Yesterday I had the great honor of meeting John Sharp, Chancellor of Texas A & M University. We were attending the "Higher Education Summit" at Texas A & M University in Corpus Christi.
Chancellor John Sharp has impeccable financial credentials having been the Texas State Comptroller from 1991 to 1999 and having served in the Texas House and in the Texas Senate, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I give great credence to whatever he has to say about financial matters.
During the Summit, Chancellor Sharp was interviewed by Rep Todd Hunter about the general shape of Texas financial affairs. It was a revealing interview. Apparently Texas as a State has a bright future. During the interview the Chancellor commented on the current recession and presented a theory on the cause and its possible duration.
We have heard many people give forth on this subject but after Chancellor Sharps comments, yesterday, I realize that they are all wrong. Chancellor Sharps correct explanation is deceptively simple and has gone unrecognized by most even though the he explained it in a prediction over 10 years ago.
As he explained it, there are two factors that created the "recession" and that will keep it running much longer than any of us expect. Neither of these factors was the fault of the policies of either George Bush or Barack Obama. Interestingly, if Obama had known the cause, he might never have run for office!! I believe that Obama truly believed that a change in fiscal policy would cure the problem. He was wrong, it was not "Bushes fault".
The first, chronologically, was the Second World War. It created the "Baby Boom" which put a bulge in the population growth curve of the United States. The second was the end of the "Cold War". Actually this could also be attributed to the Second World War which set up the environment that created the Cold War in the first place, so maybe there was only one cause.
The Baby Boom created a huge increase in the consumer demand by increasing the number of consumers. This meant that industry needed to expand and retail outlets needed to expand to service the demand. This expansion was contained in the United States, at that time, because the Cold War did not allow for the exportation of manufacturing to China, Korea, etc. to take advantage of the lower costs of offshore plants. This in itself increased the number of jobs available for the growing population. The economy of the United States, after the Second World War, began a great expansion, internally, to satisfy the demand of the Baby Boomers, and all was well.....or was it?
Then the easing of tensions between the US and Russia began, the Thawing of the Cold War. And then the ending of the cold war, beginning in 1985 with the election of Gorbachev. Then in 1989 the destruction of the Berlin Wall and finally, by 1991 the "war" was over.
Once the Cold War was over it was possible to export jobs and manufacturing to China and other former states of the Russian alliance. Suddenly, the job base in the United States began to contract. This happened while the Baby Boomers were still in the job market.
Now as the Baby Boomers are leaving the job market and the job market is shrinking because of outsourcing, our economy is contracting, fewer consumers, fewer jobs. Will it end soon, probably not, according to Chancellor Sharp, because the productivity demand of the Baby Boom is slowly ending as the bulge moves past. Also, there is no impetus for the re-importation of our industry either because of increased demand or because costs have increased overseas. So the prospects for an early ending of the current recession are dim.
Chancellor Sharp suggests that the recession could last another 8 to 10 years.
This explanation is the simplest and most plausible that I have heard yet. It makes the blaming of Wall Street, Barney Frank, George Bush, 911, the Tsunami in Japan, etc. all pale by comparison. Only this theory is big enough to encompass Europe as well as the US and tell us why it is lasting when we were told it was over. Being an engineer I am a believer in the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. This is a very simple but very powerful explanation. I believe it.
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Friday, November 11, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
The End Of The Experiment
I am a research scientist (retired). For many years I have known that I could often solve a problem be "sleeping on it". This works because your subconscious mind knows things and remembers everything that your conscious mind either doesn't know or has forgotten. When you sleep your subconscious mind takes over and consolidates and relates facts that you cannot do in a conscious state.
Last night I had a dream.
In the dream I discovered what Obama is doing and what the results of his tampering will be.
To start out, Obama, began establishing "Czars" to run many new agencies. These Czars are accountable, only, to him. They are not elected nor are they approved by Congress. They are totally out of the democratic process. Currently the number for Obama is at 38, 33 of which have NOT been confirmed by the Senate.
Did you know that Obama appointed an "Asian Carp Czar"...I didnt... But we are paying his salary.
Two days ago, Obama stated that he would bypass congress on the so called "Jobs Bill". This is not the first time he has said this and done this. It is becoming an established pattern. Up until now we have ignored his rantings, recognizing that Congress controls the purse strings.
My dream revealed the plan.
In the dream, Obama assigned four new Czars. Each of the four would preside over ten of the sub Czars (the 38 already appointed + 2 new ones). These four "Super Czars" were for Military, Religion, Economy, and Health. They were not elected and they were not subject to Senate approval.
When Obama wanted something done he went down the chain to the appropriate Czar and by "executive order" he had regulations (these are NOT laws) drafted that he then enforced through the DOJ and financed through regulatory fees. He also controls the IRS through regulatory authority so in fact he was able to collect taxes and distribute the bounty as HE alone saw fit.
As commander in chief for the armed forces he had, along with the DOJ, a police force that he alone controlled.
Obama was able to reward those that came his way with favors and punish those that refused to comply with rationing of health care, excessive taxes, and arrest and imprisonment for "technical violations".
Now, he did nothing to remove Congress or the Supreme Court, he just set up a parallel dictatorship to the side of Congress, and over time as death took its toll on the Supreme Court he replaced the Judges with like minded people.
In the end, democracy was alive and neutered sitting on the sidelines while Dictator Obama ruled the United States. The democratic experiment had come to an end.
This is where I woke up. This is when I decided I had to write this expose.
This may sound a bit over the top and you may be saying, "That would never happen because good people would stand up and fight it." But you are wrong. It could and IS happening right now for the same reasons it happened in Germany before the Second World War. The people that are in positions of power are afraid to resist because of the power of Obama Care, the Department of Justice, and the IRS and they rationalize their non resistance by saying, "If I am taken out because I spoke up, then the person that replaces me will be worse, so I will comply so that I can moderate the effects of this terrible leader" Believe me, I have felt the same feelings and so far, I resist them. When I started this piece I asked myself, "Is it better that I write this or that I go under the RADAR and try to keep in the shadows where I wont be hurt? Maybe I can help more being in the shadows instead of jail?"
Have you heard of Non-Goverment Organizations (NGOs)? Have you heard the phrase "Sustainable Development"? Have you heard of Adgenda 21? These are all "Big Brother" taking control of our lives OUTSIDE of democracy, outside of popular voting, controlled from the top by governmental agencies that are led by Czars that are controlled by Obama...or whoever is in the White House at the time. Look these terms up on Wikipedia and educate yourself. I did this just this morning. Up until now I have heard these terms and I have generally decided that to look them up wasn't worth my time.
Maybe I waited too late, but maybe there is still time to make sure the democratic experiment continues. Let us hope so.
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Friday, October 7, 2011
The 10-10-10 plan
I don't understand why we have to settle for "9" when we could be a "10"
Herman Cain has his 9-9-9 plan and I fully support it as a great improvement over the current system. But it falls short of a full 10 and we can achieve that.
I am not running for office.....right now.....but if asked I would run and if I did run, I would put the 10-10-10 plan on top of the 9-9-9 plan and the US would be a leader once again.
The 10-10-10 plan
First, I would drop the tax on repatriated money, some say 2 trillion dollars, from 35% to 10%. There is no sense in having a 35% tax on something that in effect keeps the event from occurring. 10% of something is worth much more than 35% of NOTHING.
Not only would the US get 200 billion in taxes IMMEDIATELY as the money came back into the country, and you can bet your life it would come back as they scrambled to take advantage of the lowered taxes before someone changed their mind, but with it would come millions of JOBS. Jobs that will remain in India and China and other countries as long as our government heavily taxes profits coming back into the country.
In one fell swoop, a 70% reduction in taxes on repatriated money would bring in 200 billion MORE in taxes to the government coffers and would add millions of jobs for our unemployed. Remember, we are collecting NONE of the 35% tax because the money will stay offshore. And as long as the money is offshore the jobs will remain offshore.
Second, I would begin collecting the 10 trillion in royalties and taxes that would be available to the US government if oil drilling were opened up in the United States. It really doesn't matter what side you are on as to whether we should GO GREEN. If you love oil and want it to last forever and don't believe in "Peak Oil" then you are for opening up the oil industry. But if you are all GREEN then you should champion a move that would deplete our reserves as soon as possible so that GREEN becomes the ONLY way. As long as the oil is there, green wont happen.....or do you not really believe what you are saying about "Peak Oil"? You cant have it both ways.
Another immediate effect of freeing up oil development would be an immediate drop in oil prices world wide as the futures market absorbed the realization that there would be a lot more oil available in a very short time.
Third, I would eliminate the Income Tax and REPLACE it with a 10% consumption tax on all sales of NEW products. Too often I hear the idea of a sales tax or a consumption tax, but barely is there mention of closing down the IRS. Usually the new taxes are proposed as being in addition to the Income Tax. Just getting rid of the IRS would free up half a Trillion a year in efforts to comply with the outrageously complex IRS code.
These three proposals would immediately put 3/4 of a Trillion dollars into the economy in the first year they were enacted. and another 10 Trillion in tax income in the next several years as the oil industry ramped up.
AND, as all this money flowed into the country and into the treasury and as all those jobs came back from overseas, the economy would BOOM and tax revenues would increase in leaps and bounds as the new wages gave people money to spend and to be taxed at 10%.
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Herman Cain has his 9-9-9 plan and I fully support it as a great improvement over the current system. But it falls short of a full 10 and we can achieve that.
I am not running for office.....right now.....but if asked I would run and if I did run, I would put the 10-10-10 plan on top of the 9-9-9 plan and the US would be a leader once again.
The 10-10-10 plan
First, I would drop the tax on repatriated money, some say 2 trillion dollars, from 35% to 10%. There is no sense in having a 35% tax on something that in effect keeps the event from occurring. 10% of something is worth much more than 35% of NOTHING.
Not only would the US get 200 billion in taxes IMMEDIATELY as the money came back into the country, and you can bet your life it would come back as they scrambled to take advantage of the lowered taxes before someone changed their mind, but with it would come millions of JOBS. Jobs that will remain in India and China and other countries as long as our government heavily taxes profits coming back into the country.
In one fell swoop, a 70% reduction in taxes on repatriated money would bring in 200 billion MORE in taxes to the government coffers and would add millions of jobs for our unemployed. Remember, we are collecting NONE of the 35% tax because the money will stay offshore. And as long as the money is offshore the jobs will remain offshore.
Second, I would begin collecting the 10 trillion in royalties and taxes that would be available to the US government if oil drilling were opened up in the United States. It really doesn't matter what side you are on as to whether we should GO GREEN. If you love oil and want it to last forever and don't believe in "Peak Oil" then you are for opening up the oil industry. But if you are all GREEN then you should champion a move that would deplete our reserves as soon as possible so that GREEN becomes the ONLY way. As long as the oil is there, green wont happen.....or do you not really believe what you are saying about "Peak Oil"? You cant have it both ways.
Another immediate effect of freeing up oil development would be an immediate drop in oil prices world wide as the futures market absorbed the realization that there would be a lot more oil available in a very short time.
Third, I would eliminate the Income Tax and REPLACE it with a 10% consumption tax on all sales of NEW products. Too often I hear the idea of a sales tax or a consumption tax, but barely is there mention of closing down the IRS. Usually the new taxes are proposed as being in addition to the Income Tax. Just getting rid of the IRS would free up half a Trillion a year in efforts to comply with the outrageously complex IRS code.
These three proposals would immediately put 3/4 of a Trillion dollars into the economy in the first year they were enacted. and another 10 Trillion in tax income in the next several years as the oil industry ramped up.
AND, as all this money flowed into the country and into the treasury and as all those jobs came back from overseas, the economy would BOOM and tax revenues would increase in leaps and bounds as the new wages gave people money to spend and to be taxed at 10%.
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Hummingbird Poop All Over Everything!!!
This morning as I sat on the front porch watching, perhaps, a thousand hummingbirds feed at the 5 feeders on my porch, I was made aware of a problem, the accumulation of hummingbird poop.
My house is on the last point of land in this area from which the hummingbirds can take off on their fall journey to Mexico. They feed here by the thousands. Last year, during the 45 day season of their migration, I estimated that about 50,000 hummingbirds came through and fed at my house. 50 birds at each of five feeders, all day long. We used 50 gallons of syrup. Next year instead of using quart bottles to feed them and having to refill twice a day, I will put up a 55 gallon barrel, painted red. Then I wont have to refill it all the time.
But back to the point. As I sat there I glanced to an area between the trees where they roost and my porch. This area is an 8 foot opening in the trees and in the morning the sunlight shines through the area such that it glints off of anything in the air there. I noticed, what appeared to be, several rain drops falling. It wasn't rain, it was hummingbird poop. As I watched I realized that at about 3 second intervals I would see this phenomenon. I then realized that the area under their flight path was getting pummeled with poop.
I immediately covered my coffee cup with my hand!!!
While I watched, my cat came out onto the porch and began pacing up and down under the feeders. The hummingbirds would move away from the area where she was and then close in behind her. Just staying out of reach.
Apparently, coffee seasoned with hummingbird poop has a mind stimulating effect on me. I began to think of politics and realized that there was a simile here. The hummingbirds are like politicians that flit around here and there, trying to get something for nothing. Everywhere they go they leave a layer of poop on everything. The poop accumulates, and accumulates, like the regulations and laws that continue to confuse our body of law making jobs for lawyers....and no one else... Someone needs to clean up the hummingbird poop and quit worrying about all the stimulus, tax reductions, and jobs bills. If the poop was cleaned up the finely tuned machine that the US Constitution created would run smoothly and effortlessly instead of being slowed to a halt by all the crap.
Unfortunately, most efforts at clean up are like the cat. The TEA Party is like the cat. As it strolls up and down the politicians move away at arms distance and just try to stay out of reach. Then, as the TEA Party moves on, they return.
Lets have am amendment to the Constitution, a "Sunset rule", like the state of Texas has. Lets clean up all the hummingbird poop in the Federal Law.
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
My house is on the last point of land in this area from which the hummingbirds can take off on their fall journey to Mexico. They feed here by the thousands. Last year, during the 45 day season of their migration, I estimated that about 50,000 hummingbirds came through and fed at my house. 50 birds at each of five feeders, all day long. We used 50 gallons of syrup. Next year instead of using quart bottles to feed them and having to refill twice a day, I will put up a 55 gallon barrel, painted red. Then I wont have to refill it all the time.
But back to the point. As I sat there I glanced to an area between the trees where they roost and my porch. This area is an 8 foot opening in the trees and in the morning the sunlight shines through the area such that it glints off of anything in the air there. I noticed, what appeared to be, several rain drops falling. It wasn't rain, it was hummingbird poop. As I watched I realized that at about 3 second intervals I would see this phenomenon. I then realized that the area under their flight path was getting pummeled with poop.
I immediately covered my coffee cup with my hand!!!
While I watched, my cat came out onto the porch and began pacing up and down under the feeders. The hummingbirds would move away from the area where she was and then close in behind her. Just staying out of reach.
Apparently, coffee seasoned with hummingbird poop has a mind stimulating effect on me. I began to think of politics and realized that there was a simile here. The hummingbirds are like politicians that flit around here and there, trying to get something for nothing. Everywhere they go they leave a layer of poop on everything. The poop accumulates, and accumulates, like the regulations and laws that continue to confuse our body of law making jobs for lawyers....and no one else... Someone needs to clean up the hummingbird poop and quit worrying about all the stimulus, tax reductions, and jobs bills. If the poop was cleaned up the finely tuned machine that the US Constitution created would run smoothly and effortlessly instead of being slowed to a halt by all the crap.
Unfortunately, most efforts at clean up are like the cat. The TEA Party is like the cat. As it strolls up and down the politicians move away at arms distance and just try to stay out of reach. Then, as the TEA Party moves on, they return.
Lets have am amendment to the Constitution, a "Sunset rule", like the state of Texas has. Lets clean up all the hummingbird poop in the Federal Law.
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, September 26, 2011
Obama halts global warming!!! But Perry doesnt believe it.
But while sea level was going down due to the entrapment of sea water in the ice caps, caused by the cooling of the poles. Rick Perry is still contending with the wild fires in Texas that Obama says were caused by global warming. Governor Perry doesnt think so.
I recieved the following email this morning:
===================================================================
President Barack Obama should take credit for his ability to “alter sea level,” according to a tongue-in-cheek article on the Climate Depot website.
In a June 2008 speech, candidate Obama said his presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
The website declared, “Climate Depot can now announce it is official,” noting that the European Space Agency had determined that a two-year-long decline in global sea level “was continuing at a rate of 5 millimeters per year.”
In August of this year, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.”
Global warming alarmists frequently warn that rising global temperatures will lead to a steady rise in sea level that will threaten coastal communities around the world, and cite that threat in calls for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Noting the recent findings regarding dropping sea levels, Climate Depot facetiously stated: “Most surprising, despite the fact that Obama only said he would ‘slow’ the rise of the oceans, his presidency has presided over what some scientists are terming an ‘historic decline’ in global sea levels. Obama appears to have underestimated his own powers to alter sea level.
“President Obama’s success in lowering sea level has not gone unnoticed. The skeptical website Real Science made sarcastic note of Obama’s ‘healing of the climate’ in June.”
Real Science declared: “Obama should declare ‘mission accomplished’ and take credit!”
===================================================================
But then, wouldn't he have to apologize to Rick Perry for saying the the fires in Texas were caused by global warming?
I think he is caught between a Hot and a Cold place.........
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
I recieved the following email this morning:
===================================================================
President Barack Obama should take credit for his ability to “alter sea level,” according to a tongue-in-cheek article on the Climate Depot website.
In a June 2008 speech, candidate Obama said his presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
The website declared, “Climate Depot can now announce it is official,” noting that the European Space Agency had determined that a two-year-long decline in global sea level “was continuing at a rate of 5 millimeters per year.”
In August of this year, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.”
Global warming alarmists frequently warn that rising global temperatures will lead to a steady rise in sea level that will threaten coastal communities around the world, and cite that threat in calls for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Noting the recent findings regarding dropping sea levels, Climate Depot facetiously stated: “Most surprising, despite the fact that Obama only said he would ‘slow’ the rise of the oceans, his presidency has presided over what some scientists are terming an ‘historic decline’ in global sea levels. Obama appears to have underestimated his own powers to alter sea level.
“President Obama’s success in lowering sea level has not gone unnoticed. The skeptical website Real Science made sarcastic note of Obama’s ‘healing of the climate’ in June.”
Real Science declared: “Obama should declare ‘mission accomplished’ and take credit!”
===================================================================
But then, wouldn't he have to apologize to Rick Perry for saying the the fires in Texas were caused by global warming?
I think he is caught between a Hot and a Cold place.........
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Thursday, September 1, 2011
What The Hell??
Things are going from bad to worse. In engineering we have the KISS principal. KISS stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid. The principal simply put, in accordance to the principals teachings, is that simple things are safer to administer/operate/use.
The helicopter is, perhaps, the most complicated single device in the world, “10,000 parts flying in close formation”. I have heard that for every hour that some models fly they spend two hours in the shop. It is their lack of simplicity that makes them so unreliable. More parts means more things that can go wrong.
It is the health systems lack of simplicity that makes it more dangerous to your health than it needs to be. It was recently stated to me, by an Emergency Room doctor, that “The ER is one of the most dangerous places you can be.” The reasoning is that if you are there it is because you need help. But in the ER you may not get help for 10 to 12 hours if it is crowded!! Emergency is not usually defined as “needed in 12 hours”, it means needed NOW.
Ten days ago my wife and I were traveling through Colorado when she was stricken by an intestinal blockage and we had to go to an ER for help. Emergency surgery was indicated as her kidneys were going into shutdown! Several hours later she was out of surgery and all was well.....until......they decided to do an ultra sound exam of her legs and found a superficial clot in the right leg. Now she needed to have blood thinners to prevent the clot getting to her lungs. But having just had surgery this was contradicted! She was started on blood thinners and they were watching her blood levels to control the level. Apparently Cumadin is not easy to control. A week later she was discharged and flew to Austin to recover at our daughters home. Two days later the blood thinners struck!! She started bleeding in her intestines and, again, we headed for an ER. The ER didnt have the needed equipment to handle the case so she was transported by ambulance to ANOTHER hospital. So, now its a new staff with new concerns and just a sketchy view of the past. Stop the Cumadin, insert vitamin K, insert clotting factor, stop the bleeding! Ok, now the bleeding is stopped, redo the sonogram. Guess what the clot is now in the left leg and the one in the right leg is GONE and the new one no longer superficial!!! So, quickly insert a “filter” into the return vein to the heart to catch any clot that breaks loose. But “they” say that if a clot breaks loose and plugs up the “filter” the lower body becomes painful and swollen and you cannot walk. So which is worse, death quickly by pulmonary embolism or slowly and painfully by lower body deterioration and kidney failure?? If the filter is inserted and nothing is caught it was a waste of time inserting it, but if it works you die slowly instead of fast. Is that a decision you need to make? If you want to avoid both methods of death you dont insert the filter and you hope nothing breaks loose. Ok, the filter is now inserted so we dont have to start the Cumadin again, right? Wrong, the Cumadin needs to be restarted to make sure the clot is dissolved...OR...that if it breaks loose it will be dissolved in the filter before it blocks the filter. So now we worry about slow death from blocked lower body blood return, or death by bleeding to death.
This whole episode is an engineers nightmare. The KISS principal was not used in dealing with this situation. Everyone pulled out his/her tool kit and hit the line running. The prognoses is, from best to worst, clot dissolves within three months and the filter is removed (after three months the filter cannot be removed!!!!) to some form of disability or death as noted above.
But can you imagine how it would have gone under ObamaCare? With committees deciding at each step of the way whether this was financially reasonable. Whether, at 73 it is reasonable from a life expectancy viewpoint? How long for each step even if decided in favor?
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
The helicopter is, perhaps, the most complicated single device in the world, “10,000 parts flying in close formation”. I have heard that for every hour that some models fly they spend two hours in the shop. It is their lack of simplicity that makes them so unreliable. More parts means more things that can go wrong.
It is the health systems lack of simplicity that makes it more dangerous to your health than it needs to be. It was recently stated to me, by an Emergency Room doctor, that “The ER is one of the most dangerous places you can be.” The reasoning is that if you are there it is because you need help. But in the ER you may not get help for 10 to 12 hours if it is crowded!! Emergency is not usually defined as “needed in 12 hours”, it means needed NOW.
Ten days ago my wife and I were traveling through Colorado when she was stricken by an intestinal blockage and we had to go to an ER for help. Emergency surgery was indicated as her kidneys were going into shutdown! Several hours later she was out of surgery and all was well.....until......they decided to do an ultra sound exam of her legs and found a superficial clot in the right leg. Now she needed to have blood thinners to prevent the clot getting to her lungs. But having just had surgery this was contradicted! She was started on blood thinners and they were watching her blood levels to control the level. Apparently Cumadin is not easy to control. A week later she was discharged and flew to Austin to recover at our daughters home. Two days later the blood thinners struck!! She started bleeding in her intestines and, again, we headed for an ER. The ER didnt have the needed equipment to handle the case so she was transported by ambulance to ANOTHER hospital. So, now its a new staff with new concerns and just a sketchy view of the past. Stop the Cumadin, insert vitamin K, insert clotting factor, stop the bleeding! Ok, now the bleeding is stopped, redo the sonogram. Guess what the clot is now in the left leg and the one in the right leg is GONE and the new one no longer superficial!!! So, quickly insert a “filter” into the return vein to the heart to catch any clot that breaks loose. But “they” say that if a clot breaks loose and plugs up the “filter” the lower body becomes painful and swollen and you cannot walk. So which is worse, death quickly by pulmonary embolism or slowly and painfully by lower body deterioration and kidney failure?? If the filter is inserted and nothing is caught it was a waste of time inserting it, but if it works you die slowly instead of fast. Is that a decision you need to make? If you want to avoid both methods of death you dont insert the filter and you hope nothing breaks loose. Ok, the filter is now inserted so we dont have to start the Cumadin again, right? Wrong, the Cumadin needs to be restarted to make sure the clot is dissolved...OR...that if it breaks loose it will be dissolved in the filter before it blocks the filter. So now we worry about slow death from blocked lower body blood return, or death by bleeding to death.
This whole episode is an engineers nightmare. The KISS principal was not used in dealing with this situation. Everyone pulled out his/her tool kit and hit the line running. The prognoses is, from best to worst, clot dissolves within three months and the filter is removed (after three months the filter cannot be removed!!!!) to some form of disability or death as noted above.
But can you imagine how it would have gone under ObamaCare? With committees deciding at each step of the way whether this was financially reasonable. Whether, at 73 it is reasonable from a life expectancy viewpoint? How long for each step even if decided in favor?
"You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Balanced Budget Amendment
Definitions to apply to the following language of this amendment:
Balanced Shall mean that there will be NO deficit spending and the budget shall not increase the national debt. Decreasing the debt or underspending revenues shall be allowed.
Declared War Shall mean that a war was declared by the president and the declaration was approved by both houses of congress as is specified in the Constitution of the United States.
Declared Natural Disaster Shall mean that the House of Representatives shall pass a bill, by a 2/3rds majority,to declare, for a period of one year and ONLY one year, that a naturally occurring disaster has occurred and that it affects a specific portion of the country. The Senate shall then pass that SAME bill by a 2/3rds majority and the President of the United States will sign that bill.
Exempt Shall mean that it is NOT subject to the "Balanced Budget Amendment"
Naturally Occurring Shall mean any weather disaster, earthquake, volcanic, meteor impact, tsunami, and infectious disease. It shall not include global climate change effects.
A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
This amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishes that the annual budget of the United States shall be balanced in expenditures and revenues and will not add to the national debt in any one year. It shall be permissible to reduce the national debt.
There are two areas of spending that will be Exempt from this amendment, Declared Natural Disasters, as defined above and Declared War, as defined above.
1) Declared Natural Disasters must be re-declared annually as stated in the definition above. All expenditures that are exempted from this amendment MUST BE direct expenses relating to the declared natural disaster and will be exempt ONLY to the extent that they exceed 5% of the total annual budget, and ALL the expenses for any particular natural disaster whether exempted because they are above the 5% limit or within that first 5% MUST BE direct expenses related to the declared natural disaster..
Examples of allowed expenses are:
a) infrastructure repairs to the original state,
b) relocation of disaster victims,
c) housing, food and medical expenses of disaster victims
Non-allowed expenses would include, but not be limited to such things as:
a) improvements on the infrastructure. These would fall under other headings such as Corps of Engineer budgets and normal infrastructure improvement budgets and be non-exempt for that reason.
b) continued support of disaster victims past one year,
All allowed expenses will only be approved one year at a time subject to a re-enactment of a subsequent, one year, Declared Natural Disaster bill.
2)Declared War expenses will be exempt ONLY to the extent that they exceed 5% of the total annual budget, and ALL the expenses for any particular war whether exempted because they are above the 5% limit or within that first 5% MUST BE direct expenses related to the declared war.
Examples of allowed expenses are:
a) weapons, equipment, training, and facilities for troops
b) transportation of troops,
c) housing, food and medical expenses of troops
Non-allowed expenses would include, but not be limited to such things as:
a) infrastructure improvements within the United States,
b) weapons research, etc. that fall under the usual military expenditures needed to maintain a standing military force.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Freedom of the Second Amendment
The second amendment to the constitution was placed there by the founding fathers for good reason. They had just overthrown an unjust government and wanted to make sure that if the occasion ever arose again, the populace could, again, overthrow an oppressive government.
In this day and age it becomes increasingly unlikely that even a “well armed militia” could overthrow the HUGE government we now live under even if it did become oppressive. But that being the case, there is no reason to avoid the meaning of the second amendment. It was clearly not placed there to protect “sportsmen” or to protect the ability to hunt for food. No, it was meant to give citizens the ability to confront other citizens on an even footing. The weak could not be oppressed by a well armed minority, government, local police organization or vigilante group.
The movement, since the 70s toward concealed carry permitting and open carry permitting has been in the right direction. Some states are doing it as the Constitution meant it to be done. Vermont and Arizona are good examples. California was without permits until the Supreme Court told them they had to have a permitting process. They now do have a process, though it is actually a sham as only the well connected can get a permit in that state. The interesting thing is that, in California, open carry is permitted without any permit as long as the weapon is unloaded. But, you can carry the magazine in your pocket!!! Texas has “concealed carry” with a permit and they are working on “open carry” with a permit so they are moving in the right direction.
But why is it important…other than that the Constitution says we have that right?…. In every state that has enacted “concealed carry” permitting crime rates have gone down. They have gone down because the potential criminal is concerned that he might have resistance and not even know from which direction that resistance might come. Open carry has its problems. I am not sure I would want to be carrying in the open even if it was permitted. The first target of a criminal, on entry into an area, would be take out those with exposed weapons! I would prefer the criminal would not know I was behind him with a weapon.
Some states don’t allow carrying in hospitals, banks, government buildings, drinking establishments and churches. Some of this, such as drinking establishments makes a small amount of sense, but some states don’t restrict it except to say the person carrying should not be drinking which makes a LOT of sense. However, why would a permit carrier who had to go through an FBI background check to get the permit be restricted from carrying into a bank where he might be able to stop a hostage situation from developing. A restriction that the bank robber has no compunction in ignoring. The robber in this case knows that he will not meet any resistance as no one but him/her will have a weapon!! Why is there a restriction against carrying a gun into a church, where an Islamic extremist might launch an attack? The usual answer I get to that one is, “Why would you want a gun in church?” That is a very uninformed question and the answer is a simple, “Why not?”. It is our right to carry.
The permit method of allowing the carrying of weapons is not, in my opinion, constitutional, but does carry with it a full FBI background check which should quench some of the critics. However, what would you think if the government said you free speech was conditioned upon a permit obtained only after having taken a four year course in English and paying a $100 a year fee for the permit? Or your right to freedom of religion or from religion was predicated on your having obtained a permit that required a study course of all the worlds major religions and a “church tax” or $5 to be paid every time you entered a church, synagogue, or mosque. (For the non believers, the fee would be an equal distribution of a tax equal to all the church taxes received from the previous year, distributed to all the atheists. Even taxing, fair and balanced.) Freedom of association would then mean every person on Facebook would then have to pay $1 for every “friend” that they accumulated. So why is the second amendment different? Why is there a permit required to exercise that Constitutional right?
Actually, though the critics will say otherwise, carrying of weapons either open or concealed reduces violence. Back in the old west when two men, carrying openly on their hip, met on the side-walk, they tipped their hats to one another and were polite. To do otherwise might cause one or the other to draw and shoot. It was a gentler time!!! That of course is an exaggeration. But, when the law places a heavier burden on one who is carrying, that person is more aware of his responsibilities. If you are carrying and know that the law frowns on your exposure of your weapon, you tend to be very concious of that responsibility to keep it out of sight and your need to be really sure that it is justified before pulling it out. This causes you to quell your anger and think in a very controlled manner about what you may be thinking of doing. Most states make a big issue out of “brandishing” a weapon and assess large penalties on those that pull a weapon for the purpose of “scaring” someone. I know that if I have a weapon in my car, I am a much better driver and less aggressive. When I carry I feel secure and in feeling secure I feel less need to be aggressive. Aggressive behaviour, at least in males in most species, is intended to scare away a rival when a threat is perceived. When you are carrying you feel less threatened so there is less need to be aggressive.
I saw a statement recently that referred to the open carrying of weapons as a levelling of the playing field. The 90 pound grandmother is equal to the 230 pound “gorilla” in the dark alley. In that confrontation both are on level ground when it comes to force and any exchange must be negotiated and the more convincing argument is the winner because force is no longer a factor. Only reason can be used when force is neutralised. The upholding of second amendment rights will lead us toward a more reasoned society.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
In this day and age it becomes increasingly unlikely that even a “well armed militia” could overthrow the HUGE government we now live under even if it did become oppressive. But that being the case, there is no reason to avoid the meaning of the second amendment. It was clearly not placed there to protect “sportsmen” or to protect the ability to hunt for food. No, it was meant to give citizens the ability to confront other citizens on an even footing. The weak could not be oppressed by a well armed minority, government, local police organization or vigilante group.
The movement, since the 70s toward concealed carry permitting and open carry permitting has been in the right direction. Some states are doing it as the Constitution meant it to be done. Vermont and Arizona are good examples. California was without permits until the Supreme Court told them they had to have a permitting process. They now do have a process, though it is actually a sham as only the well connected can get a permit in that state. The interesting thing is that, in California, open carry is permitted without any permit as long as the weapon is unloaded. But, you can carry the magazine in your pocket!!! Texas has “concealed carry” with a permit and they are working on “open carry” with a permit so they are moving in the right direction.
But why is it important…other than that the Constitution says we have that right?…. In every state that has enacted “concealed carry” permitting crime rates have gone down. They have gone down because the potential criminal is concerned that he might have resistance and not even know from which direction that resistance might come. Open carry has its problems. I am not sure I would want to be carrying in the open even if it was permitted. The first target of a criminal, on entry into an area, would be take out those with exposed weapons! I would prefer the criminal would not know I was behind him with a weapon.
Some states don’t allow carrying in hospitals, banks, government buildings, drinking establishments and churches. Some of this, such as drinking establishments makes a small amount of sense, but some states don’t restrict it except to say the person carrying should not be drinking which makes a LOT of sense. However, why would a permit carrier who had to go through an FBI background check to get the permit be restricted from carrying into a bank where he might be able to stop a hostage situation from developing. A restriction that the bank robber has no compunction in ignoring. The robber in this case knows that he will not meet any resistance as no one but him/her will have a weapon!! Why is there a restriction against carrying a gun into a church, where an Islamic extremist might launch an attack? The usual answer I get to that one is, “Why would you want a gun in church?” That is a very uninformed question and the answer is a simple, “Why not?”. It is our right to carry.
The permit method of allowing the carrying of weapons is not, in my opinion, constitutional, but does carry with it a full FBI background check which should quench some of the critics. However, what would you think if the government said you free speech was conditioned upon a permit obtained only after having taken a four year course in English and paying a $100 a year fee for the permit? Or your right to freedom of religion or from religion was predicated on your having obtained a permit that required a study course of all the worlds major religions and a “church tax” or $5 to be paid every time you entered a church, synagogue, or mosque. (For the non believers, the fee would be an equal distribution of a tax equal to all the church taxes received from the previous year, distributed to all the atheists. Even taxing, fair and balanced.) Freedom of association would then mean every person on Facebook would then have to pay $1 for every “friend” that they accumulated. So why is the second amendment different? Why is there a permit required to exercise that Constitutional right?
Actually, though the critics will say otherwise, carrying of weapons either open or concealed reduces violence. Back in the old west when two men, carrying openly on their hip, met on the side-walk, they tipped their hats to one another and were polite. To do otherwise might cause one or the other to draw and shoot. It was a gentler time!!! That of course is an exaggeration. But, when the law places a heavier burden on one who is carrying, that person is more aware of his responsibilities. If you are carrying and know that the law frowns on your exposure of your weapon, you tend to be very concious of that responsibility to keep it out of sight and your need to be really sure that it is justified before pulling it out. This causes you to quell your anger and think in a very controlled manner about what you may be thinking of doing. Most states make a big issue out of “brandishing” a weapon and assess large penalties on those that pull a weapon for the purpose of “scaring” someone. I know that if I have a weapon in my car, I am a much better driver and less aggressive. When I carry I feel secure and in feeling secure I feel less need to be aggressive. Aggressive behaviour, at least in males in most species, is intended to scare away a rival when a threat is perceived. When you are carrying you feel less threatened so there is less need to be aggressive.
I saw a statement recently that referred to the open carrying of weapons as a levelling of the playing field. The 90 pound grandmother is equal to the 230 pound “gorilla” in the dark alley. In that confrontation both are on level ground when it comes to force and any exchange must be negotiated and the more convincing argument is the winner because force is no longer a factor. Only reason can be used when force is neutralised. The upholding of second amendment rights will lead us toward a more reasoned society.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, July 18, 2011
The NRA Is Assaulting Our Second Amendment
The second amendment was designed as a method to protect the people from an oppressive government. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a war against a government that far outnumbered them and that had superior weapons. But they won the war. They could not have even considered a war against their oppressor if they had not had arms. The second amendment was meant to guarantee that they would always have this ability in case the new government that they were forming was to turn bad. The Declaration of Independence states....
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
When the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment, they did not do it to provide the people the ability to hunt game. They did not do it to provide the people with protection from one another. They wrote it to allow the people to protect themselves from the government!! They wanted the population to have, as they had, the means to change an oppressive government.
Our government has machine guns, rockets, atomic bombs etc. So for us, the citizens, to ask that we at least can have assault weapons is a very pathetic whimper. And for the government to say that we cannot is a very disturbing assault on our ability to change an oppressive government if in the future it becomes necessary.
The NRA has always been one of the bastions , one of the walls, to protect the second amendment from the assault by the liberals that would turn this country into an elite governed country with no way for the populace to take their freedoms back. But NRA is now singing the Progressive song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE-r531Bs-I
I dont think there is anyone that thinks the a 5 round magazine is sufficient if we have to eventually remove an oppressive government from our backs and return to the constitution. Apparently the NRA is willing to give up their second amendment rights to placate a government that seems to be running down the path of becoming oppressive. They are willing to give away, in dribbles, all our rights
Its like the German people that let 6 million Jews die rather than rock the boat. As Pastor Martin Niemoller said,"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Now they are coming for our ability to arm ourselves against the government.....next they will become the government we need the arms to protect ourselves from.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
When the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment, they did not do it to provide the people the ability to hunt game. They did not do it to provide the people with protection from one another. They wrote it to allow the people to protect themselves from the government!! They wanted the population to have, as they had, the means to change an oppressive government.
Our government has machine guns, rockets, atomic bombs etc. So for us, the citizens, to ask that we at least can have assault weapons is a very pathetic whimper. And for the government to say that we cannot is a very disturbing assault on our ability to change an oppressive government if in the future it becomes necessary.
The NRA has always been one of the bastions , one of the walls, to protect the second amendment from the assault by the liberals that would turn this country into an elite governed country with no way for the populace to take their freedoms back. But NRA is now singing the Progressive song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE-r531Bs-I
I dont think there is anyone that thinks the a 5 round magazine is sufficient if we have to eventually remove an oppressive government from our backs and return to the constitution. Apparently the NRA is willing to give up their second amendment rights to placate a government that seems to be running down the path of becoming oppressive. They are willing to give away, in dribbles, all our rights
Its like the German people that let 6 million Jews die rather than rock the boat. As Pastor Martin Niemoller said,"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Now they are coming for our ability to arm ourselves against the government.....next they will become the government we need the arms to protect ourselves from.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Saturday, July 16, 2011
He who sups with the devil should do so with a long spoon
Compromise is not usually good. If you are compromising on how much sugar to put in a pie, that may be a good place for compromise. But if you are right and the other side is wrong, then compromise is non-productive.
If you were in a car driving down the highway with a sheer drop of 500 feet on the right and you had the choice of staying on the road or ending at the bottom of the cliff, would compromise at falling only half way down the cliff be attractive? I don't think so.
In this case, the debt ceiling, we have a situation not far from the car example. Here the "right" is correct and the "left" is incorrect. Compromise at half incorrect is not a good thing! If we are to "sup with the devil" then we need a "long spoon" as the saying says. If we are to compromise with the left and raise the debt ceiling half way to where they want it, then our "long spoon" had better be a firm and unavoidable commitment to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution AND spending cuts to match the increase in the debt limit. Without those, the spoon is too short and we will be agreeing to the devils wills.
The devil lies. We all know that. The devil gets what he wants by telling lies. Lies like. "The US will go into default on its debt if the debt ceiling is not raised." This is not just a misstatement, not just an error, it is a LIE. Call it as it is, it is a fabrication and a LIE.
The 14th amendment to the constitution requires that the service on the debt be paid before anything else is paid. The service on the debt is about 270 billion dollars, period. That is all it is. The projected income to the US Government for the next year is 2.7 trillion dollars. Thus the service on the debt is only 10% of income. There can be no default!!! I suspect that most people reading this have a debt service that is twice or three times that much. Most people are paying a mortgage that is 20% of their income. In the first 5 years, almost 100% of your house payment is interest (debt service). Then add the car, another $250 a month in interest (debt service).
But the government is way out of line with its spending outside of the debt service. Capping the debt ceiling and not raising it would NOT AFFECT our ability to pay the interest on the debt but it would mean that some of the wasteful crap would not be funded. SS, Medicare, are all well funded without raising the debt ceiling. Obamas claim he could not guarantee SS payments would go out on time was the truth, but only because he couldn't guarantee it even if we had 10 trillion in surplus, because its not his responsibility!!!! He COULD however, if he so chose, delay the payments for political reasons but it would require that congress agree with him. But SS is funded without his help.
Obama, faced with a shortage of funds, is the one that can decide which of the domestic programs to cut, but he cant cut service on the debt. And you can be sure that he would pick the ones that cause the most pain and then blame it on the Republicans. But the truth is, HE would be the one making the choices so HE would be the one on which the blame belongs. It is up to the Republicans to make it clear just who made those decisions instead of sitting on their hands in abject fear of the repercussions from Obama if they speak out against him or repercussions at the ballot box. NO decision should ever be made considering how it will look at the next election.
Its time to forget "Politically Correct". Its time to speak out and tell the president that he is a liar. Tell the Democrats that they are liars. They know the truth and they are hiding it. We need to "call a spade a spade", as the old poker saying goes. We need to speak the truth, not the politically correct pablum because we fear repercussions.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
If you were in a car driving down the highway with a sheer drop of 500 feet on the right and you had the choice of staying on the road or ending at the bottom of the cliff, would compromise at falling only half way down the cliff be attractive? I don't think so.
In this case, the debt ceiling, we have a situation not far from the car example. Here the "right" is correct and the "left" is incorrect. Compromise at half incorrect is not a good thing! If we are to "sup with the devil" then we need a "long spoon" as the saying says. If we are to compromise with the left and raise the debt ceiling half way to where they want it, then our "long spoon" had better be a firm and unavoidable commitment to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution AND spending cuts to match the increase in the debt limit. Without those, the spoon is too short and we will be agreeing to the devils wills.
The devil lies. We all know that. The devil gets what he wants by telling lies. Lies like. "The US will go into default on its debt if the debt ceiling is not raised." This is not just a misstatement, not just an error, it is a LIE. Call it as it is, it is a fabrication and a LIE.
The 14th amendment to the constitution requires that the service on the debt be paid before anything else is paid. The service on the debt is about 270 billion dollars, period. That is all it is. The projected income to the US Government for the next year is 2.7 trillion dollars. Thus the service on the debt is only 10% of income. There can be no default!!! I suspect that most people reading this have a debt service that is twice or three times that much. Most people are paying a mortgage that is 20% of their income. In the first 5 years, almost 100% of your house payment is interest (debt service). Then add the car, another $250 a month in interest (debt service).
But the government is way out of line with its spending outside of the debt service. Capping the debt ceiling and not raising it would NOT AFFECT our ability to pay the interest on the debt but it would mean that some of the wasteful crap would not be funded. SS, Medicare, are all well funded without raising the debt ceiling. Obamas claim he could not guarantee SS payments would go out on time was the truth, but only because he couldn't guarantee it even if we had 10 trillion in surplus, because its not his responsibility!!!! He COULD however, if he so chose, delay the payments for political reasons but it would require that congress agree with him. But SS is funded without his help.
Obama, faced with a shortage of funds, is the one that can decide which of the domestic programs to cut, but he cant cut service on the debt. And you can be sure that he would pick the ones that cause the most pain and then blame it on the Republicans. But the truth is, HE would be the one making the choices so HE would be the one on which the blame belongs. It is up to the Republicans to make it clear just who made those decisions instead of sitting on their hands in abject fear of the repercussions from Obama if they speak out against him or repercussions at the ballot box. NO decision should ever be made considering how it will look at the next election.
Its time to forget "Politically Correct". Its time to speak out and tell the president that he is a liar. Tell the Democrats that they are liars. They know the truth and they are hiding it. We need to "call a spade a spade", as the old poker saying goes. We need to speak the truth, not the politically correct pablum because we fear repercussions.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, July 11, 2011
Obama puts the Ball Back in his OWN court.
The stunning revelation that Obama intends to ignore congress if they fail to increase the debt limit as truly amazing. By making that threat, he has given the GOP and some Dems the out they need. Until now it was widely assumed that congress would cave and pass an increase in the debt limit because Obama would handle the purse strings and cut popular programs in order to keep things going. This would allow him to accuse the Republicans of being against the cut programs.
But now with this threat to ignore congress, the Republicans can refuse to increase the debt limit and if Obama ignores the currently established limit, he will be in contempt of congress!!!
This would result in the case going to the Supreme Court and the 14th amendment being held as inapplicable to the Debt Limit?? This is something that no one, not even Democrats want. This would result in the total rejection of Obama in the next election.
Its bad enough that he wants to stay the execution of a rapist/murderer in Texas...apparently because he hates Texas, he sues Arizona over their immigration law, threatens Fremont NE over their immigration law, threatens Texas over their anti groping law, and the list goes on. Now he intends to openly flaunt the constitutions stated separation of power.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
But now with this threat to ignore congress, the Republicans can refuse to increase the debt limit and if Obama ignores the currently established limit, he will be in contempt of congress!!!
This would result in the case going to the Supreme Court and the 14th amendment being held as inapplicable to the Debt Limit?? This is something that no one, not even Democrats want. This would result in the total rejection of Obama in the next election.
Its bad enough that he wants to stay the execution of a rapist/murderer in Texas...apparently because he hates Texas, he sues Arizona over their immigration law, threatens Fremont NE over their immigration law, threatens Texas over their anti groping law, and the list goes on. Now he intends to openly flaunt the constitutions stated separation of power.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, July 4, 2011
From Night to Day
John Adams, referring to the Declaration of Independence long before the war to assert it was over, said to his wife Abigail in a letter, “I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shows, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Days Transaction, even although We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”
This was a time when the 13 states were emerging from night into day. This was a time when oppression of the people by a king was being contested. This was a time when freedom was being established "for the people", long before it was fashionable.
Yesterday I went to church at a new congregation. Not a new denomination, just a new congregation. I have become tired of the lack of respect for the country that I have seen in the old congregation. It seems that in some circles it is fashionable to separate the church from the state by not mentioning the state in any way within the church. In other words, don't mention that your right to practice whatever religion you want is guaranteed by the Constitution. In most other countries around the world, no such guarantee exists. The churches, synagogues, and Mosques and atheists should celebrate the United States where they have total religious freedom because if their lack of enthusiasm results in the downfall of the United States, they will loose their freedom completely. Even the atheist might be forced to worship some demigod of the oppressive regime that takes over. So, even they cannot say they "don't have a dog in this race."
Yesterday, as soon as the service was started, there was a pledge of allegiance to the Christian Flag and then to the United States Flag. The sermon hymn, the one just before the sermon was "America the Beautiful". The sermon, "Hard Work Great Reward." referenced, several times, the birth of our nation and how it was in many ways a miracle. On several occasions the Pastor referred to the congregation as "American Christians." After the sermon the hymn was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." and as we were filing out of the church the piano was playing "God Bless America".
Yes, this was the day before the 4th, so I wont expect this much patriotism next week. But in the congregation I am now leaving I have never heard the pledge of allegiance in the sanctuary, I have never heard either America the Beautiful or God Bless America sung in the five years I have been going there. And the pastor has never used the term "American Christians." The pastor omitted any mention of Memorial Day a few weeks ago, yet both churches are of the same denomination. Exactly the same just 40 miles apart.
It was like coming out of the night and emerging into the light of day. The pastor was delivering his first sermon in his new church after graduating from the seminary. To my wife and I, emerging from the cave of darkness and denial, it was a beacon to where the light shown brightly for BOTH my religion AND my country.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
This was a time when the 13 states were emerging from night into day. This was a time when oppression of the people by a king was being contested. This was a time when freedom was being established "for the people", long before it was fashionable.
Yesterday I went to church at a new congregation. Not a new denomination, just a new congregation. I have become tired of the lack of respect for the country that I have seen in the old congregation. It seems that in some circles it is fashionable to separate the church from the state by not mentioning the state in any way within the church. In other words, don't mention that your right to practice whatever religion you want is guaranteed by the Constitution. In most other countries around the world, no such guarantee exists. The churches, synagogues, and Mosques and atheists should celebrate the United States where they have total religious freedom because if their lack of enthusiasm results in the downfall of the United States, they will loose their freedom completely. Even the atheist might be forced to worship some demigod of the oppressive regime that takes over. So, even they cannot say they "don't have a dog in this race."
Yesterday, as soon as the service was started, there was a pledge of allegiance to the Christian Flag and then to the United States Flag. The sermon hymn, the one just before the sermon was "America the Beautiful". The sermon, "Hard Work Great Reward." referenced, several times, the birth of our nation and how it was in many ways a miracle. On several occasions the Pastor referred to the congregation as "American Christians." After the sermon the hymn was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." and as we were filing out of the church the piano was playing "God Bless America".
Yes, this was the day before the 4th, so I wont expect this much patriotism next week. But in the congregation I am now leaving I have never heard the pledge of allegiance in the sanctuary, I have never heard either America the Beautiful or God Bless America sung in the five years I have been going there. And the pastor has never used the term "American Christians." The pastor omitted any mention of Memorial Day a few weeks ago, yet both churches are of the same denomination. Exactly the same just 40 miles apart.
It was like coming out of the night and emerging into the light of day. The pastor was delivering his first sermon in his new church after graduating from the seminary. To my wife and I, emerging from the cave of darkness and denial, it was a beacon to where the light shown brightly for BOTH my religion AND my country.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The Constitution is DEAD !!
Do you remember many years ago when the phrase "God Is Dead" was popular among non-believers? Well, they made the case for the statement with unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. They were wrong.
Today I am declaring that "The Constitution Is Dead". But, I have PROOF.
I came to this realization yesterday when I was complaining that one of the bad things about growing older was that you could remember how it was in the good old daze. I remember fishing for Spanish Mackerel with no license and no limits. In Southern California in those days if you were fishing in the ocean you needed no license and there were no limits on salt water species. The more I thought about it the more I realized that almost nothing has gotten better in the 74 years I have been alive. Everything is going to hell in a hand cart.
Then I suddenly realized that the Constitution was dead when I started thinking about sending a check for $117 in to secure a Concealed Carry Permit. That $117 is to pay for a right that the Constitution guarantees to me. There is nothing in the constitution about paying for the rights granted by it. But I will pay $117 to the state of Florida every 7 years to have this inalienable right.
So I decided to look at each of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and see what it was costing me...or if I even had those rights anymore. Or if I had them, but greatly impoverished.
1st amendment.......nope, that is gone without paying for it. If I want to "peaceably assemble" on public (I am public, right) property, I need to get a permit from the reigning government body. That permit will not be free. So I am paying for the right to peaceably assemble. And they get to set limits on my assemblage.
2nd amendment.......nope, I am paying for the right to carry arms CONCEALED. I cant even pay for the right to carry them in the open!!! Open Carry is against the law here in Texas!! But that is a violation of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution!!
3rd amendment.......well, so far, I still have this.....
4th amendment.......nope, it is clear that the prohibition against unreasonable searches without "probable cause" is going on daily by the TSA at airports all over the United States. According to the Constitution the TSA cannot search me unless they have reason to believe that I am breaking the law. BUT...they do it every day. And many residents of this state don't have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" anymore since Home Owner Associations can now demand, as a requirement of residence in a particular community, that the homeowner turn over to the HOA a key to their home, just in case the HOA needs to get in. This is an unconstitutional ability to search. What protection does the homeowner have that the HOA wont steal them blind. Can they sue the HOA if something is missing? I think not!
5th amendment.......Double Jeopardy? Well, while I think OJ Simpson got what he deserved, isn't it "double jeopardy" to be tried twice for the same crime? Ok, Ok, maybe it was justice in this case, and his "life and limb" were not at peril in the Civil case, but I think that is just lawyers talk for a way around what would have horrified the founding fathers. Its still double jeopardy and one day it will come back to haunt an innocent person and that innocent person might be YOU! We have to think about what happens if an apparently just reading of the law is turned against an innocent person.
6th amendment.......a "speedy trial"?? Do we really think that a 20 year stay on "death row" while exhausting appeals is a "speedy trial". At the time the Constitution was written that would be HALF of a lifetime. I really don't think they thought that a trial should last 20 years!!!
7th amendment.......I plead no contest....
8th amendment.......But isn't "No Bail" excessive? Isn't denying bail the same as assessing excessive bail?
9th amendment.......Here we have a whole barrel of worms. But just one worm; the government has taken my right to insure myself in any way I may feel sufficient to secure my health. The Obama Care law takes away a right that was not enumerated in the constitution...WITHOUT AMENDING the constitution to add that as a right. I have been denied a right.
10th amendment.......WOW, here we are at the biggest failure of the ten. The Federal government, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce has violated this amendment so many times that I wonder why the foot traffic hasn't wiped away all the ink on the constitution. Obama care claims to be regulating interstate commerce while regulating the sale of insurance WHICH CANNOT BE SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!! The Feds have taken to regulating firearms that are made in a state and not sold across state lines. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!! The Federal government arrests Amish farmers for selling home grown milk within the borders of the state. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!!
Out of the ten, and there are another 18 I haven't even looked at, two might still be intact. The rest have been trashed. If 80 percent of my body was decaying, I would hope someone would declare me dead.
The Constitution Is Dead.
Can we revive it? Yes, I think we can. But you cant bring something back to life until you, first, concede that it is dead. We cannot be in denial. To resurrect the Constitution we first have to accept the fact that it is, for all intents and purposes, DEAD.
Come out of your denial and join the movement to restore the Constitution to the living document that it was meant to be.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Today I am declaring that "The Constitution Is Dead". But, I have PROOF.
I came to this realization yesterday when I was complaining that one of the bad things about growing older was that you could remember how it was in the good old daze. I remember fishing for Spanish Mackerel with no license and no limits. In Southern California in those days if you were fishing in the ocean you needed no license and there were no limits on salt water species. The more I thought about it the more I realized that almost nothing has gotten better in the 74 years I have been alive. Everything is going to hell in a hand cart.
Then I suddenly realized that the Constitution was dead when I started thinking about sending a check for $117 in to secure a Concealed Carry Permit. That $117 is to pay for a right that the Constitution guarantees to me. There is nothing in the constitution about paying for the rights granted by it. But I will pay $117 to the state of Florida every 7 years to have this inalienable right.
So I decided to look at each of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and see what it was costing me...or if I even had those rights anymore. Or if I had them, but greatly impoverished.
1st amendment.......nope, that is gone without paying for it. If I want to "peaceably assemble" on public (I am public, right) property, I need to get a permit from the reigning government body. That permit will not be free. So I am paying for the right to peaceably assemble. And they get to set limits on my assemblage.
2nd amendment.......nope, I am paying for the right to carry arms CONCEALED. I cant even pay for the right to carry them in the open!!! Open Carry is against the law here in Texas!! But that is a violation of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution!!
3rd amendment.......well, so far, I still have this.....
4th amendment.......nope, it is clear that the prohibition against unreasonable searches without "probable cause" is going on daily by the TSA at airports all over the United States. According to the Constitution the TSA cannot search me unless they have reason to believe that I am breaking the law. BUT...they do it every day. And many residents of this state don't have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" anymore since Home Owner Associations can now demand, as a requirement of residence in a particular community, that the homeowner turn over to the HOA a key to their home, just in case the HOA needs to get in. This is an unconstitutional ability to search. What protection does the homeowner have that the HOA wont steal them blind. Can they sue the HOA if something is missing? I think not!
5th amendment.......Double Jeopardy? Well, while I think OJ Simpson got what he deserved, isn't it "double jeopardy" to be tried twice for the same crime? Ok, Ok, maybe it was justice in this case, and his "life and limb" were not at peril in the Civil case, but I think that is just lawyers talk for a way around what would have horrified the founding fathers. Its still double jeopardy and one day it will come back to haunt an innocent person and that innocent person might be YOU! We have to think about what happens if an apparently just reading of the law is turned against an innocent person.
6th amendment.......a "speedy trial"?? Do we really think that a 20 year stay on "death row" while exhausting appeals is a "speedy trial". At the time the Constitution was written that would be HALF of a lifetime. I really don't think they thought that a trial should last 20 years!!!
7th amendment.......I plead no contest....
8th amendment.......But isn't "No Bail" excessive? Isn't denying bail the same as assessing excessive bail?
9th amendment.......Here we have a whole barrel of worms. But just one worm; the government has taken my right to insure myself in any way I may feel sufficient to secure my health. The Obama Care law takes away a right that was not enumerated in the constitution...WITHOUT AMENDING the constitution to add that as a right. I have been denied a right.
10th amendment.......WOW, here we are at the biggest failure of the ten. The Federal government, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce has violated this amendment so many times that I wonder why the foot traffic hasn't wiped away all the ink on the constitution. Obama care claims to be regulating interstate commerce while regulating the sale of insurance WHICH CANNOT BE SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!! The Feds have taken to regulating firearms that are made in a state and not sold across state lines. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!! The Federal government arrests Amish farmers for selling home grown milk within the borders of the state. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!!
Out of the ten, and there are another 18 I haven't even looked at, two might still be intact. The rest have been trashed. If 80 percent of my body was decaying, I would hope someone would declare me dead.
The Constitution Is Dead.
Can we revive it? Yes, I think we can. But you cant bring something back to life until you, first, concede that it is dead. We cannot be in denial. To resurrect the Constitution we first have to accept the fact that it is, for all intents and purposes, DEAD.
Come out of your denial and join the movement to restore the Constitution to the living document that it was meant to be.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Thursday, May 26, 2011
OK, Now You Have Gone And Done It!
I was just sitting there fat, dumb, and happy, as regards HB 1937.......until now.
No, I don't like being searched at the airport, but then as a pilot, I don't like the idea of gunfights in the isles while at 30,000 feet, either. Texas HB 1937 makes it a felony to search a US citizen at an airport or any where else without "probable cause". It is only reaffirming the 4th amendment to the US Constitution which states in no uncertain terms that,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is what our forefathers felt we needed to be safe from a marauding government. They gave it to us in our Constitution. So this bill, HB 1937, is only reaffirming that right.
But I wasn't unduly disturbed by these searches since I could see how one might interpret, however falsely, "unreasonable searches" to mean that a search before boarding a plane was not unreasonable. So I was content to let it slide.
BUT...Then the Department of Justice got into the act by THREATENING, not to take the legislation to court, but to just single handedly, shut down all Texas airports if the bill passed. This is pure Chicago Ward Politics. It is bullying. It is unconstitutional. The DOJ threatened to make Texas a "no fly zone"...I assume that they would enforce it with F16s..??
I wonder how the rest of the nation would fare if the Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio airports were closed down. I think the Feds have more to lose than Texas does.
This is now a 10th amendment issue. If the government wants to challenge the law in court, that is their right, but to come in and threaten retaliatory action, outside of the court, is Unconstitutional!! It violates our 10th amendment rights to rule ourselves without their interference.
So what did the Texans do at Gonzales in 1835 when the Mexican government demanded their canon back? They put up a flag with the words "Come And Take It!" and aimed the canon at the Mexican lines! Following is a part of the address that Rev. William Smith gave to the Texans just before they routed the Mexicans and sent them running back to San Antonio. I think it is on the spot to our present situation.
in 1835, Rev. William P. Smith rode into the square and addressed the Texans:
FELLOW-SOLDIERS: To cap the climax of a long catalogue on injuries and grievances attempted to be heaped upon us, the government of Mexico, in the person of Santa Anna, has sent an army to commence the disarming system. Give up the cannon, and we may surrender our small arms also, and at once to be the vassals of the most imbecile and unstable government on earth. But will Texas give up the cannon? Will she surrender her small-arms? Every response is NO, NEVER! Never will she submit to a degradation of that character! Fellow-soldiers, the cause for which we are contending is just, honorable and glorious--our liberty! The same blood that animated the hearts of our ancestors of '76 still flows warm in our veins. Having waited several days for the Mexican army to make an attack upon us, we have now determined to attack them on tomorrow morning at the dawn of day. Some of us may fall, but if we do, let us be sure to fall with our face toward the enemy. ...
Texans, this is our Gonzales Moment. We must tell Obama, "Come And Take It!" and, just as the defenders of Gonzales did, "let us be sure to fall with our face toward the enemy. ..."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
No, I don't like being searched at the airport, but then as a pilot, I don't like the idea of gunfights in the isles while at 30,000 feet, either. Texas HB 1937 makes it a felony to search a US citizen at an airport or any where else without "probable cause". It is only reaffirming the 4th amendment to the US Constitution which states in no uncertain terms that,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is what our forefathers felt we needed to be safe from a marauding government. They gave it to us in our Constitution. So this bill, HB 1937, is only reaffirming that right.
But I wasn't unduly disturbed by these searches since I could see how one might interpret, however falsely, "unreasonable searches" to mean that a search before boarding a plane was not unreasonable. So I was content to let it slide.
BUT...Then the Department of Justice got into the act by THREATENING, not to take the legislation to court, but to just single handedly, shut down all Texas airports if the bill passed. This is pure Chicago Ward Politics. It is bullying. It is unconstitutional. The DOJ threatened to make Texas a "no fly zone"...I assume that they would enforce it with F16s..??
I wonder how the rest of the nation would fare if the Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio airports were closed down. I think the Feds have more to lose than Texas does.
This is now a 10th amendment issue. If the government wants to challenge the law in court, that is their right, but to come in and threaten retaliatory action, outside of the court, is Unconstitutional!! It violates our 10th amendment rights to rule ourselves without their interference.
So what did the Texans do at Gonzales in 1835 when the Mexican government demanded their canon back? They put up a flag with the words "Come And Take It!" and aimed the canon at the Mexican lines! Following is a part of the address that Rev. William Smith gave to the Texans just before they routed the Mexicans and sent them running back to San Antonio. I think it is on the spot to our present situation.
in 1835, Rev. William P. Smith rode into the square and addressed the Texans:
FELLOW-SOLDIERS: To cap the climax of a long catalogue on injuries and grievances attempted to be heaped upon us, the government of Mexico, in the person of Santa Anna, has sent an army to commence the disarming system. Give up the cannon, and we may surrender our small arms also, and at once to be the vassals of the most imbecile and unstable government on earth. But will Texas give up the cannon? Will she surrender her small-arms? Every response is NO, NEVER! Never will she submit to a degradation of that character! Fellow-soldiers, the cause for which we are contending is just, honorable and glorious--our liberty! The same blood that animated the hearts of our ancestors of '76 still flows warm in our veins. Having waited several days for the Mexican army to make an attack upon us, we have now determined to attack them on tomorrow morning at the dawn of day. Some of us may fall, but if we do, let us be sure to fall with our face toward the enemy. ...
Texans, this is our Gonzales Moment. We must tell Obama, "Come And Take It!" and, just as the defenders of Gonzales did, "let us be sure to fall with our face toward the enemy. ..."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, May 16, 2011
Are we running out of oil???
From the Washington Post
--------
Setting The Record Straight on America’s Oil
By Lisa Murkowski, Published: April 21, 2011
With gasoline prices in many areas above $4 a gallon, energy concerns are once again making headlines. Prices have more than doubled since the start of 2009 and are projected to remain at excruciating levels for the foreseeable future.
We know from experience that high energy prices harm American families and businesses. Aside from pain at the pump, it’s harder to balance budgets or even buy groceries when transportation costs soar. Many experts have concluded that if prices remain high, economic growth will languish. At stake is our fragile recovery from the recent recession.
High energy prices therefore demand a strong policy response. For years, however, federal lawmakers have routinely ignored the supply side of the equation and the fact that — if we chose to — we could absolutely produce more oil here in America.
For that reason, I welcomed President Obama’s recent pledge to increase domestic production. It was a big step, and I hope his administration heeds the message. But I’m also deeply concerned by some of the information presented about America’s energy potential. Left unchallenged, it will contribute to a mistaken belief that increased domestic production is not truly possible.
The president said this month that “even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produced, we’d still be short by a factor of five.” That’s simply incorrect. Doubling our production would trim imports nearly in half. Boosting production by a factor of five is not currently feasible, but if it were, it would make the United States the world’s largest producer.
Perhaps most misleading is his claim — also made by others — that the United States has “about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.” That line is crafted to make the audience think that America is both running out of oil and using oil at an unsustainable rate.
In truth, “reserves” is just one of several categories used to quantify oil and, on its own, misrepresents America’s potential. To classify a barrel as a reserve, you have to drill, prove the oil is there, and meet strict criteria established by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not an easy process.
Right now, America has an estimated 22.3 billion barrels of oil reserves. But that’s hardly the whole story. A recent Congressional Research Service report that I commissioned with Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma found that the United States’ recoverable oil resources are estimated at 157 billion barrels. That is seven times as much as our reserves and doesn’t even include the roughly 900 billion barrels of unconventional oil resources nearing commercialization.
Consider this: While our nation’s oil “reserves” have never reached 40 billion barrels, we’ve managed to produce nearly 200 billion barrels since 1900. Between 2008 and 2009, America’s oil reserves rose more than 8 percent, even as roughly 2 billion barrels were produced. That was made possible by our substantial resource base. Reserves alone have never provided the full picture.
Those who repeat the 2 percent argument are falling into an old trap. Government officials have claimed since 1919 that America is “running out of oil.” Nearly a century later, we are still the world’s third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. Our consumption levels may seem high, but in fact they’re directly proportionate to America’s share of the global, petroleum-based economy.
Relying on reserves to depict America’s oil excludes all of the lands that have never been explored. My home state of Alaska, for example, holds an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil — the equivalent of more than 60 years’ worth of imports from the Persian Gulf — that are excluded from reserve figures. Ignoring that supply underestimates America’s oil and leads us away from one of the best solutions to our various energy challenges.
If our country endeavored to produce more oil, we could slash imports and stanch the flow of dollars sent to foreign suppliers. At the same time, we could create thousands of jobs in this country and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue.
In this era of fiscal restraint, our most effective energy strategy may be to have oil work itself out of a job by using revenue from production to facilitate the deployment of alternatives. A firm commitment to greater production and lower consumption would also send a message to OPEC that the United States will no longer tolerate high oil prices.
It’s time to acknowledge how much oil America really has — and expeditiously bring more of it to market.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
--------
Setting The Record Straight on America’s Oil
By Lisa Murkowski, Published: April 21, 2011
With gasoline prices in many areas above $4 a gallon, energy concerns are once again making headlines. Prices have more than doubled since the start of 2009 and are projected to remain at excruciating levels for the foreseeable future.
We know from experience that high energy prices harm American families and businesses. Aside from pain at the pump, it’s harder to balance budgets or even buy groceries when transportation costs soar. Many experts have concluded that if prices remain high, economic growth will languish. At stake is our fragile recovery from the recent recession.
High energy prices therefore demand a strong policy response. For years, however, federal lawmakers have routinely ignored the supply side of the equation and the fact that — if we chose to — we could absolutely produce more oil here in America.
For that reason, I welcomed President Obama’s recent pledge to increase domestic production. It was a big step, and I hope his administration heeds the message. But I’m also deeply concerned by some of the information presented about America’s energy potential. Left unchallenged, it will contribute to a mistaken belief that increased domestic production is not truly possible.
The president said this month that “even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produced, we’d still be short by a factor of five.” That’s simply incorrect. Doubling our production would trim imports nearly in half. Boosting production by a factor of five is not currently feasible, but if it were, it would make the United States the world’s largest producer.
Perhaps most misleading is his claim — also made by others — that the United States has “about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.” That line is crafted to make the audience think that America is both running out of oil and using oil at an unsustainable rate.
In truth, “reserves” is just one of several categories used to quantify oil and, on its own, misrepresents America’s potential. To classify a barrel as a reserve, you have to drill, prove the oil is there, and meet strict criteria established by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not an easy process.
Right now, America has an estimated 22.3 billion barrels of oil reserves. But that’s hardly the whole story. A recent Congressional Research Service report that I commissioned with Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma found that the United States’ recoverable oil resources are estimated at 157 billion barrels. That is seven times as much as our reserves and doesn’t even include the roughly 900 billion barrels of unconventional oil resources nearing commercialization.
Consider this: While our nation’s oil “reserves” have never reached 40 billion barrels, we’ve managed to produce nearly 200 billion barrels since 1900. Between 2008 and 2009, America’s oil reserves rose more than 8 percent, even as roughly 2 billion barrels were produced. That was made possible by our substantial resource base. Reserves alone have never provided the full picture.
Those who repeat the 2 percent argument are falling into an old trap. Government officials have claimed since 1919 that America is “running out of oil.” Nearly a century later, we are still the world’s third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. Our consumption levels may seem high, but in fact they’re directly proportionate to America’s share of the global, petroleum-based economy.
Relying on reserves to depict America’s oil excludes all of the lands that have never been explored. My home state of Alaska, for example, holds an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil — the equivalent of more than 60 years’ worth of imports from the Persian Gulf — that are excluded from reserve figures. Ignoring that supply underestimates America’s oil and leads us away from one of the best solutions to our various energy challenges.
If our country endeavored to produce more oil, we could slash imports and stanch the flow of dollars sent to foreign suppliers. At the same time, we could create thousands of jobs in this country and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue.
In this era of fiscal restraint, our most effective energy strategy may be to have oil work itself out of a job by using revenue from production to facilitate the deployment of alternatives. A firm commitment to greater production and lower consumption would also send a message to OPEC that the United States will no longer tolerate high oil prices.
It’s time to acknowledge how much oil America really has — and expeditiously bring more of it to market.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, May 9, 2011
Red Herrings, Straw Men And Caterpillars
Saturday evening I was having a discussion with a young lady of my acquaintance. She is a nice lady, but terribly misinformed politically.
The discussion started from some comments on the merits of the Obama Care debacle. I was remiss in my duty as I let her take me far afield of the proper discussion with Red Herrings and Straw Men. I think we all are guilty of that when getting into emotional subjects such as Politics, Religion and Sex. We need to be careful or we could loose the argument by our own failures, not because the other side had a better argument. They dont.
The discussion started well enough with statements about the efficacy of Obama Care. But then it continued in that direction, as though that was all its about. It is not what its about...not yet.... We all agreed that the USA has the best health care system in the world and we all agreed that it could be improved. But then the question came up as to whether Obama Care was the way to improve it. That is getting the horse before the cart. Before we can discuss whether Obama Care will be effective in getting the "Change" we want ot not, we must decide whether it is LEGAL or not. Because if it is ILLEGAL than its benefits are ZERO...unless we abandon the Constitution of the United States...along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, freedom of assembly, Due Process, etc. Yes, all those are IN the Constitution. If we abandon the Constitution in order to have Obama Care, then we loose all the rest to precedent.
So the current discussion should not have to do with whether it is better or worse, expensive or cheap. We could all agree on those points and if Obama Care was unconstitutional then they would all be moot points.
The tenth amendment to the constitution states that:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That is the whole enchilada! Thats it, thats all there is. Nothing has been added nor taken away! Its just that simple.
A quick and easy search of the Constitution and all previous amendments shows NO MENTION of health care insurance. So, by the above amendment, that issue is "reserved to the States respectively". Now there are another 17 amendments after the tenth amendment, so we must search there for a possible granting to the Federal Government of the right to issue or regulate health insurance. As before, no mention is found in the latter 17 amendments. Nada!! It just isn't there!! So the tenth amendment holds and health insurance regulation is the right of the individual states.
Now we could change that by the simple adding of a 28th amendment that states that the Federal Government DOES have the power to regulate health insurance and health dispersal. But we haven't done that yet. So the discussion should be on this amendment. Until that amendment is added, then Obama Care is illegal and any points, there gained, are moot.
I think that perhaps we should add that amendment and by so doing, enable ALL insurance vendors to sell across state lines. This would put health care under the "Regulation of Interstate Commerce" where it currently IS NOT because of the prohibition of interstate commerce in health insurance. But if that were done, thus enabling the legal, constitutional passage of a national health care program, such passage would no longer be needed because the interstate commerce in private insurance programs would solve the problem, in and of itself!
Thus saving the country a half a trillion dollars a year which could be applied to the National Debt.
Now the alternative to the above is to ignore the Constitution....along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Due Process, etc., all those are in the Constitution that you may want to abolish to have Obama Care.
This is where the discussion went from health care. The solution of the massive National Debt and huge deficit. Now my young lady friend was of the opinion that we should attack the deficit first. "because is something we can actually do". She felt the National Debt was beyond our control. This is like sitting on your front porch while a bulldozer is destroying your home from the back wall forward, and crushing a caterpillar on the rose bush, "because it is something we can actually do", rather than going to the back yard to stop the bulldozer. If we don't stop the bulldozer there wont be any reason to save the rose bush.
Of course, what discussion on the deficit would be complete without a discussion of Foreign Aid? Since Foreign aid is about 50 billion a year, cutting it completely would reduce the deficit, 1.2 Trillion, by a pittance, less than 4% per year!! Oh, but what about the money that could be raised from "Taxing the Rich"?
From the Washington Post:
"Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.
The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year."
So, eliminating the "Bush Tax Cuts" would not reasonably affect the deficit and would mean NOTHING to the debt. And elimination of them would turn the economy south in a big way. A souring economy would make bigger reductions in the tax revenues that would totally offset ANY perceived gain by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
But back to Foreign Aid or more specifically to money sent to Pakistan. Somewhere the discussion turned to that subject, and my young friend stated that we could not take aid away from Pakistan because they had an atomic bomb and we had to remain friendly with them. That is like saying, "The rapist has a knife so I might just as well relax and enjoy it." Are we friends with China? Are we friends with Russia? They have more atomic bombs than Pakistan!!!
Friends, the bulldozer is tearing down our house. I don't care if you are a Socialist, a Democrat, a Republican, or what ever, we have to cut off the fuel to that bulldozer, and 2012 is our chance to do that. Vote for fiscal conservatives of EITHER/ANY party.
And talk to your mistaken friends and show them the error of their ways. But don't let them talk you into chasing Red Herrings, Straw Men, and caterpillars.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
The discussion started from some comments on the merits of the Obama Care debacle. I was remiss in my duty as I let her take me far afield of the proper discussion with Red Herrings and Straw Men. I think we all are guilty of that when getting into emotional subjects such as Politics, Religion and Sex. We need to be careful or we could loose the argument by our own failures, not because the other side had a better argument. They dont.
The discussion started well enough with statements about the efficacy of Obama Care. But then it continued in that direction, as though that was all its about. It is not what its about...not yet.... We all agreed that the USA has the best health care system in the world and we all agreed that it could be improved. But then the question came up as to whether Obama Care was the way to improve it. That is getting the horse before the cart. Before we can discuss whether Obama Care will be effective in getting the "Change" we want ot not, we must decide whether it is LEGAL or not. Because if it is ILLEGAL than its benefits are ZERO...unless we abandon the Constitution of the United States...along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, freedom of assembly, Due Process, etc. Yes, all those are IN the Constitution. If we abandon the Constitution in order to have Obama Care, then we loose all the rest to precedent.
So the current discussion should not have to do with whether it is better or worse, expensive or cheap. We could all agree on those points and if Obama Care was unconstitutional then they would all be moot points.
The tenth amendment to the constitution states that:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That is the whole enchilada! Thats it, thats all there is. Nothing has been added nor taken away! Its just that simple.
A quick and easy search of the Constitution and all previous amendments shows NO MENTION of health care insurance. So, by the above amendment, that issue is "reserved to the States respectively". Now there are another 17 amendments after the tenth amendment, so we must search there for a possible granting to the Federal Government of the right to issue or regulate health insurance. As before, no mention is found in the latter 17 amendments. Nada!! It just isn't there!! So the tenth amendment holds and health insurance regulation is the right of the individual states.
Now we could change that by the simple adding of a 28th amendment that states that the Federal Government DOES have the power to regulate health insurance and health dispersal. But we haven't done that yet. So the discussion should be on this amendment. Until that amendment is added, then Obama Care is illegal and any points, there gained, are moot.
I think that perhaps we should add that amendment and by so doing, enable ALL insurance vendors to sell across state lines. This would put health care under the "Regulation of Interstate Commerce" where it currently IS NOT because of the prohibition of interstate commerce in health insurance. But if that were done, thus enabling the legal, constitutional passage of a national health care program, such passage would no longer be needed because the interstate commerce in private insurance programs would solve the problem, in and of itself!
Thus saving the country a half a trillion dollars a year which could be applied to the National Debt.
Now the alternative to the above is to ignore the Constitution....along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Due Process, etc., all those are in the Constitution that you may want to abolish to have Obama Care.
This is where the discussion went from health care. The solution of the massive National Debt and huge deficit. Now my young lady friend was of the opinion that we should attack the deficit first. "because is something we can actually do". She felt the National Debt was beyond our control. This is like sitting on your front porch while a bulldozer is destroying your home from the back wall forward, and crushing a caterpillar on the rose bush, "because it is something we can actually do", rather than going to the back yard to stop the bulldozer. If we don't stop the bulldozer there wont be any reason to save the rose bush.
Of course, what discussion on the deficit would be complete without a discussion of Foreign Aid? Since Foreign aid is about 50 billion a year, cutting it completely would reduce the deficit, 1.2 Trillion, by a pittance, less than 4% per year!! Oh, but what about the money that could be raised from "Taxing the Rich"?
From the Washington Post:
"Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.
The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year."
So, eliminating the "Bush Tax Cuts" would not reasonably affect the deficit and would mean NOTHING to the debt. And elimination of them would turn the economy south in a big way. A souring economy would make bigger reductions in the tax revenues that would totally offset ANY perceived gain by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
But back to Foreign Aid or more specifically to money sent to Pakistan. Somewhere the discussion turned to that subject, and my young friend stated that we could not take aid away from Pakistan because they had an atomic bomb and we had to remain friendly with them. That is like saying, "The rapist has a knife so I might just as well relax and enjoy it." Are we friends with China? Are we friends with Russia? They have more atomic bombs than Pakistan!!!
Friends, the bulldozer is tearing down our house. I don't care if you are a Socialist, a Democrat, a Republican, or what ever, we have to cut off the fuel to that bulldozer, and 2012 is our chance to do that. Vote for fiscal conservatives of EITHER/ANY party.
And talk to your mistaken friends and show them the error of their ways. But don't let them talk you into chasing Red Herrings, Straw Men, and caterpillars.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, May 2, 2011
Apology Due
Ok, I was wrong. Not the first time. Obama was telling the truth and it was the news broadcast that was wrong. I owe him an apology. THIS time he wasnt lying......its a rare instance, but he wasnt lying this time.
And maybe we even have to give him credit for getting Usama Bin Laden. He has been in power for over two years and the leadership of the CIA and military are all his hand picked people. So he was successful at ONE thing.
But I still dont think he is the man we need to lead our country because he has been so wrong on so many things and as FAILED at so many things.
However. I will apologize for my taking the news at face value, and calling him a liar. I should have known better. The News media is notorious for getting it wrong. BUT...Obama is notorious for lying, so you can see how I make the wrong call this time.
And maybe we even have to give him credit for getting Usama Bin Laden. He has been in power for over two years and the leadership of the CIA and military are all his hand picked people. So he was successful at ONE thing.
But I still dont think he is the man we need to lead our country because he has been so wrong on so many things and as FAILED at so many things.
However. I will apologize for my taking the news at face value, and calling him a liar. I should have known better. The News media is notorious for getting it wrong. BUT...Obama is notorious for lying, so you can see how I make the wrong call this time.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Why Is Obama Lying?
Right now, on live TV Obama is stating the Usama Bin Laden was killed today while across the bottom of the screen it says he was killed a week ago!!!
I had a brother, who is now dead of old age, that could never tell the truth, even when it would be to his advantage. I think Obama is one of those pathological lairs.
We have known for a couple of years he is a liar. And this proves it without a doubt. There is no advantage to this lie so it must be pathological.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
I had a brother, who is now dead of old age, that could never tell the truth, even when it would be to his advantage. I think Obama is one of those pathological lairs.
We have known for a couple of years he is a liar. And this proves it without a doubt. There is no advantage to this lie so it must be pathological.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Dont Believe Everything You Hear.
Actually theres more to that than just hearing. My mother always said, "Believe only a quarter of what you hear, one third of what you read and half of what you see." But I think those were the days of 60 years ago. I don't think we can believe that much of what we hear, read and see today.
Recently I was reading on the Internet that Blake Farenthold was taking a tax payer paid junket with his family to Florida to watch the Space Shuttle. This was deemed inappropriate for a congressman that was championing fiscal responsibility.
This morning, I was privileged to visit with Congressman Farenthold and posed the question, "Is it appropriate for you to spend taxpayers money on a junket to Florida." His answer was direct and satisfactory.
"I am paying for that trip out of my own pocket. The only perk I am getting at taxpayers expense is a meal of cornbread and beans which is a traditional celebration of a successful mission"
Somehow I don't think that a meal of cornbread and beans is such a big price to pay to a congressman that is doing his best under trying circumstances as a Freshman Congressman in a legislature that is dominated by an opposition controlled Senate and an opposition President.
No, I don't agree with Blake on every vote. But, then, I don't agree with my wife on everything but I married her anyway and its lasted 54 years!
There are things that I hope to educate Congressman Farenthold on and perhaps there are things that he will educate me on. But lets not go after him with Internet rumors. Yes, lets ask him to explain them and if he can, then let him off the hook.
In this case he has, in my opinion, put the rumor to rest.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Recently I was reading on the Internet that Blake Farenthold was taking a tax payer paid junket with his family to Florida to watch the Space Shuttle. This was deemed inappropriate for a congressman that was championing fiscal responsibility.
This morning, I was privileged to visit with Congressman Farenthold and posed the question, "Is it appropriate for you to spend taxpayers money on a junket to Florida." His answer was direct and satisfactory.
"I am paying for that trip out of my own pocket. The only perk I am getting at taxpayers expense is a meal of cornbread and beans which is a traditional celebration of a successful mission"
Somehow I don't think that a meal of cornbread and beans is such a big price to pay to a congressman that is doing his best under trying circumstances as a Freshman Congressman in a legislature that is dominated by an opposition controlled Senate and an opposition President.
No, I don't agree with Blake on every vote. But, then, I don't agree with my wife on everything but I married her anyway and its lasted 54 years!
There are things that I hope to educate Congressman Farenthold on and perhaps there are things that he will educate me on. But lets not go after him with Internet rumors. Yes, lets ask him to explain them and if he can, then let him off the hook.
In this case he has, in my opinion, put the rumor to rest.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Third Party, To Be Or Not To Be?
I recieved the following post from Rachel Delgado in Galveston Texas. I think it presents a perfect solution to the third party jinx.
Most TEA Partiers don't believe a third party is an option. There is another way!!
===============================================================================================
I WANT YOU to become a precinct chair! If you can't beat 'em. Take over! CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SEE HOW
The Galveston County Republican Party Chairman recently resigned. The Clear Lake Tea Party President ran for his spot but lost by a slim margin. If we recruit TEA Partiers for precinct chairmanships we can win and take over the Republican Party.
Get in touch with your local Republican Party and find out how to become a precinct chairman.
Rachel Delgado
Chairman
Galveston County Tea Party, Inc.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Most TEA Partiers don't believe a third party is an option. There is another way!!
===============================================================================================
I WANT YOU to become a precinct chair! If you can't beat 'em. Take over! CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SEE HOW
The Galveston County Republican Party Chairman recently resigned. The Clear Lake Tea Party President ran for his spot but lost by a slim margin. If we recruit TEA Partiers for precinct chairmanships we can win and take over the Republican Party.
Get in touch with your local Republican Party and find out how to become a precinct chairman.
Rachel Delgado
Chairman
Galveston County Tea Party, Inc.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Isn't it A Crime To Lie Under Oath?
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and BOEMRE head Michael Bromwich lie to Rep. John Fleming in a congressional hearing.
This video is evidence. This video presented in court convicts these two witnesses of perjury. Why are they NOT being prosecuted? Yes, I understand that it would be difficult to win a conviction on these as the defendants would stand by their comments that they were misinformed, didn't understand, or something equally ridiculous. If they are the "Experts" and they don't understand then we should fire them for incompetence even if we cant get a conviction on perjury.
Ok, so we cant win a conviction, but isn't this a really cheap way to spread the word? Cant some lawyer bring suit against them and then it becomes news that HAS to be reported on. Even if you don't win a conviction you have months and months of free advertising that you would never get any other way. Even if you cant get a "Pro Bono" lawyer, and you should be able to find someone that has political convictions even if most are as bad as the clients they defend, the cost would be better spent on a lawyer to press the case than on paid advertising.
The Left has proposed the tactic of flooding the welfare system to bankrupt the system and bring down the government so that they can reshape it. I propose that we flood the justice system with suits such as these to educate the people to what is actually happening.
Most lawmakers are lawyers whether on the left or on the right (something I think is a conflict of interest) so we should have many right wing lawyers that could pursue this agenda in the name of furthering their cause.
Personally, I would rather spend the money, I would normally send to a candidate for reelection, on these lawsuits!!!
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
This video is evidence. This video presented in court convicts these two witnesses of perjury. Why are they NOT being prosecuted? Yes, I understand that it would be difficult to win a conviction on these as the defendants would stand by their comments that they were misinformed, didn't understand, or something equally ridiculous. If they are the "Experts" and they don't understand then we should fire them for incompetence even if we cant get a conviction on perjury.
Ok, so we cant win a conviction, but isn't this a really cheap way to spread the word? Cant some lawyer bring suit against them and then it becomes news that HAS to be reported on. Even if you don't win a conviction you have months and months of free advertising that you would never get any other way. Even if you cant get a "Pro Bono" lawyer, and you should be able to find someone that has political convictions even if most are as bad as the clients they defend, the cost would be better spent on a lawyer to press the case than on paid advertising.
The Left has proposed the tactic of flooding the welfare system to bankrupt the system and bring down the government so that they can reshape it. I propose that we flood the justice system with suits such as these to educate the people to what is actually happening.
Most lawmakers are lawyers whether on the left or on the right (something I think is a conflict of interest) so we should have many right wing lawyers that could pursue this agenda in the name of furthering their cause.
Personally, I would rather spend the money, I would normally send to a candidate for reelection, on these lawsuits!!!
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Monday, April 11, 2011
The US Is Quickly Becoming Immune To Islam
I know many of you are alarmed by the Mosque at ground zero. Also many are concerned about a mosque "next door". But, it turns out that America is quickly becoming immune to the erection of Mosques.
I am not particularly opposed to the construction of mosques, but I am opposed to, militant Islam. If stopping the erection of ONE "militant mosque" is possible I am for it.
I saw this comment on a recent email.
" Plant a pig
Don't want a mosque built in your area? Some people are discouraging it by scattering pork on the proposed sites. The Muslims then decide that the land is defiled, so they can't build there. "
It may not be necessary to do all that. You may not have to be all that active. Mother Nature seems to be doing it for us.
It doesnt take long in a search for Feral Hogs on the Internet to find the alarming statistics of how the wild hog population is exploding. It is already in 39 states. Some states have a "shoot at will" stance on the hunting of feral hogs.
The following was cut and pasted from this website:
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/news/livestock/2011/01/LU_01-01-11-10.html
"How Many and Where?
Unfortunately the U.S. feral hog population is well established and growing. Precise determination of any wildlife population is impossible, but recent estimates indicate approximately 4 million feral hogs exist in the U.S. By comparison the September 2010 USDA inventory of hogs and pigs raised for agricultural purposes (i.e. on hog farms) was 65 million. Texas has the largest population of feral hogs estimated at 1 to 1.5 million followed by Florida with as many as 500,000, Hawaii with as many as 80,000 and California with as many as 70,000 (reviewed by Seward and co-workers, 2004). More recent information indicates that the population is growing and spreading. Feral hogs are now reported in 39 states (Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, 2009; http://www.scwds.org/)."
With the population exploding and with the "shoot at will" stance of many states, all we have to do is "kill and bury" at the site where shot. The land will progressively become more and more "defiled" and will block the construction of unwanted mosques. Just be sure to advertise your burial so all will know where not to build a mosque.
Looks like it may not be nice to mess with Mother Nature in more than one way!!
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
I am not particularly opposed to the construction of mosques, but I am opposed to, militant Islam. If stopping the erection of ONE "militant mosque" is possible I am for it.
I saw this comment on a recent email.
" Plant a pig
Don't want a mosque built in your area? Some people are discouraging it by scattering pork on the proposed sites. The Muslims then decide that the land is defiled, so they can't build there. "
It may not be necessary to do all that. You may not have to be all that active. Mother Nature seems to be doing it for us.
It doesnt take long in a search for Feral Hogs on the Internet to find the alarming statistics of how the wild hog population is exploding. It is already in 39 states. Some states have a "shoot at will" stance on the hunting of feral hogs.
The following was cut and pasted from this website:
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/news/livestock/2011/01/LU_01-01-11-10.html
"How Many and Where?
Unfortunately the U.S. feral hog population is well established and growing. Precise determination of any wildlife population is impossible, but recent estimates indicate approximately 4 million feral hogs exist in the U.S. By comparison the September 2010 USDA inventory of hogs and pigs raised for agricultural purposes (i.e. on hog farms) was 65 million. Texas has the largest population of feral hogs estimated at 1 to 1.5 million followed by Florida with as many as 500,000, Hawaii with as many as 80,000 and California with as many as 70,000 (reviewed by Seward and co-workers, 2004). More recent information indicates that the population is growing and spreading. Feral hogs are now reported in 39 states (Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, 2009; http://www.scwds.org/)."
With the population exploding and with the "shoot at will" stance of many states, all we have to do is "kill and bury" at the site where shot. The land will progressively become more and more "defiled" and will block the construction of unwanted mosques. Just be sure to advertise your burial so all will know where not to build a mosque.
Looks like it may not be nice to mess with Mother Nature in more than one way!!
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Saturday, April 9, 2011
How to solve the Jobs problem that Obama doesnt seem to care about
Click on this link to see how we can "Bring America Back"
Tom Paukens solution to bringing manufacturing jobs back to the USA
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Tom Paukens solution to bringing manufacturing jobs back to the USA
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Controlling the Universe
A while back I noticed something interesting as I sat in my living room watching TV. I have three chiming clocks. One is a tall old Grandfather clock that chimes every quarter hour with the Westminster chimes. On the hour it counts the hour. The second is a smaller, Grandmother clock. It also strikes every quarter hour and counts the hour on the hour. The third is a mantle clock the strikes once on the half hour and then counts the hour on the hour.
These three clocks sit in my living room and in the entry way to the house. They are in a triangle that is about 10 feet on two sides and five feet on the third side.
What I noticed was that they didn't all strike the hour at the same time even though I originally set them to all chime in unison. Being a scientist, this puzzled me so I set about looking for answers.
After a lot of physics and mathematics I finally discovered the answer and it gave me control of the universe. I don't know what I will do with that control, but it should be worth something to someone.
How, did I do that , I am sure you are asking?
Well if you start with the fact that the universe is expanding it soon becomes clear that the time between any one of those clocks an the center of the universe is different from the time for another clock. That difference is determined by how far any clock is from the center of the universe. Since the universe all started at a singularity at the beginning of time (there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang) then the clock that is furthest from the center of the universe is the oldest clock and the one closest to the center is the youngest clock. Thus the clock furthest from the center of the universe will chime FIRST!!!
Now using mathematics and triangulation it is possible to determine in which direction the universe is expanding and at what rate it is expanding. The clock that chimes first is closet to the "edge" of the universe and with three clocks the exact direction that the universe is expanding can be determined. Tonight it is expanding toward the west at about 3 feet per second. This is very revealing and very useful when combined with the information that follows.
Those that are familiar with quantum physics know of the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal", right? Well, what it basically says is that the minute you begin to measure something, you change the thing that you are measuring. Thus, to have absolute certainty of the position of something, you give up certainty of its motion and the reverse is also true. Therefore as soon as I begin counting the seconds between the arrival of the time front across the three clocks I change the direction and speed of that motion.
So this explains why some evenings we are expanding to the West at 3 feet per second and at other times I measure the expansion to the North at 2.3 feet per second, etc. It is being changed by my measurement!!!
Here comes the exciting part. I can measure the change that my measuring causes by looking at the results. Now, being able to see what effect my measurements have, I can use that knowledge to "shift" the expansion direction and speed as I please. Ok, Ok, it might be like rowing a round boat across a pond, sort of iffy, but I think I can learn to control it somewhat and I will then have complete control of the universe!
OK, so now what can I do with that control? Anyone have any ideas? Please respond quick because there are some guys coming in the front door that look like they are crazy. They have a big net and look like they are looking for big butterflies.
OOps, gotta go. These guys want me to help them.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
These three clocks sit in my living room and in the entry way to the house. They are in a triangle that is about 10 feet on two sides and five feet on the third side.
What I noticed was that they didn't all strike the hour at the same time even though I originally set them to all chime in unison. Being a scientist, this puzzled me so I set about looking for answers.
After a lot of physics and mathematics I finally discovered the answer and it gave me control of the universe. I don't know what I will do with that control, but it should be worth something to someone.
How, did I do that , I am sure you are asking?
Well if you start with the fact that the universe is expanding it soon becomes clear that the time between any one of those clocks an the center of the universe is different from the time for another clock. That difference is determined by how far any clock is from the center of the universe. Since the universe all started at a singularity at the beginning of time (there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang) then the clock that is furthest from the center of the universe is the oldest clock and the one closest to the center is the youngest clock. Thus the clock furthest from the center of the universe will chime FIRST!!!
Now using mathematics and triangulation it is possible to determine in which direction the universe is expanding and at what rate it is expanding. The clock that chimes first is closet to the "edge" of the universe and with three clocks the exact direction that the universe is expanding can be determined. Tonight it is expanding toward the west at about 3 feet per second. This is very revealing and very useful when combined with the information that follows.
Those that are familiar with quantum physics know of the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal", right? Well, what it basically says is that the minute you begin to measure something, you change the thing that you are measuring. Thus, to have absolute certainty of the position of something, you give up certainty of its motion and the reverse is also true. Therefore as soon as I begin counting the seconds between the arrival of the time front across the three clocks I change the direction and speed of that motion.
So this explains why some evenings we are expanding to the West at 3 feet per second and at other times I measure the expansion to the North at 2.3 feet per second, etc. It is being changed by my measurement!!!
Here comes the exciting part. I can measure the change that my measuring causes by looking at the results. Now, being able to see what effect my measurements have, I can use that knowledge to "shift" the expansion direction and speed as I please. Ok, Ok, it might be like rowing a round boat across a pond, sort of iffy, but I think I can learn to control it somewhat and I will then have complete control of the universe!
OK, so now what can I do with that control? Anyone have any ideas? Please respond quick because there are some guys coming in the front door that look like they are crazy. They have a big net and look like they are looking for big butterflies.
OOps, gotta go. These guys want me to help them.
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)