September 10-12, 2019

Sep 10 02:00 Second Amendment quiz
Sep 10 22:49 Stanley Greenberg's illusion

Sep 11 00:05 St. Cloud City Council's transparency
Sep 11 15:27 9/11 memories

Sep 12 00:03 St. Cloud's accountability dodge
Sep 12 00:58 The Democrats' one-trick pony
Sep 12 04:55 The Democrats' #2A ignorance
Sep 12 13:49 Is the racial divide shrinking?
Sep 12 14:30 Ed Markey's ANWR lie

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Second Amendment quiz

What do the shooters who killed people in Odessa, TX, El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH have in common? This isn't difficult. I'm betting that we'd quickly agree that the 3 shooters are criminals. Considering that fact, isn't it interesting that the Democrats' first 'solution' is to violate law-abiding citizens' civil rights?

Stop and think about that in those terms. If you wanted to lower crime, why would your first step be to restrict the civil rights of law-abiding citizens? That's like a mechanic changing the oil and coolant when the customer told him that the car was having difficulty shifting from reverse to overdrive. In other words, it's stupid to fix things that aren't broken instead of fixing what's broken.

Why wouldn't Democrats fix the things that are broken rather than tinker with things that aren't broken? They might if their highest priority was to fix things rather than to acquire power and check things off the Democrats' ideological check list. The things that Democrats most want are checking items off their ideological checklist and obeying Resist Movement activists.

Most of the criminal gun violence is committed by handguns. Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians alike know this. They've known that for a generation or more. Why hasn't Robert Francis O'Rourke insisted on a mandatory handgun confiscation program like he's pushing his mandatory assault weapons confiscation plan?
[Video no longer available]
O'Rourke won't champion such a confiscation program because he knows that the fastest-growing group of people applying for conceal-carry permits are single moms. Taking the guns away from single moms that they use to protect their families is politically stupid. That's why Robert Francis O'Rourke won't propose such legislation. Neither will other Democrats.

Instead, it's easier to propose confiscating scary-looking weapons like this:


The weapon above isn't any more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber that doesn't have a pistol grip. That's just reality. Finally, the assault weapons ban didn't have an appreciable affect on gun crime because the so-called assault weapons that were banned in the legislation didn't exist by the time the legislation took effect.

The assault weapons ban outlawed specific brands and models. The minute that the legislation was signed outlawing those guns, the manufacturers changed the model number. Problem solved. As I wrote here , the Heller Decision held:

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The simple fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled on guns "in common use." As long as a gun is commonly owned, Congress can't confiscate it.

Posted Tuesday, September 10, 2019 2:00 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Sep-19 10:04 AM
Well, they can try. Wasn't it Franklin who said, "neither liberty nor property is safe while the legislature is in session"?

The problem isn't the prevalence of guns, it is the prevalence of criminal minds and a society increasingly tolerant of the notion that the smallest grievance is an excuse for just about anything.

Stanley Greenberg's illusion

It stands to reason that Stanley Greenberg's opinions, like the ones in this op-ed , are more than a little tainted. It's logical considering the fact that his wife is Rosa DeLauro, one of the nuttiest Democrats in Congress.


It's stunning that he'd take such a partisan perspective on what Republicans did after the TEA Party Wave Election of 2010. Greenberg wrote "The Democrats today are reacting not only to Mr. Trump but to the Tea Party-dominated Republican Party that preceded and prepared the way for him with gridlocked government. After coming to power in the 2010 wave election, the Republicans tried to keep the government from addressing virtually any problem at all. The Tea Party movement was animated by its hostility to Mr. Obama and his activist government. Empowered in the House, it forced an I.M.F.-like budget austerity on the federal government and blocked any new economic stimulus and investment. As a candidate, Mr. Trump built his base among Tea Party Republicans and Evangelicals in order to carry forward the assault on government nationally and in the states. The Democrats watched in frustration as the government was presumed to be impotent to address wage stagnation, surging inequality, climate change, the slaughter from automatic weapons and the flood of dark money into politics."

To use one of George Will's favorite lines, "Well." After Democrats pushed the ACA down Americans' throats, the first thing that people wanted Republicans to do was stop the Democrats' leftward lurch on things like Cap & Trade, aka Cap & Tax, and higher taxes, including the creation of a wealth tax that Sen. Warren is proposing.

Consider these facts. Virtually every top-tier Democrat presidential candidate wants to kill manufacturing jobs with excessive regulations. Virtually all top-tier Democrat presidential candidates want to ban fracking in the name of saving the planet. Virtually all top-tier Democrat presidential candidates want to prevent families, especially single moms, from protecting themselves.

According to Mr. Greenberg, "The 2020 election will be transformative like few in our history. It will end with the death of the Republican Party as we know it, leaving the survivors to begin the struggle to renew the party of Lincoln and make it relevant for our times. It will liberate the Democratic Party from the country's suffocating polarization and allow it to use government to address the vast array of problems facing the nation."

With the nation heading in the right direction, it's inconceivable that voters on a massive scale will vote to change directions. Wave elections happen when the nation is heading in the wrong direction. With unemployment at a 50-year low, with wages rising for unskilled laborers and with take-home pay increasing thanks to the Trump-GOP tax cuts, aka the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, things seem pretty calm. Wave elections don't happen when things are calm.

Predicting the "death of the Republican Party" is the same as predicting a massive wave election that helps Democrats. That's foolish. Nobody is predicting a wave election in either direction.

Further, anyone that thinks that health care will be a winning issue for Democrats in 2020 should think about Medicare-for-All. I'm betting it isn't a net positive for Democrats. If health care isn't the big winner in 2020 for Democrats, then it isn't a stretch to think that the suburban white women won't be the winning edge for Democrats.

I'm betting, too, that immigration will be a net negative for Democrats. In fact, I've heard that it's a net negative amongst Hispanics in New Mexico. That's a big deal since Hispanics make up almost half of New Mexico's population.

Posted Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:49 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Sep-19 11:46 AM
Obama really did not try that much, which is the problem of his legacy. Mitch McConnell was a part of gridlock, but not trying never gets to any goal.

For instance, giving the Republicans Romneycare which they had advocated gained him no ground. It is why we need Bernie and Medicare for All to gain entry into the methods of the advanced humane nations of the world, as to providing for the health of a population. Healthcare as a right. Obama never even tried.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 11-Sep-19 05:02 PM
The progressive socialists are just losing the election for themselves with the bat crap crazy things they keep saying we need to do, i.e. Medicare for all. Bernie is the perfect example of what we don't need because they guy talks out of one side of his mouth while doing the exact opposite with the other. Hypocrites each and every one of them because they would never live under the heavy handed government they would institute if elected.

St. Cloud City Council's transparency

It's apparent that the City Council doesn't value transparency. They talk a good game but their words are empty at best. First, the City Council changed the rules governing the open forum section of the meeting. Instead of letting a maximum of 5 people speak up to 3 minutes each on the topic of their choosing at the end of the meeting, the City Council changed the rules to adjourn the meeting first, then host the open forum after the cameras have been turned off.

Citizens were told that they wanted to do that to protect people who didn't want to speak in front of the cameras. That's total BS. That's been part of the full meeting for years. Those citizens know that they're being videotaped. From the times that I've spoken during that segment, I've never seen anyone who looked uncomfortable. Frankly, there aren't that many people watching the City Council meetings so it isn't like these citizens have reason to be frightened. That doesn't mean that the things discussed during this part of the meeting are insignificant. It's just that the viewing audience was that big.

Next, censuring a person doesn't mean a thing. It has the impact of a resolution. It's totally non-binding. Why should city councilpeople get upset when they're criticized for the votes they've made? If you can't stand the heat, don't visit the kitchen.


I contacted Councilman Hontos to see if he'd like to make a statement for this post. He graciously accepted the invitation. Here's his statement, published verbatim and without editing of any sort:

I pride myself as being a respectful, engaged council member who listens.
I am disappointed at the Council's decision, which says more about it than me.
Providing factual information to the public about the Council's decisions to the media is not a violation.
A Council is not a corporate board, America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.
Our City faces many important issues, jobs, housing, diversity. The Council should stay focused on these issues and not distractions.
Furthermore, the first amendment gives everyone the freedom of speech. Just as our Supreme Court makes a ruling usually a dissenting opinion is written and published.
I will continue to represent the constituents of St. Cloud as I have been doing for 18 years. I want to thank all the positive feedback I have received. The people elected me for almost two decades now to ask the hard questions and to tackle tough issues.
George Hontos

Councilman Hontos is right. The Council's decision says more about them than it says about him. What it says about them isn't flattering, in my opinion.

Councilman Hontos is also right in stating that "America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas." The day our elected people can't stand transparency and vigorous, substantive debate is the day we'd need a major overhaul of our government. Hopefully, that won't be required. This paragraph frightens me a little:

Conway cited rule No. 6, which states council members "respect the majority vote of the council, and do not undermine or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies and rules passed by the majority."

If that's the total content of Rule # 6, then that rule needs to be eliminated. That sounds more like a speech code for collegiate snowflakes on campus. If one of the councilmembers disagrees with someone, then that councilmember should have the right to express that disagreement in any forum whatsoever. If the council has made a mistake and the individual highlights that mistake, then the individual councilmember has done the city a favor. (Yes, that means that the majority is sometimes wrong.)

If Councilman Hontos runs for re-election, he'll have my vote. Councilman Hontos is one of 3 at-large councilmembers that represent the entire city. Now that Councilman Johnson has left the Council, the need for someone that "ask[s] the hard questions and : tackle[s] tough issues" is needed now more than ever.

In conclusion, I'll simply state that it's my opinion that the only reason for putting in a rule like that is to protect spineless councilmembers. It isn't to keep confidential information confidential.

Posted Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:05 AM

Comment 1 by Vince Schaefer at 11-Sep-19 10:03 AM
As someone who has spent almost 32 years in public office I totally agree with you . Transparency in government should be a number one priority for any elected official.

Comment 2 by John Palmer at 11-Sep-19 10:14 AM
The city council is a body elected to represent the people. Each council member has an obligation to do just what George has been doing. Council members do not give up their First Amendment rights when they are sworn in they swear they will support and defend the Constitution. The councilmen who voted to censure George have violated their oath of office.

Comment 3 by eric z at 11-Sep-19 11:41 AM
From the post, and no other knowledge of that governing body, but with knowledge of town councils in general and where I live, Ramsey, Anoka County, the more that is on camera, the better. The exception to open meetings, debate of potential contract matters where the other side may watch and take advantage, has been misused but at least has a rationale. This St. Cloud thing looks like power going to the heads of a majority. Covering tracks is always suspect. On the 9/11 aniversary, there was much there that sunshine might have shown upon, but kept dark. Sunshine IS the best disinfectant - a cliche by now but a clear and tight explanation when first articulated.

Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Sep-19 07:43 PM
Eric, the reason why I love cliches is because they're truth. Still, you're right about the more that's on camera, the better. Speaking from personal experience with this bunch, there's a handful of councilmembers who are definitely control freaks.

Comment 4 by Paul A Brandmire at 12-Sep-19 08:57 AM
As you are fully aware, I was the other vote of "no" regarding the turning off of the cameras. I acknowledge there are several good reasons to turn them off, and several to leave them on. I voted to leave them on. Regardless, the majority voted to turn them off and I respected that decision -- for now. We can always bring it up again in the near future. Regarding the censure, the rules were written years ago while only two of the existing council members were on that council -- Hontos was one of them and voted for them. The rule of respecting the majority vote is designed to prevent anarchy and respect the democracy of the majority. The time for debate and discussion is during the hearing prior to the vote. Once the vote is conducted, it is the council's decision. Seeking to undermine the vote of the council (as a disgruntled individual) is not in the best interest of anyone. If as an mid-level officer, the colonel told me to do something, even something with which I disagreed, I saluted smartly and I passed the order on to the sergeant. If he then told the troops this is BS and that I am wrong, even if he carried out the task, is detrimental to good order and would not be condoned. I'd have his head on a platter most quick. Finally, if George doesn't like the rule, we should change the rule, not ignore it.

Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Sep-19 09:57 AM
Paul, regarding the rules, those were rewritten just 2-3 years ago. Hontos was on the committee that rewrote them, if I recall correctly. As for the private session rule, that's got to get rewritten. Other than for keeping personnel matters confidential, that business needs to be public.

9/11 memories

Eighteen years ago this morning, 9/11 became an historic date as memorable as the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. This day is filled with so many memories, it's impossible to recount them all. I remember when Andy Card notified President Bush that the second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Here's Card's recollection of that moment:
[Video no longer available]
That's the day America changed. That's the day that Rudy Giuliani became "America's Mayor". It was just a few days later that President Bush gave us this memorable quote:
[Video no longer available]
Still, the moment I remember most is this one:
[Video no longer available]
If we threw out the politicians and the Agenda Media, I think we could have a more harmonious relationship with our friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.

Posted Wednesday, September 11, 2019 3:27 PM

No comments.

St. Cloud's accountability dodge

For years, conservatives have said that most decisions should be made at the local level. That's what's recommended by the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's because that's where accountability is theoretically greatest.

That's increasingly not the case. I don't know if this is isolated but a prime example of local governments shielding themselves from criticism happens when they shut off the cameras. A prime example of this is the St. Cloud City Council turning off the cameras and officially adjourning the meeting before starting Open Forum. For those not familiar with St. Cloud's Open Forum, it's a segment of the meeting when citizens have the opportunity to talk about things that they see happening in their neighborhoods.

Most of these speeches complain about overreaching ordinances, complaints about things not getting done fast enough or criticisms about votes that councilmembers have taken. Suffice it to say, it isn't fun for the councilmembers to hear these criticisms. Another 'feature' of St. Cloud's Open Forum is that the City Council isn't allowed to respond in real time to their constituents.

Where's the accountability if the Council isn't allowed to respond to their constituents? That's why I've titled this post 'the accountability dodge". Based on what I've seen firsthand, this segment of the meeting isn't about listening to the citizens. It's a segment of the meeting where citizens can vent but where the councilmembers don't have to respond.

This is just a theory but this feels like a way to avoid accountability. It's apparent that the City Council, with a couple of exceptions (specifically, George Hontos and Paul Brandmire), would rather just meet, then cast their votes, then go their merry way. The quote from yesterday's post that Councilman Hontos had violated City Council Rule No. 6 was particularly upsetting.

I don't have the text of St. Cloud City Council Rule No. 6 in front of me but what I know about the Constitution is that anything that violates the First Amendment is unenforceable. Therefore, Rule No. 6 is unenforceable.

Further, I'd argue that voting on a non-binding censure resolution was a total waste of time, partially because it's non-binding but also because this vote was taken in private session . That's the ultimate in not accepting accountability. If City Councilmembers think this is important to vote on, they shouldn't shut down public debate. They should vote in public, though.

That isn't accountability. That's the definition of gutlessness.

Posted Thursday, September 12, 2019 12:10 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' one-trick pony

For months, Democrats insisted that they "could walk and chew gum at the same time." Democrats insisted that they could investigate the Trump administration while legislating. The facts speak for themselves. The Democrats haven't gotten a single major bill passed since taking control of the House. That's because they've expended their energy investigating the Trump administration since getting their gavels.

There's been a crisis at the US's southern border. Do-Nothing Democrats haven't lifted a finger to fix that crisis. Vice President Pence stayed at a Trump hotel in Doonbeg. Jerry Nadler and his gang of Do-Nothing Democrats initiate an investigation within hours. There's an opioid crisis that's killing people throughout the Rust Belt. Do-Nothing Democrats haven't written legislation to fix this crisis. William Barr published Robert Mueller's summary without immediately publishing the Mueller Report. Do-Nothing Democrats call Barr up to Capitol Hill the next week to get to the bottom of this crisis.



The highest-profile investigation is being conducted by the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Jerrold Nadler says it has reached a key phase in building an impeachment case against the president, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to give a green light to a formal inquiry. The Judiciary panel plans to vote Thursday on procedures for conducting hearings that could lead to an impeachment resolution.

The Do-Nothing Democrats' blood-lust for President Trump is getting exposed:

Pivotal hearings are set for this month and into the fall, to follow up on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings and build a case on whether Trump tried to obstruct the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Other potential presidential abuses of power or corruption also will be under scrutiny.

Let's get serious here. When the Watergate investigation started, there were a series of identifiable crimes that they were investigating. With this witch hunt, Democrats can't identify a crime that's been committed. It's just that they're certain that President Trump is evil personified. That's why the Do-No Democrats keep drilling down into a dry well.


It's time PETA started investigating Chairman Nadler for beating a dead horse. Do-Nothing Democrats have led that dead horse to water but it's painfully obvious that it can't swim.

Posted Thursday, September 12, 2019 12:58 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' #2A ignorance

After reading Tina Smith's quote in this article , it isn't difficult to not trust Democrats when guns are concerned.

When asked if she thinks Congress would pass universal background checks this year or next, Smith is quoted as saying "I'm not optimistic. We've seen this cycle over and over again: concerns, promises to take action and then backtracking."

Then there's Angie Craig, another Democrat who sounded like an idiot when she said "The fact is most Americans support common-sense gun legislation. The only thing stopping it is the special interests that seem to have control over some politicians in Congress. I'm sick and tired of the NRA." The article nots that "Craig supports universal background checks and banning what she called 'military-style assault weapons.'"

What's appalling is that neither Craig or Smith know the first thing about guns, yet they want to tell gun owners what they can't do. As for Craig saying "I'm sick and tired of the NRA", that shows how ignorant of who the NRA is. The NRA are people from all across the United States determined to prevent politicians from gutting the Second Amendment. Before people say that that's conspiracy theory talk, I'll show you a trio of Democrats running for president who support firearm confiscation:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) told reporters in New Hampshire on Friday that mandatory buybacks were "a good idea."

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke, the former congressman from El Paso, spent the final weeks of August demanding mandatory buybacks of millions of assault rifles currently owned by law-abiding Americans. "All of them," he tweeted defiantly.

Elizabeth Warren is the other Democrat presidential candidate who supports a mandatory confiscation of assault weapons.
[Video no longer available]
Democrats love using the euphemism buyback instead of confiscation for obvious reasons. Confiscation is the right term. It's impossible to buy something back that wasn't your property previously. Since the government didn't own the guns previously, it can't buy them back. Democrats know this but that won't prevent them from using that dishonest term repeatedly during this debate.

Here's something to contemplate: if felons commit crimes, is it logical to violate law-abiding citizens' Constitutional rights? Here's another question worth pondering: will any of the Democrats' solutions stop even 1 mass shooting? Thus far, the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

That's because the Democrats aren't looking at what's caused mass casualties. With the Parkland shooting, the shooter told people that he was going to kill students. Rather than taking him seriously, the people running Marjorie Stoneman Douglas turned a blind eye towards the shooter. That was just a continuation of what they did earlier in his school career:

Cruz's eighth-grade language arts teacher, Carrie Yon, kept diligent notes on his behavior for Cruz's 'Functional Behavior Analysis':

Sept. 3: While reviewing [a] homophones worksheet, when another student mentioned the amendment that talks about 'the right to bear arms' Nick [sic] lit up when hearing the word that related to guns and shouted out 'you mean like guns!' he was overly excited thinking that we were going to talk about guns. Nick later used his pencil as a gun : shooting around the classroom.

Then there's this:

Yon provided her opinion for the 'Functional Behavioral Analysis':

'I feel strongly that Nikolas is a danger to the students and faculty at this school. I do not feel that he understands the difference between his violent video games and reality. He is constantly showing aggressive behavior and poor judgment. His drawing in class show violent acts (people shooting at each other) or creepy sexual pictures (dogs with large penises) : I would like to see him sent to a facility that is more prepared and has the proper setting to deal with this type of child.'

That doesn't include talking about the other government failures prior to Cruz's Valentine's Day massacre. Those things don't fit into the Democrats' narrative so they're ignored. The Democrats' constant focus is on things that won't stop these shootings. Democrats only want things that are ineffective or are marginally effective. For instance, the 1994 assault weapons ban didn't prevent a single mass shooting.

Until Democrats study what's causing these shootings and become interested in connecting the dots with the people pulling the triggers, I'll remain skeptical of the Democrats' gun-grabbing plans.

Posted Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:57 AM

No comments.

Is the racial divide shrinking?

David Catron's article for The American Spectator focuses on how the racial divide in North Carolina's Ninth District is closing. Catron writes "Last week the Democrats were touting the special election in North Carolina's 9th District as the first major contest of the 2020 cycle, and the polls indicated that Democrat Dan McCready might win what should be a pretty safe GOP seat. By Wednesday morning, after Republican Dan Bishop had won, their focus had shifted and much commentary was devoted to his 'thin margin of victory.' Little notice was taken of certain voting patterns that should frighten the Democrats. Specifically, McCready did far worse than expected in every county but one, and many of those counties are dominated by minority voters."

In this paragraph, though, Catron notices that "The most unnerving example, from the Democratic perspective, is rural Robeson County. The ethnic makeup of this county is as follows: Native American (38.6%), White (25.7%), Black (24%), Hispanic (8.52%), Two or More Races (2.15%), Asian (0.66%), Other (0.275%). On Tuesday the Democrat received a fraction of the votes he received in 2018, running for the same seat. Ryan Matsumoto of Inside Elections provides the gory details: ' McCready won Robeson County by only 1.11 points, a MASSIVE decrease from his 15.31 point margin last November . ' In 2012, Obama carried Robeson by 17 points."

That isn't the type of performance that Democrats should be happy with. Still, Republicans shouldn't be too overjoyed. The margin was still too narrow for my liking. This might explain why Bishop did so well with minorities:

One result: the persistent gap between white and black unemployment also narrowed to its smallest on record. The unemployment ratio has averaged around 2 to 1 or so for decades, meaning the black unemployment rate is typically twice the white unemployment rate. In good times, the unemployment rate of whites and blacks falls but the gap remains: . [B]lack unemployment typically remains around twice that of white employment: . In other words, the decline in employment inequality now is undeniably the best on record because it comes in the context of falling unemployment.

If that performance can be replicated in other battleground states and swing districts, that would make quite a difference. The fact that President Trump's policies are helping narrow the unemployment gap between minorities and whites is a great selling point for President Trump's campaign. It shows that he's actually accomplishing things that are making life better for minorities.

By contrast, Democrats have overpromised and underdelivered for decades. In answer to President Trump's question to minorities of "What do you have to lose?", it's pretty obvious that minorities have another generation to lose. Finally, there's this:

The voters who elected Dan Bishop to the House of Representatives are the people who actually work for a living in places like Cumberland, Richmond, and Robeson counties. They are by no means all white, and they remember all too well what it was like during the Obama years and how it felt to go hat in hand to the unemployment office. That should frighten the Democrats badly.

Let's see who wins that district in 2020.
[Video no longer available]

Posted Thursday, September 12, 2019 1:49 PM

No comments.

Ed Markey's ANWR lie

Just minutes ago, Democrat Sen. Ed Markey posted a picture through his Twitter feed. The message he conveyed was simple and utterly dishonest. Sen. Markey tweeted "If Donald Trump and the fossil fuel industry get their way and devastate the Arctic Refuge with drilling, we will never get this pristine wilderness back. The Senate needs to build off this House vote and pass our new legislation that will permanently ban all drilling there." Here's Sen. Markey's dishonest tweet in its entirety:


I replied to Sen. Markey's tweet with my own statement. Here's that tweet:


A friend of mine is a retired engineer who worked for a company formerly known as AGAS, aka Alaska Gas & Oil. We've frequently talked about Section 1002. My friend told me that the area where the actual drilling would happen is hardly picturesque. I found this picture of a small portion of where the drilling will happen:


My picture hardly looks like Sen. Markey's picture. In fact, I'd say that my picture looks like an oversized swamp whereas Sen. Markey's is intentionally misleading. Back in the day, I remember how the Sierra Club predicted that building the pipeline would destroy the migration route of the Barrows Caribou, adding "and for what? Another 4-5 years worth of oil?" That grim statement was made in the mid-1970s. The pipeline was opened in 1978. It's still transporting oil to tankers in Valdez, AK.

The thing that everyone should remember is that the Democrats'/Environmental activists' predictions is really more propaganda than prediction. I've never seen one of their predictions come true. Most have been off by virtually orders of magnitude. When AOC said we had 12 years left to live because of climate change, I totally dismissed that prediction. It's a total joke.

Posted Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:30 PM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Sep-19 07:59 AM
Unlike Sen. Markey, I've actually been there, during the summer. Not even the caribou stay over the winter, which is when all the drilling takes place. The oil company moves out over the frozen ice, builds a small city-lot-size gravel "island" and slant drills into the surrounding 50-mile square area. By spring all the equipment is gone and a small pipe leads back to Prudhoe. The caribou LOVE the pipeline (it's warm) and LOVE the haul road and little islands because there are fewer biting insects there. The herd has doubled or tripled in size since the pipeline went in. NOBODY except the most hardy adventurers goes into ANWR itself (so what are we "preserving" it for), and the area in which the drilling will take place is about 1000 acres out of the nearly 20 MILLION acre reserve. It's environmental nonsense, as usual.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Sep-19 08:14 AM
That's pretty much what my friend told me. Almost 40 years ago, they showed pictures of the calves nursing while both rested underneath the pipeline. At the time, the picture became quite famous. That's when I said "I guess the caribou didn't get the memo."

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 13-Sep-19 04:20 PM
Stop spreading the vicious truth! :) The Alaskan pipeline was supposed to ruin everything and like you said, the environment is just fine and the Caribou love it.

Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 14-Sep-19 09:56 AM
And it isn't just the caribou. Right downtown Deadhorse, an industrial area and a real blight on the landscape (about the size of a shopping center), there is a hotel. The desk clerk is an amateur photographer and posts pictures on the wall. I asked where he got the fabulous shot of the arctic fox and he said "just out the front door." They have signs reminding people to please keep the doors closed. If they don't, the caribou walk through and munch at the salad bar! A recent earthquake moved one section of the pipeline several feet. It didn't leak. These environmental wackos are exactly that. Next time they want to "protect" ANWR, tell them to go up there and hold a sit-in to prevent the drilling. (January would be the best time.)

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more