Keller City Limits

Discussion of Keller, TX politics

Browsing Posts published by Mike Sivertsen

Governor Perry of Texas and Governor Sanford of South Carolina provide solid examples in their home states why blue state politics and the economies that follow do not work. While CEOs crawl to Washington in  ‘green’ cars to grovel in front of clueless politicians and governors like Schwarzenegger continue insane fiscal policies while expecting your tax dollars to come to their rescue, Governors Perry and Sanford point to far better solutions in their states – and why the federal government’s ideas are flawed.

EXCERPT from Governors Against State Bailouts, WSJ, 02Dec08

“. . . the bailout mentality threatens Americans’ sense of personal responsibility.

In a free-market system, competition and one’s own personal stake motivate people to do their best. In this process, the winners create wealth, jobs and new investment, while others go back to the drawing board better prepared to try again.

To an unprecedented degree, government is currently picking winners and losers in the private marketplace, and throwing good money after bad. A prudent investor takes money from low-yield investments and puts them in those that yield better returns. Recent government intervention is doing the opposite — taking capital generated from productive activities and throwing it at enterprises that in many cases need to reorganize their business model.

I’ve enjoyed studying the Pilgrims’ journey to America and subsequent settlement for over two decades. As I gathered information about the Pilgrims it was instructive to note that their early experiment with communal property (socialism) resulted in lack of food and strife. As soon as they switched to a free enterprise approach there was plenty of food for everybody. This is a good case study illustrating the intrinsic value of private property and the importance to a society’s future of rejecting socialism.

How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims


Bradford’s comments make it clear that common ownership demoralized the community far more than the tax. It was not Pilgrims laboring for investors that caused so much distress but Pilgrims laboring for other Pilgrims. Common property gave rise to internecine conflicts that were much more serious than the transatlantic ones. The industrious (in Plymouth) were forced to subsidize the slackers (in Plymouth). The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. The older men felt it disrespectful to be “equalized in labours” with the younger men..

This suggests that a form of communism was practiced at Plymouth in 1621 and 1622. No doubt this equalization of tasks was thought (at first) the only fair way to solve the problem of who should do what work in a community where there was to be no individual property: If everyone were to end up with an equal share of the property at the end of seven years, everyone should presumably do the same work throughout those seven years. The problem that inevitably arose was the formidable one of policing this division of labor: How to deal with those who did not pull their weight?

The Pilgrims had encountered the free-rider problem. Under the arrangement of communal property one might reasonably suspect that any additional effort might merely substitute for the lack of industry of others. And these “others” might well be able-bodied, too, but content to take advantage of the communal ownership by contributing less than their fair share. As we shall see, it is difficult to solve this problem without dividing property into individual or family-sized units. And this was the course of action that William Bradford wisely took.

The Soviet Union and other Communist governments repeated the mistakes of the Pilgrims on an intensified level in the 20th Century. Millions lost their lives from these horrific experiments. America is treading the path (‘spread the wealth around’) rejected by the Pilgrims and by those who wrote our Constitution. Will we learn from history and change, or repeat the same mistakes?

Related: The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson 

The original Internet political quiz. Over 11 million have taken this 60 second quiz since 1995. Fun and informative.

I Double Dog Dare you to post your scores!

Here’s mine:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

(Libertarian with some conservative leanings)

U.S. Constitution, Section 1, Clause 5:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .”

Obama has not responded within 30 days to a Requests for Admissions  (part of a lawsuit) claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. The suit was filed by a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania (who is also a Democrat and member of the NAACP). Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.

If we are still a nation governed by the U.S. Constitution, this must be resolved immediately. All Obama must do is produce a legal birth certificate indicating he was born in the United States, something any of us must do to get a job. Why can he not do that? Why are so many REAL Americans ignoring the background and the associations of a foreigner trying to assume the highest office in the land?

Read for the details.

Obama’s Grandmother Admits Kenyan Birth

Michael Savage interview with Philip Berg about his lawsuit

What would trick or treating be like if it was run according to Obama’s tax policy of ‘spreading the wealth around?’ Your children would hate it, that’s for sure.

30+ Reasons for Obama Fans to Re-Consider

With evidence, logic, and references. The best summary of Obama’s politics on the web.

Early voting in Texas begins Monday, October 20.

 EXCERPT from Lights Out in 2009?  (PDF)

While renewable energy proponents, and some elected officials, are saying that the U.S. needs to only add renewable power facilities such as wind farms, the annual capacity factor of wind generators is typically about 25 – 35 percent. However, the probability that wind generators are available at their rated value during annual peak periods is only between 5 – 20 percent and varies greatly from year to year and region to region. Wind cannot be considered a reliable baseload capacity resource. . .

It pointed to the fact that “environmental activist groups” are now:

  • Suing to block the construction of virtually every single baseload coal-fired power plant, in spite of advanced environmental technologies these plants would deploy.
  • Gearing up to block construction of any baseload nuclear power plants across the West.
  • Suing or protesting virtually every proposed lease on public lands in the Rocky Mountains for natural gas drilling.
  • Working to slow or stop the completion of the two main multi-year, stakeholder-based transmission corridor processes that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress approved as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  • Pushing for additional endangered species designations, which will make siting and construction of both power plants and transmission lines difficult.
  • Pressuring government leaders to limit access by larger, baseload technologies to the region’s high-voltage transmission grid and, instead proposing to artificially favor non-baseload, intermittent power facilities that will (at some point) further stress the reliability of the entire Western grid.

Related report: Britain could be short on electricity in a few years

The [REF] report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”

The final nail in the green coffin of the American economy: Obama to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, 16Oct08

Sarah Palin was nicknamed "The Barracuda" for her driving intensity during high school basketball. America needs that intensity, coupled with her heartland values, in Washington. Go John McCain and Sarah Palin!


Here's a tip: Go somewhere besides the moronic and repetitive alphabet networks for news over the next 60 days. Try a news blog called MichelleMalkin or it's companion video site called Hot Air. Install a RSS feed reader (like the free Feedreader), subscribe to the RSS feeds and have the latest political news delivered to your desktop 24 x 7 effortlessly. Saves me a LOT of time and allows me to stay abreast of more subjects. I found the Sarachcuda YouTube fan video in a comment posted to Michelle's blog. RudeNews, the producer of the video, looks like a pretty good news site as well.

The Cognitive Dissonance of the Media in relation to Global Warming


it is especially pathetic sophistry to claim, as dedicated `global warmers’ are wont to do, that `natural forces’ are having the temerity to “suppress” `global warming’. The fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.

Cognitive dissonance: when belief in a grand narrative persists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying.

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents from Warming Fears at an International Conference

The Senior Economics Writer for the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, writes about the authoritarian climate surrounding recycling in his op-ed “Gang Green” (a very appropriate title on several levels).

Excerpt from the article:

Do-gooders also once wanted to “celebrate diversity,” but total conformity seems to be the aim of those in Seattle these days, where the city has started putting green tags on garbage cans of homeowners who don’t recycle. Enthusiasts boast that there is a very positive “Scarlet Letter” effect to subjecting non-compliers to public scorn. So you can almost hear the kitchen conversations: “Jimmy, I don’t want you playing with the Williams boys anymore; their family doesn’t recycle.”

Many studies have shown that the environmental benefits from household recycling are minimal or at least highly exaggerated (because it uses a lot of energy and those recycling trucks emit a lot of greenhouse gases). America is not in danger of ever running out of landfill to store our garbage. For example, a study by Daniel Benjamin, an economist at Clemson, finds that we could store all of America’s garbage for the next century within the property of Ted Turner’s ranch in Montana, with 50,000 acres undisturbed for the horse and bison.

In reality, household recycling is mostly about absolving the guilt of Lexus liberals who just hate themselves for enjoying an affluent 21st-century lifestyle. The aim seems to be less saving nature than building self-esteem.

And it has worked. Too well. I can barely tolerate the proud recyclers, hybrid-car owners and “save the polar bear” button-wearers who smother us with their self-righteousness. A few weeks ago I was at the house of some friends, and I accidentally tossed a plastic Gatorade bottle into the glass recycling bin. You would have thought that I had made a pass at their daughter.

Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes with rich irony that “we now live in a society where Sunday church attendance is down, but people wouldn’t dream of missing their weekly trek to the altar of the recycling center.” These facilities, by the way, are increasingly called “redemption centers.” Which is fine except that now the greens want to make redemption mandatory. Oh, for a return to the days when someone stood up for the separation of church and state.

I recently became a Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP). A key tenet of systems engineering is that the system must be optimized, not just one or two parts. Has anybody ever done a pollution, energy and economics life cycle study of curb side recycling? Or do we think just feeling good about massive diesel trucks picking up bits of paper, glass and plastic in front of our homes each week is all it takes to ‘be green?’ Why not shut down household recycling if we’re concerned about air pollution in Dallas-Fort Worth? Or is it only productive enterprises that must be penalized to meet an overreaching 2010 ozone standard (e.g., when you can fill your gas tank, use drive-through windows or operate off-road construction equipment?)


  • Chuck out these green myths, Times of London
    This article is a good analysis of the folly of recycling to meet ideological goals rather than asking “what is the best way to dispose of rubbish.” Looks at whole picture (systems approach) rather than stopping with curbside offerings to Gaia. Britain has adopted the EU (a la East Germany) approach to recycling: RFID tags, snitches, fines, cameras, and more.
  • Recycling: What a Waste!, Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Non-recycling Tory fired. Wow! What a great hiring criteria for companies that want to compete in a global market: “Do you recycle?” “Yes.” “Well then, you’re hired.”
  • Recycle Bin #2, KCL
  • Trash revisited, KCL

11Aug08: Female teenager observed in my North Texas chiropractor office wearing a Keller ISD T-shirt with the gold Indian headdress over the top right shoulder and the in-your-face command “RECYCLE” in 3-inch high gold letters across the front. Indoctrination of the young.

The collectivist turning on the light switch commercial to fight “climate catastrophe.” (Note the solar-powered clothes dryer at the beginning.) First off, there is no “climate catastrophe.” Second, Al Gore’s commercial reminds me of a 1940s Soviet work poster where the worker ants in the Soviet economy all band together for the good of the state. Third, covering hundreds of square miles with windmills and solar panels is the most inefficient and EXPENSIVE way to generate electricity and will harm our existing power plants. The 50,000 green jobs that nobama touts must be the ones that clean the solar panels and pick up the dead birds around the windmills. The Texas PUC Commission will cast final votes before the end of 2008 to spend $6 billion to run power lines to windmills that generate power 25 percent of the time! Would you buy a car, an appliance, or a MP3 player that you could only use 25 percent of the time?? This is insanity and you will pay for it.

Tarrant County commissioners may put tax dollars behind green movement (Star-Telegram, 10Aug08)

At a recent meeting, commissioners debated whether the county should pay more for 100 percent recycled paper or go with the less expensive grade made of 30 percent recycled material. For legal size paper, the greener kind is 61 percent more expensive, or about $27 more per case. “Do we make a commitment, or do we just talk about it?” VanRavenswaay asked her fellow commissioners. “I want us to go with 100 percent, and I don’t want an option available because a commitment won’t be there if we have an option available.”

Note the “I know what’s best for you” tone of the Commissioner while she uses your tax dollars. Choice is no longer an option in your eco-fascist future. Growing corn for fuel has caused 75% of the increase in food costs. So what if people in the bottom billion die, food costs more, you get worse gas mileage and your equipment is damaged. The eco-totalitarians, and those who subscribe to their ‘America must be weakened’ policies, know what’s best for you.

Related: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason, 04Aug08

“Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle. The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.”