Tilting at Windmills Yet Again...
I don’t have the slightest clue whether Giles County needs a courthouse annex, or not. But I do know a lousy deal when I see one. Using the Hunter Smith building is a lousy deal, because its an antique firetrap with no windows. Don Parr’s proposed annex is a little better, in that it offers much more floor space than Hunter Smith, but again, it’s based on using antique buildings, with limited natural daylight. The Heilig Meyers building, while of modern construction, and with more than adequate parking, would force county workers to occupy a warren of windowless cubicles.
Can’t we do better than any of these proposals? I believe it’s possible. How about this: have the county draw up a set of specs for the desired annex, and place it up for competitive bids? This is, I hate to belabor, exactly what the state law requires.... [click on comments to read more]
Can’t we do better than any of these proposals? I believe it’s possible. How about this: have the county draw up a set of specs for the desired annex, and place it up for competitive bids? This is, I hate to belabor, exactly what the state law requires.... [click on comments to read more]
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 9:46 PM
48 Comments:
I found out, just the other day, that Don Parr’s proposal would result in an annex with 22,000 square feet of space. So, I took a few hours, and drew up a sketch of a brand new three story annex, with over 22,000 square feet of space, which would be built of steel reinforced poured concrete, using a proprietary forming system which I have developed, and am in the process of patenting.
The annex I have designed would be, for all intents and purposes, fireproof, storm proof, termite proof, and mold proof. Its insurance costs would be vastly lower than for any of the other annex plans, as would be the cost of heating and cooling. In addition, my plan is fully compatible with the Americans With Disabilities Act, and even provides three rain shelters for smokers to indulge in their habit.
Finally, 22,720 square feet is such an enormous volume of space, that it is quite likely that one floor of the annex could be given to the school bureaucracy, thus sparing the taxpayer the need to pay for a new school office building. And did I mention that my building, made primarily of 1,400 yards of concrete and 15 miles of #5 rebar, would cost considerably less than either the Parr proposal, or the Heilig Meyers alternative?
So, here’s what I propose. The County Mayor should issue a set of specifications which any annex must meet or exceed. I will then, if necessary, revise my plans to meet the specs. And then I will meet with any local contractor interested in building the annex, to explain the secret details of my concrete forming system. Presuming that I find a "meeting of the minds" with a contractor, then I expect that contractor would submit a formal bid, and then (hopefully) the lowest bidder that meets the specs will be awarded a contract.
If that happens to be an annex built using my system, then there are other advantages to the county. Not only would the county records wind up being stored in what amounts to a fireproof bomb shelter... there is an excellent chance that a large portion of the cost of building the annex would be paid by people other than Giles taxpayers.
Why? Because the world is chock full of organizations, ranging from the EPA, to private environmental groups, that pay out grants to assist in the building of structures that are energy efficient, and which pioneer the use of new technologies. These grants are even paid out to build government owned buildings. The building I have designed is super insulated, has zoned heating and cooling, and a grass covered roof. It would be built using a brand new technology. Because of all this, it would be a prime candidate for successfully receiving environmental grants.
That’s enough of a sales pitch... why not click here, and take a look at my plan? Note that this is an Adobe Acrobat file, which means that you can zoom in, and read the fine details. And for those of you more interested in building a concrete ranch house, click here, and see what you think about the annex’s "little brother," built using the same modular technology.
Interested parties can reach me by e-mail -- mcpeters@usit.net -- or by phone, 931-363-1214. Thank you for listening.
And I guess it goes without saying, that if the state bidding law is NOT followed to the letter on this annex deal, I for one will be suing.
Suing not just the County Commission in the abstract, but the various lawbreaking commissioners by name.
Why "no more Mr. Nice Guy?" Because I'm sick of seeing how "business as usual" is conducted in this county, and also because I believe I have just as much right to win a competitive bidding process, as Don Parr and whoever owns the Heilig Meyers building. I also believe that choosing my plan would result in real savings for the taxpayers, and I'm always a big believer in that.
I am really glad to see this post. In the event they continue with their "turn key" idea, you and anyone else deserves to be able to submitt a bid, provided it all complies with state law.
The County must have plans (by a Licensed architect or engineer), specifications and estimates in hand before they proceed with competitive bidding.
I loved Don Parr's comment in the paper that he would comply with all regulatory requirements, what a lovely gesture, however the County must comply with its "regulatory requirements" and put this project out for competitive bid.
Has the county considered buying the buildings from Par and the county constructing the annex? Has anyone asked Parr if he would sell the buildings and lot? If he is not willing to do this then why is he so willing to do the "turn key" project?
The commission cannot claim stupidity this time, if state law is not followed then OUSTER proceedings should be in order.
OLE HICKORY
Mr. McPeters,
Are you a licensed architect and/or structural engineer with E&O insurance? If you are not then you have no right to have your building plans bid. I'm not trying to be harsh toward your plans, but you have WAY over simplified the process of designing a new building.
I do understand your point of competitive bids though. And I agree with you that a decision should be made as to:
1. Build a new building or purchase an existing building
2. Based on the decision from #1, either take bids/proposals from engineering/architectural firms for the design of a new building, or start a study phase that reviews the available buildings that can be purchased.
3. Create plans and specs for the construction of a new building or take proposals from the final 3 candidates that have existing buildings for sale that meet the needs of the County.
Expose and ourster...such positive ideas for Giles County.
Ouster...excuse me on that.
Hiring an architectural/engineering firm does not require "competitive bids". It is considered a professional service. The county can go through some kind of RFP process to hire the architect/engineer. After this firms is hired it is their job to develop plans, specifications and estimates for the county's competitive bid process.
Mr McPeters can then bid on the project if he is a licensed contractor and if he can provide the necessary bonds.
Ole Hickory,
I agree that oustering would be in order, if the "powers that be" refused to obey the state law. (Fortunately, this will not be necessary, given this morning's decision to let out bids.)
Anonymous,
What is less than "positive" about holding officeholders to the laws they've sworn to uphold? Do you think official lawbreaking should simply be accepted, without even a "gripe" or two? Strange, if so.
Anonymous said:
Are you a licensed architect and/or structural engineer with E&O insurance?
No, but that doesn't mean that the building I designed won't stand up. Not being an engineer, I always take the cautious approach and design structures to be "overbuilt." That annex I drew has 8" thick poured (steel reinforced) walls, and floors equally as strong (to span a mere 16 feet, and support nothing but office floor loads).
But the fact that my design is overly strong doesn't mean anything. In order to comply with state law, a structural engineer would have to review the finished plans (which aren't drawn yet, of course) analyze them, and then sign off on them. Without an engineer vouching for the design, it can't be built, which, IMHO, is a good thing. (Anyone remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?)
If you are not then you have no right to have your building plans bid.
Not until an architect or engineer has put their official seal of approval on them, anyway.
I'm not trying to be harsh toward your plans, but you have WAY over simplified the process of designing a new building.
Actually, you're more right than you realize, there. My new modular form system makes designing new buildings a real snap, and should do the same for actual construction.
Incidentally, if you are willing to meet me in real life, and sign my non-disclosure form, I'd be happy to go over the details of my concrete building system... and then you could be the judge of whether the claims I'm making hold water, or not.
Anonymous said:
Mr McPeters can then bid on the project if he is a licensed contractor and if he can provide the necessary bonds.
Actually, I have no interest in contracting this job myself... I'd far prefer to have one of the established contractors license my concrete technology, and take care of all the grunt work. And I'm sure that whichever contractor I eventually choose to go with, bonding will not be a problem.
Trimhed said:
Wow!!! You are SO smart, Kendrick!!!
Well, I was a National Merit Scholar Semifinalist in 1982. That puts me in about the 99.66th percentile, nationwide, and a little better than that, locally. Is that smart enough for you?
I don't understand why the county doesn't just consult you on all of their problems!
ALL their problems? Naah. Even I am not so gifted as to have ALL the answers. :-)
You obviously have THE perfect answer for the Court House Annex!
Perfect? I seriously doubt that. But, at least it's NOT a windowless old firetrap. That should count for something, dontcha think?
You have figured it out!
I've figured out something you likely haven't-- a way to pour concrete buildings with a fraction of the labor used in traditional methods. And having figured THAT out, I figured that my system could easily be applied to building a much better courthouse annex, than the three currently on the table.
If it happens to be chosen and built, the taxpayers will get a much better return on their money, and the court house workers will have much nicer digs for their jobs. The cost of heating, cooling, insurance and maintenence will all be lower, which means that my annex would continue to save the county money for as long as it remains in use.
What I don't understand is Why didn't the county officials think of that?
Because we elect those exalted officials according to "popularity" rather than "intelligence," perhaps?
There is no such thing as termite proof, by the way, only termite resistant.
Do tell! So, when, exactly, did the lowly termite evolve the ability to eat and digest CONCRETE and STEEL... you know, the two primary "ingredients" in my proposed annex?
A legend in your own mind...
Better THAT than an idiot -- concrete eating termites, bwaha hah hah hah hah hahaha -- in the minds of everyone else!
Kendrick, I'm tired of hearing about your high school days. What have you really done that would make anyone believe you had intelligence? Are you in line to make millions on this building crap of yours?
Kendrick, you may have a high IQ, but you seem like the dumbest son of a bitch I have came across in a long time. Intelligence is only relative to how you can apply it...
If there is no growth, but big increases in spending ... what is problem???
We have added more bureaucracy (people, things, desks, etc.) and must add infinitely more in order to get more money to spend, to expand what we're doing, in case we actually grow.
Why not git a couple of repossed trailers, rent a spot down by SAVEALOT, get a portapotty or two & extension cords & leter rip! Git a doublewide for Jackson. Maybe the stargazers could get a look at how it is with the people they keep raising taxes on!
We don't need a building, we need a brain! The problem ain't termites, it's parasites!
Kendrick...
I have so many times disagreed with you on issues, but the one who called your mother a name owes you a huge apology. I hope you get it.
Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:39:20 PM how dare you his mother has nothing to do with your point.
Kindrick,
Your idea for an Annex is a good one! The ouster suit for the County Mayor is right on track if State Requirements are not meet.
I could be wrong, but I beleive any tax payer of the county can bring a suit against an elected offical, if they break the law by means of an ouster suit!
Since no one has done so in the past, we have ended up with a lot of the problems that have been posted in the previous threads.
Hang in there. Just because you rub a lot of folks the wrong way only proves to me they have tunnel vision.
Since I am smoker I want to stand up for my right to smoke. I would as you to revise your rain shelter for smokers, to a climate controlled designated smoking room for the public. After all our tax dollars go into every thing paid for by the county!! I firmly beleive the american public has lost enough rights in the past years and every person that has the right to vote best think long and hard before asking their government to pass an more laws. With each little move in the Name of betterment for the mass had gotten us right where we are today.
With that said: stand hard and strong on the idea of the Law suit against the Commissioners and the Ouster suit for the County Mayor.
ole smokie
Perhaps "reporter" barrett will lead the charge into a full investigation.
5-51-7 what a loser - a great witness for corruption.
Att: Readers,
Check through each thread on this site and county the many, many sarcastic one-liners of February 05, 2007 5:51:07 AM. It is a shame he/she hasn’t attained the ability to add any substance to their post, just the same message as if we can’t read or remember. Your tactic is not going to work!!
Just wondering, what will you do now that we have taped meetings?????????????
I don't really care what you "enlightened ones" do with your tape. I could suggest a place, but that would be lowering myself to the level of some others whom I'll not name. More class here than that, you see.
By the way, I've been out of town ALL day today since before 5 this morning, so please don't blame the posts on me. As I have told you repeatedly, I'm not the only person in this county who takes issue with your negativism. Interesting thought, however.
By the way, I read those sarcastic lines you mentioned. I beg to differ with you. They simply were in opposition to your comments, so dub them as being sarcastic?
You make no sense at all.
“By the way, I've been out of town ALL day today since before 5 this morning,”
But, your post is dated, Monday, February 05, 2007 5:51:07 AM and if it isn’t your post, why did you respond, but you can’t make that argument, can you?
“They simply were in opposition to your comments, so dub them as being sarcastic?”
YOUR STATEMENT…NOT MINE!
YES, I can make that argument. I said plainly that I was out of town BEFORE 5 a.m. this morning, and you call me a liar.
I am a life-long resident of this county and am also concerned about its future. But I don't go about seeking to belittle and destroy those I don't agree with or particularly like.
But if you want to split hair with me about what time I left this morning and what time I returned, that's your problem. I don't need your approval of my itinerary. OK?
what an idiot! why don't up stay out of town!
Sorry chief, I was born and raised here and am not going anywhere. why don't you leave? There's a bus leaving town every single day. You are the one who seems to be unhappy with anything and everything here! HUH?
Hey, but guess what? I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Say what you want. But I WILL beg to differ with those who continue to malign and belittle others. It's not right, and you know it. Again, isn't that dialogue and free speech? You never answered that, so I will assume you agree.
You called me a liar and now an idiot. You are on a roll, aren't you?
I don't need your approval of my itinerary. OK?
Then stop writing about.
"I don't need your approval of my itinerary. OK?"
Then stop writing about. Liar,looks like you have the word investigating on your brain and can't read.
You guys suck!
How old are you anyways? I'd guess less than four years old.
I think someone needs there diaper changed..................................................................................................
You called yourself a liar - probably the only truth you know.
Such hate and envy.
To my detractors in this thread:
Life is too short to have to respond to the sort of "criticisms" you have posted here. Suffice it to say that I'm simply going to demonstrate my committment to freedom of speech, by leaving up all of these messages... including the especially nasty one attacking my mother.
Those of you who think so negatively of me are more than welcome to find another blog to hang out on. I won't miss your presence... of that I'm quite sure.
Ole Smokie said,
Since I am smoker I want to stand up for my right to smoke. I would as you to revise your rain shelter for smokers, to a climate controlled designated smoking room for the public. After all our tax dollars go into every thing paid for by the county!!
Even though I don't smoke, I agree with you that smokers should have rights. But I believe that a designated "smoking room" in the annex would be doomed to failure. That is, you and I both know that, sooner or later, all "public places" will be mandated to be "smoke free." When that happens, my smoker's balconies would be much more useful to smokers than a designated smoking room. It's hard to construe a balcony as being "indoors," but if you glass it in and air condition it... well, I think you see what would happen.
I firmly beleive the american public has lost enough rights in the past years and every person that has the right to vote best think long and hard before asking their government to pass an more laws. With each little move in the Name of betterment for the mass had gotten us right where we are today.
I agree 100%. There "oughtta be a law" that no new law could be passed without first repealing two old laws. But. lotsa luck getting that sort of thing through the legislature!
With that said: stand hard and strong on the idea of the Law suit against the Commissioners and the Ouster suit for the County Mayor.
If it proves necessary, that is what I will do.
Yeah, throw all the bumbs out and let the enlightened ones take over and run things. They know best.
10, 2007 9:57:39 so sorry you are not an elightened one.
Ole Smokie said,
Since I am smoker I want to stand up for my right to smoke. I would as you to revise your rain shelter for smokers, to a climate controlled designated smoking room for the public. After all our tax dollars go into every thing paid for by the county!!
Even though I don't smoke, I agree with you that smokers should have rights. But I believe that a designated "smoking room" in the annex would be doomed to failure. That is, you and I both know that, sooner or
later, all "public places" will be mandated to be "smoke free." When that
happens, my smoker's balconies would be much more useful to smokers than
a designated smoking room. It's hard to construe a balcony as being
"indoors," but if you glass it in and air condition it... well, I think you see what would happen.
I firmly beleive the american public has lost enough rights in the
past years and every person that has the right to vote best think long
and hard before asking their government to pass an more laws. With each little move in the Name of betterment for the mass had gotten us right where we are today.
I agree 100%. There "oughtta be a law" that no new law could be passed without first repealing two old laws. But. lotsa luck getting that sort of thing through the legislature!
With that said: stand hard and strong on the idea of the Law suit
against the Commissioners and the Ouster suit for the County Mayor.
In the event it proves necessary, that is what I will do.
I'd like to know what rights I as an American have lost in the last few years. Could you explain that for me? Thanks.
Anonymous said...
I'd like to know what rights I as an American have lost in the last few years. Could you explain that for me? Thanks.
The last few years? How about I go back just a little further, in order to set the stage for modern day usurpations?
Google up "WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)"
This was the Supreme Court decision which drove the final nail in the coffin of "limited and Constitutional government." The Wickard decision held that growing wheat FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION was "interstate commerce," and thus subject to regulation by our illustrious Congress. The "logic," such as it was, was that every bushel consumed by the farmer and his family, was one less bushel that would be grown and sold by another farmer, who might live in another state. Ergo, interstate commerce was slightly "affected" at least in theory. The only problem with this jurisprudence is that it turns the purpose of the commerce clause on its head... what had been granted in order to prevent STATES from clogging up commerce with interstate tariffs, was now used to order INDIVIDUALS around on the very farms they presumed to own. And, once you grant the premise, there is no end to the application of what is, in effect, a totalitarian grant of power to the feds. Use corn cobs instead of buying Charmin? Then you're "affecting" interstate commerce, and Congress can have you arrested for not using Charmin.
Sound preposterous? Well, during the argumentation of "UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995)," Justice Thomas challenged Justice Breyer to name one thing that Congress couldn't do, given his expansive view of the commerce clause. Breyer was unable to name a single thing Congress couldn't regulate, under the "affects commerce" standard.
Just a couple of years ago, "GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 352 F.3d 1222 (2005)" determined that "free" US citizens, even when desperately ill, and upon their doctor's recommendation, do NOT have a right to grow and use a natural, God-created herbal remedy, because Congress had earlier passed a law saying that it would be illegal to do so. Naturally, the Supremes in the majority cited the Wickard case as precedent in making medical marijuana illegal, but as dissenter Clarence Thomas said: "Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers... If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
Read about this abortion of justice in "All Power to the Federal Government"--
Http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner06142005.html
Another recent botched decision is "KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, (2005)" This was a "takings" case, wherein a private homeowner was having his home taken away and demolished, so that a PRIVATE DEVELOPER could take over his property, and use it more "rationally." The court ruled that the mere fact that an alternate use of property could generate higher tax revenues, met the "public purpose" test of the takings clause. Thus, the right to own private property (a bedrock of American freedom) is now on very shaky ground.
Rather than go on about the freedom crushing insanity of the Supreme Court, I'll continue this by mentioning a few people who are, being dead, somewhat less free than they once were:
Kathryn Johnston, 88 years old, murdered by out of control, militarized cops, serving a no-knock warrant in pursuit of the holy war against "all drugs not sold by Big Pharma."
Daniel Castillo, age 17, shot in the face and killed while in his own bed, by out of control SWAT thugs fighting (you guessed it) the holy war against "all drugs not sold by Big Pharma."
Peter McWilliams, age 50, murdered by the Federal Drug Warriors, who took away his non-Big Pharama manufactured anti-nausea drug, causing him to choke to death on his own vomit.
Maybe you don't use drugs, or live nearby someone who does, and thus are unconcerned with seeing "law enforcement officers" killing people willy nilly to enforce a law premised on the idea, essentially, that God made an awful mistake when He created marijuana, that the Feds know much better than God, and that the contents of your bloodstream are a federal case (no right to privacy, in other words). Maybe you aren't concerned that there is no constitutional justification for a federally prosecuted "war on drugs." But as someone suffering from glaucoma -- one of many diseases treatable by marijuana -- I do care... And, if the day comes that I have to choose between saving my sight, or obeying a stupid, unconstitutional law that exists primarily to insure the profitability of pharmaceutical companies... Well, don't be too surprised to hear about me being shot to death by the ever vigilant drug warriors.
Meanwhile, here are some other laws that crush our freedom: the internal revenue code, for starters-- 50,000 pages of indecipherable bureaucratese which YOU MUST OBEY, and, for which, "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." (As a special added bonus, the IRS enforcers refuse to state where, on the 50,000 pages of "code" there is a requirement for "wage earners" to pay taxes on their "wages." Believe it or not! But pay ANYWAY, or go to jail!!!)
Then there's the beloved PATRIOT Act, which, passed under the tyrant's plea of "necessity" has eviscerated centuries worth of protection of the individual from arbitrary acts of the government. To see just how rotten this law is, read the Wikipedia entry for "Patriot Act," and follow the links regarding "critics of the act." The bottom line is this: tyrannical government is far greater a threat than foreign terrorists, and, as Ben Franklin wisely observed "they who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Another recent tyrannical law is the "McCain-Feingold Act," which, under the guise of trying to "clean up elections" makes it a FEDERAL CRIME to criticize incumbents, 45 days prior to an election. The First Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law..." Yet, the Congress not only passed this incumbent protection act, but it was signed into law by a President who openly stated that he knew it was unconstitutional, and upheld as legal by a majority of brain dead Supreme Court "Justices." Recently, an attempt was made (and withdrawn) to extend the McCain Feingold law to bloggers. Apparently, sodomizing the First Amendment is like eating potato chips to these scummy politicians-- you can't just stop with one.
Suppose that you break some stupid law which is not authorized by the Constitution. In that case, you'd get to argue the constitutional merits of the law in question before a jury, right? Wrong. Just ask Hollis Wayne Fincher... Under the US Code, every able bodied man between the age of 18 and (I believe) 45 is considered a member of "the militia." Mr. Fincher, not opposed to serving as a militiaman, deduced that he needed a proper weapon for service in a militia. So he converted a semi-auto or two to full auto, and sawed down a shotgun. He and his lawyer planned to argue two points of law: first that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment, and that Congress has no authority over guns that never entered interstate commerce (as Mr. Fincher's did not). Alas, the Prosecutor made a motion that Fincher not be allowed to raise these issues in his defense, and the scum sucking, bottom feeding poor excuse for a human being, Judge -- the dishonorable Jimm Larry Hendren -- agreed to the motion. Thus, Fincher was unable to mount a defense, and was duly convicted by the US District Kangaroo Court. The right of trial by jury has always, going back hundreds of years, included the right (and responsibility) of the jury to judge the laws that are allegedly broken. But nowadays this right has been taken away by the power mad judges who have gang raped the Constitution, to the point that the "living document" is now all but dead.
Of course, it's quite possible that the American people no longer deserve to be governed under a noble document like the Constitution. Any nation that buys into the "good cop -- bad cop" nonsense that's paraded by the "two" political parties every election year, deserves what it gets. People, there is NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE between the Dems and the Reps. The Dems like high taxes and slaughtering babies. The Reps want to micromanage your life, and slaughter dark skinned foreigners. The real rulers of this country are not the voters who pick "good cop" or "bad cop" every four years... It's the fat cat corporate masters who pick the candidates we get to vote for, and who are enjoying the "good times" rolling, while selling hundreds of billions worth of munitions to be blown up uselessly in our never ending (but quite profitable to certain people) foreign wars, the international bankers who live high on the hog while choking our nation to death with debt and ever depreciating currency, the "public employee" unions whose members dutifully vote for whichever candidate promises more government, more spending, more tyranny.
And what have these fine people got in mind for us, in the very near future? Why, nothing less than the total dissolution of America, and the complete enslavement of its (ahem) "citizens." Even as we speak, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and internationalists belonging to both wings of the "Boot On Your Kneck Party" are working to dissolve our national borders, and create a "North American Union," which will fold the US, Canada, and Mexico into one big happy country, with a common currency, and a great big federally paid for ultra-highway going from Mexico all the way to Canada. Expect the American standard of living to drop even further, as more and more of our industry gets shipped off to ever cheaper labor markets. But, if it makes the ubercapitalists and money changers a few extra Ameros (the new currency that's coming) while cementing them firmly and permanently at the top of the social pyramid, then, why not do it? We have 3 Trillion dollars per year worth of FEDERAL government alone ($40,000 per year for a family of four). What's wrong with sharing that bounty with the Canadians and Mexicans? Let's see them get $10,000 worth of federal micromanagement per year, and find out if they still think "North American Union" is such a swell deal, after all.
Now, you might say, at this point, that this grand plan will run into a snag: the American public will rebel. Alas, it is pretty obvious that, as long as the beer and television keep on coming, the American "everyman" will be content, no matter how heavy his chains. But, just to guarantee our cooperation, the diabolical Feds have one last trick up their sleeve: the REAL ID Act.
This law -- another hysterical overreaction to the threat of terrorism -- mandates that, by May 11, 2008, all state drivers licenses will become defacto National ID Cards. The Act mandates what information must be stored on the electronic chip built into "standardized" drivers licenses, and links all state databases into one massive database. By simply not calling it a "national ID card," the vultures in Washington, DC were able to pass this abomination without a peep of public protest. (Remember, the free flow of beer and teevee wasn't interupted.)
Of course, it is obvious that the REAL ID Act is only Act One of a two act tragi-comedy. Once it is discovered (as it will, inevitably) that certain people have their nifty new card stolen from them, or manage to lose it... then there will be "no choice" but to bypass the clumsy card, and simply inject the ID chip under your skin. Say hello to the Mark of the Beast, brought to you in part by the ever so devout George Dubya administration.
Once our national borders are dissolved, and Mexicans (who haven't quite gotten the knack for Democracy, after a century of trying) are voting in all the national elections, and with lowly serfs trading in their remaining freedom for a Mark of the Beast chip implant, so they can enjoy the dubious benefits of the "cashless economy" as well as constant surveillance and tracking by nanny-on-steroids government... Then we might as well just hang up all our hopes and dreams regarding freedom, and learn to love Big Brother. Because, as predicted in Revelations, our only choice will be to obey (take the Mark) or die. But hey, think about how much less we'll have to worry about the omnipresent "terrorist threat!" Surely, sacrificing our lives, liberty, sacred honor -- and even our immortal souls -- is a reasonable price to pay to win the "global war on terror!"
If you disagree, and have no intention of licking federal jackboots, let alone getting marked with a chip like a beast, then there is literally only one hope left for any of us. That hope is that the lone statesman in DC, Congressman Ron Paul, will get elected President in 2008. Right now, the plan of our masters, is to allow us a "choice" between high taxing, antigun, baby killing Hillary Clinton, OR that diametrical opposite, the high taxing, antigun, baby killing Rudy Guliani. In the unlikely event that the primaries aren't rigged, I urge you to vote Republican, and cast your vote for Ron Paul. He's the only choice in a game rigged by politics, money, and big media. Voting for Paul is likely a futile gesture -- he'll certainly be assassinated by a "lone nut" if it looks like he has a chance of winning -- but, as long as he's alive, he deserves our support. If you could get a time machine, and bring back the Founding Fathers, I guarantee they'd all endorse Ron Paul.
But enough of me endorsing Ron Paul. Here, watch this video, and make up your own mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPlPT4bncq8
Sad but too true.
PBS ran a pro global documentary a few years ago, when they had all the protests, hippies, etc. in Washington State? - any how,the subliminal unintentional message was profound. The doc. repeatedly showed this line of big black lemo's (never see anyone or know who is riding in them) trying to get fom place to place, all the turmoil & scuzzies here in the US. Towards the end it focused on another country where there was peace & tranquility to house the long line of lemo's & unknow dignitaries - a building, grassy knoll, & a couple of guards (I think it was Asian??) with rifles standing to guard the global movement. (I think it was before 911)
Difference - chaos here ,,,, order & serenity there / have gun will travel & use it. Wish I had a copy
Kendrick...
I want to be certain I understand you on a point. Are you saying we don't really have a threat of another terrorist strike in this country? I'm sure you will recall the one we had on 9-11.
If there is no threat, then I feel relieved. But did England not foil a major terrorist plot involving airplanes headed to the good old USA not too long ago? That strike, if it had been successful, would have made 9-11 look small indeed.
I just wanted to make sure I understood your comments. Thanks.
Anonymous said:
Difference - chaos here ,,,, order & serenity there
Yes, the asians will accept "One World Government" without a peep of protest. The Globalists only have two groups to worry about -- one, the Americans (who are pretty much asleep at the wheel, but could, possibly, wake up) and two, the Muslims, who stubbornly refuse to get "Westernized" and give up their religion. Hence, they are now the world's boogieman, and must be crushed at all costs.
Anonymous said:
I want to be certain I understand you on a point. Are you saying we don't really have a threat of another terrorist strike in this country?
I don't think there's much of a threat. I can think of all kinds of terroristic things that I could do, even given the new levels of security, but for some reason, the "terrorists" aren't bothering. Just for instance, a two man team of terrorists could drive around big cities shooting at random people. This would be terrifying, indeed, yet nobody is doing this. If the "terrorists" are not a greatly exaggerated threat, you'd think we'd see some real terror in the land. But things are pretty quiet, aren't they? My conclusion is that "terrorism" in the United States is 90% or more a mere boogieman- a threat used by the feds to (ahem) terrify the citizens into accepting draconian and unconstitutional laws. For our own good, of course!
I'm sure you will recall the one we had on 9-11.
I recall something big happening that day, but of late, I'm loath to accept the official conspiracy theory (promoted by Bush,et al) at face value. There are two reasons for this. First of all, anyone who delves into history quickly learns that what the government tells the public is rarely the truth... especially when it is used to justify a foreign war.
World War One? Fraudulently entered into when the Germans sank a legitimate target, a munitions carrier masquerading as a passenger liner, after announcing to the world (in a newspaper ad) their determination to sink that ship. As a result of America's entry into WWI, the Germans were punished beyond all reason, thus setting the stage for the rise of Adolph Hitler.
World War Two? Started by FDR, who used an oil embargo, insults, and a squad of "privateer" P-40s, to goad the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. Having earlier broken the Japanese codes, FDR knew that Pearl was about to be attacked, yet refused to warn the base, and then scapegoated the commanders there for the 2,000+ dead.
Vietnam? Started by LBJ, via the now thoroughly debunked "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, which was manufactured to justify an all-out war.
Iraq War One: Started by Bush Senior, who had just reassured (via diplomat April Glaspie) Saddam Hussein that it was A-OK for him to invade and occupy Kuwait... then SURPRISE, suddenly it wasn't.
Given this by no means comprehensive list of the lies that our leaders use to justify their favorite hobby (war), I cannot help but be skeptical of the official, somewhat improbable, conspiracy theory on 9/11 (Ie, that a bunch of ignorant Arabs did it, with no outside help from, say, the CIA.)
I consider myself a 9/11 asgnostic. I'm open to evidence from either side, but so far, neither side has convinced me with their conspiracy theory. I must say, though, that the story told by former GW Bush insider Morgan Reynolds (who was a top official in the Bush Administration on 9/11) is pretty compelling. He thinks Bush and Cheney wanted a war, so they either had the job done, or they allowed it to happen after getting wind of the plot. Here's an article by Reynolds:
http://snipurl.com/fh2x
And here's an interview with him:
http://snipurl.com/1bars
Morgan Reynolds is clearly not a nut, yet his theory suffers from one terrible drawback-- can anyone really believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the CIA could possibly pull off a crime this large without making some mistake, and getting caught?
If there is no threat, then I feel relieved.
If you are worrying about terrorism, then your fears are clearly misplaced. You are much more likely to be struck by lightning, than to be killed by a terrorist.
Even granting that terrorist attacks are possible, one should put them into perspective. In the five and a half years since 3000 people were killed by terrorists, about 200,000 people have been killed in automotive accidents.
Throwing away the right to privacy, along with habeus corpus, simply because 3,000 people died in one day, is about as senseless as banning the automobile because 36,000 people a year are killed in them. It's an overreaction, and that is what I object to.
What we should've done, rather than declare war on the Arab world, is issue "letters of marque and reprisal." That is, after identifying who was responsible for pulling off 9/11, we'd offer really big bounties (like $100 Million for the head of Osama) and also engage, if necessary, in a policy of covert assassinations. Was it worth killing 3000 American soldiers, simply to "get" Saddam? I think not. "Termination with extreme prejudice" would've been much better of an option. Wars in other lands should always be a last resort, IMHO.
But did England not foil a major terrorist plot involving airplanes headed to the good old USA not too long ago? That strike, if it had been successful, would have made 9-11 look small indeed.
No, you seem to have your facts confused. The so-called "terrorists" were simply talking about committing an act of terror. They had bought no tickets, and most of them didn't even have a passport. So there was nothing "nipped in the bud" but a lot of mouthing off on the internet. More to the point, the alleged mechanics of the bombing plot were unworkable, being based on the Hollywood fantasy of binary liquid explosives. Read this, and you'll see:
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?
We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.
Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard.
Better killing through chemistry
Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.
Easy does it
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.
Don't recall the sensationalist American news media reporting these facts, do you? That's because they are active participants in the attempted Pavlovian programming of Americans to give up their freedom whenever the word "terror" is uttered.
I just wanted to make sure I understood your comments. Thanks.
That's fine. I'm glad to clarify. And, having dug myself this far into the hole, I might as well dig myself in deeper...
Granted that there are people in the world who cheer when Americans die. Have you ever asked yourself why? Well, the way I look at it, is, we (the USofA) spent about sixty years poking at a hornet's nest. Finally, on 9-11-2001, some hornets flew out and stung us badly. So is either side totally innocent? I don't think so.
Here's an example of the hornet stirring, taken from the Wikipedia article "Iraq sanctions":
Critics of the sanctions say that over a million Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, [5] although other researchers concluded that the total was lower. [6] [7] [8] UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[9] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", though she later rued the comment as "stupid."
Hell yes, it was stupid to say, on a top rated national television show, that some American political goal was worth slaughtering a half million Iraqi kids! I knew, immediately, after I saw that, that every Arab in the world would see and hear that remark, go bonkers, and that, eventually... there would be terrorist retribution. Rub someone's nose in their own impotence long enough, and you may be surpriseed to see what they can do when they finally lash out.
The US has been stirring the mid east hornets for over half a century-- backing Israel unconditionally, launching coups against democratically elected leaders, and even teaching the Iranian secret service how to effectively torture their victims. We've supplied weapons to both sides of most conflicts-- which appears to benefit the international loan makers, and the arms manufactures, and nobody else. This, in my humble opinion, is no way to "win friends and influence people."
Finally, let's talk about that awful loss of three thousand innocent people. As a result of that mass murder, we now have plane delays that amount to at least an hour per flight, thanks to heightened "security." Well, guess what? An hour here, an hour there... times millions of flights, and it ADDS UP. To what? Well, try this on for size:
WTC Dead = 2,973 people X 40 years remaining (avg) = 118,920 person years
5.5 years of extra-zealous "security"
X 600 Million flights per year
X 1 hour delay per person, per flight
divided by 365 days per year
divided by 24 hours per day
= 376,712 person years
118,920 person years (WTC) = 1,699 seventy year lifetimes
376,712 person years (airport security delays) = 5,382 seventy year lifetimes
Thus, "homeland security" has killed over three times as many people as the 9/11 terrorists. Betcha don't see George W. Bush trotting out that litle statistic anytime soon!
(And if you object that these are merely "statistical deaths" and shouldn't count, then we'll need to review the "death toll" that justifies such things as environmental overkill and mandatory seat belt laws. And if all you are interested in is, provable "look at that corpse" type of deaths, then I suggest you take a gander at how many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a direct result of the evil FDA keeping badly needed drugs and medical devices off the market while they are "evaluating" them. These dead people really exist, beyond the shadow of a doubt.)
As a parting shot, let me ask you two direct questions: first, who do you think is the greater threat to you and yours--- foreign (or domestic) terrorists, or the government that expends three trillion dollars per year in order to "protect" you? And, second, would you go along with a federal law that required you to have an ID and tracking "chip" implanted under your skin? I'm just curious as to where you stand.... thanks.
Kendrick....
After reading your response to my questions, I'm not at all sure what to think. Admittedly, I've been somewhat disillusioned for some time, but you have really made me to think. What I DO know is that I would never favor the ID and tracking chip or anything else of that nature. It's truly frightening the times we live in. This is why I am against big, intrusive government. What does our future hold? I shudder to think!
Anyhow, thank you for taking the time. If nothing else, you've widened the borders of my skepticism. Take care.
Why don't you go build some of those piece of $H!t concrete buildings!
Why don't you go wash your mouth out with soap?
Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:59:44 PM. surely your mother taught you better!
It doesn't have a mother.
Going back to the paragraphs under the heading of this subject, why the big hang-up of having to have offices with windows. Most large offices have offices with partitions. Ther employees are to busy to be looking out windows.
Post a Comment
<< Home