Delay will be a disaster for her and the Dems. It will impact the election against the Dems as 2 of the candidates (Bernie and Pochantas)would have to spend the entire trial phase in Washington to hear arguements, taking them out of the campaign and away from the primaries in late January and February at minimum. Congrats Nancy!! You just spiked the guns of 2 of the strongest candidates you had for 2020.... Dr. Steve has a great take on it... Check it out!!! Dr. Steve Turley site
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Monday, June 6, 2011
Just in case you forgot...
The following are 20 ways that the U.S. economy has gotten even worse since Barack Obama became president....
#1 In January 2009, the official U.S. unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. Today it is 9.1 percent.
#2 When Barack Obama took office, the number of "long-term unemployed" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is up to 6.2 million.
#3 When Barack Obama first became president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $1.83. Today it is $3.79. This also affects the price of almost everything else that we buy.
#4 In April 2009, the average U.S. household spent approximately $201 on gasoline. In April 2011, the average U.S. household spent approximately $369 on gasoline.
#5 According to an article in the Daily Mail, the cost of a Memorial Day cookout was 29 percent higher this year than it was last year.
#6 When Barack Obama was sworn in, there were nearly 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are more than 44 million on food stamps.
#7 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years.
#8 When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars. Today it is 14.3 trillion dollars.
#9 The federal government has borrowed 29,660 more dollars per household since Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus law two years ago.
#10 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
#11 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. Thanks to George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress, U.S. taxpayers are standing behind that debt.
#12 Under Obama, the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow. The trade deficit was about 33 percent larger in 2010 than it was in 2009, and the 2011 trade deficit is expected to be even bigger.
#13 Only 66.8% of American men had a job last year. That was the lowest level that has ever been recorded in all of U.S. history.
#14 Just since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force.
#15 In 2010, more than a million U.S. families lost their homes to foreclosure for the first time ever, and that number is expected to go even higher in 2011.
#16 The U.S. real estate crisis just continues to get worse. During the first three months of this year, less new homes were sold in the U.S. than in any three month period ever recorded.
#17 The U.S. dollar has fallen by 17 percent compared to other major national currencies since 2009.
#18 Faith in the U.S. dollar and in U.S. Treasuries is rapidly declining. The mainstream news is not reporting on it much, but right now the Chinese are rapidly dumping U.S. government debt. That is not a good sign.
#19 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs about $1500.
#20 Americans seem to be more pessimistic about the economy than ever. According to a brand new poll, 61 percent of Americans believe that they will not return to their "pre-recession" lifestyles until at least 2014.
#1 In January 2009, the official U.S. unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. Today it is 9.1 percent.
#2 When Barack Obama took office, the number of "long-term unemployed" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is up to 6.2 million.
#3 When Barack Obama first became president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $1.83. Today it is $3.79. This also affects the price of almost everything else that we buy.
#4 In April 2009, the average U.S. household spent approximately $201 on gasoline. In April 2011, the average U.S. household spent approximately $369 on gasoline.
#5 According to an article in the Daily Mail, the cost of a Memorial Day cookout was 29 percent higher this year than it was last year.
#6 When Barack Obama was sworn in, there were nearly 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are more than 44 million on food stamps.
#7 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years.
#8 When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars. Today it is 14.3 trillion dollars.
#9 The federal government has borrowed 29,660 more dollars per household since Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus law two years ago.
#10 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
#11 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. Thanks to George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress, U.S. taxpayers are standing behind that debt.
#12 Under Obama, the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow. The trade deficit was about 33 percent larger in 2010 than it was in 2009, and the 2011 trade deficit is expected to be even bigger.
#13 Only 66.8% of American men had a job last year. That was the lowest level that has ever been recorded in all of U.S. history.
#14 Just since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force.
#15 In 2010, more than a million U.S. families lost their homes to foreclosure for the first time ever, and that number is expected to go even higher in 2011.
#16 The U.S. real estate crisis just continues to get worse. During the first three months of this year, less new homes were sold in the U.S. than in any three month period ever recorded.
#17 The U.S. dollar has fallen by 17 percent compared to other major national currencies since 2009.
#18 Faith in the U.S. dollar and in U.S. Treasuries is rapidly declining. The mainstream news is not reporting on it much, but right now the Chinese are rapidly dumping U.S. government debt. That is not a good sign.
#19 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs about $1500.
#20 Americans seem to be more pessimistic about the economy than ever. According to a brand new poll, 61 percent of Americans believe that they will not return to their "pre-recession" lifestyles until at least 2014.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
EPA catagorizes a new hazzard to the environment: MILK!!!!
I am not making this up…
The Manderins in Washington have truly lost their minds and have once again demonstrated that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and a little bit of power is a catastrophe in the making…
The EPA has gone from defender of the environment and guardian against industrial pollution to a repository of inane and banal individuals with far too much power and too much time on their hands to abuse that power.
Not content to rail against BP and oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico, they have a new target to focus on: Bossy the cow…..
In a regulatory move reminiscent of the prohibition on sales of peanuts in Lee County, Alabama, (after sundown on Wednesday’s), our federal government has now come up with laws on spilled milk. EPA has decided that since milk contains a low density "oil" in the form of lipids (fats), it has the authority to force farmers and the dairy industry as a whole, to comply with a host of new regulations: to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, and how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk. The question is now, what is the “threshold” of where one must comply with these new regulations?
At the moment, it seems to be concentrated on industrial sized operations but as we all know, there is always "mission creep" when government agencies are involved and people are looking to justify their exorbitant paychecks. The mind boggles at the possibilities…..
I can see the newspapers now……
“EPA sent enforcement teams to the Parker Elementary School in response to reports of spilled milk in the lunch room. Students were evacuated by EMS personnel and HAZMAT teams summoned to contain and clean up the spill. School district officials were cited for child endangerment and violation of federal law as it relates to control of potentially hazardous materials.”
“Joe Snerdly, local dairy farmer, was fined for tripping over and spilling a bucket of milk and not reporting it to federal officials and for not having an “action plan” in place to contain the spill. Local authorities were summoned (at great expense…) to survey the environmental impact of the spilling of less than 1 liter of this toxic substance. Officials were unavailable for comment pending a revised Environmental Impact Study.”
But all this begs the question… Will this law be limited to a particular species ?? What happens if other species can be covered by this law other than just bovines?
I can see the news reports now…..
“Mildred Smith, 20, of Kalamazoo, was arrested today for creating a hazardous work environment when she inadvertently discharged breast milk at her place of work today…. Ms. Smith, the mother of a 2 month old girl, allowed a small amount of fluid to discharge from her person forcing an immediate evacuation of the building and response by EMS and HAZMAT teams. The quantity of discharge was reported minimal, but given the discharge contained lipids that are a naturally occurring oils, the response was deemed necessary by EPA officials”
“The US Navy, in response to EPA regulations governing toxic discharges from ships at sea in and about the coastal waters of the United States, has forbidden sailors to “relive themselves in a sexual manner” due to the danger to the ecosystem and to the ship’s environment. This addition to naval regulations was instituted when EPA ruled that since male semen contains a substance known as Prostaglandin, a fatty acid substance which makes up a major portion of male seminal fluid, officers and men deployed either ashore or afloat are hereby instructed not to discharge seminal fluids into the shipboard environment or to allow untreated discharges into the open sea. Violations of this regulation are punishable under the UCMJ and under federal environmental regulations….”
“Los Angeles County officials have raided several San Fernando Valley locations known to be production sites of adult entertainment in an effort to curb the unchecked and unregulated discharges of toxic substances like male semen and female lactations. Concerns by EPA officials have nothing to do with the potential biotoxin levels but center on concerns that such discharges in vast quantities as are commonly generated in the multi-billion dollar porn industry, might create the potential for Exxon Valdez sized “ slicks” should these discharges reach the open ocean….”
The absurdity of Washington knows no bounds…….
The Manderins in Washington have truly lost their minds and have once again demonstrated that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and a little bit of power is a catastrophe in the making…
The EPA has gone from defender of the environment and guardian against industrial pollution to a repository of inane and banal individuals with far too much power and too much time on their hands to abuse that power.
Not content to rail against BP and oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico, they have a new target to focus on: Bossy the cow…..
In a regulatory move reminiscent of the prohibition on sales of peanuts in Lee County, Alabama, (after sundown on Wednesday’s), our federal government has now come up with laws on spilled milk. EPA has decided that since milk contains a low density "oil" in the form of lipids (fats), it has the authority to force farmers and the dairy industry as a whole, to comply with a host of new regulations: to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, and how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk. The question is now, what is the “threshold” of where one must comply with these new regulations?
At the moment, it seems to be concentrated on industrial sized operations but as we all know, there is always "mission creep" when government agencies are involved and people are looking to justify their exorbitant paychecks. The mind boggles at the possibilities…..
I can see the newspapers now……
“EPA sent enforcement teams to the Parker Elementary School in response to reports of spilled milk in the lunch room. Students were evacuated by EMS personnel and HAZMAT teams summoned to contain and clean up the spill. School district officials were cited for child endangerment and violation of federal law as it relates to control of potentially hazardous materials.”
“Joe Snerdly, local dairy farmer, was fined for tripping over and spilling a bucket of milk and not reporting it to federal officials and for not having an “action plan” in place to contain the spill. Local authorities were summoned (at great expense…) to survey the environmental impact of the spilling of less than 1 liter of this toxic substance. Officials were unavailable for comment pending a revised Environmental Impact Study.”
But all this begs the question… Will this law be limited to a particular species ?? What happens if other species can be covered by this law other than just bovines?
I can see the news reports now…..
“Mildred Smith, 20, of Kalamazoo, was arrested today for creating a hazardous work environment when she inadvertently discharged breast milk at her place of work today…. Ms. Smith, the mother of a 2 month old girl, allowed a small amount of fluid to discharge from her person forcing an immediate evacuation of the building and response by EMS and HAZMAT teams. The quantity of discharge was reported minimal, but given the discharge contained lipids that are a naturally occurring oils, the response was deemed necessary by EPA officials”
“The US Navy, in response to EPA regulations governing toxic discharges from ships at sea in and about the coastal waters of the United States, has forbidden sailors to “relive themselves in a sexual manner” due to the danger to the ecosystem and to the ship’s environment. This addition to naval regulations was instituted when EPA ruled that since male semen contains a substance known as Prostaglandin, a fatty acid substance which makes up a major portion of male seminal fluid, officers and men deployed either ashore or afloat are hereby instructed not to discharge seminal fluids into the shipboard environment or to allow untreated discharges into the open sea. Violations of this regulation are punishable under the UCMJ and under federal environmental regulations….”
“Los Angeles County officials have raided several San Fernando Valley locations known to be production sites of adult entertainment in an effort to curb the unchecked and unregulated discharges of toxic substances like male semen and female lactations. Concerns by EPA officials have nothing to do with the potential biotoxin levels but center on concerns that such discharges in vast quantities as are commonly generated in the multi-billion dollar porn industry, might create the potential for Exxon Valdez sized “ slicks” should these discharges reach the open ocean….”
The absurdity of Washington knows no bounds…….
Gov. Mike Huckabee and "Standing by" Mubarak.... Is this the smart play???
I like Mike Huckabee.
I think of all the potential 2012 Republican challengers for the office of President, I like this former Governor of Arkansas the most.
He seems a kind, thoughtful, and ethical man. He has the folksy charm typical of most southern politicians. The down-home congeniality and the seeming complete lack of guile engender a certain sense of well-being reminiscent of the feeling one gets from an indulgent uncle or even father figure.
But there lies the rub……
If Gov. Huckabee runs for President, he will face many complex challenges. The stagnate world economy, the burgeoning federal budget deficit, Islamofascism and terrorism, not to mention the rise of multi-national threats from places like Russia , North Korea, the emerging leftist powers in Central and South America, and the growing angst over the debt, jobs and the economy here in America. These and the multitude of other issues old and new will task any President as no previous President has ever been tasked before. He will have to show clarity of purpose, strength of character and a near maniacal attention to the details as none of his predecessors have ever had to demonstrate. As unfair as it seems, he will have to be all things to all people. All this begs the question: Does he have the gravitas for the job?
This week we have seen our most important ally in North Africa, Egypt, come apart at the seams. The regime of President Hosni Mubarak seems to be coming to an ignominious and violent end just as the regime of Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s did two weeks ago in the wake of riots over food prices and availability, and lack of economic opportunity.
President Mubarak was successor to Anwar Sadat, whose exit from power thirty years ago was precipitated by his own military who gunned him down during a military parade. Since the assassination of Sadat, peace has reigned between Israel, Egypt and the Kingdom of Jordan. Mubarak has honored the Camp David Treaty and has been helpful in other areas of Mideast security and cooperation. As consequence Egypt receives massive quantities of American foreign aid as a premium. That aid, in the form of out-rights cash grants and loan guarantees, has amounted to tens of billions of taxpayer dollars over the last three decades.
Foreign policy isn’t without its challenges and like family; we have very little choice as to who we can entreat. Many of the players are not the most savory of characters, but we must deal with them none the less, like them or not. Occasionally, we get lucky and have a meeting of the minds (and souls) like the relationship between Britain and America and pairings like Churchill and Roosevelt or Thatcher and Reagan. Other times, it’s much the opposite. Countries like North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran present great challenges and their leadership offers little in the way of cooperation or dialog. Then there are those who may be somewhat cooperative and capable of working in common cause, but their internal politics are diametrically different from our own. This is the dynamic we find in most of the world and in particular, what we find in the Islamic world. Most nations there are, to be blunt, dictatorships that may don the façade of “democracy” but fail to practice its precepts to any great degree. Some are hereditary monarchies who treat their countries as a “family business” and their people as vassals or if they are lucky, as dependents with little or no say in the affairs of state.
In an article published in the Jerusalem Post on February 2. 2011, Gov. Huckabee, when questioned on the events in Egypt and of the position President Mubarak found himself in, said “…it is going to be incumbent upon the US to reassure its allies that there is not going to be a consistency of abandonment when it comes to difficulty and troubles that a nation might face.” While a laudable position, one has to question its wisdom, or just how far the Governor would go in “reassuring"’ allies
The U.S. has relationships with many countries around the world and it would be safe to say, the internal politics and legal standards in most of them fall far short of what we in the U.S. would consider just or fair. Many nations are ruled by juntas, cabals, Presidents-for-life, or single party dictatorships. While we espouse freedom, democratic values, and the rule of law, we end up doing business with those who care little for such lofty principles. Egypt is one such country.
President Mubarak has not played by the rules. He has violated the Egyptian Constitution and held office far longer than the law allows. He has ruled by edict at times and has banned any opposition political parties within Egypt. We in America do business with him because it serves our purposes to do so and peace is kept in a place where peace is scarce. It allowed a valued ally, Israel, to live without fear of invasion from its southern flank for over 30 years.
Unfortunately, this situation has come at a significant cost.
America made the calculation that we had to support an autocrat in order to maintain the peace.
America can’t and should not make a practice of pledging to “stand by” such regimes if their internal politics are such that they create the seeds or their own destruction. If we are to be true to ourselves and to the principles we so vociferously espouse to the world, we have to be more vocal and more insistent on certain standards of behavior from those we ally ourselves. We have to be up front with the world and with the people of those nations we do business with. We must tell them that while we may sympathize with their plight, we can’t and won’t interfere in the internal politics of any nation. Far too often America has intervened and far too often we have been left in a worse position in the wake of that intervention. Iran is one such country. In the 1950’s America instigated a coup (Operation Ajax) against the lawfully elected government and backed the autocratic rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi for three decades that followed until he himself was deposed by an even more autocratic and decidedly unfriendly regime to American interests. The people of Iran have long memories. They will more likely than not eschew re-establishment of anything resembling normal diplomatic or commercial relations with us again, at least for the foreseeable future This is one of many examples of just how badly this nation has calculated consequences for our actions.
Gov. Huckabee’s statement that we should stand by our allies is a laudable sentiment, but it should be tempered with a very strong, public equivocation that while we will honor agreements made and stand by the concept of peace between nations and the precept of defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, no particular promise of fidelity or fraternity can or should be made to individual leaders or their governments, especially those who violate the very precepts freedom, liberty and self-determination that we in America hold dear. We should not place the honor of our nation at risk by giving more than the most cursory amount of consideration necessary to do business with any country that abuses the rights of its people. To do so marks us hypocrites. It opens us up to internal and external ridicule over “human rights”. It also creates situations like what we face with Iran who has now become a major military and foreign policy concern.
Gov. Huckabee needs to show less “Dutch uncle” and more adamance; a more pronounced line of reasoning in regard to relations with other counties. He also needs to craft his statements to reflect that reasoning, especially when it concerns leaders and governments whose practices and internal dynamics are so decidedly different from our own. Egypt may be an ally as far as regional security is concerned, but America needs to take a more hands-off approach to the internal situation there. We have to let the people of Egypt know that we in America will do nothing to stifle their desires to force reform within their country and that while we look on with concern at the violence and pray for the safety and well being of the people of Egypt, it is a situation that only they themselves can solve. They must chart a path that is in their best interests and that when they are ready and if they are willing, we here in America will honor the agreements we have made with their country and work with whatever government they choose. We can’t afford more Iran’s……
I think of all the potential 2012 Republican challengers for the office of President, I like this former Governor of Arkansas the most.
He seems a kind, thoughtful, and ethical man. He has the folksy charm typical of most southern politicians. The down-home congeniality and the seeming complete lack of guile engender a certain sense of well-being reminiscent of the feeling one gets from an indulgent uncle or even father figure.
But there lies the rub……
If Gov. Huckabee runs for President, he will face many complex challenges. The stagnate world economy, the burgeoning federal budget deficit, Islamofascism and terrorism, not to mention the rise of multi-national threats from places like Russia , North Korea, the emerging leftist powers in Central and South America, and the growing angst over the debt, jobs and the economy here in America. These and the multitude of other issues old and new will task any President as no previous President has ever been tasked before. He will have to show clarity of purpose, strength of character and a near maniacal attention to the details as none of his predecessors have ever had to demonstrate. As unfair as it seems, he will have to be all things to all people. All this begs the question: Does he have the gravitas for the job?
This week we have seen our most important ally in North Africa, Egypt, come apart at the seams. The regime of President Hosni Mubarak seems to be coming to an ignominious and violent end just as the regime of Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s did two weeks ago in the wake of riots over food prices and availability, and lack of economic opportunity.
President Mubarak was successor to Anwar Sadat, whose exit from power thirty years ago was precipitated by his own military who gunned him down during a military parade. Since the assassination of Sadat, peace has reigned between Israel, Egypt and the Kingdom of Jordan. Mubarak has honored the Camp David Treaty and has been helpful in other areas of Mideast security and cooperation. As consequence Egypt receives massive quantities of American foreign aid as a premium. That aid, in the form of out-rights cash grants and loan guarantees, has amounted to tens of billions of taxpayer dollars over the last three decades.
Foreign policy isn’t without its challenges and like family; we have very little choice as to who we can entreat. Many of the players are not the most savory of characters, but we must deal with them none the less, like them or not. Occasionally, we get lucky and have a meeting of the minds (and souls) like the relationship between Britain and America and pairings like Churchill and Roosevelt or Thatcher and Reagan. Other times, it’s much the opposite. Countries like North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran present great challenges and their leadership offers little in the way of cooperation or dialog. Then there are those who may be somewhat cooperative and capable of working in common cause, but their internal politics are diametrically different from our own. This is the dynamic we find in most of the world and in particular, what we find in the Islamic world. Most nations there are, to be blunt, dictatorships that may don the façade of “democracy” but fail to practice its precepts to any great degree. Some are hereditary monarchies who treat their countries as a “family business” and their people as vassals or if they are lucky, as dependents with little or no say in the affairs of state.
In an article published in the Jerusalem Post on February 2. 2011, Gov. Huckabee, when questioned on the events in Egypt and of the position President Mubarak found himself in, said “…it is going to be incumbent upon the US to reassure its allies that there is not going to be a consistency of abandonment when it comes to difficulty and troubles that a nation might face.” While a laudable position, one has to question its wisdom, or just how far the Governor would go in “reassuring"’ allies
The U.S. has relationships with many countries around the world and it would be safe to say, the internal politics and legal standards in most of them fall far short of what we in the U.S. would consider just or fair. Many nations are ruled by juntas, cabals, Presidents-for-life, or single party dictatorships. While we espouse freedom, democratic values, and the rule of law, we end up doing business with those who care little for such lofty principles. Egypt is one such country.
President Mubarak has not played by the rules. He has violated the Egyptian Constitution and held office far longer than the law allows. He has ruled by edict at times and has banned any opposition political parties within Egypt. We in America do business with him because it serves our purposes to do so and peace is kept in a place where peace is scarce. It allowed a valued ally, Israel, to live without fear of invasion from its southern flank for over 30 years.
Unfortunately, this situation has come at a significant cost.
America made the calculation that we had to support an autocrat in order to maintain the peace.
America can’t and should not make a practice of pledging to “stand by” such regimes if their internal politics are such that they create the seeds or their own destruction. If we are to be true to ourselves and to the principles we so vociferously espouse to the world, we have to be more vocal and more insistent on certain standards of behavior from those we ally ourselves. We have to be up front with the world and with the people of those nations we do business with. We must tell them that while we may sympathize with their plight, we can’t and won’t interfere in the internal politics of any nation. Far too often America has intervened and far too often we have been left in a worse position in the wake of that intervention. Iran is one such country. In the 1950’s America instigated a coup (Operation Ajax) against the lawfully elected government and backed the autocratic rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi for three decades that followed until he himself was deposed by an even more autocratic and decidedly unfriendly regime to American interests. The people of Iran have long memories. They will more likely than not eschew re-establishment of anything resembling normal diplomatic or commercial relations with us again, at least for the foreseeable future This is one of many examples of just how badly this nation has calculated consequences for our actions.
Gov. Huckabee’s statement that we should stand by our allies is a laudable sentiment, but it should be tempered with a very strong, public equivocation that while we will honor agreements made and stand by the concept of peace between nations and the precept of defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, no particular promise of fidelity or fraternity can or should be made to individual leaders or their governments, especially those who violate the very precepts freedom, liberty and self-determination that we in America hold dear. We should not place the honor of our nation at risk by giving more than the most cursory amount of consideration necessary to do business with any country that abuses the rights of its people. To do so marks us hypocrites. It opens us up to internal and external ridicule over “human rights”. It also creates situations like what we face with Iran who has now become a major military and foreign policy concern.
Gov. Huckabee needs to show less “Dutch uncle” and more adamance; a more pronounced line of reasoning in regard to relations with other counties. He also needs to craft his statements to reflect that reasoning, especially when it concerns leaders and governments whose practices and internal dynamics are so decidedly different from our own. Egypt may be an ally as far as regional security is concerned, but America needs to take a more hands-off approach to the internal situation there. We have to let the people of Egypt know that we in America will do nothing to stifle their desires to force reform within their country and that while we look on with concern at the violence and pray for the safety and well being of the people of Egypt, it is a situation that only they themselves can solve. They must chart a path that is in their best interests and that when they are ready and if they are willing, we here in America will honor the agreements we have made with their country and work with whatever government they choose. We can’t afford more Iran’s……
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
My two cents on the Florida Obamacare ruling
In the wake of the decision by Judge Rodger Vinson yesterday to strike down “Obamacare”, or if you prefer, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, Public Law No. 111-148, I find myself wanting to join in and throw my two cents worth into the maelstrom of comment and thought on this huge yet very simple issue.
Simple in that it is not really about “Affordable Care” at all. In spite of what the Mandarins in Washington say on the issue, this law is really about the exercise of power; nothing more and certainly nothing less.
The nation was given a great gift by the Hon. Roger Vinson: A truly well thought out and sound legal decision based on rule of law and not on emotional tirades or blatant liberal bleating from activists in the public or private sector.
We were also treated not only to great legal and political theater, but to great statesmanship from the bench as well. It all began in the first few lines of the decision when Judge Vinson quoted James Madison in Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist 51, where he said:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”.
And so began what was to become in essence and in fact, a civics primer. One who’s material, substance, and spirit should have been familiar to the 111th Congress who passed this law in the first place as well as to the President who signed it into law, but was plainly found lacking in spite of the massive objections of most of the American people.
Not content with simply quoting one of the founding fathers of this nation, Judge Vincent then went into a tireless study of case law going back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803 to present day case law.
The issues in contention were wide ranging. They included but were not limited to the individual mandate, Medicaid funding, the standing of plaintiffs, and to Severability.
The individual mandate has been by far, the single biggest issue due to the government's contention that it is enforceable under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In his decision, Judge Vinson stated,
"Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States."
Until the “New Deal” was instituted in the 1930’s the Commerce Clause was understood to exist as a way to keep the several states from creating trade and commercial barriers between themselves. This understanding was violated when the Roosevelt Administration coerced the Supreme Court to expand that interpretation during the initial days of the “New Deal”. This was accomplished by threatening to “pack the court” with new, more sympathetic judges who would allow nearly everything the Executive Branch and the Democratic-controlled Congress wanted. The then chastised and weakened Supreme Court inflated the clause into a general license for anything a majority party happened to favor.
Now we find ourselves with a law even more sweeping and more dangerous to the nation than the “New Deal” of the 1930’s. Not only is it dangerous to individual freedom and the concept of Federalism, but to the very survival of limited government in this republic. If this law were to stand, the precedent would be set and there would be literally no restraint on what the federal government could compel and command a citizen or private enterprise to do. Simply put, the government could, by fiat, or by regulation, demand that a private person or enterprise enter into contracts or engage in commerce as it deemed necessary. For example, should a majority of Congress and a President decide that electric vehicles are necessary to the preservation of a clean environment and demand that all automobile owners replace their internal combustion powered vehicles with electric vehicles as they are used in, and necessary to interstate commerce. In another example, they could make it obligatory to sell housing, even at prices below cost, to the homeless by the simple expedient of declaring homelessness a detriment to interstate commerce. The legal contortions are literally limitless and yet frighteningly real when one considers the thousands of laws that are passed in hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide.
Judge Vinson’s ruling brings all this and more into stark relief and hopefully, in the coming months and not years as some predict, this law will be permanently sent to the ash heap of history; a cautionary lesson in just how close we came to destroying our own nation and the freedoms we enjoy.
Simple in that it is not really about “Affordable Care” at all. In spite of what the Mandarins in Washington say on the issue, this law is really about the exercise of power; nothing more and certainly nothing less.
The nation was given a great gift by the Hon. Roger Vinson: A truly well thought out and sound legal decision based on rule of law and not on emotional tirades or blatant liberal bleating from activists in the public or private sector.
We were also treated not only to great legal and political theater, but to great statesmanship from the bench as well. It all began in the first few lines of the decision when Judge Vinson quoted James Madison in Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist 51, where he said:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”.
And so began what was to become in essence and in fact, a civics primer. One who’s material, substance, and spirit should have been familiar to the 111th Congress who passed this law in the first place as well as to the President who signed it into law, but was plainly found lacking in spite of the massive objections of most of the American people.
Not content with simply quoting one of the founding fathers of this nation, Judge Vincent then went into a tireless study of case law going back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803 to present day case law.
The issues in contention were wide ranging. They included but were not limited to the individual mandate, Medicaid funding, the standing of plaintiffs, and to Severability.
The individual mandate has been by far, the single biggest issue due to the government's contention that it is enforceable under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In his decision, Judge Vinson stated,
"Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States."
Until the “New Deal” was instituted in the 1930’s the Commerce Clause was understood to exist as a way to keep the several states from creating trade and commercial barriers between themselves. This understanding was violated when the Roosevelt Administration coerced the Supreme Court to expand that interpretation during the initial days of the “New Deal”. This was accomplished by threatening to “pack the court” with new, more sympathetic judges who would allow nearly everything the Executive Branch and the Democratic-controlled Congress wanted. The then chastised and weakened Supreme Court inflated the clause into a general license for anything a majority party happened to favor.
Now we find ourselves with a law even more sweeping and more dangerous to the nation than the “New Deal” of the 1930’s. Not only is it dangerous to individual freedom and the concept of Federalism, but to the very survival of limited government in this republic. If this law were to stand, the precedent would be set and there would be literally no restraint on what the federal government could compel and command a citizen or private enterprise to do. Simply put, the government could, by fiat, or by regulation, demand that a private person or enterprise enter into contracts or engage in commerce as it deemed necessary. For example, should a majority of Congress and a President decide that electric vehicles are necessary to the preservation of a clean environment and demand that all automobile owners replace their internal combustion powered vehicles with electric vehicles as they are used in, and necessary to interstate commerce. In another example, they could make it obligatory to sell housing, even at prices below cost, to the homeless by the simple expedient of declaring homelessness a detriment to interstate commerce. The legal contortions are literally limitless and yet frighteningly real when one considers the thousands of laws that are passed in hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide.
Judge Vinson’s ruling brings all this and more into stark relief and hopefully, in the coming months and not years as some predict, this law will be permanently sent to the ash heap of history; a cautionary lesson in just how close we came to destroying our own nation and the freedoms we enjoy.
Gov. Brown of California fails to Govern... Uses Egypt riots to force fiscal policy
From the Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2011,
"Citing the pro-democracy unrest in Egypt and Tunisia, Gov. Jerry Brown called it “unconscionable” that GOP legislators are vowing to block his attempt to ask voters to extend tax hikes to balance the budget.
“When democratic ideals and calls for the right to vote are stirring the imagination of young people in Egypt and Tunisia and other parts of the world, we in California can’t say now is the time to block a vote of the people,” Brown said in his first State of the State address in nearly 30 years".
Only a man known as "Gov. Moonbeam" could justify a tax hike from riots half a world away.... The ousting of a dictator in Egypt is hardly justification to confiscate more personal wealth. The real justification for this action is that California's legislature lacks the discipline or the personal honor to do what is right and proper which is to cut taxes and cut expenses to help jump start their economy and to preserve the job base.
Here in Virginia, we bit the bullet and massively cut expenses and taxes. We audited departments of government in order to have an understanding where the money went and how it was spent. As a result of this enlightened, conservative approach, hundreds of millions were found and people in charge were held accountable and we now have a budget surplus of several hundred million dollars to show for the effort.
As further consequence of this proper fiscal attitude, Virginia also has the highest bond rating of any state in the nation, while California sits at the bottom, with only Illinois ranking lower.
Are we in Virginia better than those in California? Are we some kind of superior species to those on the left coast? It is hard not to think so when we see the just how badly things are being done in the so-called "Golden State", and just how inane the political leadership is acting.
One thing more..... No bailouts for California- EVER!!! Your collective hubris got you there and your corrupt, "bought dog" leadership is keeping you there and we in the rest of the country will not readily consent to pay for your irresponsibility. Not now.... Not ever... Sic Semper Tyranis!!
"Citing the pro-democracy unrest in Egypt and Tunisia, Gov. Jerry Brown called it “unconscionable” that GOP legislators are vowing to block his attempt to ask voters to extend tax hikes to balance the budget.
“When democratic ideals and calls for the right to vote are stirring the imagination of young people in Egypt and Tunisia and other parts of the world, we in California can’t say now is the time to block a vote of the people,” Brown said in his first State of the State address in nearly 30 years".
Only a man known as "Gov. Moonbeam" could justify a tax hike from riots half a world away.... The ousting of a dictator in Egypt is hardly justification to confiscate more personal wealth. The real justification for this action is that California's legislature lacks the discipline or the personal honor to do what is right and proper which is to cut taxes and cut expenses to help jump start their economy and to preserve the job base.
Here in Virginia, we bit the bullet and massively cut expenses and taxes. We audited departments of government in order to have an understanding where the money went and how it was spent. As a result of this enlightened, conservative approach, hundreds of millions were found and people in charge were held accountable and we now have a budget surplus of several hundred million dollars to show for the effort.
As further consequence of this proper fiscal attitude, Virginia also has the highest bond rating of any state in the nation, while California sits at the bottom, with only Illinois ranking lower.
Are we in Virginia better than those in California? Are we some kind of superior species to those on the left coast? It is hard not to think so when we see the just how badly things are being done in the so-called "Golden State", and just how inane the political leadership is acting.
One thing more..... No bailouts for California- EVER!!! Your collective hubris got you there and your corrupt, "bought dog" leadership is keeping you there and we in the rest of the country will not readily consent to pay for your irresponsibility. Not now.... Not ever... Sic Semper Tyranis!!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The vote to repeal Obamacare is NOT a waste !!
One of my liberal friends has said that this vote to repeal the Obamacare law was a waste of time and all a big show... I told him something that he certainly didn't agree with or want to hear.
It's a strategic move to have this vote even if it doesn't pass (and as it turns out, it did...).
The issue is important to both sides and the vote "pins down" legislators... It forces them to declare themselves (one way or the other) on the issue and when the heat gets worse, as more and more Americans begin to object to Obamacare, and they try and equivocate, they will get burned... Their vote will be "on the record" and they won't be able to dodge the bullet...
The vast majority want this law overturned now and they (the political class) know it. By forcing the vote and passing the bill in the House, the ball is now firmly in the Senate's court. If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ignores the call for a vote, if he refuses even to debate the issue, there will be hell to pay... Currently, in 2012, the Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, including 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, The Republicans are expected to have 10 seats up for election. Based on the results from the last election, the Democrats lost far more than the Republicans. If the issues are the same in 2012 (and I believe they will be...) and the Democrats become the "Party of NO" by denying debate and votes on bills in the Senate. Then the Dems will suffer for it badly, possibly even worse than they did this last go around. Also, there is the issue of redistricting which will also make re-election for Obama or for any Democrat in 2012 more difficult. So, in short, it isn't pointless.
Victory is not measured just in clear wins in floor votes, but in what potential damage can be done to the opposition long term. Having worked in several campaigns, you learn those things...
It's political jujitsu...
It's a strategic move to have this vote even if it doesn't pass (and as it turns out, it did...).
The issue is important to both sides and the vote "pins down" legislators... It forces them to declare themselves (one way or the other) on the issue and when the heat gets worse, as more and more Americans begin to object to Obamacare, and they try and equivocate, they will get burned... Their vote will be "on the record" and they won't be able to dodge the bullet...
The vast majority want this law overturned now and they (the political class) know it. By forcing the vote and passing the bill in the House, the ball is now firmly in the Senate's court. If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ignores the call for a vote, if he refuses even to debate the issue, there will be hell to pay... Currently, in 2012, the Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, including 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, The Republicans are expected to have 10 seats up for election. Based on the results from the last election, the Democrats lost far more than the Republicans. If the issues are the same in 2012 (and I believe they will be...) and the Democrats become the "Party of NO" by denying debate and votes on bills in the Senate. Then the Dems will suffer for it badly, possibly even worse than they did this last go around. Also, there is the issue of redistricting which will also make re-election for Obama or for any Democrat in 2012 more difficult. So, in short, it isn't pointless.
Victory is not measured just in clear wins in floor votes, but in what potential damage can be done to the opposition long term. Having worked in several campaigns, you learn those things...
It's political jujitsu...
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
A set of ideas who's time has come ....again
In a November 24th article by Jennifer Epstein in Polititico, Gov. Bobby Jindal made a rather impassioned statement on the merits of part time legislatures. In this article, he proposed not only making legislatures part time, but argued for term limits and restrictions on lobbying for current and former legislators.
Here is the comment I made on the Politico article:
Gov. Jindal has the right of it!!
Many state legislatures are part time, sitting only for a few months a year then adjourning.
Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, our session begins in January and ends by March and the rest of the time, the representatives have real jobs in the real world with a few official meetings thrown in from time to time and the occasional special session should something unexpected occur. They have to live in their districts and with the consequences of their actions, facing the home folks most of the time. There is no place to hide, no way to dodge the consequences… There is no “bubble”.
It is an interesting fact that states with part time legislatures seem to have fewer budget problems than those with full time legislatures. Cases in point: Virginia, West Virginia, Connecticut, Montana and North Dakota all have budget surpluses and all are blessed with part time legislatures. The states and territories with full time legislatures like D.C., Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California all have massive deficits or serious budgetary problems.
Although hardly proof positive, it is an interesting trend that states with smaller “citizen legislators” seem to be more fiscally conservative and more economically run than those places where there is a full time “political class” at work all the time.
Perhaps there is a lesson for the denizens of Washington D.C in this.
The venerable and well respected journalist David Brinkley once lamented that western civilization, or at the very least, American democracy began its decline when air conditioning was installed in government buildings such as the Capitol Building and the White House, as well as other governmental edifices in the 1930’s thus allowing the legislature, the executive branch and government bureaucracy at large to remain in the nations capitol through the hot, humid and patently unpleasant summers typical of the upper Chesapeake. With this bit of alleged progress, the “powers that be” could continue to work through the languid summer days and nights, turning out ever more rules, regulations and laws and spending ever increasing amounts of taxpayer money. Conversely, they spent fewer and fewer days back home among those they supposedly represented, safe within “the bubble” from the slings and arrows of the home folks, appearing only to fund raise and run for re-election.
Yes, indeed, the Governor of Louisiana has it right. It is time for legislators to return home and live like the rest of us… Perhaps common sense will return when they do.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
All Hail Obama Rex!!!
It seems congratulations are in order for the honorable Barrack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.
This salute comes in honor of an achievement unparalleled in the history of our republic and indeed, the entire world. He has presided over a milestone event that the first 40 men who have held the illustrious office of President of the United States could not claim to have reached.
What, pray you ask, could it be that the "Anointed One" has done to warrant this notice?
It seems that our Commandante and Chief and those who serve his cause to bring "Hope" and "Change" to the masses and to "fundamentally transform America," have another achievement to celebrate. Having seized control of two largest automobile makers in the country, and having nationalized the health care delivery system in a legislative coup d'etat, they now can now add this little gem to their list of accomplishments....
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, in the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 TRILLION dollars, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. When President Reagan left office in 1989, the total federal debt held by the public (you, me, financial institutions, foreign governments, etc.) was $2.1907 TRILLION dollars. This number comes from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. In short, that means all U.S. presidents from Washington through Reagan accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That's $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 TRILLION dollars that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when" The Annointed One" was inaugurated (coronated?), and to think, August 20, 2010 will be the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.... It is truly an amazing thing!
Of course, being the competent, responsible administrator that he is, he did what all others in his position seem to do when confronted with the product of their poor stewardship of the nation's finances- he danced. In a style unparalleled since the days that Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire graced the silver screen, Obama did a "Potomac Two-Step" that would have made those old hoofers proud.
His claims about how he was and is "investing in America", that his "Stimulus Plan," which by itself added $787 billion to the debt, was the only thing that could be done, was necessary to save the country. The problem was and remains that the hemorrhage of cash has not just continued.... It has increased by order of magnitude!
Let's review:
- AIG, the failed insurance and investment house received nearly $70 billion in bailout dollars.
- Citibank Group and Bank of America receive $5 billion
- General Motors and Chrysler received over $140 billion that they claim to have paid back but really haven't
- Auto Industry Financing Program received $78 billion but has paid back less than half their "loan"
- Bank bailouts via the Capitol Purchase program cost us $205 billion but less than half has been paid back
- The Making Homes Affordable Program was given $27 billion, but that cash sits in lenders vaults unused for the most part because lenders are scared to loan it due to the present state of the economy, and the general tight lending standards that are being applied now in the wake of the Housing market meltdown.
And if all else fails and the whole rotten, corrupt mess falls to pieces, he can do one of the other time-honored practices of the Washington establishment….
He can blame Bush.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Obama slams Arizona before the world
The outrage that is Barrack Obama’s Presidency continues as his internationalist streak once again rears its ugly head and overrides his sacred duties and responsibilities as President of the United States.
In what can be seen only as a tragically flawed act to appease the worst players on the international scene, the Obama Regime has created a report for release to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This particular group is charged with determining the level of compliance and actions of member states to principles established decades ago when the U.N. began weighing in on the concept of “human rights”. The problem with this concept is that the membership of this sub-group contain many of the worst offenders of “human rights” and make no attempts to adhere to the basic principles or concepts of “humane treatment” as defined in the U.N. Charter. In deed, many give only lip service to the concept.
Cases in point are Cuba, The People’s Republic of China, and Egypt. And yet another, Saudi Arabia; a theocratic monarchy that treats women as chattel property with virtually no rights to property or to due process of law. Many members are military dictatorships or quasi-democracies with single party rule. Truly they are fine examples to sit in judgment on the conduct of others when it comes to the rule of law and the fair and equitable treatment of people. The United State in 2007, disgusted by the hypocritical, anti-Semitic, and anti-American stances taken over the years, formally withdrew from the council, electing to just “observe” their activities. The Obamanites in the Department of State have now decided to re-apply for full membership. Not content with just sitting down with the bad actors on the council, the Obama Administration has decided to prostrate our nation before them. They are issuing a self-deprecating and demeaning report about the state of human rights in America. But the main item on this report is what makes it especially egregious.
The Regime has decided to give the actions of the State of Arizona top billing in their mea culpa opus to the U.N. Not content with abrogating their responsibilities to the citizens of this county, the Obama Regime has decided to bring ridicule and derision upon the sovereign State of Arizona and her people for daring to enforce existing federal immigration policy at the state and local level.
Arizona Senate Bill 1070, or SB-1070, was a bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by that state’s Governor, Jan Brewer. This was done in response to the utter lack of action on the part of federal authorities to curb the rampant illegal alien invasion of our southern border. Not only is illegal immigration an issue, but human trafficking and drug smuggling are also pandemic in the borderlands of the southwestern United States. The federal government has been completely derelict in its duty to secure the border, and the states in that region have been demanding action. Not content to just sit by and be invaded and victimized by drug cartel criminals, Arizona drafted then passed this bipartisan law that was a virtual mirror image of the federal immigration statutes with some additional language that permitted the local and state police to question the immigration status of any person they reasonable believed to be here illegally.
The usual suspects, Hispanic nationalist groups like “La Raza” (which means “The Race” in Spanish…) and others like the ACLU saw this bill primarily as racist. Their reasoning ran the gamut: the law was an infringement of federal powers and was essentially racist in nature; specifically, that it was designed to target Latinos only and that it would lead to racial profiling and harassment. Even though the law was drafted specifically prohibiting such activity, the leftist elites went to war against Arizona and Governor Brewer for daring to put the spurs to the feds over their inept action on immigration.
The Obama Regime, never content to let a crisis go to waste, mobilized the Legal Commissars in the Justice Department to file suite in Federal District Court to block the new law. They were successful in getting a court injunction of the major enforcement provisions of the law that required police to make inquiries of a person’s immigration status. This will likely put the law on track for review by the Supreme Court.
Arizona and her people are being held up to the world for official international review and criticism thanks to the Obamanites. I know of no other time in our nation’s history when a sitting governor, state, or state law has ever been held up to ridicule on the international stage, especially to likes of Communist China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia who sit on the Human Rights Counsel, and the other paragons of virtue that make up the United Nations as a whole. It is a travesty unlike any that has ever been perpetrated before by the federal government.
It is unfortunate that our President lacks the character or propriety to even see this as the affront it is to the nation as a whole and to Arizona in particular. That American diplomats that are supposed to serve the interests of our nation are so shallow and so banal as to have even drafted such a document shows just how far we have fallen in such a short time.
Not content with bankrupting the treasury of the nation or nationalizing huge sectors of our economy, Obama now wishes to see the nation brought low and made a mockery of; a target ridicule before the entire world community, shredding our only real capitol in the world- our moral authority.
In what can be seen only as a tragically flawed act to appease the worst players on the international scene, the Obama Regime has created a report for release to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This particular group is charged with determining the level of compliance and actions of member states to principles established decades ago when the U.N. began weighing in on the concept of “human rights”. The problem with this concept is that the membership of this sub-group contain many of the worst offenders of “human rights” and make no attempts to adhere to the basic principles or concepts of “humane treatment” as defined in the U.N. Charter. In deed, many give only lip service to the concept.
Cases in point are Cuba, The People’s Republic of China, and Egypt. And yet another, Saudi Arabia; a theocratic monarchy that treats women as chattel property with virtually no rights to property or to due process of law. Many members are military dictatorships or quasi-democracies with single party rule. Truly they are fine examples to sit in judgment on the conduct of others when it comes to the rule of law and the fair and equitable treatment of people. The United State in 2007, disgusted by the hypocritical, anti-Semitic, and anti-American stances taken over the years, formally withdrew from the council, electing to just “observe” their activities. The Obamanites in the Department of State have now decided to re-apply for full membership. Not content with just sitting down with the bad actors on the council, the Obama Administration has decided to prostrate our nation before them. They are issuing a self-deprecating and demeaning report about the state of human rights in America. But the main item on this report is what makes it especially egregious.
The Regime has decided to give the actions of the State of Arizona top billing in their mea culpa opus to the U.N. Not content with abrogating their responsibilities to the citizens of this county, the Obama Regime has decided to bring ridicule and derision upon the sovereign State of Arizona and her people for daring to enforce existing federal immigration policy at the state and local level.
Arizona Senate Bill 1070, or SB-1070, was a bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by that state’s Governor, Jan Brewer. This was done in response to the utter lack of action on the part of federal authorities to curb the rampant illegal alien invasion of our southern border. Not only is illegal immigration an issue, but human trafficking and drug smuggling are also pandemic in the borderlands of the southwestern United States. The federal government has been completely derelict in its duty to secure the border, and the states in that region have been demanding action. Not content to just sit by and be invaded and victimized by drug cartel criminals, Arizona drafted then passed this bipartisan law that was a virtual mirror image of the federal immigration statutes with some additional language that permitted the local and state police to question the immigration status of any person they reasonable believed to be here illegally.
The usual suspects, Hispanic nationalist groups like “La Raza” (which means “The Race” in Spanish…) and others like the ACLU saw this bill primarily as racist. Their reasoning ran the gamut: the law was an infringement of federal powers and was essentially racist in nature; specifically, that it was designed to target Latinos only and that it would lead to racial profiling and harassment. Even though the law was drafted specifically prohibiting such activity, the leftist elites went to war against Arizona and Governor Brewer for daring to put the spurs to the feds over their inept action on immigration.
The Obama Regime, never content to let a crisis go to waste, mobilized the Legal Commissars in the Justice Department to file suite in Federal District Court to block the new law. They were successful in getting a court injunction of the major enforcement provisions of the law that required police to make inquiries of a person’s immigration status. This will likely put the law on track for review by the Supreme Court.
Arizona and her people are being held up to the world for official international review and criticism thanks to the Obamanites. I know of no other time in our nation’s history when a sitting governor, state, or state law has ever been held up to ridicule on the international stage, especially to likes of Communist China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia who sit on the Human Rights Counsel, and the other paragons of virtue that make up the United Nations as a whole. It is a travesty unlike any that has ever been perpetrated before by the federal government.
It is unfortunate that our President lacks the character or propriety to even see this as the affront it is to the nation as a whole and to Arizona in particular. That American diplomats that are supposed to serve the interests of our nation are so shallow and so banal as to have even drafted such a document shows just how far we have fallen in such a short time.
Not content with bankrupting the treasury of the nation or nationalizing huge sectors of our economy, Obama now wishes to see the nation brought low and made a mockery of; a target ridicule before the entire world community, shredding our only real capitol in the world- our moral authority.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Mark Halprin/Time magazine ask for Republicans to "do the right thing..."
I find it interesting Mark Halperin of Time magazine says that Republicans should "Do the right thing" when it is the Muslim community that should be asked to do so.... But then again, it seems the aggrieved are always asked to be tolerant and understanding. It has been a one way street in that regard. The only thing I agree with the author here is that Conservatives/Republicans don't need to bang the drum on this. Obama and his Progressive sycophant friends in New York are digging their own graves and the Muslim community will continue to demonstrate that their cultural norms and practices are incompatible with western norms of behavior and tolerance. If the Islamic community had any sense of decency, they would never have even considered this site as a place to put their Mosque/cultural center. I recall a similar issue occurring in Poland. In 1984 Cardinal Macharski, archbishop of Cracow, announced the establishment of a Carmelite convent in Auschwitz in a building on the camp periphery which had originally been a theater but was utilized during World War II to store the poison gas used in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria. Needless to say, Jewish survivors and the Jewish community at large objected to this on similar grounds as 9/11 families and survivors – that it is completely inappropriate, unwanted and out of context with the nature and history of the location and what it meant to those who survived the camps and the families of those who died there. Needless to say there was a great fight over this issue between the Catholics of Poland and the Jew who see the site as hallowed ground. Eventually the convent project was canceled when the convent was relocated by direction of the Vatican. We face a similar issue in New York and unfortunately, we lack leadership with the sensitivity to veto this project. Nobody is saying that Muslims can’t build a mosque. The families and survivors of 9/11 aren’t saying it either. What is being said is that the location is wrong and that if “tolerance” means anything to the Islamic community, then they need to yield on this issue and relocate to another site a respectful distance from “ground zero”.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Atomic Apologies: Is the U.S. Ambassador going to say "Sorry for the nukes?"
This is a re-post of an article I wrote in November of last year, when rumor circulated that the "Dear Leader" was going to Japan and "apologize' for nuking Japan at the close of World War 2.
Now word comes that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, John Roos, will lead a delegation to the 65th annual commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Evidently the "Dear Leader" and his minions feel that we, the aggrieved party in that conflict, must demonstrate remorse for winning. That we must display regret for utilizing a weapon that Japan and Nazi Germany most certainly would have used on us (had they had it).
Showing up with an official delegation lead by our Ambassador, who will be undoubtedly asked for comments and sentiments, is just a really bad idea. Japan was defeated by this country and her allies by force of arms, and going to a Japanese city that was destroyed in that war serves no purpose. All a reasonable person could do is grieve over the loss of life in general and the reflect on how terrible the scourge of war is. But in the recent past, the "Dear Leader" has been anxious to minimize, criticize and indeed apologize for past actions of the U.S. He has even denied the nature of our nation and culture in order to curie favor in regions of the world where we are engaged in a struggle to preserve our civilization. Sending Ambassador Roos to Hiroshima or Nagasaki at this time, and knowing this administrations penchant for apologies, can only be viewed as an opportunity to lay low the sacrifices made by millions of service men and women and civilian scientist and workers who made victory possible.
If you read the following, I think you may get an inkling of what goes on in the head of Barrack Hussein Obama, The Apologist and Chief.
I guess President Barack Obama didn’t take any history classes when he was in school. Nor did he have a teleprompter available to refer to when queried about the historical significance of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August of 1945.
The Community Organizer and Chief has embarrassed his country once again and made himself look the uneducated, uninformed and tactless rube when he was questioned by Japanese media during the joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan.
The reporter asked the President about his desire to visit those two cities and what his understanding was of the historical context of the atomic bombings of the cities and weather or not he felt the attacks were justified. Looking like a deer in the headlights, the President began a very disjointed reply about his desire to pursue an active anti-nuclear proliferation policy and how he has begun to cut back America’s nuclear stockpile. He commented on the unique perspective that Japan and her leadership had on the subject of nuclear weapons and their use. Then he commented on his lack of firm travel plans to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Stammerer and Chief then went off on a tangent about North Korea.
What was blatantly clear was that he was unprepared to for the question and equally unprepared to defend the actions of the United States or its leadership who at the time were fighting a war to preserve not only our freedom but the freedoms and the sovereignty of all the free nations of the world against the forces of German and Italian Fascism and rabid Japanese Militarism. In fact, he dodged the subject all together.
I don’t know who he thinks he is fooling by changing the subject. He clearly didn’t want to answer the question and was very uncomfortable with the subject. Uttering platitudes on the subject of non-proliferation is comfortable, appealing, politically correct, but most of all, safe. Defending the reputation and motives of a past administration desperate to quickly end a world war that had cost millions of lives by the most expeditious means possible, seemed beyond his capabilities. He seemed stymied by the prospect in fact.
It is unfathomable to see that over 60 years after the end of the second world war, we, the United States of America, are still having to explain our actions to the very people who attacked us on December 7th, 1941, or that we are made to feel as if we have somehow done something evil in using nuclear weapons to end the greatest war in the history of the world. It is the United States and her nuclear shield that has in fact deterred aggression in the world ever since the end of that war.
What were the alternatives?
Militarily, we could have blockaded Japan and just stood off and bomb them and shelled them and hoped they grew tired or hungry enough to surrender... The odds of this working were small. The fact that allied prisoners of war in their thousands were also being held in the home islands of Japan, suffering untold agonies and miseries meant that they would probably be wiped out as retribution by their desperate and angry captors who were not very humane with prisoners under the best of circumstances. Civilian casualties from an unrestricted bombing campaigns and from the starvation and disease that would have resulted from a prolonged quarantine and from continued military attacks around the clock, day in and day out would have been horrific. Casualties would have certainly been in the millions.
The option of just demonstrating the weapon to the Japanese rather than actually using it on them was not an option as we had so little material to use in actual weapons that we couldn’t risk expending it and it not have a tangible military result. Nor could we risk letting other countries know just how far we had progressed in the development of nuclear weapons, especially the Soviet Union, who we viewed as a potential rival in the future. There was also the altogether not unreasonable belief that even having seen a demonstration that Japan’s leadership would have acquiesced and given up.
That left a conventional amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands of Japan.
The plans for that eventuality, Operations Olympic and Coronet were being formulated at that time. Previous attacks against Iwo Jima and Okinawa had given war planners some idea what to expect if the U.S. and her allies were to attempt such a venture. The prospects weren’t good at all. Unlike Europe where civilian populations were seen as non-combatants, and for the most part behaved as such, this would not have been the case with Japan. The militarist government there had conditioned and trained the populace over the previous years to take an active role in defending the home islands from invasion. If the civilians had actively resisted and the military elements in Japan proven as stubborn and intractable as they had in previous operations like Okinawa, the projected casualties on both sides would have been astronomical. The Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the Philippine campaigns were the basis used to gauge how a possible amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands would be resisted. Okinawa had generated 72,000 American casualties in an 82 days action. The liberation of the Philippines took nearly a year, and cost Japan 336,300 dead and the Americans 62.514 dead or wounded. Iwo Jima’s “butcher bill” was nearly 22,000 Americans killed or wounded, with only a little over 1,100 prisoners taken out of a defending garrison of over 22,000 Japanese soldiers, marines and seamen.
In contrast, the planners of the invasion of Japan envisioned a nightmare scenario of over 1.2 million casualties to Allied forces and 5-10 million military and civilian casualties to the Japanese. With those sorts of numbers, it was no small wonder that any responsible, reasonable or humane leader would have looked for other options to that sort of body count.
When viewed objectively, when all the aforementioned options were looked at, even in hindsight, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best options in a bad situation for all parties concerned. They provided a stark reality check to the leadership of Japan as to what their futures would be if further resistance continued. Were the results horrible? Certainly they were. Were the results desirable? When viewed against the possible loss of life and treasure in a conventional attack, the answer is and unqualified YES.
Too bad President Barack Obama didn’t seem to know any of this and too bad he seemed unable or unwilling to articulate these facts to the world at large.
Maybe he’ll get it right next time....
Now word comes that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, John Roos, will lead a delegation to the 65th annual commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Evidently the "Dear Leader" and his minions feel that we, the aggrieved party in that conflict, must demonstrate remorse for winning. That we must display regret for utilizing a weapon that Japan and Nazi Germany most certainly would have used on us (had they had it).
Showing up with an official delegation lead by our Ambassador, who will be undoubtedly asked for comments and sentiments, is just a really bad idea. Japan was defeated by this country and her allies by force of arms, and going to a Japanese city that was destroyed in that war serves no purpose. All a reasonable person could do is grieve over the loss of life in general and the reflect on how terrible the scourge of war is. But in the recent past, the "Dear Leader" has been anxious to minimize, criticize and indeed apologize for past actions of the U.S. He has even denied the nature of our nation and culture in order to curie favor in regions of the world where we are engaged in a struggle to preserve our civilization. Sending Ambassador Roos to Hiroshima or Nagasaki at this time, and knowing this administrations penchant for apologies, can only be viewed as an opportunity to lay low the sacrifices made by millions of service men and women and civilian scientist and workers who made victory possible.
If you read the following, I think you may get an inkling of what goes on in the head of Barrack Hussein Obama, The Apologist and Chief.
I guess President Barack Obama didn’t take any history classes when he was in school. Nor did he have a teleprompter available to refer to when queried about the historical significance of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August of 1945.
The Community Organizer and Chief has embarrassed his country once again and made himself look the uneducated, uninformed and tactless rube when he was questioned by Japanese media during the joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan.
The reporter asked the President about his desire to visit those two cities and what his understanding was of the historical context of the atomic bombings of the cities and weather or not he felt the attacks were justified. Looking like a deer in the headlights, the President began a very disjointed reply about his desire to pursue an active anti-nuclear proliferation policy and how he has begun to cut back America’s nuclear stockpile. He commented on the unique perspective that Japan and her leadership had on the subject of nuclear weapons and their use. Then he commented on his lack of firm travel plans to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Stammerer and Chief then went off on a tangent about North Korea.
What was blatantly clear was that he was unprepared to for the question and equally unprepared to defend the actions of the United States or its leadership who at the time were fighting a war to preserve not only our freedom but the freedoms and the sovereignty of all the free nations of the world against the forces of German and Italian Fascism and rabid Japanese Militarism. In fact, he dodged the subject all together.
I don’t know who he thinks he is fooling by changing the subject. He clearly didn’t want to answer the question and was very uncomfortable with the subject. Uttering platitudes on the subject of non-proliferation is comfortable, appealing, politically correct, but most of all, safe. Defending the reputation and motives of a past administration desperate to quickly end a world war that had cost millions of lives by the most expeditious means possible, seemed beyond his capabilities. He seemed stymied by the prospect in fact.
It is unfathomable to see that over 60 years after the end of the second world war, we, the United States of America, are still having to explain our actions to the very people who attacked us on December 7th, 1941, or that we are made to feel as if we have somehow done something evil in using nuclear weapons to end the greatest war in the history of the world. It is the United States and her nuclear shield that has in fact deterred aggression in the world ever since the end of that war.
What were the alternatives?
Militarily, we could have blockaded Japan and just stood off and bomb them and shelled them and hoped they grew tired or hungry enough to surrender... The odds of this working were small. The fact that allied prisoners of war in their thousands were also being held in the home islands of Japan, suffering untold agonies and miseries meant that they would probably be wiped out as retribution by their desperate and angry captors who were not very humane with prisoners under the best of circumstances. Civilian casualties from an unrestricted bombing campaigns and from the starvation and disease that would have resulted from a prolonged quarantine and from continued military attacks around the clock, day in and day out would have been horrific. Casualties would have certainly been in the millions.
The option of just demonstrating the weapon to the Japanese rather than actually using it on them was not an option as we had so little material to use in actual weapons that we couldn’t risk expending it and it not have a tangible military result. Nor could we risk letting other countries know just how far we had progressed in the development of nuclear weapons, especially the Soviet Union, who we viewed as a potential rival in the future. There was also the altogether not unreasonable belief that even having seen a demonstration that Japan’s leadership would have acquiesced and given up.
That left a conventional amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands of Japan.
The plans for that eventuality, Operations Olympic and Coronet were being formulated at that time. Previous attacks against Iwo Jima and Okinawa had given war planners some idea what to expect if the U.S. and her allies were to attempt such a venture. The prospects weren’t good at all. Unlike Europe where civilian populations were seen as non-combatants, and for the most part behaved as such, this would not have been the case with Japan. The militarist government there had conditioned and trained the populace over the previous years to take an active role in defending the home islands from invasion. If the civilians had actively resisted and the military elements in Japan proven as stubborn and intractable as they had in previous operations like Okinawa, the projected casualties on both sides would have been astronomical. The Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the Philippine campaigns were the basis used to gauge how a possible amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands would be resisted. Okinawa had generated 72,000 American casualties in an 82 days action. The liberation of the Philippines took nearly a year, and cost Japan 336,300 dead and the Americans 62.514 dead or wounded. Iwo Jima’s “butcher bill” was nearly 22,000 Americans killed or wounded, with only a little over 1,100 prisoners taken out of a defending garrison of over 22,000 Japanese soldiers, marines and seamen.
In contrast, the planners of the invasion of Japan envisioned a nightmare scenario of over 1.2 million casualties to Allied forces and 5-10 million military and civilian casualties to the Japanese. With those sorts of numbers, it was no small wonder that any responsible, reasonable or humane leader would have looked for other options to that sort of body count.
When viewed objectively, when all the aforementioned options were looked at, even in hindsight, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best options in a bad situation for all parties concerned. They provided a stark reality check to the leadership of Japan as to what their futures would be if further resistance continued. Were the results horrible? Certainly they were. Were the results desirable? When viewed against the possible loss of life and treasure in a conventional attack, the answer is and unqualified YES.
Too bad President Barack Obama didn’t seem to know any of this and too bad he seemed unable or unwilling to articulate these facts to the world at large.
Maybe he’ll get it right next time....
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Amazing Grace History/"Amazing Grace" By Wintley Phipps
I recently saw the most amazing video....
Mr. Wentley Phipps gave the most inspirational and musically interesting presentation I have heard in many a year....
I will let the Youtube video which went truly "viral" speak for itself. I think you will be impressed...
Christian or not, it is the best 9 minutes I have spent online in a while...
Mr. Wentley Phipps gave the most inspirational and musically interesting presentation I have heard in many a year....
I will let the Youtube video which went truly "viral" speak for itself. I think you will be impressed...
Christian or not, it is the best 9 minutes I have spent online in a while...
Foreign aid: It isn't aiding America.....
In response to an article in the Reuters News alert dated 20 July, 2010 at http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/56091/2010/06/20-134522-1.htm .
One of the activities I always enjoyed in the Navy was the opportunity to visit ports around the world and to participate in volunteer aid ventures like fixing up a school or helping build a playground for kids in impoverished areas, or even helping orphans.
It has become clear to me however that what was once an individual effort from well meaning crews on a visiting ship to grateful recipients has become industry that is not only unappreciated but even counterproductive.
The attempt to "win hearts and minds" seems pointless if the people it is intended to help are resentful and even hostile to the efforts made. Since the people conducting aid operations (people like U.S. military) can't remain permanently to reinforce the commitment of bettering a situation in a given area, when they leave, there may be feelings of resentment or abandonment at the perceived lack of commitment. In my opinion, foreign aid rarely has the intended effect as it is seen as a "pay-off" or an attempt to curry favor- insincere at best, an insult at worst.
When we sailors went to do a project, it was done though local contacts made by our chaplains with local leaders who had specific needs and wants and who were appreciative and who understood that this activity was being done by men who were volunteering their time and efforts. It was understood that these men could be doing something else with their time but were willing to forgo well earned time off and the "usual and customary" activities of sailors on liberty, to help them. Going where we aren't wanted giving people "help" they don't want, need or appreciate is a complete waste of time and resources we as a nation can no longer afford anyway. What I did with my shipmates was always appreciated and when we arrived, did the work then left, we always felt we had done something meaningful and worthwhile; the work as meaningful to us and the community. Going into a situation with the specific, engineered purposes of winning "hearts and minds" is a very bad idea.... If the Kenyans need help with something, let them do the work themselves and if help is needed from us, let them know that it will be rendered if they ask for it. The same goes with supplying money and materials. If they want it, let them make the request.
Otherwise, butt out.
We can't really afford to be rebuilding latrines in Africa anyway. America is broke and we need to worry about our own situations and circumstances here at home.
One of the activities I always enjoyed in the Navy was the opportunity to visit ports around the world and to participate in volunteer aid ventures like fixing up a school or helping build a playground for kids in impoverished areas, or even helping orphans.
It has become clear to me however that what was once an individual effort from well meaning crews on a visiting ship to grateful recipients has become industry that is not only unappreciated but even counterproductive.
The attempt to "win hearts and minds" seems pointless if the people it is intended to help are resentful and even hostile to the efforts made. Since the people conducting aid operations (people like U.S. military) can't remain permanently to reinforce the commitment of bettering a situation in a given area, when they leave, there may be feelings of resentment or abandonment at the perceived lack of commitment. In my opinion, foreign aid rarely has the intended effect as it is seen as a "pay-off" or an attempt to curry favor- insincere at best, an insult at worst.
When we sailors went to do a project, it was done though local contacts made by our chaplains with local leaders who had specific needs and wants and who were appreciative and who understood that this activity was being done by men who were volunteering their time and efforts. It was understood that these men could be doing something else with their time but were willing to forgo well earned time off and the "usual and customary" activities of sailors on liberty, to help them. Going where we aren't wanted giving people "help" they don't want, need or appreciate is a complete waste of time and resources we as a nation can no longer afford anyway. What I did with my shipmates was always appreciated and when we arrived, did the work then left, we always felt we had done something meaningful and worthwhile; the work as meaningful to us and the community. Going into a situation with the specific, engineered purposes of winning "hearts and minds" is a very bad idea.... If the Kenyans need help with something, let them do the work themselves and if help is needed from us, let them know that it will be rendered if they ask for it. The same goes with supplying money and materials. If they want it, let them make the request.
Otherwise, butt out.
We can't really afford to be rebuilding latrines in Africa anyway. America is broke and we need to worry about our own situations and circumstances here at home.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Another immigration story........
I walked into my home one evening and found that I wasn’t alone….
Sometime during the day, a visitor came calling while I was at work and made himself at home in my house without my knowledge or consent…
I am a peaceable fellow most of the time, but finding my home violated by this intruder really annoyed me as you can imagine, but I recovered my composure and approached the fellow who was seated on my couch enjoying a beer and some chips while watching my television.
A soccer match was on and the announcer in very loud and excited Spanish was calling the game, and my “guest” seemed not even to pay me much attention as he was the game. He was scruffy, and unkept. He looked as if he had had a rough time on the road - like one of those hobos one would see in an old movie or in old black and white pictures of “Okie’s” from the “Dust Bowl” in the 1930’s.
I walked over and stood a few feet from him, amazed at his calm demeanor and his seeming lack of concern at my presence.
His eyes shifted to me after I cleared my throat loudly as one is apt to do to get another’s attention.
I nonchalantly asked him who he was and what he though he was dong in my house.
His reply was that his name was Juan and that he had just arrive in the U.S. a few hours earlier and that he saw that my house, which was nicer than his house in Mexico, and decided that he would just come on into my house and take up residence. After all, he needed a place to live and a job because there were none to be had back home. Everyone in Mexico knows there was work here to do, and since he needed a place to live, it was only right that he should be allowed to be wherever he wished, as it was his “human right”, and since we “stole” the land from Mexico in the 1840’s anyway, he would stay here, in my house.
To say that I was dumbstruck by this litany would be an understatement.
He then informed me that he had already done a couple of chores around the house as a way to solidify his claim to be there: “to do the work that Americans won’t do”, like taking out my trash and washing the few dishes in my sink in the kitchen. He then said that since he had done all this work, he now had even more right to be there, and oh, by the way, he felt entitled to make himself a sandwich and have a cold beer too since he was hungry and hadn’t had a decent meal in days since before leaving his homeland.
Morbidly curious, I inquired as to what he planned to do.
He said that he liked my house and reiterated that since it was so much nicer than his in Mexico and since he had done work for me, that he felt entitled to continued occupation of my home and entitled to free food and beer, all this in exchange for doing a few chores around the place. It was after all only fair. Of course, he continued, I should also pay him for the work he had already done too, and if I would be so kind, would I please put him on my health insurance so he and his family, who would be joining him soon, could go to the doctor free when they arrived.
Incredulous, I then asked if there was anything else I could do for him and he gave a considered look.
“Si”, he said, “I want my 6 bambinos to have a better life than me so they must have an education…. I want them to go to your schools and because they don’t speak English, you must ensure that they get their education in Spanish, after all, they must have the best education possible and it would be racist to insist they learn English since they are Mexican… It would be culturally insensitive….”
“So let me get this straight” I asked with a certain note of sarcasm in my tone
“You have come here into my home without invitation. You, in fact, broke in. You think that this land where my house sits was stolen from Mexico 150 odd years ago, so by extension or by right, you feel that you are entitled to be here in this country paid for with the blood of America’s fighting men, and in the home that I built and paid for with my sweat and hard earned money. You feel that because you have done some work here or that because you are willing to do some work in the future, that you can just come here without so much as a “by your leave”- that you can just trespass here, that you and yours can just take up residence in violation of the law? Then you insist that I pay to educate your illegal alien children in Spanish because it is racist to insist they learn English, and then you demand that I provide you with medical care just because you are here and need it? Does that sum it up? Is there anything else I can give you?”
He sat there and thought it over for a long minute considering my question.
“Si, there is something else….” He replied
“I want to vote in the next elections so we can have a say in your affairs and in redistribution of your wealth so that we can keep getting all these great things we want from you and your country… I want amnesty for me and my family so we don’t have to stand in line to get our green cards and then get citizenship so we can then bring in all our relatives so they too can get a nice place to live, free education and medical care and so we can get all the other things we can’t in Mexico….”
“So why not just go the American consul in Mexico and begin the immigration process and do it right?” I asked.
He laughed and said “Why would I do foolish thing like that?!!”
“It takes months and month and you must fill out many papers and pay mucho dinero to go to Estatos Unitos that way…. Only a fool would do that!!!” he laughed.
“Many of my friends, millions of them in fact , have already come under the wire and they are not having to mess with silly papers or having to pay to be here…. They say Obama will give amnesty to us…that the Republicans will give it to us….why should we do it the hard way?”
"Only idiots and chumps do it the hard way... America is very forgiving of such things..." he said with a smile. "I know this because I have been caught and let go many times before."
I could hardly argue with him. He had a point.
”Anything else?” I asked, tired and sobered by the litany.
“Si, senior… Next time you go to market, would you get some Coronas and limes instead of Budweiser? I prefer a good Mexican beer….”
Sometime during the day, a visitor came calling while I was at work and made himself at home in my house without my knowledge or consent…
I am a peaceable fellow most of the time, but finding my home violated by this intruder really annoyed me as you can imagine, but I recovered my composure and approached the fellow who was seated on my couch enjoying a beer and some chips while watching my television.
A soccer match was on and the announcer in very loud and excited Spanish was calling the game, and my “guest” seemed not even to pay me much attention as he was the game. He was scruffy, and unkept. He looked as if he had had a rough time on the road - like one of those hobos one would see in an old movie or in old black and white pictures of “Okie’s” from the “Dust Bowl” in the 1930’s.
I walked over and stood a few feet from him, amazed at his calm demeanor and his seeming lack of concern at my presence.
His eyes shifted to me after I cleared my throat loudly as one is apt to do to get another’s attention.
I nonchalantly asked him who he was and what he though he was dong in my house.
His reply was that his name was Juan and that he had just arrive in the U.S. a few hours earlier and that he saw that my house, which was nicer than his house in Mexico, and decided that he would just come on into my house and take up residence. After all, he needed a place to live and a job because there were none to be had back home. Everyone in Mexico knows there was work here to do, and since he needed a place to live, it was only right that he should be allowed to be wherever he wished, as it was his “human right”, and since we “stole” the land from Mexico in the 1840’s anyway, he would stay here, in my house.
To say that I was dumbstruck by this litany would be an understatement.
He then informed me that he had already done a couple of chores around the house as a way to solidify his claim to be there: “to do the work that Americans won’t do”, like taking out my trash and washing the few dishes in my sink in the kitchen. He then said that since he had done all this work, he now had even more right to be there, and oh, by the way, he felt entitled to make himself a sandwich and have a cold beer too since he was hungry and hadn’t had a decent meal in days since before leaving his homeland.
Morbidly curious, I inquired as to what he planned to do.
He said that he liked my house and reiterated that since it was so much nicer than his in Mexico and since he had done work for me, that he felt entitled to continued occupation of my home and entitled to free food and beer, all this in exchange for doing a few chores around the place. It was after all only fair. Of course, he continued, I should also pay him for the work he had already done too, and if I would be so kind, would I please put him on my health insurance so he and his family, who would be joining him soon, could go to the doctor free when they arrived.
Incredulous, I then asked if there was anything else I could do for him and he gave a considered look.
“Si”, he said, “I want my 6 bambinos to have a better life than me so they must have an education…. I want them to go to your schools and because they don’t speak English, you must ensure that they get their education in Spanish, after all, they must have the best education possible and it would be racist to insist they learn English since they are Mexican… It would be culturally insensitive….”
“So let me get this straight” I asked with a certain note of sarcasm in my tone
“You have come here into my home without invitation. You, in fact, broke in. You think that this land where my house sits was stolen from Mexico 150 odd years ago, so by extension or by right, you feel that you are entitled to be here in this country paid for with the blood of America’s fighting men, and in the home that I built and paid for with my sweat and hard earned money. You feel that because you have done some work here or that because you are willing to do some work in the future, that you can just come here without so much as a “by your leave”- that you can just trespass here, that you and yours can just take up residence in violation of the law? Then you insist that I pay to educate your illegal alien children in Spanish because it is racist to insist they learn English, and then you demand that I provide you with medical care just because you are here and need it? Does that sum it up? Is there anything else I can give you?”
He sat there and thought it over for a long minute considering my question.
“Si, there is something else….” He replied
“I want to vote in the next elections so we can have a say in your affairs and in redistribution of your wealth so that we can keep getting all these great things we want from you and your country… I want amnesty for me and my family so we don’t have to stand in line to get our green cards and then get citizenship so we can then bring in all our relatives so they too can get a nice place to live, free education and medical care and so we can get all the other things we can’t in Mexico….”
“So why not just go the American consul in Mexico and begin the immigration process and do it right?” I asked.
He laughed and said “Why would I do foolish thing like that?!!”
“It takes months and month and you must fill out many papers and pay mucho dinero to go to Estatos Unitos that way…. Only a fool would do that!!!” he laughed.
“Many of my friends, millions of them in fact , have already come under the wire and they are not having to mess with silly papers or having to pay to be here…. They say Obama will give amnesty to us…that the Republicans will give it to us….why should we do it the hard way?”
"Only idiots and chumps do it the hard way... America is very forgiving of such things..." he said with a smile. "I know this because I have been caught and let go many times before."
I could hardly argue with him. He had a point.
”Anything else?” I asked, tired and sobered by the litany.
“Si, senior… Next time you go to market, would you get some Coronas and limes instead of Budweiser? I prefer a good Mexican beer….”
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
NAACP vs. The TEA Party....
What we see with this diatribe by the NAACP is a pathetic attempt to remain relevant by demanding that a group with little or no central leadership control the actions of every person who may just show up at one of their events... Their complaint that signs showing the President in an unflattering or insulting way are "racist" is a totally bogus. History of protests in this country shows that cartoons and charactitures of political and public figures is normal and certainly not unprecedented. How many times have we seen demonic or even NAZI imagery used against Presidents like Ronald Reagan or the Bush’s? That sort of inflammatory imagery has been a regular staple of politics in America since colonial times when early Presidents might have been depicted as kings, animals or even women (something seen as a great insult at that time). It seems that the NAACP is hyper sensitive and over-reacting to protests against the man they perceive as “their guy”... their anointed one. They seem willing to play the "race card" at the drop of a hat even when he comes under what some may see as a legitimate scrutiny for his ill-conceived and badly executed policies. Perhaps the NAACP needs to take a step back and re-evaluate its mission statement. Maybe they should be more concerned with raising the standards of conduct and discourse within their own ranks and in the black community in general, and stop worrying about what others beyond their control are doing. Perhaps they should be more concerned with improving the status and condition of black Americans by advocating high character and by preaching personal integrity, personal honor and responsibility rather than getting mixed up in the political debate that is ever present. It is my personal opinion that the NAACP, realizing that they are loosing relevancy, has contrived this little tantrum of theirs to get back in the spotlight. Like all the others who rely on the industry of racism such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, et al, the NAACP needs to keep finding fault and fanning the flames where and when they can, and lacking any legitimate or useful contribution, has contrived to create this incident to get back their seat at the big people’s table; to be once again the leading advocacy group in the eyes of their fellow black as well as the leading voice in racial issues in America. It is truly pathetic that an organization founded to better the futures of people who were desperately seeking their place in the world should conduct themselves in such a base and tawdry fashion.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American
Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American
I would love to see what would happen if the court rules that Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" as is required by the constitution.....
What would happen with all the laws he has put into place and all the executive orders he has issued? More importantly, what of all the appointments he has made including Supreme Court justices? Would all of it become "null and void"?
I would argue that he would be guilty of treason for assuming office illegally and perpetrating a fraud on the American people by illegally assuming power in full knowledge that he was not qualified to assume. I would also like tho know who in the Democratic Party knew he was ineligible to run.
So many possible scenarios.....
I would love to see what would happen if the court rules that Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" as is required by the constitution.....
What would happen with all the laws he has put into place and all the executive orders he has issued? More importantly, what of all the appointments he has made including Supreme Court justices? Would all of it become "null and void"?
I would argue that he would be guilty of treason for assuming office illegally and perpetrating a fraud on the American people by illegally assuming power in full knowledge that he was not qualified to assume. I would also like tho know who in the Democratic Party knew he was ineligible to run.
So many possible scenarios.....
Friday, July 2, 2010
STOP financing the enemy: We need a NEW energy policy NOW!!
America needs a new energy policy desperately.
This nation is in grave danger due to our dependence on foreign oil for much of our energy which places us in economic jeopardy and threatens the security of if not the very survival of the republic.
Every year we send literally hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil and gas we consume. The monies used for this end up in the coffers of regimes that are at best only barely tolerant of us (Kuwait, Indonesia, Nigeria or Mexico), while others seem mostly ambivalent (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) or, and at worst, out right hostile (Venezuela and Iran). They are hostile not only to us, but to many of our allies as well.
Why does this present a problem? Why should we care what the “Oil Arabs” and the other less than friendly nations do with that cash? After all, it is their money now, right?
What does this have to do with us or our energy policy?
True enough that they sold the oil and we bought it and it is their money now. They have a right to do with it as they see fit, but why should we, the American consumer, bankroll those who may not have our best interests at heart? What could they be doing that is so bad as to warrant all this concern?
One of the many places oil revenue is used is in the funding of hundreds of “madrasa diniyyah” (religious schools) and mosques in many Muslim and non-Muslim counties throughout the world. This funding is done via so-called “charities”, many of which are bankrolled in whole or in part by our so-called ally, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While the funding of schools seems a noble venture on the surface, there is a very dark set of objectives underneath all those seemingly good intentions.
Most of these schools are built in Pakistan and other countries that have populations decidedly hostile to the west and to America in particular. In many of these schools and the attendant mosques that are built to provide “religious guidance”, the subject matter taught is decidedly not what you would expect to find in a school for young and middle school aged children in most of the rest of the world: reading, writing, arithmetic, the social sciences and literature.
Behind the establishment of the “institutions is a very ultra-conservative group who are adherents to the Wahhabi sect of Islam. They are found in positions of power within the ruling strata of the Saudi government. They even have control of the “religious police” who enforce the morality laws throughout the Kingdom, and are major sponsors of these schools. These Wahhabist are predominant in controlling much of the activity and influence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By virtue of this influence, they have access to the vast wealth of the kingdom. Because they have so much influence and have the access to the wealth of the realm, the Wahhabists continue to funnel large sums of oil revenue (via their “charities”) from the royal treasury to programs in the madrasas and mosques they have built throughout the world. Their teachings are an extremely conservative (read: intolerant and militant) form of Islam. This sect has an abject intolerance of any sect, faith, practice or government that doesn’t subscribe to their orthodox views. This is the attitude, enforced, encouraged and taught by the sponsors of these schools. This highly orthodox view has metastasized, becoming more rabidly militant in nature in recent decades, especially when issues involving the west, Israel, America, and democracy are made a focal point. Their view of America, Europe, western civilization and our way of life is viewed by the sponsors and instructors in these schools and mosques with a vehemence and hostility that is nothing short of utter hate bordering on the psychotic.
Any act is viewed acceptable from their religious point of view because some mullah or imam has decreed it so: it is the will of Allah…. The young take it on faith and the young mind is bent and twisted to this world view.
There is positive proof that the real mission of these schools is not just to teach basic life skills but to also indoctrinate the young with a militant, viral form of Islam. This indoctrination of these young, impressionable minds in these petro-dollar funded schools and mosques, include children as young as 6 to 8 years of age, who sit in small groups reading and reciting from just one book, the Quaran. These recitations go on for many hours a day, day after day in endless rote memorization sessions until they have it memorized. Additional “training” is also given by the imams in their version of what the meaning of the Quaran is, according to their orthodoxy and political views. The children, imbued with scripture and anti-western propoganda, become dedicated to program of demonization, dialing back, and the eventual expunging of all western influence in their region of the world. The corollary to this is the eventual stamping out of any freedoms or progress enjoyed by minorities and women and the destruction of the west and the killing or subjugating of all infidel populations and infidel lands. In their eyes, these are seen as prime objectives in the life of any faithful Muslim who is true to the faith. To see proof of your oil dollars at work, one merely has to view the videos of the teaching sessions in these institutions or the sermons given by the imams and mullahs in the mosques or the street protests in any Arab or European capitol containing these Islamist radicals. Read the signs and hear the chants calling for Israel’s destruction, our destruction, or for Shiria law to become the prevailing law in the west, and you will begin to understand the threat. The young people in these protests are either products of these radical teachings or are being lead by those who are.
They want our constitution, our freedoms and our way of life to be erased, expunged, destroyed…..
If proof of this danger is needed, one has but to merely look at a roster of the 9/11 hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001: 15 of 19 were Saudis and the mastermind, Osama bin Laden is also a Saudi.
All this hatred and all the terrorism it spawns today is funded in large part every time you fill your gas tank.
To put it bluntly, we are financing the means to our own possible destruction. We are providing for the scholarship of those who are murdering our countrymen and subverting our civilization.
What can be done to de-fang this monster that has risen from the sands of the Mideast? What can we do to take from them the ability to fund their operations? The only way is to remove the seemingly unending cash flow that funds our detractors and enemies.
Can we accomplish these aims?
The only way to accomplish this is to eliminate our dependency on their oil, thus drastically curtailing or eliminating all together their one and only dependable, large scale revenue stream, and thus removing much of their power and influence over us and those they threaten.
To say that America and the rest of the industrialized world have become hooked on easy access to cheap and plentiful petroleum from a very hostile and dangerous part of the world is to belabor the obvious.
That paradigm must change if we are to survive as a free and ever progressing civilization dedicated to the freedoms we have fought and strove for over nearly two and a quarter centuries.
America, as a nation, has all the resources necessary and most if not all the technology needed to become energy independent if we choose to deploy the new and existing technologies we possess and to free up domestically available fuels and resources, and reallocating them for different uses.
In short, the key to our independence lies in the immediate construction of the next generation of nuclear powered electrical generating plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities and then reallocation of fossil fuels once used in electrical generation to new and/or different purposes which can be replaced later as new and developing technologies come on line or become more commercially viable.
At the moment, America is using a patchwork quilt of coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power to generate our electricity. This is a hugely inefficient and costly conglomeration of sources for the largest national power grid on Earth to rely on. It is also very inefficient when you view the support required to administer, operate, maintain, feed (fuel), and develop upgrades to these many varied systems. Coal and oil which make up a bulk of the generating capability are dirty and produce many toxic emissions that must be scrubbed from their effluent and the sequestered in some manner to keep it from contaminating the environment. Natural gas, the second most common of the fossil fuels used, is much cleaner but still produces some undesirable emissions. Hydroelectric, the cleanest high capacity source of power, had reached its limits unless capacity can be increased by improving generating technology at existing facilities. It is NOT a forgone conclusion that this can or will be done to any great extent. One can not depend or plan on regular advances in technology to increase output. Creating more hydropower capacity generally requires construction of more or larger plants and dams or would require damming more rivers which is environmentally undesirable. There are also issues with availability of water to drive the generating turbines. Draught and increased need for fresh water by agriculture and cities, especially in the far west, has already adversely affected the sources of water to many dams already in existence like Hover Dam in the southwest, and the many dams in the northwest especially along the Columbia River.
Nuclear energy is the only safe, dependable, large scale, clean, (no greenhouse gasses or other chemical pollutants) and readily deployable technology out there that can deliver the vast quantities of electrical power we need to sustain our Republic. France generates upwards of 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. It seems strange and indeed counter intuitive that America, the nation that was the pioneer in the development of this technology, should rely so little on it. Nuclear waste from these facilities, which is the single major issue with nuclear power, can be dealt with if we reprocessed nuclear fuel as the French have learned to do. Utilizing “Breeder Reactors” which create their own fuel with little waste or utilizing reprocessing technology like the French, we could solve most of the problems created such as the recycling of the vast quantities of spent nuclear fuel rods presently being stored in cooling ponds at the nuclear power facilities now operational and radioactive waste that would be created by the reprocessing operations in the future, which seem the only serious impediments to nuclear energy, will be greatly reduced in volume from what now exists. What technology we lack, we can acquire from commercial sources in Europe, especially the French, under license or we can develop here.
It is very conceivable that electric cars powered by electricity generated by relatively clean and plentiful nuclear energy make sense as a competing choice of fuel source to gasoline or other fossil fuels. If the increase in the use of nuclear technology doesn't turn you on, then CNG or “compressed natural gas” vehicles would be the next best thing. They can run with existing technology (internal combustion engines) modified to burn domestically acquired gas versus liquid fuels like gasoline or diesel made from imported oil. T. Boone Pickens, a well-known oilman and entrepreneur has advocated a plan much like this whereby the long and short haul truck fleet in the U.S. would be given grants or loans to convert their trucks over to burning CNG instead of diesel. The conversion of 6 million vehicles over to CNG would reduce imports by nearly half just by itself. The only issues that need addressing are CNG distribution and filling facilities for these vehicles. Fortunately, natural gas is available most everywhere in America. It isn’t a process that could occur overnight but it could be done within a decade.
For those locations where such service is not available due to logistical issues, natural gas, like propane gas, which is used for all manner of uses in more rural areas, can be delivered in a liquid form by truck and then put into tanks like propane and gasoline for future use. Another option for consumers who live in more urban and even suburban areas, home filling stations can be set up and even metered for public use in communal living areas like apartment complexes, thus making it easier to fuel your vehicle without having to find a commercial filling station like we do when using gasoline or diesel. Unlike gasoline, CNG vehicle can fuel anywhere there is a source of gas that can be compressed. They can even incorporate compressors in the vehicles to take gas at “line pressure” and compress it in the vehicle if the vehicle operator is not able to find a standard fueling outlet. That is the beauty of the technology: flexibility as well as being eco-friendly. One additional benefit seldom mentioned is the reduction in operating costs of vehicles powered by CNG or electricity. Trucks and cars powered with CNG burn cleaner thereby reducing the amount of contamination of the lubricating oil in the engines, reducing the wear and tear internally and reducing the need for frequent replacement of the lube oil. Engines would last longer and emissions would be greatly reduced. Operating costs would be reduced as well, further reducing costs to consumers who rely on trucks, which is every consumer in the country.
My reorganization plan is simple: Electrical generating plants utilizing natural gas could be decommissioned and their fuel reallocated to motor fuel purposes as new nuclear plants came on line. Coal fired plants could be decommissioned as well and their coal “gasified” or converted to liquid petroleum for diesel fuel, lubricants or for industrial material processing (petrochemicals and other materials made from oil like polymers). This would free us from foreign oil for the most part and make America far less vulnerable to supply interruptions, external threats to the logistical train that supplies the petroleum we import, and the extremes of pricing in the international energy marketplace. Money sent overseas to hostile or potentially hostile regimes and regions of the world would be drastically curtailed or even eliminated and used to invest in energy, industrial projects and development here in America. We could even become net exporters of energy for the first time in decades!
To sum it up, we need to convert the vast majority of our electrical production to nuclear and hydro-electric and utilize this energy for both transportation (electrified rail and electric vehicles for personal and fleet use) and to traditional industrial and residential uses. This would free up less polluting, more available and deployable domestically produced fossil fuels like natural gas as motor fuel while gasified/liquefied coal products can be used for other purposes. When other technologies like use of biomass, wind and solar become more advanced, thereby more economical and deployable, we can use them to fill the gaps in the power grid as its demands grow. Bio fuels may in time provide a competitive alternative to CNG/LNG / Electrical powered vehicles, but are at present vulnerable to inclimate weather and variations in agricultural output. There needs to be more development of the infrastructure to produce fuel from bio resources and development of the transportation infrastructure for biofuel product s to market as many can’t use the same facilities, equipment or pipelines as are currently in use for petroleum products.
Within a generation it may be possible that we could see the end of gasoline powered vehicles as the major source of personal transportation in America. If a plan like the one I have just outlined is implemented, they will slowly but surely disappear as they are replaced by vehicles powered from alternative energy sources. Like the “Stanley Steamer” of the early 1900’s, gasoline powered vehicles could be rendered museum pieces or collector items in a generation or two, and eventually become quaint curiosities like the horse and buggy within a century.
Only America has these many choices and the technical acumen and economic capability to make such a plan a viable reality within the next 10-15 years, but we must begin now to bring it about before circumstances force our hand.
This nation is in grave danger due to our dependence on foreign oil for much of our energy which places us in economic jeopardy and threatens the security of if not the very survival of the republic.
Every year we send literally hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil and gas we consume. The monies used for this end up in the coffers of regimes that are at best only barely tolerant of us (Kuwait, Indonesia, Nigeria or Mexico), while others seem mostly ambivalent (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) or, and at worst, out right hostile (Venezuela and Iran). They are hostile not only to us, but to many of our allies as well.
Why does this present a problem? Why should we care what the “Oil Arabs” and the other less than friendly nations do with that cash? After all, it is their money now, right?
What does this have to do with us or our energy policy?
True enough that they sold the oil and we bought it and it is their money now. They have a right to do with it as they see fit, but why should we, the American consumer, bankroll those who may not have our best interests at heart? What could they be doing that is so bad as to warrant all this concern?
One of the many places oil revenue is used is in the funding of hundreds of “madrasa diniyyah” (religious schools) and mosques in many Muslim and non-Muslim counties throughout the world. This funding is done via so-called “charities”, many of which are bankrolled in whole or in part by our so-called ally, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While the funding of schools seems a noble venture on the surface, there is a very dark set of objectives underneath all those seemingly good intentions.
Most of these schools are built in Pakistan and other countries that have populations decidedly hostile to the west and to America in particular. In many of these schools and the attendant mosques that are built to provide “religious guidance”, the subject matter taught is decidedly not what you would expect to find in a school for young and middle school aged children in most of the rest of the world: reading, writing, arithmetic, the social sciences and literature.
Behind the establishment of the “institutions is a very ultra-conservative group who are adherents to the Wahhabi sect of Islam. They are found in positions of power within the ruling strata of the Saudi government. They even have control of the “religious police” who enforce the morality laws throughout the Kingdom, and are major sponsors of these schools. These Wahhabist are predominant in controlling much of the activity and influence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By virtue of this influence, they have access to the vast wealth of the kingdom. Because they have so much influence and have the access to the wealth of the realm, the Wahhabists continue to funnel large sums of oil revenue (via their “charities”) from the royal treasury to programs in the madrasas and mosques they have built throughout the world. Their teachings are an extremely conservative (read: intolerant and militant) form of Islam. This sect has an abject intolerance of any sect, faith, practice or government that doesn’t subscribe to their orthodox views. This is the attitude, enforced, encouraged and taught by the sponsors of these schools. This highly orthodox view has metastasized, becoming more rabidly militant in nature in recent decades, especially when issues involving the west, Israel, America, and democracy are made a focal point. Their view of America, Europe, western civilization and our way of life is viewed by the sponsors and instructors in these schools and mosques with a vehemence and hostility that is nothing short of utter hate bordering on the psychotic.
Any act is viewed acceptable from their religious point of view because some mullah or imam has decreed it so: it is the will of Allah…. The young take it on faith and the young mind is bent and twisted to this world view.
There is positive proof that the real mission of these schools is not just to teach basic life skills but to also indoctrinate the young with a militant, viral form of Islam. This indoctrination of these young, impressionable minds in these petro-dollar funded schools and mosques, include children as young as 6 to 8 years of age, who sit in small groups reading and reciting from just one book, the Quaran. These recitations go on for many hours a day, day after day in endless rote memorization sessions until they have it memorized. Additional “training” is also given by the imams in their version of what the meaning of the Quaran is, according to their orthodoxy and political views. The children, imbued with scripture and anti-western propoganda, become dedicated to program of demonization, dialing back, and the eventual expunging of all western influence in their region of the world. The corollary to this is the eventual stamping out of any freedoms or progress enjoyed by minorities and women and the destruction of the west and the killing or subjugating of all infidel populations and infidel lands. In their eyes, these are seen as prime objectives in the life of any faithful Muslim who is true to the faith. To see proof of your oil dollars at work, one merely has to view the videos of the teaching sessions in these institutions or the sermons given by the imams and mullahs in the mosques or the street protests in any Arab or European capitol containing these Islamist radicals. Read the signs and hear the chants calling for Israel’s destruction, our destruction, or for Shiria law to become the prevailing law in the west, and you will begin to understand the threat. The young people in these protests are either products of these radical teachings or are being lead by those who are.
They want our constitution, our freedoms and our way of life to be erased, expunged, destroyed…..
If proof of this danger is needed, one has but to merely look at a roster of the 9/11 hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001: 15 of 19 were Saudis and the mastermind, Osama bin Laden is also a Saudi.
All this hatred and all the terrorism it spawns today is funded in large part every time you fill your gas tank.
To put it bluntly, we are financing the means to our own possible destruction. We are providing for the scholarship of those who are murdering our countrymen and subverting our civilization.
What can be done to de-fang this monster that has risen from the sands of the Mideast? What can we do to take from them the ability to fund their operations? The only way is to remove the seemingly unending cash flow that funds our detractors and enemies.
Can we accomplish these aims?
The only way to accomplish this is to eliminate our dependency on their oil, thus drastically curtailing or eliminating all together their one and only dependable, large scale revenue stream, and thus removing much of their power and influence over us and those they threaten.
To say that America and the rest of the industrialized world have become hooked on easy access to cheap and plentiful petroleum from a very hostile and dangerous part of the world is to belabor the obvious.
That paradigm must change if we are to survive as a free and ever progressing civilization dedicated to the freedoms we have fought and strove for over nearly two and a quarter centuries.
America, as a nation, has all the resources necessary and most if not all the technology needed to become energy independent if we choose to deploy the new and existing technologies we possess and to free up domestically available fuels and resources, and reallocating them for different uses.
In short, the key to our independence lies in the immediate construction of the next generation of nuclear powered electrical generating plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities and then reallocation of fossil fuels once used in electrical generation to new and/or different purposes which can be replaced later as new and developing technologies come on line or become more commercially viable.
At the moment, America is using a patchwork quilt of coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power to generate our electricity. This is a hugely inefficient and costly conglomeration of sources for the largest national power grid on Earth to rely on. It is also very inefficient when you view the support required to administer, operate, maintain, feed (fuel), and develop upgrades to these many varied systems. Coal and oil which make up a bulk of the generating capability are dirty and produce many toxic emissions that must be scrubbed from their effluent and the sequestered in some manner to keep it from contaminating the environment. Natural gas, the second most common of the fossil fuels used, is much cleaner but still produces some undesirable emissions. Hydroelectric, the cleanest high capacity source of power, had reached its limits unless capacity can be increased by improving generating technology at existing facilities. It is NOT a forgone conclusion that this can or will be done to any great extent. One can not depend or plan on regular advances in technology to increase output. Creating more hydropower capacity generally requires construction of more or larger plants and dams or would require damming more rivers which is environmentally undesirable. There are also issues with availability of water to drive the generating turbines. Draught and increased need for fresh water by agriculture and cities, especially in the far west, has already adversely affected the sources of water to many dams already in existence like Hover Dam in the southwest, and the many dams in the northwest especially along the Columbia River.
Nuclear energy is the only safe, dependable, large scale, clean, (no greenhouse gasses or other chemical pollutants) and readily deployable technology out there that can deliver the vast quantities of electrical power we need to sustain our Republic. France generates upwards of 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. It seems strange and indeed counter intuitive that America, the nation that was the pioneer in the development of this technology, should rely so little on it. Nuclear waste from these facilities, which is the single major issue with nuclear power, can be dealt with if we reprocessed nuclear fuel as the French have learned to do. Utilizing “Breeder Reactors” which create their own fuel with little waste or utilizing reprocessing technology like the French, we could solve most of the problems created such as the recycling of the vast quantities of spent nuclear fuel rods presently being stored in cooling ponds at the nuclear power facilities now operational and radioactive waste that would be created by the reprocessing operations in the future, which seem the only serious impediments to nuclear energy, will be greatly reduced in volume from what now exists. What technology we lack, we can acquire from commercial sources in Europe, especially the French, under license or we can develop here.
It is very conceivable that electric cars powered by electricity generated by relatively clean and plentiful nuclear energy make sense as a competing choice of fuel source to gasoline or other fossil fuels. If the increase in the use of nuclear technology doesn't turn you on, then CNG or “compressed natural gas” vehicles would be the next best thing. They can run with existing technology (internal combustion engines) modified to burn domestically acquired gas versus liquid fuels like gasoline or diesel made from imported oil. T. Boone Pickens, a well-known oilman and entrepreneur has advocated a plan much like this whereby the long and short haul truck fleet in the U.S. would be given grants or loans to convert their trucks over to burning CNG instead of diesel. The conversion of 6 million vehicles over to CNG would reduce imports by nearly half just by itself. The only issues that need addressing are CNG distribution and filling facilities for these vehicles. Fortunately, natural gas is available most everywhere in America. It isn’t a process that could occur overnight but it could be done within a decade.
For those locations where such service is not available due to logistical issues, natural gas, like propane gas, which is used for all manner of uses in more rural areas, can be delivered in a liquid form by truck and then put into tanks like propane and gasoline for future use. Another option for consumers who live in more urban and even suburban areas, home filling stations can be set up and even metered for public use in communal living areas like apartment complexes, thus making it easier to fuel your vehicle without having to find a commercial filling station like we do when using gasoline or diesel. Unlike gasoline, CNG vehicle can fuel anywhere there is a source of gas that can be compressed. They can even incorporate compressors in the vehicles to take gas at “line pressure” and compress it in the vehicle if the vehicle operator is not able to find a standard fueling outlet. That is the beauty of the technology: flexibility as well as being eco-friendly. One additional benefit seldom mentioned is the reduction in operating costs of vehicles powered by CNG or electricity. Trucks and cars powered with CNG burn cleaner thereby reducing the amount of contamination of the lubricating oil in the engines, reducing the wear and tear internally and reducing the need for frequent replacement of the lube oil. Engines would last longer and emissions would be greatly reduced. Operating costs would be reduced as well, further reducing costs to consumers who rely on trucks, which is every consumer in the country.
My reorganization plan is simple: Electrical generating plants utilizing natural gas could be decommissioned and their fuel reallocated to motor fuel purposes as new nuclear plants came on line. Coal fired plants could be decommissioned as well and their coal “gasified” or converted to liquid petroleum for diesel fuel, lubricants or for industrial material processing (petrochemicals and other materials made from oil like polymers). This would free us from foreign oil for the most part and make America far less vulnerable to supply interruptions, external threats to the logistical train that supplies the petroleum we import, and the extremes of pricing in the international energy marketplace. Money sent overseas to hostile or potentially hostile regimes and regions of the world would be drastically curtailed or even eliminated and used to invest in energy, industrial projects and development here in America. We could even become net exporters of energy for the first time in decades!
To sum it up, we need to convert the vast majority of our electrical production to nuclear and hydro-electric and utilize this energy for both transportation (electrified rail and electric vehicles for personal and fleet use) and to traditional industrial and residential uses. This would free up less polluting, more available and deployable domestically produced fossil fuels like natural gas as motor fuel while gasified/liquefied coal products can be used for other purposes. When other technologies like use of biomass, wind and solar become more advanced, thereby more economical and deployable, we can use them to fill the gaps in the power grid as its demands grow. Bio fuels may in time provide a competitive alternative to CNG/LNG / Electrical powered vehicles, but are at present vulnerable to inclimate weather and variations in agricultural output. There needs to be more development of the infrastructure to produce fuel from bio resources and development of the transportation infrastructure for biofuel product s to market as many can’t use the same facilities, equipment or pipelines as are currently in use for petroleum products.
Within a generation it may be possible that we could see the end of gasoline powered vehicles as the major source of personal transportation in America. If a plan like the one I have just outlined is implemented, they will slowly but surely disappear as they are replaced by vehicles powered from alternative energy sources. Like the “Stanley Steamer” of the early 1900’s, gasoline powered vehicles could be rendered museum pieces or collector items in a generation or two, and eventually become quaint curiosities like the horse and buggy within a century.
Only America has these many choices and the technical acumen and economic capability to make such a plan a viable reality within the next 10-15 years, but we must begin now to bring it about before circumstances force our hand.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
On a personal note......
Recently, I spent a few weeks on "medical leave" for a chronic physical condition that I have suffered with for several years.
I won't bore you with the details, but I had some "trial surgery" and I think that it went well... No complications or problems with anything. I am hoping the doctors see things my way and will agree to continue with this course of treatment and get a little more comfortable and do more in the next phase since this one seems to have gone well....
I would like to thank all those who have given me their support and good wishes. This has been somewhat of a trial for me and my family and we all are looking forward to the next step in the process. I hope that the doctors are as supportive and will agree with further treatments along the lines we have just completed.
I would like to also go on the record and say that the facilities and the staff of the University of Virginia Medical Center were first rate and very supportive of me throughout the entire process. Granted, the many trips back and forth between Virginia Beach and Charlottesville have been a trial, but it has been a pleasure to deal with the folks up there. I would especially like to thank Dr. Raymond Morgan and his staff for all their help and understanding. Their consummate professionalism and humanity were a great comfort to me. Also, I would be completely remiss if I failed to mention the nurses and even the young interns who came and went. They too were also excellent.
I can honestly say that I didn't have a single noticeable "negative experience", which is rare today.
To my co-workers and friends at ABNB Federal Credit Union who have been so understanding and supportive, I am forever in your debt as well. You have all carried more water for me than Gunga Din; tolerating my foibles, distractions and neurosis when my condition made them manifest. I know it hasn't been easy for you all and I know that I haven't always carried my own very prodigious weight at times. I promises that that will change as my situation improves and I am able to do more to contribute to our mission statement, to provide superior customer service to the entire staff and membership of ABNB Federal.
Once again, my humble thanks to you all.....
Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
I won't bore you with the details, but I had some "trial surgery" and I think that it went well... No complications or problems with anything. I am hoping the doctors see things my way and will agree to continue with this course of treatment and get a little more comfortable and do more in the next phase since this one seems to have gone well....
I would like to thank all those who have given me their support and good wishes. This has been somewhat of a trial for me and my family and we all are looking forward to the next step in the process. I hope that the doctors are as supportive and will agree with further treatments along the lines we have just completed.
I would like to also go on the record and say that the facilities and the staff of the University of Virginia Medical Center were first rate and very supportive of me throughout the entire process. Granted, the many trips back and forth between Virginia Beach and Charlottesville have been a trial, but it has been a pleasure to deal with the folks up there. I would especially like to thank Dr. Raymond Morgan and his staff for all their help and understanding. Their consummate professionalism and humanity were a great comfort to me. Also, I would be completely remiss if I failed to mention the nurses and even the young interns who came and went. They too were also excellent.
I can honestly say that I didn't have a single noticeable "negative experience", which is rare today.
To my co-workers and friends at ABNB Federal Credit Union who have been so understanding and supportive, I am forever in your debt as well. You have all carried more water for me than Gunga Din; tolerating my foibles, distractions and neurosis when my condition made them manifest. I know it hasn't been easy for you all and I know that I haven't always carried my own very prodigious weight at times. I promises that that will change as my situation improves and I am able to do more to contribute to our mission statement, to provide superior customer service to the entire staff and membership of ABNB Federal.
Once again, my humble thanks to you all.....
Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Another Islamic insult to New York....
A committee in New York has given the 'green light' for a group of Muslims to build a mosque adjacent to the site of the 9/11 world Trade Center attack. The crux of it is that they have to right to do so, as distasteful as it may be.
Having the "right" to do something however doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.
Technically, I have the right to spout off pro-Nazi propaganda in front of a synagogue during the high holy days, but it would be extremely insensitive and horribly divisive to do so. The Imam who is in charge of this evolution and his crew say that they hope to bridge the gulf between Muslims and non-Muslims by building a mosque at the site near 'ground zero'. This is an obvious lie when you look at the anger and resentment to this project.
No bridges of understanding are being built and none will be if this plan continues. It may even set back relations.
The Cordoba Institute folks could have built a mosque anywhere but chose this particular site.
Why?
They had to know that they would cause problems, and they have for many who lost friends and relatives. If you look at what this attack did to the nation and to the city of New York in particular and how people view the area where the attack occured, you can understand why people view this place with reverence akin to what one might feel looking upon war graves on a battlefield. This construction would be analogous to the Muslims building the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jews have suffered that insult for centuries. Christians have also been equally denigrated by conversion (read: violation) of their holy sites, too. The Saint Sofia Basilica, in Constantinople, the greatest church in the Eastern Empire was "converted" to a mosque in 1453 at the fall of the Byzantine Empire, then into a museum by a secular Turkey. This was a tremendous loss to all of Christendom, especially the Eastern Orthodox faith for many centuries.
Building at ground zero is just another Muslim insult to the non-Muslim world. It is a finger in the eye of the survivors and those who lost friends and loved ones. There is no other way to view it.
Perhaps political, and economic pressure can be brought to bear on the people who are making this happen. Perhaps the unions who control many aspects of construction, transportation and other "services" can make things difficult and therefore "persuade" the Muslims to build elsewhere.... anywhere but there. Or the Mayor and city agencies who grant building and use permits can be convinced via the political process to shut this project down.... Come on New York!! Get with the program and stand up for yourselves and let these people know that with 'rights' there are responsibilities, and one of these are to be a "good neighbor".
Muslims having a place to meet and to gloat about 'jihad', to have a place to pray for our destruction and the souls of those who are killing our young men and women as well as those who are allied with us in our struggle against these Islamic terrorists, and locating that place next door to what is essentially the largest 'war grave' in that War on Terror", is just plain wrong.
People of New York: Rise up and be heard!!!
Help them 'see the light', and demand that they who are advocating this project, shelve their plans forever, and behave as the sensitive, bridge building 'good neighbors' they claim to be.
Having the "right" to do something however doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.
Technically, I have the right to spout off pro-Nazi propaganda in front of a synagogue during the high holy days, but it would be extremely insensitive and horribly divisive to do so. The Imam who is in charge of this evolution and his crew say that they hope to bridge the gulf between Muslims and non-Muslims by building a mosque at the site near 'ground zero'. This is an obvious lie when you look at the anger and resentment to this project.
No bridges of understanding are being built and none will be if this plan continues. It may even set back relations.
The Cordoba Institute folks could have built a mosque anywhere but chose this particular site.
Why?
They had to know that they would cause problems, and they have for many who lost friends and relatives. If you look at what this attack did to the nation and to the city of New York in particular and how people view the area where the attack occured, you can understand why people view this place with reverence akin to what one might feel looking upon war graves on a battlefield. This construction would be analogous to the Muslims building the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jews have suffered that insult for centuries. Christians have also been equally denigrated by conversion (read: violation) of their holy sites, too. The Saint Sofia Basilica, in Constantinople, the greatest church in the Eastern Empire was "converted" to a mosque in 1453 at the fall of the Byzantine Empire, then into a museum by a secular Turkey. This was a tremendous loss to all of Christendom, especially the Eastern Orthodox faith for many centuries.
Building at ground zero is just another Muslim insult to the non-Muslim world. It is a finger in the eye of the survivors and those who lost friends and loved ones. There is no other way to view it.
Perhaps political, and economic pressure can be brought to bear on the people who are making this happen. Perhaps the unions who control many aspects of construction, transportation and other "services" can make things difficult and therefore "persuade" the Muslims to build elsewhere.... anywhere but there. Or the Mayor and city agencies who grant building and use permits can be convinced via the political process to shut this project down.... Come on New York!! Get with the program and stand up for yourselves and let these people know that with 'rights' there are responsibilities, and one of these are to be a "good neighbor".
Muslims having a place to meet and to gloat about 'jihad', to have a place to pray for our destruction and the souls of those who are killing our young men and women as well as those who are allied with us in our struggle against these Islamic terrorists, and locating that place next door to what is essentially the largest 'war grave' in that War on Terror", is just plain wrong.
People of New York: Rise up and be heard!!!
Help them 'see the light', and demand that they who are advocating this project, shelve their plans forever, and behave as the sensitive, bridge building 'good neighbors' they claim to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)