First came the challenges to Barak Obama's qualifications under Article II of the Constitution regarding the legitimacy of his claim to naturalized birth in Hawaii. Now, it appears that Hilliary Clinton may be in conflict with our Constitution as regards her ability to be appointed as Secretary of State: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87451
The issue with Hilliary is that she was a Senator who voted on not less than three pay raises for the very office to which she was appointed. This fact should have prohibited her from being appointed as Secretary of State.
The danger in overlooking the restrictions in our Constitution regarding qualifications to hold office or to be appointed to an executive office are profound in their impact. If these restrictions are overlooked, then it can be reasonably argued that they no longer apply by virtue of ignoring them. That's how our law works. Conduct can be as persuasive as a written article in our Constitution. Ignore an article of the Constitution, by acting in violation without obedience, and the courts will consider it moot.
How is the Constitution being subverted and minimized?
By terming provisions out of date, in need of change to reflect changing social and moral values, by ignoring them altogether as alleged in the court challenges to both Obama's citizenship and Hilliary's acts as a Senator impacting the pay in her current appointment.
Therein lies the danger to you and me. Ignore, minimize, and subvert, and our protections and rights have been usurped without our permission. After all, this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, right? Or is it?
You willing to fight to defend the Constitution, or sit on your fat butt and watch soap operas and allow our heritage and rights to disappear?
The 2d Amendment is an amendment targeted by the Obama regime. The 2d Amendment was the only amendment not named by the new President of United States as being in an individual right. He named the 1st, the 4th, and the 9th in particular as being individual rights. He overlooked the 2d. And, I believe, given the manner in which he answered the question put to him during the debate, that he excluded the 2d Amendment purposefully. Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and look at his legislative priorities. Control and restrictions on firearms is a major initiative according to his agenda.
It was Obama's response in delinating which rights he believed were "personal" and "individual" that caused me to take better notice of what was being said, and not being said on his part. I now listen very closely to what this guy says.
Thus far, it is not much, just fluff and fear mongering.
What is extremely important in this discussion is that Hilliary and Obama both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, both as United States Senators, and then, again upon taking the oath of their respective offices. It is unclear as to whether or not Obama is in violation regarding Art. II, but it is clear that Hilliary's appointment as Secretary of State certainly stands in contravention of the intent of the Constitution. She could not be appointed to any executive office having been a sitting Senator voting on pay raises for that very office to which she was appointed.
What is clear, is that there is an overt attempt to ignore and to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by the democrat political machine.
Our Constitution cannot become a capricious application of law, it must be held inviolate and the supreme law of the land, or it is ineffective and the tool of the oppressor. In which case, one must be that much more distrustful of the intent of the new regime with respect to our rights and upholding the intent and the law that is our Constitution.
Take away the Constitution, and the U.S. becomes like every other oligarchy in the world. The citizens of Commonwealth countries have no free speech, no right to keep and bar arms, no guarantees of any kind, except to due process under certain situations. We have these rights and they should be defended to the death.
Arlington National Cemetary is filled with those who died to uphold and protect our Constitution.
We should be wary of any leader who turns his or her back on any provision of the Constitution, and of any official who purposefully subverts the law to their purpose of attaining power.
If you want to learn more about the Constitution . . . :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
The Federalist Papers are on-line via Google. Search "Federalist Papers" or "U.S. Constitution"
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Obama's Citizenship under Art. II / Eligibility Case Archive
The issue of eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the presidency is still alive in several courts. A new case has been filed expanding the defendants to include Congress, V.P. Cheney and others: www.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87622
What is at stake is whether or not the Constitution of the United States is the final law of the land, or something to be ignored. If it can be ignored in this case, then it can be ignored as to the 1st-14th Amendments as well.
Just what we need, an on again off again Constitution, the status of which is determined by the political philosophy in power.
At least be informed on the issue.
The following link gives the cases on Rightsideoflife.com that challenge Obama's citizenship.
Eligibility Case Archive
Posted using ShareThis
What is at stake is whether or not the Constitution of the United States is the final law of the land, or something to be ignored. If it can be ignored in this case, then it can be ignored as to the 1st-14th Amendments as well.
Just what we need, an on again off again Constitution, the status of which is determined by the political philosophy in power.
At least be informed on the issue.
The following link gives the cases on Rightsideoflife.com that challenge Obama's citizenship.
Eligibility Case Archive
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Porn at NSF?!!!!
The National Science Foundation. The premiere national science agency of the United States Government has a problem with . . . porn.
Porn.
On government computers no less.
During work time.
On our nickle.
The internet is a fantastic tool. It has come so far since I first went "online" back in 1996. However, it is disgusting to learn that our technical and scientific types cannot refrain from viewing porn during work hours.
What? They do not have computers at home?!
Government employees should face the same censure as the private sector. Such conduct usually results in dismissal. Immediate and irrevocable.
There is a place for personal taste, and that is HOME. Not in the work place. In the work place, work is expected by the employer. For a government employee not suffering the same vulnerability to the vagaries of the market, such conduct is especially abhorrent.
I guess stupidity comes in all forms. And, this is definitely one of the dumbest examples of government employee stupidity and arrogance--takes arrogance to do such with perceived impunity during work hours--that I have learned of.
This speaks to integrity, morality, character, on and on.
Looks like there needs to be a wholesale cleaning at NSF.
Porn.
On government computers no less.
During work time.
On our nickle.
The internet is a fantastic tool. It has come so far since I first went "online" back in 1996. However, it is disgusting to learn that our technical and scientific types cannot refrain from viewing porn during work hours.
What? They do not have computers at home?!
Government employees should face the same censure as the private sector. Such conduct usually results in dismissal. Immediate and irrevocable.
There is a place for personal taste, and that is HOME. Not in the work place. In the work place, work is expected by the employer. For a government employee not suffering the same vulnerability to the vagaries of the market, such conduct is especially abhorrent.
I guess stupidity comes in all forms. And, this is definitely one of the dumbest examples of government employee stupidity and arrogance--takes arrogance to do such with perceived impunity during work hours--that I have learned of.
This speaks to integrity, morality, character, on and on.
Looks like there needs to be a wholesale cleaning at NSF.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Cicero was right.
The lesson of history is clear. All we have to do is to read.
See http://www.thealaskastandard.com/?q=node/333
See http://www.thealaskastandard.com/?q=node/333
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pelosi' Solution for Fixing the Economy: Abortion
If you are looking for new ideas with respect to the state of the economy and social issues, look no further than http://www.whitehouse.gov/. There, you will not find any new ideas, but you will find a blueprint for change that is definitely socialist and nothing new.
Worse, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has let the cat out of the bag. One of the major solutions to the economic downturn is . . . abortion.
Killing the unborn will save the states money over the life of that child. Therefore, rather than pay for child care, health care, and education, the solution is to kill the kid before the baby is born. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87161)
Hitler had a similar solution.
Stalin had such a solution.
Pol Pot and Rwanda were the most recent examples of this solution.
Killing while still in womb makes it easier to kill once out of the womb.
Yes, grandma Pelosi, let us continue to encourage the killing of someone else's kid. Not yours.
Yes, Pres. Obama, you pat your daughters on the head and smile in pride, but condone the killing of the unborn of others.
Too many white, black and latino from unwed moms who bought into the idea of sexual freedom at the bidding of your party, Mr. Pres and Madam Pelosi. Too many underage. Unprepared. Lacking maturity and judgment for their actions, but encouraged and sold out by adults seeking to use their misery to build power.
I am disgusted and angered that the leadership of this country could embrace such an abhorrent act as abortion as a solution to an economic downturn.
I further believe that this is an example of the "change" and the "new ideas" of the Obama crew, God help us.
There is nothing new here. Just more death and misery.
Worse, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has let the cat out of the bag. One of the major solutions to the economic downturn is . . . abortion.
Killing the unborn will save the states money over the life of that child. Therefore, rather than pay for child care, health care, and education, the solution is to kill the kid before the baby is born. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87161)
Hitler had a similar solution.
Stalin had such a solution.
Pol Pot and Rwanda were the most recent examples of this solution.
Killing while still in womb makes it easier to kill once out of the womb.
Yes, grandma Pelosi, let us continue to encourage the killing of someone else's kid. Not yours.
Yes, Pres. Obama, you pat your daughters on the head and smile in pride, but condone the killing of the unborn of others.
Too many white, black and latino from unwed moms who bought into the idea of sexual freedom at the bidding of your party, Mr. Pres and Madam Pelosi. Too many underage. Unprepared. Lacking maturity and judgment for their actions, but encouraged and sold out by adults seeking to use their misery to build power.
I am disgusted and angered that the leadership of this country could embrace such an abhorrent act as abortion as a solution to an economic downturn.
I further believe that this is an example of the "change" and the "new ideas" of the Obama crew, God help us.
There is nothing new here. Just more death and misery.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Save, don't spend.
Went to Japan on business in 1999, after participating in a State of Alaska sponsored environmental trade services mission to Korea. This was a year after the big bubble burst there that George Soros precipitated with the run on the Bank of Thailand the previous year.
I saw people in Korea begging on street corners. In Osaka, I saw families living under park bridges. Not since the end of WWII had Japan seen so many homeless.
What did Japan do to respond to the economic mess created by over borrowing and bad loans to the zaibatsu? They did what they always do. They tightened their belts, spent as little as they had to, and saved the rest. In three years, Japan was in much better shape, and there was hope and industry began to move back into profitability.
Japan did not try to spend its way out of a recession. The average Japanese sacrificed. They scrimped, saved, and spent only what they had to. The banks became solvent from the savings of their customers, not from government buying into them.
Businesses suffered, but they repaid their loans, and the government of Japan recovered from the scandals that rocked Japan when the banks began to fail.
We gaijin are not so disciplined. Although, I think most of us understand that one does not spend one's way out of the proverbial hole, we are an undisciplined bunch of immediate gratification freaks who demand an instant solution without any pain. The dems filled the void with promises of immediate massive government spending, and messages alluding to an undefined "change" in something. What is to change, other than removing all barriers to spending, has yet to be disclosed by Pres. Obama.
Instead of letting the free market determine the survival of the fittest, government under Bush stepped in to restore solvency to the insolvent. I guess we had to ensure that the Saudis and the PRC did not lose any money.
The gaffs of government had contributed to the undermining of free market principles with the sub prime mortgage insanity--largely a liberal attempt to show poor folks who could not otherwise own houses that even if they could not really afford to do so, that they could own a house. The strategy, I am certain, was cynical and designed to get them to vote dem in gratitude.
Rather than let this situation sort itself out, Congress, which created this mess in the first place, along with a President who had forgotten the principles of his Harvard MBA, misappropriated massive amounts of the tax payers' money to no good end. The moguls on Wall Street and the real estate speculators had their butts bailed out with little cost to themselves. No pain. Instant gratification. Why, the mere appearance of inconvenience was enough to cause billions to be poured into the need to attend spas and retreats to undo the stress of mismanagement on a scale not seen in modern times. The bail out is entering phase II with the dems and Obama's $1Trillion package.
By howling continually about how bad the economy is, all Bush's fault, of course, the main stream media has fueled fear and uncertainty and played this mess right into Pelosi et al's hands in Congress and a win in the Presidency. What was going to be an unpleasant situation, but not a full blown crisis, became exactly that with the media's help. Convincing the instant gratification crowd who questioned not what they were being fed by the liberal press through the generation of fear was wildly successful.
All of sudden, this economic down turn, which has been on the horizon for some time, for many reasons--the inflated price of oil was one, the overvaluation of real estate another, and government excess certainly a contributor--became the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression of the 20s and 30s.
Bovine offal.
Again, the propagandists fed the fear--you are broke, we are all broke, we are going to be homeless, we are going to starve!; unless we all vote for . . . Obama.
Yes, we can! Change!
Change what and do what?
The reality is that Jimmy Carter was the worst President we have ever had, and 18% INFLATION happened on his watch. That period was far worse than what might happen during this mess. And, if anything is made worse, this go, it will because of the attempt to spend our way out of the inconvenience of spending less and saving more.
One of the consequences of the Obama/Pelosi $Trillion plan, is inflation. Print more money, and the money is worth less. Takes more to buy everything.
The only good thing to come out of this mess is that FINALLY after 8 years, the Republican Congress is starting to sound like Republicans and starting to QUESTION this excess by government! 8 years too late! However, at least it is happening.
In two years, we the people will have the chance to change the face of Congress. By then, the impact of the $1Trillion feel good extravagance will be felt in terms of interest rates and inflation. Those who voted for "change" will begin to understand that the change referred to was spend more and tax more, and to heck with consequences.
There are two opposing viewpoints as to how all of this will play out with respect to the dems and Rs. Phyllis Schafley wrote that her belief is that this is similar to the Clinton win of 1993 and the subsequent reversal of Congress to an R majority in 1996 due to the spending of the Clinton Administration. After which, Clinton became centrist. Dick Morris in his recent opinion feels that the strategic impact of any amnesty, the massive federal spending, and the transfer of wealth from the haves to the newly amnestied have nots along with everything that we naturalized citizens cannot get until we reach 65 will entrench the dems for the long haul, that the R party is now relegated to the bin of history for all practical purposes. Morris' article was disturbing in its downbeat, but excellent in its setting forth the strategy.
I am hoping Schafley is more right than wrong.
I do agree with her assessment that we as a country are more conservative than Obama's win and the dem win in Congress demonstrate, that this win was a backlash.
One thing is certain in my mind. The dems will fail in their economic stimulus, as spending and transfer of wealth is not the way to respond to what's happened. Overspending, over extending, and giving homes to those who could not pay for them was the catalyst. Now, the response is overspend, overtax, and take the money from those that still have any, and give to those who are here illegally by making them legal through amnesty, thereby inflating the money supply and cheapening our citizenship. And, let those who could not pay for their house, keep the house, anyway. How does any of that make sense?
Taxes depress industry and penalize self initiative. Government takes in more money when taxes are reduced. Even the Russians figured that one out.
Taking money from the guy who works and giving to the guy who does not, will not work, either.
Me and mine. We gonna pay things off, save, invest in firearms and ammo, and work on the garden.
In the mean time, I suggest the R party figure this out, keep acting like Rs in Congress, and elect only Rs that promise to uphold the party platform.
The dems are on a course to bankrupt this country and to spread our illusion of wealth to those undeserving.
Thank you God, I ain't got any to spread around!
I saw people in Korea begging on street corners. In Osaka, I saw families living under park bridges. Not since the end of WWII had Japan seen so many homeless.
What did Japan do to respond to the economic mess created by over borrowing and bad loans to the zaibatsu? They did what they always do. They tightened their belts, spent as little as they had to, and saved the rest. In three years, Japan was in much better shape, and there was hope and industry began to move back into profitability.
Japan did not try to spend its way out of a recession. The average Japanese sacrificed. They scrimped, saved, and spent only what they had to. The banks became solvent from the savings of their customers, not from government buying into them.
Businesses suffered, but they repaid their loans, and the government of Japan recovered from the scandals that rocked Japan when the banks began to fail.
We gaijin are not so disciplined. Although, I think most of us understand that one does not spend one's way out of the proverbial hole, we are an undisciplined bunch of immediate gratification freaks who demand an instant solution without any pain. The dems filled the void with promises of immediate massive government spending, and messages alluding to an undefined "change" in something. What is to change, other than removing all barriers to spending, has yet to be disclosed by Pres. Obama.
Instead of letting the free market determine the survival of the fittest, government under Bush stepped in to restore solvency to the insolvent. I guess we had to ensure that the Saudis and the PRC did not lose any money.
The gaffs of government had contributed to the undermining of free market principles with the sub prime mortgage insanity--largely a liberal attempt to show poor folks who could not otherwise own houses that even if they could not really afford to do so, that they could own a house. The strategy, I am certain, was cynical and designed to get them to vote dem in gratitude.
Rather than let this situation sort itself out, Congress, which created this mess in the first place, along with a President who had forgotten the principles of his Harvard MBA, misappropriated massive amounts of the tax payers' money to no good end. The moguls on Wall Street and the real estate speculators had their butts bailed out with little cost to themselves. No pain. Instant gratification. Why, the mere appearance of inconvenience was enough to cause billions to be poured into the need to attend spas and retreats to undo the stress of mismanagement on a scale not seen in modern times. The bail out is entering phase II with the dems and Obama's $1Trillion package.
By howling continually about how bad the economy is, all Bush's fault, of course, the main stream media has fueled fear and uncertainty and played this mess right into Pelosi et al's hands in Congress and a win in the Presidency. What was going to be an unpleasant situation, but not a full blown crisis, became exactly that with the media's help. Convincing the instant gratification crowd who questioned not what they were being fed by the liberal press through the generation of fear was wildly successful.
All of sudden, this economic down turn, which has been on the horizon for some time, for many reasons--the inflated price of oil was one, the overvaluation of real estate another, and government excess certainly a contributor--became the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression of the 20s and 30s.
Bovine offal.
Again, the propagandists fed the fear--you are broke, we are all broke, we are going to be homeless, we are going to starve!; unless we all vote for . . . Obama.
Yes, we can! Change!
Change what and do what?
The reality is that Jimmy Carter was the worst President we have ever had, and 18% INFLATION happened on his watch. That period was far worse than what might happen during this mess. And, if anything is made worse, this go, it will because of the attempt to spend our way out of the inconvenience of spending less and saving more.
One of the consequences of the Obama/Pelosi $Trillion plan, is inflation. Print more money, and the money is worth less. Takes more to buy everything.
The only good thing to come out of this mess is that FINALLY after 8 years, the Republican Congress is starting to sound like Republicans and starting to QUESTION this excess by government! 8 years too late! However, at least it is happening.
In two years, we the people will have the chance to change the face of Congress. By then, the impact of the $1Trillion feel good extravagance will be felt in terms of interest rates and inflation. Those who voted for "change" will begin to understand that the change referred to was spend more and tax more, and to heck with consequences.
There are two opposing viewpoints as to how all of this will play out with respect to the dems and Rs. Phyllis Schafley wrote that her belief is that this is similar to the Clinton win of 1993 and the subsequent reversal of Congress to an R majority in 1996 due to the spending of the Clinton Administration. After which, Clinton became centrist. Dick Morris in his recent opinion feels that the strategic impact of any amnesty, the massive federal spending, and the transfer of wealth from the haves to the newly amnestied have nots along with everything that we naturalized citizens cannot get until we reach 65 will entrench the dems for the long haul, that the R party is now relegated to the bin of history for all practical purposes. Morris' article was disturbing in its downbeat, but excellent in its setting forth the strategy.
I am hoping Schafley is more right than wrong.
I do agree with her assessment that we as a country are more conservative than Obama's win and the dem win in Congress demonstrate, that this win was a backlash.
One thing is certain in my mind. The dems will fail in their economic stimulus, as spending and transfer of wealth is not the way to respond to what's happened. Overspending, over extending, and giving homes to those who could not pay for them was the catalyst. Now, the response is overspend, overtax, and take the money from those that still have any, and give to those who are here illegally by making them legal through amnesty, thereby inflating the money supply and cheapening our citizenship. And, let those who could not pay for their house, keep the house, anyway. How does any of that make sense?
Taxes depress industry and penalize self initiative. Government takes in more money when taxes are reduced. Even the Russians figured that one out.
Taking money from the guy who works and giving to the guy who does not, will not work, either.
Me and mine. We gonna pay things off, save, invest in firearms and ammo, and work on the garden.
In the mean time, I suggest the R party figure this out, keep acting like Rs in Congress, and elect only Rs that promise to uphold the party platform.
The dems are on a course to bankrupt this country and to spread our illusion of wealth to those undeserving.
Thank you God, I ain't got any to spread around!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Compeon and Ramos Revisited
The indictment and conviction of not less than three federal Border Patrol officers and one county sheriff's deputy on charges of allegedly violating the civil rights of . . . illegal aliens should send a chilling message to all U.S. citizens, not just law enforcement.
The more I learn about the Ramos and Compeon case, the more disturbed I am regarding the actions of the federal prosecutor and Homeland Security in prosecuting these men. In this case, two Border Patrol agents were engaged in the apprehension of a suspected drug smuggler. Said drug smuggler was just trying to bring 700 lbs of marijuana into the U.S. Allegedly, Ramos and Compean were convicted for failing to file a shooting report and at least one other procedural violation resulting in evidence tampering charges by the feds. Also present during the incident, were not less than five other Border Patrol agents, including two supervisors.
Ramos and Compean were then charged under federal code, and drug through a highly controversial witch hunt resulting in incredibly strict sentences, including the refusal of the trial court to allow them out on bail while awaiting appeal. Something that, were they heinous criminals, would have been heralded as violations of their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Prior to trial and during the proceedings, the illegal alien drug smuggler was given U.S. Social Security rights, a free pass into and out of the country that exempted his vehicles from searches, prosecutorial immunity, and free medical care. What did this guy do to thank the U.S. for its insanity? He brought in at least another 700 pounds of marijuana for the U.S. drug trade with impunity.
In 2003, a Border Patrol agent by the name of Sipes allegedly swacked a known drug dealer from Mexico with a flashlight while making the arrest. The drug dealing illegal alien whined, and the BP agent was convicted of violating the scum's alleged constitutional rights and assault. Like the illegal drug runner in the Ramos-Compean case, this guy was also allowed to continue business as usual using a U.S. government supplied pass card that eliminated any vehicle inspections when entering the U.S.
BP agent Sipes was recently granted a new trial, and the jury exonerated him three years after the fact. He suffered the destruction of his marriage and damage to his career in law enforcement. I hope he sues the crap out of the federal prosecutor for malicious prosecution.
In both cases, the drug smuggler and drug dealer were provided with benefits undisclosed to the juries in each of the cases. These benefits included immunity from prosecution, U.S. social security cards, free passes to come back and forth across the border, free medical, and the means to sue the U.S. Literally, these guys were given "get out jail free" cards, for "cooperating" with federal prosecutors who were trying to hang our law enforcement officers doing their job.
In the Hernandez case, he made a traffic stop while on duty as a county sheriff. He fired at the rear tire of the van that had allegedly tried to run him down, and one of his bullets fragmented after hitting the steel wheel, ricocheting through the van floor and striking an illegal alien in the tooth, causing the tooth to chip. The individual with the chipped tooth was provided with free medical care, prosecutorial immunity, and legal help to sue the State of Texas and the United States, and to provide testimony against Sheriff's Deputy Hernandez.
The Hernandez case was investigated by the Texas Rangers. No violations of state law were found, and no charges were filed. In comes the feds, and Hernandez goes to jail for using excessive force and violating an illegal alien's constitutional rights.
The federal prosecutor in all three cases has been one Johnny Sutton. Mr. Sutton's prosecution has been demonstrated to be outrageous in his claims of the actions of the various law enforcement officials charged.
For those who would say that each man had a trial by jury, and that there must have been something there to cause the juries to convict, I say, the jury only knows what it hears. When the prosecutor lies and fabricates evidence, and the judge fails to protect the rights of all involved, a miscarriage of justice is likely.
Two Homeland Security investigators lied to Congress regarding claims of impropriety on the part of Ramos and Compeon based upon information supplied by prosecutor Sutton=s office.. Charges are pending against them for perjury before Congress.
In each case, the government of Mexico intervened and demanded the prosecution of the officers concerned. Homeland Security under Michael Chertoff gleefully complied, and set Texas federal prosecutor Sutton off on the destruction of these mens' careers. All lost their jobs and their careers. Compeon and Ramos are in federal prisons and Hernandez is in a federal jail awaiting sentencing.
The message to law enforcement along our border with Mexico is very clear. Interfere with the traffic of drugs or people, and you will be charged with a crime and go to prison.
I think the State of Texas needs to have their Texas Rangers investigate Homeland Security, the Texas federal District Court, and the offices of one Johnny Sutton, federal prosecutor.
Something stinks.
Post: Man did this situation ever stink. Pres. Bush finally commuted an incredibly harsh sentence for what was recognized by all as overkill and had it been left to the Border Patrol, an administrative sanction offense. This situation against these men was done to send a message to our Border enforcement. Then came operation Jump Start with the National Guard. What a joke that was. Our troops were openly challenged by Mexican drug cartel mercenaries on the U.S. side of the border in broad daylight several times. That was an act of war. Now, we have Pres. Obama who promises amnesty for all illegals.
The rape of the United States continues.
The more I learn about the Ramos and Compeon case, the more disturbed I am regarding the actions of the federal prosecutor and Homeland Security in prosecuting these men. In this case, two Border Patrol agents were engaged in the apprehension of a suspected drug smuggler. Said drug smuggler was just trying to bring 700 lbs of marijuana into the U.S. Allegedly, Ramos and Compean were convicted for failing to file a shooting report and at least one other procedural violation resulting in evidence tampering charges by the feds. Also present during the incident, were not less than five other Border Patrol agents, including two supervisors.
Ramos and Compean were then charged under federal code, and drug through a highly controversial witch hunt resulting in incredibly strict sentences, including the refusal of the trial court to allow them out on bail while awaiting appeal. Something that, were they heinous criminals, would have been heralded as violations of their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Prior to trial and during the proceedings, the illegal alien drug smuggler was given U.S. Social Security rights, a free pass into and out of the country that exempted his vehicles from searches, prosecutorial immunity, and free medical care. What did this guy do to thank the U.S. for its insanity? He brought in at least another 700 pounds of marijuana for the U.S. drug trade with impunity.
In 2003, a Border Patrol agent by the name of Sipes allegedly swacked a known drug dealer from Mexico with a flashlight while making the arrest. The drug dealing illegal alien whined, and the BP agent was convicted of violating the scum's alleged constitutional rights and assault. Like the illegal drug runner in the Ramos-Compean case, this guy was also allowed to continue business as usual using a U.S. government supplied pass card that eliminated any vehicle inspections when entering the U.S.
BP agent Sipes was recently granted a new trial, and the jury exonerated him three years after the fact. He suffered the destruction of his marriage and damage to his career in law enforcement. I hope he sues the crap out of the federal prosecutor for malicious prosecution.
In both cases, the drug smuggler and drug dealer were provided with benefits undisclosed to the juries in each of the cases. These benefits included immunity from prosecution, U.S. social security cards, free passes to come back and forth across the border, free medical, and the means to sue the U.S. Literally, these guys were given "get out jail free" cards, for "cooperating" with federal prosecutors who were trying to hang our law enforcement officers doing their job.
In the Hernandez case, he made a traffic stop while on duty as a county sheriff. He fired at the rear tire of the van that had allegedly tried to run him down, and one of his bullets fragmented after hitting the steel wheel, ricocheting through the van floor and striking an illegal alien in the tooth, causing the tooth to chip. The individual with the chipped tooth was provided with free medical care, prosecutorial immunity, and legal help to sue the State of Texas and the United States, and to provide testimony against Sheriff's Deputy Hernandez.
The Hernandez case was investigated by the Texas Rangers. No violations of state law were found, and no charges were filed. In comes the feds, and Hernandez goes to jail for using excessive force and violating an illegal alien's constitutional rights.
The federal prosecutor in all three cases has been one Johnny Sutton. Mr. Sutton's prosecution has been demonstrated to be outrageous in his claims of the actions of the various law enforcement officials charged.
For those who would say that each man had a trial by jury, and that there must have been something there to cause the juries to convict, I say, the jury only knows what it hears. When the prosecutor lies and fabricates evidence, and the judge fails to protect the rights of all involved, a miscarriage of justice is likely.
Two Homeland Security investigators lied to Congress regarding claims of impropriety on the part of Ramos and Compeon based upon information supplied by prosecutor Sutton=s office.. Charges are pending against them for perjury before Congress.
In each case, the government of Mexico intervened and demanded the prosecution of the officers concerned. Homeland Security under Michael Chertoff gleefully complied, and set Texas federal prosecutor Sutton off on the destruction of these mens' careers. All lost their jobs and their careers. Compeon and Ramos are in federal prisons and Hernandez is in a federal jail awaiting sentencing.
The message to law enforcement along our border with Mexico is very clear. Interfere with the traffic of drugs or people, and you will be charged with a crime and go to prison.
I think the State of Texas needs to have their Texas Rangers investigate Homeland Security, the Texas federal District Court, and the offices of one Johnny Sutton, federal prosecutor.
Something stinks.
Post: Man did this situation ever stink. Pres. Bush finally commuted an incredibly harsh sentence for what was recognized by all as overkill and had it been left to the Border Patrol, an administrative sanction offense. This situation against these men was done to send a message to our Border enforcement. Then came operation Jump Start with the National Guard. What a joke that was. Our troops were openly challenged by Mexican drug cartel mercenaries on the U.S. side of the border in broad daylight several times. That was an act of war. Now, we have Pres. Obama who promises amnesty for all illegals.
The rape of the United States continues.
Doing it right' means Alaska will get the most out of its gas
(Background on the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline situation. Written just prior to the 2006 election. Relevant to any Alaska Gas Pipeline discussion, the arguments against an LNG port at Valdez, Alaska to ship North Slope natural gas to the U.S. were answered here. )
The gas line route favored by Gov. Frank Murkowski and inherited from former Gov. Tony Knowles - "My Way is the Highway" - parallels the trans-Alaska oil pipeline right of way to Big Delta, and then goes east into Canada.
Murkowski's route differs from the original Knowles route in that it extends the pipeline through Canada into the United States near Chicago. This is the longest and most expensive route of any proposed thus far, some 3,500 miles with an estimated cost of $25 billion. This cost estimate has increased by $5 billion since Congress passed loan guarantees in 2004 totaling $18 billion.
Murkowski is seeking a $4 billion investment ownership by the state of Alaska. If built, the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline is to be a 48-, 52- or 54-inch pipeline with a capacity of 4.5 billion cubic feet per day and expandable to 6 bcf per day. Estimated completion date is 2016, if the producers decide the line is viable after another long five-year study.
Problems with the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline routes include: Rising cost estimates; North Slope natural gas reserves are insufficient to cover the financing cost over 30 years; steel for rolling the pipe requires a full year's world steel production quota; and new, and, as yet, untried pipe technology is also required.
The only viable alternative to the governor's Canadian pipeline is a liquefied natural gas project advocated so passionately over the years by Jeff Lowenfels. It is the same route originally permitted by Yukon Pacific Corp. The permits to build the Yukon Pacific natural gas pipeline have been in place since the mid-1980s.
In other words, if the producers would sell North Slope natural gas, construction on this line could begin almost immediately. This pipeline route parallels the existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez. Obviously, all jobs and construction generated by this route stay in Alaska.
Most importantly, this route would generate a spur line into the Matanuska Valley along the Glenn Highway or possibly down the Parks Highway. Alaskans recognized the logic and benefits of this route when we passed Proposition 3 in the 2002 election, which created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority.
The Yukon Pacific pipeline was designed to carry 2.2 bcf per day to a LNG plant to be constructed in Valdez. The liquefied gas was to be transported to other markets by LNG tankers. The economics for this pipeline was predicated on natural gas with a market price at or above $3 per million British thermal units (a million Btu equals approximately 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas). The current market price is still above $8 per million Btu and has recently been as high as $15 per million Btu.
ANGDA carefully assessed the original Yukon Pacific LNG project and found it both economical and feasible. ANGDA has included a spur line of 500,000 cubic feet per day into Southcentral Alaska via Palmer as part of its pipeline plans. The ANGDA pipeline could be moving gas within five years after the start of construction, including the necessary LNG plant at Valdez. The cost is estimated at $14 billion.
The Alaska Gas Port Authority is a consortium of Fairbanks, the North Slope Borough and Valdez to promote and build a natural gas pipeline using the Yukon Pacific route, but with a difference. The capacity of the pipeline that the port authority is advocating is now up to 4.5 bcf per day to match the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline. However, this increase in capacity also changes the dynamics of the original route permitting. This means that the port authority will have to acquire some new permits, and repermit others, meaning additional delays before construction would begin. The port authority also advocates and promises to build a spur line to Palmer.
Potentially, with the ANGDA or port authority pipeline proposals, Alaska gas could be flowing to market by 2012.
As noted by Pedro van Meurs in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner Jan. 30, in comparing Alaska's hydrocarbon resource development policy with that of Norway: "With the present system, wealth is slipping through the fingers of Alaskans and Norwegians hold on to it ... Norwegians are doing something right, and Alaskans are doing something wrong." Van Meurs is the Murkowski administration's chief consultant in the gas line negotiations with the major North Slope producers.
Why not an Alaska petrochemical industry stripping our gas of natural gas liquids - butane, ethane and propane - for use in Alaska to provide new industry and creating new jobs, before our natural gas leaves the state? Why do we have to keep doing it wrong and let the real wealth of using our resources to build industry in Alaska continue to slip through our fingers?
Alaskans need the opportunity, jobs and the industry our natural gas represents, not more government.
The gas line route favored by Gov. Frank Murkowski and inherited from former Gov. Tony Knowles - "My Way is the Highway" - parallels the trans-Alaska oil pipeline right of way to Big Delta, and then goes east into Canada.
Murkowski's route differs from the original Knowles route in that it extends the pipeline through Canada into the United States near Chicago. This is the longest and most expensive route of any proposed thus far, some 3,500 miles with an estimated cost of $25 billion. This cost estimate has increased by $5 billion since Congress passed loan guarantees in 2004 totaling $18 billion.
Murkowski is seeking a $4 billion investment ownership by the state of Alaska. If built, the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline is to be a 48-, 52- or 54-inch pipeline with a capacity of 4.5 billion cubic feet per day and expandable to 6 bcf per day. Estimated completion date is 2016, if the producers decide the line is viable after another long five-year study.
Problems with the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline routes include: Rising cost estimates; North Slope natural gas reserves are insufficient to cover the financing cost over 30 years; steel for rolling the pipe requires a full year's world steel production quota; and new, and, as yet, untried pipe technology is also required.
The only viable alternative to the governor's Canadian pipeline is a liquefied natural gas project advocated so passionately over the years by Jeff Lowenfels. It is the same route originally permitted by Yukon Pacific Corp. The permits to build the Yukon Pacific natural gas pipeline have been in place since the mid-1980s.
In other words, if the producers would sell North Slope natural gas, construction on this line could begin almost immediately. This pipeline route parallels the existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez. Obviously, all jobs and construction generated by this route stay in Alaska.
Most importantly, this route would generate a spur line into the Matanuska Valley along the Glenn Highway or possibly down the Parks Highway. Alaskans recognized the logic and benefits of this route when we passed Proposition 3 in the 2002 election, which created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority.
The Yukon Pacific pipeline was designed to carry 2.2 bcf per day to a LNG plant to be constructed in Valdez. The liquefied gas was to be transported to other markets by LNG tankers. The economics for this pipeline was predicated on natural gas with a market price at or above $3 per million British thermal units (a million Btu equals approximately 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas). The current market price is still above $8 per million Btu and has recently been as high as $15 per million Btu.
ANGDA carefully assessed the original Yukon Pacific LNG project and found it both economical and feasible. ANGDA has included a spur line of 500,000 cubic feet per day into Southcentral Alaska via Palmer as part of its pipeline plans. The ANGDA pipeline could be moving gas within five years after the start of construction, including the necessary LNG plant at Valdez. The cost is estimated at $14 billion.
The Alaska Gas Port Authority is a consortium of Fairbanks, the North Slope Borough and Valdez to promote and build a natural gas pipeline using the Yukon Pacific route, but with a difference. The capacity of the pipeline that the port authority is advocating is now up to 4.5 bcf per day to match the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline. However, this increase in capacity also changes the dynamics of the original route permitting. This means that the port authority will have to acquire some new permits, and repermit others, meaning additional delays before construction would begin. The port authority also advocates and promises to build a spur line to Palmer.
Potentially, with the ANGDA or port authority pipeline proposals, Alaska gas could be flowing to market by 2012.
As noted by Pedro van Meurs in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner Jan. 30, in comparing Alaska's hydrocarbon resource development policy with that of Norway: "With the present system, wealth is slipping through the fingers of Alaskans and Norwegians hold on to it ... Norwegians are doing something right, and Alaskans are doing something wrong." Van Meurs is the Murkowski administration's chief consultant in the gas line negotiations with the major North Slope producers.
Why not an Alaska petrochemical industry stripping our gas of natural gas liquids - butane, ethane and propane - for use in Alaska to provide new industry and creating new jobs, before our natural gas leaves the state? Why do we have to keep doing it wrong and let the real wealth of using our resources to build industry in Alaska continue to slip through our fingers?
Alaskans need the opportunity, jobs and the industry our natural gas represents, not more government.
What Geneva Convention? They kill our troops and mutilate the bodies, you morons!
(Written May, 2007 after the bodies of four of our troops had been accounted for after having been "captured" by the jihadis in Iraq. May God have mercy and compassion upon their souls and their families.)
Three out of four of the recently captured U.S. troops are now accounted for. May God have mercy upon their souls, and may their comrades have vengeance upon those who committed those atrocities against them.
I saw the photos the jihadis took to pump up their audience and their own courage. I saw the two dead young soldiers, with their heads separated from their mutilated bodies.
Earlier, I saw the photos of the first young man=s body discovered in the river with two bullet holes in the chest and one in the head. It was reported by the Iraqi police who found him that he had also suffered physical torture before he was executed. All done in the name of the religion of peace, because our men were . . . infidels.
These animals who committed these atrocities were the scum that Cindy Sheehan, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Teddy Kennedy, Rep. John Murtha, Bill Mahr and Rosie O=Donnell extoll the virtues of, but call our troops "terrorists". Notice that the jihadis' violation of the Hague and Geneva conventions regarding the treatment of captured troops go unremarked by these morons.
These jihadis are rabid dogs who must be dealt with harshly and with finality.
Why then, do we tie the hands of our troops in dealing with them?
We have troops in prison for acting to defend themselves and their comrades. For doing what all soldiers do in war. We have troops in prison for what would have passed as "hazing" in a college fraternity initiation.
Abu Gharib. Why, we embarrassed those poor Muslim folks. Then, we turned them loose to kill our soldiers, and put our guards in jail. What a sick joke.
If there is a shooting of a jihadi, Iraqi or foreign, by our troops no matter the circumstances, time is wasted upon an investigation to determine whether or not the shooting was justified. That is a convention to be undertaken for a shooting in a civilian police action, not in a war. After WWII, our troops shot and killed hostiles in the occupied countries without trial or such inane oversight.
I know one young Iraq vet who was confined to quarters for three days after a justified shooting. His weapon was taken from him and he was placed under house arrest until the outcome of the investigation into the shooting. He saved the lives of his comrades by his action, and he was treated like a criminal. He did not reenlist for that reason. He said "never again" to being treated like a criminal by his own for doing his job as a soldier.
What cowards we are to worry about what the world thinks!
Remember, the greatest generation burned cities from the air and destroyed them on the ground. Burned from the air: Dresden. Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima to name a few. We incinerated civilians by the hundreds of thousands. Not soldiers. Civilians.
In WWII, total war was fought. No mercy. No ROE that gave the enemy the advantage. No tying the hands of the troops. We destroyed the enemy. We conquered the enemy. We humiliated the enemy.
Now, we worry not about winning, not about protecting our troops, but whether or not the alleged rights of those who try to kill our troops were violated?!
Iraq is not Cincinnati!
My father, our fathers and grandfathers, men who went to fight WWII, did the hard job of soldiering, and then came home.
Today, our troops, their grandsons, are being killed and maimed without being able to exercise the right to defend themselves and their comrades first, and worrying about collateral damage second. The actions and conduct of our troops are subjected to oversight by JAG officers, attorneys who determine after the fact whether or not a shooting was justified. Most of whom are not combat command qualified. Attorneys.
We would have lost WWII had these restrictions been imposed upon our troops.
Again, as in Korea and Vietnam, our troops hands are tied by politics.
Our troops are sacrificed to show the world that we are really good people and that we really do not want to hurt anyone. Golly.
It is unquestionable that the IEDs that are the most effective come from Iran. Why is there still an Iran?
It is also unquestionable that most of the jihadis foreign to Iraq are infiltrated from Syria. Why is there still a Syria?
Those who were behind those who came to kill us on 9-11 are still out there.
Who knows how many latent jihadis are in this country awaiting their chance, because of the stupidity of maintaining an open border that allows up to 15,000 illegal aliens to cross daily.
More Americans were killed in the 9-11 attack on NYC than at Pearl Harbor. Yet, we act like we brought this outrage upon ourselves. That this act of war was our fault.
Male bovine offal!
The only thing that the Arab tribal mind, regardless of religious sect, understands is power. In the 1930s, the British stopped a rebellion in Iraq by turning Bagdad into rubble from the air. The rebellion ended when the jihadis who were out to remove the British infidel from their so called "holy" soil realized that they could be bombed from the air into extinction with impunity.
Mr. President, rewrite the Rules of Engagement to give our troops the ability to defend themselves. When they are attacked, overwhelming firepower needs to be the only response. Bring on the B52s, B2s and B1s 24 hours a day 7 days a week!
Destroy Sadr City as we destroyed Nagasaki.
Publically hang Muqtada al Sadr for the cowardly scum that he is. Or, have you forgotten the charnel houses that were found at Najaf where his underlings held court?
Destroy every city and town in the Anbar Province the way we and the Brits destroyed the German and Japanese cities and towns. Then move south. Do not stop until the last rifle is laid down, and the last jihadi is hanging from a telephone pole.
Give the tribes a choice. Life or death. No other choice. Support the effort to rout and kill the insurgents, or to side with them and die with them.
Kill the jihadis, destroy their will to fight, destroy their capacity to make war, humiliate them, conquer them. Treat in the same manner those who harbor them, sympathize, and support them.
Religion of peace. Religion of death. Religion of the dead. That is what Islam has to be.
WAR!
To do otherwise, is to ensure an American Hiroshima.
Post: January, 2009, our Pres. Obama has just given the order to eliminate the detention center in Gitmo. Bad news in the long run.
Three out of four of the recently captured U.S. troops are now accounted for. May God have mercy upon their souls, and may their comrades have vengeance upon those who committed those atrocities against them.
I saw the photos the jihadis took to pump up their audience and their own courage. I saw the two dead young soldiers, with their heads separated from their mutilated bodies.
Earlier, I saw the photos of the first young man=s body discovered in the river with two bullet holes in the chest and one in the head. It was reported by the Iraqi police who found him that he had also suffered physical torture before he was executed. All done in the name of the religion of peace, because our men were . . . infidels.
These animals who committed these atrocities were the scum that Cindy Sheehan, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Teddy Kennedy, Rep. John Murtha, Bill Mahr and Rosie O=Donnell extoll the virtues of, but call our troops "terrorists". Notice that the jihadis' violation of the Hague and Geneva conventions regarding the treatment of captured troops go unremarked by these morons.
These jihadis are rabid dogs who must be dealt with harshly and with finality.
Why then, do we tie the hands of our troops in dealing with them?
We have troops in prison for acting to defend themselves and their comrades. For doing what all soldiers do in war. We have troops in prison for what would have passed as "hazing" in a college fraternity initiation.
Abu Gharib. Why, we embarrassed those poor Muslim folks. Then, we turned them loose to kill our soldiers, and put our guards in jail. What a sick joke.
If there is a shooting of a jihadi, Iraqi or foreign, by our troops no matter the circumstances, time is wasted upon an investigation to determine whether or not the shooting was justified. That is a convention to be undertaken for a shooting in a civilian police action, not in a war. After WWII, our troops shot and killed hostiles in the occupied countries without trial or such inane oversight.
I know one young Iraq vet who was confined to quarters for three days after a justified shooting. His weapon was taken from him and he was placed under house arrest until the outcome of the investigation into the shooting. He saved the lives of his comrades by his action, and he was treated like a criminal. He did not reenlist for that reason. He said "never again" to being treated like a criminal by his own for doing his job as a soldier.
What cowards we are to worry about what the world thinks!
Remember, the greatest generation burned cities from the air and destroyed them on the ground. Burned from the air: Dresden. Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima to name a few. We incinerated civilians by the hundreds of thousands. Not soldiers. Civilians.
In WWII, total war was fought. No mercy. No ROE that gave the enemy the advantage. No tying the hands of the troops. We destroyed the enemy. We conquered the enemy. We humiliated the enemy.
Now, we worry not about winning, not about protecting our troops, but whether or not the alleged rights of those who try to kill our troops were violated?!
Iraq is not Cincinnati!
My father, our fathers and grandfathers, men who went to fight WWII, did the hard job of soldiering, and then came home.
Today, our troops, their grandsons, are being killed and maimed without being able to exercise the right to defend themselves and their comrades first, and worrying about collateral damage second. The actions and conduct of our troops are subjected to oversight by JAG officers, attorneys who determine after the fact whether or not a shooting was justified. Most of whom are not combat command qualified. Attorneys.
We would have lost WWII had these restrictions been imposed upon our troops.
Again, as in Korea and Vietnam, our troops hands are tied by politics.
Our troops are sacrificed to show the world that we are really good people and that we really do not want to hurt anyone. Golly.
It is unquestionable that the IEDs that are the most effective come from Iran. Why is there still an Iran?
It is also unquestionable that most of the jihadis foreign to Iraq are infiltrated from Syria. Why is there still a Syria?
Those who were behind those who came to kill us on 9-11 are still out there.
Who knows how many latent jihadis are in this country awaiting their chance, because of the stupidity of maintaining an open border that allows up to 15,000 illegal aliens to cross daily.
More Americans were killed in the 9-11 attack on NYC than at Pearl Harbor. Yet, we act like we brought this outrage upon ourselves. That this act of war was our fault.
Male bovine offal!
The only thing that the Arab tribal mind, regardless of religious sect, understands is power. In the 1930s, the British stopped a rebellion in Iraq by turning Bagdad into rubble from the air. The rebellion ended when the jihadis who were out to remove the British infidel from their so called "holy" soil realized that they could be bombed from the air into extinction with impunity.
Mr. President, rewrite the Rules of Engagement to give our troops the ability to defend themselves. When they are attacked, overwhelming firepower needs to be the only response. Bring on the B52s, B2s and B1s 24 hours a day 7 days a week!
Destroy Sadr City as we destroyed Nagasaki.
Publically hang Muqtada al Sadr for the cowardly scum that he is. Or, have you forgotten the charnel houses that were found at Najaf where his underlings held court?
Destroy every city and town in the Anbar Province the way we and the Brits destroyed the German and Japanese cities and towns. Then move south. Do not stop until the last rifle is laid down, and the last jihadi is hanging from a telephone pole.
Give the tribes a choice. Life or death. No other choice. Support the effort to rout and kill the insurgents, or to side with them and die with them.
Kill the jihadis, destroy their will to fight, destroy their capacity to make war, humiliate them, conquer them. Treat in the same manner those who harbor them, sympathize, and support them.
Religion of peace. Religion of death. Religion of the dead. That is what Islam has to be.
WAR!
To do otherwise, is to ensure an American Hiroshima.
Post: January, 2009, our Pres. Obama has just given the order to eliminate the detention center in Gitmo. Bad news in the long run.
Bovines found to be a major pollutant source . . .
(NOTE: Predecessor to the first post on this blog)
I found out something that the greenies appearing on these pages have overlooked in their global warming doom and gloom myth perpetuation. Are you prepared for this earth shattering news?
18% of the global output of greenhouse gas emissions is attributed to . . . cows. Bovines. Moos. Claribell. Oh, yeah. And, this ain't no bovine offal! This is the findings of another study, this time sponsored by the U.N.
I remember a similar study in the 70s funded by the U.S. to study bovine emissions (flatulence) to the tune of around $500,000 at the time.
I have always wondered just how the scientists measure the output of a cow=s flatulence. Must be a heck of a job, is all I can say, as methane, the primary gas emitted in the explosive digestive process of the bovine, is such a small molecule that it will pass through any gas mask filter with ease. Just ask any G.I. who has been stuck in an enclosed area with Private so and so who had beans and beer in copious quantities the night before.
Oh, yeah, there is no escaping the malodorous fragrance of any . . . fart, much less a cow . . . fart. Too, methane comes out of the rear of the bovine, which leaves the science to those less prudish, and probably on their way to a vocation in proctology. Or, at least to the rest of us, having a questionable interest in the southern end of a northbound bovine.
Can you imagine being caught down wind of a whole herd who have worked to synchronize the release of such internal pressures? Holy cow!
When one has 4 stomachs, as does the average cow, the ability to produce and pressurize is probably at an all time high for mammals.
Kind of makes one wonder what a herd of brontosaurus produced in the way of methane output? Heck, if we had a couple of brontosaurs, we probably would not need AGIA! Just shove a pipe up . . . uh, let's see . . . the rectal orifice and feed them refried beans and beer by the truck load!
The mere thought of all that saurian produced methane would give Wayne Carmony and MEA=s Board an orgasmic experience seconded only by the thought of a multi-megawatt coal fired power plant totally funded by a grant from DOE! Not to mention that the State of Alaska would not have to share any revenues produced with the feds, so long as the tail end of the brontosaurs were on state lands. (Sarah would be proud of my thinking of that one.)
Alas, saurian behemoths and not so behemoths are but stone, so long dead that none can remember seeing one. Unless, you have the DVD version of Jurassic Park and its sequels.
I read recently where Tyrannosaurus Rex DNA was recovered from fossilized muscle tissue. Hmmm. Maybe. Where is Steven Spielberg when we need him, huh? Although, the T-Rex might not be the best idea for a domesticized methane biological production unit. They probably produced great quantities of methane, but it is the feed stock that is the problem. Or is it?
If you fed the recreated T-Rex cows, you would reduce the green house emissions by 18%. Hey, an environmentally friendly greenhouse emissions solution! (Just don't stop feeding them cows!)
I guess that raises another issue regarding hamburgers, steaks, etc. In which case, Australia has a kangaroo problem. Ready made solution. Roo steaks anyone?
I have read the opinions of the local ding-a-lings passing themselves off as experts on global warming. Autos produce 14% of the emissions. Cows 18%. Now, stop and think about this for a minute. What about the spreading zones in the world's oceans? Volcanic emissions? Trees? Algae? On and on. The arrogance of the human mind.
Michael Criton had it right. Global warming is just another iteration of the fear game. A year ago it was H5N1. Previously, it was an ice age, or whatever the news mills spewed out to sensationalize beyond all reality. It is always something to instill fear and to keep the mind unsettled.
Gee, if we were not so afraid of this and that, why we might actually pay attention to the fact that Sen. Diane Feinstein directed over $1BILLION of our tax dollars to her husband's companies during her tenure on the Senate Appropriations Committee, or that H.R. 1592 just passed out of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is an attempt to create a category of hate speech, as has been done in the commonwealth countries to such devastating effect upon free speech, especially religious free speech. Gee, I wonder which sexual preference group is behind that one?
Carbon free society my . . . donkey. Pull your heads out of your collective posteriors and know that if we do not pay attention to those we entrust to do our business in government, we will be out of a Constitution before we know it, and . . . we will be forced to read Al Gore's book!
(Forced high pitched screaming into the distance . . . )
Note: Actually, it is the cows' burp that produces most of the bovine methane released into the atmosphere. About 6 million metric tons of methane per year is burped into the atmosphere by U.S. cows. (Don't tell Al Gore, or you can kiss that Big Mac and ice cream good-bye!)
I found out something that the greenies appearing on these pages have overlooked in their global warming doom and gloom myth perpetuation. Are you prepared for this earth shattering news?
18% of the global output of greenhouse gas emissions is attributed to . . . cows. Bovines. Moos. Claribell. Oh, yeah. And, this ain't no bovine offal! This is the findings of another study, this time sponsored by the U.N.
I remember a similar study in the 70s funded by the U.S. to study bovine emissions (flatulence) to the tune of around $500,000 at the time.
I have always wondered just how the scientists measure the output of a cow=s flatulence. Must be a heck of a job, is all I can say, as methane, the primary gas emitted in the explosive digestive process of the bovine, is such a small molecule that it will pass through any gas mask filter with ease. Just ask any G.I. who has been stuck in an enclosed area with Private so and so who had beans and beer in copious quantities the night before.
Oh, yeah, there is no escaping the malodorous fragrance of any . . . fart, much less a cow . . . fart. Too, methane comes out of the rear of the bovine, which leaves the science to those less prudish, and probably on their way to a vocation in proctology. Or, at least to the rest of us, having a questionable interest in the southern end of a northbound bovine.
Can you imagine being caught down wind of a whole herd who have worked to synchronize the release of such internal pressures? Holy cow!
When one has 4 stomachs, as does the average cow, the ability to produce and pressurize is probably at an all time high for mammals.
Kind of makes one wonder what a herd of brontosaurus produced in the way of methane output? Heck, if we had a couple of brontosaurs, we probably would not need AGIA! Just shove a pipe up . . . uh, let's see . . . the rectal orifice and feed them refried beans and beer by the truck load!
The mere thought of all that saurian produced methane would give Wayne Carmony and MEA=s Board an orgasmic experience seconded only by the thought of a multi-megawatt coal fired power plant totally funded by a grant from DOE! Not to mention that the State of Alaska would not have to share any revenues produced with the feds, so long as the tail end of the brontosaurs were on state lands. (Sarah would be proud of my thinking of that one.)
Alas, saurian behemoths and not so behemoths are but stone, so long dead that none can remember seeing one. Unless, you have the DVD version of Jurassic Park and its sequels.
I read recently where Tyrannosaurus Rex DNA was recovered from fossilized muscle tissue. Hmmm. Maybe. Where is Steven Spielberg when we need him, huh? Although, the T-Rex might not be the best idea for a domesticized methane biological production unit. They probably produced great quantities of methane, but it is the feed stock that is the problem. Or is it?
If you fed the recreated T-Rex cows, you would reduce the green house emissions by 18%. Hey, an environmentally friendly greenhouse emissions solution! (Just don't stop feeding them cows!)
I guess that raises another issue regarding hamburgers, steaks, etc. In which case, Australia has a kangaroo problem. Ready made solution. Roo steaks anyone?
I have read the opinions of the local ding-a-lings passing themselves off as experts on global warming. Autos produce 14% of the emissions. Cows 18%. Now, stop and think about this for a minute. What about the spreading zones in the world's oceans? Volcanic emissions? Trees? Algae? On and on. The arrogance of the human mind.
Michael Criton had it right. Global warming is just another iteration of the fear game. A year ago it was H5N1. Previously, it was an ice age, or whatever the news mills spewed out to sensationalize beyond all reality. It is always something to instill fear and to keep the mind unsettled.
Gee, if we were not so afraid of this and that, why we might actually pay attention to the fact that Sen. Diane Feinstein directed over $1BILLION of our tax dollars to her husband's companies during her tenure on the Senate Appropriations Committee, or that H.R. 1592 just passed out of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is an attempt to create a category of hate speech, as has been done in the commonwealth countries to such devastating effect upon free speech, especially religious free speech. Gee, I wonder which sexual preference group is behind that one?
Carbon free society my . . . donkey. Pull your heads out of your collective posteriors and know that if we do not pay attention to those we entrust to do our business in government, we will be out of a Constitution before we know it, and . . . we will be forced to read Al Gore's book!
(Forced high pitched screaming into the distance . . . )
Note: Actually, it is the cows' burp that produces most of the bovine methane released into the atmosphere. About 6 million metric tons of methane per year is burped into the atmosphere by U.S. cows. (Don't tell Al Gore, or you can kiss that Big Mac and ice cream good-bye!)
Alces Alces (Moose)
I now have a greater appreciation of those who authorized the first moose season. Their foresight was unbelievable in its wisdom. How could any have foreseen the need to reduce green house gases way back when Christ was the proverbial corporal? Even before wheeled contrivances? Simply incredible.
It seems Alces Alces (moose in geek speak) is one of those insidious creatures that contribute to global warming. (And, I bet you thought it was just too many Suburbans and Hummers that created this . . . contrived . . . crisis termed global warming.)
The noble; ugly; homely; walking sausage, roast, moose burger, steak and darn good eating (!) moose burps and explosive expulsions from the southern end of a north bound moose expels 4,230 lbs of green house gases into the atmosphere yearly.
Of course, this is in violation of the Kyoto Accords, which require countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or pay penalties for their violation of same.
Alces Alces has joined the reprehensible bovine emitters of green house gas as a targeted source of forbidden emissions.
The bovine population is easily controlled through market forces. Given that the bovine is a domesticated animal, and as vegetarians proliferate, the demand for hamburgers, steaks and hotdogs dwindles accordingly, thereby resulting in a market induced reduction in bovine greenhouse gas emissions. As corduroy comes back into vogue, leather demand will fall. These two forces combine to mean fewer bovines.
We all know from a previous lesson how bovine greenhouse emissions are measured. There are strange folks who either bag the head of the animalBwhich on the surface seems to be a situation of diminishing returns, because the bag needs to be airtight to capture the gases burped up, and there=s only so much air in the bagBwell, anyway they get it done. The other method is to stick a probe . . . nah. We won=t go there. That others do and get paid for it, well, let=s just say that sometimes it=s just a slow day in the big city and guy=s gotta do what a guy, or gal, has to do. (Yuck.)
Given that, one has to wonder who in their cotton picking mind would try that with a 1200 lb moose? Even tranquilized, the animal will remember and hunt you down and stomp you into goo.
Of course, it was the Norgies (pronounced norgees) who first discovered that Alces Alces (moose) are such gross emitters of green house gases (flatulence) that they are to be considered for . . . reduction in numbers through termination with extreme prejudice during a defined period of the year for a limited number of days. Otherwise known as hunting season.
Kind of makes you wonder what passes for a good time in Norgie land, given the methodology used to determine the emissions from said Alces Alces. . . .
Lars Norgie and his ilk (and, please no whining about picking on Norgies!) will don their red orange safety vests and take to the woods with their large caliber hunting rifles and terminate about 35,000 Alces Alces, thereby doing their part to reduce green house gas emissions. Not to mention also filling their larders with moose meat.
In Norgie land, they expect to kill about 35,000 of the offensive, polluting beasts this season.
I wonder if the argument for hunting being an environmentally friendly activity will carry any weight with the greenies? Why, I bet anti-hunting advocates never realized the harm to the environment being done my the greenhouse gas emissions of Alces-Alces. Hunters are doing their part to preserve the environment.
Know ye, noble moose hunters that you will be doing the King's work in reducing the numbers of the moose population, thereby reducing greenhouse emissions to boot. Future generations who will have escaped the ravages of global warming will hold your noble efforts in high esteem.
What I am awaiting is the study on bears. That is one study I where I want to see the video on the methodology used. I can see it now.
"Here griz", calls the guy in the biohazard suit as he/she approaches with a big baggie with a tie wrap for the north end, and a stainless steel probe for the southern end. Man, I bet that gets ugly real quick! As they say on the news, film at 6.
Lars Norgie and his ilk (and, please no whining about picking on Norgies!) will don their red orange safety vests and take to the woods with their large caliber hunting rifles and terminate about 35,000 Alces Alces, thereby doing their part to reduce green house gas emissions. Not to mention also filling their larders with moose meat.
In Norgie land, they expect to kill about 35,000 of the offensive, polluting beasts this season.
I wonder if the argument for hunting being an environmentally friendly activity will carry any weight with the greenies? Why, I bet anti-hunting advocates never realized the harm to the environment being done my the greenhouse gas emissions of Alces-Alces. Hunters are doing their part to preserve the environment.
Know ye, noble moose hunters that you will be doing the King's work in reducing the numbers of the moose population, thereby reducing greenhouse emissions to boot. Future generations who will have escaped the ravages of global warming will hold your noble efforts in high esteem.
What I am awaiting is the study on bears. That is one study I where I want to see the video on the methodology used. I can see it now.
"Here griz", calls the guy in the biohazard suit as he/she approaches with a big baggie with a tie wrap for the north end, and a stainless steel probe for the southern end. Man, I bet that gets ugly real quick! As they say on the news, film at 6.
Alaska needs the 24 in NG pipeline to south central, NOW!
Last session (2008), the Legislature appropriated $4M to ANGDA to perform additional studies regarding early delivery options for the proposed ANGDA “bullet” NG pipeline, which, I hope, anyway, will provide NG for the Mat-Su Valley, the Kenai Penninsula and Anchorage.
Man oh man. When you want something screwed up, let government get involved.
First, the Governor asked for $8M for ANGDA for the study, and I assume other uses.
The Legislature cut that amount in half.
Normally, I would say, good job on cutting costs.
Then, one finds out what the money is to be used for, which is just another study on top of hundreds of millions spent on studies over the last 10 years regarding moving our NG from the North Slope to market.
Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel in the face of a 2005 study undertaken by DNR that focused on a bullet line to south central?
ANGDA focused on the immediate--and I mean immediate, as it is 2008, folks--NG crisis in this area. ANGDA’s solution was a 24 inch diameter bullet line to remedy the shortsightedness of the Murkowski Administration’s Canadian give away to the exclusion of the impending NG shortage in this area.
The Conoco Phillips-BP NG pipeline announced a few weeks ago is no solution, as that will not start construction for at least another 10 years.
What good does another study do, when the estimated time when Alaska will have to start importing NG is around 2012, and, if the line were started today, we might have NG flowing down here by 2012, if the environmentalist will allow Alaskans to meet their energy needs with this pipeline.
Of course, we all know, that the second construction is announced, every greenie organization in the nation will jump on the litigation bandwagon to raise money. Alaska has always been a cornucopia of issues for fund raising for these organizations.
Remember TAPS and the years of litigation to halt or slow the construction?
Therefore, why is our Governor and Legislature acting to delay the only solution that promises to provide NG from Alaska before we run out in this area?
I have to ask our Legislators and our Govenror, what’s the point of any appropriation that does not culminate in an immediate start in construction of the ANGDA pipeline?
The permits are in place, the studies have been done, let’s get on with it!
I am puzzled by the need to study additional means of delivering NG to south central or elsewhere for that matter.
Delay, delay, delay and do nothing, but more studies?
In 2012, and at the latest, 2014, we will be buying imported NG from the Producers. NG that will come from a very high priced foreign source--the Middle East, Sakhalin Island or from Indonesia. NG that will cost far more than the local source from the North Slope. And, joke of jokes, imported by LNG tanker.
Remember, it was just too expensive to transport Alaska NG to a U.S. market by LNG tanker.
Conversely, the Producers have already stated that LNG transported by LNG tankers will be means to resolve the Cook Inlet NG shortage if there is no pipeline built by then.
Interesting how in that case it will not be too expensive to import foreign NG to Alaska.
Couple a dramatic increase in the cost of NG to our homes, the rapidly increasing cost of motor fuels—if you think it is expensive now, just wait!—and the ever increasing burden of local government run amuck, who will be able to afford to live here?
Between property taxes and fuel costs, life as we know it now will be considerably degraded, as everything comes by ship, airplane or truck, which means food, clothing, and anything on the store shelves will be ever increasing in price.
Remember the Carter years with 18% inflation?
We can at least mitigate the home heating bill, if ANGDA can get started on a gas line.
To put Alaskans to work immediately, and to provide relief for an impending crisis requires our Governor to direct ANGDA to get to work, and for the Legislature to have the courage to underwrite the project.
Instead, our elected officials did what elected officials always do in the face of impending crisis, they called for another . . . study.
State employees had better not get any cost of living increases or other benefit increases until there is a solution to the NG crisis. They need to feel the pain just like the rest of us peons.
Looks like natural gas to diesel conversion for home heating is going to get a big boost, if the State does not give the ANGDA proposal impetus and money, instead of lip service. Time is something that is running out.
Already, Agrium has closed the ammonium nitrate plant at Nikkiski due to there being no natural gas available for the projection of ferilizer for Alaska's agricultural industry. Not only did that closure cost the State 60 jobs, but will drive the cost of our agriculture up, as fertilizer must once again be . . . imported.
The natural gas LNG plant that is being used to export natural gas to Japan is now scheduled to be converted into a receiving plant for LNG imports INTO Alaska. A minimum of 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the North Slope of Alaska, and Alaska may have to import natural gas if we cannot get a small pipeline built by 2014. Now, that's just wrong.
ANGDA needs a very serious priority. Now.
Otherwise, some legislators and a governor will go down in history as seeing the importation of LNG when a solution was immediately at hand.
Man oh man. When you want something screwed up, let government get involved.
First, the Governor asked for $8M for ANGDA for the study, and I assume other uses.
The Legislature cut that amount in half.
Normally, I would say, good job on cutting costs.
Then, one finds out what the money is to be used for, which is just another study on top of hundreds of millions spent on studies over the last 10 years regarding moving our NG from the North Slope to market.
Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel in the face of a 2005 study undertaken by DNR that focused on a bullet line to south central?
ANGDA focused on the immediate--and I mean immediate, as it is 2008, folks--NG crisis in this area. ANGDA’s solution was a 24 inch diameter bullet line to remedy the shortsightedness of the Murkowski Administration’s Canadian give away to the exclusion of the impending NG shortage in this area.
The Conoco Phillips-BP NG pipeline announced a few weeks ago is no solution, as that will not start construction for at least another 10 years.
What good does another study do, when the estimated time when Alaska will have to start importing NG is around 2012, and, if the line were started today, we might have NG flowing down here by 2012, if the environmentalist will allow Alaskans to meet their energy needs with this pipeline.
Of course, we all know, that the second construction is announced, every greenie organization in the nation will jump on the litigation bandwagon to raise money. Alaska has always been a cornucopia of issues for fund raising for these organizations.
Remember TAPS and the years of litigation to halt or slow the construction?
Therefore, why is our Governor and Legislature acting to delay the only solution that promises to provide NG from Alaska before we run out in this area?
I have to ask our Legislators and our Govenror, what’s the point of any appropriation that does not culminate in an immediate start in construction of the ANGDA pipeline?
The permits are in place, the studies have been done, let’s get on with it!
I am puzzled by the need to study additional means of delivering NG to south central or elsewhere for that matter.
Delay, delay, delay and do nothing, but more studies?
In 2012, and at the latest, 2014, we will be buying imported NG from the Producers. NG that will come from a very high priced foreign source--the Middle East, Sakhalin Island or from Indonesia. NG that will cost far more than the local source from the North Slope. And, joke of jokes, imported by LNG tanker.
Remember, it was just too expensive to transport Alaska NG to a U.S. market by LNG tanker.
Conversely, the Producers have already stated that LNG transported by LNG tankers will be means to resolve the Cook Inlet NG shortage if there is no pipeline built by then.
Interesting how in that case it will not be too expensive to import foreign NG to Alaska.
Couple a dramatic increase in the cost of NG to our homes, the rapidly increasing cost of motor fuels—if you think it is expensive now, just wait!—and the ever increasing burden of local government run amuck, who will be able to afford to live here?
Between property taxes and fuel costs, life as we know it now will be considerably degraded, as everything comes by ship, airplane or truck, which means food, clothing, and anything on the store shelves will be ever increasing in price.
Remember the Carter years with 18% inflation?
We can at least mitigate the home heating bill, if ANGDA can get started on a gas line.
To put Alaskans to work immediately, and to provide relief for an impending crisis requires our Governor to direct ANGDA to get to work, and for the Legislature to have the courage to underwrite the project.
Instead, our elected officials did what elected officials always do in the face of impending crisis, they called for another . . . study.
State employees had better not get any cost of living increases or other benefit increases until there is a solution to the NG crisis. They need to feel the pain just like the rest of us peons.
Looks like natural gas to diesel conversion for home heating is going to get a big boost, if the State does not give the ANGDA proposal impetus and money, instead of lip service. Time is something that is running out.
Already, Agrium has closed the ammonium nitrate plant at Nikkiski due to there being no natural gas available for the projection of ferilizer for Alaska's agricultural industry. Not only did that closure cost the State 60 jobs, but will drive the cost of our agriculture up, as fertilizer must once again be . . . imported.
The natural gas LNG plant that is being used to export natural gas to Japan is now scheduled to be converted into a receiving plant for LNG imports INTO Alaska. A minimum of 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the North Slope of Alaska, and Alaska may have to import natural gas if we cannot get a small pipeline built by 2014. Now, that's just wrong.
ANGDA needs a very serious priority. Now.
Otherwise, some legislators and a governor will go down in history as seeing the importation of LNG when a solution was immediately at hand.
Alaska's Natural Gas and Oil can benefit the U.S., or not.
Former Gov. Walter Hickel wrote an editorial in another paper that tried to demonstrate that there was a basis for an all-Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez. His premise was that Red China, and I mean RED China must be acknowledged as a potential player in any future natural gas market for Alaska natural gas. His editorial was also critical of the Palin Administration backing of the only AGIA applicant, Trans-Canada, a Canadian company that has proposed a 4.5 billion cubic feet per day natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe through Canada to the U.S. market.
He quoted Sen. Charlie Huggins as holding to the philosophy of positive engagement through world trade rather than exclusion as the route to economic prosperity and peace.
Red China, or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Japan and the rest of Asia are heavily dependent upon imported fuels and natural gas. These economies are in competition with Europe for the world’s oil and natural gas.
The principle suppliers of oil and natural gas being the Middle East, Russia, and Indonesia.
Brazil may become an oil exporting nation, provided the recent discoveries off the coast can be developed.
I agree with the need in Asia for Alaska NG, which is just part of the justification for an all-Alaska NG pipeline to Valdez. The fact that NG is exported from Nikkiski is a demonstration of the viability of the Asian market. A market that Alaska could certainly develop. However, I agree only if the U.S. continues to be stupid and refuse Alaska gas and oil development to ease dependence upon foreign oil and natural gas.
Alaska, as a sovereign State in the Union of States should have the opportunity to develop its resources to benefit Alaska, if the U.S. fails to understand that the primary desire of Alaskans is for our oil and natural gas to be used to benefit the U.S. first, and foreign markets second.
It has always been a paradox as to why natural gas was being exported to Japan from Cook Inlet reserves by LNG tanker, but Alaska could not develop its North Slope reserves to ship to U.S. markets by LNG tanker?
Were all of Alaska’s NG produced exported to foreign markets, Alaska could reasonably export by LNG tanker up to 4.5bcf per day, or the expected import of foreign NG into the U.S. market.
Alaska’s NG would most certainly affect the U. S. market by displacing largely imported Middle Eastern NG, and, because of competition, result in a lower price to the U.S. consumer of natural gas. A situation unremarked by the Producers in any discussion of marketing Alaska’s natural gas.
It is this displacement of foreign natural gas being imported at exorbitant prices into the U.S. market that is the dream of every Alaskan. Not just the benefits to the State: jobs, infrastructure, income, and, if a portion of the liquids are retained, industry from those liquids.
The energy policy of the U.S. can be viewed as insane on one level, and shrewd on another. If we suck the Middle East dry of oil and gas, then, we eventually eliminate the benefit of the income provided to those oligarchies who then contribute to the jihadis that want nothing more than to kill us infidels. On the other hand, we are paying high prices for oil and gas that is funding our enemies. That is the insane part, especially in the face of ANWR, off shore, and U.S. and Canadian oil and gas potential. Alaska could supply the 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that will be imported from Qattar, Indonesia, and Saudia Arabia by the end of 2012. Alaska’s natural gas reserves would completely displace Middle Eastern supplies.
Let the PRC buy those Middle East supplies and also take in the thousand of young wahabbist Saudis that now come into the U.S. under the deal brokered by G.H. Bush along with the $50 million spent each year by the Sauds to build new mosques in the U.S.
Somehow, we (the U.S.) are expected to absorb this burgeoning 5th column of Islam and continue on without any affect upon our economy or society. I would think the pictures of police carrying fully automatic M16s and HK MP5 variants in full body armor would clue someone that this policy is costing us. Especially since most of the hijackers who commandeered the jets on 9-11 were Saudis. This shortsightedness has cost the U.S. billions and will continue to cost us billions to keep the threat of now home grown jihadis in check. Yet, we still import oil and gas from the Middle East to fuel this hate.
The U.S. has more coal than anywhere in the world. Under the North Slope of Alaska is a high grade, low sulfer bituminous coal. It is my understanding that this field extends across most of the North Slope. Add that to the U.S. reserves, and there is no raw material shortage for fuel or gas.
The U.S. military is pioneering the development of new coal to diesel and kerosene jet fuels for aircraft. This is an extremely promising development in my mind and a significant policy shift. The question is, will the Obama Administration allow these projects to go forward?
Off shore reserves of oil and gas are just now being realized. New technologies in drilling and production are making deep sea recovery possible. The large reserves off of Brazil are an indication that oil exploration is far from over on the continental shelves around the world. Off of Israel new gas reserves verify this, even in the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, Obama is now considering one again denying off shore development.
Yes, Alaska can send its hydrocarbon resources elsewhere, if necessary. Or, Alaska can contribute to the reduction of the impact of foreign oil and natural gas to the detriment of our security, economy, and culture. Alaska’s hydrocarbon resources can fuel Red China, a burgeoning enemy, or the U.S.
Your decision.
He quoted Sen. Charlie Huggins as holding to the philosophy of positive engagement through world trade rather than exclusion as the route to economic prosperity and peace.
Red China, or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Japan and the rest of Asia are heavily dependent upon imported fuels and natural gas. These economies are in competition with Europe for the world’s oil and natural gas.
The principle suppliers of oil and natural gas being the Middle East, Russia, and Indonesia.
Brazil may become an oil exporting nation, provided the recent discoveries off the coast can be developed.
I agree with the need in Asia for Alaska NG, which is just part of the justification for an all-Alaska NG pipeline to Valdez. The fact that NG is exported from Nikkiski is a demonstration of the viability of the Asian market. A market that Alaska could certainly develop. However, I agree only if the U.S. continues to be stupid and refuse Alaska gas and oil development to ease dependence upon foreign oil and natural gas.
Alaska, as a sovereign State in the Union of States should have the opportunity to develop its resources to benefit Alaska, if the U.S. fails to understand that the primary desire of Alaskans is for our oil and natural gas to be used to benefit the U.S. first, and foreign markets second.
It has always been a paradox as to why natural gas was being exported to Japan from Cook Inlet reserves by LNG tanker, but Alaska could not develop its North Slope reserves to ship to U.S. markets by LNG tanker?
Were all of Alaska’s NG produced exported to foreign markets, Alaska could reasonably export by LNG tanker up to 4.5bcf per day, or the expected import of foreign NG into the U.S. market.
Alaska’s NG would most certainly affect the U. S. market by displacing largely imported Middle Eastern NG, and, because of competition, result in a lower price to the U.S. consumer of natural gas. A situation unremarked by the Producers in any discussion of marketing Alaska’s natural gas.
It is this displacement of foreign natural gas being imported at exorbitant prices into the U.S. market that is the dream of every Alaskan. Not just the benefits to the State: jobs, infrastructure, income, and, if a portion of the liquids are retained, industry from those liquids.
The energy policy of the U.S. can be viewed as insane on one level, and shrewd on another. If we suck the Middle East dry of oil and gas, then, we eventually eliminate the benefit of the income provided to those oligarchies who then contribute to the jihadis that want nothing more than to kill us infidels. On the other hand, we are paying high prices for oil and gas that is funding our enemies. That is the insane part, especially in the face of ANWR, off shore, and U.S. and Canadian oil and gas potential. Alaska could supply the 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that will be imported from Qattar, Indonesia, and Saudia Arabia by the end of 2012. Alaska’s natural gas reserves would completely displace Middle Eastern supplies.
Let the PRC buy those Middle East supplies and also take in the thousand of young wahabbist Saudis that now come into the U.S. under the deal brokered by G.H. Bush along with the $50 million spent each year by the Sauds to build new mosques in the U.S.
Somehow, we (the U.S.) are expected to absorb this burgeoning 5th column of Islam and continue on without any affect upon our economy or society. I would think the pictures of police carrying fully automatic M16s and HK MP5 variants in full body armor would clue someone that this policy is costing us. Especially since most of the hijackers who commandeered the jets on 9-11 were Saudis. This shortsightedness has cost the U.S. billions and will continue to cost us billions to keep the threat of now home grown jihadis in check. Yet, we still import oil and gas from the Middle East to fuel this hate.
The U.S. has more coal than anywhere in the world. Under the North Slope of Alaska is a high grade, low sulfer bituminous coal. It is my understanding that this field extends across most of the North Slope. Add that to the U.S. reserves, and there is no raw material shortage for fuel or gas.
The U.S. military is pioneering the development of new coal to diesel and kerosene jet fuels for aircraft. This is an extremely promising development in my mind and a significant policy shift. The question is, will the Obama Administration allow these projects to go forward?
Off shore reserves of oil and gas are just now being realized. New technologies in drilling and production are making deep sea recovery possible. The large reserves off of Brazil are an indication that oil exploration is far from over on the continental shelves around the world. Off of Israel new gas reserves verify this, even in the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, Obama is now considering one again denying off shore development.
Yes, Alaska can send its hydrocarbon resources elsewhere, if necessary. Or, Alaska can contribute to the reduction of the impact of foreign oil and natural gas to the detriment of our security, economy, and culture. Alaska’s hydrocarbon resources can fuel Red China, a burgeoning enemy, or the U.S.
Your decision.
National Energy Policy
Like Winnie the Pooh, who ignores the obvious, the United States of America is slowly declining into straits that would be familiar to the second and third world.
It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the power grids of America. In California the highest power demand ever was recorded at 5.3 gigawatts as a result of the recent high temperatures. 20 small California communities suffered rolling blackouts as power was shuffled to keep Los Angeles residents’ air conditioners functioning.
Fuel prices continue to skyrocket, which will result in accelerated inflation until demand, speculation, and supply stabilize.
Unlike, Europe and Japan, our gas prices have more to do with the lack of refining capacity than government taxes. The U.S. national tax on motor fuels is 24 cents per gallon for diesel and 18 cents per gallon for gasoline. E.U. taxes are a minimum of $.42 EU per liter. This is amounts to a rough equivalent of $1.68 per U.S. gallon for taxes in the EU.
For those who believe motor fuels costs in the U.S. should be as high as it is Europe or Japan, that means increasing taxes on motor fuels by up to at least 5-8 times over the current level of taxation.
There is a potential answer to this energy dilemma that you will not hear about in the main stream media. The United States Air Force is working to wean the USAF off of fuel refined from foreign oil to support domestic training and operations.
The USAF is building a pilot refinery to convert coal to fuel and another to convert bio sources to fuel. Were these refineries to be proposed on private lands, they would be opposed by the nimby crowd and the eco freaks. Law suits would blossom in the courts as prolific as dandelions in a Spring lawn. Fortunately, the USAF showed some intelligence in its planning and provided for the location of these facilities on its own military reservations.
The largest landholder in the U.S. is government at every level.
Military reservations can become a haven for new refineries and new power plants.
It would be logical for the military to provide for its own needs by reducing dependence and competition with the civilian market for fuel sources.
Coal fired power plants can be built, new coal to fuel conversion plants can built, and new nuke power plants can be built on government lands. Either on military reservations exclusively, or upon government lands away from population centers, but within the surface transportation infrastructure and within the electrical power grid infrastructure.
To meet the needs of the U.S. in general, the use of other government lands could provide locations for the refining and power generation infrastructure necessary for the civilian market.
What it would take to ensure the success of such an initiative to prevent the U.S. from degenerating into a third rate power, is a mandate from the President authorizing the various branches of the U.S. military to utilize military lands for the installation of power plants and refineries in order to become independent of foreign oil using the USAF model. That is the first step.
The next step is for the President to declare a national emergency and to prioritize increased energy generation capacity and fuel refining capacity to resolve the looming energy crisis. The President could do this by authorizing the utilization of government lands to be leased to power companies and leased to companies desiring to build large scale refineries and fuel conversion facilities. Lands that would be reasonably situated, lands that would not require decades of impact studies before construction could begin.
The courts have been the tool of those who desire the U.S. to be less. By making this a national emergency/defense issue, the courts would no longer play spoiler.
The cost of fuel is high in the United States for one basic reason. Refining capacity in the U.S. has been artificially limited by those in this country who put their own interests above that of the nation. There is plenty of oil. Oil supply is not the underlying problem.
There is no doubt that between developing coal to fuel conversion capacity, tar sands development, increasing nuclear power generation capacity, lifting the ban on oil and gas drilling off the coast of the U.S., opening ANWR to oil and gas development, and constructing a natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska’s natural gas to market in the U.S., that the United States would eventually be in the enviable position to virtually eliminate foreign oil and natural gas dependence.
Nuclear power generation would free natural gas for home heating, fuel cell, and other uses, by reducing the need for natural gas for power generation.
To remove the need for foreign oil would also reduce rising tensions in the world over the supply of that oil.
Increasing power generation capacity reduces the cost of power, and should favorably impact the economics associated with hydrogen generation, and electric automobiles. Reducing cost of power should accelerate the introduction of these alternatives.
Seems to me, the nimbys and the eco freaks would figure this out.
I am not advocating money. Just a means to provide the land upon which to build the infrastructure to keep this country from becoming less and less by reducing the opportunity for sabotage through the courts of needed new refineries and power plants.
The USAF has shown the way.
It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the power grids of America. In California the highest power demand ever was recorded at 5.3 gigawatts as a result of the recent high temperatures. 20 small California communities suffered rolling blackouts as power was shuffled to keep Los Angeles residents’ air conditioners functioning.
Fuel prices continue to skyrocket, which will result in accelerated inflation until demand, speculation, and supply stabilize.
Unlike, Europe and Japan, our gas prices have more to do with the lack of refining capacity than government taxes. The U.S. national tax on motor fuels is 24 cents per gallon for diesel and 18 cents per gallon for gasoline. E.U. taxes are a minimum of $.42 EU per liter. This is amounts to a rough equivalent of $1.68 per U.S. gallon for taxes in the EU.
For those who believe motor fuels costs in the U.S. should be as high as it is Europe or Japan, that means increasing taxes on motor fuels by up to at least 5-8 times over the current level of taxation.
There is a potential answer to this energy dilemma that you will not hear about in the main stream media. The United States Air Force is working to wean the USAF off of fuel refined from foreign oil to support domestic training and operations.
The USAF is building a pilot refinery to convert coal to fuel and another to convert bio sources to fuel. Were these refineries to be proposed on private lands, they would be opposed by the nimby crowd and the eco freaks. Law suits would blossom in the courts as prolific as dandelions in a Spring lawn. Fortunately, the USAF showed some intelligence in its planning and provided for the location of these facilities on its own military reservations.
The largest landholder in the U.S. is government at every level.
Military reservations can become a haven for new refineries and new power plants.
It would be logical for the military to provide for its own needs by reducing dependence and competition with the civilian market for fuel sources.
Coal fired power plants can be built, new coal to fuel conversion plants can built, and new nuke power plants can be built on government lands. Either on military reservations exclusively, or upon government lands away from population centers, but within the surface transportation infrastructure and within the electrical power grid infrastructure.
To meet the needs of the U.S. in general, the use of other government lands could provide locations for the refining and power generation infrastructure necessary for the civilian market.
What it would take to ensure the success of such an initiative to prevent the U.S. from degenerating into a third rate power, is a mandate from the President authorizing the various branches of the U.S. military to utilize military lands for the installation of power plants and refineries in order to become independent of foreign oil using the USAF model. That is the first step.
The next step is for the President to declare a national emergency and to prioritize increased energy generation capacity and fuel refining capacity to resolve the looming energy crisis. The President could do this by authorizing the utilization of government lands to be leased to power companies and leased to companies desiring to build large scale refineries and fuel conversion facilities. Lands that would be reasonably situated, lands that would not require decades of impact studies before construction could begin.
The courts have been the tool of those who desire the U.S. to be less. By making this a national emergency/defense issue, the courts would no longer play spoiler.
The cost of fuel is high in the United States for one basic reason. Refining capacity in the U.S. has been artificially limited by those in this country who put their own interests above that of the nation. There is plenty of oil. Oil supply is not the underlying problem.
There is no doubt that between developing coal to fuel conversion capacity, tar sands development, increasing nuclear power generation capacity, lifting the ban on oil and gas drilling off the coast of the U.S., opening ANWR to oil and gas development, and constructing a natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska’s natural gas to market in the U.S., that the United States would eventually be in the enviable position to virtually eliminate foreign oil and natural gas dependence.
Nuclear power generation would free natural gas for home heating, fuel cell, and other uses, by reducing the need for natural gas for power generation.
To remove the need for foreign oil would also reduce rising tensions in the world over the supply of that oil.
Increasing power generation capacity reduces the cost of power, and should favorably impact the economics associated with hydrogen generation, and electric automobiles. Reducing cost of power should accelerate the introduction of these alternatives.
Seems to me, the nimbys and the eco freaks would figure this out.
I am not advocating money. Just a means to provide the land upon which to build the infrastructure to keep this country from becoming less and less by reducing the opportunity for sabotage through the courts of needed new refineries and power plants.
The USAF has shown the way.
Alaska's Budget
There is no solution in sight for the fiscal shortsightedness practiced by our state government since the completion of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System in 1978. Once oil started flowing, the State of Alaska became an oil junkie that cannot seem to wean itself clear of satisfying every special interest that holds out its hand.
Ignored completely in this frenzy to satisfy these demands to NGOs are the requirements set forth under the Constitution of the State of Alaska regarding the duties and responsibilities of government.
The Constitution of Alaska requires that state government provide for education, use of natural resources to the best benefit of all, to provide for the public welfare—such as public safety, roads, airports, bridges, and harbors--and the public health, and to expend appropriated monies in these regards to the benefit of all Alaskans. More particularly, monies can only be appropriated by the State for the public purpose. (Art IX, Sec. 6)
I believe that it can be reasonably argued that in giving money to every outstretched hand, the Legislature violates the intent of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
Where is the public purpose in giving money to the every NGO that stretches out its hand or has a purpose that has a focus or requirements that confer the benefit of those funds upon a few rather than the many?
I do not believe that the State of Alaska should be appropriating money or giving grants to any entity other than government subdivisions, and then only for the purpose of funding education, public safety, building and maintaining infrastructure, and public health considerations--meaning inoculations against disease, clinics, health aides, doctors, nurses, equipment, and, maybe, subsidizing health insurance for children.
These public health considerations should be designed to promote health and preserve life, not to provide for abortions or to support those NGOs feeding off the killing of the unborn.
The issue of public welfare should be served by creating jobs through the use of our resources, the creation and maintenance of infrastructure—roads, harbors, and airports—and providing for public education and public safety.
The idea of public welfare was never intended to include gratuitous grants to any NGO or other entity that stretched out its hand for a purpose that focused mainly to promote or otherwise benefit a few. Let these people gather monies from their own members, and not the State.
The same restrictions should apply to subdivisions of the State that receive state funds. There should be no passing on of any State funds for any purpose other than that which is intended by the Alaska Constitution.
Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned on a constitutional foundation. If the expenditure was not provided for in the constitution, then she stated that she would oppose that use.
The Legislature cannot be trusted to be so objective. The legislator stays in office by pleasing his/her constituents. Some of whom use those very monies granted to these NGOs to influence our politicians at every level of government. A use that is both illegal and unconstitutional.
Any budget item should first be scrutinized as to the constitutional validity of the expenditure, and then face scrutiny regarding any spending priorities as the second test. If the constitutional test fails, then there can be no further argument regarding that expenditure.
To focus upon the constitution first in examining a budget item would relieve the governor of criticism for those line items that are clearly intended to buy favor by benefiting a few, and not benefit the State as whole.
It is time the government of the State of Alaska gave priority to the Constitution of the State of Alaska in all areas of funding determinations.
Ignored completely in this frenzy to satisfy these demands to NGOs are the requirements set forth under the Constitution of the State of Alaska regarding the duties and responsibilities of government.
The Constitution of Alaska requires that state government provide for education, use of natural resources to the best benefit of all, to provide for the public welfare—such as public safety, roads, airports, bridges, and harbors--and the public health, and to expend appropriated monies in these regards to the benefit of all Alaskans. More particularly, monies can only be appropriated by the State for the public purpose. (Art IX, Sec. 6)
I believe that it can be reasonably argued that in giving money to every outstretched hand, the Legislature violates the intent of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
Where is the public purpose in giving money to the every NGO that stretches out its hand or has a purpose that has a focus or requirements that confer the benefit of those funds upon a few rather than the many?
I do not believe that the State of Alaska should be appropriating money or giving grants to any entity other than government subdivisions, and then only for the purpose of funding education, public safety, building and maintaining infrastructure, and public health considerations--meaning inoculations against disease, clinics, health aides, doctors, nurses, equipment, and, maybe, subsidizing health insurance for children.
These public health considerations should be designed to promote health and preserve life, not to provide for abortions or to support those NGOs feeding off the killing of the unborn.
The issue of public welfare should be served by creating jobs through the use of our resources, the creation and maintenance of infrastructure—roads, harbors, and airports—and providing for public education and public safety.
The idea of public welfare was never intended to include gratuitous grants to any NGO or other entity that stretched out its hand for a purpose that focused mainly to promote or otherwise benefit a few. Let these people gather monies from their own members, and not the State.
The same restrictions should apply to subdivisions of the State that receive state funds. There should be no passing on of any State funds for any purpose other than that which is intended by the Alaska Constitution.
Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned on a constitutional foundation. If the expenditure was not provided for in the constitution, then she stated that she would oppose that use.
The Legislature cannot be trusted to be so objective. The legislator stays in office by pleasing his/her constituents. Some of whom use those very monies granted to these NGOs to influence our politicians at every level of government. A use that is both illegal and unconstitutional.
Any budget item should first be scrutinized as to the constitutional validity of the expenditure, and then face scrutiny regarding any spending priorities as the second test. If the constitutional test fails, then there can be no further argument regarding that expenditure.
To focus upon the constitution first in examining a budget item would relieve the governor of criticism for those line items that are clearly intended to buy favor by benefiting a few, and not benefit the State as whole.
It is time the government of the State of Alaska gave priority to the Constitution of the State of Alaska in all areas of funding determinations.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The right Reverend Lowery . . . a man who sees only the past.
Well, today it is snowing/raining/freezing meaning slick roads.
I listened to our new President. I am heartened by his speech.
I am mortified and angry over the divisive nature of Rev. Lowery's benediction. Where does this guy get off telling us that racism is still rampant after 64 years of affirmative action and being told white is bad, every color is downtrodden and oppressed by whitey? He prays for a country where black will not be asked to step to the back of the line and brown will stick around?
Well, I was heartened. Now, I am disappointed.
Bigots come in all colors and religion does not temper the bigot. Rev. Lowery is a bigot. One of those who wants the past to continue, so that they have affirmation for their own small minds.
I am an American, not a bigot. I am an American, not whitey. I am Apache and Cherokee along with the Dutch, German, Irish and Scot. I, like my PRESIDENT, am an "other". I am an American. However, all one will see is the light skin, but I tan a deep brown. : )
How dare this man say "white will embrace right".
What the heck does that mean?!
Screw him and all like him. His attitude was disgusting.
That moron would not know equality if it hit him in the face. All he sees is the PAST.
Please, Lord, deliver us from these fools, in CHRIST's name I pray, amen.
Note that he did not close his prayer with Christ's intercession. Some reverend.
My dog has it right. She cares not what color I am. She cares . . . well, there are times when she stays upwind . . . but you get the idea.
When are there no longer going to be victims?
When will we just be Americans?
Let us hope for a better day.
A day when we are all Americans.
Not this or that.
I listened to our new President. I am heartened by his speech.
I am mortified and angry over the divisive nature of Rev. Lowery's benediction. Where does this guy get off telling us that racism is still rampant after 64 years of affirmative action and being told white is bad, every color is downtrodden and oppressed by whitey? He prays for a country where black will not be asked to step to the back of the line and brown will stick around?
Well, I was heartened. Now, I am disappointed.
Bigots come in all colors and religion does not temper the bigot. Rev. Lowery is a bigot. One of those who wants the past to continue, so that they have affirmation for their own small minds.
I am an American, not a bigot. I am an American, not whitey. I am Apache and Cherokee along with the Dutch, German, Irish and Scot. I, like my PRESIDENT, am an "other". I am an American. However, all one will see is the light skin, but I tan a deep brown. : )
How dare this man say "white will embrace right".
What the heck does that mean?!
Screw him and all like him. His attitude was disgusting.
That moron would not know equality if it hit him in the face. All he sees is the PAST.
Please, Lord, deliver us from these fools, in CHRIST's name I pray, amen.
Note that he did not close his prayer with Christ's intercession. Some reverend.
My dog has it right. She cares not what color I am. She cares . . . well, there are times when she stays upwind . . . but you get the idea.
When are there no longer going to be victims?
When will we just be Americans?
Let us hope for a better day.
A day when we are all Americans.
Not this or that.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Arrest Bush . . . for what? Being our President?
I read in Fox News and elsewhere the howl of the demagogues to arrest George Bush.
For what?
Successfully prosecuting a war against terrorism?
For buying into every idiotic spending measure the dems wanted?
Bush was more liberal in his spending policies than he was conservative. Government grew under him faster than under any other President since Roosevelt.
The vote was too close to be called a democratic mandate for anything, other than a change of officers at the top.
What now prompts people on the left to now call for arrests of our highest officials?
Especially, since Pelosi/Reid et al voted for the war and the Patriot Act, etc. How does that history reconcile with the reviling by the mad dogs on the left now calling for the arrest of Bush for his part in prosecuting a war that their party leadership supported?
Such incredible partisanship and lack of intellect sounds more like the mob in Revolutionary France, rather than the exuberance of an educated citizen of the 21st century USA.
The only place George Bush showed his true R roots was in his prosecution of war. He did it right, and the U.S. is safer than any other country. France, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain and Italy all have suffered at the hands of their extremist Islamic populations. Both Great Britain and Spain actually had their own mini-9-11 with the London and Madrid Station bombings. The rest of the countries have suffered riots and other outrages against good order because of cartoons and other perceived insults to . . . Islam.
What those ideologues on the left need to remember is that this country was founded upon the rule of law. That law begins with the Constitution. All of our leaders, military personnel, federal officials, and federal employees swear an oath to defend that Constitution.
Most of us will not see any political party or the elected official therefrom change, rearrange, or otherwise reduce in import, impact, hierarchy, or authority that august declaration of our rights and the clear and timeless construct of our republic.
My God. Where was the publication of any such outrage, arrogance, stupidity, traitorous, and illegal demands for heads on a pole before the palace gates when George Bush, Ronald Reagan, or any other R President took office?
Only with mad dogs on the left does one get this kind of rhetoric.
The anti "hate speech" anything but our hate speech and anti-Christian anything crowd.
I am disgusted that the world has to see this kind of third world trappings of despotism upon the eve of our first half black half white President taking office.
I fear that with their idol in office, and with the likes of the Pelosi/Reid cabal in Congress, the more radical elements of the left may be moved to try to make their drug induced dream reality.
Let them be warned.
Too many died for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and for ideal expressed in "one nation, in God we trust, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" for any true citizen to tolerate such drivel and to ignore any unlawful act on the part of our government, just because a the political party in power is driven to excess by its radical anarchists.
The 2d Amendment stands against any who harbour such desires, as does our rule of law.
Let ideologues like Jose Rodriguez of the Arrest Bush morons howl all that they want. Their insanity is protected free speech. Protected by the very Constitution that they believe should be changed to meet their political and social viewpoint. So long as that is all that they do . . . howl, that is.
Ain't freedom grand?
For what?
Successfully prosecuting a war against terrorism?
For buying into every idiotic spending measure the dems wanted?
Bush was more liberal in his spending policies than he was conservative. Government grew under him faster than under any other President since Roosevelt.
The vote was too close to be called a democratic mandate for anything, other than a change of officers at the top.
What now prompts people on the left to now call for arrests of our highest officials?
Especially, since Pelosi/Reid et al voted for the war and the Patriot Act, etc. How does that history reconcile with the reviling by the mad dogs on the left now calling for the arrest of Bush for his part in prosecuting a war that their party leadership supported?
Such incredible partisanship and lack of intellect sounds more like the mob in Revolutionary France, rather than the exuberance of an educated citizen of the 21st century USA.
The only place George Bush showed his true R roots was in his prosecution of war. He did it right, and the U.S. is safer than any other country. France, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain and Italy all have suffered at the hands of their extremist Islamic populations. Both Great Britain and Spain actually had their own mini-9-11 with the London and Madrid Station bombings. The rest of the countries have suffered riots and other outrages against good order because of cartoons and other perceived insults to . . . Islam.
What those ideologues on the left need to remember is that this country was founded upon the rule of law. That law begins with the Constitution. All of our leaders, military personnel, federal officials, and federal employees swear an oath to defend that Constitution.
Most of us will not see any political party or the elected official therefrom change, rearrange, or otherwise reduce in import, impact, hierarchy, or authority that august declaration of our rights and the clear and timeless construct of our republic.
My God. Where was the publication of any such outrage, arrogance, stupidity, traitorous, and illegal demands for heads on a pole before the palace gates when George Bush, Ronald Reagan, or any other R President took office?
Only with mad dogs on the left does one get this kind of rhetoric.
The anti "hate speech" anything but our hate speech and anti-Christian anything crowd.
I am disgusted that the world has to see this kind of third world trappings of despotism upon the eve of our first half black half white President taking office.
I fear that with their idol in office, and with the likes of the Pelosi/Reid cabal in Congress, the more radical elements of the left may be moved to try to make their drug induced dream reality.
Let them be warned.
Too many died for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and for ideal expressed in "one nation, in God we trust, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" for any true citizen to tolerate such drivel and to ignore any unlawful act on the part of our government, just because a the political party in power is driven to excess by its radical anarchists.
The 2d Amendment stands against any who harbour such desires, as does our rule of law.
Let ideologues like Jose Rodriguez of the Arrest Bush morons howl all that they want. Their insanity is protected free speech. Protected by the very Constitution that they believe should be changed to meet their political and social viewpoint. So long as that is all that they do . . . howl, that is.
Ain't freedom grand?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Obama's Speech today . . . what?!!!!
I am sick of the dems crying that there is something wrong with the U.S. That somehow, this nation is in perilous straits, and that only Barak Obama can somehow lift us out of this turmoil and conflict. That our economic woes are so bad, our children may starve without dem help! Why, we must spend ourselves back into economic prosperity by taxing the rich and the not so rich and the working and everybody but the illegal alien sucking the life out of our health care system . . . and, well, . . . you get the idea.
What a croc of pure unadulterated male bovine offal.
Who voted overwhelmingly for the bail out of the Wall Street billionaires' club?
Who cried for the economic stimulus package that benefits only those guilty of the greatest theft of money the world has ever seen--all of which can be largely lain at the feet of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, not to mention Pelosi, Reid, et al. And, Bush, who signed the legislation without reservation.
What a croc.
I am not a citizen of a broken country.
I am not in need of my government's anything, except for that government to secure the borders, to insure the defense of this country, and to provide roads.
The rest of the government's interference is largely the duplicity and illusion through an interstate commerce act that gave the federal government no rights to interfere in the business of the State's except for interstate commerce. That was Congress acting with the duplicity of the Supreme Court. An expansion of federal power not granted by the Constitution, btw.
Why are so many tearing us down who know better?
"Yes we can!" the Obama supporters chanted during the race to the White House. "Yes we can . . . what?", the rest of us wondered.
Bush did not leave the U.S. in any worse condition than he found it. The military is certainly better off, even for the war.
Jobs were up, until the dems had to cover their butts over the housing mortgage scandal that they perpetrated upon this country. And, yeah, Bush signed the legislation. Just trying to be a "compassionate" conservative.
There is nothing wrong with the U.S.
Those in Congress and the White House both created the sub prime mess and encouraged it to buy votes. The party affiliation does not matter.
The same shortsightedness is still being exercised with respect to the issue of immigration and the insanity of continuing to invite radical Islam into this country in the face of the turmoil, pain and suffering of the people where it is in power.
In spite of that cynicism on the part of our political leadership, we are going to be just fine.
We would be better off even sooner if we got together and threw a bunch of double dealing investment bankers and most of Congress into the Hudson River right along with the rest of the trash.
Oh, yeah.
Just read, learn, and talk. You will figure it out sooner or later.
Those that want to "do it all for you", such as Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they are the ones you must watch.
For theirs is the philosophy of "do not do as we do, but do as we say" and "what's yours is ours" to give to someone else who did not earn it in the first place.
What a croc of pure unadulterated male bovine offal.
Who voted overwhelmingly for the bail out of the Wall Street billionaires' club?
Who cried for the economic stimulus package that benefits only those guilty of the greatest theft of money the world has ever seen--all of which can be largely lain at the feet of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, not to mention Pelosi, Reid, et al. And, Bush, who signed the legislation without reservation.
What a croc.
I am not a citizen of a broken country.
I am not in need of my government's anything, except for that government to secure the borders, to insure the defense of this country, and to provide roads.
The rest of the government's interference is largely the duplicity and illusion through an interstate commerce act that gave the federal government no rights to interfere in the business of the State's except for interstate commerce. That was Congress acting with the duplicity of the Supreme Court. An expansion of federal power not granted by the Constitution, btw.
Why are so many tearing us down who know better?
"Yes we can!" the Obama supporters chanted during the race to the White House. "Yes we can . . . what?", the rest of us wondered.
Bush did not leave the U.S. in any worse condition than he found it. The military is certainly better off, even for the war.
Jobs were up, until the dems had to cover their butts over the housing mortgage scandal that they perpetrated upon this country. And, yeah, Bush signed the legislation. Just trying to be a "compassionate" conservative.
There is nothing wrong with the U.S.
Those in Congress and the White House both created the sub prime mess and encouraged it to buy votes. The party affiliation does not matter.
The same shortsightedness is still being exercised with respect to the issue of immigration and the insanity of continuing to invite radical Islam into this country in the face of the turmoil, pain and suffering of the people where it is in power.
In spite of that cynicism on the part of our political leadership, we are going to be just fine.
We would be better off even sooner if we got together and threw a bunch of double dealing investment bankers and most of Congress into the Hudson River right along with the rest of the trash.
Oh, yeah.
Just read, learn, and talk. You will figure it out sooner or later.
Those that want to "do it all for you", such as Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they are the ones you must watch.
For theirs is the philosophy of "do not do as we do, but do as we say" and "what's yours is ours" to give to someone else who did not earn it in the first place.
On Obama's eligibility . . . was he born a U.S. citizen?
I have read several articles reporting on court challenges to Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States. These challenges seem to be focused upon the premise that he was born outside of the U.S., under a foreign flag.
What is disturbing to me is that given Obama's knowledge of the challenges, he has never publicly held up his birth certificate and said "here it is, now shut the f. . . up!". Or words to that effect. Instead, he has obfuscated, delayed, refused, and otherwise given credibility to his detractors on that issue. Why?
That is indeed the question.
The issue is raised under Article II of the Constitution:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "
The questions raised before the courts regarding Obama seem to revolve around the primary issue of his having been born on U.S. soil. Obama's Kenyan grandmother raised the issue when she represented that she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Meaning, Obama was born with a dual citizenship at best and certainly as a Kenyan at worst. The secondary issue questions his 14 years a resident within the U.S. prior to age 35. His mother was alleged to have been just 18 or under 18 at the time of the birth thereby disqualifying Obama from taking his mother's citizenship, and that he was well over 18 when he returned to the U.S. from Indonesia bringing into focus the 14 year residency issue.
In stark contrast to Obama's obfuscation of the issue, the former V.P. nominee of the Republican Party, Gov. Sarah Palin, was forced to endure an incredible insult to any mother, much less a woman running for national office, when she was challenged to provide proof that she bore and birthed her latest progeny. Sarah Palin submitted to that indignity and provided proof to the national press that the baby was indeed hers. That bone was then tossed aside by the press once and for all.
It has been incredible to me that the press even raised that issue, but by stark contrast still continues to ignore the challenges to Obama's qualifications based upon citizenship. Is the press trying to imply that the qualifications set forth in the Constitution of the Untied States are to be ignored?
Our President to be does not seem to feel that he should submit to the demands of those who have sought to have the issue adjudicated at least twice before the Supreme Court and now, before several state supreme courts challenging the electoral collage of those several states regarding Obama's qualifications as to his eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.
All he has to do to end any debate is to offer up his birth certificate.
Obama obviously has a passport. That requires a birth certificate as proof of citizenship. Therefore, why is that evidence not submitted for public scrutiny to end any argument?
Were Obama an R, the liberal press would still be howling at the top of their headlines about how he was ineligible to be president. The court challenges would be all the news that we would be allowed until the issue was settled one way or the other. That is the hypocrisy of the left.
Why has Barak Obama not put this issue to rest by simply producing his birth certificate?
Why?
Beats me. Certainly makes me wonder. Especially, after what Sarah Palin went through.
Talk about a double standard. . . .
Over 200,000 U.S. citizens have signed a petition requesting an investigation into Obama's citizenship. I was one.
The website of one of the attorneys challenging Obama is interesting. If the facts presented bear witness, Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen: www.obamacrimes.com/justthefacts.html
Either our Constitution is the arbiter of qualification, or we have become the mob to throw up law when it pleases and to ignore same at our convenience.
Nah. Too many guys died defending the Constitution, too many died to make it happen in the first place.
No one is above the law, not even Obama.
What is disturbing to me is that given Obama's knowledge of the challenges, he has never publicly held up his birth certificate and said "here it is, now shut the f. . . up!". Or words to that effect. Instead, he has obfuscated, delayed, refused, and otherwise given credibility to his detractors on that issue. Why?
That is indeed the question.
The issue is raised under Article II of the Constitution:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "
The questions raised before the courts regarding Obama seem to revolve around the primary issue of his having been born on U.S. soil. Obama's Kenyan grandmother raised the issue when she represented that she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Meaning, Obama was born with a dual citizenship at best and certainly as a Kenyan at worst. The secondary issue questions his 14 years a resident within the U.S. prior to age 35. His mother was alleged to have been just 18 or under 18 at the time of the birth thereby disqualifying Obama from taking his mother's citizenship, and that he was well over 18 when he returned to the U.S. from Indonesia bringing into focus the 14 year residency issue.
In stark contrast to Obama's obfuscation of the issue, the former V.P. nominee of the Republican Party, Gov. Sarah Palin, was forced to endure an incredible insult to any mother, much less a woman running for national office, when she was challenged to provide proof that she bore and birthed her latest progeny. Sarah Palin submitted to that indignity and provided proof to the national press that the baby was indeed hers. That bone was then tossed aside by the press once and for all.
It has been incredible to me that the press even raised that issue, but by stark contrast still continues to ignore the challenges to Obama's qualifications based upon citizenship. Is the press trying to imply that the qualifications set forth in the Constitution of the Untied States are to be ignored?
Our President to be does not seem to feel that he should submit to the demands of those who have sought to have the issue adjudicated at least twice before the Supreme Court and now, before several state supreme courts challenging the electoral collage of those several states regarding Obama's qualifications as to his eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.
All he has to do to end any debate is to offer up his birth certificate.
Obama obviously has a passport. That requires a birth certificate as proof of citizenship. Therefore, why is that evidence not submitted for public scrutiny to end any argument?
Were Obama an R, the liberal press would still be howling at the top of their headlines about how he was ineligible to be president. The court challenges would be all the news that we would be allowed until the issue was settled one way or the other. That is the hypocrisy of the left.
Why has Barak Obama not put this issue to rest by simply producing his birth certificate?
Why?
Beats me. Certainly makes me wonder. Especially, after what Sarah Palin went through.
Talk about a double standard. . . .
Over 200,000 U.S. citizens have signed a petition requesting an investigation into Obama's citizenship. I was one.
The website of one of the attorneys challenging Obama is interesting. If the facts presented bear witness, Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen: www.obamacrimes.com/justthefacts.html
Either our Constitution is the arbiter of qualification, or we have become the mob to throw up law when it pleases and to ignore same at our convenience.
Nah. Too many guys died defending the Constitution, too many died to make it happen in the first place.
No one is above the law, not even Obama.
Pelosi and the Dems want to . . . prosecute?
Today's Fox News gave an interview with our illustrious House Speaker. Madam Rep. Pelosi stated to the effect that the dem Congress might just not be able to overlook the issues of the war, intelligence gathering, and those other illegal activities that the Bushies used to keep us free of terrorism within our own borders the last 8 years.
She was amongst those who stood and cheered and applauded the President when he made his speech to Congress about the course of the United States in responding to 9-11. Bush hid nothing.
She was a member of the Congress that passed every act the President asked for.
Where's the beef in her alleging that there must be investigations and prosecutions for any Bush official when it comes to the prosecution of a war she voted for?
Her counterparts in the Senate have been the most flagrant. Sen. Harry Reid was widely considered to be the person whose office leaked information to the press regarding intelligence activities.
Sen. Boxer, or was it Feinstein, on the appropriations subcommittee pushed $10s of millions in contracts to a company by the name of RSR Environmental.
RSR went from about $200,000 per year in military environmental contracts to $10 million the first year the aforementioned democratic senator's husband purchased stock in the company.
I have little doubt, that given Nancy Pelosi's hardball tactics within her own party ranks in Congress, that there is undo influence and more than just one or two situations that if subjected to the scrutiny of the law that would land her posterior behind bars. She is a hardcore left ideologue who will shout the law to all who can hear to keep the proletariat from learning the truth about the democratic house of glass and her excesses.
I guess the dems actually figure that if they lie enough, and shout that Bush's people did illegal acts when they did not, that we are stupid enough to ignore the truth and take the dem tripe verbatim without recognizing the lie for what it is: a means to consolidate power and reduce the likelihood of the dem party retaining its preeminence in Congress and the Presidency.
To waste the country's time and money at a time of economic challenge is an indication that vendettas are more important than the welfare of the country.
Any prosecutions alleged by Pelosi and her ilk are not about the sanctity of the law. They are about securing and insuring power without any fair recourse to the Republicans. The intent of the dems is to deep six the ability of the Republican Party to gain and hold power in the country.
Looking at the difference in the party platforms, I take the R platform any day. I like going to caucuses where we discuss family, life, and patriotism openly. Where we take pride in our military and honor the young men and women serving. A party where language, borders and culture mean the U.S. border, the English language, and OUR culture. Where unity is the key, not divisiveness--read diversity. Where there is only 3 colors: RED, WHITE, and BLUE. Where all are Americans, not hyphenated anything.
The dems give lip service to the military and only tolerate the military for its use as a social experiment.
The dems extoll death in abortion.
The dems deny marriage is between a man and woman. Two Ms or two Fs don't make a third anything. Homosexualism is a sad "evolutionary" DEAD END.
Dems believe business is bad and that more government handing out everything and keeping those bad Christians and conservatives quiet is good.
Dems believe religion and morality is bad. That the 1st Amendment means that pornography and sexual perversion of all types is to be readily available in our public libraries at public expense, but that the Word of God is verboten in any context and an affront to them.
That feeling good is the priority in life, not having personal responsibility is a right, and that being pregnant, unmarried, and female is the way families should be.
The dems believe that courts should legislate, not the people. Judges are to be the arbiters of their socialist agenda, not elections. Voting is bad, except where the fraud benefits the dem candidate or issue.
I was a democrat. A very long time ago. I changed parties when the dem party became a party of not asking what you could do for your country, but demanding that your country owes you a living.
The last TRUE democrat in Congress was Zell Miller of Georgia. He was the last of the true conservative dems. The last of the Kennedy (as in John) dems. The last of the dems who believed in the individual, not government. Who believed in tax breaks, not more taxes.
John Kennedy was responsible for the greatest tax cuts in the history in the history of the U.S. He believed in life. What happened to that dem party?
So, you see, when Nancy Pelosi starts talking vendettas, that the law must prevail, hide. Load your weapons, and wait. The time will come when we will have refresh the tree of liberty. I fear, all too soon.
Thank you, Lord, and George Washington for the 2d Amendment. (That GW is family, btw.)
I fear not my government, but my government damn well better not step beyond the law, or my government will be held accountable by we the people.
So there.
I think Pelosi is a bully who is riding a false crest of populist support that is not there, nor was ever there in the first place. Saying that the dems had a mandate is belied by the figures. I believe that she and the other dem socialist fruitcake ideologues will be spitting nails before the first year of the Obama administration is over. The reality is, that Obama picked a largely centrist cabinet. He understood the nature of the vote, and is in for the long haul, in spite of Pelosi's stupidity and shortsightedness. He will divorce himself from her extremism, until his second term when he has nothing to lose. That is when we will see Barak Obama, the socialist.
In the mean time, let Pelosi, Reid and the other morons howl in the wind and rattle sabers. Sooner or later, after the next Congressional election, they will understand that they are too far from their president and that the people did not vote a socialist agenda, they voted against a false conservative and a false conservative Congress. That those who voted dem who would have otherwise voted R voted dem to force change in the R party by sending a strong message to the neo cons.
This election was a bell weather event for the R party. Return to conservative values, or forget it until the party returns to its core values.
Every one forgets, GW campaigned twice on conservative values, and won.
Pelosi is a fool going down the path of poltiical vendetta, all she is doing is insuring the demise of dem power . . . hmmm . . . on second thought, GO PELOSI! (Big smiley face goes here.)
She was amongst those who stood and cheered and applauded the President when he made his speech to Congress about the course of the United States in responding to 9-11. Bush hid nothing.
She was a member of the Congress that passed every act the President asked for.
Where's the beef in her alleging that there must be investigations and prosecutions for any Bush official when it comes to the prosecution of a war she voted for?
Her counterparts in the Senate have been the most flagrant. Sen. Harry Reid was widely considered to be the person whose office leaked information to the press regarding intelligence activities.
Sen. Boxer, or was it Feinstein, on the appropriations subcommittee pushed $10s of millions in contracts to a company by the name of RSR Environmental.
RSR went from about $200,000 per year in military environmental contracts to $10 million the first year the aforementioned democratic senator's husband purchased stock in the company.
I have little doubt, that given Nancy Pelosi's hardball tactics within her own party ranks in Congress, that there is undo influence and more than just one or two situations that if subjected to the scrutiny of the law that would land her posterior behind bars. She is a hardcore left ideologue who will shout the law to all who can hear to keep the proletariat from learning the truth about the democratic house of glass and her excesses.
I guess the dems actually figure that if they lie enough, and shout that Bush's people did illegal acts when they did not, that we are stupid enough to ignore the truth and take the dem tripe verbatim without recognizing the lie for what it is: a means to consolidate power and reduce the likelihood of the dem party retaining its preeminence in Congress and the Presidency.
To waste the country's time and money at a time of economic challenge is an indication that vendettas are more important than the welfare of the country.
Any prosecutions alleged by Pelosi and her ilk are not about the sanctity of the law. They are about securing and insuring power without any fair recourse to the Republicans. The intent of the dems is to deep six the ability of the Republican Party to gain and hold power in the country.
Looking at the difference in the party platforms, I take the R platform any day. I like going to caucuses where we discuss family, life, and patriotism openly. Where we take pride in our military and honor the young men and women serving. A party where language, borders and culture mean the U.S. border, the English language, and OUR culture. Where unity is the key, not divisiveness--read diversity. Where there is only 3 colors: RED, WHITE, and BLUE. Where all are Americans, not hyphenated anything.
The dems give lip service to the military and only tolerate the military for its use as a social experiment.
The dems extoll death in abortion.
The dems deny marriage is between a man and woman. Two Ms or two Fs don't make a third anything. Homosexualism is a sad "evolutionary" DEAD END.
Dems believe business is bad and that more government handing out everything and keeping those bad Christians and conservatives quiet is good.
Dems believe religion and morality is bad. That the 1st Amendment means that pornography and sexual perversion of all types is to be readily available in our public libraries at public expense, but that the Word of God is verboten in any context and an affront to them.
That feeling good is the priority in life, not having personal responsibility is a right, and that being pregnant, unmarried, and female is the way families should be.
The dems believe that courts should legislate, not the people. Judges are to be the arbiters of their socialist agenda, not elections. Voting is bad, except where the fraud benefits the dem candidate or issue.
I was a democrat. A very long time ago. I changed parties when the dem party became a party of not asking what you could do for your country, but demanding that your country owes you a living.
The last TRUE democrat in Congress was Zell Miller of Georgia. He was the last of the true conservative dems. The last of the Kennedy (as in John) dems. The last of the dems who believed in the individual, not government. Who believed in tax breaks, not more taxes.
John Kennedy was responsible for the greatest tax cuts in the history in the history of the U.S. He believed in life. What happened to that dem party?
So, you see, when Nancy Pelosi starts talking vendettas, that the law must prevail, hide. Load your weapons, and wait. The time will come when we will have refresh the tree of liberty. I fear, all too soon.
Thank you, Lord, and George Washington for the 2d Amendment. (That GW is family, btw.)
I fear not my government, but my government damn well better not step beyond the law, or my government will be held accountable by we the people.
So there.
I think Pelosi is a bully who is riding a false crest of populist support that is not there, nor was ever there in the first place. Saying that the dems had a mandate is belied by the figures. I believe that she and the other dem socialist fruitcake ideologues will be spitting nails before the first year of the Obama administration is over. The reality is, that Obama picked a largely centrist cabinet. He understood the nature of the vote, and is in for the long haul, in spite of Pelosi's stupidity and shortsightedness. He will divorce himself from her extremism, until his second term when he has nothing to lose. That is when we will see Barak Obama, the socialist.
In the mean time, let Pelosi, Reid and the other morons howl in the wind and rattle sabers. Sooner or later, after the next Congressional election, they will understand that they are too far from their president and that the people did not vote a socialist agenda, they voted against a false conservative and a false conservative Congress. That those who voted dem who would have otherwise voted R voted dem to force change in the R party by sending a strong message to the neo cons.
This election was a bell weather event for the R party. Return to conservative values, or forget it until the party returns to its core values.
Every one forgets, GW campaigned twice on conservative values, and won.
Pelosi is a fool going down the path of poltiical vendetta, all she is doing is insuring the demise of dem power . . . hmmm . . . on second thought, GO PELOSI! (Big smiley face goes here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)