Guest Commentary – EPA Budget Cuts Needed

Tonight I offer a guest commentary, something that we haven’t had since we started having regular contributors to the Stand Up For America dialogue. For the record, I am still interested in guest commentary pieces from all of you who read here but don’t have time to be a regular contributor. Guest commentaries are the best way for me to give a voice to those who haven’t built an audience that allows them to get their message out. Tonight’s commentary on the Environmental Protection Agency is provided by Scott Portman. Scott has written articles for a few sites out there and wanted to contribute the following to the dialogue here at SUFA. Thursday morning should feature the article that I have been working on and then I believe I only have one other completed article from the regular contributors, so send in your guest commentaries now!

EPA Budget Cuts Needed
by Scott Portman

Throughout the corporate world, the Environmental Protection Agency is known for its continual, expensive, and extremely confusing regulations. Through these policies the EPA has been driving down revenue for a number of factories, thus in turn, directly lowering job growth as well. The Clean Air Act has proved to be one the most costly, by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Luckily, the GOP and major business owners have aimed to put an end to some of these costly regulations with the goal of helping businesses maintain good revenue and increasing jobs.

Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has been a leader on the front of the criticism to some of the EPA’s regulations and their impacts. He put it best when he said that “These regulations are the EPA, having to do with industrial boilers, having to do with ozone requirements, the endangerment finding. They would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the cost is just tremendous. “Certainly Inhofe has his point with the amount of regulations and problems the EPA have posed to business leaders. He went on to finish up by pointing out that “We cannot be globally competitive as long as we have over-regulation in America.”

Even with all these regulations that the EPA is responsible for, what exactly are they doing in the end? It’s very hard to see how these large policies are directly impacting individual’s health and welfare. You wonder why the EPA doesn’t focus more on smaller projects with direct results such as removing asbestos from schools and older buildings all over the country, which are causing diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis. Right now greenhouse gas emissions should be the least of their worries as some people out there are still being exposed to asbestos in their buildings. With mesothelioma life expectancy being extremely severe, it’s unclear why the EPA doesn’t make a more concerted effort to use their resources to remove all instances of asbestos possible throughout the country.

Cutting down on the EPA’s budget is an absolute requirement if improving businesses, the deficit, and creating more jobs are wanted throughout the country. Although Obama proposed a cut to the EPA budget, it’s only aimed at cutting down on the clean water projects. The real problem relates back to the clean air act and the greenhouse gas emission regulations that are stifling industry throughout the nation. Even with this budget proposal from the president, the excessive regulations and hurdles that these major factories will face are ever present. Reduced revenue and less job creation will bear the brunt of the EPA’s regulations.

Certainly we are all for having an environment that is as clean and safe as possible, but unfortunately regulations that have little impact on the environment are costing the country a lot of job growth and revenue in industry. Hopefully the campaign by Senator Inhofe and other s can successfully remove some of these costly regulations and help industry, as well as job growth.


  1. It is what it is…..burdensome and does nothing but cost money and jobs. Thanks Scott.

  2. Sorry, Scott, but there is something that popped up on the news this morning that really bugs me…in fact I am incensed. A 5 year old kindergartener brought a pistol to school in Houston and it fell out of his waist band at lunch and it fired…hurting three but not seriously. I cannot believe this at all. Why in the hell was his pistol not holstered? Geez…the parents these days….sending a kid to school with no holster.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – the real question is this – if another similarly armed 5 year old felt threatened could he/should he preemptively shoot the other 5 year old? Just askin’


  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Article Scott 🙂

    Now all we need is some Greeny Weenies to bring their whiney hineys over to tell everyone we need to save the planet from some imaginary disaster made up by a money hungry politician.

    On a different note, the EPA, as is many other agencies (TSA, DHS), are out of hand and need seriously reduced in their duties. I agree with the asbestos point. I wonder how much money was saved in safety costs by having terrorists bring down them 3 big, asbestos laiden buildings in New York? Oops, they only hit two of them, the third just got scared and fell down by itself. 😆

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @G-Man – well….on this theme of smaller government and in response to Scott – why should the EPA be responsible for removing asbestos? Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the school district (in the example of schools) or the building owner (in the example of “older buildings”)?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        @Ray, The EPA is not responsible for removing asbestos, it is the building owners. Removing asbestos is a very tightly controlled operation with layers of safety. It’s mostly regulated by OSHA. Now in the case of demolition, I believe that the EPA requires that asbestos be removed prior to demolition. This is a very expensive process.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @G-Man – continuing this……

          To what extent, if any, should the EPA and OSHA be involved in asbestos removal? Remember, involvement of any kind means $$$ spent (inspectors, people managing inspectors, clerical folks, technology, payroll people, HR, etc). And remember also, asbestos is but one use case. Let’s say we eradicate all asbestos. Any chance there is a very long list of “things” contending to be the next asbestos?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Ray, This I can answer , as my father removed asbestos from his worksite. Those who remove it must go through annual certification training, paid for by the company. At this point, once certified, they are on their own and no agency is involved. Everything is documented, including proper disposal. These records are checked by the different agencies periodically.

            I know of no other “asbestos’s” out there at the moment, but give it time, they’ll come up with something 🙂

            I’ve got a few short hours in between T-Storms to get some trees cut up and split, I’ll be back later, Peace my friend!

            • other asbestos example: lead paint removal from bridges

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Just a suggestion – when posting an article from a guest contributor try and ensure the contributor is willing to hang out and join the debate. Otherwise its like opening the SUFA room, tossing a grenade in, then shutting the door. The grenade may go off, or it may be tossed back out so the crowd can play with other grenades.

              • USWeapon says:

                Excellent point Ray. The plan was that he would be here to participate in the discussion. Not sure why that didn’t happen.

          • Ray

            Lets look at the underlying question.

            If you have a “federal” entity that comes along and creates a NEW “procedure” or “requirement” on the State/Local/Private entity, should the “federal” entity have to put up some money to execute this NEW program/procedure/requirement.

            Asbestos makes a good example. The incidence of cancer or other health problems caused by asbestos in schools and commercial buildings was not that high (thinking now like a central planner/greater good type). But the federal agency pushed up the safety factor to require removal instead of cheaper mitigation.

            So why shouldn’t the EPA have to pay in some way? It is also their rule so why don’t they also have to pay for enforcement? Either directly or through funds paid to the affected parties.

            The EPA and its affect on health and the economy is the classic study in my view of these questions. How do we assure rational and effective/efficient regulation? Who pays the cost? Who benefits? etc etc.

            I think that the best solution is the push the costs to the lowest level but do so in a way they can be identified. Costs born by State and Local Govt are more likely to be the focus of the citizen’s attention and possible control.

            The more centralized the rules and costs the less ability we have to affect those rules and costs.

    • Greeny Weenies??

      ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ actress Kate Walsh to visit D.C. to push anti-drilling agenda

      Read more:

  4. This is always a challenging debate. Both sides are firm in their opinions and unwilling to budge. That’s not the way to work. Of course, being the government, it will never be doing things right, but that’s beyond my point.

    I think even beyond the AGW arguments, it is valid for people to be concerned about pollution. I think we need to strike a balance. I don’t really like regulations on things like Natural Gas collection (it will just drive up the cost of energy and hence EVERYTHING), but I also agree that we need to be careful about groundwater contamination. My only gripe is that you can find lots of horror stories about flaming water on CNN, but you don’t ever see the numbers showing how things like natural gas are superior as an energy source over other fossil fuels. How we can be a world energy provider by collecting the resources we have here at home!

    It’s a tough debate, like I said. I appreciate people on both sides making their arguments and standing up for what they think is right. Let’s inject some humility to the debate rather than rage about the right or left being idiots.

  5. I work in the pollution control industry and I will say first, that Greenhouse Gasses are not pollutants.

    The clean air act of 1990 (disclaimer: I haven’t reviewed it recently so going based off of memory) set up CAP AND TRADE. That’s right cap and trade already exists, except it exists for REAL pollutants like mercury and sulfuric oxides for example. The Cap and Trade was set up so companies could invest in the expensive technology that would eliminate pollutants or trade/buy from companies that already did. Twenty years later and this still exists. While the limits for emissions have changed, and price of building vs. trading has varied, power plants can still pollute without reasonable safeguards. The “Clean Coal” campaign is not a myth, it is possible to eliminate pollutants from burning coal. While the cost to consumers is important, the cost of these measures is not nearly as significant as the current Carbon Cap and Trade.

  6. EPA says, “we don’t need no stinking job growth”.

    The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.

    “We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.

    Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles.

    Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.

    That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.”

    The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.

    Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

    “Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.

    “To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs… and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”

    Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.

    “I’d like to see a list of all of the rules that you have proposed that haven’t taken into account jobs,” Gardner said. “We need to know if the EPA considers jobs in their analysis and whether you have, and whether EPA’s position is to consider jobs when it does an economic analysis.”

    Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis, but that the form of the analysis is driven by the requirements rules that are under consideration.

    The EPA official’s testimony has generated negative reactions from pro-business advocates who say Stanislaus’s testimony shows the agency is out of touch with reality and is indifferent to job creation.

    “A so-called economic analysis of the impact of a government regulation without even measuring its impact on jobs shows just how out of touch with reality a bureaucrat can become,” said Let Freedom Ring President Colin Hanna. “The testimony of EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus is destined to become a You Tube classic. No wonder this administration has been so ineffectual in reducing unemployment.”

    Read more:

  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    Scott – interesting article – EPA is one of those things that I often internally wrestle with as to “what to do with this”.

    Your closing statement underscores some important things:

    “Certainly we are all for having an environment that is as clean and safe as possible, but unfortunately regulations that have little impact on the environment are costing the country a lot of job growth and revenue in industry. Hopefully the campaign by Senator Inhofe and other s can successfully remove some of these costly regulations and help industry, as well as job growth”

    (1) “Certainly we are all for having an environment that is as clean and safe as possible” – sorry to sound harsh – but that is one of those slippery statements that allows folks on one side to pass onerous/stupid/far-reaching regulations that don’t net much in the way of clean or safe and on the other side it allows for a heck of a lot of leeway as to what “as possible” even means. The criteria of “as possible” becomes the barrier usually that says – if is going to cost me money, time or aggravation and cut into profits then it simply isn’t worth doing.

    So I’ll ask you (its your article) – how do you define “as clean and safe as possible” as a standalone statement; and then how do you define against the backdrop of business growth, jobs, profitability, etc.? Should there be a difference or not?

    (2) “unfortunately regulations that have little impact on the environment are costing the country a lot of job growth and revenue in industry”

    So my question Scott is what is the balance? Could a business ever use the “environmental regulations cost us jobs” as a crutch rather than that them take responsibility for their own environmental impact? My take is that maybe 3 out of 100 companies take aggressive measures to reduce their environmental impact. And I’m sorry – scattering the blue “recycle here” buckets around doesn’t count. My thought is that the regulations help prevent some things – but wherein EPA enforcement is weak, incompetent or absent you’ll still have companies that openly violate regulations – its a risk calculation they make.

    (3) Ultimately “we” must decide whether the Environment should be formally protected, and if so, how and by whom? I’m not sure I agree that cutting the EPA budget is our key to economic prosperity and revival. It sounds good in conservative circles. That does not mean we do not re-evaluate it and scrutinize it from a policy and budget perspective, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too!

  8. Quote of the day (from a few days ago, apparently):

    “Well, what we’ve seen is massive job loss that began in about 2008, and I believe that was under Barack Obama.” – Rep. Tom Graves

    • I agree.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Obama was not President until January 2009. Massive job loss in 2008 was not under Obama.

        Correct me if I’m wrong Mathius, but I believe that was your point?

        • Why, yes, Mr. Wala, that was precisely my point.

          But even more to the point (in addition to what I wrote below) is this: Let’s pretend that Obama was in fact President starting in November, 2008. Even then, how could anyone justify blaming him for job losses which occurred during his first two months? It’s not like he could wave his magic wand and suddenly change the economy – even if he was President, we’d still have been operating under Bush’s budget and with Bush’s tax structures and with Bush’s regulatory environment.

          Yet, somehow, the Big O is at fault according to an elected representative from Georgia. I can understand a statement like this from some ignoramus off the street, but he has to know better. This is a blatant and deliberate smear.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Not sure which is worse – that so many of the public would believe this, or that the statement was made by a sitting representative.

            • Definitely the latter. The people should be able to trust their representatives to make true statements.

              • Definitely the former – politicians are always lying to one degree or another, but when it’s this blatant, The People should readily and aggressively call them out on it. But they don’t.

        • Buck

          The statement doesn’t say Obama was President in 2008.

          My interpretation of what the Congressman was trying to say:

          There was massive job loss in 2008, and it continued under Barack Obama.

          Funny how your bias caused you to see this a different way than I did!!!!!!!!

          • My bias? Buck’s bias? As the esteemed congressman, Barney Frank, once said: what planet are you from?

            He said nothing about “it continued under.” He said nothing about Bush, who was in control in 2008. He said it started in ’08 […] under Obama.

            Amazing that you would interpret what he was “trying to say” and then accuse us of having a bias.

            As Barney Frank would also say: now that’s what I call chutzpah!

            • Mathius

              Ever done any public speaking or given interviews to the news types?

              Words can get mangled as you try to think ahead of your comments. Note, I said that I believe what he was “trying to say”.

              So you see, I tend to give ALL folks the benefit when answering off the cuff to questions or when making off the cuff comments.

              What happens far to often is that the “opponents” take the verbal words and turn them into a “written quote”. Thus the context and inflections of the voice are lost, along with all the other information surrounding the quote.

              I did not hear the comment so he may or may not have been saying what you said. Without it I believe it is likely he was trying to say what I provided as an option.

              So MY interpretation is not subject to the bias you and Buck and Charlie display by assuming the written word accurately portrays the “intent” of the spoken word.

              Perhaps he is an idiot. Most of them are. But I can not judge based on a written version of vocal speech taken out of context and published by those who desire to ridicule the man.

              And I try hard to hold the same standard to everyone. Like the 57 States quote 🙂 ..

              I will modify my criteria when I begin to see a pattern emerge in someone’s views, both verbal and written.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            JAC, this is a stretch even for you.

            Reread the statement — massive job loss began in 2008…under Obama.

            • Buck

              Not a stretch at all, simply keeping an active mind.

              See above comments to Mathius.

              It may be accurate. But don’t ASSUME THE OBVIOUS Buck.

              You could just as easily be the victim of manipulation here.

              Perhaps I am a little more open to the possibilities because I have done public speaking and given news interviews. Even the most experienced can mangle the words in a way that destroys the intent.

              How many times have you pointed out that what looked like damning quotes from the left were taken out of context? Don’t the same rules apply here?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                What demonstrates more of a bias:

                1) Taking a statement at its face value – after all, this is what was said


                2) Reading into the statement what you thought he meant to say?

                Sure I’ve made the argument that quotes from the left (and quotes from the right) are taking out of context. But you need context to make that argument – you can’t just read into the statement for what you want to see or think was meant. Show me the context.

            • Here you go, JAC, what’s your interpretation in context?

      • See, that’s very impressive.. you know, since Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009..

        Hell, the job losses started well before he was even elected in November of 2008..

        I mean, I always knew Obama was impressive, but wow!

        I don’t know if you were being ironic, sarcastic, or just didn’t read the quote right, but the sad thing is that most Americans who read or hear this quote will just nod their heads and blindly agree that Obama is responsible for the job losses that started when he was just a candidate. ::sigh::

        • So what promise did Obama make on jobs if we passed Pelosi’s Spendulous?

        • I don’t know if it’s true or not, but you could argue that businesses saw that Obama would be elected and stuff happened based on what they thought would happen… eh.

          Another sad thing is that election day polls in 2008 showed that most people thought Republicans were in control of congress at the time and were responsible for the economic distress.

          It’s sad that most people would not be able to quote you the facts, but would certainly have an opinion on politics.

          It’s even sadder that many of them are elected representatives…

          • I don’t know if it’s true or not, but you could argue that businesses saw that Obama would be elected and stuff happened based on what they thought would happen… eh

            It never ends …

            • Right, it makes more sense to blame the guy who hasn’t even been elected yet than it does to blame the guy who has been in control for the previous eight…

              No, Charlie, of course it doesn’t end. People will always find a way to blame the guy they want blamed.

              • No, Charlie, of course it doesn’t end. People will always find a way to blame the guy they want blamed.

                Not to mentino ideologies that have never existed here in the good old US&A … socialism? Really? Obama is a socialist?

                I must’ve missed where he did something for the American working class. I thought he bailed out Wall Street without stipulations to protect workers … I thought he ignored several
                campaign promises (like walking a union protest line) .. Guantanamo, pulling out both wars by 2012 (election year) … forced genuin corporate reform (instead of letting bailed out firms walk from $38 BILLION in taxes), etc. Oy vey …

              • Most of that’s fare critisism..

                However, it’s not 2012, so his claim to be out by then hasn’t been broken.. yet. But he will.

                And, you can’t blame him for Gitmo. Congress defunded him. After either years of bitching about Bush ignoring the rule of law, do you really want the President to ignore the rule of law just because you agree with his goals?

                But the rest gets my general agreement.

          • Buck, I win! I told you they’d come back with this.

            Next round’s on you…

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Fair enough – let me know when and where.

              I just hope they see the foolishness of this argument. Yes, it is all Obama’s fault because businesses feared for his election. Geez!

            • And once again a diversion from the topic – off finger pointing who did what when and is the cause of ‘X’.

              Totally USELESS to discussion of the EPA and it’s regulatory effects on the country’s economics.

          • Wow, even with the append, “I don’t know if it’s true or not,” I get excoriated. Geez, I’m just pointing out one possibility.

            To tell the truth, I don’t think you can blame one person (especially the president) for something like economic troubles.

            • Well there I agree with you.. generally speaking.

              But he’s attributing the job losses starting in ’08 to a guy who wasn’t President until ’09, while we were still operating under the old guy’s system.

              At the very least, and being very generous, that quote is disingenuous at best.

              • I agree, the guy’s an idiot like pretty much every other representative. They just say what they think we want to hear. I think Obama is the king of that.

              • It’s like a club for liars..

                And remember, I’m not just the President, I’m also a member.

        • Terry Evans says:

          The largest month for job loss in 2008 was in November…over 500,000 jobs lost…I am sure it was a coincidence that BO was elected that month. IMO, business saw the tax increases coming and were getting prepared…

    • ????

      I don’t even get why you would bring this up? What is this shocked indignation at someone’s miscue and then blaming poor ole BO for our trouble’s? Slow day at the office?

      Feeling a little bad for The One in that he can barely keep ahead of all his own lies and misdemeanors? They are catching up with him, aren’t they? Campaign commercials will be a breeze – BO in his own words burying himself! Almost can’t wait – except in the meantime he is continuing his plan on destroying us and I need to prepare for that instead.

      • His plan for destroying us? Wow.. care to fill me in on the details? Should I stock up on toilet paper?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You mean you haven’t already started!? 🙂

        • I thought you’d know this one by heart …. he’s a Muslim born in Nigeria by way of Iran; has phony Hawaii birth certificate by way of Farakan (who also doesn’t always wear a flag on his lapel) … the secret is to turn the country into a giant welfare state, which will force us to finally stop the war machine building … then we’ll have no defense for when Muslim’s are ready to pounce and take us all prisoner … the eagle symbol will be replaced by a nest of birds (showing something akin to “it takes a village”) and targets at all bazaar water ballon races will have John Galt pictures on them.

          and I can’t stand the bum (Obama) but even I have to defend him against this nonsense until he was at least IN OFFICE …

        • Fundamentally Change = Destroy

          Mathius, you guys can laugh if you want but Mr. Obama clearly hopes to be the leader that issued in the NEW USA. The Fascist Progressive Utopia so longed for by those surrounding him.

          He clearly outlined his goals during the last campaign. You may want that change but I do not. In my view it is in fact designed to destroy the concept that was the basis for our Nation’s founding. It is antithetical to Freedom, Liberty and Justice.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “Obama clearly hopes to be the leader that isses in the NEW USA”

            Someone please tell me how to debate with such nonsense…

            Clearly you disagree with Obama’s policies. Ok, no problem there. I don’t agree with everything he’s done either. But what specifically has he done to usher in the “fascist progressive utopia” that we’ve all been longing for all these years?

            • Buck

              Nonsense? I think not Buck.

              You will have to debate it with him, not me.

              Those were his words. Didn’t you listen to his campaign rhetoric? Or did you think he was just making up all those things.

              He has run into more resistance than he thought. Pelosi and Reid could not deliver the super majority they thought they had. The Blue Dog Democrats prevented the complete “transformation”. But despite that we have:

              Obamacare and all its little unrelated pieces. A major step towards Govt provided health care. As admitted by Pelosi, Reid and Mr. Obama.

              EPA rules on CO2 and green house gas emissions.

              Expanded Govt roles in dictating diets and controlling food nutrition and personal habits.

              Govt/Private partnerships in thousands of program areas. A continuation of the Progressive Bush agenda I might add.

              Govt intervention and now involvement in automobile manufacturing and energy production.

              Govt consolidation of Pension plans as part of implementing a single Govt retirement plan.

              Full implementation of “Social Justice” philosophy through various programs, like banking rules, environmental regulations, education, etc etc.

              Please note Buck I did not claim he has been successful. Only that it was clearly his hope and his intent to push us over the edge once and for all. To transform this country in a way that we could NEVER return to the founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility. To be the man remembered as the ONE who accomplished what others could not.

              I have agreed with some of his positions but that does not change what or who he is fundamentally with respect to political philosophy and goals. If he had the power he would “transform this country” into something far removed from what was intended or what I am willing to live with.

              Then again I could be wrong. He may simply be an arrogant narcissist who fooled the power hungry liberal and progressive elite into electing him and thus assuring a place in the history books, along with untold wealth and a fat government retirement.

  9. Anyone notice the 50 million climate refugees secretly hiding in our back yards? No? Could it be the UN was wrong? And are they attempting to cover it up?
    (2nd post coming that ties this to EPA)

    Back on April 11th, Gavin Atkins of Asian Correspondent asked this simple question: What happened to the climate refugees?

    It is a valid question, and he backs it up with census numbers. Here’s the first part of his story.

    In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

    The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.

    • AUSTIN — Texas ratcheted up its attack on the Obama administration’s environmental policies on Tuesday, filing suit against the EPA over a declaration that could broaden government enforcement of carbon dioxide emissions.

      Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples announced the lawsuit at a joint news conference to declare that the two-month-old declaration is based on bogus conclusions and could cause billions of dollars of economic damage in Texas.

      “The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ,” Perry asserted.

      But environmental groups quickly countered that Perry and the other leaders are ignoring scientific evidence about the dangers of global warming.

      Austin leaders of Public Citizen and the Sierra Club went to Perry’s second-floor office in the State Capitol to serve the Republican governor with a symbolic “citizen citation” demanding that Perry “cease and desist endangering the health of breathers, the economy and the climate in Texas.”

      The suit was filed in Washington in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The state will also file a “petition for reconsideration” with the Environmental Protection Agency calling on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to review her declaration.

      The EPA declared in December that carbon dioxide emissions constitute a threat to public health, opening the door to further regulation to control greenhouse gases. The policy could have a far-reaching impact on Texas, which produces more carbon dioxide than any other state and many countries.

      Perry told Jackson in a letter shortly after the ruling that her agency’s mandate is based on distorted scientific claims and could wither jobs and the economy.

      Abbott said the finding is legally unsupported because of the agency’s reliance on the International Panel on Climate Change, which has been accused of basing its findings on discredited research and false claims.

      Critics have contended that intercepted e-mails from British scientists suggest that data were distorted to overstate the dangers of global warming. The release of the e-mail conversations gave rise to what later became known as “Climategate.”

      “The EPA should not blindly accept what the world has begun to second-guess,” said Abbott.

      Read more:

    • People growing marijuana indoors use 1 percent of the U.S. electricity supply, and they create 17 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year (not counting the smoke exhaled) according to a report by Evan Mills, an energy analyst at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

      After medical pot use was made legal in California in 1996, Mills says, per-person residential electricity use in Humboldt County jumped 50 percent compared to other parts of the state.

      Read more:

  10. HIJACK

    Sorry folks but I just couldn’t resist this one. From Ms. Huffington herself this morning.

    “The first poll results since the president’s big speech on the economy last week are in — and they’re not very good. According to a new Washington Post/ABC News survey, the president’s approval rating continues to fall, driven by fears about the economy. Back in the heady days of the 2008 campaign, a powerful, impassioned speech like the one Obama delivered would have had a definite positive impact on the numbers. But the soaring rhetoric now comes with a bitter aftertaste. We got used to the president making strong promises and then caving — from closing Guantanamo to not extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. Now he’s making strong promises he’s already broken. He’s like a political version of the Guy Pearce character in Memento — he’s figured out a way to break promises outside of the limitations of linear time.”

    I don’t care much for her analysis in most cases but I have to giver her credit for her use of words.

    Bet none of you knew that linear time had limitations did you.

  11. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also seeking to regulate the oil industry over greenhouse gas emissions, and the Bureau of Land Management under Obama appointee Ken Salazar “would issue new rules making it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land,” according to Heritage.

    That’s not all. On March 15, 2011, American Petroleum Institute (API) released a press release criticizing the administration for new environmental hurdles to a pipeline that would transport crude from Canadian oil sands.

    “This much-studied and much-needed pipeline would provide a critical link to our largest energy supplier, Canada, and its vast resources of nearby and available crude oil,” Jack Gerard, API’s president and CEO, said in the release. API also said

    the pipeline could mean 13,000 construction jobs in the U.S. and the project could lead to more than 340,000 U.S. jobs eventually.

    The pipeline, called Keystone XL, has already been scrutinized for 32 months by 10 federal agencies and many state and local ones, yet “workers are sitting on the sideline waiting for the project to start,” according to API.

    Yet most of the network stories about gas prices didn’t even ask if such policies were contributing to the rise. During the Bush years, the networks did the opposite – criticizing the president for gas prices, asking what the government should do and even entertaining far-left conspiracy theories about gas prices manipulation and election outcomes.

    CBS’s Couric wondered back in October 2006, “Is this [falling gas prices] an election year present from President Bush to fellow Republicans,” while showing an image of bumper sticker that read: “GOP: Grand Oil Party.” Following Couric’s tease, Mason said: “Gas started going down just as the fall campaign started heating up. Coincidence? Some drivers don’t think so.”

    Others in the media including CNN and Associated Press also ran stories about the supposed oil-price conspiracy.

    Networks Blame Speculators, Rather than Obama

    Rather than digging deep into those policies and explaining them for viewers, some of the network evening shows also predictably went looking for a business bad guy. NBC found an expert who said “I think you’re seeing a tremendous amount of speculation in this market.” But that story wasn’t nearly as critical of speculation as a CBS segment by Anthony Mason and Katie Couric.

    On March 23, 2011, Couric claimed they would “show you who is driving them [gas prices] up” before uttering the scary word “speculation.”

    The “Grim Reaper” of CBS, Anthony Mason, went on to report that oil futures trading is increasing the cost of oil, and therefore gasoline. He interviewed Michael Greenberger formerly of CFTC who said “It is accelerating the price of oil products, gasoline, heating oil, crude oil, and other energy products, for no good reason.”

    A bit later Mason said “The CTFC is now considering regulations to curb excessive speculation in oil, which more than ever before has become a money game.”

    Actually, according to Heritage there is a good reason. The Heritage Foundation explained how trading oil futures works on Feb. 23, 2011: “The oil futures market is just that, a futures market. The price-per-barrel spikes in oil this week have not affected the domestic market yet. In fact, former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister made the prediction in December 2010 that America would face $5/gallon gasoline by 2012, a full month before the revolution in Egypt began.”

    Hofmeister has previously criticized the Obama administration for the drilling moratorium and at the time of his $5 prediction blamed the “pure politics” keeping “us from drilling more of our resources” for the rising gas prices.

    Read more:

  12. Mathius and Buck

    Here is the Media Matters story along with their clip of the interview, and their interpretation.

    LISTEN closely to the Congressman’s comments please.

    Then tell me word for word what he ACTUALLY said.

    And by the way, the interviewer and media matters are lying about the relationship of job losses and the Bush tax cuts.

    • Actually, what I heard is, “…2008, which I believe is when Barrack Obama…”

      Notice how significant the difference is between “when” and “under.”

      It’s sort of irrelevant, though. It’s all politics. We’ll never get real progress on debt reduction…

      • JB


        Good listening.

        Add to that the fact he was cut off before completing that statement BUT the MM posted the quote with a “period”. Thus making it look like a complete statement.

        • Stipulated.

          Though what possible conclusion could there have been to that sentence?

          GRAVES: Well, what we’ve seen is massive job loss that began in about 2008, and I believe that was under when Barack Obama…

          When Barack Obama… what? What could Obama possible have been doing in 2008 that correlates to the “massive job losses” more strongly than the current political/regulatory environment as implemented over the last 8 years under Bush?

          I have to concede that he did not specifically blame Obama for the job losses in ’08.. because he was cut off before he could do so. However, I’d be very interested in your interpretation of what the back half of that sentence might have been. Feel free to speculate.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            For all you know that statement could have concluded:

            “…when Barack Obama wasn’t even President yet, and Bush’s economic policies were still in force. Any attempt by other Republicans to lay 100% fault at Obama’s feet are intellectually dishonest and I personally will not stand for them.”

            See, we’ve been bashing Graves this whole time when he was merely trying to stick up for Obama!

          • Mathius

            Given the context of the remainder of his “talking points” it is very likely he meant to say something like:

            “and I believe that is when Barack Obama was elected to solve the problem.”


            “and I believe that is when Barack Obama ran on a platform of restoring our economy and jobs.”

            To be honest, it is very possible he wouldn’t have completed the thought entirely. He might have interrupted himself and launched into his talking points.

            That is how ALL politicians are being taught by EX MEDIA types to respond to these types of interviews, due to the nature of the interviews and compressed time frame.

    • That’s no fair! I asked you your opinion.

      OK, my take:

      BREWER: They’ve had the lowest tax rates under the Bush-era tax cuts in years. How come we haven’t seen massive job growth? [“I love asking gotcha questions! I know this is somewhat loaded, but let’s see how he responds.]

      GRAVES: Well, what we’ve seen is massive job loss that began in about 2008, and I believe that was under Barack Obama. [“DEFLECT! DEFLECT! IT’S OBAMA’S FAULT! BLAME HIM! Just make something up! It doesn’t matter what, someone will support what you were “trying to say” and the rest will just believe you. Oh, did I forget to mention that he’s a Kenyan terror baby?”]

      BREWER: One. 2001. [“Answer the fracking question!”]

      GRAVES: No, not two — the job losses began in late two thousand and — [“Stay on message. Obama’s fault. Stay on message. Obama’s fault. Stay on message. Obama’s fault.”]

      BREWER: Yes, sir. The numbers support what I’m saying. [“That’s fine, I’ll just press my case with or without you. The numbers are somewhat hazy, but I’ll throw that out there and see if you call me on it – you probably won’t since you’re so stupid you think Obama was President before his inauguration.”]

      GRAVES: And, high gas prices we’re — we’re continuing to see as well, now. [“DEFLECT! DEFLECT! Everyone hates high gas prices! They’re high now, therefore it’s Obama’s fault! Stay on message…”] But when we see the stimuluses, the TARPs, the bailouts, the buyouts, cash for Congress — they didn’t work. [“TARP! That’s unpopular, too! And I voted against it! I’m a hero. And regardless of the fact that the bailouts started under a republican, I know that most of my base thinks it started under Obama! Woo! One point for Graves!”] They just didn’t work and we need to accept that. [“See! I know what’s up! People should listen to me more… and the deflection continues.. just don’t answer the question…”] We need to move on, we don’t need to point fingers [“Exactly! No need to point finger like I just did literally 3 seconds ago when I blamed Obama for the job losses before he was elected”], but we need to have a very positive vision for the future of our nation [“unlike the Kenyan usurper who hates America and don’t believe in American exceptionalism”] and we certainly don’t need to engage in class warfare [“Booya! Another talking point! I am so awesome!”], which is what the president declared yesterday. [“Oh yea, can’t forget that, along with the talking points, I need to blame Obama.. never mind that literally half of a second ago I said we don’t need to point fingers :). Good thing that Americans are idiots. By the way, I bet you didn’t notice how slickly I managed to avoid the question while simultaneously blaming Obama for two things AND for sounding mature by saying we shouldn’t point fingers while pointing fingers.. at Obama.. twice! I. Am. So. Cool!”]

      BTW: did you notice the Freudian slip? “Cash for Congress”.. very interesting..

      • Mathius

        I will give you my opinion in due course.

        But my first point was to not assume that what you read is the same as what was said.

        Please note that you still have his actual words WRONG.

        I am talking about the quote you brought to SUFA today.

        here is the tale end of that comment.

        “and I believe that was when Barack Obama……………” At this point he is cut off and he never gets to complete this thought. So the FACT is that we have no idea what he intended to say in relationship to the first part of the comment about “massive job losses” starting in 2008.

        The FACT is that the written quote being circulated is not even accurate. And by the way it is constructed it completely changed the meaning and context of what was being said.

        And the general intent of his comments is what you portray. That is pointing out where Obama failed. I am not sure he was blaming the initial drop on Obama. But he was sure sticking to the story that everything Obama has done since then was a waste of our money and ineffective.

        I didn’t really listen to the rest of the discussion so I missed the “cash for congress”.

        • “cash for congress” was also a bad transcription. He said “clunkers.”

          I stipulated above the inaccuracy of the quote. Since he doesn’t finish his quote, I’ll have to withdraw my claim of slander, however I would be very interested in your “best guess” (Buck: objection! calls for speculation / Mathius: overruled!) for how he might have finished that sentence.

          • Mathius

            Done, above.

            Along with my thoughts on why we see this type of garbage on a daily basis.

            And why I used to watch Public Television news on the TV instead of the MSM.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Why am I always being overruled? These are valid objections ya know…

            • Buck

              Actually not.

              You cannot object to speculation when the witness was directed to speculate.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, I am objecting to the question itself — it is the question that calls for the witness to speculate, as Mathius had indicated.

  13. EPA will not receive significant cuts until systemic default of the FedGov

    • BF

      So are you setting the stage in order to claim that if EPA is significantly cut that means it is part of a systemic default?

      Or are you claiming the political will simply doesn’t exist to significantly reduce the EPA budget?

      And by the way………….what is “significant” in your view?

      I am also curious what your answers are to the questions I left you yesterday.

      • JAC,

        Re: Questions

        I was not available yesterday so any comments or questions directed for me should be re-posted in this thread.

        Re: EPA
        If EPA is cut, it is a response to systemic government default.

        There is no will to cut any dept. to any significant level. The bureaucrats are in control and they want to keep their cushy jobs and pensions.

        Significant = 30% or more

  14. April 20, 2011
    German press reacts to the Standard & Poor’s downgrade
    Steve McCann
    Standard and Poor’s downgrades its outlook on America’s AAA debt rating from stable to negative. The President continues his demagoguery against the Republicans and continues to beat the drum of class warfare. The Democrats in the Senate are content to thwart any meaningful spending reductions. With as a backdrop what is being said overseas about the ongoing Washington Follies?

    Germany is the dominant economic power in Europe and is what is keeping the Euro zone from complete collapse, considering the never-ending saga of Greek insolvency, Irish and Portuguese bailouts as well a nearly inevitable rescue of Spain. The Germans, of all political stripes have begun to openly express their concerns over the actions of the Obama administration and the Democrats. What is surprising is the commentary of left-wing publications.

    The center-left daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote:

    The reason for the Standard and Poor’s change to America’s rating outlook is not new financial data. Rather it is the political danger that the Democrats and the Republicans will only agree on a debt-reduction strategy after the 2012 presidential election.

    The primary reason for America’s political stalemate is Obama’s refusal to see that, in an aging society, social spending cannot be as generous as it has been in the past. The great social reformer Obama is at least 20 years too late with his ideas. And given the irreconcilability of the two parties, it isn’t possible that a plan to reduce national debt will take shape within the next two years. Obama only heated up the campaign atmosphere with his budget speech last week. Indeed, the top rating for US bonds is in danger. [Emphasis added]

    Another center-left publication Suddeutsche Zetung writes:

    Indeed, one wonders why S&P, and its two competitors Moody’s and Fitch, hasn’t long stripped the US of its AAA rating. The step by S&P is a positive signal, because it counters the accusations that US ratings agencies are more critical of European debtors than they are of American ones.

    The left-wing Der Spiegel adds:

    A report issued by the International Monetary Fund last week suggests that the US national debt could reach 100% of gross domestic product by 2014. There is little indication that the upward trend will be reversed anytime soon. And concerns about US debt are clearly growing.

    While few would argue that the 100 percent figure is anything more than symbolic, US national debt is indeed astronomical, its debt-to-GDP ratio is, in fact, higher than Ireland and Portugal’s both of which have asked for immediate aid packages from the Euro zone.

    Still recent history has shown, that when it comes to winning back a rating of “stable” [from Standard and Poor’s] radical spending cuts are necessary. Standard and Poor’s think it is a road that Washington is not interested in traveling. [Emphasis added]

    It is not a coincidence that the Standard and Poor’s action and the commentary by German publications that would normally be in league with President Obama came out after one of the most hyper-partisan, mendacious and deceitful speeches made by any President in recent memory. Obama’s address on the 13th of April on an extraordinarily important matter, the US budget and debt crisis, revealed that he and his fellow travelers in the Democratic Party have no interest in solving these crucial problems, instead there is a re-election campaign to run and the country and the world be damned.

    America’s major creditor, the Chinese, whose foreign ministry in a very cryptic statement said: ” We hope the US government will take responsible policies and measures to protect to safeguard foreign investors’ interest.” China holds over $1.2 Trillion dollars in US treasuries.

    The world has fully awakened to the disaster that is Barack Obama; when will the rest of America?

  15. Gold/Silver market:

    ….is responding the S&P announcement.

    Remember, the S&P did not actually lower the Credit ration of the US government. They said “should things go on, ‘we’ will lower it in a couple of years or so”.

    The market responded – “The S&P has effectively lowered the US credit rating TODAY”.

    I am sure those that listened to me a few months ago are somewhat satisfied and but also quite disturbed at the goings on.

    Those that ignored me are probably equally disturbed but much, much more uncomfortable.

    • Yeah, well you’re pretty hard to ignore. A baseball bat upside the head would be easier.

    • “those that listened to me a few months ago are somewhat satisfied” Not really. I took your advice to the extent I could, but would be much more satisfied if we passed a fiscally sound budget, allowed domestic oil drilling, allowed job creation, etc…

      Maybe because I took your advice, I only have to walk in the dog poo instead of being rolled in it like most will. Satisfied?
      No, it’s still chit I don’t want to have to endure.

      • No kidding. I think that is what pisses me off the most. Always lived conservatively (before I knew what that meant), have taken precautions as much as we can over last couple years, and will still be dragged down by the corrupt elitists.

  16. On April 18, the U.S. Government Printing Office posted what appeared to be an emergency print job demand. It needs over 350,000 copies of the National Detainee Handbook. Within hours, the on-line posting was pulled.

    One organization spotted this — how, I do not know.

    The spotter did not act fast enough to save an original copy of the request order. Fortunately for us, Google cached the page. The outfit was able to get a PDF of it. It is posted here:

    The ICE wants most of the copies in Spanish.

    But that is not nearly enough for the more than 1 million Mexican detainees a year.

    When we deal with the U.S. government, we find out that most of what goes on does not make sense to outsiders.

    I wonder if it makes sense to insiders.

    • WTH?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I was discussing this yesterday with CYNDI P. These are for the Chicago office only, not for the entire nation. Flag is correct, it was up and pulled just a few short hours later. One should wonder, if Chicago is getting 350K, what are the other offices getting around the country that have not been disclosed?


    The case for rationing healthcare
    Americans will have to decide what we can and cannot afford.

    ….told ya it was coming.

    Here is the first “up the flag-pole, flying” commentary.

    • I think Sarah called it first and then the left were flabbergasted at her insinuation. How quickly it has become accepted thinking.

  18. Black Flag

    From yesterday:

    Just A Citizen Says:
    April 19, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Black Flag

    The other day in your doomsday prediction you indicated that the “elite” had been plotting this mess for a hundred years or more and they were all powerful and we could do nothing. Paraphrasing by me so don’t get hung up on the exact words.

    My question to you is WHO are these ELITES????

    Seems to me you agreed with me that this was not a deliberate act but the consequences of arrogant people who think they can run the world. And not some centralized conspiracy of trying to actually run the world.

    I would like some elaboration from you as to WHO you think is behind the mess, WHAT their goal is and WHY they are doing what they are doing. HOW MUCH do they control and how much is blow back?

    I think you get the idea.

    • JAC

      The other day in your doomsday prediction you indicated that the “elite” had been plotting this mess for a hundred years or more and they were all powerful and we could do nothing. Paraphrasing by me so don’t get hung up on the exact words.

      …that they were actually plotting this mess?

      Not one bit. They are (or will be) the biggest losers.

      They created this mess by unintended consequences of men who think they are wiser than God.

      My question to you is WHO are these ELITES????

      Those that surround themselves with the profits of violence.

      And not some centralized conspiracy of trying to actually run the world.


      They do not care one wit about you or anyone else.

      As David Rockefeller spewed to a reporter, when the reporter asked how he felt about the destruction of human life:

      Why do you care about them? They are only people

      They care only about themselves and take no note of you, your family or anyone else they may impact – you don’t even cause a millisecond of notice in their very genetically damaged brain.

      I would like some elaboration from you as to WHO you think is behind the mess, WHAT their goal is and WHY they are doing what they are doing. HOW MUCH do they control and how much is blow back?

      It is not so much a “who”.

      First off, “they” are not one guy.

      They are a lot of people with a lot of different perspectives and a lot of different objectives and who have “An unwitting tendency toward self-destruction.”

      They are a group who “Learn nothing and forget nothing” and have been genetically bred over the centuries to be that way.

      One merely needs to look at historical royalty.

      Yahoo did a survey of the most dangerous jobs in history and it was “being royal”. They slaughtered their own fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, grandparents ….. what insane, brain damaged human being must you be!

      If they can do this, do you think they care about you?

      The force of government politics breeds men to compete at this level – where the greater the evil brute, the more successful he becomes.

      This society has become centered on such politics.

  19. A video lesson:

    The photographer was – in the beginning – merely a spectator.

    By the end, he watched his entire town -and probably his own home- wiped out. He probably was left with what he had – his clothes on his back and a video camera.

    There are people yelling warnings to others. Some run.
    But others merely walk ….. and probably were swept away.

    There are those that are too slow. Some of the faster ones turn around and try to save the slower ones. They are swept away …. together.

    When I rage against those wasting time in Washington, this video is my reason.

    Your futile effort impedes those whose intellect has said “run”, but whose emotion says “I will carry the slow ones”. The consequence: you wipe out both of them.

    There was precious little time to find high ground. Mere curiosity saved this videographer – and even he watching could not comprehend the extent of devastation until it -almost literally- washed across his ankles.

    In the financial tsunami, I would urge you not to be the ones who merely “briskly walked” but be like those that ran.

    I also urge that you cannot go back for those that merely walk.

  20. JAC

    WHAT their goal is and WHY they are doing what they are doing. HOW MUCH do they control and how much is blow back

    Their goal:
    -to enrich themselves, and I do mean themselves. Not their children, not you, not anyone else. Their entire world vision is two minutes in front of their nose.

    Do not make the mistake that they may plan 100 years into the future; their goal is to satisfy their own immediate desire. I do not claim I know what the desire may be – it could be a world vision that they know they will die before it is achieved – but it satisfies them nonetheless.

    – they are calculating men who believe it is easier, profitable and prestigious to steal then to it is earn. They gain power from men like Charlie, who does not respect a man who earns without violence, but respects a man who steals from those that earn.

    Extent of control:
    – they own or control your money and your laws.

    Whether they control you is up to you, depending on the level of legitimacy you give them.

    -they will hang from the lamp posts, because that is what they are willing to do to you.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Some good news about the environment, and bad news for the EPA. In the next two or three weeks, the Brits will be releasing a peer reviewed scientific study on global warming that will state the following:

    1. Over the last ten years, the earth has NOT warmed.

    2. The Waxman/Marky Bill (our cap and trade bill) will, over the span of 40 years, destroy 85% of U.S. industry at a cost of 7 trillion dollars and will only have a .09 C change in the earths temp. This .09 change will only occur if there are no volcanic eruptions and China don’t build any more coal powered electric plants.

    So now we can all laugh at everyone on the left that believed this nonsense 😆

  22. Always good to follow the money:

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    A cowboy, who just moved to Wyoming from Texas , walks into a bar and orders three mugs of Bud. He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.

    The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, “You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you bought one at a time.”

    The cowboy replies, “Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is in Arizona , the other is in Colorado . When we all left our home in Texas , we promised that we’d drink this way to remember the days when we drank together. So I’m drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself.”

    The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there.

    The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way. He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn.

    One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. All the regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, “I don’t want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss.”

    The cowboy looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eyes and he laughs..

    “Oh, no, everybody’s just fine,” he explains, “It’s just that my wife and I joined the Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking.”

    “Hasn’t affected my brothers though.”

  24. Black Flag

    When can we expect your final chapter on the solution?

  25. gmanfortruth says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      Flag, Based on this chart, how does a drop from 74.87 to 74.10 effect actual prices, say a $10 item?

%d bloggers like this: