Apparently Obama thinks a failure to lead his own party to compromise makes him the good guy. If you can’t lead you own party while you are in power you’re simple a failure.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Obama care gets two strikes.
Haven’t heard that in the liberal media have you? On to the supreme court next, and now you understand the why of Sotomayor.
Whitehouse argues forcing you to buy the product they choose is a quintessential government right.
The federal government has rights now? The whole point of the constitution is limiting federal power. And even better, deciding that you must buy a certain product is “just a normal government right.” I’m sure the communists in Russia agree. Health care, light bulbs, what are next Government Motors cars? Will we be putting the only viable American car company (Ford) out of business by declaring that every household must buy a volt?
Liberal media lies.
http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2011/08/11/you-know-the-left-truly-fears-a-gop-candidate-when%E2%80%A6/
Do you remember a few years ago when, in a republican spot, they had the word "democrats" bouncing around the screen and at one point all you could see of the word was "rats"? The democrats screamed bloody murder for weeks, demanded the add be pulled, and demanded an apology. But when a liberal photo shops pictures of republican rallies to falsely add banners there is complete silence. When will the other half of America wake up?
Do you remember a few years ago when, in a republican spot, they had the word "democrats" bouncing around the screen and at one point all you could see of the word was "rats"? The democrats screamed bloody murder for weeks, demanded the add be pulled, and demanded an apology. But when a liberal photo shops pictures of republican rallies to falsely add banners there is complete silence. When will the other half of America wake up?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Cokie Roberts, the dumbest tack in the box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee9t8-xgnkI
The problem is the constitution? Wow. I'm speechless. Does that count as treason or freedom of really stupid speech... protected by the constitution you moron!
The problem is the constitution? Wow. I'm speechless. Does that count as treason or freedom of really stupid speech... protected by the constitution you moron!
Will fuel economy cost American's lives? You bet.
A Government That Kills
08/10/2011
President Obama has declared that auto companies' fleets must average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, almost double the current 27.5. Standing at his side when he made the announcement were executives from the Big Three automakers.
The New York Times reported: "It is an extraordinary shift in the relationship between the companies and Washington. But a lot has happened in the last four years, notably the $80 billion federal bailout of General Motors, Chrysler and scores of their suppliers, which removed any itch for a politically charged battle from the carmakers."
Right. They're happy to agree to stupid rules, since they are now dependent on government favors.
Obama said that under his new rule, "everyone wins. Consumers pay less for fuel, the economy as a whole runs more efficiently."
Sounds impressive, but he didn't mention the costs. The Center for Automotive Research says the new standard will raise the price of cars by about $7,000. You'd need to save a lot on fuel to break even.
But that's not the worst of it. The new rules will kill people.
Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained this to me. The MPG standard "has been killing people for the last 30 years," Kazman said.
How can that be?
"It forces cars to be ... made smaller and lighter. ... They are simply worse in just about every type of auto collision."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration actually backs Kazman up. It estimates that smaller cars are responsible for an additional 2,000 deaths each year.
Imagine that -- a government safety agency promotes a rule that kills people.
"Think about the minute risks that agencies like Environmental Protection Agency go into a tizzy about. ... If any private product had a death toll one fraction of what the miles-per-gallon rules cost, that product would have been yanked off the market years ago."
Do we at least end up using less gasoline and saving money?
No, given the increased upfront cost of the car. "It is not clear that it saves people money," Kazman said. "If these technologies in fact save people money, you don't need a government law to force them down people's throats."
Right. We're not stupid.
Bob Deans of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America's biggest environmental groups, said that Kazman and I are wrong.
"Cars like the Chevy Cruise -- 42 miles per gallon -- get top marks on safety. The Ford Focus, more than 40 miles per gallon -- top marks in safety. We're getting safer cars, and they're not coming at the expense of fuel efficiency."
Deans added: "By increasing that gas mileage for our auto fleet, we can cut our oil consumption in this country by 4 million barrels per day by 2030. That would almost wipe out our OPEC purchases daily. It will make our country stronger."
But we use oil for lots of things. If we cut gasoline use by a third, unlikely as that would be, we'd still only reduce our fossil fuel use by 7 percent. That does not make much difference for $7,000 a car and 2,000 extra deaths each year.
"It's not necessarily a smaller car that we're talking about," Deans replied. "You look at Chevy Malibu. That is a 3,400-pound car. It's not a small car. It's getting 33-miles to the gallon. We believe Detroit can do this."
Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they could, I'd think they would do it to meet consumer demand. They'd do it without government forcing it on us.
"New technologies can make cars safer," Kazman acknowledged. "The point is, if you put the technologies in a large, heavier car, that car will be safer still. ... None of the proponents of these standards would acknowledge (the lives lost). It's always win-win, and that is nonsense."
Life involves tradeoffs. If we want to minimize deaths from auto accidents, we may use more fuel than we might otherwise use. Who should make that decision, the government? Or you and I?
In the land of the supposedly free, that really should not be a tough question.
The New York Times reported: "It is an extraordinary shift in the relationship between the companies and Washington. But a lot has happened in the last four years, notably the $80 billion federal bailout of General Motors, Chrysler and scores of their suppliers, which removed any itch for a politically charged battle from the carmakers."
Right. They're happy to agree to stupid rules, since they are now dependent on government favors.
Obama said that under his new rule, "everyone wins. Consumers pay less for fuel, the economy as a whole runs more efficiently."
Sounds impressive, but he didn't mention the costs. The Center for Automotive Research says the new standard will raise the price of cars by about $7,000. You'd need to save a lot on fuel to break even.
But that's not the worst of it. The new rules will kill people.
Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained this to me. The MPG standard "has been killing people for the last 30 years," Kazman said.
How can that be?
"It forces cars to be ... made smaller and lighter. ... They are simply worse in just about every type of auto collision."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration actually backs Kazman up. It estimates that smaller cars are responsible for an additional 2,000 deaths each year.
Imagine that -- a government safety agency promotes a rule that kills people.
"Think about the minute risks that agencies like Environmental Protection Agency go into a tizzy about. ... If any private product had a death toll one fraction of what the miles-per-gallon rules cost, that product would have been yanked off the market years ago."
Do we at least end up using less gasoline and saving money?
No, given the increased upfront cost of the car. "It is not clear that it saves people money," Kazman said. "If these technologies in fact save people money, you don't need a government law to force them down people's throats."
Right. We're not stupid.
Bob Deans of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America's biggest environmental groups, said that Kazman and I are wrong.
"Cars like the Chevy Cruise -- 42 miles per gallon -- get top marks on safety. The Ford Focus, more than 40 miles per gallon -- top marks in safety. We're getting safer cars, and they're not coming at the expense of fuel efficiency."
Deans added: "By increasing that gas mileage for our auto fleet, we can cut our oil consumption in this country by 4 million barrels per day by 2030. That would almost wipe out our OPEC purchases daily. It will make our country stronger."
But we use oil for lots of things. If we cut gasoline use by a third, unlikely as that would be, we'd still only reduce our fossil fuel use by 7 percent. That does not make much difference for $7,000 a car and 2,000 extra deaths each year.
"It's not necessarily a smaller car that we're talking about," Deans replied. "You look at Chevy Malibu. That is a 3,400-pound car. It's not a small car. It's getting 33-miles to the gallon. We believe Detroit can do this."
Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they could, I'd think they would do it to meet consumer demand. They'd do it without government forcing it on us.
"New technologies can make cars safer," Kazman acknowledged. "The point is, if you put the technologies in a large, heavier car, that car will be safer still. ... None of the proponents of these standards would acknowledge (the lives lost). It's always win-win, and that is nonsense."
Life involves tradeoffs. If we want to minimize deaths from auto accidents, we may use more fuel than we might otherwise use. Who should make that decision, the government? Or you and I?
In the land of the supposedly free, that really should not be a tough question.
Investigation finds fake math in polar bear drowning claims.
| ednesdays with Audrey Hudson | 08.10.11 |  |
The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General is pursuing the two biologists who wrote the 2006 paper that suggests polar bears are drowning because their ice packs are melting due to climate change.
Investigators are revealing some interesting findings, including flawed math, inaccurate estimates of survival for the bears, that the wife of one scientist actually participated in the peer review process, and that the second scientist conceded mistakes could have been made.
The plight of the polar bears was made famous in Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, and the paper under scrutiny was instrumental in listing the bear as a threatened species.
One of the more interesting questions from investigators though, is how did the four bears on which the study is based actually die?
The scientists can’t really prove anything, as the floating carcasses were observed from 1,500 feet as they flew over the Alaskan Beaufort Sea counting whales. The carcasses were never recovered or examined.
More than likely, one of the scientists concedes, is that the bears didn’t perish for lack of an ice pack, but from a sudden windstorm the previous day that kicked up winds to 30 knots while the bears were swimming.
In layman’s terms, that’s a storm that could produce waves high enough to swamp a crabbing vessel on Deadliest Catch.
Environmentalists say the investigation is a witch hunt, and reports initially claimed that the investigation has nothing to do with the drowned polar bear study.
But, a special report by HUMAN EVENTS shows otherwise, and exposes what is really going on behind the scenes of the investigation.
Look for the findings online Thursday, only in HUMAN EVENTS.
— Audrey Hudson
Government Motors Spends Your Money
Posted by Ben Howe (Profile) 
Yes, General Motors. A great example of Obama’s efforts to revitalize our economy. He bravely handed a failing industry billions of dollars of other people’s money and then planted political friends in high positions while paying off the unions with shares of the company.
As recently as May of this year, people like Jen Psaki, White House Deputy Communications Director, and Vice President Joe Biden, can be found praising the auto bailouts as the crown jewel of this administrations efforts.
In fact, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Obama administration plans to use the auto bailouts as a way to win over voters in swing states. This is helped of course by how so many GM jobs keep ending up in swing states.
Unfortunately, the reality of our “investment” isn’t as pretty as they’d have people believe. Instead, it’s becoming clear that we will be lucky if we at least break even.
General Motors chief executive Dan Akerson, an Obama appointee who was handed the job around the same time the government handed GM billions of dollars, has steered the ship into an area that he himself warned we should watch for when he was first awarded the position of CEO.
Said Akerson:
I’m sure things will work out great when the treasury finally sells the American tax payer’s holdings. After all, the stock market is just doing peachy these days. And as Akerson has been quick to point out, “We have about $35 billion to $40 billion of cash in our balance sheet. That’s a lot.” Yes Dan, that is a lot. Especially considering you still owe the American people about $20 billion by your own admission.
Currently, GM owes about $26.4 billion to the taxpayers. Their stock would need be trading at $53 per share just for the American people to break even (the stock closed a little below $24 today). If they were sold today, we would lose $10 billion dollars.
So the government appointed CEO has taken the company’s stock to historic lows; pushed out money losing, government subsidized cars that the American people don’t want, all at the behest of his bosses in Washington; and is sitting on enough cash to pay back the loan but is instead choosing to wait for the treasury to lose money when it sells our shares. So what’re they doing with all that money?
Well, they’re handing out bonuses that will be over $400 million and could exceed 50% of workers salaries. In fact, nearly all 28,000 engineers and managers will get 4-16 percent of their base pay.
They’re paying homage to the green gods by investing in solar panels and wind farms. Not exactly sure how that contributes to making cars, but what do I know? In fact they’re spending just under $1 million for weatherization projects in Maine which they claim will be the first of similar investments in all 50 states.
GM is investing over $40 million dollars to “offest its carbon footprint,” and invested enough money into the World Golf Championship in Doral, Fl to get them to add the word “Cadillac” to it.
The average cost of a superbowl ad is $3 million for 30 seconds. GM aired 5 of them.
They’re working on getting the green light for a reality tv show about their Chevy Volt. I’m guessing it’ll include a cast of 20 people that will coincidentally be the only people in America that actually own one.
In fact, they are spending on entertainment at a faster rate than any other category.
And I know what you’re thinking, “Hey, companies have to advertise man! It’s getting them name recognition!” To that I would ask you if you really believe that GM’s name is so unknown that they need to spend a minimum $15 million worth of advertising during one game, or if, perhaps, they might be well known enough to advertise somewhere other than the most expensive commercial spot on planet Earth.
Yes, I know companies have to spend money to make money. But I’ll tell you what I see. I see a company that is trying to keep their Washington masters happy by supplying jobs in key spots for Democrats, a stock that is being driven into the ground, a higher and higher likelihood that we won’t be getting our money back, and a reality TV show starring the Volt.
As an unwilling shareholder of the company, I think I’d feel a lot better if someone other than an Obama lackey was in the top spot. How about you?
Yes, General Motors. A great example of Obama’s efforts to revitalize our economy. He bravely handed a failing industry billions of dollars of other people’s money and then planted political friends in high positions while paying off the unions with shares of the company.
As recently as May of this year, people like Jen Psaki, White House Deputy Communications Director, and Vice President Joe Biden, can be found praising the auto bailouts as the crown jewel of this administrations efforts.
In fact, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Obama administration plans to use the auto bailouts as a way to win over voters in swing states. This is helped of course by how so many GM jobs keep ending up in swing states.
Unfortunately, the reality of our “investment” isn’t as pretty as they’d have people believe. Instead, it’s becoming clear that we will be lucky if we at least break even.
General Motors chief executive Dan Akerson, an Obama appointee who was handed the job around the same time the government handed GM billions of dollars, has steered the ship into an area that he himself warned we should watch for when he was first awarded the position of CEO.
Said Akerson:
The board told me they don’t want a transitional CEO. I know what I`m signing up for. As long as I make my numbers, I’ll probably keep the job. If I don’t, then I shouldn`t keep the job. That`s the way it works.“As long as I make my numbers” is as vague as the stimulus claim of saving jobs, but I think it’s safe to assume that a 20% decline from their original IPO price was not what the company had in mind.
I’m sure things will work out great when the treasury finally sells the American tax payer’s holdings. After all, the stock market is just doing peachy these days. And as Akerson has been quick to point out, “We have about $35 billion to $40 billion of cash in our balance sheet. That’s a lot.” Yes Dan, that is a lot. Especially considering you still owe the American people about $20 billion by your own admission.
Currently, GM owes about $26.4 billion to the taxpayers. Their stock would need be trading at $53 per share just for the American people to break even (the stock closed a little below $24 today). If they were sold today, we would lose $10 billion dollars.
So the government appointed CEO has taken the company’s stock to historic lows; pushed out money losing, government subsidized cars that the American people don’t want, all at the behest of his bosses in Washington; and is sitting on enough cash to pay back the loan but is instead choosing to wait for the treasury to lose money when it sells our shares. So what’re they doing with all that money?
Well, they’re handing out bonuses that will be over $400 million and could exceed 50% of workers salaries. In fact, nearly all 28,000 engineers and managers will get 4-16 percent of their base pay.
They’re paying homage to the green gods by investing in solar panels and wind farms. Not exactly sure how that contributes to making cars, but what do I know? In fact they’re spending just under $1 million for weatherization projects in Maine which they claim will be the first of similar investments in all 50 states.
GM is investing over $40 million dollars to “offest its carbon footprint,” and invested enough money into the World Golf Championship in Doral, Fl to get them to add the word “Cadillac” to it.
The average cost of a superbowl ad is $3 million for 30 seconds. GM aired 5 of them.
They’re working on getting the green light for a reality tv show about their Chevy Volt. I’m guessing it’ll include a cast of 20 people that will coincidentally be the only people in America that actually own one.
In fact, they are spending on entertainment at a faster rate than any other category.
And I know what you’re thinking, “Hey, companies have to advertise man! It’s getting them name recognition!” To that I would ask you if you really believe that GM’s name is so unknown that they need to spend a minimum $15 million worth of advertising during one game, or if, perhaps, they might be well known enough to advertise somewhere other than the most expensive commercial spot on planet Earth.
Yes, I know companies have to spend money to make money. But I’ll tell you what I see. I see a company that is trying to keep their Washington masters happy by supplying jobs in key spots for Democrats, a stock that is being driven into the ground, a higher and higher likelihood that we won’t be getting our money back, and a reality TV show starring the Volt.
As an unwilling shareholder of the company, I think I’d feel a lot better if someone other than an Obama lackey was in the top spot. How about you?
Committtees
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/08/10/gop-picks-for-super-duper-committee-wont-make-a-difference/
Sunday, August 7, 2011
What's wrong with PETA?
http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2825
My favorite PETA antic was from a few years ago. They were allegedly going to create a remote control robotic fish with blaring speakers to run off all the fish at bowfishing contests. The bowfishers quite liked this idea, immediately placing robot fish above real fish on their target list. PETA however, failed to follow through.
My favorite PETA antic was from a few years ago. They were allegedly going to create a remote control robotic fish with blaring speakers to run off all the fish at bowfishing contests. The bowfishers quite liked this idea, immediately placing robot fish above real fish on their target list. PETA however, failed to follow through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)