Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/15/2014 1:18:31 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By The1Stockman Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Why the Media Sees Bridgegate as a Scandal but Benghazi as a 'Conspiracy' At the height of fascination with the "Bridgegate" scandal, Chris Christie decried MSNBC's coverage as "gleeful" and "partisan." Maybe so. However, one undeniable aspect of the left's attack on Christie is the rigor with which it has pursued the case, rigor worthy of a life-or-death story it has all but ignored – the Benghazi attacks. Feb 12, 2014 1:13 PM PT 135

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/15/2014 8:02:07 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths .................................................................................. By Bill Briggs During each shift at her drive-through window, once an hour, Cordelia Cordova sees people rolling joints in their cars. Some blow smoke in her face and smile. Cordova, who lost a 23-year-old niece and her 1-month-old son to a driver who admitted he smoked pot that day, never smiles back. She thinks legal marijuana in Colorado, where she works, is making the problem of drugged driving worse — and now new research supports her claim. "Nobody hides it anymore when driving," Cordova said. "They think it's a joke because it’s legal. Nobody will take this seriously until somebody loses another loved one." As medical marijuana sales expanded into 20 states, legal weed was detected in the bodies of dead drivers three times more often during 2010 when compared to those who died behind the wheel in 1999, according to a new study from Columbia University published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. [ Re testing: Blood tests determine if marijuana was used in the last few hours before testing - see below. Urine tests aren't as refined but they're cheaper so people are familiar with them - they're what employers use. Based on things I've observed almost all marijuana users think it's not dangerous to drive high. ] “The trend suggests that marijuana is playing an increased role in fatal crashes,” said Dr. Guohua Li, a co-author and director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia University Medical Center. The researchers examined data from the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), spanning more than 23,000 drivers killed during that 11-year period. "Nobody will take this seriously until somebody loses another loved one." Alcohol remains, by far, the most common mind-altering substance detected in dead drivers, observed in the blood of nearly 40 percent of those who perished across six states during 2010, the Columbia study notes. (That rate remained stable between 1999 and 2010.) Cannabinol, a remnant of marijuana, was found in 12.2 percent of those deceased drivers during 2010, (up from 4.2 percent in 1999). Pot was the most common non-alcoholic drug detected by those toxicology screenings. “The increased availability of marijuana and increased acceptance of marijuana use” are fueling the higher rate of cannabinol found in dead drivers, Li told NBC News. Researchers limited their analysis to California and five others states where toxicology screenings are routinely conducted within an hour of a traffic death. They note that California allowed medical marijuana in 2004. Since then, California has posted “marked increases in driver fatalities testing positive for marijuana,” Li said. "The number of deaths will grow," Cordova said. "I'm scared." Minutes after the crash that killed Cordova's niece, Tanya Guevara, and Guevara's 5-week-old son, police arrested the driver who struck Guevara's car. Steven Ryan, then 22, admitted to smoking pot earlier that day, according to court records. Ryan later pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2012. Courtesy Cordelia Cordova Tanya Guevara and her son, Adrian, were killed in 2010 when a driver, impaired after smoking marijuana, hit Guevara’s car head-on in Colorado. That same year, Cordova testified before Colorado lawmakers about a proposed impairment limit for stoned drivers. Under Colorado law today, drivers who test positive for 5 nanograms per milliliter of THC — an active ingredient in marijuana — can be charged and punished as drunk drivers. That law has not, however, led Howard Myers to feel safer on local roads. He, too, takes the issue personally: In 2002, his three children were seriously injured when their car was struck by a driver who, Myers said, had smoked marijuana a short time earlier. (A police record provided by Myers showed that oncoming driver was charged with vehicular assault). Myers' children were returning from school to their home near Colorado Springs. All three now are adults and their injuries have become chronic, Myers said. His daughter, who was driving, receives physical therapy for neck and back pain. One of his sons is recovering from a traumatic brain injury. Another son had a leg partially amputated. "The attitude here is it's safe," Myers said. "So more people are driving under the influence.” “If the current trends continue, non-alcohol drugs, such as marijuana, will overtake alcohol in traffic fatalities around 2020.” Drugged driving is closing the gap with drunk driving. The rate of traffic deaths in which drivers tested positive for non-alcohol drugs climbed from 16.6 percent in 1999 to 28.3 percent in 2010, according to the Columbia study. Among dead male drivers, 4.0 tested positive for narcotics in 2010, up from 2.2 percent in 1999. Among female drivers killed, 7.6 percent tested positive for narcotics, up from 4.3 percent. “If the current trends continue,” Li said, “non-alcohol drugs, such as marijuana, will overtake alcohol in traffic fatalities around 2020.” http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pot-fuels-surge-drugged-driving-deaths-n22991 .............. Unlike urine tests, blood tests detect the active presence of THC in the bloodstream. In the case of smoked marijuana, THC peaks rapidly in the first few minutes after inhaling, often to levels above 100 ng/ml in blood plasma. It then declines quickly to single-digit levels within an hour. High THC levels are therefore a good indication that the subject has smoked marijuana recently. THC can remain at low but detectable levels of 1-2 ng/ml for 8 hours or more without any measurable signs of impairment in one-time users. In chronic users, detectable amounts of blood THC can persist for days. In one study of chronic users, residual THC was detected for 24 to 48 hours or longer at levels of 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood (1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in serum) [ Skopp and Potsch]. ..... Note that the Drummer study found especially high culpability for drivers with 5 or more nanograms blood THC, comparable to the risk for drunken drivers. This confirms that high blood THC, indicating recent usage, is a sign of likely impairment, while lower levels, which remain for several hours, are not. Table 2 does not include culpability data for drivers with both alcohol and THC in their system (that is, all of the marijuana drivers were alcohol-free). In general, studies agree that the combination of alcohol and THC is particularly dangerous, if anything worse than "straight" drunken driving. ... Blood THC = 5 ng: risk COMPARABLE to DUI Blood THC = 2 ng = NO increased risk THC + alcohol = HIGH DUI risk ..... http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html In general, sophisticated libertarian concepts (such as, oh, "Just because the government legalizes it doesn't mean you should do it") don't work that well for minors with 2 digit IQs and heads full of THC. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=28583704&srchtxt=marijuana blood test

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/15/2014 9:25:19 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By The1Stockman Respond to of 16547

Press Coverage of UAW's VW-Chattanooga Loss 'Somehow' Overlooks Obama Involvement ............................................................................. NewsBusters.org ^ \| February 15, 2014 \| Tom Blumer The three Associated Press reports I've seen on the UAW's failure to win the right to represent hourly workers at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee — the first two were covered in NewsBusters posts here and here; the wire service's 3:52 p.m. report is here — all mention in one way or another what UAW President Bob King is now calling "unprecedented outside interference" in the runup to the election. (VW, which can only run the factory with the kind of "workers councils" it has at its other worldwide plants in the U.S. if its workers are represented by an outside union, supported the UAW's efforts.) But AP reporters Tom Krisher and Erik Schelzig, as well as panelists discussing the aftermath on Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC program this morning, "somehow" ignored the "outside interference" of the person who holds the most powerful political office on earth. That's right. President Obama, whose National Labor Relations Board conducted the election, weighed in on Friday morning with statements at a "closed door" meeting which were clearly designed to be leaked. Here is what Richard Cowan and Bernie Woodall at Reuters reported on Friday morning (HT Gateway Pundit): Obama weighs in on contentious union vote at Volkswagen plant President Barack Obama on Friday waded into a high-stakes union vote at Volkswagen AG's plant in Tennessee, accusing Republican politicians who oppose unionization of being more concerned about German shareholders than U.S. workers. Obama's comments, made at a closed-door meeting of Democratic lawmakers in Maryland, came as the vote to allow union representation at the Chattanooga plant drew to a close. The vote will have wide-reaching implications for the auto industry in the South, where all foreign-owned assembly plants employ nonunion labor, and for the United Auto Workers union, which could use a victory to reverse a decades-long downward spiral. The vote has faced fierce resistance from local Republican politicians and national conservative groups who have warned that a UAW victory could hurt economic growth in Tennessee. While voting was under way on Wednesday, Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker said VW could announce new investment in the plant if the UAW lost the secret ballot. Facing accusations that he was seeking to influence the ballot process, Corker defended his statement as "true and factual" in an interview with Reuters, despite Frank Fischer, chief executive of VW Chattanooga, saying that there was "no connection" between the vote and the possible investment. Obama's interjection in the war of words on Friday, albeit behind closed doors, underscored how much is stake in the three-day vote by VW's 1,550 hourly workers. The vote is due to end at 8:30 p.m. ET and the results could be announced soon after that. Obama said everyone was in favor of the UAW representing Volkswagen except for local politicians who "are more concerned about German shareholders than American workers," according to a Democratic aide who attended the meeting with Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives. There was still plenty of time left to vote on Friday, the third day of balloting at the plant, when Obama made his statements. The result is not considered truly official until Obama's National Labor Relations Board, which according to the video announcement after the election actually counted the votes, certifies the results. Post-election, why isn't what Obama said being reported, and then framed as failed "outside interference"? It certainly should be seen as just that if the union attempts to appeal the election result to Obama's NLRB based on local politicians' statements. The President's reference to politicians supposedly "being more concerned about German shareholders than U.S. workers" is either odd or ignorant, given the fact that the company itself essentially invited the UAW in. Also, last time I checked, sir, anyone in the world can own VW stock. Anything which might be good for Volkswagen would be good for all of its worldwide shareholders. The press's failure to mention Obama's interjection conveniently spares him embarrassment for having advocated for the losing side. I'm reasonably confident that if the UAW had won, some of the credit would have gone to Obama's "powerful personal influence." The fact that Obama didn't weigh in until Day 3 could also indicate that the union thought it had a victory in hand, and had communicated that expectation to Obama's staff. If so ... oops. We'll never know, but it's also possible that Obama's interjection might have turned the tide from what looked like a win to a loss with Day 3 voters. AP's 3:52 p.m. report by Krisher and Schelwig, both of whom are likely members of News Media Guild representing the wire service's employees, blamed a "cultural disconnect" for the UAW's defeat, but also notably brought up the union's history of shortchanging its newbie workers to preserve the wages and benefits of longtime veterans: UAW DRIVE FALLS SHORT AMID CULTURE CLASH IN TENN. The failure of the United Auto Workers to unionize employees at the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee underscores a cultural disconnect between a labor-friendly German company and anti-union sentiment in the South. The multiyear effort to organize Volkswagen's only U.S. plant was defeated on a 712-626 vote Friday night amid heavy campaigning on both sides. Workers voting against the union said while they remain open to the creation of a German-style "works council" at the plant, they were unwilling to risk the future of the Volkswagen factory that opened to great fanfare on the site of a former Army ammunition plant in 2011. "Come on, this is Chattanooga, Tennessee," said worker Mike Jarvis, who was among the group in the plant that organized to fight the UAW. "It's the greatest thing that's ever happened to us." Jarvis, who hangs doors, trunk lids and hoods on cars said workers also were worried about the union's historical impact on Detroit automakers and the many plants that have been closed in the North, he said. "Look at every company that's went bankrupt or shut down or had an issue," he said. "What is the one common denominator with all those companies? UAW. We don't need it." Pocketbook issues were also on opponents' minds, Jarvis said. Workers were suspicious that Volkswagen and the union might have already reached "cost containment" agreements that could have led to a cut in their hourly pay rate to that made by entry-level employees with the Detroit Three automakers, he said. The concern, he said, was that the UAW "was going to take the salaries in a backward motion, not in a forward motion," said Jarvis, who makes around $20 per hour as he approaches his three-year anniversary at the plant. In other words, the union's track record of acquiescing to two-tiered wage structures at its U.S. plants, where workers doing exactly the same job receiving vastly different pay based purely on seniority, came back to bite it. That's especially relevant because lower-paid workers typically are required to pay in the same amount in union dues as those who receive much higher pay. A reasonable estimate of what VW workers would have had to pay would be about $700 per year. Given the union's history of poorly treating less experienced workers, it's reasonable to see the VW result as, in a sense, an administration of just desserts. MSNBC panelists on Harris-Perry's show who failed to note Obama's interjection yammered on about VW's relatively low wage structure compared to the rest of the auto industry, using it as a jumping-off point to characterize the South as a region where workers are routinely exploited. But they "somehow" failed to mention Jarvis's critical and quite valid two-tiered wage structure suspicion. Read more: newsbusters.org

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/16/2014 11:57:58 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Scientist John Kerry calls climate change a weapon of mass destruction, derides skeptics JAKARTA, Indonesia — Secretary of State John F. Kerry, calling climate change perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction, on Sunday urged developing nations to do more to cut greenhouse-gas emissions as he derided climate-change skeptics at home and blamed big companies for hijacking the debate. Kerry painted a picture of looming drought and famine, massive floods and deadly storms as a result of global warming, and he urged ordinary citizens in developing nations to speak out on the issue and demand more from their political leaders. He labeled those who denied the evidence of climate change as “shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues.” He was addressing a group of students and government officials at an American cultural center in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, a city, country and region that he said were “on the front lines of climate change” and some of the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life here is at risk,” he said. Global efforts to counter climate change have long foundered on a sharp divide between developed and developing nations. Although developing nations now account for more than half of greenhouse-gas emissions, they have been reluctant to commit to meaningful cuts as they seek a path to Western industrialization and prosperity. They argue the West caused the problem and should fix it. But Kerry, who has spent much of his long political career calling for more action on the issue, said every country needed to play a role in cleaner energy, or the world faced a calamitous future, calling climate change “the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction.” “It’s absolutely true that industrialized countries have to play a leading role in reducing emissions, but that doesn’t mean other nations have the right to repeat the mistakes of the past. It’s not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce emissions when other countries continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon pollution as they see fit,” he said. “If even one or two major economies neglects to respond to this threat, it will counteract all of the good work that the rest of the world does. When I say we need a global solution, I mean it.” China and the United States are the world’s largest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, accounting for about 40 percent. Indonesia, a country of around 240 million people, is in the top 10 sources of carbon emissions globally, largely as a result of deforestation, and is also a major coal exporter. But like many developing nations, Indonesia, an archipelago of some 17,000 islands, has a lot to lose from global warming. Kerry said scientists predicted that melting ice caps could push sea levels up by more than three feet by the end of the century, putting half of Jakarta underwater and displacing hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Changes in ocean temperatures and acidification of the seas could also reduce fish catches in Indonesia by as much as 40 percent, he said, while typhoons such as the one that struck the Philippines last year could become the norm and “wipe out entire communities.” There was still time to act to address the problem, but the window was closing, Kerry said. The problem was not finding a scientific solution, but a lack of political resolve. “Today I call on all of you here in Indonesia and concerned citizens around the world to demand that resolve from your leaders. Speak out. Make climate change an issue that no public official can ignore another day. “ A similar call to arms in a speech in India last year failed to have any impact, but Kerry said he would be telling U.S. diplomats all over the world to make climate change a priority from now on. Kerry spent a considerable portion of his speech spelling out the scientific consensus behind climate change, which he said was almost as conclusive as the gravity that caused an apple to fall from a tree or the laws of thermodynamics that meant your hand would burn when touching a hot stove. Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists agreed that the climate was heating fast up as a result of human activity, he said, and the world needed to listen – and act. “We simply don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,” he said, blaming big coal and oil companies that “don’t want to change and spend a lot of money” to act to reduce the risks. “First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” Kerry told the audience. “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,” Kerry said. “President Obama and I both believe we don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.” Eight of the 10 hottest years on record have all happened within the past decade, he said. “Or think about this way: All 10 of the hottest years on record have actually happened since Google went online in 1998.” Kerry arrived in Indonesia from China, where he secured a commitment from the leadership to liaise more closely with Washington on the issue. “I’m pleased to tell you China agrees with the United States that it’s time to pursue a cleaner path forward,” he told the audience. The United States and China have traditionally been on opposing sides of the table in global climate-change talks. The hope is that the message that the two are now talking less confrontationally about the issue will also encourage other major developing nations like India, Indonesia and Brazil to treat the problem more seriously. “Given China and the United States are the two biggest emitters, there is no question that continued coordination on climate change sends a strong message to the world that this an issue we need to address now,” said a senior State Department official who was not authorized to speak on the record. But the Obama administration’s credibility, and Kerry’s own personal credibility, on the issue of climate change faces a severe test in coming months, as they have to decide whether to give the go-ahead to a $5.4 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline to bring Canadian crude oil to U.S. refineries. The State Department’s own environmental assessment of the project concluded last month that the project would not significantly add to greenhouse-gas emissions, but environmentalists disagree, and some argue that approval would shred Obama’s claim to be a global leader on climate change. washingtonpost.com

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/18/2014 1:50:11 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By The1Stockman Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Obama orders up new mileage standards for big rigs .......................................................................... By Ben Wolfgang The Washington Times Tuesday, February 18, 2014.. washingtontimes.com Linking increased fuel economy to the larger issue of economic growth, President Obama on Tuesday directed his administration to write new rules to improve mileage for the nation’s big-rig trucks. Mr. Obama made the announcement during a speech at a suburban Maryland Safeway distribution center and cast it as the latest move in his so-called “year of action,” a time he’ll act without Congress wherever possible. “Improving gas mileage for these trucks is going to drive down our oil imports even further,” Mr. Obama said. “That reduces carbon pollution even more, cuts down on businesses’ fuel costs, which should pay off in lower prices for consumers. So it’s not just a win-win. It’s a win-win-win.” The president added, “The economy is growing. We’re creating jobs. We’re generating more clean energy. We’re cutting our dependence on foreign oil. We’re pumping out less dangerous carbon pollution. If we keep going down this road then we’re going to have a future full of good-paying jobs.” Under current federal standards, medium and heavy-duty trucks must reduce their fuel consumption by 10 percent to 20 percent by 2018. The president’s new proposal — which won’t be finalized until 2016 — will set even more ambitious goals the trucking industry much achieve in the years after 2018. The nation’s large trucks make up about 4 percent of vehicles on American roads but are responsible for about 20 percent of carbon emissions, the president said. The trucking industry said it’s willing to work with the administration but urged caution. “Fuel is one of our industry’s largest expenses, so it makes sense that as an industry we would support proposals to use less of it,” said Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Association. “However, we should make sure that new rules don’t conflict with safety or other environmental regulations, nor should they force specific types of technology onto the market before they are fully tested and ready.” Mr. Obama’s new directive is part of a larger strategy to both reduce vehicle emissions and further cut down on U.S. dependence on foreign oil.The administration already has required cars and light-duty trucks to achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg by 2025. Eager to see the president take more action on carbon pollution, environmental groups praised Tuesday’s announcement. “The president’s initiative is an important step driving America toward a cleaner energy future,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Strong heavy-truck efficiency standards will not only cut carbon pollution that fuels climate change, but also save consumers money every time they go to a store and save truckers money at the pump.” Mr. Obama also announced $200 million in new and extended tax credits to encourage investment in vehicles that run on biofuels or other energy sources. washingtontimes.com

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/18/2014 7:26:33 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By The1Stockman Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

None of the Top 10 Biggest Political Donors are Republican

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/19/2014 9:26:14 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By R2O The1Stockman Respond to of 16547

Democrat Utopia of Illinois Sucking the Life Out of Small Business ................................................................................................... by *Scott Reeder* SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Susan Clause is no quitter. For 16 years, she and her husband, Stephen Briggs, have owned and operated a teacher supply store, Ergadoo, in Springfield. They love their business, and it’s making money, but they are shutting it down this week. Why? They say the state of Illinois has made it too difficult to operate. It’s a painful decision for the couple who founded the store 16 years ago. After all, they aren’t quitters by nature. They fought to keep the doors open when Clause was fighting leukemia and Briggs was battling prostate cancer – at the same time. And there have been tough days when they have found themselves unloading truckloads of merchandise by themselves or wading through reams of paperwork. But now they are facing an obstacle they just don’t want to deal with: the Illinois Department of Revenue. Here how Clause explained it: “Five years ago, we received a sales tax audit from the state, and they said we were doing things just fine. And then we were audited again this year. And we were told we were doing things wrong. We can’t operate if we don’t know what the rules are.” For 10 days last month, a state auditor camped out at their store – sitting at one of those tiny little children’s tables – reviewing three months of receipts. And that’s where the problem began. You see, Ergadoo is the sort of business that has many nonprofits as customers – schools, churches, nurseries. Those types of organizations don’t have to pay sales taxes. So, teachers, church secretaries and principals often come in bearing letters from the Illinois Department of Revenue declaring their organizations’ sales tax exemptions. Clause and her husband dutifully record the transaction – along with their tax exemption number. Sounds good, right? Well, no. The Revenue Department says that’s not good enough. Clause said the Revenue Department told her it’s her store’s responsibility to determine where the customer’s money comes from. “How am I supposed to prove if someone comes in with a $20 bill and a tax-exempt letter whether that money is from a school’s petty cash fund or someplace else? I can’t. No one can,” Clause said. The reason behind the rule is to keep people from borrowing a letter from a nonprofit and stocking up on stuff for their own personal use. But like so much bureaucrats do, no common sense is being applied here. Ergadoo sells things like multiplication tables, classroom bulletin board displays and those cheesy teacher posters. You know, ones like “Clock watchers, time will pass. … You may not.” And I’ll go out on a limb here, it’s hard to believe this sort of thing would be used any place but in a classroom. But bureaucrats don’t care. After examining three months of transactions such as these the auditor declared that the store owed $800 in back sales taxes. “I told the auditor the state spent more to have you here for 10 days than it will end up collecting,” Clause said. Then the other shoe dropped. “We were told the state would plug the findings of the audit into some sort of formula and come up with a tax bill for the last three years. We’re guessing that will be about $8,000,” she said. After the salaries they drew from their business that $8,000 is more than the store’s profits for the past two years. “We operated under the assumption that we were doing things right – the last auditor told us we were. Now we are being told differently and having to pay back taxes. Sure, we could appeal this or go to court. But we don’t want to hire a lawyer – that would cost us more than they say we owe. So we are shutting down.” Fortunately, Clause and Briggs have an alternative – they are expanding the children’s museum they operate next door, Ergadoozy, into the area the store is vacating. But Springfield educators now will have to drive 70 miles to Peoria if they want to shop at a teacher supply store. Or more likely, they will buy online from some out-of-state firm, and Illinois will lose even more commerce. Clause and Briggs are losing the business they have nurtured for 16 years. It doesn’t make sense. Briggs put it this way: “This is government. It’s not supposed to make ‘sense.’ It’s about dollars, and government trying to find a way to suck them right out of your pocket.” http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/02/democrat-utopia-of-illinois-sucking.html credit brumar

To: The1Stockman who wrote (8032)	2/19/2014 2:02:01 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Now that he's solved the problem of the economy being so bad-- by deciding to ignore it-- Obama's turned his attention to the latest improvements he can make to the automotive industry. And government. He’s going to get tough on trucks. Again. “President Obama will announce on Tuesday that his administration will begin developing the next phase of tighter fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, according to the White House,” reports USAToday. And once again, he’ll use an executive order, bypassing Congress for your own good. “The president will order the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,” continues the four-color national rag, “to develop and issue new fuel-efficiency and greenhouse gas standards by March 31, 2016, according to a White House report on the executive action Obama will announce.” In cooperation with the Obama White House the term “executive order” appears nowhere in the story. Instead, the administration has continued their Orwellian assault on the English language by changing the words "executive order" to “executive action.” Townhall.com ^ \| February 19, 2014 \| John Ransom