16
Jun
I stumbled across this on a clandestine mission this afternoon:
Not to be confused with a jar of blood, it’s a candle. It’s wax. It’s only wax. There is no wick. It does not burn. It does not emit light. It is a zero-carbon footprint candle. Now, I was assured this was most likely a screwed up attempt at a real candle, but I know better. I’m much too fast to pass that test. This is some company’s shot at the federal candle market. It fits perfectly into the EPA’s new no-carbon standards. Now, although I have no factory, I will offer anyone who wishes to have the Obama EPA approved candle for $19.99. Sure, it’s a little pricey for a candle, but in order to meet EPA’s new no-carbon standards, extra effort has to be made to remove the wick. Not sure how much shipping and handling will be as I’m not sure any shippers can meet the new no-carbon standards yet. But, somehow, for some cost, I will get it to you. Promise. I’ll bill you for whatever I want to charge after you get it.
Per Barbara Boxer:
“I’m going to put in the record … a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way,” Boxer said. “And that’s why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue.”
I’m going to put on record, I’ll promisie quotes from generic titles as well, that carbon pollution won’t cause a single conflict in the next 20 years.
We have veterans who want to end our reliance on the Middle East. Most people would recognize that as eliminating our dependency on oil. That has very little to do with pushing cap and trade. That has very little to do with regulating carbon. They’ll take Kentucky coal over Saudi oil in a heartbeat. I’m with those peeps. However, burning coal makes carbon. It has done that since before Barbara Boxer was born. Now, a lot of people are making the cliam man’s impact on the environment was more severe 100 years ago than it is now. That was because man relied more on burning coal than other options. With the advent of nuclear, natural gas, electricity, wind, water, and nowaday bio-mass and other technologies, man doesn’t rely as much on coal as he did then. With that, the “dirty” carbon emissions have actually decreased substantially over the last fifty years:
Now, what we see here is that since 1960 ( that’s fifty years, Babs ), sulfur emission have decreased. Now, the reason this chart means anything is because we NEED carbon. OK? Plants LOVE carbon. Simply saying you want to eliminate carbon means you want all life on Earth to die. That’s pretty harsh. That’s what Barbara Boxer is saying. The reality is that carbon is not a bad thing. Sulfur is. The assumption made by simple minds like Al Gore and Barbara Boxer is that in order to make energy, you HAVE to make carbon. So, in order to make energy more efficient, you lower the carbon usage. Make sense? It really doesn’t. You can crank out all the carbon you ever imagined and it won’t necessarily harm the Earth. It will suffocate mankind if plants don’t take of the problem. Sulfur, that’s another story. Sulfur’s nasty stuff. That’s the stuff acid rain is made from. There’s nothing good about sulfur. The reason they put the hammer on coal fifty years ago was the sulfur, not the carbon. Because of that, over the next fifty years, the US developed a massive addiction to oil. However, to make it real fun, we made the game complicated by pretty much eliminating any chance of drilling at home. You can’t drill in fifty feet of water, but you can in 5,000 feet. Waters in the Gulf can be put at risk, sand in Utah can not. Our economy has propped up every terrorist organization on Earth as we sent billions upon billion to the Middle East. But, we damaged the environment a lot less.
That’s what the Veterans oppose.
Barbara Boxer is now using that Vetereans’ opposition to sending money to the Middle East to support her plan for trading stocks in companies that are penalized to varying degrees based on the whims of the EPA in order to save the environment by most likely emitting more sulfur into the air.
Ya get all that?
And if we don’t support her plan to emit more sulfur in the air and bankrupt the economy, there will be war in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, or ( insert current conflict here ).
Carly Fiorina has taken a position opposing Boxer’s statement. She has also taken the lead in California. I’d like to think Californians are finally taking their politics seriously. But, I’m still skeptical.
Not wanting to explain their logic to the general public about regulating carbon, Boxer went the route of using EPA policy changes to do it. The Republicans balked. They had a vote. Wanna guess how it went? These peeps voted to continue allowing the EPA to regulate carbon:
| Akaka (D-HI) |
| Baucus (D-MT) |
| Begich (D-AK) |
| Bennet (D-CO) |
| Bingaman (D-NM) |
| Boxer (D-CA) |
| Brown (D-OH) |
| Burris (D-IL) |
| Byrd (D-WV) |
| Cantwell (D-WA) |
| Cardin (D-MD) |
| Carper (D-DE) |
| Casey (D-PA) |
| Conrad (D-ND) |
| Dodd (D-CT) |
| Dorgan (D-ND) |
| Durbin (D-IL) |
| Feingold (D-WI) |
| Feinstein (D-CA) |
| Franken (D-MN) |
| Gillibrand (D-NY) |
| Hagan (D-NC) |
| Harkin (D-IA) |
| Inouye (D-HI) |
| Johnson (D-SD) |
| Kaufman (D-DE) |
| Kerry (D-MA) |
| Klobuchar (D-MN) |
| Kohl (D-WI) |
| Lautenberg (D-NJ) |
| Leahy (D-VT) |
| Levin (D-MI) |
| Lieberman (ID-CT) |
| McCaskill (D-MO) |
| Menendez (D-NJ) |
| Merkley (D-OR) |
| Mikulski (D-MD) |
| Murray (D-WA) |
| Nelson (D-FL) |
| Reed (D-RI) |
| Reid (D-NV) |
| Sanders (I-VT) |
| Schumer (D-NY) |
| Shaheen (D-NH) |
| Specter (D-PA) |
| Stabenow (D-MI) |
| Tester (D-MT) |
| Udall (D-CO) |
| Udall (D-NM) |
| Warner (D-VA) |
| Webb (D-VA) |
| Whitehouse (D-RI) |
| Wyden (D-OR) |
Yup, out of 53 votes for regulating a life sustaining gas, all 53 were Democrat.
Out of 47 votes telling the EPA that’s nuts, 6 were Democrat. Boxer took that as encouraging sign that Congress is ready to support Obama’s plan to regulate ( read, tax ) the air that you breathe.
14
Jun
Here’s how to do it real quick. Apparently they’ve found an estimated one trillion dollars of minerals in Afghanistan. Let’s do some quick math with that. According to sources there are approximately 25 million people in Afghanistan. That comes out to about $42,000 a person. That doesn’t sound too hot. But, take into consideration the fact that the average Afghani right now makes about $250 a year. That would then come out to be about 168 years. Now, without doing a whole lot of math, I’m going to assume the average Afghani does not live 168 years. Let’s go in and tell them that if they quit shooting us, and others, we’ll DOUBLE their income for the rest of their lives and they don’t have to do anything at all. For good measure, we’ll even toss in $500 a month for their kids!
Simple huh?
First of all, start this video and turn the volume up kinda loud. James Brown loud.
Now start reading this out loud:
“There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary,”
“I don’t know if he was a Republican plant. He was someone’s plant.”
“I’ve been trying to figure out how somebody who is unemployed can plop down a $10,000 filing fee and spends no money and gets nominated,”
“He has no reports of income or expenditures. Somebody is spending the money. The state and federal authorities have got to look into this.”
“I am not going to support anybody who I think would deliberately mislead, subvert, circumvent, and especially somebody being accused of a felony, to represent me in the Senate,”
“I am all for this gentleman being off our party’s list, and I will do everything I possibly can to have that done.”
That’s Representative Jim Clyburn’s take on Al(vin) Green(e)’s upset victory in the South Carolina Democrat prinary. Now, I respect the fact he wants to know where Green(e)’s $10,000 fee came from. But, that’s not really much of an issue. It’s only an issue if it can be proved the candidate was intentionally running strictly to harm someone else. Now, as well-intended as that law may be, the only intent of running a campaign is to intentionally harm your opponent enough to win the race. So, I think Clyburn’s not going to get too far with that. The best he can hope for is Green(e) being convicted of the felony before November. Best I recall, that renders a person unable to hold the position. Now, if Clyburn’s suggesting he’s going to push the judicial system to make sure Green(e)’s convicted sooner, drop him in the water.
Otherwise, Clyburn’s just going to have accept the fact that the people he expects to support him every other year are just as willing to vote for someone who hangs out in colleges soliciting sex by pushing porn on unsuspecting students. Or, they think he’s a religious soul singer.
Remember Al Green? Man, I sure do:
Right after Barry White and George Clinton, the dude could sing. When he set the mood, the clothes fell off. Didn’t even need a whole lot of tequila. I’m sure every 40 to 50 something has a good memory or two of Al Green. So, given the chance to show their appreciation for all he’s done for forty years, South Carolina Democrats selected Al Green as their candidate to be Senator of South Carolina.
Only problem is, the Al(vin) Green(e) they voted for is not the crooner. In fact, right now, he’s not anything. He’s unemployed. Well, that’s not totally true, he does occasionally show porn to college students. He’s worked hard on his campaign too, sorta. Being unemployed, he’s ready to go to bat for South Carolina in DC to tackle unemployment. On economics, he has a unqiue take on the bailout fiasco of the last couple of years, ”TARP? What’s that?”
This guy did serve his country in the military. So, I’m not going to trash him that much. He is what he is. My gripe is a little bigger than that. Originally, US Senators were selected by state legislators. Over time, and by 1913, all states ceded that right. Popular vote is now the expected norm. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the old way of doing would have prevented Alvin Greene from being the party nonimee. But, I’m sure, they probably would have known he wasn’t the religious soul singer, but instead the unemployed “obscenity dissminator”. One can argue the merits of both, but they’re obviously not similar political pursuits.
Really, given Cynthia McKinney, Hank Johnson, and a BUNCH of other idiots elected lately, I often wonder just how much better off we are assuring “every vote counts”?
Barack Obama threw the entire country under the bus with his health care “reform”. People I know immediately made decisions affecting their very lives based on assumptions Obama said would occur, fully knowing they never would. How many people made the argument that it would require everyone to have insurance? Go ahead, raise your hands. Still believe that too dontcha?
Try this on for size.
Over the last several years, Robert Wood Johnson, among others, has been pushing Consumer Directed Options for elderly indigent people. The primary benefit of this program is designed to allow the elderly person the ability to:
- Select, manage, and dismiss their workers
- Choose which services to use
- Choose what providers or workers to hire
- Decide what time of day workers will come
- Decide whether to hire family members
- Decide whether to spend available funds on things other than services (like appliances or home modifications)
Sounds wonderful huh?
According to the Ohio Developmental Disabilities Council, the primary justification in most states to do it is “it’s the right thing to do“. I kid you not. Most of the administering agencies are loving it. It’s a cash cow for the financial administrator. The main reason it’s a cash cow?
- They don’t have to provide health insurance for the worker.
- Not only that, they don’t have to provide workers compensation for the worker either.
- Not only that, they don’t have to provide liability insurance on the worker either.
- Not only that, they don’t even have to train the worker on how to do the job safely.
In other words, they send an untrained person with questionable backgrounds into an elderly person’s home with no health coverage at all. None.
Anyone see a plan here if you want to assure some revenue for the rest of your life? ( Think bad back. Think no legal entity to challenge you. )
In every state they’ve done this plan to any real degree, they are now looking for ways to cut the entire state budget because they’re going broke. California’s a freaking nightmare.
So, ya gotta ask, if they don’t have to provide health insurance, workers compensation, liability, or even training, how does it get sooooo expensive?
Simple. They do allow the SEIU to collect fees not only from member providers, but from providers who don’t participate. In Illinois you won’t have health insurance, you won’t have workers compensation, you won’t have liability insurance, but you will have to pay union dues.
Obama is so thrilled with this concept he has altered the Older Americans Act to require this arrangement in all fifty states whether the state wants to do it or not. He’s doing that through the local waivers, the programs designed to allow states to manage the programs as they wish. And, he’s doing it as a policy change to keep not only Congress from bothering him, but pretty much all media clueless.
So, what is going on right now, and I mean right now, is people who are providing this service are receiving health insurance to some degree, workers compensation, liability coverage, and training on how to not injure themselves working with elderly people. Under Obama’s and Kathleen Sebelius’s direction, they will lose their health insurance and workers compensation. That’s not conjecture. That’s not speculation. That’s not rhetoric. That’s not a straw man. That’s not TEA bagging. That is happening right now. Call any Administration on Aging office in your local area and ask for Consumer Directed Options. If you don’t believe me, I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya.
If you work in non-medical elderly services, prepare to get screwed like you’ve never been screwed before. This isn’t an advocacy campaign, it’s already been done.
And you know what? It doesn’t stop there. By diluting program funds from existing programs to fund this effort to avoid providing the health insurance Obama guaranteed everyone, it’s making existing grant programs so small they can’t support themselves. These grants are used to compel providers to provide services in small rural areas that otherwise would have no providers at all. So, what IS happening is existing providers are dropping out all over the country. Where do you suppose those workers are now getting their health insurance? And for the locals, my agency is very close to that point now. We are discussing at this point whether it’s worth it or not to even try. I mean, what’s the point from a company perspective. We are required, by law, to make sure our employees are protected. It’s our #1 expense, bar none. We are now put in a position where we will have to not only compete, but give away at least 10% of our revenue source, to entities that do not have to provide any benefits whatsoever to their “employee”. And, they’re not.
All of that because of the empirical evidence of “it’s the right thing to do”.
Accusing the Arizona immigration law of leading to the slippery slope of racial profiling has apparently worn thin. Linda Sanchez decided to up it a notch:
“There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups”,”It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics.”
I’m not sure where the documentation is. But, if she says it’s there, it must be. I can’t imagine she would make something up like that. No one in Congress would do that?
I can’t imagine she’ll back up her claims on Foxnews. I can’t imagine any other major media asking her to.
3
Jun
This guy just needs killin in the worst possible way.
That’s the AP headline this morning.
MEXICO CITY — It’s one of the safest parts of America, and it’s getting safer.
It’s the U.S.-Mexico border, and even as politicians say more federal troops are needed to fight rising violence, government data obtained by The Associated Press show it actually isn’t so dangerous after all.
The top four big cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin, according to a new FBI report. And an in-house Customs and Border Protection report shows that Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.
The Customs and Border Protection study, obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request, shows 3 percent of Border Patrol agents and officers were assaulted last year, mostly when assailants threw rocks at them. That compares with 11 percent of police officers and sheriff’s deputies assaulted during the same period, usually with guns or knives.
In addition, violent attacks against agents declined in 2009 along most of the border for the first time in seven years. So far this year assaults are slightly up, but data is incomplete.
“The border is safer now than it’s ever been,” said U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling.
OK, so this article, originating from MEXICO CITY is making a claim that seems to run counter to everything we’ve been told for the last decade or so. So, I started by researching who wrote this fact-stating article. It was written by Martha Mendoza.
“Politicians are hyping up this incredible fear across the country about the border, but these numbers show these are lies being perpetrated on the American public,” said immigrant advocate Isabel Garcia at Tucson-based Derechos Humanos. “The warnings about violence are just an excuse to crack down on migrants who want to work and be with their families.”
Martha rattles off a bunch of “facts” based on numbers no one actually shows. Let’s look at the ramifications of the porous border. Let’s do that by looking at the top 10 most violent cities in the US and why:
- #10: Baltimore, Maryland. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #9: Nashville, Tennessee. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #8: Charleston, South Carolina. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #7: Little Rock, Arkansas. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #6: Orlando, Florida. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #5: Stockton, California. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #4: Las Vegas, Nevada. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #3: Miami, Florida. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #2: Memphis, Tennessee. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #1: Detroit, Michigan. Most definitely a border city. But not the border Martha Mendoza is talking about.
All ten of these cities do have one thing in common.
All 10 of the most dangerous cities were among those identified by the Department of Justice as transit points for Mexican drug cartels.
Run by crime lords like Joaquin Guzman Lorea, these gangs–and their violent turf wars–are spreading into the American Southwest and beyond. Places like Stockton, Calif., nearly 500 miles from Tijuana, have seen an uptick in related violent crime.
“Stockton is a major transit point along the I-5 corridor on the way to Seattle and Vancouver,” says Wolfram. “A lot of it is similar to crime happening in the Southwest. For the most part, it’s drug gang on drug gang.”
Anyone with just a tiny bit of interest would find immediate overwhelming evidence that the problem is not the drugs stopping at the border and causing problems. The problem is drugs going into our cities and causing huge problems. Read the national headlines. Almost every day you’ll find some story referencing Mexican drug cartels. Here’s one from today:
Prosecutors say a third federal officer was wounded in the Wednesday attack in the town of Garcia.
If it’s all the same to Martha, I’m doing three things. First of all, I’m not believing her article. At all. Not in the least bit. I”m gonna bet I’m doing what most of the people near that border are doing to keep it so “safe”. They’re staying away from it. Second, I’m not scheduling any vacations to that area. Not even close. There’s nothing there that appeals to me anyway. Lastly, I’m supporting Arizona’s efforts to make it not only safer for themselves, but safer for people living in those cities and communities infested by drug cartels bringing their drugs in by the truckload.
Next I’m sure Martha will write an AP story about what a pleasant place to live Mexico City is.
2
Jun
Los Angeles has been busy the last couple of days.
First the city council decided to ban all things Arizonan because Arizona passed a law stating if you’re here illegally, you’re breaking the law in Arizona and will be arrested. Crazy huh?
Arizona retaliated by stating that LA imports a lot of electricity from Arizona and if they want to ban all things Arizonan, they’ll reciprocate by cutting off their electricity. LA basically told them to go ahead. So far, 94% of those polled are cheering for Arizona to do it. In the name of saving the world environment from those gluttonous carbon emitting a-holes in LA, I still think Arizona should pull the plug. So far, they haven’t. They’re just not quite the jerks LA are.
The LA School board, faced with the headline that a product of their education system is now an ex-gay porn star specializing in bondage accused of hacking a co-worker to death and stabbing a couple of other people in the process, has decided to chastise Arizona as being “un-American”.
So far LA police haven’t located the six foot tall stud-clad African-American driving an RAV4 and wielding a blood stained machete. They are also wary of the Arizona law that might invite profiling. In their defense, there is some confusion in that there is another gay-bondage porn star going by Steve Hill. But, he’s white. Looking for a black gay bondage porn star going by Steve Hill would be no better than what they’re doing in Arizona now would it?
Meanwhile, Arizona is now dealing with the fact that over 100,000 illegals have left Arizona. Apparently this is forcing local businesses to hire, get this, US citizens. That is SOOOO freaking un-American huh?
