For like the 4th time, Hillary laid the smack-down on Obama on a TV interview this weekend...
"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." -- Hillary Clinton
Bare-knuckles brawling....it's what makes American politics so much fun.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Reader Mail
Alert reader freedom2learn, always on top of developing stories, wrote in with this question...What is Agenda 21 and how does it effect The Great Lakes?
First of all, I hope you didn't just eat because you'll need a barf-bag after you read Wikipedia's description of Agenda21....
Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment. The number 21 refers to the 21st century.
The term sustainable development is UN code for the intent to seize the wealth and restrict the economic activity of wealthy nations, specifically the US. To the UN, it's not a fair world unless all nations are equal in misery, hunger, and despair, and it's using the global warming hoax as a pretext to controlling our economy, industry, and wealth.
Look no further than this quote from their web site to pretty much sum it up.....and to pretty much make you lose your lunch.
"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." [1] Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
To answer freedom's question specifically about the Great Lakes region, here are the specific goals of Agenda 21...
Agenda 21 sets out environmental strategies for the management of coasts, oceans, and water, the monitoring and reduction of chemical waste, the eradication of radioactive waste, and the conservation of natural vegetation and soils. In addition, there are plans for the development of sustainable farming, and other socio-economic proposals which include measures to improve health care, to reduce poverty, and to develop fair and environmentally friendly trade policies.
The aim is to promote global sustainable development at a more fundamental level than traditional aid programmes, based on common needs and interests, and on collective responsibility.
"develop fair trade policies, common needs and interests, collective responsibility".
This reeks of socialist/marxist dogma, or exactly what you would expect from the most corrupt, detestable collection of thugs and dictators ever assembled. In short, because Canada stupidly signed Agenda21, the government can impose these restrictions on it's side of the Great Lakes without debate. Without a doubt, they will affect life in or around the US side too. In the US, thankfully, the President cannot enter into a binding international agreement unilaterally. Those have to be passed by Congress. Hopefully, our legislators will resist the pressure to submit to the UN's insidious plot to control us.
Go to Crossroad and see the reprehensible UN bureaucrats' ploy to seize control of your lives.
First of all, I hope you didn't just eat because you'll need a barf-bag after you read Wikipedia's description of Agenda21....
Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment. The number 21 refers to the 21st century.
The term sustainable development is UN code for the intent to seize the wealth and restrict the economic activity of wealthy nations, specifically the US. To the UN, it's not a fair world unless all nations are equal in misery, hunger, and despair, and it's using the global warming hoax as a pretext to controlling our economy, industry, and wealth.
Look no further than this quote from their web site to pretty much sum it up.....and to pretty much make you lose your lunch.
"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." [1] Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
To answer freedom's question specifically about the Great Lakes region, here are the specific goals of Agenda 21...
Agenda 21 sets out environmental strategies for the management of coasts, oceans, and water, the monitoring and reduction of chemical waste, the eradication of radioactive waste, and the conservation of natural vegetation and soils. In addition, there are plans for the development of sustainable farming, and other socio-economic proposals which include measures to improve health care, to reduce poverty, and to develop fair and environmentally friendly trade policies.
The aim is to promote global sustainable development at a more fundamental level than traditional aid programmes, based on common needs and interests, and on collective responsibility.
"develop fair trade policies, common needs and interests, collective responsibility".
This reeks of socialist/marxist dogma, or exactly what you would expect from the most corrupt, detestable collection of thugs and dictators ever assembled. In short, because Canada stupidly signed Agenda21, the government can impose these restrictions on it's side of the Great Lakes without debate. Without a doubt, they will affect life in or around the US side too. In the US, thankfully, the President cannot enter into a binding international agreement unilaterally. Those have to be passed by Congress. Hopefully, our legislators will resist the pressure to submit to the UN's insidious plot to control us.
Go to Crossroad and see the reprehensible UN bureaucrats' ploy to seize control of your lives.
From my cold dead hands...
Unless you live in a cave or are in rehab, you probably heard that Charlton Heston passed away over the weekend. He was known early in his career for his roles in huge movies such as Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Lately, however, he fought against government encroachment into the freedoms of citizens by taking charge of the NRA and standing publically and forcefully for the second amendment...good on him!Charlton Heston--1923-2008--RIP!
Friday, April 04, 2008
TRR weekend opinion question
This week, Hillary was accused of saying to Bill Richardson that Barack Obama couldn't beat McCain in the general election because too many Americans wouldn't vote for a black guy. Of course she denies it and who knows if it really happened that way. She probably said something like, he can't win in the general, and maybe Richardson took it to be about race. Besides, who knows or cares what democrats say to each other in secret? What ever they say, it probably has to do with expanding government, limiting our freedoms, or seizing our taxes.....it's all just different degrees of bad.
That got me thinking though, even though Obama pretty much has a lock on the nomination, much to my delight and amusement, Hillary isn't giving up as she's mathematically still alive. With that in mind here's the weekend TRR poll question. If you want to debate your answers, leave your reasons for voting the way you did, as always in the comments thread, so that the rest of us can ridicule you for it...
That got me thinking though, even though Obama pretty much has a lock on the nomination, much to my delight and amusement, Hillary isn't giving up as she's mathematically still alive. With that in mind here's the weekend TRR poll question. If you want to debate your answers, leave your reasons for voting the way you did, as always in the comments thread, so that the rest of us can ridicule you for it...
Organ donor alert!
As most of you know by now, I'm a thoughtless, inconsiderate ass, without the slightest compassion or sympathy for people who, through their own stupidity, hurt themselves or get eaten by wild animals. That being the case, imagine what my reaction to this story was...ARLINGTON, Texas — A Texas man was critically injured Thursday night when he tried to "roof surf" atop a car traveling down a highway, police said.
Is there any more spectacular, or funny, way of hurting yourself than roof surfing? They should pull the plug on this guy and give all his organs and parts to people who can take better care of them.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Red pill or blue pill?
I know the whole Why-are-gas-prices-so-high question is a very complicated amalgam of economics, politics, culture, and perception. I've tried to explain it in as simple terms as I can but I fear some of you may still be buying the MSM's and democrats' version of eeeeevil oil companies swindling the American consumer. So, you can choose to believe the comfortable lies that you hear in the agenda-driven media and from craven politicians, or you can educate yourself, open your eyes and see the truth, even though it might be discomforting. So here are some quotes from today about oil prices, from other people way smarter than me....
...But it’s a sign of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone that an American business is having to justify success. I don’t care if the oil companies’ profits are 6000%. It’s a free market. If you don’t like big corporate profits, stop buying their *$@#*%$@ products. ---Hal @ rightthinking
The political hacks made a big deal about the huge profits these oil companies made over the past few years. All of this posturing was a sham .. and the politicians knew it. They also knew that most of the people who would watch them deliver their big oil smack down on TV wouldn't know a profit from a profit margin if their next six-pack and their big screen TVs depended on it. ---Neal Boortz
There are several factors that explain today's high prices. There has been a huge surge in demand for oil as a result of rapid economic growth in China and India, as well as in the United States. Another factor is the under-exploration. ---Walter E. Williams
Why, it's almost as if I know what I'm talking about.
p.s. A virtual cookie to anybody who gets the reference in the title of this post.
More reader mail
Circumspect reader David wrote in with this to say about the border fence issue...
Ed, you may or may not agree on my zeal for border control but this is insanity. The Federal Government has to seek waivers to go around Federal regulations and laws. Am I crazy?
David understandably expressed a few other choice sentiments about his frustrations, but since this is a PG blog, I'll spare you.
No, you're not crazy, and I'm glad Bush is finally taking some action toward the matter of border control. What David's upset about is that the federal government has to navigate lots of onerous legal issues, both privacy and environmental, in each border state, in order to erect the fence. One might reasonably think that since the primary role of government is to among other things...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, [and] provide for the common defence, it shouldn't need anybody's permission to build a border fence? Apparantly, one would be wrong.
Surely there's an easement like where all private land lies adjacent to state-owned land, like for power-line access, sewer and drain maintenance, service vehicle access, sidewalks, etc. And I thought that the land owners on the border were the first victims of looting, theft, and vandalism at the hands of illegals....you'd think they'd welcome the fence.
You can guess my attitude toward the nutty environmentalists who oppose the fence because it might affect the mating habits of wild cats....."Hey smelly hippie, go take another toke and stop impeding progress." The only part in which I agree with the land owners is that if there is no assumed easement, then the government should have to compensate the owners for the land they are taking, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states clearly that...Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.. Other than that, there should be no obsticles to erecting the fence.
Good call on that David. We haven't talked about the fence much lately.
The article to which he is referring is found here.
Ed, you may or may not agree on my zeal for border control but this is insanity. The Federal Government has to seek waivers to go around Federal regulations and laws. Am I crazy?
David understandably expressed a few other choice sentiments about his frustrations, but since this is a PG blog, I'll spare you.
No, you're not crazy, and I'm glad Bush is finally taking some action toward the matter of border control. What David's upset about is that the federal government has to navigate lots of onerous legal issues, both privacy and environmental, in each border state, in order to erect the fence. One might reasonably think that since the primary role of government is to among other things...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, [and] provide for the common defence, it shouldn't need anybody's permission to build a border fence? Apparantly, one would be wrong.
Surely there's an easement like where all private land lies adjacent to state-owned land, like for power-line access, sewer and drain maintenance, service vehicle access, sidewalks, etc. And I thought that the land owners on the border were the first victims of looting, theft, and vandalism at the hands of illegals....you'd think they'd welcome the fence.
You can guess my attitude toward the nutty environmentalists who oppose the fence because it might affect the mating habits of wild cats....."Hey smelly hippie, go take another toke and stop impeding progress." The only part in which I agree with the land owners is that if there is no assumed easement, then the government should have to compensate the owners for the land they are taking, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states clearly that...Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.. Other than that, there should be no obsticles to erecting the fence.
Good call on that David. We haven't talked about the fence much lately.
The article to which he is referring is found here.
It's Ann Coulter Thursday!
Ann hits the nail on the head today with a blistering article exposing Barack Obama as the white-hating, racist most thinking people suspect that he is. The media won't tell you what's in his autobiographical book, Dreams From My Father, but Ann will. Go over to HumanEvents and read it. If you were experiencing a momentary lapse of reason and considering voting for him, you won't after reading this.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Reader Mail
With the heads of all the major oil companies on the hot seat this week in Washington being forced to explain their "obscene" profits, alert reader freedom2learn wrote in with this question:
"What about corporate greed? Oil companies get billions in tax breaks while making record profits. That doesn't sound right."
Record profits, yes, but profit margin is the real measure of corporate money making. Let me explain:
Point1: Profit margin is best explained this way; Let's say that you're selling a gallon of gas for $5 and you're making a 10% profit. Your profit is $.50. Your profit margin is 10%. Now let's say that your costs go up by $1 a gallon. What do you do in order to keep making money? You increase the price at the gas station. Now you are selling for $6. Your costs are $5/gallon, so you're making $1.00 on every sale. Your profit has doubled to $1 per gallon, but your profit margin is still 10%. You're still making the same profit on every dollar that you invest in your business, but your profits have doubled! This is the term craven politicians love to demagogue....profit. They know they're lying to you but they also know that after years of "educating" Americans in dreadfully hideous government schools, we won't know the difference between profit and profit margin, and want badly for somebody to blame for prices of everything rising.
Let's take a look at oil company profit margins:
Exxon Mobile: 11.65%
Chevron: 9.49%
BP: 8.09%
BP makes only 8.09cents for every dollar of sales. The federal government makes 19cents on the dollar in my state and more in others. Who is screwing the people, BP or our own government?
By contrast, here are some companies with high profit margins:
Diana Shipping (dry bulk): 54.28%
US Bank (banking): 36.26%
Why then, do the democrats go after "big oil"? Shouldn't they go after "big banking" or "big shipping" instead? Because oil companies are easy targets to demonize, that's why.
Point 2: Oil company tax-breaks are a myth for the most part. The total taxes paid to the US government by Exxon/Mobile in Q3 of 2007 equalled $26.24 billion. Guess how much they made, net, in the third quarter? $10.49 billion. Which means they paid about 2.5 times more in taxes than they made in profit. So who benefits the most from the high price of gasoline or in other words, who's robbing the average American blind at the pump? The federal government is. And they have the balls to drag oil execs to congressional hearings to explain themselves.....unbelievable! Imagine how cheap gas would be if the federal government suspended the taxes it seizes for one year.
Point 3: Exxon/Mobile paid more in taxes to the federal government last year than the entire bottom 50% of wage earners in the US. That's right. And I can't figure out which is more egregiously unfair, that the bottom 50% pay so little in taxes, or that the federal government seized that much from a single private company.
Point 4: Oil companies have such high revenue because they have such high volume in sales, not high profit margin. If you sold a trillion gumballs each at 1cent profit, you'd have more profit than somebody who sold 1000staplers at 10cents profit.
Finally, not a single company, ever, anywhere on Earth was begun for any reason other than to make as much money as possible for it's stock-holders. Companies don't exist, as democrats want you to believe, to provide jobs, healthcare, or retirement funds for lazy, handout union members. Nor do oil companies exist to provide Americans with cheap fuel any more than Dunkin-Doughnuts exists to provide Americans with hot coffee and delicious frosted pastries. They exist to make money. It is their only responsibility.
If it wasn't for "corporate greed", where would your 401K be? Your mutual fund? The college funds for your kids? Your retirement fund? All these things depend on companies making as much money as they can.
"What about corporate greed? Oil companies get billions in tax breaks while making record profits. That doesn't sound right."
Record profits, yes, but profit margin is the real measure of corporate money making. Let me explain:
Point1: Profit margin is best explained this way; Let's say that you're selling a gallon of gas for $5 and you're making a 10% profit. Your profit is $.50. Your profit margin is 10%. Now let's say that your costs go up by $1 a gallon. What do you do in order to keep making money? You increase the price at the gas station. Now you are selling for $6. Your costs are $5/gallon, so you're making $1.00 on every sale. Your profit has doubled to $1 per gallon, but your profit margin is still 10%. You're still making the same profit on every dollar that you invest in your business, but your profits have doubled! This is the term craven politicians love to demagogue....profit. They know they're lying to you but they also know that after years of "educating" Americans in dreadfully hideous government schools, we won't know the difference between profit and profit margin, and want badly for somebody to blame for prices of everything rising.
Let's take a look at oil company profit margins:
Exxon Mobile: 11.65%
Chevron: 9.49%
BP: 8.09%
BP makes only 8.09cents for every dollar of sales. The federal government makes 19cents on the dollar in my state and more in others. Who is screwing the people, BP or our own government?
By contrast, here are some companies with high profit margins:
Diana Shipping (dry bulk): 54.28%
US Bank (banking): 36.26%
Why then, do the democrats go after "big oil"? Shouldn't they go after "big banking" or "big shipping" instead? Because oil companies are easy targets to demonize, that's why.
Point 2: Oil company tax-breaks are a myth for the most part. The total taxes paid to the US government by Exxon/Mobile in Q3 of 2007 equalled $26.24 billion. Guess how much they made, net, in the third quarter? $10.49 billion. Which means they paid about 2.5 times more in taxes than they made in profit. So who benefits the most from the high price of gasoline or in other words, who's robbing the average American blind at the pump? The federal government is. And they have the balls to drag oil execs to congressional hearings to explain themselves.....unbelievable! Imagine how cheap gas would be if the federal government suspended the taxes it seizes for one year.
Point 3: Exxon/Mobile paid more in taxes to the federal government last year than the entire bottom 50% of wage earners in the US. That's right. And I can't figure out which is more egregiously unfair, that the bottom 50% pay so little in taxes, or that the federal government seized that much from a single private company.
Point 4: Oil companies have such high revenue because they have such high volume in sales, not high profit margin. If you sold a trillion gumballs each at 1cent profit, you'd have more profit than somebody who sold 1000staplers at 10cents profit.
Finally, not a single company, ever, anywhere on Earth was begun for any reason other than to make as much money as possible for it's stock-holders. Companies don't exist, as democrats want you to believe, to provide jobs, healthcare, or retirement funds for lazy, handout union members. Nor do oil companies exist to provide Americans with cheap fuel any more than Dunkin-Doughnuts exists to provide Americans with hot coffee and delicious frosted pastries. They exist to make money. It is their only responsibility.
If it wasn't for "corporate greed", where would your 401K be? Your mutual fund? The college funds for your kids? Your retirement fund? All these things depend on companies making as much money as they can.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
TRR poll question
The TRR poll question is a new feature I'll be including a couple of times a week or whenever an interesting question strikes my fancy. You may answer as many times as it will let you. Also, if you have a question that you would like polled, leave it as always, in the comments thread and I'll put it up asap. We'll discuss the results in a day or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)