Tuesday Night Open Mic for Jun 30, 2009

Open Mic 1Another Tuesday night Open Mic. We have had some interesting discussions already this week. Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor seemed to be a topic that got some people fired up and the ABC infomercial seemed to be a hot topic for everyone. But there are plenty of other topics out there that we have not yet touched on this week. So we will do the open mic thing, but I also wanted to let all of you know how the next couple of weeks are going to play out here at Stand Up For America. I know that many of you are eager to get back to the “Building a Foundation” series, and I promise that we are soon going to be getting back to that. The past couple of weeks have seen us covering some topics with each of you having the ability to apply what we discussed earlier in the series. And there will be some more of that coming soon.

On Wednesday and Thursday of this week I will be addressing some other relevant topics, and hopefully, by Wednesday I will have a guest commentary or two submitted that I will be able to use for this week and next week. I mention next week already so that all of you will be aware of what is coming….

I will be out of the country next week, starting Saturday. The week will leave me without the ability to be active on the site the way that I usually am. That does, not, however, mean that I am going to leave you without the ability to discuss things and debate with one another. I have a plan in place that will still give you all the regular topics to discuss, even though I won’t be here. WordPress allows me to set a date in the future for any article to be published. So the entire week’s articles will be forward published so each day you will see one post as normal. There may be a day, possibly two, that won’t have any post at all. But for the most part, The site will look and act just like it always does. It will just be a robot posting the articles I have written instead of me doing it.

Where this will affect all of you is if you post a comment that goes into moderation. I usually get on and check for these things every couple of hours and then subsequently approve them. I am completely unsure of how often I will be able to jump in next week to do so. So it might end up that comments awaiting moderation will not show up in the discussion for an entire day. The best way to avoid this is to not post a comment with more than one link in it. Any comment with two or more links automatically goes to moderation. So if you have 5 links, simply put the first one in your comment and then reply to your comment four times with the other links. This should help you to have your comments show up immediately rather than awaiting my moderation. I may also give one or two people access to do moderation for the week that I am gone, I haven’t decided that quite yet.

Once I return, we will be getting right back into the philosophy series and then immdiately going into the health care series. There are some other topics that are being worked on that will be just as through-provoking. So now that you have an idea of what the next couple of weeks hold, let’s do open mic and see what it is that you want to talk about…


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Al Franken received the blessing of the courts in Minnesota, proving that litigation is the best way to win an election. I won’t get into that whole fiasco again. I will leave it at I think this election was stolen, but I am not in Minnesota and I am not on the bench, so it wasn’t for me to decide. Franken has been certified as the winner of the Senate seat and will be inducted into the Senate next week after the break.

    This essentially makes the Senate filibuster-proof. So now we have to ask if there is any way to stop some of the more radical things that are out there from coming to pass. I have no doubt the Senate wants to move quickly on the cap and trade bill, but I am still not convinced that this can get through the Senate. On some other issues though, the conservative viewpoint might as well be dead.

    I liked that he said he wasn’t going to Washington to be the 60th Democrat, that he was going to Washington to serve his constituency. Unfortunately, I have trouble believing him given the radical views he has expressed as a liberal talk show host.

    So what do you guys think the addition of Franken to the Senate means in terms of our current government Democratic majority?

    • I think it’s a crock. But then, I think that the Democraps having a filibuster proof majority is a crock also as no good will come of it. So he won’t go as the 60th Democrat eh? He’ll just be the 60th idiot. As a matter of fact let’s just be honest and say he’s going to be the 100th moron. The brand new shiny politician and crooked thief.

      As far as Cap and Trade, I think that it will be DOA in the Senate. No one in the House even read the damn thing and it has some MAJOR issues to be resolved in it. At least I HOPE it’s DOA in the Senate anyhow.

    • Vinnster says:

      I actually see this as a good thing. Historically, the Progressive/Socialist movement has slowly instituted its ideology on America (thanks USW for your series on Progressives) like the old story about cooking a frog by slowly turning up the heat instead of throwing it in a hot pot in which it would naturally jump out.

      With the Democrat’s majority they will push hard and fast to institute every Socialist dream they can come up with. Now couple that with the crashing economy which in its current state is a blessing in disguise.

      The business channel TV pendants (and MSM) are trying as hard as they can to talk this economy UP with only a few exceptions, but the realities of what is coming has yet to be realized my the common man.

      When you strip away all the puffery and economic jargon and look at the facts it is not hard to see what is coming. Simply add up all the projected costs (use the most conservative estimates) of existing programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug coverage then look at the project population of America and you are faced with a point in time to pay them all, ever worker will have to pay 100% of their income in taxes to pay them. When you add the cost of National Health Care and Cap and Trade the day of reckoning gets moved up in time even more.

      The day of reckoning has been move up a few decades with the Democrat majority. I always believed I would not live to see it (I am 55), but I now think I will be around to see it. The question is, what form will it take? We live in very interesting time’s.

    • I think some of the Dem’s are wising up. I responded to a phone poll last night asking my opinion on health care, taxes and if my senators votes on these issues would affect my 2010 vote and would I vote? The guy spoke with a foreign(Indian) accent, and said I was the most informed person he had spoken with. Funny, he used the post office as an example to compare with government running health care.

      Obama & Pelosi may be pushing their agenda as fast as they can type, but others are worried about how do they get re-elected, and keep that cushy job.

    • Outright scary – for years kid about turning into banana republic, but Honduras is looking good !

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      It means our system has worked.

    • Danak13 says:

      USW….it was inevitable. They were going to recount and recount and recount and use the court system that is stacked anyway to get this result. I do not see much difference in this election with Franken than the “elections” and certifications in Iran. Not much difference at all except the spelling. All controlled and all guaranteed to go one way.

      Such are the thoughts of D13.

      Have a nice day.

      • I agree and unfortunately, if it continues that we cannot trust our elections, then we’ll end up with rioting like Iran at some point.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    As many of you may remember, Nebraska for a short time had a loophole in it’s safe haven laws that allowed parents to abandon their children at hospitals. According to the law at the time, parents could hand children up to age 18 over to state custody without prosecution. Legislators would later amend the law to limit its reach to infants up to 30 days old.

    However, while the law was still active, a man by the name of Gary Stanton made national news when he dropped off his 9 children, who ranged in age between 1 and 17, off at a hospital. He didn’t want to raise them and he didn’t bother to talk to his family for help. In the end that is where the kids ended up, with family.

    The news comes to day that good old superdad is preparing to become a father again! Twins this time!

    So the question in my mind is at what point does the right exist to deny this man the right to have more children. He already crossed the line of infringing on others when he turned the nine he had over to the state so that the taxpayers could raise his children for him. And now he wants to start over with a clean slate, simply forget the responsibilities of being a father to the first nine he had and have some more with a new girlfriend. If there was ever a case for forced sterilization, I would think this would be it. But do we, in a moral society have the right to make that call?

    Read the story from Fox News here:

    • Somebody sterilize this fool before he damages any more kids minds! Moral, Shmoral! This idiot REALLY doesn’t need to have any more chilluns. I have not heard this story before but if it’s true then the last thing this fool needs to be allowed to do is breed.

      I don’t care as much about him giving his children to the taxpayers to raise as I do his blatant disregard for what his NINE kids might think of the fact that their father doesn’t care any more for them than that.

      Kids are a responsibility that any real man should be ready and happy to have. If you aren’t, then don’t have them. As much as I love both of my boys, I cannot even comprehend a Daddy thinking like that.

    • This is what you get when you have a society that thinks that life is a choice and there are no repercussions to our actions. This is also a result of the dependency mindset that is common in the less affluent.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Shouldn’t his abandonment have been seen as criminal by his home state?

      • Danak13 says:

        Wow….for once I agree with you Ray…today….so far.


      • Damn straight Ray.

      • I totally agree. Abandonment should be seen as criminal, whether by a Dad or Mom, even if the other parent is still present in the kids lives (making chiuld support payments should count in a seperation or divorce.)

      • Ray – u drinking some right wing scotch ?

        But let’s not judge the ‘to be’ mother

        How about a system, that if you want welfare you get some sort of birth control. Of course folks will say that racist until they find out theta there are more non-blacks on welfare/

    • Bama dad says:

      Clip him at tax payer expense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      There is more wrong with this than having additional children.

      See the following:

      “Since the Staton children were young, the family has received $995,468 in different forms of government aid, including more than $600,000 in food stamps and $109,774 in Medicaid, according to Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services records”

      “Staton became the single father of 10 kids — ages 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 9, 8, 5, 4 and 1 month — in February 2007 when his wife, RebelJane, died after suffering a cerebral aneurysm. The oldest child was his wife’s daughter from a previous relationship that he had raised as his own.”

      To have children that close she must have had a private room at the hospital, Mr. Staton didn’t want to waste any time.

      “Without his wife, Gary Staton said, the amount of work involved and the stress of raising the kids on $10.75 an hour wages were too much to handle.”

      This man has shown no responsibly throughout his life for the welfare of his children. What couple would have 10 children when the bread winner brings home $10.75? This is another good example of adults not being responsible for their actions. Actions have consequences.

      • This is another example of STATE sponsored subsidy to produce human beings.

        It doesn’t matter whether its widgets or people, govt’s interferance in economics results in major distortions that would not otherwise occur.

      • Amazed1 says:

        Do you realize if you take his salary and divide the benefits his kids recieved the family income was about 122000 per year? That is not small potatoes.

      • Hey Bama

        Do you really think the Neb. Dept of Human Services has an accurate accounting of money spent for these kids over their life time, TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR????

        If they do, they are the most together Govt agency I have ever heard of.

        This is almost 1 million, the amount most of us earn in a lifetime. Seems like more than plenty along with whatever he could make and trade for.

    • While I agree with Ray that this is a State issue there are still some key questions unanswered.

      What act of violence, or unsolicited coersion, did this man commit against anyone else?

      Why is the “state” in the game of taking in children in the first place?
      Is that a proper function of government?

      Once you go down this path of “forced sterlization” who gets to make those decisions?

      There are more of course but I think you get the idea.

      The Best to You All This Morning

      • Danak13 says:

        Morning JAC…..can I make those decisions?

      • JayDickB says:

        1. No matter how bad it is, State law should be followed.

        2. If State law doesn’t make parents responsible for the care of their children, it should.

        3. Children should not be allowed to die because their parents cannot or will not care for them. At some point, the State must step in. At this point, however, the State would be justified in taking whatever assets the parents have to pay for the children’s care.

        • JayD: I suggest you think harder on #3. Can’t we find another solution that doesn’t involve the STATE?

          • JayDickB says:

            It would be good if we could, but State authority might be needed in some way. State intervention could be to simply place the children with relatives.

            But, I still don’t want children to die for lack of care. And, I want the parents to be at least financially responsible, even if they must be forced to.

            • Amazed1 says:

              Maybe new law….one that has teeth….you support and take care of your kids or we cut off your arms, your legs and your heart!!!

      • JayDickB says:

        I say abandoning one’s children comes pretty close to violence.

      • JAC,

        What act of violence, or unsolicited coersion, did this man commit against anyone else? He is using the “state” to force us to support
        his children, refusing responsibility for his actions, and showing no remorse or restraint, is increasing his abuse of our good nature.

        Why is the “state” in the game of taking in children in the first place? Is that a proper function of government? It should be no, but in today’s world, it is needful. Who would have thought a father would rape his own children?

        Once you go down this path of “forced sterlization” who gets to make those decisions? Me, I won’t just call him a balless bastard, I will make him one too. Joking a little. I would support this for some repeat sex offenders. And likely here as well.

        As a taxpayer, the “state” forces me to pay for women to make babies. I have no say in how many they have, nor how they are raised. My “choice” is limited to pay taxes, or go to jail. Their choice seems to be when to get “knocked-up” to give themselves a raise. So since the government has decided to pay for their livelyhood, for food, housing, education, raising and healthcare, why can’t they dictate reproduction? Is there no pay to play clause?

        • To be serious, I have to agree with you LOI. The State should not have to be involved with making abandonment laws to begin with. The sad thing is that they do though, to protect innocent children who did nothing to be in their predicament but be born to worthless parents.

          I don’t know what the answer would be without some serious deep thinking. There has to be an answer, JAC, in keeping with VLDG principles. I’m not sure if I can think that deeply.

          Good day to you all, by the way.

      • Bama dad says:


        My “clip him at tax payer expense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” was an attempt to attract attention to the clips I took from a news article. My main focus was about how we have many people in this nation that are so irresponsible. Do what the heck they want to and let the rest of us pay for it. This one thing is the root to a lot of our problems that we face. Sorry if I did not do a good job in conveying that. You have brought up some very good questions that I will have to ponder (work is kind of piling up). I for one want government out of as many things as possible. If this was going on in my family, me and someone would be having some serious discussions.

        • I was not criticizing your post. I was trying to force harder thought from everyone. Notice that some just accepted your proposal as appropriate.

          While we have been talking mostly about the Federal Govt., this topic provides a good example of why we also need to guard against State Govt as well. Yes, States should have more say, but the State is just as potentially dangerous as the Fed. Just ask citizens of Calif.

          Once we have given the State the power to act as “guardian” we have granted it the power to decide when to act as guardian and how to act in that manner, regardless of what we think otherwise. That is why States have run away Health and Welfare or Child Protection Services departments. Once you grant any govt power to start acting it is hard if not impossible to prevent it from expanding its ability to “act” in that matter to the extent “it feels” appropriate. And that is why simply trying to address govt efficiency or effectiveness is not enough to secure our liberty nor enough to improve our lives in the long run.

          USW and others are posting on numerous issues of our day. Instead of falling into the same rhetorical discussion of what is good, bad or otherwise, we should be discussing ways to solve those issues that are consistent with VDLG concepts.

          If we can not find new ways then we are validating the existing system. And if that is the case then we should embrace it, enforce it, strengthen it.

          Of course I will be looking for a new country to relocate to.

          Hope work is going well today. As you can see, I have a little free time so far.

          • JayDickB says:

            I agree we need to be wary of State as well as Federal power. I think, however, that the states have a little less potential to do evil things. For one thing, it is easier to move out of a state than out of the country, as many Californians seem to be proving.

            • God knows I can’t wait to leave this state!

              The “Trash Inspectors” “inspected” my trash and didn’t take it because there were “dirty items” in the trash. Had no idea I had to clean my trash before throwing it away. Cost me $30 to take it to the dump even though I pay a monthly bill for service.

              I guess this is how they are going to get additional revenue…1 trash can at a time.

    • Right or wrong law is law. Its a sad state of affairs that there was even a need for the Safe Haven Law to be put into affect, but I couldn’t even imagine the horror of finding a dead baby in a dumpster. Gone are the days when families looked our for one another and did whatever was necessary to make sure all were taken care of. This law was one that they rushed to get in place without considering all possabilities which is why so many kids and teens got dumped off without making the parents responsable for doing so.

      Morality is obviously not one of this guys strong points and I truely beleive the girl who he got pregnant needs her head examined for even hooking up with this loser. He should be paying mega child support for his 9 kids, too bad if he can’t afford anything. Should have thought about that before he had 9 kids to begin with.

      As far as sterilizing this loser I would be for it but if that were enacted then where would it end?? Who would be next on the forced sterilization list and who would decide who could procreate and who wasn’t? Not a path I feel we should go down except in the case of repeat violent sex offenders and pedophiles. They lost their rights by forcing themselves on innocents and as far as I’m concerned can rot in hell.

      • Black Flag says:


        “Right or Wrong, it is the law”…

        NEVER BUY INTO this miserable, fallacious, piece of mind altering rhetoric.

        There is RIGHT and there is WRONG and the law is not immune.

        If a law is wrong, it is wrong and must be ignored.

        • True that BF…there are quite a few laws I don’t agree with. I stand corrected

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Symbols of communism and marijuana and a prediction that “capitalism will fail” aren’t exactly the sort of end-of-year messages you’d expect from an eighth grader.

    But that’s precisely what some students at the Black Pine Circle School, a private school in Berkeley, Calif., chose to include in their “Class of 2007” mosaic.

    The symbols, which are prominently displayed outside the school, have prompted questions about the appropriateness of images like a hammer and sickle and a marijuana leaf on school grounds — and have led critics to say they are blatant proof of political indoctrination of young children.

    Read the rest of the story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529099,00.html

    It never ceases to amaze me the things that come out of California. Are there any other questions as to whether kids in California schools are being taught a political agenda? Interesting that this is what comes out of 8th graders in California while the state simultaneously fights in court to ensure that children at this age aren’t exposed to that horrible deviant subject: Algebra

    • A California school also allowed Latino kids in a high school there to go out in front of the school, haul down the AMERICAN flag. Put the Mexican Flag up. Turn the AMERICAN flag upside down and under the Mexican flag and haul them back up the pole to protest the fact that the Government was trying to enforce the illegal immigration laws in California.

      After that, nothing the brats in California do suprises me at all. The Schools there obviously allow them to do anything they please. Small wonder their schools are Doo Doo.

      • Flying the flag upside down is a distress call according to flag etiquette. It’s always been my thought that when that is done, all available citizens should immediately offer aid and comfort and not leave the premises until that aid and comfort has been rendered. “I see that you need help, what can I do for you?” 😉

      • Amazed1 says:

        I spent 14 years out there…..a large part of those people are fruit cakes and nuts….very strange schooling ideas, very anti military and very “give me”. Neither of the scenes suprise me at all.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Let me get this straight – a PRIVATE school that the parents must consciously elect to send their kids to, and thus pay for out-of-pocket – and there is consternation regarding what they do or do not teach? I’d only ask whether the parents that send their kids there are pleased with the education received (oddly, Miller didn’t bother to ask anyone that). If they’re pleased, then who gives a shit if they make a banner with a hammer/sickle and/or the marijuana leaf? I thought the prevailing sentiment here was to support educational processes as such that sit outside the control of the Feds? Or does that only apply when one agrees with the agenda taught?

      • That would be Damn Straight No. 2 for this morning.

        Your on a roll my friend.

        You must have gotten a little more sleep last night or else you have reached the numb stage.

        Best to You and Yours

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Ray might be turning into a radical right-wing liberal without even realizing it… 🙂

      • Oh boy, I agree with you Ray. The Private School kids should be able to do anything as long as their tuition paying parents don’t care about it.

        My comment was just in disgust at California Schools, both Public and Private is all. In case you misunderstood me, I think it’s pathetic that these kids are allowed to do anything like the article or my post above stated.

        I guess most native Californians are just weird. To weird for me to understand anyway. 🙂

      • All I can say is that Ray better go back to DailyKos to get re-set to the current propaganda.

        But then again, didn’t I read that Ray recently had a child? As happens to most intelligent liberals, they finally grow up and want the best for their progeny.

        Lets not point it out too much, so he won’t reject common sense because he’s accepted.

      • BTW – I agree 100% with Ray. Its their choice. Not that I agree with their choice. LOL

        heck, I’d support that they should be able to use school vouchers even, but then they’d (who ever they are) would also have to allow folks in DC or Harlem or even Ludlow, Vermont, to use vouchers to educate their children as they desire.

        Now wouldn’t that be special!

    • Danak13 says:

      why is everybody so upset at this? It is California….no less…and Berkley. Give it the attention it deserves……nothing. This is not an educational process..it is lunacy at its finest…however….this is still a free country (so far) and if a PRIVATE school so chooses…then so be it.

      It is laughable but that is California. No one takes this state seriously, do they?


    • JayDickB says:

      The only way this would upset me is if they are encouraging the kids to break the law. There must be a law against that.

    • Berkley…need I say more? 🙄

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    The U.N. General Assembly’s decision to condemn the military coup in Honduras and demand the return to power of President Manuel Zelaya has created a rare incidence of near universal support for a man who has defied his nation’s constitution and Congress.

    But while Zelaya wins widespread support, including from President Obama as well as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, critics in the United States are asking why the U.S. leader doesn’t take a stand against clearly illegal actions by Honduras’ ousted chief executive.

    “Manuel Zelaya trampled the Honduran constitution by pushing for his illegal referendum to allow him to rule indefinitely, and by firing the top military official, Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, when he refused to comply with Zelaya’s unconstitutional orders,” said Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla.

    Read the rest of the story here:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/obamas-support-ousted-honduran-leader-accused-breaking-law-stirs-concerns/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

    It seems to me that this guy was a President along the lines of Chavez and the other democratic dictators. I, too, question why our President and the United Nations are supporting this guy. If he really was attempting to sidestep the constitution of his country, why would we not support the group that has taken him out of power with very little bloodshed. Apparently 500,000 people peaceably marched in support of his ousting in Honduras yesterday.

    What do you all think?

    • Cyndi P says:

      I think ya’ll are gonna tell me I’m crazy but here goes. I’ve suspected since the first time I laid eyes on Obama that he’s presenting himself as something other than what he truly is. I think, he’s got the same kind of plans as Zelaya and Chavez. Now that Franken is headed to the Senate, those plans just got a little easier. God help us.

      • I don’t think you’re crazy, but I sure as hell hope that you are wrong. As hard as I try not to, I keep wondering just how much of these Conspiracy Theories are just that, and how many have at least a little truth in them.

        Surely all these Politicians cannot be this stupid. A 3rd grade educated moron can see that all the Socialist crapola isn’t going to work. That we don’t have this money to spend. That the Majority of Americans DO NOT want this. So I keep asking my self. Self, I say. Why are they doing it? What is Obama’s motivation to destroy his Country? Because that is exactly what he is doing.

        • Cyndi P says:

          I hope I’m wrong, too, and that this sick feeling in my gut would go away, but it just won’t. Everytime I read what Obama is up to, I become more certain of what he’s up to. I ask the same questions you do. WHY? He has to know what his policies/actions will do. And yet he does it. Then I think about the millions, if not BILLIONS of dollars spent getting him into office. Where did that money come from? If his constituency is the poor and down trodden, where’d they get the money to give to his campaign? Now that the money has been invested, are the investors going to accept the results of an election? You seem to understand how the world works. What do you think?

          • Oh believe me Cyndi, I don’t at all understand how the world works. I understand how it should to me, but not how it’s working now.

            I cannot for the life of me understand how the politicians can think the way that they do.

            You cannot spend more than you have.
            You cannot be all things to all people.
            The only way to fix it is for someone to suffer financially. Cuts MUST be made. Drastic cuts.

    • Bama dad says:

      Got to get to work, but this would have been a good time for the US to keep the old mouth shut. Set back and see how the wind was blowing on this one. Let the people of that country express themselves, see what they want.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Two wrongs make a right eh? I like the selective use of characters in the post – makes the story seem different when you “equate” Obama and Chavez doesn’t it? Then whatever Obama says or does just seems more evil while pretty the rest of the world takes the same identical viewpoint.

      • As one who is always making this point with you, Chris and others I felt it appropriate to respond.

        I don’t think that was the intent of how USW constructed the statement, and it is not as obvious example of “linkage” as some I have used.

        However, your comment causes me to make two key points. First is that you noticed the potential connection and effect, which means you have been thinking about our discussions and not just blowing off steam in your responses. Yesterday I was in fact not sure whether you were just defending Sotomayor in knee jerk fashion becasue the “konservatives” here were attacking or if you were playing the role of Socrates. After my initial round of responses back I started thinking it was more the latter. Your question here is confirming evidence of my suspicion. Be careful, if you keep that up you’ll be getting a little black flag in the mail.

        My second comment is that if I and others are going to point out these types of linkages it is fair that we guard against there use or at least the appearance of their use. Kind of like conflict of interest. It may not be real but you must not allow even the appearance. I think the use of the two in this sentence had more to do with the fact that everyone in the media was making the same comment. Doesn’t make it right just shows how things can flow across the landscape. I also don’t think it made the story seem different, but that was my reaction. I had already read several other articles on this so maybe I was not as affected.

        I agree that USW could have, and should have, used more careful wording that would have made the real point. That point is the “irony” that our President and Chavez are on the same side of the issue, after Chavez accused Obama of aiding in the coup. And that the Pres. of the USA is siding with the world to criticize a country for enforcing its adopted Constitution, which assures Democratically elected representatives.

        Live Free

        • USWeapon says:

          Ray and JAC,

          Those words were not mine. If you click on the link I provided, I had only copied the first three paragraphs of the article I linked to. The only words that were mine were:

          It seems to me that this guy was a President along the lines of Chavez and the other democratic dictators. I, too, question why our President and the United Nations are supporting this guy. If he really was attempting to sidestep the constitution of his country, why would we not support the group that has taken him out of power with very little bloodshed. Apparently 500,000 people peaceably marched in support of his ousting in Honduras yesterday.

          I wasn’t trying to sway anything, but the article certainly might have been. I simply wanted to start the discussion with background provided by the article that I read.

    • Naten53 says:

      What happened to Obama not interfering similar to Iran. If that is what the people want then let them do it. He let them do it in iran, people demonstrated and were being killed and he told them to stop violence. The article below says there is violence (didn’t see anything reported about people being killed yet, but there are reported injuries) but not close to the scale in Iran so why didn’t he say the same thing to them.

      I love the picture here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529587,00.html Raul Castro, Chavez, and former president Zelaya.

      “Honduras’ attorney general is independent of the president and had called for the president’s removal before Congress, the Supreme Court and military to overthrow him.”

      “We have not committed a coup d’etat, but a constitutional succession,” Said interim president Micheletti.

      “Micheletti vowed to ignore foreign pressure and began naming Cabinet members, including a new minister of defense. But he also told Caracol Radio that he would leave office after serving out the final seven months of Zelaya’s term.”

    • JayDickB says:

      Notice the absence of important details in the MSM. No mention of the way Zelaya trampled on the constitution and the supreme court. No mention that the military did not take over itself, but rather installed to authority the next ranking civilian.

      To the media, its just another military coup. Doesn’t seem that way to me.

    • Danak13 says:

      Let’s all adopt Ray’s stance…. Que Sera Sera.

      • D13

        I think you misunderstand Ray’s comment. See my resonse to him above. But if that is his postion they why wouldn’t we adopt his stance?

        On the main point, I think the POTUS should have just kept quiet, except to assure the world we had nothing to do with this.

        I think there is also a legitimate question as to why Mr. Obama was so quick to react this time. And why his and the world’s statements seem to ignore the situation relative to the Honduran Constitution.

        Was our State Dept asleep at the wheel? Did they not know how the Honduran Constitution works?

        Did our President ignore State’s advice or take their advice?

        Has Chavez’s threats to invade to reinstate his buddy affected global and U.S. reactions?

        I might add this one other point. Thanks to Honduras, we now know how to construct a mechanism to enforce term limits. Is this the mechanism we would want for the USA?

        I suggest everyone think real hard on that before answering.

        • Danak13 says:

          Willing to give benefit of doubt and reread it more carefully….try to understand his philosophical viewpoint….


    • Bee in my Bonnet says:

      Let’s see. Chavez = socialist, Castro = communist, Obama =???

      Fill in blank as you see fit.

    • Black Flag says:

      The moral of the story in Honduras has nothing to do with the President nor the Courts nor the Constitution.

      It the visual proof, once again, that all political power is derived from the point of a gun.

      In the end, all the players above are irrelevant. All that matter is who controls the Standing Army

      It was true in Roman times, as it is true today.

      • Danak13 says:

        Looking for a crack in your statement. Can’t find one….ummm…when you take over, can I command your standing army? I promise not to over throw you for at least a year.

        • Caution my Colonel Friend.

          Your agreement just lost you your standing army!!!!

          Unless of course you have something against liberty. Which I know you don’t, so say goodbye to your army and say hello to your militia.

          Now we just need to find the guys who will fund purchase of the needed hardware.

          Do you see any cracks now?


      • Yup- why I’m looking to see how to upgrade my 22 pistol and rifle! (not being a hunter). It just might come in handy.

        Actually scared to death both emotionally and critically that we just may have to support a military take – over. Most Americans are too nice and we don’t want to see whats happening in a negative light. I was scared last year as BHO stated his plans, both economically and socially. I still don;t understand why smarter people than I didn’t raise a hew and cry. Because they didn’t, I didn’t follow my own sense. Now I’m a pauper. I expected that Americans were bigots enough not to elect BHO. Where the F^&*( are those rednecks when you need them!

        Anyway – new topic possibly – I heard that some other countries are reducing taxes and of course that makes me think we HAVE to hold our representatives nose to the coals until they see the obvious need for The Fairtax !

  5. I guess since Obama is trampling all over OUR Constitution, he sees nothing wrong with the President of another Country doing the same with theirs.

    It’s also notable that he came out very quickly to denounce the coup in Honduras after waiting over a week to his open his mouth about Iran. Probably because he is still hoping to kiss Iran’s butt and didn’t want to piss them off.

    I know Zelaya was “the democratically elected President”. But so were Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chavez.

    Not that I think we should get involved. Heaven forbid!! I hope our Idiot President isn’t that stupid. We don’t want to crawl in bed with the likes of Chavez and Castro. If the Hondurans don’t want him back, then they shouldn’t be forced to take him back. Let the Banana Republics fix their own problems. Let ALL the others fix their own problems.

    • JayDickB says:

      Seems to me he was properly removed and the next in line installed in his place.

      1. He ignored the constitution and tried to force a referendum he was not authorized to call (only the legislature can do this and they refused).
      2. Chavez sent him the ballots he needed for the referendum.
      3. The supreme court ordered the military not to distribute the ballots (they normally perform this function).
      4. Zelaya removed the head of the military when he refused to distribute the ballots.
      5. The supreme court ordered the head of the military reinstated.
      6. Zelay refused and tried to distribute the ballots with his own people.

      The military then set about arresting Zelaya, and he fled. The military then installed Zelaya’s legal successor.

      By third world standards, this seems pretty legit to me.

    • Amazed1 says:

      As I understand it….the people were voting the next day on recending the constitutional amendment of one term. Yes it goes against their constitution but is that not what voting is for, to enact change? So if their President was looking for a way to change the their constitution by voting what is illegal about that? What did the man do that made a overthrow correct. Were the parties afraid that the people were not smart enough to control government? Maybe Obama is correct in his stance.
      When I first read the article I though wow this guy was dumb to go against the constitution…but then I got to thinking…how does a people enact change without a vote?

      • JayDickB says:

        See my 10:54am post above.

        Addendum to that post: The supreme court ordered the army to arrest Zelaya.

        Do you not believe in the rule of law?

        • Amazed1 says:

          Sorry, Jay
          You are correct…..I missed your post….didn’t realize he was being underhanded….My first thoughts were correct…he was dumb to go against his Consitution and his represenatives.

  6. All;

    I know we have discussed a great deal within these pages, but I would say the Cap and Trade Bill is one of the most critical. During the discussion on philosophy we had some folks express a need to act now in some way and worry about the plan later. I too wanted to get up and do something that would ultimately turn this regime around, but I listened and learned and am eager to work out a plan.

    However, there is something I believe we can do in the next week that might help turn the tide.

    We have seen the Stimulus Bill get rammed through during a midnight session, unconstitutional tax hikes imposed, a financial market taken over, the automobile industry confiscated, ‘Health Care’ reform and now a ‘Cap and Trade Bill’ that could inflict horrible financial damage throughout. And all this accomplished in 6 months, WOW!!

    What the Hell can we do????? It reminds me of the Dr. Seuss book “Horton hears a Who” when he told the mayor of Whoville to make some noise so that the non-believers would hear them. “We are here, we are here!!!! (Sorry, I know that these books are not on the same self with ‘Atlas Shrugged’ or the like, but I have a 9 year old Goddaughter and a Grandson now, so I get to re-live some of my fatherly years again… and yes it is fun).


    We need to address an issue that can still be beaten. Although Congress voted to pass the “Climate Security Act of 2007” (Cap and Trade) it still must pass the Senate. Now is the time to make a difference and make some noise. WE ARE HERE, WE ARE HERE……

    The following is from the National Policy Analysis a publication of the National Center for Public Policy Research. I use this article because I thought it was pretty straight forward.

    I have added some thoughts in QUOTATION MARKS to the various sections to stimulate thought, action and a chance.

    The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis
    by Casey Lartigue and Ryan Balis

    Introduction and summary:
    The United States Senate will soon begin debate on America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, popularly referred to as the Lieberman-Warner bill after its chief sponsors, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).
    The legislation ostensibly is intended to cut U.S. industrial emissions of greenhouse gases in an effort to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming. Senator Lieberman has estimated the bill would reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050.1 The policies the legislation would impose, however, have little hope of meeting this target and would likely have little impact on the climate even if it did.Lieberman-Warner would, however, significantly slow the U.S. economy and increase the cost of energy and consumer products. It also would disrupt international commerce.

    America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) was introduced in the Senate on October 18, 2007 by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). The bill states as its purpose: -Prompt, decisive action is critical, since global warming pollutants can persist in the atmosphere for more than a century.-

    “This is bunk and is not supported by factual scientific proof. We don’t have any substantiated evidence that pollutants remain anywhere for any specific period of time. No one was studying the environment to any degree in 1909. In addition this fear mongering mentality is only a device to evoke panic and remove logic.”

    Congress is demanding “prompt, decisive action” even though there is still disagreement among scientists about the level, cause and consequences of global warming. On May 19, 2008, for example, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that more than 31,000 scientists had signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. A significant number of scientists, climatologists and meteorologists have expressed doubt about the danger of global warming and whether or not humans are having a significant impact for the worse on the climate. Others, including renowned scientists, have suggested that there are approaches to deal with global warming that would not necessitate slowing the economy.S. 2191 was approved by the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on December 5, 2007 in an 11-8 vote. On May 21, a substitute bill incorporating America’s Climate Security Act, S. 3036, was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Senate debate on that bill is expected to begin June 2. The Act would fine any person who violates any part of the law $25,000 per day for each violation and make it easier for the government to take citizens to court for not complying with new global warming laws.

    “What does this mean for the average citizen working each day to just pay the bills and support a family? Will we be forced to spend money that we don’t have to upgrade old water heaters, furnaces, insulation, roofing, windows and the like, or pay substantial fines? Who will be appointed to inspect our homes and enforce this agenda? Will we have another law enforcement division called the Environmental Police?”

    The legislation would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish:
    (1) A federal greenhouse gas (GHG) registry to monitor compliance with the Act;
    (2) A GHG emission allowance transfer system for covered facilities;
    (3) An international reserve allowance program.

    “1) Another Federal Regulatory Agency given the authority to stick its nose into our homes, businesses and lives to enforce further control and issue fines that will additionally line the government coffers.”

    “2) This appears to be a Federal System set up to monitor and supervise the transfer of ‘Carbon Credits’ used to offset offenders and those that sell their credits. Wonder what those Carbon Credits are going to cost? Who will set that market rate? Will there be a Czar to oversee the commission after powers within the commission are caught embezzling funds?”

    “3) Looks like they are going to use Tax Revenues to support efforts outside of the US to promote a Bill that most of the world has either proven doesn’t work or ignores entirely.”

    The bill would create a national “cap and trade” policy for greenhouse gas emissions. Companies would be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit.

    The proposal — frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan — would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act’s sponsors estimate the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050. The initial limits between the years 2005 and 2012 would cap emissions at 5,200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to estimated levels during 2005. Between 2012 and 2020, emissions would be further reduced two percent per year, resulting in a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.

    “65% my Celtic hind quarter, I say “Bulldooky!” and regress to my earlier comment relative to the lack of scientific evidence to prove this is even remotely correct. I think my next company is going to be a Nursery and Honey producing company because the plants emit oxygen and the bees are an absolute species for planet survival. I am sure to stock pile enough Carbon Offsets to sell on the open market. And it won’t even matter if I sell a plant or a pint, because I will get rich selling my Carbon Offsets.”

    Lieberman-Warner would establish:
    (1) A domestic offset program, allowing regulated facilities to meet up to 15% of their compliance obligation in any given year with allowances generated through domestic offset projects certified by the EPA. They could meet their emissions limits, provided they receive approval from the EPA, by purchasing credits on the international emission trading market or by borrowing from credits they would normally receive in future years.

    ““Regulated facilities” – Am I reading that correctly and concluding that this bill will instill all businesses to be regulated by the new EPA police? Holly bananas Batman this means an all seeing all knowing Federal Regulator will be able to mandate how I do business; or not do business.”

    (2) The Bonus Allowance Account, established using 4 percent of all emission allowances for calendar years 2012 through 2035, that would be used to reward firms that sequester their carbon emissions in geological formations.

    “Bull. How are they going to reward; free Carbon Offsets? Crap total crap.”

    (3) The Carbon Market Efficiency Board to monitor and report on the national GHG emission market.

    “Talk about the stake in the heart, why don’t we just stop building and manufacturing and all go back to the Agricultural Revolution days?”

    Within the Treasury Department, it would establish:

    “The Treasury Department…That makes all the sense in the world; an institution already drunk with power being given more. This is just maniacal”.

    (4) The Energy Assistance Fund to provide funds to the low-income home energy assistance program and to the rural energy assistance program;

    “So only the poor get federal funds to meet standards set by an incompetent government. And I am sure that the ‘rich’ will be funding those funds in the way of more taxes since the rich use more energy and resources than the poor.”

    (5) The Climate Change Worker Training Fund to provide job training to any workers displaced by this Act and assistance to workers in need of training or re-training;

    “At least the morons are looking out for those workers they will put on the Unemployment line”.

    (6) The Adaptation Fund to help various fish, wildlife, plants and associated ecological resources in adapting to and surviving the effects of climate change;

    “This one made me cry until I almost puked. They are going to set up a fund to assist the poor plants, animals and associated ecological resources that are being affected by climate change. Nature does not need help because we don’t do anything to harm it. Nature will out survive all of man as it has since time began. Maybe part of this program will involve some Greenpeace fellows rowing out to a swimming Polar Bear to provide it with a flotation device; somebody please film that….”

    (7) The Climate Change and National Security Council to submit annual reports to the President, Senate and House of Representatives the extent to which other countries are reducing greenhouse emissions through mandatory programs; the threat of climate change to sensitive populations, national resources and political stability; and potentially destabilizing impacts of climate change on national security;

    “I’m not sure even where to start on this one. Does anyone think that the National Security Counsel has anything better to do than investigate how the climate is affecting overall National Security?”

    “Sensitive Populations? Are we talking human beings, animals, plants or what? Sounds like another bullet point to collect taxes so that we can ensure the correct habitat for the Spotted Owl.”

    (8) The Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances.

    “Auction Emission Allowances – Maybe this is how the government is going to go about generating real revenue. I am sure there will be some kind of handling fee or commission for the sale of those allowances”.

    The Act would require the President to establish an interagency group to determine whether foreign countries have addressed GHG reduction. Before being allowed to trade, any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit approved international allowances. With a few exceptions, failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration (in writing to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection) for each import would result in the import being barred from entry.


    Futility of Lieberman-Warner:
    The sharp GHG reduction requirements are dependent on significant technological innovations — innovations that simply can’t be mandated. Even if they could be, Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and now senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute: “Say the U.S. actually does what the law says, though no one knows how to. The result is an additional 0.013 degrees (C) of ‘prevented’ warming,” says Michaels.
    According to Michaels, such a small change is too small to measure, as natural temperature variation from year-to-year is many times higher.2 Furthermore, China has surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and its emissions growth is currently several times larger than the emissions growth of the United States. The emissions of other developing nations, such as India, are also growing at a rate much higher than those of the United States.

    “I ask you; if every other country in the world today is ignoring it’s affects on the ecology, what in Gods name makes us think we can make a difference?”

    Financial Burden:
    Meeting the goals of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade plan would impose enormous financial strain on Americans, according to four independent econometric studies.
    A study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) projects that by 2014 retail gasoline prices would increase between 13 and 50 percent; residential electricity prices would rise between 13 and 14 percent; and natural gas prices would increase between 18 and 21 percent. The study, “Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS/ACCF/NAM),” also projects that the U.S. economy will suffer employment losses of 850,000 jobs by 2014 and between 1.2 and over 1.8 million more lost jobs in 2020.4 Moreover, households stand to lose between $1,010 and $2,779 of income each year by 2014. The economy would suffer Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of between $135 billion and $269 billion by 2014.5 Estimates are based upon 2007 baseline energy prices and produced a range of estimated price increases depending on the future availability of energy technologies and various socio-political constraints.

    The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change projects that, if Lieberman-Warner becomes law, in 2015 gasoline prices would increase 29 percent, electricity prices would jump 55 percent, and natural gas prices would be pushed up 15 percent. The MIT study, titled an “Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals,” is based on 2005 baseline energy prices and accounts for subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as well as 15 percent of emissions covered by the trading mechanism.6 An assessment by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University estimates that in 2015 gasoline prices would cost up to six percent more, electricity would be roughly 18 percent more expensive and natural gas prices would increase about 15 percent.7 Moreover, the study projects economy-wide GDP losses of $75 billion in 2015 and $245 billion in 2030.8 The 2007 study, “The Lieberman-Warner America’s Climate Security Act: A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Economic Impacts,” considers credit trading as well as domestic offsets in its projections. Finally, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis projects that Lieberman-Warner would cripple the future economic health of the United States. GDP losses are estimated to be between $45.7 billion and nearly $170 billion in 2015 (2000 dollars)9 – totaling as much as $4.8 trillion of lost GDP by 2030.10 In addition, Heritage analysts estimate annual employment drops could be as high as 901,000 as early as 2016 and will exceed 500,000 per year before 2030.11 By 2030, skyrocketing energy prices will mean the average household will spend an extra $608 for heating oil, $647 for electricity and $303 for natural gas per year from projected 2012 levels.12

    Public Support:
    Regardless of which one of these studies is closer to the mark, the Lieberman-Warner proposal would impose costs unacceptable to the American people. Public support is presumably critical to any government program, but especially one that is intended to govern economic activity over the next 42 years.A recent survey conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for the National Center for Public Policy Research found that 65% of the public is unwilling to spend more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Another 13% say they are unwilling to spend more than 5% more for their gasoline. That’s less than the amount projected by the Duke University study, which provided the most optimistic forecast of the Lieberman-Warner proposal’s effect on gas prices of the studies noted above.The poll also found that 71% of Americans are unwilling to pay any more for their electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with an additional 16% opposed to paying more than 12% more. This amount, again, falls under the most optimistic projections of electricity price increases from the studies noted earlier. When gasoline and electricity prices are taken together, 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan’s costs – even the low-range projection.13

    Imagine if, in 1966, then President Lyndon B. Johnson had tried to determine what the emissions levels of America should be 42 years into the future. Even if he had gotten together the best and brightest minds of the day, it is unlikely that his advisers would have come up with data that could have anticipated either our energy needs or our standard of living today. Although some lawmakers may be reluctant to admit it, policymakers today are similarly handicapped when it comes to predicting our future needs, technologies and circumstances. Lieberman-Warner would embark Americans on an unprecedented and large-scale manipulation of the national economy that would depress economic growth and have both short- and long-term unintended consequences. Lieberman-Warner’s “cap-and-trade” could hamstring Americans for decades.

    “In summary here are some facts based upon the studies quoted and averaged in the article above:

    This means that the average household will pay an additional percentage of:
    Gasoline – 18% annually
    Electricity – 28%
    Natural Gas – 18%
    Unemployment will increase by 1.8 million by 2012”

    “There is a great deal of additional material out there to further substantiate the stupidity of the Cap and Trade Bill. It is, and only is a well managed tool to gain additional and possibly total control over a Nation and its people.

    We don’t need to take it; we can rebel and make our voices heard. “WE ARE HERE, WE ARE HERE!!!!!!

    Everyone, organize your Tea Parties with the single focus of defeating this bill in the Senate. Call you Senators and invite them to the party. Make them aware that their legislative existence depends on how they vote on this bill. Tell them to stand tall as a voice of the people and say a resounding “NO” to the Cap and Trade Bill.

    We have a good chance of defeating this maniacal bill and at the same time strike up a victory for our side in the war against Tyranny.

    Make the 4th of July you new “INDEPENDENCE DAY””


    • CM,

      I agree this is a major issue. I urge all to check how your Rep. stands on this issue, and if they support it, overload their phone & internet! 2010 is coming, and this could be their win/lose issue.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      CM – thanks for the lengthy read – my darn coffee went cold! Anyway – I’ll continue to come back to this throughout the day and what I am about to offer are simply some housekeeping suggestions to your article:

      The 31K number for scientists is frequently quoted by pundits as proof that the majority of the scientific community rejects the idea of global warming – but think about what that really means and challenge yourself on the criteria for people to sign the petition. From what I found the criteria seems rather loose (http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php) which leads me to question the amount of credence I place on 31K

      Use of the Heritage Numbers – they are scary – they are also not public. Much of what is quoted in the conservative pundit circles relies HEAVILY on Lieberman’s work (no, not Joe the Senator), but we’re only provided with the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) of his work and not the source. Summaries don’t cut it for me and Lieberman’s work fails a basic tenet of rigor – his work cannot be assumed to be objective if he provides only the abstract or summary.

      • Ray, please tell me that you do not support cap and trade. Even you cannot justify this robbing of the peoples money and the power grab that is obvious with this legislation.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Terry – first off I do not ‘yet’ support this and I am not sure I will or will not. The analysis of the bill is seriously lacking and most everyone has been left to either support because they support GW/CC or oppose it because they oppose GW/CC w/o a rigorous interrogation of the bill (shame on you Congress). I would challenge you Terry to substantiate your opposition based on your own analysis rather than what some talking head has filtered down to you.

          • Why do you assume I have not already done research into this?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Maybe I should not. I was simply reacting to your emotional response which lacked fact or substance. Sorry.

              • What can I say, I tend to get emotional when I see things happening on a scale they are today. Hell, after the post from CM everyone should now be pretty up to speed!

        • Ray – since you say that “I am not sure” about Cap&Trade then why aren;t you outraged that the dems passed this bill with the necessary and proper discussion?

          • USWeapon says:

            You are assuming that he isn’t outraged. I don’t recall seeing him supporting their passage of this bill.

            • Just the ‘tone’ of Ray’s response – “I would challenge you Terry to substantiate your opposition based on your own analysis rather than what some talking head has filtered down to you.” (Ray)

              I’m astounded that many/most liberals/democrats have accepted (it seems) that its ok to now pass major (or any) law without discussion. I truly believe that the promise of transparency supported by the promise of at least 5 days

              • ooopps

                5 days to review bills as posted on internet etc..

                Just another fabrication that even the most liberal should be railing against, as they should about BHO forked tongue re: the best for the children then the debacle of the DC vouchers which I find … so bad I just can’t put words to it ! Its made3 me loose all sorts of faith.

              • Good night

      • JayDickB says:

        Maybe, but the “research” on the other side doesn’t seem any better, e.g., the U.N. climate reports. So, who to believe?

        BF had a good analysis the other day that made a lot of sense to me.

      • My Man Ray;

        Regardless of the conclusions right or left, the bottom line is that the evidence for or against is questionable enough to vote NO on this outlandish and taxing bill.

        Because there is no absolute evidence on either side we cannot allow these unrepresenting representatives to push this bill through.


        • CM, I see you watched the video of our modern Paine.

          I love that new line.

          Of course there is the problem that many of them are representing their constituents.

          • JAC;

            Yeah, those that foot the bill to get them elected or re-elected and have specific agendas they need supported for their own advantage and power grab.

            I am more correct in saying that “All” elected officials are corrupt than saying only a few are true Statesmen.

            There are not enough good apples in the barrel to worry about saving. Start over and let the voting history on the Cap and Trade be the determining factor for re-election. Those that vote “Yea” get tossed, those that say “No” get a chance to defend themselves.

            • And don’t forget the Sheeple who buy into the propoganda and support Cap and Trade and Health Care Reform. These officials were “elected”.

              With that said, I agree with your approach. Those that voted No “only” get a chance to defend themselves. They had better get the religion of “liberty” pretty damn quick.

              Live Free and Be Happy

      • Black Flag says:

        As far as the Heritage Numbers – it has 30,000 professionals, of which 9,000 have PhD’s and 3,500 work directly or indirectly on the science of climate change.

        A few more than the 50 of the IPCC (the rest of the IPCC was government reps and interest groups)

    • Naten53 says:

      A few days ago I posted on the “Strike While the Crisis is Hot” topic https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/strike-while-the-crisis-is-hot/

      I commented about Pittsburgh pollution in the past. The point was that pollution was a big problem in the past. Now the problem is limited to local cases. This is controlled now by the Clean Air act and remediated through Superfund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund

      I say that is enough and the only thing we should be doing is going after the companies like the one I linked an article to in the previous topic that is a local plant causing pollution.

    • Guess there wasn’t enough pork in the stimulus bill.


      Published: June 30, 2009

      WASHINGTON — As the most ambitious energy and climate-change legislation ever introduced in Congress made its way to a floor vote last Friday, it grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts intended to win the votes of wavering lawmakers and the support of powerful industries.

    • Dr. Seuss is profound.

    • It is time to FOCUS regarding this issue.

      First, it is not necessary to read the entire bill to know that it is “robbing of the peoples money and the power grab that is obvious with this legislation (per Terry).” Why not?

      Because anyone who knows or thinks hard about the subject knows the solutions are simple and don’t required massive new government programs or regulations. If CO2 is declared a pollutant all the mechanisms are in place to control its output. Cap and Trade was originally proposed as a private, market driven, way to get compliance without Government intervention at a massive scale. Now the Govt wants to run Cap and Trade. I SMELL SKUNK!!!!

      • Sorry Folks, I hit the respond button instead of the return key. More coffee.

        Lets back up a minute. As Ray pointed out the other day, there are good reasons to reduce our consumption of oil that do not involve global warming. If we reduce consumption then we should by default reduce any effect on global warming. The difference is that it becomes an added benefit not the driving force. But of course this doesn’t lead to the same solutions as the Global Warming scare.

        For example, if we raise the federal and state gas taxes to actually cover our road maintenance needs it will likely drive up prices and thus reduce consumption. Eventually the reduction in consumption will level out to the base need given the automobile technology available.

        But being the 3 dimensional thinker I must look at the other potential links to this effort. First, how do we keep the Federal from overtaxing gas for projects beyond roads. And how do we make sure the Fed tax is limited to truly “interstate” highways and not state highways that have been designated as interstates for subsidy purposes. That means you California and you other big cities who use federal money to keep expanding your “commuter lanes”.

        Now, what happens to the gobal situation if we suddenly start reducing oil consumption in a major way? Anyone have an idea what those mid eastern and other oil producing countries might do if their only real source of income suddenly dries up? Look at their current situation with only a 5% reduction in economic activity (I pulled the 5% out of my hat by the way).

        If the global supply of oil has really peaked and will decline drastically over the next 50 years, then why are we imposing laws to reduce consumption at the same, or a lower rate, over the same time frame? Perhaps we should just let the market forces work on their own schedule. Unless of course, the supply has not really peaked and someone has been lying to us, again.

        I need coffee break so will rest here. More later….I hope.

        • JayDickB says:

          I agree that the only way to reduce consumption of oil is to raise the price. Look what happened when gasoline exceeded $4 per gallon.

          By the way, the Feds already use the gas tax for other things, like mass transit.

          Alternatives fuels are good, but the Feds can’t be the ones who choose the alternatives. Look at what has happened with ethanol. And, how viable is wind or solar energy, long term. Letting the government decide what are essentially market issues will be disastrous. And that’s where we are headed.

          Also, let’s distinguish between transportation fuel and electrical energy. We can get all the electricity we need from nuclear energy. We just need to do it. Transportation fuel is a little more difficult.

          • JayDickB says:

            However, even transportation fuel becomes a little easier with nuclear generated electricity. Use nuclear power at night to make hydrogen to fuel vehicles.

          • Technology is currently in use by Cummings (sp?) and others to run the big trucks on liquid natural gas. This is used commercially by several of the ports in … wait for it … CA …

            If I remember correctly, there’s a company out of S Africa that is using coal to liquid technology. Sasol is the name.

            • Amazed1 says:

              CSM….right now we are running our big trucks on a mixture of NG and Diesel. The fuel is cleaner, cheaper, get better milage by 3x, and our trucks have alot more pulling power.
              But conversations are not for the weak at heart….the vehicle costs are about 12000 ( but can be moved from truck to truck if you sell). The pumps can cost from 11000 for an overnight fill to several hundered thousand for fast fill (like a gas station). We currently have both kinds of fueling and use both.
              NG is not cheap…..cost less than gasoline or diesel generally …when gas was 4.00 we were saving 1.5 a gallon on gas and nearly 2 on diesel.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I would highly encourage everyone to check out http://www.iceagenow.com

      The site does a VERY good job of presenting current and historical evidence of the existence of ice ages/interglacial warm periods and the cyclical nature of these events.

      According to this site, we should be currently at the end of the current interglacial warm cycle, and there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that the descent into the next ice age is basically starting now.

      The scariest thing is that yesterday the number of sunspots visible on the sun was ZERO… this portends some pretty cold weather headed our way….

      • Peter, Good info.

        According to history channel doc. the “mini-ice age took one decade
        to take effect. Might be ironic if, in a few years, Al Gore wants us to build more coal power plants, pump up the CO2!

      • I’ma gonna respond with something quick for now as I don’t have time to think before I have to leave. Fortunately this makes a lot of sense. At least to me.


        I don’t care right now how much pollution is in the air or will be in 2050. I am only concerned with having to pay enormous taxes and energy bills NOW.

  7. Not a new topic, but I have a new, unquestionable source, so I hope Ray and Chris will join the discussion.

    A bill in the Senate, S. 845, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), allows for reciprocity among all the states that currently allow citizens to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

    This common sense legislation would allow an individual who is lawfully licensed to carry a concealed weapon in his home state, to also carry a concealed weapon in another state – as long as that state permits conceal carry and as long as the individual complies with the concealed carry law of that state. An individual’s constitutional right to defend himself or herself should not arbitrarily stop at a state line. This is particularly the case when traveling to a state that also permits concealed carry.

    No matter what the left wants you to believe, the truth is that law-abiding gun use saves lives. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self defense – that’s 6,850 times a day in this country. Furthermore, concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in states that have enacted them.

    According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states that passed concealed carry law reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      LOI – couple of remarks as we get this one moving:

      (1) Surprised a little to see you pulling large chunks verbatim from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-barron/concealed-carry-if-youre_b_213912.html). Please be a stickler and credit next time so we know we’re you’re starting from. 😉

      (2) The statement “Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self defense – that’s 6,850 times a day in this country” is one of the most over-used by the gun lobby. It refers specifically to a study published in 1995 by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Couple of things here – if you read this work of Kleck and Gertz (I have), you’ll notice they are not the least bit bashful about their bias and willingness to crap on work they don’t believe in. As you likely already know many control advocates point largely to data points from the NCVS, the National Crime Victimization Survey which Kleck and Gertz hate because it is not anonymous and is conducted by the Feds. While the conclusions from Kleck and Gertz seem to offer a solid case for S.845, please know that they published almost 20 years ago (which in academia means the actual work was likely completed 1-2 years prior to publishing) and use a comprehensive analysis approach that uses survey data going back to 1981 – my point is that I am not sure I am ok making policy decisions sourced from data that is nearly 30 years old. Second – they feel the anonymity attribute is core and key. It is – but to a point – because it thus allows a variable of criminal-criminal self-defense (e.g. one drug dealer trying to rob another).

      (3) The statement “concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in states that have enacted them” also bothers me a little. Anti-control advocates frequently point to this – I have not been able to locate the study to scrutinize it – if someone finds please let me know who the authors are.

      OK – so even though I am not a gun guy I am an advocate of normalization of such laws. I don’t want to try and figure out, for example, which municipalities have cell phone laws and which do not. On the surface I would support S.845 under that premise. Further though, there are municipalities that continue to enact more aggressive gun control laws, some of which still sit on the books, others are being challenged (the city of Philadelphia is an example here). This poses a challenge. If the citizens of Philadelphia ask for and receive more aggressive gun control laws, I guess we now tell them too bad and look for another solution to your crime problem?

      • Ray, you knew it was a set-up, and have”cheated” me out of my victory.
        LOL Point here is that I do not only rely on fox for info. I will find something, someday, that Mathews or Maddow reports that I can quote. Glad to have an issue where we agree.

        There is more up to date studies on firearm violence, will dig that up if time allows.

      • My man Ray;

        I am a “gun guy” and carry as much as I can within the laws of Michigan. I agree that the state-to-state laws can and do cause problems, while most violate the 2nd Ammendment in some way or another. As for example in Michigan you cannot carry in ANY establishment that sell booze regardless of the booze-food ratio. You cannot carry on or in a school or government institution. It must be concealed at all times regardless. If you forget and take off your coat it is considered a violation and you can loose your permit. You can however carry in any form on your own property regardless of a CCW or not.

        Bottom line: All licenced and TRAINED citizens should be able to carry as they so choose unless an individual establishment posts otherwise. Not allowing firearms in your place of business is a right granted and rightously so by a business owner.

        Also, I can tell you from personal experience that having the weapon on me has prevented negative circumstances and left both the perpitrator and mine standing. If I had not had the weapon one or both of us might not have been as fortunate.

        If it prevents an act of violence then it is just. I chose not to be a victim and act accordingly.

        I DO belive and support the idea that anyone applying for a CCW should be first required to take and pass a thorough “Self-Defense” course that includes more than an hour on the range and book learning. Hand gun defense is a lot like Karate; until it is subconcious it is more of a disadvantage than a benefit.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          CM – “I DO belive and support the idea that anyone applying for a CCW should be first required to take and pass a thorough “Self-Defense” course that includes more than an hour on the range and book learning. Hand gun defense is a lot like Karate; until it is subconscious it is more of a disadvantage than a benefit.”

          I could not agree with you more

      • USWeapon says:

        Just to back up LOI’s claim here, he told me about the article from the Huffington Post yesterday via email and his plan to post it here. His leaving the source out was intentional but not as an attempt to plagiarize.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          USW and LOI – I’m not miffed as Google & Dogpile are my friends. FTR it may be difficult to find the kernel of reporting in Maddow or Matthews – they are entertainers first.

        • Maddow or Matthews are now entertainers, but Limbaugh, hannity, etal are not?

    • JayDickB says:

      I like concealed carry laws, but I like Federalism more. I don’t like the Feds telling the states what to do.

    • Life and Ray:

      OK you are going to love this. The greatest amount of violent, aka gun related, crimes are perpetrated by those in about the 16 to 30 year old age group. We all know that within this group the majority occur within the big cities and there is an ethnic and econmic correlation.

      Serious violent crime started dropping big time in the early to mid 90’s. Clinton claimed it was the new cops funded by his programs. The above study concludes it was conceal and carry states with greatest impact towards the 90’s. Clinton’s cops program was not significant enough to explain the reduction. I don’t have fingers on the studies but law enforcement studies are pretty tight at showing correlation between numbers of cops and crime rates. The needed cop density was never achieved for the level of crime reduction seen.

      So was it the conceal and carry laws? Nope. These may have had some effect in certain states or locallities but can’t explain the national reduction in violent crime, abscent such laws.

      So what is the one thing that has a very strong statistical correlation with the reduction in violent crime?

      It is the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The ensuing increase in legal abortions were disproportionately located in the big cities and among the ethnic and economic groups where violent crime is highest. Add 16 to 30 years to 1973 and you get 1990 to 2013. If you simply add 22 years to cover the middle of the young thugs group you get 1995.

      I have shared this before and my source is my son who studied this in college as part of his economics and statistics studies. The point was that Roe v. Wade was the only factor that “statistically” could be shown to be responsible for the drop in crime rate in the 1990’s. The point is not whether Roe vs Wade was good or bad, only that we need to be careful how we construct “correlations” and more importantly, how we reach “conclusions” based on those correlations.


        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Good one – I have this at home but has been long time since I read it – will need to dig it up and refresh.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        JAC – any idea what other variables they looked at? Not sure I buy the Roe v. Wade line 100%

        • Ray, here are two links I’ve been looking at in relation to this. Please note the lawsuits may or may not be ongoing … just google freakonomics lawsuits and you will be as well informed as I ….


          which has more references in

          Click to access revisionfinale.pdf

          JAC — there seems to be some dispute about that claim ….

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          I do not know what other variables were looked at, but I do know that the abortion rate in cities like Chicago, Washington DC, and New York, there are about 25 abortions for every 100 live births, whereas in places like North Dakota and Wyoming there are generally 1 or 2 abortions for every 100 live births. Also, in the big cities, it is EXTREMELY disproportionate, in that the poor and minorities obtain the vast majority of abortions. I believe that the correlation to reduced gun violence may actually have some validity.

          I do not remember the exact statistics on abortions vs. live births, but when I find the website again I will link it to provide the actual data.

        • I do not. My son explained it to me verbally. As I said the point was really one to show how statistical correlations work. There is also 100% correlation between those who are born and die, those who drink water and die, and those who retire and die. The difference is that in the abortion and crime correlation there are some some very real cause and effect relationships that match up with the statistical conclusions. Where as there aren’t such relationships for the other examples I just gave.

          Remember that some in the Black community are starting to question the disproportionate effects on their community caused by abortion.

          I will try to find out more next time I talk with my son.

          • I should add that these “real cause and effect” relationships do not mean that the correlation should be taken as true proof of cause and effect.

            It only creates the situation where it is easier to sell the correlation as true effect. Much the same thing was done with Global Warming.

            See, CO2 has increased since industrial revolution. See, things have suddenly gotten warmer. See, the glaciers and ice caps are melting. Therefore there is strong statistical correlation between CO2 and warming and the effects we see. But the cause/effect relationship doesn’t hold the same magnitude of correlation as the general assumptions. Thus it is the general that is sold to the public, not the more detailed and of course less supportive relationship.

            I wouldn’t be surprised to find the same problems with the claimed relationship between conceal/carry and reductions in crime. There are just so many variables.

            I also fall back on the wise words of a college professor.

            “Never assume the obvious, because in nature the obvious is rarely the truth”.

            Hope this helps clear up.

    • Danak13 says:

      Well….to quote Sgt. York… “some say that I could shoot before I was weaned.” Of course, you did not expect a 40 year Veteran and Texan NOT to have an opinion on this subject, would you? Here, our guns are extensions to our bodies. No, I do not own a fully automatic assault rifle with one exception. I have a registered “war trophy” that is fully enclosed in a glass and locked case. A Soviet made AK47 w/bayonet that was taken from an NVA that tried to stick me with it… He lost.

      However, our border States of New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arkansas have a non written policy of allowing guns to cross back and forth (wink wink). Louisiana is another border State but they are a little more stringent….even for Cajuns. So I support any reciprocity agreement that would recognize other State’s concealed gun laws. In Texas, however, rifles and shotguns are still allowed everywhere unless there is a city ordinance. This is ranching and cattle country.

      Now as to statistics, please note. The only crime statistics that I can readily find end in 2007. Since the CHL was amended in 2005, there are no crime statistics available to research, however, it is the opinion of most police officers, that the concealed carry law has significantly reduced the violent crime rate in persons. Robberies of persons and assaults have dropped, according to officer statements by about 30%. The one crime that has increased is rape and that is a direct result of illegal immigration as Tarrant County Crimes against persons division has said that with the influx of illegal immigrants, the most common arrest now is for rape and the most common perpetrator are undocumented persons.

      Side note: In talking to two different CHL providers, it seems that this statistic will change as I am told that in the CHL classes in the last 12 months, the women out number the men 2 to 1. Most common hand gun purchase for women is the Walther PPK .380.


      • D13;

        And along with the rifle/shotgun in the truck rule, I think it is still legal to have 1 open beer between your legs while driving on a hot summer Teas day, if for no reason but to keep your “jewels” cool

        BTW: My wife’s choice is the PPK .380. She still shoots 5 inch groupings at 20 yards

        • OK, time for a true story.

          Many moons ago the self righteous decided us heathens couldn’t have “open containers” of booze, including beer while driving. Beign of free will and nature a couple of us came up with a solution.

          Line the tool box in the back of the pickup with plastic. Place one keg of beer in the tool box in the back of the pickup. Cover with ice.

          Run hose from said keg through the back window of said pickup to the front seat. Drink from hose as required to take mind off of long hot drive across Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming. With the right timing you could schedule “water stops” with “priming the keg pump” stops. This reduces down time.

          Did nothing to keep the “jewels” cool but it did make the trip more fun.


          Memories are funny things. They come and go on their own accord.

          • Another story of foolish youth.

            When I was 19, my buddy packed his truck box with beers in ice lined with the plastic like JAC. But he also put in some dry ice.

            We had to pick frozen beersicles out of his box with an ice pick for a week!

  8. Interesting report of a LaRaza meeting and how they are approaching the health care coverage with their members.


    This is a report of one person that was there at the meeting and I am not saying this proves anything, just passing it along.

    • Kathy:

      Thanks for the link. It is consistent with other stuff I am reading and hearing regarding the approach of other interest groups. One interesting tid bit from the article.

      “And they also said that 75% of the children who will be picked up in this will be non-citizens and that 44% of the uninsured are non-citizens and they can’t possibly allow the American people to know this.”

      In recent discussion with insurance industry folks they were asked how many of uninsured are “illegals”. They think it is about 25% of the total 40 plus million. Of the 40 plus million only 10 million really want and can not get health insurance. And most of these qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. They could not tell us how many of the 10 million are illegals. It could be possible that most of the 10 million are the same as the 25% of 40 = 10 million illegals. However, it is not absolute nor likely.

      It does raise serious questions about who is pumping numbers.


  9. Well I emailed my senators this morning. Levin and Stabenow *insert eyeroll here*, but I don’t think those two “career dems” give a ratz hind end about “we the people”. The last time my husband wrote them to complain about something, we got “picked for a random audit” by the IRS. Still fighting with that problem.
    Keep the faith people!

    • Willo;

      I am with you on those two morons. I sent them both letters relative to gun laws and got back the same chain letters my buddies got. They didn’t even read them, they had some low level flunky respond with canned political rhetoric.

      Both of them are part of the problem in Michigan and abroad.


  10. I’m attending the Priest River, Idaho Tea Party this Saturday. Wondered if the rest of you were thinking of going to yours?

    Also I’ve started a 9-12 group here. Has anyone been a part of one? What do you do?

    • My wife and I will be attending here in Dallas and doing entry security.

    • Judy S. says:

      I heard a few weeks ago, that there was suppose to be one in Carson City on Saturday, but haven’t heard anything since. If there is one we will most likely attend, if something doesn’t come up to prevent us from going. What is a 9-12 group, if you don’t mind me asking? Never heard of that.

      • The 9/12 project is a creation of Glenn Beck. Check out his web site or just google 9-12 Project.

        Hope all is well down south.
        Weather has finally turned summer like here.

        • Judy S. says:

          Morning JAc, Thank you for the info, appreciate it. We’ve been having very hot weather ourselves, been in the 90’s, the high 90’s that is. Can’t stand the heat personally, wears me out, but thank goodness for air conditioning in the house otherwise I get completely drained.


          • Danak13 says:

            Let me know when it really gets hot, Judy…..90’s…that is a cold front.

            • Judy S. says:

              Do you mean like in the 100’s? Just where do you live if you consider the 90’s a cold front? When my son was in Iraq back in 2004, he said the temp. got up to a whopping 140 degrees. He showed us a picture of his gunny sgt in front of a thermometer, and it registered 150 degrees. Is that hot enough for you? LOL.

              • Amazed1 says:

                I agree with D13…I would be tickeled for some 90 degree weather….so would all our hard working guys…they are glad they get a 3 day weekend.

                • Judy S. says:

                  Okay, now you and d13 have me curious. Where do you live if you think 90 degrees is cool? A few years ago, we had 109, and that was sweltering weather for us, and we didn’t have any air conditioning then. On the plus side, right now have some clouds with a possibility of some thunder showers. YEAH!

              • Folks around here have been complaining about the humidity – 60-80 % and temp which has been in the 70’s ! Everything is relative!

        • The 912 website is down and has been for days. I think someone mentioned they were upgrading the server or something.

    • Attending one just outside of Milwaukee, WI on Saturday; perfect location for driving home after attending Summerfest on Milwaukee’s lakefront on Friday night.

      PeterB – you’ve spent time in Milwaukee, right? Ever do Summerfest?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        It has been a number of years since I did Summerfest, but it is AMAZING fun. I also did Italian Fest a few years ago up there. All of the ethnic festivals on the lakefront in Milwaukee are amazing.

  11. JayDickB says:

    Which legislation is more important to stop, cap and trade or health care reform?

    Seems to me health care reform would be more difficult to reverse later.

    • JDB

      Both are critical, however I think we can influence the Senate by voicing our wishes and using the Tea Parties as a public and news worthy form. Rumor has it that the Senate is already leaning toward NOT passing the Cap and Trade Bill. The efforts and focus on the 4th will help to ensure that NO from the Senate.

    • I have to say both. The long term effects are staggering. If pressed for answering one or the other, would say cap & trade will have a larger economic impact.

  12. Judy S. says:

    Good morning all.

    Topic #1. How would or could Al Franken make the democratic party any worse than they already are? What’s the point in having a vote, if the courts are going to come along and more or less appoint the person the winner?

    Topic #2. Seriously, they should castrate that guy from ever producing another child. If he can’t take care of his first 9, how the heck is he going to take care of new babies? I think these people who keep having kids, but then cannot afford to take care of them, must have some serious mental problems. I really feel sorry for those kids.

    Topic #3. Being as to how it’s Berzerkly, why am I not surprised. My only guess is, is that maybe those kids are products of hippie parents from the 60’s. Don’t know where the brains of the school’s administration is for allowing these kids to make these symbols and flags. But then, it is Berkeley.

    Topic #4. I have to admit, I really haven’t been paying attention to that one.

    Hope all will have a pleasant day.


  13. Naten53 says:

    Has anyones states passed their Fiscal year 2009-2010 Budget yet? Pennsylvania has not. The state House is controlled by Democrats and Senate by Republicans.

    July 1 deadline missed for seventh year in a row

    Republicans look to stop Gov. Rendell’s (D) plan to raise state income taxes .5% and other taxes. “RockTheCapital leader Eric Epstein, said their petition drive is called “Yes, We Can,” meaning a new state budget can be balanced without tax increases.


  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx& month=6&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records

    Been 6 days since the last verifiable sunspot… I think that the AGW activists are trying to get Cap + Trade through as quickly as possible so that when the average global temperature cools by 2 degrees (C) over the next 20 years (as quite a few scientists are now predicting) they AGW wackos can claim credit (even though it is clearly a solar-activity – or lack thereof – driven event.

  15. Stealing some posts to bring up a topic. Editing a little also.

    G. A. Rowe said
    June 29, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    I am a former resident of CA and I voted FOR prop 13. Why? Because our property taxes were totally out of control, going up by leaps and bounds every year. The home we owned was actually purchased from a state legislator who had to move because of liberals redistricting plans.

    What this article fails to point out is that once you sell your home the tax cap is no longer in place. Furthermore, it does not apply to new construction that took place after prop 13 went into effect, just for those existing homes prior to prop 13.

    Oh, and the community college system now having the students pay for it? Thank all those good illegal aliens coming here to get a free education! – Oh, but that is what the LIBERALS wanted them to do . . . What a crock!

    Judy S. said
    June 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    Good Evening G.A.

    My sister lives in Calif, and here is what she’s been going through of late, well for the last few months anyway. She works for the Oakland Police Dept, has been there for almost 11 years. A few months ago, she got her hours cut, which meant her pay got cut. Her house payment has gone up, her property taxes have gone up, her utilities have gone up, everything has gone up. Anyway she has been looking for a second which she hasn’t had any luck in, she’s fallen behind in her house payments, tried to get refinanced, no luck, banks won’t even talk to her she said. She owes more on the house than what it’s worth,we have the same problem here in Reno. So now she’s not sure if she should stay or to just walk away from it.

    I know, things are bad all over, heck, they’re even bad here in Reno too. Job losses have gone up to 12%, foreclosures are still going up, houses are selling a little, but people are taking a loss because of the economy, that’s why we’re not even going to try and sell ours. Our house last year was worth $350,000, is now worth only 168,000, that’s why we’re staying put. Be lucky you don’t live in Calif anymore, I’m glad we moved from the 19 years ago, and came to Reno,

    After a recent trip to L.A., I have started thinking our large “mega-cities”(there are about 265 of them) might not be sustainable without subsidies. And therefore, it makes no economic sense to continue this practice. Consider, the large cities have some of the highest real estate rates. They have a large percentage of low income workers, (examples most food servers, starbucks, movies, stores, and most small businesses). So are a significant portion of our financial problems not tied to supporting these large cities, that cannot support themselves?

    • Judy S. says:

      For what I read in the paper a couple days ago, I would have to say yes. They said that Calif. is one of the main reasons other cities are having such economic problems.

      • I wonder if there is a “size” where cities stop being viable at our currant technology level? We spend billions trying to move their millions into and out of these cities each day, adding to global warming(LOL), for diminishing returns. Freeways, mass transit, nothing we have is cost effective if you include the hours spent in transit, and the quality of life. Glad I don’t have to put up with that crap.

        • If we didn’t subsidize “infrastructure” with federal tax dollars perhaps we would find out fairly quickly?

          • The same could be said of State subsidy.

            Make the cities pay their own way and you will know what if the real value of lifestyle and density.

            • Well all I will say is that they need to do something to support themselves. I live in the country, and we DO NOT want any city slicker, damn yankee types moving out here. 😉

              Of course, all of you country living damn yankee types are welcome. 😀

              • bama dad says:

                A country boy can survive.

                • Bama, I don’t know about AL, but half the problems in GA are due to that big crap pot to the East of me called Atlanta.

                  Take their ass out and GA is flush with no budget problems. Also take their liberal democrappy politicians out too.

                  It wouldn’t solve ALL our problems of course, just a lot of them.

    • A local talk radio host has been spending time on a similar topic and she talks about the “donut effect” in that the area surrounding the city (in this case, Madison, WI) are thriving, while the big (donut) hole in the middle sucks out everything from the other communities.

      Of course, in this case, Madison is also home to our very liberal Gov and currently both houses are Dems also, and then there is the “second only to Berkeley” in its liberalism, University of Wisconsin – Madison.

      • JudyS.NV. says:

        Here in Reno, they are closing some express DMV’S as well as the one in Gardnerville in order to save money. But the main one here in Reno and Carson City will remain open. They also said to expect longer lines and to pay more for tests, whether it be written or driving. They also told people to get to the DMV a lot earlier for you business. I have to renew my license come this November, so I guess I better be there by 8:00 a.m. and will probably stay there until they close at 5:00 p.m. They are also closing down classes here at UNR like the math tutor classes, and one of the English classes and one of their libraries as well, but yet raising tuition. They’re closing some other classes, but can’t remember which ones. I’ll have to ask my son since he goes there. Things are really changing here in Reno, some good, and some not good. But I think I would rather live here, than in Calif like we used to.

        • JAC said above,

          “For example, if we raise the federal and state gas taxes to actually cover our road maintenance needs it will likely drive up prices and thus reduce consumption. Eventually the reduction in consumption will level out to the base need given the automobile technology available.

          how do we keep the Federal from overtaxing gas for projects beyond roads. And how do we make sure the Fed tax is limited to truly “interstate” highways and not state highways that have been designated as interstates for subsidy purposes. That means you California and you other big cities who use federal money to keep expanding your “commuter lanes”.”

          How can it make sense for government to cut back where it receives revenue? The DMV is not likely operating at a loss. The are using that revenue to pay for other programs. Tax laws are written to confuse the tax payer, more gov. smoke and mirrors.

          • JayDickB says:

            How about if we make all interstate roads toll roads, and use all gas tax revenues for other streets and roads?

            • JudyS.NV. says:

              They mentioned that for some roads here, like making going up to Virginia City a toll road, and US 395 a toll road too going down to Carson City. They are finally starting to finish the highway or freeway they started years ago up above 395 to go through to Carson City and beyond. When they started that project years ago, they said it would take something like 10 years to complete. I think JAC might know what I’m talking about here, it’s right behind the Chocolate Nugget off 395, and since he was throuhg here a couple weeks ago, he might remember seeing the bis bridge they are building there. As for gas tax, believe it or not, for a while the price of gas was creeping it’s way back up, got up to $2.63 a gallon, but now it’s back down to $2.59. It might not be a bid deal, but hey, 4 cents is 4 cents. But then they said on the news a few days ago, don’t get to used to the prices going down, because they will start to go back up sometime in the near future.

              • JudyS.NV. says:

                Sorry for all the misspellings here, but I’m having trouble controlling my typing. Thinking faster than I can type.

              • Reno is a classic example of what happens to a small city when federal funds are used to solve traffic problems which spurs more growth and more traffic and more highway bypasses and..and…and…and…

                The bridge of which you speak is not done becasue they had to start over a couple of years ago. The contractor refused to build as designed because the winds across the bridge were far greater than the safe design (gusts in excess of 100 mph actual vs. the 60 mph predicted). Of course the whole bridge and massive excavation could have been avoided by running the new highway a little west and following the old road from Mt. Rose highway to 395 near the Chocolate Nugget.

                For those who don’t know this piece of highway, the new interstate bypass will save folks travelling between Reno and Carson City maybe 10 minutes at most. Of course that might acutally pay for itself once everyone discovers the new “Federally funded (with your Bail Out Money) railroad” running from Carson by the cat houses to near Virginia City. The view of the cat houses and the junk yards along the railroad location will be a major attraction I am sure.

                By the way Judy, there is an old cemetary by the Choc Nugget you should check out if you get a chance. Unless they had to move everybody for the new interchange.

                • Judy S. says:

                  Hi JAC I know about that cemetery, we pass it every time we go to Carson. I think where they’re building that highway, has got to be in the stupidest place anyway. They should have went along where you said, or maybe picked a better spot besides where they’re building it at. I can’t even imagine what it’s going to look like when they are dine with it. Not that I’m arware of, but I don’t think they had to move anybody. Looks like everything is still the same, so far.BTW, Sounds like you have a nice trip planned. I’ve been reading your post about what you are going to do. I need to get away, take me with you. I can be your map reader.LOL.

  16. Black Flag says:


    “Raise prices; lower demand”

    There’s that saying – a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge.

    And boy, does that apply to economics.

    Jay, to the point, you are wrong!

    You are coming at the question backwards, like a Keynesian. You believe the price is set by either the consumer or the producer by their desire.

    It is not. The price is set by the market demand.

    Here is the danger in you POV (and like many and in government). You are trying to manipulate the demand by warping the price without understanding that price is a reflection of demand, not its driver!

    Demand makes the price, it is not the other way around.

    If you artificially manipulate the price mechanism, you will only end up damaging the economy.

    The way the price mechanism works, is if there is short supply and high demand, the price rises (and here is the important point) so to attract more suppliers into the market for that good or service.

    The price shows that there is a ‘good business’ to invest his capital to provide that good/service. High price attracts investments, makes jobs grow in that segment, etc.

    It also, naturally, spurns investment into other alternatives for that good or service. The high price for the other goods opens a gap for the alternatives who, without that higher priced competition, could not find a market.

    But the investments into alternatives are always cautious – because the business owner has to evaluate whether the high price is do to a difficult-to-resolve supply problem, or merely an short-term problem of demand. If he gets it wrong, and it merely a temporary issue, the alternative investor will be crushed when the original good/service solves its short term problem, and its price drops.

    But if you artificially raise the price by writ of government, you are attempting to do exactly the opposite – that is, reduce the investment in this market place because you (as the government) don’t like it anymore. You are trying to reduce demand by using price in an area of the economy that is in fact extensively demanding the goods!

    You’re attempting to use the gas pedal as a brake.

    Further, investments into alternatives become wholly dependent on government, since the market gap ONLY EXISTS by writ of government.

    Since the gap is artificial, as soon as government stops their manipulation, the gap collapses and crushes the investments into these ‘alternatives’. We are seeing this in Europe where the ‘subsidies’ are ending for wind power, and the wind power providers are being bankrupted as they are not competitive.

    Further, there is no freed up capital to invest into the alternatives. In a free market, the profits earned by answering the demand is invested into alternatives IF the problem of supply is difficult to solve.

    But in the artificial play, the profits are going to government – who is immune to economic thinking. They will push the extra dollars to political, not economic alternatives.

    Artificial price manipulations always end in an economic disaster because, simply, the decisions to manipulate are not made on a economic basis, but a political basis.

    Get the price/demand thinking straight – getting this simple thing wrong here will continue to multiply the problem

    • JayDickB says:

      You are correct, of course. My above post was trying to make the point (poorly, evidently) that other steps (e.g., fuel economy standards), won’t reduce consumption (demand); only higher prices can do that. I did not intend to suggest that prices be artificially raised by the government. In fact, I would suggest toll roads as an alternative to higher fuel taxes, especially if they could be privately operated, but I digress.

      If demand for fuel increases and/or supply decreases, prices will rise at least temporarily until other producers are encouraged by the higher prices (if the government will allow this natural mechanism to work, which is doubtful these days).

      One problem we have now is that government is artificially supressing supply.

      • JayDickB says:

        I left this out – are you saying that price does not affect demand? If so, I can’t see that.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          In the case of the government artificially manipulating the price, it does not affect demand, it affects the ability of the people to acquire the desired commodity at a reasonable price. The DEMAND is still there, but the USEAGE may fall due to the inability to afford the comodity at the artificially inflated price. Because the price inflation is artificial (through taxation), the private profits on the commodity actually fall (they cut their profit margin in order to remain competitive) while the government rakes in money from the taxation. This gives the government extra money (which it squanders, or perhaps uses to subsidize alternative products which would ordinarily not be affordable), but it cuts the profits of the private industries, which actually curtails research into affordable alternatives.

          So, in a way, artificially raising the price cuts “demand”… sort of… the demand is still there, but the ability to obtain the desired quantity of the commodity is surpressed, regardless of the available supply. Private entities will NOT invest in obtaining new supply, because low supply is not the cause of the high price.

          Private entities will also be reluctant to invest in higher-cost alternatives, because if the government price-fixing stops and normal supply/demand balance regains its footing, the more expensive alternative will go bust.

          • JayDickB says:

            By demand, I mean willingness to pay a higher price. Also, I had in mind a more natural price increase, not an artificial one created by government.

            Seems to me that if the price goes up, people will find ways to make do with less. To me, that means less demand.

            Economists used to say that the demand for gasoline was “inelastic”, that is, it doesn’t respond to price increases. Wasn’t that proven wrong when gas prices exceeded $4?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              The demand for gas is largely inelastic. When gas went over $4 per gallon, useage did drop… by about 2.5%. This 2.5% drop was all due to people cutting DISCRETIONARY DRIVING such as vacations, short trips, consolidation of errands rather than running one errand per day every day, etc.

              The other 97.5% of demand would probably still be there regardless of the price.

              • JayDickB says:

                A 2.5% drop in demand for gasoline was large enough to affect the price.

              • Black Flag says:

                No, it was not.

                Do not make a bad correlation.

                The increase in most transportation fuels is not the price of oil, but the lack of refinery capacity.

                Government rules on fuel additives is the cause of diesel fuel price increase (nearly doubling). There are less than a handful of refineries capable of producing the mandated diesel fuel – it is not a lack of oil, or its price – it is a lack of refineries (that are being prevented from upgrading or being built by environmentalists).

                A failure of a refinery in Texas caused the surge in prices of gas – again, the lack of refinery capacity made the difference.

                As soon as the refinery came back online, the price dropped.

                The change in consumption made little or no difference.

                • from Bloomberg … http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=attCe65rtBdI

                  President Barack Obama is considering new curbs on U.S. oil refineries whose gas emissions pose a cancer risk to hundreds of thousands of people living near the plants, setting up a potential conflict with companies over the cost of new regulations. …

                  so this could have a significant effect on price?

                  • Black Flag says:


                    Price increases as demand outstrips supply.

                    By blocking the natural market answer – increase supply – it can only cause prices to explode upward – until something breaks; which is usually the lower-income classes bearing the brunt.

  17. Black Flag says:

    States brace for shutdowns
    Time is running out for the legislatures in Arizona, California, Indiana, Mississippi and Pennsylvania to solve budget gaps.
    By P.J. Huffstutter and Nicholas Riccardi
    June 30, 2009
    Reporting from Indianapolis and Denver — The last time Indiana missed its deadline for passing a budget and had to shut down the government was during the Civil War.

    But on Monday, as lawmakers raced to hammer out an agreement over school funding, state agencies began preparing 31,000 workers to be temporarily out of a job. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has warned residents that most of the state’s services — including its parks, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and state-regulated casinos — would be shuttered unless a budget is passed today.


    If you think this is just California….

    … the cascade effect of defaults will devastate local and state governments who do not have the power to print money.

    This will cause a massive power transfer into only one of two directions…. to the People, if they demand it…or to the Fed, if the don’t.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Actually, the last time Indiana had a State Government shutdown was 1887 (a bit after the civil war).

      Also, our budget differences had nothing to do with the State currently having a deficit (we have a bit over 1 Billion in surplus funds at the moment).

      The main source of disagreement was that the Democrats (who have a slight majority in our State House) wanted an accross the board increase of 2% spending for all public schools, while the Republicans (who control the State Senate and the Governor’s Office) wanted and AVERAGE 2% increase in spending for schools, but they wanted it weighted toward schools with increasing enrollment, and wanted to cut funding for schools with decreasing enrollment.

      Guess where the schools with decreasing enrollment are located? The inner-city parts of Indianapolis, and the cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond.

      In the end the Repubs (mostly) got their way, and the State Representatives from Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago (all Democrats of course) were crying foul and telling everyone that they were destroying public education in Northwest Indiana for the poor kids.

      Of course, how you can destroy something that is already hopelessly broken is beyond me….

      Our budget did pass, and we are still projected to have a 1 Billion surplus 2 years from now when this budget expires.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Further information on why I came back to Indiana after a few years in Chicago and in the beautiful mountains of Northwest Colorado:

        Indiana State Income Tax (1990) 3.4%
        Marion County Income Tax (1985) 0.7%
        State Sales Tax (1985) 5.0%

        Indiana State Income Tax (2009) 3.4%
        Marion County Income Tax (2009) 0.7%
        State Sales Tax (2009) 6.0%

        Overall, no big tax increases in the State in the last 25 years. Even the State Gas Tax is still only about a dime per gallon.

        • Spent a week in Bloomington in August, back in 70. Never went east of Denver again until last year.

          Heat + Humidity = Very Damn Unhappy JAC

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Most summers here are miserable… low 90s with 90+% humidity. We had a few days of that last week, but now it has been cloudy and in the low 70s for the past few days… not supposed to get above 80 again until Friday.

            Darn global warming…. 🙂

            • You may be onto something Peter.

              Wife and I have been looking for a ranch, you know one where we can escape all the BS.

              Prices here are to high becasue Hollywood and others like them discovered the Rocky Mtns and love having a Trophy Ranch.

              We have actually discussed looking north to Alberta in case of warming but maybe farther south to Oregon or Arizona, in case of cooling. We are watching the long term weather predictions and science reports more closely than most folks.

              Just my luck I would get a ranch in Montana or Wyoming only to suffer through 10 to 15 years of cooling. Its hard enough growing gardens in the Rockies without losing 2 to 3 weeks of growing season.

              If your summers get bearable then that might expand our search east and south.

              Keep me posted.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                When I lived in Colorado for a year, I was in Craig (about 40 miles west of Steamboat). Prices for land are actually pretty reasonable in that area still (as long as you stay in the Craig/Meeker area and stay at least 40 miles west of Steamboat). You might want to check that area out!

        • Naten53 says:

          wow, 1 billion surplus a lot better then PA’s 3.2 billion deficit see post 13 above.

  18. New Post for those in the mid east er…I mean upper mid west.

    This old western boy is heading to northern Michigan end of July first week of August.

    Heading through N. Dakota, Minnesota and Michigan.

    Any suggestions about things on the “must see or do list” ?

    Your ideas are welcome. We have about 6 days of free travel before need to be at destination.

    Thanks in Advance

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      I am not familliar with North Dakota at all, but I love the Black Hills and the Badlands of South Dakota. I have my 20 year College reunion in central Minnesota in June 2010, and after 3 days in Minnesota I will be heading out to Custer SD for a week or so to take in all of the sites from Mt. Rushmore to Crazy Horse to Devil’s Tower.

      Love that area!

      You heading to the UP of Michigan or just the northern part of the state? I have relatives up in the Norway/Iron Mountain area of the UP and I love it up there, even though I haven’t been up there for a LONG time! The Mackinac Bridge is an engineering marvel if you happen to have to head across it.

      • Is that the bridge that crosses Lake Michigan? If so I am planning to cross from the northwest side of Mich. to the eastern side. We are headed to a place called Boyne.

        What is the UP of Michigan?

        And I too love the Black Hills. Was there last year for the first time. I could be talked into moving over near Ropers relatives (Devils Tower Area) if the kids weren’t to far away.

        Next time your out you should make time to go farther west and cross over the Bighorn Mtns then go north to Cody Wy or south to Thermopolis and Riverton. By the way, Crazy Horse still isn’t done. Bring plenty of money as they wanted about 40 bucks for me and daughter to get into Crazy Horse.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Crazy Horse is all done without government funding of any kind. They are also planning on building a medical school on the site there from what I have heard in the past (also without any government funding). The admission is high, and they also charge fees to the native Americans that sell there wares in the “mall area” there as a way to raise money.

          They only work on the monument when they have sufficient money available to get a good chunck of it done, so I am sure it will be quite some time before it is all the way finished.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The Mackinac bridge crosses the great lakes where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. If I remember correctly the bridge is something like 3 miles long.

          I hope you get to go across it… it is, as I said, some amazing engineering.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      If you have a chance to go a more southern route and head through SD, stop on the bridge crossing the Missouri River on I-90 and take a picture of the land to the west of the river, then turn around and take a picture of the land to the east of the river. Looks like two different planets entirely 🙂

      Also, the Corn Palace in Mitchell SD and the Auto Museum in Murdo SD are places that all people should see at least once in their lives… and (of course) Wall Drug in Wall SD.

      If you have to go through ND instead, I am sure you can find plenty of interesting places to see as well… I just haven’t been up that way yet!

      • Planning on northern route there and southern on return. Spousal unit leader will be along on the first leg and just me and son on return. He and I won’t be time constrained so can take in more sites.

        Thanks for the tips, keep em coming.

    • JAC;

      Check out Lake Superior, anywhere along the coast. Mackinaw Island is cool. Go to http://www.Michigan.org and you will have plenty of spots to pick from. If want to fish some of the best water east of the Ole Mis walk up to any charter Captain with a clean boat and ask what is biting. We have King Salmon, walleye, small mouth (we call them “Mules”, pike, Muskie, trout, Lake Trout, Pinks, and the list goes on. No hunting as everything is out of season. Prices are lower due to the economy.

      Go to the Sleeping Bear Dunes on the upper west side of the lower pen it’s fun for the kids. Tahquamenon Falls is a must, especially if you like to hike.

      In the UP on the west side is the Pocupine Moutain Wilderness State Park which is breath taking.

      All in all your best bet is to use the web site above and make your decisions. Stay North of highway 55 if you want to avoid a lot of people.

      Hope that helps.

      • Thanks CM, will check it out for sure.

        We are thinking Boundary Waters for a day or two then east, so we should be quite north.

        Would it be safe to assume the Skeeters will be out in full force this time of year?

        • Birdman says:

          I’m not familiar with the UP of MI but Traverse City area is nice. There are several good beaches on Lake MI south of Traverse City. I like Ludington, MI state park but that’s probably too far south for you. Skeeters will be out so buy bug spray.

        • Skeeters are out in Wisconsin so I am sure the UP will have them as well. You’ll have to learn some Upper talk (hey dere, dem skeeters are rascals dis year) or something like that.

          Also, your timing through SD is close to the Sturges rally. We’ve been through there twice and both times got to mingle with the bikers.

        • JAC

          Yeah skeeters and black flies, which can get nasty. Take along some DEET.

          The UP is the Upper Peninsula, shich is how you will be coming in. Those folk’s up there are refered to as UP’ers Pronounced ‘YOU-Per’s” and they sound a lot like folks from ND

          Oh, by the way if you love smoked anything look for smoke houses and get some smoked white fish or lake trout its the best

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Also, on your way through the UP, look for any “shacks” or hole-in-the-wall mom&pop restaurants that sell Pasties (not anything to do with a stripper by the way).

            It is more of a pastry stuffed with meat, potatoes, onions, carrots, and other stuff. The miners up there buy them in the morning and they are heavily wrapped in foil to retain the heat, so they are still at least warm at lunchtime.

            Most UP’ers tend to like them with mustard. I have heard eating them with anything other than mustard is considered criminal…

  19. Judy S. says:

    My son e-mailed this to me yesterday, and I thought I’d pass it a long as it coincides with Obamanomics. This a real letter that a grandfather wrote to his granddaughter.

    John is 63 years old and owns his own business. He is a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year is now all but gone. With the stock market crashing and all the new taxes coming his way, John knows he will be working for a good number more years. John has a granddaughter, Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a late model car, wears all the latest fashions, and also likes going out and eating out a lot. Ashley campaigned for Obama, and after he won the election she made sure her grandfather ( and all other Republican family members ) received than an earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that Obama won the election. Ashley recently found herself short of cash and cannot pay her bills again. As she has done many other times in the past, she e-mailed her Grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply:

    Sweetheart, I am replying to your request fro some money. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and am sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your Grandmother and I have had to to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own…. the Ashley Economic plan. Let me explain. Your grandmother and I are highly productive, wage-earning tax payers. As you know, we have lived a comfortable life and in return have forgone many things like fancy vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But this plan has changed. Your president is significantly raising our hard personal and business taxes. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less income for us. Less income means we must cut back on m any business and personal expenditures. One example is, we were forced to let go of our receptionist today. You know her. She always gave you candy when you visited my office. Did you know she worked for us the past 18 years? I can’t afford her anymore. That is a taste of the business side. Some personal economic affects of Obama’s new taxation policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you you thousands of dollars in cash, tutuon assistance, food, housing clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. Judging from you e-mail requesting for money, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct telephone number for the White House. You yourself repeated;y tole m e I was foolish to vote Republican. You said, Mr. Obama is oging to be the people’s president and is going to help every American live a better life. Based upon everything you have told me and things we heard from him as he campaigned, I am sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check or transfer money into your checking account. Have him call me for the transaction and account numbers, which by now I know by heart. Perhaps you now can understand what I have been saying for all my life. Those who vote for the president should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole, and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves ( welfare, etc. ) What Obama voters didn’t seem to realize is all of the government’s money he is redidtributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaing American ( deemed less fortunate ) comes from tax money collected from income tax-paying families. Remember how you told me, ” Only the richest of the rich will be affected”? Guess what, honey? Because of our business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look like that way. But in the real world, we are far from it. But, as you said whil campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of Americans can prosper. You understand what that means right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results on them having less money. Less money for everything, including granddaughters. Congratulations on your choice for “change”. For future reference, I encourage you to attempt to add up the total value of the gifts and money you’ve received from us over the years, and compare it too what you expect to get over the four years from Mr. Obama. Remember, we love you dearly… but from now on you’ll need to call the number referenced above when you need help. Good luck sweetheart.

    Love Grandpa
    Sorry if this is so long, but that’s how long the letter is. Just wanted to share this with you folks.

    Regards to all.


    • Judy, I hope that serves as a wakeup call to the Granddaughter and her friends. Based on your post, it was well deserved!


      • Judy S. says:

        Thank you G, and I hope it’s a wake up call for everybody, not just the granddaughter and her friends.

        Ok, for real now I’m getting off, I’m wiped out.
        BTW G, please don’t feel you have to apologize for what you said about your friend, you were angry about what happened to her. If you felt you had to, then it’s accepted, but like I told you before, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. Hope your friend is doing better now. God Bless her and you for being such a good friend to her.

        Take care my firend.


  20. Black Flag says:


    You are correct, of course. My above post was trying to make the point (poorly, evidently) that other steps (e.g., fuel economy standards), won’t reduce consumption (demand); only higher prices can do that.

    Why do we want to reduce consumption?

    There is a direct correlation between energy consumption and prosperity.

    I left this out – are you saying that price does not affect demand? If so, I can’t see that.


    It distorts the market place by perverting the free market mechanisms.

    A natural rise in prices attracts more supply.

    An artificial rise in price is attempting to dissuade more supply.

    As above, it is using the gas pedal as a brake – something, eventually, is going to break!

    And Peter is correct.

    This will NOT induce any substantial investment in alternatives.

    The choice of the People will be to pay the high price …. or walk.

    The latter is a huge problem.

    The lower economic classes will suffer a huge problem.

    You can’t take a bus to get groceries for a family of 6. The cost of a taxi will be prohibitive.

    What about people who depend on transportation as part of their job?

    The alternative do not fill the gap. They do not exist, or their cost is prohibitive as well.

    The choice for most American families will be bankruptcy or walking. There is nothing in the middle.

    • You are right about what higher energy prices will do to people. I keep thinking if they go up I’m screwed. There is no public transportation in my town, and I can’t walk everywhere with three small children. I already conserve as much as possible so that I can afford things like violin and ballet lessons for my kids. I will just have to pay the higher price and cut back somewhere else.

    • JayDickB says:

      I don’t care if we reduce consumption or not, but some people do. It was them that I was addressing, trying to point out the futility of some of their actions.

      As for higher prices, I had in mind normal increases due to lower supply or increased demand, not artificially induced increases as, for example, if a tax is added to the product. I agree that higher prices induce greater supply if the market is left alone to function normally. From what I have seen, however, higher prices can also reduce demand as people find ways to reduce consumption. I think this was shown by the reduced consumption when gas prices spiked a year or two ago. At that time, supply also increased due to the higher price, supply and demand equalized, and prices fell. All of this seemed normal and predictable to me.

      • Black Flag says:

        Yes, higher prices do cause people to reduce – but the distortion of artificial price hikes damages the economy.

        As Peter said, the reduction of consumption is merely on the fringe – a vacation canceled, no Sunday drives.

        But where there is no discretion, the cost is prohibitive. And the real reductions simply aren’t possible.

        Energy is not like cigarettes.

        The last oil price hikes was not artificial – so you can’t use that as an example for your case of raising taxes.

        The last oil spike was market-based; the uncertainty of supply gave rise to the price of oil – not taxes.

        This caused the oil companies to invest in more certain supplies such as Canadian Tar Sands.

        Increase taxes does not do this.

    • JayDickB says:

      As for alternatives, if a substantial price increase is natural, not induced, and it looks like it will be long term, why wouldn’t that spur at least a search for cheaper alternatives?

      For that matter, if someone has an idea for a cheaper alternative to gasoline now, there is an incentive to try to develop it. The incentive would increase, however, if the price of gasoline goes up as described above. I believe it is folly, however, for government to try to do this, as is being done now with ethanol, solar, wind, and who knows what else. Only the market can produce viable long-term alternatives.

      • Black Flag says:

        As for alternatives, if a substantial price increase is natural, not induced, and it looks like it will be long term, why wouldn’t that spur at least a search for cheaper alternatives?

        It does – which is my point.

        It is the artificial increase that creates the problem – as in Europe, where companies that invested in alternatives are now going bankrupt.

        Don’t hold your breath for alternatives.

        There are powerful reasons we use oil for energy – and no alternative has all the features oil provides.

        Yes, there are more powerful energy sources – but they are not mobile.

        Yes, there are more mobile energy sources, but they are not powerful.

        There are places where we could replace oil, but the government doesn’t allow it.

        There is lots of ‘free’ energy – but it is not reliable.

        Hence, we still do not have alternatives in the main stream.

  21. Thought I’d update a few things. Last Saturday, I made some comments that were not deemed to be very nice, because they weren’t. I was angry at having a 70 year old woman attacked, in her driveway, when she got off work (same place I work). My use of language was questioned, which is OK, but I will not feel any different today as I felt then. For those who care, here’s an update!


    She is doing fine, just moving from her home of over 45 years.

    Good discussion today, by all! PEACE!


    • “pistol-whipped by one of two young male robbers and would-be kidnappers” – somehow that description seems just too innocuous and polite!

      Well, I think slime balls is apt !

    • Hey G.

      Man that sounded bad about that elderly woman. I will not say you overreacted as I probably would have been worse. Sounds like you live in a bad place. I can tell you though that with this meth and other crap that’s floating around these days, no place else is much better.

      Even here in the country where I live crap like this goes on all the time. My prime suspect is drugs but it is also just a sign of the times we live in. This selfish, self-concerned, gimme-gimme generation coming up just thinks everything should be handed to them or they will just take it. This Nation is headed straight down the crapper.

      I hope the lady recovers and I wish you and yours well.

    • G,

      I had no problem with what you said. Myself, I am a little paranoid about
      writing anything that might be mistaken for advocating violence. I do really, really, really believe homeland security would never do any domestic’
      spying. And if they do, I’m sure Janet has our best interest at heart.

      Best wishes, great that a few still stand tall.

  22. Just thought I would add my 2 cents worth. Born pre-WWII
    Generally about the only long posts I read are USW’s. after 4 or 5 paragraphs I have forgotten what was in the first and have to go back and start over again.

    If I were say about 35ish and had a Bachelors Degree and maybe a Masters( or 10yrs experience in chosen field) and was still working or just switched jobs, or an independent business man. I would vote with my feet!!!

    If I was thinking of Europe,the long term goal would be Switzerland, for an independent business man.

    If only a worker bee, and loved the outdoors, then I look at New Zealand. Only about 4 million people

    • Only little bit younger and cursorily agree about New Zealand. Wish I had thought about it 20 yrs ago.

      My 2nd country is Argentina! Another woulda , coulda shoulda – its peso has almost tripled since I thought of going there a few years ago.

      • the problem I see with Argentina is not very stable, as far as the governance goes, a few to many coups

      • Gov. Sanford can give you some tips on Argentina……..

        (talk about a meltdown, huh??)

  23. Judy S. says:

    Ok, that explains why you guys like the 90 degree heat. Here all you hear, yea, it’s hot, but it’s the dry heat compared to the damp heat. I don’t care, heat is heat to me, dry or otherwise.

    Have a good night, I’m rather pooped, been a long day. Chat with you all tomorrow.


    • Judy S. says:

      The answer above was for Amazed1, sorry if there was any confusion about what I said.

      take care all.


  24. WoooHooo….did you all see Helen Thomas, of all people, questioning the WH (via Gibbs) on their staged settings/questions?

    Maybe, maybe, finally some of the media might be opening their eyes.

  25. Black Flag says:

    SEC Investigator Was Pulled Off Madoff Case

    “An investigator at the Securities and Exchange Commission warned superiors as far back as 2004 about irregularities at Bernard L. Madoff’s financial management firm, but she was told to focus on an unrelated matter, according to agency documents and sources familiar with the investigation…. But with the agency under pressure to look for wrongdoing in the mutual fund industry, she wasn’t able to continue pursuing Madoff, according to documents and two people familiar with the investigation, and her team soon concluded its work on the probe.” (Washington Post, Thursday)

    Anyone who looks to regulators for protection almost deserves what he gets.

    • Hi Black Flag,

      I’ve got a question for you. I’ve heard something again about the “Amero”. Could the dollar’s collapse be a conveniet excuse for the Amero to come into usage? I guess its the North American version of the Euro, right?

      • Black Flag says:

        Yes, it is very possible.

        The Chinese would have to agree first.

        They would agree – it would cost them a huge write down – maybe as high as 75% – but its better than zero.

        The Amero, however, will not be an ‘international’ currency; the world will say “no thank you”.

        It will be an internal currency – like the Russian Ruble and Chinese Yuan – you’ll have to trade it in at an ‘official’ rate before you got something you can use offshore.

        Obviously, the government would extract a huge ‘fee’ – so a large a black market in the Amero would appear.

        It would cost Americans their prosperity for a generation – maybe two – but the country would survive.

        The alternatives are all considerably worse.

%d bloggers like this: