Representative Onder, You’re Asking the Wrong Question

"Don't you agree that certain states, such as liberal California, should not co-opt the authority of the federal government's policies to negatively impact the trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice of other states?"
— Rep. Bob Onder

Here we go again, Bob. That’s a loaded question if I’ve ever heard one. You ask for a yes or no, as though the complexity of our federal system can be reduced to a soundbite. Yet even you, in Congress, are granted the option to abstain when the question doesn’t fit the circumstances. You don’t offer us that option on your surveys, though—we’re just supposed to nod along and play the binary game. Not today.

Let’s get to the meat of this.

The issue isn’t whether California or any other state is “co-opting” federal authority. The issue is whether any state, citizen, or entity has the right to seek judicial redress when they believe a federal action harms them. And under the U.S. Constitution, the answer is unequivocally yes. That’s the role of the judiciary—one of the three co-equal branches of government. You seem to forget that.

Article III of the Constitution guarantees the federal judiciary the authority to hear “all cases… arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made.”

The courts are not an afterthought. They are a constitutional equal to the Executive and the Legislature. Dismissing a state’s right to challenge federal policy through the courts shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional balance—or an intentional effort to mislead your constituents into believing that judicial recourse is somehow illegitimate.

Economic Clout Is Not a Crime

Now let’s talk about California. You called it out by name, so let’s deal in facts:

• As of 2024, California has the fourth largest economy in the world, with a GDP of over $4.3 trillion—greater than Japan. ([IMF, BEA])

• Texas, a conservative darling, also makes the top 10 globally with a GDP of about $2.4 trillion.

• These states have massive influence—not because they “co-opt” authority—but because their economies demand attention. Trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice are not being harmed by these states; they are being shaped by market realities that come with size, scale, and innovation.

So let’s not pretend this is about “liberal” California bullying others. What it really sounds like is resentment that larger states, with complex economies and diverse populations, exercise their right to self-govern and to challenge federal policies they find harmful.

The Real Imbalance? Representation.

You, Bob, serve in the House of Representatives. That’s supposed to be the body that represents the people equally. But we’ve got a problem: The House no longer does that.

Why? Because it’s been capped at 435 seats since 1929, when the U.S. had 122 million people. Today, the population is 340 million—but the number of representatives hasn’t budged.

• In 1929, each House member represented about 280,000 people.

• In 2025, that number is 780,000 on average.

• But it’s not evenly distributed:

  • Wyoming has ~580,000 residents and 1 rep → 1 rep per 580k.

  • California has ~39 million and 52 reps → 1 rep per 750k.
    That’s a 170,000-person gap in representation power.

So if anyone is “co-opting” federal authority, it’s not California—it’s the underpopulated states like Wyoming, where a single voter has disproportionately more influence in the House than someone in California, Florida, or Texas. That’s not representation, it’s institutionalized imbalance.

Let’s Call It What It Is

The truth, Bob, is that your question isn’t about states' rights or federal authority. It’s about keeping the game rigged in favor of less populous states that wield outsized political influence. It’s about denying the judiciary its constitutional role. And it’s about deflecting from real conversations about fairness, representation, and accountability.

Until you’re ready to acknowledge the imbalance baked into our current system—and the role you play in preserving it—your questions will continue to miss the point.

Stop Framing Complex Issues Like They're Simple

 A letter to my Federal House Non-Representative

Really, Bob — “Don’t you agree Congress should continue to prioritize border security to keep our communities safe.” That’s not a question, though it’s framed like one. No question mark, yet you want a yes or no. Let’s be honest: complex issues don’t fit neatly into yes/no checkboxes, and this kind of framing avoids honest discussion.

Prioritize border security over what? Over helping the poor, healing the sick, protecting the environment, ending endless wars, making schools safe from mass shootings, or maybe cracking down on members of Congress profiting from insider trading?

We already have laws that allow for the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions. If enforcement is the issue, let’s talk about that honestly — not with loaded questions.

Should we prioritize border security over more tax cuts for the wealthy or a trillion-dollar defense budget? Sure, I’d be glad to have that conversation. But let’s not pretend there’s a simple answer here.

I get exhausted by the binary choices you present, especially when so many issues demand nuance, compromise, and empathy. I do not envy the complexity of your job, and I don’t expect easy answers — but I do expect better questions.

Please represent all of your constituents — not just the ones who already agree with you. If that’s your goal, great. But based on your messaging, it seems like there’s little space for dissent or dialogue.

There's a Lot Wrong in the World—But This Language Is Unacceptable

In a world full of problems, it’s easy to get numb—but this one cuts through the noise. A woman hurls a racist slur at a 5-year-old Black child with autism… and raises over $600,000 for it.

This isn’t just outrage—it’s reward. When hate gets funded, we’ve crossed a line we can’t afford to ignore. 

Read the article:

https://www.complex.com/life/a/alex-ocho/woman-raises-600000-online-after-yelling-racist-slur-about-child

Make America Grift Again

 Absolutely appalling. While the Trump family and their inner circle wrap themselves in the flag, they’re running a full-blown grift operation in broad daylight. Axios just pulled back the curtain: multimillion-dollar crypto ventures, high-yield “patriotic” investments, and a whole outfit—World Liberty Financial—pitching financial snake oil to veterans and loyal MAGA voters under the Trump brand. This isn't public service. It's organized self-enrichment with red, white, and blue window dressing.

And this isn’t some fringe scheme. It’s being driven by Trump’s former campaign finance chief and other close allies—people who’ve leveraged their White House access and MAGA credibility into shady digital asset deals, targeted at people who trust them most. They’re using the language of liberty to peddle financial products that regulators haven’t even figured out how to define yet. All while making themselves rich and claiming victimhood every step of the way.

This isn't just hypocrisy—it’s a hostile takeover of patriotism for personal gain. If any other politician’s associates pulled this kind of stunt, there’d be wall-to-wall outrage. But in Trump World, it’s just Tuesday. We either hold this crowd accountable, or we admit that the rules no longer matter—only loyalty and the size of the grift. Enough already.

Trump Crypto Business

Bob Onder's Recent Survey, Should Rogue District Judges have the Same Scope of Power as the Supreme Court

Dear Representative Onder,

Thank you for your recent communication asking whether "rogue district judges should have the same scope of power as the Supreme Court."

Respectfully, I must express deep concern about the framing of this question. The term “rogue” is both vague and inflammatory. One person's "rogue judge" may be another’s principled defender of constitutional rights. Our judicial system is built precisely to allow for disagreements, for challenges, and for measured, multi-tiered resolution. It’s not chaos—it’s checks and balances in action.

At the heart of our republic lies the genius of the Constitution: three co-equal branches of government, each with distinct powers, designed to hold one another accountable. District courts play a vital role in this system. They are not rogue actors; they are the lawful first stop for citizens seeking redress, including challenges to executive actions that may exceed statutory or constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court is indeed the final interpreter of constitutional questions—but how is a citizen to reach the highest court without first going through the lower courts? Undermining the scope and authority of those courts does not strengthen democracy—it weakens it.

If anything, the recent rulings from lower courts, even when inconvenient to those in power, show that our legal system still works. If we trust the Constitution, we must also trust the process it sets forth, even when the outcomes are not politically expedient.

I urge you to avoid supporting any legislation that seeks to restrict or intimidate members of the judiciary. Instead, let’s reaffirm our shared commitment to constitutional order, judicial independence, and the rule of law.