My Bad

America needs someone to blame.  Our president has been very vocal about how big oil is exploiting us making unethical profits.  I think I remember him saying they get some 4 billion in subsidies.  That would be tax credits?  Subsidies are something else.  But his point, big oil and the price consumers pay, and that “F” word, fair.  So he is pointing his finger at big oil and I’m coming out of the closet on this, it’s me.

I don’t work for an oil company but I do have IRA/401K and own about $10K of oil stock direct. (http://hollyfrontier.com/ Wife of Illusion picked it, just to give fair credit.  But it was easier to find info on the evil ExxonMobil, so let’s take a look at them.  Last year they paid out 29 billion to stockholders.  The largest type of stock-owners for them is from pension funds, 31%.  (Everybody hum, “look for, the union label”)  Well that makes me feel better!  Obama wants to cut into big oil profits and reduce what the unions earn with their pension plans (has he told them this plan yet?).  Oh well, works for me since I’m not a union fan by any means.  But first, lets look at some of their numbers.

ExxonMobil’s earnings come from around the world.

  • ExxonMobil earns far more money from its operations in more than 100 countries around the world than it does from U.S. sales at the pump.
  • Less than 6 percent of ExxonMobil’s earnings in 2011 were from refining and selling gasoline and other products in the United States.
  • More than three quarters of ExxonMobil’s 2011 operating earnings came from outside the United States and were distributed to millions of people in the United States who are shareholders or whose pension or retirement plans hold ExxonMobil shares.
  • During the fourth quarter of 2011, ExxonMobil earned about one-third of a cent for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States. Compare that to the 30 to 60 cents per gallon collected by the federal and state governments in gasoline taxes.

ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States.

  • In 2011, ExxonMobil had tax expenses in the United States of more than $1 billion a month – every month.
  • Our total 2011 U.S. tax expenses were $12.3 billion, which included:In 2011, our $12.3 billion in tax expenses in the United States exceeded our $9.6 billion of earnings in the United States.
    • $3.6 billion in U.S. income taxes
    • $5.6 billion in sales-based taxes
    • $3.1 billion in other taxes, such as property and excise taxes.
  • Over the past five years, ExxonMobil’s total U.S. tax expense was $57 billion, which is $18 billion more than the company earned in the United States during the same period.
  • Despite these facts, critics continually try to raise the industry’s taxes by calling for the removal of “subsidies” for oil companies. What they call “subsidies” are actually standard provisions in the tax code available to many U.S. producers and manufacturers, including oil and gas companies.

ExxonMobil’s earnings are in line with the industry average.

  • In 2011, ExxonMobil earned about 8.5 cents for every dollar of global revenue.
  • That’s less than half of the earnings per dollar of sales made by companies selling smart phones, computers, pharmaceuticals, beverages and tobacco, just to name a few examples.
  • ExxonMobil’s earnings, and those of the U.S. oil and gas industry, are generally in line with the average earnings of all U.S. industries.

ExxonMobil’s earnings go to shareholders.

  • In 2011, ExxonMobil distributed more than $29 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases to reduce the number of shares outstanding.
  • More than 85 percent of ExxonMobil’s shareholders live in the United States.
  • Chances are that most Americans are benefiting in some direct or indirect way from ExxonMobil’s success even if they don’t own our stock outright.
  • Public sector and teachers retirement funds hold ExxonMobil stocks in some of the biggest states in the country – New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee, Alaska, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Utah.
  • Many more retirement funds, 401-Ks and IRAs hold shares in ExxonMobil and other major publicly traded oil companies – including those for government workers and members of Congress.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/01/31/the-facts-behind-exxonmobils-earnings/

Now this is all according to Exxon, and they could be making some of this up…..Who to believe???

Obama or Big Oil,

Obama or Big Oil,

Obama or Big Oil,

The clear answer is neither.  I do have some “trust” in the numbers they publish, that if they were false, someone would be challenging them.  Three quarters of their revenue came from outside the US.  $29 billion was paid to shareholders which is a good thing for our economy.  $12 billion paid in taxes.  Does that not mean $30 some billion was made in other countries but was imported to the US and is significant to our economy?  Doesn’t Obama and all the other “elected officials” talk about our trade imbalance and what we need to do to balance it by selling more to foreign countries……Unless you are an oil company?  And the subsidies they want to cut, I’ve previously written how Harry Reid protects the gold mining industry in Nevada from paying nearly the same rate as oil companies.  Can someone explain that to me, gold mining doesn’t hurt the environment?  Oh, not as bad as oil and fossil fuels.   Doesn’t hurt how much they have contributed to Sen. Reid over the years.

And why am I on this rant, again?  On FOX last week there was a segment on five coal power plants to be closed in Pennsylvania due to new EPR regulations.  That reminded me of a picture I saw of a hamster powering a computer as being everyone’s future.  Turns out it will take more than one hamster.  So here’s a utube of Ray’s days to come….  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLaXNFsyId4

What do the uber liberals really want, Obama, Pelosi, Lisa Jackson?  Maybe someone at a liberal network can shed some light.

On Sean Hannity’s Thursday radio show, CNBC CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli, considered by many to be the father of the tea party movement, explained to listeners what “progressive” economics means when it comes to energy policy — high gas prices.

“Listen,” Santelli said. “I deal with economists. Progressive economists — they want $10 and $15 gas prices because they think they can have a windmill that will go on my ’64 Pontiac and power me downtown from the ‘burbs every day. It’s reprehensible.”

Santelli explained why energy is an important part of the vitality of the economy and a successful economy means higher energy usage.

“Our society, our culture — the greatness of America — goes hand-in-hand with energy, and our leaders need to wake up,” Santelli said. “We need energy, OK? And if they want to turn into a third-world country where there is absolutely no pollution whatsoever. And I think we need to be good to the planet, but we need to be more honest — do we want to be a superpower that uses energy and tries to do it wisely, or do we want to put our head in the sand and think that these technologies that are noble, that I have been talking about since I was in grammar school debating solar and geothermal. They’re not ready, and I think it’s just a disservice to my kids that they’re going to make energy usage such a penalty-type scenario, where we all know if you want to put GDP up, energy usage is going to go right along with it.”

American Thinker’s thoughts…

the MSM silence is not amazing at all.  President Obama is the darling of the media, and they want desperately to see him re-elected.  And investigating the causes of the high price of gas wouldn’t help their crusade, because in truth, the outrageous price of gas is primarily Obama’s fault — nay, his design.In truth, Obama’s Green Regime has done everything it can to retard domestic fossil fuel production.  Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has locked away vast new areas of our country even from exploration, much less from exploitation, of the enormous reserves we possess. 

Obama has killed (at least for now) the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried down from our ally Canada as much oil as we import from the Middle East.  And the administration has dramatically restricted drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.The Green Regime’s scheme has been from the jump to jack up the price of fossil fuels in order to get Americans to adopt so-called “green energy” sources, such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels.  To this end, even as the administration puts every road-block in the way of domestic fossil fuel product, it lavishes millions of taxpayer bucks on corrupt, inefficient “green energy” companies.The net effect has been to increase our reliance on Middle Eastern oil even more, precisely at a time when that region is reaching the high point of its crescendo of crisis.But in the immortal words of Bachman-Turner Overdrive, “you ain’t seen nothing yet!”  

Obama’s controversial EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, has pushed through the agency a passel of new regulations that will raise the cost of electricity dramatically over the next three years.These new EPA regulations — clearly intended to make up for the fact that the administration couldn’t get its cap-and-trade legislation through Congress even when its own party controlled both houses — and their baleful effects are the focus of a detailed new study by economist Kathleen Hartnett White (of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment).

In her study (“EPA’s Approaching Regulatory Avalanche: ‘A Regulatory Spree Unprecedented in U.S. History'”), Ms. White reviews ten major new rules that either have been already adopted or are under review by the agency.  She argues convincingly that the EPA is using the Clean Air Act (in a way never intended by Congress) to hobble fossil fuel energy production.The rules she discusses are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Electric Utility Maximum Available Control Technology Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“Utility MACT”), the Industrial Boiler MACT, the Portland Cement Kiln MACT, the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule, the Coal Combustion Residuals Rule, the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Particulate Matter NAAQS, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation of Stationary Sources, and the GHG Regulation of Mobile Source.  

Behind these banal, bureaucratic labels lies the banality of evil: the plan of forcing a massive change of life and living standards without the consent of the governed (that is, the victims).Ms. White estimates that these rules, scheduled to become operational by 2015, will cost our economy more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of jobs.  This would occur in the midst of the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Four of the rules in particular urgently need congressional scrutiny.  They clearly aim at severely curtailing coal-fired generation of electricity, with nothing yet available to replace the power.  White notes that numerous studies by various organizations, including the Federal Energy Reliability Commission and the National Electric Reliability Council, have shown that these four rules alone will force the elimination of more than 80 gigawatts of electric power, or about 8% of the entire generating capacity of the country.

The result will likely be prices spikes and brown-outs, doubtless leading to job losses here and more companies relocating abroad.

White notes that many of these regulations are based on shaky science, with both the National Academy of Science and even the EPA’s own scientific advisory panels criticizing the scientific basis of the various new regulations.

Let’s not fool ourselves about whether the skyrocketing gas and soon-to-be-skyrocketing electricity prices are intended by this administration.  Obama himself forewarned us when he was running for office.  As he said in January of 2008, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”  The new EPA rules are aimed at taking the place of the cap-and-trade law that never made it out of Congress.  The Obama administration is using a regulatory agency to do the dirty work it couldn’t swindle the people into accepting.

And Esom posted a report last week that ObamaCare is expected to cost $111 billion more than thought.  And he’s emphatic that big oil must pay us an additional four billion.  Lets see, $111 billion minus $4 billion equals …….who gives a crap????  How about deal with you cost and spending overruns?  How about the media quit giving him a free pass on this and start doing their jobs?  How can anything he says about anybodys excessive profits be newsworthy compared to his spending?  Are they waiting for the next time we have to raise the debt ceiling?  Supposed to happen around November.  I bet the networks already have their lead headlines written, “Republicans again plan to shut down the government”.  “Happy Holidays from John Boehner, no Social Security checks for Thanksgiving or Christmas”.
Advertisements

Comments

  1. Gentlemen, Start your drills! I’ll ante up the price of a fill up or two to help pay the fine. For as long as this argument has been going on we could have been pumping gasoline already. The alternatives are not market ready yet. It’s not rocket science. Time to put common sense ahead of ideology. Stuart Varney must have read your article already..he’ll be addressing this on his show a 9 this morning.

    Wife of Illusion? good one! 🙂

  2. Buck the Wala says:

    So wait, are you saying that you support keeping the BILLIONS in subsidies to “Big Oil”? I’m a bit confused — you start with a statement about the $4 Billion being received by these companies, then go off with an interesting aside on the numbers and where you fear the left wants to take us, then return to the issue of these $4 Billion by saying how this is merely a drop in the bucket when compared to Obamacare.

    • Good Morning, Counselor….hope this morning finds you well. My weekend was somewhat interesting….we stopped another 18 wheeler after it crossed the border and cleared Government agents……(we stopped them at our 12 mile checkpoint)…to find 32 prostitutes brought from Central America. It seems that they,and whomever demands this, has sunk to a new low….the oldest prostitute was 28..the youngest prostitute was…………………..9. Of the 32 number, 18 were under the age of 17. So much for our government run border security in the exclusion zone.

      BUT…on to oil companies. I will make a deal with you, sir. I will be against tax breaks and subsidies for big oil when you stop ALL subsidies. Like green energy subsidies that do not work…which is over 90% of them. I will not support big oil subsidies and tax breaks when you eliminate the farm subsidies (as you know we get $80,000 per year NOT to grow corn……on a friggin’ ranch that does not grow corn anyway). We did not ask for this subsidy and we cannot give it back. The government WILL NOT TAKE IT BACK. So, we give it to charity and then take a tax deduction for a charitable gift that was tax free to us. I will not support big oil subsidies or tax breaks when you stop subsidies for the education and hospitalization for illegal immigrants. I will support stopping subsides and tax breaks for big oil when you stop subsidizing and giving tax breaks to foreign companies in the United States. I will support stopping subsidies and tax breaks for big oil when you stop subsidizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, General Motors bailouts, and stimulus programs DESIGNED to put money into the Obama Campaign funds. Shall I go on? It is easy to do.

      • Please pardon my rant this morning, I am disgusted with the turning of the head of the Obama Administration on border security. We NEVER had an underage prostitute problem like we have now with young children…..NEVER. I have been on the border a long time and the last two years has been unbelievable. So, yes, I am disgusted and can lay this at the feet of the Obama administration TOTALLY. Everyone south of the border (frontier) knows that there is no security. I wonder how many have gone through the government sanctioned crossings in the Federal Parks in Arizona that our government turns their head on.

        I don’t fell any better but at least I can get it out until I am shut up or USW gets threatened….lord knows the news media will not report it. .

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No pardon necessary – I figured you might be a little on edge from your adventures!

          Back to oil companies — I’m not necessarily against closing loopholes and subsidies for other energy companies as well. That being said, I can understand the support for maintaining certain subsidies for emerging energy alternatives as a means of spurring additional investment. Though not completely sold on the need for this either. But just because $4B is a ‘drop in the bucket’ doesn’t mean that we should keep spending that drop. Add up a lot of drops and you get something substantial.

    • Buck, I don’t think it matters. Big oil would adjust to a loss of subsidies and pass it on to the consumer. They would also keep shifting more of their business to other countries. (do you think that is desirable?) The $4 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to, fill-in-the-blank, out of control spending. Why is that $4 billion such a talking point instead of the $111 billion higher cost of ObamaCare?

  3. The tax breaks for all fossil fuels was not $4.3B in 2011. It was only $2.5B — about 0.19% of that year’s deficit, and enough to fund only six hours of U.S. government spending. The source for such heresy? The Congressional Budget Office.

    Just to be clear, that $2.5B was not just for Big Oil, but also for Big Coal and Big Gas: all fossil fuels. Here, more exactly, are those subsidies, in the CBO’s words.

    “Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas.” ($0.8B)
    “Option to expense 50% of qualified property used to refine liquid fuels.” ($0.8B)
    “Option to expense investment costs on the basis of gross income rather than on production.” ($0.9B)

    I can’t say I understand those “subsidies.” Is exploration not supposed to be a cost of doing business for an oil company? Who is to say these expenses are not legitimate costs? But let’s take the CBO’s word for it that these are, for some reason, “subsidies.”

    Let’s compare those subsidies to other energy subsidies. The CBO has a chart.

    Well look at that: tax subsidies for all fossil fuels were only 15% of all federal subsidies for energy. The Green alternatives of renewables and “efficiency” took 78% of all tax subsidies for energy. Big Oil has so much influence on Capitol Hill that our government subsidizes its competitors five times more. Fossil fuels provide 77% of our nation’s energy yet receive just 15% of the federal government’s tax subsidies.

    “Alcohol fuels,” which include ethanol, took $6.1B of tax subsidies, or more than twice as much as oil, gas, and coal combined.

    When did this start happening? The CBO has another chart.

    The explosion of energy subsidies seemed to coincide rather neatly with Democrats taking over both the House and Senate in 2007, and then the presidency in 2009. (That darned Reagan cut subsidies for fossil fuels to nothing. In Reagan’s last year, the small amount of tax subsidies for energy was all going to renewables.)

    You know who else likes subsidizing alternative energy? George Soros. He wrote this in January 2009:

    The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.

    Somehow, George got his wish for high fuel prices even without a Copenhagen-like global Cap & Trade system. When he wrote that, oil was only about $40 per barrel. Just one year later, it was consistently over $70 per barrel, George’s magic threshold — as if delivered as a Christmas gift. And this year it’s been about $100 per barrel. Good times: a 150% increase in crude oil prices in the three years since George Soros called for higher fuel prices, perfectly coinciding with the three years of Obama’s presidency.

    You know who else pushes alternative energy sources really hard? The Communist Party USA:

    We could begin with an immediate carbon tax that would penalize those with the largest carbon footprint – big corporations – while also making a case for the elimination of coal production and expansion of alternative energy sources.

    And who else? Presidential candidate Barack Obama said this in 2008 (via Jake Tapper at ABC):

    So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.

    Pretty wild coincidence, huh? Barack Obama, George Soros, and the Communist Party all pushing the same energy policies.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/big_oil_and_tax_breaks.html#ixzz1ouJjeFVl

    Great charts at the link didn’t paste….

    • I wanted to point out Obamas statement on building a coal fired plant is already in effect. Not by regulation of Carbon Dioxide, but by internal regulations and permiting that is nothing more then a burden and a hassle on power generation.

  4. A few of us know that the price of U.S. crude oil is always cheaper than the price of foreign OPEC crude oil. Some of us know that because we have followed “World Crude Oil Prices” on the website of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy for years.

    On November 11, 2011 (probably while I was marching as a World War 2 veteran in the Veterans Day Parade), the EIA shut down the World Crude Oil Prices website. EIA did not even leave up the valuable historic data on the website. The Obama administration has hidden actual oil prices from the public. That should be a scandal.

    U.S. crude oil prices have always been lower than foreign OPEC crude oil prices because of “posted prices,” a concept unknown to Bill O’Reilly and the Democrats. Long before there was an oil commodities market on Wall Street, the definition of a “posted price” was that price which a buyer makes public to give notice that the buyer is prepared to pay a certain sum for a barrel of crude oil. In the past, U.S. refiners used to post at the gate of their plant the price at which they were prepared to buy a barrel of crude oil on a given day. Today, posted prices of crude oil buyers are often found on the internet. Examples: Chevron, ExxonMobil. Posted prices of a certain crude oil buyer tend to become permanent with oil producers since it can be extremely expensive for the oil producer to build a new gathering line from the producing field to a different crude oil pipeline. U.S. oil producers do not sell their oil to the highest bidder, like Bill O’Reilly has told his audience for years.

    Last November, when EIA removed the data from the World Crude Oil Prices website, the actual average foreign OPEC oil price was $112.51 per barrel and the actual average U.S. oil price was $106.04 per barrel, a $6.47-per-barrel difference. At that difference in price, American consumers would save $21.8 billion annually if U.S. oil replaced foreign oil.

    Clearly, Americans need to demand that the U.S. Department of Energy provide actual oil prices as it provided before November 11, 2011. These actual prices would show the need to expedite U.S. oil drilling on federal lands.

    In the meantime, there is a way to immediately lower gasoline prices. Remove the ethanol mixed with gasoline at the pump. Refineries are having to pay millions of dollars for cellulosic ethanol waivers because there is no cellulosic ethanol production. This causes gasoline prices to be higher than they should be. Ethanol has only 61% of the energy of gasoline, so it gets very poor mileage. Removing the mandate which forces ethanol to be mixed with gasoline at the pump would result in cheaper gasoline, which would travel farther and cost less per mile of travel.

    Ethanol production in 2010 was less than 10% of foreign oil imports and can never replace foreign oil imports. Using ethanol emits more carbon dioxide into the air than using gasoline. It’s the ethanol, stupid. Ethanol is increasing gasoline prices. Get rid of the ethanol mix in the gasoline at the pump.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/oil_and_gasoline_prices.html#ixzz1ouLZGTCR

  5. Speaking with some authority on the subject of coal fired plants, as I work in the industry, the new rulings are aimed at tightening restrictions at older plants. Basically, the clean air act of 1990 created cap and trade for pollutants (not carbon dioxide). Over the years these have been modified to allow for different caps and different trading on pollutants such as mercury, sulfur oxides, particulates, ozone, etc. What is happening most recently is that most of the oldest plants are currently not running at capacity to fall below the limits. For example if it was a 1,000 MW plant and it could be running as low as 500 MW to fall below the limit.

    There is technology available to reduce pollutants to near zero, and I am talking about 1% of 1% (or 0.01%). However, the reducing it to that degree gets very expensive for little gain. So what you are seeing now at the oldest plants is that because they are already at such a low capacity (therefore dropping their profitability while not necessarily dropping their costs as much) now must add very expensive products on a location that is usually extremely difficult to work on or has already outgrown its own size thereby driving up costs even more. So the utility companies must make the decision to invest in the plant or shut down. As referenced in the article above the 5 plants shutting down are because of this. I know for a fact they are operating far below capacity already. (sorry no links, this was discussed at work).

    In regards to our power grid not having enough electricity is not necessarily true. Some plants will shut down lowering output, some will invest and then be able to increase their output again.

    In regards to the cost of electricity, it will increase because new power plants are not being added to make a significant difference.

    The new power plants run more efficiently and the startup cost compared to updating old power plants, you will get more for your money every time. (This is for both power production and pollution control).

    However, the problem with new plants is that this administration has made coal power so much more burdensome then any other time in the past. I am not just referring to adding the pollution control equipment, but many years of permitting applications in addition to Not In My BackYard attitudes of local residents, state lawmakers, and countless environmentalists that picture crazy amounts of pollution. (Recently heard that some people think that they turn off the pollution equipment at night because you can’t see the smoke coming out of the stack). But logistically coal plants can only be built in few places. They need access to coal by river barge, railroad, or trucking (either short distance from the coal mine, or used to get to the other two forms). So few places have the capacity for the logistics that is not near a major population center or a location the environmentalists will not freak out about, in addition to the federal government making permitting near impossible for new plants, and don’t get me started on the problem of building new high voltage power lines from a new plant to connect it to the grid.

  6. Testing this AM

  7. I’ll tell you one thing I’ll never believe again in my life … that there’s an oil shortage. I was a UNION window cleaner in Manhattan back in the 70’s when Carter’s rationing (which made sense if there was a true shortage) occurred. Even/Odd days … rising prices … and now this?

    I think you know where I stand on Obama. I could care less what he has to say. But frankly, I care less about what Big Oil has to say … they aren’t doing what they do for charity … and they aren’t exactly defaulting on their homes (especially not their CEO’s and investors) … so excuse me for not caring much about their problems.

    Should we drill baby drill? If it’s doable on land, I’m much more for that than in the ocean off our coastlines. Then again, I’m not exactly a tree hugger when it comes to energy. Maybe I should be. BP’s gulf spill upset me … and I wouldn’t want to see similar damage done in Alaska, etc., but really, are we using that land for anything else? I’m all for drilling where it’s safe to do so, but how about they spread the wealth a little and cut back on their profits with lower prices at the pumps? Imagine that, doing something for the country they love so much?

    • Charlie, did you just skim over the article that LOI wrote? Look at it closely, most of the “profit” that ExxonMobil earned was paid to the shareholders. Here. In the US. Did you miss that part? You want lower gas prices, we all do, but blaming big oil isn’t going to make that happen. Put the blame where it really belongs, those 535 idiots in Washington. There’s the trouble, not big oil. It’s just easier to blame big oil, that way we don’t have to accept responsibility for putting those 535 idiots in Washington.

      • Kristian, I’m all for shooting 534 idiots in washington (leave Bernie Sanders alone, thank you), but do you think investors are being cheated? Frankly, I think the guys working the wells are deserving of the actual profits and not the clowns sitting on their asses, but that’s another issue for another day. Excuse me for not “trusting” big oil … I mean, they’ve been so up front about everything for so long now (bribing regulators in washington, etc.) … they must be angels.

        • Charlie, if they take the largest part of profits away, unions will be hurt worse than any other group. And that’s OK with me, I can find other things to invest in, if that is who you want to punish in the name of “fairness”.

          • How about nationalizing them and distributing it evenly to everyone? Then there wouldn’t be any need for unions (which should keep you happy). Invest away, my brother …

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Charlie, my idealistic friend. You see the world as it ought to be not as it is. I commend you for still being able to do this. I see the world according to Orwell, imperfect men desperate to “get ahead” of the next guy. As Bogart said to Lionel Barrymore about Edward G. Robinson in “Key Largo” , “He wants more!” No particular reason for wanting more other than just to have more.

              There can be no such thing as an equal share because someone wants more. Years ago, my neighbors son was a partner is an up and coming start up company that did home security. Somewhere along the line he decided he absolutely had to have a primo car. The guy was in his late 20’s and a bit of a player with absolutely no credit history. He couldn’t swing the deal until his partner offered to buy him out. Here is the decision, sell a sure winner for a temporary shiny bauble or continue driving the company van for a few more years, then get the car of his dreams. Well, you guessed it, he sold his share and became an employee. His partner became a millionaire finally selling out to ADT and for the past 20 years he has gone around telling everyone who will listen how he was “cheated”.

              How long would it take for people to start selling their “equal shares” to the slightly more focused. Ever see those wonderful commercials that start “It’s my money and I want it now!” I cannot believe that someone who has a structured settlement to take them through declining health or old age would sell it all for the proverbial three magic beans. Call it greed or maybe its just Original Sin poking up its ugly head but it sure as hell is human nature.

              • I see the world according to Orwell, imperfect men desperate to “get ahead” of the next guy. As Bogart said to Lionel Barrymore about Edward G. Robinson in “Key Largo” , “He wants more!” No particular reason for wanting more other than just to have more.

                Absolutely, sir … which is why capitalism cannot work (and doesn’t work). Might will always make right under a capitalist system. The guy who has more will leverage his power over those who don’t and it’ll go on and on (as it has) until 1% owns the 99%. They’ve done it through government … they continue to do it through government and to assume making government even smaller will change anything is foolish. End capitalism, then make government as smallas you want.

            • Dude, how can you possibly think “Shoot the 534 idiots running the country” and “nationalize the company to make it fair” are not COMPLETELY contradictory thoughts? Government cannot be trusted and is run by the 1%. So having them take over companies is perfectly fine with the 1%, it just means they get the whole income stream, less a small reduction in profits to make it look like a good idea to the mindless masses, instead of competing with a whole host of investors like LOI for the distribution of profit. The 1% wants to be rid of the middle class. The more good investments they can take away and put under the direct control of their puppets, the more they like it. And you are supporting this? Seriously, you should not even consider nationalization or socialism of any sort until you get the government completely overhauled and not in the pockets of, or populated by, the elite. If you hand over the power first, and THEN try to fix who controls the government, well, thats like turning on the main breaker BEFORE you fix the wiring problem. You will get fried.

              • Dude (I love that word) … if you shoot the government, they aren’t there any more, are they? Remove capitalism from the formula with nationalization. Let the people run things (we’ll figure it out).

              • Perhaps we are having a language barrier issue. Can you define “nationalize” for me? The only way I can define it based on history, where a government takes over the ownership of a company in the name of “the people”. In all of those cases, the people don’t really own squat.

                I am fine with the people running things sans government, that would be BF’s long-term goal, and I am all for it. However, in such a situation, one cannot remove the free market. It would exist between those who wished it to exist, and not between those who don’t. Nothing can force people into socialism or collectivism other than government. Without government, any collectivism would be voluntary, which I have no problem with whatsoever. Voluntary socialism/collectivism/communism works quite well, at least for a while. If, however, the numbers who volunteer drop too low because people leave seeking other goals and opportunities, then the commune falls. That is what happenned to New Haven. I do not despise the ideals of communism (tho I would not personally engage in such a system), so long as it is a voluntary thing only.

        • Kristian says:

          I’m curious Charlie, if you were the one who started one of these big oil companies and worked your ass off in the beginning to get it up and running, would you be so willing to share equally with those that had nothing to do with that hard work? I sure wouldn’t! I’m not out there bustin my ass every day so that I can support some idiot who wants a free ride because he thinks he deserves it and by God, “it’s not fair that they have more than I do!” Want more? Work for it like the rest of us.

          • It’s not just the working your ass off -ask these people to Risk what they have and share in the liability-and see their attitude then!

            • Kristian says:

              Exactly! They want their fair share but they aren’t willing to risk anything to get it. I have no use for people like that. I go to work forty five hours a week so that I can pay my bills, bills that I generated, not someone else. I’m not a slave to my paycheck, I don’t expect someone else to do for me what I can damned well do for myself! I like to live a certain lifestyle, but I’m willing to get out there and earn the money to live that lifestyle. If something is handed to you, you don’t value it nearly as much as you would if you have to work hard to earn it. The world doesn’t owe me a living, I owe myself a living.

          • @ SK: I hear you, brother, but I probably framed it wrong (why I don’t have a problem with taxes so long as they aren’t misused, etc.). We’d have to remove the entire structure, I know that (and also know it’ll never happen in my lifetime) but I’m thinking rather than equal shares, the bulk of the profit going to whatever the society as a whole (yes, that greater good monster) needs (not wants). I know, a tough road to drive.

            @ Kristian: You put too much faith in that sweat of the brow theory, my dear. Trust me, the busting their ass part of the formula had little to do with those who had the money to hire the labor … so, yes, I’m more than willing to see profits distributed equitably rather than top down. I have no problem with that. I’d have no problem if one of my books hit the best seller list in Dan Brown proportions and I had to share it with fellow writers (knowing we’d all earn enough so we didn’t have to work two and three jobs to survive) … it’s not so much people want to become rich as they want a chance to live with some dignity (and no, that doesn’t include plasma tv’s, etc.). But one guy duking on a gold toilet and another guy using a bucket is a bit absurd to me. How about they both use a good old fashioned ceramic toilet?

            • Kristian says:

              You would share the profit with other writers who didn’t add one creative thought to the words that you sweated over to make it a best seller? I find that exceptionally hard to believe. It just isn’t normal Charlie! I have no problem helping someone less fortuante than I, but I’m damned if I’m going to support someone who has the ability to do it themselves but lacks the willingness to do so. And it just burns my ass every time I think about it. I go to work not only to support myself but apparently so that I can help those that have no other skill because they think the world owes them. This is the greater good? Then I want no part of it. I work for that money, I should be able to decide who gets it, not some idiot who thinks he knows better than I what is best for me. I don’t care of some rich guy is duking in a gold toilet! I’m happy with the creamic one that I have. And the guy duking in a bucket, well then I guess he better get of his ass and get to work, huh?

              • You would share the profit with other writers who didn’t add one creative thought to the words that you sweated over to make it a best seller?

                Kristian, best sellers have a lot less to do with sweat than you think. But, yes, money is simply not a big ticket item to me. It once was; it no longer is. Life is too short to worry about being Donald Trump.

                As to your being upset over the greater good theory, well … you should definitely vote Republican in 2012 … or libertarian. I don’t think everyone has the ability to help themselves the same way you might. They may have the potential to do so, but lack the opportunity. I know that may baffle you, perhaps because you were able to climb out of poverty yourself (I don’t know) but not everybody has the same life goals (i.e., me not caring about a best seller making me rich enough to duke on a gold toilet). I’d rather see 100 or 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 millions writers have the opportunity to write rather than less than 3% now who currently rule the money end of the publishing industry (which includes, just so you know, Snooki, Kardashian, et al). I know, they worked by the sweat of their brows to become rich and famous. One was born with an apple ass and made sex tapes and the other I honestly have no clue what purpose she serves … ). What I do know is that there probably wasn’t much sweating going on (unless they used studio lights for Kardashian’s sex tape) …

            • Too relativistic my friend. Life with dignity? That is more about the person than the stuff. Some people need a $300 suit and a car to fee dignified. Some need a Roll Royce and an cost full of Armani. Some people need a small shack with a clean floor. Seriously, when I was in Costa Rica, I noticed something amazing. The “nice” neighborhoods and the “crappy” neighborhoods in some sections of the country were both dirt floor huts and shacks and no amenities. The difference? The people in the “nice” section cleaned their floors and pathways and took care of what little they had. The others did not. Its not about stuff, it never has been and never will be. The people who think it is about stuff are the problem, and there are those people in all the classes.

              • Granted there are proactive people and the slothful but do you really think it makes no difference that one guy uses a toilet made of gold and another a bucket (because it’s all he has)?

                As to the $300 suit and used car vs. a rolls and an armani … it’s not like we couldn’t make both for everybody. Think of how many more people we could put to work making them … train the labor, pay them a fair wage and charge $300 for the armani’s … for those who “need” to own/wear something more expensive/elaborate, I guess its tough noogies.

              • Jon Smith says:

                Actually, we could not make both for everybody. There are not enough of the right materials. Besides, those who think they need a lot to be dignified are getting that dignity from having more than others. And you cannot force a price and a wage in real life. Some people wont want the stuff, some people will find alternatives, some people won’t make the armanis well enough because they are too lazy and I could go on and on with reasons that crap wont work in real life. Materials, the realities of work and training and skill, the realities of human nature, etc. There is no way to truly define “need”. The level that possibly could be defined as need is so low you would consider it unlivable, and the level most would think is “fair” is not realistic to provide for all. Despite what you might think, the cost of a couple gold toilets will not cover the cost of regular toilets for millions of people.

                And for the record, while I know it is different, it really doesnt matter to me that one guy has a gold toilet and another has a bucket. I have had less in my life and I am still kicking. And I have dignity.

        • Kristian says:

          The guys working on the wells aren’t risking everything they own to make those wells work. They are in fact collecting a paycheck for their work. They didn’t have the idea, they didn’t take out the loans and put everything on the line to make it work. They are benefitting from the person who did though. Why should they collect more than their paychecks?

          • Kristian, the risk was gone a long, long, long, long time ago. The original oilmen that once were the oil companies are long gone. You’re now pitting corporate profit against guys who sometimes get killed performing their jobs while the fat cats who put up nothing more than cash (and trust me, they are no longer risking a dime) get to reap the spoils. The guy who is actually “sweating from his or her brow” is getting a living, nothing more (assuming he/she doesn’t die on the job/from the job in the process). The fat cats are out playing golf … or having a three hour lunch at The Palm … or vacationing on their yachts (and prefer not to be disturbed), thank you very much, during an oil spill.

            http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/06/bps-chief-executive-enjoys-a-yatch.html

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Why at The Palm…there are much better places out there for a three martini lunch.

              • It used to be my favorite steak joint (the one on the East Side of 2nd Ave), the Palm Too.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                If I’m going to The Palm, its going to be the original location. In the city, I prefer Keans – great place to try if you’ve never been.

            • Kristian says:

              Those workers are compensated for their time and compensated very well I might add. They are also well aware of the risks that they take in doing those jobs and choose to do them anyway. That’s my kinda guy! He has a skill set and even though the work is dangerous, because he wants to make a living and not depend on someone else to support him.

    • We should drill everywhere it is available. If, in fact, we consider offshore drilling too risky with modern tech, we should at least not be leasing it to other, less responsible or technologically/ecologically advanced countries as Obama is doing. Furthermore, the BP oilspill did NOT have the negative impact the media claimed it would. An no surprise. The previous world record spill was in the Gulf also, a Mexican rig. Slower leak, but much longer before it was fixed, and totalled about 80% of the amount lost in the BP spill. Eco impact? Negligible, with BP’s spill only about 20% worse on eco impact. Also, incidentally, had the EPA not been so inflexible and allowed the Dutch to help, the BP impact would have been even less.

      We can drill with less eco impact than anyone, and we should do so.

      • Furthermore, the BP oilspill did NOT have the negative impact the media claimed it would.

        Well, Jon, if YOU say so, how could we doubt it?

        • Jon Smith says:

          I am not alone:
          http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-22/news/os-mike-thomas-bp-oil-spill-012311-20110122_1_spill-oil-gulf

          The media circus was retarded, as it usually is. Every media covered spill in history has had less effect than the doomsayers claim and the affected areas have rebounded faster than expected by far. Of course, the spills that were not media circusses should have been evidence to any decent jounalist that the long-term impact would not be as extensive as many claimed.

          • And you (and they) are so sure there isn’t damage unaccountable at this time, damage to the eco system we can’t possibly know about now? I applaud your ability to see in the depths of the ocean and our future, but excuse me for not buying the bridge, my good friend. I think I’ll pass.

            • Jon Smith says:

              It is not the depths of the ocean that I see, it is the depth of experience Mother Earth has in handling environmental changes. It is not the future that I see so clearly, but history. This is not the first spill in history, and as I mentioned before, it is only slightly worse in total volume than other in the very same body of water. Those other have had many more years under study, and the long-term impact is a big fat goose-egg. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is no impact or that we should just poke a bunch of holes in the ocean and let come what may. I am just saying that its a whole lot of hogwash and fearmongering for control, and that behind closed doors, deals are made with other countries that have a WORSE safety track record to drill in the very same places we are banned from drilling. Its all BS, stop falling for the propoganda just because it fits your belief system.

              • Jon, you’re a propaganda loving machine. I’m not the one drinking the Kool-Aid my friend.

              • Convincing. 🙂

                There is a lot of Kool-aid out there, I am sure all of us have drunk some from time to time. Still, have you really researched the long-term impact of various spills in history? Have you compared those findings to the hype and predictions made about them when they happened?

      • Another question, is it better to let it sit, and eventually escape? Or do we remove it and use it before natural seepage occurs? I think us refining it and burning it is less harmful than allowing raw oil into the ocean. Just think about the pressures these deposits are under, WHEN a major pocket ruptures, it will all come out at once.

        http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10388&page=191

        • Jon Smith says:

          Granted, natural seepage accounts for a lot more than man-made spills, but the biggest contributor is actually runoff. So is it better to just use it? Not really, but its not the risk of spills that makes it bad. We do need to get off fossil fuels, but we can only do that with a vibrant, growing economy. That is the only way innovation will be properly funded and driven. Raising oil price does not accelerate alternative research, it actually slows it down.

  8. Hey, nobody from SUFA showed their credentials last night …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/03/reading-two-new-stella-brats-snhu-mfa.html

    The SAGE forgives you …

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Had tried to get in for it actually; just too much on a Sunday night. Be sure to post when your next gig is (preferrably not a Sunday night!)

      • You got it, brother. I don’t do these things too often; last one was in Metuchen last summer. I might do another one there when the new book comes out (the one Ward Churchill blurbed—that’ll shake’m up here).

        My daughter felt the same way about Sunday night …

  9. Holy crap Batman! look what I just managed to do. That handsome stud on the bike is fresh out of the Army circa 1970

    • Handsome fella-I don’t do Facebook-but consider me a friend anyway 🙂

      • Actually, I rarely use the thing, my sons signed me on and stole the photo. As I get more adventurous with this computer and start pushing different buttons, I discover that I can make things happen. Six months ago asked Joe if I could get that picture up here. Joe said, “sure Dad”.
        Well, I just did it. I guess that’s what he meant, eventually I would have to figure it out on my own. You may have noted that I now can “link”. That, believe me, is a major event. Next thing you know, I will figure out how to write letters, create a letterhead and get them printed.

        • Don’t feel bad, SK, excusing the politically incorrect verbage, my son’s concider me FB retarded. A fan persuaded me to join two years ago (or so) and now it’s pretty much my main form of communication with my kids …

        • I know how to get on my daughters facebook page 🙂 -from there I can get to my son’s and many others-beyond that -I just don’t have any interest-and since my children are grown now-don’t do that but every once in awhile.

          The biggest problem I have with the computer-is even when I think I know how to do something-they update the program and it doesn’t work the same way anymore.

  10. VH.. we’re really in trouble now! 🙂

    http://slutsunite.org/

  11. Regarding that McCarthy Video above … it explains why that kind of Brietbart support will lose the white house (like the SAGE told yous long ago) big time … how sinful, meeting with communists! Hurry, get the rope … find a tree …

    Truly unbelievable …

    • Kathy, both are okay … my point is who cares?

      Tying Obama to the communist party shouldn’t be considered the sin it is, is my point.

      Tying support for Obama to the Bears coach should be as irrelevant. If anyone votes for Obama because the Bears coach says to, well … that’s pretty silly (and sad). But voting against him “because” he supported someone who supported the communist party (if that was actually support for it) is equally silly (and sad). Pointing to Obama and trying to tie him to communism is why independents look at the conservative movement and shudder. It’s absurd. Silly. Sad. Dumb. The 1% wouldn’t let Obama be a communist, trust me on that. No way, no how. Remember, he handed them $700 billion made in USA bucks … that was corporate welfare, not class welfare. They didn’t even have to deal for it — no strings attached (exactly what Bush gifted AIG when HE started the bailout ball rolling). The two are interchangeable (bush-obama) … so it’s downright absurd to think anyone can tie him to communism. That was for small minds anywhere to stand up and wave an American Flag as if it’s what the GOP stands for … they stand for corporatism (as does the Democratic Party) …

      • No its not Ok Charlie. That is racist as racist gets! And it’s always the blacks who get to run the race bit unchallenged. Bullshit! Would it be ok with you if a white NFL coach said “Don’t vote for Obama because he’s black”? It’s. The. Same. Damn. Thing.

        • Anita, my love. It’s all nonense. Who cares what some coach says? Seriously. He’s one guy and if he influences 100 people, it’ll be 99 more than I can imagine. And it would be okay to me if a white coach said don’t vote for Obama because he’s black. I’d assume he’s a moron the same as I assume the Bears coach is a moron for saying something so dumb.

          Of all the damage Obama has done, it’s the black community that has suffered the most from his no strings attached gifts to Wall Street.

  12. I wonder if JAC is still locked out?

  13. D13, USW and anyone else that has served.

    So about unionizing the military. Do you believe it?

    Task Group 120. What do you know about it?

    The whole Koran burning fiasco and now (alleged) civilian shooting in Afghanistan. The way the Koran burning was handled – the CIC saying those involved will be punished. Is this a queing up for due process? Need for unionizing?

    Panetta’s recent comments on international approval vs. Congressional approval – supported by Dempsey.

    What the hell is going on?

  14. Two very different takes on the same incident. One falling into that category that used to be called ‘yellow journalism’ or I guess you could just quote the late Paul Harvey and say, “Now you know the rest of the story”.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/priest-denied-communion-lesbian-funeral-administrative-leave-archdiocese-article-1.1037324http:
    //www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lesbian-woman-denied-communion-identifies-as-buddhist/

  15. The daily news likes to make things interesting. If you get “page not found” type in Lesbianl denied communion in the search box.

  16. 😦

  17. OK, lets see what happens next.

  18. I sat down for lunch with some colleagues in the research center cafeteria of a major (Fortune 1) oil company. Most of the scientists at the table were older with at least two decades of experience. Also at the table was a young scientist who regaled us with his quest to develop amorphous silicon solar cells. He explained how they could be made cheaply and that they would be cost competitive with conventional technology at producing electricty. Since the country had been through several oil spikes due to unrest in the ME and since it was predicted that oil production would be declining in the next decade, we were in a race to find a new direction for our employer. They were determined to remain in the energy sector and were willing to bet on young turks like this. The oil company was also hedging its bet by investing in office equipment, semiconductors, solar thermal, copper mines, shale oil in the Rockies, etc. The young scientist sounded quite impressive and knowledgeable. The elders at the table were somewhat skeptical and asked some penetrating questions. But the youngster was adamant that it could and would be done.

    That conversation was 32 years ago. The young scientist is now a professor at UC Berkeley. After 32 years of research and investment, solar cells are still marginally commercially viable. But many still dream of the day when all will be powered by the sun for virtually no cost. In the meantime, we continue to link our future to one of the most unstable parts of the world. How many more oil shocks can we take? How much more money are we willing to send to these sheiks who repay us with Jihad? When will we smarten up?

    When Bush (43) wanted to drill, they said it was useless since it would take 10 years to make an impact. Well that was 10 years ago. When the 2008 oil shock hit, we screamed “Drill, Baby, Drill”. Again it was shouted down, it would be too little too late. Once again, we are at the mercy of ME politics. Oil is a strategic commodity. Hitler drove into Russia to get it. Japan attacked us because we would not sell it to them. The Saudis learned to use it as a weapon in ’73. China is trying to box us in by going after Brazilian, Cuban and Canadian crude. And yet we refuse to learn.

    We let oil ooze out under the sea in SoCal rather than slant drill from land and recover the oil while reducing the pressure. We stopped or slowed our drilling in the Gulf because of one accident, thus leaving the door open for the Cubans. We refuse to tap more reserves in Alaska thus letting an expensive resource, the pipeline run dry. The only bright spot is the new production in the Dakotas which is on private not public land.

    I have seen many argue that the price of crude is driven by worldwide demand and production. So any crude we produce here will be priced at market value so there will be no savings. It is always the last few percent of a commodity on the market that drives the price. Not many months ago, Obama released oil from the strategic reserve to lower prices. So it seems they can argue either way depending on what political outcome they want. Lost in these arguments are lower transportation costs, in country jobs, taxes, profits, dividends…. Not to mention, that the Arabs cannot turn of our taps.

    Talk of alternatives started when Carter set up the DOE. Their objective was energy independence. But they concentrated on alternatives and conservation, worthy goals but they do not have the massive potential that is required to meet energy independence. So we have frittered away the last 35 years searching for the holy grail which is always just out of reach while stumbling over the very solution under our feet.

    • T-Ray,

      Funny to think the first electric car was invented before 1900. Sometimes a great ideal just doesn’t work. I think solar power cannot change efficiencies. The “not in my backyard” mentality may be partly to blame. So much power (around half) is lost due to the length of the power lines. If everybody put solar panels on their homes, we could reduce our power needs significantly. But this would mean using most of the roof area, not just a 10’x12′ make me feel good system. I’m thinking it would take about 15’x15′ just to power a window A/C unit? And today, the money doesn’t make sense, home wind or solar will cost more than buying from most power companies. And this fact describes the liberals plan, to artificially increase all energy costs until consumers move to green energy for cost savings.

      And the ten yr window on filling a pipeline is closer to five. The oil boom the US is now experiencing started under GWB allowing fracking on private land. And now Obama is taking credit for it!

  19. Testing this morning 🙂

  20. The rise in oil prices is not due to the laws of supply and demand regarding oil. It is the result of the continued fall of the dollar. As the Federal Reserve creates more money, the value of the dollar falls. As the value of the dollar falls and oil producers demand more and more for each barrel, the price of crude goes up. Despite what the politicians say about the oil companies, the greatest component of the price of gas is the cost of crude. Crude oil is about 67% of the price per gallon, 7% for refining, 11% for distribution and marketing, and 15% for taxes. Blaming the oil companies may be good for politics, but it is not good economics.

    Pouring more crude into the pipeline is not going to appreciably change the price at the pump. Nor will reducing total car travel cause much difference. The emphasis on the supply and demand for crude does not explain the dramatic increase in the price of gas, which is far above the changes in the demand for crude oil. The chart below illustrates the matter.

    In 2002, with an ounce of gold worth $278, an American consumer could buy 251 gallons of gasoline. That ration of gold to gas held steady, going up and down between 215 and 279 gallons for the years from 2002 to July 2008. Then gas dramatically surged in price, and it has not come down.

    From January 2009 (when Obama was inaugurated) until today, the number of gallons per ounce of gold has fluctuated between 349 and 525.

    Opening up Saudi pipelines, or any other such matters, will not be more important in determining the price of oil measured in dollars than the value of the dollar.

    Surprisingly, gas prices have not risen as much as they should. In fact, oil is underpriced compared to the rise in the price of gold. If we had the same ratio of an ounce of gold at $1,780 per ounce, gasoline would cost $7.09 at the pump. Gas prices have not rise as much as gold prices. Gas is about three times more expensive than in 2002, while gold is over five times more expensive ($1.11 vs. $3.64 for gas compared to $278 vs. $1,780 for gold)

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/rise_in_oil_prices_a_result_of_the_decline_of_the_dollar.html#ixzz1p03cpgHA

  21. Department of Justice……trying to stop voter ID in Texas…….Texas told him where to go….going to do it anyway.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      It’ll make for an interesting case at least.

      • Buck the Wala says:
        • Pure Bull Shit!!!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Care to explain?

            Be careful or I’ll throw you out of SUFA again…

            • 31 states already require ID to vote, 15 require photo ID. The constitution requires the law to be administered equally. If it’s legal in those other states, it MUST be legal in Texas unless they have a radically different requirement. Or it must be illegal in those 31 states.

              http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-state-requirements.aspx

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I would have to review the exact requirements of those 31 state laws, as well as any allowances the states have come up with. I would argue that many probably should be declared unconstitutional, but do not have enough information on the exact requirements/allowances provided. I would also point out that the WI law has also been ruled unconstitutional.

                Texas poses a slightly different analysis from some other states due to the application of the Voting Rights Act.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                From the WI decision by the way:

                “A government that undermines the very foundation of its existence – the people’s inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote – imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people. It sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution. . . .This is precisely what 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 does with its photo ID mandates.”

              • Just injunctions made to effect Recall elections here in WI, Buck.

                My understanding is the WI Voter ID law was based on Indiana(?) that the Supreme Court upheld, so these are just delay tactics in WI – nothing more.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                From where I’m sitting, the recall effort looks like its doing quite nicely in WI. What do you feel the outcome will be from where you’re sitting?

              • LOI

                The Constitution does NO SUCH THING.

            • Buck

              First, there is only a 5 to 6% difference between the “regular” population and “hispanics”. That is NOT significant since both are at or below 10%.

              Second, the use of “in effect” as a criteria is BS because they use “numbers” to represent effect. I can develop many different metrics to show a variety of people are discriminated against in “effect” based on some arbitrary percentage.

              Third, the cause/effect relationship is ignored in the “numerical” criteria used. So what if 11% don’t have picture ID? If they are in fact “citizens” AND “residents” they can get a picture ID for $22.00. And any claim they “can’t afford it” is ABSOLUTE Bull Shit.

              Fourth, you need picture ID to get prescriptions filled, to visit the doctor (with insurance), to buy booze, to access food stamps etc, to cash checks, use credit cards, and of course to “drive” legally. Oh, and of course to “hold a legal job”. You need picture ID and a Soc Sec card to be employed, thanks to FEDERAL LAW.

              Fifth, only those outside the SW would view these laws as “deliberately” or “in effect” discriminating against Hispanics. And the “activist” types in the SW of course. Only the irrational would believe that States where the Hispanic vote is needed to be elected would pass laws viewed as deliberately discriminating against LEGAL residents.

              Sixth, this is all orchestrated Bull Shit by the Justice Dept to push their Social Justice and Racial Equity Goals. And of course they think this will help them get the Votes they need in November.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                My problem with voter ID laws — they do disproportionately impact (and can disenfranchise thousands, if not tens/hundreds of thousands) of elderly, poor, minorities etc., while NOT ADDRESSING ANY REAL PROBLEM. There is virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud, and certainly not to any level that would even remotely suggest it may be OK to possibly disenfranchise thousands of others.

                If you have time, skim through this report prepared by The Brennan Center: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/CrawfordAllegations.pdf

        • This article does not tell the truth at all. Texas, at no expense to a request, HAS OFFERED free id cards to all…….BUT to get one, you must prove citizenship or legal resident status.

          But I beg the question, if you are in the country LEGALLY and you are a CITIZEN…there is NO reason to not be able to secure a Federal or State ID.
          It is pure bull shit that it disenfranchises anyone. My own dad at 93 has NO driver’s license…but he does have a state issued ID….FREE. These articles are not telling the truth.

          Besides. voting rights act or not…..what will the government do if a STATE openly defies it? Send in the troops? With hold money? DO it…..it is a dare. Perry was all over the news telling this dookie dropper Holder…..to take a long walk off a short pier. It is a state right and butt out. Texas is going to require the ID.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Well this is gonna get interesting then!

            • Heh heh……***sharpening bayonet, cleaning and oiling weapons, stockpiling grog and cannon balls, etc***

              But it was actually a serious question…..what CAN they do? Non certify the vote? withholding funds? Texas is pretty rich and does not need the United States….

              I say we get out of the Union, form a Republic, again, and apply for foreign aid from the United States. We would be a buffer zone over a majority of the Southern border. We would get billions in your tax money. We have our own standing army and air force (30,000) men and women in our Guard paid for by state funds….we have oil reserves for hundreds of years. open deep water seaports, our own textile and lumber industry, the majority of theoil refineries (we would happily sell you our refined oil) and,like Southern California, we have our own never freeze agriculture…AND we have the one and only THOR’s HAMMER……escorted by rapto-sharks with “laaasseerrr” attached. Who needs more? PLUS….a nifty Jack Sparrow hat never returned to Mathius after DPM’s liberation from the dungeon.

  22. Somebody the other day stated that Sandra Fluke was just being used and would be discarded once they were done with her.

    I DISAGREE.

    You are watching the “selective grooming” of a future radical activist. Just as the current POTUS was selected and mentored by peers, so is Ms. Fluke.

    Whether she remains in the lime light will depend on how well she plays the game. It appears her training has done well so far. So I expect you will see her in the future. Probably a Congressional Seat or perhaps an Appointment to the Administration.

  23. Buck the Wala

    I believe that any claims of voter ID discriminating or “disenfranchising” the poor, elderly, etc is also Bull Shit. Old people had picture ID when they were not old.

    I have a CURE for you.

    Just OUTLAW voting for anyone in the “Official Poverty” class.

    I’ll bet you Poverty drops the very next election.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’ll give you that claims of voter ID laws actually disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of individuals are probably exaggerated, though not completely BS. But even the possibility of such an effect on anyone should make you pause.

      • Buck

        It give me no pause at all.

        Anyone who really WANTS to vote in this country and who is eligible CAN vote.

        Hell, the Party will come by and pick up your sorry ass and haul you to the voting booth…………FREE of CHARGE.

        Besides, there should be MORE restriction on eligible voters, NOT LESS. 🙂

        Lets start with “YOU MUST PROVE YOU PAY INCOME TAXES”.

        • I considered that tack for a while, making it so that only taxpayers had voting rights. It would allow some currently being taxed without representations, such as minors who work, and it would disallow those on the dole to vote themselves more monies. The problem is, the government does more than just manage economic issues, its decisions and laws affect those who do not pay taxes as well, so they, too, must have the right to vote.

          What I would like to see is a taxpayer only vote on the annual budget, rather than leaving it all to congress, or even a non-authority vote on the budget, just so Congress and the people could see just how far apart they are when it comes to government spending. Might open some eyes about “representation” and how thats going.

          • Jon

            ALL GOVT action requires FUNDING.

            If you don’t pay into the system you should not be able to vote on anything within the system.

            As I said, I’ll bet you the number of tax payers would increase immediately.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Because those simply not making enough to pay taxes will suddenly fork over the money they need to feed their family?? Right….

              I’m actually quite shocked that you would make the argument that only taxpayers should be permitted to vote.

              • Buck

                Why would you be shocked?

                Democracy is a vile invention of those who wish to use the masses to impose their view of Utopia on the rest of us. Accomplished by voting the masses free cookies.

                You want to use Govt to take my property without my permission to fund those “activities and programs” that YOU feel are useful.

                Charlie wishes to use Govt to decide what type of toilet we all get and what type of suit we must wear to be “equal”.

                And your shocked that I might want to limit the number of people who can vote to support theft and tyranny?

                By the way, regarding your comment the other day of States trump the Fed Govt, “depends”. Reminder: The STATES could dissolve the FEDERAL GOVT on a 2/3 vote.

                As I said……..STATES TRUMP THE FEDERAL.

              • Buck

                To your economic point: Bull Shit.

                And you know it.

                I’m sure they can’t afford a single saw buck $1.00.

                What you really mean is they would have to give up their FREE COOKIES.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ok, fine, democracy is a vile invention. But you know the saying: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

            • That may be true, but government action does affect those who are not paying in. An unemplyed man may pay no taxes, but government laws may still affect his ability to get a job in the future. Should he not have a vote? Laws and regulations require funding to enforce, but not to exist (other than paying the legislators). However, the existence of those laws affect people (if they, or others, choose to follow them). You should have representation as a citizen regardless of your financial status. However, you should be able to vote if you pay taxes, regardless of age. You should be able to hold sway over spending separate from elections for representation, and ONLY if you pay into the system.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “More restrictions on eligible voters”

          And here I thought it was the liberal left trying to take away people’s rights!

          • Buck

            Voting is NOT a RIGHT.

            • Correction JAC, voting is not a natural right. It is a citizen right.

              • Jon

                Citizen rights are NOT really Rights. Our discussions of rights should always be limited to “natural rights”. This would bring clarity to the debate over the role of Govt and its impact on “rights”.

                Citizen Rights are privileges granted by Govt. The extent of these is determined by the form of Govt.

              • Jon Smith says:

                Precisely. This form of government affords citizens the “right” to vote based upon their citizenship and the fact that they are within the jurisdiction of a representative form of government. In other words, the form of government is based on the vote of its citizens, to restrict said priveiledge would be to change the form of government, requiring a complete revisit of the consitutional basis of this government. It is as much a foundation as any other aspect of the governmental structure, checks and balances, for example. If an office of government operates outside of that structure they nullify their own authority, just as would restricting who was eligible to vote based upon taxation. The founders originally considered making only landowners eligible, but decided against it for very speific reasons, including the inclusion of all voices being governed. Consider that reasoning strongly before asking it to be changed. And understand that, at minimum, a consitutional amendment would be required.

                You can ignore citizen rights and only define natural rights as “rights” if you wish, but that does not change the gravity of the change you are proposing, and the fact that government action requires funding does not change its effects on those not paying in. It sounds good in theory, but when you consider all factors, it is not the solution to the problem that you are looking for.

              • Jon

                Remember, Senators were elected by the States.

                The President and Vice President were elected by the States.

                It was the Progressive Movement that created the idea of “Democracy” and one man one vote in ALL aspect of the Fed. Govt.

                Please note that the Constitution allowed the States to determine the qualifications of “electors” for the House of Representatives.

                Yes….my proposal is radical but not outside our historic norms. And Yes, it would require another Amendment.

                Just as is needed to FIX the Document itself anyway.

              • Fair enough, and there was an amendment that changed how Senators were elected. Many think that should be repealed, and while I do not have any issue with that, I also do not think it would solve much in today’s climate. Democracy is one man, one vote in all aspects. However, a republic is one man representing many men, but no one should be without representation that is subject to government action. No taxation without representation was a key issue for the founders, but illegal search and seizure is illegal for all men, as is freedom of speech, religion, the bearing of arms, etc. These are all rights, but there are other things not within the bounds of rights that are affected or potentially coule be affected by government actions/regulations/laws. To have those who pay taxes be the only ones with represenation, you open the door to government action/restriction without representation, which is scarcely different than taxation without representation.

                Now, I am all for FIXING the document with amendments and enforcement as currently written, it has many issues. Forcing balanced budgets and removing the Fed, however, would go a lot further towards a fix than restriction of voting eligibility. Enforcing the 10th amendment alone would roll back a vast majority of federal spending and regulation.

              • You guys have touched on one of those wonderful things. Again, channeling Andy Rooney (but without his 8 million bucks), Didja ever wonder why it’s ok to have two senators per state regardless of the population of the state but the same Federal government turned State and local governments on their heads when they required THEM to give up that system and go to one man one vote?….. Just asking.

        • JAC,

          “YOU MUST PROVE YOU PAY INCOME TAXES”.

          You can’t be serious? The minute you enact this law – the wealthy will change the tax code so only those making over $1 million pay income taxes. Now that they have control of the government, they’ll screw you with a national sales tax, usage taxes, and fees.

          It will make you nostalgic for the “good ole days” of Obama…

          • justacitizenmt says:

            Todd

            Think a little about what you posted. The Rich would vote to impose taxes on ONLY them. So what burden can they impose on me if they can only tax themselves?

            If you wish we can certainly add any other FEDERAL TAX to the list of our amendment.

            But of course the details weren’t really the issue. It was the concept of limiting voting to those who are affected, to prevent one group from using govt to take from another group just for their own advantage.

            There are obviously better ways to reach the goal.

            • JAC MT (when did you change your name??? 🙂 )

              Did you read all of my post?

              You said “YOU MUST PROVE YOU PAY INCOME TAXES”.

              So they’ll hit you with a national sales tax, usage taxes, and fees – anything other than “income taxes”. They’ll also slash social programs and cut the budget. They won’t end up paying much in the way to income taxes.

              If you add any other FEDERAL TAX to the list of your amendment, everyone can vote, because everyone pays some Federal Tax – like gas taxes and payroll taxes.

              It was the concept of limiting voting to those who are affected

              Please provide an example of anyone that is not affected by government?

              You usually talk about how intrusive government is in everyone’s daily life.

              to prevent one group from using govt to take from another group just for their own advantage.

              But your idea would allow those who are better off to use government over those who are less fortunate.

              So would you declare the non-income-tax-payers “non-citizens” so you can still claim a Constitutional Republic?

    • LOI, The Constitution does NO SUCH THING.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

      JAC, my bad, again. How about the 14th & 5th amendments? I think it would be illegal for the fed. gov. to prohibit voter ID in Texas, but allow it in Arkansas, as seems to be the case here. The laws must be equally applied.

      • LOI

        The FEDERAL GOVT has ZERO authority to determine what methods a given state can use to make sure voter fraud is avoided, or to prove citizenship of that State. Therefore the “laws” do not have to be applied “equally” across states. Only WITHIN a given state.

        The invoking of the 14th is more BS from the Progressive Legal profession.

        The States can not discriminate, they must provide the SAME rules for ALL citizens. That is all they must do.

        The rest of this is pure BS and fits the erosion of the Constitution by the Progressive Courts.

  24. Buck asked above how the Recall election is going in WI. Here’s a new tactic and one reason why it was so important to the left to get this injunction on the voter ID now, before the recall election.

    When the initial dates of the recall were being tossed around, a date in May was talked about. The Dems were upset that this date was so late – they considered it a stall tactic by the Republicans. This was a little baffling – we know who the Republican candidate is, ie Walker; but the Dems don’t even know who their candidate is yet, so wouldn’t they want a a little more time? Didn’t make sense.

    Well now we know. The unions are bringing in out of staters to temporarily “live” in the state for 60 days (I believe I read). They will sign up for utilities or other services and then will bring that “documentation” to the polling sites and walaa! Vote! The Dems were concerned about putting the election too far out there since this is somewhat of a costly venture and timing is everything. Obviously if they were required to show a valid state ID – scheme would not work.

    I have no idea of the outcome – I know the support for Walker is huge, including many that before got caught up in the sky will fall mentality but now have learned some lessons in simple economics and union coercive tactics. With new forms of Democrat cheating – who knows.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I must admit that, although I have been following along with the recall news, this is the first time I have heard of any claims from anyone that the unions were planning on bringing in out of staters to commit voter fraud. I’ll have to request some proof of this claim.

      • You’ll have to track down some of the union people that were bussed in from the Chicago area over the weekend for the big anniversary rally. Had Chicago union information on their tee shirts. Citizen journalist(s) pulled some aside to ask them why they drove all the way from Chicago to attend.

        To paraphrase the “not so sharp” unionites:

        “We didn’t drive up; we’re getting paid to bus up today.” One chimed in, “yep, plus get to see where we’ll be living for a little bit” When asked if they were moving to WI soon, “for 60 days – just before the election so we can vote”. When asked for more clarification, they started filling in more details but just then a true thug, not just this idiot kind, came running over and put a stop to the whole thing.

        The end justifies the means – isn’t that the progressive motto?

        Evil, pure evil.

  25. This voter thing is another one of those issues where there has been “change” in the last 40 years. When I first registered to vote, at 21 in 1968, in the state of NY, I was given/sent a voters registration card. When I moved thirty blocks North in 1973 both my wife and I were required to re-register and new cards were issued. I was to take this to the poll and show it in order to access the machine. My parents, voters since the 1930’s, still had their cards from when they first registered in NY. You were asked for this card when you went to the polling place.

    All other old people out there, not from NY could tell me if they had similar experiences when they started to vote. I would just like to know when this requirement was dropped. I remember using it the last time I voted in NY in 1976.

    When I moved to NJ in 1977 I was also issued an ID card which I have never been asked for. Somehow, I do not consider this to be an onerous burden. I have been a poll worker a few times and when there has been a question of identity (signatures don’t match) or where the book indicates the voter has moved we gave the person a provisional ballot, similar to an absentee ballot which then went in a separate envelope. Later, the discrepancy was sorted out and the vote counted or discarded. Again, what is the problem?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Out of curiousity, you say these voting cards were issued — at any cost to you?

      • FYI, the WI law offers free ID to those that don’t have it.

      • Nope, if I could scan the card, I’d attach it. Still in the wallet that sits in the sock drawer along with other “important” papers my heirs and assignees will have to deal with some day.

        • See, this is the nonsense, making an issue where there is none. Just think about it for a minute. When you register, you prove who you are. Think of the voter registration card as a receipt for registering. Now, I know, people will misplace and lose them. So that’s what the provisional ballot is for. Now if someone wants to give that card to another person to vote, they may or may not be caught but, they will only get to vote once. Can you prevent multiple registrations? No more than you can prevent multiple drivers licenses however, you have made fraud just a little bit harder and a little bit less flagrant.

          Just to show you how screwed up the system is. In NY back when I was there., if you did not vote in I believe two consecutive elections, you had to re-register. Personally, I think that this is fine. Here in NJ, my eldest has been out of state since 1998. He is still in the book. His brother has been out of state since 2002, he is still in the book, my daughter has been out of state since 1997. She is still in the book. Only my other son, who moved to another town was removed when he re-registered there. So, there are three possible frauds out there waiting to happen (absentee balloting for sure). I live in a middle class suburban community. Imagine what fun goes on in Newark, Paterson and Camden.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            But that goes back to my point — “there are three POSSIBLE frauds out there WAITING to happen” (emphasis added). Fact is, it just isn’t happening.

            To me, the bigger concern here is not voter fraud, but voter suppression.

            • Yes counselor but the secret of frauds is, shhhh…………… that they are successful if nobody finds out! Again, what’s the big deal? Been done before, caused zero problems, no voter suppression that I ever heard of. Elections were still stolen in the Bronx but not by proportions envied in the former Soviet Union. Seems to me that those who argue against something this simple and harmless are turning a blind eye. If you can guarantee that there will be 98% honesty instead of 90% its is worth it.

              In my life I have talked to many people who do not vote. Was it too hard? No. Their argument was that elections were fixed from the beginning. Didn’t matter if they were liberal or conservative in outlook, they still did not thing that anything they did would be counted. Want the biggest rub? After 2000 there was all this jaw-jaw over the suppression of the military ballots. The folks overseas were not counted or in a great number of cases even allowed to vote. HERE WE ARE 12 YEARS LATER AND THE SAME DAMN PROBLEM STILL EXISTS ! That sir is a crime.

            • Buck, if voter suppression is defined as not letting a non citizen vote…why is that suppression?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Colonel, who is defining voter suppression that way?

                I’m using the term a bit loosely to mean any pre-requirement/condition/etc. for voting that may have the effect of disenfranchising an individual who, in all other respects, is eligible to vote.

          • Something similar happens in Wisconsin when people aren’t taken off the voting record books. It’s become a common practice and actually advertised (during their own little rah, rah, occupy gatherings).

            It goes something like this: Students move often – sometimes yearly, however, their names remain on the books. So, activist (and unethical, of course, but who cares about that) students are encouraged to find these names of students who have moved on (not hard, especially if “old” mail shows up at your apartment) and you can then….vote twice! Once as you and once as “old tenant”.

            Voter ID would eliminate this.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              But do you have proof that this ‘problem’ is actually occurring?

              • Somehow Buck when ever Proof is shown-and I personally have read article after article about irregularities in voting and voting registration-the argument changes to -it isn’t a big enough problem to effect the outcome. Lawyer or not 🙂 I object!!!!

              • Buck

                Do you have proof it is NOT happening?

                Whether it is or not is irrelevant.

                The States have the authority to establish what ever procedures they wish to make sure fraud is rare. As long as those procedures are blind to a person’s race, religion, physical condition, or sex.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Actually whether it is or is not happening is highly relevant. You wish to impose restrictions on voting, which can lead to voter suppression, you need to provide proof for the reason for which you feel these restrictions need to be in place. The burden is on you to prove this is happening, not on me to demonstrate it is not.

                VH: I have read many articles on certain irregularities and certain instances of possible voter fraud. The sole conclusion I’ve reached/found– sure, there may be one instance of it here or there, but it just ain’t happening on a widespread scale. The only instances of any large scale voter fraud is that being perpetrated by O’Keefe in his attempts to prove there is voter fraud!

                We’ll have to continue this another time — I’m heading out into the city for dinner and drinks with a good friend. Enjoy your night!

              • Possible Voter Fraud Lights Up Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s District

                Elisabeth Meinecke
                Elisabeth Meinecke
                Deputy Managing Editor, Townhall.com

                Mar 12, 2012 07:45 AM EST

                Both the Left and Right have expressed concern over potential abuse in America’s current voting process. But as the rhetoric flies, what are the facts? And is the Department of Justice heeding all concerns?
                ——————-

                From Townhall Magazine’s EXCLUSIVE March feature, “Voter ID Laws: Racist or Reasonable?,” by Brandon Darby:

                There’s been much said lately about election integrity and voter identification laws. Both sides of the American political spectrum have raised concerns over polls and potential abuses in the American voting process. In fact, due to the serious voter registration irregularities identified by groups like True the Vote in Texas, along with the numerous voter fraud convictions across the nation involving workers from politically motivated groups like the failed organization ACORN, many states are pursuing photo identification as a means of addressing such assaults on election integrity. Texas, South Carolina and Florida have all taken steps to mandate photo identification as a requirement for voting. …

                Deep in the Heart of Texas

                Take, for example, Harris County, the county encompassing Houston, Texas. The irregularities in voter registration in this jurisdiction have raised serious concerns over election integrity through the investigative efforts of nonprofits and Harris County agencies alike.

                True the Vote, a nonpartisan, Houston-based nonprofit focusing on electoral integrity has revealed some startling information. Their effort, which started out of a small tea party group, focused on volunteering as poll workers in their local 2009 elections. According to the group’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, what started as a simple effort to exercise civic duty and get involved brought them face to face with what she referred to as frightening and gross incompetence on the part of some election and county workers at the polls. Engelbrecht pointed out in her interview with Townhall that even though Texas law allowed 11 different forms of identification to be used at that time to verify identity, which was required to vote, she and her 70 election volunteers noticed that many voters were being allowed to vote without any identification at all. Texas has since passed voter identification laws which require the use of a photo identification card.

                Engelbrecht’s volunteers ultimately submitted 800 signed affidavits outlining problems they encountered, including having overheard some election judges telling people who they should and should not vote for. After these experiences, the group decided to form True the Vote and to investigate how citizens could help ensure voter integrity and what processes existed to report abuses or irregularities. Engelbrecht says these efforts revealed even more frightening examples of degradation to the election process.

                Engelbrecht’s True the Vote organization then decided to look at the actual registry and not just the new registrations. The group obtained the nearly 2,000,000-person Harris County Voter Registry Role. The group subdivided the registry by congressional district due to the size of the data.

                After the registry was divided into the seven congressional districts which Harris County encompasses, True the Vote needed a starting point to isolate red flags for possible irregularities. They decided to start looking at registrations that had addresses six or more people were registered to.

                The group found the seven congressional districts had four that were predominantly Republican and three that were predominantly Democratic. The four predominantly Republican districts had a range from 1,973 to 3,300 addresses with six or more people registered to them. The three predominantly Democratic districts had much higher numbers. Though this could possibly be attributed to variations in socioeconomic factors between the predominantly Republican and predominantly Democratic districts, what the group found next was alarming. The predominantly Democratic districts themselves had large variations between them in the number of addresses with six or more registered voters. The first had 7,560, the second 8,981, and the third—the district of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the prominent, outspoken Democratic congresswoman—had 19,596 instances with six or more voters registered at one address.

                True the Vote then compared the socio-economic demographics of the three predominantly Democratic congressional districts in an effort to explain why Jackson Lee’s district could have such a high number in comparison. Engelbrecht told Townhall the group had found no significant difference to explain such a drastic variation in the numbers.

                The group began doing research into the abnormalities in Jackson Lee’s district. They took the first 3,800 registrations of the flagged 19,596 homes with six or more registrants and began to investigate further. The group visited addresses and scoured property tax records. The group found many of the addresses were vacant lots or business addresses. Thirty-nine were registered at businesses and 97 of the addresses were nonexistent. One hundred six of the registrations revealed the same registrant registered more than once, and 207 of the addresses turned out to be vacant lots. Meanwhile, 595 registrations had registrants with driver’s license addresses not matching the registration, and many were voting in a district they did not live in. Of the random 3,800 registrations from Jackson Lee’s predominantly Democratic district, 25 percent had critical errors which Engelbrecht believes could result in an erosion of election integrity.

                The media began to focus on the findings from the Harris County tax assessor’s office and True the Vote. Shortly after the August 24 press conference announcing the results of the office’s investigation, a fire of unknown origins burned down the warehouse containing all of Harris County’s voting equipment. In total, the fire claimed 10,000 voting machines, which was approximately $30,000,000 worth of equipment. …

                http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/03/12/outbreak_of_potential_voter_fraud_lights_up_rep_sheila_jackson_lees_district

              • It is real simple to just throw that one back in your face. Do you have proof that voter ID is voter Suppression?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It has been well documented that voter ID laws disproportionally affect certain segments of the population — urban areas, the elderly, the poor. The burden of proof is on proponents of voter ID to demonstrate that any such voter suppression is necessary to combat the problem of voter fraud.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes Buck, The corporate whore media has documented it very well. Now, any real sources to back this bullshit up?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Real sources you say? Here ya go — though not sure what you think of The Brennan Center, but its general findings have been supported by past and subsequent studies on the topic:

                http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/citizens_without_proof_stands_strong

              • Buck,

                I do not think that anyone should be allowed to just “show up” and vote. In addition to the multiple vote fraud, there is the non-citizen fraud and the convicted criminal fraud. Now you say they don’t exist unless I have chapter and verse. I say everyone should register and be vetted. You say it’s my place to prove the fraud, why? We are not talking about a poll tax or proof of literacy here.

                Time and time again it has been said that there are ways to get government photo ID’s well, even I think that’s BS. Surprise, I agree with you, dragging granny down to the DMV is not an option. If photo ID is mandatory, then it is the responsibility of the government to get out there to all those local polling places with the guy and the Polaroid and produce them! However, it is the responsibility of the citizen to produce documentation. I guess that i could say that there never was such a requirement way, way back but at that point, I assume that probably everyone in town (or the district) knew everyone else. VH’s article from Town Hall proves the point. The rest of us can point to our local experiences but probably haven’t kept a record of them.

                As usual, I am the guy calling for the compromise. let’s all go back to a system where you register in advance, prove your residence in the district (at the least) and receive a registration card. In the Jackson Lee case for example, as a former Government housing guy, I am shocked at the least to see that there is no computerized data base of housing units for the communities involved! Give me a break, there are tax rolls for everything and they tell you if it’s a vacant lot, vacant house, hotel, single family, multi-family or commercial structure. Cross referencing that along with death certificates should take zero time. Now if it’s photo ID you want then the gov’t should have people at the poll site who will exchange your printed card for a photo ID at no cost, after you vote, if you desire. This is called compromise. If we were legislators in Trenton on opposite sides could you come together on this?

                Allowing fraud or the hint of fraud, debases the system and leads to…….comments like gmanfortruth’s below and my uncle John never ever voting.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                SK,

                So long as there was no cost to the voters and it was done at the polling site as you suggest, I might be able to agree. That being said, I still find that this would be a colossal waste of time and money though as, to me, it just isn’t necessary given the sum of the evidence.

              • Buck,

                Back in the dark ages, 1968 to be exact, when I first started working for NYC as basically a paid intern, we were required to attend a few seminars on our professional deportment as soon to be, (like in seven years!) middle managers. One of the things that stuck because I heard it again in the army also was that not only were we to avoid impropriety but the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Again, if for no other reason but to encourage people like Gmanfortruth and my late Uncle John that the system is not rigged and that what can be done to to avoid fraud is being done.

                To deny that fraud exists is absurd. there was that one town in Florida that went for Gore and the one in Westchester that went for Hillary (in her Senate race) both by near 100% and both recording more votes than there were registered voters. When I was a poll worker, I was assigned to a predominantly low income neighborhood. Believe me I was the only non Democrat there. I was not at every book nor at every table but had someone wanted to cheat with the collusion of a poll worker, it would have been more than possible. As it was, Democratic candidates got about 95% of the vote in that district. Since it was not an inner city neighborhood fraud was not as suspect as it would be had I been in the Bronx.

                I look at your comment about wasting time and money and am frankly shocked. Since when, does a nice liberal like you care about wasting money?

    • Alabama requires you to register with an ID (can’t remember if it had to be a picture ID). You must show a picture ID when you go to vote. If you move to a different county you have to register in that county so your name will show up on the roll. If for some reason you don’t show up on the register roll or addresses don’t match what they have and what is on your ID they allow you to vote on a provisional ballot.

    • SK, when I first voted in IL (1968), we too were issued voter ID cards. If you moved, you were supposed to turn in the old card when you registered so it could be mailed back to your old precinct so the registration lists could be updated. As far as I know the system worked. Of course this was down state IL where voting was not as serious as Cook County. There the dead exorcised their rights too. I vividly remember waiting for the Chicago vote to come in during the 1960 election. It was late. Remember, Chicago was a big city with all the latest equipment (voting machines). Our down state vote was on paper ballots counted by hand. Yet we beat the machines in Chicago but lost to the machine in Chicago.

  26. ?
    Why is O campaigning against Palin?

    • Kathy

      Same reason he is running against the Tea Party.

      First you demonize, then you run against the DEMON.

      Then you link all your opponents with the DEMON.

    • Kathy

      P.S.

      Grizzlies vs. Badgers.

      Should be a good fight.

      • Yeah, saw that…..

        How many teams can you claim?

        We are very inconsistent so not holding my breath; I’ll buy two packages of brats just in case!

        • Kathy

          Remember, I’m a Rocky Mountain guy. That includes a lot of States.

          And a lot of different leagues and divisions, from Div I to Div III and NAIA.

          I’ll be pulling for Montana in round one along with Gonzaga, but hoping the Bulldogs go to the final four.

          John Stockton is a very classy guy and his kid is playing for Gonzaga, like his Dad did. So it would be nice to see them make it all the way.

          Good luck.

    • CA is not on the list of requiring ID but the last time I voted they asked for one. Not sure if it was something the county started or what.

  27. HEADS UP for those in the Middle and Southern States

    ie: Tornado Warning

    I am offering an EARLY Warning to ya’ll about possible tornadoes later this week.

    We had two major storms come through here Monday and Today. Cold temps, very high winds and a lot of moisture. As in snow on the Coast.

    These are similar to the storm that came through a week or two ago that led to those massive tornadoes.

    So just an early heads up from SUFA’s Left Coast weather watcher.

    • Thanks for the warning,,,,,,but you know us Texans……unless the winds get to Cat 5…it is just a windy day here…..lol. These little category 2 and 3 “naders” are nothing more than an inconvenience. Rope and hog tie em……Them thar mile wide ones with 300 MPH winds…..get our attention.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Please VOTE! We really need more of the same crap we have had for decades. The whole process is fixed and you really don’t have a real choice, so please believe that your vote actually matters. Silly me, just a conspiracy theorist 👿

  29. OK JAC, what in the world is going on out in your neck of the woods?

    March 13, 2012
    ‘Oregonian’ editor, 63, dies after sex with 23-year-old

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/13/oregonian-editor-63-dies-after-sex-with-23-year-old/#ixzz1p3cQdymB

    • Kathy

      Oh hell, this is nothing.

      The mayor had an affair with an underage BOY and the Oregonian, among others, covered it up.

      Yesterday the radio news reported this lady as a “prostitute”. Now I see they had an “affair”, even though the sex was for “book money”.

      Portland is a prime example of what happens when the patients run the asylum.

  30. Ummmm…Anyone wonder why in the world nothing has ever been done about the absolutely insane actions of our political and corporate…(which are really one and the same) entities in the United States? We need jobs but there is to be no drilling or pipelines? Politicians making cash hand over fist in illegal and unethical transactions and yet we never hear of any repercussions from it! From either side of the aisle. Obama aiding his puppetmaster Soros to make money at the expense of U.S. citizens? Insider training. Millions of taxpayer money dissapears and no action is taken to EVER find out where the hell it went>?> Blah, blah, blah I’m quite certain you all can come up with hundreds of the types of instances I am speaking about. I mean cmon man WTF is going on? When control and power of Executive, Legislative and Judicial governing bodies is held by one group of people (political elitists) it begins to make sense if you think about it. Make no mistake, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Socialist …whatever their political beliefs may be makes no difference when it comes down to greed for money and power.Their CORE beliefs hold them all together on the SAME team. Guess whos on the opposite team? The rest of the peons. I get so disgusted by watching/reading the news at all the various BS that you would think the every day person could see was BS but no one cares. I just don’t get it.

    • It’s getting very tiresome reading and watching the daily doom and gloom. So many times I tell myself I’m just going to shut everything down and hope for the best come November. But I’m scared that I’ll miss the straw that broke the camel’s back and I’ll end up screwed. So I try to keep up with the propaganda in the hopes that I’ll make it through to the other side with as little damage as possible.

      For now, today, I’m going to blow off reality and skip on out to the lake and live in my own little reality. Aaaah, springtime! 70’s and sunshine in Michigan. Long overdue!

  31. AS predicted……”Iran parliament begins questioning President Ahmadinejad on multiple accusations

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/14/iran-parliament-begins-questioning-president-ahmadinejad-on-multiple/?test=latestnews#ixzz1p5zMrZpK

    Suggest reading this……either AJAD is totally stupid or he has an ace up his sleeve. This 12th Imam is serious business.

  32. @ Buck…..I happen to be VERY familiar with the Brennan Center……First of all, it is located in the NEW YORK School of Law, correct? Nuff said on that….

    HOWEVER, figures don’t lie but liars can figure…..In ALL of these reports, and I will use the one you offered. nowhere….NO WHERE…did they address the problem as to why the Id’s were not valid. To say they are poor and elderly is a pure cop out. State ID’s are free. They are in Texas and they are in most places. All you have to do is get off your ass to go get one.

    Here is my argument……if it is so much trouble to get a state ID….then why isn’t it the same trouble to go vote. If an elderly person can get off their ass to vote….they can do the same to get an ID.

    It costs three bucks in Tarrant County, Texas to get a copy of your birth certificate….I will NEVER EVER believe that three bucks is not available to the poor. Everyone has three bucks…..even the derelict on the street under the card board.

    To get an ID requires proof of citizenship….not residency, not a light or water bill, not a driver’s license… prove to the State that you are a citizen or here legally.

    Texas did away with the water and light bills as proof a long time ago. Rightfully so.

    To me it is a NO brainer…….to vote, you should be in the country as a LEGAL resident or a CITIZEN. If you are either of those, getting the proof is inexpensive or even free. I know…we have done it for our parents who can no longer drive. It took two hours and a birth certificate and NO money of over the age of 60.

    I do not understand your claims of disenfranchisement in requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Hell, you have street people walking into public libraries, accessing free computers, to file for social security….they can prove citizenship.

    AS to the question as to why people do not go and get a State Id…….perhaps the answer lies elsewhere…..perhaps they are hiding something…like being on welfare fraudulently or being sought by police, or scamming the system and not wanting to be caught….my answer is as good as yours. So, I reverse your question.,,,,prove to me…disenfranchisement…and I will change my position…..and you are going to have to use something other than poverty.

    • I will probably have to catch up to you on Monday or Tuesday…..I am off to the border to disenfranchise more voters….you know the ones…Cartel gang members, prostitutes kidnapped from central America, undocumented non citizens,….from Mexico, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and various other countries being escorted into the United States by “coyotes”……gun runners, etc.

      Have a great weekend and try to stay out of trouble.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I’ll have a great weekend, no promises on staying out of trouble though. Be safe!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The Brennan Center is located at New York University School of Law (not New York School of Law – they are different).

      You are correct that nowhere in that report does the Brennan Center argue why the IDs are not valid — there is no need for them to make this argument. They are making the argument that there is virtually no evidence of voter fraud to warrant the supposed need for these IDs in the first place. Now, even if the cost was only $3.00 that is still $3.00 that must be paid by an individual in order to exercise his right to vote — kind of reminds you of a poll tax, no?

      Now on the question of why people do not go out and get a State ID — there are many reasons why this may be the case, but why do you automatically go towards welfare fraud, criminal activity, scamming the system, etc. You presume guilt, as opposed to one of many other reasons (e.g., no time, difficulty in getting around, etc.) I don’t need to prove actual disenfranchisement – only the possiblity of such, which I believe I have done. The burden is now on proponents of these laws to demonstrate that there is an actual problem that must be addressed which necessitates the possibility of disenfranchisement of a segment of the population.

      • I remember the old Poll Tax…….but to stop fraud…does one have to wait until it happens……like shutting the barn door after the horses are gone?

        And I believe that fraud is exponential…sorta like border crossings…..for every one we catch….10 make it across….or did….we are much better at it now….experience does this.

        And I will admit…freely admit, that I gravitate towards the assumption that people do not get ID’s because of some other reason that…no time or the ability to get around. I will stick with my issue of..if they can get around to vote,,,,they can get around to get an ID. Same as to having the time. It takes no longer to get an ID than to vote and the ID is a one time affair where voting is regular.

        You stated “I don’t need to prove actual disenfranchisement – only the possiblity of such”……I see it the other way around….If only the possibility of disenfranchisement is your base line…..then the “possibility of fraud is my base line……whom is correct?

        Will be safe…..the river is going to be full of rafters and tubers……we will be watching closely for kidnappings. Lots of SUV’s going to be around the border this weekend…..

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “You stated “I don’t need to prove actual disenfranchisement – only the possiblity of such”……I see it the other way around….If only the possibility of disenfranchisement is your base line…..then the “possibility of fraud is my base line……whom is correct?”

          Come on now Colonel, I am correct! 🙂

          The reason the burden of proof is on you is because your line of action would be to place certain roadblocks to voting. Now, perhaps the adverse effect of these roadblocks is negligible and is far outweighed by the need to put a stop to a real problem of voter fraud. That, good sir, is your burden of proof.

  33. Canine Weapon says:
    • Now this is funny………….closer to the truth than you might think…..lol. Arizona and California pissed at Texas right now….since our crackdown, their influx has increased exponentially.

      New Mexico finally sees the light….has adopted the Texas method and are paying for Texas including them in the patrol routes. Having a significant impact there. Eric Holder is pissed but we do not care about that either.

  34. start with a graph of how gas prices have gone from $1.84 when Obama took office to $3.79 and climbing during March (and this is before the summer driving season spikes them upward). Then there’s the voice we have heard so many times over the years that it seems to come straight from George Orwell’s 1984: Barack Obama talking during the campaign about his wish to see higher gas prices. Fade to Ken Salazar, Obama’s choice to head the Department of Interior — the department that has done so much to stop oil exploration and development on federal land. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell proposed a bill to encourage offshore oil drilling. Ken Salazar kept objecting to the bill even when McConnell suggested that the amendment be triggered when gas prices hit $10 a gallon at the pump. Even when gas prices hit $10 a gallon, Salazar was opposed to allowing more offshore drilling. The YouTube clip can be found here.

    Then pair it up with Energy Secretary Chu telling us in 2008 that his desire is to figure out “how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” He is well on his way to accomplishing his goal. Nor is he showing much repentance in the face of high gas prices ruining people’s budgets (it won’t ruin his — he doesn’t drive). He recently testified before Congress that reducing gas prices was not a top priority for his department. Remind me again: why do they call it the Department of Energy? Then flash “Solyndra: $550 million wasted,” “Beacon Power: out of juice,” “Karma: The Cool Car that won’t work no matter how many taxpayer dollars are bundled into it.” Show Obama beaming inside a Volt on a factory visit, and then a Volt on fire.

    There are many examples of wasted green energy boondoggles. Only the federal government using other people’s money could produce as many disasters.

    Follow with Obama’s recent statement that while he is president, he will not ever give up on green energy — not ever.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/coming_soon_the_commercials_that_obama_fears.html#ixzz1p6R6Z1cx

    • Energy Secretary Renounces Call For Higher Gas Prices
      By Craig Bannister
      March 13, 2012

      Under questioning by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) today, Energy Sec. Steven Chu renounced his previous call for higher gas prices.

      “Since I walked in the door, as secretary of energy, I’ve been doing everything in our powers to do what we can to reduce these gas prices,” Sec. Chu told the Senate hearing.

      Sen. Lee then asked Chu: “Are you saying that you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in America?”

      “I no longer share that view,” Sec. Chu said.

      Sen. Lee then followed up: “But, you did then, but you don’t now?”

      “When I became secretary of energy, I represented the U.S. government, and I think now in this economic very slow return, these prices could well affect the comeback of our economy and we’re very worried about that,” Chu replied.

      “So, of course we don’t want the price of gasoline to go up; we want it to go down,” Chu concluded.

      Earlier, Sen. Lee questioned Chu’s ability to empathize with the average American’s plight at the pump:

      “I don’t know how much driving you, personally do, yourself. So. You may not personally be feeling the gouge at the pump. But, I assure you that hundreds of millions of hard-working Americans do feel this.”

      Chu, of course, is chauffeured to and from work on the taxpayers’ dime.

      http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/energy-secretary-renounces-call-higher-gas-prices

    • The War on Energy. Perfect way to further collapse our economy.

  35. I make absolutely no pretense of being an economist, a banker, a commodity trader or a politician but…..

    With an incredibly mild winter in the US and entering into that winter with surplus stocks of oil, we should have seen falling prices. Another thing I noted that as bbl. prices hovered around $ 100.00, the price of gasoline at the pump was stable to falling throughout the last half of last year. In the previous big run up several years ago, when the bbl price hit $ 100 the gas price went higher than it did last year. I cannot see the current run up because of the dollar (it’s still the only game in town) nor increased Chinese or Indian demand (haven’t we been repeatedly told that their economies are slowing down).

    So, who is left to blame? I note that in pronouncements coming out of Washington, be they from the White House or DOE, the very last thing mentioned and usually only because a reporter brings it up is speculation. This is a coincidence? While the Repubs may merely be delusional fools in their adherence to laissez- faire free market Capitalism, the Dems, I am afraid are just in the bag with the speculators. Having never been big on free-market trading what other excuse can there be other than campaign money, consultant gigs, or board of Directors seats when their political careers end.

    Logic and experience dictate that the mere approval of that pipeline and the authorization to drill, will in the short term start prices falling (the jig is up). In the long run, I think that Gingrich is being too conservative. Prices will fall to production cost plus profit. We already know that oil can be economically extracted from places that twenty years ago it could not. Economy of scale brings down costs. More product availability torpedoes OPEC. The fear I think is that opening up vast tracts where it is expensive to produce might just lead to a boom-bust cycle in the domestic industry. If we get it down to $ 40 to $ 50 a bbl for production and the Saudi’s drop theirs below that, we are forced to either cap wells or ask for government subsidies.

    All the economics I ever needed to know came from Davy Crockett coonskin caps in the ’50’s and Beanie Babies in the ’00’s. It is all supply and demand. Raise the margin on speculators or make them take delivery, what have we got to lose?.

    • Yes, government policies could help bring down the price of gas — today (Opinion of an economist…)

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/13/yes-government-policies-could-help-bring-down-price-gas-today/#ixzz1p6w9Kvh7

    • SK, oil prices are dependent on all of the above (supply, demand, inflation, speculation, fear….) Right now we have inflation, speculation and fear driving the market. There is more than enough supply to fill the demand during this recession. The US should not be looking to fix these short term pricing problems but should be looking at energy in the long term, 5, 10, 20 40, 100 years from now. We need a policy that gives us energy independence from the global politics of energy. We should be developing our own oil fields and other energy resources including nuclear. Most of our nukes are 30+ years old and approaching or beyond design lifetimes.

      Yes the Saudis can control the price somewhat. But remember, their income is the product of their volume times the price. They have promised many things to their people many of whom share in the oil income. A significant drop in the price of oil along with the tactic to restrict flow to support a higher price could lead to domestic problems for the kingdom. So they are not totally free to decrease the flow to support the price.

      • Total agreement, produce and go nuke. In 1973 I said to let the Saudi’s pound sand and I still mean it. Could care less what happens to that corrupt regime. Maybe they can figure out a way to turn oil into algae and use it for food. If it works one way, it should the other.

        As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1st World war, isn’t great that we can sit back and see what that generation, Clemenceau and Lloyd George handed to us? Anybody want the Ottoman empire back?

        • In oil most of the profit is made at the well head. The origins of this were related to the oil depletion allowance as this minimized the tax consequences. However, crude oil has no practical use unless it is refined into other products. So the usefulness is added at the refinery which historically makes very little profit. Part of that again is tax structure, especially in Europe with the VAT. So crude is only valuable as the feedstock to the refinery where the real value added is introduced. It is the refined products that have utility.

          I agree with you, find a different source for our oil and let the ME drown in it. Then let Europe, China and India fight over it.

  36. Good Grief-that really does look like something from a Communist country.

    Vets angry over American flag featuring Obama

    LAKE COUNTY, Fla. —

    Tempers are flaring over a version of the American flag flying in Lake County. A veterans group says the flag is an outrage.

    The flag, which features a picture of President Obama, was taken down Tuesday afternoon.

    Korean war veteran Don Van Beck said his blood was boiling.

    “I can’t describe how upset was because you just don’t do that to the American flag,” Van Beck said.

    Van Beck found it flying outside Lake County Democratic headquarters under the stars and stripes. Marine Corps vet John Masterjohn was seeing red.

    “Joseph Stalin, pictures of Mao, pictures of Adolph Hitler. The pomp, the ceremony — the flags like that,” Masterjohn said.

    Nearly a dozen veterans went to the door and aimed to take it down.

    “No. This is private property. This is private property. You’re not allowed to touch anything. I’ll call the police,” Democratic Party chairwoman Nancy Hulbert said. “Just went online. Just went online and looked up the flag code. There is no higher-up in Lake County. I’m responsible. I take responsibility.”

    “If you’ve been a veteran and fought — and some died for this flag — you don’t want to see it desecrated. That’s how simple it is,” Van Beck said.

    http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/vets-angry-over-american-flag-featuring-obama/nLR5Q/#comments

  37. On Jan. 31 of this year, DOJ granted the industry’s call for a clarification: But it was not the answer they wanted. All 300,000 public pools in the United States must install a permanent fixed lift. The deadline for compliance is tomorrow, March 15. Call it “Poolmageddon.”

    There is no way all 300,000 pools can install permanent lifts by Thursday. There simply are not enough lifts in existence or enough people who know how to install them, according to industry spokesmen. Plus, each lift costs between $3,000 and $10,000 and installation can add $5,000 to $10,000 to the total.

    So what happens tomorrow when a disabled individual checks into a Holiday Inn and finds no lift at the pool? The Obama DOJ has said it will not be enforcing the new guidelines right away. That means no fines from the government, for now.

    But the ADA also empowered citizens to sue businesses that are not in compliance with DOJ guidelines. The result will be a huge payday for enterprising trial lawyers everywhere.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/03/thursday-poolmageddon-trial-lawyers/367846

    Buck, I expect a “birddog fee”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      How many times do I have to tell you guys — I don’t do litigation!

      • I don’t do litigation! Sure, sure, and you expect us to trust you because you are a lawyer?

        So what is your thoughts on this, are we about to see thousand’s of pools closing to avoid lawsuits? I’ve been trying to get ours to replace it’s one meter diving board but the insurance and liability make it unlikely.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Nah, I doubt you’ll be seeing much of anything happen with this. Some pools will add the necessary lifts; others will hold off.

      • Probably lots-your an attorney and you like to argue. Choose to write a paper on a subject that you know your professor is going to disagree with-just because you want to prove one can argue either side of any argument-sounds like a litigator. 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Hmm…I do like to argue…and play devils advocate….

          But nope, no litigation for me. I’d wind up wearing one of those old-fashioned lawyer wigs and get thrown in contempt for something or other.

  38. Just out….and the Obama Administration, who put great stock in the NON partisan (cough cough ) CBO….Congressional Budget Office now says……….it does not know what it is talking about and demands change……..Why? Because the CBO today said that the Obama numbers on Obamacare are not a cost of 9.4 billion over 9 years……. but the new numbers are now 2.1 TRILLION…..over 9 years. Just out.

    Take all the profits of all the corporations in America and tax the 1 % @ 100%…….and it does not put much of a dent in this cost alone. The CBO now estimates that the budget deficit will be over 18 trillion dollars in that period of time…..

  39. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/

    Read the above article. It explains in great detail what is going on here.

    • There is a book by Patrick Michaels titled “Climate Coup” that covers the politics and economics of the the GW business. He busts a lot of the myths pushed by that crowd.

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    I know it’s wrong, but I would be happy if someone whacked Al Gore, he is such a thief.

    • Ahhh G-come on now-you really need to chill a little bit!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m good V! 🙂 I just can’t believe that there are still idiots that believe that crap. Please put some antlers on him and send him here at the beginning of October!

  41. Human Rights Council praises Qaddafi for work on human rights in report that was postponed last year.

    Hoo Boy……..unbelievable…..and the left wants the US to adopt the UN rules……hoo boy.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    Good morning all 🙂

    I have always been skeptacle about brainwashing and whether it existed, but it has finally been proven:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/14/us-flag-depicting-president-obama-removed-from-floridas-lake-county-democratic/

    • There may be a right to do this, but it is shameful and disrespectful for sure. And it should NOT be flown on government property, as it is a clear endorsement of existing leadership by a government facility.

      • Those stars are supposed to represent the States-so it isn’t really surprising that a group of democrat’s, wouldn’t see anything wrong with replacing them with an image of Obama.

        • True, but its a double whammy. Its not just disrespect of the validity and sovereignty of the states, it is that Obama’s image represents the Federal Government. It does not. We have a 3 part government, and they are not all in lockstep with him and his agenda. So it is both federalist and politically biased towards Obama himself as some sort of supreme leader.

          I think they are desperate to get the hype back that they had in 2008.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I dunno; I’m just not getting the outrage on this.

      I agree that it probably wasn’t the best idea, and something I personally wouldn’t do, but I just don’t get any sense of anger on this. First, I believe it was flown on private property by a private (albeit, political) organization. Second, the flag code doest not have the effect of law – it is merely advisory in nature. Lastly, at least it was being flown under the actual US flag.

      • Agreed on that last point, the real flag was flown, and flown above it. And, as I mentioned, they may well have the right to do it if it is privately done. I guess the question is, is it unprecedented? Much of the outrage is that this sort of flag defiling is new. More of the anger, however, is coming from the fact that a political leader is being put on a national symbol. Its the sort of thing you see in dictatorships. Of course, it may also be that the group that typically reveres the flag tends to be the opposite of Obama politically, I wont say some of the outrage is not partisan, but I dont know if the anger would be equivalent had Reagan been the image. I do know, however, that the anger would have still been there. This is one of those symbolic things concerning a president that Washington wanted to avoid because he wanted a stark contrast between a representative and a monarch. He would not even take a title, and insisted on being referred to as mister. There was a reason for that. This sort of thing flies in the face of that, and puts someone in a position of being “elite”. Unfortunately, our government is pretty much run by elites, but it should not be, and this shows many people are starting to act like that is not only the case, but that they are embracing it. It does not bode well for freedom.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I do get all of that, to a point. But I dunno, just doesn’t hit me for some reason. And I doubt it would if a group of Republicans had done the same thing with Reagan or Bush.

          I don’t think this flies in the face of anything — it a novelty flag made in China that anyone can get for $12.95. I can see the outrage if the White House decided to fly this thing, or if it was being put up by the federal government alongside the US flag. But its not. It was clearly a dumb decision to put it up, but I don’t think there was any intent to make a statement, elevate Obama to the status of a monarch, anger the GOP, or anything else along those lines.

          • You may be right, the intent might well have been relatively innocuous. I think it is sort of like defiling or being sacrilegious with a holy object. Some might do it in protest to the religion, some as art, some because it is funny. Most would not think it a big deal. But to those who find the object or image sacred, it would be horrifying and angering. The outrage came mostly from veterans, men who fought and saw friends die for that flag and what it symbolizes. I can understand their anger when considering who they are. Its like the discussion last week or so about the guy that got violent defending a Koran. I dont personally get why he was so mad, but considering who he was and his background, I can at least understand why he was outraged.

          • I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one NATION, under God, indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all.

            I pledge allegiance to the OBAMANATION, and to his hine ass we will answer, one collective, forever worshiping him in slavery.

            Take your pick.

  43. Mathius™ says:

    ::lurks::

  44. Buck the Wala says:

    I don’t know what I would do without Doonesbury.

    http://www.doonesbury.com/

    • Mathius™ says:

      There was a story on this a few days ago..

      Doonesbury is first on my list of comics I read every morning:

      Doonesbury
      Dilbert
      Non Sequitur
      Zits
      Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
      Real Life Comics
      Least I Could Do
      Frazz
      xkcd

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Yes, I still read Least I Could Do every morning.

        I also take a look at Mutts.

    • Doonesbury used to be on the cartoon page but has been moved to the political section. I like Doonesbury.

    • Buck

      So you think this is funny?

      Calling the Texas GOP a bunch of RAPISTS?

      • Mathius™ says:

        What do you call it when someone withholds medical treatment from a woman unless she allows them to insert something into her vagina?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          ObamaCare

        • Planned Parenthood

        • Mathius

          What do you call it when you have the Govt require any other medical treatment????

          And why is having an abortion of an otherwise healthy fetus considered “medical care”?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Mathius is absolutely correct — take out the underlying reason for the woman’s visit to the doctor. What do you have left? Mandating the doctor — against the woman’s consent — insert an object into her vagina. Seems like this fits the definition of rape to me.

            And JAC, yes, I find this entire series of Doonesbury strips highly amusing — Trudeau is a master of political satire.

            • Buck

              Bull Shit answer my lawyer friend.

              Take out the underlying reason and the procedure would be MOOT and the law would not apply.

              Try again.

              So if it is a required practice by the profession this “madatory” thing by a THIRD party is OK by you, but not if the third party is the Govt.

              Unless of course the procedure is one the LEFT wants to have required.

              You authorize the use of force against your fellow citizens and then feign outrage when they use it on you to meet their goals.

            • Buck

              It would be hazardous for you to assume I am advocating anything except consistency and reason.

              If there is a party required to PAY for something then that party certainly should have a say in the arrangement. So your doctor/patient only argument doesn’t hold water.

              If you don’t want the Govt involved then stop authorizing the Govt to stick its nose in our private affairs. That includes my selection of health insurance.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You are free to choose your own insurance. You just must have insurance. 🙂

                How is the gov’t being required to pay for this abortion to then allow the gov’t (the paying party) to have a say in the arrangement?

              • I still do not get the reasoning behing forcing someone to have insurance. No one has really given me a reason that’s worth a damn. Its like when doctors were telling everyone they should have their tonsils out, like it would cure all ails and it did no good. It was just trendy BS, maybe a good idea for a few cases, but thats it.

                So seriously, why must I have insurance? Who the hell is anyone to demand that of me under penalty of law?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Actually JAC, you raise a very interesting question — who is paying for these forced ultrasounds?

        • Oh Matt, this made me think of you. And PP, as VH indicates, REQUIRES the internal ultra-sound before some abortions. Maybe they should offer a pizza with it?

          http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/03/15/cape-urologists-offer-free-pizza-with-vasectomy/

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Perhaps PP does require this; perhaps not — I have seen conflicting articles on this point. But even if PP does require this, that is a decision being made between the doctor and patient, not by the government. See the difference?

            Now who would want a pizza from boston?? Maybe they should offer clam chowder or something instead.

            • Do I see the difference? Let’s see, some liberals want to create an issue and jump on the “requiring” a mother to view an ultra-sound before having an abortion. They attack the “invasive” “rape” of said device being inserted. Most of us are going to assume she has had other things inserted there before. And if she proceeds with the abortion, she will have much greater physical cause to feel raped. The procedure does not sound pleasant. So the only difference I can see is the requirement that the mother view the ultra-sound that was already going to be done so they could preform the proper procedure.

              http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/

  45. REGULATION NATION: New Study Finds Obama Is ‘No. 1 Regulator’

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/regulation-nation-new-study-finds-obama-is-no-1-regulator/#ixzz1pBwwoMwh

  46. YOu gotta read this to believe it.

    Suicide of Moroccan girl, 16, forced to marry rapist sparks outrage.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/15/suicide-moroccan-girl-16-forced-to-marry-rapist-sparks-outrage/#ixzz1pBxIl16e

  47. 🙂

  48. Karen Finney on MSNBC is upset at conservative women for voting for Santorum:

    FINNEY: You know, I’m stunned. Uh, the only explanation that I can come up with is — and I think this would be a question I’d want to go back and ask these women. For these women: Did race — or… or, in other words, “conservative values;” that’s the code, right? — trump gender?

    I’d like to slap this female!

  49. I saw the discussion the other day regarding AZ’s attempt at a law banning “wrongful birth” lawsuits. And of course the LEFTS attempt to couch it as another assault on women.

    I wasn’t sure where this was coming from either when the very next day here in the find city of FREAKS, a jury awarded a couple close to 3 million for a “wrongful birth”.

    So it seems there is a legitimate issue/concern. It would also not be a stretch to think that Govt would respond to this with some type of “REQUIRED” examinations or tests. Despite the desires of the patient.

    When are you lefties going to realize that what goes around, comes around.

    http://www.azfamily.com/news/142399605.html

  50. Don’t Re-Nig in 2012? Yep, that is racist.

    http://www.stumpysstickers.com/

  51. Kathy

    Congrats on game one.

    Those Griz guards never played their game. But kudos to those Badger big men who kept blocking the layups.

  52. Thought I would supply some early morning comedy-you’d have to be trying really hard to sound this stupid.

    FLASH: Meghan McCain: ‘I’m Strictly Dickly… I Love Sex’

    by Ben Shapiro 15 hours ago 88 post a comment
    Sen. John McCain’s daughter, Meghan McCain, has a featured interview in this month’s Playboy. There, she discusses the 2012 election and spends an inordinate amount of time talking about partying and her sex life:

    I’m not a lesbian, if that’s what you’re asking. I’d be the first person to tell the world I was gay. I’m not private about anything. I think you should live how you should live. But I’m strictly dickly. I can’t help it. I love sex and I love men.

    She also goes out of her way to slam “pious Mormons”:

    I always say repression breeds obsession. Politicians have to be goody-goodies. They put on this face of perfection and pretend they’re completely above indiscretion. But the more you deny your sexual side, the more it builds up and comes out in inappropriate ways. Not to bring any particular politician into this discussion, but I always find it fascinating that the number one state per capita for downloading porn is Utah. All those pious Mormons and they’re drooling at their laptops all day.

    Fortunately, says McCain, people don’t recognize her too often in public unless she’s with her father:

    I look different without makeup on, and usually I wear beanies and big sweaters and look like I’m drunk all the time.

    If she were, that might explain this interview.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/15/New%20Article

  53. Whistleblowers. We need a whole lot more people to have a moment of ethical awareness and join this group.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/terminated-cbo-whistleblower-shares-her-full-story-zero-hedge-exposes-deep-conflicts-impartial-

    • Kathy

      Good post.

      As I said here a year or so ago, the CBO is NOT and objective third party. NONE of the “O” agencies are objective. That includes OMB (office of management and budget) and OPM (office of personnel management)., and OIG (office of the inspector general).

      Now, this story is one of the first that reveals ACTUAL criminal activity deserving of jail time, associated with the housing fiasco.

      That is the “creation of fraudulent document” which were then robo approved via MERS, in order to speed up the securitization process.

      It would be interesting to see a comparison of this “chain of title” issue in eastern vs. western states. I know we have different legal procedures for selling and transferring property.

      • “Comment cannot be found” message.

        • How did that happen? I’ll post the whole thing then from another site:

          Comment No: 57019
          Date: 3/14/2012

          Comment Text:

          Dear CFTC Staff,

          Hello, I am a current JPMorgan Chase employee. This is an open letter to all commissioners and regulators. I am emailing you today b/c I know of insider information that will be damning at best for JPMorgan Chase. I have decided to play the role of whistleblower b/c I no longer have faith and belief that what we are doing for society is bringing value to people. I am now under the opinion that we are actually putting hard working Americans unaware of what lays ahead at extreme market risk. This risk is unnecessary and will lead to wide-scale market collapse if not handled properly. With the release of Mr. Smith’s open letter to Goldman, I too would like to set the record straight for JPM as well. I have seen the disruptive behavior of superiors and no longer can say that I look up to employees at the ED/MD level here at JPM. Their smug exuberance and arrogance permeates the air just as pungently as rotting vegetables. They all know too well of the backdoor crony connections they share intimately with elected officials and with other institutions. It is apparent in everything they do, from the meager attempts to manipulate LIBOR, therefore controlling how almost all derivatives are priced to the inherit and fraudulent commodities manipulation. They too may have one day stood for something in the past in the client-employee relationship. Does anyone in today’s market really care about the protection of their client? From the ruthless and scandalous treatment of MF Global client asset funds to the excessive bonuses paid by companies with burgeoning liabilities. Yes, we at JPMorgan that are in the know are fearful of a cascading credit event being triggered in Greece as they have hidden derivatives in excess of $1 Trillion USD. We at JPMorgan own enough of these through counterparty risk and outright prop trading that our entire IB EDG space could be annihilated within a few short days. The last ten years has been market by inflexion point after inflexion point with the most notable coming in 2008 after the acquisition of Bear.

          I wish to remain anonymous as of now as fear of termination mounts from what I am about to reveal. Robert Gottlieb is not my real name; however he is a trader that is involved in a lawsuit for manipulative trading while working with JPMorgan Chase. He was acquired during our Bear Stearns acquisition and is known to be the notorious person shorting in the silver future market from his trading space, along with Blythe Masters, his IB Global boss. However, with that said, we are manipulating the silver futures market and playing a smaller (but still massively manipulative) role in manipulating the gold futures market. We have a little over a 25% (give or take a percentage) position in the short market for silver futures and by your definition this denotes a larger position than for speculative purposes or for hedging and is beyond the line of manipulation.

          On a side note, I do not work directly with accounts that would have been directly impacted by the MF Global fiasco but I have heard through other colleagues that we have involvement in the hiding of client assets from MF Global. This is another fraudulent effort on our part and constitutes theft. I urge you to forward that part of the investigation on to the respective authorities.

          There is something else that you may find strange. During month-end December, we were all told by our managers that this was going to be a dismal year in terms of earnings and that we should not expect any bonuses or pay raises. Then come mid-late January it is made known that everyone received a pay raise and/or bonus, which is interesting b/c just a few weeks ago we were told that this was not likely and expected to be paid nothing in addition to base salary. January is right around the time we started increasing our short positions quite significantly again and this most recent crash in gold and silver during Bernanke’s speech on February 29th is of notable importance, as we along with 4 other major institutions, orchestrated the violent $100 drop in Gold and subsequent drops in silver.

          As regulators of the free people of this country, I ask you to uphold the most important job in the world right now. That job is judge and overseer of all that is justice in the most sensitive of commodity markets. There are many middle-income people that invest in the physical assets of silver, gold, as well as mining stocks that are being financially impacted in a negative way b/c of our unscrupulous shorts in the precious metals commodity sector. If you read the COT with intent you will find that commercials (even though we have no business being in the commercial sector, which should be reserved for companies that truly produce the metal) are net short by a long shot in not only silver, but gold.

          It is rather surprising that what should be well known liabilities on our balance sheet have not erupted into wider scale scrutinization. I call all honest and courageous JPMorgan employees to step up and fight the cronyism and wide-scale manipulation by reporting the truth. We are only helping reality come to light therefore allowing a real valuation of our banking industry which will give investors a chance to properly adjust without being totally wiped out. I will be contacting a lawyer shortly about this matter, as I believe no other whistleblower at JPMorgan has come forward yet. Our deepest secrets lie within the hands of honest employees and can be revealed through honest regulators that are willing to take a look inside one of America’s best kept secrets. Please do not allow this to turn into another Enron.

          Kind Regards,
          -The 1st Whistleblower of Many

  54. Just heard an interesting stat on the local radio.

    Idaho’s health insurance costs are 43% of Oregon’s.

    The difference?

    Oregon has 46 Mandatory Coverage items, while Idaho is somewhere under 20.

  55. You alright Anita? Saw some pics of MI – it didn’t look good.

    Let me know if I need to take a road trip and come help clean up!

    • I’m good, thanks! We just got a ton of rain but no real wind. Have an aunt and a cousin in Dexter where the tornado went through, both had damage to their homes but thankfully there were no injuries or deaths. Check this out, this was the actual tornado that did the damage:

    • Saw that.

      Calling BF – are you out there? Time to show up and give us a little bit of your vision.

  56. Two things today. Santorum, the only “real” conservative is going to eliminate pornography if elected. Well this foremost conservative apparently has no clue about the constitution. Oh, I am not talking first amendment here, I am talking the President of the United States of America, doing what…. issuing an “executive order”? Mr. Santorum should study that constitution thing see what is the responsibility of the Congress, the President and the Courts. Speaking of the Courts, that is another legitimate way to go, appointing strict constructionists who will allow pornography to be identified, defined and banned if appropriate.

    Item two from the other side. It has been announced that Georgetown University and its insurance carrier have and will cover birth control pills IF they are prescribed for a medical reason and not contraception. So, Ms. Flucke is, if not a slut, than certainly a liar. Thought so, wish the damned media would do its job.

    There are days when my mood is as dark as the weather. Where the hell do all these dummies come from anyway?

  57. Mathius™ says:

    This is required reading for anyone debating abortion and abortion-law.

    http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/we-have-no-choice-one-womans-ordeal-with-texas-new-sonogram-law

    • Buck the Wala says:

      very sobering.

    • I would hope, if I was ever in that position, that I would be told anything and everything about that baby. I would need to know every last detail before I could ever make that decision. I hope I would not be worried about “my pain”, nor the terminology used for what I was considering; that if I chose to end that life, I would do it knowing and understanding all options – both now and future predictions.

      To think that someone would choose to end a life without these details is nothing short of appalling.

      Let’s look at it this way: you have a relative that has suffered a brain injury and is brain dead. Would you not want for the same thoroughness of tests/pictures/details to be told to you?

      You both have such a willingness to kill at will without having to feel guilty about it – why?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        It’s interesting how you and I read the exact same story and come to such different conclusions.

        By her own admission, this was not a light-hearted decision; it was excruciatingly painful and something she had never thought would have to be made by her, but, given the circumstances, a decision that she and her husband ultimately had to make. She knew full well what she was doing, the ramifications of her decision. She knew all of the details.

        Now, on top of all this, on top of hearing this news about her soon to be child, which she so desperately wanted, on top of making this painstaking decision to terminate the pregnancy, did she really need the added humiliation imposed by the State? The misinformation dictated to her by the State? I think not.

    • I have plenty of tears to cry for this woman and I will not condemn her for her decision, she has been programed to think it’s okay- but lets be clear-there are over 300 thousand perfect little babies killed every year for no good reason. I think people should care about them-the absolute waste-I suspect this woman would have happily changed places with any one of those woman who destroyed their children just because it would be too hard to raise them-to hard to put them up for adoption.

  58. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Time for a rant.

    Rick Santorum, the strongest conservative around has announced that he, as president, will do away with Pornography! Rick apparently has become a little heady with his recent wins and thinks that we would like to elect a new dictator to replace the one we already have. Rick is a little slow on the uptake when it comes to things like the Constitution. Despite having been a United States Senator, he has not figured out yet that the Congress and the Courts have a lot more to say about pornography than the Executive does. But then again, there is that Executive order thing. Now wouldn’t it have been enough to say that he would have used the bully pulpit or would appoint more strict constructionist judges but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, he’s going to do it by himself. Bye, Bye Rick.

    Sandra Fluke, turns out not to have been a slut, merely a liar. Georgetown’s health plan will prescribe the ‘pill’ for other medical, non contraceptive uses. One would think that the ace media out there would have asked this question before now, wouldn’t one? Three weeks?

    Where do these dummies come from?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Rick Santorum — agreed.

      Sandra Fluke — her comments specifically stated that while Georgetown does provide this exception, other institutions/organizations do not.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Read it. My first read was a scan, this time I read the whole thing. There are enough holes in that testimony to drive a flee of Mack trucks through. First, there is a quote about another woman who, “Due to barriers created by Georgetown policy, she hasn’t been re-reimbursed for her medications since last August.” There are more stories about women who have been raped who did not go for medical exams because they thought they did not have coverage, (these are really university women in 2012?) and over and over again the allusion to the horrible costs associated with this medication (outright friggen lie). All in all, I find the testimony carefully crafted to imply certain things that are at best half truths. I’d be willing to put that statement to a jury counselor. This still does not excuse the Rushmaster (and others) from falling into the trap.

    • “Legislation which would mandate filtering seems to come forward as regularly as the seasons. This spring and summer, the crop of onerous legislation has come primarily from Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Ernest Istook (R-OK). The better approach at the federal level is a bill sponsored by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), S. 1545, which would provide a local option: either install and use blocking and filtering software, or adopt Internet use policies. In its infinite wisdom, the Senate in late June passed both the McCain and the Santorum bills! Politics being politics, the votes were 95-3 for McCain’s bill and 75-24 for Santorum’s. Reconciling the inconsistencies became the responsibility of conference committees. These bills came as attachments to the Labor/Health & Human Services/ Education appropriations bill. The filtering requirement of Senator McCain’s Children’s Internet Protection Act, S. 97, ties the hands of those schools and libraries receiving e-rate money. E-rate money is the discount provided to schools and libraries, through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which subsidizes the cost of accessing the Internet (wiring, connection charges, computer equipment, etc.). These funds have very effectively ensured that schools and libraries throughout the nation, even those in less affluent communities, have equal access to the Internet. The McCain bill would keep any school or library from receiving this money unless they install Internet filters. Santorum’s Neighborhood Children’s Protection Act, S. 1545, preserves local decision-making and respects the collective wisdom of the thousands of communities grappling with the issue and devising their own solutions, experimenting with different methods and developing “best practices” which can be shared library to library. Surely this is the American way. ”

      http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/VALib/v46_n3/auld.html

      My understanding is that a bill has already been passed.- Santorum is just saying he will actually enforce the law-and it is about filters for schools. Haven’t researched enough yet-but this is a little background.

  59. Even the Sage can admit when the right is right … the Limbergerhead vs. Maher debacle …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/03/super-mario-johnny-porno-goes-ebook-st.html

  60. LOI,
    You equate “pensions” and “unions”, without providing anything to back that up. Do you think all pensions are for unions?

    I have a pension. Everyone at my company has a pension. There are no unions at my company.

    So pensions are the largest type of stock-owners at 31%. That’s still less than 1/3.

    What about Individual Investors that make up 21%? I’ll bet each “individual investor” has a much larger stake in ExxonMobil than each “member of the pensions.”

    And lets drill down to the smallest percentage: Corporate Management of Oil Companies own 2.8%. Now think about how small of a group this is. And how much 2.8% of ExxonMobil is worth. I’d say this group has the most to lose.

    This is typical SUFA logic:

    1. Find a few facts
    2. Completely mis-interpret them
    3. Find some “Right-Wing News Media manufactured “FACTS” to add “credibility”
    4. Blame the MSM for not reporting your Right-Wing point of view

    And then you added a new one (congrats!) – use some previous SUFA “facts”. I mean seriously – you’re using Esom as a “valid” source??

    And remember the fuzz all of you made because Solyndra defaulted on a $535 million loan? But now $4 billion is “Chump Change”?

    • Tood, here at SUFA, all working class citizens, no matter how long and hard they had to fight for the crumbs allotted them, are evil … all business, especially big business like Oil, are victims … they don’t buy the “slaves of wages” argument. In fact, at SUFA, employers are the slaves for having to pay something like “minimum wage”. Why should an employer be forced to pay a minimum wage when there are enough unemployed to have them bid on the work? See peach-pickers, et al, in California during the great depression … let the bastards cut each other’s throats if they want to work bad enough. If they were worth more than they’re bidding, they’d be the owners of the farms and the beneficiaries of this great economic system.

      You did well pointing out SUFA Facts above. It’s how they found Ward Churchill’s numbers of native american populations to be so “grossly” overestimated (because at SUFA, wiping out 10 million is easier to live with than contesting the numbers they claim were wiped out in Russia. Don’t you know European settlers and later the American Government could never be accused of genocide (hell, the word wasn’t even invented yet) comparable their foes (what Churchill in his book differentiated as “worthy victims” vs. “unworthy victims”—when we chose to intervene, etc.).

      And they claim I’m from Pluto …

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        You almost get me to agree except for hat line “a plague on both your houses”. I can argue the point from either side as I was taught to by my father. Just this week, we (the wife and I) as retired NYC workers both got our union papers from DC 37 and the UFT. Both have already endorsed Obama with all sorts of stuff about how totally evil the republicans are.

        I remember comment my son had made a few years ago about how the NRA shot itself in the foot y siding exclusively with republicans. Not only were they going to be screwed when Dems took over but, Repubs would take them for granted. Spot on! All good union liberals are in the same boat. Both the UFT and DC 37 blame the things Cuomo Jr. is doing on Bloomberg. It is like he is the puppeteer. That of course, gives them the opportunity to cast their lot with the Devil while looking like they are on the side of the angels.

        There are horrendous abuses in Municipal worker jobs and pensions, but, I would remind those who cast with the broad net that in 21 years of working for the City, I never got a single hour of overtime and was not the recipient of a high five year or three year pension. My trade off, which I didn’t even know I was doing at age 21 was a ridiculously low salary level in exchange for an adequate pension. How ridiculously low? Well, when I left in ’89, I immediately doubled my salary in the private sector (no pension).

      • USWeapon says:

        @Chaz

        It’s how they found Ward Churchill’s numbers of native american populations to be so “grossly” overestimated (because at SUFA, wiping out 10 million is easier to live with than contesting the numbers they claim were wiped out in Russia.

        No it isn’t. What kind of nonsense is this? I don’t find wiping out any number easier to live with. But no matter the topic, I am only willing to discuss it with you if you are willing to present the honest facts and discuss the topic without the emotional appeals that ignore any inconvenient realities (you know, like the fact that the indians regularly slaughtered whites as well, or that this topic has nothing to do with fixing America today). I would just prefer that when an argument is presented, the real numbers are offered as evidence, not grossly inflated numbers. What bothers me is that you seem to completely ignore the fact that Churchill weaves these fabrications into his work, and simply assume that the rest of the information he presents is valid. If he was willing to outright lie about the numbers, presenting a number of killed that is 6 times higher than the number estimated to have lived in the US, then what integrity does the rest of his piece have?

        I am surprised that over the last year or so you have resorted to this tactic Charlie. The contesting of fact doesn’t mean that the person contesting those facts are somehow OK with what happened. Yet you have fallen into the sad strategy of making claims like the one above: we contested the numbers because we are OK with 10 million deaths. It is an ugly tactic, and one used by the far left in America all the time (the GOP wants to kill grandma, is looking to disenfranchise poor voters, hates black people, etc) You are smarter than this and I expect more from you.

        If I would have said that Obama’s health care was adding ten trillion to the debt rather than one trillion, you would have pointed out that error immediately and rightly so (although with the rate of growth government budgets grow past forecasts, it may end up being closer to ten). If you challenge my grossly inflated number, I don’t assume that it means that you don’t care about growing debt.

        • I would just prefer that when an argument is presented, the real numbers are offered as evidence, not grossly inflated numbers. What bothers me is that you seem to completely ignore the fact that Churchill weaves these fabrications into his work, and simply assume that the rest of the information he presents is valid. If he was willing to outright lie about the numbers, presenting a number of killed that is 6 times higher than the number estimated to have lived in the US, then what integrity does the rest of his piece have?

          USW to the rescue … except, did you read Churchill’s book? Do you dispute the scholars he points to and ONLY accept the arguments made by those defending the low-balled number? It is interesting how certain “facts” are accepted and others labeled “fabrications”.

          Yet you have fallen into the sad strategy of making claims like the one above: we contested the numbers because we are OK with 10 million deaths. It is an ugly tactic, and one used by the far left in America all the time (the GOP wants to kill grandma, is looking to disenfranchise poor voters, hates black people, etc) You are smarter than this and I expect more from you.

          So let me get this straight. You blindly accept a lowball number of native Americans (without doing the research that contests it) because … you’re pointing to what? That Churchill is lying and those defending American expansion (within America) are to be believed? Think about it. If you’re not okay with 10 million, then why attack 125 million as “grossly inflated?”

          Assuming both are exaggerated, how does that affect the American genocide argument? And what was that expansion all about anyway (lebensraum or financial expansion or both)?

          Not that I ever said the GOP wants to kill grandma, but you do have to admit, they aren’t being very kind to the poor thing. If the means to save grandma requires more revenue but a party is looking to cut the necessary revenue, what happens to grandma and those like her? I see, they’re only looking to secure our national financial future (a cherry-picked greater good argument that precludes those in the way today—sounds sort of similar to the argument above).

          Does the GOP hate black people? I never said that either, but playing this game serves your purpose. The fact they’re free market politics encroaches on minorities across the board (unless they’re in some field picking fruit whether on this side of the border or in South America), doesn’t seem to serve minorities very well at all. But hate is a strong word, which is why I didn’t use it.

          In fact, I actually defended Mr. Bush when that rich rapper claimed “George Bush hates black people”:… but not because I think Mr. Bush even considers the plight of the poor (his Mother sure didn’t with those in Houston), but because Kanye West’s (I remember his name now) comments actually hurt contributions–it stopped me from doing so–my bad).

          Bottom line. It’s your fumbling of fact and dependency on blind faith that baffles me … which is why I know you’re smarter than that and know you can do better.

      • USWeapon says:

        here at SUFA, all working class citizens, no matter how long and hard they had to fight for the crumbs allotted them, are evil

        Another complete bunch of nonsense. Let’s look at this topic with our reality glasses on Charlie. You use emotional appeal to demonize the 1% while claiming that the rest of the 99% are all victims to the crimes of the 1%. I have never seen, not once in over three years, any member of SUFA making a single statement that would make your claim above true about what “SUFA believes.” I have never once heard working class citizens demonized as evil. I believe that the vast majority of the working class are hardworking and good people. I refuse to support the minority of those people who are lazy and looking for a free handout. And I believe that the same freedom and liberty principles should be applied to all whether they make $8 an hour or $500 an hour. That you don’t understand the difference between that position and what you claim SUFA’s position to be is sad.

        You have become irrational. Further, you have started to sound conspicuously like Keith Olberman. Your generalizations and false claims about SUFA have made you as difficult to have a discussion with as some other members of SUFA that I no longer bother to argue with. While you don’t seem to understand this, I believe the primary reason that people seeking some sort of social justice like you have thus far failed in your quest, is that you continue to be irrational and use pure emotional appeal in your claims. Don’t bother answering that, I am working on an article on this very thing which will post soon.

        • have never once heard working class citizens demonized as evil. I believe that the vast majority of the working class are hardworking and good people. I refuse to support the minority of those people who are lazy and looking for a free handout.

          Union workers … not demonized at SUFA. Sir, you need REALITY GLASSES. BIG ONES … SUPER THICK, HIGH RESOLUTION.

          Your generalizations and false claims about SUFA have made you as difficult to have a discussion with as some other members of SUFA that I no longer bother to argue with.

          Oh, be honest already. You don’t choose to have arguments with people who destroy your arguments. You fall on the “irrational” sword as quick as you’re made to look foolish.

          Me and Keitho? Boy, there are a few dozen liberal sites who would take you to task on that comical association.

          I believe the primary reason that people seeking some sort of social justice like you have thus far failed in your quest, is that you continue to be irrational and use pure emotional appeal in your claims

          How can I resist? Headline: USW declares fact “Emotional Appeal” … one can only bring up the genocides committed by enemy and/or socialist states (Germany/Russia) … genocide by others are mere fabrications.

          Headline #2: Big Oil is a the real victim. It’s the unions fault.

          I can’t tell you how much fun we have on Pluto reading SUFA sometimes …

          • Last tidbit of the day … perhaps a better title for the site might be “Stand up for Truth” … but then you’d have do deal with all those inconvenient truths (the ones you claim are irrational) …

            From those fellas at Wiki: Manifest Destiny was always a general notion rather than a specific policy. The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism.

            American exceptionalism and romantic nationalism … i.e., SUFA … propaganda in its purest form.

            • Looks like you have lost your temper, Charlie-I can relate, you cause me to lose my cool more than most 🙂 But my problem with your facts Charlie-is that you blame everything on capitalism-when these kind of bad things have happened under every type of governments, in every country throughout history. No one is ignoring the bad Charlie, or making excuses-we simply believe that the government growing bigger and taking away more freedom from the individual causes these bad things to happen more. And you somehow believe man being less free will stop them.

              • Never, VH. Certainly not from a USW post. I have more fun here (it often serves as my break from writing other stuff), so I enjoy the discourse more than it might seem. I do blame capitalism for much of America’s problems (past and present) but I am baffled how many of you here agree that the 1% owns the government (that the gov’t is corrupt), yet you think a smaller corruption would make a difference. Before you go off on that one, I accept socialist/communist govt’s might be as corrupt, but we’ve certainly not given either a try here (we continue to paint them as evil and point to 20 million dead, 40 million dead, etc., etc., while ignoring the numbers killed here (whether it was during expansion or settlement or conquest). And they aren’t my facts. As I’ve said many times here, read the book. Each essay is documented. Whether or not the documentation is absolutely accurate or not is for individual readers to decide, but I have a much tougher time believing the propaganda served us since childhood here regarding the native indian populations than I do sources that might have a less biased reason to state the truth. Go Bills!

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Just a bit of info here. seems to me the issue on population used to be based on the amount of land needed to support one hunter/ gatherer. It is similar to calculating how many deer can live in a given preserve. There are still nomadic tribes out there, admittedly few, that live the way their ancestors did with little contact with outsiders. Question is, what are their populations based on square mileage needed to sustain them? Added to the mix, long before white eyes came along was the issue of injury or disease. I would assume for example, that a compound fracture was a death sentence. Old age was a death sentence, once the teeth were gone, you were gone. Childbirth must have taken a major toll as would any random infection.

              Not to offend you, cause I don’t (want advance notice on the next big shindig) but you seem to suffer from the “noble savage” syndrome. That goes back to the Romans and Greeks who idealized the barbarians that they whacked. It was a brutal hard life. Even for Europeans two to three hundred years ago, it was a brutal hard life. The folks South of the Rio Grande were not known for being particularly nice to each other. Their blood lust probably exceeded that of the Romans and was not topped until the 20th century.

              Regarding the entire issue of any guilt I may have over the treatment of American Indians or Slaves, I have none. We got here in 1905. To my knowledge, we did not participate in a single massacre nor did we own any slaves. Going back not too many generations, I suspect that we, the Trynosky clan, may have been on the other end of the stick more likely than not.

              Regarding America and its exceptionalism, I had a friend, Vito, whose father immigrated here at 13 from Sicily, that would have been around 1900. We talked often about why our families came here. In his Dad’s case, it was simple. At twelve, he and Vito’s grandad were walking down a road in Sicily. The local Padrone passed in his carriage, Vito’s grandfather took off his hat and bowed. When the big shot passed,Vito’s dad asked his father why he bowed. the old man slapped him across his face and explained basically that that was the way it was. A year later the boy took off and came to NY. Explaining this to his own sons. Vito’s dad said,” I bow my head to no man”. That sir, is why we are exceptional. Flawed yes, just as all men are but very exceptional.

              Manifest destiny is a political idea from the political class. While most tended to stay comfortably east of the Alleghenies, they were only too happy to send off the new immigrants to be slaughtered and die.

              • Vito’s dad said,” I bow my head to no man”. That sir, is why we are exceptional.

                Don’t have enough time to do the entire response but think about it, no other nation state have people who refused to bow? Was it coming to America that did that or was it the individual character’s inner strength? Once you get nationalistic/patriotic you run the risk of arrogance (which I believe is probably 9/10ths of the issue here at SUFA) … many can’t seem to take the punch in the nose America often deserves.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                In “Stripes” Bill Murray says, “We have been thrown out of every decent country in the world”. Charlie, I’m still not sure if they stole that line from me or I from them. It was the strength of the individual’s character that got them up off their ass, walking half way across Europe (in my case) and then on a boat never to see their loved ones again to arrive in a place where the language and customs were completely alien to them. That is American exceptionalism. I plead guilty to arrogance and patriotism but not false arrogance and false patriotism. I still see what my grandfather saw when he got here. I have been privileged to know in my life people from all backgrounds and economic groups. I thought the greatest experience in my life was being in the big Green Machine. While lucky in the sense I was never shot at I was more lucky in meeting that lumberjack from the Northwoods, the surfer, the Tennessee ridge runner, the kid from Puerto Rico, the Harvard boy, the Jewish guy from Kew Gardens, the Italian guy from Boston and getting drunk and playing poker with all of them.

                Later on I got to work with and supervise a 100% immigrant construction crew and teach them that not all anglos were ass—–. The problem today is folks have way too much and they have forgotten their humble beginnings.

              • Not to offend you, cause I don’t (want advance notice on the next big shindig) but you seem to suffer from the “noble savage” syndrome. That goes back to the Romans and Greeks who idealized the barbarians that they whacked. It was a brutal hard life. Even for Europeans two to three hundred years ago, it was a brutal hard life. The folks South of the Rio Grande were not known for being particularly nice to each other. Their blood lust probably exceeded that of the Romans and was not topped until the 20th century.

                SK, I think you misread my point. I point to what happened here to Native Americans and African Americans to a) remind defenders of the constitution that it wasn’t just European-American blood that was sacrificed to create this great nation of ours (sarcasm definitely intended); b) that the constitution was written by the wealthy for the wealthy (no matter how we view their intent 200 years later) and c) that how this country was formed and concomitant results do, in fact, have much to do with our current political situation; that defenders of the constitution need to pull back and realize just how offensive “taking their country back” might be to others.

                Regarding the entire issue of any guilt I may have over the treatment of American Indians or Slaves, I have none. We got here in 1905. To my knowledge, we did not participate in a single massacre nor did we own any slaves. Going back not too many generations, I suspect that we, the Trynosky clan, may have been on the other end of the stick more likely than not.

                My arguments aren’t, as USW attempts to assert, appeals to emotion. It is a fact that millions of native Americans were wiped out (assuming disease, etc. were contributors) purposefully and intentionally (genocide). How many millions may be up for debate. Who is most responsible is probably up for debate as well (Churchill makes the argument based on the dates between 1492 and 1890 and includes the Spaniards and Portuguese in the Caribbean). It is a fact that the guy balling hay, or the carpenters or the horseshoe fitters, etc., weren’t at the constitutional convention (never mind slaves) to add their two cents. It is fact that men of wealth did all the talking and the writing and although the document served as a rallying point at a critical time in nation building, it was at the neglect and total indifference to the fact there were people already living here who wanted nothing to do with a constitutional convention, whose land was stolen outright and many of whom were wiped out for their lack of European civilization (in the form of arms).

                It has little to do with guilt. I don’t feel personally guilty either, but I don’t ignore for a second the advantage I know I’ve had for a) being white, b) being brought up in a blue collar neighborhood with a mostly strong work ethic, c) seeing those advantages take root while friends of mine who weren’t white and from severely disadvantaged neighborhoods were cut off for not having those advantages. I can’t imagine how native Americans have felt for having to live on reservations, except I do know the conditions on some of those reservations rival our worst ghettos.

                And it just isn’t a fact that it’s the fault of each individual living under those lousy conditions for not becoming USW, SK or Charlie. We don’t know what it’s like to live like that. And for those of us who did climb out of lousy conditions and broken homes, etc., to deny being white and having that inherent advantage in a country that once treated people of color as chattel (and didn’t let them vote until 1965) is a rather convenient way to ignore the reality of our times.

                And that isn’t a call for absolute welfare for all. I don’t believe in a welfare society. People can pull their own weight under any economic structure. People can be “exceptional” under any political structure. It’s the insistence on nationalism (here I agree with BF regarding anarchy–I just don’t believe it is possible to be totally government free) that generates war and requires the kind of blind faith USW so eagerly espouses.

          • Chaz…. you haven’t been able to destroy a single one of my arguments yet. But keep trying. As yet, all you have done is resort to the ridiculous and then make claims about what you want to believe I think, and then argue against that. You have yet to tackle dealing with what I actually believe.

            • Slam dunked is more like it. Keep drinking the cool-aid, brother. Blind faith was a great rock group (that couldn’t get along beyond 1 album) but it’s a bad policy when it comes to politics and pretty much everything else (why you should probably change the name of the site) …

              • Lol, really? Destruction of an argument requires reason, not claims. The term “facts” gets thrown around a lot, but are too easy to poke holes in or be anecdotal. The real way to handle an argument is to show superior rationale, which I have not seen you do in any argument with USW. You are right about the blind faith thing, please remember it yourself.

          • And you bet I will continue to demonize the unions, specifically their leaders. But I don’t recall having some issue with the workers themselves, other than very vocally protesting those that benefit from unions when they shouldn’t (teachers who suck, for example). This is a prime example of what I said above. Despite what I have actually said about unions, you just make up what you want to believe I said about unions and instead argue against that. While I certainly understand how much easier it is for you to argue against an opponents position when you get to define what their position is regardless of reality, it doesn’t justify you believing you are a sage of any sort. How about another prime example of you making up my position rather than dealing with what I actually say? How convenient that you have presented more than one example in this single post!

            one can only bring up the genocides committed by enemy and/or socialist states (Germany/Russia) … genocide by others are mere fabrications.

            I don’t recall ever once saying that the slaughter of native americans was a fabrication. What I said was that your numbers were not backed up by the vast majority of historical studies (you claim 100+ million, I say it was more likely 20 million at most. That is not me saying that 20 million is OK, it is me once again correcting the emotionally driven facts you choose to “enlighten” us with). More important, my position has been, and continues to be, that regardless of what that history proves to be or not be, it still is not relevant to a discussion of how to fix America today. Now, I understand that you are completely unable to deal with the fact that it isn’t relevant, and thus must instead change my argument to “USW said it is all a fabrication” in order to find a way to argue your point. But it doesn’t make you any closer to winning the argument. And as is the case the vast majority of the time, it certainly doesn’t mean that I am somehow intimidated and refusing to argue with you because I am wrong. I just refuse to play the game using your silly tactic of changing my position to suit your argument.

            • That is not me saying that 20 million is OK, it is me once again correcting the emotionally driven facts you choose to “enlighten” us with).

              There are sources that put the figure at 125 million but because you say it is 20 million (I guess you’re the sage), the 125 million is an “emotionally driven fact(s)” … try reading what you just wrote. Try and comprehend what your arguments always are, my friend. Assumptions and USW comments stated as “facts”.

              This is akin to your “talk(s) to Joe Pa” … whether you read the figure was $20 million and disregarded the higher figures or you waved to Joe Pa as he walked through the gym, somehow what you saw or say is deemed fact … ONLY BY YOU … I haven’t read your name in a single source in either Ward Churchill’s book or anywhere else. You set the figure at 20 million tops.

              You’re a funny guy.

              • USWeapon says:

                There are sources that put the figure at 125 million but because you say it is 20 million (I guess you’re the sage), the 125 million is an “emotionally driven fact(s)” … try reading what you just wrote. Try and comprehend what your arguments always are, my friend. Assumptions and USW comments stated as “facts”.

                See, there you go again making up what my argument was. I said that it was 20 million tops according to the sources I read. In other words, I offered a different set of facts that those you were presenting as the only correct ones. I know it pains you that your boy churchill could be making things up (or not). I never claimed mine were unconditionally correct or not. I just poked small holes in your argument by offering differing facts. Of course in doing so, I obviously was telling everyone that it was OK to kill 20 million in the name of furthering the USA!!! What happened was horrible, but that doesn’t mean I am going to blindly accept anything a propagandist like Churchill offers. He is no different than Michael Moore.

                But yet again you are choosing the argument and espousing a position you proclaim me to have based on what you need it to be. I didn’t say my facts are right so your argument is bunk. I said I didn’t think your facts were right and I read plenty of documentation that argued against Churchill’s numerical claims. More important, I said your point has nothing to do with moving this country forward. How many times are you going to go to the same well on this tactic of changing my position to suit your irrational rants?

                This is akin to your “talk(s) to Joe Pa” … whether you read the figure was $20 million and disregarded the higher figures or you waved to Joe Pa as he walked through the gym, somehow what you saw or say is deemed fact … ONLY BY YOU … I haven’t read your name in a single source in either Ward Churchill’s book or anywhere else. You set the figure at 20 million tops.

                This is about the 20th time you have brought up the Paterno thing. Let’s get something clear. I know it is unfathomable to you that someone may have had the opportunity to meet with the man and have any conversations with him. You have made it clear that you choose to believe I made it all up in my head. That’s fine, it shows your level respect for others that you simply choose to scream liar (or just make snide comments regularly to insinuate such). Now to you and your mindless tantrums, you see it as an awful big coincidence that USW may have known something about a gigantic story that was on SUFA. The reality is that a sports story was on SUFA BECAUSE I know some things about the man and was therefore passionate about the subject. I am sure in your mind he walked around and didn’t speak to anyone. The reality is that if you ran into him on campus, especially when he walked through the dorms (which he did EVERY night during the football season), he would take a few minutes to talk to anyone that talked to him. He was already a legend, I did my best to talk to him when I could.

                Why it is so unfathomable to you that someone could have possibly talked to the guy is beyond me. But each time you bring it up when it has no pertinence to the conversation at hand makes you look more like an jerk, in my opinion. If you want to call me a liar, just do so instead of playing your childish games around the subject. To be honest I could care less what you believe or don’t. Your superficial and uninformed opinion doesn’t play into my world as far as Penn State University is concerned. If you don’t think I knew anything about Paterno, then move on to the next topic and drop it. Be sure to not share anything that matters personally to you here. I would hate to see you ridiculed over it the way you continue to do over the Paterno situation. There are many times when we disagree, but this is one of the few topics where I have actually thought that you are being an asshole about it…

                You’re a funny guy.

                Thanks. Tried stand up comedy once. The crowd didn’t really think so…

                Fortunately, debunking your nonsense is far easier than working a comedy club.

            • And you bet I will continue to demonize the unions

              You’re a true patriot and no doubt, company man, USW. Be proud …

  61. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

    As I read it, this is preparation for nationalizing all defense industries (includes food, fuel, etc.) in the event of a national emergency.

    • justacitizenmt says:

      TRay

      I have never seen an Executive Order written like that. There may be others but I have never seen them.

      It is written as if it were either an Act or a Federal Regulation. In other words, an Executive Order was used to avoid the public input required of CFR’s or Laws passed by Congress.

      As for the meat, I agree. This order and the Act under which it is authorized is a Central Planning and Control mechanism. I am equally concerned that the word “emergency” slips into the EO rather than remaining restricted to National Defense.

    • Found this-only had time to scan it -but it claims this is no big deal-just an update to the original.

      “National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update?
      posted at 10:30 am on March 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

      We’re getting a lot of e-mail this weekend about an executive order issued on Friday afternoon by President Obama titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” While the timing of the EO is curious — why send it out on a Friday afternoon when an administration is usually trying to sneak bad news past the media? — the general impact of it is negligible. This EO simply updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since.

      Let’s start with Friday’s EO:

      Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

      Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

      Sounds dramatic, doesn’t it? This actually matches the language in EO 12919, however, even the part about “in peacetime.” What follows is significantly less dramatic:

      Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

      (a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

      (b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

      (c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

      (d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

      (e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

      Again, this is almost identical to EO 12919 from 18 years earlier. Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.

      Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

      In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.

      Barack Obama may be arrogant, and the timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all.

      Update: It’s worth noting, too, that the second change by Bush to EO 12919 came through an amendment to EO 11858 that eliminated requirements of Cabinet officials to report on attempts by foreigners to invest in “critical technologies” in the US or “industrial espionage activities” targeting defense contractors (Section 801). Obama’s new EO doesn’t reverse that action, either.

      Update II: William Jacobson comes to the same conclusion I do at Legal Insurrection:

      There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.

      I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until someone does more than merely state that martial law is coming, I’ll consider this to be routine.

      Agreed. All the links are above, so if there’s something significant added between this EO and 12919 and the Bush-amended versions of it in 2003 and 2008, point it out. Otherwise, this just restates the Bush-amended 12919 with current Cabinet nomenclature.

      Update III: One commenter notes that Obama has added to Section 201(b) the phrase “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.” In 12919, though, the duties of the Cabinet Secretaries were not limited to emergency situations in Section 201(b), either. And in both EOs, section 102 specifically notes that the EO is intended to ensure defense preparedness “in peacetime and in times of national emergency.”

      Update IV: Section 308 is new, but all it does is delegate authority already granted to the President under US statute. Here’s the EO language:

      Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:

      (a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

      (b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and

      (c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

      And here’s the existing statutory language that originated in the Defense Production Act of 1950 (pardon the formatting):

      (e) Installation of equipment in industrial facilities
      (1) Installation authorized
      If the President determines that such action will aid the national defense, the President is authorized—

      (A) to procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government;

      (B) to procure and install equipment owned by the Federal Government in plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

      (C) to provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under section 301 [section 2091 of this Appendix], 302 [section 2092 of this Appendix], or this section; and

      (D) to sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under this subsection to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

      (2) Indemnification
      The owner of any plant, factory, or other industrial facility that receives equipment owned by the Federal Government under this section shall agree—

      (A) to waive any claim against the United States under section 107 or 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9613); and

      (B) to indemnify the United States against any claim described in paragraph (1) made by a third party that arises out of the presence or use of equipment owned by the Federal Government.

      Again, this is nothing new or outside of existing statutory authority — and the EO makes that clear by explicitly citing that authority. All this does is delegate the authority for these actions to the Cabinet officials. This again is nothing new, just a delegation of existing authority.

      Update V: Gabriel Malor concurs over at AoSHQ.

      http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/

      • Thanks VH, I know that there were certain industries/plants nationalized during WWII and later returned to the civilian owners after the war. So I fully recognize the government reserves that authority in a declared emergency. Where I get suspicious with this administration is that they could manufacture an emergency just to seize control. If the economy keeps improving, the Occupy crowd probably will not be able to generate much traction between now and the election. However, there is always the possibility it could turn ugly thus “necessitating” use of extraordinary means to control the situation. As far as national defense goes, one of our weakest elements is energy. We need energy independence which has been the goal of DOE for 35 yrs. What a dismal failure that has been.

  62. Schools have to supply insurance to their students? Like this author, I thought the mandate only affected employers-but schools don’t employ their students. What schools are included? Are schools subject to a fine if they simply decide it’s better just not to include students? what exactly are the rules ?

    March 18, 2012
    Is Obama caving on, or widening, the contraception mandate?
    Matt C. Abbott

    Leave it to the Obama administration to muddy up the waters even more.

    From a March 16 story at LifeSiteNews.com:

    In a move that is likely to reignite the ire of religious leaders, late Friday afternoon the Obama administration announced a proposal that would require universities, including religious universities, to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their students, as well as their employees, without a co-pay. This appears to significantly widen the originally-announced HHS mandate, which had only applied to employees.

    The White House released the 32-page proposal late Friday afternoon…. Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she found it unusual the announcement came as part of a Friday news dump on the eve of St. Patrick’s Day. ‘I am surprised that such important information would be announced late Friday of St. Patrick’s Day Weekend and as we prepare for the fourth Sunday of Lent,’ she said….

    Well, I, for one, am not surprised. Nor are many others, I’m sure. And, of course, the usual suspects in the abortion industry are delighted to hear of this development.

    Oh, lest I forget … the ever-so-gracious Obama administration is allowing the public to “comment” on the proposal for the next 90 days. How nice.

    Interestingly, the leftist National Catholic Reporter, also on March 16, had a different take on the proposal:

    Taking a conciliatory tone and asking for a wide range of public comment, the Obama administration announced this afternoon new accommodations on a controversial mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in health care plans.

    Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt. Also raised is the possibility that the definition given for religious employers in the original mandate could be changed….

    I would imagine that, in the coming days, we’ll have a clearer idea about what the administration is trying to do here.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/is_obama_caving_on_or_widening_the_contraception_mandate.html#ixzz1pUyomiz3

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      When my kids went to college and grad school, they either had to show proof of insurance (my policy) or the University provided a basic plan at a relatively reasonable cost ( this age and education group are the least likely to get sick). I do not think that meds were ever included.. Could be wrong about that will have to ask the kids see if they remember. .

      • But did they have to supply insurance by government mandate to students?

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Nope, just smarter for them to do. I assume that there were liability issues. Know for a fact as required by the school at NYU, University of Buffalo, St. Joe’s in Philly, Marywood in Scranton.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      From my understanding, this isn’t as big of a change or ‘expansion’ as it is being made out to be. Most (if not all) colleges and universities provide insurance to their students. These insurance policies must include certain minimum requirements — just as insurance policies offered by employers. One of those requirements — and this seems to be the only real change — is to now cover contraception at no additional cost (co-pay) to the insured.

      • There is no such thing as no cost. What you mean is shared cost.

        From my days in college, albeit a coons age ago, the university had a staffed student health center with a small infirmary. Use of the facility was free as far as I remember. I do not remember if prescriptions were free. I only used it twice. The health center was there primarily to control communicable diseases to prevent epidemics in such a densely populated area. My experience with the student health center was such that I preferred going to my family doctor instead, even though I had to pay out of pocket. I do not recall the word insurance coming up with regards to healthcare when I was a student.

        My kids were required to show evidence of being included on my insurance or to purchase university insurance (UC system).

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        It is not free. It was always itemized on the bill which is how I found out about it.

  63. gmanfortruth says:

    Rule of law! Presidential :Executive Orders are not legal orders! They are not laws and cannot be carried out by law enforcement, legally. Thank God!

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

  64. @ SK It was the strength of the individual’s character that got them up off their ass, walking half way across Europe (in my case) and then on a boat never to see their loved ones again to arrive in a place where the language and customs were completely alien to them. That is American exceptionalism.

    I agree, individual character, probably learned from their parents, etc. … and while I TOTALLY agree with you that people have way too much today (whether it be gratis from the government or from their parents), it is also true that what they too much of is a poor substitute for what they might need (i.e., material crap (video games, plasma tv’s, etc.)) vs. a home environment that inspires a work ethic, etc. But my Sicilian and Neopolitan roots, while some of my family was treated pretty bad for being what they were (italians) were not slaves when they came here. They might’ve had to work like slaves for poor wages but they were allowed to own land, business, etc. Big difference. And when generation after generation is treated less than, it probably isn’t so easy to move out of the black hole they find themselves in.

  65. Charlie Stella

    As usual, you spout the narrative of the irrational left without actually checking. Regarding your claim that the “founders” or the “framers” were all wealthy men looking out for the wealthy.

    Also note the “minority” that owned slaves.

    Collective biography of the Framers of the Constitution

    In the winter and spring of 1786–1787, twelve of the thirteen states chose a total of 74 delegates to attend what is now known as the Federal Convention in Philadelphia. Nineteen delegates chose not to accept election or attend the debates; for example, Patrick Henry of Virginia thought that state politics were far more interesting and important than national politics, though during the ratification controversy of 1787–1788 he claimed, “I smelled a rat.” Rhode Island did not send delegates because of its politicians’ suspicions of the Convention delegates’ motivations. As a sanctuary for Baptists, Rhode Island’s absence at the Convention in part explains the absence of Baptist affiliation among those who did attend. Of the 55 who did attend at some point, no more than 38 delegates showed up at one time.[6]

    These delegates represented a cross-section of 18th century American leadership. Almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were leaders in their communities. Many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the American Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental Army, most of them in positions of command. Several of the latter were instrumental in establishing the Society of the Cincinnati in 1783. Scholars have examined the collective biography of them as well as the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution.[7]
    Political experience

    The framers of the Constitution had extensive political experience. By 1787, four-fifths (41 individuals), were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Nearly all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices.[8]

    * Thomas Mifflin and Nathaniel Gorham had served as President of the Continental Congress.
    * The ones who lacked congressional experience were Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Pinckney, Strong, Washington and Yates.
    * Eight men (Clymer, Franklin, Gerry, Robert Morris, Read, Roger Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) had signed the Declaration of Independence.
    * Six (Carroll, Dickinson, Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and Sherman) had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation.
    * Two, Sherman and Robert Morris, signed all three of the nation’s basic documents.
    * Dickinson, Franklin, Langdon, and Rutledge had been governors.

    Occupations and finances

    The 1787 delegates practiced a wide range of high and middle-status occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. They did not differ dramatically from the Loyalists, except they were generally younger and less senior in their professions.[9] Thirty-five had legal training, though not all of them practiced law. Some had also been local judges.[10]

    * At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.
    * Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington and Wilson.
    * Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.
    * Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin, who later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission Society, Hamilton was an officer, and when Jay was governor of New York in 1798 he signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.
    * Broom and Few were small farmers.
    * Eight of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.
    * Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.
    * Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.
    * McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.

    Family and finances

    A few of the 1787 delegates were wealthy, but many of the country’s top wealth-holders were Loyalists who went to Britain. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists.[11]

    • JAC, once again you prove my point. What I just read (your post) shows no slaves took part in the drafting and/or signing, no blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. … what I read was some owned slaves … please point out what I’m missing, my friend. Maybe I’m seeing what I want to see?

      • There is just one minor point which gets in the way of your argument about the framers. You are correct in that while some might not have been considered “rich” they were all well off for the time. My point? That in those days, to be educated required money. That’s just the way it was. So the likelihood that an uneducated man, not familiar with the Enlightenment and philosophical thought would have been at either the Convention or at the Continental Congress is not high. I like to think that Franklin spoke for the common man. Maybe he was only one voice but it was the voice of a self educated, self made man who to this day sets an example. He was not the only self made man there but the most well known.

        In addition these well off, slave owning gents all were taking an incredible risk with the Declaration. Had Washington not been able to get away from Brooklyn that night, these “well off” men, slave owners or not, would have soon have found themselves either in exile or at the end of a rope.

        I still think that the genius of the Constitution was that it allowed changes to be made. Hard to do yet doable.

        • Interesting numbers from Canada on aboriginal populations.

          http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub98-187-x/4151278-eng.htm

          The Canadians tend to have less axes to grind.

          • SK, that link didn’t work for me.

            Try a few of these:

            Some Ward Churchill stuff (for yous) …

            http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=8142&NLID=247#
            http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.11/1columbus.html

            The stuff below the link below is extracted.
            http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/churchill.htm (some of it below)

            The problem in the United States, however, is that minimization or denial of the American Indian holocaust is the OFFICIAL POSITION. There are two ways in which the lie gets put forward. Firstly, there are attempts to undercount the original population of indigenous peoples. Secondly, there are attempts to represent their demise as “inadvertent,” particularly blamed on the spread of diseases to which Indians were tragically immune.

            Hard to argue with this (which are not Churchill’s words but another scholar’s review of one of his books–taking a shot at American socialists): One of the unfortunate features of the American socialist movement is that it has ceded entirely too much to the notion of the United States as a beacon on the hill, or as James Axtell puts it, “a huge nation of law and order and increasingly refined sensibility.” On the contrary, the United States has come into existence by breaking sacred laws and by betraying a sensibility on a par with the SS or Attila the Hun. All the rest is sheer cosmetics

            • http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151278-eng.htm

              Charlie, and others, this should now work.

              • I don’t know, SK. from what I read on this sit eyou used (a state site probably not anxious to deliver the truth–at least I’m suspicious of it), make it look as though the aborginal populations went up … those numbers seem wat below low-balling …

              • Canadians have fewer axes to grind and acknowledged their culpability sooner. I remember a few years ago, I think it was the beloved and formerly rotund Al Sharpton who told us that something like 12 to 16 million Africans went over the side on the voyages from Africa and that, to this day, the sharks still migrate following the path of the slave ships! A lot of folks bought that.

                I really think to get a sense of what the population might have been like you need the services of a whole lot of specialists, epidemiologists, cultural anthropologists, environmentalists, Fish and game experts etc. With slash and burn farming and hunting to extinction the population is really self limiting. I wonder what the numbers are for the nomadic people in Central Asia which resembles our great plains,

            • True but who was different in the past?

              Now when Churchill, talks about a population of perhaps 8,000,000 on the DR/Haiti at the time of Columbus, that is hard to believe.

              • Churchill may well be exaggerating. I really have no clue. I tend to go with his figures for argument sake and believe the higher end numbers for the simple reason (as is so often pointed out here), government sources cannot be trusted under pretty much any circumstance. I mean, it’s not like they haven’t lied to us in the past.

                A little matter of Genocide (the Churchill book I point to) really is a wonderful read (or depressing, depending on how you absorb it). Very insightful (on all matters of genocide for all peoples).

          • The Canadians tend to have less axes to grind.

            Nope, sorry.

            The Canadians tend to have less fewer axes to grind.

            Also, you can never trust Canadians.. what, with their shifty eyes and their hockey and mooses.. err.. meece.. err.. moosi. Yes, that’s it! Moosi!

            • Beer is good though. Charlie will probably treat us all at the next big NYC event. Ehh.

              • Card carrying members only. Come to think of it, SK, we’re two of the very few in here who put up our credentials for the world to see.

                Beers are on me … so long as their domestic and yous ignore me drinking the Becks.

                My biggest event to date was probably in a Jersey City library on a cold February many years ago … back when my wife was still dilusional about the book business and thought we’d take off like Snooki … she insisted on bringing candy and snacks and advertised it … never let it be said the homeless can’t read is all I can say …

        • [That in those days, to be educated required money. That’s just the way it was. So the likelihood that an uneducated man, not familiar with the Enlightenment and philosophical thought would have been at either the Convention or at the Continental Congress is not high. I like to think that Franklin spoke for the common man. Maybe he was only one voice but it was the voice of a self educated, self made man who to this day sets an example. He was not the only self made man there but the most well known.

          Fair enough, except (and it’s a big except or “but” if you will), that doesn’t change the FACT that those without the resources or knowledge or education were spoken “for” (as you put it) rather than they had a voice of their own. Spoken for by one man (Franklin) or a dozen men or two hundred is not the same thing as having their own voice. There’s no doubt they couldn’t do what those who did draft the document could by virtue of their livelihoods (they were probably busy surviving), but I doubt all their concerns were dealt with.

          In addition these well off, slave owning gents all were taking an incredible risk with the Declaration. Had Washington not been able to get away from Brooklyn that night, these “well off” men, slave owners or not, would have soon have found themselves either in exile or at the end of a rope.

          Hats off to their bravery but for whom was the incredible risk taken? Certainly not for the slaves.

          I still think that the genius of the Constitution was that it allowed changes to be made. Hard to do yet doable.

          And it may well be a great document some day. I am not against the document itself but how it has been “interpreted” and because of who does the interpreting. I point out how it was drafted as a simple reminder that not everyone was involved in the process; that the bulk of the population had it handed to them without having a clue what was going on; that the indigenous population was never considered (had to be out of its way, in fact) and that some of the interpretations since its inception has been at the extreme disadvantage of entire races of people. While corrections have been made, those corrections themselves came from on-high (I suspect if the people most affected by the voting rights act for women/blacks were handled by women and blacks, the correction would’ve come a hell of a lot sooner than allowing a ruling class of white men take their time with it). I hope you can see my point here. I’m not trying to be a ball breaker about this.

          A current crisis of interpretation was the supreme court’s decision to permit super pacs … great, like the 1% didn’t have enough of a blatant hold on the government as it was.

          • Everything was timing, the society had to mature to the point where it recognized these things. It is grossly unfair to judge those in the past by current standards and thought processes. Everything constantly evolves (and devolves too). When I do the “Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge”, I do two things, I require that they sit through “1776”. This always results in a discussion on slavery. At the end of the Course, I split the group in half the week before the final meeting and tell them there will be a debate on “independency” judged by the adult scout leaders. One group is to take the British side, the other, the Colonials. At the actual meeting, I have them switch sides. Interesting results, The colonists never have won the debate. “Because” is never an acceptable answer.

            Indigenous populations were never consulted. Still aren’t. Anybody bother asking the Afghans whether they want democracy, woman’s education etc.?

            ” Battle Hymn of the Republic”, …..”As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free”. Eventually, the situation became intolerable. Yes and I know a few other reasons existed too.

            When ever I think of the Revolution, I think of the story of the Marylanders who were our own 300. Arriving literally while the battle was joined, they were asked to cover the retreat which they did, almost to the last man. Their graveyard today? Under an auto body shop on Third Avenue and 9th Street in Park Slope (we have short memories) . They died for an idea, an idea that eventually encompassed everyone.

            • Everything was timing, the society had to mature to the point where it recognized these things. It is grossly unfair to judge those in the past by current standards and thought processes.

              I agree it is unfair to judge … but then why should we “assume” we know what was meant and intended 200+ years ago and then claim “we want our country back” (those who do make such claims). It isn’t an emotional appeal (USW’s never ending mantra) when someone puts forth facts. NO matter the intent (or the century or thought process), it took a long time to rid slavery and even longer to enact voting rights legislation … nor can it be denied what was going on to Native Americans through all this constitutional hoopla.

              Everything constantly evolves (and devolves too). When I do the “Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge”, I do two things, I require that they sit through “1776″. This always results in a discussion on slavery. At the end of the Course, I split the group in half the week before the final meeting and tell them there will be a debate on “independency” judged by the adult scout leaders. One group is to take the British side, the other, the Colonials. At the actual meeting, I have them switch sides. Interesting results, The colonists never have won the debate. “Because” is never an acceptable answer.

              I wish you were one of my early teachers (sincerely). A few teachers made all the difference in the world to my life (ultimately). One was a constitutional history teacher (a lawyer who taught American history evenings at Brooklyn College–he was conservative). A brilliant man I only wish I could thank for his ability to make a course so interesting. I took him twice, never receiving anything above a B and I probably learned more in his classes than in all my other together. I, a union window cleaner and assistant football coach at Brooklyn College at the time, graduated cum laude in Political Science with a dual English major. Advantages several minority friends didn’t have (to be in that particular union, for one–I got the job through family connections).

              Indigenous populations were never consulted. Still aren’t. Anybody bother asking the Afghans whether they want democracy, woman’s education etc.?

              Unfortunately, very true. Does that make it right?

              ” Battle Hymn of the Republic”, …..”As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free”. Eventually, the situation became intolerable. Yes and I know a few other reasons existed too.

              It’s one hell of a bumper sticker, but once again, written prior to the civil war, long after slavery was well in place, and during the wiping out of an indigenous people. It took another 104 years for a voting rights act to pass. Those are some serious negatives I refuse to ignore.

              When ever I think of the Revolution, I think of the story of the Marylanders who were our own 300. Arriving literally while the battle was joined, they were asked to cover the retreat which they did, almost to the last man. Their graveyard today? Under an auto body shop on Third Avenue and 9th Street in Park Slope (we have short memories) . They died for an idea, an idea that eventually encompassed everyone.

              They died, those hard working Marylanders, and they should be honored for their sacrifice (whether they were aware of what was to come or not). This might be classified (by USW) as an emotional appeal. I won’t. I’ll assume it is fact. Fact that is heroic and noble but fact that does little to change the other facts; that it took almost 200 years for one race to vote and that the indigenous population was being wiped out at the same time (before and after) they died. You see my point? I tip my hat to them. But their story changes little, if anything, about the facts of their time.

              • I was re-reading that Canadian source again, very interesting stuff. I had forgotten all about the wars of extermination between the Hurons and Iroquois but what really stuck the second time around was that good population figures probably come from the Catholic missionary’s . There was no percentage in their lying, their purpose was saving souls and conversion. The Jesuit numbers in Canada and probably our Northeast I would trust completely. I would assume that the Franciscans and other orders would have good numbers for Northern Mexico, California and the Southwestern states.

                I would take issues with “high” numbers only because of the difficulty in maintaining a large population in the face of such difficult circumstances. One of the great shocks to me as a kid (during the Davy Crockett phenomena) was discovering what a total SOB Andrew Jackson was. Crockett was a man of his word, Jackson was well, a great model for modern politicians. Jackson running Crockett out of congress says a lot about American politics.

                I happen to agree with you that being born non-white is a disadvantage. I remember discussions with my father over the issue. He had an interesting take no doubt based on the fact that his Bohunk father and other relatives were all aliens and outsiders to the predominantly Irish culture of the coal region of PA in the 1890’s early 1900’s. He felt that these things only lasted until there was assimilation. As the children of these immigrants became Americans, more and more opportunities opened up to them. He came to NY City in the 1930’s and felt that there were better relations between blacks and whites in the city back then than there were in the ’60’s and ’70’s. This was a man who explained to me how he could go to Harlem and the Savoy ballroom anytime he wanted without a problem forty years before. At the time, I , a pretty adventurous guy myself knew I was not particularly welcome south of 155th Street. My father felt that there was a black culture in NY in those days which paralleled white culture. There was no where near enough socialization going on but there was commonality of purpose. In the ’60’s and “70’s he felt that that had been discarded in favor of separatism.

                I am finishing up Victor Davis Hanson’s “Mexifornia” right now, and recommend it highly. He’s roughly my age and was a minority “anglo” in a predominantly Mexican American town in the 1950’s and ’60’s. He has a pretty good take on what worked at the time and what has been sacrificed at the altar of “feel good” and racial or ethnic politics. Another very good, and I mean Very good book about the Black and immigrant experience in NY City in the early 1900’s is “Lost Battalions” by Richard Slotkin. This is a book to savor. In addition to it being a primer on life in the City in minority communities, it ties in the 1st World War and the US Army as reluctant but successful agents for change, at least while the war was on.

    • As usual, you spout the narrative of the irrational left without actually checking. Regarding your claim that the “founders” or the “framers” were all wealthy men looking out for the wealthy.

      Also note the “minority” that owned slaves.

      Looks the irrational left was right again.

      As to the “minority” that owned slaves … i’ll bet that made the slaves REAL happy …

      Your arrogance shines through every time you defend slaveowners …

      • Charlie

        Try to follow your own argument would you please.

        What the slaves “felt” is not relevant to YOUR claims of absolute truth regarding the “founders”.

        It was YOU that claimed that the founders were all rich men looking out for the rich. That they were slave owners and thus should be ignored.

        YOU were WRONG. As usual, the truth is a more complicated and complex thing that you wish to stereotype.

        You say they were all wealthy white men. I point out that some were farmers and tradesmen. That some had many vocations. Your response is “well yeah but nobody was a carpenter, or a black smith, or a slave”.

        Tell me Charlie, why is a Black Man sitting in the “front” of the boat in the famous painting of Washington crossing the Deleware? Were ALL Black Men slaves in the young USA? Did the Constitution prohibit Black Men or Poor Men from voting?

        Good ideas are good ideas Charlie. It matters not who has the idea. Because it is the “concept” that matters, not the man himself.

        • What the slaves “felt” is not relevant to YOUR claims of absolute truth regarding the “founders”.

          It was a sarcastic response to an absurd proposition (yours). It matters not what the FF’s may have thought about slavery if they went ahead with slavery (especially to slaves). Sure it doesn’t matter what they felt if you continue that arrogant line of thinking (i.e., fuck them, they don’t count anyway).

          It was YOU that claimed that the founders were all rich men looking out for the rich. That they were slave owners and thus should be ignored.

          YOU were WRONG. As usual, the truth is a more complicated and complex thing that you wish to stereotype.

          You say they were all wealthy white men. I point out that some were farmers and tradesmen. That some had many vocations. Your response is “well yeah but nobody was a carpenter, or a black smith, or a slave”.

          Yes, as was my original statement, none were carpenters or blacksmiths or slaves. How absurd is your argument here, JAC? Come on, brother, you’re reaching big time. Farmers and tradesmen were landowners. How influential was their EXTREMELY mitigated voice(s)? Obviously, not very, since slavery wasn’t dealt with (that or they were for slavery).

          Tell me Charlie, why is a Black Man sitting in the “front” of the boat in the famous painting of Washington crossing the Deleware? Were ALL Black Men slaves in the young USA? Did the Constitution prohibit Black Men or Poor Men from voting?

          Please don’t tell me you’re arguing that a picture of a black man on a boat suggests equality? Please, please, please don’t tell me that.

          Good ideas are good ideas Charlie. It matters not who has the idea. Because it is the “concept” that matters, not the man himself.

          Good ideas are well and good, but when they are lies, well, that might be another story. The concept matters to the man himself, my friend, not to the poor bastards used as chattel for the next 100+ years …

  66. I am fine with the people running things sans government, that would be BF’s long-term goal, and I am all for it. However, in such a situation, one cannot remove the free market. It would exist between those who wished it to exist, and not between those who don’t. Nothing can force people into socialism or collectivism other than government. Without government, any collectivism would be voluntary, which I have no problem with whatsoever. Voluntary socialism/collectivism/communism works quite well, at least for a while. If, however, the numbers who volunteer drop too low because people leave seeking other goals and opportunities, then the commune falls. That is what happenned to New Haven. I do not despise the ideals of communism (tho I would not personally engage in such a system), so long as it is a voluntary thing only.

    We may have some agreement here, Mr. Smith. Except … once we are operating under a no government system where those who wish to pursue free market and/or socialist, communist lifestyles is underway, those with the gelt (those in the free market who will no doubt rise to the top and rule over their minions, as has ALWAYS been the case) do not get to infringe on those living in other lifestyles (to wit, they don’t get to starve out others for profit–not unless they want to hang from trees). I know Ayn Rand was opposed to violence but it seems to me that edict comes long after violence was used to secure the country (take it from native americans as well as the use of slavery) … so, what’s good for the goose remains … well, you know.

    • Violence in defense is fine. 🙂 If someone trades with you and gain all of their wealth by mutually agreed upon trades, then no violence has happened, to defend against or complain about. If, however, there is an attempt to rule, as in, a free market exists and then those who rose to the top decide to create government, then they elicit violence over those who do not want a government or do not want their form of it. I know in real life the application may not be so simple, but that is the philosophy. Your philosophy is equally peaceful, but when some have more than others because they choose not to follow the philosophy of socialism, the use of violence or government to keep everyone on the path is a probable reaction by those wishing to maintain the system. Unfortanetely, at that point, your system is as violent as you claim mine will be, if not more so.

      Rand is an idealist, so was Marx. In application, however, neither’s ideas are viable in their purest form. The only truly viable idea I have heard was from Jefferson, who expected a revolution every couple generations to keep tyranny at bay and maintain freedom. Of course, even that might not fly in real life, people are not idealistic enough to fight until things get really bad.

      • Jon

        Rand’s philosophy is absolutely viable and results in no violence against the innocent. To many people confuse “possible today” with “possible someday”. I have yet to hear a good argument against its viability or feasibility. Well I should say except the one presented by Black Flag. Because if he is right, even Rand leaves open the door to future corruption by Govt.

        Marx’s philosophy is also possible and REQUIRES violence against the innocent.

        • No, JAC, it is potentially viable, and it is philosophically consistent. It is not, however, necessarily viable.

          Socialism (not sure about Marx’s version specifically) is potentially viable in the short term as a voluntary thing. A voluntary socialist group or commune does not require violence against the innocent. It tends, however, to not last more than a generation, because people that are not committed to the vision tend to not to put in the most they can. However, in smaller groups, like family groups and tribes, socialist-like operations work even in the long term. It tends to be the way old and young are cared for, the old valued for knowledge and the young valued for the future. Production is a group effort, everyone has to pitch in or you are kicked out of the tribe (that is where the philosophical consistency breaks down even among the best socialist examples, not all receive according to their need if they are not contributing). The real issue is that ability and need are both subjective, thus philosophical consistency is impossible. And, in the long term, the inability to pay for all those in need because of the invariably increasing levels of need versus what is being put in, whether because of attitude or numbers of participants. This is why violence ends up being used, because people try to force people to stay that are producing, that are leaving because they are seeing too little benefit to their efforts.

          Pure capitalism in Rand’s specific vision despises charity and is very much survival of the fittest. It requires no violence on the innocent, tho it does not prevent it. It remains consistent with itself, however, it also does not solve many of the problems that people seek to be solved, such as provision for all, prevention of fraud, theft, murder, various forms of violence, bad luck, etc. These things cannot be prevented by anything, they are a part of life, but it opens the door for people to blame and resist the system. The door for corruption remains open, and the potential for consolidation of power also remains. It is more difficult than with most, making it one of the most viable, but it is not protected from it, meaning at some point it will have to be reset, even if it is just back to ground zero. Even in the absence of government, where no authority is, consolidation of wealth becomes the great power. The generations that earn this are not a problem, meaning in the first generation or two Rand’s concept is very viable. The generations that try to hold wealth they inherited rather than earned are usually the corrupt ones, and those who have nothing and have not been taught how to get anything will become more and more opposed to those who do. Human nature causes no system to be fully viable in the sense that it could all fall apart rather easily.

          That said, I agree that it is more viable and allows for more about humanity and safeguards against it than most alternatives. I think what would work better would be a free market, but not one so heartless as Rand’s. The world does not operate the way she envisioned it in Atlas Shrugged. Not that she is too far off, the parallels of that book and today’s government are uncanny. I think I just try to caution people about the holes in any idealistic theory lest we become close minded and lose credibility with those we are trying to convince.

  67. The term “facts” gets thrown around a lot, but are too easy to poke holes in or be anecdotal. The real way to handle an argument is to show superior rationale, which I have not seen you do in any argument with USW. You are right about the blind faith thing, please remember it yourself.

    So, Mr. Smith, explain to me how 10 million is fact and 120 is an emotional appeal, please.

    That particular false argument, unless you’re a moron, could just as easily be made the other way; that 10 million is an emotional appeal to patriotic, flag wavers who can’t stomach the idea of “their” country being challenged; that the 120 million is actually the fact in this case.

    Honestly, sometimes you guys, especially when you jump to the defense of your “weapon” without thinking, are comical. That you claim to use logic and reason makes the joke all the more laughable.

    • I am not saying 10 million is fact and 120 million is emotional. I have reason to suspect both numbers. I am saying that “facts” such as those are easy to throw around, because there is evidence to support either one. Corroboration or supporting evidence does not make them true, however, as it is impossible for both numbers to be true, and very possible for both to be untrue. The use of the number itself is the emotional appeal, as you pointed out in a previous post when you accused USW of being ok with the smaller number. The fact that you are clinging to the larger figure so much shows more that you are concerned with the number than USW. The problem is the philosophy that lead to killing, not the number of people killed. Manifest Destiny is an evil concept. Authoritarian control and use of force and genocide to maintain control is also evil. The former occcurred in a free society but is not part of the philosophy of freedom, the latter occurred in a communistic society but is not part of communistic philosophy. Which killed the most is irrelevant, both deviations were murderous. Both were based on blind faith and nationalism. The only difference is that Manifest Destiny was not used to enforce freedom, it was a seperate line of thought that had nothing to do with the constitution or anything like that. The attrocities committed by Stalin, Lenin, et al were, on the other hand, directly tied to making everyone live under in a communist society. Communism at its heart does not require violence, but in every case I know of, to get people to go along with it on a national level force must be used.

      • John, take a look at the Canadian numbers I came across above. If in fact their populations were that small, they did not stand a prayer. Food for thought.

        http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151278-eng.htm

      • The use of the number itself is the emotional appeal, as you pointed out in a previous post when you accused USW of being ok with the smaller number. The fact that you are clinging to the larger figure so much shows more that you are concerned with the number than USW.

        I explained why I use the larger number in a response to SK. I don’t cling to it. No more than USW claims to have researched and clings to the lowball number. Churchill is fighting an uphill battle, hundreds of years of propaganda to distill what actually happened in the Americas. Surely you can understand how propaganda works. Isn’t it amazing how over time the stats go up instead of down? If not amazing, how about suspicious? It was first thought less than 1 million inhabited North America.

        Communism at its heart does not require violence, but in every case I know of, to get people to go along with it on a national level force must be used.

        Only if you accept the propaganda tossed at us since childhood. Cuba, for example. I doubt there are numbers that reflect how many Cubans were jailed for political reasons under Batista (the ones that weren’t exploited as field workers for American interests (to include the mob) prior to Castro.

        • Churchill is fighting more than propoganda, he is fighting logistics. Technological and cultural aspects of the native tribes make the numbers he is talking about hard to believe. Regardless, what happened in North America was an attrocity.

          So, because another leader was bad, it makes the new bad leader less bad? How does that work? You can point out corruption all over the place, there is no utopia there never has been and there never will be. We are talking philosophy and ideology, not taking potshots at individuals. Almost all of the attrocities in history have been committed by government or religion. At least all of the big ones. This is why I am opposed to authoritarians, regardless of their ideology. If government is your solution or your means of reaching you idealistic goals, then I oppose you. Consolidation of power, particularly authoritative power, is dangerous and evil.

  68. For USW:

    I just poked small holes in your argument by offering differing facts. Of course in doing so, I obviously was telling everyone that it was OK to kill 20 million in the name of furthering the USA!!! What happened was horrible, but that doesn’t mean I am going to blindly accept anything a propagandist like Churchill offers. He is no different than Michael Moore.

    Why not, you blindly accept anything Pro-America. I’d ask you again why the name of this site is STAND UP FOR AMERICA but what’s the point? You’ll point out how much I’m like Keith O or Ward Churchill or Michael Moore and all us other “libtards”?

    What happened was horrible. Next? What a convenient way to ignore your saviour (Ayn Rand)’s philosophy about taking property via violence. You poke holes in your entire philosophy a hundred times a day, my friend … if not more.

    This is about the 20th time you have brought up the Paterno thing. Let’s get something clear. I know it is unfathomable to you that someone may have had the opportunity to meet with the man and have any conversations with him. You have made it clear that you choose to believe I made it all up in my head.

    Actually, it’s about the 3rd or 4th but increasing numbers is as good an “appeal to emotion” as all your nonsensical arguments. And I never claimed you were lying when you said you met Joe Pa, USW (me thinks you’re a little sensitive about that). I merely pointed out the following: SO WHAT? You suggested your conversation let you “know the man” in ways some of us couldn’t. I have no doubt you said hello to Joe Pa and he may’ve stopped and chatted with you for half an hour or more (maybe 10 hours) but what that had to do with what he did (and was fired for) were as relevant as my once being a loanshark (i.e., it means nada … squat).

    Thanks. Tried stand up comedy once.

    Now this I would pay to see.

    Be sure to not share anything that matters personally to you here. I would hate to see you ridiculed over it the way you continue to do over the Paterno situation.

    I think I’m pretty open about my past, brother. For one thing, I use my name and don’t hide behind nicknames (although my actual name on my actual birth certificate is Carmelo–but my parents were fearful that our Italian roots would hurt us growing up in this fair and decent land of opportunity so they didn’t speak Italian in front of us or use our given names).

    • Believe it or not, I use my real name too. Technically, its Jonathan, not Jon, but Jon is used enough that it is a legal alias of mine according to my IRS records.

    • USWeapon says:

      @Charlie

      Why not, you blindly accept anything Pro-America. I’d ask you again why the name of this site is STAND UP FOR AMERICA but what’s the point? You’ll point out how much I’m like Keith O or Ward Churchill or Michael Moore and all us other “libtards”?

      I most certainly do NOT blindly accept anything Pro-America. That is a blatantly false claim. I would tell you again that the name of the site is meant to be standing up for what America was meant to be, the freedom and liberty that were in its ideals, even though not in its practice. But you are right, what’s the point? You will only later claim whatever you want to claim that I believe or what the name of the site means, so it matters not what I tell you I believe or what the site’s name means. Oh, I don’t think that you are generally like Keith or Michael Moore. Just that every now and then you channel some of their traits, same as I sometimes put my foot in my mouth like idiots such as Rush…

      What happened was horrible. Next? What a convenient way to ignore your saviour (Ayn Rand)’s philosophy about taking property via violence. You poke holes in your entire philosophy a hundred times a day, my friend … if not more.

      Ayn Rand is not my savior. I agreed with some of her philosophy, but not all of it. I thought the book was great, even if it was a vast oversimplification of the concepts of free men and the tyranny of governments like what you seem to embrace.

      Further, what happened next was horrible…. what else do you want Charlie? Do you want me to say that freedom and liberty are horrible concepts because the men who wrote the founding documents did bad things? Not gonna happen. It appears that this is your belief though: that the concepts espoused in the founding of America were somehow wrong because of the poor implementation, poor choices, and selective application done by men 250 years ago. As I continue to say, I agree they were flawed men who didn’t come close to living up to the rhetoric that they wrote. That doesn’t mean the ideals they wrote down were wrong. It merely means they are hypocrites. That these men were hypocrites doesn’t shake my belief that freedom and liberty are paramount. That these men were hypocrites apparently is reason enough for you to proclaim that the concepts written were flawed. THAT is a horribly flawed argument for you to make. I know you are smart enough to see that. So tell me where I am wrong in how I view what you are saying….

      Actually, it’s about the 3rd or 4th but increasing numbers is as good an “appeal to emotion” as all your nonsensical arguments.

      Oh perhaps 20 is exaggerating. I was initially going to say the millionth time. But it has been quite a few more than 3 or 4.

      And I never claimed you were lying when you said you met Joe Pa, USW (me thinks you’re a little sensitive about that). I merely pointed out the following: SO WHAT? You suggested your conversation let you “know the man” in ways some of us couldn’t. I have no doubt you said hello to Joe Pa and he may’ve stopped and chatted with you for half an hour or more (maybe 10 hours) but what that had to do with what he did (and was fired for) were as relevant as my once being a loanshark (i.e., it means nada … squat).

      No you never came out and said liar. I gave a detailed answer as to the fact that I had a few discussions with him. You subsequently have on many occasions referred to it as waving across the gym or whatever, a clear insinuation. So yes, I am a little sensitive to it. However you are WRONG when you claim that it has nothing to do with the discussion we were having. Go back and look at that original article and the ensuing discussions. What I said was that the conversations gave some small insight to his character. And based on that insight I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until all the facts came out, because I didn’t believe that what I knew of his character (however little that may be) didn’t jive with the claims being made about him. As you recall (or choose not to recall), this is the very paragraph that I wrote concerning what “I know about Joe Paterno”:

      Joe Paterno has for 46 years ran the cleanest football program in the country. He doesn’t cheat. He doesn’t lie. He doesn’t take shortcuts. He would rather lose the right way than win the wrong way. How many people in your life do you know whom you can truly say that about? He was the epitome of everything that is right in college athletics. his integrity is beyond reproach. These aren’t the ravings of a Paterno “Fan Boy”. These are the observations of someone who gained a small insight into who he was.

      Don’t forget that what I asked for was for the media to wait until all the facts came out. The small insight that I had told me he had more integrity than what was being laid at his feet. That you fail to see the relevance is sad. I guess you have never had the ability to glean any level of insight to who a person is by having a discussion with them. I didn’t claim my small insight exonerated him, I claimed they gave me enough to not believe that he would let something like this go without doing the right thing. Was I right or wrong, I guess perhaps we will never know now. But for you to fail to see the relevance is frightening….

      Thanks. Tried stand up comedy once.

      Now this I would pay to see.

      Well, apparently you were one of the very few…..

      I think I’m pretty open about my past, brother. For one thing, I use my name and don’t hide behind nicknames

      Is that another clandestine shot insinuating that those of us who choose to not use our names are somehow less open or dishonest? I am not foolish enough to put my name in places where it can easily be tied to political discourse. In today’s America, you can easily lose a job, or a job opportunity, based on what you believe. That, my canoli loving friend, is called discretion, not “hiding behind nicknames”. I can appreciate that you are willing to risk it and put your name out there. I have seen too many people get burned to do so myself. I am not hiding, just being righteously cautious.

      • Fair enough discussion, USW. I’ll address it over the next day or so. Have to get ready for work. Saw this one late. Will respond.

      • A civil response for USW:

        that the name of the site is meant to be standing up for what America was meant to be, the freedom and liberty that were in its ideals, even though not in its practice

        A fair acknowledgement.

        Just that every now and then you channel some of their traits, same as I sometimes put my foot in my mouth like idiots such as Rush…

        Now we’re talking fair. Good starting point.

        Ayn Rand is not my savior. I agreed with some of her philosophy, but not all of it. I thought the book was great, even if it was a vast oversimplification of the concepts of free men and the tyranny of governments like what you seem to embrace.

        I only seem to embrace the tyranny of governments if you accept the propaganda that’s been shoveled to reaffirm what this country requires others to believe to continue the exploitation of its citizens (especially those without, a number that increases daily). But, okay, another fair point.

        Further, what happened next was horrible…. what else do you want Charlie? Do you want me to say that freedom and liberty are horrible concepts because the men who wrote the founding documents did bad things? Not gonna happen. It appears that this is your belief though: that the concepts espoused in the founding of America were somehow wrong because of the poor implementation, poor choices, and selective application done by men 250 years ago.

        I answered this with SK and hope to clarify it one last time here. I point to the frailty of FF’s for a reason (and it has little to do with them being slave owners if you read between the lines). Too often the worship of the document here (America in general, not just SUFA) ignores the intrinsic failures of the same document. When I point at the men of wealth who had everything to do with its drafting and acceptance, I do so for the sake of those the document failed to protect. Therefore, when it is used as a (or the) foundation of an argument, I am foolish not to point to its negatives. Great concept, yes, I agree. And it may prove to itself out some day, but in the meantime, so long as all men are not created equal (gays, for instance, cannot marry in several states, etc.), so long as the money that is permitted to use the document for its own protection (Supreme Ct. decisions, the most recent of which, allowing Super Pacs to rule the political spectrum), it does not protect the little guys. Therefore, the document is fine so long as it is practiced. So is the communist manifesto and what most in the American communist party believe (I am not a member because they espouse anti-violence and I believe sometimes violence is required). I will continue to point out the FF’s themselves (the men) frailties so long as their “intentions” to end slavery are pointed out. I will continue to attack the document itself so long as inequality exists. I mean, it has been 200+ years now and it’s still not doing its job (in my opinion, because the wealth that sustains it, does what it wants with it).

        As I continue to say, I agree they were flawed men who didn’t come close to living up to the rhetoric that they wrote. That doesn’t mean the ideals they wrote down were wrong. It merely means they are hypocrites. That these men were hypocrites doesn’t shake my belief that freedom and liberty are paramount.

        Nor should it shake your beliefs, but likewise, their hypocrisy doesn’t get to be overlooked, especially when counter arguments against socialism constantly point to the 20 million killed, etc. … especially when millions (to avoid a specific numbers argument) were killed here as well.

        That these men were hypocrites apparently is reason enough for you to proclaim that the concepts written were flawed. THAT is a horribly flawed argument for you to make. I know you are smart enough to see that. So tell me where I am wrong in how I view what you are saying….

        See above, that was not my intent. I “think” you jumped the gun and took offense to my assumptions (as I often take offense at yours). Fair enough.

        Oh perhaps 20 is exaggerating. I was initially going to say the millionth time. But it has been quite a few more than 3 or 4.

        Now isn’t exaggeration a form of playing to an emotional argument? We’re both guilty, I guess.

        No you never came out and said liar. I gave a detailed answer as to the fact that I had a few discussions with him. You subsequently have on many occasions referred to it as waving across the gym or whatever, a clear insinuation. So yes, I am a little sensitive to it. However you are WRONG when you claim that it has nothing to do with the discussion we were having. Go back and look at that original article and the ensuing discussions. What I said was that the conversations gave some small insight to his character. And based on that insight I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until all the facts came out, because I didn’t believe that what I knew of his character (however little that may be) didn’t jive with the claims being made about him. As you recall (or choose not to recall), this is the very paragraph that I wrote concerning what “I know about Joe Paterno”:

        Joe Paterno has for 46 years ran the cleanest football program in the country. He doesn’t cheat. He doesn’t lie. He doesn’t take shortcuts. He would rather lose the right way than win the wrong way. How many people in your life do you know whom you can truly say that about? He was the epitome of everything that is right in college athletics. his integrity is beyond reproach. These aren’t the ravings of a Paterno “Fan Boy”. These are the observations of someone who gained a small insight into who he was.

        And I think I stated I was a big fan of Paterno as well … but what happened with Sandusky kind of impeaches your argument that you gained some insight into the man. Yes, Joe gave his life to PS and probably as best as he could, but his inability to take the hit on Sandusky (as early as 2002, it appears) was (and will remain) a great stain on his reputation. I can actually understand why he chose to ignore what he did, but understand why he did so doesn’t change the fact he permitted Sandusky to have his way with kids for another 9-10 years. My point was your insight was as relevant as mine (and I NEVER met the man). Again, nobody questions Joe Pa’s decency (or yours), but doing what was legally correct (something you pointed to repeatedly) was not the right thing to do for a man in his position. You even went so far as to suggest Joe Pa wasn’t Penn State. He was. Very few people anywhere doubt that. He was bigger than the institution until he brought it shame they couldn’t shake.

        Don’t forget that what I asked for was for the media to wait until all the facts came out. The small insight that I had told me he had more integrity than what was being laid at his feet. That you fail to see the relevance is sad. I guess you have never had the ability to glean any level of insight to who a person is by having a discussion with them. I didn’t claim my small insight exonerated him, I claimed they gave me enough to not believe that he would let something like this go without doing the right thing. Was I right or wrong, I guess perhaps we will never know now. But for you to fail to see the relevance is frightening….

        See above … you defended his doing what was legally acceptable. He didn’t do the right thing, there’s no doubt about that.

        Well, apparently you were one of the very few…..

        Remember, I pay to see my beloved new york state buffalo bills, too …

        Is that another clandestine shot insinuating that those of us who choose to not use our names are somehow less open or dishonest? I am not foolish enough to put my name in places where it can easily be tied to political discourse. In today’s America, you can easily lose a job, or a job opportunity, based on what you believe. That, my canoli loving friend, is called discretion, not “hiding behind nicknames”. I can appreciate that you are willing to risk it and put your name out there. I have seen too many people get burned to do so myself. I am not hiding, just being righteously cautious.

        No clandestine shots from me, USW. I can absolutely agree with you (and respect your decision to keep your name to yourself) on this one because I’ve known it to happen. I was a bit of a pariah in the crime writing community when I voted for (and defended) Bush twice. I have since sustained my reputation because I refuse to lick the balls of the democratic party (I probably dislike them a bit more than the GOP because I am so fundamentally opposed to a free market that it bothers me more when a party tries to align itself with the “little guy” and then pisses on him/her with a smile on its face).

        And let’s face it, I sustain the angst aimed my way because I’m a professional ball breaker (you couldn’t survive casa Stella growing up without being one) so there’s some animosity toward me for that as well … but I do love my cannoli …

        I do know people who were fired for FB comments, etc. Maybe they need a union?

  69. Charlie Stella

    If we are NOT to Stand Up for America, then what?

    Stand Down for America?

    Tear Down America?

    Spit on America?

    Piss on America?

    Frack America?

    Have you stopped hating America yet?

    • Hear, hear! sorry Charlie.

    • Anita, my love. No problem.

      JAC can’t imagine trying to IMPROVE America. And you can’t improve anything until you admit there were and are mistakes.

      Treating some of those mistakes as inconveniences isn’t dealing with them, but that’s the only way JAC, USW and the like can proceed; as if nothing that happened 200 years ago (not in in 1965) EXCEPT their worship of a very flawed document (it’s okay that it was written 200+ years ago for their purposes). I think JAC & USW know I don’t hate America. I’m just not buying the Madison Avenue version of America. They have to.

      LIke I said, JAC, STANT UP FOR THE TRUTH would lend a little more credibility to your cause.

      • Charlie Stella

        “JAC can’t imagine trying to IMPROVE America.” Given my commentary on SUFA that is a pretty “stupid” comment.

        “And you can’t improve anything until you admit there were and are mistakes.” Not true. But that aside, show me where in “my words” I have not admitted to past mistakes of the USA.

        “Treating some of those mistakes as inconveniences isn’t dealing with them, ..” Show me where in “my words”, not yours, that I have ever claimed such mistakes as nothing but an “inconvenience”.

        “but that’s the only way JAC, USW and the like can proceed; as if nothing that happened 200 years ago (not in in 1965) EXCEPT their worship of a very flawed document” Two parts: First show me where I have ever denied anything that actually happened 200 years ago. What I have denied is your flawed proposition that a “Genocide” was committed against the Indians. I have never denied that they were killed and in some cased murdered. Second, show me where I have ever indicated a “worship” of the Constitution. Let me remind you of my article about Where the Founders Went Wrong.

        “LIke I said, JAC, STANT UP FOR THE TRUTH would lend a little more credibility to your cause.” Show me where I have denied Truth. It is YOU who can’t stand the truth Charlie. You only accept rhetoric that supports your preconceived notions of the world around you. You are one of those rare birds who could find evil against some group in the existence of a mushroom.

        • Treating some of those mistakes as inconveniences isn’t dealing with them, ..” Show me where in “my words”, not yours, that I have ever claimed such mistakes as nothing but an “inconvenience”.

          I’ll ignore the “stupid” comment. Why? Becuase you’re a dope. 🙂

          You have a way of brushing off the inconveniences of american expansionism here on the homeland that sugests you’re a bit nonchalant about what happened. Sort of: We won, they lost, move on …

          I don’t have the time to go through every post here to prove anything to you, my man. Life is too short. I will in the future though.

  70. Charlie Stella

    By the way, here is the skinny on the Black Man in the boat with George Washington.

    “Like the character said to be James Monroe, the rower by Washington’s knee, who is a person of color, is said to be a man named Prince Whipple. Though Prince Whipple was an African who served in the Revolution, there is no documentation to state that Prince Whipple was present at the crossing. There were many people of color present at the crossing as the Marbleheader unit from Massachusetts was a well integrated group of seafaring men. They took the lead role in rowing General Washington and his troops across the River.”

    Oh my, an African who served in the Revolution. An “integrated” crew of “Marbleheaders” who took the lead in rowing the boats across the river.

    Wonder why the painter depicted a Native American Indian as the one handling the “rudder” of George Washington’s boat?

    • Wow, that was fast … how beneficient of you to point out the above. You do realize there was slavery in the country for another 90+ years and that the guy on the tip of the boat couldn’t vote unitl 1965?

      Or are those facts appealing to emotions?

      Now, tell me honestly. Was your point “stupid” or what?

      🙂

      • ATTN: Charlie, US, Jon, VH, Anita and everybody else.

        “Like most other Americans we saw the McCarthy era, Jim Crow, and the sexual chauvinism that affected the country in the early 1960’s as symptoms of imperfection in the human condition, but curable with work and patience. We were not tempted to believe that there were better answers in other systems elsewhere None looked to Cuba for tolerance of dissent, to China for racial equity or to the third world generally for gender parity.”

        ” The only thing that made us Americans different from other people, we were taught was our singular Constitution and democratic creed. which provided a framework for moral evolution. . The promulgation of such a pragmatic ideology relieved us from the ethical posturing that would overtake the campuses, or any bloody effort to ram equality and fraternity down the throats of our countrymen with the barrel of a gun. So we looked back at the bad moments of American History for signs of amelioration not for evidence that we must become revolutionaries. And we did not inflate our own moral pretensions by depreciating our ancestors on the frontier who lacked our material bounty and technological safety net, but often possessed physical courage and strength that we did not”.

        ” I know from my children that today’s students see a different picture . They focus on dismal failure in the American experience where we once saw progress. We appreciated the slow struggle of politics and culture to trump universal human pathology. Now they are taught that bourgeois liberalism creates a particular American malevolence not found in other cultures and nations.”

        “The victories of WW 2, the reconstruction of Europe, the containment of homicidal communism and the painful effort to ensure racial and sexual equality of opportunity here at home would have been impossible without an America sure of what it was and aware of what it had to do. Yet the self confidence that taught values to the immigrant has nearly vanished from our schools.”

        Victor David Hanson , “Mexifornia”, pgs. 100-101

        There you go, he said it better and certainly shorter than I would and has Academic credentials too! Really excellent book.

        • “Like most other Americans we saw the McCarthy era, Jim Crow, and the sexual chauvinism that affected the country in the early 1960′s as symptoms of imperfection in the human condition, but curable with work and patience.

          SK, I’ll remind you there were riots in the streets, entire sections of cities burned to the ground, a lot of dead (mostly minorities). Work and patience? Really?

          We were not tempted to believe that there were better answers in other systems elsewhere None looked to Cuba for tolerance of dissent, to China for racial equity or to the third world generally for gender parity.”

          I’ll submit to you that it’s propaganda like this (some of it true, some of it blatantly false) that kept us from looking elsewhere (and continues to keep us from looking elsewhere for possible better solutions).

          ” The only thing that made us Americans different from other people, we were taught was our singular Constitution and democratic creed. which provided a framework for moral evolution.

          Pay attention USW; this is what I meant in my civil response to you last night. So long as the constitution is held up as something to worship, I will attack it as a vehicle for those with the power to wield it over others. Our we morally evolved? Morality is something for each of us to judge on his or her own. I see little morality in what continues to go on here (gays not being able to vote; poverty that is ignored (not just in big cities)), etc. An ever widening gap while those at the top proffer without having to bend at the waist. Not to mention (and here really pay attention) how that constitution came to be, at the expense of an entire indigenous population.

          . The promulgation of such a pragmatic ideology relieved us from the ethical posturing that would overtake the campuses, or any bloody effort to ram equality and fraternity down the throats of our countrymen with the barrel of a gun. So we looked back at the bad moments of American History for signs of amelioration not for evidence that we must become revolutionaries. And we did not inflate our own moral pretensions by depreciating our ancestors on the frontier who lacked our material bounty and technological safety net, but often possessed physical courage and strength that we did not”.

          I’m trying to swallow that one without gagging. Tough to do (for obvious reasons).

          ” I know from my children that today’s students see a different picture . They focus on dismal failure in the American experience where we once saw progress. We appreciated the slow struggle of politics and culture to trump universal human pathology. Now they are taught that bourgeois liberalism creates a particular American malevolence not found in other cultures and nations.”

          Are those left behind supposed to be satisfied with the slow struggle of politics and culture. Would you have been were you black or native American? Or born in the Ozarks? You don’t know so please don’t answer that one. Trust me, none of us knows. As to what kids today turn to (assuming you mean college educated students, etc.), is what was shielded from us in the past (i.e., that Cuba’s adult population is at the top of the list worldwide; that Cuba’s medical situation is rated above ours … that we’ve lost “our” standing in the world on several issues (not to mention education). The one good thing about education (whether you believe it is an indoctrination or not), is the availability of information so we don’t have to swallow a picture of a black man on the front of GW’s boat crossing the Delaware and DELUDE ourselves (JAC) about what that really meant/means to those who would be in bondage for another 90+ years (and not be able to vote for another 190+). JAC (and whoever gets chills (like the ones Chris Matthews gets from Obama) from the picture, it was painted that way for people like you … I’d call them (you) suckers …

          “The victories of WW 2, the reconstruction of Europe, the containment of homicidal communism and the painful effort to ensure racial and sexual equality of opportunity here at home would have been impossible without an America sure of what it was and aware of what it had to do. Yet the self confidence that taught values to the immigrant has nearly vanished from our schools.”

          Homicidal communism … as opposed to homicidal capitalism? Funny he never mentions how “we” wiped out an indigenous population or specifically speak to slavery as anything more than something our constitution was able to “provide(d) a framework for moral evolution”.

          Sorry, SK, this only goes to further confirm my belief in the arrogance of America (why, perhaps, we still think we can nation build across the globe).

          • Error, gays not being able to marry in several states (light example, obviously) …

          • Read the whole book. Last paragraph refers to the fact that without knowing, What America is or is supposed to be the next uneducated generation will be able to overcome nothing. Yes, there were riots in the streets, Newark, Detroit and parts of Chicago were decimated and have still not recovered. What exactly did that accomplish for the people who lived there? Most places have not seen a supermarket since. Gandhi always fascinated me, he accomplished a whole lot more without burning anything down. I felt that Malcolm and Dr. King were on the same road, a road that ultimately succeeds with a much better outcome for all. Let’s be honest here, the changes wrought in the ’60’s from the end of the War to civil rights, to gender rights were brought about through non-violence. The society had matured.

            My quote is , “It doesn’t matter what we were, nor even what we are, what matters is what we will be”.

            Let us not get sidetracked into homicidal communism or gay marriage. The communist body count is not a guess and still goes on and while I have and always will support equality of opportunity for everyone I will not allow the use of the word marriage. I consider that an affront to my rights, any other word, phrase or symbol you want is fine by me but as I pointed out before, it ain’t marriage.

            The 17 year old shot in Florida has nothing to do with anything. The shooter is apparently a Hispanic made conveniently “white” for the occasion. In most instances he would not be so identified. In a population of over 300 million, this type of thing will happen. This was not a cop, although they are at least as prone to overact and certainly not government policy. Growing up in the heights in the ’50, I can think of more than one incident where a “threatening” white youth was shot by a cop and a particular one, around the corner from me, where a rather stupid 17 year old took a shot at a cop, was then cornered on a rooftop on W. 172nd street and as they say, jumped or fell to his death. In another case, in the Dinkins administration I had the bad luck of knowing both the cop and victim’s family in a situation where a 17 year old was throwing bottles during a riot, was chased by the cop to a rooftop and fell while leaping from one roof to another. The officer was black, the kid a Dominican. This was a beat cop I had known for years who was about the fairest man I ever knew. I know the family’s opinion ( his sister was married to one of my superintendents) of him and what happened but I chalk it up to stupid act, wrong time, wrong place. There is not a single one of us out there who did not do something incredibly stupid, dangerous and possibly illegal when we were 17. let the jury decide.

      • Charlie

        How do you know if the guy in the boat could vote or ever voted?

  71. Perhaps as a more “emotional” rebuttal (which happens to be fact–it happened, FEbruary 26 in Florida) … a 17 year old black kid carrying ice tea and skittles is shot dead (fact) … he was carrying a cell phone (fact) … the rest is alleged but if it’s true/fact, it goes a long way to just how impatient some might be for that evolution of morality. His father didn’t know where the kid was for 3 days … he made several calls to the kid’s cell phone … the cops in Florida drug tested the corpse (not the shooter) … no arrest is made.

    This will turn some heads here, I’m sure, but what if the shooter was black and the 17 year old a white kid? Do any of you really think the above is how this would have been handled.

    The shame is the Sharpton (I won’t forgive him for TAwana Brawley) gets to be an opportunist on this one but the cause is just … very just. It is yet another slap in the face to a community that has been getting slapped for a long-ass time.

  72. @ SK (No disrespect here, brother … just discussing).

    Yes, there were riots in the streets, Newark, Detroit and parts of Chicago were decimated and have still not recovered. What exactly did that accomplish for the people who lived there?,

    Not the point, SK. Why were they rioting? Gandhi’s approach would never work in the U.S. too much for those in power to lose.

    Let’s be honest here, the changes wrought in the ’60′s from the end of the War to civil rights, to gender rights were brought about through non-violence. The society had matured.

    The society had been embarrassed on worldwide television is more like it. Surely you don’t forget the Dem convention, etc. … add that to the riots (peace movement) and the U.S. became combustible.

    Let us not get sidetracked into homicidal communism or gay marriage.

    So long as you don’t defend homicidal capitalism, I’m fine with that aspect … as to gay marriage, oh boy, I have a HUGE issue with that one.

    I will not allow the use of the word marriage. I consider that an affront to my rights, any other word, phrase or symbol you want is fine by me but as I pointed out before, it ain’t marriage.

    How do I put this politely? Tough noogies. What gives you the “right” to deny someone else a man made law?

    The 17 year old shot in Florida has nothing to do with anything.

    Me thinks you’re seeing the world through blinders, SK.

    In a population of over 300 million, this type of thing will happen. This was not a cop, although they are at least as prone to overact and certainly not government policy. Slavery wasn’t government policy either (an extreme example, but true nonetheless).

    Oy vey … I guess you don’t see a mindset in any of this; a predetermined (via culture) mindset to see a black kid as a criminal. Thank you for making my argument (regarding government policy). No, it is not, but if you don’t think the mindset has pervaded (racism), I think you’re choosing not to see it. It’s there. Probably always will be. And, yes, it works both ways … black vs. white; white vs. black … the exception being one race was enslaved, the other not; one race was demonized, the other not.

    And let’s not forget the guy whacked in Oakland last year (Oscar Grant) … while he was handcuffed, face down on the ground with two cops holding him there. Shot in the back (so much for “not a cop” … it was a cop who shot him).

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Gandhi’s approach will work in a civilized society, not in a barbaric one. the Brits, had one hell of a lot to lose, a lot more than we ever did and had not ever been exactly passive in resisting rebellion (ask the Irish) and yet, the society was civilized enough to understand the time had come. The Soviets took a lot longer (ask the Hungarians) and the Chinese are still at it, (ask the Tibetans). The ME is hopeless, ask the Syrians and everyone else. Years ago I broke with anyone who wanted a violent revolution or preached revolutionary theology. First you try the easy way then the hard if you have to. This Revolutionary Marxist bullshit is neither attractive nor does it result in anything other than a set up for the next bloodbath. Hey, don’t you ever watch “Twilight Zone” reruns?

      Yep, and there was that white marine just back from Iraq, I believe also in Oakland who was shot by the white cop three times for no reason a year or two ago. Just finished an interesting piece on black on black crime which pointed out that with 12 % of the population (and falling) thanks to abortion, blacks are responsible for 45% of the crime. Admittedly a lot is drug related which is becoming more and more of a joke. Piece in Army Times a few weeks back about some ACLU type outfit going bonkers over the number of blacks given Death Sentences in the military. We can argue forever about the reasons why the crimes were committed and some I find valid, but the fact is they were committed far out of proportion to the population numbers. Saw an old Eric Holder clip on Fox this morning where, long before he was AG he was saying how they had to refocus black youth away from gun culture. As long as you have Crips and Bloods substituting for fathers (thank you yet again LBJ for your Great Society) , you got a problem. And that is a fact Jack!

      Re marriage, I am offended. How bout that, maybe I have the right to be offended by the use of an improper word. Maybe I can be insulted and find that my 38 year old marriage is being demeaned, maybe I can go cry somewhere and whine until I get my way. That would make me a modern American. Below is a good recommended read from the back of the SUFA site from years ago. Of course you will disagree with the conclusions but they are as valid as the other side and part of the debate.

      You were the one who pointed out it was a white guy, it wasn’t, just some local yokel with a gun. Does not bring the kid back but throw the book at him, he deserves it. The ownership/carrying/using of a gun involves taking responsibility. He apparently blew it, if so, let him pay the price. What was that Bronx case a few years back, Amadou Diallo, the fake, phony African refugee who was shot 19 times by four cops (41 shots fired) . They were out looking for a really bad dude. Had a ball out here in NJ with my local friends who just could not understand how such a thing could have happened, how when Mr. Diallo went for his wallet/cell phone the cops could have mistaken that for an aggressive action. They have never been on the 1100 block on Wheeler Avenue, off Watson at night. I have. Makes all the difference in the world.

      http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf

%d bloggers like this: