Tuesday September 1, 2015
Jump to content
What do you call a country that is ruled by decree?
In that case, we are now in a dictatorship because Obama is at it again.
Even as the Supreme Court is hearing a case about his having granted the EPA sweeping powers to regulate greenhouse gases in ways never written into law by Congress in the Clean Air Act, Obama has taken a second, even more illegal step:
He has now granted the EPA sweeping powers to control — now get this! —
Methane is, of course, natural gas. And yes, a lot of methane finds it way into the atmosphere, but it only stays there for a short time because 97% is naturally absorbed.
• And where does atmospheric methane come from?
Oceanic plants and animals: 3%
Hydrates at the bottom of the ocean: 2%
Energy production: 18%**
Waste treatment: 4%
• Of which:
85% is eliminated naturally.
7% goes into space.
5% is absorbed by the soil.
For a total of 97%
(** Natural gas to heat your home et al. Want to stop that?)
The man is out of his mind!
Listen to just one goal set by Obama:
"In June, the Agriculture Department and other agencies will release a strategy for voluntary steps to reduce methane emissions from cattle, with the goal of cutting dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020."
Huh? What the devil do dairy cattle have to do with methane gas?
Look back at the list. See that "Animals 19%?"
Animals — including you and me — eat. When we eat, some of what we eat becomes a gas, mainly methane. Though we try not to do it loudly or in public, we release the gas.
Also, this planet is literally covered with animals called ruminants, which eat grass and other plants and release an immense amount of methane. There are 3.5 BILLION of them, including some very large ones like elephants, rhinos, horses, wild and domestic cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, yaks, deer, camels, llamas, antelope —and lots more.
Every one of them is emitting gas.
Obama is anti-methane?
Maybe he's going to require us to wear little filters that burn the gas, and....
Oops! That would create carbon dioxide.
Maybe he could....?
No, that wouldn't work...
Hey! I've got it!
He could take a long walk on a short pier.
Now THAT would work.
Just pray that the Supreme Court settles this issue the right way.
Short of that, it's either a Congress which will reaffirm the Clean Air Act so that we only control the "airborne contaminants known to be hazardous to human health" which it was intended to control, and the "acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic air pollution" which have been added in BY LAW, or else we do the job during a Constitutional Convention which stops rule by decree.
(Hey, Mike, wanna add that to the list?)
Tom, I will make this short, but not sweet. I both dislike and distrust Obama. I believe that he has moved the U.S.A. closer to a dictatorship than has any other politician in our history. His administration is rife with abuses of power, disregard for traditional and Constitutional principals of government and misrepresentations or downright lies. Obama's background entitles him to be called an "expert" on the U.S. Constitution. Given that , how can he ignore separation of powers and enact legislation by " pen and telephone"? Either he has an agenda which is leading the U.S. toward unknown losses of personal liberties or he is so egotistical that he 'Shotguns" legislation and actions according to his whims. It is a matter of both what he does and how he does it. Of course, his administration follows suit. When will the citizens of this country awaken? When will voters again elect persons according to criteria that includes records of experience, integrity, morality and real patriotism?
John, you said it all!!!
"When will the citizens of this country awaken?"
Soon, I hope. I'd like to see some changes before I go.
"When will voters again elect persons according to criteria that includes records of experience, integrity, morality and real patriotism?"
You know what, John? Other than boneheaded stupidity, which seems to show in some legislators and in those who listen to them, all it really takes is honesty. If you are honest as a legislator, and place the fundamental principles of this nation first, you really can't go too far wrong.
Look at what happened in New York. One man, one honest man, ran for office in the district attorney's office, and he is tuning the whole place on its ear — and with the applause of the citizenry at every level.
His name is Ken Thompson. He's the one who got the man released who had been imprisoned for 24 years because the evidence that he was 1,000 miles away was hidden. Here's what the AP has to say about him:
"The AP reports, "Thompson took office in January, after unseating longtime District Attorney Charles "Joe" Hynes with a campaign that focused partly on questionable convictions on Hynes' watch. "
"Thompson has agreed to dismiss the murder convictions of two men who spent more than 20 years in prison for a triple homicide. He also dropped his predecessor's appeal challenging the 2013 release of another man who had served 22 years in prison on a questioned murder conviction."
One man, one honest man. That's all it takes, someone who speaks the truth at the highest level. If we could find him we could turn this nation around.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to check out the friends and business associates who are helping the wrong people get elected? Who is donating money to their campaign?
One man can't get all the information and ideas without help. Even Obama isn't that
smart. (: Who wrote the healthcare crap before Obama was ever elected.? It was already done before the election.
You could start with our local elections and see who is really controlling them.
Pat, you are dead right. No one gets elected by accident. Someone has to be paying the bills. We all know that, but we rarely ever find out who it is.
In a way, of course, and a very real and meaningful way too, it is not improper to contribute to the election of someone you feel should be elected. That's true even if your reasons are doubtful. We can't get around it because if we stifled the right of others to donate we'd be stifling ourselves too.
The real problem lies in two areas:
Paid advertising which can swamp an election. Something needs to be done to level that playing field.
Elected officials who vote for the money instead of for their principles. (Of course, voting for the money IS the main principle of many people I see in office today.)
I still say that one man who can stand up, point fingers, tell the truth, and challenge his opponents to prove that he is wrong could change this nation.
What I believe would happen is that some people who are basically honest, but have kept quiet to stay in office, would jump at the chance to lay everything out on the table. And I think that honest men who have stood little or no chance in politics before would come to the forefront.
Hey! Take a look at the beating Sam Schwalm has taken on PSWID for his honest and forthright stand all these years. Sam is the kind of man I am talking about. We are at last seeing what happens when the public finally catches on that all is not right in some governing body. Just look at what every candidate for the PSWID board is saying. Don't they echo what Sam has been saying all along?
That's the power of truth in action.
Long may it live!
Or perhaps I should say, May it soon be reborn!
At times it had been a bit rough for Sam up here in Pine and Strawberry and not everyone approves of “his honest and forthright stand all these years” The owner of the local market displays a stack of flyers for her customers at check out, which tells them not to vote for Sam Schwalm, but then that is what free speech is all about right?
Maybe the other people who are running for the board are just saying they agree with Sam to get themselves elected.
There should be a law that only so much money can be donated and used by a candidate. All on the same playing field. and the person donating the money has to live in the area of the office. Once that amount is reached, no more can be given and used.
Why should people from one state donate money to a person running for office in another state? Like when a thousand dollar a plate dinner was held in New York for Terry Goddard when he was running for gov. of Ariz. quite a few years ago.
Anyone can be bought if enough money is there. Money talks and runs elections now.
Then the person elected is someone's puppet.
If you don't believe that, look around you.
I am inclined to agree with you. There are certain aspects of our Constitution (free speech et al) which were never intended to allow money or position to affect elections. So it is not possible to write laws which limit who can say what and do what regarding an election. Nevertheless, our founding fathers, were they here now, and able to see what is going on, would have written something into the Constitution to make it impossible. And they would have done it in such a way as to leave free speech et al intact.
It would not be impossible to make a few small changes (in the form of an amendment) which would eliminate our problems without creating worse ones, or ones that step on our our freedoms. For example, I have said this before, but I'll say it again.
The original idea of a republic is that there is a body of men (and women today) which sits in a legislature and represents the people. What we have now, of course, is a body of people who represent their own special ideas — or worse — the special interests which got them elected and will toss them out if they do not vote the right way. The result is a very large body of Americans who are NOT represented at all. They will not join either party because they know that both parties are under the control of special interests, and they sometimes do not vote because they see no point in voting for either of two extremes. So we see elections in which we get one set of extremists for your years and then get the other set for four years. Back and forth, back and forth; never a truly representative government.
So what do we do? We have separate elections: One for the DEM, one for the GOP, and one for the IND. In each district a DEM, a GOP, and an IND is elected. His voting power in Congress is equal to the percentage of the people of his district he represents. There are three senators from each state. If some 4th or 5th group appears, we just spread the power some more. One President, of course, but stripped of all powers except those of running the government according to the laws that Congress makes. No law or rule making power at all. And NO veto power! What a lousy idea it is to have one man who can veto the ideas of the people!
Furthermore, a Constitutional Convention needs to be held which states exactly how Congress will run. No more nonsense rules like, "Well, we'll just hold this bill in committee because we are the majority and that way the other guys can never propose a law on the floor of Congress." Who are they kidding? That's the exact "dictatorship of the majority" that our founding fathers were trying to avoid!
I thought this belonged in a separate post.
"Maybe the other people who are running for the board are just saying they agree with Sam to get themselves elected."
I don't think so. They sound genuine enough, nd for the sake of all I hope they are.
"The owner of the local market displays a stack of flyers for her customers at check out, which tells them not to vote for Sam Schwalm, but then that is what free speech is all about right?"
Do you know who paid for them?
From my observations and meeting with them, none of the candidates running for PSWID seem to have hidden agendas or dominating personalities. They are a good mix with different backgrounds, skill sets and ideas. All candidates have publicly said they want to tackle the existing problems and get the district back on track. The County Board of Supervisors appointed all candidates to a Citizens Budget Committee and together they came up with a PSWID FY2015 Preliminary Budget, which was presented to the CBOS last night. For me this is all a good sign that they will listen and work with one another and that everyone elected will be informed about district matters with no exceptions!
Pat, for me what you said about money talks and runs elections is true, and I would add to that "it's not what you know but who you know" along with "I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine" We have lots of people in Washington and state level with itchy backs!
Sorry I was responding to what Pat wrote and I did not see Tom's entry until I posted mine.
The flyers would have been put in place and paid for by the owner of the market herself.
Pam and Tom
If I'm not mistaken anything like the flyers have to have printed on then who paid for them.
If anyone wanted to push it I think that lady could be in big trouble.
Election rules and laws.
"Pam and Tom If I'm not mistaken anything like the flyers have to have printed on then who paid for them."
Perhaps they do. I've not seen them myself, and I know absolutely nothing about such rules. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned everyone has a God-given right to feel any way he or she feels about a political issue, and to say so.
As one of those that were shut down and restricted from free speech at PSWID meetings, I for one support the right of anyone to politely express an opinion. If I don't support that persons opinion then I simply have other choices as to where I shop or do business.
When my son ran for town council he had to fill out all kinds of forms and financial information. Anything that was printed and pertained to the election it had to have a name on it as to who paid for it. The signs that were put out and anything else.
Maybe this does not apply to school board elections.
Yes, there is freedom of speech but elections are different. Haven't you noticed if there is something on tv or the radio about a person who is running for office they always say this ad was paid for by whoever.
"As one of those that were shut down and restricted from free speech at PSWID meetings, I for one support the right of anyone to politely express an opinion."
There seems to be no question about it; that's where this strong surge of public anger came from. I don't know why the board felt it had to shut down questioning. I could speculate on it, but I'd rather not dredge up more bad feeling. If there was a some hidden reason it should show up in the audit. If it was just bad attitude and poor PR, then it explains itself.
The fact that the county has stepped in and calmed things down, along with the fact that we are now in an election is a great thing. Oh, how we will all enjoy our quiet little towns again when the anger and verbal abuse are gone!
From what you say you are no doubt right about how such things should be run. In that area I profess total ignorance, so I can't add a thing.
I will say, however, that you are right on the money with this: "Haven't you noticed if there is something on tv or the radio about a person who is running for office they always say this ad was paid for by whoever."
I've also seen that in writing, and I doubt that it's just by accident.
The thing that irritates me about most political advertising is the way that some people come up with great sounding names that make it sound as though they are a grass roots outfit formed only for the benefit of the people, when they are actually a bunch of rich crooks and their paid help.
You know the ones I mean? They usually start with "Citizens for," or "Americans for," or "Better," or some other phony term.
Who do they think they are kidding?
And worse of all are the so-called "think tanks." All that most of them do is spend their time thinking about how they can twist the truth to fit their own extremist political viewpoints.
Posting comments requires a free account