Open Mic Returns… July 7, 2011

I hadn’t intended on returning the open mic format so quickly. I was thinking in another couple of weeks. However, tonight I didn’t have time to write and there weren’t any articles ready to go from me or the other authors at SUFA, so I figured it was as good a time as any to at least bring the concept back into the picture. While I won’t be adding any topics up front this morning, I will attempt to find time to add some throughout the day on Thursday, unless of course work explodes into madness, which has happened a lot lately. If nothing else, you all get a fresh thread to continue conversations on as the previous one was starting to gather some length.


  1. Bottom Line says:

    • Was that before Regan was the head of a union or after?

      One world order … now that is funny.

      Workers of the world unite!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      That clip really goes to show how biased Fox is! Pitting the host (clearly conservative) and 3 right wing hacks against 1 lightweight!

      Meanwhile if you actually watch, the 4 go crazy about this conspiracy to take over rural America and impose one world government without actually saying anything of substance. The 1 counters to question what they believe will happen from this and surprise, surprise, no answer.

      Me, I’ll have to read up on what this executive order actually says. Got a link?

      • without actually saying anything of substance.

        No, Buck, the message was clear (to those wearing blinders to reality). The government is coming to enslave you. Quick, vote Republican and keep the wealthy in charge of the government that’s coming to get you!

        Sweet Jesus, do these people ever drink caffeinated coffee?

      • We have had only one problem with the government in the 18 years we owned our ranch…and that is when the EPA wanted access to our land to monitor and test the water that is coming out of the two natural springs that originate on our land. The reason, they claimed, is that since the water originated on our land and fed into a reserve water supply for the town of Ardmore, Oklahoma they had the “right” to monitor our water and ensure that the cattle and “other forms of wildlife” are not polluting the streams. We, of course, laughed at them and said no, Then we were threatened with a court order and we said to get it. They went and got a court order to access from the Us District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and showed back up at the gate. We said to enforce it. This was in 1998. We have not seen anyone since. We will not let the government in regardless of who shows up at the gate and in what power. It is none of their business.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      From the Executive Order itself (sounds so sinister!):

      Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:
      (a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
      (b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
      (c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and
      (d) identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

      • Buck

        First: I can’t believe they used the words “my administration’s engagement” in an executive order.

        Second: The job of the Secretaries of the Dept’s is to coordinate with the other Dept’s on the rural initiatives. So what is the REAL purpose of a “council”? It is an increase in centralized control, which has been a consistent pattern in this Administration.

        Third: Subsections (c) and (d) open the door to many possibilities that include the agendas of those who wish to control the rural areas. This is not benign!!!

        Fourth: The use of the term “engagement” means to control local behavior through the Feds contribution of money and/or expertise. The term “leverage” means to require more funds be paid by local govts or entities. This sounds like a good thing except it becomes a “required” expenditure once the Feds get their hooks into the area.

        Fifth: You scoff at the notion that there are people trying to impose a “new order” or “one world govt” of some type. That there is an agenda to “redesign” the rural areas of the country. Well Buck those people and their agenda are very real. Whether this particular EO was designed to give those particular folks more control can’t be determined. The President brought many of them into the Administration. They may not have much real power. But this order does increase the “opportunities” for them to influence outcomes.

      • (d) identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

        Okay, tell me what this means-I read “energy development, outdoor recreation” and then suddenly the word “other appears” other CONSERVATION activities and the words related activities means anything else they want to mess with. To me this says anything related to energy or outdoor recreation is a matter of conservation and only conservation. Sounds like the global warming BS raising it’s head again. So call me a conspiracy nut-but experience-especially resent experience-makes me look for subtle backdoor ways to control us and our activities. And that this whole, oh so sweet concern for rural prosperity, is nothing more than a way to back the environmental nuts and increase the power of the Federal government.

    • BL

      All I get is a blank black box. Do you have a reference link?

  2. One comment to the Federal Government…..if this is true.

    “We have a ranch and we will produce and sell what we want…where we want…and to whom we want and for what ever price we want. Bring it on and come get me….but remember this. Bring something stronger than a court order because THAT is what it is going to take.

    • And yes, you may assume that we defy the Federal Government.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good morning Colonel 🙂

        I agree waith everything you say. The folks in my neck of the woods are all but fed up with the Feds. I know the local farmers have been meeting together, stacking hay with my neighbor has been very enlightning, but lacks in real details, they are ready to fight them off if need be I think.

        • Good morning Gman (and Colonel) but please, fellas, realize that the government you complain about is owned by big business, so before you shoot some poor innocent soldier sent to do his job (enslave you), remember to cut the head off the snake. Start with Bankfien from Goldman Sachs, if you need to shoot somebody. Or maybe one of the other CEO’s who took your hard earned tax dollars (better yet, your “sweat of your brow” earned tax dollars) and gifted themselves record bonuses for bankrupting the country. Shoot one of them before some poor SOB doing his job for whatever minimal compensation the powers that be toss him (or her).

          • Goldman Sachs does not send anybody out….but read my response to Buck above….we have had only one problem with the Federal Government concerning our ranch…..and we handled it appropriately. First, no one is going to shoot anyone unless there is a trespass. We have not heard from the Feds since we said no. Now, immediately, there were efforts to intimidate. We were audited for 5 years in a row and since we follow the rules to the letter, they found nothing. Then they, the government tried to pull our cattle brokers license and they lost there as well. Goldman Sachs did not order the audit nor did they try to reject our license…the government did. I have found that if you stand up to the government and look through their intimidation tactics…..they will leave you alone eventually and go after folks who are intimidated.

            • Aside from the fact it was kind of in gest (about shooting someone), there’s this in your response now unless there is a trespass.

              So, you are willing to shoot someone? Oy vey …

              • Yes, Charlie……..right between the eyes. There are several things you do not do to Texans (1) NEVER mess with our women, (2) DO NOT touch the hat (3)DO NOT touch the horse (4) Do not touch the cattle, (5) Do NOT trespass.

                However, Commandment number one…..DO NOT…..under any circumstance…Do you mess with our guns.

                Now, to answer your question with truthfulness. I would have no problem shooting a trespass right between the eyes. None at all. Coming onto my property uninvited and with malice…..boom. We have shot and will continue to shoot poachers and rustlers without warning. Our land is posted…well posted…there is no accidental poaching and there is no accidental rustling of cattle, horses, or anything else. NO one accidentally crosses barbed wire fences and you are not “lost”.

                To the issue that I mentioned with the EPA…We have heard that they could get no law enforcement to impose the order. The sheriff would not do it, the constable would not do it, the State police would not do it and one of the reasons we think…we were intending to protect property and they knew it.

            • If the government is owned by Goldman Sachs (which is one owner, for sure), then wouldn’t the soldiers send by the politicians to do GS’s bidding be working for them?

              I mean, come one, Colonel, is it business running the government or the other way around? Did big business bail out the government?

          • Murphy's Law says:

            “before you shoot some poor innocent soldier sent to do his job”

            I didn’t see anywhere in the colonel’s post anything about shooting anyone. He didn’t mention aiming a gun or threatening with one. They called the fed’s bluff, and haven’t seen them in 13 years since.

            Let’s take a look at this… one breath you said-

            “the message was clear (to those wearing blinders to reality). The government is coming to enslave you. Quick, vote Republican and keep the wealthy in charge of the government that’s coming to get you!”

            That’s quite an accusation of overreaction by conservatives.

            Then you turn around and jump to the conclusion that instead of D13 standing his ground, he was about to blow someone’s head off.

            Sorry, Charlie. Your hypocrisy is showing.


            • Murph, I doubt you understand what hypocrosy is, brother.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                At least I know how to spell it 😉

                You previously mentioned going to visit “Momma Stella” in the hospital……how is she? Hope everything is going well and that she gets out soon. Obviously I know nothing of the situation, but please know you and your family have my best wishes.


          • gmanfortruth says:

            Hi Charlie,

            Hope the Stella family is happy and healthy today. I have said nothing about shooting anyone. As the Colonel said, there are ways to deal with the Feds minus violence. Shooting the crooked banksters would be messy and there would be to much of a chance of collateral damage. So, for now, everyone is safe from my bullets, LOL.

            • Gman, I’m assuming you got my little poke of humor in the shooting business (I sure hope so anyway) … but should you ever choose to go that route (seriously now), feel free to start at the top (Goldman Sachs). I promise I’ll clean the mess … no problem. 🙂

  3. July 7, 2011
    BATF Head Melson Implicates DOJ In Surprise July 4th Testimony
    By Rob Miller American Thinker

    Over the July Fourth weekend, there was a major development in the Fast and Furious investigation when BATF head Ken Melman made a surprise July 4th appearance before Darrel Issa and Chuck Grassley’s congressional committee put together to investigate Fast and Furious.

    That operation involved BATF(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) agents allowing straw purchasers to buy over two thousand automatic weapons and then smuggle them illegally across the border to Mexican Drug cartels. The operation led to a spike in violence in Mexico, the killing in Arizona of a U.S. Border Patrol agent last December and a possible attempted cover up by the BATF and the US Department of Justice.

    BATF head Melman was placed in a particularly bad light by the earlier testimony of agents, some of whom depicted him watching the illegal gun deals go down on closed circuit TV and literally rubbing his hands with glee. Melman, a temporary appointee, was set up to fall on his sword for Fast and Furious and was apparently under a great deal of pressure from the Obama Administration to ‘resign’. Instead, he resisted and said he wanted to testify before the investigative committee, but in order to do that, he needed clearance from the Department of Justice.

    In a particularly revolting display of partisan horse trading and disregard for justice, the ranking Senate Democrat on the committee, Patrick Leahy made a deal with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley to allow access to certain documents and allow Melman and other witnesses to testify — in exchange for releasing holds on three Obama Administration DOJ nominees.

    Testimony was set up for July 13th, but then something very interesting happened. Apparently there was a clause in the agreement between the committee and the Department of Justice saying that “witnesses who choose to attend a voluntary interview with their own lawyer are free to exercise that right rather than participate with counsel representing the Department’s interests.”

    Melson apparently was never made aware of it, and neither were Rep. Issa or Senator Grassley and they weren’t exactly pleased about not being informed. But when it became known, Melson chose to appear before the committee with his own lawyer over this last weekend.

    In the letter linked above to Attorney General Eric Holder, Issa and Grassley wrote that Melson’s testimony was ‘extremely helpful to our investigation’ which was just the first bit of bad news they had for President Obama’s Attorney general:

    According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs). By his account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.

    Mr. Melson said that he told the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) at the end of March that the Department needed to reexamine how it was responding to the requests for information from Congress.

    According to Mr. Melson, he and ATF’s senior leadership team moved to reassign every manager involved in Fast and Furious, from the Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations down to the Group Supervisor, after learning the facts in those documents. Mr. Melson also said he was not allowed to communicate to Congress the reasons for the reassignments. He claimed that ATF’s senior leadership would have preferred to be more cooperative with our inquiry much earlier in the process.However, he said that Justice Department officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress. The result is that Congress only got the parts of the story that the Department wanted us to hear.

    If his account is accurate, then ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand. That approach distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation. The Department’s inability or unwillingness to be more forthcoming served to conceal critical nformation that we are now learning about the involvement of other agencies, including the DEA and the FBI.

    What Issa and Grassley are talking about is Obstruction of Justice. And the fact that some of the ‘gun traffickers’ were paid informants on the FBI and DEA payroll:

    The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities. While this is preliminary information, we must find out if there is any truth to it. According to Acting Director Melson, he became aware of this startling possibility only after the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the indictments of the straw purchasers, which we now know were substantially delayed by the u.s. Attorney’s Office and Main Justice. Mr. Melson provided documents months ago supporting his concerns to the official in the ODAG responsible for document production to the Committees, but those documents have not been provided to us.

    What Melson has effectively done is to finger the Department of Justice for some felony offenses, and there’s no telling how high this might go. Not only that, but by becoming what amounts to friendly witness for the committee, he’s ensured their protection and made sure that any bureaucratic retaliation from the Obama Administration is going to cost a lot more in scrutiny and oversight than it’s going to be worth:

    Any decision about Mr. Melson’s future with the Department would need to be justified solely on the basis of the facts and the needs of the agency, rather than on his decision to speak to us. We encourage you to communicate to us any additional significant information about any such decision so that we can work together to ensure that it would not impede our investigation.

    For now, the Office of Inspector General is still conducting its review, and we are still conducting ours. Knowing what we know so far, we believe it would be inappropriate to make Mr. Melson the fall guy in an attempt to prevent further congressional oversight.

    Issa has already stated that he has proof Eric Holder was out and out lying about what he knew about Fast and Furious and when he knew it. Now it’s just a matter of moving up the ladder and getting these people to rat out one another until they get to Holder.

    The cover up’s always worse than the original offense in these matters.

    • Isn’t this interesting? He testified without telling his bosses and brought in his own attorney! Wonder why he felt the need to do that?

      This guy better have some good protection or he’ll be Vince Fostered in no time. Hope Issa, Grassley, etal go for the jugular. There is no way this program was implemented without approval from the top.

  4. Murphy's Law says:

    So, Buck and Charlie……your message is, just move along, nothing to see here…… no attention to the man behind the curtain…..

    • Sure seems that way. Buck? Charlie?

      Frank Rich, the New York Times’s puzzlingly influential former op-ed columnist and over-dramatic hater of the Bush administration and the Tea Party, has landed with a splash at New York Magazine,penning the magazine’s new cover story, “Obama’s Original Sin,” going after the president’s timidity from the left in a way he never managed at the Times.

      What haunts the Obama administration is what still haunts the country: the stunning lack of accountability for the greed and misdeeds that brought America to its gravest financial crisis since the Great Depression. There has been no legal, moral, or financial reckoning for the most powerful wrongdoers. Nor have there been meaningful reforms that might prevent a repeat catastrophe. Time may heal most wounds, but not these. Chronic unemployment remains a constant, painful reminder of the havoc inflicted on the bust’s innocent victims. As the ghost of Hamlet’s father might have it, America will be stalked by its foul and unresolved crimes until they “are burnt and purged away.”

      Read more:

    • I can’t speak for Buck’s message but mine has been clear all along. Do away with both parties and let somebody else take a turn (like a workers party). I suspect that won’t sit well with most here and that’s okay, but the other option is no government (and I’m pretty damn close to leaning that way, except I know it can’t work without absolute chaos), so I’m willing to have a total restructer of a document that is too old and abused to apply today (constitution). I don’t see why term limits and nationalization wouldn’t work and until it’s tried here without professional politicians subsidized by money (both parties), I’m not willing to assume the new bosses would be the same as the old bosses (not with term limits and more localized governments).

      I do hope you see the absurdity of complaining about a corrupt government owned by corporations and then rallying behind a party that supports the same thing. I mean, seriously, dude, it’s insane.

      • Charlie, the Stella man…..I see your points loud and clear….but not willing to socialization and greater good.,,,but you knew that already…

        However, I am interested in nationalization and term limits. Take a look at Mexico.,,,,it does not work.

      • “Do away with both parties and let somebody else take a turn (like a workers party).”
        (New Boss, same as the old boss. Now do away with all parties, you might get something started)
        ” No government I know it can’t work without absolute chaos.”
        (I have argued with Flag on this as well, but you have no proof it can’t or won’t work, just your opinion. Nationalization, on the other hand, has been shown to fail again and again. How many millions have to die before this lesson is learned?)

        “I’m willing to have a total restructer of a document that is too old and abused to apply today (constitution).”
        (might be interesting, what would you change?)
        ” term limits ” (sounds good, add it to the new constitution)

        “I do hope you see the absurdity of complaining about a corrupt government owned by corporations and then rallying behind a party that supports the same thing. I mean, seriously, dude, it’s insane.”
        (both parties are equally guilty. The Tea Party might be an exception, but unless they also push for term limits, expect them to become corrupt over time)

        • Most forms of nationalization have come at the end of a gun (whether through revolution (cuba) or corruption through decades of military rule (soviet russia). I’m not sure it wouldn’t work. I’m certainly more sure it would work better than NO government because common sense tells me if you remove all forms of gov’t, you have mass chaos (I doubt those in poverty are going to give a flying shit about Ayn Rand’s philosophical arguments protecting the wealthy from violence). I certainly don’t. The strong will surely survive and it’ll have little to do with education.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      My message isn’t (and has never been) ‘nothing to see here, keep moving along…’

      But why the jump to conspiracy theories? Why not actually take a look at the Executive Order in question to see what it says and what it actually authorizes. Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s Fox News we’re talking about.

      My initial comment was geared more towards the inherent bias of Fox than anything else. As I said, I hadn’t had a chance to look at the EO yet and, now that I have, am finding it pretty tame when compared to the hype of ‘one world order’ and the ‘government invading rural america’ as Fox would suggest.

      • And, therein…Buck and I are in…..OMG….agreement. With Media Matters and Huffpo totally debunked now, I am finding that Fox….even though more true than CNN and MSNBC (imo) is becoming pretty biased.

        • Don’t pass out, Counselor. Have another cup O’ Joe on me.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Becoming biased? Becoming?

            Come on colonel – this is nothing new. Grab a nice strong cup of joe with me, plenty of caffeine, then you’ll start seeing it as it is.

            • Maybe that is my problem, my barrister friend, I do not drink coffee…..but I can raise a heft DP. Yes, becoming too biased even for me. I actually viewed Fox as the most fair and balanced news reporting agency as compared to CNN and MSNBC and the regular pundit newspapers. However, I am now turn it off after I see the headlines. I then look at the headlines at CNN and MSNBC and likewise turn them off as well. I can make up my own mind and do not need a “commentator” from either side tell decipher it for me.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Wait…no coffee?? I don’t understand.

              • Yeah……go figure. 8 years of college, 40 years of military service…..and no coffee……ok, you better sit down for this one.

                University of Texas in the 60’s…yes….the 60’s……the great social and sexual revolution…..I never even had one single puff on weed nor one contaminated brownie in all my years as well as no coffee.

                I did put a dent in the beer supply back then….

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m absolutely stunned.

        • I agree FOX is biased. Some of their recent reports are a turn-off for me. Ex. Media Matters they keep “reporting” is gov. subsidized. Pure spin which might be legally correct, but the story is they filed as tax exempt organization. I think it’s a valid story, but their spin is dishonest. But, FOX is less biased than most, so I will stay with them.
          They report, I check other sources, then decide.
          (Interesting to note, this doesn’t include Palin stories, which I think all would agree were mostly negative)


          The Pew (PEJ) report for the 2008 election cycle is out.

          Among the findings?

          FOXNEWS provided the most balanced cable coverage of the 2008 presidential election among major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS) and likely the most balanced of all six outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC included), although they oddly didnt release the latter three network’s numbers. Keep in mind, while Pew bills itself as Independent, it certainly leans to the left, which is probably why they didnt release all the numbers. God forbid they stated FoxNews was the most fair of any television network, as it’s doubtful any network bested the Fox numbers below since the Fox positive/negative are almost a perfect match. Interestingly, while they released the numbers for MSNBC and FOX, they didnt release individual CNN numbers, choosing to say it closely reflected the “Total Coverage” numbers below, putting it somewhere between MSNBC and FOX.

          The Best (least biased) and the Worst (most biased) news coverage?

          BEST (FOXNEWS)
          Positive Obama Stories 25%
          Positive McCain Stories 22%
          Negative Obama Stories 40%
          Negative McCain Stories 40%

          WORST (MSDNC)
          Positive Obama Stories 73%
          Positive McCain Stories 10%
          Negative Obama Stories 14%
          Negative McCain Stories 43%

          TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together – 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
          Positive Obama Stories 36%
          Positive McCain Stories 14%
          Negative Obama Stories 29%
          Negative McCain Stories 57%

  5. one minute video worth watching!!!!

    Cato Institute on ‘underwhelming’ spending cuts [VIDEO]
    By Sean W. Malone

    As lawmakers work to cut $2 trillion in federal spending, a new video from the Cato Institute puts that number in perspective.

    The cuts are not really not cuts at all, rather slight reductions in proposed spending increases, the video says.

    Read more:

  6. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently analyzed our budget situation and concluded that it is worsening more rapidly than previously suspected. The CBO now predicts that by 2030 our debt will be 150 percent of GDP and by 2050 it will be 344 percent of GDP. Given that the two largest federal deficits in American history have occurred on your watch and in the two and a half years that you have been president the federal debt has increased from $9 trillion to over $14 trillion, do you believe that America is facing a debt crisis that threatens the very economic future of America?

    2. Mr. President, in 2009 you pledged to cut the deficit in half in your first term. Federal spending, as a percentage of GDP, has increased by 25 percent since you took over, your 2012 budget failed in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 97-0 and the 2012 deficit is estimated to be $1.4 trillion. Do you admit that you will break your pledge to cut the deficit in half in four years? What does that say about your record on fiscal responsibility?

    3. Mr. President, at a time when national unemployment is 9.1 percent, the federal deficit is a near-record $1.4 trillion, gas prices remain well over $3 per gallon and the U.S. is fighting wars in three countries, how can you defend the enormous personal time commitment you have made to meet this quarter’s $60 million campaign fundraising goal, a full 17 months before the 2012 election?

    Read more:

  7. Judy Sabatini says:

    Subject: Oil surprise
    OIL—you better be sitting down when you read this ! !

    You “will” pay $5 a gallon + again and you won’t complain loud enough to make a difference, RIGHT!

    Here’s an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information :

    About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. Was the guest. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. Have in the ground?” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together.” Please read below.

    The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana …..

    Check THIS out:

    The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… At $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5…3 trillion.

    “When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..” says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.

    “This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken’ It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. Oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves….. And we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

    That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from 2006!

    U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

    Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006

    Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

    They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:

    -8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
    – 18-times as much oil as Iraq
    – 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
    – 22-times as much oil as Iran
    – 500-times as much oil as Yemen
    – and it’s all right here in the Western United States .

    HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?

    James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

    Don ‘t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

    Got your attention yet? Now, while you’re thinking about it, do this:

    Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices – by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

    Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

    By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
    GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

    Guess what? The democrats took control of the house and senate in 2006. Amazing isn’t it?

  8. Here’s your Republican Party at work:

    Bought and Sold … no more or less than the Democratic party … so why bother with either since they are OWNED by big business?

    Answer: Because they (party of your choice) have deluded you all your life …

    I’m off to see Momma Stella in the hospital. Play nice while I’m away you crazies on the right and left …

  9. Buck the Wala says:

    Your hero, Gov. Christie, the blowhard.

    Best line in the article: “And: ‘He’s a rotten prick.'”

    • Just more proof that anyone can come up with numbers that push their point.

      From another aritcle:
      “Last year, our state faced severe fiscal challenges, and we had to make some very difficult choices. Reductions to education funding were among the most agonizing of those choices,” Christie said. “Because of the foundation we set … New Jersey is on firmer footing and we are able to put more funding into classrooms throughout New Jersey.”
      Suburban districts that lost most or all of their state aid got the highest percentage increases, but the aid still lags from two years ago.
      “Last year, Governor Christie’s budget decimated New Jersey’s suburban school districts. This year he continues this policy,” said Sen. Nia Gill (D-Essex). “For a second year, the state’s middle-class families and suburban school districts bear the brunt of the governor’s budget.”

      Don’t believe everything you read without doing some research first. That is, if you want to have the truth instead of some talking points. Judging by the comments on the article you posted, most liberals tend to want the latter in this case.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        JB, I don’t believe everything I read. Look into what he’s actually said and done in NJ, how he’s treated people, not least of which with the recent budget issue — Christie is a vindictive blowhard.

        • Terry Evans says:

          Buck, you say “Christie is a vindictive blowhard”. But look at what he inherited!

        • What, is he related to Scott Walker? How dare they try to get their state’s fiscal house in order.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            By disproportionately harming the poor, minorities, women, working class and middle class?? By sticking out his neck for no one, except of course the wealthiest in the state??

            Come on Kathy, this is not being done to get NJ’s fiscal house in order. Why then would he increase funding to suburban school districts to offset all the cuts to services for the poor, minorities and women?

            • You are really from WI aren’t you – these are exactly the same whining points I’ve been hearing here for months followed by name calling.

              How would you, Buck, fix NJ’s financial situation?

            • Terry Evans says:

              That class warfare crap doesn’t cut it with me. Christie basically made the tough decisions that should have been made years ago…and would have been less painful if made in the past. If the Liberal elites could only understand that to spend more than you have is to set yourself up for trouble down the road…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Christie made the tough decisions? Which tough decision is that — forcing public employees to kick more into their pension because NJ (both Dems and GOP) failed to fund the pension system for the past 15-yrs? Or was it the decision to not also ask the wealthiest to pay a little more in taxes to help offset the burden falling on everyone else?

                Your decry any calls for the wealthy to pay a bit more in taxes as class warfare, but what about the calls to force those greedy teachers, firefighters, etc. to give up their rights and pensions? Or does that not qualify as ‘class warfare’?

            • Buck, did you even read what I posted?!? They cut much more from suburban schools last year. He’s giving money back to them, but it’s still nowhere near what it was. The reason he’s not giving as much back to the cities is because they had it relatively easy last year.

              I’m so sick and tired of the “protecting the rich” rhetoric. Quit playing class warfare and make some reasoned decisions. Of course spending cuts will hurt the poor and not the rich, but the INCREASED spending that happened a while ago helped the poor and not the rich. Why are you so opposed to going back to the way it was? Isn’t that the liberal slogan? “Clinton had a surplus so let’s go back to that?” The government is spending $1.6 Trillion more now than it did then and you have to audacity to say that we shouldn’t cut spending? Were people starving in the streets back then?

              Good grief…

  10. Congress has no authority to regulate campaign finance. 🙂

    Written by Rob Natelson on 07 July 2011

    “One of the benefits of coming back to western Montana from a comparatively normal place like metro-Denver is getting in touch with just how weird the center of Missoula really is.

    Party organ for the Missoula weird (yes, they sort of have a party) is the artsy (meaning “counterculturally pretentious”) weekly, the Independent, whose current edition includes a screech about how “radical”(meaning “conservative”) the current U.S. Supreme Court is. (Disclosure: The author is actually from Helena, as I recall.)

    In the measured opinion of the columnist, or at least in the measured opinion of the Independent’s headline writer, we have been, as a result of the Court’s campaign finance decisions, “supremely screwed.”

    The joke here—I mean besides the Independent—is that the Court’s recent campaign finance decisions are squarely based on a body of First Amendment jurisprudence developed by “progressive” justices throughout the 20th century. I should add that it is fictional jurisprudence, because those “progressive” justices invented most of it out of whole cloth, without much regard to either the Constitution’s text or history. The current Court, far from being “radical,” has been so committed to precedent that has been unwilling to abandon this stuff.

    For example, the Court’s position that corporations have First Amendment rights is based on “progressive” precedents going back to 1931. (Liberals loved these cases when the corporations thus protected were powerful liberal media monsters like the New York Times instead of tiny conservative groups like Citizens United.) The present Court’s position that the First Amendment (despite a text that limits it to “Congress”), together with all the Court’s interpretive details, also limits the states, is a particularly celebrated “progressive” position. Liberals loved it back when this doctrine stymied state efforts to regulate porn.

    The Roberts’ Court’s fault, apparently, has been not to change the rules the Left made when those rules became inconvenient for the Left.

    The fact is that the Roberts Court is a bench stuck on dead center. Four of the nine justices are liberal activists, but they can only get that fifth vote occasionally. One-and-a-half (Thomas about 85% of the time and Scalia about two-thirds of the time) are traditional jurists—that is they apply the Constitution as legal documents are supposed to be applied: according to their text and the original understanding behind the text. The rest are usually unwilling to join the liberal plurality, but they are equally unwilling to take a good mop to the spiderwebs of legal fiction liberal justices spun during the 20th century.

    Here’s what the results would look like if the Court applied the Constitution’s REAL rules to federal campaign finance legislation:

    * Campaign finance legislation as applied to presidential campaigns is beyond the power of Congress; the Constitution does not grant Congress an enumerated power over the subject;

    * As applied to Congress, most campaign finance rules exceed the meaning of Congress’s power to regulate the “Manner of holding” congressional elections;

    * For this reason, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is unconstitutional, and there is no need to get to First Amendment issues; but

    * The states are governed by their own bills of rights, not by the First Amendment. Nothing prevents them from adopting campaign finance legislation.

    Following the Constitution—now THAT would be radical.”

    When elected POTUS I think I will nominate Mr. Natelson for the Supreme Court……………………… bwah, ha ha ha ha.

  11. Another view on the Constitution and the lefts love of “relativism” and application of the “association” fallacy.

    “The Constitution of Ayn Rand”?

    June 10, 2011 by Tom Bowden

    Certain portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as Obamacare—“may violate the Constitution of Ayn Rand, but they do not violate the Constitution of the United States.” So said Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal on Wednesday, defending Obamacare before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

    Whoa. Let’s slow down.

    As everyone knows, there’s only one U.S. Constitution. So Katyal’s reference to “the Constitution of Ayn Rand” is obviously a rhetorical device—but for what end? For the purpose of reviling through mockery a certain view of the Constitution’s nature and purpose, a view championed not only by Ayn Rand but by the Founding Fathers themselves.

    Rand held that the Constitution’s purpose was and is the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Although she was not a constitutional scholar and never originated a theory of legal interpretation, she knew as a matter of history and political philosophy that the Constitution embodies a certain view of the relationship between the individual and the government. In her article “The Nature of Government,” she wrote:

    Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

    Elsewhere in the same article, she said:

    A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free—a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.

    The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government.

    Expanding on Rand’s view, I wrote the following in an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor:

    As a matter of historical fact, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for a certain purpose. They wanted a government that would respect and protect the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Aside from certain contradictions (the worst of which, toleration of slavery, required a bloody civil war to expunge), the Constitution is dedicated to protecting the individual from society by means of a limited government. The Supreme Court cannot objectively interpret the document’s language apart from this essential purpose.

    Regrettably, however, too many of today’s judges reject this approach to constitutional interpretation. Instead, they follow the path marked out by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who sat on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. “All my life I have sneered at the natural rights of man,” Holmes wrote, reflecting his view that the individual rights venerated by the Founders have no objective validity and therefore no role in discerning the Constitution’s meaning.

    Judges may harbor personal opinions on man’s rights, Holmes conceded, but such notions have “nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law.” Holmes’s view directly contradicts that of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, who reviled unlimited democracy as “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

    Unfortunately, for more than a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution without regard to the principle of individual rights. As a result, statute like Obamacare—which contains wholesale violations of the rights of doctors, patients, and insurance companies—could sail through Congress without much worry that the courts will bar the way.

    We can now see more clearly the purpose behind Katyal’s sarcastic reference to “the Constitution of Ayn Rand.” Even though virtually all the case law is on his side—even though the courts have given Congress carte blanche to rule the economy—Katyal realizes there’s a stubborn individualism in America that refuses to lie down in submission while a juggernaut like Obamacare rolls over them. Because Ayn Rand has actually articulated and defended the moral basis of this American ideal, she stands out as the symbol of what Katyal wants to warn against. By singling her out, Katyal is reminding the judges that the American ideal of individual rights is none of their concern—that the Supreme Court regards the Constitution’s purpose as irrelevant to interpreting its language—that the judges’ job is to rubber-stamp Obamacare and not worry about its victims.

    The judges on the Eleventh Circuit, who are duty-bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, will not be breaking new ground in the realm of constitutional interpretation. But if some future Supreme Court were to move the judiciary toward a more objective approach, those justices would not be enforcing some imaginary “Constitution of Ayn Rand.” They would be enforcing the one and only Constitution of the United States, that often misunderstood yet precious gift of our freedom-loving forebears.

    • Wait til you read this – we supposedly “rebelled against royal rule” just so we could instate majority vote-no protections for individuals just protections for the majority-and of course Republican is just another word for anarchist.

      July 4, 2011
      What Our Declaration Really Said
      By E.J. Dionne

      WASHINGTON — Our nation confronts a challenge this Fourth of July that we face but rarely: We are at odds over the meaning of our history and why, to quote our Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted.”

      Only divisions this deep can explain why we are taking risks with our country’s future we’re usually wise enough to avoid. Arguments over how much government should tax and spend are the very stuff of democracy’s give-and-take. Now, the debate is shadowed by worries that if a willful faction does not get what it wants, it might bring the nation to default.

      This is, well, crazy. It makes sense only if politicians believe — or have convinced themselves — that they are fighting over matters of principle so profound that any means to defeat their opponents is defensible.

      We are closer to that point than we think, and our friends in the tea party have offered a helpful clue by naming their movement in honor of the 1773 revolt against tea taxes on that momentous night in Boston Harbor.

      Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression.

      We need to recognize the deep flaws in this vision of our present and our past. A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.

      In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

      The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

      Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.

      Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance number 10.

      This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently.

      No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.” The Constitution’s Preamble speaks of promoting “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty.” These were national goals.

      I know states’ rights advocates revere the 10th Amendment. But when the word “states” appears in the Constitution, it typically is part of a compound word, “United States,” or refers to how the states and their people will be represented in the national government. We learned it in elementary school: The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation to create a stronger federal government, not a weak confederate government. Perry’s view was rejected in 1787, and again in 1865.

      We praise our Founders annually for revolting against royal rule and for creating an exceptionally durable system of self-government. We can wreck that system if we forget our Founders’ purpose of creating a representative form of national authority robust enough to secure the public good. It is still perfectly capable of doing that. But if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices.

      • V.H.

        Well the author got one thing right. We have deep differences in our views of our own history.

        But it is not a difference in historical perspective that creates such a contentious divide. It is the opposing philosophical foundation. They are not compatible.

        Interesting how the “Tea Party” is now characterized as some “no govt” bunch of crazies who don’t understand the Declaration. Yet the very reason the Tea Party exploded was over Federal bailouts passed over the opposition of the PEOPLE. In other words, it would create the need for a tax without their permission. You know, without representation? The author seems to overlook this little fact and its direct link to the Declarations grievances.

        I also love the little trick of discounting the importance of a grievance, or at least creating relative value, based simply on its place in a list.

        Now what do you want to bet that the author has a much different view of what “public good” is than those who fought to overthrow the King?

    • I was rather shocked the other day when I read that one of the judges on the sixth circuit, said he had to say Obamacare was Constitutional based on Supreme Courts precedents-not based on his interpretation of the actual Constitution. If this is the case -why do we even bother taking a case based on the constitutionality of anything to a lower court.

      • V.H.

        Good question. And of course the upper court is supposedly equally bound. Or it will be called “ACTIVIST”.

        Notice how the SCOTUS nominees are always repeating their belief in “precedent” when questioned during confirmation hearings?

        My nominee for US Attorney General, if elected, will be Judge Napolitano. Or maybe he should also be on the Supreme Court. I’ll have to rethink this a bit.

        • I’d definitely pick the Supreme Court-it’s for life.

          • V.H.

            Curious if you have narrowed your “choices” among the field of elephants yet?

            Who are your top three? Why?

            I see Ms. Bachman did well in a debate, much to the chagrin of the leftist media.

            Are you planning to actively campaign for one in the primaries?

            • No, I haven’t, at least not really-there are a few-I hadn’t even heard of before they entered-The ones I know something about all have drawbacks that give me pause-of course they always do. But I’m leaning towards Perry-if he enters but I have one serious concern-that Trans-something highway-have been meaning to ask d13 what he thought about Perry’s support. I have mixed thoughts on it-which I haven’t sorted out yet. I like Bachmann on the grounds of core Constitutional principals. Concerned that Cain doesn’t have any experience and no clear answers except points for problem solving. Ron Paul-he goes a little far for me at this time in history but then again maybe that’s what we need but I can’t get this picture of him just simply vetoing every bill that crosses his desk out of my head. And Him saying we should sell our gold to pay our debt-I never understood the reasoning behind that-at a time when the value of the dollar is going down. I guess from reading this-you will see that I am fairly confused and conflicted right at the moment-but once I decide , yea, I’ll campaign for them-I don’t know that I will volunteer but with money, word of mouth, beyond that-we will see what time allows-we are opening a new business-and once all the stupid, endless governmental red tap is finished-I expect to be a lot busier.

              • V.H.

                I share your “confusion” at this point. Seems to me Perry is a lot more hat than cattle. The “Super Highway” is a bad deal, given it is attached to a much more comprehensive strategy for a North American Union (Mexico, USA, & Canada) pushed by the Council of Foreign Relations.

                I am still struggling with the feeling Bachman is just another Republican who saw the potential of attaching herself to the tea party. I like her fire but wonder if she could lead the nation and not just the Tea Party. Herman Cain was my initial favorite but you are correct in that all I here so far are talking points.

                One thing for sure, it is going to be interesting. And I love watching the MSM spinning in circles trying to figure out who to push so they can destroy them later.

              • I suspect my confusion on the Superhighway lies with not completely understanding NAFTA-but as I understand it trucks from Mexico have been allowed to cross the border into Texas for a long time within certain boundaries-not at all sure how they keep them too those boundaries once their here though-so broadening that access to give business better access to needed stuff-???-I don’t know if it would have been bad for Texas specifically or not-but the taking of land(bothers me and shouldn’t be allowed-so I’m personally against it) and a highway that goes all the way across the US into Canada-I think not-but either way from what I have been reading it seems that Obama has re-introduced the debate on NAFTA by signing an agreement for cross border trucking with Mexico.

              • I am very up on the trans TExas corridor. If you want information on it I can supply it. I joined several businessmen and locals that helped defeat this and it scared Perry pretty bad. We caught him with his hand in the cookie jar and stoppedhim cold. It also involved imminent domain…..did not go anywhere.

              • As I said in another post-I think that debate is going to break open any day now-and any information is appreciated-but my main question since your in Texas and probably get more news about Perry than I do- has Perry learned his lesson-or is he a danger-IYHO 😀

              • V.H.

                Following is a link to a story on the “super highway”. I’ve provided it only because it is the only one I could find that included the map of the primary route.

                I’ve seen the complete highway plan and it includes other highways, including one from the Mexican border in California through Utah, Idaho and Montana to Canada. It utilizes the existing route of US Interstates for the most part.

              • V.H.

                Sorry, forgot to paste the link


              • Well, as I said before-I am against the Super Highway for numerous reasons and Perry supporting this corridor in Texas -bothers me alot. But he seems to have been good for Texas -in my estimation-so I am trying to understand why he supported it and if he would support something like this again.

                But just for fun-the Obama admin seems determined to do whatever is necessary to allow trucks from Mexico to come here-which obviously Bush wanted to do too-but what is Mexico doing that would make our truckers want to go there? I wouldn’t go there-fighting against the drug cartel in order to deliver merchandise to Mexico -no paycheck is high enough.

                Does anybody remember the big story on, I think it was 60 minutes-where an American went to Mexico, had a wreck where he was seriously hurt and wasn’t allowed to leave the country, even for medical treatment-until he paid the person he hit. No, I’m not going to Mexico-and I figure we will be the losers in this whole situation.

  12. HUMOR…………… for some.

    As “reported” in Forbes:

    “The breakthrough was realizing that schizophrenia and Keynesianism have many of the same symptoms,” said Dr. Charles Rivers of the Harvard School of Medicine. “For example, both conditions cause delusions. A schizophrenic may think that the CIA is trying to kill him, while many Keynesians believe that government spending stimulates the economy.”


    “Like schizophrenics, Keynesians are reality proof,” noted Dr. Vishnu Krishnamurti of Massachusetts General Hospital. “Evidence, no matter how compelling to healthy people, does not affect their beliefs. A schizophrenic’s driver’s license may say, ‘John Smith’, but this will not shake the patient’s certainty that he is really Napoleon. Similarly, if you read Christina Roemer’s article in the July 3rd edition of The New York Times, you will notice that the same economist that predicted that spending $862 billion on ‘stimulus’ would keep unemployment from exceeding 8% is now saying that we should raise taxes to avoid spending cuts. It’s sad.”


    The identification of the infectious agent that causes Keynesianism creates the possibility of controlling the spread of this affliction, an effective treatment, or even a vaccine. Research continues.

    “We don’t know yet exactly how Keynesianism is spread,” said Harvard’s Dr. Rivers. “However, it certainly makes sense to avoid contact with known carriers, like Paul Krugman.”

    • I appreciate your kind of humor!

    • I think we know what causes the spread of Keynesianism-it’s misguided compassion on the part of good people and to heck with reality, the evil takers must somehow be made to pay-even though in all situations it’s the middle class who end up paying for all their compassionate giving-and forget about the negative impact on the receivers pride and drive to success-to the bad people it’s just political power and money to control the peons.

      In order for something to be actual compassion-it has to actually achieve good things for society. Not enslave people to the changing policies of the Federal government.

  13. Suggested viewing for all. Anyone see a “one world govt” revealed in this interview?

  14. RE: The DEBT CEILING Crisis, or almost crisis, or political game.

    Wanted to share an idea I heard last night. It came from that radical Rand Paul. You know, the guy the left claims is trying to destroy the Govt.

    His point was that given the Dems obvious intent to demagogue the need for the rich to make more sacrifice and use it as a negotiating point, the Republicans should compromise. His suggestion………..let the rich pay more for their Medicare coverage and reduce their Soc Sec benefits. In return the Dems must agree to cuts, capping the budget and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    His concept is that if we want to make the rich suffer more we should do it on the expense side and not on the revenue side. I kind of like the approach as a “compromise” position.

    Just curious what some of you think about the idea.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Admittedly an interesting proposal, but I would need to read up on it much more to see if I agree.

      But I do find it amazing to learn of the “Dems’ obvious intent to demagoge the need for the rich to make more sacrifice”, without any mention of the GOP’s recent game to first say that they would be open to close loopholes in the tax code (as a means to increase revenue rather than raising actual rates), just to turn around and argue with a straight face that they will only support closing such loopholes if the additional revenue is then used to reduce tax rates! Come on JAC, both sides are guilty of demagoguery, but on this issue I fear it is more by the GOP than the Dems. But that could be my own bias shining through…I did drink a lot of coffee today.

      • What more could business want (than Obama)? What more could republicans want (than Obama)?

        he handed over $700 billion dollars without a single stipulation to those who bankrupted us and then expected them to do the right thing?

        Seriously, how could Reps complain about this asswipe?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Simple. Look closely at his name. If you look closely enough you will see a little (D) written after it.

          • Exactly, Buck. They haven’t figured out the caffeine thing yet. They cry about the “government getting in the way of business” then the gov’t gives business a $700 billion check with no strings attached, the businesses reward themselves and put nothing back into the economy, CEO’s give themselves huge bonuses and continue to outsource and these business loving (free market) fools complain … how much more friggin’ free market can you get? What’s that, buddy, you just lost $700 billion in our casino? Well, Geez, that’s too bad. Here’s the $700 billion back. Try and put some back before you gamble it away again.

            Oy friggin’ vey …

      • Buck

        The point was raised by Paul in his comments, not me. Quite frankly I see the Republican leadership’s handling of this whole thing quite idiotic. But notice, Paul is not part of that group, nor are those that agreed to looking at cutting loopholes. That is why it never made it to the floor for a vote.

        The media, especially the left wing part, is mistakenly portraying every Republican comment as THE PARTY position. There is dissent within the elephant herd.

        So yes, it is your bias seeping through. More water and less coffee.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          And there is also dissent amongst the Dems. Not sure what your point is.

          • Buck

            My point is that to claim the R’s changed their position is not necessarily true. One group, leadership, offered the possibility of considering closing of loopholes as part of a deal. They did NOT say they would. It is a bargaining opener, not an agreement. But the other group has never agreed to that position. They have consistently said more lasting solutions are needed. So what you view as a reversal of position may in fact be two different positions expressed by two different groups within the R group.

            We also have no idea what is actually being proposed or discussed. We only see both sides trying to better their negotiation position via the press.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I see where you are going with this, but that isn’t what happened in this case. The two statements were made by the same individual. (Cantor)

              Whether or not that represents the party position is a wholly different issue.

              • Buck

                I heard them from different people. But I admit to not having internet or news for almost a month. So I can’t put all the comments in a time frame of back and forth. So I can’t make an informed comment on why Cantor would have made both claims.

                I do know that the R’s seemed to back track some after the President started the “tax loopholes for jet owners” rhetoric. Now that may be his strategy for improving his negotiating position, but the effect is to cause the other side to bolt on prior agreements. What we don’t know is if that is all real or just public posturing by both sides to improve their negotiating position.

                Here is my more general opinion on the whole thing. I think the newly elected Congressional Republicans and the Blue Dogs have been pretty honest in their demands and their desire to avoid a crisis. No doubt they have used the Debt Limit as leverage to force some action. Otherwise they have no leverage at all.

                On the other hand, I think the leadership of both the R’s and D’s, including POTUS, have been using the Debt Limit primarily as a political strategy to harm the other side in the 2012 elections. The D’s have been counting on their ability to blame the R’s for shutting down the govt because they know it worked with Clinton and Gingrich. So it is to their advantage to drag this out as long as possible. Quite frankly, I am not sure exactly what the R’s strategy was, if they even had one. They seem to be making it up as they go. For example, calling out the Pres for lack of leadership was political, but very stupid in my view.

                As I have said on many occasions, I have little regard for either side. Especially the old guard of both parties.

    • Sounds a lot better than this craziness!!!! One is an actual idea and other political speak.

      Pelosi: Dems oppose Social Security, Medicare cuts
      US Video
      Buy AP Photo Reprints

      WASHINGTON (AP) — The top House Democrat says she and fellow Democratic lawmakers will oppose including cuts in Social Security or Medicare benefits in any package aimed at reducing huge federal deficits.

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made the remark to reporters Thursday after returning to the Capitol from President Barack Obama’s budget talks with congressional leaders. The leaders are looking for a compromise package that would extend the government’s borrowing limit while also slicing trillions off future budget deficits.

      Signals have emerged that the White House would consider culling savings from Social Security and Medicare. But Pelosi, a California Democrat, says Democrats believe those two programs should not be used to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

      Republicans have opposed ending some tax loopholes for the wealthy.

      • Naten53 says:

        I hope everyone in here has a plan when you don’t get a penny of what they put into social security. I for one am not counting on seeing that money again.

  15. More on Obama/Holder Fast & Furious (OR, here’s how we are going to handle gun control):

  16. The SCOTUS, and rightly so, denied the Texas Killer’s plea for a stay. He dies tonight. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld the rulings two years prior that treaties are unenforceable from the world court and does NOT supercede state or Federal law. The bastard dies. (For those of you whom were uninformed, I am talking about the Mexican murderer that has been on death row and appealed to the World Court and the SCOTUS for a stay saying his rights were violated and Obama tried to stay the execution claiming treaty status.) NOT SO SAYS SCOTUS.

    • Texas told the courts, Obama, and Mexico to jam up their respective butts. Texas justice yet again…UNLESS there is something in the 11th hour.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      BTW- in 2005, when this was same thing was attempted with a different inmate (Jose Ernesto Medellin) and 90 nations joined in the request against Texas……it turns out that NONE OF THOSE 90 NATIONS allow the world court to supercede their respective nations’ laws, but wanted Texas to do what they were not willing to do in their own courts. This was reported today as part of the coverage on Leal’s case.

      See, Charlie, I do know what the word “hypocrisy” means….;-)


    • D13,
      There are the uninformed and the misinformed.

      On Thursday’s Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, host Maddow devoted a considerable chunk of her show to the story of convicted murderer Humbarto Leal’s execution in Texas, and Republican Governor Rick Perry’s refusal to delay the execution to give Congress more time to pass legislation to address how the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations should be applied to such cases.

      Leal, who in 1994 raped a 16-year-old girl and then strangled her and crushed her skull with a 35-pound piece of asphalt, was sent to prison in 1998 but did not discover until two years later that he was supposed to be legally entitled to ask for help from the Mexican consulate in his defense.

      Maddow never informed viewers that neither Leal nor his defense attorneys asked for such assistance before his trial, or that article 36 of the Vienna Convention which she refers to does not seem to require arresting authorities to contact a prisoner’s home country unless he requests it.

      The MSNBC host instead went on to dismiss the “conservative” U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that allowed the execution to take place as scheduled, and incorrectly claimed that Texas was not following the law.

      Below is a transcript of the Maddow’s introduction to the segment on the case from the Thursday, July 7, Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC:

      Today, in Texas and in Washington, the White House and Rick Perry had a political fight to the death in a dramatic down-to-the-wire final hour fight at the Supreme Court over whether or not Rick Perry’s Texas would be allowed to kill a foreign citizen who the state of Texas was holding prisoner. The man is a citizen of a foreign country, who was convicted of a murder in Texas. He was never allowed any assistance from his home country.

      If you, as an American, are in a foreign country, and you are picked up and arrested, you’re charged with a serious crime, the U.S. government has the right to intervene on your behalf to try to help you out. You don’t get immunity if you have done something wrong, of course, but you can at least get help from the United States because you are a United States citizen. That’s not only a principle that all Americans implicitly count on if we ever even think about leaving the country, it’s also law. Our country signed something called the Vienna Convention that says we expect to be able to help Americans arrested in foreign countries, and we will let foreign citizens arrested here get help from their governments, too. It is an international treaty. We are signed onto it. Congress ratified. It is law.

      But not in Texas, not in Rick Perry’s Texas.

  17. 😐

    • Stop that-talk already, I know you have an opinion 😀

      • lmao – yes I do have opinions.

        It’s just I haven’t had time for more than a little reading to try and keep up as for the last almost three weeks I have been volunteering my help to the ranch owner friends who helped us out so much during the wildfire, in way of showing our gratitude.

        I had forgotten the million and one things that always needs to be done on a ranch. It’s been very rewarding – and extremely tiring – to get back into all the physical work necessary to accomplish things.

        Soon, though some would rather hope for later, I’ll start spouting opinions again – I promise. 🙂

        • I highly recommend soaking in a hot tub at the end of a long day doing very commendable hard work. Look forward to your eventual return. Glad you let us know you are alive and well-but Where the heck are BF and Jon Smith? I don’t remember either ever disappearing for this long.

          • V.H.

            Just got word from BF, he is predisposed with family emergency. It may take a little while before he has time to visit us with his wisdom and charm.

  18. I’d say this speaks for itself-the only question that remains is WHY.

    Obama Gobbles Up Turki’s Crude Talk
    7/7/2011 | Email Diana West | Columnist’s Archive

    “U.S. politicians must muster the courage to scrap the fable of energy independence once and for all. If they continue to lead their people toward the mirage of independence and forsake the oasis of interdependence and cooperation, only disaster will result.”

    Hint: “Mirage” and “oasis” are giant clues about the name of the writer’s country.)

    Answer: Saudi Arabia’s Turki al-Faisal wrote the above in a 2009 Foreign Policy magazine essay hectoring “misguided” U.S. politicians who promote American energy independence from Saudi Arabia, one of the top oil suppliers to the United States. This strategy, wrote the former ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom, is “political posturing at its worst.”

    Don’t you just love lectures in democracy from potentates of religious dictatorships? In President Barack Obama, it looks as if Turki has found his turkey: a president with the Saudi idea of “courage” to keep the United States on the Saudi reservation — sorry, I meant “oasis of interdependence and cooperation” (ka-ching).

    It’s not just that Obama has presided over the near-end or slow crawl of new domestic drilling. The administration has been dragging its feet on approving a game-changing new pipeline that would, according to a December 2010 study commissioned by the Obama administration itself, effectively eliminate our dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other nasty oil suppliers. The new pipeline would increase our intake from friendly, democratic, human-rights-friendly and environmentally conscious Canada next door. (Canada is already the No 1. supplier of oil to the United States.) Short of exploiting our own ample oil resources, I can’t think of a better scenario.

    There’s also a bonus: The proposed new pipeline from the oil sands of western Canada to the refineries of Texas would create 100,000 American jobs, according to Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican and House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. Even Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore supports the project.

    So what are we waiting for? The Obama administration to say yes.

    The State Department, which has to approve the pipeline, has promised a decision by the end of this year, but Republicans want it sooner. In fact, the administration’s tardiness is so extreme, as reports, that the House Energy and Commerce Committee just passed a bill requiring Obama to speed up the decision. The EPA and assorted environmentalist groups oppose the pipeline, which is a bad sign. Together, they made a formidable combination when green pressure earlier this year persuaded unelected bureaucrats on the EPA appeals board to scotch a massive Shell Oil project in Alaska — another big energy and job producer, this one made in the United States.

    Meanwhile, there’s the Chinese angle to consider. Not surprisingly, China has been banging on Canada’s door with billions of dollars from Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled company, for a pipeline of its own to the Pacific coast. At the same time, Chinese companies, also reports, have been buying up multibillion-dollar stakes in Canadian oil-sands projects. In other words, while the Obama administration lags, China is picking up all the marbles we’ve left strewn around. This led Upton to pose an excellent question, one all Americans should ask their U.S. representatives: “Why is it that we’re not working with Canada, which will be producing more than 3 million or 4 million barrels a day from oil sand, and we’ve stalled on the application to build a pipeline?

    “If we continue to say we may not be interested, Canada is going to turn around and build that pipeline not to the United States but instead to Vancouver, and it’s going to be selling it off to China.”

    And then what will happen?

    Our dependence on, in many cases, anti-American oil — Saudi oil, Nigerian oil, Venezuelan oil and the rest — will continue to rise, transferring our remaining wealth to the stand-out Shariah states, kleptocracies and Marxist states of the world, further entrenching that “oasis of interdependence and cooperation” Turki al-Faisal was talking about.

    It’s the Saudi dream come true. But it’s an American nightmare.

  19. Black Order says:

    I left my friend’s house and began my one mile trek home. That was a few hours ago. The intent was to eat and get a good night’s sleep, as I have a lot of work to do starting in a few hours. But as you all see, I am still awake.

    She was a beautiful creature. A midsized young adult doe.

    I was almost home when she jumped out from behind the bush. The circumstances didn’t allow for very much reaction time at all. I’m surprised It didn’t result in a more violent impact.

    I was doing about 40 when she jumped in front of me, and at the time of impact, about 20. I tried to swerve and brake to miss, but I clipped her hind quarter with a foot or less of my passenger side bumper.

    She went tumbling just a few feet, and tried to get up to run. It wasn’t happenin’. Her leg and hip was busted. She just sat down in the small drainage ditch.

    Meanwhile, I was turning on my hazard lights and walking around to the front of my truck to assess the situation. When I did, she tried to get up and run. She struggled to make it about 12 feet before she lay down again. She obviously resigned to the fact that she was going nowhere.

    Left alone, she would have suffered a miserable death. If I would have had a gun handy, I may have spared her such misery. And I wasn’t about to go near her with a pocket knife and try to gut her throat. She may have even ended up back on the road for another accident.


    I called the highway service hotline dispatch center thing, or whatever it is called…which had the police call me.

    I gave the cop directions. She showed up on scene within a few minutes and waited for animal control.

    I ended up sharing it with the word till I wound down enough to go to sleep.

    What a day.

    G’night Y’all

    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m curious…what kinda damage did it do to your truck?

      • Black Order says:


        • Is that a zero-very surprising-It is hard to watch an animal suffer-sorry you had such a rough night.

          • Black Order says:

            I was as happy as I was surprised to see that the truck sustained no damage. Not a dent, scratch, crack, chip, scuff, etc…nothing. I clipped her with my bumper, just right, with just enough force to cause her serious rear end damage. I basically hit a deer in the ass, sideways.

            The irony of it was that about a week or so ago, I had a ten year old boy as a passenger when a rabbit ran out in front of me. I slowed to a creep, yielded to the rabbit, and let it pass before continuing. He laughed, and suggested that I should have run over it. That’s when he got a lecture on the value of life and why you shouldn’t kill anything unless it is attacking you, or if you intend on eating it.

            I really do wish I had the shotgun on hand. She would have been delicious with that squash I’ve been picking out of my garden.

  20. Murph, didn’t see your well wishes until just now. Thanks, brother. She’s doing good. I do updates at my place (hard to understand some of us eye-talian boys and how we speak to/with our Moms but it’s an unbreakable bond. She’s feisty as ever … and ripping her sonny boy a new one daily.

    And you’re right, my spelling is atrocious … or is it ah-tro-shuss?

    • Murphy's Law says:

      Actually, you spelled it right the first time, lol.

      I’m really glad your mom is doing better. I’m sure she will soon rule over rehab! What a treasure she sounds like!

      And just for the record, I have the wrong anatomy to be your brother…



  21. I’ve seen a lot of hate thrown at repubs who refuse to consider tax cuts. Will we see the same for dems who refuse to consider entitlement cuts?

    “On Thursday, some progressive House Democrats said they will collect signatures for a letter to Obama warning that they will oppose any deal that cuts entitlement programs or fails to raise taxes on the wealthy.”

    More proof that no meaningful solution will come out of Washington…

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The only meaningful solution that can come out of D.C. is if D.C. ceased to exist 🙂

    • It might if we had more people like him!

      Sen. Rubio: “We Don’t Need New Taxes, We Need New Taxpayers”

      “Our total debt is about to reach the size of our entire economy. That’s kind of the framework in which we’re operating in when we discuss this. Now, I actually think we’re closer to some sort of agreement on this, Sen. Ayotte, than a lot of people realize.

      “I’ve heard the term thrown around in the last couple days, a ‘balanced approach’ to dealing with it, and I think there’s agreement that there has to be a balanced approach. I certainly have always said that you cannot simply cut your way out of this problem. You have to have a combination of cuts and growth, growth and revenues to government. I think the debate is, how do you accomplish these two things? And I’m not going to focus so much on the cut part of it today. I want to focus on the revenue part of it because that’s the part the president and some of my colleagues here have focused on over the last day, this idea of getting more revenue or this new term, ‘revenue enhancers,’ which is Washington talk for more money to the government.

      “And, according to the president, some in his party, most in his party I should say, the idea is simple that…in America that are making a lot of money, more money than maybe they should be making, and they just need to pay more in taxes. And if these people pay more in taxes, then all of these problems will get a lot easier to deal with. That’s kind of the viewpoint they bring to this debate.

      “Yesterday, we saw, and I know tomorrow the majority leader, we’ll be voting here on the floor on something the majority leader has offered up, something called the ‘sense of the Senate,’ which people watching at home may wonder, ‘What is that?’ Well, that basically means what’s on the Senate’s mind. The ‘sense of the Senate,’ this thing that we’re going to be voting on tomorrow, is basically that you’ve got a bunch of people in this country that make over a million dollars, and that these people need to do more to help with the debt. That’s basically the ‘sense of the Senate’ that there’s going to be a vote on tomorrow — very interesting things.

      “So, I looked at it because ultimately this is a serious issue. So, let’s explore this with an open mind. Let’s not be doctrinaire, let’s not be blindly ideological. Let’s look at this from a common sense perspective, this idea that all these millionaires and billionaires, if they just paid more taxes, these problems would be solved. Let’s analyze it. This is all about math.

      “And here’s the fact: the fact is it doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, if you taxed these people at 100 percent, basically next year you said, ‘Look, every penny you make next year the government’s going to take it from you,’ it still doesn’t solve the debt. Not only does that not solve the debt problem, but I looked at a host of other — a great publication that came out today from the Joint Economics Committee, our colleague Sen. DeMint chairs it. And it kind of outlines some of the tax increases being proposed by our colleagues in the Democratic Party and the president to solve the debt problem. And you add them all up, you add all of these things up — the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all of the other things they talk about — you put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with nine days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending. Nine days and 23 hours of deficit spending. That’s how much it solves. So all this talk about going after people that make all this money, it buys you nine days and 23 hours. Let’s round it off. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction. That’s what all this stuff rounds up to.

      “So, here’s the bottom line: These tax increases they’re talking about. These so-called revenue enhancers, they don’t solve the problem. So what do we do then? Because clearly we have to do two things.

      “One, we have to hold the line on spending, if you keep digging yourself in the hole, the hole is going to bury you. But the other thing is, how do you start generating revenue for government so we can start paying down this debt? And that’s what the debate should be about.

      “We already know these taxes they’re talking about don’t work. So, here’s what works. Here is what I would suggest works in a balanced approach, using the president’s terminology. Let’s stop talking about new taxes and start talking about creating new taxpayers, which basically means jobs. Now, here in Washington, this debt is the number one issue on everyone’s mind, and rightfully so. It is a major issue. But everywhere else in the real world, the number one issue on people’s minds are jobs. And I’ll tell you every other problem facing America — a mortgage crisis, home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem — all of these issues get easier to deal with if people are gainfully employed across America.

      “And the impact that unemployment’s having across this country is devastating. We hear about unemployment in facts and figures. They give us numbers, Sen. Ayotte, ‘Oh, X percent people are unemployed.’ Well, there’s stories behind every one of those people. You know who a lot of these people are that are unemployed in America? They are people that have done everything they’ve been asked to do, and they’ve done it right. Maybe they served their country overseas, maybe they went to college and got a degree and now came back home. Maybe they worked for 10 or 20 years and did a really good job at work, and now, you know what, they can’t find a job. Or maybe they were lucky enough to find a job after losing their original job, but it pays them half as much, and they work twice as long.

      “That is the real face of unemployment in America, of people that are hurting. And our job here is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. And I think that’s what we have to do when it comes to a balanced approach and when we talk about revenue.

      “We don’t need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. And then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. And that’s what we should be focused on, and that’s what we’re not focused on.

      “So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed, and here’s what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes that they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax? How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax that I heard so much about? How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?

      “Because I’ll tell you, and I’m going to turn it over to Sen. Ayotte in a second. I’m interested in her perspective on this as a job creator, as the spouse of a job creator who runs a small business, as someone like me who just came off the campaign trail. Let me tell you something. I traveled the state of Florida for two years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I’ve never met a single job creator who’s ever said to me I can’t wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job.

      “And I’m curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don’t say that in Florida. And so my view on all this is I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they’re not creating jobs and they’re not creating new taxpayers, they’re not solving the problem.”

      • V.H.

        Me thinks some day we will be calling Mr. Rubio …………… Mr. President.

        I am hearing suggestions among some of the R insiders that they want him on the 2012 ticket as a VP.

  22. Remember those old fashioned ideals, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
    Now there are laws against them….

    Does Michelle Obama Know About This?
    Thursday, July 7th, 2011

    Oak Park, Michigan:

    Their front yard was torn up after replacing a sewer line, so instead of replacing the dirt with grass, one Oak Park woman put in a vegetable garden and now the city is seeing green.

    The list goes on: fresh basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, cumbers and more all filling five large planter boxes that fill the Bass family’s front yard.

    Julie Bass says, “We thought we’re minding our own business, doing something not ostentatious and certainly not obnoxious or nothing that is a blight on the neighborhood, so we didn’t think people would care very much.”

    But some cared very much and called the city. The city then sent out code enforcement.

    “They warned us at first that we had to move the vegetables from the front, that no vegetables were allowed in the front yard. We didn’t move them because we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, even according to city code we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong. So they ticketed us and charged me with a misdemeanor,” Bass said . . .

    City code says that all unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass or ground cover or shrubbery or other suitable live plant material. Tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers are what Basses see as suitable.

    However, Oak Park’s Planning and Technology Director Kevin Rulkowski says the city disagrees. He says, “If you look at the dictionary, suitable means common. You can look all throughout the city and you’ll never find another vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard.”

    So what is suitable? From another local news report:

    . . . we asked Rulkowski why it’s not suitable.

    “If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster’s dictionary, it will say common. So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers,” he said.

    God forbid your yard doesn’t include beautiful trees, bushes and flowers. It’s your job, Oak Park citizens, to give Kevin Rulkowski pretty things to look at. According to Bass’s blog, she’s demanding her right to a jury trial. So the city plans to throw the book at her.

    our attorney spoke to the prosecutor today. (for the record, my crush on him is totally finished after today.)

    his position: they are going to take this all the way.

    officially, this means i am facing 93 days in jail if they win.

    no joke.

  23. @ Buck, the Walla Man……..curious as to your take on the SCOTUS position and Texas sovernty state law as it pertains to treaties. I know that the SCOTUS has ruled previously that the world courts do not take precedent but this is the third such ruling.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Morning colonel!

      I remained silent on that issue because I really don’t know anything about the treaty in question, though I did hear somewhere that that treaty had previously been ruled unconstitutional. If this is true, and I just don’t know if it is, then it would be a non-issue — clearly Texas would not be bound by a treaty deemed in violation of the US Constitution. However, from my understanding, Texas would be bound by a Treaty, which would supercede any conflicting state law.

      More interesting to me (and more troubling) is Texas’ insistence (and track record) on killing people.

      • This was actually ruled on several years ago….the case is Medellin….where a treaty does NOT supercede crimes within that state. As I understand it, it was not going to matter anyway. He was going to meet his maker. However, I am a very strong capital punishment person as are most Texans. We still have that western pride and sense of hanging tree justice. I am sorry to see that it took over ten years to rid this guy but the automatic death penalty appeals are never ending. I knew you were anti capital punishment and was not going there….I was more interested in the discussion that we had with BF the other day regarding treaties. The SCOTUS has ruled three times now with this same result. We are a soveirgn nation…I do not believe in world courts and the Hague…..but that is me. No treaty is above crime, in my opinion.

        Interestingly, in the Medellin case, 91 countries wrote opinions on this saying that the treaty should supercede….however, not ONE of the 91 countries would allow it to supercede in their respective country. That is in the opinion.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Seems the answer lies in this sentence from the Medellin case: “While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be “self-executing” and is ratified on that basis.”

          Since Congress failed to enact a statute implementing the Vienna Convention in this manner, it cannot be binding in an issue resting solely on Texas’ domestic criminal laws.

          And why does “western pride” necessitate having the state kill someone??

          • Correctomundo…….and I do not think that Congress will enact a statute. Who wants to touch that? The Vienna Convention stops nothing and everyone that travels knows to get in touch with your consulate if there is a problem. His lawyers played every trick in the book. This one did not work and the 11th hour appeal to this was stupid on their part…in my opinion but I do find it interesting in the treaty side of this. Why would we want to be bound by a trearty such as this? I do not?

            Texas justice seems to work for us. Since the re-enactment of the death penalty and our concealed carry laws…..violent crime, according to the government stats, in Texas has reduced SIGNIFICANTLY. By that, I mean huge percentage points in burglary, rape, and robbery. However, this is still ranching country and independence is paramount with us. We usually handle our own problems before the law enforcement gets them but in this case… was not and they would not put this guy in general population in Huntsville. If they did that, he would not have cost very much. The prison population has very little regard for this type of criminal.

            At any rate, the SCOTUS now has three rulings along this line. Now, a question for you…..why would you want to be bound by an International Treaty that supercedes state law?

        • d13

          Good morning Colonel. I see you have been on the fight a little lately. Generally I like that but I think you are wrong on this issue. And for that matter I think SCOTUS was wrong in their finding under Medellin.

          First lets clear this up. I am not saying the World Court has priority over Texas law. I am saying the Constitution has priority over Texas law where is specifically states such. And with respect to Treaties there is no ambiguity.

          Furthermore, the treaty in question does not prevent the trial, conviction or execution of this guy under Texas law. It simply requires that we allow him to contact his consulate to get their help in the case. That help being in the form of assigning legal defense, interpreters, etc to ensure he gets a fair trial.

          So with that I think your argument is a false one. The real argument as I see it, from the legal perspective on this case, is that the guy never “asked” to contact the consulate. But Texas law didn’t inform him either. So while the Treaty and thus “Law of the Land” says he must be allowed to contact, it does not say the arresting officers must inform him of this right. So in essence it is like Miranda. And in that sense it seems to me that Texas should have informed this guy. When they discovered they hadn’t they should have conducted a new trial if needed to make sure the Treaty was honored.

          At this time Texas is the remnant of the American spirit. We need to keep that spirit as pure as possible. This looked a little more like Texas arrogance than pride to me.

          But I also blame this Administration. They could have intervened quietly and graciously much earlier. And this is what you get when your other actions are designed to bully someone around, Especially Texas.

          Note. The Feds are threatening to take Montana’s share of education funding away because the state told the D of Ed to pound sand on their unilateral changes to No Child Left Behind. Like Texas, this will only cause an escalation in Montana’s obstinance towards the Feds.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Pretty good analysis of the legal issue JAC. I pretty much find myself in agreement.

            I would need to look into Medellin a bit more to see why SCOTUS ruled the way they did and compare that to other decisions revolving around treaties as applied to conflicting state laws.

          • Not that I disagree with you in principal .

            But the man has lived in this country for 20 years as an illegal-per the Obama admin and others-the authorities aren’t suppose to ask about his legal status-he gets to use our schools, our hospitals, etc. etc. like he is a citizen-but he rapes and kills people and suddenly he’s a Mexican citizen.

            Maybe we would all be more passionate about denouncing this SC ruling-if our laws weren’t dismissed when it comes to illegal immigration except when it’s convenient to use them. I am tired of people being able to use our laws against us and at other times simply ignoring them.

            • V.H.

              I agree, and that was what I was getting at with the last comment. If we all had more respect for the Fed we would be less inclined to bow our neck and much more receptive to civil requests on their part.

              As the Colonel pointed out below. The guys lawyers knew and should have asked. It sounds like they were trying to play games and got burned. Maybe they should have been hung as well. A few less lawyers certainly wouldn’t hurt the country. And the others might get the message to stop playing games.

              • Buck the Wala says:


              • I’ll see your OBJECTION and raise you and OVERRULED. 😉

                I don’t think he meant you Buck. He was probably speaking to the subcategory of criminal defense attorneys?

                Or maybe not……………….

          • @JAC……MOI?On the prod? Yes, I will admit to it to a certain respect. I did not mean at all to imply that State Law has precedent over our Constitution. I understand this thoroughly and agree…and we also know that the lad in question should have asked his consulate for help and so should his lawyers. Texas is not required to hold their hands and should not be required to hold their hands on these issues. That is what lawyers are for and he had plenty of them. They played a legal game and they lost. They, the lawyers, should have played their cards early on.

            I will admit to Texas arrogance in not issuing the stay. When DS* Obama tried to force the issue, Governor Perry and our State Attorney General said ” no way Jose’ ” …..and fed the lad his fried chicken, quesadillas and whatever. I will also admit that Texas has taken a very hard line stand against the Federal Government and we ( the constituents ) have sent a strong message to our legislature and to Perry…….no more Federal bullshit. We mean it. Do not come down here and say I am *DS Obama, heed my words and hear me roar. We will send him packing. We have been threatened repeatedly with cutoff funds and we simply do not care. We balanced our budget and took the hard knocks. We simply hate the Feds. Ok enough there.

            I agree with your analysis……and I agree with Buck’s analysis along the same lines. I disagree with him on our death penalty but that is ok…it is a State issue and should be, He has a right to his opinion and I respect the hell out of that….even though he does drink copious amounts of coffee and he hails from North of the Red River.

            We admit to arrogance and we admit to western style justice…but it worls for us. AND….we have a balanced budget.

            • Oh, forgot

              *DS = Dip Shit

            • Also forgot to ask you…HOw are you, sir?

              • d13

                Funny, I got the DS right away.

                I am fine, considering I have been confined to living among the zombies. But I made sure all the neighbors saw me unload the guns and ammo when moving in. It worked. The two “right” thinking folks nearby soon dropped in to introduce themselves.

                The rest just walk by each day and stare at all my big gas guzzling trucks in the driveway, with their MONTANA plates prominently displayed.

                Son and I have suffered allergies much worse here. The almost constant cool damp weather and copious amounts of flowering plants has played hell on the sinuses.

                Hope all is well with you and yours as well.

                Stay free my Texican friend. And keep a place open just in case I have to run for it. 🙂


              • Where did you move to, my friend?

  24. 😀

    July 8, 2011
    Obamanomics and the commodities redistribution boom
    Phil Boehmke

    The carefully crafted economic policies of Barack Obama are paying dividends as more and more people are getting up in the wee hours of the morning to work in the covert commodity redistribution business. Many of our country’s most vulnerable individuals are finding work during the ‘Summer of Recovery II.’ Ex-convicts, the socially disadvantaged, those lacking strong math and technical skills and even those considered to be ‘the hard-core unemployed’ are finding ways to profit as the Obama recovery chugs along. The green shoots of the burgeoning iron, steel and copper recycling business are popping up all over the country.

    In the past few months recycled iron has been a hot commodity in spite of its relatively low salvage value and difficulty in procurement and transportation. In Rockford, Illinois, 60 iron manhole covers were appropriated from the city in a spring flurry of covert recycling activity. A run on drain grates and manhole covers in Jacksonville, Florida, has pumped $100,000 into the iron manufacturing sector for replacements. In St. Johnsbury, Vermont, two young men redistributed manhole covers, frames and grates from the city to a local salvage company. The iron recycling trade in Riverside, California, has pioneered the appropriation of fire hydrants along with the more traditional manhole covers and grates. Smaller operations have recently started up in Cape Giradeau, Missouri and Holly, Michigan.

    Although there are no exact figures for the number of jobs created and saved through the covert iron recycling initiative, the numbers could be in the thousands or even millions. The initial jobs created in the covert iron salvaging business are only a small part of the picture because for each manhole cover, sewer grate or fire hydrant that is redistributed to the scrap industry, jobs are created in the manufacture of new iron replacement parts and public sector union jobs are saved as the need for highly trained work crews for re-installation overrides budgetary concerns as a matter of public safety. Some cities like Mobile, Alabama, are experimenting with concrete manhole covers, but over time this would cost jobs as the concrete recycling business shows little promise of profitability.

    Although the value or iron for recycling compared with labor and acquisition risks isn’t likely to create any long-term economic growth, the numbers for steel look a bit more promising. Rural areas like Ludington, Michigan, with unused rail-road spur lines offer an attractive and profitable opportunity for covert steel recyclers. In LaPorte County, Indiana, a large scale stealth operation brought in heavy equipment to harvest the rails from an abandoned spur line in an industrial park. Over the Memorial Day Weekend, 32 feet of track was liberated from the Newport Secondary Line in Newport, Rhode Island, there is no word as to whether the crew earned double or triple time for their holiday shift. Other covert rail redistribution operations have been used across the country in places like Taunton, Massachusetts, Paulden, Arizona and Ruskin, Florida.

    The real money in the covert green recycling game is in copper. Restrictive and expensive mining regulations that have been imposed by the government combined with increased demand for copper in wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles have created a real boom for redistributed copper. Several towns in New Hampshire including Goffstown and Lawrence have seen a dramatic increase in copper pipe liberation from private homes during the past few months. In Hamilton Township, New Jersey, an historic 100 year old school house had its copper pipes reallocated to help meet the demand for copper in the green energy sector. During its Holy Week break, All Souls Catholic School in Engelwood, Colorado had copper piping torn out of the sprinkler system and suffered extensive flood damage due to improperly trained (non-union) covert removal techs. Last month the student union at Oklahoma State University was de-piped.

    To meet the increased demand for copper, covert commodities redistributionists have expanded their harvesting operations to include the scavenging of copper wire and tubing from air conditioning units. Although not yet a widespread technique, the stripping of copper components in air conditioning units has been reported in Blendon Township, Ohio and recently in Mr. Obama’s adopted home town of Chicago. The covert copper extraction operation in Chicago hit the Animal Welfare League shelter which serves roughly 100 orphaned and abandoned dogs and cats. The damage to the air conditioning units and cooling fans has caused particular hardship for the pets as temperatures have been in the high 80’s and 90’s this past week.

    The copper redistribution business has been a boon to covert removal techs, recyclers, green energy manufacturers and union plumbers, pipe-fitters, electricians and the HVAC techs who perform repairs. Again, there are no firm numbers, but in terms of jobs saved or created this is a pretty big deal.

    Look for continued growth in this sector until Mr. Obama and his comrades join the ranks of the unemployed.

  25. **** Wondering why JAC would think that a 40 year combat veteran, border patrolling native Texan would be on “the prod”**** and anti Federal Government. Must be something I said.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    An old article that was on here last year, thought Charlie would like it 🙂

  27. Charlie needs something to smile about … he just went batshit on Obama again (check out the De Niro video if nothing else) …

    • Bat shit Stella man…….I would like to see that!!!!!!

    • Awww, cmon my friend – no commenting? How am I suppose to support your feelings (about O, Shrub, Repubs and Dems) if I can’t comment.

      I’m going to have to go sulk some now……….okay, I’m done. 😉

      • Plainly, I may be batshit but I’m not that crazy … comments? Can you imagine the lunatics I’d draw. I’ve already had people threaten me with an “I hate Charlie Stella blog” … alright, the guy wasn’t all that stable, but seriously, I probably do more damage to my writing career with my politics than Sarah Palin does to the GOP. Comments? I might as well shoot myself.

        • (ahem) If you need any help……….call the ATF. Holder has plenty of guns that have been bought with tax money.

          Seriously, tho, I would not want to lose you, Stella man… are an inspiration if anything and a great teaching tool.

          • D13, did I mention the “I hate charlie stella” threat came from a guy on the left? I’m not supposed to point out Obama’s foibles (it isn’t permitted on the left) … and the same dude couldn’t stop making fun of Limbaugh (who deserves being made fun of, make no mistake), except Limbaugh does to moderate Reps what this guy was trying to do to me (he never saw the irony in that–doubt he does to this day). God forbid you disagree with them, never mind showing their hypocrisy. It is the most frustrating thing in the world to deal with; people who are close to my ideology who refuse to walk away from a party (either party) from fear of the other one winning (like it makes a difference). With all their ranting against one side, they refuse to see when their side is flat out doing wrong. That happens here at SUFA too, so it isn’t just on the left (so-called left from where I sit). Workers defending Obama at this point is analogous to pissing into a friggin’ hurricane.

            By the way, the same guy mentioned above, unfortunately, lost his job during the great uniter’s presidency (same as me). I lost two jobs (from 7 days a week to 0). Yeah, he’s a great president. What was I thinking? [sarcasm intended]

        • Yeah, I can see your point – those leftie lunatics can be nasty in their hatred! No one should have to listen to those people. We should just shut them down and take away their speech rights! I mean, after all who wants to hear their whining and whimpering?


          • Which is why I’m all for me being dictator for a few years.

            Remember, no comments …:)

            • If we can’t comment, we can’t vote as a vote could be construed as a comment which we can’t make because you don’t want us to comment about your selection as dictator.

              Now, if we could comment…………….


  28. Stay tuned…..the Colonel and his minions are joining the movement to block Mexican trucks from leaving the corridor of the border. The “so called” NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that allowed this to start with is trying to broaden the participation in a three year pilot program. Mexican truckers will be able to drive anywhere in the United States HOWEVER, American trucks cannot go into Mexico at all…even in a trade border corridor. So much for free trade. When questioned, Mexico President Calderon stated that to allow American trucks into Mexico would place an undue hardship on Mexican companies.

    It is going to get ugly.

    • D13

      Can’t wait to see the fur start to fly.

      In regards to your question: I have moved to Portland, Oregon. House is actually in Beaverton, home of Nike and Intel. Was to busy unpacking to go see the naked PRIDE parade.

      As I said. Keep a place open. 🙂

      Good luck Colonel on getting those trucks stopped. Seems to me the Teamsters should be all over this, no?

  29. In its annual survey of 25 countries, GlobeScan asks respondents if the free market is the best system for the world’s future.

    When GlobeScan first asked that question in 2002, American confidence in the free market topped the poll at 80%.

    If you assume that Americans are still first, think again. The 2010 survey reveals faith in the free market is at a low (59%) in the world’s biggest economy, placing the U.S. fifth behind Germany (68%), China and Brazil (both 67%), and Italy (62%). Intriguingly, American support for free markets dropped 15 points between 2009 and 2010, resulting in an astonishing nine-point advantage for the Chinese.

    Undoubtedly, Chinese confidence in free markets is high because 450 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty as China’s government liberalized the country’s economy. However, because the Chinese do not enjoy the inalienable rights accorded to Americans, China materially lags the U.S. in other living standard metrics including civil liberties, life expectancy, infant mortality, child labor and environmental health. Meanwhile, according to the World Bank, China’s national wealth trails America’s in terms of per capita GDP ($7,570 versus $47,020).

    The real conundrum is why American support for the free market survived the tumultuousness of the early 2000s — the bursting tech bubble, plummeting stock indices and corporate scandals that eliminated companies like Worldcom and Enron — only to drop last year.

    Perhaps Americans are frustrated that the private sector isn’t pulling the economy out of its doldrums, as with past recessions. We’ve become accustomed to economic cycles in which demand eventually increases as businesses replenish inventory and new construction replaces old. To meet increasing demand, companies hire employees and invest in equipment — this is the free market at work.

    However, as the Chinese economy has grown freer, the U.S. economy has become less free. Most Americans are unaware that over the last decade, the government sector has grown five times faster than the private sector, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Moreover, politicians interested in political power and rewarding allies from Wall Street to Main Street have undermined the free market with policies that drive up costs on businesses and consumers and create massive uncertainty for investors.

    If Americans are down on the free market, they’re gradually realizing it was the government that sabotaged it. Thanks to the new book Reckless Endangerment by New York Times business reporter Gretchen Morgenson and housing finance analyst Joshua Rosner, Americans are learning the true causes of the financial crisis — government intervention in the private housing market and influence peddling among political insiders produced the weakest economy since the Great Depression.

    The sad truth is that the financial crisis would never have occurred were it not for government policies that encouraged weak underwriting standards that resulted in the creation of 27 million risky loans (half of all U.S. mortgages). Furthermore, politicians ignored rampant corruption at the government-sponsored entities (“GSEs” called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), refusing to regulate them even after accounting scandals. If politicians had performed their duties, the GSEs couldn’t have spawned the seemingly profitable business in loans to people with bad credit that ultimately attracted Wall Street banks.

    Read more:

    • “But lower spending, thanks in large part to less money going to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, shrank the deficit to just $45 billion in June — down from $68 billion last year.”
      “the true causes of the financial crisis — government intervention in the private housing market”

      The federal government notched its 33rd straight month in the red in June, extending its record deficit streak to three times the previous low-water mark, according to preliminary estimates Friday from the Congressional Budget Office.

      But lower spending, thanks in large part to less money going to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, shrank the deficit to just $45 billion in June — down from $68 billion last year.

      And with three months to go still in fiscal year 2011, the government has racked up $973 billion in total deficits, a pace which is slightly better than 2010, when the government had just crossed the $1 trillion mark at this point.

      The figures come as lawmakers are trying to hash out a deal on long-term reduction to the country’s skyrocketing debt.

      CBO analysts said interest on the debt accounts for an ever-increasing share of spending: $31 billion in June alone, and $202 billion for the first nine months of the fiscal year, which is 18 percent higher than 2010.

      The government has run a deficit for 33 straight months, dating back to October 2008, when then-President George W. Bush and Congress began to grapple with the financial crisis.

      That’s the longest streak since the Treasury Department began keeping records in 1980.

      CBO said the payroll tax cut Congress and President Obama agreed to last year is biting into revenue, which accounts for part of the slight drop in government income last month, compared to 2010.

      Overall, though, income tax collections are up 24 percent, and total tax collections are up 8.5 percent higher in 2011 compared to last year, signaling that economic growth is helping the government’s bottom line somewhat.

    • Undoubtedly, Chinese confidence in free markets is high because 450 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty as China’s government liberalized the country’s economy

      Now this is funny. Never mind the fact they have close to zero human rights (never mind workers rights or choices). 450 million out of poverty, some of the 450 into slavery (like they can bargain for wages). The free market is doing fine and dancy by those who control it and for those who lived in abject poverty. For everybody else (what we like to call the middle class here in the good old US&A), it’s a constant flow of shit running downhill.

  30. Desperation or sheer stuipidity? This isn’t The Onion so I think it’s real, including the shock and audacity shown by the woman and the author that Paul Ryan would drink fine wine (and pay for it himself). What a dastardly man.

    Personally, I think his biggest crime is that he wasn’t drinking a WI Leinie’s!

    • Kathy

      I tangled with the lefties at HuffPo on this yesterday. It was unbelievable. The absolute hatred and anger towards this man for his proposed Budget and Medicare reform was stifling.

      Not a one could see the wrong in this woman imposing herself on someone else having dinner. While condemning him for living in a bubble, let them eat cake, rich jerk,etc etc, not a one recognized that this obviously Dem lady was eating in the same place. But she is OK cause her wine only cost 40.00.

      Not a one could understand that their screaming about him having expensive wine while the rest of us are suffering from his policies, is in fact imposing their value system on someone else. The same thing they condemn the conservatives of doing.

      I think Mr. Obama succeeded in his purpose with flying the “putting Medicare and Medicaid on the table” trial balloon the other day. He has galvanized the hard left and flamed their passion of hatred and anger. The backlash will be so strong that NOBODY will have the guts to touch either program in a significant way.

      Quite frankly, the smartest thing for the R’s to do is just let the programs collapse. They just need to refuse to allow general funds to be used for anything other than repaying the money borrowed from the programs.

      Best of weekends to you by the way.

  31. A Texas way to fish….

    I went fishing this morning, but after a short time I ran out of worms.
    Then, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a cottonmouth with a frog in his
    mouth. “Frogs are good bass bait” I thought to myself.

    Knowing the snake couldn’t bite me with the frog in his mouth, I grabbed him
    right behind the head, took the frog, and put it in my bait bucket.

    Just then, I realized I had a problem, how was I going to release the snake
    without getting bit? So, I grabbed my bottle of Jack Daniel’s and poured a
    little whiskey in its mouth. The snakes eyes rolled back and he went limp. I
    released him into the lake without incident and carried on fishing using the

    A little later, I felt a nudge at my foot. There was that same snake with
    two more frogs in his mouth.

    Life is good in TEXAS

  32. Holder bragged about Operation Gunrunner in 2009
    By: Barbara Hollingsworth | Local Opinion Editor | 07/09/11 10:33 AM

    On May 3, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testified before House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa’s committee that he only learned about the government’s sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels “in the last few weeks.”

    But Big Government found a 2009 speech by Holder on the Department of Justice’s own website that proves the attorney general was well aware of Operation Gunrunner back in 2009:

    The problem with Holder’s feigned ignorance is that he gave a speech in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, in which he boasted about Operation ‘Gunrunner” and told Mexican authorities of everything he was doing to insure its success.

    When questioned by the media, Holder also denied knowing anything about Gunrunner:

    “Holder’s office at first vehemently denied ATF has ever knowingly allowed weapons to get into the hands of suspected gunrunners for Mexico’s drug cartels,” CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported.

    But at the arms trafficking conference in Cuernavaca, Holder not only acknowledged the program, he bragged that he was in the process of expanding it:

    “Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.”

    So Holder’s May 3rd denial appears to be refuted by his own words.

    With 43 automatic weapons with serial numbers traced back to the ATF operation seized during a single traffic stop in Phoenix, and others showing up in crimes throughout Arizona, the ATF director now claims that Holder’s department is obstructing the congressional investigation.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:

    • Here’s the whole speech

      Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference
      CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009

      Remarks as prepared for delivery.

      First, let me express my thanks to Attorney General Medina Mora and Secretary of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible.

      This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General. I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels. The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.

      And, together, we will win – thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.

      The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important – the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.

      I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue. On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico.

      Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.

      But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone. Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel. This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra – once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States.
      With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way. I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight. Thank you again for inviting me here.

      Quiero que el pueblo Mexicano sepa que mi nación está con ustedes en la lucha contra los narcotraficantes.

      México y los Estados Unidos comparten mas que una frontera—compartimos cultura, sangre e intereses comunes. Somos hermanos unidos contra una batalla que ganaremos.

      Tenemos que aprender de uno a otro, trabajar juntos y luchar juntos. Si hacemos estas cosas, si nos dedicamos juntos a esta lucha, no tengo duda que tendremos éxito.

  33. Wisconsin schools buck union to cut health costs
    By: Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 07/07/11 8:05 PM

    The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union.

    The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin’s largest teachers union — “WEA” stands for Wisconsin Education Association — WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way.

    The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. “I could never get a definitive answer on that,” says Schilling.

    Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities — especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. But teachers union officials wouldn’t allow it; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook.

    That’s where Wisconsin’s new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers’ collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, freed from the expensive WEA Trust deal, the school district has changed insurers.

    “It’s going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012,” says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students.

    But the effect of weakening collective bargaining goes beyond money. It also has the potential to reshape the adversarial culture that often afflicts public education. In Hartland-Lakeside, there’s been no war between union-busting bureaucrats on one side and impassioned teachers on the other; Schilling speaks with great collegiality toward the teachers and says with pride that they’ve been able to work together on big issues. But there has been a deep division between the school district and top union executives.

    In the health insurance talks, for example, Schilling last year began telling teachers about different insurance plans, some of which, like United HealthCare’s, required a higher deductible. “We involved them, and they overwhelmingly endorsed the change to United HealthCare,” he says. But even with the teachers on board, when school officials presented a change-in-coverage proposal to union officials, it was immediately rejected. The costly WEA Trust deal stayed in place.

    Now, with the collective bargaining agreement gone, Schilling looks forward to working more closely with teachers. “I would say the biggest change is we have a lot more involvement with a wider scope of teachers,” he says. When collective bargaining was in effect, “We dealt with a select team of teachers, a small group of three or four who were on the bargaining team, and then the union director. Any information that went to the teachers went through them. Now, we feel that we will have a direct dialogue.”

    It’s not hard to see why union officials hate the new law so much. It not only breaks up cherished and lucrative union monopolies like high-cost health insurance; it also threatens to break through the union-built wall between teachers and administrators and allow the two sides to work together more closely. The old union go-betweens, who controlled what their members could and could not hear, will be left aside.

    Hartland-Lakeside isn’t the only school district that is pulling free from collective bargaining agreements that mandated WEA Trust coverage. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Pewaukee School District, not far from Hartland-Lakeside, will save $378,000 by next year by leaving WEA Trust. The Menomonee Falls School District, farther north, will reportedly save $1.3 million. Facing state cutbacks, the districts can’t afford to overpay for union-affiliated coverage.

    Look for the unions to fight back with everything they have. If the Wisconsin situation has shown anything, it is that organized labor views the collective bargaining fight as a life-or-death struggle. If the unions lose in Wisconsin, the clamor for change could spread to other states. What happened in Hartland-Lakeside could become a model for other schools looking for new and better ways to do business.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:

    • Like I said, if the government offered the same thing to teachers rather than nickel and dime them to death (and paint them as economy busters), teachers would flock away from corrupt unions in a heartbeat.

      The problem is state gov’ts suddenly want to treat teachers like pariahs and have them work for next to nothing (and to never expect a cost of living raise–which politicians grant themselves at will).

      • MAJOR BS FLAG ON YOUR ENTIRE POST! (and yes I meant to yell)

        This is such old crap I can’t even believe you posted it. There are several websites here that post teacher’s salaries (all public employees, actually) and this “work next to nothing” rhetoric has been blown out of the water.

        Just like, “It’s for the Kids”, It’s Racist” you can now add, “Teachers make pennies and if it weren’t for their benefits……and now you are taking away that” (untrue, of course, but why state facts when the opposite has such emotional appeal). Statements that once made for good liberal copy that no longer work.

        • Kathy, love bursting your bubble, but if you think the cost of a college education (on the cheap for, say, $25K) is worth a starting salary in NY of $41K (after which, you must add a Masters degree within 5 years and although the city will help with that, you must provide them with 5 years of your life or pay the freight alone), you’re living in quite a fantasy world (which, I know, you’ve been for some time).

          Let’s just fire all the teachers and home school. That’ll work … for you, I”m sure.

          • Golly Charlie – isn’t it great that a person can begin their teaching career in NY with less than a Masters – and get 41K to start? Every state I have lived in require that Master degree to get their teaching certificate before they can get a teachers position, so what do NY’ers have to whine about?

            Further, all those teachers in those States were paying for their own Masters degree.

            So Kathy is right, BS flag (now x2) on your post.

            • JAC, I didn’t think you were this clueless, but I learn something every day.

              Have any idea what the cost of living is in New York? Take a guess? Then add some of life’s inconveniences, like single parents, car insurance, accidents … yeah, 41K is almost as much as hedge fund managers make, what was I thinking … or lame ass laywers charging $750 an hour for what their secretaries and paralegals do … of course it’s the teachers faults.

            • heartfelt apologies to JAC. He isn’t that clueless, but Plainly, let’s just say it figures.

              • Well at least you caught your goof.

                The comment had nothing to do with the cost of living in NY Charlie. If you want to discuss that versus pay then we can? Plus NY isn’t the only high cost of living city in the country either – but again, we weren’t discussing cost of living.

                Stick to the discussion old boy. Your early dementia issues seem to have you slipping more and more off topics and changing the actual point.

    • Very interesting here in WI, AGAIN! (or perhaps, STILL). Recall elections happening soon against several Republicans that voted for Walker’s plan. (along with a couple of the run away 14 Dems). Unions and liberal causes coming out in a BIG way to get these “awful” people out of there – because they don’t like how they voted! Nothing ethical (like running out of state for 21 days and attempting to stop the process, for instance), but they voted to break down the structure of the public employee unions to give the schools, city councils, etc. the ability to finally shop around for benefit packages like the article above. Not unlike what a whole host of other states are now doing too. The gig is up! It is unsustainable as has been shown time and time again, but the real threat is the potential for the unions to lose $$ and power and the pressure is huge. A good friend of ours is a teacher’s aide and she says she gets 3-6 texts PER DAY reminding her of all the “good” the union has done for her and how it is up to her to now do “good” for the union. She’s shown me a couple of these and they are quite threatening in nature.

      Some schools like the above article are getting the story out there on the savings their districts are benefitting from as a result of Walker’s bill. There is an article today on the front page of the local paper where a couple of teachers are finally speaking out as well. Not sure it will be enough information to get to all the naysayers and to counter the union message, so there may be some changes with the recalls. What a fricken’ mess. Truly feel sometimes, that we should just divide the states and let the libs support themselves with their ignorant policies and beliefs. I see southern Cali is looking to do just that – separate themselves from the nutroots in northern Cali.

  34. Ya know, just when you think it’s impossible for a Republican to be dumber than ever this headline pops up on FoxNews:

    “McConnell Raises Concern Over Civilian Terror Trials in Light of Casey Anthony Acquittal”

    With Senator McConnell stating, “”These are not American citizens. We just found with the Caylee Anthony case how difficult it is to get a conviction in a U.S. court,” McConnell told “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t think a foreigner is entitled to all the protection in the Bill of Rights. They should not be in U.S. courts and before military commissions.”

    Really, so what you’re saying is that foreigners are untermenschen (“subhiman”) and should be only tried (and convicted) by the very organization (the US military) that is sent out to hunt down, capture or kill them? Your faith in the justice system is underwhelming.

    I guess to Senator McConnell it would make more sense to just let the police departments have tribunals to determine the guilt or innocence of the suspects they arrest? It’s the same idea after all.


    What a bunch of smelly cow droppings!

    • Why is the cost of living in New York so darn high? I know that anytime any possibility comes up to get work in New York-most of the companies I know -don’t even bother because they know the union owns New York-could that be part of the reason everything is so high. And if the teachers in New York need the union to protect them-and they certainly have a union-why are they making so little -per Charlie.

      • Anita, I love break shoes … and these issues are just funny to me. Why is the cos of living in NY so high? Why, of course, it’s the unions and teachers … has nothing to do with all the real estate being sold to foreigners for triple the worth … a bottle of Vitamin water in Manhattan is $3.00; in Brooklyn $2.25 … across the river $1.50 … I guess teachers should (or anybody else who can’t afford to buy it) should either cross the river or drink rain.

        The issue at point (this is for the Plainly) was salaries … you’re the genius who pointed to $41K as if it was $410K … we laugh at that here in NY/NJ because it is funny (that you would think that is a lot of money). I have friends earning under $30K teaching in other states … that somehow makes it okay to a genius like yourself. Teachers shouldn’t complain about not being able to pay their rent, cloth their kids, etc. … the nerve of those SOBs …

        I wonder, Plainly, if you went to school when you were younger or were you home schooled into the genius you are today? What is your occupation? How hard to you work? Is it you doing the actual work or someone else in your office/place of employment? Just curious as to why you’d be so quick to turn on people trying to make a living while raising a family; why is it they are the “evil” ones for wanting benefits but the people who raped the country (Wall Street) don’t seem to figure much in these discussions unless us lefties bring them up?

        Let’s see, Wall Street (big bankers who were our best and brightest bilked the system for $700 billion but somehow it was the unions who bankrupted us). Check that crackerjack box your diploma came in … it might be faulty.

        • USWeapon says:

          Wow… Once again Charlie, you completely ignore what is actually said and base your rant on what you want to believe was said. Plainly clearly said that unions were PART of the problem. Which I agree with.

          And while you want to lambast Wall Street and praise the unions, you seem to conveniently forget that Wall Street willingly pays its workers more money so that they are not struggling to pay the rent. So do most other corporations who operate in New York. Both do so without the unions dictating to them what to do. As for your ridiculous water statement, I wonder how all those people in New York survived prior to bottled water showing up on the scene?

          You won’t find many here at SUFA that actually like Wall Street or who are willing to defend it. I understand that Wall Street is you leftie’s scapegoat du jour, but the fact that we don’t sit around and blame them for everything doesn’t mean we approve of the way they operate.

          Open your eyes Charlie. The world is a very different place than the reality you have created in your mind.

          • I suggest you open your eyes some day, USW … remove the blinders and drink caffeinated coffee. Try it, you might like it.

            My son works on Wall Street … they OUTSOURCE, my friend. Try and imagine that (or look to what Goldman announced last week–they are cutting 230 NY jobs and adding THOUSANDS overseas.

            Yeah, they’re paying their people more money … the management team (bonuses they got from the bailout) …

            Are you that dense or just intent on lying about the benefits of capitalism to the few at the expense of the many forever?

            Probably a little of both …

          • By the way, private schools in NY pay substantially lower than public. Maybe that’s what you prefer (Goldman Sachs sure seems to want it that way). Pay everybody at a minimum wage (which should be lowered in your eyes no doubt). That way everybody but the most wealthy can suffer equally. Probably your fantasy …

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Charlie, come on now, ‘pay people at minimum wage…’

              That’s just ridiculous. Minimum wage can’t exist in a free market system!

              • GREAT point, Buck. They can be paid in stale bread. The lazy bastards can find water on their own … after all, it does rain from time to time.

        • Charlie, your biggest problem is that you don’t know someone who would agree with you more often that disagree – instead you belittle me when you have no idea about me. let me help you some:

          What is your occupation? How hard to you work? Well Charlie, currently I don;t “work” at all – I am “retired” (by choice without ANY form of retirement pay or disability benefit)s. What I did for my adult life, after military service, was law enforcement/corrections and some public safety – read: emergency service dispatch – (both union and non-union work. For many years I lived in one of the most expensive areas of California and struggled daily to make ends meet, so stick the BS you’re pushing that I tried to make 41K seem like a living wage (I made less – do you have any sympathy for the plight I went through?). My BEST annual salary NEVER reached 41k (yep, we were union there). I was raising a family as well on that pay.

          I was public schooled up until I dropped out at 16. I went to work, earning what I could washing dishes and working in the small bookstore my folks owned. I got a GED at 18 and off to the military. So stick your insults about my education where the sun don’t shine as well.

          I am not turning on anyone trying to earn a living wage Charlie. Nothing I said insinuated that in any mind other than yours. I’ve been a union man, been in elected office for the representation unit and was on the contract negotiation team for years – so I’ve seen unions from both sides of the coin. I have NEVER said unions are all bad, there are good and useful points to them. But, like government, unions have become perverted too. I recognize the bad parts of them and the noise they make to appear as if the goal is to destroy all unions – it’ll never happen unless all Democrats/liberals/progressives are shipped off planet to a bold new world of their own.

          As for Wall Street – I have my own ideas how those bastards show be rewarded with “bonuses.” Unfortunately those ideas – if enacted – would get me an 8×10 at the grey bar hotel.

          One other thing Charlie, I always know I’m right in my comments when you turn to insults against me (or whoever you are responding to). You have no valid points so you just sling mud. Is that how you feed your ego? Guess it makes you feel smart and superior over those of us who may think differently to any degree from your beliefs.

          • do you have any sympathy for the plight I went through?). My BEST annual salary NEVER reached 41k (yep, we were union there). I was raising a family as well on that pay.

            My sympathy is most often with workers (unless I think they’re wrong). You certainly seem to be of the opinion that workers don’t deserve (or have no right) to expect better (while those reaping profits–you mentioned Wall Street with the same angst I do, yet you seem to take bigger issues with union teachers; sorry, but that’s a dichotomy I don’t get.

            At least get this straight, I return mud. You sling it.

            • Charlie, you’re delusional. I want to discuss the topic, which is why I comment. You want to insult. Fair enough – I don’t have time for it this morning. Pat yourself on the back, you win. Happy?

              I don’t have a problem with unionized teachers – or anyone else. At the same time I don’t have a problem with some restrictions – that seem reasonable enough – on unions and their memberships.

              Maybe, when you can stop being an insulting ***** we can discuss issues.

  35. Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. Are you having fun pestering?

    • Pestering? You are too kind – he’s totally went off the deep end or is on the sauce. Or both.

    • Anita, nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills …

      Hope all is well.

      Kathy, nobody thinks there are wagons circline her like you …

  36. Buck the Wala

    From this morning Buck had this to say:

    “That’s just ridiculous. Minimum wage can’t exist in a free market system!”

    Buck! Minimum wage absolutely exists in a free market. It is determined by free men and women via negotiation.

%d bloggers like this: