Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

You've Got To Be Joking.

I read this today, and sprayed coffee on a formerly clean computer monitor, so be forewarned.  Apparently, CBS wishes beyond all hope to win the main stream media race to reach the very bottom and most obviously biased news organization contest.  They must have declared all evidence of intelligence will heretofore be hidden.  They must be hard at work trying to woo Will Ferrell to the network in order to read the news as his Ron Burgandy Character.  The reason for my laughter today?  CBS reported in a serious manner today that Sarah Palin is going to create traffic accidents by not supplying the press with her schedule.  It would seem as though the main stream media feels that Governor Palin owes them a complete accounting of her time, so that they can adequately destroy her image in any endeavor on which she embarks. 



Driving around the country in this big ass bus is a little to hard for the investigative professionals in our national press corps keep up with. MSNBC has at least shown that it is possible to go too far with biased reporting by firing Keith Olberman, and suspending Ed Shultz. They have limits, weak as they may be. CBS, not so much. America is having accidents on its roadways according to CBS, and it is Sarah Palin's fault. Beyond the lunacy of a supposed news gathering organization whining about the lack of cooperation of a private citizen who has not asked for, nor shown any expectation of receiving their publicity, why should Governor Palin give these imbeciles so much as a seconds thought?  30 months ago, they savaged her in their little and petty club. I can still remember Charlie Gibson looking down his nose through his prop glasses like a college professor lecturing Governor Palin on the proper definition of the Bush Doctrine which by the way, he got incredibly wrong. Tina Fey's admittedly funny performance on SNL is still quoted by a cackling media and Arnold, not Kennedy, Schwartzenegger as though it were actually attributable to Palin. Personally, I don't blame Mrs. Palin one bit for not wanting anything to do with a group who has demonstrated ill will and a complete lack of fairness. I don't believe she will be able to win the Presidency, nor even the Republican Nomination while having a complete press avoidance strategy, but that is the business of Sarah Palin, and nobody else.

In short, quit your whining CBS. and try objectively reporting the news for a change, people might actually watch your dumb little news show then.

UPDATE:GO SARAH! “I don’t want to cause no fuss; but can I buy your magic bus…
Noooooooooo….


Hat tip to Huckfunn, who by the way was quoted entirely with this update and song.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Wednesday At The Movies! Thomas Sowell Edition.

Sowell makes some great points about how the dishonest promises of politicians coupled with unreasonable expectations of an electorate eager to believe in fairy tales can wreak havoc on a society. Our nation is no exception to falling prey to this, and indeed we have done so very recently.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Net Neutrality: The Latest Orwellian Term From The Left.

Beware of laws proposed by the left to, "protect the little guy." These laws invariably end up destroying the viability of the, "little guys," businesses while solidifying the strength of the newly formed government monopolies. Why must these laws be given names and titles which will have the opposite effect for which they are intended, or likely to accomplish. The term net neutrality sounds as though our elected leaders wish to keep the Internet free and fair, and that it will be some sort of beacon of our Constitutional rights. Maybe it would work out that way in the dreamy like unicorn filled world of the political left, but in the land of reality, the results would be somewhat different, and the proponents of this law realize this. Large corporations like it because it will destroy their competition from upstarts and independent business owners. Politicians like it because it would allow them to control the speech of bloggers who might dare to say things not approved of by the aforementioned politicians. Service providers like it because it would establish them as an approved government sanctioned monopoly, much like the trucking industry of the late 60's and early 70's. Who won't like it? The rest of us will get screwed. We will be forced to pay higher prices for crappier service. The free market developed the Internet just fine without government help, regardless of the baloney claims of Al Gore, (who incidentally purchased a beach front home despite his claims that the Oceans would destroy all beach front property within a few years.) For those who do not know, the Internet started as a private computer networking service offered during the late 1970's by a company called CompuServe. They sold this service to Batelle Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Chemical Abstracts Corp., The Federal Reserve, AT&T, Ross Labs, Worthington Industries and several other clients. The joint efforts were initially established by Battelle, Ohio State, CompuServe, and Chemical Abstracts because they each realized that these four entities were constantly in need of accessing the other's databases to conduct their work. There was no government subsidy which started it all. After the system had been operating for a profit for several years, Al Gore and several dozen other members of congress decided that the U.S. and its considerable computer needs could benefit from becoming a client of this service, which was already very well established and successful.  Now, the Internet is so useful that the government is about to declare it a right, akin to the persuit of happiness etc.  Private enterprise has done fine on its own with this one thanks, don't destroy it by helping in that special way only big government knows how.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Barack Obama Breaks Newt Gingrich's Backtrack Record!

I didn't think it was possible, but President Obama beat the former backtrack record of 36 hours previously held by Newt Gingrich.  Not like other flip flops, backtracks are a complete denial and reversal.  On Thursday, President gave his Cairo II Speech.  In it, he gave his vision for an agreement between Israel and the so called, "Palestinians."  He promised Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that there would be no major bombs or surprises in his speech.  He dropped three, which if followed would spell out the end for Israel, the end for any survival chances any Jewish person would have in the region, and the death of our only true ally in the region.  President Obama made these three very clear statements.  One, that any hope for peace in the region would require that the return of 1967 borders be used as a starting point for future negotiation.  Two, that Israel would accept the role of Hamas as a negotiating partner on behalf of the, "Palestinian," people.  Three, that Israel accept the, "right of return."  As chilling as it was to hear a President say those things, this next statement is far worse.



The President of the United States just signaled to the Muslim Brotherhood that an Obama led USA would not defend Israel in an attack.

Now, let's take each of these 4 points and discuss why they are all of them disastrous to the interests of the United States of America. First, let's make the point very clear, Israel is our only true ally in the region. Israel is an important trading partner. Much of our technology which makes our everyday lives better was developed in Israel. Companies which derive technology in Israel include, Yahoo, Google, Intel, HP, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, and NCR. Many of the weapons used by our military and law enforcement were produced in Israel. Many of our techniques in fighting terrorism were taught to us by the Israelis who have been at the forefront of the war for the last 60 years. Israel, the only nation in the region without oil, enjoys the highest gdp per capita in the middle east, despite the fact that she is constantly at a state of war, being forced to continually defend herself against foreign aggression. What better example of the virtues of allowing for personal freedom and a democratic society than that exists anywhere? The 1967 borders were indefensible, and provided the surrounding 5 nations ample opportunity to launch an endless series of invasions. After the 1967 war, Israel made a decision to keep territory captured during a war, only sufficient to mount a viable defense and to dissuade invasion. If the neighboring Arab nations had not repeatedly invaded, this disputed land would not have been necessary to keep. Not a single other nation in the world has been forced to relinquish land seized after being victorious in a war. this has most assuredly never happened after the victorious nation had been the one attacked. Indeed, the nation which lost the greatest amount of land, Jordan, does not want administration of the West Bank at all. Jordan realizes that reclaiming the West Bank would mean that the, "Palestinians," would come with it.  The concept that Hamas would make a viable negotiating partner is asinine.  This statement is in fact so stupid, not even top members of Obama's own party are willing to embrace the idea.  Steny Hoyer, the practically communist House Minority Whip, came out with a joint statement with Eric Cantor that the House would never back such a ridiculous plan.  For those who don't know, Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Al Queda is a branch of the same organization.  The charter of this organization calls for the destruction of Israel, the death of all Jews in the world, and world domination of an Islamic Caliphate united under Sharia Law.  How is it possible to negotiate with these people?  Their religious belief is that they are commanded by their Deity to kill every Jew on the planet.  It is impossible to reach common ground with people who feel your annihilation is a religious duty.  Driving around with one of those moronic COEXIST bumper stickers while singing Kumbayah will not ever change that.  The, "right of return," is perhaps the worst of the three proclamations.  During the 1948 and 1954 wars, Egypt and Syria, and Jordan, all ran radio broadcasts stating that all Arabs should leave Israel, so that the Jews could be pushed into the sea.  The Israelis made it very clear, stay in your homes, and you will always be welcome to stay in Israel.  Help us to defend our mutual home, and be a part of this nation.  When the Arabs who left made that decision, to leave and help the invading army, they became refugees by their own choosing.  Many Arabs stayed, and they enjoy full Israeli citizenship today.  At the same time, roughly 650,000 Jews were expelled from every Arab nation in the middle east.  This is the same number of the Arabs who left Israel.  The tiny nation of Israel absorbed all of the Jewish refugees, and helped them to assimilate into Jewish Society.  This of course was not the case for the Arab refugees, who were purposefully used as pawns and kept permanently, by the Arab nations, as refugees never being allowed to move anywhere, or assimilate anywhere.  Much is said about the supposed ethnic cleansing or genocide of the, "Palestinians," but their population has literally exploded.  Genocides usually don't take a population of 650,000 and turn it into several million.  We are now talking about the grand children and great grandchildren of the group that left voluntarily and took up arms against Israel.  Allowing this to happen now would make Israel no longer a majority Jewish nation.  This would result in a very quick death to Israel from within, and the Jews would suffer the same fate as the Coptic Christians unfortunate enough to remain in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood seized control there. 

After a tumultuous couple of hours, the Obama White House realized how poorly the message was being received.  Obama went in front of AIPAC yesterday and said, "I never said those things."  "The media is out to get me."  "That's not what I meant." So, without further ado, here he is making those very comments he claims he never made, and you decide.



Lastly, there has been much backlash from the left calling Netanyahu rude, or ungrateful for the friendship of the U.S. To those people I say this, friendship is a two way street. What choice did we leave PM Netanyahu? Barack Obama had just edicted that the Israeli PM sign onto a plan which amounted to Israeli suicide. For any leader of a nation who cares even the slightest about the people that they lead, the reaction that Netanyahu showed was the only one possible. If Obama cared at all about the nation he leads, he would have known this. Sadly, he does not.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Sunday at The Movies! Herman Cain's Presidential Announcement Speech!

Krauthammer says no chance, but I disagree. Daniels opted out, Gingrich self destructed, Romney and Huntsman are actually Democrats, and the GOP electorate are in no mood for another Rino to sacrifice themselves at the alter of the Obamesiah. That leaves Ron Paul, the crazy old uncle of the GOP, Guiliani and Palin, neither of whom have declared yet, and Herman Cain. The more I hear him, the more I like him.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Saturday At The Movies! President Gets Bitch Slapped Edition!

President Obama gave a speech two days ago on his view of the situation in Israel. It was an odd combination for most folks of blind ignorance and naivete coupled with an unyielding arrogance. I'll call it the Obama Ignogance. In it, President Obama announced that the U.S. position on Israel would no longer match the overwhelming support of the American People, but now his singular vision of backing the Saudi Plan of Israel's return to the 1967 border's as a starting point for negotiation. These negotiations would also have to include the suicidal, "right of return," and an even more suicidal recognition of the Hamas branch of the Muslim Brotherhood as a partner for the diplomatic process. Yesterday, after a private meeting between the two leaders comments were given to the press from the Oval Office. What follows are those comments. Netenyahu's turn starts at around the 7 minute mark, and it is perhaps the single greatest diplomatic scolding of an arrogant child I have ever seen. Money quote, "no Mr. President, that's not going to happen."

To my fellow Jews who read this blog, how is it possible that you believe that Barack Obama is good for Israel?



A picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture taken during Netenyahu's turn in front of the microphones says the President is trying to pass a kidney stone.

U.S. President Obama listens to Israels ...

Friday, May 20, 2011

Conflict of Interest!

Please Note, this piece is an opinion.  In it I refer to felonies having been committed by Elena Kagan and Barack Obama.  As neither of these individuals have been prosecuted by officers of our judicial system, nor convicted in the same, this remains solely my opinion. 

You can always tell what Democrats are up to by listening to what they accuse Republicans of doing. We,ll use some examples of this statement for context. During the height of spontaneous outrage over the Obamacare legislation which occurred all over America in the summer of 2009, Nancy Pelosi went to the nearest bank of microphones and cameras and told us it was just AstroTurf. Perplexed, a reporter asked Nancy to define the term. She told us of the little known practice of faking buzz and interest in an issue or candidate. This is accomplished by loading buses filled with professional protesters, and taking them to where the epicenter of the issue is. Mass mailings of editorial letters to every newspaper in the country claiming that they all were written by local citizen. Packing town hall meetings with professional protesters again to give the appearance of dissent stronger than what the dissent may actually be. to date, the GOP instances of astro turfing verified is still at zero. To date, the instances of Democrat AstroTurf, to numerous to estimate. Politically motivated firings by executive privilege. The left went nuts when George Bush fired 3 Federal Prosecutors. Even though, these people serve at the pleasure of the President, and he was able to produce letters written by each of them in which they stated that they had no intentions of performing their duties to the standards set forth by their boss, the President, it was called cynical. On his first day in office, Bill Clinton fired every federal prosecutor, and issued a statement that essentially called them all crooked. I am still waiting for any sort of a comment or even a blurb to be reported on this.

About 6 months ago, I started noticing stories about the wife of Justice Clearance Thomas.  She is a career woman who works for the Heritage Foundation.  The Heritage Foundation is a political and economic think tank with a conservative bent.  They also pride themselves on the accuracy of their facts.  They researched the Obamacare Law, and reported on some factual discrepancies.  They also editorialized against it.  On this flimsy basis,  Democrats began screaming about Justice Thomas' possible role in the SCOTUS decision regarding the eventual Obamacare arguments in front of the court.  After all, if his wife works for people who are against it, how could he possibly remain impartial?  Something happened two days ago which made this preposterous stance all too clear.

As it turns out, there is real evidence now that Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court, was the person responsible for developing the White House's legal defense for this Law.  Some points of interest here.  Kagan was asked about this very thing while giving testimony during her confirmation hearings.  She flat out lied about it.  Elena Kagan is not supposed to be a politician who lies with such ease and the low expectations that come with being a professional campaigner.  She is supposed to be representative of the highest court in the land, and an example of unimpeachable integrity.  Kagan also stated that she would not recuse herself from the case, when it eventually makes its inevitable trip to the court. 

That this Law would eventually be headed, as it is, to the Supreme Court was never in doubt.  Obama had the chance to pick a vote which would go his way, regardless of all other factors.  He had the chance to pick the very person for the court who wrote the argument she will now listen to and adjudicate.  This is beyond cynical, it is outright criminal.  Lying to Congress is also a criminal act.  I am still waiting for the slightest reaction from the main stream media on these facts.  When elected, President Obama promised, "to pick people for the court who would use their empathy to determine social justice as well as legal justice. "  It is a shame he refused to use actual knowledge of the Constitution or a personal integrity standard for his criteria.  An officer of the highest court in the land is now a felon, as is the President of the United States.  (Obama is also included in the felons club for his role in Pigford.)

Thursday, May 19, 2011

What We're Up Against In The Entitlements Discussion.

Those of us on the right, (pun intended,) side of the fiscal debate have made a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory over the past few decades. When we make our points without apology in the arena of ideas, we win elections, period. After winning those elections, many on our side have taken to the idea of swaying to the perceived shifting in public opinion winds. When that happens, we lose elections, and we lose them big. It never ceases to amaze me how the spin on those cycles can be so wildly misread, and believed. If you are a conservative, do not read the NYT, Time, Newsweek, or watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC. These sources of information are telling us all whole sale lies. Read the WSJ, Investors Business Daily, and if you must watch T.V. for your news, Fox is at least less offensive than the rest. This essay is not about media bias though, it is more about the upcoming debate on entitlement spending. It is about the victory, which by the way is no small feat, at shifting our national debate from the how fast will our government grow paradigm, to how much fat will we cut from a bloated budget paradigm. It is a discussion about the upcoming media blitz to make us all believe that American Sentiment is suddenly changing, to wanting the government to continue its massive growth and spending habits on the social welfare programs which have so effectively bankrupted our country. It is a discussion about our elected leaders natural tendency to capitulate on their principles and agree to continue the stupidity.

When we talk about cutting entitlement spending, this is what we mean.

This should be a no brainer. Mr. Thornton is perfectly capable of getting himself work, and supporting himself. Being in the financial services industry, I have some knowledge of how Social Security Disability works. First off, all who apply are automatically declined, and must put themselves through the appeals and adjudication process. People are either approved or declined through several steps of a lengthy multi tiered adjudication system. That is, a person may be declined several times before the system of appeals is exhausted. The national average adjudication time is roughly 2 and 1/2 years. So, if anyone believes that Mr. Thornton simply slipped through the cracks, guess again. Not only is Mr. Thornton on public assistance, but his care taker, Ms. Diaz, is as well. Clearly she would be able to support herself, as she is fulfilling the duty of providing nursing care for Mr. Thornton. Each and every time we bring up the discussion of legally mandated spending, which can not be cut without a change in the law, we are assured that puppy dogs, children, and old people will surely die as a result of our callousness. When our nation was founded, it was founded on the principle of self determination. This meant, and continues to mean that each of us would be free to pursue our own destinies free from a governmental authority which would be able to place obstacles in our path base on the whims of a ruling elite. While I agree that Mr. Thornton should be able to pursue his dreams of being an infant forever if he so chooses, it is not my dream to pay for it. Mr. Thornton's right to be a baby, is for Mr. Thornton to pursue, completely on his own. The beauty of a free society, is that each person may pursue their own interests, but it only works if they are willing to do so only on their own behalf. No one should be forced to support their neighbors. Now, I realize that there will always be those in our society who are unable to feed, and clothe themselves. I believe we all agree that as a moral society, we wish to help those people, but the pendulum has clearly swung too far in the direction of entitlement becoming a lifestyle. Judging by the digs of Thornton and Diaz, it appears to be a pretty nice lifestyle at that. He has access to cable T.V. and the Internet, as well as spending money for toys, building supplies, and power tools. I lived in the Detroit area during the late 80's and early 90's. I remember John Engler as Governor of the State of Michigan cutting the budget of every department in the State by 10% across the board. He did this 3 years in a row, and not a single person lost their benefits. Imagine what we could do if we cut the baloney.




Now, as a special treat, enjoy the new tone of Washington politics as a group of Democrats puts that nice non demagogic language on display, accusing Congressman Ryan of shoving Grandma off of a cliff. The statement of course, wishing to return to a limited role for government, on which our nation was founded means we want to kill old people. Of course, it is not important at all that Ryan's plan does nothing of the sort, and that privatizing the system would not spend one dime less on recipients than what is currently being spent. Privatizing the system merely means that seniors would be able to make their own decisions if they wished, rather than a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Will The Last Free Person In America Please Turn Out The Lights!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

If this does not wake Americans up as to what our Central Planners in the Washington Politburo and their boss, Dear Leader Obama are doing, and are going to do in the future, I am not sure at all that there is any hope for America.  I hate to sound negative, and I realize that calling Dear Leader and his Central Planning Apparatchiks Marxists is considered racist in the circles of those who are also in favor of flat out Marxism, but this latest move, perpetrated by the NLRB really puts it all in perspective.  It seems as though, appointed Washington bureaucrats have granted themselves the authority to tell a successful American company where they can and can not conduct their business.

WASHINGTON – The top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling Wednesday claiming that Boeing violated federal labor laws in deciding to start manufacturing a new line of its 787 planes in South Carolina – and seeking to force the firm to make the Dreamliner aircraft at its current plant in Everett.
Bear in mind, Boeing was planning on keeping their operations in Washington State going, they were going to add the plant in Charleston to their workforce.  This is the very job creation and economic boost our Nation needs right now.

Lafe Solomon, NLRB’s acting general counsel, alleged in his complaint that Boeing’s decision to open a non-union factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, discriminated against its Washington state employees who belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
"A worker’s right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act,” Solomon said. “We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, delivered a scathing indictment of the NLRB move.
"This is one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen,” Graham said. “In this case, the NLRB is doing the bidding of the unions at great cost to South Carolina and our nation’s economy.”
The State of Washington made decisions for the past 50 years to make the leftward shift towards Socialism.  South Carolina has been spending the same amount of time remaining a free market zone.  It is no secret that any job creation in our economy over the last 2 years has occurred either in the right to work states, or in the form of government growth and hiring.  Texas, South Carolina, Utah, have all not participated in the recession.  While unemployment remains at 9% for the rest of the Nation, These states have vastly better records.  What's worse, if government hiring is factored out, unemployment would be up around 12%.  In other words, in order to keep the numbers below double digits, the Obama Administration has increased the numbers of those dependent on the federal teat.  The only Private Sector hiring going on, is happening in places where Obama's policies are not being enacted.  That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of hopety change. 

Not ever in my lifetime did I believe that it would be possible for the government to basically dictate to a private citizen how and where their business would be conducted.  Special interests, meaning the unions, have been placed at the forefront, while the economic interests and possibly the survival of an American Company have been mandated aside.  This is nothing more than a Chicago style payback for big labor.  Part of the need for Socialists, in order to make their asinine economic theory viable and competitive, is to change the rules and behavior of citizens.  Since Boeing's best interests await in South Carolina, and the best interests in South Carolina is to incent Boeing to open up shop there, the NLRB needs to pass a rule making it painful for South Carolinians to incent businesses to open up shop in their State.  They need to pass rules making it painful for Boeing to do business where they choose to go.  This is the same thing as making incandescent bulbs illegal to produce, and taxing unapproved toilets.  It is just on a massively huge scale, and it is every bit as destructive. 

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Finding Out What's In It: Part X



I know, I know, I am getting just as tired of writing about it as you are of reading about it. Something pretty important still remains however. This sink hole of a law remains in effect. America is worse of for it. We, as a nation still have the ability to do something about it. To that end, I am not going to give it up. On to today's tedium.

The new statistics have been released regarding the waivers granted for the law. The waivers for those of you who do not know, are those people who will be exempted from paying their fair share of this unaffordable monstrosity. To date, we, (meaning we the people,) have exempted 1372 organizations. Some interesting facts about those who will be living off of the rest of us for the next 4 years. 80% of those chosen arbitrarily by the Executive Branch to be opted out of paying are affiliated with unions. Only about 7% of American workers are members of a union. These two stats alone should have an alert Department of Justice scrambling for some coherent answers. Don't hold your breath. Our Justice Department is headed up by Eric Holder, who is more concerned with foisting a back door slavery reparations solution on us without our knowledge or input, (Pigford.) One in five of the waivers granted during 2011 are for businesses located within the borders of Nancy Pelosi's congressional district. Again, this is a statistical anomaly which alone should be enough to send the former House Speaker to prison. Perhaps, if we had an Attorney General who was actually doing his job, we could get a picture of Nancy being sentenced against a backdrop photo of her holding that comically sized gavel that she marched from her office to the Capitol Building. One of our 50 states has been completely exempted. That means there is a 98% chance that you should be outraged for having to pick up their share of the cost, which is actually killing our jobs and national economy.

Over and over and over and over again we are told about how the Democrats are for the little guy, and how Republicans are the party of the rich.  Going over the list of approved waivers to date, I can not find a single little guy anywhere on the list.   Also of special note in this search, it seems that the Obama Administration, you know, the most transparent Administration ever, has disallowed the list of waivers from being shown in its entirety.  It is now necessary to do multiple searches, for each month and by industry in order to get the whole picture.  What we do see in the list is some very wealthy Democrat supporters getting a political payback for selling the rest of us down the river.  So, down the river we go, paying for the likes of such small and helpless guys like GE, Aetna, SEIU local 25, The state of Maine, Nancy Pelosi's congressional district............  What you won't find on the list is a small business owner who might very possibly be put out of business by the additional $20,000 of expense per employee.  Any one who's business is new, and is just marginally profitable, has now effectively been put out of business by the man who claims that he has created the best environment in the world to conduct commerce.  On their way to fighting this added onerous burden, they get to listen to President Obama lecture them about how they should step up and do their part by hiring employees they can neither afford, and are in fact going to be punished for hiring.

The most oft repeated phrase in the law is, "at the discretion of the secretary."  To date, there is no discernible criteria for who gets a waiver and who does not.  It is completely at the whim of a bureaucrat, who is a political appointee.  The current political appointee is not answering any questions regarding how she makes these decisions.  This is not the transparency promised by Candidate Obama.  This is in fact the worst form of cynicism that he promised to end.  There is a good reason why the Democrats lost 72 House Seats in the midterm elections.  This law was that reason.  The American people were outraged that something they were clearly against was rammed down their throats, and further outraged that the elected representatives who voted for this did not care enough to listen to their constituents.  That is why I continue to write about this.  I do not wish to lose that outrage, this is not looking better.  It is getting worse.  It is now being used as a form of political payback.  

Monday, May 16, 2011

No Seriously, Ministry Of Truth Proposed By Bill Clinton!

Well, let's face it, we all knew it was only a matter of time anyway.  The political left has finally made their annoyance with free speech, and our First Amendment rights official.  Perhaps the single worst spokesperson for this has chimed in.  Bill Clinton, yes this Bill Clinton,



has suggested that either the federal government, or possibly the United Nations operate a full blown ministry of truth to sift through the facts presented by people on a daily basis involving political debate. I guess a free and independent press, as encouraged by the Constitution of our great nation is not good enough for Slick Willie. He does not feel as though his side of the aisle gets a fair shake when people are free to talk about what he and his side are up to. On his side of the aisle we have ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, HLN, Time, Newsweek, NYT, WaPO, Reuters, AP, BBC, and every other major newspaper in the country. On the other side of the aisle, there is Fox News, and that's about it. President Clinton feels as though those few voices in opposition are just a little more than he can fight against, that we now need a government agency to do the job of an independent press. The left has always known that the American people would not willingly go along with what their true intentions were. That is why they spend so much time on their messaging. They know that they need to spin their Marxist beliefs in phraseology with different meanings. It just doesn't work as well if there are dirty little independent truth tellers out there. So now, President Clinton suggests something literally straight out of the dystopian nightmarish society created as fiction by George Orwell's 1984 as a needed piece of today's world. President Clinton's suggestion in this instance is truly Orwellian in nature. While I agree that much of our media is feeding us baloney instead of fact, I would feel even less comfortable with a government agency being put in charge of censorship of the facts, deciding not only what was true, but eventually, which facts we were allowed to know, and eventually, which lies would be substituted for facts for our own good.  At least President Clinton did experience one useful slip of the tongue while making his statements.

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”
Slick Willie admitted that the main stream media were actually biased.  Something many of us have known for years. 

In charge of the Ministry of Truth, well who does President Clinton believe should be charged with that.  Among his choices are the United Nations.  That's right, the organization that gave us Moamar Kaddafy Duck as the head of the Council on Human Rights, a body that includes Iran, China, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as its members.  Who will ever forget that beacon of integrity highlighted by the Oil for Food program which saw Hundreds of Billions of Dollars being funnelled into private bank accounts of the UN's brass and middle management.  Then there is the other version of UN truth called the child sex slavery scandal of the upper Congo region.  I don't know about you, but I want those guys in charge of telling me what I have the right to believe.  Bill Clinton's other choice, good old Uncle Sam.  While I don't hate my government, I will say that we sometimes elect people that I do not agree with, and some times have a hard time respecting.  Without naming names like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, I would like to ask a few serious questions.  Do you honestly believe that even an independent agency would remain so for very long?  Elected officials from one party or another would be charged with appointing people to that ministry, and that would effectively end all pretense of being non-partisan.  Let us pretend you have trusted each and every President during your lifetime.  You had an admiration for both George Bush and Barack Obama, not only would that be improbable, it would make you the single most naive person on the planet.  How would you feel about that insane level of trust extending into the future for an unlimited amount of time?  The person who will be President in 200 years has yet to be born.  How is it possible to give that person the same blind trust, with out losing every ounce of intellectual integrity?  In our everyday society, being a proven liar is frowned upon.  Most people do not want to be lied to in their personal or professional lives.  Lying is the norm for our politicians.  They do it so smoothly and so frequently, I am not certain if an elected official is even capable of discerning the difference for even themselves.  Is this really our best choice for deciding what truth we will all know?

I think we are much better off establishing facts for ourselves.  It has worked for the last couple of hundred years, and is the best course to follow for the future as well.  Mr. Clinton, keep your Ministry of Truth, and feed that crap to Hillary.  She, and possibly Wolf Blitzer would be the only ones dumb enough to buy it.

The political left is dropping all pretences of its affiliation with Marxism.  How long before our center right nation realizes this?  I realize that the main stream media will do their level best to hide this from the rest of us, but the Ministry of Truth, that really should be a solid clue for even the sleepiest of Giants.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Sunday at the Movies! California Dreamin Edition.

How much are the good people of California willing to inflict upon themselves? When California meets her impending doom, and needs a bailout, the rest of the country should tell them no. They keep sending the Democrats to Sacramento, and they keep voting themselves ridiculous benefits that they can not afford. It is their problem, and they need to deal with it themselves.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Saturday At The Movies! A Practical Look At High Speed Rail.

Public Transit takes up a full 50% of our transportation resources as a nation. This includes not only the budget spent by the Department of Transportation, but what we also spend ourselves from the private sector. Public Transportation serves a full 3% of our populace. Well, not a full 3%, but a full 2.8%, which is down over the last 40 years from 2.9%. This video addresses some of the finer points we might want to consider before pumping literally hundreds of Billions of dollars that we already do not have in order to have a net destruction of jobs which we currently need. 

Friday, May 13, 2011

Friday Firewall with Bill Whittle!

This is more about media bias and spin than it is about our President's decision making. O.K., it may poke a little fun at the Obamamesiah's latest victory lap in which he is touring the country with the virtual corpse of Bin Laden

The Decay Of Our Educational System, What Happens When The Political Left Takes Over



The above video was taken at a school board meeting in Tuscon Arizona. The woman reading the class syllabus and examples of class material is chastised for her use of foul language by the very people who approved that material for her third grade child. I am forced to wonder about several things. One: How much reading, writing, math, and science could possibly be taught in Tuscon? For years we have listened to the teacher's unions tell us all how evil President Bush's standards were. It is not fair to use standardized tests to measure the success of our public schools. The system would be too easy to cheat by, "teaching the students to the tests." Two: Why not give parents the choice of what subjects they want their children to be taught by allowing a voucher program? Give the citizens recourse to send their children to schools of their choosing. It is no secret that since the 1960's there has been a real push by the political left to defacto take control of our nation's educational system irregardless of who was in control of the Executive Branch of our government. Well over 90% of our teachers are slanted to the left, and more often than not, opinion replaces fact in our class rooms.

Just in case you believed that this woman was over reacting, here is the link to what the citizens have had inflicted upon them by the school board and school administrators.


Three: What will be the long term ramifications of using our schools as indoctrination centers rather than teaching the necessary skills to be productive members of society.  We, thanks to Sol Allinsky will have an entire generation of registered voters who believe that our country is average only because of the legal or possibly illegal immigrant population, who specifically did not come to our shores in search of the better opportunity afforded by our founding documents and allowing each person the freedom to pursue their own destinies free from a centrally planned big brother apparatus.  Further, they will know nothing of how the free enterprise economic system works, but will grow up believing that is has produced only misery and heartache around the world. 

Yesterday, Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy for President, and I am in no way endorsing him.  He did however say something which made sense.  "Would you rather emulate Texas or Detroit?"  A good question.  Texas is booming right now, as Texas is one of the last bastions of capitalism in the country.  Detroit is the model experiment of Socialist Policies and in fact was named the Model City for the enactment of Lyndon Johnson's great society.  How has that worked out for Detroit?  Detroit was already what Johnson envisioned when the program began.  It took the Soviet Union 70 years to collapse, and it only took Detroit 40.  Knowing that we may one day soon have an entire generation of kids taught that our country has the greatest and most successful economy in the world because we are inherently dishonest people is scary to say the least.  Our founding documents are not only not being taught in class anymore, but are just flat out being dismissed as racist. 

Four: How long do we allow this game to continue.  Since the creation of the Department of Education, the quality of education in our country has rapidly, and steadily declined.  The real cost, (inflation adjusted,) of the same education has rapidly and steadily increased.  I am not saying that we should scrap outright the public education system in our country.  I do believe that the local school boards should be cutting checks to the parents for the costs of education for the parents to have the ability to send their kids to private schools if they so choose.  What ever the true cost of subsidy is, that should be the amount available for the private schools as well.  The beautiful part about a free enterprise system is that more schools will rapidly open to meet demand.  Schools which did a poor job would not survive, and those that did well would flourish.  Public schools would be forced to improve upon their product, which quite frankly is currently terrible in many places.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Kabuki President Discusses Immigration.

Yesterday, President Obama went to Austin for another slickly produced bit of Kabuki Theater that is the hallmark of his Presidency.  In his speech, President Obama managed to showcase his new tone of Hopety Change by alienating the people of Texas, alienating anyone who resides near one of our international borders, cynically lying to all of the American People, and failing to do the basic fact checking necessary to even begin to have an intelligent debate on this important issue.  Perhaps most important of all, the, "constitutional scholar," seems incapable of getting even the most basic of historical perspectives correct.  On to my rant.

President Obama spoke to a group of Texas citizens.  During his speech he gave not one reason why he has neglected to do his job in regards to declaring Texas a Federal Disaster area in response to the wild fires raging there.  I have heard much in the way of speculation, which given the lack of the President's action, and the fact of his failure to even address the Texan's concerns, is the only thing available to be heard.  Whatever his motivations for his clear dereliction of duty, whether they be politically motivated or not, are at the very least troubling for those of us who are citizens of this great nation.  The fact that his speech instead was meant to chide the residents of Texas for not being thankful for the nothing Barack Obama has done on this issue is just cruel.  Is this the new tone in Washington he meant?  "If your state did not send me their electoral votes, or if your Governor is not a political ally, then you're screwed."  The people living in our border states have very real, not theoretical issues that they have to deal with.  Our nation is literally being invaded by a hostile force from Mexico.  Armed, and well organized Cartel Militias now rule the northern portions of what used to be part of Mexico.  What's worse, Barack Obama's Justice Department has been buying weapons and actually selling them to the cartels.  Our border patrol agents have been saddled with idiotic rules of conduct designed to get them killed, and to prevent them from actually enforcing our borders.  Several of these agents recently have found themselves in legal trouble for attempting to perform their duties to protect the rest of us.  What President Obama stated, beyond the silly, "you should be thankful for what I am doing." schtick is that immigration is in fact what made our country great.  We'll get back to this point, and destroy it later, after we discuss his latest foray into cynical lying.

President Obama told the good people of Texas that he is doing everything humanly possible to stem the tide of illegal immigration from the south.  He stated this in the same speech in which he said that we should do nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration because it actually helps America.  We can put aside for the moment the contradictions within his speech.   Let's analyze the everything humanly possible aspect.  The fact is that Obama has done everything humanly possible to prevent enforcement of our borders.  This Administration has actually placed signs, within U.S. territory stating that care should be taken close to the border with Mexico.  The signs state the these areas may in fact be controlled by criminal elements operating out of Mexico and that our own national land may in fact be an unsafe place for American Citizens. 

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is shown next to a warning sign in the desert in a campaign ad. (Governor Jan Brewer 2010)

The Obama Administration, since January of 2009 has instituted an asinine policy of prosecuting border patrol agents for defending themselves against incoming shots being fired from the drug cartels in control of the southern portion of our country.  Yes, he has hired a handful of new agents to, "enforce the border," but at the same time he has instituted policies that make them basically targets, and not law enforcement personnel. 

On to his never ending struggles with historical perspectives.  Immigration did not make our country great, our founding documents made our country great.  To the extent that immigrants came here and participated in that I agree.  I do not believe that any one sane would disagree.  It was the fact that our form of government, and the freedoms to incent people to take control of their own destinies which made America such an attractive place for people to immigrate here.  The way Barack Obama tells it in speech after speech, is that we here in America traveled the world kidnapping people with talent so that they would created businesses and technology that otherwise would have been founded somewhere else.  The true historical perspective is that people with ideas saw the opportunity here.  Realizing that their ideas would either not come to fruition in their home countries, or that they would not be rewarded for their efforts decided to immigrate to our shores in search of their own self interests.  Now, I realize that not everyone is going to get the historical perspectives correct all of the time.  I also realize that I myself may get it wrong from time to time.  I do however feel the the leader of the free world should get them right more often than wrong.  Barack Obama is either the dumbest person on the planet, or he is screwing this up on purpose.  It is not really important to me which, but I do laugh whenever he is referred to as a, "Scholar," or a, "Constitutional Scholar." 

From his speech yesterday:

Look at Intel and Google and Yahoo and eBay – these are great American companies that have created countless jobs and helped us lead the world in high-tech industries.  Every one was founded by an immigrant.  We don’t want the next Intel or Google to be created in China or India.  We want those companies and jobs to take root in America.
Ed Morrisey at Hotair provides some important fact checking not performed by the White House staff. 

As reader Joe C points out, Obama might be surprised, too — if he bothered to look for himself.  Intel was founded by Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce in 1968, neither of whom was an immigrant … unless Obama thinks San Francisco and Burlington, Iowa are in foreign countries.  (Some conservatives might be tempted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on San Francisco.)  In fact, Noyce is descended from passengers on the Mayflower, which is about as non-immigrant as one gets without being a Native American.
As for the other firms on the list, Obama comes closer, but still doesn’t quite get it right.  Google was co-founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin; Page was born in East Lansing, Michigan, although Brin was born in Russia.  Yahoo was co-founded by Jerry Yang (China) and David Filo (Wisconsin).  eBay was co-founded by Pierre Omidyar (France) and Michael Dean Johnson (US).  Put together, the firms had more American founders than immigrants.
Finally, of course, even the immigrants all had one thing in common — they emigrated to the US legally.  They came to this country rather than China precisely because they could exercise their entrepreneurial spirit and find investors without kowtowing to an authoritarian ruling class of the kind found in China.  They didn’t enter illegally and then demand amnesty for breaking the law.  No one opposes legal immigration.
One more point on the immigration thing before I move on to other issues.  Milton Friedman sums it up nicely.  Bear in mind that this was recorded in the late 1970's, and that things have changed since then.  One of the things that has changed is the fact that our illegal immigrant population is today entitled to the social welfare system in many places.  California chief among them.  Even with California's mammoth problems in regards to her own budget crisis, they are still forcing a bag of goodies from the public largess on the backs of an already burdened tax paying populace. 


Part 2:

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Armstrong Williams' interview of Andrew Breitbart.

This is well worth the hour's investment of your time. One of the reasons the left so violently hates Andrew Breitbart is that he used to be one of them. As a member of the main stream media, Breitbart slowly changed his views after seeing first hand the dishonesty and hypocrisy that is on display by the supposedly objective media that feeds us our news.



Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:

Monday, May 9, 2011

Are You Serious? No Chicken Little, Barack Obama Is Not A Shoo In.

So, here we are with another election cycle starting out way to early. The GOP field is in the middle of announcing their bids officially. Announcing their intentions this early is nothing new. What is new however, newspaper articles and television reports assuring us that no matter what we the people have to say about it, the current POTUS is a lock for reelection. Several media sources including the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and MSNBC have already informed us that the conservative movement is now officially dead, and further, the GOP need not bother with a nomination process, Barack Obama simply can not be defeated. If you choose to laugh for a bit prior to reading on, I completely understand.

The only thing necessary to dispel this pap of course is an adult memory. Remember back to the ancient date of November 2010. The voters, meaning we the people, delivered an overwhelming referendum to reject President Obama's domestic agenda. Since then, many predicted that Obama would tack to the center, and coopt the conservative message. President Obama in fact has done the opposite. He has rejected outright the message delivered by an historic election where his party saw losses of 72 House Seats, 6 Senate Seats, 11 Governorships, 680 State Legislature Seats, and watched his messianic approval numbers plunge to being below the mendoza line. Gas is not only above $4.00 per gallon, but there are several recordings, youtube videos, etc. of Obama and members of his administration stating that this was what they wanted to inflict upon America in order to promote social justice and to save the planet from global warming, (something which by the way has been shown to be a farce by leaked emails sent by the main proponents of this nonsense.) Monthly, we all get treated to a story about how the economy is, "unexpectedly," sluggish in terms of GDP growth, employment, construction starts, materials inventory, venture capital, what have you. I have read the adverb, unexpectedly, so many times in economic news reports over the past two years that I am seriously considering donating a couple of bucks to Newsweek so that they can purchase another descriptive phrase.

Based on economics alone, Barack Obama is a goner. then we have his record on foreign matters. Yes, we got Bin Laden, but then again, the lack of getting Bin Laden was not President Obama's sore point. The middle east is in flames. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over Egypt, and is making overtures in other nations as well. He has gone out of his way to insult and alienate our staunchest allies while cozying up to the world's most thuggish dictators. How weird have the optics of his Presidency gotten in regards to foreign policy? Try contemplating this. A past winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama, held a state dinner for a thuggish dictator, Hu Jintao, who had at the time imprisoned the current winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Dali Lama. We also have a wonderful still shot of the Dali Lama being forced to walk out of the service entrance to the White House, past the garbage.

Remember when George Bush was President and we were bludgeoned daily with tales of the disastrous national budget deficits, which at the time were $450 Billion. Candidate Obama promised to cut this in half, not just the deficits, but the total debt as well. President Obama has proposed nothing short of a deficit of $1.6 Trillion. While he proposed this, he claimed to be leading the charge on reigning in spending.

He has appointed some of the most incompetent people imaginable to key positions. This includes Van Jones, who's latest endeavor is to anoint human rights to animals, trees, and even to inanimate objects like rocks and dirt. That people are not laughing at this is perplexing, until I realize that our media has not seen fit to report on any of this. The problem President Obama faces is in some context going to be the early success of his bid for the Presidency. The media could ignore the gaffes, and outright embarrassing facets of the man Obama. They will not be so able to do this in 2012. The President lives in a fish bowl, and people know what he has been up to, and they don't like it. Then we can add in the socialized health care which nobody wanted. Seniors are beginning to figure out the Barack has indeed screwed with their Medicare and Social Security.

Taken all together, this does not point to a shoo in. All we need to do is to not pick the candidate the main stream media would pick for us. We, meaning we the people, need to vote for who we believe represents our values and ideals, and not worry at all about who we feel has a chance at being elected. Doing that, is how we got landed with John McCain, the GOP Candidate who was endorsed by the New York Times. One lesson which should be remembered by those of us in the conservative movement is that after endorsing McCain during the primary, the New York Times spent the next several months savaging him editorially.

Keep the faith, keep fighting. Nobama in 2012.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Sunday At The Movies!

Veronique de Rugy busts a couple of myths pertaining to taxation. Those of us on the right understand the laffer curve. We have seen historically that no matter where rates are placed, about 19.8% of GDP is going to be collected. The only thing which can truly affect our revenues therefore is GDP growth or decline. Politicians understand that Americans respond to demagoguery. People will vote to punish a class of individuals they see as the reason for their personal discomfort. De Rugy's explanation shows that trying to tax our way to prosperity will have the exact opposite effect.




Deborah Burlingame describing her meeting with President Obama. She asked him point blank to stop the prosecution of the very Bush Administration officials who provided the Osama Bin Laden intel that he has been spending all of his time taking credit for. These men are being prosecuted for utilizing the techniques which were deemed to be legal at the time and actually worked. Almost everybody agrees that the President did the right thing, but to use it to tout yourself politically, while attempting to imprison the very folks who made it possible, and at the same time bashing the man who put the process for your success in place is the definition of hypocritical. President Obama is a petty man, and ought not be President.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Saturday At The Movies! Condi Rice Edition. Bonus Breitbart Clip Included.

I'm giving Dr. Rice an A for this debate. she refuses on several occasions to accept the premise offered by O'Donnell. She backs him off several times for stepping all over her answers. By the end of the video, she even gets O'donnell to sort of admit he doesn't even believe all of his asinine talking points. Slogans, cliches, and talking points are no substitute for a well reasoned argument son.



Feature number two is a debate between Al Pires and Andrew Breitbart. Watch how quickly Pires jumps to the lowest common denominator in his argument. When confronted with the facts of his criminal behavior, he immediately takes on the persona of a rat caught on a sinking ship. The ad hominems and moral equivalency are so prevalent, it becomes comical.

Friday, May 6, 2011

A Proud Moment For The Department Of Education, And The Detroit Teacher's Union!


The other day, I was enjoying lunch with a family friend.  Dee, is a retired school teacher.  The subject centered on the off year election.  Our city had only one thing on the ballot, an issue which was going to increase our property taxes and build a new school and a rec. center, where the children could hold their band concerts, choir recitals, and plays.  "It's only a $300 per year increase in your taxation," he informed me.  I answered that it was $300 per assessed $100,000 in home value according to the county.  I stated further that I did not wish to get into the discussion of whether I was for or against the levy, but that I felt it important to at least get the facts right before debating.  The levy failed, and failed big.  One of the truly interesting things about this vote struck me.  All of the signs around town were in support of it.  At every school event, there were at least 15 minutes of propaganda time allotted for campaigning.  Of the teachers who campaigned for this issue hard in each of their class rooms, most do not live in this city.  The county auditors assessment of how much a house is worth is completely independent of the market conditions, or fair appraisals of the home.  The people of America in general are tired of being assaulted by tax collectors and not seeing anything of value in exchange for their money, and they are especially sick of it during hard economic times.

Then I read something yesterday, and it really ticked me off.  Half of the population of Detroit is functionally illiterate.  Of the 47% of Detroit residents who can not read, half of them hold Detroit City School System diplomas.  All of them made it past the elementary school years, where basic reading is taught.  Detroit spends $13,000 per year on its students, and is one of the top spending school districts in the country.  So, where is the money going?  At $13,000 per year per student, it costs more to not educate a child in Detroit than it does to send him to attend The Ohio State University.  The college figure, while it does not include books and lab fees, it does include room and board in one of the Universities fine dormitories. 

During his Presidency, the 1970's version of Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, created the department of education.  A brand spanking new federal bureaucracy who's sole purpose was to make sure that our public education system did not regress to this point.  How has it done?  Detroit is not alone.  Liberals will bring up our need to educate our children during every election.  The claim will be made that the evil Republicans want to prevent the children from learning how to read and write.  They have argued that taking away from the department of Education will cause children to be living in the street and puppy dogs to die.  I think this latest news points out that taking away from the Department of Education will serve to limit the amount of mischief they are able to get into.   Ending the Department of Education will put an end to that mischief entirely. 

Here is the truth of the matter, what ever is being extorted for the purposes of public education is not going towards educating anybody.  It is all a giant federally approved money laundering scheme which has succeeded only in the endeavor of enriching the unions that run the show, and the politicians who have supported the fiasco.  At $13,000 per year, the good children of Detroit should be college bound, and not unable to fill out a job application.  At $13,000 per year, we here in America are being robbed by those same politicians and union thugs who continually accuse us all of being puppy killers.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

That Perfect Example of The Green Economy In Action.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

During his State of The Union Address, Barack Obama told us, that we were facing our Sputnik moment.  The seminal moment for our generation, when our adversaries are on the verge of taking a technological lead on us in the race to become the preeminent power, in whatever the next frontier is to be, in regards to that new something which will determine economic, military, and technological success for several generations to come.  Barack Obama identified that new field as, "Green Technology."  Putting aside for the moment how patently silly this actually is, why don't we look at how the, "Green Economy," is working out for those nations already employing it.  This is what we can expect from the new, "green," economy. 

Hadyardhill in South Ayrshire, which is owned by SSE Renewables, was given £140,000 to stop producing energy, while Blacklaw windfarm in Lanarkshire – also owned by Scottish Power – was given £130,000.
The Millennium windfarm in the Highlands and Beinn Tharsuin, just north of Alness, each received £33,000 and £11,500 respectively.
Dr Lee Moroney, planning director for the REF, which has criticised subsidies to the renewable sector in the past, said: “The variability of wind power poses grid management problems for which there are no cheap solutions.
“However, throwing the energy away, and paying wind farms handsomely for doing so, is not only costly but obviously very wasteful.
“Government must rethink the scale and pace of wind power development before the costs of managing it become intolerable and the scale of the waste scandalous.”
The National Grid said the network had overloaded because high winds and heavy rain in Scotland overnight on 5 and 6 April produced more wind energy than it could use.
Spokesman Stewart Larque said: “One of our key roles is to balance supply and demand for energy.”
He added: “On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also created more hydro energy than normal.”
Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut.
The fact is, the energy produced by wind farms is so unpredictable, even in Scotland which is known for its wind, that a conventional coal burning plant needs to produce electricity anyhow.  Conservation, which is what the endgame for all of this nonsense is anyhow will only go as far as people are willing to go without.  In other words, on a 95 degree day, those air conditioners are going on, while on cold days, so will the heat.  People like having lights and T.V.  When the coal burning power plant is producing enough to satisfy the needs of its community, the power produced by the wind turbines actually threatens to overload the system.  Hence, the wind farms are paid to shut down.  Not just a little money either, but huge sums.  Question: How, even in the world of Socialist economics, does that serve to make energy more affordable?  When you factor that in with the ridiculous subsidies being proposed to spur investment into this Unicorn inhabited world, coupled with the punitive taxation of those employing the conventional methods, this actually turns out to be the highest priced energy in conception.  Factor in further the sad fact that for each, "Green Job," created 3 jobs are lost, we are looking at some truly disastrous economic results. 

Of course the other way of solving the problem is this:
The days of permanently available electricity may be coming to an end, the head of the power network said yesterday.
Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly, said Steve Holliday, chief executive of National Grid. Mr Holliday was challenged over how the country would “keep the lights on” when it relied more on wind turbines as supplies of gas dwindled. Electricity provided by wind farms will increase six-fold by 2020 but critics complain they only generate on windy days.
Mr Holliday told Radio 4′s Today programme that people would have to “change their behaviour”. “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he said. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”
Mr Holliday was speaking ahead of a speech last night to the Royal Academy of Engineering, in which he warned that the government was “looking more to communities and individuals to take power into their hands”.
He also warned that pylons would still be used to carry power cables across the countryside because it was 10 times more expensive to bury them.

“As a society, we all need to be clear about what we can and cannot afford,” he said.
I was thinking of calling Barack Obama and telling him that I am planning on opening a business which does not manufacture cars.  By this line of thinking, I should be raking in the dough by the end of the year.  Any suggestions of which kinds of cars I should not make?  My thinking is that the left hates SUV's anyhow, so I will not make any of those.  Anyone up for joining that business?  We could call it Nobama Motors.  It should be a huge success, at least until someone sane wins an election. 

Special Note:  Nobama Industries would not necessarily be limited to not making cars, I am sure we could open many divisions which would not make a lot of things.  Then we could get the left's only economist, Paul Krugman, to write a dozen position papers stating that this was a more efficient use of resources and would save us money on our budget deficit.  This would be apropos, since we would be spending money we did not have on goods we were not going to make.

Hat tip to Yenta-fada.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Wednesday at the Movies! Terry Jones from Investor's Business Daily.

Just some examples of how over regulation is destroying our economy. Some regulation may be necessary to prevent fraud and to promote transparency, but it should stop there. When we talk about licensing interior decorators and such, we have gone way beyond reason.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Demonizing the Oil Industry, But Wait a Second, There's More To See Here.

So, just as I was thinking last week that Americans needed to see a great example of how politicians can use deceptive language to convince us about a perceived evil, in particular the concept that big bad oil companies are receiving Billions in subsidies, the American Petroleum Institute was working on just that.  They have released this pdf, which illustrates that the so called subsidies are in fact a myth.  It also illustrates that in many instances, the oil companies are actually paying more than their share of taxes, because of the product that they sell.

This is what the Demagogues are calling subsidies.


Why Oil & Gas Tax Treatments Are Not Unique or "Subsidies"

Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as "tax expenditures", should in no way be confused with "subsidies", i.e., direct government spending.
Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs)
- The IDC deduction is a mechanism that allows for the accelerated deduction of drilling costs, such as labor costs, associated with exploration activities (approx 60-80% of the cost of the well).

- Exploration and production companies can claim a deduction equal to 100% of these costs in the year spent. Integrated companies – "Big Oil" – can only deduct 70% with the remainder recovered over 5 years.

- This is a deduction, not a credit or government spending outlay and is
no different than the policy behind and treatment of R&D costs vis-à-vis the R&D deduction available for other industries.

Foreign Tax Credit – Dual Capacity Rules
- The dual capacity regulations are not and never have been considered a tax expenditure or "subsidy" by the government.

- They represent additional rules placed on oil and gas companies to prove that the credit used to offset payments to foreign countries are indeed income tax payments and nothing else.

- Repeal of the rules generates revenue solely because it would impose double taxation on US based companies.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction – Section 199
- A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S.

- The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion
- The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well.

- This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it – "Big Oil".

- This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry.

LIFO Repeal
- Taxpayers that hold an inventory are required by law to track inventory costs – it is simply an accounting method and nothing else.

- Repealing LIFO deems a sale of inventory to occur and generating a significant tax gain. Therefore there is an assumed tax bill without any corresponding cash gain being generated.

Expensing of Tertiary Injectants

- Tertiary injectants refers to items injected into older reservoirs to help continue production.
- The cost of the injectants are expensed similar to materials and supplies because they are generally used up in the production process.
- Without this provision, it is unclear how such operating costs would be recovered. This could easily increase the costs of operating these older fields.

Geological and Geophysical Costs

- G&G costs are the expenses associated with exploring for oil and gas.
- Currently, independent producers are allowed to recover domestic G&G costs over two years, and the proposal would increase that period to seven.
- ”Big Oil” is not impacted, as the largest integrated oil companies already recover the costs over 7 years.

EOR and Marginal Well Credits

- These tax credits are designed to support continued domestic oil production when oil prices are so low that it may otherwise be un-economical. The credit phase out when the price of oil is above a certain amount
- These credits have not been applicable for taxpayers in the oil and gas industry for years, and in order to be even the least bit useful, the price of a barrel of oil must be at $42 (EOR credit) or $27 (marginal well).
 So, the next time you hear someone from the left bleat on about subsidies for Oil, use this pdf to put them in their place intellectually.  Personally, I am against any government subsidy of any industry.  The government has no place involving itself in the market place, unless it is to insure transparency and to prevent fraud.  Subsidies allow the government to tilt the odds into the favor of a politically favored class of individuals, and will often be at the expense of the community at large, and at the expense of efficiency and growth.

UPDATE:  Here is a bar chart showing the preincome taxation paid by oil companies for the sale of gasoline.  It is interesting to note, that after it is all said and done, oil companies pay Uncle Sam 600% of their actual profit in the form of federal taxation.  That is on top of the excise taxation and state and local taxation which is occurring.  The next time someone uses the words subsidies and big oil in the same breath, realize that they are just flat out lying to you.  There is not a single other industry which faces this kind of silliness.

Hat tip, Huckfunn.

Monday, May 2, 2011

As Bin Laden Assumes Room Temperature, Credit Obama For Continuing Bush Policies, Entire.

I realize that every blogger and his mother are chiming in on this one today, but I feel that I must point out at least a few observations.  One, while candidate Obama whined about the Bush policies enacted to prosecute the war on terror, he changed precious little of those policies which had to do with the actual operation of the military, or our intelligence gathering services.  As it turned out, that was a good thing as far as eliminating the remaining figure head of Al-Queda was concerned.  So, as Obama took to the airwaves to make the statement that he did this all by his lonesome, and that not a single member of his team of advisers, or the military, nor our intelligence gathering services contributed in any way that should interfere with his bid at reelection.  But even in his best attempt to fly his flag on undeserved arrogance, he made a small misstatement.  Obama stated that he signed the order to take this action.  The reality is that he reaffirmed an order previously signed by George W. Bush.  This may seem like a ticky tack distinction, but it really is very telling.  Once again, Obama's best actions as President turned out to be an instance where he successfully kept himself out of the way of others.  It was after all intelligence gained at Gitmo, a place Obama promised to close, by use of water boarding, a practice Obama promised to discontinue, from Khalid Sheik Mohamed, a man Obama promised to try in civilian court complete with a defense lawyer and Miranda Rights that led to this result.  I will give Obama Kudos for not following through on his disastrous campaign promises to close Gitmo, end water boarding, end rendition practices, and prosecute the war on terror using law enforcement. 

The media spin has already begun.  The New York Times has called this the result of Obama's maturation as a world leader.  How low must the grey lady sink before she becomes the laughing stock she so richly deserves to be?  By the first hand accounts leaking out about the process of this decision so far, Obama has known since the early days of his Presidency, within the first weeks at least, where Bin Laden was holed up.  It took just a little over 30 months for him to give up dithering and to make an adult decision.  I will predict that within two years of Obama's Presidency ending, there will be a book released by no fewer than three members of those security council meetings where this decision was born, and it'll show Obama to be an aloof, clueless participant who had to be forced, like a small child into doing something.  If this were Bush, does anyone in America actually believe that it would have taken him 30 months to act on this information?

Does our President have a clue as to the optics he is showing with his Presidency.  As he lectures a concerned citizen in Pennsylvania about driving a car which only gets 8 miles to the gallon, (a fact which Obama did nothing to establish by the way,) he boarded Air Force One to visit with Oprah on the set of her T.V. show.  While telling Americans to take, "staycations," to save on resources, his wife jets off to Spain with dozens of guests to vacation in Europe on the taxpayer's dime and to stimulate a foreign economy.  While chastising the CEO of BP for yachting during the Gulf Oil Spill, he went literally from the bank of microphones to the golf course and then to a party with Paul McCartney in the same day.  While this operation was being carried out, he managed to squeeze in 9 holes as well.  One of the constant criticisms of Bush was the amount of time he spent working at his Crawford Texas home.  I am beginning to wonder if Obama has even found the Oval Office yet, or even laid eyes on his desk.  Of course, if he never does, he'll do less damage that way. 

Thank Goodness we had George Bush enact his policies prior to Obama becoming President.  If Gore or Kerry had won, we would doubtless be following their insane ideas right now.