What irony - the Democrats, socialist progressives, having trumpeted the song ' America must become energy independent' if we are to have real national security. Reliance on foreign oil and gas makes us vulnerable to the whim of the rest of the world.
I believe everyone agrees with this, but the Democrats and their environmentalist masters have stood in the way of the development of any sources of energy that is not fossil based except wind, solar and maybe bio based sources. If the truth be known, nuclear power is out of the question as well.
Even though the coal industry has meet all of the latest requirement mandated by the federal government for electrical generation plants, the Democrats and environmentalists now have raised the bar saying that "it's not good enough anymore given all life on the planet will end on ten years if we don't stop using fossil fuels" - sigh - the 'carbon foot print on our necks' that is the fraud of man made global warming.
As of today, 53% of our electrical power comes from coal fired generation plants - who do you think will stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer when these plants are shut down? Not the working citizen paying the bills -! You guessed it, the 'all knowing' environmentalists hiding in Washington.
It seems that no matter which way we turn it's the wrong way according to the environmentalists. I believe it is high time to confront these people and challenge their philosophy of destruction of our way of life. It just doesn't make sense.
This article lays out just one of the many ways Democrats demand energy independence but refuse to allow it to happen - how is this possible? And we elect these people to lead us - - ?
Keep the faith fellow citizens, the battle for common sense rages on.
*Virginia Is Sitting on the Energy Mother Lode*
By MAX SCHULZ July 26, 2008 WSJ
Chatham, Va. Amid the rolling hills and verdant pastures of south central Virginia an unlikely new front in the battle over nuclear energy is opening up. How it is decided will tell us a lot about whether this country is willing to get serious about addressing its energy needs.
[Cross Country]APWalter Coles Jr. and Walter Coles Sr. discuss uranium.
In Pittsylvania County, just north of the North Carolina border, the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States -- and the seventh largest in the world, according to industry monitor UX Consulting -- sits on land owned by neighbors Henry Bowen and Walter Coles. Large uranium deposits close to the surface are virtually unknown in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. And that may be the problem.
Virginia is one of just four states that ban uranium mining. The ban was put in place in 1984, to calm fears that had been sparked by the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor on Three Mile Island outside of Harrisburg, Pa. in 1979. Messrs. Bowen and Coles, who last year formed a company called Virginia Uranium, are asking the state to determine whether mining uranium really is a hazard and, if not, to lift the ban. But they've run into a brick wall of environmental activists who raise the specter of nuclear contamination and who are determined to prevent scientific studies of the issue.
The Piedmont Environmental Council is one of the leading opponents. It warns of the "enormous quantities of radioactive waste" produced by uranium mining. Jack Dunavant, head of the Southside Concerned Citizens in nearby Halifax County, is another outspoken critic. He paints a picture of environmental apocalypse. "There will be a dead zone within a 30 mile radius of the mine," he says with a courtly drawl. "Nothing will grow. Animals will die. The radiation genetically alters tissue. Animals will not be able to reproduce. We'll see malformed fetuses."
Yet it is not as if we have no experience with uranium mining, which is in fact relatively harmless. Handled properly, the yellowcake that is extracted is no more hazardous than regular household chemicals (and unlike coal, it won't smolder and combust). James Kelly, who directed the nuclear engineering program at the University of Virginia for many years, says that fears about uranium mining are wildly overblown. "It's an aesthetic nightmare, but otherwise safe in terms of releasing any significant radioactivity or pollution," he told me. "It would be ugly to look at, but from the perspective of any hazard I wouldn't mind if they mined across the street from me."
The situation is rich with irony as well as uranium. While you can't mine yellowcake, it is perfectly legal in Virginia to process enriched uranium into usable nuclear fuel, which is somewhat dangerous to handle. A subsidiary of the French nuclear giant Areva operates a fuel fabrication facility in Lynchburg 50 miles from Chatham. It has been praised by Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, as a good corporate citizen. The state is also home to four commercial nuclear reactors, which provide Virginians with 35% of their electricity. And, of course, the U.S. Navy operates nuclear ships out of Norfolk, Va.
Across the country, there are 104 commercial nuclear reactors. They consume 67 million pounds of uranium annually, the vast majority of which is imported from Australia, Canada and former Soviet republics. The 200-acre Coles Hill deposit (Mr. Coles's family has lived on the spot since 1785) is thought to contain nearly twice that amount. For Messrs. Bowen and Coles, with the long-term price of uranium near $80 per pound, that means they are sitting on about $10 billion worth of ore.
But for the rest of us, it means they are sitting on an opportunity to make the U.S. more energy self-sufficient.
Since Virginia is already a nuclear-friendly state that properly manages the risks of nuclear power, what sense does it make for the state to ban the safest step in the nuclear fuel cycle? Gov. Kaine supports allowing the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether mining could be done safely. So does virtually every elected official in heavily Republican Pittsylvania County.
Earlier this year the narrowly Democratic state Senate voted 34-6 to authorize the study. But the measure was killed in committee in the House under pressure from environmental groups. If it was allowed to come up for a vote in the full House, which is controlled by Republicans, opponents concede it would have passed.
The governor's chief energy adviser, Steve Walz, says the Kaine administration has taken no position on whether reversing the ban makes sense. "That's why we wanted to see the results of the study, to help us make a determination."
Mr. Dunavant doesn't believe the governor has an open mind on the issue. He calls Mr. Kaine, "our 'supposed green' governor" and says that the "only thing green about him is his love of money."
Coles Hill "is all about greed," he says. "It's criminal activity as far as I'm concerned."For his part, Mr. Coles can't understand the hostility. "I tell these groups that my concerns are your concerns. I have been protecting the environment here for decades, long before any of them became interested in this land."
He's received offers to buy his land for sums that would make him incredibly wealthy, but has turned them down. "We love the land. My family has lived here for over 200 years. We're going to continue to live here. That's the reason we decided to keep it, as opposed to selling out." He says Virginia Uranium will continue to push for the independent study.
If the U.S. is to expand nuclear power's role in a time of energy insecurity and climate change worries, we will have to confront the hysterical antinuclear pronouncements that have been the currency of environmentalists for nearly 30 years. The Old Dominion could be a good place for a new start.
Mr. Schulz is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Economic Success Depends on Noninterference by Government
This is an excellent article on the economy - not just the economy but on the American way of life. We have the greatest opportunity, because we live in America, to do what is right for our own well being as guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore the well being of the entire country. We as individuals, operating independently, form the strength of the whole.
The liberal progressive socialists do not see how we can survive without someone doing the thinking for us all - that is a government that controls all aspects of our lives which will create equal opportunities for everyone. What a hoot -
The market economy has always worked and worked well when government didn't interfere in it's operation. Regan proved this when he did nothing in the 1987 when the stock market crash took place. He was reviled by the media and political hacks on the left as an idiot. da - Of course he was right not to interfere as we all know, we have had twenty years of prosperity because of nonintferance.
Now that the market is in a down turn, the fear mongers at it again demanding government interference. Unfortunately we don't have another Ronald Regan to lead us through this but I hope cooler heads will prevail in decisions to leave government out of the solution mix. I also know that this is just wishful thinking. What better way for the socialists to start the process of total population control than through a collapsed economy.
"We need more government controls on our economy" is the cry from Washington these days. I hope and pray this doesn't come to pass.
This November make sure you vote with a cool head - watch and listen to what is said with an inquisitive mind. Do not accept a politician word as gospel.
Keep the faith in the American way, the battle is for freedom of choice.
Economics as Metaphor*
By DAVID RANSON July 25, 2008
Many newspaper readers, recalling what they read at the beginning of this year, must be rubbing their eyes. How can the economy still be functioning despite the perfect storm of recession and housing collapse that was supposed to engulf it?
Although markets are volatile and segments of the country are having a hard time, the national output is up, not down, this year. How has the economy pulled this off? Is there something the pessimists were missing?The answer is yes, and here's why. People tend to anthropomorphize the world around them, and not just in economics. We look at the outside world and assume that it is governed in the same way as our own lives.
For example, we're mystified by Mother Nature's apparent heartlessness and large-scale disregard for what we cherish: order, justice and the sanctity of life. We still resist the notion that we can't dictate the course of the Mississippi, control the way the planet evolves, or equalize the distribution of income. The same parochial streak in human nature is rife in economic commentary.
In the context of a household or a business, debt is a burden and can become a threat. But for society as a whole, debt finance is a prime means of capitalizing production and growth. It's extraordinary, then, that in national debate the narrow view drowns out the broad. Aggregate private debt and trade deficits are widely regarded with equal suspicion and fear -- even by "experts." Instead of celebrating the role that private debt has played in creating prosperity, many blame "excessive" debt when things go wrong, and cite it as a basis for pessimism.
At the micro level, the failure of an institution is often a disaster to those with a personal stake. But from an overall perspective, when one institution becomes insolvent, another can be relied on to pick up its functions. Again, it's the localized human costs that exercise the political imagination. The benefits of systemic adaptability are taken for granted. Government responds to constituencies and takes great pains to preserve the existing institutional structure, sometimes guaranteeing or bailing out failing firms. It's widely assumed that a large enough wave of bankruptcies will bring the economy down. Little or no credit is given to the ability of the economic system to heal itself and find its way back to vitality.
What's excessive now is fear, not debt: Fears of insolvency and private-sector indebtedness are misplaced and harmful. They place obstacles in the way of ill-used capital that seeks to move toward safer and more profitable employment. They plunge the stock market into turbulence. They push government into hasty actions that intrude more aggressively into private choices and decisions. They undercut the market-price system, without which the economy cannot allocate resources productively.
Last but not least, these fears trigger the proverbial false alarm in a crowded theater, sending everyone stampeding for the exits. Economists have a professional duty to transmit the more broad-minded vision of the world that their discipline reveals. But economists are parochial too.
There's an old saying that if your neighbors are losing their jobs it's a recession; if you are losing yours it's a depression. It's therefore unfortunate that such a large fraction of prominent forecasters hails from the financial community. Their views are colored by the turmoil suffered in their industry.
In an earlier generation, many of the best-known forecasters ran economics departments in nonfinancial companies. Today these are a dying breed, thanks to the past decades of corporate cost-cutting. We are not a nation of whiners, but we do have a lot of alarmists. It is becoming politically incorrect to suggest that the economy is basically sound. We shouldn't expect forecasters to shrug off the depressing effects of what's happening in their own back yards. This is human nature. We just need to keep things in perspective when we listen to them.
A more objective diagnosis is especially needed during an election year, in which many unfounded fears are broadcast and amplified by the media.
A natural system has built-in redundancy. It manages and heals itself. The economic system is no exception. On this page about 10 years ago, Penny Russell and I argued against the idea that the economy is a "house of cards," susceptible to collapse as soon as a few cards are dislodged. We suggested that it's more like a beehive. The future of the hive does not depend on full employment for all the worker bees. In fact, an accident can put many bees out of action without compromising the hive as a whole.
Metaphors are important. If they are off the mark, they can deceive. But good metaphors can help maintain perspective amid chaos. The community of banks, for example, can be likened to players in a game of musical chairs. As the music stops, some comfortable backsides are thrown out to be replaced with fresh ones. When the music resumes, wealth has been redistributed, and livelihoods have been turned upside down, but the game goes on.
Most businesses and workers hurt by this financial chaos are as innocent as those whose farms were flooded by torrential rains in Iowa. In nature's rough justice, short-sighted decisions by some can cause much hardship for others. Yet despite the human tragedies at the local level, the system as a whole muddles through.
Failure to recognize this endangers the mental health of our society. We create a far bigger tragedy when we lose heart, change the rules of the game, or act recklessly with quick fixes.*
Mr. Ranson is head of research at H.C. Wainwright Economics.*
The liberal progressive socialists do not see how we can survive without someone doing the thinking for us all - that is a government that controls all aspects of our lives which will create equal opportunities for everyone. What a hoot -
The market economy has always worked and worked well when government didn't interfere in it's operation. Regan proved this when he did nothing in the 1987 when the stock market crash took place. He was reviled by the media and political hacks on the left as an idiot. da - Of course he was right not to interfere as we all know, we have had twenty years of prosperity because of nonintferance.
Now that the market is in a down turn, the fear mongers at it again demanding government interference. Unfortunately we don't have another Ronald Regan to lead us through this but I hope cooler heads will prevail in decisions to leave government out of the solution mix. I also know that this is just wishful thinking. What better way for the socialists to start the process of total population control than through a collapsed economy.
"We need more government controls on our economy" is the cry from Washington these days. I hope and pray this doesn't come to pass.
This November make sure you vote with a cool head - watch and listen to what is said with an inquisitive mind. Do not accept a politician word as gospel.
Keep the faith in the American way, the battle is for freedom of choice.
Economics as Metaphor*
By DAVID RANSON July 25, 2008
Many newspaper readers, recalling what they read at the beginning of this year, must be rubbing their eyes. How can the economy still be functioning despite the perfect storm of recession and housing collapse that was supposed to engulf it?
Although markets are volatile and segments of the country are having a hard time, the national output is up, not down, this year. How has the economy pulled this off? Is there something the pessimists were missing?The answer is yes, and here's why. People tend to anthropomorphize the world around them, and not just in economics. We look at the outside world and assume that it is governed in the same way as our own lives.
For example, we're mystified by Mother Nature's apparent heartlessness and large-scale disregard for what we cherish: order, justice and the sanctity of life. We still resist the notion that we can't dictate the course of the Mississippi, control the way the planet evolves, or equalize the distribution of income. The same parochial streak in human nature is rife in economic commentary.
In the context of a household or a business, debt is a burden and can become a threat. But for society as a whole, debt finance is a prime means of capitalizing production and growth. It's extraordinary, then, that in national debate the narrow view drowns out the broad. Aggregate private debt and trade deficits are widely regarded with equal suspicion and fear -- even by "experts." Instead of celebrating the role that private debt has played in creating prosperity, many blame "excessive" debt when things go wrong, and cite it as a basis for pessimism.
At the micro level, the failure of an institution is often a disaster to those with a personal stake. But from an overall perspective, when one institution becomes insolvent, another can be relied on to pick up its functions. Again, it's the localized human costs that exercise the political imagination. The benefits of systemic adaptability are taken for granted. Government responds to constituencies and takes great pains to preserve the existing institutional structure, sometimes guaranteeing or bailing out failing firms. It's widely assumed that a large enough wave of bankruptcies will bring the economy down. Little or no credit is given to the ability of the economic system to heal itself and find its way back to vitality.
What's excessive now is fear, not debt: Fears of insolvency and private-sector indebtedness are misplaced and harmful. They place obstacles in the way of ill-used capital that seeks to move toward safer and more profitable employment. They plunge the stock market into turbulence. They push government into hasty actions that intrude more aggressively into private choices and decisions. They undercut the market-price system, without which the economy cannot allocate resources productively.
Last but not least, these fears trigger the proverbial false alarm in a crowded theater, sending everyone stampeding for the exits. Economists have a professional duty to transmit the more broad-minded vision of the world that their discipline reveals. But economists are parochial too.
There's an old saying that if your neighbors are losing their jobs it's a recession; if you are losing yours it's a depression. It's therefore unfortunate that such a large fraction of prominent forecasters hails from the financial community. Their views are colored by the turmoil suffered in their industry.
In an earlier generation, many of the best-known forecasters ran economics departments in nonfinancial companies. Today these are a dying breed, thanks to the past decades of corporate cost-cutting. We are not a nation of whiners, but we do have a lot of alarmists. It is becoming politically incorrect to suggest that the economy is basically sound. We shouldn't expect forecasters to shrug off the depressing effects of what's happening in their own back yards. This is human nature. We just need to keep things in perspective when we listen to them.
A more objective diagnosis is especially needed during an election year, in which many unfounded fears are broadcast and amplified by the media.
A natural system has built-in redundancy. It manages and heals itself. The economic system is no exception. On this page about 10 years ago, Penny Russell and I argued against the idea that the economy is a "house of cards," susceptible to collapse as soon as a few cards are dislodged. We suggested that it's more like a beehive. The future of the hive does not depend on full employment for all the worker bees. In fact, an accident can put many bees out of action without compromising the hive as a whole.
Metaphors are important. If they are off the mark, they can deceive. But good metaphors can help maintain perspective amid chaos. The community of banks, for example, can be likened to players in a game of musical chairs. As the music stops, some comfortable backsides are thrown out to be replaced with fresh ones. When the music resumes, wealth has been redistributed, and livelihoods have been turned upside down, but the game goes on.
Most businesses and workers hurt by this financial chaos are as innocent as those whose farms were flooded by torrential rains in Iowa. In nature's rough justice, short-sighted decisions by some can cause much hardship for others. Yet despite the human tragedies at the local level, the system as a whole muddles through.
Failure to recognize this endangers the mental health of our society. We create a far bigger tragedy when we lose heart, change the rules of the game, or act recklessly with quick fixes.*
Mr. Ranson is head of research at H.C. Wainwright Economics.*
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Entitlements Will Destroy Our Way of Life
Make no mistake about this, the more we spend on programs that do nothing but support individuals in their currently status of dependency, instead of building ways to make dependent individuals able to support them selves, will eat the heart out of our country and not help the intended. These failed programs will only increase the dependency population.
History has been a good teacher showing just how disastrous 'something for nothing' is, but congress seems to have been absent from class when they passed the education bill for 169 billion in new spending and created 50 new programs.
What will it take to find someone that has some common sense? Why do we seem to never learn anything from failed ideas?
Again, the Heritage Foundation is on top of the problem - hopefully someone will listen.
keep the faith by voting out the craziness in congress, the battle is only beginning.
How much do entitlements cost?
How much taxpayer money does the government spend each year on entitlement programs?
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone cost $1.24 trillion (that’s $1,240,000,000,000) every year. And this number is spiraling upwards out of control.
Heritage Foundation experts have put this in perspective. They report that our spending on these three programs is equivalent to the entire Canadian economy-the 13th largest in the world.
If congress doesn't do anything to stop this growth in entitlements it will eat up the entire budget in the next 45 years leaving nothing for defense, education or anything else. (see graph)
They also produced a new “a la chart” graphic, which they sent to newspaper and magazine editors around the country to help get the word out about our runaway spending problem.
Unfortunately, liberals in Congress oppose attempts to curb even the growth of this massive spending.
Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl warns that “the coming entitlement spending tsunami is not going away. Every year of delay raises the eventual cost of reform by trillions of dollars. This is unconscionable. When the bill comes due, taxpayers will demand to know why Congress shirked their duty to confront this issue.”
History has been a good teacher showing just how disastrous 'something for nothing' is, but congress seems to have been absent from class when they passed the education bill for 169 billion in new spending and created 50 new programs.
What will it take to find someone that has some common sense? Why do we seem to never learn anything from failed ideas?
Again, the Heritage Foundation is on top of the problem - hopefully someone will listen.
keep the faith by voting out the craziness in congress, the battle is only beginning.
How much do entitlements cost?
How much taxpayer money does the government spend each year on entitlement programs?
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone cost $1.24 trillion (that’s $1,240,000,000,000) every year. And this number is spiraling upwards out of control.
Heritage Foundation experts have put this in perspective. They report that our spending on these three programs is equivalent to the entire Canadian economy-the 13th largest in the world.
If congress doesn't do anything to stop this growth in entitlements it will eat up the entire budget in the next 45 years leaving nothing for defense, education or anything else. (see graph)
They also produced a new “a la chart” graphic, which they sent to newspaper and magazine editors around the country to help get the word out about our runaway spending problem.
Unfortunately, liberals in Congress oppose attempts to curb even the growth of this massive spending.
Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl warns that “the coming entitlement spending tsunami is not going away. Every year of delay raises the eventual cost of reform by trillions of dollars. This is unconscionable. When the bill comes due, taxpayers will demand to know why Congress shirked their duty to confront this issue.”
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Risk-Taking Diminishes With Promotion
The truth is in the size and speed of the ball as to how aggressive the person is - there seems to be some correlation here - heh
Interesting Observation!
The sport of choice for the urban poor is BASKETBALL.
The sport of choice for maintenance level employees is BOWLING.
The sport of choice for front-line workers is FOOTBALL.
The sport of choice for supervisors is BASEBALL.
The sport of choice for middle management is TENNIS.
And....
The sport of choice for corporate executives and officers is GOLF.
THE AMAZING CONCLUSION:
The higher you go in the corporate structure.........the smaller your balls become!
Interesting Observation!
The sport of choice for the urban poor is BASKETBALL.
The sport of choice for maintenance level employees is BOWLING.
The sport of choice for front-line workers is FOOTBALL.
The sport of choice for supervisors is BASEBALL.
The sport of choice for middle management is TENNIS.
And....
The sport of choice for corporate executives and officers is GOLF.
THE AMAZING CONCLUSION:
The higher you go in the corporate structure.........the smaller your balls become!
Friday, July 25, 2008
How Much is A Billion - And in Dollars?
Interesting concept - I have never really stopped to think about what the values are as related to the money that our 'self serving' government spends and on what. I know the waste is beyond my comprehension and the graft and out right theft of our tax dollars is criminal.
I also know our government always wants more and more of everything, especially taxes so that our congressmen and senators are well fed at the federal troff.
This little snippet says pretty much what it means to be 'out of control' at the federal and probably all levels of government.
The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about
whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of
putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.
A.. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B.. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C.. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.
D.. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E.. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government
is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain... let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is presently asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number... what does it mean?
A.. Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) you each get $516,528.
B.. Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C.. Or... if you are a family of four... your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington, D. C <> Are all your calculators broken??
I also know our government always wants more and more of everything, especially taxes so that our congressmen and senators are well fed at the federal troff.
This little snippet says pretty much what it means to be 'out of control' at the federal and probably all levels of government.
The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about
whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of
putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.
A.. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B.. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C.. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.
D.. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E.. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government
is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain... let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is presently asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number... what does it mean?
A.. Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) you each get $516,528.
B.. Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C.. Or... if you are a family of four... your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington, D. C <> Are all your calculators broken??
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Progressive Liberal Democrats Embrace Marxist Socialism
The Democrat Party of past years is dead! - They have either gone into hiding, afraid to stand up for what they believe, or they have decided to join the crowd that is determined to destroy American liberty and freedom with Marxist socialism.
I have continually stated here that a large percentage of the voting public believes America is a place where anything is possible as long as there are people that will take the responsibility upon themselves to make sure the country continues to function in such a manner that the irresponsible can survive.
Who are the irresponsible you ask, they are those that can't see beyond their next football game, golf game or the next weekend at the cabin. They abhor anything that interferes with their ordered lives. "Don't confuse me with facts about how life really is. Don't burden me with decisions that effect how I will live in the future. I want others to decide those questions - that is what our government is for. The more government control we have will allow us to live unmolested and not have to do anything personally that will effect our or lives - all we have to do is just do what we are told". Can't happen here you say - think again!
Socialism is alive and well and gaining ground in America.
These people are in every walk of life - teachers, airline pilots, construction workers, executives of sales, manufacturing, services. They refuse to comprehend that "you can run but you can't hide".
They are those that live for the weekend to escape from the drudgery of the work week in a dead end job - a job that is actually suited for who they are but can't admit they don't have the will or skill to improve their situation. They are perfectly positioned for the socialist marta of "taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive". Witness congress getting 'revenge' on the oil executives for high oil prices - how will that help the oil price? It won't, of course, but it plays well to those that are ready and willing to have others take the responsibility for the incompetence of the many.
The following article is one that sheds light on how we seem to be sliding into a darkness where there might not be any escape. Socialism, the foundation of the New Socialist Progressive Party, liberal Democrats, has never worked and history has proven where it has been tried it has failed. And yet we are on the brink of repeating all the failures of that history.
How can this happen in America? Why is this happening in America? I wish I knew. We have everything and yet so many are willing to give it all up for instant gratification, the quick fix, the painless solution to our every want and whim.
Where did these people go wrong? I struggle every day trying to figure out how did this huge group of people get separated from reality? Have they always been here living ordinary lives and then all of a sudden they decide freedom isn't worth the effort anymore? Why have they become so blind as to not see what is coming to destroy us all? Why is it so clear to me but totally refuted by others?
We have to stand tall while we keep the faith in America, the battle for freedom must never be relinquished.
The Sweet Illusion Of Socialism
By TERRY SATER Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The underlying issue of the 2008 election makes this a watershed moment in American history, too important to shrink from full and frank debate or allow emotional appeal to cloak party platform DNA.
In April, when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., was asked if presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama was a Marxist, he replied: "I must say, that's a good question . . . I will tell you that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't . . . I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."
It was a good question, but there is a broader one: Will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of socialism, Marxism and communism? Those are our choices. We must have the intellectual honesty and moral courage to debate the choices plainly, by proper definition and without equivocation or censorship.
Words matter.
The left avoids any use of the terms "socialism" or "Marxism." Conservatives have been intimidated into using childish euphemisms such as "nanny state. "Webster's dictionary defines "socialized medicine" as "medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained by assessments, philanthropy or taxation." We should call it that, rather than "universal health care."
In May, two House Democrats called for nationalization of the U.S. oil industry. A June Rasmussen poll reported that 37% of Democrats liked the idea. Webster's defines "communism" in part as "a theory advocating elimination of private property" or "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society."
In 2004, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She could have easily quoted Karl Marx, who said: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The Fairness Doctrine, favored by many Democrats, sounds wonderful, but it ironically disguises the ultimate objective: silencing conservative speech. Why not just call it the Kill Conservative Talk Doctrine?
We've come far from promises of "a chicken in every pot" to Barack Obama's June 3 declaration that "the chance to get a college education is the birthright of every American." When did it become a birthright?
In his 1982 book, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism," Michael Novak noted that many who have lived under socialism would find it hard to believe "that other human beings would fall for the same bundle of lies, half-truths and distortions. Sadly, however, illusion is often sweeter to human taste than reality. The last Marxist in the world will probably be an American nun."
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism," said Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s. "But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
If it is to be, let's do it with our eyes open, aware of every ponderous step. I understand why a person wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when promised "entitlements" or income redistribution or care whether it is called liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, communism or "change." We at least should know whether it is a gift horse or a Trojan horse, or a combination of the two.
Sater writes a monthly column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where this article first appeared./
I have continually stated here that a large percentage of the voting public believes America is a place where anything is possible as long as there are people that will take the responsibility upon themselves to make sure the country continues to function in such a manner that the irresponsible can survive.
Who are the irresponsible you ask, they are those that can't see beyond their next football game, golf game or the next weekend at the cabin. They abhor anything that interferes with their ordered lives. "Don't confuse me with facts about how life really is. Don't burden me with decisions that effect how I will live in the future. I want others to decide those questions - that is what our government is for. The more government control we have will allow us to live unmolested and not have to do anything personally that will effect our or lives - all we have to do is just do what we are told". Can't happen here you say - think again!
Socialism is alive and well and gaining ground in America.
These people are in every walk of life - teachers, airline pilots, construction workers, executives of sales, manufacturing, services. They refuse to comprehend that "you can run but you can't hide".
They are those that live for the weekend to escape from the drudgery of the work week in a dead end job - a job that is actually suited for who they are but can't admit they don't have the will or skill to improve their situation. They are perfectly positioned for the socialist marta of "taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive". Witness congress getting 'revenge' on the oil executives for high oil prices - how will that help the oil price? It won't, of course, but it plays well to those that are ready and willing to have others take the responsibility for the incompetence of the many.
The following article is one that sheds light on how we seem to be sliding into a darkness where there might not be any escape. Socialism, the foundation of the New Socialist Progressive Party, liberal Democrats, has never worked and history has proven where it has been tried it has failed. And yet we are on the brink of repeating all the failures of that history.
How can this happen in America? Why is this happening in America? I wish I knew. We have everything and yet so many are willing to give it all up for instant gratification, the quick fix, the painless solution to our every want and whim.
Where did these people go wrong? I struggle every day trying to figure out how did this huge group of people get separated from reality? Have they always been here living ordinary lives and then all of a sudden they decide freedom isn't worth the effort anymore? Why have they become so blind as to not see what is coming to destroy us all? Why is it so clear to me but totally refuted by others?
We have to stand tall while we keep the faith in America, the battle for freedom must never be relinquished.
The Sweet Illusion Of Socialism
By TERRY SATER Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The underlying issue of the 2008 election makes this a watershed moment in American history, too important to shrink from full and frank debate or allow emotional appeal to cloak party platform DNA.
In April, when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., was asked if presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama was a Marxist, he replied: "I must say, that's a good question . . . I will tell you that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't . . . I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."
It was a good question, but there is a broader one: Will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of socialism, Marxism and communism? Those are our choices. We must have the intellectual honesty and moral courage to debate the choices plainly, by proper definition and without equivocation or censorship.
Words matter.
The left avoids any use of the terms "socialism" or "Marxism." Conservatives have been intimidated into using childish euphemisms such as "nanny state. "Webster's dictionary defines "socialized medicine" as "medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained by assessments, philanthropy or taxation." We should call it that, rather than "universal health care."
In May, two House Democrats called for nationalization of the U.S. oil industry. A June Rasmussen poll reported that 37% of Democrats liked the idea. Webster's defines "communism" in part as "a theory advocating elimination of private property" or "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society."
In 2004, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She could have easily quoted Karl Marx, who said: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The Fairness Doctrine, favored by many Democrats, sounds wonderful, but it ironically disguises the ultimate objective: silencing conservative speech. Why not just call it the Kill Conservative Talk Doctrine?
We've come far from promises of "a chicken in every pot" to Barack Obama's June 3 declaration that "the chance to get a college education is the birthright of every American." When did it become a birthright?
In his 1982 book, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism," Michael Novak noted that many who have lived under socialism would find it hard to believe "that other human beings would fall for the same bundle of lies, half-truths and distortions. Sadly, however, illusion is often sweeter to human taste than reality. The last Marxist in the world will probably be an American nun."
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism," said Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s. "But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
If it is to be, let's do it with our eyes open, aware of every ponderous step. I understand why a person wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when promised "entitlements" or income redistribution or care whether it is called liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, communism or "change." We at least should know whether it is a gift horse or a Trojan horse, or a combination of the two.
Sater writes a monthly column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where this article first appeared./
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Conservative Versus Liberal Philosophy : Choose
Life is about choses and making the right one at the right time to preserve life and liberty for your self and the next generations to come as this will determine what you are and who you are.
Give this a lot of thought because it will make all the difference in the near future whether we honor those that have gone before us, and whether those that come after us will say we did all we could to preserve American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as dictated in the United States Constitution.
Is there anything more important than this?
Keep the faith - more battles to fight and win!
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats were standing there with us and I asked Catherine, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' Catherine replied, 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.'
'Wow, what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine.' I told her, 'you don't have to wait until you're President. You can start now by coming over to my house and cleaning up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars.
Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.'
Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5 dollars?'
'Ah', I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
Give this a lot of thought because it will make all the difference in the near future whether we honor those that have gone before us, and whether those that come after us will say we did all we could to preserve American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as dictated in the United States Constitution.
Is there anything more important than this?
Keep the faith - more battles to fight and win!
(author unknown)
So, I was talking to this little girl, Catherine, the daughter of some friends, and she said she wanted to be President someday.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats were standing there with us and I asked Catherine, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' Catherine replied, 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.'
'Wow, what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine.' I told her, 'you don't have to wait until you're President. You can start now by coming over to my house and cleaning up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars.
Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.'
Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5 dollars?'
'Ah', I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Good Humor - The Mechanic Verses The Heart Surgeon
What a hoot - this will take the chill off just about any body - enjoy
A mechanic was removing a cylinder-head from the motor of a Harley Motorcycle when he spotted a well-known cardiologist in his Shop........
The cardiologist was there waiting for the service manager to come take a look at his bike when the mechanic shouted across the garage,'Hey Doc, want to take a look at this?'
The cardiologist, a bit surprised, walked over to where the mechanic was working on the motorcycle. The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked, 'So Doc, look at this engine. I open it's heart, take the valves out, repair any damage, and then put them back in, and when I finish, it works just like new.
So how come I make $39,675 a year and you get the really big bucks ($1,695,759) when you and I are doing basically the same work?'
The cardiologist paused, smiled and leaned over, then whispered to the mechanic...
'Try doing it with the engine running"
A mechanic was removing a cylinder-head from the motor of a Harley Motorcycle when he spotted a well-known cardiologist in his Shop........
The cardiologist was there waiting for the service manager to come take a look at his bike when the mechanic shouted across the garage,'Hey Doc, want to take a look at this?'
The cardiologist, a bit surprised, walked over to where the mechanic was working on the motorcycle. The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked, 'So Doc, look at this engine. I open it's heart, take the valves out, repair any damage, and then put them back in, and when I finish, it works just like new.
So how come I make $39,675 a year and you get the really big bucks ($1,695,759) when you and I are doing basically the same work?'
The cardiologist paused, smiled and leaned over, then whispered to the mechanic...
'Try doing it with the engine running"
Monday, July 21, 2008
Still More Concrete Evidence : Global Warning A Fraud
I always find it exceeding hard to believe that so many people world wide can be taken in by the global warming scam - without any hard evidence to support their belief in global warming, they still are willing to subject their future well being to ruin without any cognoscente thought.
Why haven't more people questioned Al Gore on the fact that he refuses to debate global warming? Maybe he knows that he doesn't have to as so many people are already on board -
Does this scare you a little? I scares the hell out of me as this effects us all to a point of destruction.
Keep the faith people - we have to dig deep to win this battle but we can do it!
No smoking hot spot
David Evans July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.*
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?
Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere.
They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming.
In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming.
Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.
Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary.
The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
Why haven't more people questioned Al Gore on the fact that he refuses to debate global warming? Maybe he knows that he doesn't have to as so many people are already on board -
Does this scare you a little? I scares the hell out of me as this effects us all to a point of destruction.
Keep the faith people - we have to dig deep to win this battle but we can do it!
No smoking hot spot
David Evans July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.*
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?
Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere.
They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming.
In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming.
Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.
Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary.
The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
California Then - 1850 - And Now
As the old saying goes - 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'. Only this time the future of the state is in doubt - California's main accomplishments are high taxes, high crime, high living costs and high ignorance in politicians. The last being the more intrusive and expensive.
California is a good of example of what will happen to the entire country if the liberal socialist Democrat have their way. Another good example is New Orleans.
Keep the faith, we fight to redirect the battle.
California in 1850.
Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 158 years ago?
1. California became a state.
2. The state had no electricity.
3. The state had no money.
4. Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
5. There were gunfights in the streets.
So basically, it was just like California is today, except the women had real tits and the men didn't hold hands.
California is a good of example of what will happen to the entire country if the liberal socialist Democrat have their way. Another good example is New Orleans.
Keep the faith, we fight to redirect the battle.
California in 1850.
Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 158 years ago?
1. California became a state.
2. The state had no electricity.
3. The state had no money.
4. Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
5. There were gunfights in the streets.
So basically, it was just like California is today, except the women had real tits and the men didn't hold hands.
New Gov. Conclusions in Heart Attack research
New Heart attack research foresees future answers as a conclusion, the government reports -
I believe our 'all knowing' government, run by the smartest people in the world, have come up with a possible cure for heart attack and most everything else.
Maybe all those people that think big government is the answer to all of our problems are right? hmmmm - nah!
New Research finds:
After an exhaustive review of the research literature, here's the final word on nutrition and health:
1. Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
2. Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
3. Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
4. Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
5. Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills us... but the government is trying to correct the problem.
I believe our 'all knowing' government, run by the smartest people in the world, have come up with a possible cure for heart attack and most everything else.
Maybe all those people that think big government is the answer to all of our problems are right? hmmmm - nah!
New Research finds:
After an exhaustive review of the research literature, here's the final word on nutrition and health:
1. Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
2. Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
3. Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
4. Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
5. Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans do.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills us... but the government is trying to correct the problem.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Thank God for Our Military - Thank God for Our Country
I don't know who the author is but it really doesn't matter - this story says so much about who we are as a nation. It's about God and Country - Honor - Respect - Truth - Integrity.
To many of us there is a price that we have to pay for our freedom - sometimes the cost is immense - sometimes it is only a pain in our hearts for others that have given their full measure for our country. That is, for you and me.
In any event, freedom is not free.
Keep the faith and stand up for what's right for many have done so before us in battles past!
GOD ~ COUNTRY ~ HONOR
SOME OF US WILL UNDERSTAND THIS MORE THAN OTHERS~!
I just wanted to get the day over with and........... Go down to Smokey's for a few cold ones. Sneaking a look at my watch, I saw the time, 1655. Five minutes to go before the cemetery gates are closed for the day. Full dress was hot in the August sun. Oklahoma summertime was as bad as ever --the heat and humidity at the same level -- both too high.
I saw the car pull into the drive, '69 or '70 model Cadillac Deville, looked factory-new. It pulled into the parking lot at a snail's pace . An old woman got out so slow I thought she was paralyzed. She had a cane and a sheaf of flowers, about four or five bunches as best I could tell. I couldn't help myself. The thought came unwanted, and left a slightly bitter taste: 'She's going to spend an hour,and for this old soldier...my hip hurts like hell and I'm ready to get out of here right now!'
But for this day my duty was to assist anyone coming in. Kevin would lock the 'In' gate and if....I could just hurry the old biddy along , we might make the last half of happy hour at Smokey's. I broke Post Attention. My hip made gritty noises when I took the first step and the pain went up a notch.
I must have made a real military sight; middle-aged man with a small pot-gut and half a limp, in Marine Full Dress Uniform, which had lost its razorcrease about 30 minutes after I began the watch...at the cemetery. I stopped in front of her, halfway up the walk.She looked up at me with an old woman's squint.
'Ma'am may I assist you in any way?' She took long enough to answer. 'Yes, son. Can you carry these flowers? I seem to be moving a tad slow these days.''My pleasure Ma'am.'Well, it wasn't too much of a lie. She looked again.'Marine, where were you stationed?'' Vietnam , Ma'am. Ground-pounder. '69 to '71.' She looked at me closer. 'Wounded in action, I see. Well done, Marine, I'll be as quick as I can.'I lied a little bigger, 'No hurry, Ma'am.'
She smiled............. and winked at me. 'Son, I'm 85-years old and I can tell a lie from a long way off. Let's get this done, might be the last time I can do this. My name's Joanne Wieserman, and I've a few Marines I'd like to see one more time.'' Yes, Ma'am, At your service.' She headed for the World War I section, stopping at a stone. She picked one of the bunches out of my arm and laid it on top of the stone. She murmured something I couldn't quite make out.
The name on the marble was; Donald S. Davidson, USMC, France 1918. She turned away and made a straight line for theWorld War II section, stopping at one stone. I saw a tear slowly tracking its way down her cheek. She put a bunch on a stone; the name was; Stephen X. Davidson, USMC, 1943.
She went up the row a ways and laid another bunch on a stone; Stanley J. Wieserman USMC , 1944. She paused for a second, 'Two more, son, and we'll be done' I almost didn't say anything, but, 'Yes, Ma'am, Take your time.'She looked confused. 'Where's the Vietnam section, son? I seem to have lost my way.'I pointed with my chin. 'That way, Ma'am.' 'Oh!' she chuckled quietly.'Son, me and old age ain't too friendly.'
She headed down the walk I'd pointed at. She stopped at a couple of stones before she found the ones she wanted. She placed a bunch on Larry Wieserman USMC, 1968, and the last one on Darrel Wieserman USMC, 1970. She stood there and murmured a few words......I still couldn't make out.
'OK, son , I'm finished. Get me back to my car and you can go home.''Yes, Ma'am. If I may ask, were those your kinfolk ?' She paused. 'Yes, Donald Davidson was my father; Stephen was my uncle; Stanley was my husband; Larry and Darrel were our sons. All killed in action, all Marines.' She stopped, whether she had finished, or couldn't finish, I just don't know.
She made her way to her car, slowly, and painfully. I waited for a polite distance to come between us.......and then double-timed it over to Kevin waiting by the car. 'Get to the 'Out'-gate QUICK~!, I have something I've JUST got to do.'
Kevin started to say something, but saw the look I gave him. He broke the rules to get us there down the service road. We beat her. She hadn't made it around the rotunda yet. 'Kevin............ stand to attention next to the gate post. Follow my lead.'
I humped it across the drive to the other post.When the Cadillac came puttering around from the hedges and began the short straight traverse to the gate, I called in my best gunny's voice: 'TehenHut! Present Haaaarms!'
I have to hand it to Kevin, he never blinked an eye; full dress attention and a salute that would make his DI proud. She drove through that gate with two old worn-out soldiers giving her a send off she deserved, for service rendered to her country, and for knowing Duty,Honor and Sacrifice
I am not quite sure, but I think I saw............a BIG salute returned from that Cadillac!
Instead of 'The End'.... just think of 'Taps'. As a final thought on my part, let me share a favorite prayer: 'Lord, keep our servicemen and women safe, whether they serve at home or overseas. Hold them in Your loving hands and protect them as they protect us.'
Let's all keep those currently serving and those who have gone before, in our thoughts. They are the reason for the many freedoms we enjoy. 'In God We Trust!'
To many of us there is a price that we have to pay for our freedom - sometimes the cost is immense - sometimes it is only a pain in our hearts for others that have given their full measure for our country. That is, for you and me.
In any event, freedom is not free.
Keep the faith and stand up for what's right for many have done so before us in battles past!
GOD ~ COUNTRY ~ HONOR
SOME OF US WILL UNDERSTAND THIS MORE THAN OTHERS~!
I just wanted to get the day over with and........... Go down to Smokey's for a few cold ones. Sneaking a look at my watch, I saw the time, 1655. Five minutes to go before the cemetery gates are closed for the day. Full dress was hot in the August sun. Oklahoma summertime was as bad as ever --the heat and humidity at the same level -- both too high.
I saw the car pull into the drive, '69 or '70 model Cadillac Deville, looked factory-new. It pulled into the parking lot at a snail's pace . An old woman got out so slow I thought she was paralyzed. She had a cane and a sheaf of flowers, about four or five bunches as best I could tell. I couldn't help myself. The thought came unwanted, and left a slightly bitter taste: 'She's going to spend an hour,and for this old soldier...my hip hurts like hell and I'm ready to get out of here right now!'
But for this day my duty was to assist anyone coming in. Kevin would lock the 'In' gate and if....I could just hurry the old biddy along , we might make the last half of happy hour at Smokey's. I broke Post Attention. My hip made gritty noises when I took the first step and the pain went up a notch.
I must have made a real military sight; middle-aged man with a small pot-gut and half a limp, in Marine Full Dress Uniform, which had lost its razorcrease about 30 minutes after I began the watch...at the cemetery. I stopped in front of her, halfway up the walk.She looked up at me with an old woman's squint.
'Ma'am may I assist you in any way?' She took long enough to answer. 'Yes, son. Can you carry these flowers? I seem to be moving a tad slow these days.''My pleasure Ma'am.'Well, it wasn't too much of a lie. She looked again.'Marine, where were you stationed?'' Vietnam , Ma'am. Ground-pounder. '69 to '71.' She looked at me closer. 'Wounded in action, I see. Well done, Marine, I'll be as quick as I can.'I lied a little bigger, 'No hurry, Ma'am.'
She smiled............. and winked at me. 'Son, I'm 85-years old and I can tell a lie from a long way off. Let's get this done, might be the last time I can do this. My name's Joanne Wieserman, and I've a few Marines I'd like to see one more time.'' Yes, Ma'am, At your service.' She headed for the World War I section, stopping at a stone. She picked one of the bunches out of my arm and laid it on top of the stone. She murmured something I couldn't quite make out.
The name on the marble was; Donald S. Davidson, USMC, France 1918. She turned away and made a straight line for theWorld War II section, stopping at one stone. I saw a tear slowly tracking its way down her cheek. She put a bunch on a stone; the name was; Stephen X. Davidson, USMC, 1943.
She went up the row a ways and laid another bunch on a stone; Stanley J. Wieserman USMC , 1944. She paused for a second, 'Two more, son, and we'll be done' I almost didn't say anything, but, 'Yes, Ma'am, Take your time.'She looked confused. 'Where's the Vietnam section, son? I seem to have lost my way.'I pointed with my chin. 'That way, Ma'am.' 'Oh!' she chuckled quietly.'Son, me and old age ain't too friendly.'
She headed down the walk I'd pointed at. She stopped at a couple of stones before she found the ones she wanted. She placed a bunch on Larry Wieserman USMC, 1968, and the last one on Darrel Wieserman USMC, 1970. She stood there and murmured a few words......I still couldn't make out.
'OK, son , I'm finished. Get me back to my car and you can go home.''Yes, Ma'am. If I may ask, were those your kinfolk ?' She paused. 'Yes, Donald Davidson was my father; Stephen was my uncle; Stanley was my husband; Larry and Darrel were our sons. All killed in action, all Marines.' She stopped, whether she had finished, or couldn't finish, I just don't know.
She made her way to her car, slowly, and painfully. I waited for a polite distance to come between us.......and then double-timed it over to Kevin waiting by the car. 'Get to the 'Out'-gate QUICK~!, I have something I've JUST got to do.'
Kevin started to say something, but saw the look I gave him. He broke the rules to get us there down the service road. We beat her. She hadn't made it around the rotunda yet. 'Kevin............ stand to attention next to the gate post. Follow my lead.'
I humped it across the drive to the other post.When the Cadillac came puttering around from the hedges and began the short straight traverse to the gate, I called in my best gunny's voice: 'TehenHut! Present Haaaarms!'
I have to hand it to Kevin, he never blinked an eye; full dress attention and a salute that would make his DI proud. She drove through that gate with two old worn-out soldiers giving her a send off she deserved, for service rendered to her country, and for knowing Duty,Honor and Sacrifice
I am not quite sure, but I think I saw............a BIG salute returned from that Cadillac!
Instead of 'The End'.... just think of 'Taps'. As a final thought on my part, let me share a favorite prayer: 'Lord, keep our servicemen and women safe, whether they serve at home or overseas. Hold them in Your loving hands and protect them as they protect us.'
Let's all keep those currently serving and those who have gone before, in our thoughts. They are the reason for the many freedoms we enjoy. 'In God We Trust!'
Friday, July 18, 2008
Bush Energy Plan Rejected by Democrats in 2001 - 2002 - 2003
I can't add much to this article as it is right on the mark - it sums up Americas problems in essentially two word: liberal Democrats.
Why do we continue to elect these people to office when we know they have no interest in do the job that we elected to?
Half of the Senate is up for grabs in November and the entire House of Representatives I believe. I think it's time to vote them out of office this year. We can see clearly, they have come out of the darkness when they stand in the way of a new energy policy, what the options are to move America ahead and the options do not include Democrats. Liberal Democrats are the problem.
Keep the faith, the battle is for the heart of America!
Dems' Dereliction
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 *Energy Policy:*
Imagine an energy plan that does it all — from allowing more oil drilling to spending billions on alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear. Well, guess what? Been there, done that.
'Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security," President Bush said in proposing the plan. "We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package."
That was in June 2001 — more than seven years ago. His words came just after he first proposed a comprehensive energy bill that included 105 separate steps the U.S. could take to boost its energy supplies. It was something he promised repeatedly while campaigning for the presidency in 2000.
He kept his promise.
His first plan included, among many other things:
• New drilling for more oil and gas and new refineries.
• Building of nuclear power plants.
• Revamping the U.S. electricity grid.
• $10 billion in tax breaks to help push energy efficiency and alternative energy.
The fact is, these are remarkably similar to the plans that economists, oil experts and energy wonks say need to be put in place today in order to end our oil crisis. Yet, those proposals went nowhere — not approved in 2001, not in 2002, not in 2003, not ever.
Bush tried repeatedly to get something through Congress. He pleaded. He tried to cut deals with Democrats. It didn't work.A New York Times headline from August 20, 2003, sums it up: "Ambitious Bush Plan Is Undone by Energy Politics."
That's an understatement. Instead, Democrats ridiculed Vice President Cheney for meeting with oil industry representatives to craft U.S. energy policy — and for insisting on finding more oil. They had no plan themselves, mind you — apart from massively expensive global warming initiatives that would force Americans to lower their standard of living to Third World levels by spending as much as $800 billion a year to cool Earth.
Yet, if Bush's plan had been put in place in 2001, we'd have replaced millions of barrels of oil, billions of tons of coal and untold trillions of acre feet of natural gas with clean, safe nuclear power. We'd be pumping millions of barrels more of oil, creating thousands of American jobs, cutting prices and saving literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year —money that today goes to line the pockets of the Saudi royal family, Venezuelan petrotyrant Hugo Chavez, Libyan leader-for-life Muammar Qadhafi and Vladimir Putin's Russia.
When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, and oil was $50 a barrel and corn $2 a bushel, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised an energy plan. We're still waiting for it. Today, crude oil is $134 and corn is $6.50.
It's pretty clear who's to blame: Congress.
In fact, House and Senate Democrats have obstructed any progress in America's fight to regain some semblance of energy independence."Now is the time for Congress to move and get something done," President Bush said all the way back in August 2003. He's still waiting, and so are we.
Bush's original energy plan, derided by the Democrats and so-called progressives as a wet-kiss to Big Oil, was in fact a visionary plan. At the time, Reid joked that GOP now stood for "Gas, Oil and Plutonium." Funny, we don't hear anyone laughing now.
Such puerile shenanigans, as we've said before, endanger our security and weaken our standard of living.
Angry? You should be. Call your political representatives and tell them you want more energy, not less. If they won't do it, tell them you'll vote for someone who will. Then maybe you'll really get change you can believe in.
Why do we continue to elect these people to office when we know they have no interest in do the job that we elected to?
Half of the Senate is up for grabs in November and the entire House of Representatives I believe. I think it's time to vote them out of office this year. We can see clearly, they have come out of the darkness when they stand in the way of a new energy policy, what the options are to move America ahead and the options do not include Democrats. Liberal Democrats are the problem.
Keep the faith, the battle is for the heart of America!
Dems' Dereliction
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 *Energy Policy:*
Imagine an energy plan that does it all — from allowing more oil drilling to spending billions on alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear. Well, guess what? Been there, done that.
'Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security," President Bush said in proposing the plan. "We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package."
That was in June 2001 — more than seven years ago. His words came just after he first proposed a comprehensive energy bill that included 105 separate steps the U.S. could take to boost its energy supplies. It was something he promised repeatedly while campaigning for the presidency in 2000.
He kept his promise.
His first plan included, among many other things:
• New drilling for more oil and gas and new refineries.
• Building of nuclear power plants.
• Revamping the U.S. electricity grid.
• $10 billion in tax breaks to help push energy efficiency and alternative energy.
The fact is, these are remarkably similar to the plans that economists, oil experts and energy wonks say need to be put in place today in order to end our oil crisis. Yet, those proposals went nowhere — not approved in 2001, not in 2002, not in 2003, not ever.
Bush tried repeatedly to get something through Congress. He pleaded. He tried to cut deals with Democrats. It didn't work.A New York Times headline from August 20, 2003, sums it up: "Ambitious Bush Plan Is Undone by Energy Politics."
That's an understatement. Instead, Democrats ridiculed Vice President Cheney for meeting with oil industry representatives to craft U.S. energy policy — and for insisting on finding more oil. They had no plan themselves, mind you — apart from massively expensive global warming initiatives that would force Americans to lower their standard of living to Third World levels by spending as much as $800 billion a year to cool Earth.
Yet, if Bush's plan had been put in place in 2001, we'd have replaced millions of barrels of oil, billions of tons of coal and untold trillions of acre feet of natural gas with clean, safe nuclear power. We'd be pumping millions of barrels more of oil, creating thousands of American jobs, cutting prices and saving literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year —money that today goes to line the pockets of the Saudi royal family, Venezuelan petrotyrant Hugo Chavez, Libyan leader-for-life Muammar Qadhafi and Vladimir Putin's Russia.
When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, and oil was $50 a barrel and corn $2 a bushel, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised an energy plan. We're still waiting for it. Today, crude oil is $134 and corn is $6.50.
It's pretty clear who's to blame: Congress.
In fact, House and Senate Democrats have obstructed any progress in America's fight to regain some semblance of energy independence."Now is the time for Congress to move and get something done," President Bush said all the way back in August 2003. He's still waiting, and so are we.
Bush's original energy plan, derided by the Democrats and so-called progressives as a wet-kiss to Big Oil, was in fact a visionary plan. At the time, Reid joked that GOP now stood for "Gas, Oil and Plutonium." Funny, we don't hear anyone laughing now.
Such puerile shenanigans, as we've said before, endanger our security and weaken our standard of living.
Angry? You should be. Call your political representatives and tell them you want more energy, not less. If they won't do it, tell them you'll vote for someone who will. Then maybe you'll really get change you can believe in.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Clinton's Debt and Democrat Accomplishments - Tragic Failures
This a letter from someone that sympathises with the problems that Mrs. Clinton faces with her huge debt and how she wants others to pay for it. On the face of it, this seems logical that she incurred the debt on behalf of her supporters - right? But doesn't it also seem right that she should shoulder the responsibility for the debt as she wasn't exactly forced into running.
I guess her asking others to pay for her debt is just part of the agenda of the Democrats, Marxist socialists, always pointing the finger at someones else for their own problems and expecting to have others, people that are productive and responsible, to carry them when things go bad. Really, the socialists want the productive members of our society to carry them all the time.
I believe this is the scenario that the liberal socialist Democrats have in mind for the entire country if elected to the White House and they retain control congress as well. As pointed out below and, only someone that is deaf and blind, can figure out the last two years of liberal control of congress alone has produced nothing but failures.
Here is just a few of the more glaring examples of the Democrat failures : What party stands in the way of lower gas prices, no more oil production? Socialists Democrats! What party stands in the way of nuclear power plants? Socialist Democrats! What party stands in the way of coal power plants? Socialist Democrats!
Keep the faith, the people have joined the battle!
June 27, 2008
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington , D.C. 20510
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
I recently read where you have incurred substantial debt with your unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Your plight concerns me and I would like to help as much as I can. I would certainly hate for you to feel pressured, due to the size of your debt, to support a candidate that you do not truly believe is ready to be 'Commander in Chief on Day One.'
I have always believed that our form of government, while less than perfect, is the best the world has to offer. I've also always believed that Congress with 535 elected members has more power to do good for this country than only one person or even nine people. Congress has the power and ability to guide and direct this country like no other group.
I vividly remember in 2006 how the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress trumpeting 'Change' and a better America . Let's review how that has worked out for us.
* Mortgage companies have declared bankruptcy costing thousands of people their jobs
* Home values have nose-dived* Millions of Americans have lost their homes
* World oil prices have risen astronomically
* The Democrats continue to block drilling in oil rich reserves to continue and even increase our dependence on foreign oil
*Gasoline prices have increased to over $4 a gallon and there appears to be no end in sight even though Americans have reduced their driving over one billion miles a month
* The stock market, where most Americans' retirement hopes are invested, has dropped by more than 15%.
* Food prices are increasing at an alarming rate fueled mostly by rising energy costs
All in all I'd have to say that the Democrats fulfilled their promise and have brought change to our country. It isn't good change, but it is change. Unfortunately, because of all this change, change is all I have to give you to help you retire your debt.
I am enclosing one penny for you to add to your campaign 'war chest.' I think that's a fair trade. Everything you've done for me is worth about a penny and because of the success of the Democrats, that's all I have. Just so you know that you really aren't alone in this, I had to borrow the penny from a friend.
I do have one simple request in return. I would really appreciate it if you could teach me how I can get the American people to pay off my debts that I knowingly and willingly incurred. Isn't this a great country?
Good luck in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
SteveRussell
American citizen, patriot, veteran, taxpayer and voter
I guess her asking others to pay for her debt is just part of the agenda of the Democrats, Marxist socialists, always pointing the finger at someones else for their own problems and expecting to have others, people that are productive and responsible, to carry them when things go bad. Really, the socialists want the productive members of our society to carry them all the time.
I believe this is the scenario that the liberal socialist Democrats have in mind for the entire country if elected to the White House and they retain control congress as well. As pointed out below and, only someone that is deaf and blind, can figure out the last two years of liberal control of congress alone has produced nothing but failures.
Here is just a few of the more glaring examples of the Democrat failures : What party stands in the way of lower gas prices, no more oil production? Socialists Democrats! What party stands in the way of nuclear power plants? Socialist Democrats! What party stands in the way of coal power plants? Socialist Democrats!
Keep the faith, the people have joined the battle!
June 27, 2008
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington , D.C. 20510
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
I recently read where you have incurred substantial debt with your unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Your plight concerns me and I would like to help as much as I can. I would certainly hate for you to feel pressured, due to the size of your debt, to support a candidate that you do not truly believe is ready to be 'Commander in Chief on Day One.'
I have always believed that our form of government, while less than perfect, is the best the world has to offer. I've also always believed that Congress with 535 elected members has more power to do good for this country than only one person or even nine people. Congress has the power and ability to guide and direct this country like no other group.
I vividly remember in 2006 how the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress trumpeting 'Change' and a better America . Let's review how that has worked out for us.
* Mortgage companies have declared bankruptcy costing thousands of people their jobs
* Home values have nose-dived* Millions of Americans have lost their homes
* World oil prices have risen astronomically
* The Democrats continue to block drilling in oil rich reserves to continue and even increase our dependence on foreign oil
*Gasoline prices have increased to over $4 a gallon and there appears to be no end in sight even though Americans have reduced their driving over one billion miles a month
* The stock market, where most Americans' retirement hopes are invested, has dropped by more than 15%.
* Food prices are increasing at an alarming rate fueled mostly by rising energy costs
All in all I'd have to say that the Democrats fulfilled their promise and have brought change to our country. It isn't good change, but it is change. Unfortunately, because of all this change, change is all I have to give you to help you retire your debt.
I am enclosing one penny for you to add to your campaign 'war chest.' I think that's a fair trade. Everything you've done for me is worth about a penny and because of the success of the Democrats, that's all I have. Just so you know that you really aren't alone in this, I had to borrow the penny from a friend.
I do have one simple request in return. I would really appreciate it if you could teach me how I can get the American people to pay off my debts that I knowingly and willingly incurred. Isn't this a great country?
Good luck in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
SteveRussell
American citizen, patriot, veteran, taxpayer and voter
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
More Humor - Police versus the Military
I don't know if this is on the level, but even if it isn't, it's still cute - enjoy
Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar.One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill.
The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 300 miles per hour (the maximum). The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.
Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.
Back at the CHIPs Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander. The reply came back in true USMC style:
Thank you for your letter.
We can now complete the file on this incident. You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.
Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location. Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.
The pilot also suggests your officers cover their mouths when cussing at him, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech. And Patrolman Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.
Thank you for your concern. Semper Fi.
Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar.One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill.
The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 300 miles per hour (the maximum). The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.
Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.
Back at the CHIPs Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander. The reply came back in true USMC style:
Thank you for your letter.
We can now complete the file on this incident. You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.
Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location. Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.
The pilot also suggests your officers cover their mouths when cussing at him, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech. And Patrolman Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.
Thank you for your concern. Semper Fi.
Tony Snow Can Not Be Replaced
When I saw the article on Fox, I was shocked beyond reason - I was stunned - I had no idea he was even sick, other than I knew he had cancer, but he told Rush he was fine a few days before he left the White House as New Secretary.
I found that I had to swallow hard as I read the article, still not believe it to be true. How could this happen to such a dynamic person - I respected him - I believed when he said something it was the truth. How can that kind of person be replaced in this day and age of false journalism?
Simply put, he can't. I will miss Tony more than I can say - his passing is a pain that I will carry for some time to come. I still don't want to believe it.
This article is good in that it conveys just the heart felt remembrances of someone that knew him well.
Keep the faith now and hope the battle for freedom will win the day for Tony and others that gave us strength and direction.
In Remembrance of Tony Snow
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave
It was the best decision in my 62 years of professional life as a journalist. I was the Washington Times' editor in chief and looking for a new editorial page editor. Tony Snow was the first and last recommended name I interviewed. The year was 1987.
Tony was 32 years old. We had breakfast, lunch, and dinner the same day in a secluded beach location, away from the rumor mill.
I was bowled over. His keen intellect, erudition, knowledge, kindness, and charm left no doubt he was a nonpareil. His writing skills were obvious from the Detroit News clips I had already read. His philosophy for editorial writing: If your gut tells you something's fishy, trust your gut.
For mechanical reasons, the Times editorial pages in those days had a noon close, which meant we would miss afternoon and evening news, a handicap we overcame by pitching our chosen subjects as far forward as possible. Tony and I met at 8 a.m. daily before he met with his editorial writers.
Glasnost and Perestroika had been launched by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Conservative gurus argued this was yet another Soviet detente trick and warned us not to fall for Communist snare and delusion.
Tony could see, and I concurred, that what Gorbachev had started could only lead to the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire or to Gorbachev's downfall. It did both. And Tony's early wisdom prevailed.
Always of good humor, Tony exuded humanity and compassion, as he broke through traditional teachings seeking truth and the word of life, of a better life for mankind. It is very rare when the friendship of an exemplary human being hoists you to a higher plane. Such a man was Tony. An exceptionally talented human being. A lovely man in all respects. I seldom cry upon the death of a friend of long standing. For Tony, I wept unashamedly.
We both resigned our respective positions in 1991. The new post-Cold War era led me to believe my job was done and new times required fresh eyes and ears to focus on our unfinished domestic agenda.
Tony could see his future in the exploding electronic media. He became a shooting star there, too.
His level of inspired insight was his gift to millions of listeners and viewers. And his passing at such a young age with a future still full of promise, leaving Jill and three fabulous children behind, leads me to question the Almighty's judgment in letting Tony lose his battle against cancer. And this despite the prayers of millions of admirers.
I found that I had to swallow hard as I read the article, still not believe it to be true. How could this happen to such a dynamic person - I respected him - I believed when he said something it was the truth. How can that kind of person be replaced in this day and age of false journalism?
Simply put, he can't. I will miss Tony more than I can say - his passing is a pain that I will carry for some time to come. I still don't want to believe it.
This article is good in that it conveys just the heart felt remembrances of someone that knew him well.
Keep the faith now and hope the battle for freedom will win the day for Tony and others that gave us strength and direction.
In Remembrance of Tony Snow
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave
It was the best decision in my 62 years of professional life as a journalist. I was the Washington Times' editor in chief and looking for a new editorial page editor. Tony Snow was the first and last recommended name I interviewed. The year was 1987.
Tony was 32 years old. We had breakfast, lunch, and dinner the same day in a secluded beach location, away from the rumor mill.
I was bowled over. His keen intellect, erudition, knowledge, kindness, and charm left no doubt he was a nonpareil. His writing skills were obvious from the Detroit News clips I had already read. His philosophy for editorial writing: If your gut tells you something's fishy, trust your gut.
For mechanical reasons, the Times editorial pages in those days had a noon close, which meant we would miss afternoon and evening news, a handicap we overcame by pitching our chosen subjects as far forward as possible. Tony and I met at 8 a.m. daily before he met with his editorial writers.
Glasnost and Perestroika had been launched by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Conservative gurus argued this was yet another Soviet detente trick and warned us not to fall for Communist snare and delusion.
Tony could see, and I concurred, that what Gorbachev had started could only lead to the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire or to Gorbachev's downfall. It did both. And Tony's early wisdom prevailed.
Always of good humor, Tony exuded humanity and compassion, as he broke through traditional teachings seeking truth and the word of life, of a better life for mankind. It is very rare when the friendship of an exemplary human being hoists you to a higher plane. Such a man was Tony. An exceptionally talented human being. A lovely man in all respects. I seldom cry upon the death of a friend of long standing. For Tony, I wept unashamedly.
We both resigned our respective positions in 1991. The new post-Cold War era led me to believe my job was done and new times required fresh eyes and ears to focus on our unfinished domestic agenda.
Tony could see his future in the exploding electronic media. He became a shooting star there, too.
His level of inspired insight was his gift to millions of listeners and viewers. And his passing at such a young age with a future still full of promise, leaving Jill and three fabulous children behind, leads me to question the Almighty's judgment in letting Tony lose his battle against cancer. And this despite the prayers of millions of admirers.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Only Legal Citizens Have A Right to Vote
Voter registration is or should be one of the most important aspects of our free society - if you are a citizen of this great country you must have a say in how it is run, that is how Democracy works.
On the other hand, if you are not a citizen, don't pay taxes and have entered this country illegally, you have no right to take part in deciding how this country functions.
Does it make any sense to you that we should allow anyone to vote no matter what their status is according to our laws? Are laws on the books to use only when they are convenient and don't interfere with your political agenda? Of course not, so why allow illegal aliens to vote, or for that matter, be allowed to remain in this country at all without proper citizenship registration.
The Heritage Foundation come through again on this matter, and we will hear much more on this as we get closer to November.
keep the faith, the battle is about to heat up.
Rule of Law.
Hans von Spakovsky, who served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years, explains the threat to electoral integrity from non-citizen voters in a new Heritage analysis.
“Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide,” he writes. This is enough to swing several close local and even national elections.
“Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections.”
On the other hand, if you are not a citizen, don't pay taxes and have entered this country illegally, you have no right to take part in deciding how this country functions.
Does it make any sense to you that we should allow anyone to vote no matter what their status is according to our laws? Are laws on the books to use only when they are convenient and don't interfere with your political agenda? Of course not, so why allow illegal aliens to vote, or for that matter, be allowed to remain in this country at all without proper citizenship registration.
The Heritage Foundation come through again on this matter, and we will hear much more on this as we get closer to November.
keep the faith, the battle is about to heat up.
Rule of Law.
Hans von Spakovsky, who served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years, explains the threat to electoral integrity from non-citizen voters in a new Heritage analysis.
“Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide,” he writes. This is enough to swing several close local and even national elections.
“Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections.”
Monday, July 14, 2008
Root Cause of High Gas Prices - Radical Environmentalism
Okay, here is the scope on the impact of radial environmentalism on the price of gas in America and, for that matter, the entire world.
If there were any question in the past as to the environmentalists need to crush our way of life, not in my opinion, the environmentalists have turned on the lights so we all can see where they have been hiding and what they have been up to for the last forty years; legislation in congress to stop all energy development and demonstrations at jobs sites of new energy construction.
I love this country and I want it to be as beautiful as we can make it and that means having a good environmental policy that benefits us all. But it is equally important that this policy take into effect the needs of the population that depends on a growing economy. Without a growing and dynamic economy we won't have the money to support an environment that will sustain us and our offspring.
This is important - come November we have to get common sense back in our government - vote with your eyes open. Read as much as you can about free markets and energy demand that we need now and in the future. I will continue to bring this up as I see it as the single most important item in our country. Everything we do and need is related to fossil fuels.
Keep the faith, we are all doing our best in the battle for America!
Plugging Up The Pipeline
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, July 10, 2008
Anyone who's not sure why gasoline prices are so high has the opportunity to see a real-time reason being played out in public as an environmental group sues over the expansion of a refinery
The Natural Resources Defense Council is asking a federal judge to stop construction of BP's planned $3.8 billion expansion — not a new facility — of its Whiting refinery in northwest Indiana. The group claims BP needs a more restrictive air permit from the state because the refinery would discharge far more pollution than what it's been approved for. In addition to shutting down construction, the NRDC wants BP fined $32,500 a day for each day it has been under construction without the more restrictive permit.
There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, in part because of actions like those of the NRDC. The environmental lobby, which went off the rails decades ago, has resisted almost every attempt to create more energy from fossil fuels.
One particularly telling example outside of Indiana can be found in Arizona. There, construction of a new refinery was held up for almost 10 years by environmental groups using regulations from the Clean Air Act as a hammer. The environmentalists will point out that industry executives themselves have said that refinery margins in the past 10 to 15 years have not been high enough to justify new refineries and that there will be no need to build a new one at least through 2030. But, we submit, that's because the industry was forced to keep up with demand by, in a sense, doing more with less.
First, the industry resorted to expansions of existing plants because it's cheaper than building new facilities due to environmental regulations. These are the same regulations that are holding up BP's Indiana expansion, which, according to environmental groups, isn't needed anyway. (If that's so, why is BP building it?).
Second, technological advances in refining let the demonized oil companies continue sending a steady supply into the market, even as refineries closed. While the number of facilities has been more than halved, from 324 in 1981 to 149 today (see chart), refining capacity over the same time has hardly dropped at all, from 18.6 millions barrels a day to only 17.5 million barrels a day now.
It should be obvious that more capacity is needed, given that as domestic refinery capacity fell, U.S. gasoline consumption jumped 42%, from 2.4 billion barrels in 1981 to 3.4 billion barrels last year. To keep our economy humming and maintain our standard of living, we need more refineries. It's that simple.
The environmentalists don't see it that way, though. Their gaze is to the rear, never ahead, except for their apocalyptic visions of the future: scorched Earth, too-thick-to-see-through smog, burning rivers, oceans running with crude, dried-up lakes, naked forests and hospitals overflowing with people sickened by industry, all watched over by greedy oilmen counting their billions.
America has so far paid a small price for the radical environmentalism that grew out of a rational movement in the 1960s. The costs will eventually be deeply painful, though, if lawmakers and the courts continue to give these groups license to shut down needed energy
advancements.
While the environmental groups will claim they are in no way responsible for rising gasoline prices, the fact is that, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, almost 25% of the capital investment in refineries in the 1990s was used to comply with environmental regulations.
In raw dollars, oil companies laid out more than $100 billion between 1992 and 2001 to bring their refineries into compliance with environmental rules. Is the public supposed to believe these costs have had no impact on today's gasoline prices?
Americans need to get wise to what their "protectors" are doing to them, supposedly on their behalf.
If there were any question in the past as to the environmentalists need to crush our way of life, not in my opinion, the environmentalists have turned on the lights so we all can see where they have been hiding and what they have been up to for the last forty years; legislation in congress to stop all energy development and demonstrations at jobs sites of new energy construction.
I love this country and I want it to be as beautiful as we can make it and that means having a good environmental policy that benefits us all. But it is equally important that this policy take into effect the needs of the population that depends on a growing economy. Without a growing and dynamic economy we won't have the money to support an environment that will sustain us and our offspring.
This is important - come November we have to get common sense back in our government - vote with your eyes open. Read as much as you can about free markets and energy demand that we need now and in the future. I will continue to bring this up as I see it as the single most important item in our country. Everything we do and need is related to fossil fuels.
Keep the faith, we are all doing our best in the battle for America!
Plugging Up The Pipeline
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, July 10, 2008
Anyone who's not sure why gasoline prices are so high has the opportunity to see a real-time reason being played out in public as an environmental group sues over the expansion of a refinery
The Natural Resources Defense Council is asking a federal judge to stop construction of BP's planned $3.8 billion expansion — not a new facility — of its Whiting refinery in northwest Indiana. The group claims BP needs a more restrictive air permit from the state because the refinery would discharge far more pollution than what it's been approved for. In addition to shutting down construction, the NRDC wants BP fined $32,500 a day for each day it has been under construction without the more restrictive permit.
There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, in part because of actions like those of the NRDC. The environmental lobby, which went off the rails decades ago, has resisted almost every attempt to create more energy from fossil fuels.
One particularly telling example outside of Indiana can be found in Arizona. There, construction of a new refinery was held up for almost 10 years by environmental groups using regulations from the Clean Air Act as a hammer. The environmentalists will point out that industry executives themselves have said that refinery margins in the past 10 to 15 years have not been high enough to justify new refineries and that there will be no need to build a new one at least through 2030. But, we submit, that's because the industry was forced to keep up with demand by, in a sense, doing more with less.
First, the industry resorted to expansions of existing plants because it's cheaper than building new facilities due to environmental regulations. These are the same regulations that are holding up BP's Indiana expansion, which, according to environmental groups, isn't needed anyway. (If that's so, why is BP building it?).
Second, technological advances in refining let the demonized oil companies continue sending a steady supply into the market, even as refineries closed. While the number of facilities has been more than halved, from 324 in 1981 to 149 today (see chart), refining capacity over the same time has hardly dropped at all, from 18.6 millions barrels a day to only 17.5 million barrels a day now.
It should be obvious that more capacity is needed, given that as domestic refinery capacity fell, U.S. gasoline consumption jumped 42%, from 2.4 billion barrels in 1981 to 3.4 billion barrels last year. To keep our economy humming and maintain our standard of living, we need more refineries. It's that simple.
The environmentalists don't see it that way, though. Their gaze is to the rear, never ahead, except for their apocalyptic visions of the future: scorched Earth, too-thick-to-see-through smog, burning rivers, oceans running with crude, dried-up lakes, naked forests and hospitals overflowing with people sickened by industry, all watched over by greedy oilmen counting their billions.
America has so far paid a small price for the radical environmentalism that grew out of a rational movement in the 1960s. The costs will eventually be deeply painful, though, if lawmakers and the courts continue to give these groups license to shut down needed energy
advancements.
While the environmental groups will claim they are in no way responsible for rising gasoline prices, the fact is that, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, almost 25% of the capital investment in refineries in the 1990s was used to comply with environmental regulations.
In raw dollars, oil companies laid out more than $100 billion between 1992 and 2001 to bring their refineries into compliance with environmental rules. Is the public supposed to believe these costs have had no impact on today's gasoline prices?
Americans need to get wise to what their "protectors" are doing to them, supposedly on their behalf.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Economic Doom and Gloom is Media Driven
With the doom and gloom that seems to prevail on all of our main stream media outlets concerning our economy, this report by the Heritage Foundation finds the facts tell a different story about our supposed crisis situations. Certainly things could be better but, as we all know, they could be a lot worse.
Hey, look around - who do you know that is in crisis situation? I don't know anyone! Don't we all have to make changes in allocations of resources when outside forces take a turn for the worse? Come on, get a grip - get on with it - live with reality. You live in the greatest country in the world. How bad can that be?
Of course, it doesn't take a national publication to tell us things aren't as bad as the liberal media wants us to believe. As you might have surmised, it's a political ploy in this election season to make things look as bad as possible before the election and then, if the forecasters of doom win, come January 1st, suddenly the economy will take on a completely different color in the press. If they lose, well, things will continue to be bad. sigh
But when the liberal groomers win, the economy and all world things the media reported as disasters, will be reported as they really are for the most part. Oh well wait, look, of course, for the media to slip in a little news management on the plus side of things now to help out their agenda. - something like "the economy is in a slump but more people are doing better than 'expected' and it's time to drill for more oil right now which will bring down the gas price experts say. At the same time, we will continue to look for new sources of renewable energy". The dark clouds of economic gloom will suddenly disappear.
WOW - hmmm - See, with the liberal hand on the wheel of state, all things will be better.
Keep the faith, we will fight the battle with renewed vigor.
Entrepreneurship.
Despite claims of economic gloom and doom in the media and on the campaign trail, Americans are better off today than a generation ago.
Heritage economist James Sherk argues that, on balance, “the quality of jobs available to Americans has increased over the past generation.”
For example, he notes “the increased need for highly skilled and educated workers,” which “means expanded opportunities for upward mobility” as incomes rise.
Hey, look around - who do you know that is in crisis situation? I don't know anyone! Don't we all have to make changes in allocations of resources when outside forces take a turn for the worse? Come on, get a grip - get on with it - live with reality. You live in the greatest country in the world. How bad can that be?
Of course, it doesn't take a national publication to tell us things aren't as bad as the liberal media wants us to believe. As you might have surmised, it's a political ploy in this election season to make things look as bad as possible before the election and then, if the forecasters of doom win, come January 1st, suddenly the economy will take on a completely different color in the press. If they lose, well, things will continue to be bad. sigh
But when the liberal groomers win, the economy and all world things the media reported as disasters, will be reported as they really are for the most part. Oh well wait, look, of course, for the media to slip in a little news management on the plus side of things now to help out their agenda. - something like "the economy is in a slump but more people are doing better than 'expected' and it's time to drill for more oil right now which will bring down the gas price experts say. At the same time, we will continue to look for new sources of renewable energy". The dark clouds of economic gloom will suddenly disappear.
WOW - hmmm - See, with the liberal hand on the wheel of state, all things will be better.
Keep the faith, we will fight the battle with renewed vigor.
Entrepreneurship.
Despite claims of economic gloom and doom in the media and on the campaign trail, Americans are better off today than a generation ago.
Heritage economist James Sherk argues that, on balance, “the quality of jobs available to Americans has increased over the past generation.”
For example, he notes “the increased need for highly skilled and educated workers,” which “means expanded opportunities for upward mobility” as incomes rise.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Government NOT by The People or FOR the People
This article by the Heritage Foundation is interesting in that we can see how our government is not 'for the people and by the people' as we all thought, given what the Constitution says. It's really about people grabbing for power at our expense.
I guess the question now is how long will we let them do this?
keep the faith and vote for independent thought and freedom of choice - this is what the battle is all about.
Energy and Environment
The unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are preparing to enact an economically ruinous economic plan that even the liberal-controlled Congress rejected. In what Heritage’s Ernest Istook calls a “power grab,” they are looking to implement a costly program to regulate carbon dioxide and “exert new powers to regulate and control our lives.”
I guess the question now is how long will we let them do this?
keep the faith and vote for independent thought and freedom of choice - this is what the battle is all about.
Energy and Environment
The unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are preparing to enact an economically ruinous economic plan that even the liberal-controlled Congress rejected. In what Heritage’s Ernest Istook calls a “power grab,” they are looking to implement a costly program to regulate carbon dioxide and “exert new powers to regulate and control our lives.”
Friday, July 11, 2008
Britain's Answer to Clean Electricity - Tidal Power
What a great idea - harness the natural environment that's all around you. The biggest problem, as always, is the cost and the eco-fascists that oppose everything that isn't completely biodegradable. heh.
This is only in the planning stages, but I find it most amusing that the environmentalist demand hard evidence to prove it won't be harmful to the environment, but when they say it won't work and will be harmful, all they need is soft science, that is, opinion or belief that bad things will happen is enough. A consensus of opinion is truth.
This is world wide insanity!
This article from Britain is good as it shows the struggles that they are having, as we are here in America, to combat this nonsense of man-made global warming. How is it that so many people refuse to debate this problem? Why not debate man's involvement so we can find the real answer? The 'real' answer could save our country from those that wish to do us harm.
Why, indeed, should we debate when it's not about finding the truth, it's all about a belief that makes us feel useful and part of the solution without having to do anything ourselves. No thinking aloud, it's too confusing. The true believers don't even have to get their hands dirty with the details, all they have to do is sit in the front pew and clap there collective hands to beat of the song brought forth by the preacher.
Hallelujah - Al Core will save us all from ourselves and, just think, all we have to do is put in the plate every time it passed around. Can life really be this simple?
Hang on to your wallets here people and keep the faith in freedom of choice, we are fighting the good battle!
*Daniel Clery*
Harnessing nature's energy to produce up to 5% of the United Kingdom's electricity without any carbon emissions sounds too good to be true. It is, according to a report last week from 10 environmental groups opposing plans to build the world's largest tidal power scheme.
High water.
The River Rance barrage in France has been churning out electricity for more than 40 years. The proposed Severn barrage would be much bigger. Britain is under pressure to combat climate change with more renewable energy. According to the European Union's (E.U.'s) common energy policy, 15% of the U.K.'s total energy consumption should come from renewables by 2020. Wind turbines and other renewables now provide less than 5% of U.K. electricity. As a result, the government is reviving mothballed plans for a dam, or barrage, across the Severn estuary, which separates southwest England from south Wales.
But wildlife and environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and The National Trust, who argue that it will damage a unique ecosystem, now also assert that it will cost too much. "The report shows that this exorbitantly expensive and massively damaging proposal cannot be justified on economic grounds--there are simply too many cheaper options for clean energy generation," says RSPB Chief Graham Wynne.
Positioned across an estuary or inlet, a tidal barrage is essentially the same as a hydroelectric dam, but the rise and fall of the tides drives water through its turbines. The first such barrage began operating on France's River Rance in 1966. Because of high construction costs and fears of ecological damage, there have been only two, smaller imitators, in Canada and Russia.The River Severn has the second highest tidal range in the world--15 meters between high and low tide. The first of many plans for a tidal power scheme there dates from 1925, but none has left the drawing board.
The $29 billion scheme now being considered by the U.K. government is an order of magnitude larger than that on the Rance. The barrage would stretch 16 kilometers from Weston-super-Mare in Somerset to Cardiff in south Wales and would generate 17 terawatt-hours of energy per year, equivalent to the output of two 1-gigawatt power stations. A tidal barrage has lower operating costs than a nuclear station and would last up to three times longer, as long as 120 years.
The Severn barrage would have locks to accommodate ships and perhaps a road or rail link along its top. Proponents say that the water behind it would be safe for shipping and watersports and would reduce the threat of floods.
Then there are the drawbacks. Apart from cost, the barrage will irrevocably change the ecosystem of the enclosed estuary. The groups that sponsored last week's report say that it would threaten 35,000 hectares of protected wetlands, home to 68,000 birds in winter and more in summer. The barrage will also disrupt the migration of salmon, shads, lampreys, and sea trout to their spawning grounds. "The estuary is truly exceptional for its ecological value," says Wynne.
In 2007, the government-funded Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) issued a report supporting a Severn barrage, as long as it does not contravene E.U. environmental directives. The directives allow for schemes that alter habitats if there is overwhelming public benefit--such as combating climate change--and if compensatory habitats are provided, either by restoring damaged habitats or creating new habitats somewhere else. SDC also recommended that the project should be government-funded and owned to avoid higher commercial interest rates. In January, the U.K. government launched a 2-year feasibility study into the barrage.
Last week's report, drawn up by the consultancy group Frontier Economics, argues that there is no compelling reason for the government to bankroll a project that the private sector could do equally well. Doing so, it adds, may actually contravene U.K. treasury rules. Public money would be better spent on other types of renewable project, it concludes.
Researchers are divided over both the economic and the environmental arguments. "I'd rather see more distributed, smaller [schemes] built sooner," says ecologist Peter Randerson of Cardiff University in the U.K., who believes a barrage would take 20 years to build. Hydraulic engineer Richard Burrows of the University of Liverpool in the U.K. notes that E.U. targets have Britain getting 60% of its energy from renewables by 2050 and that small-scale schemes will never reach such a target. "You have to capture a larger part of the tidal power out there," he says.
The barrage's environmental impact is also debatable. "There will be environmental modification but not necessarily degradation," says Burrows. "You could argue that there will be a richer ecological state inside the impounded reservoir." Oceanographer Robert Kirby, who has studied the estuary for 40 years, predicts that the barrage will be good for the estuary, slowing the fast tides that stir up sediments and blocking sunlight from the water.
Randerson says that this is a "tantalizing argument" but that as yet there have been "no serious studies" of the idea. In any case, he expects the decision to be made on political rather than scientific grounds. "It's very attractive for politicians to have a big, megabucks, grandiose scheme to hang their credentials on," he says. "It's inevitable for all the wrong reasons."
This is only in the planning stages, but I find it most amusing that the environmentalist demand hard evidence to prove it won't be harmful to the environment, but when they say it won't work and will be harmful, all they need is soft science, that is, opinion or belief that bad things will happen is enough. A consensus of opinion is truth.
This is world wide insanity!
This article from Britain is good as it shows the struggles that they are having, as we are here in America, to combat this nonsense of man-made global warming. How is it that so many people refuse to debate this problem? Why not debate man's involvement so we can find the real answer? The 'real' answer could save our country from those that wish to do us harm.
Why, indeed, should we debate when it's not about finding the truth, it's all about a belief that makes us feel useful and part of the solution without having to do anything ourselves. No thinking aloud, it's too confusing. The true believers don't even have to get their hands dirty with the details, all they have to do is sit in the front pew and clap there collective hands to beat of the song brought forth by the preacher.
Hallelujah - Al Core will save us all from ourselves and, just think, all we have to do is put in the plate every time it passed around. Can life really be this simple?
Hang on to your wallets here people and keep the faith in freedom of choice, we are fighting the good battle!
*Daniel Clery*
Harnessing nature's energy to produce up to 5% of the United Kingdom's electricity without any carbon emissions sounds too good to be true. It is, according to a report last week from 10 environmental groups opposing plans to build the world's largest tidal power scheme.
High water.
The River Rance barrage in France has been churning out electricity for more than 40 years. The proposed Severn barrage would be much bigger. Britain is under pressure to combat climate change with more renewable energy. According to the European Union's (E.U.'s) common energy policy, 15% of the U.K.'s total energy consumption should come from renewables by 2020. Wind turbines and other renewables now provide less than 5% of U.K. electricity. As a result, the government is reviving mothballed plans for a dam, or barrage, across the Severn estuary, which separates southwest England from south Wales.
But wildlife and environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and The National Trust, who argue that it will damage a unique ecosystem, now also assert that it will cost too much. "The report shows that this exorbitantly expensive and massively damaging proposal cannot be justified on economic grounds--there are simply too many cheaper options for clean energy generation," says RSPB Chief Graham Wynne.
Positioned across an estuary or inlet, a tidal barrage is essentially the same as a hydroelectric dam, but the rise and fall of the tides drives water through its turbines. The first such barrage began operating on France's River Rance in 1966. Because of high construction costs and fears of ecological damage, there have been only two, smaller imitators, in Canada and Russia.The River Severn has the second highest tidal range in the world--15 meters between high and low tide. The first of many plans for a tidal power scheme there dates from 1925, but none has left the drawing board.
The $29 billion scheme now being considered by the U.K. government is an order of magnitude larger than that on the Rance. The barrage would stretch 16 kilometers from Weston-super-Mare in Somerset to Cardiff in south Wales and would generate 17 terawatt-hours of energy per year, equivalent to the output of two 1-gigawatt power stations. A tidal barrage has lower operating costs than a nuclear station and would last up to three times longer, as long as 120 years.
The Severn barrage would have locks to accommodate ships and perhaps a road or rail link along its top. Proponents say that the water behind it would be safe for shipping and watersports and would reduce the threat of floods.
Then there are the drawbacks. Apart from cost, the barrage will irrevocably change the ecosystem of the enclosed estuary. The groups that sponsored last week's report say that it would threaten 35,000 hectares of protected wetlands, home to 68,000 birds in winter and more in summer. The barrage will also disrupt the migration of salmon, shads, lampreys, and sea trout to their spawning grounds. "The estuary is truly exceptional for its ecological value," says Wynne.
In 2007, the government-funded Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) issued a report supporting a Severn barrage, as long as it does not contravene E.U. environmental directives. The directives allow for schemes that alter habitats if there is overwhelming public benefit--such as combating climate change--and if compensatory habitats are provided, either by restoring damaged habitats or creating new habitats somewhere else. SDC also recommended that the project should be government-funded and owned to avoid higher commercial interest rates. In January, the U.K. government launched a 2-year feasibility study into the barrage.
Last week's report, drawn up by the consultancy group Frontier Economics, argues that there is no compelling reason for the government to bankroll a project that the private sector could do equally well. Doing so, it adds, may actually contravene U.K. treasury rules. Public money would be better spent on other types of renewable project, it concludes.
Researchers are divided over both the economic and the environmental arguments. "I'd rather see more distributed, smaller [schemes] built sooner," says ecologist Peter Randerson of Cardiff University in the U.K., who believes a barrage would take 20 years to build. Hydraulic engineer Richard Burrows of the University of Liverpool in the U.K. notes that E.U. targets have Britain getting 60% of its energy from renewables by 2050 and that small-scale schemes will never reach such a target. "You have to capture a larger part of the tidal power out there," he says.
The barrage's environmental impact is also debatable. "There will be environmental modification but not necessarily degradation," says Burrows. "You could argue that there will be a richer ecological state inside the impounded reservoir." Oceanographer Robert Kirby, who has studied the estuary for 40 years, predicts that the barrage will be good for the estuary, slowing the fast tides that stir up sediments and blocking sunlight from the water.
Randerson says that this is a "tantalizing argument" but that as yet there have been "no serious studies" of the idea. In any case, he expects the decision to be made on political rather than scientific grounds. "It's very attractive for politicians to have a big, megabucks, grandiose scheme to hang their credentials on," he says. "It's inevitable for all the wrong reasons."
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Judges Stealing Freedom From the People
The Marxist liberal left Democrats, remember who they are, the New Socialist Progressives, in this country have absolutely no limit in there efforts to destroy America. It is their very bases for living.
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of so many of our fellow citizens that believe it is necessary to expose government secrets for public scrutiny. What possible use could the general public have for information that is strictly related to national security?
Why do we allow federal judges the power to dictate control of our personal security as well as national security? One person can put an entire nation at risk?? Why would they do this other than for political advantage.
Hundreds of thousands may die as a result of their action, and they believe that is a bad thing, but just look at the political advantage that this gives to the Marxists socialists, see these people as urban terrorists, in our court system and government. What a nice advantage for them in bringing down the country. This would be a perfect opportunity to rebuild America as a true socialist state.
The rich would be few and powerful while the many would be poor and powerless. A true socialist state. Think federal judges and many of our United States Senators. They are taking our power to control our own destiny. It's the beginning.
Make no mistake about this, the socialists have a huge backing with the voting public. You say this isn't possible but wake up, as I have stated many time before, the general public has no idea what the loss of freedom means as they have had it for so long. Worse, when they lose it, they won't know it - they will just suffer in their bondage wondering what happen and whose fault it is.
They will not know that the greatest position in history has been taken from them, their freedom.
Some smart person said, and believe it completely, and this sums up the disposition of the voting liberal left Democrat, the new Republican visionary, the uncommitted fence sitter or even the so called independent," 'tis folly to be wise when ignorance is bless".
I believe that disaster looms large for us if we fall for this scenario. Luckily for us, the Heritage Foundation, always a watch dogs for suspected socialist propaganda, has been following this and is shedding much needed national light on these dark proceedings.
Take heart though, and keep the faith, you and I have joined the battle and we are moving forward.
Playing politics with national security
The radical left won a major victory last week when a San Francisco judge ruled that a program to spy on America’s terrorist enemies is not protected by secrecy rules.
“This means that government officials and companies that helped to implement the program may be forced to testify about its structure and operations,” Heritage Foundation legal analyst Andrew Grossman explains.
“Now things stand to really get dangerous,” he continues. That’s because the courts could soon start to “legally siphon top-secret information from the government and its private-sector helpers.”
On top of that, the courts could punish private companies that cooperated with a national security program in good faith. “It’s not fair to hold these companies liable for trying to help protect the nation,” Grossman writes.
But this national security information doesn’t necessarily have to become public. Congress could “pass legislation that pulls these super-sensitive suits out of federal courts.” Grossman laid out the case for modernizing our intelligence programs this way back in April.
“Enough is enough,” he concludes. “It’s time to stop playing politics with intelligence and national security.”
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of so many of our fellow citizens that believe it is necessary to expose government secrets for public scrutiny. What possible use could the general public have for information that is strictly related to national security?
Why do we allow federal judges the power to dictate control of our personal security as well as national security? One person can put an entire nation at risk?? Why would they do this other than for political advantage.
Hundreds of thousands may die as a result of their action, and they believe that is a bad thing, but just look at the political advantage that this gives to the Marxists socialists, see these people as urban terrorists, in our court system and government. What a nice advantage for them in bringing down the country. This would be a perfect opportunity to rebuild America as a true socialist state.
The rich would be few and powerful while the many would be poor and powerless. A true socialist state. Think federal judges and many of our United States Senators. They are taking our power to control our own destiny. It's the beginning.
Make no mistake about this, the socialists have a huge backing with the voting public. You say this isn't possible but wake up, as I have stated many time before, the general public has no idea what the loss of freedom means as they have had it for so long. Worse, when they lose it, they won't know it - they will just suffer in their bondage wondering what happen and whose fault it is.
They will not know that the greatest position in history has been taken from them, their freedom.
Some smart person said, and believe it completely, and this sums up the disposition of the voting liberal left Democrat, the new Republican visionary, the uncommitted fence sitter or even the so called independent," 'tis folly to be wise when ignorance is bless".
I believe that disaster looms large for us if we fall for this scenario. Luckily for us, the Heritage Foundation, always a watch dogs for suspected socialist propaganda, has been following this and is shedding much needed national light on these dark proceedings.
Take heart though, and keep the faith, you and I have joined the battle and we are moving forward.
Playing politics with national security
The radical left won a major victory last week when a San Francisco judge ruled that a program to spy on America’s terrorist enemies is not protected by secrecy rules.
“This means that government officials and companies that helped to implement the program may be forced to testify about its structure and operations,” Heritage Foundation legal analyst Andrew Grossman explains.
“Now things stand to really get dangerous,” he continues. That’s because the courts could soon start to “legally siphon top-secret information from the government and its private-sector helpers.”
On top of that, the courts could punish private companies that cooperated with a national security program in good faith. “It’s not fair to hold these companies liable for trying to help protect the nation,” Grossman writes.
But this national security information doesn’t necessarily have to become public. Congress could “pass legislation that pulls these super-sensitive suits out of federal courts.” Grossman laid out the case for modernizing our intelligence programs this way back in April.
“Enough is enough,” he concludes. “It’s time to stop playing politics with intelligence and national security.”
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
New Poll Rates Congressional Approval At 7%
This is the lowest approval rating in the history of the congress - is it any wonder we have no confidence in our elected government to do their job. Why are always pointing their collective fingers at President Bush and his bad numbers?
As I have mentioned previously, too many of our legislators think they are royalty so they have the right to rule by power alone.
I believe this situation came up once before a few hundred years ago, it was call the "Boston Tea Party". Remember the cry, "no taxation without representation". And what happened there after? hmmm Can it happen again?
This article shows what a politician can do and has the responsibility to do as elected Representatives of the people. The burning question that I have is why haven't they preformed as promised?
Keep the faith in our Constitution - it works when politicians fail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
As I have mentioned previously, too many of our legislators think they are royalty so they have the right to rule by power alone.
I believe this situation came up once before a few hundred years ago, it was call the "Boston Tea Party". Remember the cry, "no taxation without representation". And what happened there after? hmmm Can it happen again?
This article shows what a politician can do and has the responsibility to do as elected Representatives of the people. The burning question that I have is why haven't they preformed as promised?
Keep the faith in our Constitution - it works when politicians fail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Taxes and Subsidies Are Killing Baltimore
This is the third post on this poor city that I have made in recent weeks. Remember the TV show 'The Wire' and how it was based on the rot in Baltimore? It just seems there is no end to the misery that can befall Baltimore Maryland.
I wonder what political party is in control of city government in Baltimore and has been for decades? I wonder what political party is in control of New Orleans? Just what is the problem here?
From where I stand, Baltimore is just a 'poster child' for what the Marxist socialist, New Progressive Democrats, have in mind for the rest of the country. The agenda of how, we as citizens, must sacrifice more for the greater good, now and in the future, bodes ill for our future.
Rest assured this will come to pass given the rhetoric of the past months from Barack Obama and his promise to take our incomes and give it to others that they believe deserve a better life. This is just what has transpired in Baltimore - as the city deteriorated further and further into economic and moral decay, the more the corrupt politicians raised taxes to support their failed policies.
This article lays out some good points on how continuing failed policies only makes the situation worse for Baltimore. The points made here can be applied to most cities that seem to have an agenda of 'if we spend more the problem will go away".
This is good ammunition for our battle to save ourselves from America's own internal rot.
Blame Taxes for Baltimore's Rot*
By STEVE H. HANKE and STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS July 5, 2008
Baltimore -If you've seen HBO's "The Wire," you know why those of us who live in Baltimore are often asked whether our city really is the hellhole it is portrayed to be on TV. Our answer is, well, yes.
Baltimore deserves the Third-World profile it has developed because it has expanses of crumbling, crime-riddled neighborhoods populated by low-income renters, an absent middle class, and just a few enclaves of high-income gentry near the Inner Harbor or in suburbs.This wasn't what Baltimore looked like in the 1950s. Then it was a prosperous, blue-collar city of about 950,000 with a median family income 6.6% above the national average.
Back in the good old days, Baltimore had a smaller percentage of residents living in poverty (22.7%) than the nation as a whole (27.8%), and a greater percentage of families (23.1%) earning a middle-class income of at least $44,600 in today's dollars than the rest of the country (19.1%).
Today, the city has a population that is almost 50% smaller, and about 40% of families with children live at or near the federal poverty line. Among the country's 100 most populous cities, Baltimore ranks a shameful 87th on median household income. How did this happen?
Most people think of cities as dense concentrations of people. They are that, of course. But they are also dense concentrations of capital – homes, offices, factories, theaters and roads. All of these assets are attractive to people because, when they are in close proximity to each other, they offer the chance of a more prosperous life.The problem is that once capital is built, it can become a target for tax-and-spend politicians who bank on the fact that physical capital will continue to draw people, even as it is taxed more heavily.
This is what has happened in Baltimore. The city has waged a war on capital for more than 50 years, raising property taxes an astonishing 21 times from 1950 to 1985. But what politicians don't seem to understand is that the target may be degraded or destroyed in the process. There are now at least 30,000 housing units in Baltimore that are abandoned and waiting to be demolished, while even old, upper-crust neighborhoods now have a seedy look. Property taxes are so high – as well as the strong likelihood they will soar even higher in the future – that even maintenance, no less capital improvements, are a losing proposition.
Renovations or upgrades may add less value to a house than it will cost in taxes on that house with a higher assessed value. Politicians, in short, reason that because physical capital cannot typically be picked up and moved, it is immutable. Wrong. It depreciates. Fail to replenish or improve it, and it decays to uselessness. Moreover, while physical capital may not be mobile, financial and human capital are. Property tax rates in Baltimore County (outside the city) are less than half of those inside the city (1.1% versus 2.268%). The suburbs are thriving even with the center city decaying.
In the 1990s, private-sector employment shrank 12.7% (a loss of 46,800 jobs) in Baltimore. From 2000 to 2007 it shrank again, this time by 10.4% (33,600 jobs). By contrast, employment in the rest of the metro area grew by 25.1% in the 1990s, and by another 13.9% since 2000.
To the extent that city officials recognize the problem, they seem to confuse symptoms with the root cause of the economy's disease. For them, poverty, street crime or bad schools are the problem. Their solution is always more social spending and still-higher taxes, together with targeted tax breaks and subsidies aimed at bringing "big footprint" development projects downtown. And because the city has managed to entice developers to build a few large projects (the National Aquarium, two stadiums, several office towers, upscale hotels and pricey waterfront condos), the champions of public redevelopment argue that the city is on the right track.
True enough, the ability to hand out subsidies gives officials great power. But it also gives them a reason, and incentive, to dismiss the common sense that if tax breaks for the well-connected are a good idea, lower tax rates across the board would lead to broad-based redevelopment.
The person best positioned to put an end to the city's war on capital is Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon. Over the past year she even hinted at making tax reform a priority. In December, a commission appointed by Ms. Dixon concluded that the city should immediately cut its property tax rate to 2.02% and, within a few years, reduce it further to 1.614%. That isn't going to happen, however. Her budget, approved last month, raised spending 11% and reneged on a promise made by Gov. Martin O'Malley when he was still mayor in 2006 to cut property taxes by 0.02% to 2.248%.
But the issue of property taxes and development is not yet over. The state prosecutor is currently looking into allegations that Ms. Dixon took gifts from property developers while giving special tax breaks.
The evergreen rationale for high property-tax rates is that a city can't afford low ones. When she announced her spending plan for the year, Ms. Dixon insisted that "people think there's fat within the budget, [but] it's very lean."Left unsaid: The city spends 61% more per person than the surrounding county. And in reality, cutting property taxes would only temporarily cut property tax receipts. Making Baltimore friendly to capital investment would unlock a flood of new (unsubsidized) investment that would restore revenues and facilitate an organic, widespread renewal of the city.
What's needed is the political will to tighten the bureaucracy's belt in the near term, and the ingenuity to create a fiscal bridge to a recapitalized, healthier city. So far, Baltimore is sticking with its "capital punishment" policies and it's killing the city.
*Mr. Walters is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. Mr. Hanke is a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.*/See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on/ Opinion Journal^1 ./And add your comments to the/ Opinion Journal forum ^2 .
I wonder what political party is in control of city government in Baltimore and has been for decades? I wonder what political party is in control of New Orleans? Just what is the problem here?
From where I stand, Baltimore is just a 'poster child' for what the Marxist socialist, New Progressive Democrats, have in mind for the rest of the country. The agenda of how, we as citizens, must sacrifice more for the greater good, now and in the future, bodes ill for our future.
Rest assured this will come to pass given the rhetoric of the past months from Barack Obama and his promise to take our incomes and give it to others that they believe deserve a better life. This is just what has transpired in Baltimore - as the city deteriorated further and further into economic and moral decay, the more the corrupt politicians raised taxes to support their failed policies.
This article lays out some good points on how continuing failed policies only makes the situation worse for Baltimore. The points made here can be applied to most cities that seem to have an agenda of 'if we spend more the problem will go away".
This is good ammunition for our battle to save ourselves from America's own internal rot.
Blame Taxes for Baltimore's Rot*
By STEVE H. HANKE and STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS July 5, 2008
Baltimore -If you've seen HBO's "The Wire," you know why those of us who live in Baltimore are often asked whether our city really is the hellhole it is portrayed to be on TV. Our answer is, well, yes.
Baltimore deserves the Third-World profile it has developed because it has expanses of crumbling, crime-riddled neighborhoods populated by low-income renters, an absent middle class, and just a few enclaves of high-income gentry near the Inner Harbor or in suburbs.This wasn't what Baltimore looked like in the 1950s. Then it was a prosperous, blue-collar city of about 950,000 with a median family income 6.6% above the national average.
Back in the good old days, Baltimore had a smaller percentage of residents living in poverty (22.7%) than the nation as a whole (27.8%), and a greater percentage of families (23.1%) earning a middle-class income of at least $44,600 in today's dollars than the rest of the country (19.1%).
Today, the city has a population that is almost 50% smaller, and about 40% of families with children live at or near the federal poverty line. Among the country's 100 most populous cities, Baltimore ranks a shameful 87th on median household income. How did this happen?
Most people think of cities as dense concentrations of people. They are that, of course. But they are also dense concentrations of capital – homes, offices, factories, theaters and roads. All of these assets are attractive to people because, when they are in close proximity to each other, they offer the chance of a more prosperous life.The problem is that once capital is built, it can become a target for tax-and-spend politicians who bank on the fact that physical capital will continue to draw people, even as it is taxed more heavily.
This is what has happened in Baltimore. The city has waged a war on capital for more than 50 years, raising property taxes an astonishing 21 times from 1950 to 1985. But what politicians don't seem to understand is that the target may be degraded or destroyed in the process. There are now at least 30,000 housing units in Baltimore that are abandoned and waiting to be demolished, while even old, upper-crust neighborhoods now have a seedy look. Property taxes are so high – as well as the strong likelihood they will soar even higher in the future – that even maintenance, no less capital improvements, are a losing proposition.
Renovations or upgrades may add less value to a house than it will cost in taxes on that house with a higher assessed value. Politicians, in short, reason that because physical capital cannot typically be picked up and moved, it is immutable. Wrong. It depreciates. Fail to replenish or improve it, and it decays to uselessness. Moreover, while physical capital may not be mobile, financial and human capital are. Property tax rates in Baltimore County (outside the city) are less than half of those inside the city (1.1% versus 2.268%). The suburbs are thriving even with the center city decaying.
In the 1990s, private-sector employment shrank 12.7% (a loss of 46,800 jobs) in Baltimore. From 2000 to 2007 it shrank again, this time by 10.4% (33,600 jobs). By contrast, employment in the rest of the metro area grew by 25.1% in the 1990s, and by another 13.9% since 2000.
To the extent that city officials recognize the problem, they seem to confuse symptoms with the root cause of the economy's disease. For them, poverty, street crime or bad schools are the problem. Their solution is always more social spending and still-higher taxes, together with targeted tax breaks and subsidies aimed at bringing "big footprint" development projects downtown. And because the city has managed to entice developers to build a few large projects (the National Aquarium, two stadiums, several office towers, upscale hotels and pricey waterfront condos), the champions of public redevelopment argue that the city is on the right track.
True enough, the ability to hand out subsidies gives officials great power. But it also gives them a reason, and incentive, to dismiss the common sense that if tax breaks for the well-connected are a good idea, lower tax rates across the board would lead to broad-based redevelopment.
The person best positioned to put an end to the city's war on capital is Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon. Over the past year she even hinted at making tax reform a priority. In December, a commission appointed by Ms. Dixon concluded that the city should immediately cut its property tax rate to 2.02% and, within a few years, reduce it further to 1.614%. That isn't going to happen, however. Her budget, approved last month, raised spending 11% and reneged on a promise made by Gov. Martin O'Malley when he was still mayor in 2006 to cut property taxes by 0.02% to 2.248%.
But the issue of property taxes and development is not yet over. The state prosecutor is currently looking into allegations that Ms. Dixon took gifts from property developers while giving special tax breaks.
The evergreen rationale for high property-tax rates is that a city can't afford low ones. When she announced her spending plan for the year, Ms. Dixon insisted that "people think there's fat within the budget, [but] it's very lean."Left unsaid: The city spends 61% more per person than the surrounding county. And in reality, cutting property taxes would only temporarily cut property tax receipts. Making Baltimore friendly to capital investment would unlock a flood of new (unsubsidized) investment that would restore revenues and facilitate an organic, widespread renewal of the city.
What's needed is the political will to tighten the bureaucracy's belt in the near term, and the ingenuity to create a fiscal bridge to a recapitalized, healthier city. So far, Baltimore is sticking with its "capital punishment" policies and it's killing the city.
*Mr. Walters is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. Mr. Hanke is a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.*/See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on/ Opinion Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
