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
Thursday, May 26, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)