We've been busy the past several weeks. As you know, we are firm believers in being as self reliant and prepared as possible. As such, we planned these two projects a couple of years ago, got estimates and price quotations then started saving our pennies see them to fruition. The first project was the garden, the seconds was a back up stand-by generator.
The Garden Project:
As I've accurately predicted and as I'm certain you've seen at the grocery stores, the price of food is skyrocketing.
I designed and crudely blueprinted a garden layout I thought would do well for us and our household. Every household is different, therefore every household's garden must also be different. To add to our troubles, we have a larger herd of deer (about 30 deer) who roam our yard twice a day, this necessitated a fence, as I'm not going to let deer eat all our efforts. So I had to incorporate a fence into my design as well as some other basic features such as fence attached to the interior of the fence to prevent smaller animals from infiltrating the garden; I also incorporated fine galvanized steel mesh at the bottom of the raised beds in effort to thwart burrowing animals from digging under the beds.
Here are a few pictures to give you insight to my idea(s):
Here is how our efforts turned out:
The Power Project:
As any true "prepper" knows, you must have several layers of capabilities, in this particular venue, redundancy is a good thing. I have means to cook, keep my family warm, bath, and perform the most basic necessities; however, I just don't want to survive when times are tough, I want to thrive!
My first task was to consider the options for a back up generator system, to see which I wanted to use. To do this, you must first contemplate exactly what you want powered during an outage and why you need it. The circuits I wanted to run required 17,000 watts (or 17kW) of power. I also wanted the unit to be a stand by system. Meaning it's 100% automatic; should the main-line power ever go out, this system activates and switches from main-pole power to back up generator power instantly, once main-pole power is restored, the system switches off and reconnects to it.
I decided on the Generac 17kW Gaurdian Series generator. This generator requires propane for fuel, so I also had to purchase and bury a 500 gallon propane tank. I chose propane as I have a lot of propane capabilities already (outdoor grill, camp stove, camp oven, heaters, etc.) and figured it would be best to build on that strength. This is no small or easy task, it will take a lot of homework on your part to figure what is best for your family and what you can afford. We saved for 3 years to accomplish this project, so plan accordingly.
We continue to rake out the dirt covering the tank to level it and with any luck we'll have grass growing in the area by the end of this year. As an aside, since my grill is propane, I ran a T-line from the main to use a propane junction box, it has two propane outlets built into it. Now I can run my grill and any other propane device (a future smoker in my case) I wish to use on my deck, no muss, no fuss.
Now of course you don't have to go to the lengths and costs as we have, but having power when the grid is off-line is worth whatever you pay for a generator. The ability to be able to pump water, cook a meal, take a hot shower, wash clothes, charge batteries, keep food cold/frozen, etc. cannot be over valued. My advice is to make a list of what you absolutely need to survive without grid power, see what you can afford and go from there. That is how we started and it became obvious to us that we also wanted some creature comforts and began planning the system.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.
They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red .
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ . If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
The entire argument of taxing the "rich" baffles me, I am honestly having trouble understanding the mindset of those who advocate the transference of wealth from one group of people to another, nor can I understand those who think they automatically have a right to other people's money, simply because they make more of it.
I am a self-proclaimed budget hawk, who believes our incessant deficit spending, massive debt, and bloated ineffective government are America's Achilles heel, sooner or later the bill must be paid. I prefer sooner as not to saddle my children and grand children with our generations sins. However, I feel the targeting of one class of people in effort to rectify years and years of poor money management is not the answer; especially when those being targeted already pay more than anyone else.
Recently President Obama stated he wanted to tax the rich (any single person making more than $200,000.00 or any married couple making more than $250,000.00) in effort to help close budget gaps, of course throngs of Americans agree, those who are not being targeted agree. That is to say, those 99% of Americans who will not be paying for the governments failures of responsible spending agree that others should pay, just as long as its not them, as long as someone else pays, Americans are all for it, as long as they can still live at the expense of others, as long as they don't have to pay. Is this not the very description of hypocrisy? Do you think others should pay for your actions, do you not hold yourself accountable? Do you believe only certain people should shoulder the responsibilities and burdens of freedom? Do you not count yourself among them? If so, what does that say about you?
It seems to me that all of a sudden, THOSE people aren't paying their "fair share?!" Who are these people that claim to have the power and ability to target others and demand the transference of legally earned monies from one person to redistribute to others?! Is the equality promised to us by our founding fathers? Is this the equality they bled for?
Here are some interesting facts I've come across:
Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?
Tax Year 2008 (2008 is the latest IRS information)
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$380,354
38.02
Top 5%
$159,619
58.72
Top 10%
$113,799
69.94
Top 25%
$67,280
86.34
Top 50%
$33,048
97.30
Bottom 50%
<$33,048
2.7
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy
So, taking these things into consideration, what is it President Obama and people expect, what do they consider would be a "fair share" percentage? As it stands, the Obama's definition of the "rich" already pay 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay nearly 70% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% of income earners only pay 2-3%, so who is it that truly isn't paying their fair share?!
I think we have all been conditioned to think that because someone has a larger income than ours, the government (i.e. the people) should take more from them. That somehow those whom are considered "rich" should be punished for making money, make no mistake about it, the income tax is a penalty for making money, some are more heavily targeted that others as a means to an end of a socialistic/progressive movement that started in this country in the early 1900s. What ever happened to the idea of equality under the law?
Something else that bothers me about President Obama's ideas of taxation is the obvious marriage penalty. Obama states a person may make $200,00.00, before being taxed at a higher rate, yet a married couple can only make $250,000.00 before being burdened with his higher rates. My question is why the obvious penalty? If he were concerned with fairness it would $400,000.00 for a married couple; however, it is obvious fairness is the last thing this president is concerned with, he simply wants to increase revenue by increasing the taxes of only one portion of society without seriously addressing his spending habits, to me that is as un-American as it gets.
If higher taxes are indeed required to balance the budget then let the pain be felt by all, not just a select few. Everyone should have skin the game; however, I believe the instant the people who are pointing and screaming "take their money," "take it from the rich," suddenly realize the burden of of a balanced budget will be bore by all, attitudes would change drastically. It's funny to me how we as a people are so eager to spend other people's money, money we had no hand in earning. I believe that all should pay their "fair share," all should pay their own way in life, not expect to live off the toil of others, or expect the government to redistribute the wealth from one sect of society to another.
I had another thought; why is it all of sudden are politicians stating millionaires and billionaires aren't paying their "fair share," so they must be more heavily taxed; yet, those very same politicians define those not paying their "fair share" have an income of $200,000.00 (single rate) and $250,000.00 (married rate). Does this actually make sense to anyone?!
How many millionaires/billionaires make $250,000.00 per year? The answer is, ALL of them. Now, how many people who make $200,000.00-250,000.00 are millionaires/billionaires, the answer is a very very small percentage of them. So, once again the political rhetoric is purposefully misleading and its only aim is demonize anyone making more than $200,000.00, which of course includes the majority of small businesses, the very engine of the US economy.
These politicians use the terms millionaires/billionaires in effort to fan the flames of class war fare and to attempt to make people forget they are really talking about the majority of small businesses and the majority of America's working professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.)
A final word of caution, if the President of the United States gets to decide who is "rich" and who isn't. When will your income bracket be targeted next? The definition of "rich" is definitely a moving target, and as any who has ever paid Alternative Minimum Taxes (AMT) simply because they make X amount of money can testify to the fact of taxes targeting the "rich" seem to target more and more people every year and it's doing so by design. Wake up America, this is the system Congress created, this is the system of control, this is the system they built, this is the system they will keep.
This entire debate also highlights the failings of our tax code. The entire system of taxation needs tore down and rebuilt, from scratch. To put things into perspective:
The federal tax code, which in 1913 could be published as a single 400-page book, today occupies some 72,000 pages. In the last 10 years alone, reports National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson (your designated friend at the IRS), "there have been approximately 4,428 changes to the tax code." The instructions for filling out Form 1040, which took up two pages 75 years ago, are 179 pages long this year.
When pondering these things I often turn to those I deem wiser than myself and those whom I think were far wiser than any politician currently in office:
"Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable, it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence..." — Abraham Lincoln (reply to the New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association, Mar. 21, 1864)
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people…must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile…private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
"This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."— Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."— Thomas Jefferson
Gold to $57,000, Silver Even More? Interview of Adrian Douglas Part 1 of 2
Gold to $57,000, Silver Even More? Interview of Adrian Douglas Part 2 of 2
The Super Simple Case for $175 Ounce Silver
THE MADNESS OF A LOST SOCIETY: Part 1 & Part 2 FINAL WARNINGS
Utah Considers Return to Gold, Silver Coins
It's been nearly 80 years since the U.S. stopped using gold coins as legal currency, and nearly 40 since the world abandoned the gold standard, but the precious metal could be making a comeback in the United States -- beginning in Utah
The Utah House was to vote as early as Thursday on legislation that would recognize gold and silver coins issued by the federal government as legal currency in the state. The coins would not replace the current paper currency but would be used and accepted voluntarily as an alternative.
The single most astonishing fact about foreign exchange is not the high volume of transactions, as incredible as that growth has been. Nor is it the volatility of currency rates, as wild as the markets are these days.
Consider this: When a South Korean wine wholesaler wants to import Chilean cabernet, the Korean importer buys U.S. dollars, not pesos, with which to pay the Chilean exporter. Indeed, the dollar is virtually the exclusive vehicle for foreign-exchange transactions between Chile and Korea, despite the fact that less than 20% of the merchandise trade of both countries is with the U.S.
Chile and Korea are hardly an anomaly: Fully 85% of foreign-exchange transactions world-wide are trades of other currencies for dollars. What's more, what is true of foreign-exchange transactions is true of other international business. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries sets the price of oil in dollars. The dollar is the currency of denomination of half of all international debt securities. More than 60% of the foreign reserves of central banks and governments are in dollars.
The greenback, in other words, is not just America's currency. It's the world's.
But as astonishing as that is, what may be even more astonishing is this: The dollar's reign is coming to an end.
I believe that over the next 10 years, we're going to see a profound shift toward a world in which several currencies compete for dominance.
The impact of such a shift will be equally profound, with implications for, among other things, the stability of exchange rates, the stability of financial markets, the ease with which the U.S. will be able to finance budget and current-account deficits, and whether the Fed can follow a policy of benign neglect toward the dollar.
As I'm sure you all have been watching, silver is now up and over the mythical $35.00 ounce mark, this happened much faster than I anticipated, I still believe silver to be a solid investment/commodity for insurance of personal wealth and diversification there-of; however, we are quickly coming to a point where silver will no longer be as "cheap" as it is today, as the saying goes, "get it while you can."
There are a few notable items of interest this week; however, these struck me as sticking out the most.
Terror Threat 'Most Heightened' Since 9/11, Napolitano Says
"The terrorist threat facing our country has evolved significantly in the last ten years -- and continues to evolve -- so that, in some ways, the threat facing us is at its most heightened state since those attacks," she said before the House Homeland Security Committee.
No, not really. Nothing has recently changed in the past several years, home grown terrorism has always be viewed as a larger threat than external terrorism forces. So why this statement from DHS at this time? Well, that's easy, because Congress just voted down part of the unconstitutional Patriot Act, taking big government advocates by surprise. So in retaliation, big government trotted out the specter of fear. Once again, this is not about keeping you safe from terrorism, it never has been, it is about keeping you under the control of big government.
US lawmakers clash on Patriot Act measures
WASHINGTON — US lawmakers clashed Friday over how long to extend key provisions of a controversial surveillance law, designed to help authorities thwart terrorist plots, before they expire at month's end.
At issue were three core measures in the Patriot Act adopted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes to fill what the government complained were gaps in its abilities to track and catch extremists.
The provisions allow authorities to use roving wiretaps to track an individual on several telephones; track a non-US national suspected of being "lone-wolf" terrorist not tied to an extremist group; and to seize personal or business records seen as critical to an investigation
SchiffRadio.com Exclusive! Peter Wallison of FCIC says investigation was COOKED! [Part 1]
SchiffRadio.com Exclusive! Peter Wallison of FCIC says investigation was COOKED! [Part 2]
Peter J. Wallison, a codirector of AEI's program on financial policy studies, researches banking, insurance, and securities regulation. As general counsel of the U.S. Treasury Department, he had a significant role in the development of the Reagan administration's proposals for the deregulation of the financial services industry. He also served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan and is the author of Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency (Westview Press, 2002). His other books include Competitive Equity: A Better Way to Organize Mutual Funds (2007); Privatizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (2004); The GAAP Gap: Corporate Disclosure in the Internet Age (2000); and Optional Federal Chartering and Regulation of Insurance Companies(2000). He also writes for AEI's Financial Services Outlook series. http://www.aei.org/scholar/58
SchiffRadio.com Exclusive! Charles Blahous admits Social Security is a PONZI SCHEME!
Charles Paul "Chuck" Blahous III (born 1963) is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, specializing in domestic economic policy, a U.S. public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare programs,[1][2] and a former (2001–2007) Special Assistant to US President George W. Bush for Economic Policy within the National Economic Council whose Deputy Director he was in 2007-2008. He lives in Rockville, Maryland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blahous
Survivalist Jim Rawles On Peter Schiff Radio 02/03/11 (part 1)
Survivalist Jim Rawles On Peter Schiff Radio 02/03/11 (part 2)
Survivalism expert Jim Rawles on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory 11 Mar. 2010 This is an older video (obviously); however, for those of you who are new to Rawles and "prepping", this videohas a lot of information in one segment.
I've been a follower of Jim Rawles for a few years now, his books and blog are top notch, both have more information than you can possibly take in and I've yet to find much fault with his methods. Rawles website is www.survivalblog.com
James Wesley Rawles is a survivalist-fiction author, blogger, and survival retreat consultant. Rawles is a Christian conservative. He is the editor of SurvivalBlog.com, a blog on survival and preparedness topics. Rawles is the author of the survivalist novel Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wesley_Rawles
In this day and age, self reliance is nearly a forgotten art. It is my opinion that if more Americans became self reliant, we would have far fewer problems. It seems to me that far too many Americans believe it is the duty of the government to take care of them, nothing could be further from the truth. Here are a couple of my favorite quotes illustrating that point.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Gerald Ford
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution." - Ronald Reagan
"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government,to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people." - John F. Kennedy
"[W]hat more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? . . . a wise and frugal government . . . which shall leave [men] free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." - Thomas Jefferson
I could go on forever with the quotes, but I think you understand my point. My point is that EVERY American should be doing EVERYTHING within their power to ensure they are self sufficient or at least self reliant.
In that vein of thought, one day I was thinking about the scenario of an economic collapse such as what happened in the Wiemar Republic or the 2001 economic collapse of Argentina. What about the social collapses we are currently seeing in Greece, Spain, Ireland, England, Egypt? What would happen to you if you were not able to turn on a switch and have heat and light? Could you keep your family warm and fed? Now most of us "preppers" address that in some way shape or form, I have a few kerosene heaters, good ones too, but what if the kerosene pumps are dry? In that case, I have propane heaters, grill, and camp stoves, which are great, until the propane tanks run dry and you can't purchase more, what then?
Well I have a fireplace, but the problem with newer zero clearance prefabricated builders grade fireplaces is that they really aren't fireplaces, but more of a decoration. They are about 3% efficient and honestly don't heat worth a damn.
So, I was pondering all this and while doing so remembering the prepper axiom, "two is one, and one is none." Which means a person should have multiple redundant capabilities. It occurred to me that a wood burning stove would be the perfect solution for heating my house and for cooking. So, I went about researching wood burning stoves and found that most are 70-80% efficient (compared to the fireplace which is 3% efficient) and require 1/3 of the wood as a fireplace needs. I settled on the Regency F3100 large wood burning stove (http://www.regency-fire.com/Products/Wood/Wood-Stoves/F3100.aspx).
Here are a couple of its specs:
Maximum BTU 80,000
Log Size 21"
Burn Time up to 10 hrs
Optimum Efficiency 75.40%
Firebox Capacity 2.9 cu. ft.
Emissions (gms/hr) 4.19
View Area 183 sq. in.
Room Size 3500 sq. ft
Here are some photos of the progress so far:
This is what we started with, it was nice to look at, but wasn't very functional.
Demolition
"Class A" chimney pipe installed
Rock board installed.
The rock board was "mudded," the carpet removed, and fire board was laid.
Hearth stones laid and some of the chimney rocks put on wall.
***UPDATE*** WE'RE DONE!!! All that's left is for the mortar to cure. We will also be adding some wood trim to the perimeter of the hearth stones, to finish the look and to save our toes.
With the stove I've noticed that while I'm burning the HVAC units never turn on, ever. Also, with the stove burning, the temps in my house are usually 72F upstairs and 70F downstairs at 1/2 to 2/3 capacity, I could open the air intake fully, but that would honestly put out too much heat and go through wood quicker than necessary, reducing its efficiency. The only place this stove really doesn't heat well is the basement, which I expected. When I rely solely on my HVAC units for heat, they run at 66-68F and they run constantly, as they run I can hear the cash register in my head; cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching. Why not put that money into making yourself self reliant, instead of giving to your local power company?
Not only will this little beauty ensure I will always have a way of keeping my family warm, a method for cooking and baking, ensuring I can put hot food in my families bellies, but it also drastically cuts down the amount of electricity I use, therefore slashing my electric bill during the winter. Not bad for one little investment. Also, I've noticed the stove puts out a deep, bone warming heat, not like the barely tepid air slowly spewing from your HVAC registers, but a true warmth.
My point is that every American needs to take stock of their lives, what they have, and what they would need to ensure they could survive, at least for awhile, without the aid of government. Are you capable? Are you ready? Take one facet of your daily living, then think how you can invest your money in making that facet completely autonomous, when we give ourselves the ability to be self reliant, we are giving ourselves freedom .
