Obama's Economic Pipe-Dream

Barack Hussein Obama has made his economic thinking painfully clear, so it also clear that his running mate pick should have been Rumpelstiltskin. He spun straw into gold, a skill an Obama administration will need in order to fulfill its fairy-tale promises. (Thanks to the National Education Association and their liberal enablers, today’s graduates would think that Rumpelstiltskin was a brand of ‘personal protection’!)

B. H. Obama recently said he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term -- more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."

By 2012 he would "require" the economy's huge energy sector to -- here things become comically sad -- supply half as much energy from renewable sources as already is being supplied by just one potentially renewable source. About 20 percent of America's energy comes from nuclear energy produced using fuel rods, which, when spent, can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.

Obama is (this is part of liberalism's catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says -- and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state -- he distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation -- nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.

But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing (it is the intent that matters . . .not the result) Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.

Obama has also promised that "we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a warm & fuzzy verb "get" is. This senator, whose has never run so much as a neighborhood newspaper route, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both -- billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would laugh off the street.

Where will the electricity for these million cars come from? Not nuclear power (remember, liberals do not like nuclear). And not anywhere else, if Obama means this: "I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80 percent reduction by 2050."
No he won't. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes that in 2050 there will be 420 million Americans -- 40 million more households. So Obama's cap would require reducing per capita carbon emissions to levels probably below even those "in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood."
Regarding taxes, Obama says "we don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.

There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been barnyard organic waste comparable to today's Democrats tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, "saving the planet," and promising edicts to "require" entire industries to reorder themselves?

The Obama campaign method: Just put some lipstick on that pig and sell it!

Obama - Biden: What a Pair!

Barack Hussein Obama has finally unveiled his Vice-Presidential pick. One of the most hyped events in the most hyped campaign yet; and it is no other than Senator Joe Biden. This ought to be really rich!

Obama: The man who can not talk without a teleprompter; Biden: The man who cannot stop talking, period!

Loose Lips Sink Ships

Over the course of his failed presidential bid, Joe Biden cemented his reputation as -- how to put this nicely? -- less than disciplined on the campaign trail.

In the summer of 2006, as he was publicly mulling the race, Biden set off a controversy over comments he made about Indian Americans. "I've had a great relationship [with Indian Americans]," Biden said. "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

On the day he formally announced his candidacy, a New York Observer story that quoted Biden as calling Obama "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" came out, and the resultant uproar effectively undercut any momentum Biden was hoping to build. By extension, Joe Biden must believe that all other African-Americans are not articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, talks to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during the hearing.
While Biden was on his best verbal behavior for much of the rest of the campaign, there is no question that his tendency to shoot from the lip worries some in Obama world. As one Democratic consultant put it: "You know there will be three days in the campaign where someone in Chicago will get a call and respond -- 'What did you say he said?.'"
For a campaign that prides itself on its message discipline, choosing Biden would be introducing a wildcard into the mix. The Obama campaign exudes quiet confidence that if they do the basic political work between now and Nov. 4 the Illinois senator will be president. Do they really want to risk it with Biden?

Plagiarizer In Chief

Way back in 1987, Biden was riding high in the presidential race -- widely regarded as a serious contenders for the Democratic party's nod. Then Neil Kinnock happened. Biden borrowed passages of a speech given by Kinnock, a leader in Britain's Labour Party, without attribution -- a mistake that led to a detailed examination of Biden's public statements that turned up several more examples of potential plagiarism and resume inflation. The feeding frenzy eventually chased the Delaware senator from the race.

The incident has become the stuff of political lore -- type "Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock" into Google and more than 37,000 hits are returned -- even though those close to Biden insist that the actual facts surrounding the incidents are largely overblown.

Other then having all the Establishment Media types on his speed dial, what exactly has Senator Biden ever done?

Looking at his resume, one notices he is remarkably short of actual accomplishment. His only talent, apparently, is an ability to serve in DC for many, many years while doing nothing. He is about the only Senator who has managed to accomplish even less then John Kerry!

Biden’s reputation, like the entire B. Hussein campaign, is all media hype and drama queen posturing. Apparently, no one in the Establishment Media have the guts to tell the Messiah he is naked. Other then being remarkably good at getting his face on camera, Biden has done nothing of note. This probably is the most incompetent choice Obama could have made; and really good news for the McCain campaign.

He Is No Harry Truman!

“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”

This answer alone proves that Barack Hussein Obama is no Harry Truman

In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!”

In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.”

Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs had to be embarrassing even to the most rabid Obamaniac.

Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.

And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”

On the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.”

Withoutany due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.

Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can “handle the job of commander in chief.” Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.

Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he can’t even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obama’s own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.

Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.

Harry Truman said, "The Buck Stops Here." B Hussein 'courageously' cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.

That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.

He is certainly no Harry Truman.

Obama on Abortion, "Above My Pay Grade"

DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, who followed Obama onto the stage of the nationally televised event, was more blunt and more emphatic.

He said a baby’s human rights began “at the moment of conception … I have a 25-year pro-life record.”

Above his pay grade? This is another fine example of just what a an empty suit Barack Hussein Obama really is. He is unable to answer any direct question without waffling.

It should be very clear by now that everything about the Presidency is above his pay grade!

The following clip is a black preacher from the Atlah Ministires in New York. He is a little over the top, but he makes a couple of good points.

Hilliary Rolls Obambi Out Of The Spotlight

In Denver, the Democrat National Convention, shows every sign of being the complete Clinton soap-oprea. Dr. Phil would have a field day with this dysfunctional clan. It will be fascinating to watch, in that it is impossible to not watch a train wreck in progress. Hillary has a prime-time convention slot on the Tuesday. Bill speaks on Wednesday, stealing the thunder of Senator Obama's veep pick. And now that Obama has caved into her demand for a roll call vote, Hillary will be center stage again on Thursday. Even deluded Obamanics can't believe this is the "change" they were promised.

Fueled by an unholy cauldron of victimhood and entitlement, Clinton's supporters threaten to steal the show at the convention. Don't be fooled by the warm-and-fuzzy joint statement released by the two campaigns. According to one member of Clinton's camp, Obama's "elbow was twisted". Any future negotiations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will probably seem like a picnic. And this, folks, is the point of this piece.

Only a political naïf would have agreed to a televised reminder of just how close Senator Clinton came to victory in the primaries. And Obama, schooled in Chicago, is no ingénue. Of course, Clinton - as she is so fond of reminding us - received some 18 million votes this year and came within a whisker of winning. Her husband is the most recent Democratic president. They had to be accommodated; in other words . . . appeased. This is a frightening glimpse of the substance of which Hussein Obama is made. Carefully hidden by his handlers, his 'do what it takes' appeasement mindset is how he would handle conflict as president. This is the mark of his inexperience and softness...characteristics that America cannot afford ,and should avoid at all costs, in a president at this time in history.

Obambi was outmaneuvered, flim-flammed, and hoodwinked by a pair of con-artists (Bubba and Bubbette). Russia's Vladimir Putin and Iran's chimp-like leader must be dancing a jig right about now at the prospect of doing to same thing late in January!

Prince John The Smarmy

John Edwards, former Democrat presidential contender, earlier this week admitted he'd had an extramarital affair even as his wife battled cancer - and that he'd lied about it.

Yet Americans didn't have to hear that to know the man is a smarmy sleaze-ball in addition to being an outright fake.

His entire presidential campaign was based on hypocrisy and deception. Indeed, nearly every word out of the former trial lawyer's mouth dripped with insincerity and falsehood. If it looks like a phony, walks like a phony, quacks like a phony . . . it’s a phony!

Now even the most gullible folks know it.

"In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment," Edwards said, acknowledging his relations with 44-year-old Rielle Hunter, who worked for his campaign. It was just on July 23, Edwards denied the recent allegations and called the National Enquirer story "tabloid trash." (The same 'tabloid' that put MainStreamMedia completely to shame!)

Edwards' statement explained: "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic." Ya Think? Is he really past the narcissism bug? In an ABC interview airing August 8th, Edwards took great care to explain that he only cheated on Elizabeth when she was in remission - not when her cancer was full blown.

He admitted he hadn't been fully honest when he denied reports of the affair.

"When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it," Edwards said. "Being 99 percent honest is no longer enough."

He had lied, in other words - but only by 1 percent. Which, we suppose, is like being just a little, uh, pregnant.

Speaking of pregnant, by the way, Hunter did give birth this year to a baby girl. Edwards denies being the father; it's his business, of course, and maybe he's not. Ms. Hunter has now, through her paid mouthpiece, issued a statement that neither she nor her daughter will allow a paternity test now or in the future. This guarantees that the “fatherhood question” will not go away. Now, if I were not the cynical skeptic I am, I would say a media blitz and book deal is in the offing for the aggrieved damsel. As always, just follow the money!

But why should anyone believe anything Edwards, former ambulance-chaser, says?

Want hypocrisy? Consider what the two-timing former senator had to say about Bill Clinton's philandering:

"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

Capt. Renault couldn't have been more "shocked" about gambling in Casablanca.

Meanwhile, Edwards' campaign (and maybe career) have essentially been one big con. He played the role of champion for the poor - while raking in mammoth legal fees and spending on himself and his family like a pampered prince.

Who can forget his two $400 haircuts last year, paid for by his campaign?

His home is a 28,000-square-foot estate, sitting on 102 acres, "surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs," AP reported.

An addition contains handball and basketball courts, an indoor pool and a stage.

Not that anyone should begrudge him that, of course. But it sure makes his rants about income inequality and "the two Americas" sound just a wee bit hollow.

The good news is that Edwards - who once was even being considered as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate - may be at the end of his political career. Look out John, the ObamaBus is speeding toward you and you are standing too close to the curb!

Edwards, the former trial lawyer, gives substance to the following old saw: Q. What is the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? A. One is a bottom crawling, scum-sucking scavenger . . . and the other is only a poor fish!

The Cost of Saying "I'm Sorry"!

This week the US House of Reprobates approved a measure that “apologizes to African-Americans (that means ‘black’ to the less enlightened of us) on behalf of all Americans for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors”. Personally, I resent other people apologizing on my behalf for something I did not do! Be that as it may, the wrongs in question are slavery and the Jim Crow laws, the system of racial segregation in southern states that lasted from the late 19th century until 1965. Since February last year, the legislatures of Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama, New Jersey and Florida have expressed regret for slavery.

The question here is: Why now? There are very few people (except maybe Robert Byrd (d) W.Virginia) still living that are 175 years old who would have had any direct connection with US slavery; owner or owned / seller or trader. It is not exactly clear at whom this apology is targeted. Many older American black people suffered from Jim Crow, but no younger ones did. As for slavery, apportioning the status of victim and perpetrator based on heredity is misguided. There are white Americans who are descended from slaves. There are black Americans who are descended from slave-owners. (One of them is running for president, guess which?) As with all pandering, self-serving legislation (which is the majority of legislation), an examination of motive is in order:

First: Who could object? Any such bill develops an irresistible momentum because legislators fear being considered racists if they oppose it. New Jersey’s bill passed the senate by 30 votes to 1. The federal bill had 120 co-sponsors and it passed by a voice vote.

The second: What is the point? Slavery and Jim Crow have exactly zero influential defenders in the US. The former was abolished in the bloodiest war the US ever fought; the latter was repudiated through legislation and trillions have been spent trying to undo its consequences. Simply declaring oneself “against” slavery and Jim Crow is an exercise in sanctimony, not conscience.

A cynical explanation presents itself. Steve Cohen, the House bill’s main sponsor, is a white Democrat from Memphis, Tennessee, who has come, by electoral accident, to represent a 60 per cent black district. When his charismatic predecessor, Harold Ford Jr, (he was supposed to be the Southern B. Hussein Obama) ran for Senate two years ago, Mr Cohen wound up in a primary against 11 black candidates and eked out a victory with just over 30 per cent of the vote. Mr Cohen expressed a desire to join the Congressional Black Caucus, but was refused admittance. (Gee, I wonder if it could have been because he is white?) Can you just imagine the howls of indignation that would ensue upon the establishment of a White Congressional Caucus? Several CBC members are backing his (black) challenger in the Democratic primary next week. This vote against slavery is reportedly the Democratic leadership’s way of doing a favor for an imperiled incumbent – of letting Mr Cohen’s constituents know he cares (symbolism over substance) about “black” issues as much as his rival.

And third: Follow the money! “Apologies are not empty gestures,” Mr Cohen said after the bill’s passage, “but are a necessary first step towards any sort of reconciliation between people.” Apparently a second step is required to lift the bill above suspicion of moral grandstanding. What is that step? It is some form of reparations, for which such legislation can provide a legal justification. Since reparations are a perennial political loser, the bill’s sponsors and defenders are keen to reassure Americans that their bill mentions no such thing. But following their logic, there is no reason it should not.

If one looks at the proliferation of lawsuits in the 1990s against companies linked to the Nazis, one notes a pattern. The big push for reparations tends to come not early on, when victims and malefactors are clearly identified, easily distinguished and numerous. At that point, the claims of victims on perpetrators are so vast that society will resist even listening to them. The call for reparations comes later, when the number of remaining victims has fallen (and the logic of reparations has collapsed). The House apology bill is the first indication that we can soon expect a wave of lawsuits over Jim Crow. Official anguish about slavery and Jim Crow is arising not because it has become a pressing matter of conscience but because it has the potential of being very profitable. Another fine example of socialist transfer of wealth with trial lawyers (the largest contributors to Democrat coffers) skimming 40% off the top.

As in most cases, if you simply follow the money you discover the truth!

(WARNING!: The embedded video is totally politically incorrect. Watch at your own risk of uncontrollable laughter!)

Just Who Is Bringing Race Into The Race?

His campaign, and the fawning Main-Stream-Media, has put just about any question about Barack Hussein Obama off-limits. In this campaign, one that is supposed to transcend race, almost every legitimate question concerning the background, history, family, friends and associations of Barry Hussein Obama is deflected by accusing the questioner of being 'racist.' Any question or topic he does not want to answer or address is deflected as racist by his Blitzkrieg press machine.

Like it or not, race is going to be a major issue in this campaign, according to Princeton University professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who specializes in African-American politics.

“There’s no question that race and all the permutations that it’s going to take for Obama are going to be central issues,” she predicted.

Her predictions proved true. Race has indeed been interjected in the 2008 presidential campaign, but not by John McCain. It is Barry Hussein Obama that is constantly waving the ‘bloody shirt’.

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama explained. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

We know this is just a prefabricated attack, because last month in Florida, Obama brandished a similar, less opaque, comment, saying, "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

It's true; Obama is black. And the person who keeps mentioning that Barack Obama is black most often is Barack Obama.

The fawning Media is constantly bringing race into the mix. Every time they describe him (mostly in glowing and hushed reverence) as potentially the first African-American president, they are reminding the world that he is black.

Here is the Obama campaign’s hypocritical template: Anybody, and I mean anybody, that dares question the qualifications of “The One” will be immediately and viciously branded a racist. Be it disagreement on policy or pointing out his inexperience, lack of judgment or obnoxious hubris; a racist you will be!

How’s that for “Change You Can Believe In?”

Saving The Planet? ummm? Not so much!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DEMOCRAT) opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won't even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

Folks, this air-headed ditz is the most powerful person in Congress. Besides being an air-headed ditz, she is a San Francisco democrat, enviro-wacko air-headed ditz; the most dangerous category of Congress-Critter! She, and she alone, due to the arcane, incomprehensible internal rules Congress have for themselves, controls which bills come to the floor for a vote; and which die an ignominious, silent death in the hallway.

Despite the fact that 25 years ago, nearly 60 percent of U.S. petroleum was produced domestically. Today it's 25 percent. From its peak in 1970, U.S. production has declined a staggering 47 percent. The world consumes 86 million barrels a day; the United States, roughly 20 million. We need the stuff to run our cars and planes and economy. Democrat Nancy Pelosi, supported by her left-wing enviro-whacko base, refuses even to consider more US drilling, completely ignoring the 70% of Americans that want us to Drill Here and Drill Now! All in the name of “saving the planet!”

What she, and her fellow ditzes, do not realize is that their method of “saving the planet’ is actually doing more harm.

Places like Nigeria where chronic corruption, environmental neglect and resulting unrest and instability lead to pipeline explosions, oil spills and illegal siphoning by the poverty-stricken population -- which leads to more spills and explosions. Just this week, two Royal Dutch Shell pipelines had to be shut down because bombings by local militants were causing leaks into the ground.

Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill.

The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down, then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large. Additionally, the U.S. has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?

The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is net “negative”. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

This to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain.

There are a plethora of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don't care. We come to save the planet!

They (the Pelosi Democrats) seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.