Ethanol Gumming Up Texas Economy

Practically all engines, reagardless size or application, that use a spark plug to initiate internal e15 gasolinecombustion run best  and most efficiently on real gasoline, that which is distilled from ‘Texas Tea’, ‘black gold’, just your ordinary oil out of the ground.

So, why do we have mandatory mixture of gasoline and ethanol? Actually, this requirement didn’t sprout from the minds of green-thinking bureaucrats, it’s the consequence of agricultural lobbyiing. That’s right, farmers who grow corn. Well, how is this working out for us?

Gasoline and ethanol don’t mix very well, but so long as there is 10% ethanol or less in the gas you buy at the pump, you are probably okay. “It’s good for the environment,” you say. The hell you say!

Alcohol separates after some time. It gums up fuel systems, particularly our older cars that weren’t engineered to tolerate it. My old 2001 Crown Victoria, for example. She has over 180,000 miles and doesn’t miss a beat. So, what’s my problem with the ethanol-laced poison going into my tank?

About every 20,000 miles the old Crown Vic’ makes a visit to a local mechanic who has been changing out its fuel filter. He says ethanol dissolves rubber parts in the fuel system, thereby clogging my fuel filter. This I learned the first time, when the car stalled out and fefused gentle proddings to go forth. And so annual fuel filter change-outs are a usual and customary ritual to keep the old gal running dependably.

A report out of the American Petroleum Institute reveals how much more the new E15 mixture negatively affects our newer engines, potentially setting us up for fatal auto accidents. Is this news? Not to me. It’s important to know only automobiles clasified “flex fuel” are engineered to use ethanol fuels.

We know that mandating ethanol blend motor fuel added $14.5 billion motor fuel costs in 2011.

Fuel costs year by year suck more and more out of our personal budgets. Higher fuel costs necessarily reduce personal purchasing power, leading to lower GDP, further leading into economic recession. In fact, the mandate to mix ethanol is affecting global food supplies. Don’t believe me? Read this authoritative article in Forbes magazine:

The Coming Food Crisis: Blame Ethanol?

You can also check out E15 Gasoline

The Coming Food Crisis: Blame Ethanol?


Tell your U.S. Senators and your House member to end the mandate.

Production – The Only Source of Wealth

Alfred E. Obama"What, Me Worry?"
Alfred E. Obama
“What, Me Worry?”

Adam Smith believed it. Lee Iacocca believes it. By golly, Milton Friedman believed it. I beleive it, too. What is it we four believe? More than believe; we KNOW the only source of wealth is production of goods and services.

Many equate capitalism with democratic society, personal freedom, but this isn’t historically true. For example, China, arguably the most populous nation on the face of the earth, is short on personal freedom and yet said by many to “do capitalism better than the U.S.“. This is not to say America isn’t the wealthiest nation on earth – we are, but look who’s running up behind us. Look at this up to date chart from Wikipedia. By the way, Hong Kong is in China, just so you remember.


Back on Point

Ah, yes, we were talking about the source of wealth. Let’s understand from where the wealth of a nation arises. Consider these words of Adam Smith from his famous book AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

The increase of revenue and stock is the increase of national wealth. The demand for those who live by wages, therefore, naturally increases with the increase of national wealth, and cannot possibly increase without it. It is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labour. It is not, accordingly, in the richest countries, but in the most thriving, or in those which are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are highest.

Let’s start with revenue: Smith wasn’t referring to government tax revenue. He was referring to revenue received by private citizens and corporations. We summarize how well we gain or lose national wealth by measuring our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Want to peek? Would you like to know how well or how poorly we’re doing? I’m going to tell you whether you want to know or not. – We are doing poorly.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) is the output of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States, says the Dept. of Commerce. In the fourth quarter of 2012 GDP declined at an annual rate of 0.1%.

Obama fiscal policies, if you can call them that, are driving us into a very deep hole from which we may never climb out. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Heard that before? Taxation deprives persons of property. Re-read that sentence in the previous paragraph “…produced by labor and property”. Yes, your money is your property. Without your property, you cannot build wealth, at least not as fast as if you were able to hold onto it.

Back to It

If we have less of it, we will have less. As GDP declines or remains flat, national wealth declines. There must be continuous increase in national productivity to have increase in national wealth. Remember this when stock markets collapse and banks close their doors.

There is a reason why the dictionary defines socialism as a theory: because it’s never been proven. That same dictionary defines capitalism as a system, because it works.

Bottom Line

We could survive, thrive even materially, under Obama’s grand socialist plan, but not if he and his Democrat lawmakers persist in the confiscation of private property through increased taxation.

Gross National Production is the key indicator of our ongoing growth in wealth. It’s not mysterious. Even a Democrat should understand it.

Al “Not So Sharp” Sharpton Assails Bill of Rights

National Urban League & National Action Network Oppose Civil Liberties?

In their haste to snuggle up to this president, activist black leaders push Congress to further infringe on our natural right to self-defense: the Second Amendment.

Following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president Al SharptonMarc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new national assault weapons ban, saying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated. [] He further stated, “People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country.

“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when asked by

Marc Morial

TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill. []

My opinon: The above statements are faulty. I offer an unqualified evaluation of their education as incomplete. I assume Mayor Morial would agree with another round of unconstitutional gun confiscation upon another ‘Katrina’ type disaster.

Background on “yelling fire in a crowded theater”

In the 1919 case before the Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, SCOTUS upheld Mr. Schenck’s conviction on charges of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by opposing the military draft of young men for service in WW1. Justice Holmes opined, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Gasp! What heinous statements published by Mr. Schenck represented a “clear and present danger” perceived by Justice Holmes? His pamphlets and leaflets said, “Do not submit to intimidation“, “Assert your rights“, “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.

His interesting argument against the draft was the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing ‘involuntary servitude’. This amendment came on the heels of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. The Sedition Act of 1918 further extended the power of government to curb speech. The most controversial sections of the Act, including the original section 3 were repealed in 1921.

Irony (Hypocrisy) Exposed

Government targeted select groups to quell protests against the government. Among these were Jehovah’s Witness, socialist and the like who opposed WW1. Groups like the National Urban League and the National Action Network, if all provisions were still in place, would be arrested for their contemporary complaints against government. Irony, indeed, that Marc Morial and Al Sharpton come out against the Bill of Rights.

In today’s struggle against ever-growing government, Libertarians, many Republicans, TEA Party leaders and a lot of Democrats face the possiblity of arrest when we speak against government actions we perceive to be unconstitutional and contrary to our natural rights. And, so it is I go back to read again the beloved First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment Glossary

  • prohibitingforbidding by law or other authority, hindering or preventing
  • abridging – curtailing; diminishing
  • assemble – coming or bringing together; collecting or congregating
  • redress the act or an instance of setting right a wrong; remedy or cure

Godfather Obama – A License to Kill Without Due Process

Ratified 1791 – Trampled 2013

You know Obama’s decision to kill U.S. citizens abroad without due process has already happened. When asked on public TV if Obama has the right to kill citizens on our native soil, FBI Director Robert Mueller replies, “I have to go back. I, uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano says, “It’s not a question we should have to ask. That’s not a question [to which] he should not evade an answer. I think he probably knows that the answer is ‘no’, but he doesn’t want to frustrate his bosses who articulated just two days earlier that the answer is ‘yes’….the Attorney General of the United States manifested extraordinary ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and suggested the President of the United States can kill anybody he wants outside the United States if that person is dangerous, if that person has committed crimes and it’s impractical to arrest that person, not in the opinion of a jury, but in the opinion of the President and some secret advisers. The Constitution says to the contrary. The Constitution says that if the government wants your life, your liberty or your property, it has to articulate to a jury what law you have violated and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to that jury. It’s called due process. Without due process, the government can take anything it wanted and kill anybody it wanted.”

As the Judge says, FBI Director Robert Mueller will do whatever his bosses say to keep his job. Herein is the problem of impersonal, big government.

Hear and view the entire 4-minute discussion led by Shepard Smith on 25 January 2013.

Down With Democracy? History Lesson for Today

Obama talks about expanding “democracy”. Why do we want something our founding fathers avoided altogether?

“What? Are you out of your mind, Rockwall Conservative?”

No, you see our founding fathers knew democracy would lead to certain self-destruction. Democracies lend themselves to self-serving corruption, loss of liberty, effectively mob rule.

FYI – the words democrat, democracy and democratic appear NOWHERE in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

After declaring independence in 1776, the predominant form of government in the United States was not the Articles of Confederation but the thirteen state governments. And some of those state governments were aggressive experiments in democracy, with the governors and legislators elected directly by the people, unicameral rather than bi-cameral legislatures, and yearly elections of legislators, all of which made those state governments highly responsive to immediate mood of the people. Some considered the results dangerous — too much paper money was being printed and logrolling, horse-trading, and pork-barreling had become commonplace. By the time our founding fathers met in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 there was a belief that this trend toward democracy needed to be curbed, and thus a document was crafted in which neither the President nor Senators were elected by the people, only members of the House of Representatives:

“The deficiencies of the [Articles of] Confederation themselves cannot account for the unprecedented nature of the Constitution created in 1787. By establishing a strong national government that operated directly on indi¬viduals, the Constitution went far beyond what the weaknesses of the Articles demanded. Granting Congress the authority to raise revenue, to regulate trade, to pay off its debts, and to deal effectively in international affairs did not require the total scrapping of the Articles and the creation of an extraordinarily powerful and distant national government, the likes of which were virtually inconceivable a decade earlier. To James Madi¬son, the putative father of the Constitution, the document of 1787 became the solution for the ‘multiplicity,’ ‘mutability,’ and ‘injustice’ of state legislation over the previous decade, what were often referred to as the ‘excesses of democracy.’ It was the popular behavior of the state legisla¬tures in the decade following the Declaration of Independence that lay behind the elite’s sense of crisis.

“The abuses of the state legislatures, said Madison, were ‘so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism’; and these abuses, he told Jefferson in the fall of 1787, ‘contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform than those which accrued to our national character and inter¬est from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects.’

“The Revolution had greatly democratized the state legislatures, both by increasing the number of their members and by broadening their elec¬torates. Many ordinary men of more humble and rural origins and less education than had sat in the colonial assemblies had been elected as representatives. …
“By the 1780s it was obvious to many, including Madison, that ‘a spirit of locality’ was destroying ‘the aggregate interests of the community.’ Everywhere the gentry leaders complained of popular legislative practices that today are taken for granted — logrolling, horse-trading, and pork-barreling that benefited special and local interest groups. Each representative, grumbled Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, was concerned only with the particular interests of his electors. Whenever a bill was read in the legisla¬ture, ‘every one instantly thinks how it will affect his constituents.’ Instead of electing men to office ‘for their abilities, integrity and patriotism,’ the people, said Stiles, were much more likely to vote for someone ‘from some mean, interested, or capricious motive.’ …

“Many leaders had come to realize that the Revolution had unleashed social and political forces that they had not anticipated and that the ‘excesses of democracy’ threatened the very essence of their republican revolution. The behavior of the state legislatures, in the despairing words of Madison, had called ‘into question the fundamental principle of republican Government, that the majority who rule in such governments are the safest Guardians both of Public Good and private rights.’ This was the issue that made the 1780s so critical to large num¬bers of American leaders. … By 1787 many of the Revolutionary leaders had retreated from the republican idealism of 1775-1776. People were not going to be selfless and keep their private interests out of the public arena after all. …

“The Federal Constitution of 1787 was designed in part to solve the problems created by the presence in the state legislatures of these [middle class] men. In addition to correcting the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was intended to restrain the excesses of democracy and protect minority rights from overbearing majorities in the state legislatures.” Excerpt from ‘Empire of Liberty’, authored by Gordon Wood and published by
Oxford University Press | Pages: 15-20, 31

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires a Republican form of government in all states.

Our Republican form of government follows the rule of law and is a representative form of government. We elect qualified representatives to craft laws and to administer them. A Republican form of government protects the minority from abuses by the majority.

You didn’t know this? Let’s hope to educate enough living Americans to restore liberty and justice in our country before it’s too late.










Author: Gordon Wood Title: Empire of Liberty Publisher: Oxford University Press 

Date: Copyright 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Rockwall Sheriff Harold Eavenson Featured Speaker CARGO Rockwall

CARGO Rockwall

Citizens Association for Responsible Gun Ownership

Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson will be featured speaker at the CARGO Rockwall February meeting when he will report on the unified position of the NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION (NSA), Sheriff Eavenson serves as Treasurer for this important national organization.

Sheriff Eavenson attends the NSA 2013 Winter Conference in Washington, D.C. Janurary 28 through February 2. He readily accepted an invition to report to CARGO Rockwall membership on the unified position of the NSA with respect to unconstitutional executive orders and laws pushed by the left.

Rockwall County SheriffHarold Eavenson
Rockwall County Sheriff
Harold Eavenson

Prior to being elected Sheriff at Rockwall County Texas and being sworn in on January 1, 2001, Mr. Eavenson managed his own consulting firm / investigative company for five years. Previous to forming Harold Eavenson & Associates in 1995, he spent 16 years in the financial industry, eight as Director of Security of one of the largest banks in Texas. As Director of Security of InterFirst Bank Dallas (formerly First National Bank in Dallas) he was responsible for the security program and managed / coordinated the bank’s executive protection program. His department was also responsible for all internal investigations.

Meeting Place

Where:   Soulmans’ BBQ – 691 E Interstate Highway 30, Rockwall, Texas 75087soulmans-rockwall

Date:       February 14, 2013

Time:       6 to 7 PM

We’ll be meeting in the large private meeting room of Soulman’s Bar-B-Que. Restaurant management reasonably requires everyone to purchase food and/or beverages of your choice as a condition for free use of this meeting room.

Please arrive before 6 to get your food and to seat yourself. Meeting will begin promptly at 6 and end promptly at 7. Our meetings welcome all family members, including children.

This will be our first meeting and, according to the needs of our members, time and duration will be adjusted to best meet the needs of all.

Questions? Want to be on our mailing list? Write to

Follow us on Facebook at

Want a reason to join with us? Here’s a this morning’s headline from the Drudge Report.

feinstein-weapons-ban-targets-handguns-rifles-drudge-report 1-24-13


Open press conferences with prayer

‘I believe the gun lobby is no match fo the cross lobby’


‘Purpose Is to Dry Up the Supply of These Weapons Over Time’…

Feinstein got special permission to display guns in DC

NRA boycott kills nation’s largest outdoors show…

Let’s Buy an Adjective: Muslim

Political correctness spawned by this president leaves off an important adjective when talking about terrorists. An adjective is “a word imputing a characteristic to a noun or pronoun”. In this case, I am referring to the missing adjective ‘Muslim’, as in “Muslim terrorists”.

To be sure, we have been  targest of domestic non-Muslim terrorists like the president’s mentors and domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. It’s appropriate to bring up the names of those two men who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City – they weren’t Muslim.

However, those monsters who hijacked airliners on September 1, 2011 were Muslim terrorists, as were the attackers of U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 American service members while they slept.

Well, this brings us to today’s news. Barack Obama sent F-16 fighters to Egypt. You may remember Egypt, the country now under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Is this the same gang that was founded in Egypt in 1928 for the purpose of placing the heel of Islam on the necks of every man, woman and child in the world?” Yes, that’s the same gang.

F-16's for our enemies
Click on image above to view slide show from Fox News

If ever there was doubt in your mind this president is anti-Israel, anti-Jew, let that doubt be forever extinguished.

When next you hear the word “terrorist”, be sure to add the adjective “Muslim”.