healthcare. To put it bluntly, my main concern is to keep government out of the private sector while preventing hard-working citizens (like myself) from having to pay for others entitlements. I’ll assume that your main motivation is keeping your Senate seat. I do not mean that as an insult. I’m a conservative, so I don’t view other’s success critically or feel guilty about my own.

For you, fulfilling your motivation means pleasing your constituency enough that they will vote for you again. It also means securing a hefty war chest, so that you will have sufficient money to stave off potential challengers in future elections. The latter of these fulfillments is all but guaranteed. Your re-election money will come from one of two sources. The AMA and other interest groups will bankroll you if you shoot down government healthcare. On the other hand, President Obama will arrange lucrative fundraising for you if you vote with your party. For the average citizen like me, there is no leverage to influence you here.

The only concern left for you is post-healthcare bill public opinion. It is this aspect I want to discuss with you. Please be assured that this healthcare proposal has the ability to decimate the Democrat party if the populace ends up frustrated with it. Indeed, this could be President Obama’s “Iraq.” I am going to outline for you exactly how and why you don’t want to find yourself on the wrong side of “healthcare history.” If you care, please read on.

You’re a legislator. You have rock-star healthcare. President Obama iterates again and again that he wants all citizens to have the same good healthcare that you and other senators have. Immediately, it should occur to you that he is setting himself up for disappointment. Americans aren’t discerning enough to understand that the President is delivering a sales pitch. Have you ever experienced buyer’s remorse? The problem with President Obama is that he is so convincing, his speaking skills and charisma are so effective, that millions of Americans are literally captivated by his on-screen presence. They voted for him believing that their healthcare would really be like his. Please assure me Senator that you know better.

Here’s a snapshot of what will really happen if America “goes social” on healthcare. I’m a healthcare pro. I’ve had boots on the ground in the industry for a decade. I understand its current problems, and I can lucidly foresee how healthcare under a federal program will look in two years to the average voter.

First, recap with me what the average voter expects. They expect to call their choice of doctors or clinics, and get a convenient appointment. They expect to have plenty of time with the doctor, in a non-crowded, organized office. They expect their prescriptions to be covered at the pharmacy. If a doctor or medical staff member is impolite or unprofessional, they expect to be able to call the government payer to voice an effective complaint exactly as they would have with their HMO. They expect absolutely no rationing of care, and they expect the rich to pay for all of it. In short, they expect Feinstein-quality care, and they expect to get it for free.

At this point, a gigantic alarm should be going off inside your head. Take a moment to consider the standard that President Obama has created for your party. Then, I’ll correctly predict what the actual experience for a gov-run healthcare consumer will be should the measure pass. You must understand that doctors running private clinics are going to refuse to accept the universal insurance. There are a few reasons. The fee schedule will be low, meaning poor reimbursement rates. Also, as soon as the provider agrees to bill government insurance, they have to follow the government’s rules.

For instance, consider a Psychiatrist. For a mental health clinician, time is money…literally. If a patient schedules a one-hour session, then doesn’t show up, the doctor loses $200. Several of these each day will literally eviscerate all profit from the business. To prevent this loss, most mental health clinicians charge a no-show fee ($25 is usually plenty to keep the patient honest). However, it is illegal to charge a no-show fee to a Medicare or Medicaid patient if the doctor is billing their insurance. A Psychiatrist can tell a Medicaid patient that they will see them on a cash basis, and they are protected—they can bill the no-show. But as soon as they agree to bill the state, they forfeit their protection against flaky patients. The result is that almost no outpatient mental health professional will accept Medicare or Medicaid. Those who do consider it pro-bono work.

This process of declining to accept state-run healthcare will overflow into thousands of general practice doctor’s offices and clinics. A few will do it just to spite the plan. Perhaps the AMA will encourage the practice. At any rate, it will at least be done for financial reasons. Those who can pay for good healthcare out-of-pocket will get A-list care for their cash. Cash only clinics will be like concierge facilities. Those who cannot pay out-of-pocket will be funneled into the remaining clinics who have decided that they will accept the national plan. However, these facilities, to compensate for the state-run healthcare’s low reimbursement rates, will form a business model based on volume. They will become revolving door doctor’s offices, the Wal-Marts of healthcare. There will be a long wait for an appointment, a long wait in the…waiting…room, and then after all the waiting, the patient will finally get to briefly meet with their—P.A., because the doctor will be hunched over a spreadsheet trying to balance his budget. He doesn’t have a printing press.

It is interesting to note that the while the government plan seeks to evaporate the socioeconomic gap in healthcare, it will actually widen it. The situation will be identical to present day: the rich will get good healthcare, because they can pay for it. The poor will get poor healthcare. The only difference is the middle class. While the middle class are presently insured by reasonably priced HMOs, when the government plan runs the private competition out of business, the middle class will either accept the poor healthcare, or they will pay for the rich healthcare out of desperation, but at the cost of family hardship.

You can heed my warning, or ignore it. If you ignore it, President Obama will take you down with him. The American people are fickle. I hope you believe me.

I would very much enjoy reading your remarks on my analysis. This email and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find them. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

San Diego, CA 92101

William P Schoonover Appeals to Justice Roberts

July 21st, 2009

July19, 2009

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

Supreme Court of the United States

1 1st Street

Washington, DC 20543

Chief Justice Roberts:

I’m sure you clearly remember this:

“I, John Glover Roberts, Jr., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

As a soldier and an officer in the United States Army I took an oath to “Support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Although similar to yours, I took this oath offering the “last full measure of my devotion to this country.” And I am sure you take yours as seriously.

I am not a learned member of any bar, or do I even begin to know the arcane and intricate workings of the jurisprudence system. I was just a soldier, one of those, who by the estimations of the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kerry (D), “Too dumb to make it in civilian life” (or words to that effect).

But as a citizen of the United States and a veteran, along with tens of millions of other Americans and veterans, I hold you to that oath which you took, specifically in the questionable citizenship of Barrack Hussein Obama, acting as President of the United States.

Article II, Section 1.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Failure to act by the Supreme Court so far has troubling consequences. Is it the pusillanimity of the Court, or is it because of being beholden to a person, or persons unknown to the public? It is a constitutional crisis best left untouched? Please tell the American people. Congress and the Presidency are inaccessible to the average person. Is this also true of the Supreme Court? Is our entire federal government in a Kremlin?

Am I casting doubt upon the court? Yes. Will there ever be a SCOTUS vs. POTUS? Or, as nearly always, will it be politics over law, and law over right?


William P Schoonover

LTC, US Army (Ret.)

3096 Angela Lane

Oak Harbor, WA


Chivalry Isn’t Dead: Bill Schoonover Writes to Governor Palin

July 17th, 2009

July 17, 2009

Dear Governor Palin:

Upon your resignation as governor, we the American people have a job for you and that is to fill a pair of “shoes” which have not been filled since the 15th century – those of Joan of Arc. And we guarantee you will not be burned at the stake! You will also condemn the likes of the Curics, Lettermans and O’Briens to the ash heap of entertainment history.

We need you to lead a peaceful demonstration of millions of [conservative] Americans to the steps of Capitol Hill to demand our government back. As you know, all three branches of government have ceased to be answerable to the people – judicial is too expensive, executive has become a dictatorship and congress is a corrupt cesspool of nonresponsive elitists.

If you would pass this idea on to your staff for consideration, believe me, this will catapult you to the stars.

This could be second most important thing you could do. The first is winning the presidency. You have the courage and integrity to become America’s first real president in a long, long time.

This is also to let you know that you are in the daily prayers of millions of Americans who hold you in the highest esteem.

William P Schoonover

US Army (Ret.)

3096 Angela Lane

Oak Harbor, WA 98277


To the Governator on the BUDGET

July 16th, 2009

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/09/09/a-politician-responds-2/

July 15, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-445-2841

Fax: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,

I’ve just finished reading a fresh article which states that you and your team of senior legislators are drawing nearer to closing our budget gap. I am quite pleased that the proceedings are progressing well. Most pleasing to me is that there has been no mention of California seeking federal aid. You are quoted in the letter as having said,

“There’s no nastiness in the discussions, no blowups, no chairs flying. So I think we have a good shot at getting the budget done today. But I still have to caution there are still some very important things that are not resolved.”

It’s reassuring to hear that everyone is acting like adults. If I may analyze, I suspect that you must feel emotionally torn about the compromise. On the bright side, it must feel rewarding to solve a huge budget crises; it must also feel good to get your way after demonstrating such resolve in the face of vicious Democrat attacks. It also must feel good to know that you are heeding the wishes of your constituents who cared enough to participate in the last balloting. However, I expect that you simultaneously worry about Californians whose entitlements are being stripped to the bare minimum. I personally worry most about our seniors.

Here’s what I propose. Where entitlements are concerned, slash from the able-bodied. Welfare recipients who have their welfare stripped will not starve to death. They will either take a job that nobody else wants, or they will pack up and leave California for greener pastures. I almost certainly sound cold to the uninitiated, but consider that everyone who has ever had their welfare terminated looks back after a few years and acknowledges that it was the best thing that ever happened to them. On the other hand, have you ever known anyone to voluntarily give up welfare to seek gainful employment independent of government help? It’s simply not done.

Governor, you’re so close to the end, don’t give them anything in the negotiations. You’ve seen how time has weakened their resolve, and you are holding all the cards. And for heaven sakes, when you have the budget trimmed, and the economy finally begins to come back, don’t put the fat back into the budget.

If later on you should find yourself with a budget surplus in California because state revenues pick back up, here’s how you should think of it: You’re in the grocery store picking out an apple. While in the produce section you get a phone call and you have to hurry off. You hang up your phone after you are already in the parking lot, and then realize that you are still holding the apple. You accidentally stole the apple. If you are like me, you would be too embarrassed to return and pay for it, but you should at least feel lousy about it.

If next year the economy rebounds and you find that there is a surplus because of your deep budget cuts, pretend that you accidentally stole some of the taxpayer’s money. Do something worthwhile with it, like pay off state debt or save it for a later crisis. Whatever you do, don’t increase the state budget to depend on that revenue the next time around.

Speaking of putting away surplus money, please consider with me how California pays for stuff. On the November ballot, there were several proposals for adding infrastructure to California (the train one comes to mind) which were proposed to be funded with borrowed money. As a normal citizen who has to keep my own bank account balanced, I just can’t relate to the idea of borrowing money for trains. I occasionally use a credit card for a purchase, and I know that it is a poor choice for personal purchases. How could it be a better idea for the state? I personally will not vote for any future proposal that the state will have to finance with loans. There is no excuse for a state with as much going for it as California to have to borrow money to lay train tracks. I want California to build a reasonable budget, with a small surplus, and when there is extra money sitting around, put different options on the ballot and let the citizens decide what to spend it on.

These are pretty radical ideas for California, but I just thought I would run them by you. All in all, good job on budget stuff. I hope California will take some valuable lessons from all this. It has indeed been an interesting year to observe California. For the casual observer of the political process, California has been fascinating lately. The demonstrations of checks and balances have been stunning. We saw the Proposition 8 vote give the citizens a direct check on the power of the state Supreme Court justices, and now you are demonstrating a heavy executive check on the state legislators. It reassures me that despite our woes, and there are many, the governmental model we have in place (California’s based on the whole USA’s) is still the best around.

I would be grateful to read your thoughts on these suggestions. This letter and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will read them. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/09/09/a-politician-responds-2/

A note from Admin:

July 15th, 2009

Joe Cornell writes to President Obama about the economy. He references Ben Stein’s commentary printed in Sunday’s New York Times. The article is linked below:


Joe Cornell writes to President Obama

July 15th, 2009

Mr. President,

After eight years of George Bush, the American people wanted a change in the administration and did not trust the Republicans to bring about that change. Almost any Democratic candidate could have defeated John McCain, and, unfortunately, we got you. The concept of change did not, as you seem to believe, extend to turning the United States into a socialist democracy. Your first and only priority should be the restoration of the economy and the creation of meaningful employment for those who want and need it. Instead, in the face of two wars, rising unemployment, a stagnant housing market, and increasing inflation, you have embarked on an ambitious plan to overhaul the healthcare system, the banking system, Wall Street, Detroit, and now the Supreme Court. Ben Stein put it best in the NYT on Sunday when he stated that the economy should be your first and only priority. George Bush Sr. learned that lesson when he lost to Bill Clinton: “it’s the economy stupid”.

Joe Cornell

A note from Admin:

July 14th, 2009

Today’s letter comes from Bill Schoonover in Washington State. Please see below. He is writing to California Senator Barbara Boxer from the perspective of a former serviceman. Senator Boxer’s comments to Brigadier General Michael Walsh are linked immediately below.

To: Senator Boxer

July 14th, 2009


You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, “ma’am,” instead of “Senator.” After all, in the military, “ma’am” is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position.

The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world’s most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, “We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derrière now safely and comfortably ensconced in a multi-thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general’s taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don’t even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is.

Lord Acton (1834 – 1902) so aptly charged, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, Mr. Power has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is “Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat.” It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by “ma’am”?

Have a day. Cheers!

Bill Schoonover

3096 Angela Lane

Oak Harbor, WA 98277


Bring On the California Flat Tax!

July 7th, 2009

July 7, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-445-2841

Fax: 916-558-3160

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,

I just read a scathing article in the Huffington Post bashing you for blocking state legislators’ budget plans with your veto powers (they sound like something a superhero should have). H. Post insisted that you “wouldn’t take yes for an answer,” and that “Governors hadn’t issued IOU’s since the Great Depression,” or something to that effect. They even insinuated that the legislators’ budget proposals must have been brilliant simply because they were approved by the majority group in the state Senate. I am writing today to tell you that I am truly grateful that you listened to the California conservatives who bothered to show up and vote on the last ballot.

I have read several of your comments over the past week, and they said something to the effect that the taxpayers have spoken, there will be no tax increases, and anything to the contrary is subject to veto. Thanks for sending the Legislators packing multiple times as they scrambled to find a way to make the taxpayers compromise instead of their big-labor interest groups.

It takes nerves of steel to do what you are doing. It shows resolve which I find extraordinary in a California politician. Furthermore, I remember that you are up against a term limit, and I thank you for listening to the voters, even though we will not have the opportunity to vote for you again. Please know that I would if I could. I know that politicians get a bunch of derogatory mail, and I just wanted to take the opportunity to offer some encouragement.

Since I was writing anyway, perhaps I may make a few suggestions? First, please keep pushing the flat tax. It may be far-fetched, but the closer to that bench mark we can get, the better off California will be. There was an excellent graph in a recent Wall Street Journal article which simultaneously plotted Californian citizens income with revenues to the state. The two plots transposed show the amplification of economic downturns on state revenue which we owe to our ridiculously progressive tax structure. A flat tax is the solution. We could do it at less than 7% and the state would get along beatifully!


There are liberal bloggers who incorrectly assert that higher income Californians don’t pay a high enough share of the taxes, but this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the California tax structure. The wealthiest 1% of Californians pay more than half of the state’s revenue, and wealthy people don’t make as much money when the economy contracts. They guy flipping burger’s income doesn’t change. Of course you already know all this.

One last thing: under no circumstances are you to take federal dollars to make our budget gap. If you do, all is lost. You know as well as I that taking federal money at this point would be like giving a drink to a recovering alcoholic. Furthermore, let’s set California’s spending addiction aside for a moment; ask yourself weather the federal government ever provides money without strings attached. Not so.

I’ve just paid you several due compliments, and they were sincere, but if you seek federal money for our budget gap, I will do everything in my power to make the shit hit the fan. It would be simply intolerable.

I would like very much to read your thoughts on this. This letter, and any response from you, will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of readers per month will find it. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

To President Obama: On Healthcare

June 23rd, 2009

June 19, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing today about universal healthcare. I disapprove of your endeavor to provide healthcare as an entitlement to Americans. I have no illusions about my ability to change your mind, but I do enjoy sending you an email now and again to remind you that Americans didn’t actually “vote overwhelmingly for change,” as you enjoy saying. Americans only voted slightly in favor of change as your election victory last November was by just a few percent, which is nearer to President Bush’s election victory in 2004. But yours was against McCain! He can’t even email—he can’t even put on his own jacket!

So from the other half of America, from the half that you like to pretend doesn’t exist, here’s a new way to consider your healthcare plans. I won’t analyze specifics. Everyone is already doing that. Fox News will hammer you from the dissenting side, while ABC airs their thinly-veiled universal healthcare infomercial from the Whitehouse. I, however, want to look at the issue at its most-elemental level. I think that with respect to healthcare, the government has a conflict of interest. I will elaborate on why.

Let’s examine good healthcare. What makes “good” healthcare good? What sets it apart? One could assert that a good doctor is key, or a good pharmacist, hospital, dentist, nurse or therapist. One could substitute in any clinician type, facility, or combination of these after the word “good” to correctly answer the question, but this isn’t enough. If we stop there, we haven’t gained real insight. To effectively answer the good-healthcare question, we must look deeper. What is excellence in a doctor or hospital? How about a pharmacist or nurse? I expect that you are more accustomed to considering what makes “a good healthcare plan;” however, we must not let ourselves become fixated on just health plans if, consequentially, we forget what remains central to quality healthcare.

To get to the answer, let’s begin with a more specific question: what makes a good clinician? Clinicians enter their respective healthcare schools with different ambitions and motives, but once at these institutions, they all more or less have equal access to the same information; after graduation, they are all held to the same standard in the examination process. Clearly, we can’t declare clinicians to be good or bad based on their exam scores. The exams are pass/fail. If a clinician passed, the consumer can be reasonably assured that they are knowledgeably competent to practice medicine. However, almost any consumer will contend that there are indeed “good and poor” clinicians, even though we are assured (and rightly) that all licensed clinicians know their stuff. If knowledge is not the pivotal issue, what else is there?

Many patients would like to choose their own doctors based on perceived experience. Some patients are adamant that they don’t want “some kid fresh out of school” to be their doctor. Are consumers well served by applying the “experienced-is-better” rationale to choosing a clinician? Certainly surgeons and other specialists benefit from specific repeated experience, but when considering primary care doctors or one of the many varieties of non-M.D. clinicians, I’m not convinced that the new clinician fresh from school is any less desirable than the “old hand” who’s “seen it all.” Consider information, as it relates to medicine. Have you ever held a PDR? It is not possible for a clinician, regardless of their experience, to know everything in that reference. Nor is it necessary. Clinicians aren’t working on a desert island, and with the right computer skills, the entire world’s knowledge can be tapped from any computer—although accessing it efficiently is practically an art. Furthermore, it’s the art of the younger generation.

I postulate that young clinicians can find the information they need faster and more efficiently than old clinicians. I’m not a doctor, but I regularly use my Blackberry to find very precise information about anything in the world, at any time, from anywhere. My senior acquaintances are flabbergasted (and sometimes frustrated) that I can end a dinner-table debate by researching the correct answer to a question about some obscure/disputed fact—without even leaving my chair. Internet research and computer data sorting is an acquired skill that almost all young people possess. And I want for my doctor to be better at it than me.

If you accept the above two premises, we can generalize that good doctors aren’t distinguished by superior knowledge or even experience. There must be something else. Perhaps it is more motivational than practical.

Let’s look specifically at doctors and their motivation. We all understand that there are people who decide to be doctors because they want to make money, while others earn an M.D. because they feel somehow “called” to help others. There are indeed exceptions, other motives, and infinite shades of grey. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. I do however insist that at least some doctors fit well at one far end of this spectrum. I am acquainted with doctors from each motivational background. I feel comfortable generalizing that we would all rather visit the latter. I firmly believe that, more than knowledge or experience, this motivational foundation plants the seed for excellence in a doctor.

Since I have referenced motivation present before medical school or perhaps much earlier, the question remains: how do compassionately motivated clinicians distinguish themselves after medical school? Hold that thought.

Mr. President, I recall that you regularly praised your own federal healthcare system during your campaign. You repeatedly stated that your plan for nationalized healthcare was motivated by your desire for all Americans to share the high-quality healthcare system that you and John McCain have enjoyed as senators.

Mr. President, I believe that you have received excellent healthcare as a senator, and I believe that you are genuine when you state that you desire for all Americans to have access to this same healthcare. However, your statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how healthcare works. I am familiar with your background, and I don’t fault you for lacking healthcare experience, but please listen to people who are pros in the industry: your health plan had absolutely nothing to do with the superb quality of healthcare you received as a senator.

I am familiar with your doctor in Chicago. I know he is a reputable man who is part of a practice which has treated the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I know he treats regular folks too. When your doctor gets a call stating that Senator Obama wants to come in to have something looked at, he initiates the VIP treatment sequence. He gives you your pick of times. He moves someone else if necessary. You will not have another patient scheduled immediately after you. He will not be pressed for time. He won’t keep you waiting in his lobby for any length of time, and he will generally make you feel like you are his only patient. In short, your whole experience will be ideal in every way. The excellence in this healthcare situation has, at its core, focused individual attention on you, the patient.

If you are honest with yourself, I don’t think you could possibly believe that giving every American access to the same health plan that you and senator McCain enjoy will really mean that all Americans will have access to the superb care that you enjoyed. I can promise you that the average citizen insured by Medicare or Medicaid who reads this letter will testify that their doctor’s visits are nothing like the scenario described above. Nor will they be if the average citizen is covered by the federal plan. The above example, however, is helpful. We have found the true root of excellence in healthcare: attentiveness to the individual. That’s what puts the “good” in good healthcare. Taking time give the patient individual attention and dignity is the main way for compassionately motivated doctors to distinguish themselves. It’s what we all seek in a personal physician, or any other clinician. When the current US healthcare system has a shining moment, it’s the reason.

But individual attention isn’t at all what the government does. In fact, the government isn’t supposed to cater to individually to any one. It’s practically unconstitutional. The government’s role is to seek the best interest and the greater good for the populace. That will always be its motivating priority. This is the conflict of interest I referenced at the beginning of this letter. And when the government tries to apply its greater good motivation to a system that should focus on the individual good, the resulting compromise is a mess. Here is an example that well illustrates my point.

Last June, Barbara Wagner, an Oregonian, was denied access to doctor-prescribed chemotherapy by the Oregon Health Plan, because her prognosis was poor and the chemo was expensive in excess of $4000 per month. Instead, Ms. Wagner was offered access to state-sponsored doctor-assisted suicide. As you know, Oregon is the only state currently offering this service.


Thankfully, Ms. Wagner didn’t take the state’s offer, and the pharmaceutical company provided her with the chemo pro-bono after learning of her plight. Ms. Wagner’s story makes us uncomfortable. It’s cold and impersonal. If we look at the issue through the lens of government vs. healthcare priorities, it becomes apparent why. The Oregonian government was trying to do something which no government is equipped to do.

Governments are only equipped to address the needs of the greater good, and governments can’t consider everyone’s individual circumstances. When government tries to make healthcare decisions about an individual using the “greater good” as a priority, we end up with chilling stories like Barbara Wagner’s.

To punctuate the example, please don’t miss that the pharmaceutical company interceded to save the day. It’s imperative to notice that as soon as the problem was apparent to the private health-care sector, even the commercialized pharmaceutical company couldn’t keep from re-personalizing the situation to correct it.

This difference in priorities is the fundamental reason why your proposal for government run healthcare won’t work. It will rely on government rationing to preserve the interests of the greater good. People in need will fall through the cracks. I might point out that in our present system nobody is turned away from an emergency room for lack of insurance coverage.

But you don’t acknowledge this. Instead you have created a false dilemma. You have taken the large number of uninsured Americans, lumped them together, and put a label on them which reads, “Cannot Access Healthcare.” You tout the uninsured Americans as people who “the system has failed,” but this is untrue. The majority of the uninsured Americans included in your figures are healthy adults, usually younger adults, who choose not to purchase health insurance because their priorities are different.

For a healthy adult, private health insurance can be purchased under our current system, from a private vender, for just a few hundred dollars per month. This might sound expensive, but consider that the cost of a good policy is about same as a monthly cell phone bill plus two or three social evenings out. It becomes immediately clear that the vast majority of citizens included in your statistic could choose to make sacrifices which would then give enough money to purchase healthcare. I fall into this category, and I choose to have the cell phone and a social life, so I have no health insurance. Don’t falsely label me as some victim. I take exception to it.

As you continue to push a overspending/entitlement agenda, consider this promise. If you continue to believe that you have the full faith of the “overwhelming” majority of Americans, I can assure you that you will not be re-elected in 2012. Be honest with yourself, and consider whether you truly believe that you could beat a hispanic republican candidate from California, Florida, or New York in 2012. Forget George Bush’s public speaking skills or McCain’s pathetic—everything. You will not be given an easy opponent in 2012, and the way things are going, there will be plenty wrong for him or her to point out.

I would be very interested to read your response to my criticism. I hope this finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

A note from Admin: A Politician Responds

June 12th, 2009

On May 31, 2009 I wrote to Congressman Duncan D. Hunter concerning transparency in the Dept. of Justice and our governent in general. My letter to Congressman Hunter is linked below:


Today Congressman Hunter responded. His letter to me is posted below. Thanks to Congressman Hunter for attentiveness to his constituent.


Duncan Hunter’s Response to: Will Congressman Duncun Hunter Fight for Transparency?

June 12th, 2009

June 12, 2009

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me with your support for transparency and accountability in our government. I welcome the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.

While I realize that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains the authority to advance or dismiss cases of interest, I strongly share your concerns with the abrupt dismissal of cases against members of the New Black Panther Party regarding potential voter intimidation. It is important that DOJ investigate and prosecute these cases consistently and fairly in order to ensure that voters do not feel threatened when exercising their constitutional right on Election Day.

You will be pleased to learn that Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee have sent a letter to the DOJ requesting that they explain the procedure used to determine the case’s dismissal. While the DOJ is only required to report to Congress on decisions to not defend the constitutionality of a measure, my Republican colleagues and I are expecting an official response from the DOJ on this particular issue. Please be assured that I will continue to closely monitor this matter with your thoughts closely in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.


Duncan Hunter, Member of Congress

California to Shift to the Right

June 11th, 2009

June 10, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-445-2841

Fax: 916-558-3160

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,

As I write, California is in fiscal meltdown. We’ve never met, so I don’t know if you give occasion to strong drink, but if you don’t, there’s never been a better time to start. I’m a native San Diegan (they are harder to find here than you would think), and I regularly traverse California to visit or work. In other words, as an observer, I have seen the whole state, and I have seen it recently. I’m flabbergasted that a State which has been blessed with so much could have mismanaged itself to the point that we have nothing. To the average citizen like me, it’s rather like a story about some lucky chap winning a billion dollars in prize money Saturday morning, but somehow managing to blow it all by lunchtime Monday. What gives? California is so great that it seems you could try your hardest and still not wreck it.

Consider all that California has/had, revenue wise and otherwise, in its favor: sales tax, tourism dollars, vast industry, ports, grand weather, mild climate, national parks, oil, beaches, ethnic diversity, big money in Hollywood, big money in Silicone Valley, Proposition 8, the OC, Carrie Prejean, and Bakersfield.. Well, maybe not Bakersfield, but those other things… Not to mention we boasted some of the most inflated (taxable) property values in the US.

In fact, while I’m at work (it’s become bragging for one to remark that one is employed), I get to speak with people from all over the US and they always envy me when the learn I’m calling from California, “Oh my goodness, you’re so lucky!” When I traveled Ireland Irish folks would always ask “where’s home?” and my travel companion consistently replied that we are American. I had to nudge him and say, “Dude, you can just say you’re from California—San Diego even; people everywhere know California.”

But what did California do with all its revenue while the economy was booming? You spent it all, and then you inflated the California bureaucracy until every dollar coming in was spent before you had it. Finally, you created a tax structure, designed to overtax people who are trying to build wealth, which is so progressive, that when the economy falters, and the wealthy don’t make any money, California’s house of cards topples. Am I being unfair?

One might retort that the US recession beginning last fall is what killed California, and other states are suffering to a similar degree. If that’s true, then Texas and Montana didn’t get the memo. I understand that it becomes tedious to budget a state when times get hard, but others have proven that it is possible, and of all the states, California had the best chance with all its resources. But chance favors the well prepared. And the only thing for which California was well prepared was a tax increase.

The problem was that the only people who took out time to go and vote the last ballot were conservatives—big problem for California bureaucrats. This brings me to your response to the vote. You said something to the effect that: the citizens have spoken clearly, and there will be no tax increases, and the only way to close the budget gap will be draconian cuts to spending. Until now, Governor, I had been frustrated with your lack of a willingness to cut entitlement spending. I’ll be honest, I probably said some unprintable things about your past policies; however, when I read the aforementioned remark, you saying that the voters have spoken and that you are going back to the drawing board, I was ready to forgive all.

For once in my voting career, I believed that a politician got the message and responded—not to opinion polls like President Obama, but to an actual vote. To read your spoken words stating that you were going to adapt your governing style to better suit your constituent’s wishes made me feel very American—if not Californian. Other politicians have been criticized for “flip flopping” to concede to the popular opinion, but I would defend you against any criticisms to this effect. I think this is what a good politician does. Thank you for it.

Now, you’re talking about flat taxes and cutting welfare. I propose ending Medi-Cal too. How about informing every welfare recipient that there welfare checks will decrease in size by 10% of their present value each month for the next ten months. Then, we’ll see if there are really jobs that “Americans won’t do.” How much would that save? I would calculate it for you but I am certain that I already pay a state employee to do it.

You publicly stated to state legislators that you wanted to hear their ideas even if they were unorthodox or drastic. I’m not sure what ideas you got back, but the state legislators are the ones who ruined California in the first place, so perhaps you should entertain ideas from normal citizens like me instead.

Here’s a delicious pretend scenario. I understand I sound crazy to the uninitiated, but so does bankrupting California, so you had better read on. Imagine that Friday afternoon, California ends welfare and Medicaid. By Sunday, there will be a steady flow of clunkers rolling across state lines into Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. Freeloaders will flee California like it’s a burning building. Many will choose to stay on and they will take jobs that Americans “formerly would not do.”

By Monday, I predict that wealth of the average Californian will increase by 5%. Our energy usage and pollution will decrease. Traffic and congestion in cities will decrease. Overcrowding in schools—done. I’ll be able to find a parking spot at Wal-mart, and we can end water rationing in San Diego. It will accomplish in one week, everything that Californians want but don’t know how to get. Again, I’m not proposing forcing anyone to leave, we will simply take away the reason for the freeloaders to stay, and the folks who are willing to work hard will stick around. If you impose a flat tax, California will gain one taxpayer for each and every citizen that replaces an illegal immigrant picking strawberries or working construction.

This sure beats emptying out our prisons on to the street. Do you agree?

I would like very much to read your thoughts on this. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

To Benjamin Netanyahu: The World is Watching

June 8th, 2009

June 9, 2009

Benjamin Netanyahu

C/O Israeli Embassy

3514 International Dr. N.W

Washington, DC 20008

Dear Benjamin Netanyahu,

As I write you, you are likely preparing for your speech later this week in response to pressure from President Obama urging you to concede land and resources in a two-state compromise with the Palestinians—while simultaneously accepting Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Netanyahu, on behalf of the one half of America who disapproves of President Obama’s foreign policy concerning Israel, please accept my (our) apology. I’ll assume that you are savvy enough to have foreseen this so that none of this came as a surprise to Israel. I certainly saw it coming. So assuming that you did too, and you have had months to form a plan, what are your intentions?

As I see it, these are really two separate issues. I believe that I can speak for the majority of Americans when I say that we are not overly concerned about the Palestinian peace agreement issue. The average American will see any future conflict between IDF and Palestinian rebel groups as mere business as usual; furthermore, we tend to see Israeli defense as mighty, while we regard the Palestinian individuals who choose to aggress, as overly eager to meet the 70 virgins.

In other words, to the average American, Israel can handle itself against the likes of the PLO and Hammass. I hope that you will not think me too callous. I know I must sound rather cavalier about a serious issue. Please let me explain. I know that these are dangerous entities, and I understand that innocent Israeli citizens die weekly secondary to attacks from these groups, but Americans have a funny way of processing information.

Americans, and probably Israelis too, are bombarded daily with vast quantities of information. Indeed, we cannot sort each piece of information in a way that gives it the individual attention that would render a perfect understanding. So here’s what we do instead: we classify, categorize, stereotype, and otherwise file information in our brains in ways that require less thought and attention. That said, most Americans who can find Israel on a map (those are also the ones who vote), regard IDF and Israeli intelligence with a sort of mystique—an other-worldly strength and resolve. We regard Israeli soldiers as brilliantly strong, well-trained, and battle hardened. I’m not even sure if our preconceived notions are accurate. However, true or not, an outsider like me looks at Israel on the map, sees it surrounded by blood-lusting enemies, and concludes that it must be true—after all you’re still there.

I’m telling you this, because I believe that a peace resolution is low on everyone’s priority list. Even if a two-party state were agreed upon, the agreement would be promptly broken by PLO and Hammass terrorists. These terrorists make their living, their very livelihood, attacking Israel. They don’t want to end fighting any more than Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want to end perceived racism. They would be jobless, and would lose the only thing from which they draw self worth.

So, I wouldn’t devote more than three sentences of your speech to discussing Palestinian peace agreements. Better yet, ignore it completely. The pressing topic is indeed Iranian nuclear weapons. By making it the sole topic of your speech, you would send a strong message about the issue’s importance and Israel’s resolve to not get nuked.

I was flabbergasted last week when President Obama addressed the Muslim world and stated that no country (us) was qualified to dictate whether another country (Iran) should/could have a nuclear program. Again Mr. Netanyahu, my apologies. President Obama just publicly threw in the towel on any future interdiction by the USA into Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. I’m educated in nuclear physics, and I’ve seen how easy it is to assemble a warhead once one has a fissionable quantity of Uranium 235. Be assured that it will be mere days between enrichment completion and bomb completion. One can only speculate how much time would pass between bomb completion and bomb detonation. I have to assume that Israel has been contemplating this scenario for some time. What will you do?

Consider the following pretend situation: I’m relaxing in my living room, and a group of thugs start kicking at my door, trying to get in. I grab my firearm, get between the aggressors and my family, and I call the police. However, when I finally get the police on the phone (in America we often have to hold first) they tell me that they won’t be sending police to protect my family. The attackers are ethnically/religiously different from the police officers and they don’t want to risk offending anyone. Furthermore, they tell me that because the police would have to threaten the criminals with weapons to intercede, and threatening me with weapons is what the criminals are doing, it would be hypocritical for the police to intercede. In essence, this scenario is the same thing that the USA has just done to Israel.

I understand that your speech will be to the Israelis, but know that news savvy Americans will be tuned in. If you use language and imagery like I used in the preceding paragraph, it will shake things up. President Obama will be in a tough spot, because Americans are proud, and they will not like being criticized by a foreign ally. They will also see that you are right. President Obama will have to choose between backing Israel and losing popularity. We’ll hope he chooses backing Israel.

If he doesn’t, you are going to have to destroy those enrichment facilities by whatever means necessary. Still not convinced? Read John Hersey’s Hiroshima. While you read it, know that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium 235 fission reaction. America chose the U-235 bomb for the first A-bomb drop on Japan because it was exceedingly simple, and they were 100% confident that it would work.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


P.S. Those pretend bad guys, from the pretend scenario, are pushing up pretend daisies.

Writing to Germany’s Chancellor Merkel

June 7th, 2009

The Following letter is to Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel: Forbes 2008 “world’s most powerful woman.”

June 5, 2009


Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Straße 1

10557 Berlin

Dear Chancellor Angela Merkel,

I read some recent articles claiming that there is disagreement between you and President Obama. I wanted to take this opportunity to send you my comments on US fiscal policy. I am a US citizen writing from San Diego, California, USA. I’m fiscally conservative, and I object to President Obama’s fiscal policies. There is rumor going around that you do too.



I did not know until now that Germany’s Chancellor was right-leaning. Many Americans shun politics altogether, and very few follow European politics. What I thought I knew about Germany’s government turned out to be misconception. American conservatives, like me, often dismiss all European politicians as far-left socialists; however, I have now read that you often take conservative stances. I was pleased to hear that you once worked toward allowing German companies to rid themselves of non-productive employees. I was also pleased to hear that lately you have spoken out about the FED and their expanded influence on the capital markets. Finally, it is my understanding that you worry about Weimar-Republic-like inflation from the vast amount of printed money western governments are dumping into the financial system. Indeed, about half of Americans are worried too.

As you know, our federal government is spending taxpayer money like they had their own printing presses—tragically, they do. After reading about you, I believe that you understand clearly where our overspending will land us (all of us). I am writing to ask you to continue to express you disapproval for American’s overspending/socialization policies. I know that President Obama is popular among Germans, and I know that to speak out against his policies might not win German popularity contests; however, if you express your dissent in a way that criticizes specific fiscal policies, and not the man, perhaps President Obama will cave under the pressure.


President Obama is on record many times stating that America, under President Bush, was too arrogant to listen to input from other nations. If you stand up for common sense fiscal policy, I believe it will embolden other leaders to follow your example. Then, if President Obama shrugs it off, the American conservative press will bring the hammer down. Conservative bloggers like me will nail him on it.

As you read this, or as you consider how you will address the growing concern of American overspending, I beg you to keep in mind that America is a right-of-center nation. I know that it will seem almost impossible to believe that, but the polls don’t lie. Indeed, on the issues, the majority of Americans disagree with President Obama in most cases. However, his approval rating remains high. What you are seeing is a personality cult which has emerged.

President Obama’s charisma and speaking ability offered sharp contrast to President Bush. President Obama’s voters either didn’t bother to understand his stance on the issues, or they picked one or two issues to chase (either the Iraq war or universal healthcare), and they voted with their core issue as their ideology. But there are still soldiers killed daily in Iraq, and Americans are no closer to universal healthcare.

I am writing all this to you because I believe that soon Americans will wise up and once again hold their elected officials accountable. Furthermore, the most effective catalyst for this reawakening will be for respected European leaders, like you, to voice disapproval of irresponsible American fiscal policies. At a certain level, most Americans (at least the ones will take the time to go out and vote) have enough pride to be annoyed when European leaders criticize us. European leader’s criticism of President Bush’s foreign campaigns was one reason why President Bush’s popularity plummeted. If President Obama is taking heat from Germany’s Chancellor, his personality cult will have a hurtle to overcome. If other leaders begin to criticize too, then he will have to conform or face a loss in 2012. Perhaps you could publicly suggest that President Obama balance the American Budget? If you do, I will send you a dozen roses.

I would enjoy reading your remarks on my suggestions or ideas. This email and any response from you will be posted on dailyletter.net where thousands of viewers per month will read them. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


WTF? Dictators, Kings, and Hypocrites

June 3rd, 2009

June 3, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing today about some comments that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez recently made. In a Venezuelan television broadcast, socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, remarked to Cuban communist dictator, Fidel Castro, that:

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,”


I just thought you would like to know. Maybe you should have your people call his people. I don’t think he got the memo that Americans aren’t supposed to know that you are socializing them. It’s still a secret, remember?

I believe I can objectively see what is going on, but I am powerless to stop you. All I can do is put this on my web site and hope that a few hundred extra people see it and share. Perhaps by 2012 enough Americans will get a clue and we can send you to retirement. Right now, we deserve what we’re getting.

At the moment, I think you are still in Saudi Arabia. Enjoy the lavish lifestyle as the Saudi King’s guest. Remember that we are paying at the pump for the gold necklace with which he presented you and your luxurious accommodations in Saudi Arabia.


You should chat with the Saudi King about cap-and-trade and global warming. That might be good for a few laughs.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Is President Obama Endorsing a Dictatorship?

June 2nd, 2009

June 2, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing today about your up-coming trip to Europe and the Middle East. It is my understanding that, as part of your tour, you intend to address the Muslim world from Cairo in an effort to extend a hand of reconciliation to the world’s Muslim community. This comes at a pivotal time considering that the proxy war between Iran and the United States, which is fought between Hezbollah and Israel, will soon have a nuclear component. There are many issues surrounding the Iran nuclear debate which will continue to offer fodder for heated debate in the months to come; however, I wanted to write to you today to address a more subtle aspect of your trip.

You chose to make Egypt the location for your address. I expect that you would defend your choice because of Cairo’s vast Muslim population (on the order of 20 million), and the opportunity it affords to reach so many Muslims in close geospatial proximity. However, what else do we know about Cairo and more generally Egypt? What most Americans don’t know is that it has ceased to be a democracy. Egypt’s current administration, which has been in power for more than 20 years, has taken away their citizens ability to cast a free vote.

On Egypt’s last presidential election day, the polling places were blocked by police, in full riot attire, who were under orders to prevent access to citizens who were not there to vote for the current administration. Furthermore, the only viable contender to overthrow Egypt’s current political administration (Ayman Nour) was actually jailed for three years by the current Egyptian regime. Don’t take my word for it, it’s all on Wikipedia.

“placed draconian restrictions on the filing for presidential candidacies, designed to prevent well-known candidates such as Ayman Nour from standing against Mubarak, and paved the road for his easy re-election victory. Concerns were once again expressed after the 2005 presidential elections about government interference in the election process through fraud and vote-rigging, in addition to police brutality and violence by pro-Mubarak supporters against opposition demonstrators. After the election, Egypt imprisoned Nour, and the U.S. Government stated the ‘conviction of Mr. Nour, the runner-up in Egypt’s 2005 presidential elections, calls into question Egypt’s commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.’”


So there you have it: Egypt is a dictatorship that imprisons rival political opponents and rigs elections with voter fraud and police brutality. Do you believe that when a US president arrives in a dictatorship like Egypt, which they have hand picked as their ideal place to extend a hand of reconciliation to the Muslim world, they condone Egypt’s deplorable political practices? If not, will you please publicly state that you do not condone the present administration in Egypt? Or are you relying on the average American’s predominant mental image of Egypt’s ancient past to obscure their perception of the political injustices of Egypt’s present regime?

Your predecessor, President Bush, was a champion of spreading and endorsing democracy in the Middle East. For all his faults, I grant him this merit. It is my observation that you are far more concerned with endorsing political correctness than democracy. What is your response to my critique?

I hope this finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Will Congressman Duncun Hunter Fight for Transparency?

May 31st, 2009

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/06/12/duncan-hunters-response-to-will-congressman-duncun-hunter-fight-for-transparency/

May 31, 2009

Congressman Duncan Hunter

1429 Longworth House Office Building

Washington D.C. 20515.

Dear Congressman Hunter,

I recently read a story in the Washington Times that made me uncomfortable with the lack of transparency in President’s Obama’s administration. The article concerned Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama’s appointee, and his office’s interference into a legitimate prosecution which was under litigation by career attorneys in the Dept. of Justice.

Everyone remembers the amateur video taken at a polling place last November where armed Black Panthers intimidated voters who they felt were not there to vote for President Obama. They looked like prison guards with their clubs and all-black military fatigues. Frankly, their clear attempt at intimidation, and the fact that it was implemented at a polling place by an openly racist organization, was wrong—criminal. In my opinion, they risked setting back race relations 50 years.


Apparently, honest DOJ attorneys agree with me. They prepared a case against the armed Black Panthers shown in the video and, as recently as May 5th, told reporters that they were certain of a victory in civil court. However, just day’s before trial, the attorneys were ordered from higher-ups to drop the case. Furthermore, they were ordered not to reveal who mandated it or why the prosecution was ordered to stand down. In this case, the perpetrators will be allowed off the hook with no consequences for their irresponsibility.

What most troubles me about this case is that the DOJ appointed officials are not required to give any account of their rationale or logic behind their order to drop this case. Considering that President Obama campaigned on the promise that his administration would be transparent in every case in which transparency wouldn’t jeopardize national security, isn’t it reasonable to ask that they be required to answer to their constituency for decisions like this? I think that it is.

Congressman Hunter, I have followed your activities closely since your election last year. Generally I have been very pleased. I also know that you like to take a leadership role in Congress. It would please me very much if you would draft a proposal to present to Congress that would legally mandate transparency in every political circumstance except where secrecy is vital to security. Please propose that it should literally be criminal to decline to answer a question about a decision made by an elected or appointed official. If a process consumed tax-payer resources, including the politician’s time, the process, decisions, and rationale should be considered public domain—warranting answers on the record.

Politicians would consider their decisions carefully if they knew in advance that they would be required to give a public account, on the record, for their actions. In other words, if a story was low-security enough to make headlines in the Washington Times, the DOJ should not be able to keep details concerning their decisions about that case secret. After all, they work for us. Obviously telling a lie—Pelosi style, is an express ticket to retirement. Could any honest person argue that this would be a bad thing?

You should draft a bill to this effect and put it out there. Heaven knows that scores of politicians would be uncomfortable with the proposed increased accountability, and I doubt it would pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress, but it might at least serve as a litmus test to reveal who is faithfully serving their constituency and who is not. What I mean to say is this: the bill I am asking you to draft/propose would make the average citizen like me happy, so any politician who opposed it would open themselves up to criticism from their next challenger. They would have some pretty difficult questions to answer if they weren’t supportive of a transparency bill.

Presently, Americans have an all-time low trust in their represented officials. I believe that a return to political transparency/accountability to constituents is a step in the right direction for today’s America. The average citizen doesn’t even expect that their elected/appointed officials are telling them the truth. How can a citizen believe that they can affect policy when they don’t even trust that they get straight answers? I should add that this problem transcends both parties, although I believe that you’re honest.

From zip code 92021, the heart of your district, thanks for your quality representation. My opinion of Congress, taken as a whole, is low, but you are one of the few Congressmen with merit.

I will be interested to read your thoughts on this suggestion. This letter and any response that you send me are published on dailyletter.net where I reach thousands of readers each month. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —-

San Diego, CA 92021

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/06/12/duncan-hunters-response-to-will-congressman-duncun-hunter-fight-for-transparency/

A note from admin: A Politician Response

May 28th, 2009

On May 17, 2009 I wrote to Congressman Duncan D. Hunter concerning his proposed ADA Notification Act and how and federalist distribution of powers relates to this act and, more generally, our whole country. My letter to Congressman Hunter is linked below:


Today Congressman Hunter responded. His letter to me is posted below. Thanks to Congressman Hunter for attentiveness to his constituent.


Duncan Hunter Responds to: Is Congressman Duncan Hunter for State’s Self Rule?

May 28th, 2009

May 28, 2009

Mr. David Rasner

PO Box 2—–

San Diego, CA 92101

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me with your support and thoughts regarding my legislation, H.R. 2397, the ADA Notification Act. It’s good to hear from you.

As you are aware, I introduced this legislation in an effort to protect small businesses from predatory lawsuits alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I appreciate your specific ideas on how to garner support for this bill. I share your position that the Constitution provides to states non-enumerated powers, as outlined by the Tenth Amendment. Recent actions by the President and Congress, including the massive economic stimulus legislation recently signed into law, are resulting in a substantial increase in federal control and authority.

Particularly disturbing are the increasing number of unfunded mandates that continue to be proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Legislation recently passed by Congress dictate how states are to run these programs, without providing the necessary funding. These are some of the reasons that I voted against the stimulus package considered by Congress, as well as the President’s recent budget.

Instead of spending federal dollars to continue to bailout struggling institutions, I believe that we need to focus on finding solutions that empower individuals and businesses to succeed in the economy rather than creating regulations that make them more dependent on the federal government. We can do this by including marginal income tax cuts for all working American families and immediate tax cuts for small businesses, which employ half of all American workers. Instead of passing more spending bills, we need to look at practical, sensible solutions that put Americans back to work and put our economy back on track.

Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to your continued input and if you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.


Duncan Hunter

Member of Congress

Is Homeland Security Calling Me Racist?

May 26th, 2009

May 25, 2009

Secretary Janet Napolitano

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Janet Napolitano,

I am writing today about the recent report you released to state and local law enforcement sharing the Dept of Homeland Security’s findings on right-wing extremism. I’ve just read it.


I thought that I would take this opportunity to share a few comments on the memo. I should be up front about my bias. I am indeed a right-winger, and I have little doubt that you would consider me to be extreme; however, I have no ambition to carry out violent or illegal activity. I will simply vote my conscience, and be a faithful ambassador to all, for our nations founding principles. Sorry to disappoint.

The above-mentioned report, which is entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Change Refueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” outlines possible reasons why our nation could see growth of conservative extremist groups. The format is uniform throughout. The study lists topics which is important to conservatives. Examples include: the economy, illegal immigration, and gun control; then, it repeats after each topic that:

“Threats…have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts… nevertheless, could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists

Frankly, the document is what I would expect from the department which has lately done little more than patrol the press as PC police. The only serious comment I have about the memo concerns your reference to right-wing extremist’s dissent of the “historical 2008 presidential election.” This is an absolute lie. One often hears that people fear things they don’t understand. Perhaps this is case and point. I feel compelled to clarify that right-wing refers to political stance—a conservative political stance—a colorblind political stance. Since when did hatred toward race minorities become a conservative stance? I guess Allen Keys and Michael Steele didn’t “get the memo”.

But seriously, “racism” (rac⋅ism [rey-siz-uh m] –you might want to look it up) is not part of the conservative political belief. There are “racists,” who happen to share views with right-wingers, like antipathy towards abortion or government overspending, but you must not label racist views as conservative. I will not tolerate it.

I know you to be liberal, so I will ask you a direct question. How would you have felt if the FBI, under Bush, had released a document which asserted that pedophilia was a liberal viewpoint because most pedophiles vote democrat? Poor form indeed.

Secretary Napolitano, I demand that you amend your memo so that it no longer portrays hatred toward African Americans as a right-wing political viewpoint.

Also, I was amused that DHS would send this memo to cops expecting them to play ball. It shows how out of touch you have become. Did you forget that police department ranks are full of conservatives? Just what variety of citizen do you think elects to strap on a gun every day to shepherd the masses? If I had to bet, I would wager that one could count on two hands and a foot, the number of nation-wide card-carrying ACLU member cops—but how many cops are carrying NRA cards? To be blunt, cops aren’t on playing for your team.

Here’s an example of what I mean. The memo states that,

“The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement

This is simply not true. Cops like guns and ammo. They liked them before they were cops, and they like them now. They also understand why other people like them too, and they understand why people buy lots of ammo because they think it might be rationed or outlawed down the road. In short, it’s what they would do if they were not police officers. Furthermore, they won’t appreciate second-amendment infringing firearms regulations. If such laws pass, cops will turn a blind eye.

What? You say cops turning a blind eye could never happen? Consider the DHS’s will to enforce immigration law; then, tell me honestly that it is beyond law enforcement to selectively enforce laws based on their political beliefs. You could not.

I would be very interested to read your response to my criticism. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

Is Congressman Duncan Hunter for State’s Self Rule?

May 17th, 2009

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/05/28/response-to-is-congressman-duncan-hunter-for-state%e2%80%99s-self-rule/

May 17, 2009

Congressman Duncan Hunter

1429 Longworth House Office Building

Washington D.C. 20515.

Dear Congressman Hunter,

I’m a native to your district, and I still reside there. I was just on your web site going over your recent votes, and I was pleased to see that you have well represented me as a congressman. I can’t say the same for our congress taken as a whole, but District 52 is solid.

On your site, you outline a bill which you have introduced called the, “ADA Notification Act.” The act seems to protect businesses from frivolous law suits by giving businesses 90 days to correct violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act before litigation can begin against them. On principle I agree with what you want to do. Few things make me more frustrated than frivolous law suits. I support this bill. District 52, especially the valley in El Cajon, CA is full of small business who will by thrilled with this extra protection.

I’m not writing you with suggestions about the details of your bill, but I want to discuss how you sell it to your peers in congress. As you know, language and word choice are powerful tools. I believe that it’s possible to pitch a bill like the ADA Notification Act, while simultaneously reinforcing a broader message.

As you are certainly aware, there is a budding conservative/federalist movement centered on power shifting from the federal government back to the states. Most of the current legislative work to be done is at the state level, and frankly, I don’t expect California to participate much anyway. However, state-level legislature in other places, like the Montana Firearms Freedom act, will hopefully begin to popularize the idea that states should be less dependent on federal regulation. As this idea becomes popular with normal folks like me (I think it will), there will be opportunity for US congressmen like you to begin discussing new proposed bills using language crafted to remind other legislators and constituents that state self rule was the intention of the constitutional framers.

If you are in agreement with the premise that a power shift from Washington to the states is good, I believe that your proposed ADA Notification Act offers an opportunity to make a few remarks that show other legislators and your constituency that you welcome this new facet of “change.” For instance, when you pitch the virtue of protecting small businesses from frivolous ADA law suits, try pointing out that the Americans with Disabilities act was ill-advised from the start. Point out that when the federal government found another way to micromanage small businesses, the life blood of our country, greed took over and the Government’s well-meant idea became a leech and burden on America’s productivity. Isn’t that how it usually happens?

Thanks again for voting with common sense. Thanks for the ADA Notification Act. Any legislator who doesn’t vote for it must be “on the take” from some slip-and-fall lawyer. Name names! Don’t let them get away with it.

I would be interested to read your thoughts on this suggestion or the greater issue of state control. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —-

San Diego, CA 92021

This letter has been responded to: http://dailyletter.net/2009/05/28/response-to-is-congressman-duncan-hunter-for-state%e2%80%99s-self-rule/

Waterboard President Obama?

May 16th, 2009

May 16, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing today about enhanced interrogation. Lately this has become a politicized issue. The left did their best to use it to attack the Bush administration, and now conservatives are using it to topple Speaker Pelosi. This is all fine. I understand that this is how politics work in America; however, when the dust settles and the press and politicians find new fodder for their gossip, you will still be charged with your constituency’s safety.

It is now regarded as fact that, on at least one occasion, the Bush administration successfully used waterboarding to prevent a terrorist attack on Los Angeles. I know that you tried hard to suppress this knowledge by releasing an incomplete account of the events, but the conservatives are not going to let that stand. You must remember that, both then and now, the protection of our nation is mostly the responsibility of conservatives. In other words, our military, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, and even police are organizations full of conservatives. If their work, which has kept Americans safe, is misrepresented by an incomplete record of the facts they are going to leak the truth—classified or not. And if/when they’re busted for it, we’ll look to Sandy Berger’s classified info leak as legal precedent.

Furthermore, the conservative core in these national defense organizations isn’t “changeable” during your presidency. These are the men and women who wake up every morning and strap on guns to go to work—and they wouldn’t have it any other way. Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, react to firearms like they react to venomous snakes; they see a gun, and they take about three steps back. Strap one on? They’re uncomfortable just looking at a gun! It is, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the task of conservatives to protect Americans from terrorist violence. You can’t change that by appointing Janet Napolitano as DHS secretary.

Americans will eventually get the truth about waterboarding and its past results. Frankly, Mr. President, I have been very critical of President Bush’s policies taken as a whole, but I suspect that, history will show, preventing post 9-11 terrorist attacks on American soil was something his administration got right. Forget what the ACLU tells you. Use your own reasoning. Don’t worry about answering me on this; but have you ever honestly asked yourself whether or not it is reasonable to cause acute distress to a terrorist under enhanced interrogation in order to save thousands of American lives? I don’t mean disfigurement torture, like pulling off fingernails; I mean beating-around-the-Bush “enhanced interrogation” like waterboarding. Ask yourself whether it would be worth it? More importantly, what do you think the average American would say?

I suspect that your reasons for ending enhanced interrogation were based on improving America’s world-stage image and its integrity based on the principle of human treatment. Am I correct? What if there was a way that you could have it all: if you could “extract” the intelligence without damaging America’s integrity, would you do it? How far would you be willing to go—would you be willing to get out of your comfort zone to make a terrorist talk? I respectfully ask you to consider these questions while you read the read the next few paragraphs.

You are a vastly educated man. I trust that you are familiar with the ancient battle strategy called “Champions.” Of course, deciding a battle by Champions means that two armies agree to each field a warrior to fight in a representative battle. In theory, a battle can be decided with the death of one man instead of thousands. The most famous example of a battle decision by champions is from the Old Testament—David and Goliath. In this example, David the Hebrew shepherd, fought as a champion against Goliath, not because he was greatly qualified—but because he had the courage when nobody else did. Again, please consider this story as you read the rest of my letter. I promise I will eventually relate it to waterboarding.

When we argue about waterboarding, the argument often includes a remark from the conservative side that insists something to the effect that waterboarding can’t be real torture because we do it to our own military as part of their SERE training. Liberals reasonably retort by saying that the waterboarding is certainly harsher when it’s real interrogation than when a fighter pilot or a SEAL is being waterboarded by their piers. I can’t make that call. There are probably only a handful of people in the world who have enough experience in both environments to make this observation objectively, and they wouldn’t be allowed to comment anyway. So all of the above banter gets us nowhere. We do indeed have Americans who are voluntarily waterboarded, but are the waterboardings actually identical?

I propose making them identical—literally. I’m an engineer. I will design you a dual waterboarding apparatus. The two waterboardees would be mechanically linked so that all of their dunking intervals are identical. Of course, one man strapped to the board would be the terrorist, and the other would be a volunteer—a good guy—our champion. They would be in the same room…back to back even. All of the shouting and intimidation directed at the terrorist would be directed at both of them. They would both be blindfolded, and the interrogation would progress exactly like past successful waterboardings except there would be one new rule: if the volunteer says stop—game over.

I understand that I probably sound crazy to the uninitiated, and it’s about to get worse. If I was president, and I had personally taken responsibility for authorizing this administration of waterboarding to this terrorist, I would insist that the “good guy” getting waterboarded alongside of the terrorist was me. This battle between champions would be epic. Our leader acting with complete integrity above all reproach would be locked in an endurance contest between good and evil—who will break first, the man motivated by hate or the man motivated by love? Does the latter man endure waterboarding with “a righteous wind at his back?” Although in this example everybody lives, one cannot ignore the messianic symbolism.

So there it is. I’ve thought really hard about it and this is the only way that you can get the intelligence while maintaining your own, and America’s, integrity based on humane treatment. The whole thing rests on the premise that if a volunteer can withstand the pretend torture, then it’s humane enough to use when it will save American lives. I don’t know what stock you are made from, but it is clear that normal men don’t do what I just suggested. It would be a “dare to be great” situation. But consider that we all had to watch Speaker Pelosi stammer in front of the cameras and call our CIA liars—torture indeed.

Ideally, we will never again have another ticking-bomb-type situation, in which our intelligence community feels compelled to use enhanced interrogation. But if we do Mr. President, you owe it to your constituency to allow them to get that information. If you don’t, and Americans get hurt, and the CIA says “I told you so,” (you don’t think they will?) Americans (the second half) will loose faith in your administration’s ability to protect them. That would be a game changer. I know that my idea is “out there,” but does that mean that I am wrong?

I would be very interested to read your response to this suggestion. I hope this finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

A note from Admin: A politician responds

May 14th, 2009

On April 25th, Ted Shults of, San Elijo Hills California, wrote an email to his congressman. Congressman Bilbray represents the 50th California Congressional District. Below is the link to Ted Shults’ letter:


Congressman Bilbray recently responded. The response specifically addresses the concerns in Ted’s letter. The response is posted below:

Thanks to Congressman Bilbray for attentiveness to his constituent.



Response to: “Is Congressman Bilbray a True Conservative Leader?”

May 14th, 2009

4 May 2009

Message from Congressman Brian Bilbray (50th Congressional District)

Dear Mr. Shults:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1586, a bill taxing the bonuses issued by financial institutions that received taxpayer bailout funds. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to start a dialogue with you about the issues facing our nation.

As you know, AIG, a company that has received more than $182 billion in taxpayer funds in order to avoid bankruptcy, recently announced the award of more than $165 million in bonuses to a number of top executives, many of whom worked for the very division that drove this company to the point of failure. Congress, as part of the recent economic stimulus package, had taken steps to ensure that companies receiving funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would not be able to pay out large bonuses to their executives until such time as they repaid the taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, a loophole in the language allowed companies to proceed with issuing bonuses.

While much of the media focus has been on AIG, the problem runs deeper than just AIG. Most notably, at the same time AIG was issuing its bonuses, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in the process of awarding $210 million in retention bonuses to their employees. These two quasi-government financial institutions are important because their reckless investment in the subprime loan market not only destroyed their accounting books and forced the government to assume conceivership, but were also the driving force behind the meltdown in our economy. As a way to address these bonuses, H.R. 1586 was introduced to place significant additional taxes on bonuses awarded by companies that received large amounts of TARP funding, including AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Like you, I don’t believe the government should be involved in the day to day decision making of commercial entities. That is one of the main reasons I voted against the creation of TARP in October 2008. Unfortunately, despite my and many of my colleagues’ reservations, TARP was established and now hundreds of financial institutions have received TARP bailout funds. While these financial institutions are accepting and using taxpayer funds to stave off bankruptcy, it is frankly unacceptable for them to use that money to pay out large bonuses. However, once the company has returned to solvency and has repaid the taxpayer’s money, government should no longer interfere in any way with how those companies compensate their employees. For this reason, I voted in favor of H.R. 1586 when it passed the House by a vote of 328 to 93. In voting for this bill, my goal was to strongly encourage banks to repay TARP funds as soon as they are able. I am pleased to report that since then several institutions have expressed their strong desire to return their TARP funds.

Today, many financial institutions that chose or were encouraged by the government to participate in TARP are ready and willing to return these funds back to the government. Unfortunately, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been putting roadblocks within the regulatory system to prevent TARP participating companies from returning TARP money. To address this issue, I have cosponsored the commonsense bill H.R. 2009, introduced by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), which would require the Treasury Secretary to unconditionally and immediately accept TARP repayments.

Thank you again for contacting me. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this issue. As our economy continues to struggle, rest assured that I will continue to fight for the people of the 50th District and of the nation as a whole and please do not hesitate to contact me or my office at (202) 225-0508 if you have any questions.


Brian Bilbray

Member of Congress

Joe Biden: Caged Beast?

May 12th, 2009

May 12, 2009

Vice President Joe Biden

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Vice President,

Earlier this week, I caught some audio of President Obama taking shots at you as he tried his hand at stand-up. To his credit, he roasted himself a bit too, and his jokes were quite funny (I chuckled, then…I remembered the national debt), but I thought his remarks describing you as a new mischievous puppy, which has to be kept on a “tight leash,” were disrespectful.


We often hear about “respect for the office,” but it is usually in presidential context. The vice presidential office rarely comes up, and if the press’s treatment of Vice President Cheney is any precedent, the bar hasn’t been set high. I still believe, however, that respect for the office applies to the vice presidential office too. Furthermore, even though the president ranks higher, I don’t believe that he is exempt. Finally, though this is conjecture, I believe that if President Obama were instead the vice president, he would not tolerate being ridiculed as he ridiculed you. You know him well, am I wrong?

Perhaps I perceived the whole thing incorrectly. Did President Obama talk with you and go over what he planned to say before he cracked his joke? Maybe he even asked you if you were comfortable with humor at your expense. The average constituent like me knows nothing about behind-the-scenes goings on at the White House, so I have to allow that this measure of respect may have been extended, but I suspect that it was not.

I hope I am wrong. If president Obama is actually tremendously respectful to you, and you allow humor at your expense because you are totally secure with yourself and it truly doesn’t bother you, than my hat’s off to you. If that’s true, you are a greater man than me. Because, for that to be true, you would have to accept and be comfortable with almost everyone in the country thinking that you are President Obama’s minion—his dog on a leash. It would take extraordinary confidence to be comfortable with that.

If you or one of your aids can find the time to write me back to explain how these dynamics work between you and President Obama, specifically communication about upcoming jokes, I would be thrilled to read about it.

On a broader scale, have you ever stopped to consider how the new Obama administration has redefined the role of the VP? Consider Vice President Cheney. I have relatives—life-long Democrats, who have taken to wearing garlic and crossing themselves when someone utters Dick Cheney’s name. They fear him. They think he’s a diabolical genius: like some villain from Batman. While most VP’s don’t want to be remembered this way (Cheney’s different, he likes it), it’s clear that nobody thinks VP Cheney was Bush’s
Stooge. Many think it was the other way around.

Do you find it troubling that President Obama has so reduced the prestige of your office? Did you see it coming? And do you regret making the switch from legislator, where you were an honest politician answering to a constituency who awarded you their vote based on confidence, to vice president where you now answer to a president who chose you based on your image—mostly just for his campaign?

I would be very enthusiastic to read your responses to my questions. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

A note from Admin:

May 9th, 2009

Today’s post is immediately below this note, I am writing to Montana state senator Joel Boniek. He can be reached at:


LIVINGSTON, MT 59047-2634

Home: (406)220-1240

I reference a specific piece of Montana state legislation called the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Below I have linked the .gov page for this bill.


If you are going to take the time to read my letter, I recommend reading the bill too. I takes about 3 minutes to read.

Correctly understanding the MFFA bill’s content will be crucial to good firearms ambassadorship as this issue becomes lunch-room conversation. When you hear gun-a-phobes complaining about the bill, you will be able to stop most of them in their tracks by simply asking them if they have read it. None of them will. If, at this point, you have, they might listen as you explain it better than MSNBC did.

This is a big one. If you know anyone in Montana who is or would be on board with this bill, email them the link to this letter or the bill or both. I want boots on the ground in Montana to nurture this little spark into a nationwide movement.



“Made in Montana” the Firearms Freedom Act

May 9th, 2009




LIVINGSTON, MT 59047-2634

Home: (406)220-1240

Dear Mr. Boniek:

I am not your constituent, and though I often write politicians, I have to confess that this is the first letter I have ever written to a state senator outside of California (my home state). You have begun a process; however, which will have implications that reach far beyond Montana. The wheel that you set in motion may roll across our entire nation. Of course I am writing about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act—Mr. Boniek, I couldn’t be more pleased.

I understand that news of MFFA is now months old, but nationally, it’s just picking up steam. I credit your governor’s controversial comments with making it a national story. Hat’s off to him. Montana has now become a “crucible,” not only for firearms law, but more generally for federalist distribution of control. I believe that what you have set in motion concerning federalism punctuates what the emerging conservative/Tea Party protest movements had hinted at.

When I retrace my thoughts concerning the Tea Party protests, and tea-bag mailings, I like all of it, but there was something missing–or rather there was something else there: something other than taxes. At the time I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

For instance, I understood and enjoyed the symbolism of having Tea Parties on Tax Day, but if I am honest with myself, considering that I am a poor man, I am not directly taxed more now than I had been under a Republican White House. Yet, even though the bottom line didn’t change for me (I get that it did for others), I joined the Tea Party movement, because there is a new oppressiveness about the federal government which far exceeds the Framer’s worst fears. This isn’t just a President Obama issue either. It goes back for generations. The USA federal government needs a “reset.”

As a Tea Party movement dissident, I knew that the Tea Parties and tea mailings were neat, because they sent the message to Washington that we were pissed (please excuse the vulgarity, I get a little excited). “There will be ‘changes.’” “Politicians will be losing their jobs.” But other than generalities about small government, “pork,” and restructuring the Republican Party so that it “is returned to the party of Reagan,” very few new ideas circulated. Big-government liberals are very divisive. They try specific stuff to get what they want. Conservative and Libertarian Tea Partiers lacked this initiative.

I credit the Tea Parties with getting the fledgling movement amp’d, but it still remained for someone to actually do something politically revolutionary. Though it’s too soon to say, your bill might be the first domino in a chain reaction that ends in a complete redo of our federal government. I now see what was missing from the Tea Parties: the initial act to set off the chain reaction. I’m talking about our federal government’s complete “chapter 11 bankruptcy“, followed by restructuring using the fundamentals of our founders as a template. Could you imagine? I doubt that anyone can, but a self sustaining power-grab movement where the states began to strip power away from the federal government until there was very little left besides the fundamentals–that could be the redo.

Here is an analogy which helps me process it: consider the life of a computer. One brings it home, starts it up, and goes online. From hour one, the computer begins to accumulate various “bugs:” spyware, automatic-update searching, “cookies,” and outright viruses. Initially, the computer completes tasks quickly, but after some time it begins to lag. And the user’s patients wanes. It’s not that the processor slows down, it does not. It just has to share processing time with all these other things which compete for the computer’s attention. Spyware fixers and virus protection help, but some of these bugs are so insidious that, to get rid of them, one must completely wipe the computer’s memory. Then, one can reinstall the original operating system. This resets the computer back to new. It now doesn’t even “know” that it had a previous life. You literally have to tell it what time it is when it starts back up.

Obviously in this analogy, the computer is the US government and the original operating system is the Constitution/US Declaration of Independence. If a computer is to be wiped, the important files need to be saved somewhere else first, so they can be added after the computer is reset. In government, these important files are analogous to more recent constitutional amendments which are crucial liberties, like amendments for woman’s suffrage or outlawing slavery. Obviously, the original constitutional clauses aren’t open for discussion.

One notes, after doing this to a computer, that the “wiped” computer has found a new respect for one’s time. It can be annoying to discover that you accidentally erased the latest update which allowed some particular convenience, and these will have to be tracked down and downloaded as they present themselves, but the computer will run so quickly, 99.9% of the time, that these inconveniences will seem insignificant.

I have no idea whether you intended it or not when you wrote the MFFA; it really doesn’t matter. But you may have begun a movement to strip the power from our federal government and hand it to the states. If Montana’s Supreme Court passes the MFFA, and other states copycat you, it will reach a point where the US Supreme Court will have to hear and vote on this issue. If they do that, it will be a landmark vote. If the US justices do their job, and objectively interpret the US constitution, they will rule in favor of state’s rights, and we will have individual states telling the federal government, “no way,” and getting away with it.

This general idea of states overriding federal regulation isn’t brand new, but this time it’s about guns. If this were about the interstate commerce of pistachios, the public would just keep watching American Idol. Some will anyway. But because this is about guns, we have our best shot yet at keeping the public focused.

Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of state’s rights, it will spark a movement. Ordinary folks will like it. Sensing political expediency, US congressmen and Senators will jump on board. People who don’t even know they are harboring Libertarian leanings will be glad that the federal government is allowing individual states more freedom. It will just feel very American to be on board.

I might also add that politicians in liberal states can still welcome a new federalist movement of power to the states. For instance, in Vermont, the governor might use it as an opportunity to show his liberal constituents just how liberal he is by adopting a whole host of new state firearm’s laws to replace the federal restrictions that lost their potency. California and Massachusetts governors might do the same. Good for them. Who cares?

This movement will increase the chasm which exists between liberal and conservative states. That’s fine. With respect to firearms, we’ll use it as an opportunity to statistically evaluate firearm related violence by state, and we’ll see just how well those strict firearms laws work. Any guesses? Let’s hope they work better in California than they do in Mexico. And firearms will just be the beginning. This could spread virally. The USA could end up as a collection of 50 different states united by one flag, constitution, currency, military, and little else. And I’m totally comfortable with that. As the government’s scope shrinks, so does their budget.

I would be very interested to read any comments you have about the MFFA as it relates to the whole country. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —

San Diego, CA 92101

A note from Admin:

May 8th, 2009

Below this note from admin, I posted today’s email to Congresswoman Linda Sanchez of California’s 39th congressional district. The email concerns Cyberbullying. Congresswoman Sanchez can be reached at:

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez

1222 Longworth Building

Washington, DC 20515

In the email, I reference a specific piece of proposed legislation. I added the legislative proposal below. It is complete and unaltered:

Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1966 IH


1st Session

H. R. 1966

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.


April 2, 2009

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


This Act may be cited as the `Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.


Congress finds the following:

(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.


(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
`(b) As used in this section–
`(1) the term `communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
`(2) the term `electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`881. Cyberbullying.’.

On Cyberbullying…

May 7th, 2009

May 7, 2009


Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,

I am not a constituent of yours, but your votes and actions as congresswomen do affect me, so I felt compelled to share my opinion with you about your proposed legislation on cyberbullying. Most news-conscience citizens remember the suicide of Miss Megan Meier after another teenager’s mother posted hurtful remarks directed toward Miss Meier on a social networking site. It is my understanding that the adult who engaged in these regrettable attacks was not charged criminally, because there were no laws in place directly prohibiting what she did. If I understand it correctly, you and the other congresspeople who sponsor your new proposal hope, with this legislation, to outlaw communications over the internet which would endanger children like Miss Meier.

Some time has passed since the tragedy, so I reread some of the original reporting and commentary on the suicide. Specifically, I wondered if Miss Meier was using social networking websites under parental supervision. I suspect that if you are reading this you will disagree with me on this point, as it relates to personal and family responsibility, but a child’s internet safety goes up significantly if they are using the internet under parent supervision. I have no statistical data to support this premise, but it’s still true. In Miss Meier’s case, she was indeed supervised, at least some of the time, by her mom. In one article, Megan’s mother was cited as having approved the addition of her future harasser, really an adult posing as a teenage boy, as a Myspace friend:


The article goes on to say that Megan’s mom watched over the course of several weeks as her daughter and her new internet friend developed an online relationship. My first few questions are: at what point did Mrs. Meier quit supervising her daughter’s internet activity, and does her lack of supervision transfer any of the responsibility for her daughter’s suicide to her? This may sound insensitive, as Mrs. Meier certainly didn’t intend any harm, and she surely feels tremendous grief after loosing her daughter, but consider this: if Megan had not committed suicide, but instead she had taken her mother’s car and run somebody over with it, Mrs. Meier would be 100% financially (civilly) responsible/liable for here daughter’s criminal actions. Of course you already know this. You are an attorney.

Additionally, it was widely reported that Miss Meier had ideated suicide before. She had also seen a counselor for depression. My point is that parents need to pay closer attention to internet-using minors. I don’t place significant blame on Megan’s parents, but their hands are not entirely clean. It is my opinion that good parenting could have interceded in time to save Miss Meier. Furthermore, if your legislation were to pass, and suddenly it became illegal to harass people on social networking sites, will is mean that parents don’t have to keep track of their children’s social networking correspondence? Yeah…no. Internet sexual child predation is already illegal, but there are literally tens of thousands of active internet perverts on social networking sites. Regardless of the law, without parent supervision and personal responsibility within the family, minors are not safe on the internet. The law goes in to effect. Nothing changes. Responsible families are the only viable protection.

Let’s get back to your legislation. It is frustrating to me that Miss Meier’s antagonist was not indictable because there were no laws broken. One could make valid arguments for laws to protect children from bullying when they are on line. In Sec. 2 of your proposal, you list findings which all relate the need for this legislation based on protecting children:

“(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespreadpublic [sic] distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.”

However, in section three, where you actually propose what you want to outlaw, you never once mention children, minors, teenagers or any other synonym which directs the legislature toward protecting the group you claim to represent.

“`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section–

`(1) the term `communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.”

What gives? All you had to do to make this legislature accomplish your goal (based on section 2 findings) was to add the words, “under the age of 18” after “a person.” Section 3a would have read “coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person under the age of 18.” Mission accomplished. Instead, you left it out. Why? You’re a professional, I don’t buy that it was accidental.

Under the guise of a law to protect children from a specific type of internet predator, you instead proposed a law which could be used to jail me for emailing you this letter. I hereby officially accuse you of grandstanding. You could have protected children, but instead you did nothing (this legislature will never pass) except waste taxpayer resources to try to appear as an advocate for children. I’ll do everything I can to prevent your reelection.

I would like very much to read your response to my criticism. I generally mail my letters to politicians, but for some reason I felt compelled to email this one. Please don’t hesitate to email back. I won’t suffer “emotional distress” or be “intimidated” if you disagree. I hope this letter finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

Loose Cannon

May 4th, 2009


Vice President Joe Biden
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Biden:

I am writing to you to thank you for your honest remarks on the morning show about Swine Flu. It seems to be a pattern that you often shoot straight even when it doesn’t sit well with the rest of your administration. For this, I commend you. Please keep it up.


I agree with your opinion that citizens should take travel precautions to avoid, when possible, confined spaces full of strangers. It just makes good sense. Indeed, individuals taking personal responsibility to avoid getting Swine Flu will do more to prevent the virus’ spread than all the millions of dollars our government bureaucracy will squander toward the same ends. But did you notice that the rest of the administration couldn’t just accept your opinion—even your account of remarks that you made to your own family members? They couldn’t even allow you your own opinion by detaching it from the rest of the administration. Press Secretary Gibbs actually tried to break out the double speak on this one. I was speechless. It was Orwellian.


Here is my favorite quote from this press conference:

Reporter to Press Secretary Gibbs: “With all due respect…that’s not even remotely close to what the Vice President said.”

Press Secretary Gibbs: “I know that’s not what he said…I’m telling you what he meant to say.”

Although calling Mr. Gibbs’ comments doublespeak is accurate and fair, one could also say that Gibbs stripped you of your First Amendment rights. Had you thought about it in those terms Mr. Vice President? This would be putting it in its worst light. At best, he disrespected you. From a constituent, here’s how it looks in my own mind:

Not only does the new administration think I am stupid, but they can erase what the Vice President said when he spoke from his own heart and mind; then, they can replace his words with what they find politically expedient. Furthermore, the Vice President is powerful—in line for the presidency. If the chief can do this to Biden, what can he do to me, a nobody?

Mr. Vice President, I pray that you will flex your political muscles before they atrophy. It’s clear to all that President Obama used you for your experienced image to counter his own inexperience on the ticket. He probably thought you would turn a few McCain voters. You probably did. Be assured, now that President Obama is in power, he wants nothing to do with you. I believe that you understand this well, and I believe that you take secret pleasure in speaking your mind and then watching Press Secretary Gibbs wiggle in font of the cameras. They have referred to you as a loose cannon. Indeed, this is an apt description for an Obama administration VP who isn’t afraid to speak the truth. They say President Obama is cool under fire, but you are much cooler

Alas, if the Obama administration is as controlling as I perceive them to be, they will probably intercept this letter before you can read it. This brings back shades of my teen-aged years. If you do get it, however, I want to make you a promise. I give you my word that I pledge a donation to your next personal campaign fund (not Obama’s) for every future incident in which you again cause the press corps to laugh out loud at Press Secretary Gibbs. That would be money well spent—one could even say invested.

I would be thrilled to read you response to this letter Mr. Vice President. I hope this finds you well.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box —-

San Diego, CA 92020

California’s Top Cop is a Victim of Crime

May 3rd, 2009


Attorney General’s Office

Edmund G. Brown Jr.

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Dear Attorney General Brown,

I caught very little news today, but I did hear about a headline which read something to the effect that: “California’s top cop’s car is vandalized.” We’ll forgive them for not knowing that having one’s wheels stolen isn’t vandalism. After all, journalists can’t be troubled with the burden of accurate/objective reporting. I am sorry that you were a theft victim. I know that the car is the state’s, but it still makes a person angry to have one’s property stolen. After your initial reaction fades, will you be able to laugh about it…because you have to admit, it’s really funny?


I have a few questions though. As the Attorney General, obviously you study crime in California, so let’s have your analysis. Do you think the thief/thieves targeted you specifically, or was the crime random? Frankly, two factory rims and tires from a Toyota sedan seem an unlikely target for a thief. Did you check the bottom of near-by hills? I’m just saying… Did they take the lug nuts too? Were the wheels secured with locking lug nuts? Sorry to be such a pest with questions, but the reporter was only interested in his headline, and it’s the details that make a story.

Have you ever been a theft victim before now? If not, does this experience give you new insight having experienced the powerlessness one feels after finding one’s self on the loosing end of theft?

From a broader stance, as top cop, you must already understand how powerless even law enforcement officers are to prevent crime. Cops get called when the crime has happened or when it is in progress, but crimes rarely last long enough for a responding police officer to get there in time to stop the criminal. Cops often tell me that they chose to be cops because they wanted to make a difference. Many good cops do.

I’m afraid though, that many law enforcement officers are disappointed in their ability to “stop crime.” Usually the best they can hope for is to get the criminal after the crime is complete. They’ll be lucky if the state doesn’t let the criminal back out on the street when money gets tight. So having said this, how about a campaign to address the citizen’s self ability—no, make that opportunity, to take steps toward crime prevention. In an era when the world looks to the government for solutions, how would you rate the prospect of a campaign toward crime prevention based on personal responsibility?

Too many Californians have the attitude that, “it won’t happen to me.” This is especially true with respect to violent crime. I reflect on how to protect my family if a criminal attempts violence or theft, and members of my own family think I am silly for it. People don’t think crime will happen to them. Take this example: we all know that every school classroom has fire extinguishers and detailed strategies for evacuating in case of a fire; however, I recently read that one’s chances are 100 times greater of being killed in a school shooting than a school fire. Precious few schools have measures to confront an on-campus shooter.

Above I asked you several questions, but I know you are busy, so it won’t bother me if they go unanswered. But what would really make me happy is if you would use this embarrassing incident to address Californians with a message. I am asking you to ask Californians to ask themselves: “if the top cop can be a victim of crime, can I?” Since the answer to this question is clear, you should take this opportunity ask Californians to do everything they can to take personal responsibility for crime deterrence.

I would guess that if you did, and the result meant that just one more in one hundred crimes went uncommitted, it would double the percentage that police officers themselves are able to prevent. Criminals like easy targets. Let’s encourage Californians to be difficult targets.

I would be very pleased to read your response to this suggestion. I would be even more pleased if you would really do it.

Kind Regards,

David Rasner

PO Box –

San Diego, CA 92101

On the Supreme Court and Objectivity

May 2nd, 2009

May 1, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing about your upcoming Supreme Court appointment.  Yesterday’s news reported that Justice Souter planned to retire in June.  I guess he has somewhere pressing to be.  Of course his retirement caught everyone off guard.  It was so sudden that we really haven’t had much time to process it.  Also, there has been so much other important stuff to discuss that you haven’t taken questions about Supreme Court appointments lately.  You’re on record during the campaign, but there’s not much else out there about the kind of appointment Americans could expect from you.  Also, there was wide speculation that Elena Kagen’s appointment as Solicitor General meant that she was first in line. 


I admit that it’s rather silly to write to you about Supreme Court nominations because you must already know exactly who you will appoint.  Your probably knew before you were even president.  Furthermore, you’re not going to write me back to tell me.  However, you might find entertainment value in hearing my forecast.  At any rate, I find writing it relaxing.


Looking back at your campaign answers, I find a common theme.  You seek a nominee who has life experience as a citizen unrepresented by the system.  In your own words, this lack of representation could be secondary to the nominee’s minority status, financial poverty, or sexuality.  For easy reference, I took the liberty of adding your remarks below.  I hope that you will grant me a few follow up questions about these statements.  The bold in the quotes is mine for quick reference.


“[When] you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.”

“If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.”


“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”


As I read these comments again, the first question which comes to mind concerns the word “outsider” (or outside).  You use it multiple times in these three remarks, so you clearly wanted to convey meaning with it.  In the first quote above, your syntax and order lead me to believe that you categorically place “outsider” very near to “minority.”  Perhaps you even allow these terms to be interchangeable.  In the second quote, your syntax strongly identifies the word outside with the group of people who understand “what it means to have the system not work for them.” 


In both of these cited examples, you apparently introduced the word “outside” or “outsider” and then redefined it with a familiar synonym or clarifying phrase:  like an “in other words” without the “in other words.”  Considering that your campaign was slogan-driven (Change! Change! Change!), were you trying to introduce “outsider” as a new buzzword?  Is the message that:  minorities are supposed to simultaneously identify with the term “outsider” and the idea of a system which has failed them?  If so, reverend Jeremiah Wright would be proud.  If not, I would be grateful if you would further explain the term “outsider.” 


If you did intend for “minority” and “outsider” to reference race, are you saying that you will seek to include or eliminate a potential nominee based on their race or ethnicity?  Isn’t this exactly what the civil rights movement worked so tirelessly to eradicate?  Isn’t it illegal?  Isn’t it ironic?    


Alternatively, did you mean for “outsider” to more generally reference people who lacked other representation in government?  If so, consider that far-left Democrats presently control both the White House and Congress (filibuster proof!).  Wouldn’t the underrepresented be conservatives like me?  Something tells me that this isn’t what you had in mind.  I suspect (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that it is your intent to base your selection criteria for the “underrepresented” on Reverend Wright’s ideology rather than on objective reality.


How about the idea of choosing a Supreme Court Justice based on representation for a specific group/groups?  Isn’t representation Congress’ domain?  The Supreme Court justices are supposed to “represent” the Constitutional Framers, not subgroups of constituency.  But you taught Constitutional law for a decade, so you must have already know this.  What gives?


Call me old fashioned, but my public school education taught me that Justices were supposed to remain objective.  But they don’t.  If they did, then the vast majority of Supreme Court votes would be unanimous.  They would all interpret similarly.  Only the real hair splitters would be close.  If all nine would remain objective, it would be newsworthy and, frankly, scandalous for there to be mixed votes on a case.  But we see close votes all the time.  The fact is that our Justices bring subjectivity into their work, and we find that votes are divided along ideological lines.  The Supreme Court has become nothing but a nine-member congress!  And you have stated that you intend to pick a nominee who will deliberately bring her (let’s not mince words, it will be a she) subjectivity into her decision process?  And you’re not even hiding that?


So having considered all this silly stuff, here is what I predict that you will do:


You have groomed Elena Kagen for future nomination, but not yet.  Critics will say she is too inexperienced.  You’ll let her become queen bee as Solicitor General to gain experience and, more importantly, confidence.  Kagen will be ready when Ginsberg is done.  Your first nomination will be Sonia Sotomayor.  She’s from a poor family/childhood, and she has likely felt America’s sting of racism and the “failure of the system”.  She has also litigated lots of cases which alleviates experience criticisms.  I am sure that you have also considered that a Hispanic nomination couldn’t hurt with the Latino community. 


I wonder if Elena Kagen, who is going to be “affirmative actioned” out of the job will feel that the system is temporarily “failing” her?   Also, do you feel the need to identify African-Americans as people who the system has failed because the system so harshly failed you?


Overall, this won’t “change” anything.  Judges either vote liberal or conservative and you will just be replacing liberal judges with more of the same.  I wouldn’t expect any of the conservative judges to announce retirement plans soon. 


I would be very enthusiastic to read your responses to my criticism and prediction.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


P.S. Lady Justice is historically portrayed as blindfolded.  I’m thinking that she is supposed to be colorblind too. 


April 29th, 2009

April 29, 2009


Senator Arlen Specter

711 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229 


Dear Senator Specter,


I expect that you are getting quite a few letters and emails this week.  As you might have guessed, I am writing about your recent change from the GOP to the Democrat Party.  In a way, I am relieved.  It opens up the spot for Toomey to win the Republican nomination.  Frankly, I predict that he will beat you.  Of course, you’ll get the Democratic nomination.  Obama owes you one for the stimulus vote, so you’ll be well funded.  However, there are oodles of material for Toomey to use against you.  How do you think far left Pennsylvanian Democrats will take your past outspoken views against gun control?  How will they respond to your support of the death penalty?  How will your Anita Hill questioning/criticism play with your new party?  You know that Toomey is going to use all of that in campaign commercials don’t you?  And he will be well funded too.  The Republicans are all rich, right?


The truth is that you’re all over the place.  Congratulations Senator, you are the quintessential American politician.  At best, Toomey will expose you as a flip-flop.  At worst…I’m afraid this is going to sting a bit…in five years, we won’t even remember your name. 


I’m not one of your constituents, but since your party switch just removed the Republican filibuster capacity, your actions have begun to directly effect me.  You are on my radar.  Other people’s too I suspect.  Since I really didn’t know anything about you other than that you were unreliable when it most mattered, I decided to read up.  I love Wikipedia.


It seems, Senator, that you have a history of adapting to the current political climate.  In short, you’re a chameleon.  You have relied on American’s preoccupation with other stuff, mainly entertainment, to obscure your self-contradictory history of voting, statements, and party affiliation.  May I recap?  Let’s look far back into the 20 century.


Remember your earliest political race in Philadelphia?  According to Wikipedia,


“In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican.” 


Senator, have you ever met a man who lived his entire life heterosexually until age 40, then, very suddenly “discovered” that he was sexually attracted to other men?  If so, do you think that he was born homosexual and took many years to “discover” it, or did some life event change him?  Though I don’t quite understand why, I felt compelled to ask you this question in this particular paragraph.  Now where was I? Oh…did you really change from Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat, or were you always really a Democrat?  If you were always a Democrat, did you faithfully represent the party which lately backed you and helped get you into office?  Do you fear that Pennsylvanian Democrats will suspect that your loyalties lay with popular consensus rather than Democratic principals?


Let’s suppose we could get past the apparent chameleon tendencies implicit in the previous paragraph.  Are there any other instances where you have been inconsistent in your political career? Again, according to Wikipedia citing Time:


“Although a death penalty supporter, as prosecutor he questioned the fairness of the Pennsylvania death penalty statute in 1972”   


Death Rattles“. TIME magazine. November 20, 1972.



At this point, once again I feel compelled to digress (I don’t know why).  The name Specter has an interesting meaning.  According to the American Standard Dictionary, Specter means:


spec·ter  (spěk’tər) n.  


1. A ghostly apparition; a phantom.

2. A haunting or disturbing image or prospect: the terrible specter of nuclear war.


“specter.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 29 Apr. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specter


The particular word of interest is “phantom.”  I have always taken phantom to mean something which is different then it appears.  A politician’s leanings can indeed meet these criteria.  Furthermore, a politician who professes leanings while simply chasing popular consensus, sans principle, is certainly a phantom.  Senator Specter, I know that you didn’t choose your last name, but I am curious to know: has anyone brought up your name’s irony in the time since 1972 when you self contradicted your stance on Pennsylvania’s death penalty?


Senator Specter, It seems that you left a pattern of popularist politics in your wake.  More recently, there was the issue of wiretapping by the Bush administration.  In 2006 you were aggressive towards Bush’s administration about their E-surveillance; however, in 2008 you flip-flopped.  According to Wikipedia citing the Senate’s website:      


“Specter was very critical of President Bush’s wiretapping of US persons without warrants. When the story first broke, he called the effort ‘inappropriate’ and ‘clearly and categorically wrong.’  On January 15, 2006, Specter mentioned impeachment and criminal prosecution as potential remedies if President Bush broke the law…However, he voted for the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Actwhich placed federal electronic searches almost entirely within the executive branch.”




Also, there is the ever popular same-sex marriage issue.  If there has ever been a politicized issue, this is it.  In my home state of California, one could literally find themselves in jeopardy of being undeclared “Miss California” for suggesting that marriage is solely between a man and woman.  So do you show consistent adherence to principal on this issue Senator?  Not according to ontheissues.org.  In 2004 they have you opposed to same-sex marriage but supporting civil union; however, two years later you voted NO on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.  What gives?


“Specter is opposed to same-sex marriage, but is also opposed to a federal ban and supports civil unions.


1 opposed gay marriage but support civil union. (Oct 2004)

2 voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)”




Senator Specter, you are a bandwagoner if there ever was one.  It is my personal opinion that you represent everything wrong with Congress.   Please be assured that I will reflect around the clock on how to contribute to your removal from office.  I will donate money to Toomey whom I hope will beat you.  I will also divert money to any Democrat who has a shot at beating you in the Democratic candidate selection process. 


In this letter I have been harshly critical of your political history, but I have not ever taken a political side on any of the issues discussed.  The point being that it doesn’t matter where I stand on the death penalty or gay marriage.  I am identifying you as an empty politician without principals, and Americans from both sides of the isle are done with your type.  President Obama is the perfect example.  His approval rating is more polarized than any president from the last 80 years.  Bush was similar in this regard.  Americans from both sides of the isle are responding to politicians who stand with their side on principal.  In other words, moderates are out.  Like McCain, you have expired.  Both parties will soon leave you behind.  Enjoy retirement.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101



Toomey for Senate

PO Box 220

Orefield, PA 18069

Loose Change 2009?

April 27th, 2009

April 27, 2009

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington DC, 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you about your airplane. It made a lot of people in New York City nervous today with the Top Gun styled fly-by. Remember Top Gun?  “(Static)….Negative Ghost Rider…the pattern is full,” then, the hot shot F-14 Tomcat pilot buzzes the control tower just for fun.  If I understand it correctly, that’s about what Air Force One did today over the Big Apple. 


In the movie, the senior officer is so startled by the fly-by that he spills his coffee and mutters something unprintable.  Today that senior officer was Mayor Bloomberg.  He’s really angry.  Tomorrow’s New York Times headline might read something to this effect, “Manhattan Succeeds from the Union Mayor Bloomberg Says


From what I have read many New Yorkers evacuated high-rises fearing that a high-jacked jumbo jet was going to crash into them.  What a mess.  As far as I can tell, the folks at the Pentagon followed one of two thought processes.  Either they considered that their actions might scare New Yorker’s, and decided to do it anyway, or they never even thought about how New Yorkers might perceive a friendly 9-11 simulation.  It has to be one or the other.  These two possibilities exclude all others.  Frankly, Mr. President, I’m not comfortable with either.  Aren’t these the same folks who make decisions about Inter-continental Ballistic Missile nuclear warheads?  Yes.  Sometimes being an American feels like being on MTV’s “Punked.”  Today was one of those days.  And I don’t want to hear from your staff that this was the Pentagon’s thing, and “the President had nothing to do with it.”  It’s your military, and it’s your plane.  Own up.  You owe Manhattaners an apology.  Those poor folks were scared to death.    


As a Californian I don’t have the same emotional response to the 9-11 “look-alike” scenario as the New Yorkers.  Their worries are totally understandable, but mine were more detached.  After learning the true purpose of the fly-by (wasn’t it for a “photo-op?”) my first question was: what is the (taxpayer’s) hourly operational cost for a Boeing 747 and two fighter jets?  Also, what would the hourly (taxpayer) cost have been for an Adobe-Photoshop-literate teenager to create the same picture?  Do you mind if we compare?


According to Wikipedia, Air Force One, with its four huge General Electric engines costs the taxpayers about $68,000 per hour to operate.  The fighter jets, according to the New York Times, cost $5000 per hour per unit to operate.  These figures are based on 1998 estimates, so add a bit for inflation ([in-fley-shuh] you might want to look it up):  your “photo-op” cost the taxpayers $82,000.  It’s ironic that the New York Times article from which I extracted the figure above was a leftist hit piece entitled: The Cost of Operation Enduring Freedom.  The Journalist was attempting to dramatically show the wasted tax dollars spent in Iraq.  You might want to send the Times a memo commanding them to take their statistics down now that you are on the wasting end of those fighter-jet dollars.  I would.


Oh, by the way, that pimply teenager who paid attention in computer class probably would have Photoshop’d Air Force One and a couple of F-15’s into the New York skyline for about $10.  I just thought you would like to know.     


I would be very enthusiastic to read your responses to my criticism.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


P.S.  Maybe the Photoshop teenager could sell you some carbon credits too.



Al Gore

2100 West End Avenue Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203


A note from Admin:

April 25th, 2009

Ted Shults is writing to Congressman Brian Bilbray of the 50th California Congressional District.  Bilbray can be reached at::


Washington D.C. Office
U.S. Representative Brian Bilbray
Rayburn House Office Building
, D.C. 20515

Phone:  202-225-0508

Fax:  202-225-2558

Is Congressman Bilbray a True Conservative Leader?

April 25th, 2009

This letter has been responded to. Read Congressman Bilbray’s response here:






Why are things so quiet in North County? Isn’t this a great time to take a stand and make some noise to get conservatives rallied again?  I’m listening and watching on the radio and the news all day during the week and your name seems never to come up.  I would appreciate it if you would take a stand against this ridiculous spending.  And as well begin pointing out to the constituents the constant misleading statements and promises that President Obama is dumping on the blind masses now on a daily basis.  Do you agree?

I feel that you need to put yourself out there more on our behalf or we will have to find somebody who will.  People in San Elijo Hills are fighting mad about the tax increases coming next year in our state, and even angrier and disturbed at how out of control and corrupt the entire system appears to be.  Congressman, I am talking true ANGER.  People are meeting in groups to figure out what we are going to do.  You guys are pushing the population into a corner.  And trust me, based on what I am seeing, the potential is for things to get very ugly.

I am baffled that you voted with Rangel and crew to support the taxing of AIG execs after these very people, including Geithner tried to sneak this through.  What is your reasoning here?  Do you not fear that this sets a terrible precedent of illegal and unconstitutional targeting of individuals with punitive taxation?  How about calling Geithner and the Obama administration out for their absolute hypocrisy?  You voted this way b/c you felt your constituents wanted to punish AIG in this manner?  You were wrong.  We are capitalists here in North County.   

Hold the administration accountable please instead of putting the rest of us at risk b/c you feel it’s a popular call.  You guys, as a whole, are acting in a disgusting manner and we intend to put a stop to it.  Please begin to show some leadership instead of assuming that you will have our votes because you speak out on immigration issues 3 or 4 times a year.  Those days are over.  We want LEADERSHIP and you do not appear to be providing it.  Congressman, PLEASE take action to stand for the conservative principles.  We will be behind you in absolute strength and numbers if you do.

Lastly, I have emailed you before on several issues and have never heard back.  Is that how you intend to treat your constituents?  I expect better.  I will be knocking on your door to discuss these issues if you continue to deliver silence.

Best Regards,

Ted Shults

San Elijo Hills

This letter has been responded to. Read Congressman Bilbray’s response here:


The People’s Republic of California (2)

April 24th, 2009

April 24, 2009


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,


I am a California citizen writing to you about a California State practice which distresses me.  It has received little attention, and 99% of Californians are not aware of it, but it has just come to my attention. 


As you probably know, it is a universal practice to screen a newborn baby’s blood for easily identifiable diseases and genetic defects.  Some diseases, like PKU, are most damaging early in the infant’s life, and the rapid detection from an infant blood screening can truly be life-saving.  In other cases, genetic defects like hearing impairment are detected at infancy, and the child’s learning programs can be adapted to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  Indeed, almost nobody rejects the idea conducting infant screenings while keeping the blood samples for long enough to make sure that the results are accurate.  But what almost nobody realizes is that these blood samples are cataloged and stored—forever, in a state laboratory.  California is one of a few states that keep the blood samples, with their extractable DNA profile, indefinitely.


Like any scientific/political issue, this practice has two opposing views.  I am a scientist, and I have considered both sides of the debate objectively.  I will share with you my insight…take it or leave it.  Opponents of the practice are specifically distressed by the permanent record of DNA samples.  These dissenters are mostly conservatives and their objections center around worries that a future (could be distant future) state government will have these DNA samples while in a position to make healthcare decisions for its citizens. 


If I may digress, one would think that privacy should be the main concern with respect to DNA samples, but as we saw with the Patriot Act, privacy is generally the worry of the left.  Conservatives don’t care what the government knows; they worry about how governments decide…everything.  And when decisions carry the weight of health-care decisions, it’s “to be…or not to be.”  So from the right, privacy’s out, and state-run healthcare complaint is the new black.  End digression.


We know that many life-ending health problems are tied to our genome, so in theory, with a good data base, scientists could come up with statistical life expectancy predictions based on what problems might be hidden in ones DNA.  We have seen this at its most primitive level when students are taught that statistical life span is linked to sex:  women live 5-6 years longer than men.  A more rigorous scientific approach might isolate a genetic allele predisposing a citizen to heart disease, and predict, before an infant is one day old, that the citizen will statistically die before age 48. 


It’s this situation that conservatives fear:  “the patient is 42…based on this cardiac genetic work-up she statistically won’t live 6 more years…I am going to recommend her removal from the kidney transplant list…go ahead and refer her to hospice…next.”


Perhaps this sounds crazy.  Certainly states would never refuse care simply because the patient would be unlikely to live very much longer, right?  Wrong.  Last June, Barbara Wagner, an Oregonian, was denied access to doctor-prescribed chemotherapy by the Oregon Health Plan, because of her poor prognosis and the chemo’s $4000 per month price tag.  To add insult to injury, Ms. Wagner was offered (as a substitute) access to state-sponsored doctor-assisted suicide. 


I wish I were kidding:




Thankfully, the pharmaceutical company provided Ms. Wagner with the chemo for free after learning of her plight.  Conservatives would find that this story well exemplifies facets of the problem of giving states control of a genetic database which could be used to predict our long-term viability at any point in our lives.  To be specific, Ms. Wagner’s story probably made you uncomfortable.  It did me, and I think it should.  There is a certain coldness there which none of us ever wants to face concerning our health or our body.  If we look at the issue from a broader philosophical stance, it becomes apparent why.  The Oregonian government is trying to do something which no government is equipped to do. 


Healthcare is very much about addressing the needs of the individual.  I know that anyone reading this could instantly come up with plausible circumstances where the doctor/nurse/dentist or pharmacist had to consider the needs of society, but the vast majority of the time, good healthcare focuses on the individual.  Government, on the other hand, almost never focuses on the individual.  Government is about the greater good.  Government can’t consider everyone’s individual circumstances, because there are too many citizens, and when government tries to make healthcare decisions about an individual using the “greater good” as a priority, we end up with chilling stories like Barbara Wagner’s. 


To punctuate the story, please don’t miss that the pharmaceutical company interceded to save the day.  It’s imperative to notice that as soon as the problem was presented in the private health-care sector, even the commercialized pharmaceutical company couldn’t keep from re-personalizing the situation to make it right.  In a nutshell, that’s what good healthcare does.         


I feel that I have aptly made the conservative case against the blood spot database.  But there must be some reason why the state keeps those blood spots.  What are they good for other than the scary aforementioned stuff?  Research scientists in the genetic field basically like that there is a large “sample size” from which to extract data in genetic “survey” styled research.  It makes their results really scientifically credible.  I can appreciate this.  So can Edward Howell, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases in Newborns and Infants to the Health Resources and Services Administration.  In Wired he remarked about the blood spots:


“They are extremely valuable when they are anonymized for research when looking at new technologies.  Those conspiracy theories are very popular on the blogs, but … the states have been very careful in dealing with blood spots. The bottom line is that many states have kept these for a very long time and I am unaware of anything that has been done with them that would concern even a very conservative person.”


I believe that Mr. Howell is right.  When anonymized and released to researches, the large DNA database would be extremely valuable.  So let’s “anonymize” the entire database, and then make it publicly available to anyone who wants to use it.  This would keep—even enhance all the benefits which Mr. Howell praises, while nervous conservatives would no longer have anything to worry about.  It would be very simple:  every blood sample would retain all its existing info except the name and social.  Research scientists would still know everything they needed to know, and nothing they did not. 


For particular cases where long-term individual info was desirable for a particular blood spot, like “lifespan compared to a specific gene for red hair,” consenting adults could give their personalized blood spot for researchers to use and track the person’s life “outcome” to add to their scientific understanding of that gene.  Even if only one in one thousand Californians agreed to this measure, there would be a large enough sample size for findings to retain their scientific validity.  It’s better than the present situation where every Californian born is agreeing to participate without even knowing it.  Also, I propose that, in the interest of science, all life-sentenced prison inmates waive their right to decline to participate.   


If this proposal were implemented, I can find no losing party.  I would like very much to ready you thoughts on this.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101











Chris Matthews couldn’t tell “getting lucky” from a prostate exam

April 14th, 2009


April 13, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing to you today about a comment I heard on MSNBC about the sniper shots which killed three Somali pirates earlier this week.  The particular comment was from Chris Matthews, of Hardball fame.  He said, in clear and certain words, that the positive outcome of the simultaneous sniper’s shots is attributable to luck.  Perhaps he didn’t intend that the whole outcome was attributable to luck; he certainly couldn’t have meant that.  However, to say that the snipers hit their mark based on any luck at all is uncouth. 


I understand that it is almost unbelievable that such an esteemed journalist as Chris Matthews could be so silly, so I have provided a link below so that you can watch for yourself and verify that I have not taken the comment out of context.




OK, so he really said luck.  Matthews is an anchor on a huge network, so I refuse to believe that he says anything accidental, unplanned, or not thought-out.  He’s a pro, like him or not.  It is my personal opinion that Matthews is so left-leaning that he can’t see virtue in any action our armed forces execute (I chose that word thoughtfully).  I believe his word choice was a deliberate attempt to detract from the heroic esteem due to the Navy snipers who so effectively implemented their training and resolve to take life in order to protect an American civilian. 


Mathews statement wasn’t right…it wasn’t even wrong.  For instance, there are indeed situations, like a misfire, which could unluckily “bonk” a sniper’s shot—regardless of his training or resolve.  But even if I were to allow for the possibility that we were “fortunate” that nothing like this happened, isn’t it at least bad manners to address half the country and call the SEAL’s actions getting lucky?  It detracts from the simple concept of a job well done.  Rather like telling one of your daughters, “great job on getting an “A” you must have gotten lucky on some of those test questions.”  Bad form indeed.


If we were speaking personally you might ask me why I feel compelled to stand up for these tough Navy snipers?  That is a valid point.  These guys are used to thankless work.  They’re used to having to keep their heroic tales secret.  Indeed, the snipers would probably say, “Chris who?”  But as someone living in Navy-SEAL-rich San Diego, I can attest that these individual spec ops warriors attract small fan clubs of civilian acquaintances.  Their friends and family regard them as heroic.  They are revered, and this is healthy.  America needs heroes right now; Americans, along with the world, need to see their President stick up for soldiers who have done right—literally the good guys defeating pirates.  Arrrgghhh!


As the leader of all of our armed forces, you are in a position to stand up for your men (and women). I call for you to publicly retort Matthew’s remarks.  You should explain why they are silly, and counter to America’s needs.  Furthermore, since I can promise you that the SEALS don’t care about Matthew’s comments or a White-house response, you should use it as an opportunity to publicly thank all our military for their service to their country. 


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on Matthews comment.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101



P.S.  who could forget this?





The People’s Republic of California

April 10th, 2009

April 10, 2009


California Energy Commission

Dr. Arthur H Rosenfeld

Media and Public Communications Office
1516 Ninth Street, MS-29
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512


Dear Mr. Rosenfeld,


I am writing to you about the California Energy Commission’s proposal which would ban high-energy-consumption televisions, like big plasma screens.  I don’t own a plasma-screen TV, nor do I intend to get one, so I hope to remain relatively objective.  I have read quite a bit of internet commentary on both sides of the issue, and I have also read that the CEC states that they will be considering comments proposed on their web site before making a final determination about whether or not to move forward with the ban.  I want to take this opportunity to put my two cents in.  I don’t think ban will every effect me directly, but it is an interesting movement from a broader, more philosophic view.


Immediately, upon hearing the news that this ban was up for consideration, I was annoyed that California had found something new to regulate.  This was my “knee jerk” reaction.  Californians are already the most regulated citizens in the USA.  Furthermore, California has a way of seeking out luxury, or recreational items to regulate.  Plasma screen TV’s certainly fall here.  As another example, consider the off-road motorcycle. 


Dirt bikes are a luxury item in the sense that they are recreational.  Also, most dirt bike or ATV users only operate their off-road vehicles for a few hours a week or less.  Basically, they’re a toy.  When they are in use, their energy consumption is comparable to an economical car, like a Prius.  But their use is minimal.  The total life span of the motorcycle could be just a few thousand miles.  Considering all this, we must accept that these recreational vehicles are not significant pollution contributors.  I premise that if every dirt bike in the world suddenly disappeared, there would be no perceptible change in gasoline pollution.  Yet California regulates emissions on dirt bikes and ATVs.  Indeed, California is the only US state—no, make that the only government in the world, that does.  So a company like Honda or Yamaha has to make two variations of dirt bike for their US market:  the 49-state model, and the California model.  Care to warrant a guess at which model costs more?


And how have California’s extra regulations faired us thus far?  It is true that per-capita energy consumption in California is relatively good.  California ranks in the top five within the US.  But is this secondary to California’s regulation?  We often hear that energy usage will affect the climate, and this is certainly open for discussion, but we can state something else for sure.  What we can see statistically is that climate determines energy usage. 


The highest consuming states are those which require the most domestic heating.  Alaska, Wisconsin, Michigan are all energy consumers because of their cold winters.  Other states, like Georgia Louisiana, and South Carolina, require significant air conditioning use because of heat and humidity.  These states also consume a lot of domestic energy based on climate.  I postulate that California’s relatively good energy standing is more a function of its mild climate than its bureaucratic regulation.  This point introduces the question of how energy consumption breaks down. 


Just how big is the “television use” piece of the “energy use pie?”  Not big.  As electricity use goes, the majority is taken by industry and commercial applications.  Domestic use tips the scales at somewhere near 30%.  Of the 30% used domestically, even the highest estimates only put TV use at 1/10 of the household.  Again, most electricity goes toward heating, cooling, refrigeration, and incandescent light bulbs (these are all things which move heat around).  The above analysis basically means that if we were to dispense with every television in California, we would see two things.  First, there would be riots.  Second, there might be as much as a 3% change in electricity consumption. 


At first, this sounds attractive.  A 3% decrease is a good gain.  But the 3% scenario doesn’t accurately describe what the ban will do.  The ban will only regulate new sales of high-consumption TV sets.  This means that moving forward from the day the ban goes into effect, we will see no energy use drop and we will only be able to speculate about how much energy the ban saved compared with how much we would have used with out it.  In other words, on the day the ban begins, there will literally be no energy savings.  Each day forward the energy savings theoretically increase, but by how much?  We can only guess.


Do you know how frustrating this is for a scientist like me?  To see if this ban is getting us anywhere, we will be forced to hypothesize at how many plasma screens would have been sold, how much TV those consumers would have watched, and how the ban affects sales and use of non-offensive TVs.  For instance, since only less expensive LCD screens will be available, will consumers use their plasma TV budget to buy and use two comparable LCD screens instead of one plasma screen?  What other factors effect the sale of plasma screens?  The economy? Big movie releases?  I would bet that Superbowl participants regionally affect plasma screen sales in their home towns/states.  There are too many variables to precisely predict whether this ban will make intended gains.


There are some consequences, however, which we can predict with certainty.  Although “day one” of the ban will see no energy consumption decrease, it will see plasma screen related jobs and sales lost.  Of all the TV sold, plasma screens generate the most tax revenue for our broke state (because of their price), and they are the most likely to be professionally installed.  I am not saying that a whole lot of jobs will be lost because of the ban, because there won’t be many, but there will be some.  That is for sure, and it’s immediate, while the energy savings is speculative, long-term and maybe not at all.


I have also heard the case made by ban proponents that that the energy savings will benefit the consumer by $18-$50 per year.  I have come to regard folks who make points like this much like I would regard a well-meaning, but senile, senior citizen.  Sometimes, people mean well but there detachment from reality is scary.  Does anyone really believe that someone who spends $3500 on a TV cares about $.08 per day in energy savings?  If such people exist, do we really want them affecting state policy?


To wrap this up, I need to say that I don’t feel strongly either way about the ban.  It is a do-nothing rule.  The TV energy market share is small; people who want these items are going to have them shipped from other states.  If there is a fine, folks will just pay it.  After all, this is TV we are talking about.  The ban is symbolic at best.  Frankly, if the CEC wants to cut energy consumption, there are countless other places to look which will work better.  But is this the beginning of a trend which will lean towards an ever more intrusive CEC?  Is there any component of this which is simply reduces to another way to repress a bourgeois luxury item?


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on these questions.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


P.S.  Karl Marx once wrote that religion is the “opiate of the people.”  Later Huxley, in A Brave New World, described a new chemical pacifier which he referred to as “Soma.”  Finally, Orwell was perhaps the closest in 1984 when he described how the proletariats were offered a steady diet of dumbed-down “rhyming” and “simple” songs and pop culture to distract them from looking too closely at their government.  I can promise you, Mr. Commissioner, that television does these things for Californian politicians.  Politicians practically get away with murder because Californians are too worried about who is going to get kicked off the island to pay attention.  Do you really want to interfere with their entertainment?  





You want me to make your car payment?

April 7th, 2009

April 6, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing to you today about a television ad which recently caught my attention.  The particular add is for Saturn, but I understand that it ran for other General Motors vehicles too.  The ad outlined a new program called “Saturn Total Confidence.”  The premise is simple:  If the consumer buys a new Saturn, and loses their job, Saturn will make their payments for up to 9 months while simultaneously protecting the car’s trade-in value.  Now I understand that it’s rather odd to write to the President of the United States about a car commercial, but these are odd times, and you indeed have significant control at General Motors.  There are particulars about this commercial which I find distressing.  I felt moved to share them with you.


The commercial begins by describing another car company’s strategy for alleviating consumer worries about the job market; then, it criticizes it.  Specifically, the other company (was it Hyundai?) offered to buy back one’s car if one found themselves jobless soon after the car purchase, and the Saturn commercial describes the day in which the consumer loses their job and surrenders their car as “the worst day ever.”  Saturn’s plan to better this offer rests with the promise that Saturn will allow the consumer to keep their car while making their payments for them for nine months.


Mr. President, have you ever been out socially and had a friend announce that you were going to pick up the tab for everyone, but you didn’t agree or intend to do so?  Do you remember how you felt?  Try to recall that feeling while you read this letter, because this is how I felt watching that commercial.  Saturn can’t make people’s car payments—they’re broke.  They’re on the government take.  They’re GM.  I ought to know how broke they are; I’m a GM stockholder.


And I would bet that most Americans don’t know that Saturn is GM.  Indeed, Saturn is different than the GM stereotypes like Chevrolet and Hummer.  People are going to think that Saturn is instituting Total Confidence based on altruistic tendencies.  The truth is less glamorous.  Unemployed Saturn drivers will have their payments paid with printed taxpayer money.  It just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it? 


Also, the commercial itself (you can watch it yourself on Youtube by searching Saturn Total Confidence) has an arrogant tone to it.  With one viewing you’ll see what I mean.  Saturn, through their actor, is trying to make people think that they are better people than their competitors.  Also, doesn’t the whole message betray shades of motor vehicle ownership entitlement?  And will Saturn, backed by the US printing press and fighting unfairly, hurt their competitors based on a farce?  If so, socialized industry gains ground.  The American people lose again.


This ad’s viewers are deceived.  They generally won’t know that the offer is taxpayer backed.  In an era where most television ads include a fast-speaking disclaimer which gives the “humbler” facts about the product of service, how is this neglect of truth allowed to propagate?


Consider this:  Pfizer includes a disclaimer at the end of their Viagra ad which warns the viewer that use of Viagra might cause “delayed-onset lower back pain.”  Can you figure out why a Viagra user might experience a sore back the next day?  Would you agree that it is unscientific (at best) to directly cite Viagra as responsible for the discomfort?  OK, it’s down right ridiculous.  But that’s how cautious Pfizer is about disclosing all of the less-glamorous realities of their product.  They will pay for the air time to avoid the hassle of potentially getting “in trouble.”  Indeed, they owe it to their shareholders to take precautions like these.      


Given that you have repeatedly stated that you intend for GM to be accountable to the taxpayer, I propose that this commercial should be immediately augmented so that it honestly states that GM vehicle owners are entitled to taxpayer subsidized unemployment, in the form of car payments, for nine months should they lose their jobs.  This would be the truth.  The government (and its new corporation) owes truth to taxpayers and shareholders.


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on these questions.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101



The Winning Ticket:

April 6th, 2009

April 6, 2009


Michael Steele
First Street
, D. C. 20003


Dear Mr. Steele,


I am writing to you as a conservative from California.  We are few.  As a Californian conservative, I always found it distressing that the Democratic Party and the world consider California to be a foregone conclusion.  It really gives one a feeling that one’s vote doesn’t count.  Indeed, they don’t.  By the time I could cast my vote last November, I’m pretty sure that MSNBC was already referring to President Obama as “President Elect.”


Not getting to contribute a “real” vote in this last election was only part my frustration.  Frankly, I was not enthusiastic about Senator McCain.  There are some exceptional qualities about Senator McCain which I respect, but they are mostly personal qualities built around his service record, POW courage, and war-time resolve.

Under the right circumstances, Senator McCain could have been a terrific president.  If we found ourselves with the same current threat by foreign aggressors, but with no immigration problem or recession, he would be the guy.  Alas, this wasn’t the case.  The times just don’t suit him.


I know that you didn’t pick Senator McCain to be the nominee.  He won it fairly through a reasonable primary process.  I also understand why this primary process is beneficial.  Republicans saw none of the Hillary-Obama ugliness stemming from the extreme selfishness which the Democratic delegation process clearly brought out.  But what strings can the GOP pull to channel the nomination to the most likely presidential winner? 


Clearly, someone called off the other Republican contenders when it became apparent that McCain was going to get the nomination.  However, is there any other mechanism which the GOP can use to deliver the strongest candidate to the overall election?  Can the Republican Committee funnel money to the best candidate?  Can they suppress a weaker candidate who might be running on something which sells to Republicans but not to the whole country—like a war record?  Can the GOP leadership pick the winning horse, but in such a way that the people still pick him/her?  Does what I am proposing sound like something the Democratic Party would do/did?  It should, and it works.


In many areas the RNC is a decade behind the times.  I voted for McCain, so perhaps I can pick on him “for the good of his party.”  Senator McCain was criticized by his opposition for his “senior citizen” computer skills, especially his skills with respect to email.  We can analyze this blunder, which truly cost votes, as an incident which shows how the GOP has expired. 


We live in an age when daily emails outnumber phone calls for 80% of America (I just made that statistic up but I’m still right), but Senator McCain admitted that he had difficulty with emails?  And what’s worse is he didn’t even know he was hurting himself when he did it.


Here’s how it works…straight from a constituent:  Email familiarity represents technical ability.  We also (whether or not it’s rational) associate technical ability with Economic understanding (think QuickBooks, Excel, and E-Trade…all that stuff).  Furthermore we associate George W. Bush with the opposite of technical ability.  It was the perfect storm.  You just lost the economy while simultaneously building a bridge to an unpopular predecessor.  And he didn’t even know he did it.  Senator McCain probably thought he was clever for attempting to endear himself to Florida senior voters.  But for twenty-something’s like me, watching this unfold was painful.  Republicans need to get with the times. 


The GOP needs to bring back conservative principles.  That’s given.  Everyone is already saying that.  But what I am not hearing is whether the GOP can play the image card as well as the Democrats.  Forget trying to corner the 2012 election issues.  The 2008 issue was the economy and the world didn’t even figure that out until 45 days before voting.  It’s too soon to predict issues.  What we need is to begin grooming a new image for a new leader.  For once, the GOP finally knows exactly what they will be up against in 2012.  They had better find a candidate who is up to the task.


Besides image and conservative principles, what else could be done?  Republicans need strategy.  The democrats do this well.  Republicans…not so much.  Here’s an example.  The Republicans tried to go after Hillary supporters by inviting Governor Palin to the ticket.  That’s fine, but there were other opportunities which were lost in the process.  For instance, we can assume that a candidate will draw support from their home state.  In this way Governor Palin had nothing to contribute.  Alaska was on board either way.  What you really needed was a Californian or Floridian woman.  You could either try to flip a Democrat state, or secure a swing state, but under no circumstances should you choose someone from a Republican state.  Is this tactless to write about?  The GOP will have to gain the stomach for these types of discussions if they hope to regain the White House.


And what about McCain’s amnesty bill involvement?  This ruffled lots of feathers with conservatives.  Indeed, conservatives like me felt that the Republican Party took their votes for granted just as much as the Democrats take California for granted.  Was McCain chasing Hispanic voters?  I believe he was.  How many did he get? 1000? 11?  Now that that this experiment has been tried and noted as a failure, isn’t it time to try something different?  There is almost nothing that is going to pull the Hispanic votes away from the Democrats.  They are instructed to vote Democratic by La Raza, the Catholic Church, and by Spanish campaign commercials “approved” by Barack Obama…paid for by—heaven only knows.  There is, however, one simple (free) way for a candidate to get every Hispanic vote in the whole country:  have a Hispanic surname.  I suspect that reading this makes you uncomfortable.  I understand if it does.  But does that mean I am wrong?


Here it is, the recipe for a GOP winning ticket in the 2012 presidential election: someone like Bobby Jindal (or anyone else who doesn’t look like a normal Republican), but they’re from Florida, running with a Hispanic candidate from California.  You couldn’t lose.  Could you image the looks on the Democrats faces having just lost California?  Having just been beaten at their own game?  Please believe me, the Democrats know about everything I just rattled off.  They are nervous about it.  They don’t get to pick their guy this time.  They are stuck with President Obama, and the honeymoon will be over by 2012. 


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on these questions?  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101





Global Warming talks with China?

April 4th, 2009

April 4, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing about your press interview after the G20 summit again.  As I said in my last letter, some of your statements entice so many new questions.  I pray that you will look with me into some of these questions in more detail.  I also hope you will take my comments into consideration and respond with answers to some of my questions. 


There was one question at the G20 press conference which instantly revealed itself to me for what it was.  Michael Shear asked you: 


“Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you view this trip that you’re on and the actions that you’ve taken here at the G20 and with the bilateral meetings that you’ve had as representing a break from the foreign policy of your predecessor. And if so, could you describe where you see and how you see the principles that guide a different view of the world?”


You responded with:


“Well, you know, I didn’t accompany President Bush on his various summits, so I don’t know how he was operating. And I won’t — I won’t warrant a guess on that.”


And then you went on to say that you stress humility, listening, and teamwork to resolve the world’s problems.  Mr. President, admittedly, it is rare that we see eye to eye, but I approve of this response.  The question from Mr. Shear was a clear set up for you to take a shot at President Bush.  I would venture a guess that this is what the Europeans were crossing their fingers for, but you refrained.  Your words had a quality about them which seemed to say, “That’s not what this is about.”  Do you suppose that Mr. Shear went home disappointed?  I suspect he did.  Did you have a preconception of what he was going to ask before the conference?  If so, was you answer carefully thought out? 


Your follow up to the clause I quoted above was also fair.  Your words showed a difference in style and priority between you and President Bush without taking a shot at him.  This question gave you a tight rope to walk, and you did fine. 


There was another instance which perked my attention.  In your opening remarks at the press conference, you said:


“I also want to just make a few remarks about additional meetings I had outside of the G20 context. While here in London I had the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with leaders of Russia, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and India, as well as Great Britain… we…discussed coordinated actions on a range of issues: how we could reduce the nuclear threat; how we could forge a coordinated response to North Korea’s planned missile launch; how we can turn back terrorism and stabilize Afghanistan; how we can protect our planet from the scourge of climate change. I’m encouraged that we laid the groundwork for real and lasting progress on a host of these issues.”

I’m not sure if the reporters who you had scheduled to call on were committed to ask their prescripted questions, but there is a virtual treasure trove of potential questions stemming from the above remarks.  If the words of your statement can be taken literally, there must have been some fascinating dynamics at these meetings!  Any reporter silly enough to still ask you the aforementioned George W. Bush attack setup after these opening remarks deserves to go home jaded. 


These interesting dynamics are intrigue based on different priorities of the G20 nations.  Here is an example.  How did speaking with the Premier of China about the North Korea missile threat go?  This well exemplifies the different priorities I referenced.  For the US, a missile capable nuclear capable North Korea is quite a headache!  For communist China…not so much.  This meeting must have been so interesting that I am giving serious thought to writing the Chinese Prime Minister to ask him for his side of the story.


And how did talking about Global Warming with China go?  With India?  Saudi Arabia?  If these conversations really happened, this would be the story of a lifetime!  Like an environmental Cold War…no pun intended.  But seriously, I would have paid an AIG bonus to see the looks on all there faces when you told Saudi Arabia that the oil they are exporting was going to hurt the planet, so they had better quit.  And I want a full account of what the faces of the Chinese and Indian Prime Ministers looked like when you told them that our Government recently decided that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant, and that all their brand new coal-fired power plants had to go.  You did tell them this, didn’t you Mr. President?  Because you are about to hamstring our domestic industries with your “cap and trade” based on this very principal.


I would be very enthusiastic to read you responses to any or all of these questions.  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101





Power to the People? Are you sure?

April 3rd, 2009

April 3, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing to you today about your press interview during your recent G20 trip to Europe.  The Washington Post (dated 4-2-09) has published a transcript of your interview session on their web site, so over the next few days, I hope to engage some of your answers in more depth. 


As you know, sometimes answers to questions provoke thought and new questions.  The press conference process rarely allows many follow-up question opportunities.  This is a shame.  Initial answers to press questions are often general.  We are living, however, in a time which will require specific answers and actions.  You pride your administration as one which maintains transparency, so I trust you will not mind if I pose follow-up questions (perhaps comments too) in my letters.


At the press conference, Emma Alberici, from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, asked you about executive compensation, specifically about the government’s role in deciding pay for executives.  She asked:


 “At the moment, in the U.S., the U.K., and in Australia, executive salaries and bonuses are decided in the boardrooms of major publicly listed companies. Who will be making those decisions on salaries and bonuses as a result of the agreement you’ve made here today? And if it is still the boards, will they be guided by principles or legislation?”


You replied in part:


 “The principles that we outlined…move us in the direction of what I consider to be best practices, which is that there is some accountability with respect to executive compensation… theoretically, that should be to the shareholders… But the way that too many corporations have operated…is that you have a CEO…selects his board…which surprisingly tends to think that it’s necessary, to retain the best talent, to pay people $20 million or $30 million a year.”


(I added the last two commas. The Washington Post did a dismal job of transcription)


I have trimmed the fat from your statement, but I am sure you would agree that all of your intended meaning is there.  Your theory is that boards of directors are corruptible, but the individual shareholders have a “purer,” more direct stake in the company. Therefore, the individual shareholders should have voting rights for executive compensation.  Have I understood you correctly?  If so, this is a valid point.  I can see the wisdom in giving power to those who directly have a stake.  We could work with this idea.  But it does raise other interesting questions: so do particulars of your diction.


For instance, you referenced rather large executive compensation figures in your reply to Ms. Alberici’s question.  Were you expressing discontent about a CEO making $30,000,000?  Do you think that an individual should not aspire to earn salaries which are in the tens of millions?  Critics have accused you of inciting class warfare as a political tactic.  What is your response to their criticism?  If you maintain that your critics are wrong, how do you reconcile this word choice with an absence of class warfare incitation?


Also, does the CEO really take home thirty million? Twenty?  Fifteen?  No.  Unless said CEO uses TurboTax under Tim Gietner’s tutelage, Uncle Sam will glean nearly half.  How many hundreds of millions does the federal government annually enjoy because big shots make big money and pay big taxes?  How would you make up this income if CEO’s salaries were regulated back down to earth?  If your answer is, “we are just going to have to learn to live without it,” then I will still back you on this issue.  Is that your answer?


Let’s get back to the broader issue which your response raised: Are we going to put company control into the hands of the folks who have a direct stake?  When I ponder this, my first question is: will shareholder’s voting weight correspond with their stake in the company?  If not, what would prevent special-interest and lobbyist types from buying a nominal number of stock shares, like one for each voting person, just to fool around with votes?  For instance, what details would you insist on finding in this legislature to prevent crazies, like the American Communist Party (didn’t they endorse you?), from buying a million shares, one at a time, to vote a million times against a CEO making more than minimum wage? 


I understand that this question may initially seem silly, but it’s not.  Here’s why: sometimes we pass legislation we didn’t even read.  Also, the concept of voting weight measured by “stake in the game” is foreign in American politics.  Every citizen can vote, while only half pay taxes.  Furthermore, the citizen who can’t even name our nation’s Vice President gets a vote which equals (more often then not…cancels out) my vote—and I can tell you the vice president’s preferred brand of dental floss.  Mr. President, I want to know, specifically, how you will ensure that this transfer of control from boards to shareholders does only what you say you intend for it to do, and nothing else.  I insist on your assurance that you will prevent ideologue wacko’s from using it to fuel class warfare.    


So how could the idea you proposed be transplanted to other areas where our nation needs improvement?  Again, properly executed, what you have proposed is a good idea.  As I reflect on direct control by shareholders, and the troubling circumstance outlined above where CEO’s virtually decide their own salaries, I ask myself who else decides their own salaries?  Doesn’t Congress?  Senators?  If so, doesn’t this present a similar conflict of interest?  If I were to compare the Senate to corporate executives, wouldn’t normal Americans like you and me be the shareholders?  If the average American (including the one who can’t name the VP) was allowed to vote directly on government official’s salaries, do you think Congress would still be making $170,000 per year?  Do you think they would still get this salary for life even if they only served one term? 


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on these questions?  I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,



David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101



Union Pawn or The New Sheriff?

April 1st, 2009

April 1, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing today about your dismissal of GM’s Richard Wagoner.  I know that the official story is that he resigned, but the nation suspects that it was at your request.  I wish you would give a press conference and clarify what happened and why.  Between my private shares and my public shares (as a taxpayer) of GM, I feel deeply invested in the company.  As a nation, it’s an odd lot with which we find ourselves, as I still haven’t grown accustomed to such direct government control of a Detroit motor company.  I don’t think that America, taken as a whole, is comfortable with this particular facet of “change.”


Mr. President, do you look favorably at the government’s new role as General Motor’s overseer, or do you find it a regrettable consequence of the company’s need for taxpayer assistance?  Concerning Richard Wagoner specifically, did he push too hard for union concessions to be part of GM’s restructuring plan?  I know there are several areas for improvement within GM.  I also remember when you outlined several changes which you hoped to see.  Like most Americans, I found your suggestions to be agreeable.  But what is your response to union critics who insist that GM cannot compete with Toyota as long as it must continue to pay out so many union benefits?


I must admit, although I stated above that I am uncomfortable with the recent government involvement in our auto industry (others too), I find it appealing that the government’s involvement has been aggressive and overt.  When companies which find themselves on insecure ground begin to strain, they might try harder to recover without asking for taxpayer money having just seen AIG trashed and Wagoner ousted.  Was this intentional on your part, Mr. President, like a new sheriff?  I suspect that it was probably more complex than that, but whatever the case, we might be on to something.  Oh how I long for the days when taking charity from the government was something to be ashamed of.


The problem is that there are likely companies which took bailout money because they could, regardless of whether they would have died without it.  Isn’t that the way it usually goes with taxpayer money?  I remember news stories from bailout days describing businesses and banks reclassifying themselves as investment banks so that they would qualify for bailout money—as if it were some kind of university scholarship. 


Mr. President, I support getting extremely tough on companies which sought bailout money, even if they really needed it.  I want you to frighten them bad enough to make the Treasury’s PO Box overflow with checks from corporations voluntarily returning their bail-out money…even stimulus money.  Scare them straight.  Instead of blaming President Bush at press conferences, try this, “I saw AIG executive Ed Liddy at Starbucks yesterday.  Starbucks is a luxury!  We can’t have bailed-out companies’ CEOs partaking in Starbucks; he’s fired!”  Don’t be afraid to bend those Army Field Manual guidelines.  And if you do get the taxpayers a bunch of money back, please figure out how to un-print it.  President Bush hurt our currency, and I fear that you will too.  But to strengthen our dollar…that would be “change we could believe in.”



I would be very interested to read your responses to some or all of the above questions.  I hope this finds you well.  Enjoy England! 


Kind Regards,


David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


P.S.  you might rethink that campaign phrase “change we can believe in.”  You have put a preposition at the end of a sentence…Bad form.  If you do succeed in educating all of America, sooner or later your constituency is going to figure it out.  Try: “change in which we can believe.”  I don’t know, maybe when we try to realize your campaign it loses its luster.

The dollar

March 31st, 2009


March 29, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing to you today about the dollar.  Specifically, I worry about the dollar’s prestige, as it is seen on the world’s stage, slipping.  I am not an economist, but I have been told that America’s economic growth over the past few decades was aided by foreign investments in our currency, our stock markets, and our treasury bills.  I am told that much of the world stashed their money here because America was seen as a good investment.  Indeed, I suspect that until recently, these investors likely did well.


Before your election, Congress and President Bush passed the first bailout bill.  At the time, bailout proponents made the case that if the bailout did not go through, the markets would descend to a point such that foreign investors would withdraw their money, and then we “would really be in trouble” or something to that effect.  People like me, who reject bailouts on principle because they offend their sense of personal responsibility, were called “ideologues.”  Mr. President, after all the dollar has weathered in the last seven months (it has all happened rather fast, maybe the dollar hasn’t had time to weather anything yet), do you still see our dollar/stock market as attractive to big foreign money?  The most attractive?


After watching your press conference last week, I suspect you would remind me that other nations’ currencies have been hard hit too.  Indeed.  You might also say that because things are economically bad throughout the developed world, America’s companies, markets and currency still remain the most promising investments.  Certainly, a strong case can be made to this end.  But could we take further action to attract that foreign money?


Last spring, when you were still campaigning, (and Secretary of State Clinton was too), I heard Ben Stein make the case that our economic decline could have been immediately halted if all of the probable presidential candidates would make a pact stating that whichever nominee won the election, they would commit to balancing the budget within two years.  His rationale was based on the logic above:  money would come pouring in from around the globe, gas prices would lower as the dollar gained strength.  We would benefit.  And when we benefit, so does the rest of the world.  Stein even alleged that we wouldn’t have to wait for the budget to be balanced.  The mere promise by trustworthy campaigners (ha!) would be enough to kick it into gear.  If I could gain an audience with Ben Stein, I suspect he would say that this tactic would have lessened some of our recent pain.


I know that these ideas, from less than one year ago, seem nuts now.  With bailout this and stimulate that…we’ve got toxic assets releasing toxic greenhouse gasses…balance the budget?  Just the same, I would like very much to hear your response to Stein’s hypothesis, both then and now.  We can’t just dismiss him as a lunatic; after all, he’s Ben Stein.


Above I asked questions which center around the world’s perception of our currency.  But what about our confidence in are own currency?  To us, dollars aren’t a theoretical investment, they’re real.  We count, earn, and spend them.  With stimulus spending of printed money and big budget deficits, Americans almost unanimously fear inflation. 


At a recent press conference, a CNN reporter asked you weather you are worried about the debt which your stimulus bill/proposed budget will leave to your daughter’s generation.  Your answer reiterated the debt legacy which President Bush left, and reminded us that this wasn’t easy stuff to fix, but you didn’t directly answer the question.  You also didn’t explain to my satisfaction how the continuance of failed Bush deficit spending was “change we can believe in.”   Can I take your avoidance to be an affirmative answer?  Does inflation worry you too Mr. President? 


The way I see it, there are just two ways to handle our national deficit/debt.  We can either pay it back, and the dollar is none the worse for the wear, or we let the dollar sustain the damage, and we’re off the hook for the debt.  Are you leaning towards the latter of these two options?  If so, will you follow the printing/spending spree with some sort of dollar strengthening power move like the budget balancing described above?


Just for kicks, I peeked back at prices from the 1930’s to sample inflation over the last 75 years.  I was particularly interested in the inflation since the time when today’s senior citizens were children, because I wanted to extrapolate this to the time when your daughters will be seniors.  Based on some rough back of the envelope calculations, the present generation of children will be looking to pay prices between 25 and 30 times higher when they are seniors if the next 70 years looks like the past 70.  This means that today’s family dinner out for three will be pushing $2000 by the time that I am in my 80’s.  A Starbucks will be more than $100.  And this “would be” only if inflation matched the 20th century.  Won’t it likely be more?  How can I plan a retirement around these prices?  Social Security?    


I fear I might not adapt well to government dependence.  I want the government pacing nervously, waiting for the mailman, to see if he is delivering a check from me—not the other way around.  


I would appreciate very much reading your thoughts on any or all of these questions.  It would be especially interesting to see your presidential down to earth side with respect to inflation.  Does it worry you like it worries your constituency?  I hope this finds you well.        



Kind Regards,


David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

AIG Underwritten Universal Healthcare?

March 29th, 2009

March 29, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I promise this will by my last letter about AIG.  Everyone else is sick of the topic.  We’ve all heard the idiom, “beating a dead horse,” but one could accuse me, fairly, of beating a dead brontosaurus.  However, I just keep getting the feeling that we haven’t heard the last of AIG.  I’ve learned to trust these nagging feelings.  Do you get those too Mr. President?  I’m no historian, but I wish a good one would study presidential “hunches“ to try to find a likely instant in America’s history where a US president had a nagging feeling, acted on it, and the aftermath noticeably changed the country’s future.  I have that kind of gut feeling about AIG.  I think there is more to AIG’s socialization than meets the eye.


The very size of AIG makes me nervous.  Not only have they been labeled as too big to fail, now they are too big to fail, and we own their stock.  Not only do I now own a bunch of stock in a subsidized “too big to fail” company, I don’t even have any control of that ownership.  I can’t call my broker and tell them to unload those shares.  And who is my broker?  Is it congress?  Is it you?  Gietner?  Whoever my new AIG stockbroker is, considering that he/she/it bought the stock after I (and most other Americans) asked them not to, I don’t expect they would heed my request to unload my AIG shares even if I asked. 


So all the above-paragraph stuff is true:  we own AIG, the owners don’t have any control over this ownership, and AIG is too big to fail.  But what else do we know about AIG?  Even Americans who are in “la-la” land will probably know one thing about AIG:  Their reputation is trashed, and the trashing is real—beyond damage control.  In other words, even people who can’t name the Vice President know that AIG is bad. 


But AIG’s business is directly consumer driven.  Did nobody think this through?  AIG’s income depends directly on two things, government hand-outs (lately), and policy sales which individual households, people, and companies buy.  The way I see it, their reputation is trashed.  In the insurance industry, there is choice; who is going to choose AIG?  Nobody.  They now have only one viable source of income left, and Americans are tired of writing the checks.  Am I wrong?  If I am, I would very much like to read specifically how.


Mr. President, have you ever owned stocks?  If you have, wouldn’t you be distressed if you held stock in a company which recently became a hopeless investment, but you were powerless to get yourself out of that stock?  Wouldn’t it be worse, if your situation was such that you were going to have to keep paying “life support” to that company based on some misguided principal?  Mr. President, there is no way this can be a winning deal for the taxpayers.  Please say enough is enough.


So what happens when consumers stop renewing their policies with AIG?  What happens when smaller insurance companies began to seek underwriting elsewhere?  Will AIG’s only move left be to offer irresistibly low premiums?  Will AIG’s new ownership (Congress?) say to the company something like, “don’t worry about turning a profit, just lower your prices to keep your market share, and we’ll keep the money coming?”  If this happens, what will it mean for smaller, more responsible insurance companies which took no bail-out money?  Would AIG’s new government-subsidized status ruin smaller business which will not be able to compete?  Doesn’t everyone agree that these smaller businesses are the only companies creating jobs right now?


Or does our federal government have other devices planed for AIG?  I know that you deeply desire to provide health insurance for your entire constituency.  Wouldn’t it be ignoring the elephant in the room to not point out that the White House wants to do the giant health insurance thing—and the White House also controls a newly-acquired insurance company—which just happens to be the biggest insurance company in the world? 


And, not only does the government now control the biggest insurance company in the world, but that company is too big to fail, but they are going to fail without a big new customer.  Will we, without our consent, be that customer?  Mr. President, do you intend to use AIG to underwrite some new universal health insurance fund to fulfill your campaign promises?  


I hope this letter finds you well.


Kind Regards,


David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101

AIG series Letter 3 of 4: The stimulus bill

March 28th, 2009

March 28, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing again about the AIG debacle.  I know that everyone in the media has moved on, and it’s probably tactless of me to linger on AIG—like bringing up the ex-spouse/marriage when a friend as already moved on and remarried, but I think there are some valuable lessons to take with us from AIG, as it relates to our federal government and the legislative process.


Specifically, please consider with me how the AIG situation relates to the bailout legislation process.  It might be unorthodox to write to the president expressing concern about recent legislative action, but you were previously a legislator, so perhaps you can use your experience to reform the process.  I’ll take congress’ dismal approval rating as evidence enough that the legislative process is imperfect.  Additionally, I know that you exercise great influence over the democratic majority of our House and Senate.


I must admit, it saddens me that AIG or any private (now, not so private) company could be interwoven with legislation as a topic.  The fact remains; however, that AIG’s bonus debacle could have been prevented with a careful review of your stimulus bill, and it wasn’t.


Obviously, much of the blame for this scandal rests with Senator Dodd.  The Senator’s job as a representative, if I understand it correctly, is to faithfully promote the best interest of his constituency.  In this case, the only folks for whom he lobbied were the AIG bonus recipients.  Senator Dodd is a disgrace.  There, I said it—to the president.  Senator Dodd took AIG’s campaign contribution.  AIG got its money.  And the last debt Senator Dodd had to pay was assurance that AIG executives got their bonuses.  


Never mind that key Democratic officials expressed outrage at the bonuses.  Those bonuses, as legislated in the stimulus bill, are constitutionally protected.  If I can see that, so can the politicians who were publicly critical of Senator Dodd’s actions.  Indeed, I suspect that members of the Democratic Party who are responsible for AIG’s bonuses knew from the beginning that regardless of how well they feigned outrage, the Supreme Court was not going to tax back the bonuses.  Am I being unfair?  Is faking outrage for political expedience beyond the politicians whom I have accused of it?  I would enjoy very much reading your thoughts on this.


Back to Senator Dodd: He’s finished.  But he isn’t solely responsible for the mess.  Even after Senator Dodd published such a silly addendum in your bill, there are still measures for getting rid of it.  They all, however, rely heavily on reading the bill.


Who remarked something to the effect that, “we are voting with one hand and crossing our fingers with the other?”  This remark wasn’t made metaphorically.  When he said we, he literally included himself in the statement.  He was a yes vote.  He knew that what he was doing was iffy at best, at worst…money for AIG executives and Acorn. 


Let us recount the week that the stimulus bill, which struck into law bonuses for AIG out of printed taxpayer money, passed.  I think I recall widespread concern that House Speaker Pelosi had somewhere important to be.  Any republican who spoke out about the absurdity of voting on an unstudied bill was hammered by Democrat opposition.  This was not a bipartisan effort. 


If I might be granted one digression, much later Fox News (smelling blood) reported that when Speaker Pelosi met with the Pope in Rome following the vote, His Holiness might have shown his distaste for her pro-choice tendencies.  Is Fox crazy?  Fox news really took a shot at Senator Pelosi over abortion?  Did they forget the 1000+ pages of unread law?  That bill could have contained legislature handwritten between double-spaced lines, mandating that American families kill their first born child as a sacrifice to Beelzebub…and we wouldn’t have know until it was too late. 


There were also cases made that the immediate distress of America’s financial situation required instant bill passage.  Since you didn’t sign the bill until the following week, Mr. President, I can only take this to mean that “the news” of the bill’s passage was what the economy needed.  If this is not the case, then there was no justification for the haste. 


What I mean to say is this:  if it wasn’t the news of the bill that mattered, if it was the bill itself, wouldn’t we have ended up with a better bill, if everyone had taken the weekend to read it?  Wouldn’t it have become law at the same time?  The Senate could have voted, and their vote could have immediately preceded your signing.  You even could have all gone out for drinks together afterwards.  And what would it have mattered if Senator Pelosi couldn’t participate?  Does anyone really think that her vote would have changed?


I suspect that if we conversed in person, you would explain that it was indeed the news of the stimulus bill’s passage which was necessary on such short order.  But if this was the case, Wall Street didn’t get the memo.  There was no immediate rally following the stimulus bill.  If anything, your change in diction and tone following the bill’s signing was what the doctor ordered.  Even a casual audit of your speeches preceding and following the stimulus bill’s signing is enough to see a clear difference.  Mr. President, your words have power.


In case it was vague above, I don’t buy that the bill had to pass the Senate on the day that it did.  They received and voted on a 1000 page bill on the same day.  It’s like Alice in Wonderland!  But since I am just an average person, and there were probably things going on behind the scenes, I’ll allow for a “what if” scenario. OK, what if we had a thousand pages of legislature that we really did have to pass in one day.  Do you cross your fingers and just vote?  Can it even be called a vote, if one doesn’t know what’s in there?  Could they have tried to get it read, by dividing up the work?  Yes, I’m serious.  The bill is 1000 pages, and you’ve got 100 voting Senators and 9 hours…


Here it is: David’s fool-proof recipe for removing AIG bonuses from 1000 page spending bills.  Begin by taking one hundred chairs on the Capital Floor and arranging them in a circle.  Next, form a single file line in front of the spending bill.  The order of the line must be independent of political affiliation…alphabetical by last name should suffice.  Each Senator walks past the bill and takes 10 pages of the top.   Each Senator then takes a seat in line order.  This should take no longer than one hour***at this point union Labor might feel compelled to augment the recipe by adding regular breaks***.  For the rest of us, there are 8 hours left.  Each senator reads the 10 pages they have in hand for 30 minutes, or until they are 100% certain that there is no taxpayer money being assigned as bonuses to AIG executives.  This last part is critical.  After the first 30 minutes, each Senator passes their 10 pages to the right.  This process is repeated 15 times over the next 7 ½ hours.  If during their reading, any Senator should detect that the bill is dispersing taxpayer money to said executives, they are to put a line through the specific clauses which are cause for concern.  These clauses are done: Finished.  We’ll vote on them another time when the world isn’t about to end. 


The astute reader will notice that this recipe can be adapted to varying lengths of time and bills which need to be pushed through with haste.  For instance, if the Senate only had three hours to pass a 1000 page bill, they could follow the above-stated process (sans union augmentations) and ensure that every word of the bill was read by at least 4 Senators.


That’s execution Mr. President.  The private sector does it every day—sometimes twice.


In a broader sense, the AIG bonuses exemplify the biggest problem with the federal government.  Our politicians, with precious few exceptions are completely out of touch with normal Americans.  Take Vice President Biden for example.  He has been a Senator since his twenties.  Can he really relate to middle aged, middle classed, working folks?  Can Speaker Pelosi?  Let’s look together at another example.


Average Joe’s are used to being held accountable for money spent, received, borrowed, or stolen on a daily basis.  If I want to pay my cell phone bill to ATT via their website, they require me to check a box attesting that I have read and fully understand all the terms and conditions of the payment.  Credit card payments often require a signature “for accountability;” even if the purchase is coffee.  The average member of your constituency simply can’t relate to a group of politicians who will spend $1,000,000,000,000 without taking the care to read how it’s being spent. 


If I may beg for another digression, citizens who can relate to this level of irresponsibility probably made themselves speculators by borrowing huge sums of money to buy houses which they couldn’t afford.  They are co-responsible for America’s mess.  Somehow this all relates back to personal responsibility.


There is just one person, who directly made the stimulus bill into law, who had the time to completely read the stimulus bill before it became official.  I’m afraid, Mr. President, that you were the last hope for a stop-catch.  Line item veto?  Veto altogether?  By the time you signed it (was it the following Tuesday?) you could already see that Wall Street wasn’t having it.  Imagine what it could have done for your approval ratings, with the average Joe’s like me, if you would have said, “I read the entire bill, and I’m not comfortable singing it.  Congress, get back to work; somebody get Pelosi back on her expensive jet.”


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on AIG or the broader question of how our government distributes income.


Kind Regards,


David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101



AIG too big to fail? How about our dollar?

March 24th, 2009

March 24, 2009


President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing a second time about the AIG debacle.  In my last letter, I questioned whether an AIG bailout was congruent with America’s sense of personal responsibility, which has historically shaped our nation’s prosperity.  I fear that it was not.  I look forward to reading your thoughts.  Here, I ask you to examine with me the primary problem which led to AIG’s squander of millions of taxpayer dollars. 


The problem is rather philosophical.  The question is: should any private corporation be given government aid to prevent their collapse based on the premise that they are “too big to fail?”  Before I proceed with my opinion on this question, I want to iterate that I fully understand that AIG, along with many other companies, began receiving huge sums of government money under President Bush.  Mr. President, I remember that you didn’t usher in the bailout age.


I also must assert that I don’t blame you or your administration for any “flip-flops” or lies to your constituency about government intervention for failing companies like AIG.  It was no surprise at all when you announced a large stimulus bill early in your term.  The American people got from their president a fulfillment of what your campaign offered.  Furthermore, you signed the stimulus bill only after it had passed Congress and the Senate, where it received votes from both parties.  There is no room for any critic of yours to attack you on this issue with the type of argument that we regularly saw directed towards President Bush—“Bush lied” bumper stickers and the sort.


OK, back to business:  to bailout or not to bailout…that is (was) the question.  We did it.  What if we hadn’t?  The previous four words, “what if we hadn’t,” immediately place me on shaky ground.  I led off with “what if.”  This is unfair.  Furthermore, I’ve asked a question that cannot be answered with certainty.  In short, if we are looking for certainty or even likelihood, “what if” is a philosophical dead-end.  But uncertainty in the argument that we were wrong to bail out AIG (we can’t know what would have happened otherwise) offers equal uncertainty about the correctness of the decision. 


Also, the dissenter is well aided (if only temporarily) by the recentness of the bailout decision.  Indeed, it would seem silly to question the success of any political economic decision which had resulted in long-term economic growth.  In other words, if the next year sees the DOW at 1200 again, dissent will be silly in retrospect.


Since it is futile to attempt to answer, “what if we hadn’t?”  Please join me, Mr. President, in asking some hypothetical questions.  While “what if” scenarios will never reach concrete answers, they are not altogether useless.  We will try to analyze the hypothetical scenario, where AIG is allowed to fail, from one very particular viewpoint.  Please consider with me the following hypothetical situation: 


Pretend with me that you and I were partnership owners of a lesser insurance company.  Let us suppose that AIG dwarfed our insurance company.  Perhaps we even required underwriting by a more significant enterprise.  While massive AIG could probably boast the lowest premiums as a function of their size and overall market share, our diminutive company would almost certainly need to promote ourselves based on one-on-one attention/accessibility, and a North-American-based customer service center (I am in a rare position to critique AIG’s out-sourced customer service, because I discourse with AIG daily). 


If all this were true (basically “what if” again), would some other things not also be likely?  Would our business not have targeted mainly Americans to hire as employees in the years preceding AIG’s bailout?  Would our smaller insurance company have been less likely to outsource customer service?  Would we not belong to the only class of American businesses which is presently independent of government aid, and creating new jobs for Americans? Would AIG’s death not have flooded the market with new customers for whose policies we could compete in America’s competitive capitalist scheme?  If this were the case, would we not respond by nourishing and growing our business—seeking new American talent to fill our ranks?  Would we not have benefited from the availability of AIG’s top talent from which to recruit?


Again, we can only speculate. But wouldn’t America’s (the world’s?) smaller insurance companies have seen AIG’s death as an opportunity to rally, much like America’s Democrat Party saw the death of the Republican Party, facilitated by President Bush, as a chance to seize initiative?  To complete the analogy, let’s ask:  would the Democrat party have had the ability to inject recent life into Democratic movements, like environmentalism and the humane treatment of captured terrorists, if the Republican Party had not first died?  No.  Because government control has a “market share” allotted to each party, and there is fierce competition for this market share.  Is this how it works in the Insurance industry too?  Other bailed out industries?  If so, wouldn’t other companies have lapped up AIG’s market share? 


And what happens when a giant like AIG dies?  I can’t answer the question, but can we ask more hypothetical questions together?  I know that companies don’t die like people.  While there would have been smashed dreams in certain cases, wouldn’t the majority of AIG’s employees have just found work with other insurance companies who saw AIG’s collapse as a growth opportunity?


What else do we know about AIG?  Didn’t they die (before life support) because they had greedily overextended their risk to maximize profit?  In other words, didn’t AIG’s greed lead them to insure more than they safely could?  It can’t all be blamed on economic shift, because there are many insurance companies which remain viable.  But doesn’t AIG’s over exposure to risk mean that if it dies, there is a proportionately greater amount of business suddenly available to the free market…accessible to lesser insurance companies?  This is obscure.  To clarify, AIG is a huge company, so their death means much new opportunity for small insurance companies; however, doesn’t their overexposure mean that, proportionate to AIG’s size, there are even more potential policies for the free market?  Yet, AIG lives, and so all of these questions can only be regarded as conjecture.


Alas, we did not let them die.  Now that the public stake in AIG is so high, will we ever be able to act impartially towards them in a future time of need?  Commentators often call AIG bailout money a loan.  When I take a loan, my lender usually won’t lend it until I have agreed to a prearranged plan to make good on the debt.  Is AIG capable of buying their sovereignty back?  If they do pay the money back, will those dollars be worth what they were when we administered them?


This last question, Mr. President, is the most important of all.  For the long-term consequence of the government’s aid to AIG and others is inflation.  I know that AIG’s bailout was Bush-initiated, and I understand that the more government aid a corporation receives, the more difficult it becomes to refuse further aid.  However, you must nowsomehow stop the inflation which will follow the federal government’s infusion of printed/borrowed money into the system.  You must balance budget, no matter how daunting it seems; perhaps Hillary can bother Bill for some tips. 


Mr. President, please restore confidence in the dollar.  AIG is big enough to warrant urgent bailout measures, but their survival is not significant enough to bail us out of our inflation problem.  If you can prop up the dollar, the rest of the world will run to it.  The entire financial world will look to our dollar for stability and a safe haven.  Is AIG really too big to fail? 


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on AIG or the broader question of government aid for ailing corporations.


Kind Regards,


David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101


P.S.  Mr. President, if AIG or any other company ever reaches a size which means that’s failure would be a risk to national security, if it would need to be propped up at the risk, indeed, the likelihood of damaging our Dollar, I would support using America’s anti-trust laws to dissect it.  This, preferably before they got a gazillion dollars.


I want to work at AIG. I hear they give good bonuses.

March 21st, 2009

March 21, 2009



President Barack Obama
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


I am writing in response to the AIG bonus debacle.  Like most Americans, I find it distressing that anyone should receive a princely sum at the taxpayer’s expense.  Indeed, I fear our founding fathers would even frown upon government distribution of a pauper’s sum. 


Although I’m ignorant about the details of AIG’s contract which mandated bonus distribution to their executives, in my experience (call me old fashioned) the very word bonus, when used in this context, has, implicit in it, a “reward” connotation—in other words, the average Joe or Jane thinks of bonuses as performance-initiated.  For example, in the sales community, one would hope to “make” bonus if their sales figures reached “goal.”


AIG, however, has ceased to perform in any way meriting bonuses.  In fact, without government intervention, I’m told that AIG’s banner would not “yet wave,” (this was the argument made to the taxpayers; I’m forced to take Washington at its word).  AIG is hardly a company whose executives should expect to meet any sort of performance-based goal.  A company like AIG should set for its goals: growth and earnings.  But the only growth AIG can report these last few quarters was a debt growth, and the only income they have to claim is bail-out money. 


Did these bonus-mandating contracts award bonuses based on AIG’s income, literally the money AIG received, regardless of that money’s origin?  Did AIG’s executives meet their growth and income goals last year based on bail-out money?  If they did not, does AIG’s contract, which mandates bonus payments, do so without regard to the exec’s/overall company performance?  I hope not to create a false dilemma, but, sadly, one of the above questions must be answered in the affirmative.  The questions are mutually exclusive, and their combination is exclusive of all other circumstances. 


If either of the first two questions posed above are answerable as “yes,” I propose a congressional hearing.  Ideally, each legislator on the panel or committee should be “clean” from any AIG campaign contributions and anything else which could potentially be soft money—even AIG claim payouts.  It might, however, be tedious to find enough Congress and Senate members on Capitol Hill to sit on an AIG Ethics Committee who can meet these minimum qualifications.  Our present Senate Ethics Committee cannot.


More than likely, the above is just a cheap shot, and truthfully, AIG’s bonuses were given regardless of individual/company performance.  Bad form indeed.  


It seems, Mr. President, that AIG made disappointing decisions concerning executive bonuses.  In fact, since the world began watching, AIG has regularly been silly.  I remember watching in disbelief as, Liddy, on Larry King’s show, tried to duck and weave the gauntlet of public outrage after AIG’s big junket following bailout “check number one.”  Was there a second junket, a third, or am I confusing AIG with some other company who took the money and ran…to a five-star resort?  This is all rhetoric, but my point is important: the average person, who is just trying to meet ends meat, is glazing over with it all.  In short, we’re jaded.  But let us look at AIG’s recent history in a broader sense.


So they’re regularly sloppy, and everybody’s watching.  Is it possible that AIG, being almost .80 government-owned, has begun to internally rationalize mediocrity—even if unspoken?  Or, is it possible that AIG employees have begun to move on from their tasks, leaving loose ends open, and remarking that it’s “close enough for government work?”  But this is just more rhetoric. 


Of course I don’t really believe that AIG executives utter statements like this with serious meaning; however, is there any component of truth to the idea, as it relates in a more general way?  What I mean to say is this: has AIG (and any other recently nationalized company) begin to subtly move in this direction, even a 1-2% shift?  I can’t answer this question; this early in the game, I believe that few could.  But what does human nature tell us? 


I work in an office environment, and what it has taught me of human nature makes me nervous—mainly that most people, most of the time (I’ve been guilty of it as often as anyone), if there is no direct consequence, and they know they can get away with it, will pass the buck.  I can only hope and pray (shades of “guns and religion”) that unemployment levels, fear of loosing one’s job in the present job market, and the remaining “shadow’ of the former sense of personal responsibility that some Americans yet retain—sometimes, will drive us to ignore recent history and work hard and smart…like our income depended on it.  Please Mr. President, don’t reward—please don’t even condone irresponsibility. 


Also, Mr. President, most Americans will consider “public verbal outrage,” while continuing financial support, to be includable as condoning.  We all know parents who do this with sons and daughters while the dependents take advantage of it.  We might note that it’s always criticized by objective third-party observers.  End digression.


I am well aware that the trend toward the bail-out of “to-big-to-fail” companies began before your watch, but I also know that you have the authority to correct this wrong.  I believe that you hold a vast influence over America’s citizens and government, even beyond the scope of most previous US presidents. 


The attraction to your charisma and speaking ability, combined with your ease at relating simultaneously with multiple and diverse generations of Americans, give you unusual opportunity as a new president.  However, as a president who is so valued for your words, you must make sure you words are unquestionably backed up by actions.  If American’s loose faith in your words, you will become Bush III.  


Presently, you have the power to “change” America by returning it to a movement toward society based on personal responsibility.  Many of us average folks, including a substantial component of your constituency who voted for you as a way of voting “against” George W., believe that America grew to be a great nation by embracing personal responsibility.  And Americans are fickle.  I hope you will return the USA to what is tried and true.      


I would very much enjoy reading your thoughts on AIG or the broader question of personal responsibility in today’s America.


Kind Regards,


David Rasner

PO Box —–

San Diego, CA 92101