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
Monday, September 26, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)