Memorial Day

somegave

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Enjoy the holiday folks! 🙂

  2. Just A Citizen says:
  3. This is nuts, so every time the census comes out we are assured of a new court case, because the rules are incomprehensible.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/30/why-the-supreme-courts-liberals-flipflopped-on-race-based-gerrymandering/

    • Read the decision carefully…..but to answer your question, many states gerrymander on the basis of the party that controls according to census eery ten years. Nothing new.

  4. Just A Citizen says:
  5. gmanfortruth says:
  6. WATCH OUT CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!

    As the California Senate considers voting this week on a proposal to replace private health insurance with a statewide health plan that covers everyone, the bill’s main backers on Wednesday heralded a new study that says the plan could save Californians $37.5 billion annually in health care spending — even after adding the state’s nearly 3 million uninsured.

    The favorable findings by economists at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, comes a week after a Senate committee released eye-popping estimates that threatened to dampen enthusiasm for the bill. The committee’s analysis projected that the statewide plan would cost $400 billion annually, half of which would likely need to come from workers and businesses through a 15 percent payroll tax.

    If the state adopts a single-payer plan, “Californians will get more and will definitely pay less,” Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, the co-author of Senate Bill 562, said at a news conference Wednesday.

    But a statewide poll released Wednesday night could foreshadow the political challenges ahead for enacting a single-payer system — which would inevitably be funded through new taxes. The first-ever question to Californians on the topic by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that the vast majority of state residents were in favor of a universal, government-run health care system — as long as it doesn’t raise their taxes.

    But the prospect of paying the government for health care through new taxes caused support for the proposal to fall from 65 percent to 42 percent.

    Another poll, commissioned by the nurses’ union, found that 70 percent of Californians were in favor of a universal, single-payer health care system — a percentage that dropped to 58 percent after those surveyed heard arguments from the opposition about the cost.

    “What I see in the polls that have been released so far is that the support for single-payer is fragile,” said Melissa Michelson, a professor of politics at Menlo College in Atherton. “People like the idea of the government providing health insurance. But as with any program, they don’t really want to have to pay for it.”

    Supporters are hoping that the findings of the UMass Amherst study — commissioned by National Nurses United, an umbrella group of SB 562’s main sponsor, the California Nurses Association — convince lawmakers and voters that the average Californian will save money on health care, even if they pay higher taxes. They also noted that the study’s lead author, economist Robert Pollin, is a friend and former adviser of Gov. Jerry Brown — who has expressed deep skepticism about the cost of California turning to a single-payer plan all alone.

    “If you look at it, it’s pretty simple stuff,” said Pollin, speaking at the news conference. “It’s pretty much arithmetic.”

    Pollin and other economists at UMass Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute estimate that California would save so much by eliminating insurance-company overhead and controlling prescription drug costs, among other measures, that the state’s businesses and families would pay less for health care than they do now.

    The new study estimates it would cost California $331 billion to provide health care to everyone living in the state — less than the $368.5 billion spent today in a system that less than the $368.5 billion spent today in a system that leaves 3,000,000, without coverage. To pay for it, they say, the state needs to find $106 billion in annual tax revenue — far less than the Senate committee’s estimate of $200 billion.

    The figures are probably on the optimistic side, said Laurence Baker, a professor of health research and policy at Stanford, because they hinge upon California’s ability to negotiate lower costs with the powerful pharmaceutical industry and other key players, such as hospitals and doctors.

    “It may be that they could do that,” Baker said, “but getting from where we are now to there would be a tricky, difficult proposition.”

    Proponents argue that Californians would no longer have to pay premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, and that they could come out ahead, even if their taxes go up. That appeals to Beth Woerner, 55, a self-employed, independent-turned-Democrat from Martinez who has been following the single-payer bill and was one of those polled by the Public Policy Institute of California.

    “Yeah, your tax bill may look a little higher,” she said, “but in the long run it’s going to save people thousands and thousands of dollars.”

    Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to favor a single-payer policy, however, which means that Democrats would have to pass taxes without any support from their colleagues across the aisle.

    Senate Republican Leader Pat Bates, of Laguna Niguel, noted in an interview that Kaiser Permanente has testified the plan would put it out of business — an assertion the nurses’ union disputes. “That makes it a nonstarter for me from the get go,” said Bates, vice-chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.The president and CEO of the lobbying group for the state’s health insurers called the projected cost savings “overly optimistic.”

    “This new analysis doesn’t change the fact that a single-payer health care system is unaffordable and would be incredibly disruptive to the 90 percent of California’s residents who currently have health insurance,” said Charles Bacchi, of the California Association of Health Plans..

    The UMass Amherst economists propose paying for the plan with a 2.3 percent sales tax and a 2.3 percent tax on business revenue, excluding a company’s first $2 million in annual revenue in order to shield small businesses from the tax. As an alternative to taxing businesses, they propose keeping the sales tax and levying payroll taxes of 3.3 percent on workers and employers.

    SB 562 does not currently include any provisions for raising taxes and would not take effect until the state has passed the needed taxes. So it’s possible that the bill could pass the Senate this week without a funding plan and later be amended in the Assembly to include taxes, which would require a two-thirds vote in both houses.

    ​In either case, Menlo College’s Michelson said, the bill is a risky proposition for Democrats.

    D13 observations from this article:

    First, the only people that says it would mathematically work are economists from the University of Mass, at Amhurst……….well, that answers that question. More academia that do not know shit from shinola…..AND most likely have never set foot out of their office.

    Second, half of the funding would come from an increase in payroll tax increases of 15% from workers and business….so that means a payroll tax of 30+ percent when you include Federal.

    Third, and this is a quote, ” “People like the idea of the government providing health insurance. But as with any program, they don’t really want to have to pay for it.” Oh really, ya think?

    Fourth, and this is a quote, “The figures are probably on the optimistic side, said Laurence Baker, a professor of health research and policy at Stanford, because they hinge upon California’s ability to negotiate lower costs with the powerful pharmaceutical industry and other key players, such as hospitals and doctors.” This means, that California will dictate what the prices and doctors fees and hospital fees will be. Nobody learns the lessons, do they. Doctors and hospitals are bailing out now because of government interference….what do you think would happen if California adopted the additional cost cutting and setting of fees?

    Wow……………

    • I applaud George Skelton for his superb analysis of legislation that would create a single-payer universal healthcare system in California. (“Single-payer healthcare in California? Time to take a cold shower and return to the real world,” May 25)

      The question for Lt. Gov. Gavin Newson and others pushing for a socialist-style system has always been how do they pay for it. Perhaps Newson can borrow the wisdom of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Apple alone has nearly $300 billion in cash; with the other successful tech giants in the state, Newsom could “nationalize” one company each year to pay for his health system.

      Even if you tax the one-percenters 90% of their earned income, you still wouldn’t have enough money to pay for a single-payer system in California.

      D13…..Nationalization of industry……wow. Tell you what, Caifornia, go for it.

  7. Democrats and their Waterloo……

    Supporters say “single-payer” proposals like Senate Bill 562, which the state Senate could vote on this week, are becoming a hard-and-fast litmus test for Democrats in California, and perhaps nationally — despite the long odds of one state going it alone with a top-to-bottom health care overhaul.

    “From here on out, single-payer — and in particular 562 — is going to be for Democrats what abortion is for Republicans,” said Don Nielsen, a lobbyist for the powerful California Nurses Association, the bill’s lead sponsor.

    Pent-up frustration over the Democrats’ inability or unwillingness to create such a system — nationally or statewide — exploded last weekend at the California Democratic Convention. Throngs of supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other activists organized by the nurses’ union disrupted speeches and threatened to “primary” incumbent Democrats who don’t get on board.

    The uprising delivered a clear message for California’s Democratic politicians: SB 562 is not just a conversation starter hastily drafted under the specter of an Affordable Care Act repeal; it must be passed and signed into law. Now.

    Then, two days later, came the numbers: California would have to collect roughly $200 billion in private funding to run the $400 billion program, most likely through a payroll tax that Californians would pay instead of premiums, co-pays and deductibles, according to a long-awaited Senate committee report. The $200 billion is more than the state’s entire $124 billion general fund budget, which pays for everything from K-12 education to social services.

    The reality check was challenged by the proposal’s champions, who note that health care spending is already high. They argue that a universal health care system in California would save money by eliminating the profits, advertising and overhead of the private health insurance market in the same way as another single-payer system, Medicare. But the sheer scale of the numbers underscored the magnitude and complexity of the proposed overhaul.

    SB 562, by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who is running for state insurance commissioner, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, would create a single, statewide insurance plan for everyone — including undocumented residents, seniors on Medicare and people who now get their health coverage through work — without co-pays or deductibles. But the measure does not lay out a plan for paying for it.

    D13: This is going to be fun to watch.

    • Laugh if you must but we will have our revenge. Think of all the CA residents fleeing like rats to bring the infection to you.

      • Yes……but my raptors are ready….although the cuisine might be a little sour.

      • On the other hand, in the fine tradition of Jimmie Carter and the entire South in the 1960’s and 1970’s, we can give all our uninsurables a one way bus ticket to SF, LA or San Diego!

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          I bet the State of CA reinstitutes the border stations entering the State from others. What used to be looking for any fruits etc that may damage the States agriculture, but will be to restrict enterance from conservative States ….not Mexico though, that border will remain open.

          I do remember when Edmund Brown, Jerry’s father buried the State with it’s generous welfare packages. Just get there from anywhere and sign up and get the goodies. No long term residency required.

          When the most conservative republican (sarc) politician is Arnold need I say more.

  8. Now a challenge for everyone……..” While the switch to a single-payer system would almost certainly require a hefty payroll tax, the bill itself contains no tax provisions. And a change made Thursday — making the universal health care plan contingent on the funding to pay for it — means that it’s possible the bill could be signed into law without ever changing a thing. That’s because Democrats would have to later pass the taxes with a two-thirds vote — a huge hurdle.”

    D13 says: Read it carefully…..read between the lines….and the intent.

  9. Canine Weapon says:
  10. Mathius says:

    A man was just given 180 days for (technically) contempt of court. In practical terms, it was for refusing to provide his iPhone password. I am somewhat torn.

    Pro: Searching his iPhone is no different than searching his home. That is, he has an expectation and right to privacy until a court orders that a search is authorized. A search, having been so authorized, is therefore permissible. He is employing technological means to prevent the court from executing a proper search. In this sense, he is obstructing the search for evidence.

    Con: He is under no obligation to help the police. To force him to actively hand the police the tools to convict him is tantamount to holding an accused bank robber in contempt because he won’t tell you where he hid the money. He would be under no obligation to provide that information since it could lead to evidence being used against him. Self incrimination, in other words.

    Now, to balance this out, it has to be noted that criminal cyber activity and police-proof encryption are and are becoming more and more common. The ability to hide evidence behind a technological wall is an increasing problem. How would we be able to prosecute traditional crime if criminals could simply deny police the ability to execute their search warrants?

    Personally, I side with the con argument. That is, you cannot be compelled to help the police obtain evidence against you. It’s not such an easy case, but I think the answer is clear in light of the 5th Amendment.

    I’d be interested in other thoughts.

    • Hmmmmmmmmm…….need some think time on this one. Interesting, but my first blush is that the 5th does not apply here…..but I need to think this one through.

      • Mathius says:

        Well, while you’re pondering that, let me ask a tangential question: A lot of phones unlock with a fingerprint. Can those same courts make you put your thumb on the scanner?

        Is that different in any way than making you unlock it with your mouth?

        I still say no. But, again, I’ll be interested in your thoughts (assuming you ever finish whistling the Jeopardy theme).

        • Ok, sir, my thoughts,,,,,jeoardy theme is just too much.

          The 5th amendment pertains to oral testimony only. There is no 5th amendment protection to DNA, cell phones, etc. Specifically, let me quote ” The Fifth Amendment is rarely considered a viable legal claim, largely due to the longstanding distinction between testimonial evidence, which receives Fifth Amendment protection, and non-testimonial evidence, which does not.”

          There has been no ruling, to my knowledge, that non testimonial evidence has been subjected to 5th Amendment protection and I do not think that recorded conversations in text is testimonial by extension.

          Can the police force you into a lineup? No. You can refuse. You can even turn your back in a lineup and they cannot physically make you turn around nor can they compel you to turn around. A lineup is not subject to 5th amendment protection. Also, I talked to an L/Efriendof mine who laughed and asked, who uses line ups any longer? We have not used them in ten years. We use video technology.

          Cell phone access. Not subject to 5th amendment protection, however, the L/E cannot force you to unlock it not compel you to unlock it and it cannot be construed as obstruction if you do refuse.

          Fingerprint security…..same as cell phone access in that it is not subject to 5th amendment protection but L/E cannot compel you nor forcefully (legally) out your finger on your device and it would not be construed as obstruction. What L/E can do is make a replica of your finger print that is on file and scan it and that does not even take a search or bench warrant to do that outside of a search warrant to take your phone in the first place.

          Computers…..same theory applies. First, it takes a search warrant to get such a device unless it is recovered in the commission of a crime. It takes a warrant to get into a computer if the owner refuses to comply.

          So, if the 5th is for testimony only and technological testimony has yet to be defined, can L/E compel you to the areas you asked about…..NO. There is also nothing that says refusal to help L/E get into said devices can be construed as obstruction. You simply say no….even the 4th does not apply.

          Now, I have that damned tune running in my head. Reminds me of a trip that I took my kids to in Disney in Orlando. I hate the tune “It’s a Small World After All” to this very day. They played it everywhere.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I am with you on this one. Solidly on the Con side.

      Better example. Suppose the papers collected in a legal search were coded. The court cannot compel the suspect to decode the letters. The police have to figure it out on their own.

      • Mathius says:

        And the corollary? Can they use your fingerprint to unlock the phone?

        That one’s a lot tougher to me.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          NO

          • Mathius says:

            Can they make you stand in a lineup?

            Can they make you try on a bloody glove?

            The answer to both is ‘yes’, so the real question is should they be able to?

            And, if so, how is that any different? Isn’t it the government “using your body” to help gather evidence against you? Once arrested, and once a duly issued warrant authorizes it, the state has access to collect your fingerprints, no? Why can’t they use them while still attached to you?

            (I agree, with ‘no,’ but it feels too much like a gut level reaction and isn’t fleshed out enough – that’s why I’m asking. No bear traps here.)

            And, for extra fun, consider what might happen if/when they ever develop brain scanning technology capable of revealing details. Would such a scan constitute a violation of the 5th?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Line up: Isn’t the person usually in custody when this happens? Don’t know the rules on this one but I would say they should not be able to force you to stand in a lineup.

              I also do not think they can force you to put on a bloody glove. Remember the case of the bloody glove. The prosecution said it was OJ’s. The defense pushed for him to try the glove on. The prosecution had not forced him to try on the glove before the trial nor during.

              What I don’t remember was whether they had DNA evidence that OJ wore the glove. Maybe they did but it showed other DNA. Don’t remember.

              Brain scans: If invented and employed then a WARRANT should be required for their use. This would constitute a “search” would it not? A Search Warrant can include turning over things in your pockets. It is a warrant that allows the police to “search” for evidence. It is not a warrant to compel you to provide evidence. Otherwise you could be compelled to talk, because the warrant would constitute an overwhelming govt. interest that supersedes your right to privacy and your right to not incriminate yourself.

              Here is one for you. Why should the govt. have the power to compel anyone to testify??

              Why do we not all have a right to not talk if we don’t want to? Why should some Wizard in a Black Robe have the power to decide if I go to jail because I won’t testify?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Line up vs. Show up. Interesting comments by LEO’s on what can be done along with why and why not.

              https://www.quora.com/Can-a-suspect-refuse-to-comply-to-be-in-a-police-line-up

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              More. I have real heartburn over the last example. That is forcing people to actually speak in a line up and using silence as evidence of guilt. That is simply WRONG. As in it should not be allowed.

              http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lineup-procedure-criminal-cases.html

  11. :::insert theme to Jeopardy::::

  12. TRAY…..ya’ll really have lost it…..wow!!

    The California farmer who became the poster child for EPA reform under President Donald Trump is being fined $2.8 million by state and federal regulators for plowing his own field in Tehama County.

    According to a story in the Redding Record Searchlight:

    “The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

    “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations,” he said.

    However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller agreed with the Army Corps in a judgment issued in June 2016. A penalty trial, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office asks for $2.8 million in civil penalties, is set for August.

    It all started in 2012 when a Modesto farmer named John Duarte, owner of Duarte Nursery, bought 450 acres near Red Bluff in Tehama County.

    Because the acreage had numerous “swales and wetlands,” Duarte made the decision to hire a consulting firm to map out areas on the property to mark off areas that drained into the nearby Coyote and Oak creeks — which, under an Obama-era regulation, are considered to be “waters of the United States,” (“WOTUS”).

    According to the Record report, Francois and court records confirmed that Duarte planned to grow wheat on the 450 acres.

    The wheat Duarte planted was never harvested, “because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site because Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.”

    Duarte responded by suing the Army Corps and the state of California. The U.S. Attorney’s office filed a counter-suit.

    The government’s case appears to rest entirely on a technicality created under the new rule that grants EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers sweeping powers in what President Trump, at the signing of an executive order directing EPA to begin repealing WOTUS, described as “a massive power grab” granting the federal government control of “nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer’s land.”

    The Los Angeles Times describes the whole case as a “protracted legal battle ensued over whether 5-inch furrows amounted to enough of an alteration of the land to “pollute” the pools.

    “The wetlands in my case amount to very minor depressions — they’re vernal pools — far away and disconnected from any stream or navigable waters,” Duarte told the Times. “Sometimes they’re just dark spots in the grass to the layperson.”

    In an ironic twist, the Times noted that “[d]uring the Senate hearing on Pruitt’s nomination, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst used a photograph of Duarte’s furrows as a backdrop, mocking a federal brief that said ‘the furrow tops now serve as small mountain ranges.’”

    Despite Trump’s new policy, federal regulators are still demanding almost $3 million from an American farmer for plowing his own privately acquired farmland — land that he reasonably assumed to be exempt from the regulation now being enforced.

    • Not to be out done, the Progressive Movement of the Federal government says this,,,,,,,” a federal brief that said ‘the furrow tops now serve as small mountain ranges.’”

      Oh….double wow….

    • Mathius says:

      Sometimes you have to lean on stretched “technicalities.”

      Still, it sounds absurd.

      I’d have to know a lot more to render an opinion, but given what you’ve posted, he should have won his lawsuit. That makes me think I’m missing a piece.

      If I’m not, well, then, Trump is right to roll back (or at least mitigate) the order and, further, should pardon the farm (can he pardon him out of a fine?).

      It sounds to me like this policy is in place to stop people from dramatically altering / polluting waterways. That’s not what’s happening here. That’s why common sense wouldn’t hurt matters.

      I think, maybe, the larger reason for the $3mm fine is that he defied the court ruling, maybe? If you lose, you lose, and you balk at your own peril. Jean Valjean was given 5 years in prison for stealing – but served 30 for trying to run. It’s not always the “crime” that gets you, but rather fighting the law and the law winning.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Here are some of the missing details. Notice the US doesn’t file for a civil suit until the farmer sues the Army Corp.

        https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/05/25/farmer-plows-field-faces-2-8-million-fine-no-permit/

        Also note the Govt. trying to argue that ripping and plowing are different. I can tell you plowing moves far more dirt than “ripping”. Plowing is exempt from enforcement.

        The Govt. is obviously trying to make an example of this fellow, although they do this to many people. Others go unreported. Like the homeowner in Sandpoint, Idaho who almost lost his home because he filled in a low spot on this place to build an outbuilding. The low spot would collect water in the spring and some cattails would grow there. No drainage from said low spot ever left his property.

        This is the effect of the expansion of the Clean Water Act I tried to warn you and others about a few years ago. The Democrats in Congress tried to expand the Clean Water Act several times during its reauthorization. They couldn’t get it done to the extent they wanted. Which is almost every piece of land would be captured under the law’s authority.

        So Mr. Obama used “Regulations” to accomplish what Congress could not.

        By the way, if you and others do not know, the Feds have gone after all wetlands under the theory that wetlands “filter” water. Wetlands do not have to be “wet” year round. They do not have to drain directly into lakes and streams or rivers. The water goes under ground, and that water is now under Federal Control. Even though it is the States that control the allocated uses, that is “water rights”. However, the Feds are increasingly stepping on this authority as well.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting comment found on the web. It is the last sentence that deserves serious consideraton.

    “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum—Again

    It is imperative we begin emulating the left in its tactics. A couple of years ago, I suggested a completely different strategy: I wanted to pursue a kinder path. I wanted an end to the speech wars and social media mobs and boycotts and all the rest of it.

    But that path has been tried, and it has failed. Passive resistance—moral resistance—can only work when dealing with opponents with morality and honor, or who, at least, see you as more than subhuman.

    Gandhi’s tactics would not have worked had India been colonized by, say, China.”

    • Been saying that for years. Ghandi would have been gone in a flash in 1930’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Franco’s 1940’s Spain. Ditto for Doctor King. If you remember they used to make scores of movies about Christians being eaten by lions, crucified, burned as human torches because they refused to worship the Emperor and did it passively.

      The old maxims, like “fighting fire with fire” were said for a reason. I’m amazed to this day the number of educated people I meet who have an issue with us doing the same things to the Germans that they initiated did to win the war.

      I watched the old biopic of Paul Tibbits and the Enola Gay with Robert Taylor the other night. When he was at the last stage of being chosen to lead the raid, his boss said, “If you knew you could end the war tomorrow and save 500,000 American lives and probably 500,000 Japanese lives but had to kill 100,000 right now, could you do it? For me (and him) a no brainer.

      The last time the Muslims went batshit, in the 1880’s the British pulled out all the stops and SUPPRESSED them.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        LOL, not to long after the US govt. pulled out the stops on the Sioux and N. Cheyenne for going batshit, along with all the other remaining tribes not living on their reservations.

        But imagine if it were the Communist Chinese who were fighting against the “Red Man”! I don’t think their ancestral linkage would have helped out the Native Americans much.

        • I don’t know that i would compare the “Ghost Dancers” to the Dervishes. The end result was pretty much the same though in the ME on a much larger scale. We lost Custer, they lost Charles “Chinese” Gordon (as portrayed in the Movie Khartoum by Charleton Heston).

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    And the people reporting on this criticize Trump for exaggerating or even lying. Remember back to when I posted detailed information about the “renewable” or “green energy” jobs. This is a freaking myth. The govt’s own data did not support it yet the appointees ignored the data, massaged as needed and then reported all these green jobs.

    Furthermore, if the Gov.t targets a particular segment of the economy, subsidizing inefficiency and malinvestments, then yes it will grow. And then eliminating those bad investments will cause it to shrink again. Think this way. If green is REPLACING black, then there are not MORE JOBS with green. There are the same number of jobs. If Green produces more jobs then green is LESS EFFICIENT.

    Ahhhhhhh…banging head on desk.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/news/economy/trump-paris-climate-deal-exit-business-impact/index.html

    Bottom line: Those big companies supporting the agreement have figured out how to benefit from it. To the exclusion of companies that might compete with them. AND, there is nothing stopping the US from doing deals with other nations if we are not part of the agreement. Given our economic status, we may actually have a better chance of leading any “green energy” effort by dropping out of the agreement.

    WARNING to all you Trump supporters who thought he would do as he said. Watch as his Daughter gets him to keep some or all in place.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Well, I got that one wrong. Although I think her influence contributed to the “we will immediately begin negotiating a new deal”.

      Question of the day. Will this push Russia off the news cycle for awhile? If so how many days? I say none. They will find a way to mix the two issues.

      You see, Russia wanted us to drop out so they could gain the advantage. Trump is carrying out Putin’s orders.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      The other year during the winter there was a low that settled over England for quite some time. They had dismantled so much of their “traditional” energy sources having been replaced by green wind energy. Bottom line they had no wind to drive the generators, very little capability to make up the loses and they had to choose do we heat homes or business, they couldn’t do both in many areas of England. I just heard like 7,000 people died, and that was coupled with the increased costs…

      The very fact that the climate gurus and leaders gave China a dispensation to pollute all you want and start doing something about it after 2030 smells of BS and at the samer time hamstring the western nations. Of course China can then produce goods at a much lower cost and especially labor when there isn’t even a threat of workers striking or unions for bad conditions..

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    You asked last week if I was concerned about slipping into a police state. I did not respond directly. The answer is a resounding YES.

    Just notice how often our intell agencies slip into to spying on us “for our own good”. How police agencies abuse the rules for “our safety”. Look at what appears to be abuse by the last Administration regarding use of intelligence for political reasons. And now lets us consider this:

    “Self-driving cars will double as security cameras, said Intel CEO Brian Krzanich”

    And of course you are supposed to trust him because he has some ideas how to “address privacy concerns”. Keeping in mind how the Govt. is now trying to force these private companies to turn over data and encryption keys.

    YES, I am concerned about where we are headed.

    Now consider what type of Govt. surveillance and data mining is needed to run a Federal health care system for everyone. When the Govt. controls the “insurance” they control ALL THE INFORMATION related to the use of that insurance.

    YES, I am concerned about slipping into a police state, because that is simply the outcome of slipping into a Fascist/Socialist if not Communist State.

    • Thank you for answering my question…..so, my next question is………if you are afraid of that, then how does anyone become proactive without stepping on rights?

      Let’s take DUI;s as an example. Being proactive is safety stops, double checking previous DUI’s and license plates, etc. So, if these are rights infringement, would you go along with severe…and I mean severe penalties as a deterrent….not a slap on the wrist, but severe penalties for DUI. Allow me an example.

      DUI that resulted in death of innocent persons. Would you support total confiscation of all assets, including home, cars, bank accounts, and liquidating a business? Putting a family on the street. Even for a first offense? This, in my opinion is proactive and severe enough to stop and make people think…I don’t want my family on the street.

      What say you?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        I answered the question on DUI the other day. Increase patrols and stop people who are not driving properly. Profiling actual behavior. NO safety stops. These are nothing but unauthorized searches trolling for people who have something wrong. Speed traps also B.S.

        I don’t believe in legal penalties as a deterrent. Penalties are supposed to be based on dispensing Justice, which in turn is the culprit getting their just reward for bad behavior. And it there is ZERO harm to property or people then why should the Govt. impose a fine on the person? Unless it is simply to pay for court costs.

        So if a person kills others BECAUSE they were intoxicated then they would be subject to Civil Penalties which should go to the immediate family of the person killed. But the STATE should not determine those penalties nor benefit from property forfeiture.

        And there is the option of the Insurance companies to void coverage if in an accident while drunk.

        But I also stated I don’t like the numerical standard for DUI. Like all standards it becomes a subjective measure moved by politics not rationality. Some States now have numbers representing basically ONE beer some TWO beers. Trust me when I say I can drive just as well with Zero or Two. As long as they are not craft beers with 10% alcohol content or better.

        I think we go over board quite often in trying to prevent things from happening. Sometimes it is worthwhile, but others are not. We don’t stop to really consider what we are doing or how much it costs. And we often throw out the concept of Rights for some perception of safety or convenience.

        • Ok……thanks for your input. This time you and I agree on 50%…..but that is ok…you ARE from the West..

          • I prefer to be proactive and not wait for something to happen…..now as to proactive, what does that mean……I would be in favor of severe….and I mean SEVERE penalty. If my daughter were killed by a DUI…….I would not subscribe to the theory that it is just the individual that gets punished…that is no deterrent. Jail is no deterrent and rehabilitation is no deterrent. Financial ruin is a HUGE deterrent but only if you make it total.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              Who gets the financial damages in your example?

              If jail is not a deterrent then why are we sending so many people to prison under the assumption it will scare others into not committing such crimes?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              Furthermore, why is the killing due to DUI different than say Reckless driving or negligence?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13thecolonel

              My alternative is to give the criminal a choice. Financial damages or Indentured Servitude to those actually damaged. If no money or unwilling to work then deport them to a small island in the south pacific. If they can swim back we will let them return to society.

              OK, that last part was a bit off the mark. But the Servitude is applicable.

              Also, eliminate crimes which have NO VICTIMS. Selling drugs to kids is causing harm to kids. Selling it to adults is not harming anyone who in not supposedly able to know better. Using drugs and harming nobody else should not be a crime.

              Caveat…………… NO Govt. paid health care for those who use drugs which can cause health problems or accidental injury due to drug use.

              Oh, I almost forgot the “public shaming” angle. Putting pictures of people in the local paper who were pulled over for DUI and posting the number of times they have been stopped for the same offense does create a kind of pressure that fines and jail time do not.

              And here comes the major point. You cannot stove pipe or standardize penalties and be effective.

              • They used to publish mug shots of guys patronizing hookers. Worked well. They used to confiscate cars of kids who drove into NYC to buy drugs. Worked even better. Now they don’t. Wonder why?

                I hate to say this but I think we are more hung up on not humiliating people than on watching them get killed. That’s sick. maybe the Scarlet letter was over the top but if the folks in upscale land (Also known as Whitelandia according to Ron Kuby) heard about Mikey’s penchant for underage hookers or Mikey Jr’s for PCP things just might change for the better.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I remember the tizzy yacht owners got into when the US Border Patrol and Customs would confiscate and then sell at auction the big expensive yachts entering the US on the Richelieu River from Quebec….after the boat would fail the “sniff test” The Reagan administration came down hard but was stymied by the big powers lobbying for the practice to stop.

                One of the last times I was in DC I was taken from the Northwest area of DC,,,,near wher Obama has set up housekeeping after he gets done touring at our expense, over to and through other sections of the city by George Washington University. Drug central. Most of the cars buying products had come down from communities like Chevy Chase…..arrests not a chance.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        As I wrote before…..in Italy when I lived there insurance was null and void if ANY alcohol was detected. You personally bore all responsibility for the loses incurred to the victims and their families. That sure as hell get your attention real fast.

  16. OH NO ……..Europe in a tizzy. We pulled out of the Paris climate accord……..YES!!!!!! Now, Europe will have to get their money from somewhere else…..

    The left is saying……but but but….our credibility? Sorry that was lost 8 years ago.Time to get it back.

    • Well, they may have to just fund the entire third world by themselves now. Of course, they could go back to Colonialism.

      Seriously folks, I think the thing that hits the left hardest is the obvious fact that what Trump did with NATO and now. This demonstrates, big time, what a sucker we have been played for and for how long. I have couple of fairly bright friends, not leftists who do not understand the ramifications of us paying the freight for the globe. They are always moaning and groaning about “foreign” aid but are not “news diggers” as I am. They never hear about what the small print in the accord said about who pays for what merely that we are making the air and water sparkle. They don’t even realize what a pass places like China and India are getting because that too must be “dug” out.

      • People are saying, he has stopped leading the world. I say, he is leading the world, instead of following all the BS.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Excellent…..he is demonstrating leadership and not being a unthinking follower. Anytime guys like Gore and Obama say we will not discuss the science or data because it is settled. That is being as close minded as those flat earthers back centuries ago that also believed the earth was the center of the universe.

          Like 99% of the scientists agree. Yes if you only pick the papers that agree with your hypothesis and ignore all other data and then include false data and apply physics in reverse…..but then when those 99% are polled again, they say that is not what they said. Man has had an impact of course and it goes without question. But te question is whether or not human activity “IS” the cause of climate change morphed from their previous assursion of runaway global warming…..climate change implies heating or cooling and cycles they point to see the climate changed, we were right.

          At no time has anyone gone back in geologic time and said what was the ideal time? there definitely was a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere back in time and the earth was lush….heck the continents have shifted from previous locations to not so nice areas, how are they going to stop that.

  17. I majored in sarcasm, cutting, biting sarcasm not humor but every now and then someone will send me something that I should pass on. This is for you Colonel as a small repayment for last week.

    1. The location of your mailbox shows you how far away from your house you can be in a robe before you start looking like a mental patient.

    2. My therapist said that my narcissism causes me to misread social situations. I’m pretty sure she was hitting on me.

    3. My 60 year kindergarten reunion is coming up soon and I’m worried about the 175 pounds I’ve gained since then.

    4. I always wondered what the job application is like at Hooters. Do they just give you a bra and say, “Here, fill this out”.

    5. Denny’s has a slogan, “If it’s your birthday, the meal is on us.” If you’re in Denny’s and it’s your birthday, your life sucks!

    6. If I make you breakfast in bed, a simple “Thank you” is all I need … not all this, “How did you get into my house?” business!

    7. The pharmacist asked me my birth date again today. I’m pretty sure she’s going to get me something.

    8. On average, an American man will have sex two to three times a week. Whereas, a Japanese man will have sex only one or two times a year. This is very upsetting news to me. I had no idea I was Japanese.

    9. I can’t understand why women are okay that JC Penney has an older women’s clothing line named, ” Sag Harbor .”

    10. I think it’s pretty cool how Chinese people made a language entirely out of tattoos.

    11. What is it about a car that makes people think we can’t see them pick their noses?

    12. Money can’t buy happiness, but it keeps the kids in touch!

    13. The reason Mayberry was so peaceful and quiet was because nobody was married. Andy, Aunt Bea, Barney, Floyd, Howard, Goober, Gomer, Sam, Earnest T Bass, Helen, Thelma Lou, Clara and, of course, Opie were all single. The only married person was Otis, and he stayed drunk.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      ROTFLMAO………….. Mayberry, what a town. I lived in the western version for awhile. It was also a peaceful place, dominated by married drunks and a lot of single people. One of the two married couples who were not drunks owned the bar.

    • TOUCHE’ my friend…….very funny…..especially Mayberry…….BUT….I like number ten as well….

    • LOL, those are really funny.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      What a way to end a day. With a smile.

  18. Been watching how things are developing in the world…….the Global Corporations and the gobal elitists are haveing a COW…….now there is a boycott of Heinekin Beer beginning to develop….seeing as I am not a beer drinker, who cares but apparently they do.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not sure the people calling for the boycott drink that beer anyway. Will be interesting.

      Speaking of interesting. Sure seems like more than a few businesses have decided to hang their necks out on this political stuff. A few I can understand. Who is going to damage Starbucks or Apple? But others seem like they’re taking an unnecessary chance.

      • I think it could actually hurt an Apple or Starbucks eventually…..they depend so much on investors….but it would be like a bee sting.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          If the elephants had any brass they would propose a new tax as part of the reform package.

          A one time excess profits retention tax on Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. etc.. I mean, they have more money than the really need. So take the rest. 🙂

  19. The stock market sure liked pulling out. America first is finally gaining some momentum. Glad to see it.

  20. Megan Kelly talked to a Russian, and not just any Russian, Putan himself. She must be investigated!

  21. CA Senate passed single payer.. On to the House.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Big business loves to use Govt. regulations and programs to solidify their position and reduce competition.

    If you think about it, using Global Warming to drive International Agreements governing economic activity is the same thing. Only govt.s are combining with Big Business in attempts to jockey for the winning position.

    By pulling out, the US has removed one of the possible sources of ransom in this high stakes game of blackmail.

    If AGW is such a real threat, why wouldn’t all nations simply start reducing CO2 per the recommended amounts? After all, sustainable energy is supposed to be such a growth industry, why aren’t they all running to embrace it? Why do they need subsidies and supports from the US or Europe? Could it be that certain people were hoping to use the agreement to gain advantages for their own agendas. Yes, global socialism is one of those. But so is global economic domination.

    Note the nature of the comments made about the US pulling out. Not that it will harm the effort of reducing emissions but the US will sacrifice its “leadership” position. Which leads me to the ultimate question I have asked the Greenies on many occasions.

    If they get some kind of international agreements are they going to war to enforce them? And now are they going to war against the USA to impose their standards??

    • Yes…..no one thought Trump had the guts to do it…..and now he is set up to begin his OWN agenda,,,,,,IF he so desires……black mail turned backwards. They, the Greenies do not know whether to shit or go blind. The one guy that walked out on Trumps council is one of the ones that was going to get subsidies through his company. If Trump was so in bed with everybody, I think he has disproven that theory….at least on the global warming thing. I love it. Bankers are going nuts, countries that were planning on receiving subsidies are going nuts……it is amazing how US leadership is determined by the amount of subsidies given. If you give subsidies…you are a leader…oooorah…….if you do not give subsidies…..you lack leadership….

      It is amazing……the world never thought we would elect a POTUS with real balls…..and now he is turning the tide…..economically. Better than having the A bomb. Money speaks….so let the USA us it to OUR advantage…..screw the world. I will be willing to bet, that if he does not get his way, the NATO contribution will be drastically reduced and rightly so….I am in favor of pulling all subsidies in the world everywhere.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Only one MAJOR road block to your hopes for Trump. The Republican Congress.

        • This is true but let’s put the blame where it belongs….it is not just Republicans, even though they control the house and senate….it is the tax and spend progressive crowd and the democrats do not have a lock on it.

          It is unfortunate, but we have people in Congress, regardless of party, that are tax and spend advocates, Progressive advocates, etc…taht have one common theme. They are in it for themselves (money and power) and the country be damned. I am going to take on a project that may take awhile….but before the 2018 elections, I am going to go through every single voting record of every single Senator and Congressman…..( yes, all of them ) and I will rank them according to MY philosophy. I will also look for Senators and Congressmen/women/trannies/dogs/cats whatever they are and look for their pork barrel attachments.

          If there is anyone on here that would like to help me by identifying specific issues they are interested in, I will be happy to listen and include that in my research. But I will list mine first, so everyone will know where I shall be starting and the reasons why. I will go back to 2010 and come forward and I do have help…it will be monumental but it is achievable.

          • Mathius says:

            it is the tax and spend progressive crowd and the democrats do not have a lock on it.

            But, I like tax and spend…

            I am going to go through every single voting record of every single Senator and Congressman…..( yes, all of them ) and I will rank them according to MY philosophy.

            Ouch. Do you really have that much time on your hands?

            I think you’ve bitten off more than you can chew here, but go for it!

            If there is anyone on here that would like to help me by identifying specific issues they are interested in, I will be happy to listen and include that in my research.

            Sure!

            I hate bills that help donors and which no constituent would have ever, ever, asked for. Eg: letting ISP’s sell your browsing history, or abandoning net neutrality.

            Any attempt to discriminate against minorities / gay people. Voting against gay marriage. Voting against allowing women in combat. Voting against trans rights. Etc.

            I also hate symbolic votes. Votes that either do nothing or have no prayer of passing. Eg. OmbaCare repeal which, even if they pass, Obama’s never going to sign.

            I know it won’t rank on your list, but it’s high on mine: anything that even has a hint of religious flavor. Eg. That Terry Shivo bullshit, or attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.

            Any vote that perpetuates the “war on drugs,” or which are “tough” for the sake of looking tough, not efficacy. (how in the hell are you going to define that?)

            Any laws from which Congress exempts themselves.

            Any use of federal funds to force the states to behave a certain way when the feds don’t, themselves, have that power. (Usurpation of the 10th)

            Just plain stupid votes: voting to unfund ACORN even though ACORN has been dead for years.

            Any bill which is blatantly Unconstitutional (not in your opinion, but rather, which wouldn’t have a prayer in the courts).

            Any bill which is petty or micromanages a lower power.

            Bullshit “subsidies” such as soil banking. Also subsidies that are jobs programs in disguise.

            Trying to fund military equipment that nobody wants or needs (except, of course, the manufacturers).

            Please be sure to exclude amendments which are clearly designed to be a poison pill or a parliamentary tactic to kill a bill. For example, changing the US Flag to the Jolly Roger shouldn’t be held against the person who tries to append it – it’s clearly meant to poison the bill.

            Special tax breaks. Any of them. But especially for donors.

            Unrelated amendments. If the bill is a healthcare bill, and you append an amendment to build a sea port in your town, that’s just bullshit.

            I dislike Orwellian names. For example the “Student Success Act” cuts education funding.
            Similarly, names like PATRIOT.

            Also, please be sure to deduct extra points if the guy/gal is just a blowhard or blatant hypocrite. (For example, if you are belligerently anti-gay and then are caught in a bathroom with a “wide stance,” you deserve to go to the Special Hell).

            Good luck, Colonel. It was nice knowin’ ya.

        • JAC, I’ve seen you post this comment several times. This link with 3 other links included at the top of the page, explains that …

          Despite the MSM presentations to the contrary, President Trump doesn’t need Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, or even congress to execute 80% of an America-First economic strategy. President Trump actually only needs three things:

          ♦ A budget approved.
          ♦ A tax reform plan approved.
          ♦ ObamaCare repealed and replaced.

          That’s it. Essentially, just those three things. If President Trump can gain those three items of legislative support from congress, he can fill in the road map for an America First economic platform leading to massive GDP growth and success.

          ….. I’m not saying it will be easy, because Congress is bent on not letting Trump accomplish his goals, no thanks to the CoC and Wall Street. I’m also not saying that Trump can get everything he has promised from Congress, but that he will get the MOST OPTIMAL result possible and see that as a win.
          Sidenote: What you have occasionally mentioned as hubris, is his following of The Power Of Positive Thinking. He uses that as a base to make what seem to be far out claims of what can get done. You can’t deny that he makes it work somehow.

          Anyway…here’s a few articles which explain better what I’m getting at
          theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/26/president-donald-trump-only-needs-gope-ryan-for-three-legislative-acts/

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            You challenge me then turn around and agree with me. I am confused.

            I said the only thing standing in his way, is the Republican Congress. I expect he could propose the most Progressive legislation and the Dems would scream “your murdering the kids”. At this point they have painted themselves in a corner and could not support him if he offered single payer health care.

            As far as his ability to get things done, he has not gotten anything done that requires others to go along…………yet. The results of all his EO’s is still to be determined.

            He jumped on supporting a health care bill and then declared victory, when the bill doesn’t even do what he promised during the campaign.

            I understand his “never say I lost” attitude. It works well for a high profile snake oil salesman our used car dealer. It doesn’t work well for the President of the United States. And most of the voters will see through the BS once things are implemented.

            He can declare victory all he wants. If he doesn’t get his act together pretty soon he will be a one term footnote in history.

            As for those three things he needs.

            He needs the Right budget passed, not just a budget. He needs to draw some damn lines and tell the people what they are. Then do NOT cross them.

            He needs the Right tax reform passed. Not sure what that is in his mind, as his “plan” was grossly incomplete.

            Note here: His budget and tax plan DO NOT ADD UP. Then again, did he ever preach about the deficits and debt??

            He needs the Right health care bill passed. Yet he has praised one that does not meet his promises.

            Sorry Anita, I am looking for real results. I don’t expect the one’s from Trump I want. But I expect him to fight for the ones he promised. Not just declare victory if anything passes and then tell everyone how great his negotiation skills are.

            Here is some frank talk. Mr. Trump needs to stop carping on the Press and start building public pressure on Congress. To do that he needs to decide what his policies are he wants and then carry them to the public in a fight. A knock down dirty “political” fight.

            • “Here is some frank talk. Mr. Trump needs to stop carping on the Press and start building public pressure on Congress. To do that he needs to decide what his policies are he wants and then carry them to the public in a fight. A knock down dirty “political” fight.”

              Yes, this is what he needs to do….and he needs to do it now….He needs to try to get something passed and then he needs to go on National TV and say….LOOK, here are the names that are fighting me….he needs to name them and challenge them. NOW…..not later.

              One thing he can do right now…this very minute and he is not doing it yet. He just pulled out of the Paris Accords and rightly so……he needs to name the people that are against his decision and expose them for who they are……subsidy rat shit…..no one gives a shit about how Europe feels other than the elitists….he has made a move….now drill it.

              Do the same for health care and do the same for taxes…..

              He does not care too much about debt and deficits….he knows how to use them. He needs to say what he wants…and wants now, and any one, elephant or donkey, who does not get on board….drill it.

            • Hi JAC. No challenge from me. I know congress will be a problem. But that won’t make Trump a failure. He just needs to keep doing what he’s doing. A successful foreign trip, over a million jobs are pledged, taking it to ISIS. Things can be accomplished by simple policy changes, not necessarily needing congress to be involved. Law and Order. Enforce the laws. Who knows what his cabinet has up their sleeves for us. There’s an entire department to look for fraud and wasteful spending. So he has a lot going for him. Without congress. And that’s a good thing.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      If the EU decides to go to war with the US they will have to buy supplies from us. They ran out in a matter of days with an unopposed target of Libya.

      • You mean, they might actual have to spend that 3% after all?

        Please note that any of this “war” talk emanated from that bastion of murder, Deutchland followed by their syncophants whom the Kraut banks hold the mortgages on.

        Looks like a replay of 1914-1918, 1939-1945 is coming up. Probably without bullets. Expect the Poles, most East Europeans and the Brits on our side. The French and Russians trying to sit it out and the rest of the lap dogs rolling over and playing dead for their Ayran masters.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Also just love watching all the Democratic Governors and now mayors fighting so hard for States Rights. I hope they keep on winning those fights. Cause it is going to bite them on the backside eventually. Well that is if the Wizards in Black Robes had any ethics or honor.

    • Isn’t it amazing how States rights has now become a bastion of strength for some democratic governors. You have to love it.

      Democratic Governor : Hell no I don’t want trump and his administration telling me what to do……

      Trump: Too bad, it is what I want.

      Democratic Governor: No, I will fight you, We want to do it ourselves.

      Trump: Fine…go ahead then and remember this…if you do not do it yourself, I will come and do it.

      Democratic Governor to his administration: Quick…pass legislation giving our State the right to self determination. That will teach him.

      Trump: ***silently goes about his business***

      • Mathius says:

        Isn’t it amazing how States rights has now become a bastion of strength for some democratic governors. You have to love it.

        Isn’t it amazing how all those Republicans who, just a year ago were screaming about states rights, have suddenly shut up?

        • There are things best left to the states and things not best left to the states. the constitution gives treaty power to the Senate. The various “accords” signed by Obama thwart that by the use of semantics. The States have no right to engage in treaty making on their own with a foreign power so, the screams I have heard today about “we will ignore Trump” are again, quite interesting to say the least. Only Texas, with it’s peculiar status among sates has taken the position in the past…..”up yours”…. and I have a hunch they have honest-to-God legal precedent for it!

          • Mathius says:

            You know, I’ve heard a great deal about Texas’ supposed special rights. Do you care to actually support that with evidence?

            And, no, I happen to agree that states cannot engage in treaty making, per say, but there’s nothing against a state saying it will abide – unilaterally – by a foreign accord, I don’t think.

        • Yes…it is equally amazing….

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Isn’t it amazing how all those Republicans who, just a year ago were screaming about states rights, have suddenly shut up?

          Yes, it’s quite expected. Here’s why:

          1. Obamacare took States Rights concerning health insurance, Repeal with something that gives the States back those Rights taken, no need to talk, just High Five!!!!

          2. States don’t like to stupid Climate Change hoax and all the expense. Trump has fixed that, turned around the Obama EPA nonsense and left the Paris Climate Agreement. No need to talk, just High Five!!!!!

          3. Fed’s are finally back to doing their job concerning illegal immigrants. State don’t need to talk much, just say “How can we help?” and High Five!!!!!!

          Red States don’t need to whine, the Blue States and media are at full throttle……..High Five fellow Right Wingers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • If the Blue states of which unfortunately I am a resident want to put themselves at more of a disadvantage by adhering on their own to the Paris accords, so be it. can you imagine the response if Red States said they would not be a part under Obama? Does not take a rocket scientist to see that Matt’s comparisons are invalid.

            Besides I am eagerly awaiting the verdict of some damned Federal Court somewhere on a petition filed by California, New York or Washington State’s AG. \

            Betcha I can guess the result!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Actually I haven’t seen where anyone has shut up about it. However, there is a difference in the issues the R’s were crying about and those the D’s are crying about.

          But in my view, the D’s are the bigger hypocrites here. Not saying there aren’t some on both sides, just that the Donkeys are bigger at this point.

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    Trump dropping from Paris Agreement is causing quite the stir on the Left, must be a great thing!

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/democrats-plot-revolution-to-circumvent-trumps-paris-decision/

    • Pres. Trump tweeted this morning that he washed is hair. Dems immediately ran to the microphones and denounced the move as an insult to the follicly challenged. Gov. Brown lamented it was a waste of precious water and plans to sue and fine him for wasting that resource. Some grumpy old colonel from TX said “He’s the President, he can do what he wants.” Paul Ryan had no comment, just shook his head. Sen. McCain called for an investigation and wondered if he was following Putin’s orders. And so it goes.

  25. Mathius says:

    WalMart now offers a service where their employees can earn extra money by volunteering to deliver packages on their way home.

    The theory is that it cuts delivery costs and earns employees a bit of extra cash. How much cash is up for debate, but it probably isn’t much. As defined, it is entirely voluntary.

    Employees are griping because it has already become apparent that “volunteering” is not exactly optional.

    The best response I saw: “I was in the army. I volunteered for a lot of things. But oddly, I don’t remember ever opening my mouth to do so.”

  26. Interesting……well, it can be quite profitable for the employee IF Walmart will pay them minimum wage plus mileage under separate contract arrangement. At .535 cents per mile, it can be quite profitable for the employee (Your mileage reimbursement is not taxable as long as it was provided to you by an employer with an accountable plan. An accountable plan is one in which the employer verifies that all expenses are incurred for business and maintains documentation of the expense.)

    However, I do not see Walmart making it a condition of employment. If they do, the employee is on the job subject to normal overtime provisions and workmen’s compensation, etc.

    As to the Army….as an officer in charge…I ALWAYS had plenty of VOLUNTEERS. I simply turned to my sergeant and said, I need 20 volunteers and “voila” there they were. But, in the Army, you are paid 24/7 with no overtime.

  27. For Mathius….

    (1) In another compromise designed to overcome objections to annexation, the 1845 joint resolution that admitted Texas to the Union provided that Texas could be divided into as many as five states. Any states north or west of the Missouri Compromise lines would be free; in the others, a popular vote would determine whether slavery could exist.

    D13 also adds: When the Missouri compromise ended with the Nebraska/Kansas Act, it only pertained to existing lines for the admission of “slave” states. It did not end, and it has not been repealed, the ability for Texas to divide into multiple states (5) is still viable, should it decide to do so and it does not need approval from the United States. (This does not, however, prevent Congress from passing a new law to prevent it.) The same agreement provided that if such state did divide, each state would have the same rights and privileges and number of Seantors and Congressmen as any other State. The State charter does provide for North Texas, East Texas, South Texas, West Texas, and Central Texas.

    (2) From the 1845 Annexation resolution of Texas: “Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owning to said Republic of Texas; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. ”

    D13 clarifies: When Texas was admitted to the Union, in 1845, there were no Federal or State military nor public lands owned by the United States residing within Texas. What Texas did, was to disband their army. The Texas Army was primarily militia anyway and the Republic of Texas owned no arms or ammunition. It was the property of the militia. So, there were no forts or ports or harbors that were fortifications. Consequently, no property changed hands. As the annexation agreement also says, all other lands were retained by Texas and that agreement is still in place today and that includes the land on the US/Mexico border. This was given, in exchange, for Texas retaining its own debts and not becoming a liability to the US Government…consequently, the US Government had no say over how Texas administered its payments and structure of debt. That also still exists today.

    (3) New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And as such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted to the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking permission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

    D13 clarifies: This was under the old Missouri compromise. However, as previously discussed, the Kansas/Nebraska Act mad the Missouri compromise null and void as it pertained to the creation of additional slave states. Texas then sold off its northern territory after the Kansas/Nebraska Act for something around $30 mil. But……keep reading number 4.

    (4) And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgement and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,

    Be it Resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extant and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

    D13 clarifies: Read this very carefully. It requires the POTUS to negotiate with the State of Texas and even clarifies the number of representatives should the State divide. Nothing has been changed to this and still resides today.

    Now….these things that I mentioned are the bulk of the “deals.” However, I think that Stephen was referring primarily to the independent nature of Texas….we simply do not give a rat’s ass about the Washington DC. There is no enforcement arm up there. Texas has no hard assets remaining in the vaults of New York. Our gold and silver was moved out years ago and we have our own STATE owned mint for storage. ( No, Mathius, we do not print our own money….yet ). But I would wager this….should we desire to do so, we have the hard convertable assets to backs us up….does the US? In the last ten years, as you know, we have adopted a “what is right for Texas” attitude. If it is right for Texas, we will do it. That is why we retained our voter ID, even though struck down…. we do not abide by the Department of Education guideines, we dropped all Federal funding for education and school meal provisions because the rules were not restrictive enough, so, therefore, no Federal memos apply, we never did adopt Obamacare and take Federal subsidies because the draw strings were too tight and we saw what was going to happen down the road…as it is happening. Our reputation with Mexico is stronger than the US reputation with Mexico and we get along just fine and in cooperation even though we toughened our stance.

    But, if you read the annexation clause closely, Texas retained its independence over lands and debt….the US did not bail Texas out on annexation. This really gives us our independence. Our statehood is a matter of convenience for defense. We are not dependent upon the US for survival. Most states are….like, unfortunately JAC’s state with all its Federally owned lands. They do not have jurisdiction over their own lands and that is a travesty.

    Will this do for starters?

    • Oops…forgot this. Texas can directly deal with Mexico on commerce. We can negotiate our own prices and price controls directly with Mexico free of encumberance of the United States. Case in point. As I previously posted, on our ranch in Mexico, we raise horses, alfalfa, asparagus, and peppers. We cannot deal with the major corporations of the US but we can deal directly with buyers that reside within the State of Texas. We also have the expressed right to deal with specific commerce tariffs as they pertain to INTRASTATE only. We cannot, however, circumvent any US treaty as it applies to the 49 other states.

      I think this is pretty strong, don’t you?

    • Thank you Colonel. It is pretty damned unique and not abrogated by the War of Southern Rebellion.

      • Yes sir and if you read the agreement with Texas and the Confederate States of America, Texas also retained its sovereignty in that if the CSA had won, Texas woud not have been part of it but the Republic of Texas once again. Another matter of convenience. So, when you look at it from both perspectives, Texas played two ends against the middle.

        In retrospect, however, the carpet baggers were pretty notorious but were run out of Texas pretty quickly. The deep south suffered greatly. The very wilderness of Texas and the rough and tumble Western philosophy of life did not suit “them thar easterners” very well. they did not know how to handle the Comanches and Apaches very well. Those carpet bags did not stop many arrows.

        • I remember reading how the Native Peoples kinda got back on the ascendancy during the war and how difficult it became to suppress them again. Must have been a whole bunch of carpetbaggers who had their hair lifted.

          • It was pretty rough in the years of 1867 – 1897….thirty years of Texas Rangers, Mexican bandits, Indians, lots of bad guys…….them milk toast easterners did not want any of it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Important part of the puzzle:

      “Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[1] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

      In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.[2]”

      from the Wikipedia

      • Yes…I started to post this but thought that I was already long enough. One of the provisions of becoming a state was the unique position of retaining our own debt and income at the time. That made bonds, no matter the position of Texas at the time….an owned asset. Since Texas did not make the decision to split into other states in 1850, it kept not only its sovereign status but did not comingle funds and bought US bonds. An asset.

  28. Ohhhh…..waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaa…….Kathy Griffin is now a victim of the trump family and angry white men who hate women.

    So, let’s see……she poses with a beheaded facsimile of Trump, a sitting President. If D13 or Mathius or anyone else did this to any POTUS, we would already be in jail.

    “I don’t think I will have a career after this,” Griffin said Friday, choking back tears. “I’m going to be honest, he broke me. He broke me.”

    She believes President Trump, and the rest of the First Family, publicly shared their outrage with very clear intentions. YA THINK? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SIT BACK AND SAY NOTHING?

    “I apologized because that was the right thing to do, and I meant it. And then I saw the tide turning, and I saw what they were doing, and I went, ‘Oh, okay, they’re trying to spin this. They’re making it about Barron, and obviously that was never my intent. I would never want to hurt anyone, much less a child,” she said. THEN WHY DO IT AT ALL. YOU THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY…..HOW DO YOU FEEL NOW?

    The caustic comedian fought back tears as she claimed Trump and his family have gone too far in their campaign to “ruin” her because she posed with a faux-bloody prop depicting Trump’s severed head. TOO FAR? YOU POSED, INTENTIONALLY, IN A TERRORIST POSE AND YOU FEEL THAT ANYTHING IS GOING TOO FAR? YOU ARE NOT PROTECTED IN THIS.

    “What’s happening to me has never happened ever in the history of this great country, which is that a sitting President of the United States and his grown children and the first lady are personally, I feel, personally trying to ruin my life forever, forever. You guys know him. He’s never going to stop,” she said at a news conference. YOU ARE LUCKY THAT YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS HAS KEPT YOU OUT OF JAIL.

    She said her apology “absolutely stands” and that she regrets how the image ended up looking like a terrorism propaganda shot.

    Still, Griffin said her offensive actions didn’t warrant President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr. using their powerful platforms to publicly condemn her, especially in the wake of her mea culpa. AS IF AN APOLOGY CLEARS YOU OF WRONG DOING? YOUR ACTIONS DO NOT WARRANT A RETALIATION OF ANY SORT BECAUSE HE IS THE POTUS? GIRLFRIEND…YOU BROUGHT A TOOTHPICK TO A GUN FIGHT.

    • Griffin said her abhorrent blunder shouldn’t force her into hiding and put a target on her back – especially considering she’s known for being vulgar and provocative. AS IF THIS IS AN EXCUSE?

      “I’m not for everybody. I’m barely an acquired taste, frankly,” she said. “I’m 56 years old. I’m 110 pounds wet. I’ve had everybody turn on me, and I just want to make people laugh, that’s all I want to do.” OOPS.. NO ONE LAUGHED.

      She called it “hurtful” that CNN decided to end their decade-long relationship. “There’s a bunch of old white guys trying to silence me,” the comedian said. THEY SHOULD.

      Lisa Bloom defended the notion Griffin has been treated unfairly.

      “Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump are not equals. He is the President of the United States,” Bloom said. “We used to hold our presidents to a standard that they don’t criticize artists and comedians.” THAT WAS IN THE OLD DAYS……YU DO NOT GET TO BASH SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE POTUS AND NOT EXPECT TO GET BACKLASH. PERHAPS THE PAST PRESIDENT’S WERE TOO LAME…..THIS ONE IS NOT A POLITICIAN AND WILL STRIKE BACK. YOU CANNOT PICK A FIGHT AND THEN SAY, WAIT I AM WEARING GLASSES.

      Well, now………..if you jump into a pool of sharks, expect to get bit.

    • She should actually sit down with Mel Gibson and Michael Richards (formerly of Seinfeld) to discuss what happens when you shoot off your pie hole at the wrong time, the wrong way. Instead, this iconic super-Feminist whines like a baby and pulls the Katy Scarlett O’Hara routine. “Who? Poor little ole me?”

  29. This is what Presidential humor used to be. maybe the younger folk won’t get it but I still laugh…..then cry.

  30. gmanfortruth says:
  31. Isnt it amazing that Obama invoked executive privilege three times to stop investigations and that was ok…..if trump considers it…the Dems say it is obstruction of justice. My my…..

    • Comey does, however, have a credibility problem. Since he has already testified that Trump did nothing….if he changes course now…..it will look like sour grapes.

      • Yes Sir, to you and me and the great unwashed rabble. NOT to ABC<CBS<NBC<CNN<MSNBC<NYT<WaPo<LA Times etc, etc, etc. and they will keep hammering.

        My local news outlet just announced "Trump seeks delay in filing 2016 tax return". Well,. knowing what little I do it is old news and I believe it does not protect you from sending Uncle money on account. I would assume most businessmen do seek a delay especially if events are complicated.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Their hypocrisy is so blatant it’s impossible to believe any of them anymore.

  32. gmanfortruth says:
  33. OK SUFA……..I would like to try something to see if it even works. I have two questions on this climate change issue. Each question can be answered with a YES or NO. I have been watching the exchanges on cimate change from a variety of sources….some say yes and some say no………………..but aways with qualifiers. So, I want to ask only two questions that can be answered without qualification.

    1). Do you believe in man made climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it?

    If your answer is no, then please proceed to question 2. If your answer is yes, then there is no need to proceed to question 2.

    2). Do you believe that climate change (changes in CO2 emmissions etc) is going to occur regardless of what man does?

    There is no question 3 pertaining to a combination of both….that is a coward’s way out.

    D13 will start. (1) NO….(2) Yes……..see how easy it is w/o qualifiers?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      NO and YES!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I have wondered if the small rise in CO2 isn’t associated with deforestation.

        • Actually, in the rain forest in two places……South America and on the Island of Maui, Hawaii it is being measured very carefully. As the rain forest depletes in South America, CO2 emissions are increasing exponentially…..as the rain forest in Maui is totally protected and there is no encroachment ( meaning clearing of the forest ) the CO2 emissions are diminishing. An interesting factoid….they are concerned that because the rain forest is growing, there is not enough CO2 to sustain it and therefore, nature will kill it back on its own.

          In addition, the annual rainfall in Maui has grown and the rain fall in the Amazon has fallen. The shrinking of the rain forest in the Amazon is not due to commercial buildings, highways, and cars but due to ranching and farming. Reducing to the rainforest in the Amazon to farming and ranching is not providing enough forestation to supply the CO2. Nature has a way.

        • Therefore man made?

          • Dont get me to lying…..I do not know but the conjecture is if man cuts down the forests, then it is assumed.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            All I mentioned was the rise in CO2, not the Climate Change hoax. I don’t consider the rise or fall of CO2 to have anything to do with the climate, as T-Ray posted, I believe it is solely the activity of the SUN.

            The Global Warming stuff was actually predictable based on the Sum’s cycles. We went from a coming ice age (a predictable 30 year solar cycle) to global warming (when the sun went into a predictable new cycle of higher activity).

            That;s my story and I’m sticking too it 😀

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          CO2 should rise with reduction in forest cover, as a concentration. Because less is sequestered and less O2 is produced. Deforestation should result in higher CO2 “concentrations”, but not necessarily more CO2. It could increase the total if there is not balance in the change of mixed gases due to the deforestation. I have not kept up on this research so I cannot say for sure. But that is the basics of the gas cycle in forests.

          CO2 is sequestered as carbon in woody biomass. When tree growth slows the rate of sequestration drops. When forests die and rot, the rotting process releases CO2. Old growth, a political term, is generally in a static balance of sorts. Until it dies or is burned by wildfire. In the rain forest it reaches balance because fire is not the replacement mechanism. It simply dies and regrows because rotting is so rapid.

          However, deforestation cannot account for almost a doubling of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

      • Thank you

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      First of all, your assumption that 1 is an exclusive of 2 is false. So my answer is:

      Yes and Yes.

    • 1 – No
      2 – Yes

    • No and Yes. Climate change is ever present but not correlated with increasing CO2 levels. A recent study has shown it to be almost entirely solar driven. If their prediction is correct, we will be in a cool period for the next 20 years.

      Man can impact CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels. But CO2 also comes from volcanic activity, releases by the oceans and other sources. Rain forests are a sink for CO2 as it is an essential compound for plant growth. The sub-Saharan region is greening due to increased CO2 levels.

    • Here we go. And it is not what you asked for.

      First I am not a scientist nor would I claim to be one but I have studied science enough to be conversant with it. There is NOT enough good, solid data out there to make a call on anything. Our human hubris, tells us that we can, studying one 50 year period, postulate the rise of temperatures and the change of ocean currents for the next several hundred years. Pure madness!

      I live 15 miles from the Borough of Manhattan and 16 from the Borough of the Bronx which were my youthful stomping grounds. When i took my very first “Volcanoes and Earthquakes” book out of the Ft. Washington Branch of the NY Public Library at age 9 or 10 I was shocked to find out how my neighborhood was formed. I was further shocked to learn that the rock outcroppings all over the two Boroughs which were all surface striated and smooth were composed of rock called Manhattan Schist. They were smooth because they were ground smooth by two of the three most recent ice ages when the area was under a mile of ice.

      Years later, my inquiring mind found out that a mere 18,000 years ago, the geography of the City of New York was formed by an ice sheet which ended in Brooklyn! As a matter of fact, “Battle Pass” in Brooklyn’s Prospect park where Washington’s Army fought a delaying action against the British was created then. It is a small gap in the end moraine of the glacier.

      Folks living near Cape Hatteras, Long Island or Cape Cod are all living on the detritus of the last three glacial surges.

      We cannot yet fully explain ice ages, are they because of tectonic shifts? Sun Spots? A wobbly orbit? Or the dinosaurs driving SUV’s? If we don’t know any of this please tell me how we are going to find out what caused what MAY be a current warming cycle?

      The only thing I am absolutely certain of is the necessity of educating all the people on the planet and bringing all the people up to a modern standard of living. Primitive societies produce lots and lots of children. Historically, they have to. With the advent of modern medicine, the need to have “extra” has been reduced even in the most backwards parts of the planet. So, we are overproducing around the world mostly out of ignorance. If nothing else, the history of the last 100 years has shown that as standards of living rise, as education rises, as modernity encroaches families get smaller and smaller to the point where the developed world is barely at replacement level WITH immigration. The more people, the more uneducated people living in poverty, the more resources squandered, the more pollution crated. Eventually THIS will effect everything including climate. The Chinese have forcibly restricted population growth before education took hold. It was, I expect an emergency measure. As things improve the Chinese will follow Japan and the West in terms of limiting their reproduction to what is personally satisfying and necessary without government intervention.

      I think it actually interesting to watch the Chinese model which is a worst case model on all fronts. Both they and India pollute like crazy. It is absolutely deliberate and will continue until both achieve, as we have, a standard of comfort and a standard of living which allow them, like us, to start cleaning up their messes. Then they will have the time, the “breathing space” to examine at some leisure how to move forward sustainably. If this happens over the next hundred years, the population of the world should shrink following the models already present in Western culture. That, coupled with improvements in energy production, science and technology will gradually clean and restore the planet.

      The mistake, the “Population Bomb” argument made in the 1960’s and 1970’s was in not taking education, progress and even human nature into account. A flawed argument based on an ongoing eternal status quo which still blinds most intellectuals.

      http://www.history.com/topics/ice-age

      • One theory on ice ages that I have heard is that the solar system in its orbit through the Milky Way enters a dust band that reduces the radiation reaching the earth. Hence the periodic ice ages. It will happen again in a few million years.

        • They seem to happen more often that that. The last one ended about 11,000 years ago. I had not heard the tectonic plate shift reasoning before though.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            One of the many fossils found in the inlets here at the Outer Banks were the remains of a walrus. On display at our local fossil museum. Given the geologic region that formed our area was a tectonic plate that separated from the west coast of Africa, I doubt the walrus came from there.

      • So, in your opinion, based on the substance that you just presented, you must favor the Paris Accords. If you do not favor the Paris Accords, then please explain what you mean by the following:

        “The only thing I am absolutely certain of is the necessity of educating all the people on the planet and bringing all the people up to a modern standard of living.”

        • Has NOTHING to do with Climate accords. I want them reading, writing and ciphering. producing goods, consuming goods, learning modern farming which may include GETTING OFF THE FARM. Once they approach our living standard they will suddenly realize that they don’t need six kids.

          I do not know that anyone has ever done it but I would love to see an analysis of those late 19th Century, early 20th century immigrants to the US and their offspring and their offspring’s offspring. My Mom had eight siblings, my Dad six. First generation American born. Next generation (mine) was slightly below maintenance level. Only one cousin has three kids. Most have two several have none. Next generation, my kids. I am the only one who had four my sister zero. My generation, Trynosky/Yanacek is well below replacement level. But, big BUT, everybody is living phenomenally well. certainly don’t have to worry about plowing the south 40 with the mule.

          If society rises to where it could be which relies I guess mostly on good old fashioned capitalist free market positions, the alternative being China’s way, within a few generations, consumption of just about everything will decline just by doing what we are doing now.

          You are in a better position than I to see and tell me about Mexican-Mexican procreation vs. Mexican-American procreation. I see the poor as mostly being dumb (not necessarily their fault) being dumb, having lotsa kids seems like a good idea.

          Now I will explain that certain ethno-religious groups may not fall in line. Mormons, Orthodox Jews and Muslims all seem to think God demands it. However, I will remind you that as a practitioner of the Roman Catholic faith, I am NOT supposed to use contraceptives and are supposed to procreate all over the place. Most Roman Catholics quietly reject the dictum since believe it or not, it’s only a strongly worded suggestion not from the throne of St. Peter. We are separated from the farms of Ireland, Italy, Poland, Germany and Russia for many generations now and are educated enough to know it.

          Why do I have four? I knew it would be a sacrifice personally and it has been especially with parochial school but I saw in both parent’s “larger” families a closeness that was lacking between my sibling and I and between my cousins and their siblings. So far, with one exception I have been right. Funny thing is same for my wife’s family. Her sister and she might as well be from different galaxies. For all intents and purposes we are both “only” children. Of my four, one walked away, the other three would probably kill for each other.

          • Sorry, allow me to be more explicit…..not talking anout reproduction at all…..how would you propose “educating..say China” or “bringing them into a modern standard of living.” China could do it tomorrow but choose not to. We are talking governments here….

            • China IS doing it right now. The people are going to school, leaving the land, industrializing and going through the painful process of doing what it took us 250 years to do. The birth rate was forcibly pushed down BEFORE these changes. I’ve heard the government is softening now on a second child. Obviously their population is under control. People have stuff, they want more stuff, they want vacations, they are exposed to the world and like what they see. The absolute worst thing we can do, which is what we are doing is say, No you can’t. The planet is screwed up enough and if you buy that barbecue, it will get worse so, screw you! When the Cayuga River caught fire, it definitely got our attention. When the “killer” fog of 1952 hit London it got everybody’s attention. As soon as the Chinese have enough “stuff” and personal wealth, they ill turn to the clean up.

              India, opting for a more “democratic” way is moving along at a slower pace. Nonetheless population is no longer spiraling out of control.

              The real problems are with the hell-holes. Parts of Asia and South America, the Muslim states, Central America including Mexico.

              the answer I think is not regime change because who can doubt that Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Iran have gone backwards not forwards. the answer is good old USA. Propaganda, just like in the old days, Voice of America. Madison Avenue, “You too can have this lovely washer-dryer combo just 36 easy monthly payments!” Remember the “Kitchen” debate between Nixon and Khruschev? We wee in elementary school when that happened. Show them what we have. Make them want it and want it bad. Looking at Viet-nam and China, the governments were smart enough to realize that they had two choices to survive, adapt or start killing people like No. Korea does.

              Screw the whole idea of “democratizing” the world. that will come in time. Revolutions are costly and often don’t quite work out. In this case, it is “evolution” not “revolution”.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Leave them alone,
              Let them go home,
              and start over.

              Heh, heh, heh.

  34. From CNN: A very interesting thing concerning the terrorist bombings in London………Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats serving as deputy Prime Minister, says perhaps it is time to recognize that profiling is going to become a necessity. And the leader of the new Democratic party, outspoken Tim Farron, says he is forced to agree.

  35. Science guys. In terms of capturing Co 2, are old forests better than newly planted fast growing ones?

    Are trees the very best mechanism for converting Co 2 into O 2? How about grasses?

    • Plants all have a finite life, hence the sequestered CO2 will eventually return to the atmosphere unless it is buried. The ocean which turn CO2 into limestone are the best sinks. New growth forests will sequester more CO2 than old growth. Grasses capture CO2 during the spring and summer and release it starting in the fall as they die off and rot.

      Some people give me grief because I burn wood as a supplemental fuel in the winter. I live on 5 acres which generates more wood and brush than I can use. I can let the wood rot where it falls but this creates a wild fire danger. I can collect and burn it to get rid of it during the rainy season or I can use it to generate heat. All three return the carbon to the atmosphere. However, the latter displaces some other form of fuel that I would have normally burned to heat the house. Now the enviros would prefer method 1, which is the worst of the three since it increase wild fire danger.

      • Now, which is better, evergreens or deciduous?

        • Great question……spousal unit and I have just built and moved to a new home outside of Fort Worth….if I knew how to post a pic on here, I would show you the view from my back porch….anyway, I went to great expense on putting up a state of the art greenhouse, complete with heating and cooing, misting and humidity control….etc. We are growing vegetables and herbs and flowers. ( Everyone just shut up about a senile old Colonel and a green house…just put it out of your mind )….anyway, in landscaping, I just went through the agonizing decision of evergreens and deciduous. In the winter, I do not want dead shit everywhere….so……………………I did a colorful combination. We have it a little easier as our growing season is mid march to mid November, and sometimes into December before we get even a light freeze.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          By better to you mean sequestering carbon?

          If so then conifers would probably be best in the long run. They have a wider range of habitat and shed less biomass annually. However, not all conifers are the same. So some conifers would be worse than some hardwoods. And the climate changes the equation.

          If both can grow you would want to look at the “forest” cycle, not the specie. Conifers grow, then shade tolerant conifers grow then shade tolerant hardwoods grow. Each addition adds to the “forest carbon budget” until the day it all burns up or falls apart. It also works in reverse, with hardwoods first and shade tolerant conifers coming later.

          If you are looking for carbon sequestration you want to MAXIMIZE the “woody” biomass on a site.

          Oh, you can usually grow conifers faster and in larger numbers on short cycles. But in some climates you can do this with hardwoods. Or where genetics have been manipulated, like the Super growing poplars now being used in commercial forests out west. Plantation to harvest in about 5 years. Can’t do that with any conifers.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          Check out the graphs on pages 3 and 4 of this report. It shows carbon storage by “forest region”. The NW is heavy conifer with some hardwoods, primarily Alder. The NE would be heavy hardwood and conifer mix. The NCentral also pretty heavy to hardwood.

          https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf

          I also suggest you read the introduction. It will shock people how much of the forest carbon budget is located in the “soil”.

  36. My cousin and I got into a tiff over the Paris Accords. A bright woman but born democrat . Had a back and forth for hours over windmills and solar panels.

    Served a useful purpose Did an analysis of cost/benefit (quick and dirty) as well as payback on a solar electrical system in the North East. It is incredibly difficult to find out % of needed electricity provided and hence “savings” . There are 100 “sell you the system” sites for every one that deals with actual numbers.

    In a nutshell in the NE, it does not pay unless it is heavily subsidized (Paid for with your neighbors money).

    Being generous, the system lasts for 20 to 25 years. The un subsidized cost is $25,000 to $35,000 per year. The system will provide approximately 60% of your average household need. The savings, taking into account an annual 2% increase in cost of power company power result in a 30 year plus payback. In addition, I have heard that it makes roof repairs (every 15 years) difficult at best.

    So, while it may work in sunnier climes (with the caveat that a whole lot more Air Conditioning is used there) it does not work here. With the increase in fracking and the more abundant natural gas availability, the 2% annual cost increase of power company power may not be borne out. Personally my rates have fallen substantially over the last few years.

    Another think. Who knew how environmentally damaging the production of solar panels is? The chemicals used. Then, there is the landfill/recycle issue at the end of the 20 years. ,

    • CA is now pushing to make itself 100% renewable electrically by 2045. Already my electric bills have gone up 40%. Renewables, except hydro, are expensive.

      My brothers live in IA which has been pushing wind turbines. These turbines look ugly. They are also not very efficient. Since the electricity generated must be at 60 hz and in phase with the grid, the turbine can only spin at certain rotational rates or as is more common, the ac energy generated must be converted to dc and then back to ac at 60 Hz and then synced with the grid. Such conversions are not done without losses.

      We all know that these turbines slice and dice birds. They also generate low frequency acoustic noise that disturb the locals. Maintenance is also a problem since the repairman must climb the tower (no elevators). Blades can catastrophically fail as well. And finally, when the wind does not blow, the electricity must come from somewhere else. In IA, these turbines are only profitable with the subsidies.

      • God I love it when I hear from someone who knows of which he speaks!

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        T Boone Pickett when he was planning on putting up huge wind farms on someone elses land…..not his own ranches….insisted that subsidies be continued because elsewise there would be no return to the investors. I remember one of his presentations in Dallas when I was last there and was questioned as to why he doesn’t want them on his land….his answer was they are ugly and an eyesore and I do not want to see them anyway near my ranches.

        Most wind farms, if I am not mistaken are being installed with natural gas back up generators. This keeps the current more steady flowing into the grid……however the inefficiency is like driving a car in the city…stop and go….or steady on the freeway out in the country. Huge differences in mileage. In Colorado studies have shown near wind farms with the back up there was an increase in CO2 emmissions negating any gains one might get with the “Green Energy” The generators are constantly stepping on the gas and letting off as the wind goes up and down. Where a natural gas plant or a coal plant can tune its output based on demand to be an efficient steady state power source.

  37. gmanfortruth says:
  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Plate tectonics as a source of surface heat. That is heat energy transferred from the inner earth to the surface.

    The structure of the Earth is a rigid outer crust that is composed of thicker continental crust and thinner oceanic crust, solid but plastically flowing mantle, a liquid outer core, and a solid inner core. The fluidity of a material is proportional to temperature; thus, the solid mantle can still flow on long time scales, as a function of its temperature[2] and therefore as a function of the flow of Earth’s internal heat. The mantle convects in response to heat escaping from Earth’s interior, with hotter and more buoyant mantle rising and cooler, and therefore denser, mantle sinking. This convective flow of the mantle drives the movement of Earth’s lithospheric plates; thus, an additional reservoir of heat in the lower mantle is critical for the operation of plate tectonics and one possible source is an enrichment of radioactive elements in the lower mantle.[11]”

    And the details of what this is:

    “The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth.[2]

    Earth’s internal heat powers most geological processes[3] and drives plate tectonics.[2] Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth’s interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[4] The insolation that eventually, after reflection, reaches the surface penetrates only several tens of centimeters on the daily cycle and only several tens of meters on the annual cycle. This renders solar radiation irrelevant for internal processes.[5]”

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I wish I could be around when LA and SF are forced to merge when they are neighboring megaopolises.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    On the cycle of the ice ages. One note: While they discuss the 100,000 year cycle we also know there has been a larger cycle in the past. One where the ENTIRE planet is covered with ice and one where it has NO ICE anywhere.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

    Second note: Notice the comment about small temp. changes causing the melt of large ice sheets but it takes much larger temp increases to melt small ice sheets. Ask yourself if this is consistent with the scare tactics about “all the glaciers are melting and the ice caps will soon disappear.

    • Youse guys are all just showing off!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        You will love this one. This is a site dedicated to debunking the skeptics. Has some pretty good stuff but also exposes some holes in their theories that they don’t recognize. For example, this answer to a question about the next ice age essentially admits that the current warming due to man is a good thing. Because otherwise we would be experiencing a global cooling period. Each cooling period coincides with major catastrophes for humans, by the way.

        Also note that his citation describes the glacial periodicity differently. The other mentioned 100,000 year cycles. It did not distinguish the ice vs. ice free periods within the cycle. This one shows that the 100,000 years is the period of ICE. With 10 to 20 thousand year ICE FREE periods in between.

        My personal, trained but not expert, opinion is that ice ages are like all other natural cycles we find in nature. There are cycles within cycles. If you keep the time scale small you see only one. As the time scale widens more cycles become evident.

        https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Good reading is the research being done on the Sahara and it’s now proven cycles. There have been good…not dramatized Nova programs shown periodically.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK Here is a glacial period chart to go along with the discussions

      • yeah…..here is my knowledge of weather. I have a small sign in the backyard with a catchy saying….on it but here is how I know the weather…..I look at my sign and…

        1) If the sign is wet……it is raining.
        2) If the sign is dry……it is not raining.
        3) If there is a shadow on the ground……it is sunny.
        4) If there is no shadow on the ground…it is cloudy.
        5) If it is white on the top…..it is snowing.
        6) If I can’t see the sign….it is foggy.
        7) If the sign is swinging back and forth….it is windy.
        8) If the sign is jumping up and down….earthquake.
        9) If the sign is gone………..Tornado.

        Pretty simplt actually.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          That is true. But how do you tell what the CLIMATE is? You could have an entirely different climate and your “weather” gauge would still be accurate. And the “weather” would be whatever it was at that moment.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        And now for the Finale.

        This addresses the biggest flaw in the laymen who argue that CO2 is the cause of climate change in the past. The lie that was perpetrated by Gore and has yet to die. CO2, in reality, has FOLLOWED temperature changes not preceded them.

        https://cei.org/blog/study-finds-non-greenhouse-role-co2-ice-age-cycles

        Now I think there is a small piece missing in this as well. They discuss the desertification due to cold temps and eventually this creates dust storms. But notice the periods of warming and cooling between the major melts. We know that the glaciers did not stay stagnant during the ICE PERIOD. They retreated and then advanced, over and over. The ice dams that broke to drain “Lake Missoula” and form the Grand Coulees and Columbia Gorge did not break once. But the event occurred many times.

        Well as glaciers retreat they leave find sediment behind. These deposits also blow in the wind and could have contributed to layers of sediment in the ice. Thus the reduction in reflective capability would be cumulative. Not to mention that dirt in ice increases absorption of energy. In short, several cycles of small warming and ice retreat eventually lead to a cumulative massive melt to form the ICE FREE PERIOD.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          The same artifacts that are seen on land in the areas you mentions are also created / replicated from the North Sea down through the channel between now the British Isles and the continent when it’s ice dams broke..

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    One other comment on the global warming/climate change issue.

    Many believe that the greenies switched from Global Warming to Climate Change because the predicted rise in temps did not happen. There could be some truth to this. But it has caused this situation where people now discard the whole idea of human impact because now we look at climate change.

    The REAL issue folks is still TEMPERATURE. This is the base which needs to be evaluated. Climate is theoretically tied to changes in temperature, and climate thus has a feedback to temperature as well.

    All the “Climate” predictions are predicated on TEMPERATURE changes caused by green house gases and other changes in the earth’s surface, which are also man caused.

    The issue of CO2 and other gases is whether they increase the “trapping” or in better terms, the “reflection” of energy from the atmosphere back to the earth. That is what “greenhouse effect” really means. The temp. is not captured in the CO2. It is absorbed and then released again. The theory being that more CO2 will cause more heat energy to be reflected back to the surface, or surrounding atmosphere, rather than escape into space.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Now after you have read the above references to glacial cycles read this CNN article. Then you will understand clearly why we have a problem communication FACTS to the public. Regardless of where you stand on the conclusions.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/world/ice-age-postponed/

    The conclusion they reached? Better to be buried in ice because the ice age is part of the good things created by nature for man’s use.

    • Keeps the beer cold!

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I wish I could find the article that was published at least a decade ago. All it was was headlines from the NY Times about major gloom and doom propheses alternating between the coming ice age and run away warming. These cycles of headlines were approximately every 20 years.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I’m sure that you remember in the 70’s when the climate gurus all were proclaming the coming of a new ice age. The biggest proponant of it was one of Obamas science advisors who now was lock stock and barrel on the run away warming kick. In the 70’s he was proposing to take coal ash or ground coal and spread it on the ice causing it toi absorb heat and melt.

      The lead scientist who is working on the Antarctic ice core samples and created the original charts that Gore MISUSED. The scientist said we have the warming 1st then the CO2 levels rise. The temperature rise is totally unexplained. But the physics of the temp rise preceeding the outgassing of CO2 is solid….he then went on to say the temperatures for some unexplained reason started dropping…..then the CO2 levels started dropping as they were reabsorbed into the ecosystems……why the tempeartures rose and fell was not in his research at the time. But he flat out refuted Gore because Gore reversed the cycles….on the 600K chart seeing the lags was near to impossible but the deltas were hundreds of years offset.

  42. Wow…..all I asked was a simple question and look what happened. I am doing a survey….so far I have asked approximately 40 people the same question that I posed on here. I was going to not post the results but I think I will now……

    8 of 10 do not believe in man made climate change…I tried to ask as many liberals as I could find…but they are becoming an endangered species here.

    As a pilot, I know how my flight characteristics have changed over the years and I study weather and weather patterns…but for flying. In the past 30 years, I have not seen an increase in hurricanes nor tornados nor thunderstorms. The one characteristic that impacts my flying are the years of El Nino or La Nina…..Those have an impact on upper level systems through jet streams. My attention is riveted on the patterns as they develop of the East Coast of Africa.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      And for us it is what is happening in two places. The far Pacific and the Gulf of Alaska. Of course the first impacts the second. But sometimes they are in conflict and then we had better batten down the hatches, or get out the snow blower.

      • Yes, the rainfall in Texas is completely controlled by El Nino….If the jet stream stays North on the Canadian border…..we have drought…..if it swings down to the central USA….we have lots of rain. The other influence is Baja California….as the Southwesterly flows that come off the warmer water of the Baja…..across the Chihuahua desert through Arizona….major thunder storms…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      So 8 of 10 respondents disagree with 100% of the actual scientists who study the atmosphere and climate.

      Doesn’t bode well for the US, let alone the rest of the world.

      • JAC….that is because science is not very believable when they predict that California was going to be under water by 2015….too bad it wasn’t……

        I believe it was you that posted one time that you could present as many sicentists that say otherwise…..anyway….I am a realist, as you know….when I see the north or south pole melt…I will say I was wrong….but, I do agree with my pretty smart uncle…he thinks its folly and he is very conversant with these things.

        That said……I am still on the very skeptical side and will drive my Navigator and fly my plane. When Al Gore, and all the biggies that believe in this, reduces their carbon footprint….I will think about mine.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          What I said was that there were many who disagreed with the extent of the warming. And thus the predictions of the “climate effects” are not iron clad. But there is ZERO disagreement that CO2 creates warming in the atmosphere and on the planet. That more CO2 will increase temps.

          The argument is over the amount of warming and the various feedback loops proposed.

          So when you ask if man caused CO2 is causing WARMING the answer is ABSOLUTELY.

  43. If I knew how to post links, I would…..but here is what I am talking about…

    “The polar ice caps have melted faster in last 20 years than in the last 10,000. A comprehensive satellite study confirms that the melting ice caps are raising sea levels at an accelerating rate. The polar regions are important drivers of the world’s climate. When the “everlasting ice” melts at an increasing rate, the rest of the world is affected.”

    Then this…..May 19, 2015 · Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring.

    and this….The NASA study analyzed satellite data that measured small changes in height of the surface of the ice and snow on the continent. While it appears that ice mass is growing at the moment, scientists note that, within a few decades, that trend could be reversed. The new analysis of data shows that about 112 billion tons of ice was added to the Arctic ice sheet during the ‘90s, and that rate slowed to 82 billion from 2003 to 2008.

    The new conclusions conflict with results from other large estimates, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report that said the continent was losing ice. The IPCC is a United Nations-organized group of scientists from around the world who study the changing climate.

    and this….Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and lead author of the study, said. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica. There, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008 and increased again through 2015.

    A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

    The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
    The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

    Since publication of the original version of this article, the US source of the figures – the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) – was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected the figure without mentioning it.

    On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by a record 2.38 million sq km – 919,000 sq miles – from its 2012 low.

    So…what to believe……what to believe…

    • Could, would, should are NOT scientific words. They are guesses by Gypsy fortune tellers.

    • Col. to add links, when viewing the page you want to link go to the Http: bar at the top and right click on it. Select COPY. Then come here, add your reply and right click again. This time select PASTE.

      As for oceans rising. the Arctic is floating ice. Melting the ice sheet will not raise the oceans. Oceans rise due to thermal expansion of the water or from melting glaciers and other land locked ice.

      • My whole point is…….most of the global warming/cooling whatever issues seem to come from UN sources….that want all these countries to give money…….the only ones who are complaining today are those entities, governmental and private, that live off the subsidies. I read several excerpts of the Paris accords ( it is too voluminous ), and it is all voluntary and the money was not going to poor countries that needed help…..it was going to all these so called scientific study groups and consultants and companies that deal in so called solar and wind power that cannot survive without subsidies. Trump was right…..get out and renegotiate and do what is right for the USA.

      • Col. to add links, when viewing the page you want to link go to the Http: bar at the top and right click on it. Select COPY. Then come here, add your reply and right click again. This time select PASTE.

        Ok will try that…..I had tried it once before but will do so again.

  44. You guys better hurry up and get this climate change hashed out. Al Gore says we’re in imminent danger:

    We’re in the midst of a sustainability revolution that has the magnitude of the industrial revolution, but the speed of the digital revolution. But, yes, we still need good policies because we have to move faster. We’re in a race against time here. We’re seeing very encouraging changes. But we have to change faster.

    • ” We’re seeing very encouraging changes.”

      Translation: Oh crap, it is not turning out like I thought…time to reverse it and say, “see, we are changing it back”…..and now the new mantra is going to be to hijack the fact that climate change, global warming, or whatever you want to call it…is nothing but a joke….so hijack it and say….I told ya so and if it were not for me, we would be in worse shape.”

      • Precisely, you will hear, “See, I saved the planet”. And statues, sustainable statues made from compressed cow droppings, with solar powered night lighting WILL be erected!

  45. Serious thanks to all you guys for the science info last night I told the wife I had spent a half hour or so on that forest carbon sequestration study. She was convinced I’d finally gone over the edge.

    Two weeks ago, I spent all Saturday afternoon at a WW 1 themed event where i got to ask the Woodrow Wilson Re-enactor why he didn’t take up Teddy’s offer of raising a “Rough Rider” type division and taking it to France?” The wife would not accompany me. That was too bad because at the end of the day I had to tell her that there are a whole lot of people much farther over the edge than I could ever be. I’ve seen re-enactors before, from a distance but being among them for a day……It’s like re-reading “A Confederate in the Attic”. Wonder if the “doughboys” will incorporate lice into their re-enacting?

  46. One last fleeting comment on all the climate change stuff I started…….From the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, May 12, 2017. Contributions to the global Green Climate Fund…..USA $1 billion, China $0, Russia $0, India $0………Green Climate Fund contributions to Russia, China, and India combined. $6 billion and change. Green Climate Fund contributions to the USA…..$0.

    The French have a word for this…….idiote………it means “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning.” The only thing that I would add is a “s” to the end of it representing our negotiating team of Obama/Kerry.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      The problem I see with all the commentary is that many people see the political idiocy and the fear mongering for what it is. But instead of attacking that they simply discount Global Warming and CO2’s role in that as a “hoax”.

      The Science is not a hoax. Much of the reporting and dooms day stuff is where the hoax is located.

      Put another way, the CAUSE is real, the EFFECT is in dispute.

      • I am conflicted on the issue. I will freely admit that. I would never deny that there is climate change but the who, what, when, where and why leave me stymied. As I have said I had the misfortune to be raised by a father whose mantra was (among many) “There is always more than one way”.

        Above, I postulated a way to reduce carbon emissions over the next century by limiting population growth through economic and educational expansion. This of course will be in addition to technological improvements which are all but guaranteed. Stifling, stopping, retarding growth are, in my opinion, counterproductive.

        Dad used to say life is like a chess game, you have to be three moves ahead at all times. Actually, considering that there can be three moves within each move: forward, backward or none, it is three to the third power. So, looking at my proposal, I have to shoot it down too.

        So, reduced population equals reduced consumption equals less economic growth. But, reduced population means more available for less consumers which equals better quality, more choices and higher prices. Third result is of course, do nothing and nothing happens.

        Of course, nature could intervene and wipe us out with a repeat of a deadlier Spanish Flu or some President could listen to Leslie Graham and John McCain and blow us all up a la, “On the Beach” or with those two yo-yo’s, “Dr. Strangelove”. As a kid I had read George Stewart’s “Earth Abides” a late 1940’s SF novel about a global pandemic. Stewart was a scientist and throughout the novel he would throw in examples of animal mass extinctions by disease after overpopulation in effect making his own case for his book’s premise.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          You’re going to love this. Conclusions from GEOLOGICAL studies. Not models predicting anything.

          “The geological evidence is very strong that sea level was higher by about 200 feet at times, such as during the Eocene Optimum, when Antarctica was ice-free, and was about 400 feet lower during the height of the Ice Age. ”

          Along with this was a comment that geological records indicate, not predict accurately, that the Antarctic Ice Cap began forming when CO2 dropped to a little over 700 ppm. The implication being that it will BEGIN melting when it reaches that point on the upswing.

          This would require a 75% increase in CO2 concentrations over today’s level.

          There are some issues with these conclusions but they are not driven by AGW proponents.

          One of the flaws is the “assumption” that the CO2 levels 50 million years ago were the REASON that the planet was ice free.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I will agree with what the hoax part is, all the fear mongering with the goal of theft and redistribution of said wealth. This seems to be at our expense to the benefit of others. Simply put, a Globalist scheme based on fake science.

        It’s a political lie. A Socialist push to end Capitalism. Ain’t gonna work.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I just remembered I forgot to respond to your lists of things you hate or would like changed in Govt. One was that Congress overturned the ISP collection and sale of data, or the internet privacy act as you refer to it. You asked “who asked for this”?

    My answer; I DID.

    Thank You Congress.

    Now lets turn the to effort to ACTUALLY fix this issue which is being proposed by a Republican. The restrictions on collection and sale of personal information would apply to ALL INTERNET companies, including Google and Facebook.

    Who asked for this? I DID.

    Are you OK with the NEW legislative effort? Or should all companies be either 1) banned from selling data, or 2) all allowed to sell without restrictions?

%d bloggers like this: