BC Hans's Blog

Ok ... I really thought someone made this up.

There are approximately 4,000 homeless souls in Denver. Well the DNC is hosting their big paty and the libs don't want them (the homeless) to be "seen". Or if seen at least "looking good" ... LMAO

Here ya go: the homeless are being given haircuts, free movie passes, zoo passes, museum tickets and bingo games!!! I suppose to give them something to do while the big party is happening.

I have been to Denver several times ... in about a month, these 4000 souls may want a warmer climate ... why wern't they given a choice ... mebbe a lil job training ... mebbe one of those temporary "green jobs" the Libs profess? A movie and a hairuct? LMAO

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/obam
a-denver.html

Ok ... I really thought someone made this up.

There are approximately 4,000 homeless souls in Denver. Well the DNC is hosting their big paty and the libs don't want them (the homeless) to be "seen". Or if seen at least "looking good" ... LMAO

Here ya go: the homeless are being given haircuts, free movie passes, zoo passes, museum tickets and bingo games!!! I suppose to give them something to do while the big party is happening.

I have been to Denver several times ... in about a month, these 4000 souls may want a warmer climate ... why wern't they given a choice ... mebbe a lil job training ... mebbe one of those temporary "green jobs" the Libs profess? A movie and a hairuct? LMAO

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/obam
a-denver.html

"a leader that God has blessed us with at this time." ... a Nancy Pelosi quote!

From Sunday at a DNC fundraising party.

I'd love to hear comments on this one ... lmao.

Especially the libs ... please libs ... please start with the word "leader" ... I'd love to hear an explanation as to what he has lead!

Next challenge is God and BO ... try to explain without laughing.

And what's with the "at this time"?

Yep, Govt Health-care at its finest ... and the people who won't get their own insurance cite Canada and the UK to show how it works.

Sure does, I can't wait to see how many hymens can be replaced in the United States ... esp all the 14 year old daughters of parents who expect the Govt to educate their spawn as well.

Women get 'virginity fix' NHS operations in Muslim-driven trend Last updated at 07:07am 

 Add your view

 

Women are being given controversial "virginity repair" operations on the NHS, it emerged last night.

Taxpayers funded 24 hymen replacement operations between 2005 and 2006, official figures revealed.

And increasing numbers of women are paying up to £4,000 in private clinics for the procedure apparently under pressure from future spouses or in-laws who believe they should be virgins on their wedding night.

Doctors said most patients are immigrants or British of ethnic origin.

Scroll down for more ...

The popularity of the operation is said to be the result of social regression caused by Islamic fundamentalism

The trend has been condemned by critics as a sign of social regression driven by Islamic fundamentalists. Some countries have made hymen reconstruction operations illegal.

Dr Magdy Hend, consultant gynaecologist at the Regency Clinic, Harley Street, London, who started hymen reconstruction more than 18 years ago in the Middle East and the Gulf, said: "In some cultures they like to see that the women will bleed on the wedding night. If the wife or bride is not a virgin, it is a big shame on the family."

Dr Hend said he was surprised by the "very good response" to the service and said there is "big competition on the market".

Most of his clients, he told More4 News, are in their teens or early 20s.

"They might be British of ethnic background, they might be immigrants, or some people come from abroad, Asia, Middle East, the Gulf, and they don't want to have it done back home," he added.

Dr Hend said demand is increasing, particularly from UK residents.

The operation can involve suturing of a tear in the hymen, such as might be caused by sexual assault, to help healing.

But it can also be conducted as a purely cosmetic procedure. A membrane is constructed, sometimes including a capsule of an artificial blood-like substance.

This operation is intended to be performed within a few days before an intended marriage.

Tory health spokesman Mike Penning expressed concern.

He said: "If there is any cultural or other pressure being put on the women from any source to have this done, that would be a very retrograde step.

"If a woman has been violated or raped and lost her virginity, clearly everything possible should be done to assist her.

"But what nobody would understand is if taxpayers' money is being used to fund operations of this kind for cultural or cosmetic reasons."

Labour MP Ann Cryer said she was "absolutely horrified" to learn of the phenomenon.

She added: "We should be trying to protect girls from this.

"It is a form of abuse of women and it may be that the woman who is asking for the operation to be done does not recognise the abuse that is taking place against her, but in later life she certainly will.

"We have to also ask whether our National Health Service should be providing this sort of facility. I don't think it should be available on the NHS."

The Department of Health said "certain cosmetic procedures" are available on the NHS "to secure physical or psychological health".

Virginity repair operations have become a source of controversy in France, where gynaecologists report a growing number of requests from women.

The procedure is supposed to be funded by the state only if the patient claims she has been raped. But some doctors agree to carry it out for cultural or cosmetic reasons.

Isabelle Levy, an author who studied the issue for her book Religion in the Hospital, said young Muslim girls are "modern and they have adventures like other Europeans - which never happened in the past.

"But on the other hand, fundamentalism is spreading and these girls are getting sent back to their countries of origin to marry. And they will be rejected if it is found out that they are not virgins."

Ok ... we all know how Hillary won the New Hampster democrat vote by now.

I have an after-thought ... why didn't she cry in public when Bill was caught with a parade of women?

I am stunned at what is being proposed in California, yeah I know, 3100 miles away. But this proposal known as Title 24 can be implemented anywhere, and to think with all the Florida growth that some Liberal Al Gore think-alike may try and adopt this.

Take a look at how they are using FM reception on thermostats to adjust a home's AC / heat.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/who_will_control
_your_thermost.html

January 04, 2008

Who Will Control Your Thermostat?

By Joseph Somsel

"There is nothing wrong with your thermostat. Do not attempt to adjust the temperature. We are controlling your power consumption. If we wish to make it hotter, we will turn off your air conditioner. If we wish to make it cooler, we will turn off your heater.  For the next millennium, sit quietly and we will control your home temperature. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your thermostat. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... SACRAMENTO!"*

 

Building codes and engineering standards are generally good things.  Updating and improving codes and standards better protect us against earthquakes, for example, as we better understand the weak points and failure modes of existing construction techniques.  Requirements that ensure proper handling of sanitary wastes can be largely credited with the increased life spans in industrialized countries through the reduction of communicable diseases.

 

In California, we have 236 pages of state-mandated standards for building energy efficiency, known as Title 24.  This prescribes methods for calculating the sizes of your home windows, the capacities of your air conditioner and heater, the thickness of the insulation in your attic.  A small cottage industry has sprung up to perform these engineering calculations that are required for any new commercial or residential construction or major change to existing structures.  While I've never personally been involved in this branch of retail professional engineering, I've had colleagues who would moonlight doing Title 24 calcs. It is now just part of the mandated paperwork involved in the construction business these days in California.

 

A new revision to Title 24 is in the works for 2008[2] and it includes a number of improvements and enhancements that are largely good sense items and should be non-controversial.  For example a new swimming pool will probably need larger diameter pipes between the pool, the filter and the pump than was former practice.  This will reduce the fluid friction losses that your pump must overcome and hence reduce the pump's consumption of electricity, albeit at a minor increase in first cost for the larger pipes and fittings.  Another good idea is a requirement for lighter colored shingles, the "Cool Roof Initiative."  That is intended to reduce heat loss over cold winter nights by emission and heat gain on summer days by absorption. My neighbor and I both recently discovered that it is difficult to get roofers to NOT use dark colored shingles for some reason.  Having a little state muscle behind us will help, especially for renters.

 

What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a "programmable communicating thermostat" or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes' central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision.  Each PCT will be fitted with a "non-removable " FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose.  During "price events" those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes.  During "emergency events" the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.

 

In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control.  Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations.  All this is for the common good, of course.

 

In some technocratic worldview, it does have a justification.  California's population growth and its affluence have strained the state's electric and natural gas resources.  Famously, rolling blackouts have occurred due to shortages of electrical generation during peak periods.  Unbeknownst to most citizens, short supplies of natural gas during cold weather have resulted in curtailments of delivery to industrial and large commercial customers.  Those last kilowatts tend to be very expensive kilowatts and tend to drive up the average cost of electricity for all.

 

But the discomforts of compliance will fall unevenly across the state.  Come the next heat wave,  the elites might be comfortably lolling in La Jolla's ocean breezes or basking in Berkeley by the Bay, while the Central Valley's poor peons are baking in Bakersfield and frying in Fresno.  California's coastal climate, where the elites live, seldom requires air conditioning.  I've lived a middle class life style in Mill Valley, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo and now San Jose, and never have I lived in a home with air conditioning.  Even in relatively warm San Jose, separated from the Pacific Ocean by the Coast Range, ceiling fans will get a family through the worst.

 

How will the state ensure compliance and prevent free riders?  As above, coastal elites are already free riders as they will see the benefits while paying none of the costs except for the higher first cost of a PCT.  For initial construction or home remodeling, it will be one of those items a building inspector will check before signing a certificate of occupancy.  Replacing one's mandated PCT with a bootleg unit from Nevada should be within the skill of most homeowners.   A low powered FM transmitter might easily be devised to override the broadcast commands for low cost.  Even a metal wire shield around your PCT could block its FM reception.   Adding a window air conditioner or an electric space heater are other work-arounds as neither have requirements for PCTs  - yet.  Sweating for the common good is for the chumps.

 

Another problem is that PCTs will obscure the price signals to power plant developers telling them that it will be profitable to build additional generation.  As explained in this article, a deregulated electric market will come to resemble other commodity markets, like pork bellies, where shortages cause high prices that induce new capacity and low (or obscured) prices inhibit investment.  When bacon prices are high, farmers arrange dates between their sows and their boars in hopes of future, profitable piglets. When bacon prices are low, farmers are more interested in chastity for their herds.  If the state "shaves" peak loads by adjusting your thermostat during "price events," generators will not receive the higher prices.  This effect will reinforce electrical shortages much like rent control discourages apartment building.

 

The real question poised by this invasion of the sanctity of our homes by state power is -- why are we doing this?  It seems to me to be the wrong fix for a problem that we don't have to have.  The common sense alternative is to build new power plants so that power shortages don't occur.   Of course, they can't be coal or nuclear power plants!  The coastal elites have their minds set against those undesirables. The state has wasted billions of our dollars on wind generation that hasn't helped to meet peak loads. For natural gas, offshore drilling should be considered.  While we have one liquefied natural gas terminal in Mexico supplying us with Indonesian and, in the near future, Russian, LNG, another receiving terminal to be supplied by Australian LNG was rejected by the State Coastal Commission.

 

While nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there explicitly a right to set one's own thermostat to whatever  temperature one desires (and is able to pay for),  the new PCT requirement certainly seems to violate the "a man's home is his castle" common law dictum.

 

Californians have until January 30th to send their opinions and comments on the pending revisions to Title 24 to the California Energy Commission[1].  Legislators too[2].

*With apologies to the creators of the TV science fiction series, "The Outer Limits."

_______________________________________________________
_______________________________

[1] Specifically re "2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Docket # 07-BSTD-1."  Try contacting Chris Gekas who is the process administrator of the proceedings at cgekas@energy.state.ca.us.

 

[2] Contact information for the state legislators is here:

 

I think Election Day does favor the Democrats simply because it is held on a workday ... why not a Saturday?

Those "less fortunates" can or will turn out in record numbers for a left wing promised hand-out. While a gainfully employed right winger has a few hours after work to head to the polls. Yeah I know it's a legal holiday in some states, however take California's position on that. Their law is voting must be allowed by employers, but none offer paid time off ...

Early voting is possible via mail, however just how many do that besides almost the entire state of Oregon?

We can still vote on Tuesdays, if that's so important to everyone, but let's open the polls for one 24 hour period. The polls open at 7:00 a.m. Eastern and close 24 hours later. We accomplish two things here. First ... pretty much everyone has a much better chance to vote. Instead of having the work day fill up 75% of the time the polls are open, those eight hours would fill only 25% of the time allotted for voting. Secondly ... since all polls would close at exactly the same time there would be little chance for the news media to screw things up with claims of victory as soon as the polls close on the east coast.

But why not a Saturday? NCAA Footbal?? Christams shopping??

Ok ... I am not a Ron Paul supporter now coz his anti-terrorism ideas scare me to the bone. His earmark deceits is also less than admirable. However Washington is full of deceits ... and whatever it takes to keep Hillary away!

Please read this (http://www.nolanchart.com/article847.html):

Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul, Fair Tax, Women Voters, VICTORY!

---

Ron Paul Should Flip-Flop on this issue.

---

by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)

A few years back I was getting ready to fly to South Africa.  I don't recall exactly what caused me to pick up the FairTax book by Neal Boortz and John Linder, but I did.  I didn't read it on the plane until near the end of the journey; but when I got into it, I couldn't put it down.  I read it when we rode from Cape Town to the Cape of Good Hope.  I read it in my hut between safaris later in the trip when we were at the Kruger game reserve.  The point is that even with dancing monkeys all around, I couldn't put it down. I actually read the book.  Much like Ron Paul, the Fair Tax is easy to dismiss with soundbites if you don't understand it.  If not for Ron Paul, I would be supporting the heck out of Huckabee for one reason and one reason only--the FairTax.  But I want to have my cake and eat it too, so here is my attempt to convince you to let me.

I really feel that Ron Paul and the Fair Tax need not be mutually exclusive and adopting it as part of his platform could not only help him win, but could also serve as a mechanism to cause even more positive change for the years following Dr. Paul's time in office.  Before I explain exactly how, let me start with an explanation of the Fair Tax.  If you are already well versed on this issue, just skip it.  But before you make a comment accusing me of being a "Huckabee shill", read the article.

The Fair Tax or FairTax

Under this legislation the income tax would be replaced with a national sales tax.  Not only would individual income tax be replaced, but all capital gains, death taxes, and corporate taxes would be as well.  The reason for this is that there is no such thing as a "corporate tax."  It sounds good to tax a corporation, but in the end all taxes paid to the Federal Government by corporations equates to money not paid to the corporations' employees or owners (shareholders).  This isn't some crackpot idea, the idea for the FairTax was created by some of America's most brilliant economic thinkers.

Here are some of the things most don't understand or consider when talk of the Fair Tax comes up:

The 23 (or 30 percent depending on how you do the math) tax is not in addition to the prices we are already paying.  There is already a 20-30% invisible tax embedded in the cost of goods and services we use due to our current system. By ripping out the current system and including the national sales tax, prices would remain at essentially the same level they are now.

It doesn't hurt poor people.  Every American would receive a check (or deposit) called a "prebate" at the beginning of the month for the taxes she would pay in order to meet the basic necessities of life (the first of our creator endowed rights listed as being self-evident in the Declaration of Independence). Wealthy people do pay more in this system because they buy more.  But they don't pay more simply because they are "rich."  If poor people choose to buy more, they would pay more on a percentage basis of their income than rich people do, but the right to consume is not a god given right and I see no reason why this would be unfair. The concept that someone should pay more because they earn more is very un-American.  This system also would tax people who have inherited money and buy things with it who now don't pay much in income taxes because they don't have an income.

Another reason average Americans aren't hurt under this system is that a tax is only paid once when the item is new (at least at the federal level).  The wealthy person would pay this tax on his new BMW, but Joe Mechanic wouldn't pay it on his used Accord.

Yet another reason middle income people would benefit is that they wouldn't have to pay an accountant to do their taxes each year. They also would never have to worry about an expensive audit or proving they spent what they spent in order to receive deductions or credits.

Everyone would benefit due to charitable giving.  It is a mistake that people only give because they receive a tax deduction for doing so.  Studies have shown that charitable giving increased dramatically when Reagan dropped the tax rates.  If people have more money, they give more away.  It's that simple.  This giving would help more average and poor Americans in need.

People would get to take home 100% of their paychecks--not what's left after the government gets its part.  They could use this money to buy stuff at essentially the same prices they are paying now.

By eliminating all federal corporate taxes we would get most, if not all of our jobs back from overseas and some new ones as well.  This would create an historic economic boom.  Every company in the world would have to move to the United States in order to compete due to our tax system. The ending of capital gains taxes would encourage investing creating yet more impetus for strong economic growth and even more better paying jobs where people got 100% of their pay and spent it creating more prosperity and more income for the government.

Since all of our illegal immigrants don't pay income tax but do buy things, they would then pay into the system they are currently robbing.  Same with drug dealers, bookies, prostitutes, etc. Ever see a movie with a drug dealer riding in a Pinto?

The cost of collecting such a tax would be miniscule in comparison to the cost of running the IRS.  You can look up the numbers www.fairtax.org, but the cost of supporting the infrastructure of the IRS is ridiculous.  All it would cost for this new system is changing a number in a cash register as well as a little paperwork for each state or establishment to send into Washington.  This cost is taken into consideration in the plan and the states would be reimbursed for this small cost.

People could still cheat on their taxes, but it would now require two people (the merchant and buyer) to do it instead of just one. Now the government cheats people out of money by having a code that is so complex nobody understands it so they don't take all of the deductions they could.

It would put a lot of people out of work (IRS agents, lobbyists tax attorneys, accountants, tax compliance officers, etc.) but the resulting economic boom would quickly find a way to use these bright people's minds and efforts in a way that would actually be productive to our country instead of making them cops and crooks in order to enforce our current system.

The increased money the government would receive should be enough to actually save all of the programs we have like Social Security, etc.

 So what's the hold up?  Well, under the current system the people who make the laws, the lobbyists and powerful corporations--not the Congress elected by the people, get special favors and tax exemptions.  While paying taxes may cost these groups more than paying no taxes would, in business it's about having an advantage over your competition.  And while company X may have to pay 20% under this system instead of 0% under the Fair Tax, paying 20% is still good if your lobbyists got you that rate while your main competitor has to pay 30%.  Another reason is that right now the government owns all of your individual income and allows you to keep a certain amount.  If you don't believe me, just don't pay your taxes for a while and see how quickly they can take everything for you in order to satisfy your tax debt.  Why would they want to give this up? 

This is Where Ron Paul Comes in

David Cox wrote an article recently on lewrockwell.com recently about the problems with the FairTax.  The overall theme of this article is that we could end up with both the national sales tax AND the income tax.  And I agree with him. It is possible which is why Huckabee supporting the Fair Tax is kinda scary.  The 16th Amendment would have to be repealed in order to ensure we didn't have both.  Who is the one man that you know would make sure we got rid of the IRS?  Ron Paul.

Now to how adopting the Fair Tax could help Ron Paul win, why it fits him philosophically, and why it would be good for our country long term.

First of all, he could adopt this positiong quickly without selling out his principles.  It would be a way to eliminate the IRS.  He has said he would replace it with nothing, but he has also said that he doesn't believe with the state we are in he would actually be able to end the IRS in just a 4 year period.  He could explain that he would adopt the Fairtax to eliminate the IRS and thus end a massive government bureaucracy and by implementing his reduced spending plan, eventually we would be able to end the FairTax (which would be far easier) altogether.

Politically this would be a major coup. Outside of the Religious Neo-Conservatives, Huckabee draws most of his support from proponents of the Fair Tax.  These supporters are quite well organized and do things the Ron Paul camp does to support their cause like going to post offices on April 15th to hand out literature, having a national distribution list of supporters, and a list of all representatives and where they stand on the issue of the FairTax.  Other than the FairTax, these people have far more in common with Dr. Paul than they do Mike Huckabee as evidenced by one of the prevailing themes of the Fair Tax--do away with the guilty until proven innocent,  government owns you and all of your property mindset that comes from the IRS.  Getting all of these people on Ron Paul's side wouldn't be hard  and would provide a major boost for him.  Not unlike Ron Paul supporters who are willing to stomach some of the issues on which they don't agree with him for the overall good of his other policies, the FairTax proponents believe so strongly in the FairTax they are willing to support Huckabee even if it means looking the other way on some of his other issues.

Ron Paul himself has suggested in interviews that a National Sales Tax may be a way to make up for the government revenues lost by eliminating the IRS.  While those of us who understand Ron Paul's candidacy believe that the IRS could be replaced with nothing if the government did what it was actually legally allowed to do under the Constitution, most American voters do not understand this or believe it.  Statements like these (and the work of the MSM) serve to marginalize Ron Paul's message and undermine his legitimacy as a candidate among the average American. They may not like the IRS, but they believe it has to be replaced by something. 

I think this is part of the reason Ron Paul doesn't do as well among women as he does with men.  Let me explain by giving a personal example.  I was engaged to a girl I dated for over four years back in 2004.  I'll spare the details, but we ended up not getting married.  I read a lot during the period after my engagement ended about the psychological make up of women; granted, as Ron Paul himself would say, we are all individuals.  As individuals we all have rights, but people do tend to think certain ways as a group--like the religious right. So while the example I am about to give absolutely doesn't hold true for everyone it is still an interesting and applicable insight. 

There is one thing I read during that time that really stands out to me and is relevant here.  A man will end a long relationship with a woman even if he currently has no other dating prospects.  Women are quite unlikely to end a long relationship unless they have somebody else already in place.  The idea of ending the IRS and replacing it with nothing is appealing to men, but not to women and people who think like them.  Since our government has now become a "nanny" and most people seem not to care, it isn't that much of a stretch to conclude that most people think more like the stereotypical security minded woman than a freedom-loving stereotypical man.  More women voters means more likelihood of winning the nomination and election.  Having a replacement plan instead of trying to convince people of something that seems nearly impossible like ending the IRS (death and taxes, after all) is a far easier sale to make.

The biggest danger I see in the Fair Tax is that it WOULD increase government revenues dramatically.  Many of you probably have a relative or friend who makes a lot of money but never seems to have any.  Maybe that person is you.  While Ron Paul emphasizes and runs his office the Dave Ramsey way, most people and politicians don't.  There is a reason most people who win the lottery end up broke again  later down the road.  There is a reason people can't pay their mortgages or qualify for refinancing. The reason is their personal spending habits.  And Washington D.C. has a bank statement full of NSF fees long enough to make Britney Spears look like a school marm. No matter how much they make, they will find a way to blow it.  Unless the person writing the checks is someone we can trust.  Who could that be?  Maybe someone who returns part of his congressional office budget to the treasury each year? Maybe someone who doesn't participate in the congressional pension program that taxpayers pay for?  Maybe someone who didn’t vote for Rosa Parks, a personal hero of his, to receive a Congressional Medal that would have "only cost" the taxpayers a few ten thousands of dollars? Seems like a good choice to me.

If Ron Paul would adopt the Fair Tax, he would certainly seem more electable.  If he were elected and the Fair Tax was passed, he could be trusted to spend the money wisely and constitutionally.  We actually could get out of debt.  We could save the programs that generations of Americans have become dependent upon.  Once people received their entire paychecks and could see what they had been missing, they would be a lot more likely to accept the entire pro-freedom message since individual financial freedom is the one freedom that hits home first and most.  These new voters could be counted on to put the right kind of people in office for years to come, and following the example set by legendary President Ron Paul, our national sales tax could go from 23% to something in the future like 2 or 3% once the debt was paid, productivity, opportunity, and income had increased exponentially, and government had been returned to its proper constitutional levels.  If the FairTax passes and a normal candidate has the checkbook, it could one day be 50% and that still wouldn't be enough.  I think the FairTax and Ron Paul could be a winning ticket.

Your fellow American,

John Armstrong

Like this Article? Thumb it.

Want to comment? It's fun.  You have the same 1st Amendment Right that I do.  Use it. I don't have the right to not have my feelings hurt if you don't like it.

Want to send it to a friend? Use the button below to send it to yourself first, then forward it on to avoid spam filters.

Want to keep reading articles like this for free? Click on a couple of our Sponsors' ads to the right even if you don't buy anything.

Want a date? Send pics or witty comments  to strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com ;).

As always, and unlike the NFL, any rebroadcasts, retransmissions,  accounts of this article, or downright theft of words or ideas contained herein,  are completely okay with me when used to promote the cause of the Restoration of our Republic.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
67 thumbs so far

2008 John Armstrong, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, January 2, 2008