Another Tax Dodger In The Most Transparent Administration EVAH

I think this has gone beyond ridiculous, and into the realm of serious pre-requisite for a Cabinet post:

Remember, [Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas] was the “safe” choice for HHS after Daschle got dinged for — that’s right — not paying his taxes.

By CBS’s count, this is the sixth nominee to have tax trouble. Yes, really.

In the letter, which was sent to senators and dated today, Sebelius wrote that she had made changes related to charitable contributions, business expenses and the sale of a home, according to the AP.

The wire service reports that she and her husband paid just over $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest, for the years 2005-2007…

On the charitable contributions front, she writes that she could not locate three acknowledgment letters out of her 49 charitable contributions in excess of $250, and thus eliminated those three deductions.

She also writes that she had “insufficient documentation” for some of her tax dedications for business expenses, though because of the Alternative Minimum Tax they did not affect the amount owed. She also said she mistakenly paid off a home loan that included deductable mortgage interest.

The Standard has a copy of the letter, in which she claims not to have noticed the errors until she asked a CPA to vet her returns from 2005-07 as preparation for her Senate confirmation. Exit question: Why didn’t a CPA at least catch the error on mortgage interest when the returns were originally prepared? Or do we have another implausible case here, a la Geithner, of a public official — the governor of Kansas, in this case — using Turbo Tax or something to do her own returns? Don’t politicians use accountants anymore?

It's no wonder Obama is having such a hard time filling the top-level positions in his administration - none of them are clean! What a great way to start out, huh? What a great example for the nation from the most transparent administration EVAH!

You know, if Obama would start nominating more Democrats to top posts, we might actually make some significant progress on the national debt - it appears that that's the only time they ever bother to pay their taxes! But don't worry, I'm sure she'll be confirmed...I'm guessing someone will say she's the only one qualified to do the job at HHS, or something along those lines. And hey, it's only seven grand. Geithner got away with far worse tax evasion, so the precedent has been set well above a measly $7,000.

But don't you get any ideas, oh no...

There's my two cents.

More Poll Spinning

This is a topic that we covered several times last fall before the election, but Ace of Spades reveals another sparkling job of poll spinning.  Here's how the media can take bad news for the Obamessiah and whip it up into something that sounds like good news:

The spin on this one starts right in the lead:

WASHINGTON - The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election...

Okay. Let's stop there and go further down the story, to paragraph four.

The percentage of Americans in the new poll who said the country is on the right track still stands at just 42 percent...

Wait...42 percent? In the era of hope and change? That's pretty solidly below a majority. Maybe it's a plurality out of right track/wrong track/don't know. Let's see:

but that is the highest percentage saying so in five years and marks a sharp turnabout from last fall, when as many as nine in 10 said the country was heading in the wrong direction. Fifty-seven percent now consider the nation as moving on the wrong track.

Once you get past the 'yeah, but...yeah, but...' explanations helpfully provided by the reporters, the headline should really be, "Majority still believes country on wrong track, despite Obama election." The reporters spin valiantly, pointing out that the 'right track' number is higher than it's ever been but that doesn't change the fact that the candidate of hope, change and optimism has yet to convince a majority of Americans that the country is on the right track.

The story mentions that independents are "less solidly" behind Obama than they once were, but here's what that really means:

Obama's overall approval rating among independents has dipped six points, to 61 percent, and fewer than half, 45 percent, said he is doing a good job of handling the deficit...

...after two months of vigorous debate about his stimulus package and ambitious budget blueprint, confidence has decreased by 13 points among independents...

...the percentage of independents siding with Obama has dropped 12 points, to 50 percent. Many of those independents in the new poll said neither has the upper hand in the economic debate. About a quarter of independents align with the Republicans on this question.

This could provide an opportunity for the GOP, if they're smart enough to take it. The poll does show that GOP attempts to paint Obama as just another tax and spend liberal are being crushed under the steamroller of the president's rhetoric. People want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

Still, the overall numbers look pretty good for Obama, right?

Well, yes. Until you consider the partisan split of the poll, found in the data.

Democrat: 36%
Republican: 25%
Independent: 33%

Even with an 11-point advantage among Democrats, Obama cannot convince a majority that the country is on the right track or that his approach to spending and the deficit is correct. Even with that huge advantage, only 27% say the economy is getting better, while 36% say it's getting worse. There is improvement in those numbers, but nothing like what should be expected given the lopsided partisan split. The relative softness of these numbers show that Obama is having trouble convincing people of his own party that his policies are correct.

Keep that partisan split in mind the next time you hear a journalist proclaim that Obama still has strong approval ratings in the country. Ask yourself how many of those statements are based upon Potemkin village polls like this one. Obama is doubtless still more popular than the Republicans, but the press is doing him no favors by trying to paint rainbows over dark clouds.

This should come as no surprise, as MSNBC is probably the biggest media practitioner of egregious suck-uppery to the Obamessiah.  Remember Chris Matthews' leg tingle?  Remember how Matthews and Keith Olberman were removed from election coverage because they were not objective enough?  They're two of MSNBC's big dogs.

Thus, the moral of the story remains: YOU CANNOT TRUST THE MEDIA TO REPORT THE TRUTH.

There are warts all over the Obamessiah's face, but you'd never know it by listening to the mainstream media.  As Ace said, he's still popular, but don't ever let a simple poll sway your opinion or dictate your actions.  Chances are very, very good -- especially with the mainstream media -- that the real story is not being told.

There's my two cents.

Light Bulbs Not Such A Bright Idea

Remember the ban on incandescent light bulbs?  Yeah, you know, those light bulbs that cost about $0.23 each, last for months, and can be thrown into the trash when they burn out?  The Democrats set in motion a process to ban those light bulbs by 2012, replacing them with bulbs that cost over $4.00 each, last for months, and have a special disposition process due to the mercury contained in them (and if one breaks in your house? one word: hazmat).  The idea was that these new light bulbs would last so much longer that they would eventually pay for themselves, so we should all switch for the good of mankind.  There's just one small problem with that (okay, there's more than one, but I'll just point out one for the moment):  they don't last very long.  Excerpts:

It sounds like such a simple thing to do: buy some new light bulbs, screw them in, save the planet.

But a lot of people these days are finding the new compact fluorescent bulbs anything but simple. Consumers who are trying them say they sometimes fail to work, or wear out early. At best, people discover that using the bulbs requires learning a long list of dos and don'ts.

Take the case of Karen Zuercher and her husband, in San Francisco. Inspired by watching the movie "An Inconvenient Truth," they decided to swap out nearly every incandescent bulb in their home for energy-saving compact fluorescents. Instead of having a satisfying green moment, however, they wound up coping with a mess.

"Here's my sad collection of bulbs that didn't work," Ms. Zuercher said the other day as she pulled a cardboard box containing defunct bulbs from her laundry shelf.

One of the 16 Feit Electric bulbs the Zuerchers bought at Costco did not work at all, they said, and three others died within hours. The bulbs were supposed to burn for 10,000 hours, meaning they should have lasted for years in normal use. "It's irritating," Ms. Zuercher said.

Irritation seems to be rising as more consumers try compact fluorescent bulbs, which now occupy 11 percent of the nation's eligible sockets, with 330 million bulbs sold every year. Consumers are posting vociferous complaints on the Internet after trying the bulbs and finding them lacking.

Bulb makers and promoters say the overall quality of today's compact fluorescents is high. But they also concede that it is difficult to prevent some problem bulbs from slipping through.

Some experts who study the issue blame the government for the quality problems, saying an intensive federal push to lower the price essentially backfired by encouraging manufacturers to use cheap components.

"In the pursuit of the holy grail, we stepped on the consumer," said Michael Siminovitch, director of a lighting center at the University of California, Davis.

The government, which will begin enforcing tighter specifications this year, says it must seek a balance between quality and affordability to achieve its goal of getting millions of additional consumers to install the bulbs.

"We're both college-educated and pay attention to labels we read," Ms. Zuercher said. "It feels like someone forgot to put a place to find the information."

 

But hey, never mind reality - let's mandate their use, anyway!  That's what government does, after all.

Rush Limbaugh had a brilliant idea on his program today: substitute 'light bulb' for any other government service to get an idea of what it will be like once Obama nationalizes it.  For example:

[A] lot of people these days are finding the new universal health care anything but simple. Consumers who are using it say they sometimes fail to get treatments in a timely manner. At best, people discover that using the system requires learning a long list of dos and don'ts.

Health care providers say the overall quality of today's medical care is high. But they also concede that it is difficult to prevent some patients from slipping through the cracks.

Some experts who study the issue blame the government for the quality problems, saying an intensive federal push to lower the price essentially backfired by encouraging manufacturers to use cheap components.  The government, which will begin enforcing tighter restrictions this year, says it must seek a balance between quality and affordability to achieve its goal of getting millions of additional consumers to use the universal coverage.

Give it a try with some others.  It's pretty scary how easily it translates into many other issues.

This is yet another boondoggle of unintended consequences courtesy of the United States Congress.  Fortunately, they still have time to fix their mistake on this one.  Call me a skeptic, but somehow I doubt they will.

There's my two cents.

Earth Hour Wrap-Up

Did you celebrate Earth Hour on Saturday?  Did you celebrate Human Achievement Hour instead?  I was planning on celebrating HAH, but we didn't get home in time - we were actually out driving our full-sized SUV through a driving sleet/snow storm to stimulate the economy via shopping and dinner, so I figure that made up for it.  Since I truly care, though, you should know that one of the spoils of our stimulation is a new TV, which I left on for several hours while blogging late into the night.

So, how did the overall project fare?  Thanks to Grand Rants, we have some hard numbers:

Let's take a look, via Watt's Up With That?, at actual usage charts from the state of California (an area which I think we can all agree has more than its share of folks likely to have celebrated Sit in the Dark Hour), both during the powered-down time, and for the same time period the very next day. What do we see?

Saturday, 3/28: Earth Hour day (see gray shading for the actual usage for the 8:30-9:30 time frame)

Sunday, 3/29, the day after "Sit in the Dark" Hour (see gray shading for the actual usage for the 8:30-9:30 time frame):

As Russ Steel, at the always interesting Watt's Up With That? said:

There you have it, scientific data showing that the Earth Hour was a total bust in California.  If you look close, you can see a little bump up above the forecast demand, which tracked very closely with actual power consumed prior to the witching hour 8:30 to 9:30. But, it is clear that power consumption did not drop, it stayed up. Maybe all those protesters forgot to turn off the lights. 

I can't wait to see what kind of feel-good boondoggle they'll try to foist on us next…

Aw, gee, really?  Environmentalist wacko feel-good boondoggles don't actually accomplish anything?  Who'da thunk it?

There's my two cents.

Dems: We Know It's Wrong But We're Doing It Anyway

*sigh*

TPM's Brian Beutler reports that Senate Budget Commitee Chairman Kent Conrad reaffirmed his opposition to including health-care legislation in budget reconciliation, a move that would eliminate the ability to filibuster the bill. Yesterday, Conrad told reporters:

I've been as clear as I can be publicly and privately, that I don't think reconciliation is the right way to write fundamental reform legislation. It wasn't designed for that purpose. It was designed for deficit reduction.

But he added:

if it proved absolutely essential--if there were no Republican co-operation on writing major health care reform--you could run a second budget resolution. It would only take a day on the floor and you could put reconciliation instructions there.

So, on principle, Conrad thinks health-care legislation shouldn't be included in budget reconciliation, but if Democrats can't get what they want, well, it seems he's not going to let his principles stand in the way.

They never do.

There's my two cents.

GM Illustrates One Way Street

Politico reports:

Under ousted chief executive Rick Wagoner, General Motors and its political action committee gave twice as much to Republicans as they did to Democrats.

From 2000, when Wagoner took over the Detroit-based auto-maker, through the end of last year, GM and its PAC contributed $1.7 million to Republican candidates and committees, compared only $815,000 to Democratic ones, according to a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records.

That balance skews slightly more towards the GOP than the political giving of the auto industry as a whole. Since 2000, the industry has given about 62 percent of its contributions to Republicans, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

On the flip side, auto unions have titled their giving heavily to Democrats.

Just one observation here on top of all the other GM discussion from earlier today.  Though the stereotype says that Republicans are the party supported by most CEOs and big corporate execs, the reality is that most rich corporate execs are actually Democrats.  As such, the GOP needs all the help it can get when it comes to executive support in big business.  Unfortunately, Wagoner -- one of the few CEOs who is actually more favorably disposed toward GOP contributions -- is now history.  Aside from the obvious constitutional failings of allowing this to move forward, what did Wagoner's years of support -- and big money -- buy him when it came to crunch time from the GOP?  Absolutely nothing.  I don't recall hearing a single Republican defending him or GM.

So, let's all think how likely other CEOs and execs are going to be to keep supporting GOP candidates when those same GOP candidates refuse to stand up for free enterprise and private industry, especially when the Democrats in government are openly hostile to those same few GOP-supporting execs?

Exactly.  It's a double whammy for the GOP.

So, we see here another logical conclusion to compromising on core principles.  It's never, ever worth it.  Too bad the idiots in the GOP can't seem to figure that out.

There's my two cents.

The Tyrant's Plan To Take Over Is Rolling Out

Remember back when I said this:

Remember the repeated predictions (most recently here) of the government controlling private industries who accept bailout money?  You may be thinking that won't necessarily affect you or your job, or that it's just a right-winger scare tactic.  Well, our very own Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is demonstrating beautifully exactly how that will work in real life:

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill — mad as hell and not going to take it anymore — called Wall Street executives "idiots" Friday and proposed limits on some of their salaries.

Her proposal would force companies taking federal bailout money to limit compensation for any employee to what the President of the United State currently earns: $400,000 a year.

"Is that so unreasonable?" McCaskill asked. "It's eight times the median household income in the United States of America…I don't think that sounds like a bad deal."

There's a crucial point in here that's easy to miss at first glance - did you catch it?  Her plan would 'limit compensation for any employee...'

Guess what?  The legislation is here now. (h/t Michelle Malkin)

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

I know what you're thinking: but that's just for companies that received bailout money.  That alone is an absolute disaster for private industry as far as I'm concerned, but strictly speaking, that's true.  But there's a major, major problem.  See if you catch it in this article:

Wells Fargo & Co's (WFC.N) chairman lambasted the U.S. government for imposing new curbs on lenders that receive federal bailout money, and called the federal plan to subject big banks to stress tests "asinine."

In remarks after a speech Friday at Stanford University, Chairman Richard Kovacevich said the fourth-largest U.S. bank should not be lumped with weaker rivals in being forced to adhere to new rules governing such matters as lending and pay.

Wells Fargo took $25 billion of capital last year from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program at the behest of regulators including then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, but has said it did not need the money. It was one of nine original TARP recipients.

Like a growing number of rivals, the San Francisco bank is now complaining about TARP, including a provision that lets Congress unilaterally impose new restrictions on recipients.

Did you see it?  Wells Fargo 'said it did not need the money'.  Wells Fargo was forced to take TARP funds by the federal government.  At the time, the idea put forward was that singling out a couple of banks for assistance would cause consumers to run away from those banks, so the government essentially locked those banks' execs in a room and forced them to accept the money.  As Wells Fargo Chief Executive John Stumpf put it later, "The basic message is we're all in this thing together."

So, putting these things together, the obvious question is: what's stopping Obama from forcing 'bailout' money on any company in any industry?

After the events of the past few days, I would venture to say that the real motivation behind TARP was to create a way for the federal government to take over all of these banks and thus the entire financial industry.  Just ask Rick Wagoner how a government takeover of GM worked out.

Welcome to the Era of Obama, in the United States of soon-to-be-Socialist America.

There's my two cents.

More Hannan

This is great, and worth watching:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I love this guy!

There's my two cents.

Obama Takes Over GM

We all know GM has received bailout money.  Some of us -- ahem, ahem -- warned that bailing out private companies with public money was bad news all around, but that didn't seem to matter.  Now, those chickens are coming home to roost.  GM put together a plan for its financial recovery, as dictated by the terms of the bailout money.  Obama rejected those terms, saying they weren't drastic enough.  Since GM blew it, Obama stepped in and -- while claiming not to run the company -- fired the CEO, Rick Wagoner.  Just in case people were worried about the warranties on their GM vehicles, Obama also decided that taxpayer dollars should guarantee those, too.  Whew, what a relief!  Oh, by the way...since Wagoner was fired rather than demoted, his golden parachute kicked in, so now taxpayers will be funding his multi-million dollar retirement.  Isn't it great that Obama is taking very good care of our tax dollars?  Question: is the government going to go after Wagoner's golden parachute?  They already went for AIG executive bonuses, so what's stopping them?  Nevertheless, Obama wasn't done yet.  Obama also warned that Chrysler had just 30 days to agree to be bought out by Fiat (a foreign competitor), or he'd be forced to take it into bankruptcy.  Not only is Obama taking good care of our tax dollars, but he's also taking good care of American jobs, don't you think?

Here are some quotes that really deserve to be shared:

This [backing GM warranties] is great news — for fans of the DMV.  Vehicle owners can expect the same kind of efficiency and expertise they receive there in handling warranty issues with their vehicles.  Instead of working with dealers on the warranties, the government will now have to get involved, which will mean extensive paperwork for every warranty claim as the Directorate of Auto Warranties will have to account for every single penny, or at least those pennies that don't get earmarked for Auto Warranty Bike Paths by Rep. Jim Oberstar.

And let's not forget what this will do for Detroit's competitiveness.  Now that warranties will get funded by Uncle Sam, what do you suppose will happen to them?  They'll get shortened, and if they become uncompetitive, it will literally take an act of Congress to get longer warranties offered by Detroit.  But that's not what will really happen.  If the Directorate of Auto Warranties discovers that the competition offers longer and more robust warranties, the Directorate will simply get Congress to pass laws outlawing them.  After all, we can't have a bunch of furriners undercutting Uncle Sam, can we?   Why, that would be downright unpatriotic!

Government does not belong in the business of offering auto warranties.  Two years ago, that would have been so obvious as to elicit derisive laughter for even mentioning it.  But when we get a bunch of used-car salesmen in the White House and Congress, this is the result.

And:

The Obama administration has it figured out.

 

What the country really needs, apparently, is an automobile industry that is rolling out highly fuel-efficient cars, from the cleanest, safest, unionized factories in the world, made by highly paid workers with excellent health and retirement benefits. Of course, the production process needs to be inexpensive and efficient, too, so that the cars are competitively priced and can attract consumers who might otherwise gravitate toward bigger and heavier vehicles.

 

Gee, why didn't Rick Wagoner think of that?

 

The president and his team are suffering from the same conceit which has afflicted many other activist governments in many other settings. They believe a central government can find a way to induce reluctant consumers to buy products they don't want from inefficient suppliers without asking anyone, anywhere — save for corporate hot-shots — to make an economic sacrifice. Certainly, the unions aren't to blame. Therefore, the problem must be poor "leadership." And if the companies can't manage themselves well, then by golly, the government will help them do it.

A helpful translation: help = force.  This scenario always plays out the same way: people will put up with it for a while to try to let the government succeed, but when it becomes painfully obvious that they're even worse than the previous ownership, everyone walks away from the companies and the go under anyway.  The only difference, of course, is the fact that a crapload of taxpayer money has been thrown down the drain in the process.

More:

Sure, he might have to boot a CEO now and then, but it's not like R&D will be running the specs on the new hybrid by Geithner for approval, right? This reminds me of Steinbrenner's infamous announcement after he bought the Yankees that he wouldn't be involved in the day-to-day operations of the team. Before you knew it, he was firing managers left and right. Just think of Wagoner as Obama's Billy Martin.

You know what's always helpful, too, when trying to scare a failing industry into reforming itself? Promising that "we cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish."

The industry won't vanish, you idiot!  This company might fold, but its pieces will not simply disappear; they'll be divided and sold off to other companies who have sound operating policies.  Obama is playing up the fear card again here.

More:

With the way SNL has been hand-holding Obama, I'm sure if they do anything it will show a clean maintenance bay with NASA quality engineers changing your oil.  It will be done in 5 seconds flat and it will only cost 3.99.

Of course we all know in reality if the government ran GM's shop it would take 6 people to consult with each other on whether it is left loosey or righty tighty to remove the oil drain plug, the oil change would take a week and the government cost would be around $1000.00

More:

As great of a lawyer, community activist, and law professor as President Obama may have been, when has he ever run any company or come up with a single business plan. Now he's running General Motors? But Obama didn't stop at auto company CEO:

No one can deny that our auto industry has made meaningful progress in recent years. Some of the cars made by American workers are now outperforming the best cars made abroad. In 2008, the North American Car of the Year was a GM. … just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can –- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty.

Did we elect a president or a car salesman? Problem is, when we let the government become a market participant, there is no difference. Hence the slew of other incentives Obama threw at the auto industry.

Back in November we argued that bankruptcy was the best option for General Motors. But others argued that General Motors needed more time to prepare for a filing. Its now four months later and the Obama Administration is now claiming GM should have another 60 days. This political charade must end. No President of the United States should be selling cars out of the Grand Foyer of the White House. It's embarrassing. Bankruptcy is still the best policy for General Motors and Chrysler.

So, let's summarize.  GM and Chrysler have decades-old business models that are fundamentally broken due to union strangleholds on profitability.  They're about to go under, which would lead to bankruptcy proceedings to revamp contracts, sell of assets, and generally change things around so the company would emerge as profitable.  However, Obama decided that GM and Chrysler were 'too big to fail'.  He threw them some bailout money, they took it, and he now owns them.  He demanded a new plan, they provided one, and he rejected it.  Now he's dictating policy to major private companies, predicting doom and gloom if he doesn't get his way.

Got it?

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with the fact that the U.S. government has just taken over a private company?  This is America, last I checked.  Of course, if Obama continues to get his way, you can count on many more companies taken over by the government.  It's a sign of just how far we've gone down the road to true socialism.  This is everything that America is NOT.

As a result of the Obama's continued bludgeoning of the private sector, the stock market found new legs on its downward spiral, ending over 250 points lower.

You've read here before what is the suspected interest in auto manufacturing on the part of government: to force green-ness on vehicles.  They're going to take over the auto companies and then force them to make 'green' cars that no one wants to buy.  It'll be political rather than economic winds that drive the industry, and that spells certain disaster.  You think jobs are being shed in the auto industry now?  Just wait till that happens...

Rush Limbaugh proposed another interesting theory several months ago that is certainly worth consideration.  Obama has been bought and paid for by unions.  They spent loads of cash on his campaign, and sent their thugs to intimidate voters wherever necessary.  Limbaugh suggested that this is payback for their efforts to get him elected, and that the eventual outcome is union ownership of these companies.  It's not at all far-fetched when you think about it.  Wagoner is gone, but how about the head of the UAW?  Haven't heard a peep about him.  Last fall before the bailouts, the unions refused to make any meaningful concessions to save the company, even in the face of bankruptcy (I guess they knew they had friends in high places, huh?).  It is obvious and proven that the unions are a tremendous drag on these companies through programs like job banks -- where people literally get paid to do nothing -- and lifetime benefits.  I heard the other day that GM has about 100,000 people on payroll, but provides comprehensive benefits to over 1 million people.  These companies aren't run by car guys, they're run by financial guys because they are in reality a giant financing and HR organization with a small (unprofitable) auto manufacturing division on the side.  It has been documented that all these costs incurred by the union drag add thousands of dollars to every vehicle made, thus forcing the company to either sacrifice quality or sit at a higher price point.  That's the problem, but it's the one thing Obama is refusing to fix.  Thus, Limbaugh's suggestion.

Time will tell if Limbaugh is correct or not, but things are falling suspiciously in line with his prediction.

What's the bottom line?  Obama is taking more and larger steps down the road of socializing America.  Today it's GM, tomorrow it will be Chrysler and AIG.  Who's next?  I have absolutely no doubt that he'll continue - he's already broadcasted it.

As we've said many times before, it is critical to understand that Barack Obama is a socialist, and he genuinely feels that he is doing the right thing in leveling the playing field and making things 'fair'.  Unfortunately, what that means in reality is destroying the wealth and prosperity of this country.  He has launched an all out assault on capitalism, free markets, and anyone associated with wealth, and is going to continue until he thinks we're all equally miserable.  I think another component of this is that he is a globalist, meaning he sees no special place for America.  Remember his speech in Germany where he apologized on behalf of America?  Remember the Global Poverty Act?  Many of his actions are anti-American, and have been for a very long time; many of his mentors and associates are devoted America-haters.

He's got a ways to go yet, but he's laying the groundwork for what he calls the 're-making' of America.  It is, in reality, the destruction of a free and prosperous America, and the introduction of a mediocre (at best) and socialist America.  Sadly, he's made substantial progress in just two months; what do you think he'll accomplish in the next 22 if he proceeds unchecked?

America will be unrecognizable.

There's my two cents.


Sources and Related Reading
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/30/here-we-go-again-2/
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/30/unveiling-the-government-car-warranty/
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090330/D978CUSG0.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-fall-as-automaker-apf-14783522.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/30/wagoner-cries-all-the-way-to-the-bank/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWYxMmZiNWM1YTY2MjM1NTVhZjgzNzY0NmZmZWRlYmM=
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/30/new-owner-of-gm-im-pretty-sure-were-not-going-to-run-gm/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/business/31markets.html?_r=2&hp
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmUwNDE1YmRmY2UyOTdkMzNlY2ZiZjg4ZGExYzEyYTU=
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/31/morning-bell-car-salesman-in-chief/
http://www.theresmytwocents.com/2008/11/mother-of-all-election-posts.html
http://theresmytwocents.blogspot.com/2008/02/legislative-alert.html
http://www.theresmytwocents.com/2009/03/obama-economic-policy-economic-war.html

NY Times Spiked Story Linking Obama And ACORN

This suggestion is no big shock to anyone who was paying attention before the election, but it appears that the suggestion has now become proof:

The radical ACORN organization worked closely with the Obama campaign during the election this past year although the community organizing group was not open about this. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:

One of Barack Obama's first big "community organizer" jobs involved ACORN in 1992. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN this year for voter registration efforts.
And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama this year.

Now we hear this...
The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign.
The Bulletin reported:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the committee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”

He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.

“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”

If true this news could severely damage The New York Times who supported Obama last year.
Hat Tip Sean Hannity

More... Flopping Aces has more on this scandal:

In John Fund’s WSJ article last October, Mr. Moncrief’s testimony in a Pennsylvania court while investigating ACORN’s voter fraud charges also included confirmation that the Obama campaign had provided ACORN with “…lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.” A relationship that could constitute a violation of federal election laws...

...Two facts are certain. First: the New York Times had the ACORN-Obama story via Moncrief’s long term relationship with Strom; and second: they did not run it. They may deny that their refusal to run the story was not politically motivated. But they will also find it hard to defend what is news today, was also not news back in October.

Bingo. As predicted before the election. Too bad it doesn't matter at this point, isn't it?

When...Are...People...Going...To...Start...Paying...Attention?!

There's my two cents.

Dems Take Aim At Organic Food

I know, I know, you'd think that liberals would be pretty protective of organic food, but...you'd be wrong:

Meet HR 875. Its a "small" bill, not nearly as voluminous as the Spendulus, and it can easily be read in one sitting if you just want to get the gist of the nightmare it will create.

Basically, HR 875 sets up a MASSIVE new government bureaucracy called the Food Safety Administration, and compels anything known as a "food establishment" to register with the federal government (paying registration fees of course) and to submit to inspections that are at different intervals depending on the type of "food establishment" you are.

The (formerly) ubiquitous summer roadside vegetable stand appears to be both Category 3 and 5 "food establishments" since they sells "fresh produce in ready-to-eat raw form" and "stores, holds, or transports food products prior to delivery for retail sale".

The explicit exclusions in Section 3 (13)(B) do not exclude roadside vegetable stands.

Section 3 (14) explicitly declares "any farm" (no matter what the size) to be a "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY".

Section 406 is a real doozy which places the burden of proof on the small farmer or roadside stand operator to demonstrate that none of their goods were participants in interstate commerce (the basis for this whole thing appears to be the Commerce Clause)

SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION. 1 In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist

As a practical matter, a stand operator or small farmer can't guarantee where the stuff they're selling will be used once the customer drives away...so that basket of cherries that winds up in aunt Millie's pie two states away can throw you in hot water. I suppose the vendor could require each customer to sign a release guaranteeing the goods won't ever cross state lines, and simply refuse to sell to anyone with out of state plates and that might get them off the hook of this odious legislation.

But then again, who operating a micro-business like this would risk the potential $1,000,000 fine? (Sec 405(a)(1)(A)

There's all sorts of other turd brained stuff in this bill relating to farm animals and imported stuff as well. Much of it completely impractical and probably unenforcable beyond our own shores.

The small "organic" type farms are all up in arms over this s*** sandwich, so all you f***ing hippies and O-bots that voted for the retards pushing this disaster - good luck with those "buy local" efforts of yours. Enjoy it while it lasts, which ain't going to be for long if this passes.

UPDATE: More here, here, here, and here.

From the Protein Wisdom link:

...The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), with 39 co-sponsor, all Democrats...

You'd also think liberal Democrats would be in favor of the little guy, but you'd be wrong on that, too. Here's a three-minute summary on the issue:

HOPE! and CHANGE! are going to kill millions of small farmers. That's really not going to help the unemployment rate, now, is it? But, Barack Obama isn't really interested in improving the unemployment rate, either, now is he?

There's my two cents.

Some Good Employment News

Barack Obama's policies are helping one particular sector of the economy, causing a huge jump in the need for more workers.

Lobbyists.

Yep, it looks like his spend-happy policies have lobbyist firms throughout Washington, D.C. hopping:

Last month, just before Valentine’s Day, business at Holland & Knight was so slow that the law firm laid off more than 240 lawyers and staff, victims of the economic downturn that has dented Washington’s reputation for being recession-proof.

But one area of the multi-service firm was thriving. Rich Gold, head of the firm’s public policy and regulation practice, was hiring more than a dozen lobbyists, bringing his federal lobbying team to about 70, every one of them scrambling to stay on top of provisions and changes in the mammoth economic recovery package that was barreling through Congress. They were handling about 240 clients, including 50 new ones, all eager to win a portion of the stimulus that President Obama wanted passed. …

Put another way, Main Street’s gloom has been K Street’s boon.

The $787 billion stimulus package — along with an ambitious new federal budget, bank bailouts and the beginning of a regulatory overhaul — has succeeded in stimulating the economy along Washington’s avenue of influence. In the months since the November election, more than 2,000 cities, companies and associations have hired lobbyists to help them push their agendas on Capitol Hill and at the White House, easily outpacing such numbers after the previous two elections, according to disclosure records.

Nearly every industry and every corner of the country has an issue, especially with so much money at stake.

Hot Air says this about the provision:

Irony alert! Obama campaigned on limiting lobbyist influence, and imposed a lobbyist ban at the White House so onerous that he’s been forced to issue dozens of waivers to it. His stimulus team promulgated an unconstitutional restriction on communications with lobbyists that looks more like a scheme to avoid prostitution entrapment. Yet K Street hasn’t been limited at all — in fact, they’re positively energized.

Amen! It's just another helping of that Hope-n-Change Hypocrisy that goes down so well with a huge glass of Kool-Aid.

There's my two cents.

Is This The Hope-n-Change You Voted For?

From House Minority Leader John Boehner:

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) today challenged President Obama’s apparent decision to allow the Democratic-controlled Congress to dump his long-promised middle-class tax cut from the FY 2010 budget, and vowed Republicans will offer a better budget that cuts taxes for middle-class families instead of raising them through a new national energy tax.

“This is an epic bait-and-switch that should infuriate every middle-class family in America,” Boehner said. “The American people overwhelmingly believe middle-class tax relief is essential to getting our economy moving again. But instead of cutting taxes for middle-class families, Washington Democrats are raising their taxes by as much as $3,100 a year in the middle of a deep recession.”

President Obama’s budget director, Peter Orszag, has endorsed both the House and Senate versions of the President’s FY 2010 budget – but according to the New York Times, “neither would extend a middle-class tax cut championed by Mr. Obama beyond 2010 unless a source of revenue to pay for it is identified.” Meanwhile, Boehner noted that a new national energy tax insisted upon by the President will hit virtually every American family and small business and could cost every American household up to $3,100 a year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) confirmed this in public comments last week in which he indicated Democrats will use revenue from the President’s new national energy tax to pay for an expansion of government-run health care.

According to a Rasmussen survey released today, 81 percent of Americans believe it is important for Congress to pass a budget that includes the middle-class tax relief that was frequently promised but now abandoned by President Obama. Only 15 percent say the promised middle-class tax relief is not important.

“The Democratic budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much,” Boehner said. “It will hurt middle-class families at a time when they can least afford it.”

“Americans deserve a better budget, and members of all political stripes will have the chance to vote for one when the full text of the GOP alternative being finalized by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is released this week,” Boehner added. “Instead of raising taxes on middle-class families and all Americans through the President’s national energy tax, Republicans will do what the American people want their government to do: we will curb spending, control the debt, and reduce the tax burden on working families and small businesses to create jobs and ease the strain on family budgets.”

Wow. First Obama's 'tax cuts' were revealed to be simple redistribution of wealth. Now, he's not even going to do that much. In fact, he's going to do the exact opposite - raise taxes on energy that will hammer every man, woman, and child in the country.

HOPE! CHANGE!

Uh...wait a second...

There's my two cents.

Denying Reality And Practicing Political Jujitsu

Kyle-Anne Shiver writes an outstanding column at American Thinker that you really need to read and digest.  It's long, but very, very well worth the time:

What if an American President campaigned as a pragmatic centrist, promised tax cuts to 95% of the American people and pledged himself to a new era of government honesty, openness and bipartisanship, but never had any of those intentions?  The result might be a cabinet full of tax cheats, political cronies and lobbyists, and a president peddling an overstuffed budget of liberal dream-schemes at a time when the American economy can least afford an extra nickel for folderol or fiddling. 

Meanwhile Rome is burning. 

President Obama rolls the dice and grabs a can of kerosene.

This president's budget, plus the Faux Stimulus monstrosity, plus the TARP bailouts all add up to the biggest, most irresponsible spending spree in American history.  Yet, according to some of the best and brightest economists on the planet, these schemes are built upon overly rosy expectations, will do little to stimulate any economic growth and promise to punitively tax the very people and industries we need to provide investment capital and jobs to actually create the pie from which all these liberal cherries are to be plucked.

Yet President Obama and his double host of Ivy League staffers are billed to be the smartest folks in the Country.

If I didn't know better, I might suspect these people aren't really interested in returning America to prosperity.

The Obama We Knew, but Most Denied

The man who is now president, Barack Obama, is precisely the man whose spiritual mentor for 2 decades, Jeremiah Wright, denounced "white folks greed" running  "a world in need."  Barack Obama is precisely the man whose political mentor, Saul Alinsky, advised the use of any and all means necessary to take power in America, and to clothe his deceit in "moral garments."  Barack Obama is precisely the man whose most influential and moneyed backer was George Soros, the Fabian socialist whose financial schemes have garnered great wealth for him while leaving whole economies in shambles, the way ours is now.

Anyone still harboring the illusion that President Barack Obama cares one whit about the millions of Americans whose retirement funds and futures dwindle with each passing day of this "regime change" needs a reality check. 

Barack Obama is the man who declared that bankrupting the coal industry would be the natural and desired result of his environmental policies, that his Global Poverty Act would bring "collective redemption" to an America presiding over an unfair world and that dismantling our defenses would make the world more safe.

So, as President Barack Obama now divvies up the slices of America's pie in roll-the-dice fashion, while he takes it upon himself to demolish the defenses that have kept us safe for seven whole years in a world out to destroy us and our best ally, Israel, those moderates who looked the other way and denied the truth now claim this is not the Barack Obama they knew.

Smart people always make the most dangerous fools.

Why must it always be us fervent conservatives who see the truth and have the guts to proclaim it.

Now, surely I'm not the only person in America who remembers full-well this little tirade of candidate Obama's on how we Americans "can't just drive our SUVs, eat all we want and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees...and expect that the rest of the world will just say, "Okay."  Surely, I'm not the only American citizen who remembers that George Soros was one of Barack Obama's first and most influential backers and that Soros considers U.S. hegemony as an enemy to global governance,   of the sort he has always supported.

The sad truth is that Barack Obama and his cabal of international socialists have every intention of bursting the bubble of American supremacy.  They see America as the lynchpin of a global situation they deplore, a world that is inherently unfair.  A world in which there is no genuine evil, only valid grievances for past oppression.  It is that unfairness for which America now must pay with her 401Ks.  And to these "liberal communists," Barack Obama declared fealty in his "Citizen of the World" speech in Berlin.

I'm thinking the words, "we've been had," are now forming in the minds of moderates from coast to coast.

The Race-Card Jujitsu

A vast array of Americans seem to still be scratching their heads in wonder at how a complete political knave has been elected to the highest office in the land with nary a single real accomplishment on his resume.  But I would submit that it is not possible for an electorate to make wise decisions without the benefit of full disclosure about their candidates, without the tenacious investigating and forthright reporting by the fourth estate -- our media complex.

It is now no secret that our press saw fit to emphasize non-stories about Governor Sarah Palin and Senator McCain, while all but completely ignoring genuinely troubling information and huge gaps in information about the man Americans eventually elected.  Voter surveys taken immediately after the election make this point painfully apparent.

This Zogby poll of Obama voters, at the behest of John Zeigler, has drawn wide attention and vociferous attacks, but the polling data seems to verify what many noticed during the election season.  Barack Obama was getting a free pass on just about anything and everything that made him look less than ready to lead our Nation.

The basics:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls Congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

The only suggestions from any candidate that Barack Obama was receiving extra favorable coverage came from Bill and Hillary Clinton during the primaries, and they were slam-dunked for being racists in nearly all corners. 

Were the Clintons being racist in their complaints?  I don't think so.

In fact, I would venture to say at this juncture that it was Obama's race - and nothing else - that enabled his election to the presidency.  President Obama is now the president owing to a perfect race-card jujitsu.

There are two kinds of racism.  One is openly hateful and virulent.  The other is elitist and condescending, and deceitfully parades as generous niceness.

We saw next to no racism of the first kind during this election campaign.  The other may have been the guiding force behind our liberal media's disinclination to hold candidate Barack Obama to the same standards as his white-peer candidates.

I first encountered this condescending type of prejudice as the mother of a handicapped child.  Our son became deaf at age three due to a near-fatal bout of meningitis, and I was suddenly thrust into the world of special education.  This world is filled with lovely liberals with the very best of intentions.  They offer a host of helpful information and provide a great service for students, who were once shuffled off to residential institutions, out of sight and equally out of mind, much the way black students were once contained to all-black schools.

But the ugly side of special education is that many (if not most) of the educators have a very condescending view of their students, very seldom expecting them to work as hard or ever come even close to meeting the same expectations we have for so-called normal students of the same age and intelligence.  And sad to say, black parents report much of this same condescension from teachers of both races, especially when economic disadvantage and broken homes affect the student.

It boils down to an unspoken belief that certain students simply cannot be held to the same standard as other, more advantaged students.  This attitude is not only unspoken, it is actively hidden from view.

We saw a perfect glimpse of this condescending prejudice from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, when he spoke to the NAACP on the differences between white children and black children.  Wright declared that black children simply could not learn in the same rigid type of environment in which white children thrived.  "Their brains are wired differently," he proclaimed. 

This is simply a way of saying, "Black children can't succeed" in a white world with the same standards of achievement for all.  This prejudiced attitude is the foundation of affirmative action, whether in education or employment.  Whatever standards cannot be met by the disadvantaged group must be waived out of deceptive "niceness."

This is the insidious prejudice that has all-but destroyed our nation's public schools.  For the past 40 years, we have disregarded objective standards of proficiency in favor of student self-esteem.  We have discarded uniform discipline and standards of civil behavior in favor of a system with double standards, high for those we deem worthy of it, very low for those we believe deficient. 

Wright was widely condemned for saying out loud and in public exactly what was happening with his own candidate for president.  In failing to adequately cover candidate Obama's past, the host of his unreleased documents, including grades, and in otherwise defending every deficiency, from over-dependence on the teleprompter to his refusal to answer questions, our press demonstrated at nearly every turn its own institutional racism of the most condescending nature.

President Obama took advantage of this and received a 53% majority of the vote.  This election, I predict, will stand as the most perfect example of political jujitsu ever enacted.  An entire Nation choked on its own liberal-racism petard and doesn't even have the courage to admit it.  We have become a Nation of fools and President Barack Obama is our just dessert.

America got what it voted for in Barack Obama...but what it voted for wasn't what it actually wanted.  Many didn't understand what that vote meant.  All in all, it was the perfect storm of liberal thought, ideology, and indoctrination coming home to roost at the same time, and now we are paying dearly for it.

There's my two cents.

How Big A Problem Was It Again?

I've blogged on this in the past, but with potential cap-and-trade legislative battles brewing again, it bears repeating:

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, "planet-killing" carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let's not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the "climate revenue" (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren't incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling.

Nevertheless, it's easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel:

There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life."

That was 1592. After 400 and some odd years, one would think it'd be a little different.

Nope, it's no different.  That's because elitists are elitists, and they've always acted like elitists.  And of course, elitists always know better than you, the poor schlub who doesn't have a lofty pedigree.

The only thing I think is missing from this graph is a comprehensive chart showing the fraction of CO2 when compared to the entire atmosphere, not just greenhouse gases.  I'm guessing they didn't do that because it would have to be a monster-sized chart to even be able to see the CO2 caused by human activity; if you would have made a chart sized to fit nicely on this article, it would essentially blank except for a couple pixels.  Still, the point is made.

In my humble opinion, I also think this issue ultimately comes back to the fact that all humans are built with an innate desire to believe in something bigger than themselves, but some just don't want the annoying restrictions and guidelines that come with religion.  So, forget your soul and save the planet instead!  As you can see, it is a belief thing rather than a science thing - it is utterly ridiculously laughable to suggest that a slight change in the 3.4% of the 3.62% of the 2% of the atmosphere is going to doom the planet to hellfire and brimstone.  No, I suspect that irresponsibility, ego-centrism, and lies will doom us much, much sooner.

There's my two cents.

The Digital Battle For America

Andrew Breitbart has a great article at The Washington Times about the digital battle that is going on:

A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.

We must not let that go unanswered.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

Breitbart also addresses bipartisanship -- one of my favorite punching bag topics -- by describing how the Left operates:

Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.

The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever.

Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.

He describes several specific organized efforts to undermine the conservative movement, and then points out why the Left is winning this battle - the Right plays by different rules:

So now that the right is vanquished and thoroughly out of power, why doesn't it learn from its conquerors and employ similar tactics?

The answer is obvious. The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes.

Think about every great TV show or movie you've ever watched - the bad guy cheats, lies, steals, and destroys whatever he needs to achieve his goals, while the good guy plays by a set of well-defined ethical rules.  The question is whether or not the good guy will still be able to defeat the bad guy without compromising those rules.  That's what heightens the drama of the story.  Unfortunately, this isn't a Hollywood script...it's real life.

Breitbart's conclusion:

The American right is in a heap of trouble in a media age that doesn't shun the goons and liars that have poisoned the political process and won the American presidency by breaking the rules of fair play. It is time to fight back, but it won't be easy. The enemy is willing to do and say anything in order to win.

I wish he would have offered some suggestions as to what his idea of 'fighting back' would be, but he didn't.  So, I'll offer the first and most obvious suggestion myself: the spread of information.

I've lost count of the number of times I've said it before, but I think the key is the spread of information, specifically the TRUTH.  I don't believe most Americans approve of the socialist swerve our President and the Democrats in Congress have taken.  I believe most Americans are good people who are willing to work hard to provide the best life they possibly can for themselves and their families.  I believe most Americans want less government intervention in their lives, and don't like the egregiously irresponsible spending binge Obama has implemented.

They just don't know about most of it.

It's a two-fold problem:
1. Obama is a master liar.
2. The media is bankrupt.

Look at how Obama got elected.  He promised tax cuts for 95% of all Americans, he promised a change from lobbyists running Washington, he promised fiscal responsibility, and he promised hope.  If you just look at the words on paper, you'd think a die-hard conservative was speaking!  Heck, I'd have voted for that guy, too...if I hadn't known about his history or his actual plans.  Those little snippets are what the media played as their never-ending sound bites, and that's what most Americans heard.  That's why they voted for him - that's what they wanted.  The reality was vastly different, however, as his 'tax cuts' were really just a socialist redistribution of wealth, his lobbyist pledge died fast as he appointed well over a dozen lobbyists to key positions in his administration, and his fiscal responsibility...well, you can see how that worked out.  You could argue that he did bring hope to a lot of people who felt hopeless, but he's redirecting that hope in the wrong direction: government.  With Obama, everything should be provided by the government, so that's where people's hope should be.  In reality, people need to look to themselves to get a job and move up in the world, not government; if they want something bigger than themselves to believe in, well, that's what religion is for.  Not government.

And all of this was made possible by the media completely failing in its responsibility to report the facts (i.e. the TRUTH).  They've voluntarily given up all pretense at objectivity, from Chris Matthews' leg-tingle to innumerable omissions of Obama's complete lack of experience, his terrorist friends, race-hating pastor, votes for infanticide, fraudulent campaign fundraising, and any of dozens of other topics that the American people should have been told about.

So, I suggest that we begin fighting back by spreading the TRUTH.  Send this blog to people you know who are willing (and want) to find out the TRUTH of what's going on in our government, of what Obama stands for, and of what Obama and his Democrats are doing to this great nation.  Send the links to my Daily Must Reads, too - those are the people on the front lines of this battle, and deal in truth every day.  Most Americans aren't stupid, but all too few are well-informed.  You can't fix stupid, but you can fix ignorance.  The more information that more people know about our government, the better off we'll all be, because the American people will be able to stand up and declare en masse that they've had enough.

Do your part.  Spread the TRUTH.

There's my two cents.