Do we REALLY just have to take it?

“We have to take what we can get because of the presidential veto and the Democrat’s control of the Senate”.  I hear this more and more from our Republican leadership.

This is a “losers” mindset.  Many conservatives have that mindset, but only because they are not thinking outside of the box.  There is much we can do that completely nullifies a Presidential veto, or even the necessity for any congressional vote compromises.

The first idea returns power to the State.

Google the words “Nullify Now”. 

"Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories."

            Vice President Thomas Jefferson, passed by Kentucky and other state legislatures in 1798

The second idea returns power to the PEOPLE.  Think about how our rebellion against taxation without representation in the 18th century turned out.  We are experiencing the same taxation without representation NOW!  Why do conservatives assume that the same tactic cannot be used NOW?  If as few as 2% of taxpayers adjusted their payroll tax deductions to 0 dependents, and then simply sent in 8% of their gross income, the IRS could not attack individuals because of the overwhelming numbers, it would override any presidential veto NOW, it would significantly lower our deficit spending NOW, it requires no “permission” NOW, it would force closing of non-functional & duplicate federal agencies NOW, it would reduce the size of the federal government NOW, it would stop ObamaCare NOW, it would force federal employees to find private sector jobs NOW, and it would return control of the fed government to we the people NOW.  Now think what the effect would be if as many as 75% of American taxpayers decided to do it!

We are living in troubling times - does compromise with Obama’s administration or Democrat politicians look promising to you for a solution?

Don’t leave it for our children to suffer under – fix it NOW.

Start thinking about and implementing STRATEGIC solutions, not TACTICAL solutions.

Start thinking OUT OF THE BOX – Our national future depends on it.

No, He Can't

by Dr. Anne Wortham

Snopes - Correctly Attributed

This is Anne Wortham. She is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University  and continuing Visiting Scholar at  Stanford   University's  Hoover Institution.  She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.  Here is a prophetic article she wrote in 2008.

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men, Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Solution to the USA's Nuclear Conundrum?

An article written by Timothy B. Hurst in Celsias

In the wake of the deadly earthquake and tsunami that struck northeastern Japan on Friday which now threatens the possibility of partial or full reactor meltdowns at several Japanese nuclear power plants, many anti-nuclear campaigners are using the opportunity to posit that nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe, even in the context of its potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.  And at the very least, that is a conversation worth having.

But what about the much-hyped small modular reactors   (SMRs) that are being touted as one possible way to scale-up the low-carbon electricity generating-potential of nuclear power, and to do so at a much lower cost than traditional utility-scale nuclear power plants? Are the much smaller SMRs any safer than large nuclear power plants? And can they withstand the kind of thrashing that Japanese plants endured on Friday without melting down? From what I can gather, the answer to both of those questions is yes.

In the United States, Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations require that every plant be built to survive an earthquake   larger than the strongest ever recorded in the area. And when the NRC does finally produce a regulatory regime governing SMRs, the same rule will likely be put in place. But what happens when a major earthquake and tsunami event not only prevents a nuclear power plant from operating properly but also prevents the emergency back-up systems from operating properly, or at all? In the case of SMRs, because of the size of the reactors and the passive cooling systems used, a loss of back-up power or access to fresh water would be irrelevant.

"They are smaller, so the amount of radioactivity contained in each reactor is less,"writes John Wheeler   at This Week in Nuclear. "So much less," he writes,  "that even if the worse case reactor accident occurs, the amount of radioactive material released would not pose a risk to the public."

Not only do smaller reactors contain less fuel, which slows down the progression of reactor accidents, most SMRs are small enough that they cannot over heat and melt down.

"Where operators in large reactors have minutes or hours to react to events, operators of SMRs may have hours or even days. This means the chance of a reactor damaging accident is very, very remote," writes Wheeler.

A 2010 report by the American Nuclear Society   (pdf) seems to back that up. According to the report, many of the safety provisions required in large reactors are not necessary in the many new small reactor designs  .

In particular, most SMRs are not water cooled, they use passive systems of gas, liquid salt, or liquid metal coolants that operate at low pressures, meaning that if radioactive gasses build up inside the containment building, like they did inside the reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, there is less pressure to expel radioactive gasses into the environment.

The fact that they don't need fresh water to cool the reactors mean there is no need for pumps to move the water, and perhaps more importantly, they do not require access to electrical power via the grid or via backup diesel generators to provide active cooling support.

"They get all the cooling they need from air circulating around the reactor," writes Wheeler. "This is a big deal because if SMRs can’t melt down, then they can’t release radioactive gas that would pose a risk to the public."

In addition to not requiring access to electricity to support an active cooling system, SMRs are small enough that they can be built underground. Doing so certainly wouldn't protect them from the damaging effects of earthquakes, per se, but it would prevent them from being lifted off their foundations by a powerful tsunami and floated away like matchboxes, as we saw was the case with so many large, heavy structures on the northeastern coast of Japan last Friday afternoon.

As someone who has personally and publicly wrestled with the nuclear power issue for a very long time, I would like to believe that we have the ability to generate safe, reliable, clean nuclear power. And while I still believe there is a place for new nuclear capacity in the U.S. and elsewhere, I'm not so sure that new capacity should come in the form of large, capital-intensive, utility-scale nuclear power plants -- plants that obviously are not impervious to environmental threats.

Just an AMAC Suggestion

E-mail sent April 4, 2011 to AMAC

I cut up my AARP card and joined AMAC almost two years ago, and I have a feeling now that I should give you a suggestion.

Don't make the same mistake that AARP made.  I have only needed one piece of information from you in the two years since I joined AMAC.  I set up my Medicare A/B, setup my TRSCare, and called you to get info about possible Medicare supplement plans which would also include dental coverage.  You dropped the ball on that one, even though I see lots of AMAC advertising almost everyday about how much you can help members with that.

Your representative seemed very busy, told me in the 45 second call, that you couldn't be much help to me with that.  He suggested that I call my old workplace human resources to see if they offered anything to retirees.  That was a typical AARP tactic, flashy advertising/little help (but even they offer more help than AMAC offered me).  I got the job done through Cobra, but was disappointed with the lack of help from AMAC.

When I received my new AMAC membership "card", yes it was paper that I had to print on my printer.  AARP always sent out nice plastic cards.

So if you offer less help to members, and lower operating costs by downgrading quality for members, then you must really be contributing the extra money you are saving, toward conservative causes favoring your membership?  AARP contributed millions from their membership dues to ObamaCare support for Obama/Reid/Pelosi, and stand to receive in return a billion dollar payback if we fail to defund ObamaCare!

The problem is that I see almost daily "recruiting" ads from AMAC praising the help you give your members - but almost NO information on how YOU are spending MY membership fees for causes promoting MY interests?

If this is your grand plan, then at least it will be MUCH easier to cut up AMAC membership "cards"?  Learn from the AARP experience, or slide down the same slippery slope.

I expect a reply to my concern, including how and how much you are spending to promote my Conservative causes, but please, NO FORM LETTERS!  I am especially interested in the AMAC contribution specifics for this year.  I am posting this e-mail in my Blog, forwarding it to my conservative friends (3200+ on FaceBook), and will add your response to my blog, when I receive it from you.  We are waiting?

Obama Fax - Illegal Immigrants

ObamaSENT THIS FAX ON April 2, 2011

Mr. PRIVACY
PRIVACYSpring, TX 77379
PRIVACY

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20500


Dear President Obama:

You have made a lot of troubling, pro-amnesty statements recently. Do you really believe that illegal aliens deserve an amnesty when 22 million Americans can't find a job?

In addition to my opposition to your goals for change to our Constitution, redistribution of wealth, ObamaCare socialized medicine, secular government, Islamization of America, Federal government's intrusive abuse of private, individual rights, Federal bailouts using taxpayer money, and not last nor least, I also oppose your toleration of illegal immigration, seeking help at the ballot box from illegal alien votes, while ignoring the danger to Americans and the effect on taxpayers and unemployed Americans.

Recently, you said: "My hope is that they begin to recognize over the next year that we can't solve this problem [illegal immigration] without taking a broad, comprehensive approach.... The politics of this are difficult, but ultimately I am confident that we are going to get it done."

I promise to do everything in my power to make sure that you DO NOT get it done

First a rhetorical question - Do you actually believe that actually fixing America's illegal immigration debacle requires a "comprehensive approach" and why are you even spending time trying to get an amnesty passed when 22 million Americans cannot even find a job? Everyone knows that "comprehensive" is a codeword for a mass amnesty for illegal aliens -- something you have supported throughout your short political career - possibly looking for another source of undeserved votes? You should be looking out for jobless Americans instead of the illegal aliens who pose both a terrorist and criminal danger, at tremendous cost to taxpayers, and keep Americans out of a job? There is an irony that because of your search for votes from illegal sources, you may lose your OWN job as POTUS. Of course along with your many other attacks against the Constitution of the United States (which you are sworn to uphold).

I pray you recognize your Constitutional requirement for SERVICE to the people, and start trying to get Americans back in U.S. jobs instead of trying to keep illegal aliens in those jobs. But if my prayers are not answered before the next election in 2012, I promise to use my contributions and my time to make sure that We The People do not have to continue to endure your abandonment of our Constitution in your quest for a New World Order. We the people are again experiencing from your administration, the same thing our ancestors fought and died for - TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

Feeling unrepresented,

Mr. PRIVACY


P.S. Also contrary to your public statement, we ARE a Christian people, and you ignore that at your spiritual peril.

GOD BLESS AMERICA
.
.

Tears Just Don't Get The Job Done

One of the sad trends I have noticed from my point of view as a homeowner over the years is an alarming increase of skilled craftsmen who give up on completing any job that I have hired them to do.  My most disappointing memory is a contractor I hired in Florida to repair a shower stall leak, which was made more difficult because the concrete “pan” below the shower needed to be removed and replaced.  I had made a small partial “good faith” payment, and the remodeler struggled with the job two days, walked off without notice, leaving the job unfinished, and bathroom in a shambles.  I never heard from this man again.  I worried where had the societal value to “get the job done”, gone?

It appears to have happily moved up into our Congressional venues.  TEA Party Nation founder Judson Phillips, in a massive e-mailout to members, has encouraged them to dump Boehner both as Speaker of the House, and as a US Congressman.  Phillips believes that the speaker has been bitten by the pervasive “no can do” bug!

Mr. Phillips, believes we are close to a unique opportunity to complete the goal of halting President Obama’s rush to re-distribute funds from tax payers to non-taxpayers.  "Our ultimate strategy here needs to be to make sure the debt ceiling is not raised," Phillips wrote. "If we can win this one, Congress will be forced to make changes.”

Sadly, Boehner appears to be not up to the job.

An independent grassroots lobbying effort launched by World Net Daily (WND) founder Joseph Farah, called the "No More Red Ink" campaign, has sent nearly 1 million letters to House Republicans calling on them to oppose any rise in the debt limit, thus shutting off the spigot for more spending beyond the government’s present revenues.  According to Farah, all we need are 218 Representatives in the House to vote no, and the debt ceiling does not get raised!  

THIS MEANS THE GOP HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO STOP THE FEDERAL EXPANSION AND OBAMACARE, IRREGARDLESS OF AN OBAMA VETO!

A  WND survey taken in early March showed 122 House Republicans opposed to raising the debt limit under any circumstances with 23 favoring it.

The latest  WND talley (scroll down on this link for a very good chart showing where every Representative stands on the debt ceiling), shows 142 House Republicans opposing a raise in the $14.3 trillion debt limit with only 20 favoring it. Another 39 are undecided, while 40 say they would only vote to raise the debt limit with conditions, such as agreement on major cuts, entitlement reform of a balance budget agreement, and defunding ObamaCare.

This positive change since early March is VERY significant since the total votes needed are 218!

"This is a remarkable change and shows Americans still have a chance at stopping the borrowing-and-spending madness in Washington in the near term," said Farah. "We are effectively moving House Republicans against raising the debt limit – and they are beginning to realize this is where their real power is."

I believe this is the kind of “CAN DO” spirit that patriotic Americans need to reinstate in our society.  I know where I am going to redirect my political contributions to help accomplish this.  And I will advise the 20 yes voters, the 39 undecided voters, and the 40 conditional voters identified on the excellent chart found on the link above.

Mr Boehner, we need to get a second bid for the job, since you seem to have walked off the job site.

Recent Trip To Moody Gardens in Galveston with two of my EXs from Texas

March trip to Moody Gardens with ex-wife Maria, and ex-granddaughter Aurora.  Aurora was especially looking forward to the Dora 4D Imax, and the shark tunnel (more the former than the latter).

Click on the pics for larger size

I don't know, do sharks bite kids?

Nope, the shark didn't bite me on the neck.

TASTY!.....but I think she is backwashing!

Yep, havin' fun now!

I think I am almost at the brain freeze stage!

Long, hard day at the office!

Bill O'Reilly Interviews

I know that a few of my "O'Reilly fan" friends will probably be upset with me now after reading this blog, but I noticed a change in his style about a year after he started his The O'Reilly Factor show on FoxNews.

He started placing too much emphasis and too much show time on HIS counterpoints and opinions, instead of allowing his viewers to hear the reasoning from the guest "experts" that were the subjects of his interviews.  I would rather not hear his counterpoints and opinions, and wish he allowed the extra time for me to hear the reasoning of his "expert" guests.  It seems to me that after a year or so into his new job, he was bitten by the self-aggrandizement bug.  Maybe that is impossible to avoid when the ratings go up?  I call it the "You're All That" syndrome.

I see this effect in both the interviews with his "regularly scheduled" guests (the O'Reilly girls), and also in his interviews with his unique, one time only guest interviews.  At the very least, to me, he often seems inconsiderate to both types of his guests.  I understand that his job is to keep the guests "on topic", but that can be done without interjecting his counterpoints and views into the interviews.  I think I know where he stands on most things (when I can keep up with the changes).

This video interview is a typical example of what I have been feeling more and more over the last several years.  O'Reilly Interview .  I wanted to hear much more of the doctor's opinions - she is the expert here.