OlDawg

Asia and Europe are bidding up the price. Also, as I previously mentioned, we’re running low on tankers. Most folks don’t know that VLCC tankers can’t come into most U.S. ports because of the channel depths. There are actually multiple trans loading stations in deeper water around the U.S. for loading/offloading where the VLCC tankers can’t get into port. (There are 2 for our area for example that are offshore outside of Galveston & Sabine.) A VLCC tanker (super tanker/most cost effective) is roughly $30 Million per trip to Asia, and holds—if I remember correctly—around 2 MM barrels. Any other tanker that doesn’t have to transload is more expensive per load even discounting the transloading fees.

There may be quite a few Cabinet position changes coming up. Seems like it’s the norm for every Administration after 2 years.

After research, there have been 8 POTUS with one parent who wasn’t a U.S. citizen when they were born. Trump is the latest. Obama was the first POTUS with a non-U.S. citizen parent, who was also not born in the contiguous 48. Kamala was the first VPOTUS—and could have been first POTUS if Biden was incapacitated, or if she was elected—with neither parent being a U.S. citizen. Somehow, I don’t think the Framers—who fought so hard for this country to keep it out of foreign control—would have written something that could have possibly made it easier for that to happen.

We’ve already had one POTUS who had a parent who wasn’t a U.S. citizen. Maybe SCOTUS doesn’t see it as a big deal. What the heck, why not have a POTUS where neither parent is a U.S. citizen? Folks that think it’s a joke don’t realize how realistic it can be since the only requirements are to be a natural citizen, a resident of the U.S. for the last 14 years before filing to run, and be at least 35 years old when inaugurated. There’s nothing saying the parents even have to be citizens. That’s how screwed up the current interpretation is…

Thanks tvc! I must have missed that tending to my better half. Hopefully, they’ll get the transcript up soon where I can read. How was this hypo addressed, or was it just dismissed out of hand? (I just caught a second or so of something about an Iranian, but had to leave the room.)

Ha! I prefer the Denzel version. Decent flick.

Yes. We are also running low on tankers. There's a shortage because Asia, and Europe are buying US oil. It's driving the price up. We're even running low on tankers from the Gulf Coast refineries. WTI is running at a discount to Brent because of Hormuz. Tankers from the U.S. don't have to navigate through the Strait to get to their destination.

What's interesting--that most people don't think about--is that a child born by someone here temporarily is a U.S. citizen--according to the current situation. That person can become a future POTUS. Hypothetical: A Chinese birth tourism agency recruits a Chinese female to have a baby born in the U.S. That baby then leaves the U.S., grows up in Communist China for all their lives until they are 21. Then, they move back to the U.S. At 35, they file to run for President of the United States. They would qualify. They would be a natural U.S. citizen, they would have lived in the U.S. for the last 14 years, and they would be 35 years old.

Doubtful. Also, you should really want the other Arab countries pooling together against Iran instead of U.S. involvement any more. It should be their regional issue.

UAE and other Arab countries are preparing to join in the fight [Hidden Content]

True. Sauer’s rebuttal just chewed up the ACLU argument. Wow! He pointed out almost every case they referenced was BEFORE the 14th, and every case he cited was after. Still don’t know if it will be enough though. Gorsuch’s comment was troubling about accepting the ACLU argument and making a quick ruling. I really thought he would be more on the textualism/originalism side. Now, I’m not so sure.

If y’all come, stop by the Gold Star Memorial in La Porte (5 Points Park) while you’re here. It’s only a mile or two from Sylvan Beach in old downtown LP. Impressive monument. La Porte is a very veteran heavy community. [Hidden Content]

What we know is there were at least 4 Justices that believed the Government had a solid case. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have agreed to hear the case at all. The arguments are very interesting. Sauer is kind of hard to listen to with a raspy type voice & very fast speech. 😂

If you have YouTube, there are multiple live streams. Already showing protestors on the Reuters channel with signs saying Trump must go now, etc. look like well-funded groups. POTUS is on his way to attend. I think there’s gonna be a fight between a young black woman with a siren blasting over a Hispanic man with a microphone advocating automatic birthright citizenship. She’s shouting America First over him. This is gonna become WWE before it’s over .

YouTube link to listen live to the oral argument for those interested. Arguments are scheduled for an hour. But, I would imagine this one may run over the allotted time. It goes live at 9am. [Hidden Content]

This is unacceptable. It causes you to look at the positive side of things.

Y’all should start a separate Scripture/Beliefs discussion thread.

I wasn’t sure where to put this, or who may be interested. But, La Porte will be the first Texas city to host the U.S. Navy Fleet Week. Details are in the link. Come one and come all. Sylvan Beach is about 300 yards from LPHS and the new Bulldog Stadium. [Hidden Content]

Simple solution. Don’t feed the troll.

I think it’s the pinnacle of hubris to think that God would pick a political side.

[Hidden Content]

Just keeping this up close to the top because oral arguments are this Wednesday. Thought we could continue using this thread. I still think this is going to be one of the most fascinating oral arguments in a long time, and it will have possibly the greatest impact on America as any case in the last 100 years or more. It will be interesting to see how things fall out in questioning. I see the 3 liberal Justices just going with the status quo. I see 4 Justices going more with the originalism/textualism viewpoint. I see 2 Justices being open to the original intent of the 14th, but wanting to make sure their ruling only applies going forward, and how best to address it if they rule for original intent. The arguments for original intent are stronger than many think. Getting over the hurdle of history is still a tall task. But, this SCOTUS has shown a willingness to break with bad precedents in previous rulings. So, we'll see.

I gave up when he lost the argument about ‘better’ Real ID’s having an effect on voter security in New York, Minnesota, and Vermont. He apparently wasn’t smart enough to check and see that voter ID isn’t required in those States, so having an Enhanced Real ID made no difference at all. Sort of like the argument he used to call out folks who believed in things they can’t see or prove (ie voter fraud), but he then talks about attending church services. Of course, I guess it’s entirely possible he’s seen and scientifically proven God’s existence. Me, I tend to have to go on faith.

[Hidden Content]

New York, Minnesota, and Vermont may have fantastic enhanced Real ID’s. Problem is, they are also states that don’t require any ID to vote. So, I’m not sure what good they do for that purpose at this time. Personally, I’m always curious about studies that say there’s no voter fraud when 14 States and the District of Columbia don’t even require ID to vote. Basically, almost 40% of the population is on the honor system. I’m not a big conspiracy theorist. But, not sure someone can prove fraud or not if there’s no check. Should make anyone skeptical of the study. [Hidden Content]