EPA Fraud: Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf Actually Get Only 23, 25 MPG (PAGING DR SUZUKI–comments?)

 

The MPG figure must be calculated where the energy is produced. Doesn't matter if that happens in the car's engine ... or in the coal plant, as with the Leaf and Volt.

November 30, 2010 - by Chris J Kobus

 

You may have heard the mileage rating for the Nissan Leaf is 99 MPG (miles per gallon equivalent). Here’s what the sticker looks like (I highlighted the relevant portions that I will expand upon):

As Auto Blog says of the rating: “It looks good.” Of course it looks good. But there’s a whole lot more to the story. Note that the MPG rating is MPG equivalent. The MSM has been dropping the “equivalent,” making it seem to consumers that the vehicle is far more efficient than it truly is. Which is the intent, of course.

The ratings for the Chevy Volt have just been released as well. From the Detroit Free Press:

Chevy Volt to hit 93 m.p.g. in electric-only mode; battery-only Nissan Leaf to reach 99 m.p.g.

There is not a single instance of the word “equivalent” in the entire article. Nor is there any mention of last year’s claim that the Volt gets 230 miles per gallon (that was a different fraudulent number, based on a separate fraudulent scheme).

The current “miles per gallon equivalent” is a fraud perpetrated to hide the true environmental cost of these cars. One gallon of gas does have about 33.5 kilowatt-hours of chemical potential (depending on blend, additives, etc). And about that much energy is needed to get the Leaf to go 99 miles, and the Volt to go 93. But here’s where the fraud is perpetrated: the electricity for those vehicles is being generated by mostly coal power plants that are only about 33% efficient (minus transmission losses and losses from charging). Coal plants are off-site power generators (whereas car engines are on-board) and are totally ignored in the EPA rating.

Let me illustrate by example how this scheme works, and why it’s such a fraud.

Let’s say you took your gas-guzzling engine out of your car and hooked it up to a generator in your garage. The engine has a fuel efficiency of 15 MPG. That’s roughly 25% efficient (a 300 HP engine burns about 1000 HP of gas). You run the engine to generate electricity (let’s assume, just for kicks, that the generator hooked up to your car engine is 100% efficient) to charge your Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt. Guess what the mileage of that Leaf is? The EPA says you will still get 99 MPG overall. But you actually used four gallons, not one, to get that far, thanks to the charging engine’s 25% efficiency.

The real efficiency of the Leaf is dependent on the efficiency of the coal power plant: the Leaf gets 25 MPG, not 99. The Chevy Volt gets 23 MPG, not 93.

The EPA is purposely comparing apples to oranges, conveniently hiding the fact that you are simply displacing gasoline usage with coal. The fact that you don’t have to directly throw coal into your car doesn’t mean you aren’t using any. Indeed, the overall efficiency of electric vehicles charged on coal is no better than a car with a spark ignition engine.

And far short of the efficiencies achieved with diesel.

Just in case anyone out there is opining that we should therefore go with “renewable sources” (wind, solar etc.), that will make the available energy problem even worse.

Nature will always get its pound of flesh, and the EPA’s intentional misleading of consumers doesn’t change the fact that we will be no less dependent on fossil fuel at all — and may be more so in this case. As it is, without far more nuclear power plants, the combination of using coal with lithium — the mining of which is one of the dirtiest operations known to man — may well be environmentally worse than just burning gasoline, and is definitely worse than burning diesel.

The Obama administration should hand out a blue pill with each purchase of the Chevy Volt, so you can smugly drive around in ignorant bliss.

Chris Kobus is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University where he has worked since receiving his Ph.D. in 1998. He is the Director of the Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), and his research focus is in the broad field of energy transport and conversion.

The Economic Reality of the California Budget Crisis

The population of Ontario is one fifth  of California’s.  It has the same gross deficit.  However bad California is, multiply it by 5.  Why isn’t Hudak SCREAMING? 

 

 

California is a very large room, and perhaps that is why the state’s political machine has so long been able to ignore the multi-billion dollar elephant that is the state budget shortfall. But there comes a point where the size of the room is irrelevant. Where evasion is not only impermissible, but impossible. Where the only alternatives are fundamentally reworking long-standing policies—and being crushed under the weight of the beast. The current budget crisis is proof that California has reached that point.

California’s financial situation is dire. According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), the state faces a $20.7 billion deficit for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Even the Governor’s Office, which uses more optimistic projections, places that figure $18.9 billion. Recall that the Governor’s Office predicted a $500 million reserve for 2009-2010, while the actual year-end figure was a deficit of $6.6 billion. And the $20 billion deficit for 2010-2011 still masks the actual size of California’s spending issues. Much of the governor’s deficit reduction efforts—approximately 40%— focus not on reducing state spending, but on “aggressively seek[ing] additional federal funding,” with a projected total of $8 billion of California’s spending financed by uncertain, one-time federal relief.

It would be one thing if California had reached this point because low revenues were insufficient to finance necessary spending obligations. But it is quite another when the state has seen revenues increase 30% since 2000, and still managed to bring multi-billion dollar deficits upon itself by expanding its expenditures 17% more.

Figure 1: Expenditure Growth outpaces Revenue Growth:

There can be no contention that the discrepancy is the consequence of California’s reluctance to tax its citizens. Indeed, the state has long had to maintain some of the of the highest tax rates in the nation to bear the cost of this spending growth. Compared to other states, California has the highest sales tax rate, the second highest top income tax rate, and one of the highest corporate tax rates which translate into the sixth highest per capita collections from corporate income taxes. California’s per capita state tax revenue as a percentage of personal income stood at 6.3% for 2009, well above the national median of 5.8%, and the state had the 12th highest per capita tax burden. Nonetheless, California last year also had the third highest budget deficit as a percentage of its overall budget.

Nor can the spending gap be explained by population growth or inflation. Since 1990, per capita spending has increased over 87%; inflation, as measured by the California Consumer Price Index, rose only 66%.

Figure 2: Per Capita Spending Growth Outpaces Inflation:

Looking at the operation of the state reveals, all too clearly, that the actual driver of the state budget deficit is inefficiency—systematic, structural, politically sanctioned inefficiency. Per person, California’s spending is the twelfth highest in the nation. Lest anyone claim this is inevitable because of its size, note that California’s per capita spending is 68% higher than that of Texas, the next largest state by population, and 21% higher than the average for the ten largest states by population.

Figure 3: Comparing California’s Per Capita Spending:

Much of the reason the state government is so costly to operate is the number of employees it hires and the amount it pays them. From 1990 to 2009, the number of state employees rose approximately 37% percent; the number of state employees per capita, approximately 7%. And some of these employees are among of the highest-paid state workers in the nation. California public school teachers and prison guards, for instance, earn more than their counterparts in any other state, and over $10,000 and $20,000 per year, respectively, more than the national average. At the same time, the state pension system has resulted in $100 billion in unfunded retirement liabilities for state employees, which, the LAO notes, “because of recent investment value declines for retirement systems, may actually exceed $130 billion.”

Figure 4: Rise in the Number of State Employees:

Governor Schwarzenegger has attempted to attribute, at least in part, the state budget gap to the fall in revenues as a consequence of the 2008-2009 recession. But the recession merely laid bare fiscal instability that had been mounting for the past 20 years. The state budget has long been alternating between precarious, short-lived balance and deep, systematic deficits, particularly in the past decade. Looking to projections by the LAO, we see that even during periods of strong economic growth from 2005 to 2007, the state continued to post multibillion dollar operating deficits leading up to the 2008-2009 recession. And, in large part, the only reason the state was able to finance those deficits was through borrowing backing by expectations that housing prices would maintain their steep upward trajectory, since the growth of the housing market was a major source of revenue for the state. Given that the state faced operating deficits while the housing bubble was nearing its peak, it is no surprise that California finds itself with a projected $20 billion deficit for the 2010-2011 fiscal year with the bubble burst and the ramification ongoing.

And those ramifications place significant weight on the state’s fiscal standing, and, in turn, its basic operations. In July of 2009, the LAO released an open letter to a member of the Assembly detailing California’s liabilities, which are not included in the budget deficit calculations. These liabilities totaled over $200 billion, with $63.9 billion consisting of short- to mid-term debt. Around $35 billion of that is the direct result of deferrals and loans the state has used to close past budget gaps. As a reflection as the magnitude of these liabilities, California’s bond rating has fallen sharply in the past decade, leaving it with the lowest rating of any state. This not only makes it more difficult for the state to bring in short-term revenue by issuing bonds, but also increases the long-term interest costs California will have to pay on the bonds it does manage to issue.

But the gravity of the state’s present fiscal distress will be an afterthought if current spending policies remain in place. LAO projections place the annual operating deficit for each of the next five fiscal years near $20 billion.

Figure 5: Projected Operating Deficits under Standing Law:

Such deficits are not merely unsustainable—they are unendurable. Given that its liabilities are already massive, California would have no choice but to file for bankruptcy if these projections are fulfilled. We have already begun to see the consequences of forced, unplanned spending cuts. Consider the UC system, for which tuition has risen 32% while its course offerings and student services have been sharply reduced and staff cuts sharply increased. These types of emergency retrenchments, made more severe, and imposed across all state institutions—that is the reality these figures project. And that is the reality California is on course to encounter.

Avoiding that reality demands a diametric change in state spending policy. Such a change, in turn, demands that the voters and political leaders of California come to grasp and apply the basic economic principles which have so long been absent from California’s budgeting decisions. The foremost of these is that state spending is consumption. Every dollar the state spends represents real wealth used, exhausted, depleted. The more the state spends, the more it consumes; but the amount of wealth available for consumption is finite and limited. No number of payments deferred, loans taken out, or shifts from one fund to another, will allow the state to consume more than it brings in, which means, to consume at its present rate.

The implication of this principle is that California’s spending structure must be made efficient. The state cannot afford to continue to pay for any program that chances to find political favor. It must prioritize. We have reached the point where something must be cut—indeed, not just something, but much. And what is maintained, needs to be reformed to function more cost-effectively. California currently has positions, sub-groups, and entire departments charged with the same purpose; eliminating redundancy and streamlining the state government has the potential to reduce spending by billions of dollars. That reduction will require cutting the number, pay, and benefits of state workers. It might be pleasant to entertain the idea of fixing the budget gap without doing so, but the idea clashes with the economic reality that state employees’ pay is a core reason for California’s operating deficits.

These suggestions are common sense. Here, though, applying common sense requires grappling with a complex, large-scale problem. And that is what California’s political leaders have shown themselves unwilling, or perhaps unable, to do. They will ignore the elephant at the peril of the state. If California’s political system is to confront spending excesses and inefficiencies, it is the voters of California who will have to not only point out that elephant, but force their elected officials to take action before what fiscal standing California has left is trampled as well. It is our money that is being consumed. It is our state government that is financially unstable. And it is our responsibility to bring common sense to bear on a budgeting process in which it is precisely sense that has been lacking.

Sarah Palin on Feminism

Here’s another exclusive sneak peek at my new book “America By Heart” which hits bookstores tomorrow. You can click here to pre-order your copy.

Enjoy the excerpt:

In Alaska, the only thing we take more seriously than a grizzly bear is a mama grizzly with cubs to protect. Some misguided souls—particularly in the Lower 48—are determined to portray these bears as cute and cuddly. We call this “bear propaganda.” Grizzly bears—mamas or otherwise—are beautiful, ferocious, serious-as-a-heart-attack creatures. When you come upon one, you don’t give her a hug. You tread lightly. Because when the ones she loves are threatened, she rises up.

So it’s with only a little bit of overstatement that I call so many of the new generation of American women leaders—many of whom I’ve met on the campaign trail and in the towns and cities of America—mama grizzlies. These are tough, serious, formidable women like Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, and Carly Fiorina of California. These women are at the forefront of a new wave of strong, confident American women who are positively affecting not just the Republican Party, but America itself. They’re building businesses, managing charities, leading men and women in government—and, while they’re at it, raising families....

Some people are calling the emergence of these successful conservative female leaders a new phenomenon in America—as if we’d just invented smart, capable women who also believe in the Constitution, the sanctity of life, and American exceptionalism. Truth is, mama grizzlies have been with us for a long time. These are the same women who settled the frontier, drove the wagons, ploughed the fields, ran cattle, taught their kids, raised their families—and fought for women’s rights. These women are like America itself: strong and self-sufficient. Not bound by what society says they should do and be, but determined to create their own destinies....

It makes sense that moms would be at the forefront of the great American awakening we’re experiencing. Moms can be counted on to fight for their children’s future. And when politicians start handing our kids the bill for their cronyism and irresponsibility—when they engage in generational theft—moms rise up. We shouldn’t have to work for government; our government should work for us....

The women’s groups and mainstream media have greeted the rise of the conservative mama grizzlies in much the same way they treated the vice-presidential campaign in 2008: with disbelief that people so alien to them could win the support of the American people. Back then, left-wing feminists didn’t know what to make of an Alaskan chick out on the campaign trail talking about the Second Amendment, kids (the more the merrier!), and America’s urgent need for greater security through energy independence.

Today, left-wing feminists and their allies seem to be similarly perplexed. Commenting on the victories of commonsense conservative women in primaries earlier this year, liberal editor Tina Brown complained, “it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism.” Another liberal commentator said that the true test of feminism is a belief in abortion rights and government health care. It was a new, “selfish” variety of feminism, she declared, that was coming to the fore with the victory of conservative women candidates.

What kind of feminist is it who declares that a diversity of political opinion among women (but not men!) is somehow “selfish”? And what kind of advocate for women is it who laments the success of female political candidates? The fact is that it’s these feminist and media elites who are out of touch with American women. They claim to speak for us all, when in reality they speak for a very narrow liberal fringe. The bad news for them—and the good news for America—is that the country as a whole is waking up to this fraud. So many of the voices that claim to speak for American women simply don’t have our best interests at heart. We’re coming to realize that the empress isn’t wearing any clothes. No single group can speak for all women any more than a single group can speak for all men. To suggest otherwise is no less than old-fashioned sexism....

It surprises some people to hear that I consider myself a feminist. I believe both women and men have God-given rights that haven’t always been honored by our country’s politicians. I believe women and men have important differences, but those differences don’t include the ability of women to work just as hard as men (if not harder) and to be just as effective as men (if not more so). I also consider myself a grateful beneficiary of the movement for female equality, particularly Title IX, the federal law that mandates equal opportunity for women in high school and college sports. So I proudly call myself a conservative feminist. One question liberal feminists would do well to ask themselves is why most American women today reject the label “feminist.”

Maybe it’s my upbringing in Alaska that leads me to challenge the feminist stereotypes of what a woman ought to be. I grew up in a place and time where women did the same work as men—but were still allowed to be girls. My sisters and I were expected to work just as hard as the boys. We hauled wood to stoke the stove heating our house, we hunted, we fished, and we played sports. But at the same time, we were taught to be proud of the fact that we were girls. There was a time for dressing up, playing the flute in the band, and doing some traditionally “girl” things—and there was a time for getting into dirt clod fights.

For most American women, the feminist movement actually lost its appeal decades ago. The reason, I think, is that somewhere along the line feminism went from being pro-woman to being effectively anti-woman. I mean “pro-woman” in the sense that it was once pro–women’s capabilities, strengths, and judgments. Our foremothers in the women’s movement fought hard to gain the acceptance of women’s talents and capabilities as equal to men’s....

What is hardest to take about liberals calling the emerging conservative feminist identity anti-feminist or even anti-woman is that this new crop of female leaders represents a return to what the women’s movement originally was. The women’s movement used to be about honoring for women the same God-given rights that our country honored for men. It used to be about dignity and hope. It used to be about respecting women by respecting their choices—whether it is to be a nuclear engineer or a stay-at-home mom—not denigrating them when they aren’t sufficiently like men. And it used to be about respecting women’s unique role in creating and sustaining life.

Is the Electorate Moving Right? (USA)

 

A response to Ruy Teixeira and Ed Kilgore.

Jay Cost

November 22, 2010 2:34 PM

The 2010 midterm election saw a historically large percentage of voters claim to be conservative – 42 percent, compared to 32 percent in 2006 and 37 percent in 1994. Unsurprisingly, this has not escaped the notice of liberal analysts who promulgate the “Emerging Democratic Majority” thesis, which proposes that over time the electorate will naturally favor the Democrats.  How do these analysts respond to this problematic (for them) trend?

Via a short essay for the Democratic Strategist, entitled “Is the Electorate Moving to the Right? Ruy Teixeira Says No,” we have their straightforward answer. The electorate has not moved in any significant fashion, and what we saw this November is nothing for liberals to worry about.

However, their reasoning on this line of inquiry is highly problematic. For starters, there is a subtle but significant change of subject from the title to the guts of the piece. Ed Kilgore (who introduces Teixeira’s argument) writes at the beginning:

It’s becoming more and more obvious that the big dispute at the heart of most arguments about the larger meaning of the 2010 midterms elections is whether the U.S. electorate is moving ideologically to the Right (sic) in a way that gives Republicans a natural majority in the future. And the very core of that dispute involves the behavior of self-identified independents, who obviously shifted towards the GOP between 2006-08 and 2010, and who seem to be exhibiting more conservative attitudes generally. [Emphasis Mine]

Ok, fair enough. My answer to that question is a pretty simple: The electorate has indeed moved to the right. The numbers are pretty stark.

Three points are evident from this chart. First of all, note the change in 1994, which remains an important election for understanding party alignment. Prior to 1994, the GOP would usually win the conservative vote with less than 50 percent of the points (somewhere between 65-35 and 75-25). Since then, the GOP has consistently won it by getting more than 50 percentage points, even in bad years for the party. That’s in part a product of the conservative South swinging from the Democrats to Republicans; 1994 was the first year since Reconstruction that the GOP won a majority of House seats in the South.

Second, more self-identified conservatives showed up to vote in 2010 than at any point since 1980.

Third, the Republican margin of victory in 2010 was greater with this group than at any point since 1980.

So, open-and-shut case, right? The electorate is moving to the right. How to get around this?  Here’s Teixeira’s answer (emphasis mine):

Has the public shifted sharply to the right ideologically? Conservatives say the 2010 election proves this, But (sic) careful analysis of available data shows there is far less to this argument than meets the eye.

Notice the shift in terminology – from “the electorate” to “the public.” And even then, the answer is still in the affirmative:

Conservatives turned out heavily for the 2010 elections but, among registered voters as a whole, the percentage of conservatives only increased by 3% between 2006 and 2010.

So, really the title of the piece should be: “Is the Public Moving to the Right? Ruy Teixeira Says Yes.”  Their actual point of good news (for liberals) is that the public at large has moved to the right less than the electorate we saw in 2010. Their source for this claim is a Pew poll of registered voters taken in September. But what does Gallup say?

If we follow Gallup, we’d draw two conclusions: (a) the increase in self-identified conservatives in the broader public has increased more than Teixeira and Kilgore acknowledge; (b) conservatives were not over-represented as a share of the electorate in 2010, but rather were under-represented in previous cycles.

Now, I’m not saying that Gallup is right. But what I am saying is that if you’re going to make an argument that the electorate has skewed more conservative than the public at large, you should mention the widely regarded poll that doesn’t really support your point.

Beyond this, they go on to blur the distinctions between Republicans and conservatives to argue that politically the rightward shift in ideology does not result in much benefit to the Republicans. Teixiera asserts that the ideological shift in the public is “completely accounted for” by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents becoming more conservative. 

Ultimately, I think they are on to something with this point, but again this is not the assertion they make in the title. It's one thing to claim that the electorate is not moving rightward, quite another to claim that it is but the GOP didn't pick up many votes from it. What’s more, by looking at registered voters rather than actual voters, they are likely overstating even this point.  After all, the Pew poll they cite found independent registered voters favoring Democrats over Republicans by 3 points, whereas the final margin among actual voters on Election Day was R +19. What about the “pure independents” who actually show up to vote? Have they moved to the right? Teixiera and Kilgore cannot answer that question because of the constraints of their data.

Actually, I agree with the conclusion that Teixeira and Kilgore are making, even though I think their data and methods are hopelessly flawed. If you look at the historical record, you do not really see much by way of growth in self-identified conservatives after 1994. This makes sense. Ideology is a more stable form of public opinion, as it’s usually built upon core values. The year-to-year changes are probably due to shifts in the opinions of less informed voters who have not developed a full ideological system of thought. So, I’d be willing to cede that much of the bump in self-identified conservatives will fade over time.

But of course, Kilgore and Teixiera want to move from this point to argue against the idea that the midterm elections point to a “natural” majority (Kilgore’s term) for the Republican Party. This is a point I strongly disagree with, and the foundation of my disagreement depends more upon the geographical distribution of public opinion than anything else.  Consider the 2000 presidential election, a year in which George W. Bush lost the nationwide popular vote by 0.5 percent yet still won the popular vote in roughly 240 House congressional districts. This is about as many districts as Barack Obama won, even though he won the popular vote by 7.3 percent.

My opinion is that the Democratic Party’s coalition has become too urban for it to sustain itself as a majority coalition in Congress over the long run. Prior to the Depression, the Democrats won when they united the rural South and West with just enough ethnic voters from the big cities. The Democratic super majority that began under Franklin Roosevelt was built upon the South and West, plus massive hauls from the cities. But nowadays the Democrats win the cities, but are much weaker everywhere else. This is important because in our system of government, the distribution of the vote matters. Democrats won the big cities by 65-33 in the 2010 midterm, meaning that their voters were clustered into safely Democratic districts. The Republicans won the suburbs and small towns by smaller margins, meaning that less of their vote was “wasted.” The GOP’s advantage, in other words, is more geographical than ideological.

This trend is only going to become more pronounced after the new district lines are drawn, because, for the first time in half a century, the GOP will dominate the redistricting process. That, combined with the fact that House seats are moving from Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts to Republican ones like Texas, will give the GOP an advantage for the next decade.

In a 50-50 year, I would bet the farm on the Republican Party controlling both the House and (depending upon what seats are up for grabs) the Senate.  Now, don’t get me wrong: The Democrats certainly have the votes to force a 50-50 year, which has become the norm over the last several decades. However, their voters are distributed quite inefficiently in the cities and on the coasts, meaning that the Democratic Party wins 190 or so congressional districts by 60-40 or better, but often struggles to cobble together the remaining 30 or so needed for the majority.

Here’s another exclusive sneak peek at my new book “America By Heart” which hits bookstores tomorrow. You can click here to pre-order your copy.

 

Enjoy the excerpt:

In Alaska, the only thing we take more seriously than a grizzly bear is a mama grizzly with cubs to protect. Some misguided souls—particularly in the Lower 48—are determined to portray these bears as cute and cuddly. We call this “bear propaganda.” Grizzly bears—mamas or otherwise—are beautiful, ferocious, serious-as-a-heart-attack creatures. When you come upon one, you don’t give her a hug. You tread lightly. Because when the ones she loves are threatened, she rises up.

So it’s with only a little bit of overstatement that I call so many of the new generation of American women leaders—many of whom I’ve met on the campaign trail and in the towns and cities of America—mama grizzlies. These are tough, serious, formidable women like Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, and Carly Fiorina of California. These women are at the forefront of a new wave of strong, confident American women who are positively affecting not just the Republican Party, but America itself. They’re building businesses, managing charities, leading men and women in government—and, while they’re at it, raising families....

Some people are calling the emergence of these successful conservative female leaders a new phenomenon in America—as if we’d just invented smart, capable women who also believe in the Constitution, the sanctity of life, and American exceptionalism. Truth is, mama grizzlies have been with us for a long time. These are the same women who settled the frontier, drove the wagons, ploughed the fields, ran cattle, taught their kids, raised their families—and fought for women’s rights. These women are like America itself: strong and self-sufficient. Not bound by what society says they should do and be, but determined to create their own destinies....

It makes sense that moms would be at the forefront of the great American awakening we’re experiencing. Moms can be counted on to fight for their children’s future. And when politicians start handing our kids the bill for their cronyism and irresponsibility—when they engage in generational theft—moms rise up. We shouldn’t have to work for government; our government should work for us....

The women’s groups and mainstream media have greeted the rise of the conservative mama grizzlies in much the same way they treated the vice-presidential campaign in 2008: with disbelief that people so alien to them could win the support of the American people. Back then, left-wing feminists didn’t know what to make of an Alaskan chick out on the campaign trail talking about the Second Amendment, kids (the more the merrier!), and America’s urgent need for greater security through energy independence.

Today, left-wing feminists and their allies seem to be similarly perplexed. Commenting on the victories of commonsense conservative women in primaries earlier this year, liberal editor Tina Brown complained, “it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism.” Another liberal commentator said that the true test of feminism is a belief in abortion rights and government health care. It was a new, “selfish” variety of feminism, she declared, that was coming to the fore with the victory of conservative women candidates.

What kind of feminist is it who declares that a diversity of political opinion among women (but not men!) is somehow “selfish”? And what kind of advocate for women is it who laments the success of female political candidates? The fact is that it’s these feminist and media elites who are out of touch with American women. They claim to speak for us all, when in reality they speak for a very narrow liberal fringe. The bad news for them—and the good news for America—is that the country as a whole is waking up to this fraud. So many of the voices that claim to speak for American women simply don’t have our best interests at heart. We’re coming to realize that the empress isn’t wearing any clothes. No single group can speak for all women any more than a single group can speak for all men. To suggest otherwise is no less than old-fashioned sexism....

It surprises some people to hear that I consider myself a feminist. I believe both women and men have God-given rights that haven’t always been honored by our country’s politicians. I believe women and men have important differences, but those differences don’t include the ability of women to work just as hard as men (if not harder) and to be just as effective as men (if not more so). I also consider myself a grateful beneficiary of the movement for female equality, particularly Title IX, the federal law that mandates equal opportunity for women in high school and college sports. So I proudly call myself a conservative feminist. One question liberal feminists would do well to ask themselves is why most American women today reject the label “feminist.”

Maybe it’s my upbringing in Alaska that leads me to challenge the feminist stereotypes of what a woman ought to be. I grew up in a place and time where women did the same work as men—but were still allowed to be girls. My sisters and I were expected to work just as hard as the boys. We hauled wood to stoke the stove heating our house, we hunted, we fished, and we played sports. But at the same time, we were taught to be proud of the fact that we were girls. There was a time for dressing up, playing the flute in the band, and doing some traditionally “girl” things—and there was a time for getting into dirt clod fights.

For most American women, the feminist movement actually lost its appeal decades ago. The reason, I think, is that somewhere along the line feminism went from being pro-woman to being effectively anti-woman. I mean “pro-woman” in the sense that it was once pro–women’s capabilities, strengths, and judgments. Our foremothers in the women’s movement fought hard to gain the acceptance of women’s talents and capabilities as equal to men’s....

What is hardest to take about liberals calling the emerging conservative feminist identity anti-feminist or even anti-woman is that this new crop of female leaders represents a return to what the women’s movement originally was. The women’s movement used to be about honoring for women the same God-given rights that our country honored for men. It used to be about dignity and hope. It used to be about respecting women by respecting their choices—whether it is to be a nuclear engineer or a stay-at-home mom—not denigrating them when they aren’t sufficiently like men. And it used to be about respecting women’s unique role in creating and sustaining life.

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/21/2010 23:18 -0500

• Federal Tax

Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Stunning? Just do it yourself.

Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.

And if that wasn't enough, here is one that will blow your mind:

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

Ever wonder why Obama was so focused on health reform? It is so those who have no interest or ability in working, make as much as representatives of America's once exalted, and now merely endangered, middle class.

First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.
Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That's a huge hit.

There is a reason why a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the "right thing."

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than woring one week a month at minimu wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.
This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were weilling to cheat. Even if you dodn't cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job. 

Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.

SSI pays $8,088 per year for each "disabled" family member. A person can be deemed "disabled" if thy are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.
If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.

Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day to make some sense out of this Mephistophelian tragicomedy known as living in the USA:

Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.

Alas, on America's way to to communist welfare, it has long since surpassed such bastions of capitalism as China:

The welfare system in communist China is far stringier. Those people have to work to eat.

We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.

An Exclusive Sneak Peek at “America By Heart” (Sarah Palin)

 

by Sarah Palin on Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 1:07pm

The following is an exclusive sneak peek at my new book “America By Heart” which comes out next Tuesday. Signed editions are still available for pre-order at barnesandnoble.com. You can click here to pre-order your copy.

Enjoy the excerpt:

Americans are awakening again to the wisdom of… that sweet old lady at the Boston Tea Party rally holding up a copy of the Constitution: “When All Else Fails, Read the Instructions.”

When we take the time to actually read them, the instructions for America are pretty straightforward. They are the truths of our founding and more. They are the principles that have made our country great—keeping our government limited, our markets free, and our families strong. But the thing is, these principles, like all fundamental human truths, are not self-reinforcing. They have to be remembered, cherished, and taught to new generations of Americans.

Moms know better than most that we are all born unformed and fallen. Any parent of a two-year-old knows her child’s potential for both good and bad. And every parent of a high school graduate or a young soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine knows the sense of pride and accomplishment that comes with raising a good and decent child. Molding the crooked timber of humanity requires the grace of God, the patience of caring parents, and the dedication of good teachers. Creating a great nation from the diverse peoples who make America requires a strong sense of who we are and what we believe in. We have to know this, remember it, and teach it.

We have to know what makes America exceptional today more than ever because it is under assault today more than ever.

When I was preparing for my debate with then-vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden during the 2008 campaign I came across a quote from Ronald Reagan that perfectly expresses our need to preserve and protect American values. I quickly memorized it so I could use it for my closing statement, knowing that seventy million viewers would listen and learn from Reagan’s wise words:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.

I can’t think of a sadder prospect for Todd and me than our spending our sunset years telling our grandson, Tripp, and our grandchildren yet to come about what it was like in America when we were strong and proud and free.

But maybe I can think of a sadder prospect: Tripp and our other grandchildren spending their whole lives working to pay off the irresponsible debt we have accumulated and are about to leave to them.

Neither of these futures is one I want for my grandchildren. Fortunately, I have been given a great gift, the gift of seeing this amazing country up close and personal, in a way that few Americans can. When I began writing this book, I thought carefully about the many wonderful folks I’d met over the past couple of years, and I reread the articles, books, and devotionals they’d shared with me. I also asked some of the people I love and trust to share with me the stories, the characters, and the words that form their view of America. I’ve been amazed at some of the things I’ve learned, comforted by much of it, and challenged in my views more than once.

And when I took these bits and pieces of Americana and blended them with my own experiences and views, I came up with this book. It’s my view of America and what has made her great. It’s the ideas our country was founded on. It’s the strength of our families. It’s the grit of our national character. It’s our faith in God, how it has shaped our nation and continues to fortify us as a people. President Reagan’s call for us to fight for, protect, and pass on to future generations the sources and meaning of our freedom is both a political and a personal call; it is a challenge, both for our country and for us individually. I take this challenge seriously. Passing on peace, prosperity, and liberty to the next generation requires a strong military, a free market, and a healthy constitutional order. But none of that will be sufficient if our children are not taught to have a reverence for the ideas, ideals, and traditions that are central to the American experiment.

This is my America, from my heart, and by my heart. I give it now to my children and grandchildren, and to yours, so they will always know what it was like in America when people were free.

Sarah Palin - Wasilla Mayor 1996 – 2002

 

Mayoral Campaign Born

In this doodle on the back of a budget document, then Councilwoman Palin outlined her nascent mayoral campaign (H/T Kenton L). Click photo for full-size image. Notice the “time for change” written in the upper left-hand corner. As Gov. Palin pointed out in Going Rogue, “we were change, before change was cool.”

Executive Summary

During her two three-year terms as Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin developed her executive and administrative experience, and put her Transformational Leadership skills to the test. Sarah Palin won her Mayoral election with 75% of the vote in a three-way race (Palin, 2009, p. 80). The Mayor’s position of Wasilla is a CEO type job over a multimillion dollar entity (Palin, 2009, p. 69).

1996 AP/Mat-Su Frontiersman photo of Mayor Palin

Reagan Conservatism/Tax Reduction:

• Cut taxes
• Eliminated small-business inventory taxes
• Eliminated property taxes
• Eliminated business license renewal fees
• Cut the real estate property tax mil levy during each year in office
• Did not support proposed city-wide smoking ban

(Palin, 2009, p. 78)

Infrastructure Development:

• Built and paved roads
• Extended water and sewer lines
• Paved runway at Wasilla Municipal Airport
• City bond financed by half-cent sales tax to build Curtis Menard Jr. Multi-Use Sports Center

(Palin, 2009, p. 78)

Wasilla became a major commercial center under Mayor Palin. Established small businesses grew, and major national chains opened their doors in Wasilla.

Transformational Leadership:

“This gets at my approach to management. I have a bulletin board filled with coffee-stained dog-eared quotes tacked up along with family photos that has followed me from office to office since 1992. One of my favorite quotes comes from author and former football coach Lou Holtz, on how to build your team: “Motivation is simple. You eliminate those who are not motivated.” (Palin, 2009, p. 79).

• Fired police chief who refused cut department budget and who attempted to undermine Palin’s Mayoralty.
• Requested letters of resignation from all department heads to keep on file. Only two complied.

President, Alaska Conference of Mayors

• Led dozens of other mayors in dealing with statewide issues, such as municipal revenue sharing, and advocating for local control government.

(Palin, 2009, p. 80)

Feminism:

“We have to work twice as hard to prove we’re half as capable as men think they are….thankfully, it’s not that difficult” (Palin, 2009, p. 80)

Photo Courtesy Kathryn DiFrancesco

From an interview with Amanda Gragert for Capital City Weekly’s (CCW) Spring 2007 publication of Women in Business:

“Our receptionist was at lunch and I sat there answering the phones in the mayor’s office and a guy walks by and says, ‘You’re way too young to be the mayor’s secretary.’ He didn’t know who the mayor was and he thought I was too young to be the secretary. I thought, ‘That’s so cute,’ and I didn’t even correct him and say, ‘I am the mayor.’”

H/T Joe Silva for CCW quote.

Powers and Duties of the Mayor of Wasilla

The 10 Powers and Duties of the Mayor of Wasilla are delineated the Wasilla Municipal Code, Chapter 2.16, Section .020:

A. The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005, and shall:

1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council,
   but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
3. Sign documents on behalf of the city;
4. Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code;
5. Supervise the enforcement of city law and carry out the directives of the city council;
6. Prepare and submit an annual budget and capital improvement program for consideration by the council, and execute the budget and capital program as adopted;
7. Make monthly financial reports and other reports on city finances and operations as required by the council;
8. Exercise legal custody over all real and personal property of the city;
9. Perform other duties required by law or by the council; and
10. Serve as personnel officer, unless the council authorizes the mayor to appoint a personnel officer.

Sarah Palin, then Mayor of Wasilla, AK participated in the 5th Annual Alaska Ladies Charity Classic sporting clays shoot Saturday June 3, 2000, as documented in this famous file photo of her reloading an over-under double-barrel shotgun. The photo was taken by Erik Hill of the Anchorage Daily News (Potosky, 2008).

“The Alaska Ladies Charity Shotgun Classic, is a non-competitive, ladies only 50 target sporting clays event for both novice and experienced shooters” (Grouse Ridge, 2009, p. 2). The Shotgun Classic is “[a] fun event to give women and their families an introduction to enjoy the shooting sports and the outdoors and to raise money for breast cancer awareness.” At the shoot, she wore a jacket with Wasilla’s City Seal emblazoned on it, suggesting that she attended as Mayor, not a private citizen.

References:

2009 Alaska Ladies Charity Shotgun Classic & Couples Fun Shoot. (2009). Grouse Ridge Shooting Grounds. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from: http://grouseridge.com/2009_Ladies_Shoot_flyer.pdf

Spielberger, K. (2007). “So long, Sarah”. Capital City Weekly. Retrieved from: http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/072209/new_467649277.shtml

Palin, S. L. H. (2009). Going Rogue: An American Life. (New York: Harper). pp. 69-81.

Document Central. (n.d.). City of Wasilla. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

Potosky, J. (2008, August 29). “Sarah Palin NRA Life Member, Fisherman and Hunter.” The Lost Target. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from: http://losttarget.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-nra-lifemember-fisherman.html

What are the Duties of the Mayor of Wasilla? (n.d.). Document Central. City of Wasilla. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=485

Article written by Ron Devito

Editor and Publisher, US for Palin; LAN Infrastructure PM; IFR PPL; fishing, shooting.

Follow Ron Devito on Twitter

Friend Ron Devito on Facebook

Ontario urges acceptance of kindergartners’ ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity’

Ontario urges acceptance of kindergartners’ ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity’
Life Site News ^ | November 19, 2010 | Patrick B. Craine

Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 5:22:12 PM by NYer

HAMILTON, Ontario, November 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Ontario government’s new all-day kindergarten curriculum, developed to be in harmony with their equity and inclusive education strategy, expects teachers to combat “preconceived notions” about the “gender” of five-year-olds.

“This is lunacy,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.  “Are we going to allow teachers now to plant in the minds of four-year-olds the idea that they don’t have to accept being a boy or being a girl?”

A kindergarten draft document explains that all children, parents, and other school community members are to be welcomed and included "regardless of ... gender identity [and] sexual orientation,” in addition to categories such as ancestry and socio-economic status.

The document states that "preconceived notions about children's ... gender ... create barriers that reduce engagement and equitable outcomes.”

All full-day kindergarten programs in the province, it says further, are to be based on the expectations that it outlines.

The document conforms to the Ministry’s highly-controversial and all-encompassing equity and inclusive education strategy, which aims to shape all curricula and practice to the Ministry's ideals of equity and inclusion.  These ideals have been sharply criticized for promoting alternate conceptions of gender and the notion that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle choice.

Pro-family activist Dawn Stefanowicz, who was raised by a homosexual father amidst the gay sub-culture, warned that pushing gender identity theory on kindergarten-age kids will seriously damage them.

“Government-mandated, explicit promotion of diverse sexualities, gender identities, and diverse family units in all-day classes exploits young children, creating confusion around their own innocent same-sex play with other children,” she explained.

The equity strategy, she said, “assumes that very young children have sexual feelings and thoughts, will sexually act out, and can provide sexual consent with whomever or whatever they choose.”

“This is ugly and divisive propaganda meant to control our precious children and separate them from the moral and religious upbringing of their parents, families of origin, and ethnic and faith communities,” she said.  “In other words, this is state usurpation of parental rights and consent while taking control of our children.”

The draft document is available on the website of the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, which directs those interested in their program to it.

Patrick Daly, the board’s chair, emphasized that the board had nothing to do with its writing and insisted that they do not “necessarily espouse everything in it.”

“Everything that’s taught in our schools is keeping with the teachings of our faith,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“I urge all parents to rise up and stand against this insanity,” said Hughes.  “Protect your little boys and girls from being taught that they may not be little boys and girls after all.”

LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back from the Ministry of Education by press time.

Contact Information:

Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Fax: (416) 325-3745
E-mail: Use this form.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Education
Mowat Block, 22nd Flr, 900 Bay St
Toronto, ON M7A 1L2
Tel: 1-800-387-5514 (TTY 1-800-263-2892)
Fax: 416-325-6348
Email: ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org

---

Society Really Has Gone Mad (from Conservatives4Palin)

Governor Palin Applauds 'American Idol' For Their Highest Standards

By Sheya

Governor Palin’s book America by Heart is set to be released this coming Tuesday. As with every book, advanced copies are released to the press for reviewing purposes only. Those advanced copies usually come with conditions attached which include not disclosing any part of the book until a certain agreed date.

It appears that some in the media have lost all of their integrity and no longer have any respect for the law and have decided to release parts of the book to no others than to sites trashing Governor Palin.

So out of a 304 page book, those Palin haters have opted to nitpick the one thing they “thought” might embarrass the Governor and, what do you know, the entire media followed suit.

The following paragraph, taken way out of context, is now being circulated and in some twisted way used to argue that Governor is a hypocrite for Bristol's appearance on Dancing with the Stars:

"Did you ever wonder where the producers of American Idol come up with the seemingly endless supply of people who can't sing but are deluded enough to get up in front of a national television audience and screech out a song anyway?"

Now, I haven’t read the book, all I have read is what has been leaked.

For starters, Governor Palin has publicly stated that she wasn’t so enthusiastic about Bristol going on the show in the beginning. The Governor warned Bristol of the criticism that would come, but when Bristol pointed out she would be criticized no matter what she does so she might as well dance, the Governor went along and has supported Bristol all the way.

For those who don't have any common sense at all, as apparently the LSM doesn't, there is a huge difference between Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. In Dancing with the Stars the producers seek out famous people who can’t dance, they contact them and invite them to join. On American Idol it’s the contestants who apply to join the competition.

The whole concept of Dancing with the Stars is to bring in amateur dancers and famous people who have never danced before; they are trained by professional dancers to compete against each other and the competition is all about advancement and who has more stamina. Neither Bristol nor any other of the contestants has claimed to be great dancers and if you watch their weekly interviews they are very consistent about that always happy they just made it through the week.

Not so with American Idol.

American Idol is a talent competition to find people who already have talent and would usually be unable to make it on the big stage. Contestants who believe they have the talent contact the show and they audition, giving those talented voices an opportunity they would otherwise be unable to obtain.

For years the LSM has been going after the Governor questioning what she reads. It's about time we throw the question straight back at them. Hey, Lamestream media, what do YOU read? You obviously can't read more than one sentence of an entire book. I did. Let’s take a deeper look at the entire context of what the Governors point is, something those in the media won't tell you - or can't read - because it goes against everything they have been pushing. The Governor continues:

Many of the contestants’ ability (or, More accurately, inability) to carry a tune reminds me uncomfortably of me. But they get up and sing anyway and are unaccepting and horrified when the judges’ critiques begin. Chalk some of them up as victims of the cult of self-esteem. No one they’ve encountered in their lives – from their parents to their teachers to their president – wanted them to feel bad by hearing the truth. So they grew up convinced they could become big pop stars like Michael Jackson.

On American Idol, of course, these self-esteem-enhanced but talent-deprived performers eventually learn the truth. After they’ve embarrassed themselves for the benefit of the producers, they are told in no uncertain terms that they, in fact, can’t sing, regardless of what they’ve been told by others. But in the wilder world, these kinds of instances of hard-truth-telling are increasingly rare. Instead of eventually confronting the limits of their inflated egos when it comes to paying the rent and putting food on the table, Americans are increasingly being told not to worry about it. Someone else will provide for them. I think a large part of the appeal of American Idol is the spectacle of Simon Cowell pouring cold water over the heads of these young people. Cowell can be a little harsh at times, but he upholds the highest standards, and something in us recognizes and responds to that.

Unfortunately, Cowell is almost alone in his willingness to tell hard truths. Instead, a growing chorus of voices is trying to convince our kids that hard work isn’t necessary anymore, that they’re entitled to a lengthening list of benefits paid for by others, and that they don’t have to accept the consequences of their actions when those consequences are bad. These voices seem to think that the purpose of government – the purpose of America – isn’t to promise equal opportunity but to produce equal outcomes. If we all just magically had the same number of material possessions, we’d all be happy. And their preferred way to bring about magical situation is by redistributing income. During the campaign, Obama called it “spreading the wealth.” Whatever the term, it means government taking from some and giving to others.

I’ll let the Governors words speak for themselves. Governor Palin doesn't attack American Idol, on the contrary, she applauds them for their courage and honesty. The Governor's point is that in today's politically correct world, we are so afraid to confront our kids with the hard truth that in the long run it only ends up hurting them. God forbid they may actually learn something.
Governor Palin is using something that ordinary Americans can understand, American Idol, to illustrate a larger policy point. It's really nothing short of brilliant.

As for Bristol and Dancing with the Stars, Bristol didn't go onto the show self-deluded thinking that she was the greatest dancer in the world, on the contrary. She's worked hard to get to where she is, and no one can argue that Bristol Palin doesn’t accept the consequences of her actions. The reason some won’t accept that is because for Bristol the consequences turned out to be a beautiful boy named Tripp.

In closing, here's an email I received a while back; it pretty much sums up the point the Governor is making:

SCHOOL - 1957 vs. 2010

Scenario:

Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2010 - Police called, arrests Johnny and Mark.. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it. Both children go to anger management programs for 3 months. School board hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programs.

Scenario:

Robbie won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Robbie sent to office and given 6 of the best by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2010 - Robbie given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. Robbie's parents get fortnightly disability payments and School gets extra funding from state because Robbie has a disability.

Scenario:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbour’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.

Scenario:
Mark has a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark gets glass of water from Principal to take aspirin with.
2010 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario :
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from July 4, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a bull ant nest.
1957 - Ants die.
2010 - State Police, Star Force, Federal Police & Anti-terrorism Squad called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, Feds investigate parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated. Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario :
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary . Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

First Health Care, Next the Food Supply (American Thinker)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/first_healthcare_next_the_food.html

By Michael Geer

Just because the duck is lame doesn't mean it can't still do terrible damage to American freedom. Our new Congress, especially the new House, isn't yet seated, and this current Congress can still wreak terrible havoc on our rights if not stopped.

Case in point: Senate Bill 510, believed to be coming to the floor Wednesday, November 17 (pending). This is the food safety version of ObamaCare. Reading the thing will make your head hurt for all its cognitive dissonance. Trying to winnow out its complexity and hidden empowerments is stultifying.

Introduced by Dick Durbin of Illinois, the bill has moved through the usual phases of amalgamation and deal-making. The monstrosity advancing to the floor on Wednesday is not so much "food safety" as it is the decadence of the rights of small farmers, hobbyist food producers, garden-variety farmers markets, and your average small producer of foodstuffs. Under the rubric of safety, this Senate proposes a bill that establishes such new and sweeping powers over how you and I produce and consume foodstuffs that even the Pew Charitable Trusts are calling S510 a clear and present danger. National Health Freedom says,

It is a dangerously broad regulatory bill giving extensive discretionary power to the FDA over the entire food supply chain without proper checks and balances to avoid abuse of power;

It would impose one-size-fits-all-regulations on thousands of small and mid-sized farmers, small-scale local farms and food producers,  and would drastically burden, to extinction,  basic natural and organic food suppliers, thus endangering the lives of Americans who depend on local wholesome foods;

It does not reflect a well-thought-out solution, or address the real causes of food safety issues stemming from the industrialized food supply chain; and

It attempts to limit the authority of our own domestic U.S. laws when it includes language ensuring that our US law will not disturb other international agreements that we have made.  It states: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party."

Lee Bechtel of the National Health Federation, the nation's oldest health-freedom organization, says,

The concern for freedom and health freedom advocates with the legislation, and the NHF's concern, is not because it addresses existing conventional food safety system problems, tainted imported foods, peanut butter...  et.al. but because of these non-conventional food safety attempts to expand FDA authority and impose more controls over the marketplace and the access to nutritional foods and supplements.

For example, Page 26 Manager's Amendment:

(d) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE.- Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regulations promulgated under subsection (m) of section 418 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary shall issue a small entity compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the requirements of such section 418 and this section to assist small entities in complying with the hazard analysis and other activities required under such section 418 and this Section.

Neither specified nor even alluded to is the empowering language of what "assist" or "hazard analysis" or "small entities" may mean. In federal empowerment legislation, this means whatever they want it to. Lee Bechtel goes on to write,

There is no legislative language that gives any clarity or defines what a "small entity" is. Instead, leaving it up to the FDA to decide the application of the law. The Senate bill unlike the House version does not include specific exemption language for small farmers, small organic farms, etc. In fact, Senator Testor has an amendment to address this matter, if the Democratic Senate leadership allows it to be offered.

Further, how about this for a TSA-brand of intrusion into your affairs? Pg. 3 of the Manager's Amendments to S510 -

(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOODS OF CONCERN.-If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any article of a food, that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who  manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article can be acted upon by the FDA.

That would be you and me, if we're hobby farmers at the local farmer's market.

Dr. Silva Chandra says,

If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.  It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.

You know by now that the real dangers of federal legislation are hidden in a root-cluster of treaties, acts, bills, agreements, resolutions, and other governmental legerdemain that disguises the facts. Like with a metastasizing cancer, you have to run down all the tentacles that get back-doored and de-facto empowered rather than focusing just on the prima facia. Or, as Dr. Daniel Geer, Sc.D. says, Complexity is the enemy of security.

S510 puts all U.S. food production under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. And the Department of Defense. We lose not only private-citizen control of our food supply, but sovereignty as well. The bill sets in motion standardization of the food animal supply chain, focusing on eliminating biodiversity in food animal genetic stocks. It further mandates that the federal government control and empower hormonal, genetic, and antibiotic additions to our food supply while postponing most definitions of what will constitute "food crimes" under the bill's sweeping and generalized powers.

Remember Nancy Pelosi's infamous "we'll know after we pass it"?

You may be disposed to embrace a genetically modified, enhanced, and altered food chain, but for those of us who eat our foods unadulterated, raised naturally, and without benefit of the federal government mandating what we can and can't eat, S510 is one more giant step toward consolidating total power over the lives of free citizens. It is standardization on a scale never seen. Remember Ireland and its potato famine. That's what standardization accomplishes. One bug killed an entire economy.

This bill constitutes some of the worst of the worst of corporatist policies favored by the political class controlling our federal government. Conservatives must rebel at any sign of government intrusion into our private affairs, and criminalizing private food production is as wrong as it gets. S510 does just that, if reading between the lines of its muddy language suggests where the lame duck Pelosi-Reid Congress is headed. If implemented, S510 can define as a crime to clean, store, and own seeds or seed stocks unless granted that right by the federal government. Think you'll be granted that "right" when arguing against Monsanto's lawyers?

There's plenty of inflammatory news, blog entries, and postings on the internet regarding S510, and you'll find most of it from sources you'll consider Birkenstock-wearing greenies. So what? Read the bill. Follow the trail of what this bill embraces through the WTO, ending the 1994 Uruguay Agreements. Follow the failed Clinton money through Burson Marsteller (the giant public relations firm) and on through the empowerment of vague definitions within. And if you can read far enough on the faint trails of treaties, past legislations and acts, you'll realize that the federal government, under successive attempts by the corporatist Left, is grabbing not just your health care, but your food supply.

Its House companion Bill, HR 2749, empowers federal bureaucracies to totally prohibit the movement of any and all foods into or out of a given area (Section 133b, "Authority to Prohibit or Restrict the Movement of Food," sponsored by Congressman Dingell). Sure, sure, the idea may be to prevent the spread of dangerous foods, but once the camel's nose is under the tent, you know what can happen.

In other words, what are Republicans doing, signing on to legislation so grievous to the rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect?

The author invites email comments at geer.michael@gmail.com. He is a hobbyist farmer, rancher, and patriot.

The color of murder and gun violence in New York

Washington Post ^ | 11/10/2010 | Jonathan Capehart

Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:01:59 AM by Altura Ct.

...Check out these statistics from the "Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City" report for the first six months of 2010.

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are most frequently Black (67.0%) or Hispanic (28.1%). White victims account for (3.2%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims.

The Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (53.8%) and Hispanic arrestees (36.4%) account for the majority of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrestees while White arrestees (7.1%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (2.2%) arrestees account for the remaining portions of the Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population.

Shooting victims are most frequently Black (73.8%) or Hispanic (22.1 %). White victims account for an additional (2.6%) of all Shooting victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders victims account for (1.2%) of all Shooting Victims.

The Shooting arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (70.9%) and Hispanic arrestees (25.8%) account for the majority of Shooting arrest population. White arrestees (2.5%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (0.9%) account for the remaining portion of the Shooting arrest population.

In short, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic. I don't even know where to begin to describe the horror I still feel looking at those numbers. But the word "hunted" comes to mind.

(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...

Line Up to Give Up Your Rights (American Thinker)

 

By Wesley Clark, MD

Airline travelers are now standing in security lines around the country for the opportunity to pose nude for the Department of Homeland Security. "Naked body scanners" are just the latest development in the field of Man-Caused Disaster prevention, a part of the Overseas Contingency Operations (War on Terror) in which the actions of a handful of suicidal terrorists, almost exclusively of a certain religious persuasion, have led to a massive government assault on the freedoms of all Americans. Since 9/11, the declared objective of al-Qaeda to destroy our society and our way of life has been implemented mainly by our own ruling class.

Stupefying amounts of our money -- hundreds of billions of dollars of our collective wealth -- continue to pour into the ever-expanding bureaucracy and government-run programs to listen to our phone calls, read our mail, collect our personal data, and particularly to intrusively inconvenience every citizen who travels by air. With each new, inexpensive, and creative exploit by al-Qaeda, the depth and breadth of invasive searches has progressively increased -- from emptying our pockets at first, confiscating nail files, then removing our shoes, our belts, wallets, jewelry, watches, confiscating toiletries, followed by random searches and pat-downs, and now nude body scans. 

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Under the Patriot Act, our private communications may be eavesdropped on, and personal transactions can be secretly scrutinized with self-written warrants (National Security Letters written by a federal agent) that prohibit your banker, librarian, or others served from notifying you of the search (you can't even legally contest the warrant if you find out about it yourself, because if you complain to your lawyer or a court about it, you commit a felony by divulging that it exists). This act was originally justified by the War on Terror, but it has since been employed hundreds of thousands of times, often against innocent citizens swept up by innocent associations with alleged intelligence targets. The Obama administration is seeking to broaden the act still more.

TSA searches are now gutting the few remaining Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure. Essentially, our government, supported by the courts, has defined a "Constitution-Free Zone" incorporating all airports and the area of the United States within one hundred miles of a border or the coast (termed the "functional equivalent of the

border, or extended border"), in which constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment are deemed not applicable, and are routinely flouted by the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to stop, search, and detain anyone and anything (including the contents of your computer), for any reason, within a "Constitution-Free Zone," resident or traveler, without a warrant and without even having probable cause -- only a reasonable suspicion, which by DHS rules and case law can include even ethnic indicators. Two-thirds of Americans live within this Constitution-Free Zone, especially the "liberal" residents of coastal cities in the "blue states." 

Ostensibly, your decision to travel by airline implies your choice to abandon your rights to privacy in order to serve the cause of collective security. If you don't like it, just travel by car or bus instead -- but don't venture within one hundred miles of the border or the coast, or you may be subject to warrantless search without probable cause by other TSA agents with the Border Patrol or the Immigration and Customs Enforcement divisions. 

The newly infamous body scanners are of two types. Millimeter wave scanners generate high-frequency photons, in the "terahertz" radiation band from 30 to 300 gigahertz frequency, that are able to penetrate clothing to strike the body -- but penetrating much less than x-rays, that have a higher frequency and energy levels. 

Backscatter scanners generate low-energy x-rays, which readily penetrate clothing, while some portion are reflected (backscattered) from the surface of the skin, detected, and used by the scanner to generate the detailed image. X-rays are ionizing radiation and are judged to have no minimum safe threshold exposure. Exposure is cumulative over one's lifetime. This has potential implications for frequent fliers and flight personnel, who also accumulate increased lifetime exposure from cosmic ray exposures at altitude. 

Consequently, serious concerns have been raised regarding unrecognized radiation effects of the body scanners. Exposure to high-energy photons of terahertz frequencies may be damaging to the DNA of our cells, conceivably a risk for cancer or other illness. This effect has been reported to occur when the DNA molecule resonates with certain frequencies, causing the bonds of the double helix to be disrupted, like shattering glass with a musical tone. Officially, or officiously, the TSA and the FDA assure us that this radiation is harmless -- at least until proven otherwise by a future catastrophe. To be fair, it is impossible to scientifically prove a negative, but there is a paucity of any actual research into the effects this type of radiation on the human body or human tissue. 

Of more immediate concern, the media, the internet, and the blogosphere are filled with accounts here, ranging from inconvenience to intrusions on passengers' privacy, assault on a co-worker by a TSA agent, opposite-sex sexual molestation by TSA agents, arrest and detainment for opting out, and just dumb and ham-fisted TSA behavior such as hollering "opt out" to embarrass persons refusing scans. Once again, a mixture of bureaucratic organizational expertise and human stupidity appears to combine synergistically to magnify the chaos. 

Searches are performed on airline personnel, even pilots and flight attendants. When an individual is trusted to sit at the controls of an airliner for several hours, and many are certified to carry firearms in the cockpit, what sense does it make to search him before each flight, to ensure that he does not carry a neglected set of nail-clippers?

TSA procedures supposedly require that pat-down searches must be performed by persons of the same sex, and in privacy, although these principles are frequently violated. This basis for this rule is the belief that an intrusive search by a person of the same sex will necessarily be asexual, and therefore less offensive, than one performed by a person of the opposite sex -- an unsupportable presumption. What if the person being searched, or for that matter, the searcher, is homosexual? This is roughly equivalent to being searched by a member of the opposite sex, and for some individuals, it may have significant emotional implications. Having been forced to submit to pat-downs every flight, due to the presence of an artificial metallic hip joint, I can testify that a body search is quite unpleasant, especially when conducted in view of other travelers wondering if you were planning to hijack their flight. 

The US Airline Pilots Association, in a letter to members, described an incident where a pilot was disabled emotionally by the pat-down search experience:

One U.S. Airways pilot, after being selected for an enhanced pat-down, experienced a frisking that has left him unable to function as a crew member. The words this pilot used to describe the incident included "sexual molestation," and in the aftermath of trying to recover, this pilot reported that he had literally vomited in his own driveway while contemplating going back to work and facing the possibility of a similar encounter with the TSA. This is a very serious situation, and it represents a crossroads for all U.S. airline pilots. 

Might the emotional effects of searching the pilot create a new danger for travelers? USAPA further advises its members to "make sure you are emotionally fit and not stressed in any way by your close encounter with the TSA" before deciding to proceed with their flight. 

Who are these guys (and gals) who are screening us? How does the TSA screen its prospective employees for a background of sexual perversion or sex crimes, for whom such a position might carry furtive attractions? Can there be any serious doubt that the prospect of looking at images of nude children, and engaging in the act of "feeling up" adults and children will attract sexual perverts to apply for TSA employment, which permits them to perform the same actions under color of the law that would land them in prison in virtually any other job? 

Apparently, the TSA rules for background checks for airport personnel do not even exclude a prior record of sexual crimes, with the exception of rape. According to the U.S. Code, sexual perverts, child molesters, or illegal aliens are still qualified for TSA employment. TSA has also cleared illegal aliens for flight training despite the experience of the 9/11 attacks, although none have made it to the cockpit of an airliner so far. One should never "misunderestimate" the competence of the bureaucracy when it comes to generation of mindless decisions. 

Americans should also be concerned about invasion of their privacy by having images of their naked bodies disseminated rudely by TSA personnel. The appearance on the internet of nude body scans of "hot chicks," naked children, and curiously deformed adults is just a matter of time and human nature. The TSA claims that this is impossible, and that the agency will delete the raw images, but there is actually no law or regulation that prevents the agency from saving the original, detailed images, and it has already been done by the U.S. Marshal's service. It is important to understand that the initial image obtained is of much higher quality than those printed in the newspapers, and it may contain recognizable facial features that are only subsequently filtered out by the display algorithm.  s it plausible that these filters will never be defeated by an employee and that airport scanner images of children will never be found later on child pornography sites?

CAIR has issued a low-key advisory about the naked screening issue. Muslims object to any "profiling" despite the overwhelming preponderance of Muslims as perpetrators of aviation terrorist incidents. They particularly object to exposure of almost any part of the bodies of Muslim women to the view of other persons, especially males. What is the Muslim reaction, therefore, to naked body scans? Muslims are advised by CAIR to request a pat-down. Will Muslims decline to fly now that these searches, or the equally intrusive pat-downs, are mandatory?

The funniest and most ironic account about airport security I've ever heard was the anecdote that appeared early in the War on Terror, on the bulletin board in the pilot's lounge at the airline where my son flew. It was posted by a bleary-eyed pilot who was checking through security in the early morning hours, when the security personnel themselves were being checked in. A National Guard soldier, assigned as an airport guard, was standing with arms and legs widely spread as he was carefully checked by an agent with a detector wand, presumably for possession of nail-clippers or a pocket-knife, while holding an M-16 rifle in his right hand!

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/line_up_to_give_up_your_rights.html at November 12, 2010 - 06:37:56 AM CST