February 20, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BREVARD, NC – Dr. Dan Eichenbaum, a practicing ophthalmologist and congressional candidate from Murphy, NC, scored another landslide victory in a straw poll conducted immediately following a candidate forum Saturday night in Transylvania County. The candidate forum and straw poll were hosted by the Transylvania County Republican Party and were held in conjunction with the Transylvania County GOP’s annual “Lincoln Day Dinner” at Brevard Middle School.

Other forum participants included candidates Jeff Miller and Greg Newman of Hendersonville, Kenny West of Hayesville, and Ed Krause of Marion. Candidates Jake Howard of Macon County and Dan Ostergaard of Asheville were in abstention.

Although the audience was comprised of voters from throughout the 11th District, voting in the straw poll was limited to registered voters of Transylvania County.

Straw poll results:
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum – 36
Kenny West – 7
Greg Newman – 6
Jeff Miller – 4
Ed Krause – 1

These results make Dr. Dan Eichenbaum the winner of every post-debate straw poll conducted thus far. Dr Dan’s previous straw poll victories were in forums hosted by the Buncombe County GOP on December 7th and another hosted by the Cherokee County 9/12 Project on February 1st.

The next scheduled congressional candidate forum will be at AB Tech Community College on March 5th at 6:30 pm and is hosted by the Asheville TEA Party. A straw poll of audience members will be conducted immediately following.

Dr. Dan Eichenbaum, an Ophthalmologist residing in Murphy, is a Constitutional Republican who is standing for election to congress in North Carolina’s 11th district. As a founding member of the Cherokee County 9-12 Project and Tea Party participant, Dr. Dan is the true grassroots candidate in the 11th district.

###

February 4, 2010

Representative Heath Shuler

422 Cannon House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC, 20515

SUBJECT: OPEN LETTER REGARDING H.J. RES 45: INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

Congressman Shuler:

It is my understanding that sometime today you will vote on H.J. Res. 45, a resolution to increase the ceiling on the national debt by $1.9 trillion. I am strongly opposed to this legislation and encourage you to do the right thing by voting against this resolution.

Are you not aware that our per capita debt has already reached $485,000? Further increases in government spending, achieved by printing money or borrowing from China, can only lead to hyperinflation and financial collapse. The added deception of including a meaningless “PAYGO” provision only serves to make the entire resolution an obvious farce and, as such, an affront to honest, hard-working Americans whose grandchildren will have to pay for Congress’ reckless spending.

The voters in our district whose interests you are supposed to represent seek an end to the expansion of the federal government and a real and significant cut in government expenditures.

As an announced Republican candidate for your seat, I expect to face you in the midterm elections this fall. Although I know your vote in favor of this measure would mean additional ammunition for my campaign, I cannot in good conscience sit back and allow you, Rahm Emmanuel, and Nancy Pelosi to continue to drive our nation on a course toward assured financial ruin.

I urge you to vote AGAINST H.J. Res. 45.

Trust In Freedom,

Dan Eichenbaum, MD


The involvement of the federal government in the education process has decreased the overall quality of education and restricted parents’ freedom to choose the proper educational venue for their children. Decisions about a child’s education properly belong to the parents and, by extension, to school boards elected by the local community. The fact that the per pupil cost of public education is double that of private schools highlights the inefficiency of programs run by our federal government. In addition, mandates associated with federal control of education have created curricula that promote particular political and societal viewpoints that are more propaganda and indoctrination than the teaching of essential skills. Recently, I attended a symposium on homeschooling given by attorney Michael Farris. His insight into the methods and benefits of homeschooling helped me formulate a coherent policy on this critical issue.

As your representative in Congress, I will introduce legislation to undo the relationship between the federal government and education. I will also sponsor legislation that protects freedom of choice for parents so that they can decide what educational programs are best for their children. As more and more parents turn to private schooling and homeschooling to educate their children, I will support and encourage the privatization and individualization of education to improve each child’s opportunity for success in life. In the process of bringing more choices into education, we should encourage homeschooling as much as possible.

Trust In Freedom,
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum

http://DrDan4Congress.com

The right of self-defense, to protect one’s person, one’s family, and one’s property, is a fundamental part of individual freedom, and, as such is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, is undeniably clear. Anti-gun advocates, however, have long tried to use the initial phrase, “a well regulated militia”, to modify and restrict the otherwise explicit meaning of the amendment. In his book, “The Founders’ Second Amendment”, Stephen P. Halbrook discusses the relationship between the initial “purpose” clause and the substantive “right” clause. The phrase “the right of the people” appears in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments and, in all cases, refers to the rights both of individuals and to individuals as part of a group. The phrase “to keep and bear arms” refers not only to ownership, but also to the usage and the carrying of weapons on one’s person. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is an absolute prohibition as opposed to the conditional wording in the Fourth Amendment regarding “unreasonable” search and seizures. In terms of the “purpose” clause, it is generally accepted that the founders understood that proficiency in the use of arms was a benefit personally as well as for the protection of the country when a militia was needed. Halbrook then states, “the purpose clause does not negate the right.” Furthermore, “rights” belong to the people while “power” resides in the governmental sphere. The founders also recognized that an armed citizenry was important to prevent a tyrannical central government from seizing dictatorial power. Throughout history, dictators have sought to disarm the population to seize and hold power. Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British attempted to confiscate the colonists’ guns to reduce the likelihood of rebellion. In 1929, the Weimar Republic passed gun registration laws that were used by Hitler in 1938 to seize weapons and arrest persons deemed “undesirable” by the Gestapo. The Gestapo’s 2nd-in-command, Dr. Werner Best, wrote in 1935: “As a rule, we have to assume that firearms in the hands of the Jews represent a considerable danger for the German people.” If we alter that statement using two blanks, (“Firearms in the hands of ________ are a considerable danger for ______”), it is easy to see how any repressive regime can use laws for the registration and confiscation of firearms as a means to control and enslave the population. Dr. Dan believes that the “right to keep and bear arms” is absolute and will fight vigorously any attempt, legislative or bureaucratic, to infringe on the Second Amendment. In addition, Dr. Dan will introduce and support any legislation that will restore this Right as the founders intended.

For more information please visit Dr. Dan’s website.

While most of our attention has been focused on health care legislation and the follies on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC11) has been making news with some very interesting statements and actions.

In addition to continuing to “deal with” ethical issues related to Blackberry Cove and the TVA, Congressman Shuler has now weighed in with a controversial vote on raising the U.S. Debt Limit.

Yes, the Ominibus Pork and Earmark Bill has passed the Senate. What a surprise!

From Fox News:

“The omnibus bill contains more than 5,000 earmarks and many Americans might be appalled to know that nearly $4 billion of their money is being spent on such things,” Jarrett said. “[T]here you’ve got $200,000 for the Washington National Opera, $2.7 million for surgical operations in outer space, more than $600,000 for research on irritable bowel syndrome, $800,000 for jazz at Lincoln Center, $300,000 for music programs at Carnegie Hall. And senator [Grassley] in your state, $400,000 earmarked for the Orchestra Iowa Music Education Program in Cedar Rapids. How can that expenditure, indeed most of these earmarks be justified?”

The bill increases federal discretionary spending by an average of 11% over last fiscal year:

• Transportation, HUD – 21.3%
• Commerce, Justice, Science – 6.5%
• Financial Services – 6.3%
• Labor, HHS, Education – 7.4%
• Military Construction/VA – 7.1%
• State, Foreign Operations – 33.2%

Total: $400,969,000,000 more federal spending than last year.

Highlights of the bill at H.R. 3288 Conference Report

Some interesting new information about our Washington trip and the one of us who did get in to see Heath Shuler:

Fifteen Minutes with Heath

This past Thursday I joined 25,000 or so of my fellow liberty loving citizens in Washington DC, at a rally to urge Congress to oppose the effort by some in the US government to destroy the greatest health care system in the world. It was a whirlwind –31 hours round trip, over 900 miles and 14 hours in the car.

The trip included some scheduled time to meet with elected officials from North Carolina, and/or their representatives. The meetings were intended for the entire Asheville group, but because the schedule for the day was so fluid, none of us knew whether the meetings would actually occur as planned.

The meeting with Heath Shuler was scheduled for 1 PM, which was during the middle of the rally. I hated to leave the rally in progress. But I was carrying a letter I had written to Mr. Shuler two weeks ago, for which I had received no response. The lack of response was not unexpected, all things considered. The letter outlined why I believe he and others should vote against the current health care legislation.

At 10 minutes to one I pulled away from the rally. A police officer pointed me toward the Cannon Building, where Shuler’s office is located. I walked up the hill, went through the metal detectors, walked up to the 4th floor, found office # 422, and bam, I was in the Congressman’s office. Pretty cool I thought.

There was a lot of activity in the office. His staff was friendly and engaging. It was almost 1:15, and at first I was told Shuler was not there. I handed one of the staffers the letter. Then another staffer who appeared to have some seniority told me he was there, but had a meeting at 1:30 he could not break. Because the rest of the Asheville group was stationed almost at the very front of the stage at the rally, I doubted they would be able to get there by 1:30. She asked if I wanted to go ahead and see him by myself, and I said sure. What happened next was both bizarre, informative, and very disappointing.

Have you ever been in a conversation in which you thought you had been insulted, but you weren’t sure, because the person had no reason to insult you? Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a person who was constantly being defensive, so much so the person ends up coming across as immature? Have you ever had someone attempt to beat you with a morality stick, without a reason or the credentials to do so? Those three questions characterize my 15 minutes with Heath Shuler.

Nice tie, Congressman Shuler.

Toward the end of our time together Shuler said something, that made everything else he had done and said make sense. We were sitting around the coffee table and he leaned forward and said, “You’re a registered Republican aren’t you?” I responded, ” Yes.” ( I wish I had responded, “Does it matter?”) After my response he said, “I knew that, the red tie you are wearing gave you away.” I was honestly unaware, that apparently in Washington and some other places, a red tie is a flag for a Republican. I had worn a suit out of respect for his office, a blue one, and red seemed logical. Who knew?

I was in shock. I am a tax payer. I had driven over 400 miles to be there. My intent in being there was to express my concern over the size, scope, and direction of the federal government. And to him, a man living off the backs of tax payers, I was nothing more than a red tie. But then it all made sense. He had labeled me less than one second after seeing me. That helped explain why my first “was that an insult?” occurred within 60 seconds.

At one point during the conversation I told him he had done nothing but label me since I had gotten there. He paused, looked down, said he was sorry, and then continued!

At another point I asked him how many people in his district did he think had inadequate health care. He responded 25%. I asked “So 25% of the population is going to dictate to 75% of the population?” He responded with a smile of his face, “That’s America.” He had no response when I said, “That ain’t right.” That, by the way, is NOT America. That IS Washington. By that same math, I should have been talking to Carl Mumpower in that Congressional office, Shuler’s challenger in the last election. Again, something else I wish I had said.

I came away convinced he views the federal government as the big charity in the sky. He said many times, “we have to help those people”. I never was quite sure who “those” people are. Apparently a $1.4 trillion deficit in the most recent fiscal year is just a bother. He had no response when I asked who helped “those” people before the federal government got so big.

The meeting was bizarre in part because I was never offered the most basic of hospitalities. There was never a “welcome to Washington,” nor was there an offer of a glass of water. It was informative because I now recognize Shuler as a perfect Washington Democrat–a candidate hand picked for his celebrity rather than intellect or knowledge of government, with a basic disdain of the Constitution, with a bent to satisfy his charitable desires with someone else’s money. It was disappointing because I left the meeting with less respect for the Congressman from my district than I had when I arrived.

As a post script, I had a chance, fortuitous phone conversation on the way home, which made me feel better about about the meeting. The conversation was with a self described liberal Democrat from Asheville. I told him of my experience. He laughed and said he had had the same type experience with Shuler and his staff. I was shocked. He’s on their side, actively involved. He said because he is young and from Asheville, Shuler and his staff have labeled him as a flaming Progressive, and distance themselves from him. He too used the word label, to describe how they have interacted with him.

These are not the words or actions of a man who voted against socialized medicine on principle. By standing for nothing, Rep. Shuler has put himself in an untenable position. He cannot be counted on, his voting record is completely inconsistent, and the only interest he faithfully represents is the Congressional Democratic Caucus.

Rep. Shuler did vote “nay” on Pelosi’s Health Care Bill, but do not make the mistake of believing he represented us. If you weren’t certain, the above encounter should put to rest any doubts you have about what Rep. Shuler thinks about health care and about you.

The truth is, he might just as well have voted “yea.” At least, that would have been the honest thing to do.