Mind you, these are not the so-called militants of Gaza, but our "moderate" friends in the West Bank who we are constantly propping up with billions in American aid. From Commentary, the headline says it all:
Sentenced to Die for Selling Real Estate to a Jew
The story is fleshed out in the J-Post:
In the first case of its kind, a Palestinian Authority "military court" on Tuesday sentenced a Palestinian man (Anwar Brigith, age 59) to death by hanging after finding him guilty of selling land to Jews.
The verdict came shortly after the PA's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, issued yet another fatwa (religious decree) banning Muslims from selling land or houses to Jews.
The accused was also found guilty of violating a law dating back to 1958 that calls for a boycott against Israel, as well as another law from 1953 that bans trade with Israelis.
The judges issued the verdict unanimously and pointed out that the defendant did not have the right to appeal.
The court also decided to confiscate Brigith's money and property.
Again, from Commentary:
....even to these “moderates,” a real-estate transaction with a Jew is a capital offense because it is an article of Palestinian faith that every inch of their country must be rendered Judenrein in order for their national destiny to be fulfilled.
Israel, naturally, is a bit cautious about any automatic agreement to bargin with these type of people in good faith (despite the veiled threats from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Who can be opposed to such a common-sense approach (besides the aforementioned twosome)? Why, the EU, of course, who are issuing threats of their own:
Israel warned the European Union on Thursday to tone down its criticism of the new Israeli government or risk forfeiting the bloc's role as broker in Mideast peace efforts.
The warning came after EU's commissioner for external relations, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, this week criticized Israel's refusal to endorse a Palestinian state. She said an upgrade in Israeli-EU relations would depend on Israel's commitment to the "two-state solution."
And don't forget the UN, who would have no purpose in life if it weren't for their obsession with the destruction of the Jewish state:
None of a $4.5 billion package of reconstruction aid recently pledged for the Gaza Strip has got through because of border restrictions, a top U.N. official said on Thursday.
Robert Serry, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said on a visit to Gaza on Thursday the situation was alarming and warned that issues such as Palestinian reconciliation and secure borders had to be addressed.
"In the absence of real progress on issues like Palestinian reconciliation, open crossings, secure borders and a prisoners exchange, the potential for renewed violence is ever-present," Serry said in a statement.
Sounds like a threat to me. And where are these bleeding hearts when it comes to the rights of Mr. Anwar Brigith, who will die for the crime of conducting a sale of private property to a Jew?
Their silence speaks volumes....
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Media, Gay "Rights", Polygamy, and Americans
The media wants you to believe that the issue of gay "rights" (they seem to have most every single right availabale to every other American, save for the right to marry within their gender) is rending the nation in two:
National poll: mixed views on gay-rights issues
But when you look at the results, the responses among all questions is quite uniform:
By 56-37 percent, voters said the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military should be repealed
By 55-38 percent, voters said they did not want their state to allow same-sex couples to marry. However, by 57-38 percent, they favored allowing such couples to form civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights and by 53-40 percent they supported allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
_Also by 50-44 percent, voters supported the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
_Asked if society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters said yes, while 21 percent said there's too little attention and 22 percent said it's "about right."
So where are the "mixed views"? You have 50% plus of respondents agreeing to give gays everything they want, except the right to call a same-sex union a "marriage". Seems like a consistant majority of Americans hold the same opinion here (especially on the marriage/union issue), with only the media and the radicalized portion of the gay community trying to force a split within the nation's population.
An issue of "rights"? Hardly. It's one issue and one only, over whether to change the 5,000 year definition of marriage to suit the needs of a group of people who have unusual sexual preferences. And here's why you can't do it, incidentally - it's a slippery slope to social breakdown. I posted on it over two years ago, while making a sarcastic case for polygamy:
The pro-gay marriage crowd will say, "If two people love each other, regardles of their sex, shouldn't they be allowed to be married? If two men or two women wish to marry, isn't denying them that right based on the sexual gender of the two partners discrimination?"
OK, fine then. The sex of the partners is now ruled as irrelevant - only love between two consenting adults matters.
Now, if the gender of the couple is irrelevant, why shouldn't other factors of the marriage compact be irrelevant as well? Why does it have to be "TWO consenting adults"? If a man and two women are in love, why should they be denied the opportunity to marry as a threesome? If the sex of the partners is now irrelevant, cannot one make the case that the number of people involved in the marriage compact are irrelevant as well?
Look at the opportunities polygamy provides....!
Americans get this, and yet we'll give gays everything they want, including recognized unions under a different name. If the media and the gay community want to fight this out in the name of "rights", let's pose the polygamy question back to them as well. Let them explain why one perversion of the definition of marriage is OK, while another is not....
National poll: mixed views on gay-rights issues
But when you look at the results, the responses among all questions is quite uniform:
By 56-37 percent, voters said the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military should be repealed
By 55-38 percent, voters said they did not want their state to allow same-sex couples to marry. However, by 57-38 percent, they favored allowing such couples to form civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights and by 53-40 percent they supported allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
_Also by 50-44 percent, voters supported the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
_Asked if society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters said yes, while 21 percent said there's too little attention and 22 percent said it's "about right."
So where are the "mixed views"? You have 50% plus of respondents agreeing to give gays everything they want, except the right to call a same-sex union a "marriage". Seems like a consistant majority of Americans hold the same opinion here (especially on the marriage/union issue), with only the media and the radicalized portion of the gay community trying to force a split within the nation's population.
An issue of "rights"? Hardly. It's one issue and one only, over whether to change the 5,000 year definition of marriage to suit the needs of a group of people who have unusual sexual preferences. And here's why you can't do it, incidentally - it's a slippery slope to social breakdown. I posted on it over two years ago, while making a sarcastic case for polygamy:
The pro-gay marriage crowd will say, "If two people love each other, regardles of their sex, shouldn't they be allowed to be married? If two men or two women wish to marry, isn't denying them that right based on the sexual gender of the two partners discrimination?"
OK, fine then. The sex of the partners is now ruled as irrelevant - only love between two consenting adults matters.
Now, if the gender of the couple is irrelevant, why shouldn't other factors of the marriage compact be irrelevant as well? Why does it have to be "TWO consenting adults"? If a man and two women are in love, why should they be denied the opportunity to marry as a threesome? If the sex of the partners is now irrelevant, cannot one make the case that the number of people involved in the marriage compact are irrelevant as well?
Look at the opportunities polygamy provides....!
Americans get this, and yet we'll give gays everything they want, including recognized unions under a different name. If the media and the gay community want to fight this out in the name of "rights", let's pose the polygamy question back to them as well. Let them explain why one perversion of the definition of marriage is OK, while another is not....
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Jon Corzine: The Ultimate Ingrate
It was just over two years ago when Jon Corzine almost died in a near-fatal accident almost entirely of his own making - ordering his driver to speed (91 MPH in a 65 zone) while refusing to wear a seat belt ("Click it or Ticket", guv!), in order to attend a meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women's basketball team.
Does anyone even remember that kerfluffle any more? Certainly not Corzine, although he was a dim bulb before he took a shot to the head in the now infamous crash. It seems like Corzine forgot the whole incident - beacuse the governor, who thanked the first-responder EMTs for saving his life that night, is now cutting their budget by 90%. Bob Ingle of the Asbury Park-Press:
Surely Corzine can find a better way to balance the budget than cut $4 million from an account established in 1995 to fund volunteer EMT training through 50 cents taken from every moving violation in the state. The governor would leave $400,000 in the fund and that means 20,000 volunteers would have to pay for their own EMT training
Two years ago, Corzine praised the EMTs who helped save his life. They have to undergo training to keep their knowledge current and their licenses valid. EMTs can mean the difference between life and death — Corzine should know.
Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego:
“Other than the satisfaction of serving the community and helping others, being a volunteer EMT does not bring many perks. Making them pay for their training will worsen their already thinning ranks and push towns toward paid squads, which will increase property taxes.”
Rudder noted that it was volunteer responders who first arrived to Corzine’s aid when he sustained nearly fatal injuries in a 2007 automobile crash.“
Governor Corzine should know better than most the value EMTs provide to New Jersey, yet his budget proposal threatens to make these volunteers disappear from the state’s landscape – just like he is doing to the middle class and small businesses,” Rudder said. “The governor’s budget has many misguided priorities, but this example shows contempt for those who keep us safe without charging for their services.”
More:
John Mateus, president of the New Jersey Medical Services Educator's Association, said Corzine would be making a "tragic decision" if he uses the money to plug a hole in the state budget.
Mateus said he hopes a letter-writing campaign will convince the governor to change his mind.
The campaign includes a flyer, "Say Thanks to Corzine," showing the governor in a wheelchair the day he was released from a Camden hospital thanking those who treated him after he suffered broken ribs and a broken femur in a much-publicized April 2007 car crash.
What an ungrateful bastard - to raid and de-fund the very people who saved his life in order to continue to pay for the myriad of social welfare programs he has initiated that are bleeding the state bone dry.
What's next? Robbing his father while raping his mother? Hey, if it helps him stay "progressive..."
Does anyone even remember that kerfluffle any more? Certainly not Corzine, although he was a dim bulb before he took a shot to the head in the now infamous crash. It seems like Corzine forgot the whole incident - beacuse the governor, who thanked the first-responder EMTs for saving his life that night, is now cutting their budget by 90%. Bob Ingle of the Asbury Park-Press:
Surely Corzine can find a better way to balance the budget than cut $4 million from an account established in 1995 to fund volunteer EMT training through 50 cents taken from every moving violation in the state. The governor would leave $400,000 in the fund and that means 20,000 volunteers would have to pay for their own EMT training
Two years ago, Corzine praised the EMTs who helped save his life. They have to undergo training to keep their knowledge current and their licenses valid. EMTs can mean the difference between life and death — Corzine should know.
Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego:
“Other than the satisfaction of serving the community and helping others, being a volunteer EMT does not bring many perks. Making them pay for their training will worsen their already thinning ranks and push towns toward paid squads, which will increase property taxes.”
Rudder noted that it was volunteer responders who first arrived to Corzine’s aid when he sustained nearly fatal injuries in a 2007 automobile crash.“
Governor Corzine should know better than most the value EMTs provide to New Jersey, yet his budget proposal threatens to make these volunteers disappear from the state’s landscape – just like he is doing to the middle class and small businesses,” Rudder said. “The governor’s budget has many misguided priorities, but this example shows contempt for those who keep us safe without charging for their services.”
More:
John Mateus, president of the New Jersey Medical Services Educator's Association, said Corzine would be making a "tragic decision" if he uses the money to plug a hole in the state budget.
Mateus said he hopes a letter-writing campaign will convince the governor to change his mind.
The campaign includes a flyer, "Say Thanks to Corzine," showing the governor in a wheelchair the day he was released from a Camden hospital thanking those who treated him after he suffered broken ribs and a broken femur in a much-publicized April 2007 car crash.
What an ungrateful bastard - to raid and de-fund the very people who saved his life in order to continue to pay for the myriad of social welfare programs he has initiated that are bleeding the state bone dry.
What's next? Robbing his father while raping his mother? Hey, if it helps him stay "progressive..."
The Obama Popularity Myth
How much of a disconnect is there between the public's perception of Barack Obama and the media's? It's a gulf that even Moses himself couldn't part. First, the facts, from the Washington Examiner:
...at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton... Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.
...five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.
It's no surprise the liberal media aren't anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued.
Especially since their darling is in the basement, more or less. But realistic analysis is not what you get from those head-over-heels in love; you get pulp romance instead:
The combination of candor and vision and the patient explanation of complex issues was Obama at his best — and more than any other moment of his first 100 days in office, it summed up the purpose of his presidency: a radical change of course not just from his predecessor, not just from the 30-year Reagan era but also from the quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society of the postmodern age.
And if you are part of that ever growing group of Americans that is wary of Mr. Obama's radical agenda? Well, the media has a word for you:
...frequent, unbidden appearances by such unpopular characters as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, whose rants about everything from Obama's decision to repudiate the torture of enemy combatants to his handshake with Chávez seem both ungracious and unhinged.
"Ungracious and unhinged" "rants" are probably the best three words I can think of to describe the media's treatment of Geroge Bush in particular and Republicans in general.
Actually, though, "unhinged" is a good word for the media to use to describe itself - after all, what else do you call an obsessed lover who sees no fault, only radiance, from their heartthrob?
And they wonder why they're losing readers by the millions...I mean, really - who wants to read a paper written by the equivalent of a street-corner lunatic, anyway?
...at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton... Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.
...five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.
It's no surprise the liberal media aren't anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued.
Especially since their darling is in the basement, more or less. But realistic analysis is not what you get from those head-over-heels in love; you get pulp romance instead:
The combination of candor and vision and the patient explanation of complex issues was Obama at his best — and more than any other moment of his first 100 days in office, it summed up the purpose of his presidency: a radical change of course not just from his predecessor, not just from the 30-year Reagan era but also from the quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society of the postmodern age.
And if you are part of that ever growing group of Americans that is wary of Mr. Obama's radical agenda? Well, the media has a word for you:
...frequent, unbidden appearances by such unpopular characters as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, whose rants about everything from Obama's decision to repudiate the torture of enemy combatants to his handshake with Chávez seem both ungracious and unhinged.
"Ungracious and unhinged" "rants" are probably the best three words I can think of to describe the media's treatment of Geroge Bush in particular and Republicans in general.
Actually, though, "unhinged" is a good word for the media to use to describe itself - after all, what else do you call an obsessed lover who sees no fault, only radiance, from their heartthrob?
And they wonder why they're losing readers by the millions...I mean, really - who wants to read a paper written by the equivalent of a street-corner lunatic, anyway?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
How Barack Obama Sees the World
Via Baseball Crank, the best baseball/conservative blog on the block. He comments thusly:
Next time the United States captures some hardened, mass-murdering terrorists, the CIA should tell President Obama that we captured some unborn children, and he'll let them do whatever they want.
Or just tell him they're conservatives...he'd probably stand in line to get a knee-whack in himself.
Specter Quits, Spits on Pennsylvania Republicans
So Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA.) is leaving the party to become a Democrat. Hey, they're all the rage these days! But it's not about philosophy - Specter has none - it's about holding on to his pathetic job and power for another six years:
Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
"I can understand their disappointment," he continued. "I am also disappointed that so many in the party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides."
Oh, poor baby! You were going to face a primary challenge, and you are just too good for that kind of treatment! Better to quit, dump any remaining principles, and run to the other side where you hope to be safe!
His real anger is at Pennsylvania Republicans, who dared question whether it was time to hear from another voice. Specter makes his disgust with his hometown fans clear:
"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.
"I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me," Specter said
Wow. What anger and hatred for people who supported him for 30 years. One moment of doubt, and he turns their back on them, throwing curses over his shoulder as he runs to his callow new friends.
What reprehensible behavior. When Nasty Arlen moved to the democrats, he forgot to pack his class and decency.
Perhaps he never had any to begin with?
Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
"I can understand their disappointment," he continued. "I am also disappointed that so many in the party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides."
Oh, poor baby! You were going to face a primary challenge, and you are just too good for that kind of treatment! Better to quit, dump any remaining principles, and run to the other side where you hope to be safe!
His real anger is at Pennsylvania Republicans, who dared question whether it was time to hear from another voice. Specter makes his disgust with his hometown fans clear:
"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.
"I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me," Specter said
Wow. What anger and hatred for people who supported him for 30 years. One moment of doubt, and he turns their back on them, throwing curses over his shoulder as he runs to his callow new friends.
What reprehensible behavior. When Nasty Arlen moved to the democrats, he forgot to pack his class and decency.
Perhaps he never had any to begin with?
FOX Snubs King Obama. Liberals Froth, Foam....
Barack Obama's team has scheduled a primetime "100 Days" news conference tonight, set up in eager anticipation of such tough media questions such as "how do you manage to be both brilliant and handsome at the same time?".
All the networks have dutifully fallen in line behind the Thug-In-Chief, except one - FOX. Via the AP:
The Fox network is sticking with its regular schedule over President Barack Obama this week.
The network is turning down the president's request to show his prime-time news conference on Wednesday. The news conference marks Obama's 100th day in office. Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me."
It's the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama's request. This will be the third prime-time news conference in Obama's presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC are airing it.
Three press conferences in 100 days is a lot, even for a self-absorbed narcissist. Gateway Pundit points out the obvious:
Oh, NBC, CBS and ABC will also be airing "Lie to Me," the Obama version.
The intelligentsia at Think Progress are soiling their diapers:
Ape-Man Says:
I'm stripping FOX out of my cable service.
ElBruce Says:
I hear there's a missing white woman somewhere.
The headline should read: "FOX admits Obama's 100 days conference is going to be totally awesome and that there's no way they can rebut it."
Or perhaps, "FOX officially no longer counts as a major television network."
Perhaps these enlightened geniuses don't understand the differences between FOX Entertainment and FOX News?
I can't wait to here what comes out of the mouths (besides rabid hatred) of the so-called mainstream media today. How dare FOX defy The One? Oh, we're gonna have some laughs....
All the networks have dutifully fallen in line behind the Thug-In-Chief, except one - FOX. Via the AP:
The Fox network is sticking with its regular schedule over President Barack Obama this week.
The network is turning down the president's request to show his prime-time news conference on Wednesday. The news conference marks Obama's 100th day in office. Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me."
It's the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama's request. This will be the third prime-time news conference in Obama's presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC are airing it.
Three press conferences in 100 days is a lot, even for a self-absorbed narcissist. Gateway Pundit points out the obvious:
Oh, NBC, CBS and ABC will also be airing "Lie to Me," the Obama version.
The intelligentsia at Think Progress are soiling their diapers:
Ape-Man Says:
I'm stripping FOX out of my cable service.
ElBruce Says:
I hear there's a missing white woman somewhere.
The headline should read: "FOX admits Obama's 100 days conference is going to be totally awesome and that there's no way they can rebut it."
Or perhaps, "FOX officially no longer counts as a major television network."
Perhaps these enlightened geniuses don't understand the differences between FOX Entertainment and FOX News?
I can't wait to here what comes out of the mouths (besides rabid hatred) of the so-called mainstream media today. How dare FOX defy The One? Oh, we're gonna have some laughs....
Monday, April 27, 2009
Did Obama Kill Pontiac ?
Growing up in the 'burbs, there was nothing more significant than turning 16 and having the ability to get one's learner's permit. My 16th birthday party took place down on the beach one evening, and one of the older girls was ribbing me about being ready to drive. Declaring that I was more than ready, this chick tossed me the keys to her car and said, "C'mon, birthday boy, I'll let ya drive me around the parking lot."
So we get to the lot and she points to her wheels - a deep red Pontiac Firebird, complete with the screaming "hood bird". So I put it into gear, hit the gas, and the 4.9 liter V8 came to life with a gutteral roar.
I fell in love that day (with the car, not the girl). In my mind, there was nothing like American Muscle - Firebirds, Cameros, Corvettes, Mustangs, and of course the Pontiac GTO. So how crushed was I to learn that my first hearthtrob is dead, and that my arch nemesis, one Barack Hussein Obama, was the likely culprit?
CNN, dated 4/24:
General Motors is preparing to announce that the Pontiac car brand, once marketed as GM's "Excitement division," will be killed off, according to a source familiar with the decision...
...Pontiac, which in 2008 was the third-best selling brand behind Chevrolet and GMC. That year the brand sold more than Cadillac and twice as many vehicles as Buick.
Any plans to return Pontiac to the heavy-horsepower days of the '70s ended as gas prices rose and Congress prepared stricter fuel economy rules for the industry.
So despite Pontiac selling more cars than both Caddy and Buick (see chart below), it's being eliminated because...traditional American Muscle does not fit into Barack's "Green America". So despite its popularity, GM is killing it off. But make no mistake - GM may be the trigger man, but it's Barack Obama Soprano that put out the hit, to eliminate a line that doesn't mesh with his ideological agenda, despite its sales strength and contributions to American automotive history.
2008 GM Vehicle Sales
Chevrolet: 1,801,131
GMC: 376,996
Pontiac: 267,348
Saturn: 188,004
Cadillac: 161,159
Buick: 137,197
Hummer: 27,485
Saab: 21,368
Total: 2,980,688
Good bye, my first love. We all have to go sometime, but to see you killed off for nothing more than political expediency is heartbreaking. There can be no vengance, alas, as the king's rule is absolute, but I will honor your memory by gunning the engine of my Jeep Liberty Renegade's oversized 210 horsepower 3.7liter v6 at every red light I hit today....
So we get to the lot and she points to her wheels - a deep red Pontiac Firebird, complete with the screaming "hood bird". So I put it into gear, hit the gas, and the 4.9 liter V8 came to life with a gutteral roar.
I fell in love that day (with the car, not the girl). In my mind, there was nothing like American Muscle - Firebirds, Cameros, Corvettes, Mustangs, and of course the Pontiac GTO. So how crushed was I to learn that my first hearthtrob is dead, and that my arch nemesis, one Barack Hussein Obama, was the likely culprit?
CNN, dated 4/24:
General Motors is preparing to announce that the Pontiac car brand, once marketed as GM's "Excitement division," will be killed off, according to a source familiar with the decision...
...Pontiac, which in 2008 was the third-best selling brand behind Chevrolet and GMC. That year the brand sold more than Cadillac and twice as many vehicles as Buick.
Any plans to return Pontiac to the heavy-horsepower days of the '70s ended as gas prices rose and Congress prepared stricter fuel economy rules for the industry.
So despite Pontiac selling more cars than both Caddy and Buick (see chart below), it's being eliminated because...traditional American Muscle does not fit into Barack's "Green America". So despite its popularity, GM is killing it off. But make no mistake - GM may be the trigger man, but it's Barack Obama Soprano that put out the hit, to eliminate a line that doesn't mesh with his ideological agenda, despite its sales strength and contributions to American automotive history.
2008 GM Vehicle Sales
Chevrolet: 1,801,131
GMC: 376,996
Pontiac: 267,348
Saturn: 188,004
Cadillac: 161,159
Buick: 137,197
Hummer: 27,485
Saab: 21,368
Total: 2,980,688
Good bye, my first love. We all have to go sometime, but to see you killed off for nothing more than political expediency is heartbreaking. There can be no vengance, alas, as the king's rule is absolute, but I will honor your memory by gunning the engine of my Jeep Liberty Renegade's oversized 210 horsepower 3.7liter v6 at every red light I hit today....
Forced "Volunteerism" in America...
It's quite easy to see exactly what Barack Obama has in mind; all you need to do is put together two news stories, just a few days apart, and sit back and look at the picture.
And it ain't pretty. It's the forced servitude of American youth to Barack's government machine. Let's look at story one, back on April 21st - Obama's expansion of Americorps:
President Obama on Tuesday became the latest Democratic president to emulate John F. Kennedy’s call for national service as he signed legislation to triple the size of the Americorps program and called on Americans to volunteer time to improve their communities.
The new law authorizes the increase of Americorps to 250,000 positions from 75,000 by the year 2017, increases its education subsidies and creates a reserve of Americorps veterans to mobilize in disaster zones. To begin paying for it, Obama proposed $1.1 billion for Americorps in his budget plan, a 25 percent increase over last year.
So he's planning for an expected increase in volunteerism by 175,000 people over the next eight years. Where are they going to come from? Why will people flock to Americorps?
Maybe story two will provide a clue - April 24th:
President Barack Obama on Friday renewed his call for the government to stop backing private loans to college students and replace them with direct government loans to young people, a challenge to a decades-old program....
The president's proposal would switch the federal student loan system entirely to direct lending from the government.
And there we have the source of Obama's hordes of "volunteers".
Want to go to college but, like most American kids, you need some financial help? Well, all student loans are now controlled by the government, and they'll be more than happy to give you a loan, but you'll need to give someting back to them first.
About a year of your life, by Obama's reckoning, to be spent tending to the sores on the skin of the unbathed, to prove that you are worthy of recieving a loan. It will have less to do on what your financial merits are and more to do with how you intend to serve The One. A year of slavery to liberalism as the price of going to school. That's Barack's America.
And how politicized will these loans become? Will they become harder to get in red states than blue? Will the soon-to-be broke government start to strictly means-test loans the way the Democrats test taxes, by assuming any family making over $100K is "rich" and thus not worthy of loans?
No, folks, this is the way it's gonna be. Why else would Obama look to scuttle a loan program that is enoumously popular and enoumously successful? Because it's nto controlled by him, and he can't use it to control anybody else.
That's about to "change"...
And it ain't pretty. It's the forced servitude of American youth to Barack's government machine. Let's look at story one, back on April 21st - Obama's expansion of Americorps:
President Obama on Tuesday became the latest Democratic president to emulate John F. Kennedy’s call for national service as he signed legislation to triple the size of the Americorps program and called on Americans to volunteer time to improve their communities.
The new law authorizes the increase of Americorps to 250,000 positions from 75,000 by the year 2017, increases its education subsidies and creates a reserve of Americorps veterans to mobilize in disaster zones. To begin paying for it, Obama proposed $1.1 billion for Americorps in his budget plan, a 25 percent increase over last year.
So he's planning for an expected increase in volunteerism by 175,000 people over the next eight years. Where are they going to come from? Why will people flock to Americorps?
Maybe story two will provide a clue - April 24th:
President Barack Obama on Friday renewed his call for the government to stop backing private loans to college students and replace them with direct government loans to young people, a challenge to a decades-old program....
The president's proposal would switch the federal student loan system entirely to direct lending from the government.
And there we have the source of Obama's hordes of "volunteers".
Want to go to college but, like most American kids, you need some financial help? Well, all student loans are now controlled by the government, and they'll be more than happy to give you a loan, but you'll need to give someting back to them first.
About a year of your life, by Obama's reckoning, to be spent tending to the sores on the skin of the unbathed, to prove that you are worthy of recieving a loan. It will have less to do on what your financial merits are and more to do with how you intend to serve The One. A year of slavery to liberalism as the price of going to school. That's Barack's America.
And how politicized will these loans become? Will they become harder to get in red states than blue? Will the soon-to-be broke government start to strictly means-test loans the way the Democrats test taxes, by assuming any family making over $100K is "rich" and thus not worthy of loans?
No, folks, this is the way it's gonna be. Why else would Obama look to scuttle a loan program that is enoumously popular and enoumously successful? Because it's nto controlled by him, and he can't use it to control anybody else.
That's about to "change"...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Obama: Less Popular Than Hitler?
OK, that headline is not quite an accurate headline. But neither are these:
Gallup: First-100-Days-Obama-Meets-Exceeds-Expectations
USAToday: Poll: Public thinks highly of Obama
Chicago Tribune: Obama riding high in polls
Based on that most recent Gallup poll, we find that Obama's popularity, relatively speaking, is not as strong as the media wants you to believe:
Bush 2001 62%
Clinton, 1993 55%
Bush, 1989 58 %
Reagan, 1981 67%
Carter, 1977 63 %
Nixon, 1969 61 %
Obama, 2009 56%
There you have it. Pretty much tied for last over the past quarter-century. T he media is trying a Jedi mind trick - you are the only one who doesn't love the Chosen One, his popularity is sky-high, he can do no wrong, these are not the drones you're looking for....
Incidentally, why didn't Laura Bush get the same fawning coverage that the gritchy Michelle Obama recieves? Same link as above:
Laura Bush 85%
Michelle Obama 79%
FOX News, who's polls gave Obama an extra percentage point or so, at least pointed out the following:
One noticeable difference is that approval of Obama is much more divided along partisan lines today than Bush's ratings were eight years ago.
Bush, the president who won after what the media still calls "the most divisive election in history". Maybe, based on the tightness of the finish, but at least he pulled America together behind him. Obama has viciously divided a nation eager for "change"; he has instead pursued a ideologically radical agenda with an administration that is acting progressively more authoritarian.
The the media, like any state-controlled press organ, tells it the way Obama wants to hear it:
"The Leader is Good.
The Leader is Great
We surrender our will
as of this date!"
Gallup: First-100-Days-Obama-Meets-Exceeds-Expectations
USAToday: Poll: Public thinks highly of Obama
Chicago Tribune: Obama riding high in polls
Based on that most recent Gallup poll, we find that Obama's popularity, relatively speaking, is not as strong as the media wants you to believe:
Bush 2001 62%
Clinton, 1993 55%
Bush, 1989 58 %
Reagan, 1981 67%
Carter, 1977 63 %
Nixon, 1969 61 %
Obama, 2009 56%
There you have it. Pretty much tied for last over the past quarter-century. T he media is trying a Jedi mind trick - you are the only one who doesn't love the Chosen One, his popularity is sky-high, he can do no wrong, these are not the drones you're looking for....
Incidentally, why didn't Laura Bush get the same fawning coverage that the gritchy Michelle Obama recieves? Same link as above:
Laura Bush 85%
Michelle Obama 79%
FOX News, who's polls gave Obama an extra percentage point or so, at least pointed out the following:
One noticeable difference is that approval of Obama is much more divided along partisan lines today than Bush's ratings were eight years ago.
Bush, the president who won after what the media still calls "the most divisive election in history". Maybe, based on the tightness of the finish, but at least he pulled America together behind him. Obama has viciously divided a nation eager for "change"; he has instead pursued a ideologically radical agenda with an administration that is acting progressively more authoritarian.
The the media, like any state-controlled press organ, tells it the way Obama wants to hear it:
"The Leader is Good.
The Leader is Great
We surrender our will
as of this date!"
Friday, April 24, 2009
Regulation-MADD CEO to Take Over Highways?
The first and last bastion of American freedom - the open road - is about to disappear completely, if Obama's nomination of Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving , gets passed through Congress.
Remember the days of driving the highway, wind in your hair, your gal by your side, engine purring, with nowhere to go and no rush to get there? Fuggedabout:
The nation's traffic-safety czar has broad powers to control the roads and road-going habits of Americans. Mr. Hurley has a history of pushing laws that harass millions of law-abiding citizens to ensnare a few lawbreakers. He supports returning the 55 mph speed limit to our highways as well as roadblocks and random pullovers to make sure drivers aren't doing anything wrong. This methodology is based on a presumption of guilt - not innocence - of the average driver who is doing nothing wrong.
Mr. Hurley has promoted a mania of overregulation at MADD. Absent from his advocacies is the principle that a punishment should fit the crime, or that a crime even needs to be committed to incur a penalty....
....As a result of MADD-fueled binges for tougher laws, extreme drunken driving punishments - such as loss of driving privileges, jail time, fines and legal fees beyond $10,000 - often apply to individuals who were not drunk and in some cases were not even driving...
Welcome to the the nanny state, my fellow Americans! Not only will the government now ration energy and healthcare, but your driving habits will be closely monitered by the overzealous equivalent of a religious nut. Have a cold beer in the first inning of the ballgame, leave during the 7th inning stretch, and Obama's boys will haul your ass off to jail.
This is not by accident, it is by design - how better to control people by making them constantly one inch away from breaking any one of a set of random laws, rules, and regualtions....
Personal responsibility? Freedom? Common sense? We The People possess none of these attributes, apparently, and must cede control of the entirety of our lives to Barack Obama and his apparatiks.
Amazing how quickly freedom can become slavery and democracy can become totalitarianism. There will be no hue and cry, we appear willing to simply...submit.
Ah, what's the difference? You can't even drive 55 in the soon-to-be-issued, government required, two-cylinder hybrid subcompact anyway....
Remember the days of driving the highway, wind in your hair, your gal by your side, engine purring, with nowhere to go and no rush to get there? Fuggedabout:
The nation's traffic-safety czar has broad powers to control the roads and road-going habits of Americans. Mr. Hurley has a history of pushing laws that harass millions of law-abiding citizens to ensnare a few lawbreakers. He supports returning the 55 mph speed limit to our highways as well as roadblocks and random pullovers to make sure drivers aren't doing anything wrong. This methodology is based on a presumption of guilt - not innocence - of the average driver who is doing nothing wrong.
Mr. Hurley has promoted a mania of overregulation at MADD. Absent from his advocacies is the principle that a punishment should fit the crime, or that a crime even needs to be committed to incur a penalty....
....As a result of MADD-fueled binges for tougher laws, extreme drunken driving punishments - such as loss of driving privileges, jail time, fines and legal fees beyond $10,000 - often apply to individuals who were not drunk and in some cases were not even driving...
Welcome to the the nanny state, my fellow Americans! Not only will the government now ration energy and healthcare, but your driving habits will be closely monitered by the overzealous equivalent of a religious nut. Have a cold beer in the first inning of the ballgame, leave during the 7th inning stretch, and Obama's boys will haul your ass off to jail.
This is not by accident, it is by design - how better to control people by making them constantly one inch away from breaking any one of a set of random laws, rules, and regualtions....
Personal responsibility? Freedom? Common sense? We The People possess none of these attributes, apparently, and must cede control of the entirety of our lives to Barack Obama and his apparatiks.
Amazing how quickly freedom can become slavery and democracy can become totalitarianism. There will be no hue and cry, we appear willing to simply...submit.
Ah, what's the difference? You can't even drive 55 in the soon-to-be-issued, government required, two-cylinder hybrid subcompact anyway....
Did Barack "Whack" Kellerman, Jersey-Style?
Did we elect Tony Soprano and his gang of thugs to run this nation? Seems that way...
Over at The Coalition of the Swilling, they're noticing the same unusual pressures that were brought to bear on poor Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman by Barack Obama and his administration. Pressures that are being put on a number of private companies (more at the link), who are being told they are going to do it Obama's way, or else...
Tony: That's not it. That motherf*cker's full of sh*t. He's shaking me down.
Carmela: No, he's not.
Tony: Oh, yeah? Who knows more about extortion, me or you?
The first victim was GM's Rick Wagoner, who was disappeared by the government just before more money was fed into GM's coffers. Has anyone seen him or heard from his since, incidentally?
In other cases, like Kellerman's, we don't find out the story until the body surfaces. And some bodies never surface at all. Just ask Mr. Soprano - we never did see Big Pussy again after he fell into the Big Drink, did we?
We've elected a leftist thug who takes his cues from one of the most notorius muderous mobsters in fictional history. I guess I should be at least somewhat pleased that "Jersey Represents!", but alas, I can't be...
And his administration? Well, they've already been aptly described by Hedley Lamarr:
"Rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperadoes, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, half-wits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswagglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass kickers, shit kickers and Methodists!"
Remember - Lamarr eventually had some Nazis in his gang as well...
Did Obama have Kellerman murdered - ooops, I mean "removed" - in order to get a more co-operative friend to run the numbers for him at Freddie Mac? Hmm...it's exactly what Tony would've done...
Over at The Coalition of the Swilling, they're noticing the same unusual pressures that were brought to bear on poor Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman by Barack Obama and his administration. Pressures that are being put on a number of private companies (more at the link), who are being told they are going to do it Obama's way, or else...
Tony: That's not it. That motherf*cker's full of sh*t. He's shaking me down.
Carmela: No, he's not.
Tony: Oh, yeah? Who knows more about extortion, me or you?
The first victim was GM's Rick Wagoner, who was disappeared by the government just before more money was fed into GM's coffers. Has anyone seen him or heard from his since, incidentally?
In other cases, like Kellerman's, we don't find out the story until the body surfaces. And some bodies never surface at all. Just ask Mr. Soprano - we never did see Big Pussy again after he fell into the Big Drink, did we?
We've elected a leftist thug who takes his cues from one of the most notorius muderous mobsters in fictional history. I guess I should be at least somewhat pleased that "Jersey Represents!", but alas, I can't be...
And his administration? Well, they've already been aptly described by Hedley Lamarr:
"Rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperadoes, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, half-wits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswagglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass kickers, shit kickers and Methodists!"
Remember - Lamarr eventually had some Nazis in his gang as well...
Did Obama have Kellerman murdered - ooops, I mean "removed" - in order to get a more co-operative friend to run the numbers for him at Freddie Mac? Hmm...it's exactly what Tony would've done...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Scenes from An Earth Day Hearing...
Classic stuff, as Obama's staffers humiliate themselves with their complete lack of understanding about what they're doing, or what they're talking about:
From the House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 23rd...first, let's ask about all those "millions of jobs" that will be created by moving to a "green" economy:
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.
So they pulled the term "millions" out of their ass, in order to sell a program that should be DOA. Shoot, why didn't they just use "billions", just like Master Obama?
Another one, on jobs and "Cap-and-Trade":
REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent……
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.
Based on the Spanish model (also discussed at the link), if 2.2 jobs are lost for every one "green" job gained, Ohio can expect to have over 15,000 new jobs to cover the next 35,000 "old jobs" that will be lost....calculate that figure nationwide and you get....job growth, according to Obama and the media.
And how is Obama pitching in? By burning 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to scold people about the enviornment:
The press office at Andrews AFB wouldn’t give me the fuel consumption numbers for the 747 that serves as Air Force One without the approval of the White House Press Office, which as I write this has yet to be given.
But Boeing says its 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile. It’s 895 miles from Washington to Des Moines, so a round trip brings the fuel consumption for the fixed-wing portion of the President’s trip to 8,950 gallons.
Add in his four chopper flights, and you get to 9,100 miles in one day, to make a speech in front of some wind turbines, where $17/hr jobs"green jobs" have replaced $40/hr jobs at the old Maytag plant. Progress, Obama style.
Hypocrisy, too. An average citizen could drive a lumbering SUV getting a mere 16 MPG for over 12 years (working, driving kds around, you know - people stuff) and create the same carbon footprint that Obama established in one day.
But he's the King, and you're a plebe, so hand it over and get into an overpriced, undersized hybrid...
From the House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 23rd...first, let's ask about all those "millions of jobs" that will be created by moving to a "green" economy:
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.
So they pulled the term "millions" out of their ass, in order to sell a program that should be DOA. Shoot, why didn't they just use "billions", just like Master Obama?
Another one, on jobs and "Cap-and-Trade":
REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent……
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.
Based on the Spanish model (also discussed at the link), if 2.2 jobs are lost for every one "green" job gained, Ohio can expect to have over 15,000 new jobs to cover the next 35,000 "old jobs" that will be lost....calculate that figure nationwide and you get....job growth, according to Obama and the media.
And how is Obama pitching in? By burning 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to scold people about the enviornment:
The press office at Andrews AFB wouldn’t give me the fuel consumption numbers for the 747 that serves as Air Force One without the approval of the White House Press Office, which as I write this has yet to be given.
But Boeing says its 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile. It’s 895 miles from Washington to Des Moines, so a round trip brings the fuel consumption for the fixed-wing portion of the President’s trip to 8,950 gallons.
Add in his four chopper flights, and you get to 9,100 miles in one day, to make a speech in front of some wind turbines, where $17/hr jobs"green jobs" have replaced $40/hr jobs at the old Maytag plant. Progress, Obama style.
Hypocrisy, too. An average citizen could drive a lumbering SUV getting a mere 16 MPG for over 12 years (working, driving kds around, you know - people stuff) and create the same carbon footprint that Obama established in one day.
But he's the King, and you're a plebe, so hand it over and get into an overpriced, undersized hybrid...
Obama's Hand in Freddie Mac CFO Suicide/Murder
In discussing the death of Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman, we noted that apparently there had been conflict between Kellerman and the Obama Administration on a number of issues. Politico fleshes them out a bit:
...Kellermann and other Freddie officials "tussled" with the Federal Housing Finance Agency early last month as the company prepared to file a quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Top executives, including Kellermann, were insistent that Freddie Mac inform shareholders of the cost to the company of helping carry out the Obama administration's housing recovery plan, the two newspapers reported. The Post, citing several unnamed sources, said the regulators "urged the company not to do so." An unnamed FHFA official who spoke to the Post disputed that, "saying the regulator did not oppose disclosure but how the information was portrayed in the filing."
In the end, FHFA reportedly retreated and Freddie formally disclosed that the Obama anti-foreclosure plan could force the firm, which is in a federal government conservatorship, to take a pre-tax charge of $30 billion.
So apparently, the Obama administration was asking Freddie Mac to fudge the books in order to hide the fact that implementing the "Obama Plan' would result in a $30 billion dollar loss, to be absorbed by its shareholders. Obama ("I won") has already showed he broaches very little dissent; how irritated must he have been at a man who was exposing the flaws of his creative mathematics? After all, Obama was sure that his plan would be a money maker for Freddie.
Mickey Kaus quotes Obama:
Obama: "While Fannie and Freddie would receive less money in payments, this would be balanced out by a reduction in defaults and foreclosures."
Turned out Obama was off by $30 billion, in deep red. A drope in the bucket to a guy who spends trillions, but a huge hole if you are, say, a stockholder in Freddie Mac who is now forced to reckon with Obama's failure.
And that's the thing, isn't it? Obama knows nothing about wealth, or wealth creation - he's spent his whole life on the disbursment end (charity boards, state government, Senate) and never created dollar one. His wacky plan for Freddie Mac was a failure, and he put pressure on Kellerman via his regulators not to report the truth to the company's shareholders (a crime, perhaps?).
Obama didn't want to be embarrassed; to have his obvious ignorance of economics exposed. Kellerman did so, in compliance with the law. Now Kellerman is dead. What else did he know, what else may he have exposed, what additional threats may have been made by Barack Obama and his goon squad?
We may never know.
Barack may or may not have kicked the chair out from beneath the swaying Kellerman, but at the very least, he handed him the rope and pointed to the beam.
More coverage in the Washington Post and in the Wall Street Journal. The Journal confirms some of our thoughts about the loggerheads Kellerman and Obama were at:
In an SEC filing last month, Freddie said the Obama plan was likely to have a "significant adverse effect on our financial results or condition," notably on the valuation of guarantees the company has made on millions of mortgages.
And the lynch mob that Obama has been leading?
One neighbor said a private security service recently had been protecting the Kellermann home, apparently because of concern over public reaction to the bonuses.
Obama's first victim. Like all leftist leaders, he'll pile up a lot more before he's done.
...Kellermann and other Freddie officials "tussled" with the Federal Housing Finance Agency early last month as the company prepared to file a quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Top executives, including Kellermann, were insistent that Freddie Mac inform shareholders of the cost to the company of helping carry out the Obama administration's housing recovery plan, the two newspapers reported. The Post, citing several unnamed sources, said the regulators "urged the company not to do so." An unnamed FHFA official who spoke to the Post disputed that, "saying the regulator did not oppose disclosure but how the information was portrayed in the filing."
In the end, FHFA reportedly retreated and Freddie formally disclosed that the Obama anti-foreclosure plan could force the firm, which is in a federal government conservatorship, to take a pre-tax charge of $30 billion.
So apparently, the Obama administration was asking Freddie Mac to fudge the books in order to hide the fact that implementing the "Obama Plan' would result in a $30 billion dollar loss, to be absorbed by its shareholders. Obama ("I won") has already showed he broaches very little dissent; how irritated must he have been at a man who was exposing the flaws of his creative mathematics? After all, Obama was sure that his plan would be a money maker for Freddie.
Mickey Kaus quotes Obama:
Obama: "While Fannie and Freddie would receive less money in payments, this would be balanced out by a reduction in defaults and foreclosures."
Turned out Obama was off by $30 billion, in deep red. A drope in the bucket to a guy who spends trillions, but a huge hole if you are, say, a stockholder in Freddie Mac who is now forced to reckon with Obama's failure.
And that's the thing, isn't it? Obama knows nothing about wealth, or wealth creation - he's spent his whole life on the disbursment end (charity boards, state government, Senate) and never created dollar one. His wacky plan for Freddie Mac was a failure, and he put pressure on Kellerman via his regulators not to report the truth to the company's shareholders (a crime, perhaps?).
Obama didn't want to be embarrassed; to have his obvious ignorance of economics exposed. Kellerman did so, in compliance with the law. Now Kellerman is dead. What else did he know, what else may he have exposed, what additional threats may have been made by Barack Obama and his goon squad?
We may never know.
Barack may or may not have kicked the chair out from beneath the swaying Kellerman, but at the very least, he handed him the rope and pointed to the beam.
More coverage in the Washington Post and in the Wall Street Journal. The Journal confirms some of our thoughts about the loggerheads Kellerman and Obama were at:
In an SEC filing last month, Freddie said the Obama plan was likely to have a "significant adverse effect on our financial results or condition," notably on the valuation of guarantees the company has made on millions of mortgages.
And the lynch mob that Obama has been leading?
One neighbor said a private security service recently had been protecting the Kellermann home, apparently because of concern over public reaction to the bonuses.
Obama's first victim. Like all leftist leaders, he'll pile up a lot more before he's done.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
On Earth Day...
The most concise words on the subject of Earth Day are spoken by one C. Montgomery Burns of Springfield (state unknown). A local businessmen of some note, he gives his thoughts on what the enviornment - and Earth Day - means to him:
"Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say, hard cheese!"
Excellent....
CFO of Freddie Mac Dead - Suicide or Murder?
Conspiracy theorists, start your engines! There's definitely something a little funny about this:
The acting chief financial officer of Freddie Mac, David Kellermann, has apparently committed suicide, Fairfax County Police tell WTOP.
Fairfax County Police spokeswoman Mary Anne Jennings says Kellermann, 41, was found at his Hunter Mill Estates home Wednesday morning.
Kellermann has been with Freddie Mac for more than 16 years
You've been with a company almost your entire profession life, become the top dog at the relatively young age of 41, then you off yourself?
The AP suggests it was hari-kari (maybe he was taking Senator Grassley's advice?)
McLean-based Freddie Mac has been criticized heavily for reckless business practices that some argue contributed to the housing and financial crisis.
Homicide detectives are looking into the Kellerman "suicide" as well. Reuters reports that "the incident is under investigation". And Mickey Kaus reports on previous friction between Kellerman and the Obama administration's lackeys...(hmmm...motive?)
All very interesting. As the CFO of Freddie Mac, who knows what type of dangerous information Kellerman had on men in power? Long used as a political tool of the left, the Democrats were often implicated in Freddie Mac's collapse (and thus the entire housing market debacle), but with a compliant media playing dumb and the criminals ruling the roost in Congress, blame was shifted to the lending institutions, such as banks, mortgage companies, and investment firms, and thus used as a pretext for seizing control of the nations economy.
But what if Kellerman, in his relatively recent role as Chief Financial Officer, uncovered facts that might be quite discomforting to the men now in power? Would a President and a Congress so impervious to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the will of the American people think twice about arranging the "suicide" of one man who could possibly ruin their party?
Look, I'm not trying to make this into a Vincent Foster redux, OK? But there is a lot of people that may have wanted Mr. Kellerman dead, and most of them are Democrats. Let's have an open inquiry with a lot of transparency (with due respect to the family of the desceased, of course), so that no doubts remain, either way.
Rest in Peace, Mr, Kellerman.
The acting chief financial officer of Freddie Mac, David Kellermann, has apparently committed suicide, Fairfax County Police tell WTOP.
Fairfax County Police spokeswoman Mary Anne Jennings says Kellermann, 41, was found at his Hunter Mill Estates home Wednesday morning.
Kellermann has been with Freddie Mac for more than 16 years
You've been with a company almost your entire profession life, become the top dog at the relatively young age of 41, then you off yourself?
The AP suggests it was hari-kari (maybe he was taking Senator Grassley's advice?)
McLean-based Freddie Mac has been criticized heavily for reckless business practices that some argue contributed to the housing and financial crisis.
Homicide detectives are looking into the Kellerman "suicide" as well. Reuters reports that "the incident is under investigation". And Mickey Kaus reports on previous friction between Kellerman and the Obama administration's lackeys...(hmmm...motive?)
All very interesting. As the CFO of Freddie Mac, who knows what type of dangerous information Kellerman had on men in power? Long used as a political tool of the left, the Democrats were often implicated in Freddie Mac's collapse (and thus the entire housing market debacle), but with a compliant media playing dumb and the criminals ruling the roost in Congress, blame was shifted to the lending institutions, such as banks, mortgage companies, and investment firms, and thus used as a pretext for seizing control of the nations economy.
But what if Kellerman, in his relatively recent role as Chief Financial Officer, uncovered facts that might be quite discomforting to the men now in power? Would a President and a Congress so impervious to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the will of the American people think twice about arranging the "suicide" of one man who could possibly ruin their party?
Look, I'm not trying to make this into a Vincent Foster redux, OK? But there is a lot of people that may have wanted Mr. Kellerman dead, and most of them are Democrats. Let's have an open inquiry with a lot of transparency (with due respect to the family of the desceased, of course), so that no doubts remain, either way.
Rest in Peace, Mr, Kellerman.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama, Ortega, and the Art of Loving Oneself
Charles Krauthammer’s take on Obama's response to Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega's 50-minute rant against the United States:
The most telling moment, however, was when Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, delivered a 53-minute excoriating attack on the United States. And Obama's response was "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was three months old."
Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what he is referring to. And what he is saying is that it's OK that he attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn't me.
Doesn't it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn't all start with him.
Jay Nordlinger, on what Obama could have said, if he had an ounce of courage and/or pride in the country that made him president:
Do you know what I wish our president had said? Something like, “Well, the Bay of Pigs was terribly executed. But it was a noble cause: the overthrow of a heinous dictatorship. One that denies an entire people their natural, God-given rights. Had that operation succeeded, Cuba would have been infinitely better off, and the world would have been better off. And many good and brave men died in that operation. If we are to be sorry for anything, it’s that the operation did not succeed, not that it occurred.”
...Can you imagine the American president yukking it up with a thug like Ortega about an ignominious moment in the American past? You don’t have to imagine. That’s the kind of president we have. The kind the people voted for, apparently. Great.
We have been thrown to the wolves, by Obama and the Democratic Left...
Of course, I have a possible alternate explanation for all of this...
The most telling moment, however, was when Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, delivered a 53-minute excoriating attack on the United States. And Obama's response was "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was three months old."
Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what he is referring to. And what he is saying is that it's OK that he attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn't me.
Doesn't it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn't all start with him.
Jay Nordlinger, on what Obama could have said, if he had an ounce of courage and/or pride in the country that made him president:
Do you know what I wish our president had said? Something like, “Well, the Bay of Pigs was terribly executed. But it was a noble cause: the overthrow of a heinous dictatorship. One that denies an entire people their natural, God-given rights. Had that operation succeeded, Cuba would have been infinitely better off, and the world would have been better off. And many good and brave men died in that operation. If we are to be sorry for anything, it’s that the operation did not succeed, not that it occurred.”
...Can you imagine the American president yukking it up with a thug like Ortega about an ignominious moment in the American past? You don’t have to imagine. That’s the kind of president we have. The kind the people voted for, apparently. Great.
We have been thrown to the wolves, by Obama and the Democratic Left...
Of course, I have a possible alternate explanation for all of this...
Washington Post: Redefining "Dead Heat" Down...
The Washington Post does a piece today on the GOP's attempt to re-take a number of Governor's mansions, a la 1993. In the telling, they deliver one of the most - hmmm, misleading? - pieces of information I have ever seen in a MSM outlet. And yes, I know that's saying a lot:
In New Jersey, the RGA has already begun to label Gov. Jon Corzine (D) a tax-raiser -- using his proposed budget to make the case that the Democrat wants to increase taxes by $1 billion. Former U.S. attorney Chris Christie is the likely Republican nominee against Corzine.
...Polling in each race suggests that Republicans are correct to be optimistic. Christie and Corzine are in a virtual dead heat.
A "virtual dead heat", huh? I beg to differ about that characterization of the race, good sir. Here's the most recent polling data available:
That's a 13+ point lead, well outside any margin of error imaginable.
A "dead heat"? Only if you're trying to put the fix in....
In New Jersey, the RGA has already begun to label Gov. Jon Corzine (D) a tax-raiser -- using his proposed budget to make the case that the Democrat wants to increase taxes by $1 billion. Former U.S. attorney Chris Christie is the likely Republican nominee against Corzine.
...Polling in each race suggests that Republicans are correct to be optimistic. Christie and Corzine are in a virtual dead heat.
A "virtual dead heat", huh? I beg to differ about that characterization of the race, good sir. Here's the most recent polling data available:
That's a 13+ point lead, well outside any margin of error imaginable.
A "dead heat"? Only if you're trying to put the fix in....
Jack Tapper Smacks Down Gibbs, Obama
Well, at least there is one honest man in the media, one who does not slobber on the knees before The One Who Will Bail Us....Jack Tapper appropriately mocks the Obama administration's pledge to locat $100 million in savings - an amount equal to hourly accruing interest on the debt created by the stimulus bill:
Link: 
TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule -- $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that...
GIBBS: Well, in terms of -- in...(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: ...$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?
Jennifer Lovin from the AP gets tough as well:
JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?
GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...
LOVEN: The deficit's very large. It's not a joke.
GIBBS: No, I'm...
LOVEN: The deficit's giant. $100 million really is only a step.
GIBBS: But no joke.
LOVEN: You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.
GIBBS: I'm not making jokes about it. I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.
LOVEN: The point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.
Everything's funny to Barack and Gibbs (remember how Obama kept laughing about the financial crisis on "60 Minutes"?). Maybe because the meltdown is just a tool for them to accumulate additional control and power ("Never waste a crisis", they chant), and the longer it lasts, the more they gain?
They're laughing all the way to the bank - you know, the bank they purchased with your tax dollars...
Monday, April 20, 2009
When A Dozen Protestors are Front-Page News...
...it's usually for a cause that is near and dear to the media:
Dozens of people participated in a "lie-down" at Colorado's state Capitol Monday to demand stricter gun control and mark the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings. A circle of 13 people representing those killed at Columbine reclined on their backs before the west steps of the Capitol. They had wrapped blue and white ribbons around their necks, the official colors of the suburban Denver school.
Others kneeled next to the circle as the names of the 23 injured in the April 20, 1999, attack also were read.
Closer look at the picture shows a way larger media contingent then there were protestors. It's a top story because the media believes it should be a top story, although based on the turnout (from gun-control nuts looking to capitalize on the Columbine deaths, much like Cindy Sheehan used her own son's death for profit) it appears there is very little citizen support for the media's position.
Tea Parties get 500K out on the street, the media mocks them. Gun control gets 13 (aka: "dozens"), the media swarms like perverts to a peep show.
Do they even have a clue how out of touch they are?
Dozens of people participated in a "lie-down" at Colorado's state Capitol Monday to demand stricter gun control and mark the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings. A circle of 13 people representing those killed at Columbine reclined on their backs before the west steps of the Capitol. They had wrapped blue and white ribbons around their necks, the official colors of the suburban Denver school.
Others kneeled next to the circle as the names of the 23 injured in the April 20, 1999, attack also were read.
Closer look at the picture shows a way larger media contingent then there were protestors. It's a top story because the media believes it should be a top story, although based on the turnout (from gun-control nuts looking to capitalize on the Columbine deaths, much like Cindy Sheehan used her own son's death for profit) it appears there is very little citizen support for the media's position.
Tea Parties get 500K out on the street, the media mocks them. Gun control gets 13 (aka: "dozens"), the media swarms like perverts to a peep show.
Do they even have a clue how out of touch they are?
"Saving Money" With Hybrids? Who's Kidding Who?
This little piece from the Washington Post got me started:
President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time today and instructed department heads to trim their budgets by a combined $100 million over the next 90 days.
The statement identified a variety of cost-cutting measures it said agencies have already begun to implement, ranging from a crackdown on improper farm subsidy payments by the Agriculture Department to bulk purchases of office supplies by the Homeland Security Department and the use of energy-efficient vehicles.
Hmm. Well, should these brave moves manage to save $100 million dollars of taxpayer monies, be aware that that partciular figure is the equivalent of a man making $50K a year porudly announcing he has figured out a way to save $1.67/year from his expenses.
But it ain't gonna happen, especially if you're trying to sell me the "hybrids save money" routine. Because they don't. And I am gonna explain why.
Ford Escape (standard) 22 MPG City/28 MPG Highway MSRP $20,435-
Ford Escape (hybrid) 34 MPG City/31 MPG Highway MSRP $29,645-
Lets go with a baseline figure of 12,000 miles a year (1K/month, like a standard lease) to figure out the "savings". And we'll will take the higher spread of City miles (12 MPG better w/hybrid) to do the math.
12000 miles at 22 MPG = 545 gallons consumed/year
12000 miles at 31 MPG = 353 gallons consumed/year
Hybrid advantage - 192 gallons less/year
Great! So how much do we save? Gas in New Jersey is now $1.81 for 87 octane, let's use $2- as a figure here. How much money to we save a year using a hybrid?
192 x 2 = $384 saved
And the time it would take to recoup the extra $9,000 you spent to get a hybrid?
$384/$9,000 = 23 years
Let's assume the price of gas goes up to $3-/gallon, a 50% increase from today:
192 x 3 =$576 saved
$576/$9,000 = 15-16 years
Unlikely the government is going to go thru the cost and expense to maintain a vehicle over 16 years just to see its initial investment in alleged fuel economy recouped. These days, you're lucky to get over 10 years on an American car, which is the kind the government is mandating itself to buy.
So how does this save money? It doesn't, unless you look strictly at fuel pricing on an annual basis, and not the extra $9-$10K you spent to get there. More creative accounting by the Obama team, to sell you on an ideological product.
Actually, speaking of ideological product, there is one way you can make the initial cost of hybrids more appealing - by taxing the sh*t out of gasoline:
192 x $6 = $1,152- saved
$1,152/$9000 = 7.5 years.
Don't think for a moment Obama hasn't discussed this with Nancy, Henry, and Harry....
President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time today and instructed department heads to trim their budgets by a combined $100 million over the next 90 days.
The statement identified a variety of cost-cutting measures it said agencies have already begun to implement, ranging from a crackdown on improper farm subsidy payments by the Agriculture Department to bulk purchases of office supplies by the Homeland Security Department and the use of energy-efficient vehicles.
Hmm. Well, should these brave moves manage to save $100 million dollars of taxpayer monies, be aware that that partciular figure is the equivalent of a man making $50K a year porudly announcing he has figured out a way to save $1.67/year from his expenses.
But it ain't gonna happen, especially if you're trying to sell me the "hybrids save money" routine. Because they don't. And I am gonna explain why.
Ford Escape (standard) 22 MPG City/28 MPG Highway MSRP $20,435-
Ford Escape (hybrid) 34 MPG City/31 MPG Highway MSRP $29,645-
Lets go with a baseline figure of 12,000 miles a year (1K/month, like a standard lease) to figure out the "savings". And we'll will take the higher spread of City miles (12 MPG better w/hybrid) to do the math.
12000 miles at 22 MPG = 545 gallons consumed/year
12000 miles at 31 MPG = 353 gallons consumed/year
Hybrid advantage - 192 gallons less/year
Great! So how much do we save? Gas in New Jersey is now $1.81 for 87 octane, let's use $2- as a figure here. How much money to we save a year using a hybrid?
192 x 2 = $384 saved
And the time it would take to recoup the extra $9,000 you spent to get a hybrid?
$384/$9,000 = 23 years
Let's assume the price of gas goes up to $3-/gallon, a 50% increase from today:
192 x 3 =$576 saved
$576/$9,000 = 15-16 years
Unlikely the government is going to go thru the cost and expense to maintain a vehicle over 16 years just to see its initial investment in alleged fuel economy recouped. These days, you're lucky to get over 10 years on an American car, which is the kind the government is mandating itself to buy.
So how does this save money? It doesn't, unless you look strictly at fuel pricing on an annual basis, and not the extra $9-$10K you spent to get there. More creative accounting by the Obama team, to sell you on an ideological product.
Actually, speaking of ideological product, there is one way you can make the initial cost of hybrids more appealing - by taxing the sh*t out of gasoline:
192 x $6 = $1,152- saved
$1,152/$9000 = 7.5 years.
Don't think for a moment Obama hasn't discussed this with Nancy, Henry, and Harry....
"Racism in America" Hits #1 in Durbin!
Well, it ain't exactly Cannes or Sundance, but it's always nice to win. Although this one, for the aspiring politically correct filmaker, is a slam dunk. Who else are you going to criticize at a human rights conference? Cuba? Iran? Seriously, now:
Preceeding the official opening of the Durban II conference, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay hosted a panel entitled "United Against Racism." She welcomed the delegates and other attendees. Immediately following was a short film detailing instances of racism around the world. Guess what story was given pride of place as the first example? No prizes for a question so easy. It was, of course, "Racism in America".
And speaking of Iran, what can one say about "human rights conference" that literally rolls out a red carpet for a man who is repeatedly calling for the annihilation of his neighbors ?
In a way it's fitting that Ahmadinejad should headline the event. After all, who knows more about racism firsthand than a man who has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Judaism and his desire to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad won't be held up as Exhibit A on how pervasive racism still is around the world. Instead, he will be treated as a responsible world leader worth listening to for his insights on how to combat racism. Indeed, as we entered the hall where the conference will be held today, a red carpet was conspicuously laid out for Ahmadinejad.
It says something about Durban II when Ahmadinejad is welcomed with open arms while democratic countries like the U.S., Israel, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia choose to skip the event entirely.
Actually, it says more about the United Nations, and the state of the world at large. How close are we to a world in which the "Durbin Values" are the norm? Just one look at Obama's handshake should tell you...
Preceeding the official opening of the Durban II conference, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay hosted a panel entitled "United Against Racism." She welcomed the delegates and other attendees. Immediately following was a short film detailing instances of racism around the world. Guess what story was given pride of place as the first example? No prizes for a question so easy. It was, of course, "Racism in America".
And speaking of Iran, what can one say about "human rights conference" that literally rolls out a red carpet for a man who is repeatedly calling for the annihilation of his neighbors ?
In a way it's fitting that Ahmadinejad should headline the event. After all, who knows more about racism firsthand than a man who has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Judaism and his desire to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad won't be held up as Exhibit A on how pervasive racism still is around the world. Instead, he will be treated as a responsible world leader worth listening to for his insights on how to combat racism. Indeed, as we entered the hall where the conference will be held today, a red carpet was conspicuously laid out for Ahmadinejad.
It says something about Durban II when Ahmadinejad is welcomed with open arms while democratic countries like the U.S., Israel, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia choose to skip the event entirely.
Actually, it says more about the United Nations, and the state of the world at large. How close are we to a world in which the "Durbin Values" are the norm? Just one look at Obama's handshake should tell you...
Sunday, April 19, 2009
And New Jersey Finishes....Last
This will come as no suprise to state residents (and likely as no suprise either to Corzine's lying flunkies who claim with a sneer that New Jerseyans are not overtaxed):
The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council's 2009 Business Tax Index is out and New Jersey is 50th among the states when it comes to being business friendly.
In addition, the Tax Foundation reports New Jerseyans had to work 119 days in 2009 just to pay their taxes. That's 16 days after the national date. It means that everything you made from Jan. 1 through April 29 goes to taxes at the federal, state or local level.
And yet, Treasurer David Rousseau think's we're not over-taxed. Corzine agrees.
The whole depressing report can be found here...and just for giggles, let's take a look at the 10 worst states to try to survive in:
42) Massachusetts, 43) Vermont, 44) Rhode Island, 45) Iowa, 46) New York, 47) California, 48) Maine, 49) Minnesota, 50) New Jersey, and 51) District of Columbia.
Yup. 10 dark blue states. What a coincidence! Boy, those Democrats really know how to run things...into the ground.
State Senator Joeseph Kyrillos, the last honest man standing in Trenton, tells us the hard cold facts:
...The state Department of Labor reported Wednesday that unemployment rose to 8.3 percent as we shed another 17,000 jobs in March.
Unfortunately, this is only the latest chapter in a statewide trend that began more than eight years ago. Economists are now forecasting that 2001 through 2010 will be the first decade in modern history in which New Jersey suffers a net loss of jobs.
The first decade ruled wire-to-wire by the Democrats. What a coincidence!
Kyrillos gives us one example (page 2 of op-ed) of the genius of the New Jersey Left:
We must roll back the Council on Affordable Housing tax on economic development. Last year, the Legislature and governor passed a law that requires municipalities and commercial developers to subsidize new affordable housing whenever and wherever new projects threaten to create more than 16 new jobs. In other words, COAH penalizes people for creating jobs in the middle of a recession.
Gee, so taxing economic development actually holds back economic development? Who'da thunk it?
Any idiot with a high school diploma, I'd reckon. Which apparently rules out the entire Democratic party of the state of New Jersey...
The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council's 2009 Business Tax Index is out and New Jersey is 50th among the states when it comes to being business friendly.
In addition, the Tax Foundation reports New Jerseyans had to work 119 days in 2009 just to pay their taxes. That's 16 days after the national date. It means that everything you made from Jan. 1 through April 29 goes to taxes at the federal, state or local level.
And yet, Treasurer David Rousseau think's we're not over-taxed. Corzine agrees.
The whole depressing report can be found here...and just for giggles, let's take a look at the 10 worst states to try to survive in:
42) Massachusetts, 43) Vermont, 44) Rhode Island, 45) Iowa, 46) New York, 47) California, 48) Maine, 49) Minnesota, 50) New Jersey, and 51) District of Columbia.
Yup. 10 dark blue states. What a coincidence! Boy, those Democrats really know how to run things...into the ground.
State Senator Joeseph Kyrillos, the last honest man standing in Trenton, tells us the hard cold facts:
...The state Department of Labor reported Wednesday that unemployment rose to 8.3 percent as we shed another 17,000 jobs in March.
Unfortunately, this is only the latest chapter in a statewide trend that began more than eight years ago. Economists are now forecasting that 2001 through 2010 will be the first decade in modern history in which New Jersey suffers a net loss of jobs.
The first decade ruled wire-to-wire by the Democrats. What a coincidence!
Kyrillos gives us one example (page 2 of op-ed) of the genius of the New Jersey Left:
We must roll back the Council on Affordable Housing tax on economic development. Last year, the Legislature and governor passed a law that requires municipalities and commercial developers to subsidize new affordable housing whenever and wherever new projects threaten to create more than 16 new jobs. In other words, COAH penalizes people for creating jobs in the middle of a recession.
Gee, so taxing economic development actually holds back economic development? Who'da thunk it?
Any idiot with a high school diploma, I'd reckon. Which apparently rules out the entire Democratic party of the state of New Jersey...
Obama's Socialist Soul Brother Hand Clasp
Sure, you see a picture like this, and you think, "Unbeliveable! The president of the United States giving a big high-five to a man that turned democratic Venezuela into The Sorry Socialist State of Venezuela? What, is he envious of the job Hugo Chavez has done and hopes to replicate it in the USA?"
Well, you couldn't be more wrong. First, Obama is envious of the job Castro has done in Cuba - socialized medicine, broken-down automobiles, armed forces that train with broomsticks, minimal economic growth, minimal oil production, and very little pressure from a populace that has ciome to see their lives as hopeless.
But fear not. That handshake is not a sign of solidarity with the South American Strongman, it is a vicious attack launched by Obama against Chavez in order to sicken him, or perhaps worse.
"All that, in just a handshake? How is that possible?", you ask.
Well, obviously an American president could not show love for a man who hates America and all of its citizens, right? So why would he offer such a warm and hearty handshake?
It's an attack right out of Kevin Smith's epic film Mallrats - "The Brodie Bruce Stinkhand" (or "The Chocolate Pretzel"). Like all deadly attacks, easy-to-follow instructions can be found on the web:
-Locate your target. Whether it be friend or foe.
-Have a melting chocolate-covered pretzel (Or any food for that matter; the pretzel is twice as funny.)
-Rub your empty hand on your butt. In every place you can think of. (skip showering to make this even funnier.)
-Walk up to your target, give him a high five, but squeeze and rub his hand. Further embelish this by doing your best Brodie Bruce impression and asking "Would you like a -?"
-Your target should take the food. If not, compromise by slapping his hand, pat on the back, etc.
-Walk away, and wait for your mark to realize what just happened...
-Walk away, and wait for your mark to realize what just happened...
Obama's on the plane, laughing all the way back to the good 'ol USA. Right?
I mean, he can't be serious with that handshake....can he?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
NPR is Taking Notes!
Man, the way the mainstream media in America struts around - like they own the place, you know, and don't mind that, ahem, red ink! - you'd think they were the cock of the roost.
They're nothing. Pikers be they, compared to the way the BBC strongarms British citizens - by dragging them out of their homes, off to a criminal court, to failing to pay a "fee" for the privilege of watching them:
I've just watched my husband driven away in a police car. Not because he is a murderer, or a rapist or even a theif but because the T.V Licensing people decided to take him to court without informing him of that fact and getting him fined. Then, without telling him that he had been fined, they had a warrant issued for his arrest for non-payment of fines.
Can anyone say - extortion? With a nice Orwellian twist! Obama watches, and dreams of new revenue - (television taxes? by the inch? yummy...).
Closure:
Thanks to those bastards, half the street now wonder what he's done, my daughter is in tears and my son is completely bewildered. Don't ever come to England if you can help it, this country is shit and this just proves it.
Yeah, lady. I'm sorry. See you in five years, we'll meet you at the bottom...
Hat tip: Biased BBC
They're nothing. Pikers be they, compared to the way the BBC strongarms British citizens - by dragging them out of their homes, off to a criminal court, to failing to pay a "fee" for the privilege of watching them:
I've just watched my husband driven away in a police car. Not because he is a murderer, or a rapist or even a theif but because the T.V Licensing people decided to take him to court without informing him of that fact and getting him fined. Then, without telling him that he had been fined, they had a warrant issued for his arrest for non-payment of fines.
Can anyone say - extortion? With a nice Orwellian twist! Obama watches, and dreams of new revenue - (television taxes? by the inch? yummy...).
Closure:
Thanks to those bastards, half the street now wonder what he's done, my daughter is in tears and my son is completely bewildered. Don't ever come to England if you can help it, this country is shit and this just proves it.
Yeah, lady. I'm sorry. See you in five years, we'll meet you at the bottom...
Hat tip: Biased BBC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)