It's All About The Control

I've often said that the bottom line for liberals is control.  The more they control, the better.  For them, of course, not you.  In fact, it's pretty much the opposite for you - the more they control, the worse off you are.  It's not that hard a concept to grasp, really.  The more they control, the more power they have.  The more power they have, well...that's kind of the endgame, isn't it?  With power you can route money to certain people or keep it out of certain people's hands, you can prevent certain people from having (or hearing) certain perspectives, and you can bully dissenters using the full force of the law.  It's all about the control.

If you don't believe me when I suggest that's what liberals are ultimately gunning for, take a look at these stories...

NASA to fly low over region for air quality study

The study will focus on air pollution over many of Maryland's major roads, from Baltimore's beltway, to the 95 corridor, even over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

This is no ordinary plane, it's a specially fitted NASA aircraft designed with equipment to measure air pollution levels in flight. And starting next week the skies over Maryland will become a pollution detection playground for the plane and for NASA scientists.

First of all, why is NASA monitoring air quality issues?  Aren't they supposed to be traveling to space and stuff?  Oh, that's right, Obama killed the space shuttle program.  I guess this is just filler until they find something better to do than be lapdogs for the EPA.  And what do you suppose will happen if these planes determine that pollution is too high?  More regulations, more restrictions, more government control of these areas.

Taxes on "small business" must rise so government doesn't "shrink"

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to "shrink the overall size of government programs." The administration's plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Can there be any better illustration that liberals think government is the end-all-be-all of everything, the final arbiter of all questions, and the primary concern of every citizen?  We're in a period of economic frailty brought on by the unprecedented reckless spending from these same liberals, and they're concerned about government shrinking at the expense of an industry that provides 70-80% of all jobs in America?  Control.

Education is a hotbed of liberalism and liberal brainwashing, and it's only getting worse...

SWAT team raids by...the department of education

Apparently, there was this woman who had skipped out on her student loans, so the feds sent a SWAT team to her house to deliver a search warrant.  That is to say, the SWAT team stormed the house, broke down the door, handcuffed her husband, and stuck around for six hours until it finally was successfully pointed out that not only was the woman not there; she had in point of fact skipped out on her family, too.

Aside from the obvious question of why the Dept. of Education is conducting SWAT team raids, what kind of arrogance would prompt anyone to authorize such a raid over student loans??  Clearly, the powers that be here believe they already have control to such an extent that they can do this sort of thing without recrimination.  Getting away with this only furthers the notion that they're in complete control of all situations no matter what.

Other education stories of note:

• Woman jailed for sending kids to better school district
• 11-year old's drawing of American flag not displayed because it was 'offensive'
• NY officials want to teach high school girls how to properly ditch their unwanted babies
• School sends home permission slips to allow Pledge of Allegiance
• High school students punished for handing out candy canes ('cause they could be used as weapons, you know)

A look through history shows that every good dictator knows to aim for the children first.  After all, if you can brainwash and control a generation while they're young, you've automatically got 'em whipped when they grow up, and probably their children, too.  If liberals are following the lead of historical dictators, is there any other conclusion than ultimate control?

First they came for the basketball hoops

Rest assured there is no issue too small to sate their lust for control, and this link shows a great example.  What happened here is that a petty government bureaucrat forcibly removed a basketball pole from a homeowner's yard while lying through her teeth about the end result.  Click through and watch the video, because there really aren't words to encapsulate it.  Bottom line message here: Fall in line, or else.  It's about the control.

No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

Unbelievable.  I'm picturing liberal attorneys in all 49 other states licking their chops at this precedent.  One can only only hope that, given this is such a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, the federal Supreme Court will strike this one down in a hurry.  Can we say control, anyone?

Don't even get me started on the TSA's strip-search-and-sexual-assault policy (got another post coming on that one soon).

Obama skirts rule of law to reward friends, punish enemies

1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families ... have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

... If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.

Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.

On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.

When we're talking about power and control, don't we really mean the ability to do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, and for whatever reason we want?  That's really the essence of power, isn't it?  So, this is perhaps the most brazen grasp at control that we've yet seen because of its sheer scope.  Remember that a huge majority of the American people (roughly 60%) opposed Obamacare from the moment it was proposed, and that a similar number still support its outright repeal.  If that's the case, then this act of issuing waivers to only certain favored constituencies becomes an egregious abuse of power, does it not?  The question is: has a line been crossed?  Will the American people meekly suffer this overreach of control, or will they rise up and slap it down, punishing those who are so audacious as to attempt it?

The point is that liberals' ultimate goal is to acquire and maintain control over everything and everyone possible.  It's not hyperbole, it's not a conspiracy theory, and it's not an exaggeration.  It's real, and the stories above are just scratching the surface.

We must make a conscious effort to stop this liberal control grab wherever we see it, whether it's a bureaucrat lying and stealing our basketball goal or a vast government takeover of our most personal life decisions.

IT. MUST. STOP.

Putting The Wacko In 'Environmentalist Wacko'

They're at it again. The so-called scientists who are pushing these policies as fact have repeatedly been caught lying and doctoring their data.

Their liberal political allies in the media conveniently ignore these deceptions and run with the faulty conclusions for no other reason than that they really feel it should be true:

In “Assessment of Obama Administration’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of Clean Air Act Regulation,” economist David Montgomery reveals the very large net regulatory benefits touted by EPA rely on apples to orange comparisons, where the vast majority of the benefits have none of the financial reality that the costs do.

“In its Clean Air Act appraisal, EPA substitutes calculated misdirection for solid analysis” explained NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp. “Nearly all of EPA’s promised $2 trillion in benefits from existing regulations stem from feelings rather than fiscal improvements.

“Federal regulators arrived at their staggering figures by polling individuals on how much they’d be willing to pay to reduce risks in general, mostly using estimates from studies of occupational risks unrelated to air pollution.”

Of course, even they will admit one thing that people on our side of the argument can agree with:

Dr. Montgomery added “while less than 3 percent of the EPA’s purported benefits will show up as additional jobs or real output in the economy, 100 percent of the costs will do so. Even EPA’s own macroeconomic analysis shows that existing air pollution regulations are a net drag on the economy. And EPA’s tally doesn’t even take into account the costs of its pending new ozone standards and regulations on electric utilities over the next decade.”

So, basically, you have the following progression:
1. there's no real problem
2. self-righteous liberals feel very strongly that there should be a problem
3. the solutions proposed by said liberals will solve nothing (because there's nothing to solve) while killing jobs and severely impairing the economic well-being of America

What's not to love?

In fact, do you recall Obama's promise from the 2008 pre-election campaign days of skyrocketing energy prices if his policies are put into place? Get ready, because Obama's policies are being implemented, bit by bit, starting with the EPA. So...here come the skyrocketing prices! And it's happening by design, not by accident.

To confirm that, look no further than one of the few states that's in good economic shape -- Texas -- and how Obama's EPA is waging war on it by wrestling control of the state's air permits (emission permits), slapping new regulations on coal plants that reduce the amount of electricity they can generate, and using faulty logic to limit natural gas processing. Ironically...

This would be one thing if Texas were an outlier among the 50 states in terms of dirty air or an otherwise demonstrably imperiled environment. But the truth is closer to the opposite: the air in Texas has been getting cleaner; in the urban areas, much cleaner. And in spite of being by far the largest electric power producer of the 50 states, and heavily reliant on coal, Texas has been steadily reducing its emissions of the EPA’s least-favored compounds from coal combustion (e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide). Its emissions of NOx and SO2 are substantially lower than the national average; Texas is ranked the 11th lowest in NOx emissions (.098 lb/mmBtu in 2009, versus a national average of .159 lb/mmBtu), and 24th in SO2 (.309 lb/mmBtu in 2009, versus a national average of .458 lb/mmBtu).

But the EPA isn’t really making the argument that Texas is an environmental pigsty. It’s not putting any data or findings behind that premise, at any rate. Instead, it is simply acting high-handedly, assuming an authority that nothing in written law confers on it, to pronounce Texas’s procedures in violation of EPA rules – even when there is no basis for making that claim. To put it bluntly, the EPA is making a power grab.

But even beyond that, these people are nuts, and simply understanding what they genuinely believe should be enough to convince most people not to give them the time of day. Take the High Priest of Green, Al Gore:

The global warming debate has always been a touchy one for both sides, and when the world’s top global warming activist is talking about the size of population and how that contributes to the choices societies make, it might be worth taking note.

In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

Translation: abortion, abortion, abortion. But is he talking about even more drastic measures?

“You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

You decide. But you should also note this quote from an article written by Gore earlier this week:

Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

In other words, people are poisonous to the environment, and right-wing ideologues are protecting the poisoning.

Thus: wacko.

Uh, Wait...Who Was The Dumb One Again?

Because it's hard to tell after watching this:

And just for the record, no, Sarah Palin did not say the thing about seeing Russia from her house. That was Tina Fey.

The Coming Light Bulb Ban

You may or may not recall that incandescent light bulbs will be banned in just a few months.

This looming ban is an issue that I believe is extremely symbolic of both political parties, and well worth examining.  Read:

The Republican House is flinching on passing the simplest and most symbolic piece of legislation this term: repeal of the incandescent light bulb phase out.  Amidst great fanfare and promises to restore limited government, the new majority is proving it isn't much different than the old majority.

The incandescent phase out required under the so-called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 starts with banning regular 100 watt light bulbs on Jan 1, 2012. 75 watters will be banned a year later.  60 watters  fade in 2014. 

Some of us still cling to a quaint notion that federal legislation ought to pass constitutional muster while fixing a problem serious enough to fix and do so while providing more benefits than the costs to implement.  The light bulb ban fails to achieve all three:

1) it is unconstitutional (see my previous 

screed on this aspect);

2) is a solution without a problem; and

3) bears costs far in excess of any benefits.

The light bulb ban was inspired by environmental and energy conservation zealots spooked by the global warming lobby.  And those economic rent-seeking players in the lighting industry who could benefit from legislated self-interest, were happy to join as co-conspirators. Those companies who were less enthused about the light bulb ban found resisting futile, in the end happy enough to delay the effective dates to allow for more orderly close down of factories and job eliminations.

So, what have learned since 2007?  For starters, the global warming agenda has collapsed, polluted with data manipulation scandals.  And where the data haven't been tainted by hyper-partisans, independent measurements are proving that global warming predictions are 

as useful as pre-season college football polls.

We have also learned that coal fired power plants, the leading villain in the light bulb ban morality play, haven't been affected one whit by energy conservation mandates for households.  In fact not a single coal fired power plant has been taken off-line as a result of the steady conversion from household incandescents to CFLs in the past 5 years, and none ever will be.  Those hyper-partisans from the likes of the Natural Resources Defense Council predicting that 30 coal fired plants would be eliminated due to the light bulb ban have never been challenged to name one.   Name one,  just one.  Coal fired plants may get the axe from draconian EPA regs, but not from household light bulbs.

Defenders of the light bulb ban have failed to provide a single rationale why the government should meddle with consumer light bulbs.  Do they present a safety hazard?  No, certainly unlike the most prevalent replacement, the CFL laden with mercury.  Do they present a performance or quality scam?  Of course not, light output and reliability from incandescent light bulbs for household use has been the gold standard perfected over 75 years.  And compared with any other light source that contains no hazardous components, incandescent light bulbs are still the cheapest product on the shelf.

The last remaining defense for the federal light bulb ban coming from NEMA, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the trade group for the light bulb industry, is the pre-emption defense.  Because several states, notably California, were poised to enact their own consumer light bulb statutes -- all different -- the feds had to step in to create harmony.  This is the bureaucrat's defense, devoid of principle, arguing that bad legislation is better than something worse.  If individual states want to enact different product standards, let the marketplace decide whether manufacturers will produce such versions and let those states bear the higher costs for their commercial isolationism.

No doubt Congressional Republicans who aided and abetted the 2007 light bulb ban, are now feeling sheepish, unwilling to admit they were bumfuzzled and bamboozled.  Rather than admit a mistake having negligible consequences in confessing, they would rather persist in a supporting a law that completely contradicts the Republicans' new agenda -- less government interference, fewer regulations, moratoria on cost burdens passed on to businesses and consumers, and restored liberties to the people.

There is no downside for any Republican, and even many conservative Democrats, to vote yes on the light bulb ban repeal. Who would be harmed by a repeal?  Workers facing layoffs or those already unemployed?  Consumers facing fewer, more expensive and less effective choices on retail shelves?  Retailers faced with ultra-life lightbulb substitutes seeing less traffic in their housewares aisles? Environmentalists and parents of young children who now have to cope with broad spectrum mercury contamination from kitchens and bedrooms to landfills?

What is the upside to vote upholding the light bulb ban?  Is there any?

Who else would benefit from the repeal? Anyone in Congress who wants to get re-elected.   And in addition to workers, consumers, retailers and environmentalists, the Republicans would benefit from proving their bona fides.  The Republicans were swept into power by the force of the limited government agenda.  Repealing the light bulb ban would at least be a symbolic victory, perhaps paving the way for more ambitious reversals. 

Will the Republicans deliver the simplest legislative win on the path to stopping government interference in our daily lives -- a task as easy as naming a post office? If not, there is no hope for repealing ObamaCare, reforming entitlements, reversing the EPA, enacting a balanced budget, or restoring the principles of limited government to this nation.

I expect elected Democrats to do idiotic and politically correct things like this ban, where the 'solution' is actually worse than the original 'problem'.  I also expect elected Republicans to be spineless, gutless, essentially worthless hypocrites when it comes time to stand up for anything.  I think both are due largely to the fact that they're trying to read the political tea leaves and do what's best -- or at least to avoid doing what's worst -- for their own careers.

What boggles the mind on this particular issue is how the Republicans are once again completely misunderstanding the situation.  If they had any brains or political acumen at all, they'd understand that this ban encapsulates the fundamental point of tension in this country right now, and that the American people are solidly on the side of rolling back government.  This is a win-win situation if there ever was one...but they're missing it.  Otherwise, they'd be boldly talking about what the Dems pushed through in 2007, and creating a ruckus to repeal it right now.  Not only is it in the best interests of the American people, and not only would it be a great political win, but it would also help set the stage for successfully repealing and rolling back things that are far more significant (i.e. Obamacare).  Until the GOP proves its willingness and ability to stand strong on the little things, is there any reason to think they'll stand strong on the really tough things?  None whatsoever.

Will they do it?  We've only got a few months left until we know for sure.  Personally, I'm buying extra light bulbs every time I go to the store...

More On The Economy

Steve McCann has a blistering piece at American Thinker regarding Obamanomics that is WELL worth the read:

President Obama, the fellow leftists in his administration, and the Congress, nearly none of whom have ever made a viable contribution to the Gross Domestic Product, are hell-bent on seizing complete control of the economy. They are making the same foolish and arrogant mistake Marxists and Socialists have made since the mid-1800s, and the citizens of the United States will pay an overwhelming price for their folly unless the people begin to grasp the true cost to themselves and the country.

Those, such as Barack Obama, who believe they have a manifest destiny to rule and are faithful to socialist tenets, have a predisposition to control economic and personal activity through laws, regulations, taxes, and intimidation. They attempt to maintain this power by bribing the populace with massive social spending and promises in exchange for their votes. These commitments can never be fully honored; nonetheless those in power willfully keep the general public focused on blaming others for the failures of collectivist ideology and rely on the deliberately inept economic and civic education fostered at government operated schools to keep the majority of the people confused and bewildered.

As government grows and absorbs more and more of a nation's gross domestic product in order to finance this bribery, the less capital there will be for business expansion and job as well as wealth creation. Unfortunately many Americans do not understand that as a corollary to this activity, the standard of living and wealth of all citizens will continue to decline dramatically, as it is the private sector, not government, which creates prosperity.

Few things cause the eye to glaze over more than economic statistics, particularly when discussing incomprehensible sums in the trillions of dollars. But when it comes to the employment and wealth of Americans as well as the ability of the private sector to grow, there are two statistics that the public should be aware of, and one which everyone can relate to:

1. The Gross Domestic Product (the total economic output of the economy); and
2. The Net Gross Domestic Product per Person (the GDP less the amount of government spending at all levels divided by the current population.)

The Net GDP recognizes the impact of Federal, state, and local spending.

Ideally the Net GDP should increase every year adjusted for inflation. This would be an indicator of private wealth creation, higher personal incomes, and a healthy expanding economy, as money is more readily available for job creation. Despite minor ups and downs, the overall trend in a six to eight year period should always be on the positive side and normally has been over the past twenty-five years.

That is until the Obama years. The following table reveals what has happened since 2002 through the end of a potential second Obama term based on current and projected spending estimates -- a growth rate of 3.0% per year for the GDP was used. (Net GDP: inflation adjusted to 2002)

Year	Net GDP $	Govt. Spending as a Per Cent of GDP	Avg. Unemployment Rate
2002	24,125	34.7	5.1
2003	24,282	35.2	5.8
2004	25,190	34.8	5.5
2005	25,692	34.7	5.0
2006	26,075	35.0	4.5
2007	26,445	34.9	4.7
2008	25,100	36.9	5.8
2009	22,600	41.5	9.1
2010	22,900	40.3	9.6
2011	22,200	41.3	9.1
2012	22,700	41.5	8.8 (est)
2013	22,450	42.0
2014	21,800	42.5
2015	21,400	42.7
2016	20,700	43.4
2020	19,100	45.4
2030	12,450	60.5

The statistics for 2002 reflect the recession in 2001 and the devastating economic impact of September 11, 2001, yet the economy was able to recover very quickly due to pro-growth fiscal policies.

The impact of ObamaCare is reflected in the spending estimates after 2015. The primary drivers of the 2020 statistics are ObamaCare, Medicare, Social Security, and interest (as the national debt, per the GAO, will exceed 118% of the GDP). It is obvious to anyone not beholden to a rigid socialist ideology that there will be an ever decreasing amount of wealth in the private sector which will result in even less job creation and a further erosion in the individual standard of living, as the 2020 Net GDP shows a dramatic 28% drop over that of 2007.

If nothing is done, then by 2030 the Net GDP will fall by an unprecedented 54% as compared to 2007 and government spending as a per cent of the GDP will be 60.5%. The average citizen can certainly understand this impact on the nation by relating it to their personal lives: if their income or wealth dropped by 28 to 54% bankruptcy would be inevitable.

One of the factors in this massive decline of the net GDP will be population growth amounting to nearly 60 million people by 2030. That means that 40 million new jobs will have to be created to accommodate that increase plus recapturing the job losses to date of nearly 14 million; all the while not having the capital available to accelerate business growth. This country as it is known today will cease to exist and poverty will overtake the nation.

By comparison, Germany, which also has spending on a Federal, state, and local level, has taken a decided step back from its tax and spend policies as a strategy to overcome the 2008-2009 financial crash: Germany reduced spending as a per cent of GDP and focused on actions geared to expanding the private sector. The results (inflation adjusted to 2002):

Year	Net GDP per Capita $	Total Govt Spending as % of GDP	Avg Unemployment Rate
2002	14,950	47.5	9.8
2003	15,318	47.4	10.7
2004	15,510	47.8	10.5
2005	15,780	47.7	10.6
2006	18,250	45.9	11.7
2007	19,875	45.6	10.2
2008	22,246	44.3	8.4
2009	19,425	47.2	7.8
2010	20,050	45.9	7.4
2011	20,500	44.8	7.2
2012	20,975	44.8	7.1 (est)

There can no longer be lip service to job creation and spending cuts as a reelection or election ploy. The nation must first evict Barack Obama and his accomplices from office, as their rigid ideology and narcissism prevent them from changing course or honestly admitting their mistakes. America must begin making the adjustments necessary to return to the Net GDP experienced in 2005-2007. To do so the country must either dramatically reduce spending; significantly increase the GDP rate of growth, or a reasonable combination of both.

Solely relying on spending cuts would be nearly impossible, as the level of decrease required would create many economic hardships, and sole reliance on GDP expansion would demand a yearly rate of growth of over 5.4%, which is not feasible without expenditure reductions. However, a consistent annual and achievable GDP growth rate of 4.25% coupled with a spending base line of 2008 plus 3.4% per year would enable the economy to realize the Net GDP growth experienced in the early part of the past decade by the year 2021 or sooner.

This program would entail the repeal of ObamaCare, changes in Medicare (per the Paul Ryan plan), minor eligibility changes in Social Security, significant reductions in miscellaneous government spending (except Defense), and wholesale elimination of duplicate and unnecessary agencies. The private sector can also be spurred on by dramatically eliminating costly and senseless regulations and laws as well as restructuring the tax code and rates. The country should also abandon its quixotic quest for "green" energy as a full-scale substitute for fossil fuels and begin a crash program to responsibly develop its vast carbon-based reserves.

The United States would then be the most attractive country in the world in which to do business. The growth of the GDP would be greatly accelerated and sustainable allowing the country to thrive well into the future.

It is not too late, but time is rapidly running out as the above table reflects. The American people must begin to educate themselves, understand the true nature of the dilemma at hand, and realize that Barack Obama and the Democrats are the problem not the solution.

(The sources for this information are all linked at the AT article.)

One interesting little tidbit for you from that first chart above - do you remember what year liberal Democrats took over in Congress? It was 2007. Notice what happens immediately after that...? Spending and unemployment jump up and Net GDP drops. This is what happens every time liberals are in charge.

All this just illustrates what we've talked about many times before - Barack Obama and his liberal allies see America as inherently unfair, greedy, and evil, and are determined to take us down a notch to make themselves feel better. As long as they're granting themselves exceptions from the misery (remember, no one in the elected federal office is required to participate in Obamacare, and Congress often exempts itself from the laws it passes), they're actually glad for economic hardship here. It just increases the number of people who become dependent upon the government, which in turn increases their own power, which they use to further drive the economy into the ground. See how the nasty cycle works?

McCann concludes with the same message conservatives all over the country have been saying: if we don't throw Obama and his liberal self-destructionists out soon, this country is finished!


One final note to really drive it home. I have to say that I really enjoy living in the age of YouTube political videos! It's amazing how much information and emotion can be packed into a 60-second message, like this one:

Hm. Interestingly, Barack Obama himself said that if the economy didn't improve, he'd be a one-term President...this is one time I fervently hope he's correct...

Obama Jokes About Continuing Economic Woes

I hate to sound like a broken record, but given that the single most important issue in essentially every election for the past half century has turned on the economy, it's something that needs to be covered thoroughly. Oh, also, it has a drastic effect on real people in the real world, so it's something of interest to a lot of people. So, here we go.

First, the situation. Here are a few headlines just to give you a flavor of how things are right now:

• Chronic unemployment highest since Great Depression
• Wall Street baffled by slowing economy
• Moody's warns of rising risk on US credit rating
• Horror for US economy as data falls off a cliff
• Labor Market Worries Rise on Weak Private Sector Job Growth
• US manufacturing growth slowest since Sept 2009
• US funding for future promises lags by trillions
• Pending home sales plunge, reaching 7 month low
• US is in even worse shape financially than Greece (but that doesn't stop Obama from pledging more money to help them out)

It's hard to imagine things getting a whole lot worse...at least, until a sudden catastrophe hits (i.e. widespread natural disaster, successful terrorist attack, etc.). Still, it's even harder to understand Obama's latest strategery on how to handle this obvious economic tanking. It's a two-part saga of awesomeness that you really have to see to believe:

It's the ATM's fault

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Oy, oy, oy. Does he really expect people to believe this tripe? Apparently so. But it gets even worse...

Not quite as 'shovel-ready' as we expected

Really? That's what you're going to go with? Unemployment has remained well above his promised result for years now, and he's laughing it off in the name of a big oopsie? Please oh please, start campaigning now, Mr. President!

Speaking of unemployment, let's go back to the original chart showing what Obama and his team promised America if they passed his almost-trillion-dollar 'stimulus' into law (which they did), and what has actually happened since then:


As you can plainly see, the results of Obama's 'stimulus' plan have turned out worse than what they themselves projected if we did nothing back in 2008. This is liberalism in the real world, people. It always fails because it is based on ideologically driven willful ignorance that results in a faulty understanding of how the real world works.

Fortunately, the American people seem to be wising up. A full 31% expect things to get worse over the next year. Probably because they know Obama will be in the White House for at least the next year, if you ask me!

In the middle of all this, it is also worth noting that the one sector that has shown consistent growth -- a fabulous 7%, in fact -- over this same timeframe is unions. Hm, let's see...unions spend tens of millions of dollars getting Obama elected and threaten/bludgeon anyone who opposes him...and Obama ensures that unions see robust growth despite a tanking economy. No, there's no correlation here...

There is no standard by which Obama's policies on the economy aren't a failure. Let's once again look to history to compare objectively:


But it's all the GOP's fault, of course. I really, really hope they go with that as their 2012 campaign mantra because it'll make for some tremendously entertaining debates and another huge landslide for our side. The reality is that under Democrat 'leadership' we're heading into our third straight year of over-$1 trillion deficits. No Republican that I know of ever came close to touching that level of deficit spending! This economy belongs to Obama and the Democrats, pure and simple.

This is not just an economic issue, either. It's a national security one. When the bank owns your house, are you ever really safe? No. If you fail to make payments, or if they decide they need your house for anything that better serves their interests, it's their house. You're out. Same goes here - with the amount of debt America has racked up -- which has risen almost exponentially in the past couple of years -- can we really be secure about anything? No. Is it any wonder that a majority of Americans view the government as a threat to their rights and freedoms rather than a protector of them?

There's really only one way to describe what Obama and liberal Democrats have done to America: EPIC FAIL.

The sooner Obama and his liberal Democrat allies are thrown out of power, the sooner this nation can actually go about the business of recovering. Until they're gone, the reality is that it simply isn't going to happen.

Coexist? Hah

Sorry the posts have been few and far between over the past week. Life is just crazy right now, we've had birthday festivities, and work has been extra demanding, requiring some significant evening hours. Hopefully that'll change soon, at least.

Anyway, I just thought I'd post a quick thought about a bumper sticker that I keep seeing here and there that looks something like this:


While I understand the sentiment, there's just one problem here. The religion represented by one of those symbols has this little thing where they require everyone to either convert to their religion...or die.

Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like much of a coexistence to me.

When I see this bumper sticker on someone's car, I really have to wonder if they can even name the religions (or believe systems) represented here, much less what each one is really all about. Somehow I doubt it, or they wouldn't be quite so taken with such a self-disproving slogan.

Hey Wait...That Wasn't In The Script!

I've always thought that the bad guys in movies are generally more colorful and interesting, and have cooler gadgetry and tricks. Apparently, this girl agrees...

Little Girl Joins The Dark Side - Watch more Funny Videos

When Liberals Get Their Way

Two stories that really illustrate the unintended consequences of liberalism...

Firms to cut health plans as reforms start

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will "definitely or probably" stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

"At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries," the study says.

Well, hold on just a gosh-darned minute..didn't the Democrats swear to the American public that there wouldn't be any decrease in coverage once Obamacare got implemented?  Didn't they swear that it would lower costs, thus making coverage more affordable?  Didn't they swear that more people would be covered once Obamacare was in place?

And oh, by the way, the number of waivers granted to certain *ahem* favored groups/companies/lobbies/entire states that now legally won't have to participate in Obamacare is over 1,400.  Now, ask yourself: if Obamacare is such a great thing, why are so many waivers being granted, and why are the majority of them entities who support liberal Democrats and their causes?

Hm.  Gollygeewhiz Ethel, I think it's time to vote differnt'ly...

The Green Killer

California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state's golden eagles at risk.  Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines.

Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities.

Nationwide, about 440,000 birds are said to be accidentally killed at wind farms each year, as well as thousands more bats. With the government pushing for more wind energy farms, that statistic is likely to rise.

Another recovering species, the California Condor, is also said to be at risk from the giant blades.  'We taxpayers have spent millions of dollars saving the California condor from extinction,' Gary George, spokesman for Audubon California, told the Times.

Haha!  You taxpayers have also been paying excessively high energy prices for the privilege of killing the birds you're supposed to be saving.  It's not every day you get shafted on both ends of the spectrum.  Well, unless liberals are in charge.  But it gets even better (emphasis mine):

Newer carbines are said to be less harmful to birds and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked power bosses to turn off the wind machines during times of heavy bird migration.

Now, I know this is a really big stretch, but can you possibly imagine a scenario where a law is passed by liberal politicians requiring an artificially high amount of the state's electricity be provided by wind farms, and then having animal rights groups throw such a hissy fit about all the bird murders going on in those wind farms that 'during times of heavy bird migration' those wind farms might be shut down?

Nah, I can't imagine that at all, either.

In all seriousness, the point of these stories is to illustrate the empty, shallow, destructive, and deceptive nature of liberal policies.  They're not about helping people or increasing freedom or the standard of living for American citizens.  They're about appeasing a very small percentage of radicals and accomplishing their agenda no matter the cost to America or American citizens.  They'll do anything and say anything to get that agenda enacted, and the consequences be damned.

These are the people running this country right now.  These are the people also present the greatest danger to the country right now.  They must be recognized for the crazies they are and summarily thrown out of power.  The longer it takes to do that, and the more their agenda is enshrined into law, the harder it will be to recover from the damage and destruction they are causing each and every day.

Word Of The Day

Pecksniffian: "hypocritically and unctuously affecting benevolence or high moral principles."

Or, in other words, most politicians.

Speaking Of...

In an amazing coincidence, this quote showed up in my inbox this morning:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis,a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." --Thomas Jefferson

Hm, how about that?

Eh, We Don't Much Care For That First Amendment Thingy

Insanity:

A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.  Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery's order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including "prayer" and "amen." ...  Judge Biery's ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: "join in prayer," "bow their heads," "amen," and "prayer."

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms "invocation" and "benediction" from the graduation program.  "These terms shall be replaced with 'opening remarks' and 'closing remarks,'" the judge's order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, "in [a deity's name] we pray."

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be "enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents."

Um...how about a refresher on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While I suppose it's technically true that this isn't Congress making a law against the free exercise of religion, isn't it still a mandate from a legal authority?  Here's the argument for such an obvious infringement upon free speech:

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday's graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would "suffer irreparable harm" if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

WHAT?!

This is something I've never understood about the whole argument against using certain 'religious' words in certain 'public' situations.  If it does 'irreparable harm' to one kid to have to hear the word 'God' (or, in this case, 'amen', 'prayer', and so on), can't it be argued with equal clarity and force that it does 'irreparable harm' to another kid to not be allowed to hear those words?  Would someone tell my why one side of this argument carries more water than the other?

Also...seriously?  'Irreparable harm' for hearing the word 'benediction'?  Give me a break, you idiot.  If hearing certain words is causing you 'irreparable harm', then you need to do yourself and everyone around you a favor by sealing yourself inside a small padded room for the rest of your life.  It could not be more transparent that they're simply conducting a surgical strike against Christianity in any form.  Fortunately, the Attorney General of Texas has stepped up to help:

"Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into "speech police."

"I've never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government," Abbott told Fox News Radio. "It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment."

The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God -- "attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever."

"This is the challenge we are dealing with here," he said. "(It's) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic."

Let's hope the added clout of this office can set things right in a hurry.  And let's use this incident to once again remind ourselves that we must be vigilant at all times and fight against the restriction of our freedoms in all cases.  We all enjoy freedom of speech and religion, but even on a broader scope, this fight is your fight.  Remember:

First they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Let's not let this warning from Nazi Germany become our reality today, shall we?  After all, last I checked we were still living in the United States of America.  Despite the liberals' best efforts, this is still a (mostly) free country, if Americans are willing to fight for those freedoms as our ancestors did before us.

From enemies foreign and domestic.

Here's What I Do All Day Long

According to my official job description, I do technical configurations and quotes for IT hardware and software.  That's a glamorous (haha) way of saying I tell people what computer stuff they need to buy and how much it will cost them.  In reality, most of my day is spent on things like this instant message conversation:

End User...Hey Brandon - Doc# 12345, In my quote I had asked for 4 nics and 2 fiber cards, on the quote it appears as if the order includes 4 fiber cards?

Brandon J. Carls...You wanted 4 NIC ports and two fiber ports per server, right? 

    Or did you want 4 NIC ports and 2 fiber ports total (so 2 NIC and 1 fiber per server)? 

End User...that is correct

Brandon J. Carls...Which? 

End User...4 nics and 2 fiber 

Brandon J. Carls...total, or per server? 

End User...thats per server

It may seem hard to believe, but we were both speaking English the whole time!  Hey, why answer in one response what you could stretch out to three?

*sigh*

Truly, it's the end users that make this job so awesome.  And oh, by the way...who's on first?

Yes, exactly!

Speaking Of Rising Gas Prices...

...let's take a bit more in-depth look. As we saw in yesterday's post, the root cause is primarily right here at home:

In 2011, Gulf of Mexico oil production will under-perform the government’s pre-Macondo forecasts by 355,000 barrels per day — almost 130 million barrels for the year. In 2012, the shortfall rises to 550,000 barrels per day — 200 million barrels. That’s fully one-third of the Gulf’s oil producing capability, and over 10% of total domestic oil production.

These are staggering numbers.

Alaska, our #1 oil producing state, will supply roughly 200 million barrels in 2012.

Two hundred million barrels is about what the U.S. imports from Iraq every year. Or roughly half of our Saudi Arabian import volume. Two hundred million barrels would supply all of Ohio’s yearly petroleum use, with quite a bit left over.

Replacing 200 million barrels of oil will require an additional supertanker full of oil every two days.

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides a rather dry but telling explanation:

Off shore oil production in [the 2011 forecast] is lower than in [the 2010 forecast] throughout most of the projection period [through 2035] because of expected delays in near-term projects, in part as a result of drilling moratoria and in part due to the change in lease sales expected in the Pacific and Atlantic outer continental shelf (OCS), as well as increased uncertainty about future investment in off shore production. [AEO2011 Preview, p. 8. Emphasis added.]

Moratoria, access and uncertainty: issues which fall squarely in the laps of Barack Obama and Ken Salazar.

The article goes on, and is well worth checking out in its entirety. The bottom line, though, is that the policies implemented by the Obama administration are having an increasingly negative effect on the American economy and the energy sector, and those effects will continue to worsen as long as the policies are left in place. We need a course correction, and fast.

But that's not going to happen as long as Obama is in charge. In fact, he's upping the ante and making things even worse:

President Obama is trotting out yet another policy aimed at forcing American’s to change our ways and embrace the green. Just a few weeks ago, the administration floated the idea of adding yet more taxes to our already overtaxed cars to serve the dual purpose of shoring up revenues as well as curbing driving habits (which one would assume can’t both be accomplished simultaneously, but I digress).

He also famously demanded more green to come out of Chrysler during the bailouts. Not green as in cash of course, rather green in the environmental whacko dream of tiny cars devoid of style and features. Luckily for the American taxpayer, Chrysler realized how bad for business this would be and promptly ignored the demands of the green police in favor of gas guzzling SUV’s which have helped put the company in a position to pay back government loans.

But now President Obama is embarking on something long promised to his environmental base in the hopes that he can change our habits so he can keep his campaign promise of slowing the rising oceans and healing the Earth.

Via Jazz Shaw at Hot Air:

[T]he Obama administration’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are quietly moving to make another round of changes to CAFE standards. (That’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy, for those keeping score at home.) The changes would affect model years from 2017 to 2025.

Remember: The important thing is that we are saved from the scourge of Man-Made Global Warming™, not worrying about silly things like jobs and the economy!

Remember yesterday's quote about how the EPA really doesn't care what effect its policies have on jobs or the economy at large? Bingo. The EPA gets its marching orders from the White House, so their agenda is Obama's agenda. We simply can't trust him to do the right thing for American jobs or the economy on this issue.

In fact, we can't trust liberals or leftists anywhere in the world to do the right thing - leftists in Europe have decided to ban cars altogether by 2050, all in the name of cutting emissions! They simply don't live in the same reality that you and I and most of the rest of the civilized world inhabits, and thus they cannot be trusted to govern in ways that protect you and I. And what about the current cars that run on electricity? To be blunt, they suck.

What is really needed is something that is well within our capability to do:

In 1995, the Republican-controlled House and Senate passed a balanced budget act, which contained a provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling and exploration. On December 6th of that year, President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill, ensuring that not a drop of oil would be extracted from the barren land of this 20 million acre area. We have literally been paying for this veto for the past 15 years.

This gargantuan frozen tundra in the northeast corner of Alaska contains the most oil of any single untapped source within the borders of the U.S. According to the mean average estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey, there are at least 10.3 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Most of this oil can be tapped through a drilling imprint of just 2,000 acres, or .01%, of the reserve area. In addition, there is an estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in ANWR. Only an insidious gang of politicians hell-bent on undermining our national security, economic prosperity, and free market capitalism, could be so intransigent to impound this treasure from the American people.

Yet, for the past 15 years, a truculent group of Democrats, along with a handful of liberal Republicans in the Senate, has prevented another ANWR bill from making its way to the president’s desk. Now, with Obama behind the desk, he has promised to block any effort to drill in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Rockies, and much of the Gulf coast. It is high time that we issue a direct challenge to Obama and quell his war on energy independence and productivity.

Drill here, drill now! Here are the stakes:

ANWR should be the first salvo in our counteroffensive against the Democrats’ war on oil. We must eventually fight for expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the fifty states, and the Gulf of Mexico. It’s time for Republicans to launch a full scale assault on the energy hostage takers within the government. Fifteen years of holding our oil and gas exploration hostage is enough.

We are fighting for energy independence, job creation, national security, and the American way of life. Oil is a gift from God and is the bloodline of our economic freedom and prosperity . Republicans need to muster the courage to pass ANWR immediately. The American people are supporting us on this issue. If the Democrats continue to obstruct our energy development, we need to sever their bloodline in 2012; political power.

The Republicans are generally pretty shaky on this issue, so they need to hear overwhelming support for ANWR drilling. That means you -- yes YOU -- need to pick up the phone and call your elected representatives or write them an e-mail and demand they proceed before gas prices reach European levels.

The American people do support this, and our reps need to respond to this demand. Do your part to supply the political courage they need.