Mike at OkieDoke asks whether the Okie Blogger Roundup should be held again this year, and if so, where? Click the logo above to chime in with you opinion.

My preference is to have one, especially since I wasn’t able to attend last year.

Received the following from I’m with Fred folks tonight:

Dear Friends,

On September 6, 2007, Fred Thompson will be announcing his intention to run for President of the United States with a webcast available to millions at www.imwithfred.com. The launch of the video will be followed by a five-day campaign tour through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. On the evening of the 6th, there will also be a National House Party, during which there will be a conference call with Fred.

We enter this campaign in a strong position. Fred is consistently near the top in the polls, and conservatives across the country have put together the closest thing to a draft in recent presidential campaign history in an effort to bring about this day. The next few weeks will only serve to build upon those efforts, with house parties, visits to the early primary states, and a homecoming in Lawrenceburg, TN on the 15th. To view the dates and locations of Fred’s bus tour, please click here, and check back soon for more information on attending one of these events.

By announcing via webcast, Fred is able to take his consistently mainstream conservative message directly to the voters, who are already responding to that message with a strong upwelling of grassroots support. The webcast and the following campaign tour will play to Fred’s strengths, a consistent record of conservatism, his ability to clearly spread his message, and his ability to work with and connect with Americans from all walks of life. Be apart of this historic occasion by signing up to host or attend a house party today.

Sincerely,

Bill Lacy
Manager, Friends of Fred Thompson, Inc.

Mr. Bates’ linkblog is always a wealth of informative links. One of his recent entries was to an American Spectator article about the U.S. oil refinery shortage. Overall, American refineries cannot keep pace with the demand for petroleum products. The article also pointed out the fact that there have been no oil refineries built in the U.S. since 1976. That reminded me that I had recently heard something on the radio about a new Midwestern U.S. oil refinery. I did a little Googling and finally found the story I remembered hearing.

In a nutshell, Dallas-based Hyperion Resources is proposing building a huge, new, green refinery that will refine 400,000 barrels of crude a day into various petroleum products. They have not answered all the questions yet, or even committed to a location, though they have been optioning land just north of Elk Point, SD.

For more information on what has been code-named “The Gorilla Project,” these links might be useful.

Hyperion’s Initial Press Release, which states:

The refinery will process heavy crude oil from Canada and ship it to markets in the U.S. Additionally, the integrated refinery will incorporate a power plant with the latest technology, consuming petroleum coke byproduct from the refinery to supply hydrogen, steam and electricity to the refinery itself. Leveraging integrated gasification combined cycle technology (IGCC), the state-of-the art in power production, emissions will be substantially lower than conventional power generation plants…

An article in the Petroleum News from when the Gorilla Project plans first became public, observing:

The Gorilla project, near the Missouri and Big Sioux rivers, would also use 12 million gallons of river water per day for cooling purposes, Union County commissioners have been told.
***
Though Hyperion says the company plans to use Canadian oil for feedstock, it’s unclear just how Hyperion would actually tap into the resource, with no third-party pipeline system in the immediate area of Elk Point to transport the product to market. Reportedly, a Hyperion representative said the project is of sufficient size to build and operate its own pipeline.

and, a website by Jason Quam, an Elk Point resident critical of the plans. The site includes lots of resources, video, print, and online. There’s also a discussion forum.

I’ve alwasy been of the mind that citizens ought to be able to strap on a holster and visibly be armed in the U.S.A. Concealed carry laws are great, and I am glad we have them, but constitutionally, I don’t think we should have to jump through the hoops and pay a bunch of fees to be licensed for something that is a right rather than a privilege.

Well, it seems that in Virginia, it is perfectly legal for citizens to visibly wear arms. Unless you live in Norfolk. Norfolk holds Harborfest, and its city council–in violation of state law–passed a city ordinance banning weapons at the town event. From HamptonRoads.com:

Chet Szymecki of Yorktown was arrested in June at Harborfest for carrying a gun.

Szymecki was arrested for violating a city ordinance banning guns at Harborfest – an ordinance that officials now acknowledge violates state law. City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko said city officials were unaware of a state law prohibiting localities from banning guns.

Carrying a weapon openly is legal in Virginia, even at a large gathering such as Harborfest.

Seems pretty stright-forward, and the charges against Szymecki were dropped when they realized their error. But that’s not the end of the story. It seems that the police who arrested Szymecki were a bit overly zealous in the performance of their duties.

Szymecki, a Navy veteran, said he was manhandled and hurt and that his wife, Deborah, his three children and two other children who accompanied them were traumatized. He said he has hired Norfolk attorney Stephen Merrill.

An emotional Deborah Szymecki told the council that after several police officers were done handcuffing her husband, she was left without money or the keys to the family car.

Others rose to describe incidents in which they said they were questioned and often handcuffed by police for simply carrying a firearm openly.

The old saying is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The same goes for municipalities. They made a huge blunder, and from this article, it seems like they keep making it by harassing law-abiding citizens who do nothing more than visibly carry a gun.

Councilman Paul R. Riddick left the meeting as gun-rights advocates began speaking, he said, in protest of their protest.

How great is that! A person who was elected by the citizens to represent them as a councilor, rather than stay and listen to an opposing viewpoint, took his toys and went home. Sounds like a real baby to me.

I like to hear about citizens who are not afraid to make a point, peacefully and legally, yet poignantly. Good for them.

I am in favor of the Fair Tax plan that is promoted by Neal Boortz. I have mentioned this before. Apparently, the Fair Tax plan is picking up some steam based on some of the huge hit pieces that have come out against it. What amazes me is that people who should know better are either 1) too stupid to correctly analyze the plan or 2) intentionally misrepresenting what the plan is.

In a nutshell, the Fair Tax plan:

1. Does away with all current federal taxes, be they income or payroll.
2. Replaces the tax revenue lost by the above by implementing a federal retail sales tax on new items only.

When all our federal taxes are taken into consideration, we pay on average in the neighborhood of 30% of our income in taxes. The proposed tax rate of the Fair Tax is 23%. Now, before you freak out about a 23% tax on everything new you buy, remember you are already likely paying near 30% (at least 23%) of everything you earn. Which sounds like a fairer tax rate to you? Think about it.

And we also have to talk about embedded taxes. Every good we buy has taxes embedded in it. How, you ask? Well, when Company X sells its widgets, it sells them for cost+profit margin. Cost includes the cost to manufacture+the cost of taxes. So, in reality, widgets cost consumers cost of production+cost of taxes+profit margin. When producers no longer have to pay factor in the cost of taxes (since they no longer pay them), the cost of widgets is reduced by the amount of taxes Company X no longer pays. But, you may ask, why would Company X pass the savings along to customers? Why not just keep the previous price the same? Then with the new sales tax everything would be 23% higher, right? The answer? Company Y. Competition in the free market will drop prices of goods immediately once no taxes are embedded in the costs. So, for consumers, there is relatively no change in the cost of goods. It looks like this:

cost of production+cost of taxes+profit margin = cost of production+profit margin+federal sales tax

And so, I ask, if we can be assured that good will cost the same, why would we not move to a tax system that taxes what we spend rather than what we earn? Imagine a world in which your salary is your salary. When you are hired at $30,000/yr, you get $30,000 a year. No pay stubs or payroll advices that show your withholdings for this, that, and the other. If you are paid monthly, you get $30,000 divided by 12 (or $2,500/month). If you are paid weekly, you get $30,000 divided by 52 (or $576.92/week). And then, there is no longer an April 15 tax deadline for income tax–because there is no income tax. The government collects 23% on all new purchases and uses that money to fund government, social security, etc. And keep in mind, the sales tax is only for new purchases. You buy a used car, no sales tax (because it was already paid by the first owner (who paid the tax by paying what cars currently cost because the embedded taxes are removed)). You buy a used house, no sales tax. Why? Because the sales tax was paid by the first buyer (who paid what houses currently cost because embedded taxes had disappeared). Make sense yet?

It is the best and fairest plan that exists. One of the huge problems with the current tax scheme is that it can be and is manipulated. Congress decides that you should be rewarded for doing certain things, like buying certain water heaters, and so it builds a benefit into the code. That’s why it is so massive. Under the Fair Tax plan, the government doesn’t pick winners and losers. The government merely collects its percentage. Another manipulation of the current system is that lobbyists work to get their clients preferential treatment or exemption from the code. When there is no code, there are no exceptions, so lobbyists lose power over night. The change that could make in our governmental system is more valuable than we know. The Fair Tax is fair because everyone is treated the same–when they make a purchase.

Under our current system, if you can hide your income (i.e., you folks who earn cash and don’t declare it), you don’t have to pay taxes. In fact, many who make a decent living get an earned income tax credit, whereby people who pay no taxes somehow mysteriously receive a tax refund. Those days will be over. Drug dealers, hookers, strippers, illegal day laborers, corporate welfare CEOs, etc., are all brought back into the tax system when they make a purchase. We’re all equal again (at the cash register). And what we will discover, then, is that when everyone pays their fair share, everyone’s share is lower.

And, so, enough from me for the moment, but you should get educated on the Fair Tax. Fred! better take notice of it. Mike Huckabee has impressed me that he mentions it all the time. I want someone committed to it and who will fight for it.

You can buy the Fair Tax book here (for $10 in paperback) or check your local library.

Neal Boortz responds to some of the misinformation out there on his site. Part of which is:

The 23 percent FairTax is not added to the price of everything you buy … it is already included in the price of everything you will buy, just as the embedded taxes are included today. You remove one, you add the other.

I’m not a regular Esquire reader; however, I did come across this article on their 50 New Laws of Fashion. I realize we’re–by and large–a casual society. But, there are times when we do need to know the rules. This list is straight-forward and helpful for men who need a little help sometimes. There are some rules that we need to follow (see my IMHO page for the eternal advice that tennis shoes aren’t for weddings and funerals). Some of the best offerings from the list:

3. BLUE JEANS ARE GOOD; DARK-BLUE JEANS ARE BETTER. Leave the boot cuts to cowgirls and black denim to ex-cons.

***

8. THERE ARE TWO WAYS YOU SHOULD STORE YOUR TIE: 1) Lay it flat in a drawer. 2) Roll it up like a Swiss roll by folding it once and then rolling it from the narrow end. Both methods allow the tie to settle and regain its shape overnight.

***

10. IT’S BETTER TO BE OVERDRESSED THAN UNDERDRESSED. Being thought eccentric for wearing a tux to a swim meet is preferable to wearing a T-shirt and jeans to a wedding.

***

13. BUY THE SUIT THAT FITS, NOT THE ONE YOU WISH YOU COULD FIT INTO. A suit that’s too tight will make you look fat. And while an oversized suit may seem more comfortable, in reality you’ll just look like a ten-year-old playing dress-up. In between the two is the suit that fits.

***

24. LOOK YE NOT TO RUSSELL CROWE FOR STYLE INSPIRATION.

***

30. YOUR TIE’S TIP SHOULD JUST REACH YOUR WAISTBAND.

***

45. NOTHING SAYS “JACKASS” QUITE AS WELL AS A CELL PHONE ON A BELT CLIP. You know who you are.

***

47. SUNGLASSES SHOULD BE WORN ONLY AS SUNGLASSES. And never at night.

I share this list (read the full 50 on Esquire’s site) so that men can feel more comfortable, as we all do when we can be confident in the choices we make. I also offer them because there are some folks out there that offer advice that isn’t necessarily so. I once had a guy (who, by the way, thought IBM had it down for business attire) who was almost angry that men wear brown dress shoes. He was taught that all dress shoes should be black (with black socks). I don’t know if rules have changed or what, but brown shoes are certainly appropriate. I tend to wear black shoes with black or gray pants and brown or cordovan shoes with tan or navy blue pants. And, yes guys, your shoes and belt (or braces (that’s suspenders) should match. And by the way, belts and braces are mutually exclusive. I personally match my socks to my pants color rather than my shoes, which is perfectly appropriate, too.

Happy dressing…

Tonight (actually the early hours of tomorrow, Aug. 28, 2007), there will be a total lunar eclipse visible here in Oklahoma. Here’s a link to NASA’s site about it. Here’s a link to the schedule diagram for our time zone (central daylight time).

Happy moongazing…

This has been a comfort to me this week:

Many of us who are dedicated to 2nd Amendment rights have said over the years that if we were to outlaw guns, only criminals would have guns because, of course, outlaws do not modify their behavior based on the law. They base it on what they can get away with. We are repeatedly bombarded by those who would, due to the illicit use of some guns, take away all the guns from law-abiding citizens. We are told that society is so violent because guns are so readily available. What if we were to discover that an armed citizenry was actually a restraining force against evil in society? We have.

The London Times acknowledges what we already knew:

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

The evidence is conclusive. If you want to see gun crime rise exponentially, confiscate guns from those who law-abiding citizens who would turn them in, while leaving the criminals, thugs, and gangsters armed. Armed citizens are actually the reason that gun crime is not higher than it is. And so, as they say, you’ll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.