It's been a while since I've sought reader feedback, but it is you the readers who give this blog a purpose, so I want to find out what you think about a few things. I'd appreciate it if you would indulge me and take a moment or two to fill out the poll questions at the right, and leave any suggestions or other thoughts you may have as a comment to this post. I assure you I will consider your words carefully...your answers will help me direct this blog and make it better. Be honest, be candid, and let me know what you think. This is your opportunity to make your voice heard!
And thank you for sharing your thoughts with me!
Some specific questions:
1. What do you like most about 2Cents?
2. What do you hate most about 2Cents?
3. What one new thing (topic, style, feature, functionality, etc.) would you find most useful?
Comments appreciated!
Friday, May 29, 2009
How Cheney Is Showing The Way
Some very good food for thought from Jonah Goldberg:
Cheney continues a line of conservatives -- including Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich -- who have the convictions and the strength to stand on those convictions. Given the past record of success, don't you think it might be wise to follow once again?
There's my two cents.
It's a lovely thing when the conventional wisdom proves to be so spectacularly wrong. The entire Democratic party, not to mention the media establishment, simply took as a given that suave, charming, effulgent, numinous president Barack Obama would mop the floor with grumpy, truculent, sardonic former vice-president Dick Cheney. And yet, on almost every issue he has championed since he left office, Cheney has won the debate or at least put the White House on the defensive. From the closing of Gitmo and the placement of terrorists in domestic prisons, to the release of the torture memos and the aborted release of prisoner-abuse photos, Cheney holds the higher ground politically, or in the polls, or both.
Many liberals who take it on faith that Cheney represents all that is evil, cruel, and unhip about the Republican party, not to mention carbon-based life forms, are loath to give him even an ounce of credit for his success. That Obama is backpedaling or off-balance on so many fronts, they say, is at best circumstantial evidence that Cheney is having any effect. Well, you know, Thoreau was right: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." The trout in Obama's milk is the trout fisherman from Casper, Wyo.
There are profound lessons to be learned here. An easy one is that the Bush policies Democrats relentlessly demonized were hardly as extreme, politically or morally, as they alleged. If Bush's anti-terror policies were half as bad as Obama & Co. claimed, the American people and Congress would reject them all wholesale, and Cheney's arguments would sound like the ravings of a madman. That hasn't happened.
But the more important lesson, at least for conservatives and Republicans, is that arguments matter. If personalities and politics alone drove the issues, then of course flannel Cheney would lose against silky Obama. But it turns out that substance is a good counterpunch to style.
That's worth remembering as the GOP figures out how to deal with Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Conservatives think she's wrong on the merits, and even though they will almost surely fail to block her confirmation, there's no reason for them to be ashamed of their stance. If liberals want to call conservatives racist or sexist for opposing the first Hispanic female nominee to the court, conservatives should patiently explain that they wouldn't want to insult her with the soft bigotry of low expectations. After all, if Sotomayor were a rich white male with exactly the same views and philosophies, you can be sure conservatives would oppose her just as vigorously.
But the lesson runs deeper than the impending Sotomayor battle. Conventional wisdom also tells us that the GOP needs to become more inclusive. On this score the conventional wisdom is right, if by "inclusive" you mean getting more people to join the party and vote Republican. But many people mean something else by "inclusive." They think the GOP needs to become the Pepsi to the Democrats' Coca-Cola, indistinguishable save for small matters of taste and marketing.
The conventional wisdom holds that conservatism is in trouble because the GOP is in trouble. But the two are not one and the same. Indeed, the GOP's conservative principles aren't necessarily the main reason for its unpopularity. Arguably, Republicans' failure to adhere to their principles when in power hurt them more. The most recent Pew Research Center report on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes" finds that 37 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 19 percent describe themselves as liberal. And conservative principles are still competitive, even after eight years of Bush, a staggering recession, and the most popular Democratic president in nearly a half-century. A majority of respondents say the "federal government controls too much of our daily lives" and that "government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."
Obviously, the GOP is not in an enviable position. But conservatives have been in worse shape countless times before. What they have done each and every time is argue their way forward. Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich each mounted conservative victories by making arguments for their cause.
The cliché is that politics is about "addition," and the GOP needs to add more Hispanics, or gays, or women to its coalition, as if such descriptors define people more than their individual aspirations. Republicans will never win that fight, nor should they try to out-bean-count the Democrats. Persuasion should trump the pandering of "addition." Conservatives must argue why they are right, not endlessly apologize for their alleged wrongs.
And the surest way to lose that argument is by failing to even try to make it. If anything, conservatives owe Dick Cheney gratitude for demonstrating that.
Cheney continues a line of conservatives -- including Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich -- who have the convictions and the strength to stand on those convictions. Given the past record of success, don't you think it might be wise to follow once again?
There's my two cents.
You Want Government Corruption? Try This...
Rich Lowry at NRO:
Barack Obama has put on a full-out assault on freedom and prosperity in America, and he has made it clear that he will stop at nothing to achieve his 're-making' project. Sadly, his success is the country's failure.
There's my two cents.
The interlocking directorate is anathema to trustbusters and corporate watchdogs. It occurs when a board member or top executive of one company sits on the board of another company, accumulating undue power over a given industry. When it reduces competition, the arrangement is forbidden by the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.
If Henry De Lamar Clayton, the Alabama congressman who introduced the aforementioned act, were still with us, he'd presumably be shocked at the creation of the most far-reaching interlocking directorate in U.S. history. Obama Inc. has effectively won a seat on the board of companies at the heart of the nation's industrial production and its financial system. The robber barons of old would marvel at the tentacles of influence of Barack Obama, a CEO whose power would overawe J. P. Morgan (the famous industrialist, not the bailed-out bank).
In difficult negotiations with business, Obama has the advantage of sitting at both sides of the table. This makes the art of the deal considerably simpler than when Donald Trump wrote about it years ago. Consider the matter of CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy), the mileage standards that have been resisted by automakers for decades in a multifaceted regulatory and legal battle featuring enviros, the state of California, and industrial-state lawmakers. The other day, Obama snipped the Gordian knot in an offhand swipe with his fingernail clippers.
He gathered Detroit's CEOs in the Rose Garden and announced that they had acceded to a drastic increase in the standards, to 39 mpg for cars in 2016. And why wouldn't they? Both General Motors and Chrysler continue to exist on the basis of Obama's good will. After their bankruptcies, the companies will give a 72 percent and 8 percent ownership stake, respectively, to the federal government. A president needn't bother with the traditional "jawboning" of an industry, the tiresome work of a Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson, if he carries that industry around in his back pocket.
As Chrysler headed into bankruptcy, the government got the company's creditors that were dependent on TARP funds to do its bidding and take a substantial "haircut." The banks, too, knew to heed the directive of the ultimate interlocking directorate.
As the next logical step, former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich has proposed putting public directors on the boards of all companies in which the government has an ownership stake. "In exercising their oversight function," Reich writes, "they should seek guidance from the president and his top economic officials."
Over time, this public-private arrangement will be subject to all the traditional pitfalls of interlocking directorates, from collusion to conflicts of interest to strategic myopia. The directorates have at times been used to create cartels, commonly defined as "a form of collusion between firms in the same industry aimed at restricting output and increasing prices."
The new CAFE deal fits the definition almost exactly. It restricts the production of large automobiles, will increase the price of cars, and ignores the interests of the consumers. The only difference is that the industry doesn't benefit from the cartel. It's the senior partner, the federal government, that is wielding its industrywide influence to twist the market to its social-political ends.
Government doesn't have to own a stake in its corporate partners to bring them to heel. The liberal lion in the House, Henry Waxman, got surprising industry buy-in on his draft of a cap-and-trade bill through giveaways that favored selected energy players. Health-industry groups are jockeying for a place at Obama's table on health-care reform so they can see to it that all the pain is inflicted on others. This is beggar-thy-neighbor industrial policy, wherein government uses its power to inflict harm or bestow advantage in order to divide and conquer corporate America.
As a short-term political strategy, it's unassailable. As a way to run an economy, it will prove corrupting and stultifying. The cause of free-market capitalism awaits its Clayton to unravel the sprawling Obama directorate.
Barack Obama has put on a full-out assault on freedom and prosperity in America, and he has made it clear that he will stop at nothing to achieve his 're-making' project. Sadly, his success is the country's failure.
There's my two cents.
The Liberal Left Liars Club
Read and ponder:
The leadership of the Democrat party and the liberal Leftists who support them have become rotten to the core, and that's not hard to see at all (for anyone willing to look). The part that really bothers me is when I think of the rank-and-file Democrat voters, those good, hard-working American citizens who live in the real world rather than Washington. It's one thing to have disagreements on policy issues...that freedom is what makes America great. No, the thing that bothers me is that those Democrat rank-and-file folks don't seem to care that their leadership is corrupt to the core. Don't get me wrong, the GOP isn't saintly, either. But, if you look at the two sides, the GOP generally cleans its own house and gets rid of the corrupt and questionable members. The Democrat party doesn't - they don't vote them home, they don't demand resignations, and they don't even complain about the bad behavior; most of the time, the most corrupt members rise to the top of the leadership structure. How can the rank-and-file tolerate this?
The most obvious answer is that they either don't know or don't care. I can understand the ignorance...to a point. In the 21st century, there are plenty of places to obtain real news outside the mainstream media, and even the MSM will, on occasion report on things like Jeremiah Wright or Nancy Pelosi's lies. Those things should be enough to make anyone seeking the truth start looking a little harder, and it's not hard to find the truth once one begins to look for it. To see the corruption and refuse to look into it is to exhibit tremendous intellectual laziness that doesn't excuse responsibility.
The other conclusion is that they don't care. To me, that is the most disheartening scenario because that means a whole lot of good Americans apparently don't have a problem with corruption in their leadership. If we've reached that point, I can't see much of a future for our formerly honest and ethical country. When half of the people lose the will to demand accountability and integrity from their leaders, how can we move forward except into the abyss of unending corruption and selfish decline?
Democrat readers - any thoughts or illuminations? I'd love to hear from you.
There's my two cents.
The unfolding spectacle of Speaker Pelosi attending a briefing, in which the CIA informed her of enhanced interrogation techniques, and then lying about it, is part of the grave danger to our democracy. The Left is shrinking honesty into an empty, ignored, and mocked virtue. Pelosi is not just lying about being at a vital briefing; she has decided that the best defense is a good offense: accuse the CIA of misleading Congress and, particularly, her. This is much worse than simply holding the wrong policy on issues.
Mike Mansfield often held very wrong positions on issues, but he never lied to America or to his colleagues. The Left, when it had men like Mike Mansfield, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey, valued honesty. When the Left stood for something more important that the personal gain of power, wealth, or fame, Leftists were willing to tell the truth even when it hurt them politically.Freedom of speech has most important when the speech is unwelcome. People require no legal protection for saying what is popular. They require protection for saying what angers people. But the Left cares nothing at all about freedom and it cares even less about truth.Nancy Pelosi is lying and she is compounding that offense by lying about lying. The man who might have led the Democrats, "Pretty Boy" John Edwards looked at reporters and the American people and flatly, boldly lied to us. Bill Clinton did almost exactly the same thing when he flatly and indignantly denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky. The affair itself was sordid, childish, selfish, and sleazy, but the affair was a peccadillo. The grand crime was lying.
Recall what the Left said about his lying then? Stuff like this: "Lying is sometimes good," "It is healthy to lie," and "Well, virtually all of us lie." John Edwards was the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and one of the leading contenders for the nomination in 2008. Bill Clinton was elected president twice. Honored members of the Liars Club.Does anyone believe that Barack Obama's Chief of Staff knew nothing about Blago's auctioning the Illinois Senate seat? Rahm Emanuel and Obama initially said that neither had any conservations with the ex-Governor about whom to support to fill Obama's seat. Did that make any sense? Why would he have not talked with Blago? But as soon as the seat-selling scandal broke, Obama and his top aide denied any contact. Then, it transpired, that Emanuel did, indeed, visit with Blago. Later it turns out that Emanuel had multiple conservatives with Blago. The president and his Chief of Staff, before even taking office, were lying.The moral disease seems rampant in the Left. Joe Biden, repeatedly, has said that a drunk driver killed his wife and child. There was virtually no evidence of alcohol by the other driver in the crash and, in fact, there was evidence that the crash was caused by the wife, not the poor wretch condemned to be the straw man for one of Biden's favorite lies.John Kerry claims to recall spending Christmas on a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968 under President Nixon: perhaps in an alternative, Bizarro universe; even those men who served with Kerry on swift boats and who supported him said, well, no, we were never in Cambodia, and Richard Nixon, of course, was not president in December 1968.Al Gore, well, where to begin? He began to confront the tobacco companies forcefully after his sister died from lung cancer. (That same month, he got a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco; he voted against raising taxes on tobacco three times after that and even supported discounted tobacco; he campaigned in 1988, four years after his sister's death, bragging about his work in planting and cultivating tobacco.) He authored the Earned Income Credit (although the bill became law in 1975, two years before he was entered Congress.)This list goes on and it is depressingly familiar. Leftist Democrats simply lie about everything that they think will help them politically and that they think they can get away with. The Liars Party (also, to an amazing degree, the Lawyers Party) does not care about any of the policies which it professes to advocate.
Why, for example, would Gore be deeply involved in the tobacco industry if he thought it was bad? Why would Edwards have a profoundly hurtful affair behind the back of his dying wife unless all his blathering about the rights of women was just vote-getting flattery? Or why would Clinton and his wife defend him from all the women who accused him of acting like precisely the sort of man whom they argue the federal government should do more about? If Pelosi cared about water boarding as "torture," then she should have sought all she could and done all she could in 2002 -- even she acknowledges she was either truly ignorant or too profoundly indifferent to research or to act.Members of the Liars Club do not even merit the dubious honor of being called Leftist ideologues. They are simply utterly selfish and profoundly amoral liars who view the moral conscience and fidelity to truth of conservatives as more dangerous to them than any notions of market theory, natural rights, or rule of law.
The rhetoric of the Liars Club means nothing -- nothing at all. Barney Frank, when he lied about the Republicans passing a bill to reform the banking industry before Frank became a committee chair in 2007 -- which Barney Frank voted against! -- did not care about the truth. He cares about power. In a democracy in which the mainstream media actively conceals the lies of the Left, then the Liars Club are vindicated: dishonesty is the best policy.
The leadership of the Democrat party and the liberal Leftists who support them have become rotten to the core, and that's not hard to see at all (for anyone willing to look). The part that really bothers me is when I think of the rank-and-file Democrat voters, those good, hard-working American citizens who live in the real world rather than Washington. It's one thing to have disagreements on policy issues...that freedom is what makes America great. No, the thing that bothers me is that those Democrat rank-and-file folks don't seem to care that their leadership is corrupt to the core. Don't get me wrong, the GOP isn't saintly, either. But, if you look at the two sides, the GOP generally cleans its own house and gets rid of the corrupt and questionable members. The Democrat party doesn't - they don't vote them home, they don't demand resignations, and they don't even complain about the bad behavior; most of the time, the most corrupt members rise to the top of the leadership structure. How can the rank-and-file tolerate this?
The most obvious answer is that they either don't know or don't care. I can understand the ignorance...to a point. In the 21st century, there are plenty of places to obtain real news outside the mainstream media, and even the MSM will, on occasion report on things like Jeremiah Wright or Nancy Pelosi's lies. Those things should be enough to make anyone seeking the truth start looking a little harder, and it's not hard to find the truth once one begins to look for it. To see the corruption and refuse to look into it is to exhibit tremendous intellectual laziness that doesn't excuse responsibility.
The other conclusion is that they don't care. To me, that is the most disheartening scenario because that means a whole lot of good Americans apparently don't have a problem with corruption in their leadership. If we've reached that point, I can't see much of a future for our formerly honest and ethical country. When half of the people lose the will to demand accountability and integrity from their leaders, how can we move forward except into the abyss of unending corruption and selfish decline?
Democrat readers - any thoughts or illuminations? I'd love to hear from you.
There's my two cents.
The Auto Task Force
This is a joke rivaling that of Obama's much-promised and yet-to-be-delivered transparency:
There's my two cents.
Elections have consequences in many ways and on many issues. I believe -- as I predicted long before it (here, here, here, here, here, and here) -- the 2008 election will have consequences that will last for decades. Unfortunately, I also believe that the vast majority of those consequences will be destructive - hope-n-change will end up being tax-n-destroy.The wheels of General Motors are rolling straight toward a government-mandated bankruptcy. Chrysler has already made its appearances in bankruptcy court. Through all of this turmoil in the auto industry sit government officials who are ready and willing to take control. When these companies went to Washington with their hands out, they surely didn't comprehend the strings that would be attached.
Through Obama's "auto task force," Chrysler and GM are being told what to do and how to do it. Restructuring plans are presented, not to a board of directors, but to the federal government. When all is said and done, the federal government (the U.S. taxpayers) could end up owning most of GM. The government is now in control, but do they know how to drive?
As noted in a FOXNews.com story, the situations facing Chrysler and GM are a far cry from what Obama initially envisioned. Get the government involved, and all will be fine and dandy, right?
Not exactly.
As the story notes, "The combined total of auto industry experience the 24-member task force brings to the bailout negotiations equals zero, and some don't drive at all." Did you follow that? Obama's auto task force has no experience in the auto industry. None. Zero.
"Of course we know that nobody on the task force has any experience in the auto business, and we heard at the hearing many of them don't even own cars. And they're dictating the auto industry for our future? What's wrong with this picture?" asked Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
The Detroit Free Press reports that a letter signed by 36 members of Congress was sent to Obama, "raising concerns over actions by his auto task force and the impending loss of thousands of jobs as Chrysler and General Motors shed dealers and plants."
The letter sent by Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) notes that the "decisions being made by the Auto Task Force and in the bankruptcy proceedings in New York are more than troubling."
"I'm afraid the only green jobs that will be available will be cutting the lawns of Wall Street bigwigs," LaTourette said.
LaTourette said he believes the Task Force is moving at warp speed and has been careless. He is very troubled by the lack of transparency from the White House in the Chrysler deal, and the shutting out of Congress. He believes if the Administration knew 8 plants and 789 dealerships were slated to get the axe they had a responsibility to be honest, not couch the results with rosy rhetoric about saving 30,000 Chrysler jobs, and neglecting to mention what was clearly known in the White House.
Obama and his task force have injected themselves into the workings of private industry, and we are now seeing the results. Forced deals, government mandates, and artificial timetables can only lead to poor results. The government has no business in the auto industry. Will cabinet officials soon patrol the car lots, trying to make a deal?
Instead of the old saying, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," we are now facing a new one which accurately describes Obama's slick and careless attitude toward taking over the auto industry: "I'm from the government. What can I do to get you in this car, today?"
There's my two cents.
Obama Approves Of Voter Intimidation
Remember this from back in November 2008?
Yesterday, Michelle Malkin reported on the results of the black panther that was arrested. Stand by for a major blood boil:
Barack Obama is green-lighting voter intimidation, as long as it benefits him and his party.
That's it, pure and simple. There can be no other reasonable conclusion. This is no surprise, given his connections with ACORN, but such an outright and open example of his willingness to flaunt the law for his own benefit is beyond the pale. This action virtually guarantees further violence and intimidation on every election day for the foreseeable future, especially in precincts with large concentrations of NBPP, ACORN, La Raza, and all kinds of other radical Leftist groups.
There's my two cents.
"Just after 12:00 noon, Fox News reported that two black panthers were at one location in Philadelphia "guarding" the doorway to a polling station. One carried a nightstick and confronted a citizen who had gone in to the polling place. That citizen called police (he was interviewed by the Philly correspondent for Fox). The citizen reported that police removed the black panther with the night stick, but the other, who lives in the area, remains near the door.
"The New Black Panther Party said yesterday it would send its members out to the polls to ensure its interests on Election Day...
Yesterday, Michelle Malkin reported on the results of the black panther that was arrested. Stand by for a major blood boil:
Remember, this is Obama's Department of Justice - they do his bidding. They've just released members of a known violent organization -- one of whom was also a Democrat poll watcher -- who were caught red-handed violating federal law by intimidating voters despite the court case being a done deal. What's the message here?The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz and two of the local NBPP [New Black Panther Party] radicals who were on site — one with a billy club. None of them filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. I am told this is the easiest way to win a lawsuit. But instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the department last week dismissed the lawsuit against two out of the three defendants. As Election Journal (which broke the story with exclusive video of the intimidation) notes, one of the individual defendants who was dismissed, Jerry Jackson, "is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher."
According to a legal source familiar with DOJ procedures, dismissing a lawsuit won by default is unheard of.
I contacted one of the DOJ lawyers, Spencer Fisher, who signed his name to the voluntary dismissal order. He referred me to Public Affairs. Spokesman Alejandro Miyar told me that the DOJ dropped the cases against Jackson nutball Malik Shabazz "after careful review." I asked what new evidence caused the Obama DOJ to make such an unprecedented move. He said he "wasn't a lawyer" and would try and find out. Good luck with that.
Meantime, the DOJ is apparently bracing for closer scrutiny of the case. Miyar said he was preparing to release a statement to "national media outlets." Watch how they spin.
Barack Obama is green-lighting voter intimidation, as long as it benefits him and his party.
That's it, pure and simple. There can be no other reasonable conclusion. This is no surprise, given his connections with ACORN, but such an outright and open example of his willingness to flaunt the law for his own benefit is beyond the pale. This action virtually guarantees further violence and intimidation on every election day for the foreseeable future, especially in precincts with large concentrations of NBPP, ACORN, La Raza, and all kinds of other radical Leftist groups.
There's my two cents.
America 2009 In A Nutshell
No one puts vast concepts and current events into perspective like Rush Limbaugh. To understand where American stands at this point in time, this is an absolute must-listen:
Now what do you think about Obama's success or failure?
There's my two cents.
Now what do you think about Obama's success or failure?
There's my two cents.
Worthy Investments
Heritage posts about a couple of wonderful examples of the results of liberal environmentalism. Enjoy:
As always, the unintended consequences end up being far more expensive to the idiots who got suckered into implementing the 'green' solutions. This is exactly why we should avoid environmental legislation like Obama's cap-and-tax plan. It's humorous when it costs one wacko a whole lot of money to be 'green' for no benefit...it's entirely different to destroy the entire American economy to be 'green' for no benefit.
There's my two cents.
Speaking at an Air Force base near Las Vegas, President Obama pointed to a field of solar panels and boldly declared, “The first is a solar energy technologies program that will help replicate the success of the Nellis project in cities and states across America.” Obama,
visiting Nellis Air Force Base between fundraising events in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, toured the largest solar power plant of its kind in the Western Hemisphere, a collection of more than 72,000 panels built on 140 acres, including part of an old landfill. The plant, a public-private venture that cost $100 million, generates about a quarter of the electricity used on the base, where 12,000 people live and work.
The president said the project created 200 jobs and will save the Air Force nearly $1 million a year while reducing carbon pollution by 24,000 tons a year — the equivalent of removing 4,000 cars from U.S. roads.”
Economist Russ Roberts responds: “A project that costs $100 million (though I’d guess this number probably doesn’t include the land costs) to save almost $1 million a year? There’s a name for that—a lousy investment. And creating 200 jobs? Not really. The project employed 200 people. Not the same thing.”
Also under the category of bad energy investments:
When Stephen Munday spent £20,000 ($31,857) on a wind turbine to generate electricity for his home, he was proud to be doing his bit for the environment. The turbine generated five kilowatts of electricity a day - the equivalent of boiling 300 kettles - and provided two-thirds of the family’s energy needs. It also saved them an average of £500 ($796) a year in electricity costs.”
What would’ve been a 40 year investment for Stephen Munday (slightly less than the government’s 100 year investment), is now turning into a complete boondoggle:
He got planning permission and put up the 40ft device two years ago, making sure he stuck to strict noise level limits. But neighbours still complained that the sound was annoying - and now the local council has ordered him to switch it off.
Officials declared that the sound - which Mr Munday says is ‘the same pitch as a dishwasher and quieter than birdsong’ - constituted a nuisance, and issued a Noise Abatement Order. Electrician Mr Munday, 55, and his wife Sandra, a veterinary nurse, challenged the decision by the Vale of White Horse district council in Oxfordshire. But Didcot magistrates rejected their appeal and they were left to pick up the £5,392 ($8,594) court costs as well. “
To recap: They spent $100 million to save $1 million per year at Nellis and Mr. Munday spent nearly $32,000 to save about $800 annually.
There’s a reason after years of preferential treatment wind and solar only provide a small fraction of America’s energy needs. Dollars and sense. Regardless of how much energy renewable energy provides for the U.S., the decision should be left to the private sector and not the government.
Note to Nevada and Obama: If you want actual jobs that promote clean and affordable energy, open Yucca Mountain.
As always, the unintended consequences end up being far more expensive to the idiots who got suckered into implementing the 'green' solutions. This is exactly why we should avoid environmental legislation like Obama's cap-and-tax plan. It's humorous when it costs one wacko a whole lot of money to be 'green' for no benefit...it's entirely different to destroy the entire American economy to be 'green' for no benefit.
There's my two cents.
'You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!'
Those words have replaced 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' as the scariest words in the English language. First, watch this:
Let's examine a few details...
Now, how about some analysis:
Hot Air
I've heard more than one economist say that this little upturn is probably a 'bear market rally', which means it's a small rally in the midst of what will continue to be a down market. Cheery.
Also, here's a reminder of what Obama has done to our deficits:
And this is before the reports of major tax revenue shortfalls in April, further economic shrinkage, and arithmetic errors from the Obama administration. But the brag-worthy accomplishments don't stop there!
Also in the news recently are reports that the housing market is worse than it actually appears, and that foreclosures are at the highest rates in decades. After all this, what is Obama's big-grin icing on the cake?
'You ain't seen nothin' yet'.
Rush Limbaugh talked about this on his radio program yesterday:
I often accuse Obama of lying, deceiving, or hypocrisy. This time, I actually believe him. And, like Limbaugh, that's what frightens me the most.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading
Obama's War On The American Dream
Let's examine a few details...
- 'the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression' --- that's an outright lie. The recession that began in 2008 is a mere tempest compared to the whirlwind of the Great Depression. No, 2008 is far closer to the recession of the early 1980's. He just neglects to mention that because Ronald Reagan refused to bailout private companies, and instead dropped taxes like a bad habit, prompting two decades of growth.
- 'passed the larges economic recovery package in the history of the U.S.' --- while it's true that he passed an almost $800 billion stimulus package, it doesn't recover anything but Democrat power. It was passed with unethical tactics and behind closed doors -- the GOP was literally locked out of the room -- and 60% of it won't even take effect until 2011, after the recession is predicted to end on its own.
- jobs, jobs, jobs --- saving or creating jobs? You mean like at Caterpillar, AIG, Chrysler, GM, Cessna, Bank of America, steel workers in Pennsylvania, Citi, or the entire rest of the country? Since Barack Obama and the Democrats passed the stimulus package, 16,000 jobs have been lost every day.
- 'removed the ban on funding stem cell research' --- this is something that a majority of Americans didn't like, and was completely unnecessary from a scientific point of view.
- 'expanding health insurance for children' --- and adults, including adults in families win annual income of $65,000-80,000.
- 'children of undocumented workers' --- funny, they used to be called illegal immigrants, and rather than giving them free health care, we used to send them home when they were found.
- 'brought together auto executives, labor unions, Democrats, Republicans' --- but they only listened to the labor unions and Democrats.
- 'for the first time ever...a national fuel standard' --- you mean, something different than the CAFE standards that have been in place since the 1970s, right? No? Eh, forget about it...no one will hold him accountable for that little fib, either.
Now, how about some analysis:
Hot Air
I mention this because “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet” reminded me of one of Obama’s close economic advisers, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who said a couple of years ago, amid very similar economic conditions, that “in five years, you’re gonna be blown away!”Also:Lots of people were blown away… to other states. Before too long, the only places left to work in Michigan will be unemployment offices and moving companies.
Incidentally, I do agree with Granholm on one issue. In an article that appeared yesterday at the Huffington Post, Granholm wrote that Michigan will “lead the green revolution.” I don’t doubt it. Is there any cleaner state than one where all the people and businesses have moved out?
Obama vows: I have not yet begun to destroy the economyHeritage
Near the end of his Beverly Hills remarks to the Hollywood elite, Obama promised, “Los Angeles, you ain’t seen nothing yet.” Unfortunately President Obama may be right again. His upcoming agenda includes a trillion dollar energy tax, the stealth nationalization of the health care industry, and an economy killing rewrite of our nation’s labor laws.Yes, President Obama is proud of his first few months in office! Here's a reminder of the stock market since Obama became the assumed next President:
I've heard more than one economist say that this little upturn is probably a 'bear market rally', which means it's a small rally in the midst of what will continue to be a down market. Cheery.
Also, here's a reminder of what Obama has done to our deficits:
And this is before the reports of major tax revenue shortfalls in April, further economic shrinkage, and arithmetic errors from the Obama administration. But the brag-worthy accomplishments don't stop there!
Also in the news recently are reports that the housing market is worse than it actually appears, and that foreclosures are at the highest rates in decades. After all this, what is Obama's big-grin icing on the cake?
'You ain't seen nothin' yet'.
Rush Limbaugh talked about this on his radio program yesterday:
I often accuse Obama of lying, deceiving, or hypocrisy. This time, I actually believe him. And, like Limbaugh, that's what frightens me the most.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading
Obama's War On The American Dream
The 'You've Gotta' Be Kidding Me!' Files Just Keep Growing
Watch:
Unbelievable. How is this happening in America? Oh yeah, because America is being 're-made'.
There's my two cents.
Unbelievable. How is this happening in America? Oh yeah, because America is being 're-made'.
There's my two cents.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
A Systemic Lack Of Respect
The latest issue of the Patriot Post's e-mail newsletter contained a very poignant story that I felt needed to be shared:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Democrat leadership isn't worthy of unlacing the boots of our soldiers.
There's my two cents.
"Only under the administration of a former 'community organizer,' a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine, who never served a day of his life in uniform, could a 20-year retired Marine Corps Officer be prohibited from visiting the Arlington National Cemetery resting place of his father, a 30-year retired Marine Corps Officer with distinguished combat service, on the most hallowed of days for our fallen and deceased military servicemen and women -- Memorial Day."Obama's systematic lack of respect toward our military is manifested in many ways, each with its own particular twist of the knife in the back.
Interred at Arlington, Section 68 Site 113, are the remains of Mike's father, Marine Colonel James Arthur McGinn.
Col. McGinn was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy's Class of '57.
His USNA yearbook notes, "It was virtually impossible to be in Jim's presence for more than five minutes without laughing, even if you had just flunked a double-weight Electrical Engineering quiz. He was a farmer turned city boy who loved a party, a good book, and lots of romance, if and when he could separate himself from the arms of Morpheus."
After graduation, McGinn completed the requisite flight schools and flew the F-8U Crusader out of Marine Corps Air Station El Toro in California. As the war in Vietnam was heating up, then Capt. McGinn transitioned to an aircraft that would move him closer to the action -- the UH-1 Huey helicopter gunship. He flew two tours in Vietnam and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross in 1969.
His DFC citation reads: "For heroism and extraordinary achievement in aerial flight while serving as a Pilot with Marine Light Helicopter Squadron 357, Marine Aircraft Group Thirty-Six, First Marine Aircraft Wing in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 6 March 1969, Major McGinn launched as Wingman in a flight of two armed UH-1E helicopters assigned the mission of supporting a flight of twelve helicopters which was to conduct the medical evacuation of casualties and the resupply of a reconnaissance company that was heavily engaged in combat with a large North Vietnamese Army force deep in enemy-controlled territory. Following a briefing in which he was informed that because of inclement weather the friendly unit had not been resupplied for three days, had run out of rations, and was dangerously low on water and ammunition, Major McGinn ignored the extremely adverse weather conditions as he skillfully maneuvered his aircraft below a fifty foot ceiling to locate the embattled company, and then returned to the Vandegrift Combat Base. Escorting the flight to the beleaguered unit, he established an orbit for the flight above the clouds. Undaunted by the heavy volume of hostile fire directed at his helicopter, Major McGinn then led the transport helicopters one at a time into the precarious area, fearlessly maneuvered his gunship on repeated rocket and strafing runs, and delivered his ordnance upon the North Vietnamese Army positions with such devastating effectiveness that the hostile fire was suppressed sufficiently to enable all the supplies to be delivered and all the casualties to be extracted. Before leaving the dangerous area, he boldly delivered his remaining rockets upon an enemy bunker with such pinpoint accuracy that the emplacement was destroyed. Major McGinn's courage, superior airmanship, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of great personal danger were instrumental in accomplishing the hazardous mission and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service."
After serving in Vietnam, Col. McGinn was Commanding Officer of HMA-169 at MCAF Camp Pendleton and flew AH-1 Cobra helicopters. A year later, he became CO of HMM-165 afloat flying CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. He served additional O-6 billets until his retirement in 1987.
Col. McGinn died on 21 July 2004, at age 69, after waging a 16-month battle with a brain tumor.
Like his father before him, Mike McGinn is a retired Marine aviator. He flew F/A-18 Hornets from 1988 to 2004, including combat tours over Bosnia and during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
He writes, "Each Memorial Day, we go to visit Dad and pay our respects, driving up from Southern Maryland. This is the first time I've been turned away from the Cemetery grounds."
Mike and his wife left their home early Monday morning, expecting to encounter the usual entry delay into the Cemetery grounds for Memorial Day.
Inching their way through traffic that morning Mike and his wife made it to second in line at the entrance checkpoint, with an Arlington National Cemetery access pass and a DoD military officer vehicle sticker clearly displayed on his windshield, when they were abruptly waved off and directed to leave the area immediately. Apparently, Barack Hussein Obama's motorcade was en route for the ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns and the area was being locked down for security.
The McGinns were not turned away on previous Memorial Days when President George Bush arrived to place a wreath at the Tomb, but a lot has changed in the last year.
For the record, while James Arthur McGinn was serving his country and flying Crusaders for the Marine Corps, Ann Dunham was giving birth to her son, BHO, Jr., somewhere between Nyanza Province, Kenya, and Honolulu, Hawaii. As Capt. McGinn was preparing for combat in Vietnam, young Barry O was on his way to Indonesia with his mother and her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. As Maj. McGinn was earning his DFC, BO was converting to Islam, even though his mother was an avowed atheist. As Maj. McGinn was returning from Vietnam, BO was returning from Indonesia for an elite private school education in Honolulu, where he was mentored by Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis. As Col. McGinn was completing his Marine billets, BO was attending Occidental College and then Columbia University; a period of Obama's life that to this day remains shrouded in mystery and devoid of college transcripts.
In 1994, as Mike McGinn was launching in his F/A-18 for combat tours over Bosnia, Obama was in Chicago, being mentored by Jeremiah Wright, and Marxist Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were, in turn, launching BO's political career. In 2003, when Mike was flying missions over Iraq, the "community organizer" was on a mission to be elected to the U.S. Senate with the help of John Kerry and other treasonous Leftists. The rest is, as they say, history...So, as combat veteran Mike McGinn was in line to visit the gravesite of his heroic father this week, a wastrel and hard-left community organizer was having lanes cleared for his presidential motorcade.
That notwithstanding, let me say to both James and Mike McGinn, on behalf of your fellow Patriots across this grateful nation, Fideli Certa Merces -- "to the faithful there is certain reward," as noted on all Marine Honorable Discharge orders.
May the "consciousness of having discharged that duty" be and remain, "superior to all other considerations."
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Democrat leadership isn't worthy of unlacing the boots of our soldiers.
There's my two cents.
Recommendation: Inside the Revolution by Joel C. Rosenberg
Rosenberg's sequel to Epicenter was packed to overflowing with comprehensive facts and information that you won't get anywhere else. The full title is "Inside the Revolution: Why the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson, and Jesus are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform the World", and this is exactly what the book is about. If you're not familiar with Rosenberg, check out my review of Epicenter first to give you a frame of reference.
In this book, Rosenberg describes the three major philosophies driving the conflicts in the Middle East. The first group is the Radicals, those who practice jihad to bring about an iron-fisted Islamic rule over the entire world. He calls the second group the Reformers, and they are Muslims who subscribe to (or are at least friendly to) Jeffersonian democracy, and reject the violence of jihad. The final group is the Revivalists, who are made up of born-again Christians who are spreading through the Middle East in amazingly increasing numbers and supernatural fashion.
Rosenberg traveled to many countries and conducted hundreds of interviews with defense experts, world leaders, and local folks in the process of writing this book. He goes into depth on all three philosophies, filling in background, motivations, primary leaders, and history to give the reader a complete picture of how each came about and what its intentions are. Using dozens of personal stories, Rosenberg also shares anecdotal evidence that supports the over-arching themes of those three philosophies. If you want to learn about what makes the Middle East tick, Rosenberg is the guy to read.
He finishes the book with some answers to questions that he is commonly asked about what Christian Biblical prophecy predicts in terms of the future and the next war. While it may be tempting to skip ahead to that section, the answers will be much more meaningful if you have the understanding gained by reading through the entire book first.
Bottom line: I cannot recommend this book highly enough! The one-two punch of Epicenter and Inside the Revolution is an expert tutorial on how the Middle East affects the entire rest of the world, explaining current events in the light of a Biblical worldview, introducing key world leaders, and predicting future events that will literally have global impact.
If you've ever wondered what the future may hold, and why, this is where to start.
In this book, Rosenberg describes the three major philosophies driving the conflicts in the Middle East. The first group is the Radicals, those who practice jihad to bring about an iron-fisted Islamic rule over the entire world. He calls the second group the Reformers, and they are Muslims who subscribe to (or are at least friendly to) Jeffersonian democracy, and reject the violence of jihad. The final group is the Revivalists, who are made up of born-again Christians who are spreading through the Middle East in amazingly increasing numbers and supernatural fashion.
Rosenberg traveled to many countries and conducted hundreds of interviews with defense experts, world leaders, and local folks in the process of writing this book. He goes into depth on all three philosophies, filling in background, motivations, primary leaders, and history to give the reader a complete picture of how each came about and what its intentions are. Using dozens of personal stories, Rosenberg also shares anecdotal evidence that supports the over-arching themes of those three philosophies. If you want to learn about what makes the Middle East tick, Rosenberg is the guy to read.
He finishes the book with some answers to questions that he is commonly asked about what Christian Biblical prophecy predicts in terms of the future and the next war. While it may be tempting to skip ahead to that section, the answers will be much more meaningful if you have the understanding gained by reading through the entire book first.
Bottom line: I cannot recommend this book highly enough! The one-two punch of Epicenter and Inside the Revolution is an expert tutorial on how the Middle East affects the entire rest of the world, explaining current events in the light of a Biblical worldview, introducing key world leaders, and predicting future events that will literally have global impact.
If you've ever wondered what the future may hold, and why, this is where to start.
The High Cost Of 'Free' Health Care
One of the biggest problems with the kind of socialized health care plan that Obama wants to implement is that of how to pay for all that 'free' health care. David Gibberman has a great article on the subject. It's kind of long, but well worth reading (emphasis mine):
Obama's bass-ackwards idea of health care will be literally fatal to Americans. On this issue, we do not have to rely on projections or estimates; all we have to do is look to our socialist neighbors around the world who have already been pillaged by government-run health care. Then we need to ask whether or not we'll doom ourselves to the same fate.
I vote no.
There's my two cents.
Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.There Are Long Waits for Care. One way governments reduce health care costs is to require patients to wait for treatment. Patients have to wait to see a general practitioner, then wait to see a specialist, then wait for any diagnostic tests, and then wait for treatment.The United Kingdom's National Health Service recently congratulated itself for reducing to 18 weeks the average time that a patient has to wait from referral to a specialist to treatment. Last year, Canadians had to wait an average of 17.3 weeks from referral to a specialist to treatment (Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn). The median wait was 4.9 weeks for a CT scan, 9.7 weeks for an MRI, and 4.4 weeks for an ultrasound.Delay in treatment is not merely an inconvenience. Think of the pain and suffering it costs patients. Or lost work time, decreased productivity, and sick pay. Worse, think of the number of deaths caused by delays in treatment.Patients Are Denied the Latest Medical Technology and Medicines. To save money, countries with government-run health care deny or limit access to new technology and medicines. Those with a rare disease are often out of luck because medicines for their disease usually cost more than their quality-adjusted life years are deemed worth.In a Commonwealth Fund/Harvard/Harris 2000 survey of physicians in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom, physicians in all countries except the United States reported major shortages of resources important in providing quality care; only U.S. physicians did not see shortages as a significant problem. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Health Data (2008), there are 26.5 MRIs and 33.9 CT scanners per million people in the United States compared to 6.2 MRIs and 12 CT scanners in Canada and 5.6 MRIs and 7.6 CT scanners in the United Kingdom.Breakthroughs in Life-Saving Treatments Are Discouraged. Countries with government-run health care save money by relying on the United States to pay the research and development costs for new medical technology and medications. If we adopt the cost-control policies that have limited innovation in other countries, everyone will suffer.The Best and Brightest Are Discouraged from Becoming Doctors. Countries with government-run health care save money by paying doctors less. According to a Commonwealth Fund analysis, U.S. doctors earn more than twice as much as doctors in Canada and Germany, more than three times as much as doctors in France, and four times as much as doctors in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The best and brightest will be encouraged to go into professions where they can earn more money and have more autonomy.Is Government-Run Health Care Better? Proponents of government-run health care argue that Americans will receive better care despite the foregoing. Their main argument has been that despite paying more for health care the United States trails other countries in infant mortality and average life expectancy.However, neither is a good measure of the quality of a country's health care system. Each depends more on genetic makeup, personal lifestyle (including diet and physical activity), education, and environment than available health care. For example, in their book The Business of Health, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider found that if it weren't for our high rate of deaths from homicides and car accidents Americans would have the highest life expectancy.Infant mortality statistics are difficult to compare because other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age. June E. O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill found that Canada's infant mortality would be higher than ours if Canadians had as many low-weight births (the U.S. has almost three times as many teen mothers, who tend to give birth to lower-weight infants).A better measure of a country's health care is how well it actually treats patients. The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.Proponents of government-run health care argue that more preventive care will be provided. However, a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report comparing the U.S., Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that the U.S. was #1 in preventive care. Eighty-five percent of U.S. women age 25-64 reported that they had a Pap test in the past two years (compared to 58% in the United Kingdom); 84% of U.S. women age 50-64 reported that they had a mammogram in the past two years (compared to 63% in the United Kingdom).The United Kingdom's National Health Service has been around for more than 60 years but still hasn't worked out its kinks. In March, Britain's Healthcare Commission (since renamed the Care Quality Commission) reported that as many as 1,200 patients may have died needlessly at Stafford Hospital and Cannock Chase Hospital over a three-year period. The Commission described filthy conditions, unhygienic practices, doctors and nurses too few in number and poorly trained, nurses not knowing how to use the insufficient number of working cardiac monitors, and patients left without food, drink, or medication for as many as four days.Does Government-Run Health Care Provide Everyone Access to Equal Care? Proponents tout government-run health care as giving everyone access to the same health care, regardless of race, nationality, or wealth. But that's not true. The British press refers to the National Health Service as a "postcode lottery" because a person's care varies depending on the neighborhood ("postcode") in which he or she lives. EUROCARE-4 found large difference in cancer survival rates between the rich and poor in Europe. The Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn concludes that famous and politically connected Canadians are moved to the front of queues, suburban and rural residents have less access to care than their urban counterparts, and lower income Canadians have less access to care than their higher income neighbors.Ironically, as we're moving toward having our government completely control health care, countries with government-run health care are moving in the opposite direction. Almost every European country has introduced market reforms to reduce health costs and increase the availability and quality of care. The United Kingdom has proposed a pilot program giving patients money to purchase health care. Why is this being done? According to Alan Johnson, Secretary for Health, personal health budgets "will give more power to patients and drive up the quality of care" (The Guardian, 1/17/09). It's a lesson we all should learn before considering how to improve our health care system.
Obama's bass-ackwards idea of health care will be literally fatal to Americans. On this issue, we do not have to rely on projections or estimates; all we have to do is look to our socialist neighbors around the world who have already been pillaged by government-run health care. Then we need to ask whether or not we'll doom ourselves to the same fate.
I vote no.
There's my two cents.
Dealergate...Maybe
Remember those thousands of GM and Chrysler dealerships that Obama was closing down in his effort to save American jobs? Well, it appears that there may be something fishy about all that. The short version is that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to why some are being shut down and some are not. It's not about profitability, since many of the ones being closed are very profitable. The one thread that can be seen through it all is that many of the dealerships being closed down are run by...Republicans. Hmmm...
Caution is advised at this point, though; even some die-hard conservatives are somewhat skeptical that this is really such a blatant political power play against private businesses on a mass scale. It could be as simple as the fact that more Republicans own car dealerships. But, the point here is that there is enough suspicion that some thorough investigation is definitely warranted. The MSM refuses to do that (naturally), so the blogosphere is running with it.
Gateway Pundit has been following the case for a few days now and has a good round-up of the latest news, which is starting to look more and more like dirty politics:
If this is indeed what is happening, it could be very damaging to the Obama administration. I have a hard time believing that any Americans will stand for this open destruction of political enemies, no matter what party they claim to be. Of course, who would have thought Obama could get away with taking over the auto industry at all? It's a crazy, crazy time in American history, so anything's possible. Some of the dealerships in question are in the KC area, so this has some local impact, too.
Nothing is assured at this point, other than the fact that there is a rapidly growing pile of circumstantial evidence. I'll post more details as they come out.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/shock-big-dem-donor-group-gets-to-keep.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-on-chrysler-closings-did-team.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/even-gop-congressman-loses-chrysler.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/dealergate-mapping-closures.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/28/dealergate-and-the-msm/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTQ0OTZiY2JlMGYzNmRjZGY0NGQyOGM1MWEwZWZiYjM=
Caution is advised at this point, though; even some die-hard conservatives are somewhat skeptical that this is really such a blatant political power play against private businesses on a mass scale. It could be as simple as the fact that more Republicans own car dealerships. But, the point here is that there is enough suspicion that some thorough investigation is definitely warranted. The MSM refuses to do that (naturally), so the blogosphere is running with it.
Gateway Pundit has been following the case for a few days now and has a good round-up of the latest news, which is starting to look more and more like dirty politics:
** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.
** Last night it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.
** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.
** The closings also tend to be in "Red" Counties where Obama lost.
** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.
** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.
** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.
Now this...
Automotive News is reporting that Chrysler is already looking to open new franchises after closing 789 dealerships.
Chrysler did more last week than thin the dealer ranks in clogged metro markets. Chrysler also took out some underperforming dealers, leaving some good smaller markets without any Chrysler stores.Of course, several of the dealerships that were closed had owners who happened to donate to Republicans and a number of these businesses were profitable "5 Star" dealerships.
Chrysler President Jim Press said the company will be back in those markets.
Chrysler has been managing its dealer count downward in overdealered metro markets, a program called Project Genesis.
By the way... Here is a look at a few of the players on the Obama Auto Task Force who are calling the shots on the Chrysler dealership closings:
The task force, headed by investment banker Steven Rattner, is comprised of Cabinet members and Obama administration officials who have extensive backgrounds in finance. They include Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson.No wonder they're closing the GOP-linked dealerships.
If this is indeed what is happening, it could be very damaging to the Obama administration. I have a hard time believing that any Americans will stand for this open destruction of political enemies, no matter what party they claim to be. Of course, who would have thought Obama could get away with taking over the auto industry at all? It's a crazy, crazy time in American history, so anything's possible. Some of the dealerships in question are in the KC area, so this has some local impact, too.
Nothing is assured at this point, other than the fact that there is a rapidly growing pile of circumstantial evidence. I'll post more details as they come out.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/shock-big-dem-donor-group-gets-to-keep.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-on-chrysler-closings-did-team.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/even-gop-congressman-loses-chrysler.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/dealergate-mapping-closures.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/28/dealergate-and-the-msm/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTQ0OTZiY2JlMGYzNmRjZGY0NGQyOGM1MWEwZWZiYjM=
The Banking Takeover Continues
First it was just the banks that had taken TARP money, then it was any financial institution that was in trouble. Now, Obama is moving toward complete control of all banks, period:
I think that the greater point was totally missed here, so let's rewind a bit. The financial crisis was not caused by a failure to regulate, but rather by Democrat policies that forced lending institutions to make risky loans based on things like race rather than income and credit history. It all snowballed last fall and exploded into the mess we witnessed. Also, it doesn't really matter how regulated the industry is if Congress and bank leaders are happily ignoring those regulations!
For all the scrambling that many banks are doing right now to give back the TARP money they were forced into taking, it apparently won't matter. Even banks that never took a cent of TARP money are going to be controlled by the most radical anti-American, anti-business President this country has ever seen.
Remember when I said this a few weeks ago:
There's my two cents.
Well, of course they would! And with the Democrat-controlled Congress, there's really nothing anyone can do -- other than those same Democrats, ha ha ha -- to stop him.Senior administration officials are considering the creation of a single agency to regulate the banking industry, replacing a patchwork of agencies that failed to prevent banks from falling into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The agency would be a key element in a sweeping administration plan to overhaul financial regulation, which officials hope to unveil in the next few weeks, including the creation of a new authority to police risks to the financial system, and a new agency to protect consumers, the sources said. Most of the proposals would require legislation.
I think that the greater point was totally missed here, so let's rewind a bit. The financial crisis was not caused by a failure to regulate, but rather by Democrat policies that forced lending institutions to make risky loans based on things like race rather than income and credit history. It all snowballed last fall and exploded into the mess we witnessed. Also, it doesn't really matter how regulated the industry is if Congress and bank leaders are happily ignoring those regulations!
For all the scrambling that many banks are doing right now to give back the TARP money they were forced into taking, it apparently won't matter. Even banks that never took a cent of TARP money are going to be controlled by the most radical anti-American, anti-business President this country has ever seen.
Remember when I said this a few weeks ago:
Since the takeover of the financial industry isn't quite complete yet, Obama still has some work to do. Whether that means rejecting repayment or causing some new crisis that forces additional reliance on the federal government (i.e. more bailouts), I'm certain he'll do it. He hasn't come this far just to give up now.Now we know the plan, and we can kiss the financial industry good-bye. The only real question is: what industry is next?
There's my two cents.
Cheney Vs. Obama
I somehow let this one slip through the cracks...sorry!
Last week, Barack Obama and Dick Cheney both gave speeches on national security on the same day. The contrast between the two could not be greater. For a summary of Cheney's words, hit the links at the bottom of this post; for Obama's remarks, I'll reference Bobby Eberle's column at GOPUSA:
And that's truly the nutshell of the difference between liberals like Obama and conservatives, as put forward by Cheney: style over substance, rhetoric over results, being liked over being safe.
It never works out for the better, and the tragedy is that American citizens will likely pay the price for Obama's foolishness. Thank God for Dick Cheney, though! My only gripe with him is to question where this level of fierce defense was over the past seven years? Who knows how different things would be if the Bush White House had been this forceful in defending itself against the Left's accusations and slander? We'll never know.
Regardless, we do know where Obama's policies will take us, and it's not going to be good.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading:
Cheney Outshines Obama
Obama's Crock
Dueling National Security Speeches
Last week, Barack Obama and Dick Cheney both gave speeches on national security on the same day. The contrast between the two could not be greater. For a summary of Cheney's words, hit the links at the bottom of this post; for Obama's remarks, I'll reference Bobby Eberle's column at GOPUSA:
Barack Obama spoke out on Thursday about the need to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Facing increasing resistance from Congress, Obama continued his push to bring dangerous terrorists into the U.S. for incarceration and trial.
In trying to make his case, he continued his practice of blaming the previous administration, while at the same time, saying that America needs to look forward not back. As we have seen from previous speeches and comments, Obama is more concerned about making sure America is liked across the globe rather than keeping America safe.
Obama is bound and determined to bring captured terrorists to America. Why? Is it to keep a closer eye on them? No. It is simply because of his belief that closing the Guantanamo Bay facility will raise "America's standing" in the world. According to his logic, American standing was higher than it is now. Yet, it was eight years ago when terrorists killed thousands of innocent Americans. Since then, he says our "standing" has gone down, but at the same time, we have not had another terrorist attack. How does he resolve that fact?
There have certainly been plots and schemes. Some were easier to crack than others. Numerous terrorist cells were discovered, and the terrorists were captured. What about the more organized and secretive plans? What about the al Qaeda plot known as the Second Wave which would fly airplanes into buildings in Los Angeles and potentially kill thousands more Americans? Oh yes, a few top terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded, and the plot was foiled.
First, in his speech, Obama did speak the truth:
We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
All elements of our power to defeat it. Yes... except for those elements which Obama says "reduces our standing in the world." Except for detention facilities like Gitmo which keep terrorists away from the American public.
Obama then goes on to pay homage to the nation's founding documents:
But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.
It's interesting that these documents are so important when talking about closing Gitmo, by they are completely irrelevant when Obama pushes for massive bailouts, budgets that run in the trillions of dollars, government control of banks, government control of the auto industry, government control of health care, etc. Don't our founding documents apply there too?
In addressing Gitmo, Obama said:
Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.
Whether you call it Gitmo or Disneyland, there will always be a place where terrorists are detained. Does anyone think that terrorists will view us more favorably if we call it Disneyland?
I invite you to read the comments of the many legislators who went on the record following the speech. The comment by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) was the inspiration for this column: "The American people don't want to know how closing Guantanamo Bay will make us more popular, they want to know how closing Guantanamo Bay will make us safer."
In short, Obama wants America to "raise its standing in the world." What does that really mean? It means he wants to be more liked in Europe, and to do that, it means that America should be more like Europe. He's already doing that on the domestic side with increased government control and a "push toward socialism." (That's a shout out to my man, Michael Steele, from yesterday's column.)
On the foreign policy side, what does it mean to be more like Europe? European nations have a history of appeasement to dictators... a history of trying to play nice with people who adhere to no rules. What was the result? Invasion... destruction... the loss of millions of lives. I'll take the American way over that option any day of the week.
Obama may want us to be more like Europe, but I long for the days when America is more like America! A strong, determined, capitalist nation that puts the individual first, values freedom, and is the envy of the world.
And that's truly the nutshell of the difference between liberals like Obama and conservatives, as put forward by Cheney: style over substance, rhetoric over results, being liked over being safe.
It never works out for the better, and the tragedy is that American citizens will likely pay the price for Obama's foolishness. Thank God for Dick Cheney, though! My only gripe with him is to question where this level of fierce defense was over the past seven years? Who knows how different things would be if the Bush White House had been this forceful in defending itself against the Left's accusations and slander? We'll never know.
Regardless, we do know where Obama's policies will take us, and it's not going to be good.
There's my two cents.
Related Reading:
Cheney Outshines Obama
Obama's Crock
Dueling National Security Speeches
Light Bulbs
I was in Wal-Mart last night buying a few miscellaneous items, one of which was a package of light bulbs. I noticed, to my great irritation, that there were now two kinds of 'green' bulbs. There were the expected shelves full of the icky-gaudy-bright swirly monstrosities, of course, but tonight there was something new, at least to me: under-watted bulbs.
That's right. In an attempt to be 'green' and save energy, the 60-watt bulbs were now only 52 watts, the 75-watt bulbs were now only 67 watts, and so on. There was no commensurate price decrease, just the power.
Come on, let's think about this, shall we? Is it really going to matter that much to the fate of the planet if we shave off 10-15% of the wattage in our light bulbs? It doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference if half the planet keeps their lights completely off for an hour in solidarity, but those few precious watts should apparently make up a whole lotta preservation.
On the other hand, shaving off 10-15% of the light in my house is noticeable, and it does make a difference in the quality and amount of light in my home. Hello...we're living in the flipping 21st century, not the (literal) dark ages!!!
This, then, is the kind of every day stupid sacrifice that the environmentalist wackos are demanding of us - reduce our quality of life in the name of a meaningless gesture. Oh, and it costs more, too.
I don't think so!
I arrived looking for a single package of 60-watt bulbs. I left carrying two packages of the extra-high-quality 75-watt bulbs. Next time I think I'll buy the 100-watts, just for good measure. You can never have too much good light.
There's my two cents.
That's right. In an attempt to be 'green' and save energy, the 60-watt bulbs were now only 52 watts, the 75-watt bulbs were now only 67 watts, and so on. There was no commensurate price decrease, just the power.
Come on, let's think about this, shall we? Is it really going to matter that much to the fate of the planet if we shave off 10-15% of the wattage in our light bulbs? It doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference if half the planet keeps their lights completely off for an hour in solidarity, but those few precious watts should apparently make up a whole lotta preservation.
On the other hand, shaving off 10-15% of the light in my house is noticeable, and it does make a difference in the quality and amount of light in my home. Hello...we're living in the flipping 21st century, not the (literal) dark ages!!!
This, then, is the kind of every day stupid sacrifice that the environmentalist wackos are demanding of us - reduce our quality of life in the name of a meaningless gesture. Oh, and it costs more, too.
I don't think so!
I arrived looking for a single package of 60-watt bulbs. I left carrying two packages of the extra-high-quality 75-watt bulbs. Next time I think I'll buy the 100-watts, just for good measure. You can never have too much good light.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Cap-And-Tax By The Numbers
Heritage provides another load of concrete, real world data on Obama's disastrous pending cap-and-tax bill:
Unless you're a liberal...then you get loads of cash and extra government control.
There's my two cents.
Bottom line: economic annihilation for no meaningful benefit.Below is a breakdown of economic impacts of Waxman-Markey calculated by economists at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. For full analysis of the bill, go here.
Energy Cost Impacts
Price increases 2035
Gasoline 58%
Electricity 90%
Natural Gas 55%
Heating Oil 56%Family of 4 Cost Expenditure increases, $2009
In 2035 Average 2012-2035
Gasoline $565 $302 $7,254
Electricity $468 $392 $9,410
Natural Gas $161 $103 $2,471
Heating Oil $47 $32 $762
Total $1,241 $829 $19,897Total Tax Impact per Family of 4 (These numbers include the energy costs increases above)
2035 Avg to 2035 Total
$8,275 $4,618 $110,836Employment Impacts
(Losses compared to baseline: cannot be added year to year or multiplied by number of years.)
2035 2012-2030 Average
2,479,000 1,145,000GDP Losses, Billions $2009
2035 2012-2035 Average Total
$662 $491 $9.4 trillionIncrease in National Debt by 2035, $2009
Percent per Family of Four: 26% or $114,915Value of Allowance Revenue (CO2 Tax), Billions $2009
(This is what Congress gets to spend or give away.)
2012 2035 Average Total, 2012-2035
$127 $701 $368 $8.8 trillionClimate Benefit
Using mainstream analysis, climatologists estimate the temperature-moderating impact of Waxman-Markey will be:
by 2050= 0.05 degrees C or 0.09 degrees F
by 2100= 0.20 degrees C or 0.36 degrees F
Unless you're a liberal...then you get loads of cash and extra government control.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)