Every one of us should be given a brand new GM car.
GM is expected to finally enter bankruptcy Monday, at which point our government will assume 60% ownership of the automaker. And by government I mean us, taxpayers, whose money, tens of billions of dollars, is being used without our consent to prop them up.
Government Motors, formerly General Motors, will be able to stay in business thanks to our money, paid in to the federal government via tax revenue, and distributed by the federal government to an ailing company to keep it afloat. Generally if an individual wishes to invest in a company, they may do so at their discretion. In this case, however, we have no say in the matter.
Never mind that in doing so, the Obama administration is interfering, possibly permanently, in the free market by essentially choosing which company succeeds and which fails, despite their actual performance. The repercussions of this will likely be enormously disastrous and will be felt for years, possibly decades.
Therefore, since it is our money which is being used to keep GM in business, each one of us should be given a brand new GM car. Call it a company car if you like, since it is ostensibly our business now.
It's our money, now it's our company. Make mine a Corvette, and I'll take it in black.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Prognosticator I am not…
In honor (eulogy?) of GM likely entering bankruptcy on Monday, upon which ownership of the automaker will be bestowed upon government and the unions, I will attempt to predict what the future may hold for the brand and especially those ignorant enough to embrace the new Government Motors “green” vehicles of the future.
GPS is a wonderful advancement in vehicular navigatory technology. What used to take a passenger with a crinkled rest-stop roadmap and a flashlight can now be accomplished with a bright, vivid, 4-inch video screen and the voice of Patrick Stewart. Thanks to orbiting satellites and the internet, you no longer have a good excuse for leaving the house an hour late because you didn’t set your alarm. “I got lost! That’s why I was late to the charity function where I was supposed to auction myself as a date for some lonely old woman to help raise money to cure cancer in dogs and make my new lady think I’m sensitive!” Sorry, GPS has foiled your plans.
I envision a future, however, in which your new Government Motors ultra fuel efficient vehicle uses GPS not to tell you where you are going. Rather, in the interest of census data, scientific research, enhancing fuel conservation, reducing climate change and saving the planet, GPS will tell some bureaucrats where you went, how far, for how long, who drove, and how fast you traveled. GPS will strictly enforce speed limits and mileage quotas. Feel like a nice, relaxed Sunday drive? Well, your car won’t start because the GPS nanny says you’ve already driven too many miles, used too much fuel, and spewed too much CO2 into the fragile atmosphere this week during your trip to the store to pick up milk, apples, and a shovel to dig in your government mandated compost pile. And don’t even think of straying more than a mile or two over the speed limit. GPS knows where you live.
In the interest of fuel efficiency, vehicles will once again return to those halcyon days of light weight, small-car driving dynamics. Driving will be fun! I’ve read car magazines. They love small British sports cars like Austin Healeys, Lotus Super Sevens, MGs. Old Porsche 356 roadsters. Or look at modern cars like the Mazda Miata or the Mini. People smile just at the sight of these cute, fun small cars. Fun, that is, until to actually open the trunk of your Smart Car and stare with disbelief at the cart you just struggled to push out of Sam’s Club. “Now where am I going to put this case of canned green beans?” Fun, that is, until a strong gust blows you off the interstate in Nebraska. Fun, that is, until you hit black ice and accordion into a bridge abutment. If you survive, you may wish you were still driving your grandpa’s 1979 Lincoln Town Car. There’s just no substitute for 5000 pounds of car between you and that immovable object. If you survive, that is. Miniature space, miniature safety.
Of course if you do happen to crash your GM, you probably won’t be traveling very fast, which should help minimize damage and injury. Especially on the interstates. Since driving at higher speeds is less efficient and uses more fuel, what with wind resistance and so forth, not only will speeds limits be lowered legislatively, the new GM vehicles will be speed limited by capability. Small engines, low power, low speeds. Everyone wins!
Finally, make sure you bring your iPod, because one feature you definitely will never find in the new Government Motors vehicles is AM radio. Those conservative talk radio hosts only spew hatred and bile, so, for the greater good of society Government in its infinite wisdom will determine that your life will be much more productive and much happier if you never hear such vitriol. Sure, Rush Limbaugh claims he wants everybody to have all the freedom and opportunity in the world to enjoy the same achievements he’s accomplished, and he claims he wants to preserve our liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, but you know he’s really just a hate-peddler and warmonger. NPR, on the other hand, is just the sort of enlightening programming that will enhance your mood, placate your sense of government reliance and educate you on the harm we are doing to the environment with our smoke and soot spewing heavy industries, fossil fuel addiction, meat-eating, and the benefits of population control. It’s okay if you listen to misogynistic rap or satanic metal on your local FM station, because they care about the issues in your neighborhood that you care about, like bands coming to town to play local concerts and wacky prize contests in the parking lot at the local Arby’s. They’re not going to make wild accusations and unfounded claims that the President of the United States is intruding on our privacy with census surveys that ask how many cars you own and how long it takes you to drive to work or if you have a toilet, or making a mockery of the justice system with an activist Supreme Court pick or destroying businesses through illegal hostile takeovers and permanently damaging capitalism, or shifting the balance of society from a republic of free individuals to a dependent state of interest groups. They just want to give away some concert tickets and maybe a t-shirt.
These are my predictions for the future of GM, Government Motors. Let’s check back in a few years to see how close I am. Who knows, maybe I’ve got a future as a psychic. Maybe I should get a 1-900 number and run some infomercials on late-night TV…
GPS is a wonderful advancement in vehicular navigatory technology. What used to take a passenger with a crinkled rest-stop roadmap and a flashlight can now be accomplished with a bright, vivid, 4-inch video screen and the voice of Patrick Stewart. Thanks to orbiting satellites and the internet, you no longer have a good excuse for leaving the house an hour late because you didn’t set your alarm. “I got lost! That’s why I was late to the charity function where I was supposed to auction myself as a date for some lonely old woman to help raise money to cure cancer in dogs and make my new lady think I’m sensitive!” Sorry, GPS has foiled your plans.
I envision a future, however, in which your new Government Motors ultra fuel efficient vehicle uses GPS not to tell you where you are going. Rather, in the interest of census data, scientific research, enhancing fuel conservation, reducing climate change and saving the planet, GPS will tell some bureaucrats where you went, how far, for how long, who drove, and how fast you traveled. GPS will strictly enforce speed limits and mileage quotas. Feel like a nice, relaxed Sunday drive? Well, your car won’t start because the GPS nanny says you’ve already driven too many miles, used too much fuel, and spewed too much CO2 into the fragile atmosphere this week during your trip to the store to pick up milk, apples, and a shovel to dig in your government mandated compost pile. And don’t even think of straying more than a mile or two over the speed limit. GPS knows where you live.
In the interest of fuel efficiency, vehicles will once again return to those halcyon days of light weight, small-car driving dynamics. Driving will be fun! I’ve read car magazines. They love small British sports cars like Austin Healeys, Lotus Super Sevens, MGs. Old Porsche 356 roadsters. Or look at modern cars like the Mazda Miata or the Mini. People smile just at the sight of these cute, fun small cars. Fun, that is, until to actually open the trunk of your Smart Car and stare with disbelief at the cart you just struggled to push out of Sam’s Club. “Now where am I going to put this case of canned green beans?” Fun, that is, until a strong gust blows you off the interstate in Nebraska. Fun, that is, until you hit black ice and accordion into a bridge abutment. If you survive, you may wish you were still driving your grandpa’s 1979 Lincoln Town Car. There’s just no substitute for 5000 pounds of car between you and that immovable object. If you survive, that is. Miniature space, miniature safety.
Of course if you do happen to crash your GM, you probably won’t be traveling very fast, which should help minimize damage and injury. Especially on the interstates. Since driving at higher speeds is less efficient and uses more fuel, what with wind resistance and so forth, not only will speeds limits be lowered legislatively, the new GM vehicles will be speed limited by capability. Small engines, low power, low speeds. Everyone wins!
Finally, make sure you bring your iPod, because one feature you definitely will never find in the new Government Motors vehicles is AM radio. Those conservative talk radio hosts only spew hatred and bile, so, for the greater good of society Government in its infinite wisdom will determine that your life will be much more productive and much happier if you never hear such vitriol. Sure, Rush Limbaugh claims he wants everybody to have all the freedom and opportunity in the world to enjoy the same achievements he’s accomplished, and he claims he wants to preserve our liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, but you know he’s really just a hate-peddler and warmonger. NPR, on the other hand, is just the sort of enlightening programming that will enhance your mood, placate your sense of government reliance and educate you on the harm we are doing to the environment with our smoke and soot spewing heavy industries, fossil fuel addiction, meat-eating, and the benefits of population control. It’s okay if you listen to misogynistic rap or satanic metal on your local FM station, because they care about the issues in your neighborhood that you care about, like bands coming to town to play local concerts and wacky prize contests in the parking lot at the local Arby’s. They’re not going to make wild accusations and unfounded claims that the President of the United States is intruding on our privacy with census surveys that ask how many cars you own and how long it takes you to drive to work or if you have a toilet, or making a mockery of the justice system with an activist Supreme Court pick or destroying businesses through illegal hostile takeovers and permanently damaging capitalism, or shifting the balance of society from a republic of free individuals to a dependent state of interest groups. They just want to give away some concert tickets and maybe a t-shirt.
These are my predictions for the future of GM, Government Motors. Let’s check back in a few years to see how close I am. Who knows, maybe I’ve got a future as a psychic. Maybe I should get a 1-900 number and run some infomercials on late-night TV…
Friday, May 22, 2009
Ignorant environmentalism leads to more illness and death...
The new fuel economy regulations and their repercussions are continuing to reverberate, albeit only in responsible media outlets. You won't see this on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or any of the now laughable mainstream media outlets.
Essentially, the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards necessarily add costs to new cars which will delay many from replacing their older vehicles which are less efficient and less "clean".
Further, the accelerated timeframe in which manufacturers will be required to meet the new CAFE standards necessitates smaller, lighter cars which studies show are less safe.
So the question is, which is more important? The environment, or people?
From today's Wall Street Journal, Light Cars Are Dangerous Cars by Robert E. Grady.
Essentially, the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards necessarily add costs to new cars which will delay many from replacing their older vehicles which are less efficient and less "clean".
Further, the accelerated timeframe in which manufacturers will be required to meet the new CAFE standards necessitates smaller, lighter cars which studies show are less safe.
So the question is, which is more important? The environment, or people?
From today's Wall Street Journal, Light Cars Are Dangerous Cars by Robert E. Grady.
Israeli Air Force Holds Exercise Simulating War With Iran
It seems Isreal isn't completely confident that we've got their back...
Israeli Air Force Holds Exercise Simulating War With Iran - International News News of the World Middle East News Europe News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
Israeli Air Force Holds Exercise Simulating War With Iran - International News News of the World Middle East News Europe News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Get ready for the gulags...
Remember the incendiary Department of Homeland Security report on "Rightwing Extremism" which was leaked in early April? Recall that the report suggested people who care about and are vocal about religion, the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion, support the Second Amendment, are concerned about illegal immigration, increasingly higher taxes and the sovereignty of the United States were dangerous? And that military veterans were prime candidates to be indoctrinated to commit acts of terrorism?
Read the report on "Rightwing Extremism"
There is an article in today's New York Times which reports that Obama met with human rights activists in consideration of a "Preventive Detention" plan "that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried."
This meeting, intended to be kept off the record, raised many concerns for human rights activists in attendance who are still seething that Obama has reversed his position on releasing Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos and continuing military tribunals for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, both of which are the right call. Releasing the photos can only inflame anti-American violence against our soldiers, and detainees at Gitmo are not American citizens, nor ought they be afforded the rights of American citizenship such as the right to trial in U.S. criminal courts on U.S. soil.
I do, however, agree with the human rights activists in this instance in light of the recent DHS report on "Rightwing Extremism" and domestic terrorism.
The intention or this meeting and these discussions, it seems, is to formulate a legal precedent for detaining individuals who otherwise could not be charged and detained, simply on the suspicion of potential to commit acts of terrorism or on the suspicion of the possibility of posing a threat to national security at some point in the future. Further, they may not necessarily be captured on a foreign battlefield. According to the Times article, "Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan." Try your local Walmart or even your own front yard!
But that could never happen to an American citizen, could it? Recall the aforementioned Department of Homeland Security report. The report intimates that those who oppose abortion, are concerned about taxes, the declining economy and job losses are "rightwing extremists" and potential domestic terrorists. Can a prominent Pro-Life religious leader, then, be considered dangerous and a threat to national security and be imprisoned? Could a citizen, concerned about increasingly higher taxation and increasingly reckless government spending be jailed for expressing his or her opinions at a Tea Party? Or on a weblog? Might an unemployed worker be incarcerated for bemoaning the precipitous job loss in the construction and manufacturing sectors? What about someone who simply writes a letter to the editor in their local newspaper to express their concern for a government policy with which they do not agree? What about a highly decorated veteran who speaks out about his concerns regarding current foreign policy?
Conspiracy theory or not, these are legitimate concerns. Joseph Stalin was a very popular leader who cultivated a powerful cult of personality, and was responsible for throwing hundreds of thousands of people into prisons, the Soviet gulags, and for the deaths of untold millions. Adolf Hitler began his reign as an immensely popular transformative democratic leader, and history speaks of his atrocities.
If ever there were a time to remain vigilant in protecting and upholding our freedoms and the exceptionalism of the United States of America, the time is now.
Read the report on "Rightwing Extremism"
There is an article in today's New York Times which reports that Obama met with human rights activists in consideration of a "Preventive Detention" plan "that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried."
This meeting, intended to be kept off the record, raised many concerns for human rights activists in attendance who are still seething that Obama has reversed his position on releasing Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos and continuing military tribunals for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, both of which are the right call. Releasing the photos can only inflame anti-American violence against our soldiers, and detainees at Gitmo are not American citizens, nor ought they be afforded the rights of American citizenship such as the right to trial in U.S. criminal courts on U.S. soil.
I do, however, agree with the human rights activists in this instance in light of the recent DHS report on "Rightwing Extremism" and domestic terrorism.
The intention or this meeting and these discussions, it seems, is to formulate a legal precedent for detaining individuals who otherwise could not be charged and detained, simply on the suspicion of potential to commit acts of terrorism or on the suspicion of the possibility of posing a threat to national security at some point in the future. Further, they may not necessarily be captured on a foreign battlefield. According to the Times article, "Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan." Try your local Walmart or even your own front yard!
But that could never happen to an American citizen, could it? Recall the aforementioned Department of Homeland Security report. The report intimates that those who oppose abortion, are concerned about taxes, the declining economy and job losses are "rightwing extremists" and potential domestic terrorists. Can a prominent Pro-Life religious leader, then, be considered dangerous and a threat to national security and be imprisoned? Could a citizen, concerned about increasingly higher taxation and increasingly reckless government spending be jailed for expressing his or her opinions at a Tea Party? Or on a weblog? Might an unemployed worker be incarcerated for bemoaning the precipitous job loss in the construction and manufacturing sectors? What about someone who simply writes a letter to the editor in their local newspaper to express their concern for a government policy with which they do not agree? What about a highly decorated veteran who speaks out about his concerns regarding current foreign policy?
Conspiracy theory or not, these are legitimate concerns. Joseph Stalin was a very popular leader who cultivated a powerful cult of personality, and was responsible for throwing hundreds of thousands of people into prisons, the Soviet gulags, and for the deaths of untold millions. Adolf Hitler began his reign as an immensely popular transformative democratic leader, and history speaks of his atrocities.
If ever there were a time to remain vigilant in protecting and upholding our freedoms and the exceptionalism of the United States of America, the time is now.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
If you do this for me, you'll be a made man...
Obama and his team of economic advisers met today to discuss his plans to remake America.
One of Obama's advisers and also a key proponent of the air tax/cap and trade is the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, who has run his company into the ground. No matter, Barack will make sure that GE is doing alright.
General Electric is the parent company of NBC news and the woefully embarrassing cable news channel MSNBC, who during the election panted hard, hot and heavy for Barack Obama. One anchor whose crush on Obama was so blatant a blind person could see it was Chris Matthews, who uttered the perversely disturbing comment that Obama sent a tingle up his leg. After the election he all but admitted he and the rest of the formerly respectable NBC news organization had been drooling over Obama all along.
So it's quite obvious GE has been pushing for Obama. Luckily for them, they can look with anticipation and glee at the sweet deal with which Obama hooked up the UAW with Chrysler ownership.
GE is heavily invested in "green energy" and "smart grid" technology.
If Obama's air tax "climate change" initiatives are passed, guess who is first in line to receive substantial government funding for "clean energy" research grants and investments? GE stands to make a killing as one of the few companies which the government will contract and allow to service us in our exorbitantly expensive rationed green energy consumption needs.
Furthermore, GE is heavily involved in health care technologies and services. Again, GE is positioned to reap substantial benefits, especially with the push for nationalized, single-payer health care rationed by government. Suppose there is need for a government contract to supply ultrasound machines to the new government run hospitals? I'm sure GE can handle it. Didn't Obama mention he wants to digitize patient records? GE could probably do that too.
So this is the new era of hope and change? This is the new America which transcends the corrupt politics of the past, where political favors and fat government contracts are traded like snacks during recess?
One of Obama's advisers and also a key proponent of the air tax/cap and trade is the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, who has run his company into the ground. No matter, Barack will make sure that GE is doing alright.
General Electric is the parent company of NBC news and the woefully embarrassing cable news channel MSNBC, who during the election panted hard, hot and heavy for Barack Obama. One anchor whose crush on Obama was so blatant a blind person could see it was Chris Matthews, who uttered the perversely disturbing comment that Obama sent a tingle up his leg. After the election he all but admitted he and the rest of the formerly respectable NBC news organization had been drooling over Obama all along.
So it's quite obvious GE has been pushing for Obama. Luckily for them, they can look with anticipation and glee at the sweet deal with which Obama hooked up the UAW with Chrysler ownership.
GE is heavily invested in "green energy" and "smart grid" technology.
If Obama's air tax "climate change" initiatives are passed, guess who is first in line to receive substantial government funding for "clean energy" research grants and investments? GE stands to make a killing as one of the few companies which the government will contract and allow to service us in our exorbitantly expensive rationed green energy consumption needs.
Furthermore, GE is heavily involved in health care technologies and services. Again, GE is positioned to reap substantial benefits, especially with the push for nationalized, single-payer health care rationed by government. Suppose there is need for a government contract to supply ultrasound machines to the new government run hospitals? I'm sure GE can handle it. Didn't Obama mention he wants to digitize patient records? GE could probably do that too.
So this is the new era of hope and change? This is the new America which transcends the corrupt politics of the past, where political favors and fat government contracts are traded like snacks during recess?
SHO me a good time!
I'm deeply bothered with our government taking over GM and Chrysler. Where can we go now to buy a domestic car without signing ourselves over to the government?Imagine my delight, then, to learn of the upcoming, brand new 2010 Taurus SHO from Ford, who did not stick its hand out to the fed for a bailout! To be honest, I have high hopes for Ford these days, and this, I think, is an excellent sign of things to come from the Blue Oval.
Complete with a powerful turbocharged V6 engine, all wheel drive and, dare I say, visually intriguing, maybe even elegant design, the SHO also shows up to the party with good fuel economy! I find sports cars a little too overt, so I can appreciate a capable sedan.
Read the press release from Ford
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
It's all about power.
I've suspected, for about a year now, that Barack Obama wants to be president of the world.
From The National Review, "The Alinsky Administration" by Jim Geraghty
From The National Review, "The Alinsky Administration" by Jim Geraghty
Hope and change, or oppression and destruction?
Today Barack Obama announced a proposal for a new national automotive fuel economy standard beginning with the 2016 model year, requiring an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon, or 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for trucks. Current standards are 27.5 for cars and 23 for trucks.
It's all part of his plan to stop "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever they're calling it this week, as well as reduce dependency on foreign oil.
While this measure standardizes fuel economy across all 50 states (no more "California emissions" provisions), it also accelerates by four years the timetable for automakers to comply with these new government regulations. Automakers will now be required to raise their average fuel economy performance by 40% in one product cycle, at a time when the domestic auto industry is in or near bankruptcy and barely surviving on government cheese.
How will automakers increase fuel efficiency? There are only a few ways. Reduce size and weight, and restrict power production. For the consumer that means smaller cars that hold less stuff and are less safe. We may no longer be allowed to choose a large SUV that holds all our kids and their soccer gear. Trucks that carry cement blocks and 2x4s to the job site won't be able to carry as much of the materials that make our jobs go. And when that 18-wheeler slams into you at the stop light, you will die.
People drive the cars they want to drive. That's why trucks, SUVs, and large sedans are so prevalent on the roads. If we all wanted to drive microcars, we all would. When gas prices topped $4 a gallon last summer, people still drove trucks, SUVs and large sedans. More small cars were sold, but the market decided which to favor, not government.
Instead what the consumer gets is more of Obama dictating our behavior and controlling our choices, activities and lives.
Furthermore, this is going to cost us all more than a little pocket change. Experts suggest the new regulations will add at least $600 to the cost of production, meaning the consumer will pay at least double that at the lot. Obama claims this added cost will be recouped in lower fuel costs over the next few years of ownership. I would like to draw your attention, however, to one aspect he didn't mention. Government collects revenue from gasoline taxes, both on the state and federal level. If gasoline consumption is reduced, so is tax revenue. What does government do when tax revenue decreases? They increase taxes.
Obama also claimed these regulations will decrease our dependency on foreign oil. What about all the oil we have here in our own backyard? Surely, Barack, you don't think America isn't able to safely and conscientiously utilize our own natural resources in a responsible manner?
Really, how wise is it to impose even stricter, more costly regulations with even less time to implement them on an auto industry that is barely surviving as is? Not to mention the increased costs to consumers in a recession?
Perhaps Barack Obama thinks of himself as a King Midas, of sorts, and everything he touches turns to gold. Except instead of gold it's more like lead.
It's all part of his plan to stop "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever they're calling it this week, as well as reduce dependency on foreign oil.
While this measure standardizes fuel economy across all 50 states (no more "California emissions" provisions), it also accelerates by four years the timetable for automakers to comply with these new government regulations. Automakers will now be required to raise their average fuel economy performance by 40% in one product cycle, at a time when the domestic auto industry is in or near bankruptcy and barely surviving on government cheese.
How will automakers increase fuel efficiency? There are only a few ways. Reduce size and weight, and restrict power production. For the consumer that means smaller cars that hold less stuff and are less safe. We may no longer be allowed to choose a large SUV that holds all our kids and their soccer gear. Trucks that carry cement blocks and 2x4s to the job site won't be able to carry as much of the materials that make our jobs go. And when that 18-wheeler slams into you at the stop light, you will die.
People drive the cars they want to drive. That's why trucks, SUVs, and large sedans are so prevalent on the roads. If we all wanted to drive microcars, we all would. When gas prices topped $4 a gallon last summer, people still drove trucks, SUVs and large sedans. More small cars were sold, but the market decided which to favor, not government.
Instead what the consumer gets is more of Obama dictating our behavior and controlling our choices, activities and lives.
Furthermore, this is going to cost us all more than a little pocket change. Experts suggest the new regulations will add at least $600 to the cost of production, meaning the consumer will pay at least double that at the lot. Obama claims this added cost will be recouped in lower fuel costs over the next few years of ownership. I would like to draw your attention, however, to one aspect he didn't mention. Government collects revenue from gasoline taxes, both on the state and federal level. If gasoline consumption is reduced, so is tax revenue. What does government do when tax revenue decreases? They increase taxes.
Obama also claimed these regulations will decrease our dependency on foreign oil. What about all the oil we have here in our own backyard? Surely, Barack, you don't think America isn't able to safely and conscientiously utilize our own natural resources in a responsible manner?
Really, how wise is it to impose even stricter, more costly regulations with even less time to implement them on an auto industry that is barely surviving as is? Not to mention the increased costs to consumers in a recession?
Perhaps Barack Obama thinks of himself as a King Midas, of sorts, and everything he touches turns to gold. Except instead of gold it's more like lead.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Obama Doctrine, Pt. II
Here's the problem I have with Obama's "let's be friends with terrorists" policy: They don't want to be friends.
Think about that for a moment.
Suppose you are back in high school, and the kid that makes fun of you every day and beats you up every day continues to make fun of you and beat you up, even after you walk up to him and try to become his friend. You tell him (or her), "Hey, let's be friends! You can come to my house and eat hot-pockets and play some Nintendo with me! Then we can be friends, and at the next homecoming dance, maybe you won't pants me on the dance floor?"
And yet, in front of everyone at the dance, especially that hot girl in the sophomore class, Aubrey, whom in your burgeoning adolescent cootie-free existential hormonal idealism you've idolized as the epitome of womanhood for months and months and months, you still run out of the auditorium with your khakis around your ankles and the jocks and cheerleaders laughing to the thump of House of Pain's "Jump Around".
Except in this case it's not the cool kid Josh who spits on you in the lunch line and just wants to make your life miserable because your brother embarrassed him in calculus class. It's an entire country of militants who wants to kill you because you don't believe in their god or have somehow betrayed his purity. It's an entire civilization who believes the way to the afterlife is to exterminate those who don't believe their beliefs.
Recent reports out of Iran suggest they are much farther along in developing their nuclear arsenal than previously thought. That's not good. There's a reason Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad closes speeches to the UN with an invocation to Allah to hasten the coming of the messiah, who will bring a worldwide Islamic reign, not to mention the coming apocalypse. He's got some big plans for those new nukes.
Obama's arrogance makes him believe the force of his personality and his personal charisma is enough to sway the centuries-held beliefs of a civilization that at its core hates the West. They've already indicted the US as "the great satan". I'm sorry Barack, but one man cannot undo a thousand years of dogma.
Let's go back to the school scenario again. I guess I'm feeling nostalgic. I had a friend in college who was math major. He changed majors during our junior year, but that's beside the point. If he were to register for an advanced mathematics class with a popular professor who told him two plus two equals five, do you think he would believe it? No matter how popular or charismatic this professor might be, he would have a hard time convincing someone of something contrary to what they've known their entire lives. And when you add religion, that's like adding water to cement mix.
I've always believed Reese's peanut butter cups are delicious. Who's going to convince me otherwise? No one, that's who.
This is a grand simplification of the situation with Iran and the Middle East, but it gets at the larger picture which Obama either refuses to see, or simply is too arrogant to realize, that we are different. Completely different. Our Judeo-Christian beliefs are far removed from theirs, and Obama doesn't seem to understand this. Or, if he does, I'm not so sure he is as concerned as he ought to be. President Bush made mistakes during his eight years, to be sure, but he understood the fundamental difference between us and them.
I realize I have just made what may be considered an argument against the Iraq war, the chasm of our difference. I'm not going to debate whether it was right or wrong. I happen to believe we did ourselves and the world a great service by deposing of a deranged despot and malevolent dictator. Feel free to argue until you are blue in the face, it won't change my opinion. The fact is the board was tilted in the favor of Europe, America, freedom for the oppressed people of Iraq with which to do as they choose, and especially stability the Middle East.
Of course, Obama could be working towards the same apocalyptic end as well. I don't know. He did spend his childhood in Indonesia studying Islam...
Think about that for a moment.
Suppose you are back in high school, and the kid that makes fun of you every day and beats you up every day continues to make fun of you and beat you up, even after you walk up to him and try to become his friend. You tell him (or her), "Hey, let's be friends! You can come to my house and eat hot-pockets and play some Nintendo with me! Then we can be friends, and at the next homecoming dance, maybe you won't pants me on the dance floor?"
And yet, in front of everyone at the dance, especially that hot girl in the sophomore class, Aubrey, whom in your burgeoning adolescent cootie-free existential hormonal idealism you've idolized as the epitome of womanhood for months and months and months, you still run out of the auditorium with your khakis around your ankles and the jocks and cheerleaders laughing to the thump of House of Pain's "Jump Around".
Except in this case it's not the cool kid Josh who spits on you in the lunch line and just wants to make your life miserable because your brother embarrassed him in calculus class. It's an entire country of militants who wants to kill you because you don't believe in their god or have somehow betrayed his purity. It's an entire civilization who believes the way to the afterlife is to exterminate those who don't believe their beliefs.
Recent reports out of Iran suggest they are much farther along in developing their nuclear arsenal than previously thought. That's not good. There's a reason Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad closes speeches to the UN with an invocation to Allah to hasten the coming of the messiah, who will bring a worldwide Islamic reign, not to mention the coming apocalypse. He's got some big plans for those new nukes.
Obama's arrogance makes him believe the force of his personality and his personal charisma is enough to sway the centuries-held beliefs of a civilization that at its core hates the West. They've already indicted the US as "the great satan". I'm sorry Barack, but one man cannot undo a thousand years of dogma.
Let's go back to the school scenario again. I guess I'm feeling nostalgic. I had a friend in college who was math major. He changed majors during our junior year, but that's beside the point. If he were to register for an advanced mathematics class with a popular professor who told him two plus two equals five, do you think he would believe it? No matter how popular or charismatic this professor might be, he would have a hard time convincing someone of something contrary to what they've known their entire lives. And when you add religion, that's like adding water to cement mix.
I've always believed Reese's peanut butter cups are delicious. Who's going to convince me otherwise? No one, that's who.
This is a grand simplification of the situation with Iran and the Middle East, but it gets at the larger picture which Obama either refuses to see, or simply is too arrogant to realize, that we are different. Completely different. Our Judeo-Christian beliefs are far removed from theirs, and Obama doesn't seem to understand this. Or, if he does, I'm not so sure he is as concerned as he ought to be. President Bush made mistakes during his eight years, to be sure, but he understood the fundamental difference between us and them.
I realize I have just made what may be considered an argument against the Iraq war, the chasm of our difference. I'm not going to debate whether it was right or wrong. I happen to believe we did ourselves and the world a great service by deposing of a deranged despot and malevolent dictator. Feel free to argue until you are blue in the face, it won't change my opinion. The fact is the board was tilted in the favor of Europe, America, freedom for the oppressed people of Iraq with which to do as they choose, and especially stability the Middle East.
Of course, Obama could be working towards the same apocalyptic end as well. I don't know. He did spend his childhood in Indonesia studying Islam...
Monday, May 4, 2009
A spoonful of sugar...
Makes the medicine go down.
Or, in this case, makes the global warming/climate change/Gaia Mother Earth worship more palatable to the majority of Americans who are not concerned with and do not believe in the fallacy that is "global warming".
The New York Times reported on extensive research and polling the environmental special interest marketing firm ecoAmerica recently conducted to help environmentalists fool more people with their "green" agenda, which will create punitive taxes on air and seriously impede economic growth.
The real surprise is that the unabashedly liberal New York Times reported this. You can read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html
Perhaps this report may help those of us who know this "global warming" theory is a hoax combat the environmentalists' legislative efforts to return America to a pre-industrial revolution "green" lifestyle. At the very least it may raise awareness of the environmentalists' game plan which attempts to advertise higher taxes, lower standard of living and decreased liberty as something good. As comedian Lewis Black aptly put it, "Kids still know a bucket of sh*t when they see one."
Or, in this case, makes the global warming/climate change/Gaia Mother Earth worship more palatable to the majority of Americans who are not concerned with and do not believe in the fallacy that is "global warming".
The New York Times reported on extensive research and polling the environmental special interest marketing firm ecoAmerica recently conducted to help environmentalists fool more people with their "green" agenda, which will create punitive taxes on air and seriously impede economic growth.
The real surprise is that the unabashedly liberal New York Times reported this. You can read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html
Perhaps this report may help those of us who know this "global warming" theory is a hoax combat the environmentalists' legislative efforts to return America to a pre-industrial revolution "green" lifestyle. At the very least it may raise awareness of the environmentalists' game plan which attempts to advertise higher taxes, lower standard of living and decreased liberty as something good. As comedian Lewis Black aptly put it, "Kids still know a bucket of sh*t when they see one."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Back in Black - Kids' Earth Day | ||||
| ||||
"Their fair share" equals double-taxation in Barack Obama's world.
"These companies are evil! They're stealing your money and jobs! I'm going to make them pay their fair share!"
Obama's new plan to "eliminate tax loopholes" for businesses which do business overseas is to tax them twice.
He gave a brief teleprompted speech to introduce his plan, during which he revealed, once again, his hatred for capitalism and business, and his love of class-warfare politics. He again claimed businesses shirked their responsibilities and he will now make them pay their fair share. He will make them "sacrifice". It is not "sacrifice" if it is forced.
What this amounts to is double-taxation. Businesses who follow the law, and that is most of the legitimate businesses in this country, will now pay US taxes in addition to the taxes paid in the foreign countries in which they operate. This means the money from overseas operations which companies would have reinvested into their business in the US will be taxed further, reducing their investment toward growth here in the US, reducing their overall business potential, and reducing jobs.
For example, troubled General Motors, or, I guess now "Government Motors" does quite a bit of business in China, where their profits are already taxed by China. Obama's plan would add additional US taxes. Toyota, which also does business in China and pays taxes in China, does not have to pay additional taxes to Japan for their profits in China. Which company has the advantage?
Obama claimed his plan will save American taxpayers $210 billion over ten years. That means he projects tax revenue. What he neglected to say is that tax revenue will come from us, the taxpayers. Businesses pass added taxes on to consumers as higher costs. This is the only way they can stay in business. When the cost of production increases, be it through increased costs of materials or increased production costs, or increased taxes, the result is increased product cost for the consumer. For consumers of necessity items at discount stores, such as school supplies or kitchen utensils at Walmart or Target, this is a tax increase.
At the same time, he claims his plan will offer $75 billion in tax credits to companies to not "ship jobs overseas". Assuming these tax credits actually do offset increased business costs due to tax increases, the American taxpayer is still on the hook for $135 billion.
This will not work. But Obama's class-warfare policies level the playing field by bringing people down instead of helping people up.
Obama's new plan to "eliminate tax loopholes" for businesses which do business overseas is to tax them twice.
He gave a brief teleprompted speech to introduce his plan, during which he revealed, once again, his hatred for capitalism and business, and his love of class-warfare politics. He again claimed businesses shirked their responsibilities and he will now make them pay their fair share. He will make them "sacrifice". It is not "sacrifice" if it is forced.
What this amounts to is double-taxation. Businesses who follow the law, and that is most of the legitimate businesses in this country, will now pay US taxes in addition to the taxes paid in the foreign countries in which they operate. This means the money from overseas operations which companies would have reinvested into their business in the US will be taxed further, reducing their investment toward growth here in the US, reducing their overall business potential, and reducing jobs.
For example, troubled General Motors, or, I guess now "Government Motors" does quite a bit of business in China, where their profits are already taxed by China. Obama's plan would add additional US taxes. Toyota, which also does business in China and pays taxes in China, does not have to pay additional taxes to Japan for their profits in China. Which company has the advantage?
Obama claimed his plan will save American taxpayers $210 billion over ten years. That means he projects tax revenue. What he neglected to say is that tax revenue will come from us, the taxpayers. Businesses pass added taxes on to consumers as higher costs. This is the only way they can stay in business. When the cost of production increases, be it through increased costs of materials or increased production costs, or increased taxes, the result is increased product cost for the consumer. For consumers of necessity items at discount stores, such as school supplies or kitchen utensils at Walmart or Target, this is a tax increase.
At the same time, he claims his plan will offer $75 billion in tax credits to companies to not "ship jobs overseas". Assuming these tax credits actually do offset increased business costs due to tax increases, the American taxpayer is still on the hook for $135 billion.
This will not work. But Obama's class-warfare policies level the playing field by bringing people down instead of helping people up.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Arlen Specter leaves the Republican party.
Senator Arlen Specter left the Republican party to become a Democrat Tuesday. One of his reasons was his complaint the Republican party is moving too far to the right.
"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."
He thinks the Republican party is becoming too conservative. So I ask -- what's wrong with that?
Democrats and their lapdogs in the mainstream media portray the Republican party as being racist, not inclusive, uncaring, unempathic, derisive, close-minded, and dismissive and too conservative to represent the people.
They are completely wrong. Democrats and their lapdogs in the mainstream media have more and more successfully projected their faults onto the Republican party and Conservatives, and have in the process fooled far too many people.
But it is their intent to deceive, to impose their ideology, to usurp power, and to oppress.
The Democrat party is racist. Obama and Biden were the only ones who brought up race during the campaign. Janeane Garafalo called the people who came to the tea parties to peacefully assemble and protest, under their First Amendment rights, "racist rednecks", claiming they were only there to protest a black man in the White House.
Democrats are not inclusive. Democrats are derisive, close-minded and uncaring. Democrats have become extreme in their liberal ideology, and they impose their liberal doctrine on the people regardless of peoples' feelings or opinions. They segregate people into interest groups. They separate, they divide, they minimize and marginalize.
In their clamor to push Obama to select a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Souter, they have criteria: The new Justice must be a woman, she must be a minority, she must understand and empathize with certain segments of society such as the poor, minorities, gay. Apparently merit has no bearing on this choice. Apparently the good of all Americans has little importance. Instead, the objective is liberal, focus-group activism. It is the twisted liberal tenet, the "needs" of the few outweigh the "needs" of the many.
Just look who is at the top of their party! Look who runs the show! Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, the most liberal liberals there are. The Democrat party majority is far, far left hate-mongers such as George Soros and Sean Penn. Take the example of Miss California, who offered her opinion, and the close-minded haters of the Democrat party put her on the hit list. They try to silence dissent, and try to destroy those with whom they don't agree. Remember the vitriol with which they attacked Sarah Palin?
No, the Democrat party is wrong. They have become the extreme left liberal ideologues who complain that Republicans are too conservative. While they have moved far to the left at warp speed, they expect conservatives to "be more inclusive". While they decry a woman offering her conservative opinion, the call her a b*tch. While they claim to care for the weak and helpless, they scream that Sarah Palin is a criminal for not aborting a baby with Down's syndrome.
Why is the Republican party the only party expected to become more "moderate"? Why is the Republican party supposed to bend to the left? Why ought the Republican party to deny it's long-held traditional values and principles?
No. The Republican party must become more conservative, if, in the very least, to protect the American people from the abuses of the extreme left Democrat party, which is no longer a moderate party.
Conservatives, generally speaking, come to their values and principles on the basis of a tradition which has been historically informed by religious concerns such as empathy, love of fellow man, and kindness to others. The Democrat party and their lapdogs in the mainstream media have worked hard to deceive people, which means conservatives must have to work harder to restore the truth.
"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."
He thinks the Republican party is becoming too conservative. So I ask -- what's wrong with that?
Democrats and their lapdogs in the mainstream media portray the Republican party as being racist, not inclusive, uncaring, unempathic, derisive, close-minded, and dismissive and too conservative to represent the people.
They are completely wrong. Democrats and their lapdogs in the mainstream media have more and more successfully projected their faults onto the Republican party and Conservatives, and have in the process fooled far too many people.
But it is their intent to deceive, to impose their ideology, to usurp power, and to oppress.
The Democrat party is racist. Obama and Biden were the only ones who brought up race during the campaign. Janeane Garafalo called the people who came to the tea parties to peacefully assemble and protest, under their First Amendment rights, "racist rednecks", claiming they were only there to protest a black man in the White House.
Democrats are not inclusive. Democrats are derisive, close-minded and uncaring. Democrats have become extreme in their liberal ideology, and they impose their liberal doctrine on the people regardless of peoples' feelings or opinions. They segregate people into interest groups. They separate, they divide, they minimize and marginalize.
In their clamor to push Obama to select a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Souter, they have criteria: The new Justice must be a woman, she must be a minority, she must understand and empathize with certain segments of society such as the poor, minorities, gay. Apparently merit has no bearing on this choice. Apparently the good of all Americans has little importance. Instead, the objective is liberal, focus-group activism. It is the twisted liberal tenet, the "needs" of the few outweigh the "needs" of the many.
Just look who is at the top of their party! Look who runs the show! Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, the most liberal liberals there are. The Democrat party majority is far, far left hate-mongers such as George Soros and Sean Penn. Take the example of Miss California, who offered her opinion, and the close-minded haters of the Democrat party put her on the hit list. They try to silence dissent, and try to destroy those with whom they don't agree. Remember the vitriol with which they attacked Sarah Palin?
No, the Democrat party is wrong. They have become the extreme left liberal ideologues who complain that Republicans are too conservative. While they have moved far to the left at warp speed, they expect conservatives to "be more inclusive". While they decry a woman offering her conservative opinion, the call her a b*tch. While they claim to care for the weak and helpless, they scream that Sarah Palin is a criminal for not aborting a baby with Down's syndrome.
Why is the Republican party the only party expected to become more "moderate"? Why is the Republican party supposed to bend to the left? Why ought the Republican party to deny it's long-held traditional values and principles?
No. The Republican party must become more conservative, if, in the very least, to protect the American people from the abuses of the extreme left Democrat party, which is no longer a moderate party.
Conservatives, generally speaking, come to their values and principles on the basis of a tradition which has been historically informed by religious concerns such as empathy, love of fellow man, and kindness to others. The Democrat party and their lapdogs in the mainstream media have worked hard to deceive people, which means conservatives must have to work harder to restore the truth.
The Republican party must embrace it's traditional values and principles once again. The coveted "Independents" will choose the Republican party if they see a commitment to principles and values. As the saying goes, if we stand for nothing, we will fall for anything.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
