24 July 2009

Cops are RAAAAAACIST!

Check out the posts by Lak over at Passing Time (here, here, and here) for an echo of my sentiments about the whole Crowley/Gates incident in Cambridge. And then watch this press conference by Sgt. Dennis O'Connor of the Cambridge Police Department. (BTW, maybe if I had that sweet Boston accent more people would respect me and take me seriously. Or maybe not, but it's still wicked good). I absolutely think that Obama and Patrick should apologize, but they won't. Gibbs has already explained it away by saying, in response to the question of whether Obama regretted saying what he did during his press conference, "I think he would regret if he realized how much of a [sic] overall distraction and obsession it would be, I think he probably would regret distracting you guys with obsessions." Don't you love how the Obamanation deflects any criticism by saying it was someone else's fault? And don't you love how the MSM lets them get away with it?


UPDATE: CNN's Tony Harris (hack) called the press conference you just watched "incendiary." Really? Did we watch the same thing? You can watch his comments here if you are so inclined, but I can sum them up for you. "Wah wah wah racism wah wah wah."

UPDATE 2: The One himself graced reporters with his presence at the WH briefing today, and said, "In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically." Gee, it's hard to imagine where that "wrong" impression came from. I mean, "acting stupidly" has so many positive connotations, how could one possibly assume he actually meant that the PD "acted stupidly." Obama then said, "Race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Because of our history, African Americans are sensitive to these issues." Enough with the race card! What an enabler! This guy would sell every non-black person in America into slavery as part of reparations if he could! Race obviously had nothing to do with this issue, but they just can't waste a good opportunity to trash law enforcement or whites.

22 July 2009

More Military Budget Cuts

First, the Senate killed the F22 as a result of pressure from Obama. Now this. Tell me, dear reader, where does it end?

Who Says Politicians Don't Have a Sense of Humor?

Rep. Russ Carnahan held a townhall-like meeting the other day to "explain" Obamacare. Part of his "explanation" included the usual party regurgitation that Obamacare would not only save Americans money, it would give them more options and better coverage, etc. He also claimed that Obamacare would create "efficiencies", and then he had the nerve to flat out lie and claim that the CBO issued a report stating that the proposed health care plan would actually produce a $600 billion surplus over ten years. Pretty sure that the CBO said that Obamacare was unsustainable. But I really shouldn't be such a hatemonger. Anyway, enjoy the video, especially Kevin Jackson's question, "If it's so good, why doesn't Congress have to be on it?"


h/t: MM

21 July 2009

Science Czar Holdren's Population Control Proposals

I've been meaning to blog about this for awhile, but I've been too lazy. :) John Holdren was recently appointed as Obama's Science Czar (I'm sure I'm the only one that finds it disturbing that all these czars answer directly and exclusively to the White House). As if everything that the One has done hasn't warned you about what's coming, this should help clarify it.

In 1977, Holdren co-authored a book titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In the book, Holdren sets forth his plans to help save the environment, and humanity in general. Here are some of his proposals, complete with page references and translations, just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up, and that you understand exactly what he's saying.
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. [p. 837]
TRANSLATION: I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. [p. 786]
TRANSLATION: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government, or they could be forced to have abortions.

Are we having fun yet? Well, the ride's just starting, kids.
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. [p. 787-8]
TRANSLATION: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is ok as long as it doesn't harm pets or livestock.
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. [p. 786-7]
TRANSLATION: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control. (NOTE: This is under the section titled, "Involuntary Fertility Control").
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. [p. 838]
TRANSLATION: Anyone whom we deem causes "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children. (I'll admit, this one's tempting).
In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? [p. 838]
TRANSLATION: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. [p. 942-3]
TRANSLATION: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born. (NOTE: This is found under the section titled, "Toward a Planetary Regime").
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. [p. 917]
TRANSLATION: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.

Well, that all sounds lovely, doesn't it? Oh, and by the way, we need to do all of this by 2000, or we will face a global population "catastrophe." Nice foresight, John. And this is the man who will help the determine the direction of technology and science research. I know I'll sleep better at night knowing he's on the job. Trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does someone this radical even get a legitimate job, let alone a powerful government position (and no, I'm not claiming that the czars are legitimate jobs...they don't even have to be approved by Congress!). If the above snippets aren't enough for you, check out the in-depth analysis of Ecoscience performed by Zombie.

20 July 2009

Conservative Bob Dylan

Even Bob Dylan says it's time we start changin'. Yeah, the video is kind of creepy, but the song and voice are great.


h/t: 912

19 July 2009

17 July 2009

CNN Hack "Journalist" Out

Apparently Susan Roesgen was too blatantly biased during her coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties, even for CNN (and that's saying something). Now it looks like her contract won't be renewed. How tragic. It's amazing how these hacks even get jobs as "journalists." Most "journalists" these days are nothing more than the media equivalent of ambulance chasers, or are simply lapdogs for big government.
TVNewser has learned CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen's contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network.

Roesgen, you'll recall, was criticized for her coverage at the tax day tea parties in April, when she said the event she was covering in Chicago was, "anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox."

Roesgen took a break for a few weeks after that reporting...

When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen's comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, "I can't comment on personnel matters."

Obama's Wreckovery Plan

The GOP produced this ad highlighting the inconsistencies in O's statements regarding the wreckovery package. It's a pretty good ad. Check out Hot Air for more on this.

Goldman-Sachs Web of Deceit

Just in case the whole ObamaCare thing isn't enough to make your blood boil, watch this breakdown of the controversy surrounding the bailouts and AIG/Goldman-Sachs, courtesy of Glenn Beck. One thing Glenn doesn't mention is that Goldman-Sachs is also widely believed to own the Fed. Is it just me, or is it insane that we entrust a private business to control the supply of money in our country, and that we don't even know who actually runs the Fed??? Are you kidding me? Anyway, enjoy this video. DISCLAIMER: You may want to wrap your head in duct tape before watching it, just in case.

Government is sooooo...Efficient!

This is a chart developed by the House Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee, and illustrates the monstrous bureaucracy that will be created with ObamaCare. I mean, with a government that bloated and complex, what could possibly go wrong?

The CBO has issued an analysis of the reform bill, and has put the price tag at $1.5 trillion. TRILLION. 1,500,000,000,000.00. That's a lot of zeroes. And when was the last time the CBO's budget estimate was more than the actual cost of the program? Not only that, but the CBO acknowledged that the $1.5 trillion mark did not include all likely costs.
We have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies, nor have we accounted for all of the proposal’s likely effects on spending for other federal programs.
Basically, they're saying that health care will cost $1.5 trillion only if there are no costs associated with it's management and implementation. Right. But even without factoring in administrative costs, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf called the trajectory of the federal budget "unsustainable." That's right. Unsustainable.
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.

Keeping deficits and debt from reaching these levels would require increasing revenues significantly as a share of GDP, decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.

Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.
Here's what else you get from this bill:

- 31 new federal programs, agencies, and commissions to oversee the government-run health insurance regime (meaning 31 new czars).

- A "Health Choices Commissioner" would head the new "Health Choices Administration" (don't get that confused with the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Indian Health Service, all of which have done a bang-up job administering health care.

- A government-run "Public Health Investment Fund" and a "Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund." Social Security and Medicare should show us how competent government is at managing these trust funds.

- A "Bureau of Health Information" (not to be confused with the already existing National Center for Health Statistics). Michelle Malkin had this to say about the BHI:
New bureaucracies always have old special interests to appease. The Bureau of Health Information will house its own “Office of Civil Rights” and “Office of Minority Health.” The information czar will be required to collect health statistics in the “primary language” of ethnic minorities – and thus, the need for a new “language demonstration program” to showcase their efforts. Obamacare will also ensure “cultural and linguistics competence training” and establish “a youth public health program to expose and recruit high school students into public health careers.” The government health care juggernaut must be fed and staffed, after all.
Had enough yet? You haven't heard anything, yet. Investors Business Daily reviewed the bill, and it didn't take long for the red flags to go up. Page 16 of the proposed bill contained some language that seemed to provide a provision that would outlaw individual private medical insurance. IBD even sought the help of the House Ways and Means Committee to ensure that their interpretation of the provision was correct. Sadly, it was.
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Scared yet? Read 1984 by George Orwell, and you really will be.

16 July 2009

Barbara Boxer Plays the Race Card Against....Wait for it...the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Congress

Holy crap, this is priceless. Barbara "Please Call me Senator" Boxer gets positively, utterly, and unquestionably destroyed. What kind of self-absorbed, condescending WHITE person tries to play the race card against a BLACK man??? Especially someone as educated as Mr. Alford obviously is. All I have to say is, "California, you got exactly who you deserved." God love you, but this one's on you.


h/t: Jawa

Hondurans Resist Communism....and Obama!

As you may or may not know, Honduras is a country very dear to me. I lived there for a couple of years, and by lived there, I mean lived amongst the people, not with the rich expats. I have lived in poor, rural areas like Nacaome and Orocuina, in middle-class areas like Danli, and both poor and wealthy areas in urban Tegucigalpa. Hondurans are passionate about two things: fĂștbol (especially Olimpia and Motagua), and Honduras itself. They value their independence, and in spite of their obvious economic struggles, pride themselves on their heritage. Now they are showing their commitment to uphold and support their constitution, in spite of efforts of the socialist/communist regimes (Chavez, Castro, Obama), by ousting would-be-dictator-for-life "Mel" Zelaya. The MSM has attempted to portray the uprising as unconstitutional and unpopluar, and largely a movement by the power-hungry military. But as you can see from the video below, this political move is not only constitutional, it is widely supported by the public in all parts of Honduras.


NOTE: The first few scenes showing violent protests are accompanied by captions stating that "These are not Hondurans." The peaceful protests are then promoted as the demonstrations of true Hondurans.

Gratuitous War Porn

Take a break from the depressing news surrounding ObamaCare, and enjoy this minute and a half of gratuitous war porn. I won't even tell your spouse. Brought to you by the good folks at dvids.


h/t: Jawa

Job Vacancy for Paid "Grassroots" Health Care Reform Activists

This is just hilarious. And Congress wants to call the Tea Party movements "astroturf." At the very least conservatives haven't had to pay people to promote their cause. Check out this job posting on the San Francisco area craigslist. (NOTE: It's now been removed, but is available at Free Republic). I believe this represents the desperation that the progressives are feeling to pass the health care reform bill. Can we say, "power grab"? I knew you could!
Why is now the time to work for change? Because we have a new president and new hope for a better America.

Because we need change like never before, on everything from the economy to climate change and more.

And because we know that the challenges we face, from ending our dependence on oil to winning the battle for equal rights, are huge—and the politicians and powerful interests who stupidly and stubbornly resist change aren’t calling it quits anytime soon.

America’s leading advocacy groups are gearing up to meet these challenges this summer. In order to win, they need citizen support and grassroots action. That’s where we come in.

At the Fund for the Public Interest, we’ve been organizing campaigns to protect the environment, stand up for the public interest, and defend human rights for more than 25 years. We've helped cut global warming pollution with Environment America. And working with the Human Rights Campaign, we helped organize the grassroots opposition needed to defeat the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment.

Your chance to make change happen. We need people like you—lots of people like you—to go out in communities around the country this summer and help make change happen. And you can earn money doing it. Earn $4,000-$6,000 this summer.

To apply for a job this summer, visit our website—www.JobsThatMatter.org—or call Chris at 415-622-0064

Compensation: $11-16 an hour This is at a non-profit organization. Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster. Phone calls about this job are ok. Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Let's all call Chris (415.622.0064) and find out why a "grassroots" movement has to pay people to participate.

h/t: Drudge

15 July 2009

O-Goons Threaten AZ Gov

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was interviewed on Sunday by George Stephanopoulos. Referring to the stimulus package, he said, "the reality is it hasn't helped yet. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it."

Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Ask any successful business executive, and they'll tell you that if something isn't working, you either change it, or scrap it all together and cut your losses. What you don't do is continue to do the same thing over and over again, and expect to get a different result (isn't that the definition of insanity?).

Of course, Obama has neither been an executive of anything, or successful at anything other than rhetoric, so it should come as no surprise that the Obamanation is going to ride the pork train to their graves. And if they're going down, they're going to take the rest of the civilized world down with them. So a day after Sen. Kyl made that statement, AZ Gov. Jan Brewer received 4 letters from Washington, one each from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Each of them pointed out the money that AZ is slated to receive as part of the porkulus bill, including $73 million in HUD funds, $230 million in funding for Recovery Act projects, $520.9 million for AZ highway projects, and $320 million in interior funds. LaHood even added this:
[Kyl] publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently underway. I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know.
Did you catch that? Sen. Kyl had the audacity (is anyone outside the Obamanation authorized to used that word, btw?) to question the success of the stimulus package. So what will come of all this? Probably nothing. Gov. Brewer will kowtow all the way to Washington if she has to in order to keep the pork flowing. Her response gives you a glimpse of spineless jellyfish that allegedly "represent" us.
The governor is hopeful that these federal Cabinet officials are not threatening to deny Arizona citizens the portion of federal stimulus funds to which they are entitled. She believes that would be a tremendous mistake by the administration. And the governor is grateful for the strong leadership and representation that Arizonans enjoy in the United States Senate.
I would love to see someone of consequence stand up to the thugs in Washington. Just once. That's all. Is that too much to ask? Apparently...

h/t: jpt

Obama Snubbed

Porkulus: $850 billion. Universal health care: $1.5 trillion. Seeing Obama snubbed by the very Russians whose boots he was licking: priceless.


h/t: HA

14 July 2009

CanadaCare is the Best!

That's right, folks. This is what we're aspiring to. On the count of 3, everyone grab their ankles. 1...2...

10 July 2009

Bill Whittle Issues Cali Beatdown

I just love this guy. Watch the following beatdown of politicians in California...and America, courtesy of Bill Whittle and PJTV.

09 July 2009

Now There's Transparency for You

Just sickening.
Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner’s conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner “intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.”

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act.

Waxman is chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Sensenbrenner is the ranking Republican member of the panel.

Browner’s informal directive was previously reported by The New York Times. Sensebrenner’s letter is being made public tomorrow. A copy was made available to The Examiner by an official with knowledge of the controversy.
Yessiree. Most transparent government. Ever.

Big Brother is Looming

I've spent most of my waking moments since 26 June thinking about that monstrosity of a bill known fondly as Cap-&-Tax that recently passed the House. What is especially frustrating about the passage of the bill (we'll get to the atrocities that are actually in the bill in a moment) is that not a single representative read the entire, completed bill. How could they, with the final 300 page amendment not being submitted until around 3a the morning it was voted on? Apparently those of us that think our representatives and senators should be held 100% accountable for what they vote on (meaning they should actually, oh I don't know, read the bill) are insane. Just ask House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.
Anyone with any shred of self-respect should be fuming right now. Our "representatives" mock us "common folk" at every turn. If it's not getting a speed-reader to read part of the porkulus bill, that it's claiming that Americans don't care about pork. There aren't words to explain how incensed I am.

Then there's the whole premise of the bill being based on "scientific" data that is still very questionable. The Obamanation would have you belief that the science is settled, but that is far from true. This bill attempts to regulate every aspect of our private lives (we'll cover that in a moment, too, just in case you think I'm blowing this out of proportion) based on the assumption that global warming and climate change are real and man-made. It strips us of our individual liberties, and the fact that the EPA suppressed a 98 page report by EPA senior research analyst Alan Carlin draws serious questions about climate change.
Carlin's report found "that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s 'little evidence' that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature." These findings are not what the administration wanted to get out right before the vote on climate change legislation.

The EPA justified suppressing this report by saying that Carlin is not a scientist. In her weekly column Michelle Malkin points out that "neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi." Carlin does, however, hold a B.S. in physics and has been with the EPA for 35 years.
So with regards to the bill itself, I've read bits and pieces of it (probably more than any single representative has). AIP has a great article on one particular section (304) that should make you tremble with rage. Let me just highlight a couple of other mildly interesting sections of the bill.

- This bill will creates a new energy tax (remember, Obama himself claimed that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under Cap-&-Tax) at a time when America is facing one of the worst recessions (bordering on depressions) in history.

- This bill will force jobs overseas. The Obamanation claims it create all these wonderful "green jobs," windmill farms, solar panels and so on (ask Spain how that's working out for them). Meanwhile, coal plants will be pushed out of business as will refineries and many small businesses. We will lose many jobs overseas, and if we try to impose some kind of import tariff to prevent that from happening, we will successfully start a trade war at a time when we manufacture absolutely nothing, and consume everything. The Heritage Foundation predicts that this bill will "destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs."

- There are light bulb restrictions (no more than 60 watts in your candelabra); in fact there's a whole section that deals with lamps.

- If you decide to build a new home, it must meet new and specific energy requirements. If you decide to sell your existing home, a federal inspector must inspect your home, determine it's energy rating, and if your home is found to be unacceptable then you must retrofit and make changes before you will be able to sell, or have your home official labeled and registered as non-compliant and non-energy efficient (this is the infamous section 304 that you absolutely must read).

- There are "scientific based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted...in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and building foundations, air conditioning units, driveways and walkways...". Yes, you read that right. The government is going to tell you what kind of trees you can plant, and where you are going to plant them.

- There's a section dealing with outdoor lighting that determines the kind of landscape lights, lights in your swimming pool, lights on artwork and other architectural lighting that you are allowed to install. The federal government is going to tell you what wattage that light can be and how many you can have.

- The government will regulate water dispensers, hot tubs and other appliances. They'll regulate water usage and wood stoves (in fact, any wood stove that does not meet regulation must be "destroyed and recycled").

- The bill dictates where plugs for your hybrid cars must be, and deals extensively with transportation.

There is precious little time to stop this. The democrats already possess that crucial 60th vote in the senate, are now filibuster-proof. That means that we must get democratic senators to defect to prevent this egregious trampling of our individual liberties to pass. Contact your senators, and make sure they know you strongly and vehemently oppose this bill. Unless you like paying higher taxes and doing exactly what you're told. Then you don't have to do anything.

08 July 2009

Wimpynomics

Remember Wimpy, the loveable character from Popeye? Well, California (and soon the rest of America) is taking a page straight out of the Wimpy's Guide to Economic Insovlency. I call it "Wimpynomics." Here's how it works:


California is mired in a budget deficit of more than $24 billion, and is now planning on issuing $3.3 billion in IOU's in July alone. Sucks for Californians. So what's the larger implication? With Cap-&-Tax having passed the House, and Obamacare looming, then we could very well end up paying for it with IOU's worth less than California's.
Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.
But there may be some signs that there is still some semblance of sanity in Washington. Obamacare will cost more than $1 trillion (yes, trillion with a T). Opposition to the plan is now spreading to moderate Democrats (and should spread to any politician gives one iota about keeping their job). The only foreseeable way to pay for this thing is to increase/implement new taxes of some kind, and any option involving taxes is going to be widely unpopular (we won't mention Obama's commitment to not increase taxes for those making under $250,000/yr). So that leaves basically two options. Either health care reform fails completely, or Congress passes some weak bill that carries the name "health care", but doesn't actually do anything. With the Democrats now gaining the 60th vote in the Senate, the latter option is the most likely.

h/t: Bloomberg

07 July 2009

Another Day, Another Lie

Chalk another lie up in the "Obama Opens his Mouth" column. Man, it's exhausting trying to keep up with them all. Maybe the Whitehouse should spend a little more time censuring Obama, and not worry so much at Bozo the VP. On 06 July, Obama gave an interview to the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, during which he said that the US "import[s] more oil today than ever before." With all due respect, Mr. President, that's not exactly accurate. Not even close.


This chart is from the US Energy and Information Administration, and clearly shows that oil imports peaked in Nov 2005, and have steadily decreased since then. I wonder at what point Americans will start holding His Holiness accountable for what comes out of his mouth.

h/t: factcheck

01 July 2009

Yemeni Journalists Do What American Journalists Won't

The Yemeni government has cracked down on independent news agencies over the last few months, and has shut down seven of them. The government's latest target is the Yemen Post (English publication). It ordered the paper to cease cooperation with the international media. Here is the response of the paper's editor:
Over the last two weeks, the Yemen Post received numerous threats from different sides due to its coverage of the foreigners that were kidnapped and killed. The Yemen Post was the main independent source for 90% of the international media. Its comments were even given priority over the government and what it announced.

Last week, meetings took place between the Yemen Post and leading figures of the government. In the meetings, The Yemen Post was firmly asked not to work with international media outlets and to limit itself to local media. Direct threats were given. The option on the table was to agree to cooperate with the government whether it was right or wrong in what they announce. In the end, the Yemen Post refused.

It is sad that these people don’t understand that the job of media is not covering what it is asked of it to cover, but to cover the truth.

Yemen has not yet understood the difference between independent and governmental media, and the Yemen Post has vowed to show everyone the difference.

What I clearly want to say is that the Yemen Post is doing what it was established to do, and that is lead Yemeni media, raise its standards, and through its sources throughout the country, be able to serve not only Yemen, but the international community with concrete information about what is really happening.

Even with the threats we are given, the Post will not soften its stance and will work to be the most trusted local and international news source in Yemen.
Isn't it comforting to know that an independent news agency in the middle of an authoritarian dictatorship in the Middle Freaking East has the cajones to stand up to government pressure and report actual, well, news, while the American media lapdogs sit in Obama's pocket and only regurgitate the daily talking points, without doing any real reporting. Where are our media watchdogs that are supposed to help protect us against tyrannical government? It's going to be a daunting task for the American people to overcome a self-serving media AND an out-of-control government. It's time we hold these people accountable.