Archive for the ‘Miscellaneous’ Category

Obama to euthanize the sick with one hand while defeating global warming with the other:

May 20, 2009

Subtitled:  Don’t touch my tailpipe, fool!

So — somewhere between euthanasia for sickly elders and other weaklings as part of the nationalized health care plan, Obama’s government will continue to retain it’s democrat voter base  ….  But not without the assistance of ACORN in rigging the census AND a crash — RASH of really, really cheepie cars built to Tom Daschle’s personal assisted suicide specs.

But back to the global war against that evasive warming climate-thingy:

Environmentalists claim the new standards should cut carbon dioxide from tailpipes by 30 percent by 2016. Though that is unlikely, for the reason just stated, the fact remains that cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, Americans will be paying more for cars and continuing to die in ever-greater numbers on the road, all for less than one-half of one percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It is almost as though hardcore greens want to save the planet by killing people, but are only accomplishing the killing part.

Finally, one of the entirely predictable “unintended consequences” of raising the price of new cars will be to keep poorer people driving their old, greenhouse gas-spewing cars. Thus, it should surprise no one that Congress is already considering a “cash for clunkers” program designed to encourage trade-ins. This proposal is a twofer: not only does it attempt to patch a glaring flaw in today’s plan, but it would help save the jobs of all those UAW workers Obama and the Democrats rely upon every other November. Pushing the poor into these new Obamamobiles will also kill more people at the margins, but dead people tend to vote Democratic, so there is no net loss for the Democrats.

Read more here.

Obama’s Chicago-nomics and Other Audacities of Lies

May 16, 2009

Call me ignorant, but so help me — I’ve never read anything in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to control or legislate education, the environment, health care or businesses.   If you know differently, lemme know, please. 

Meanwhile ….

Obama and Chicago-nomics:  Never thought I’d turn to Yahoo for a simple explanation of the current financial fiasco, but here it is.  Another is here.   You must pay close attention to the video at each link.  Yeah — the guy speaks fast -yankee English, but he’s no dummy.  Nor should you be.

OK — here’s more on Chicago-nomics and how it’s enforced by moonbats and thugs for the White House ….

And if that’s not skeery enuff, check out this video on Islamic demographics for a morning wake-up.    

If you need a real dose of reality, however — and want to see Obama caught in yet another lie about his Chicago-nomics health care program, read here and see the Health Care folks squirm out of the “exaggeration” he made for them …. Seems as if they were talking about cutting costs over a 10 year period and Obama quotes an annual cut rate. 

Michelle Malkin reminds us of O’s “misquote” about employment at Caterpillar and provides the WH “misspeak” correction ….. 

Notice to BOB (bend over ‘bama — pursuant to his bow to his Saudi king):  Not all industries share your  willingness to sell out or lie to the American public. 

Meanwhile, Obama’s stance on allowing new-born babies to die without life-saving support (infanticide) during late term abortions may have been the turning point in this Gallup poll which shows that pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers ….  

Oh — and for those watching the Middle East peace plan closely —- don’t miss Obama’s efforts to sell out the Israel ….. Hey, could the presence of 57 ARABIC states have any correlation to Obama’s campaign mis-statement about having visited 57 U.S. states?   Just wonderin’ …..

And don’t hold your breath expecting the MSM to ask about this more …. BOB is replacing some judges — just as Clinton and ever other prez has done —- but only Bush was challenged for doing … LOL

And here’s some recently released documents on what happened in TARP circles ….

Just as I thought.  Someone is hoping that we, too, will become a nation of BOB’s ….

Looking for Moderate Taliban: Deploy ACORN!

March 11, 2009

Possibly if O had identified tribal or provincial leaders as his contact-objective, his search would have made more sense.  No matter how he slices it, the social structure in Afghanistan is not, however, the same as in Iraq.

Not that communicating with the enemy is always “bad,” mind you — but when the enemy has convincingly demonstrated and declared

“The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy…I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?”

it’s time Obama chose his words very, very VERY carefully.  Moderates don’t invade and control two nations by force.

If O intends to employ his “community organizer” skills in Afghanistan, his concept is about to be dragged screaming and kicking from the streets and scuttled in yon mountains.

Credit Jihad Watch
Here’s an idea:  Deploy ACORN to Afghanistan and Pakistan — and get them off OUR streets!

.

BHO to “dial back” security?

January 13, 2009

There is serious evidence that the Obama administration will “dial back”  many of George Bush’s executive orders which have impacted national security …. Politico has the story.

How dangerous will these “dial backs” be?   Will homeland security be compromised?

Hopefully, national security will not be sacrificed to either philosophical differences or a hatred of all-things-Bush.

We’ll see.

Obama: Taxing Us toward Tyranny

January 7, 2009

I don’t particularly care for Dick Morris’ brand of politics, but if his assessment is accurate, we’re going to need to bundle up with a few strange bedfollows to save our nation from the tyranny that Obama’s stimulus plan implies:

It now looks like half of President-elect Barack Obama’s stimulus package will take the form of “tax cuts” for 95 percent of all Americans. Yet this wouldn’t so much boost the economy as trigger a massive, unhealthy shift in American politics.

Under Obama’s plan, the majority of American voters would pay no federal income taxes, but would get money from the government instead. That is, these “refundable tax credits” are basically welfare checks – and Obama’s plan would leave the most of us collecting, not paying.

A $200 billion giveaway won’t do much to get a $14 trillion economy rolling again. But the plan would leave any future taxpayer revolt no hope of majority support.

Today, the bottom 50 percent of US taxpayers pays a total of $30.6 billion in federal income taxes on a combined income of about $1 trillion. So about 3 percent of all federal income-tax payments come from the poorest half of the country. (The top 1 percent pays 40 percent; the top 25 percent pay 85 percent of the federal income tax.)

Obama’s plan – he’d give all couples a $1,000 refundable tax credit and all single people $500 – would funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby completely wiping out their total federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a “refund” welfare check.
In one stroke, this would transform the majority of voters from taxpayers into tax eaters – and leave an increasingly small minority to pay the bill. Whether or not this is good economics, it is very dangerous politics.

Essentially, it would put those who actually pay the taxes that fund our government into much the same situation as landlords in New York City – hopelessly outvoted by their tenants, who use their political clout to limit rents and landlords’ profits.

Since Ronald Reagan, the anti-tax movement has been based on a blue-collar revolt against high taxes; it would lose that constituency under the Obama plan. Taxpayers would be politically helpless and the tax-eating majority would have free reign to impose any levies it wished.

Almost all of the 68 million tax filers in the country’s bottom economic half would get a check from Washington at tax time. Some would be among the 22 million who get money from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Others would get a $500 check through the (Bush-passed) Child Tax Credit – and all would get funds through the new Obama tax credit.

Welfare would no longer be only for the poor – the majority of the voters would depend on government handouts. This very system is what makes European social democracies so resistant to change.

In 1980, the bottom 50 percent of the nation paid 7 percent of the national tax bill, after refund and credits. It now pays 3 percent; under Obama’s plan, it would pay less than nothing (that is, it would net a profit from the IRS). In 1980, the top 1 percent paid 19 percent of the income-tax burden; now it’s 40 percent. Taxes have become the province only of the rich.

Of course, the shift in tax burden also mirrors the incredible increase in incomes of the wealthy in the last 30 years – the top 1 percent earned only 8 percent of the total national income in 1980; now it earns 22 percent. And the poorest half has seen its share of national income fall from 17 percent in 1980 to only 12.5 percent today.

So it is both fair and sensible to give the poor a tax break and to draw the bulk of federal revenues from the rich. But to exempt the bottom half – a majority of the voters – from paying any taxes and to award them refund checks instead would dangerously alter the fundamental balance of national politics. For the economically well off, it could effectively become taxation without representation – which, as the founders of our nation warned, leads to tyranny.

from Dick Morris.com

Some stimulus.

.