About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

global warming vs. reality...the Taxman cometh

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:37:26 PM
 

 

 

It's all so very interesting: If  we were to believe the mainstream media news being broadcast these days, we would be led  to think that America was mired with two daunting problems -1) the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression (false);  2)President-Elect Obama’s energy policies will address our severely deepening climate change crisis (false again).

 

But actually, premise #2 (Obama's energy policies) may actually trigger # 1 (a Second Depression), and bring the greatest financial crisis since 1933 to a head, if we continue the pied piper march off the precipice (i.e. the "consequences" of global warming).  We may actually be moving in a direction to third world energy dependency (all OPEC), whereby America may never recover its glory days of the past.

 

And just what type of climatic consequences are we facing ? In a previously hidden San Francisco Chronicle television interview, Obama was revealed saying that he wants to implement..."an aggressive CO2 cap-and-trade system that could bankrupt coal companies".  He further stated..."energy prices would skyrocket as a result". So if Obama's out to bankrupt coal companies, how will that affect electric and utility bills in another few years? 

 

And Obama believes that global warming is a critical issue, and besides cap & trade, he supports the use of solar energy, wind power and biodiesel. But why is this all so critical to do NOW? Is the environment really on the precipice? Or is it because Mr. Obama knows that scaring people to death is very good for the environmentalist business?

 

And Obama isnt the only one employing political scare tactics.The U.N. Climate Panel (panel of disinformation) claims human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are blanketing the planet., and the resulting increasing temperatures will bring more floods, heatwaves, more powerful storms and rising sea levels; so RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! 

 

But ironically, the United Nations first chairman of the climate panel, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that..."unless we ANNOUNCE disasters, no one will listen". And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the matter: the U.N., Obama, Sierra Club, and all the other radical environmentalists have foisted upon us a huge mythological, so-called problem that doesn't even exist!

 

If the so called threat of global warming wasn't constantly being drum-beated in the news, would anyone even be capable of discerning anything so sinisterly wrong, that it could destroy us all if we don't act AT ONCE?  Example: if someone were to emerge out of a 30-year coma and go outside, they would probably wonder... "what in the world is going on with all this climate change hype? I don't notice anything different with the world!"

 

And that's the point: climate change is a political hoax of biblical proportions! Take a walk outside; have you noticed anyone in your neighborhood rolling on the ground, coughing violently, and gasping for clean air? And are we about ready to abandon our furnaces because the climate has gotten so dangerously warm? And are people fleeing away in panic from the coastlines ahead of the fast-rising sea levels?

 

But yet, all we get is warning after warning, threat after threat, and guilt trip-upon-guilt trip, that burning coal is similar to releasing some lethal form of krypto-chloro-mustard gas, and every time you start your car, or eat a cheeseburger you are damaging the environment; and the oceans are about to swamp the cities and replay Katrina vs. New Orleans. And to what end?  It's the master plan to politicize the weather, and open up the way to tax our heavy industries, and raise the cost of gasoline to the point of forcing us into those hideous, insect-bodied, green cars of the future.

 

But curiously, less than half of Americans surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions. So evidently, much needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as 'green' taxation' or carbon trading, to help them understand how much higher utility bills and gasoline will cost in the near future.

 

And even more curiously, what would have happened to Obama if he'd campaigned for president on this particular platform of "change"?

 

So what's all the rush about? If we listen to Obama and the way climate change is being hyped, you'd think there was something akin to a plague of locusts sweeping across the country, devouring the world before them. In a recent D.C. press conference, Obama addressed the nation..."The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," Obama said, after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming.

 

Obama continued..."We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years...this is a matter of urgency and national security... and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

 

But what kind of scientists is Obama listening to? Mad scientists! Carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on CO2. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in. The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. But the liberal media will have none of the truth!

 

But If CO2 is a such a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in earthly temperature history, going all the way back 250 years ago to the dawn of the industrial revolution in England. But we haven’t. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago, when meterological records were starting to be kept.

 

Fossil fuels are not ruining the environment; and the world is not running out of oil. The truth is that we’re all married to fossil fuels. And divorce is not currently in the cards for many of us. Securing the country's supply of oil for our military and for economic expansion  is more important to national security than tackling climate change.

 

But the politics supporting the notion that fossil fuels equal some sort of calamity around the corner, is leading us to the very thing we want to avoid; a slow-motion economic train crash, caused by the government's liberal agenda over climate change and energy policy,

 

John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel, recently weighed in last month on climate change: (quote) " Some dastardly scientists, with political motives, manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus" (unquote). Of course, none of the major media outlets chose to pick up the story, or give Coleman's comments any national exposure.

 

 

But how about the recent national report quoted  from a magazine article saying that... "a huge chunk of sea ice had broken off an island in the Arctic". So what happened? Boom! All the “man-made” global-warming extremists jumped up and started crying about how we are all doomed, and how this sea ice was just another sign of the end of the world.

 

But if the meda had bothered to cover to the end of the article, it would have also reported that the island had at one time been free of sea ice about 1,000 years ago, which is evidence that mankind has never been a factor, and never will be able to cause this vast earth to warm up and trigger some climatalogical event of apocalyptic proportions. It is simply not within our power!

 

The latest observations from balloons and satellites confirm that warming is not happening. Therefore greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not a major factor in the world climate. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis. But the media remains slanted, and constantly reports about "computer-based climate models" as providing the evidence "supporting" claims that the world is "dangerously warming", and there will be rapid rises in sea levels and the like. Yet these same models failed to predict the temperature peak in 1998, and the steadily cooling trend that set in from 2002.

 

 

So what does it all mean? Well, it means that only ignorant, uninformed, idiopathic people believe that man is causing global warming. But with the dumbed-down state of our educational system, and the liberal slant of the news, there are enough ignorant uninformed people to total 75%, which is the number of Americans who have been brainwashed into voicing, "they want something done about it" . So lets all blame the sun!

 

The effect of the sun is the major reason for global warming, to the exclusion of all others. Solar flares and sun spots are the real reason earth gets warmer or cooler. And ocean currents, such as El Nino and La Nina', are the reason for the melting at the poles.

 

So just ask John Coleman-- it may be a shock to readers that many scientists do not understand the earth’s climate very well enough themselves to make informed judgments about the ACTUAL (not perceived) danger of global warming (er…climate change).

 

Past events in recorded history show warmer climates have been accompanied by more rain, longer growing seasons, more crops and more land to settle on, and bringing upon times when past civilizations have prospered. CO2 is no problem; it is not a toxic emission, but rather, the gas of life.

 

The problem is climate change policy, not climate change, which is beyond man’s control. Global warming is a widely accepted myth. World temperatures have fallen from their peak ten years ago while CO2 has been rising rapidly. The world was much warmer in the Bronze age 4,000 years ago and there was much less airborne CO2 then, because none of the rain forests had been cut down. The bounteousness of world vegetation goes up with CO2; so we could use more CO2, not less.

 

But now, with the prospect of an increasingly Democratic Senate, and a president who will go along with the madness of climatalogically futile energy policies, look for a revival of the old Beatles song, "The Taxman", from the 1966 Revolver album, a bitter song about how much money The Beatles were paying in taxes back then...

        

        "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
         If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
         If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
         If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet...
         Taxman!"

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The time bomb of 'global warming' is a scientific dud-- but a burning political hot potato, indeed!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, December 22, 2008 6:09:14 PM
 

Attention to all ye faithful environmentalists and global warming proponents...it's time for your science quiz:

Question #1:How is it possible that the ice-cap is melting at an accelerated rate at the North Pole, (implying global warming within the Arctic Circle); yet the United States-- whose latitude is located not that many degrees further south in the Temperate Zone--has experienced its coldest Oct-Nov-Dec since 1976? So does this imply that we are now in firm acknowledgment of regional global warming?

Question number 2: If it's a fact that violent storms destroyed billions of dollars of property this year, and even more powerful storms will also destroy billions of dollars of property in future years, how was it that there were no major hurricanes in the western hemisphere in 2007? Does this imply global warming is only in effect some years? So which is duh answer?


Question #3: Why have the proponents of global warming changed their tune, and now denote the "problem" as 'climate change'. This is profoundly confusing to people who are science-based in their outlook towards weather. So which is it?


Yes boys and girls; Santa may not be coming this year for the Global-Warmers .Many regions of America are seeing pre-Christmas temperatures that haven't been witnessed in 25 years, when on December 24, 1983, nighttime lows of -23 were recorded in many midwestern cities. So is this deja' vu' all over again?

And a Sacramento California TV station has reported that Siberia had a recent -82 below zero, one the coldest tempatures ever since the region began keeping records. The northernmost regions of Russia are experiencing dangerously cold temperatures, which have caused many weather casualties; and authorities are warning Siberian factories about power cuts, as the 50-year record-low temperatures are expected to continue.

The world has never seen such freezing heat! A rare 50-year Arctic blast has hit the west coast hard, including southern California. Colorado is having one of the snowiest Decembers on record.

Both hemispheres of the world are reporting unusual cold and snow. Recent news headlines were all about the sudden drops in the temperatures: "California seawater readings unusually cold"..."Highways closed, motorists stranded as snow buries China"... "Bitter taste of Siberian air, heavy snow, hit parts of Canada"..."Heavy snow forecast for Cascade mountains".

 

And despite all this, the global warmers refuse to be confused by the facts (as usual). But as with any disinformation campaign, our wonderful media is determined to do their part to make the case. Currently, all of broadcast television is being deluged by public service ads about coal plants causing desertification, and that CO2 is somehow akin to being a poison gas. Oh if only we could bring back the good old TV era, where litter and drugs were societies' scourge, and, "a mind was a terrible thing to waste".

These unusually cold, hard weather events could be the beginning of the end of the politics behind the warming sham, because the facts do not at all support the premise that the ENTIRE earth is warming. We humans have a negligible effect on the climate...zero, zilcho, and nein! The climate is controlled by forces greater than anything we could ever produce. You could place a million earths inside our gigantic sun, whose radiant heat controls our earthly temperatures.

The scientific basis for global warming is easily refuted. And scietifically, it's not CO2 that drives the climate, but the multitude of natural variables that are constantly changing, such as ocean currents and sunspots.

 

For starters, the physical laws of the universe (i.e. Newton's Laws) make it impossible to have regional global warming. All weather experienced is a product of the pattern in place. There are no big mysteries. Just like any extremes, climate changes are all perfectly natural and have been ongoing for billions of years. Just remember the dinosaurs, our poor friends who became extinct when the earth suddenly began cooling 65 million years ago.

 

Currently, proof of global warming parallels the existence of Bigfoot; both remain mythological until proven.  The media rant of global warming is perhaps one of the greatest frauds in human and galactic history, as well as all this "going green" propaganda that came out a few years ago, and is being taught religiously in our schools.

 

EXAMPLE: must we really find a way to remove CO2? That would imply that all living, breathing animals and humans (that inspire oxygen and expire carbon dioxide), must all stop breathing.


Does anyone recall the Flat Earth Society; or more recently, the Y2k scare in 1999? In fact, all the warnings about global warming are basically political (not scientific) in nature. And the biggest danger global warming poses is that anyone who dares disagree, is at once labeled as a "right-wing-nut job", so powerful is the wave of political correctness that supports and promulgates it.

 

But politically, 75% Americans "want something done." But what? Maybe some ancient, all wise Indian medicine man might know; but until he's located, we'll all have to try and live through the forked-tongued myths about broiling to death “before it's too late”.

 
Lets address two basic fallacies. First: does burning fossil fuel in an internal combustion engine actually warm the earth? If this actually were the case, then Los Angeles, with more gasoline vehicles per capita than anywhere, would be an inferno, and the hottest city on earth!

Second: does burning 'dirty" coal cause global warming?  But what about the 170 volcanoes that erupt periodically around the globe? In May of 1980, the Mt. St. Helens eruption tossed unknown trillions of cubic meters of sulfuric clouds (containing heavy pollutants) that were blown eastward over North America; but the summers of '80 and '81 on the continent were normal. But historically, sun-blocking volcano eruptions are linked to periods of global COOLING.

Thus, if cloud-sized, sulfur-laden volcanic emissions cause cooling, compare it to a Midwestern power plant burning high-sulfur coal. A volcano is nature's herculean-sized smokestack venting earth's core. Coal plants are blamed for warming, but basically belch a similar volcanic by-product from their stacks, illustrating doubts that coal plants can actually warm the climate.

The one basic fact about the THEORY of global warming, is that those who support it the most, understand the least about science and physics, which are based in facts. Indeed, the facts against global warming are irrefutable; but yet there is the constant political drumbeat of, "we must deal with climate change before it's too LATE". But too late for what?

Well, it's probably too late to change the minds of the current generation of the young, who have been nothing less than brainwashed by our nation's educational system about the grave 'danger'. But this generation of greenies does pose a grave political danger to the nation in the form of a hugely misguided voting bloc, that's easily led by any candidate who's policies are also green.

 

And what of America's  economic future once this green generation takes their place in society's power structure? This ominously portends that the politics of global warming won't be going away anytime soon, and the arguments between the believers vs. the non-believers will continue to heat up for years to come.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's 'ace in the hole' for our infrastructure...High speed rail corridors!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, December 19, 2008 3:26:11 PM
 

One of the few good uses of massive government spending, besides defense, is infrastructure. But defense spending raises inflation; it pumps huge money into the economy, but the goods and services it creates can't be purchased, thus causing inflation. But to Obama's credit, the amount of money he is proposing to spend on infrastructure could lend a vastly beneficial impetus to the economy, and would probably not spike inflation.

 

And CERTAIN types of infrastructure spending may indeed, generate huge job growth, producing semi- permanent results that would resoundingly benefit the nation. The Hoover Dam and Golden Gate bridge are two New Deal projects (from the 1930's) that demonstrated that some government make-work programs can produce something of permanent benefit, because both became "game-changers."

 

Obama certainly has one thing right; if we don't update the infrastructure soon, our overripe roads, sewers and bridges will be rotten in less than a decade. But the president elect instead is favoring "shovel-ready" projects that require little planning or foresight. And the problem with this is, despite the huge sums of tax-payer money for repairing and refurbishing, the country will not realize anything resembling game-changing status, like a Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge.

 

 And because there's no permanence to Obama's strategy, it's sort of like renting an apartment vs. buying  one's own home. The nation will see little in return for its money, other than a mild boost to the local economies who do the repairs in that particular year.

 

And while were on the topic of infrastructure spending, why is no one discussing the idea of high-speed rail corridors? The bullet trains would relieve Interstate traffic congestion, and  would provide an alternative to car and air travel. Modern, high-speed rail travel would save time, gasoline, and jet fuel, and would go along with Obama's quest to make America more enegy efficient. And indeed, high speed rail would be a huge game changer, and transform the nation's travel modes in an eco-friendly way.

 

High-speed rail travel would be as much of a lifestyle changer upon our culture as the interstate highway system. It would be analogous to how the American economy exploded in the late 19th century, after the trans-continental train network was completed in 1869. Historically, it is indeed noteworthy that nearly all towns west of St. Louis, such as Las Vegas, were originally founded because of spurs or stops on the transcontinental railroad.

 

 And just as the exits off interstate highways sparked new suburbs and nearby commercial land development, high speed rail would generate at least a ten to twenty year boom in construction, engineering, and surveying jobs, all required in building out all the rail corridors and securing the right-of-ways.

 

Think about it...could there be any opposition against NOT having to travel jammed interstate highways between major cities? There'd be no longer a need to widen I-95 along the east coast. People could leave their cars at home. The road rage and time wasted in traffic jams would be supplanted by relaxing on a train, socializing, text messaging, laptop work, watching a movie, eating a quality meal, reading, or sightseeing out the windows at 130 mph. It sure beats flying and looking at cloud tops from a window seat. And there'd be no need to worry about clogged traffic, and getting flipped off by some foaming-at-the-mouth driver on the interstate.

 

High speed rail would have made sense for the U.S. twenty, thirty, or even fifty years ago. If we had placed high speed rail right-of-ways parallel to all the interstates built in the 50's and 60's, this nation would never have had an energy crisis. But the original intention of the interstates was for national defense (i.e. rapid military transport during wartime). No one could have conceived these highways would become so vital to travelers, commuters, and interstate commerce. If that had been assumed back then, they would've made the roadways 20 inches thick with concrete, and built the bridges with rust-resistant steel alloys.

 

And the benefits of high speed rail construction would be permanent. There'd be high-paying, skilled employment creation. We'd have steel and manufacturing jobs, railroad and construction jobs, engineering and technology employment. America would see a steel industry revival.

 

Also there would be a funding option: private venture capital instead of government money. People would buy tax-free construction bonds in the rail companies, like Burlington Northern, Chessie, B&O, and Norfolk Western.This worked well 150 years ago when the government granted Union pacific and Central Pacific the cheap land for the transcontinental railroad's right of ways, and it could work again.

 

And in this pricey energy era, besides passenger lines, what's more practical than high-speed FREIGHT TRAIN corridors spanning the nation? The benefits in time and diesel fuel saved, and the reduced damage to the interstate highway system from 40-ton trucks, would be enormous- possibly eliminating the need for the federal gas tax. Picture inter-modal, 100-car high speed freight trains, piggy-backing 200 semi-trailers across the country at 90-plus MPH ...how energy and time efficient would that be?

 

And what about the social benefits of passenger high speed rail travel? Today, Americans live in virtual self-imposed social isolation chambers. We no longer write letters, and largely converse through e-mail and text messages, preferring to let our cellphones and computers do the communicating for us, instead of actual interpersonal contact. America is becoming a society of individuals who prefer to be alone.

 

Now consider the social aspects of traveling by high speed rail, compared to the current horrific state of air travel. Flying today is an exercise in claustrophobia. You are not afforded much space or comfort, because of the need for airlines to cut costs. You are, in effect, imprisoned in your seat. So if the person sitting next to you has a chronic cough, or is wearing pungent cologne, or is downloading offensive porn on their pc, you cannot help thinking that, "maybe the Greyhound bus would have been better than sitting next to this creep."

 

Now picture traveling by high speed rail. You stretch out in comfort. You go to the coffee bar and relax with a latte, while you gaze out the window at the scenery whizzing by. You can sit by yourself, and work or read. Or, because of the social possibilities of train travel, you might even meet a significant other person, or someone who changes your life in a positive way, such as a new friend, or business associate. But the point is, on the train, you have the room to spread out and multi-task to your heart's content.

 

So are ya listening out there Mr. Obama ? Aren't you tired of the conservative pundits that say you're a government-loving, free-spending socialist ? Well then show 'em...you could be an actual maverick; you could be the "next Eisenhower", and praised as the president who pioneered the American network of high speed rail corridors, and returned the nation to economic prosperity!

 

So c'mon Mr. Obama...show the nation you really ARE a transformational president. But you must lead the initiative, and see to it that your administration actually gets everything off the ground and moving forward. Call it whatever you want...the next Apollo moon shot, or the next Manhattan project. Just co-opt the Nike slogan for your administration's new motto...just do it!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

D.C. Gang Wars-part I...The Obama Mob defies Pelosi!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:01:54 PM
 

Ah yes-- the sounds of dissension on Capitol Hill; "A house divided against itself cannot stand"; Abraham Lincoln--Gettysburg Address.

In a terse statement directed at Rahm Emanuel, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid down the rules for her 110th Congress, saying she is not going to allow Obama to "triangulate" her. Evidently, the no-nonsense Pelosi isn't taking any chances, as she seeks to pre-empt any possibility of being usurped of her bigga-boss stature on Capitol Hill, by the new upstart on the block, Barack Obama.

Pelosi surprised everyone in Washington with the subtle fury of her warning. She set her parameters for what she wants from Obama and his White House staff —no surprises, and no back-door efforts to go around her and other Democratic leaders by cutting deals with moderate democrats, or conservative Blue Dogs. She specifically warned Emanuel that she wants to know everything his boss (Obama) is up to...or else!

Yup. No matter who you are in D.C., there's to be no tip-toeing around godmother Pelosi, lest the mob get its revenge.

Specifically, the regal Pelosi mandated that Emanuel always is to inform her of whenever representatives of the incoming administration have any contact with her rank-and-file Democrats...and why. The godmother, taking a page from "GODFATHER part II", has decided to follow the wisdom of Don Corleone Sr...."keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

 

Normally the honeymoon stage of a Presidency is the first 100 days. But as Obama continues to prematurely 'don' the mantle of the Presidency, the honeymoon period has kicked in fast and furious by the media and the public. So is it shaping up to be a future mob war in Washington, between don Barack Obama vs godmother Pelosi? Stay tuned until after January 20!

 

But this initial power struggle was inevitable: no matter how much goodwill there is at the start of a new administration, there are always battles over policy and legislative priorities between the White House and Congress. And Pelosi seeks to take advantage of the almost complete liberal hold on power in the three branches. And the Iron Maiden of Capitol Hill is not about to blow this rarefied opportunity to ram through her leftist agenda, because she knows 2-4 years may not be enough time to get everything done. So she has no time to waste, and will not tolerate opposition.

 

Pelosi, in warning that "she won't allow Obama to triangulate her", is reflective of two personal traits: 1) she is the ultimate control freak, (or out-of-control freak); 2) she has a working backround in geometry.

 

Yes; probably not since the late Saddam Hussein, has there existed a more radical political control freak in our lifetimes than nazi Pelosi. In the brief time she's been Speaker of the House, she's literally eclipsed everyone in D.C. in raw political power. There are no checks and balances in the Constitution regarding the House speaker; and Nancy-dearest knows it. 

 

Pelosi is second in line for President, but has wielded her authority with the ruthlessness of a banana republic dictator. She knows the rules of the House intimately. She sets the entire legislative agenda. She can bury any bill, no matter how important to the country. And with her subservient Democratic majority, she can pass ANY new legislation to suit her intentions. If Our Founding Fathers were around today, they may have re-written the Constitution.

Ever since Pelosi ascended the Speaker's podium, the opening bang of her gavel has signaled the onset of gulag rule on the House floor. She constantly has had the Republicans cowering in abeyance to her every Machiavellian-like maneuver. The only set principle she seems to have is, "to have no principles". She watches her enemies with cunning and moves accordingly, as Machiavelli professed. She's ready at all times to change her strategies and tactics.

 
And not since Gavrilo Princep assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, and ignited World War I, has any SINGLE individual had a more apocalyptic effect on western history than the iron-willed and conniving first female Speaker of the House, Nazi Pelosi. And this is no exaggeration!

EXAMPLE: let's analyze in detail just what has taken place in the world ever since January 3, 2007, when Pelosi defeated Republican John Boehner of Ohio in a close election for House Speaker: let's call it the Pelosi domino effect. Higher gas prices commenced in that same month. Commodity traders, (not big oil companies) who set the world price for crude, all went 'long' on oil (bid the price upward), because they knew of her political intentions to block all new U.S. drilling. Now the perfect economic storm had begun --Hurricane Nancy.

 

After oil prices went above $100/barrel, gas prices rocketed past 3 dollars, and you could almost HEAR the cracking sounds throughout the entire economy. Auto sales collapsed. Retail tanked. Grocery prices and inflation took off. Then, as the price of oil hit $144, gas prices went well above 4 dollars, and it was the breaking point. Now the lay offs began. Unemployment jumped. It didn't take long before people--just barely making their house payments--were now faced with either tapping their 401K, or foreclosure.

The dominos began to fall faster. Foreclosures hit 10,000 a month. The investment banks on Wall Street began to crumble. Large and small commercial banks failed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were next. Mysteriously-valued 'toxic' mortgage securities were held by everyone. Uncertainty caused panic selling throughout the stock markets around the world. Credit dried up, and all U.S. domestic economic activity slowed down, which in turn, caused the entire financial world to go into recession.


By now, the Dow-Jones had lost 40% of its value; people blamed the republicans for everything; and thus elected Barack Obama. End of story for now, but indeed, more chapters are to be written about the cataclysmic Nancy Pelosi worldwide effect that started it all.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America's proud OPEC "alliance"... will it pave the way to permanent energy dependence?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:13:51 PM
 

Shiver me timbers...those meany Saudi Arabians are at it again! They are out to pirate a big price hike for a barrel of crude oil with their announcement of a huge OPEC production cut. And two other non-OPEC outsiders, Russia and Azerbaijan, also announced similar production cuts, in sympathy with the move of the Saudis.

 

In a quote from the New York Times, it was reported that..."Saudi Arabia, the world’s top exporter, issued a cut of 2.2 million barrels a day, or the equivalent of 2.5 percent of global production, to “bring things in balance,” according to the Saudi oil minister, Ali-al-Naimi" (unquote). 

 

OPEC and the oil ministers of the 11 nations, under the group's quota system, agreed to take a total of 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, the largest single production reduction in history.

 

Oh well; just when it looked like cheap, buck-n-a-half gas might be the remedy for an America mired in a debilitating, bone-rattling recession, we can instead look for prices to zoom back up to $2.50-3.00/gallon in the next 3-6 months or so, because OPEC is taking no chances: they've seen this "oil-oversupply" movie before, and they'll keep cutting production until the price gets back up to the 70 dollar-a-barrel level.

 

But what is most disturbing, is that Americans have also seen this exact same movie before in the 1990's, and learned ZILCH. Bill Clinton's presidency is widely regarded as the 'roaring 90's'. But Clinton was a leftist liberal, who luckily benefited from the perfect storm of falling oil prices, productivity gains of the computerized workplace, the explosive growth of the internet, and the concomitant dot-com job creation machine.

 

And in the eye of the perfect storm, was a republican Congress, who passed welfare reform, drilling in ANWAR, and a balanced budget-- and literally dragged a reluctant, kicking and screaming Bill Clinton, into a golden decade of prosperity.

 

But the Clinton administration made one of the most costly and long term damaging blunders in U.S. economic history, when slick Willie vetoed the congressional bill to initiate drilling in ANWAR. Back then, Mr. Clinton had 'succumbed' to the radical, Al Gore environmental lobby, and willingly danced at the end of the puppet strings of the Sierra Club.

 

But Clinton's 1995 veto didn't just restrict drilling in ANWAR. His lethal blunder set the stage for grievous long-term structural damage to the U.S. economy, due to the eventual result of the ban: a huge net capital outflow of  $700 billion annually to OPEC over the last decade, with no end in sight.

 

The veto also set the precedent for the current political-environmental insanity we have today, where 4 trillion dollars worth of American oil reserves have been declared to be both illegal, and also to be a supposed ecological disaster waiting to happen. 

 

What America stubbornly refuses to learn is that OPEC has directly affected the quality of our lives just as much as Congress, or any of the presidents or foreign wars in the last 40 years. Consider where America would be if ANWAR had come online in 2000, and the price of gas had stayed below a dollar-fifty/gallon. What then? Would we even be in a recession today?

 

Well, for starters, the U.S. would now be producing close to 50% of its domestic needs, rather than the current 30%. Instead, were importing 70% of our oil, and U.S. domestic production from aging oil fields is currently dropping at a rate of 2% a year. In just the next decade, we will be importing better than 80% of our oil, and falling further down into the unsustainable drain of our capital outflow to the foreign oil producers.

 

Currently, the United States remains a capital starved country. We produce practically nothing. We import almost everything. We are literally a debtor nation; and when it comes to our energy needs, we’ve been reduced to the status of a BEGGAR nation. Our economic fortunes are no longer in our own hands, but in those of the very people who despise our culture and way of life, and will do all they can to see us continue to falter.

 

And as a beggar nation, a once-proud America can only hope and beg for OPEC not to continue to short their production, and further burden the world's economy with yet another energy price shock, similar to the four dollar gas we saw as recently as last summer; and which is sure to return again--it's only a question of when.

 

But regarding our self-defeating energy policy, we're the nation of hope. We can only hope oil prices stay low. We can only hope that OPEC doesn't get any greedier. We can only hope that somehow, a new miraculous source of alternative energy will magically emerge to replace oil, and provide us with the hope for cheaper energy prices, and better times ahead. Yes, let's all just sit back, and keep on hoping for the best.

 

But hope is basically an excuse for DOING NOTHING.  And given the current political climate, it's what America does best...doing nothing but hoping, and watching our standard of living decline ever further, with every new tanker of foreign oil that docks within our ports.

 

But can their be any hope that America will see any relief from OPEC, when the politics of the country is so virulently against 'Big Oil'? Barack Obama, during his presidential campaign, cleverly was able to create a common enemy, the Exxon corporation, and constantly railed against "big oil" as though Exxon was being run by Lucifer himself. This political insanity of opposing domestic oil companies is only going to make a bad situation much worse, as the rest of the entire industrialized world seeks to develop new oil resources, while America is worried about turning back the oceans, and saving polar bears from drowning.

 

Perhaps Obama will consider a new State Department cabinet position-- the Secretary of Hope. This person would be in constant contact, and travel abroad to brownie-up the various OPEC heads of state, and tell the oil producers very nicely that... "We sure hope you don't lower your oil production!". This person would also be informing the Chinese that we hope they DO change their plans to horizontally drill offshore with their partner Cuba, and hope they DON'T suck our domestic reserves dry from underneath the Florida continental shelf just 60 miles offshore of OUR borders.

 

But goshdarn; it's just so much easier to hope, because reality seems so bleak. OPEC is out for OPEC. And the Chinese are out for China. They care not about America. They only seek what's best for their countries, and undoubtedly howl about the folly of the United States for restricting its own oil production for none other than blatantly insipid political reasons, like putting the prosperity of people subservient to the welfare of animals.

 

And because of the blunders beginning with Clinton, our OPEC "alliance" will continue to keep us over a barrel for the next decade or so, given the politics of the day, as the Obama Administration teams up with an expanded liberal majority in Congress. And this same majority will no doubt begin an all new, even more disastrous environmental assault on "Big Oil" in the next four years, and continue to enrich OPEC to the unnecessary detriment of our nation.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Place your bets: alternative energy vs. oil addiction...can anyone win?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:12:59 PM

Uh-oh, it’s back to the future time. Here we go again! President-elect Barack Obama has selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu, as his energy secretary (er...energy czar). Chu is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources.

 

And make careful note of that phrase..."developing new energy sources". (More on this later). 

 

The President-elect vowed to, "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy." The selection of Chu, a Chinese American who shared a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997, received widespread praise on Capitol Hill.

 

Obama was peacock-proud about the selection: "His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago. "We must control our own destiny; America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. And this is not a challenge for government alone; it's a challenge for all of us".

 

Umm hmm... once again, Obama used that ominous phrase..."develop new forms of energy".

 

And just what new forms of energy is he talking about? While Obama huffs and puffs about wind and solar, there's just one little teensey-weency fact that the science-challenged president elect hasn't mentioned: what about all the nearly 300 million vehicles currently residing in our nation’s driveways and garages, that are powered by internal combustion engines? Will we just trade 'em all in for the new-fangled hybrids of the future?

 

Last August, during his Denver convention speech, Obama was quoted: "As president, I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy; wind power and solar power and the next generation of bio-fuels..."

 

Thus, this brings up another vehicular conundrum--just drive by any large construction site today and witness the actual nuts and bolts of a growing economy. There will be nonstop activity: heavy trucks coming and going; cranes moving busily hoisting materials up and down; yellow front-loaders and Caterpillar bulldozers moving all about . And every worker in step, doing his own individual job as efficiently as possible.

 

So this begs the question, how could our country function without the heavy diesel vehicles that are vitally instrumental to a growing economy? Are they supposed to run on old french fry oil, which is basically how you derive biodiesel?

 

But Obama and his leftist, enviro-marxist democrats despise oil, and all its refined forms of energy, and want to tax all fossil fuels out of existence. They will permit no new drilling, and no new refineries. And what might occur if Obama has his way, and levies heavy consumer taxes on gasoline and diesel, to FORCE us into the green energy era? America must be aware of Obama's creeping socialism-- do we really want the government regulating us for everything, including what we shall drive?

 

Sales of elecric cars are plummeting in Europe. Why? Basically it’s the same reason that Americans are to find out the hard way when Obama interferes with the domestic auto market: Even in green-obsessed Europe, people still like powerful, sexy cars. 

 

Belgium is trying to force mandatory caps on European manufacturers of gasoline and diesel-powered cars, but is running into fierce opposition led by France and Germany. And not only are the ugly electric cars no fun and lack power, the bedeviling problem of their 40 mile range won't be solved until the battery can be replaced with some new breakthrough, which might not come in this century. 

 

How practical is it to talk about developing the new energy sources of the future? Ask the Chinese, who recently showed off a modern line of electric-powered buses that ran in an eight block area of Beijing to ferry passengers for the Olympics.

 

But hidden nearby in an off-limits area, there were 2 full time robots, operating to change all the dead batteries from buses that were drastically limited in their operating range.  Each high-tech swap took about eight minutes. But this could be the last charging station in China: the Chinese are now faced with the environmental problem of hundreds of non-recyclable dead battery clusters from the 'modern' buses, which now no longer operate in Beijing any more.

.

High costs, coupled with a lack of clear policy support from the central government, could limit China's one-time use of battery powered buses, trucks and cars to the Olympic weeks. Meanwhile, the country is struggling to plot a future course for an alternative vehicle industry.

 

So far, China's car buyers have shown little interest in alternative vehicles. Only 414 shoppers last year bought the only hybrid car available on the Chinese market. Feng Fei, deputy director in China for the Industrial Economy Department at the State's Development Research Center, revealed that China's alternative auto industry is in disarray. He blames a lack of clear plans for development.

 

Basically, whether you examine Europe or Asia, its the same chicken vs.egg conundrum:  does it pay to create a market that's virtually non existent for alternative energy vehicles? Or do you wait for the demand, and then take on the engineering costs to develop them? And China has 6 times more engineers than the U.S.; yet they, like the Europeans, remain 'oil-addicted.'

 

Thus, given the econo-scientific reality of all these false hopes, picture the enviro-Obamian economy after 4 years: People shunning the green cars of the future...gas lines winding around the block...men pushing cars toward gas pumps...drivers anxiously leaning out their windows looking ahead...white bags covering the nozzles...violent arguements about "next in  line"... worried driver facial expressions-- civil disorder as people suffer across America-- all waiting for the magical appearance of the "alternative energy sources of the future".

 

And magical is no exaggeration! The Democrats are the know-nothing party when it comes to the hard scientific hurdles that delay the onset of alternative energy. Mass produced electric and hydrogen cars are decades away. They remain prohibitively expensive. The battery and fuel-cell reliability problems have yet to be solved; and only hybrid vehicles with gasoline assist are practical now, yet remain expensive and unpopular. 

 

We cannot replace oil and coal, with solar or wind anytime soon. Just ask any engineer; (preferably, a republican) if you want to get the real story: We are at least fifty years from seeing alternative energy being mass produced; and right now alternatives account for just 1.5% of America's total energy BTU's produced. But coal is at 60%.

 

Obama is either dreaming or misleading. If we all understood physics a little better, we'd know you cannot take money away from drilling, and then use it to INVENT a new alternative type of energy. Once again, ask any engineer in America, or Europe, or in China.

 

Was coal invented? Oil? Nuclear? Electricity? How about the great invention of the wind?

The last great energy "breakthrough" was 160 years ago, when Drake struck oil in Pennsylvania. Ask Isaac Newton..."energy cannot be created or destroyed"...it's Newton's first law of physics. And Obama probably thinks physics is an old remedy sold at the drugstore for people who can't properly 'go'.

 

Obama might not be cognizant of it, but his "damn the fossil fuels-save the environment" energy policy will destroy economic growth, jeopardize our military security, and ruin our economy. Bulldozers and all heavy vehicles run on diesel. There will never be an all-electric freight train, or fuel cell airliner this century; nor any wind powered tanks or solar-driven fighter jets.

 

So will Obama's "jolly green-environment" spike gas prices to $6 a gallon in the next four years? The only people who would benefit would be the bicycle shops --the rest would suffer. This no-growth policy will prolong the recession, give OPEC more leverage, and put us on the road toward becoming the world's most advanced third world country. 

 

And to where will all this government environmental extremism take us? Since when did we lose faith in our free markets? They've worked for 235 years to make America great. And now, Obama and his liberal do-gooders, have decided to throw it all aside, and claim more government development of alternative energy is the answer to a problem that doesn't even exist.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Obama's emergency put the economy on life support?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, December 15, 2008 7:34:46 PM

And now...a moment of silence to pray for the savior. Our hallowed President-elect, Barack Obama, is facing a rapidly growing list of monumental challenges as he prepares to take the reins of a nation in turmoil. Obama sounds dire, particularly when he recently spoke about the economy: "We're in an emergency", he stated rather succinctly.

But the media is solidly behind Obama's emergency strategy. The Associated Press recently issued a release that sounded as if 1933 was Nirvana compared to the present:(quote) "With woes foreign and domestic on more fronts than even Franklin D. Roosevelt encountered when he took office in the midst of the Great Depression, Obama will be sworn in as the country's 44th president in January" (unquote). Whoa now-- this AP report does sound dire indeed!

 

But an emergency? Oh sure--such an emergency! Mr Obama may have to call out the National Guard to control the all the bargain-crazed holiday shoppers, who are out in droves at the nation's malls and big box stores. And the highways and roads are hardly deserted. In fact, the price of gas has dropped faster than the Dow-Jones, and trucks and SUV's have made a Lazarus-like resurrection from the dead. If the banks were to loosen up on their credit boycott, pent-up new vehicle sales would be further proof that the Obama "declaration of an emergency" is bereft of credibility.

And the precipitous decline in the world price for crude oil also throws a gorilla-sized monkey wrench into Barack's strategy for "creating five million new green energy jobs". Wind and solar may be the renewable energy sources of the future, but the market demand for such projects is practically zilcho, now that oil is cheap again, and the prices of all other energy (such as coal and natural gas) have fallen along in "sympathy".

 

Even the weather is not co-operating. The coldest November-December in North America since 1976 seems to have put the damper on Obama's pet projects--turning back the oceans, and saving the planet from 'climate change'. Even the glaciers within the Arctic Circle are in defiance of the savior; they are now in the process of reforming as the earth returns to another cooling cycle.

 

Oh woe is the almighty Barack! It seems the only real emergency is that our president-elect's sacred credibility is looking iffy when you consider that nobody is forming soup lines, and rising layoffs may be more the case of Obamanomic fear-mongering, than the actual economic reality at hand. This begs the question: is Barack trying to talk our economy into a depression? And that begs the second question-- why would he do that?

 

Back in late 1932, president-elect Franklin Roosevelt watched the economy slide further and further into the abyss, but did nothing. Times indeed were at an emergency then. There were 12 million out of work, 25% unemployment, and 23,000 Americans had committed suicide, because they had gone from rich to poor literally overnight, and could not reconcile this with themselves. People WERE actually in danger of starving. There was no welfare or safety net back then.

 

So after Roosevelt finally took the reins, the nation was literally panting for a savior, and FDR was given political carte blanche to do whatever he deemed necessary, in the period history has dubbed, "The First 100 Days"

 

And Barack wants to be the next FDR: sit back while the economy tanks...make the situation seem worse than it is....build up the hopes of the anxious people...then emerge dramatically next Jan. 21 as the great savior, just like FDR after his transition period.

 

Obama's  false emergency declaration will allow him to ram through Congress much of his disastrous leftist attack on our free market capitalism, and even upon the Constitution itself. Look for the savior to please his political special interests, as he destroys much of our heavy industry by taxing the energy producers, and forcing the green cars of the future upon us, when neither is necessary. And the more Obama can play boogie-man, the more willing Americans will be amenable to granting him powers far beyond that of any previous mortal who served in the Whitehouse

 

 

Of course the Machiavellian Obama knows all this; so what will he be doing before the big inauguration? He'll be laying the groundwork for getting everything out the door the very day he gets in, with is his mega- trillion stimulus package. And  this "emergency" also includes climate change, government health care, and all the other socialistic goodies he's been planning as a truly "transformational" president.

Another vital facet of Obama's emergency is speed--getting everything out the door quickly. By avoiding anything that requires planning, and throwing huge sums of stimulus money at things that already obvious, Obama will truly seem FDR-like by proposing a plethora of ideas that seem sound, but are decidedly old-school, make-work government programs. How transformational is it to refurbish roads and bridges, and repairing schools and federal buildings?

Come next January, the spending binge will blast off, because an eager-beaver Congress will turn Obama's first 100 days into the first 100 hours. Things will get rushed through that would otherwise, hit Congressional roadblocks in more politically sanguine times. Opposing Obama will be like opposing Santa-- it will be so politically incorrect that any dissenting republicans will run for cover-- lest they be swamped by a wave of public disapproval from all sides.

And because Obama will be spending so much upfront, will there be anything left for the transformational projects America truly needs, such as innovative rail systems (i.e. high speed) and social programs that address our true problems: those concerning public school discipline, abortion and teen pregnancy, and the thousands of drug-addicted, alcohol-addled people who shamelessly beg in the nation's downtowns.

To Obama's credit, a stimulus package may psychologically benefit in the short term. And bailouts may provide stopgap relief for the troubled auto and airline industries. But unless the savior can put aside his politics of emergency, little will be done to relieve the most intractable, long-term problems that truly require transformational solutions.

 

During his first term, Obama may discover that his band-aid approach won't work where major surgery is required. And Dr. Barack may also realize too late that his self-declared economic emergency was all along, a misrepresentation -- and there will be no wave of "change" that involves "spreading the wealth" around-- only a new cover on the old-fashioned socialistic policies of the past; which is Obama's version of the old 1930's New Deal.

 

And if the savior isn't careful, his declaration of emergency could backfire into a self-fulfilling prophesy, and result in a truly unnecessary second depression if he doesn't soon change his doom 'n gloom tune.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

One Nation, Under God?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, December 12, 2008 4:50:38 PM
 

ATTENTION ALL KOMMISARS: For the good of the State, Central Planning has just issued its first 2 year program: Spending a trillion dollars for aid to the jobless, direct assistance to the cities and workers; job-creating construction of roads, schools and other public works, and investing in technologies creating 5 million green energy jobs of the future.

 

Prime minister Obama has decreed that the deficits matter not...."We will be going deeper into debt for at least two years by spending hundreds of billions of dollars or more to stimulate the economy." (end of pronouncement) 

 

Today, if we go back in history, just about every truly catastrophic economic event that has occurred in the last century -- from the depression to the savings and loan crisis to the current housing crisis -- all have at their root in government intervention in the private market.

 

But despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama wants to get soviet and put the federal government in charge of the economy. Obama's critics lampoon him as a socialist, a liberal, a communist, a leftist, etc. But no matter what label one would hang on the Chosen One, it all goes back to this one basic tenet- the federal government is inevitably slower, dumber, and less competent than private industry. And Obama knows the more he can expand it, and the more bureaucracies he creates to run it all, it's just that many more bureaucrats and dependents who will be there in four years to vote for his second term.

 

Yes America, call it whatever you want, but this whole big mega-billion, multi-trilllion quadrillion-zillion stimulus spending spree, is little more than your basic democratic formula for vote-buying. After all, if you boil away all the fat and pork, America will be left with little more than some repaved roads, retro-fitted bridges, and better insulated schools and federal buildings, all courtesy of prime minister Barack Obama, whose name will be everywhere inscripted on all these public edifices. The only thing missing will be his portraits hanging everywhere, like they have in Romania and North Korea.

 

And what of all the workers? (i.e. the proletariat).  What's to become of them after all the roads have been resurfaced, the bridges reconstructed, and the school buildings refurbished? These are unskilled, make-work jobs, and will have little value in the private sector. So by the process of deductive logic, we must conclude that yes, they'll be transformed into government drones, and drawing extension after extension of long-term government unemployment compensation.

 

Basically, Chairman Barack can't miss. He'll spend whatever mega-billions on creating all the new government bureaucracies to run all the different stimuli programs, then he'll add more new federal departments, and new czars to run all of them. And then there are the workers...theyll be so many new government workers, it'll be like the draft of '42, only you'll be trained under the flag of Obammunism, and will join a virtually army of newly-minted government dependents, who'll all be there to vote for the second term of prime minister (and paymaster) Obama.

 

And while all this stimulus-deficit-spending is occurring, what about the flip side...the private sector, and the frightening numbers of a ballooning national debt? Obama's disregard for deficits is almost child-like; as if money DID grow on trees.

 

In it's most simple analysis, let's say we've been building a debt pyramid over the last decade, and now we'll be adding huge new amounts to the base at the bottom , while all the while, the interest will be coalescing at the top. And given time and the continuation of reckless deficit spending, the debt pyramid may become top heavy and will begin to tip over...but prime minister Obama will be long gone out of office when and if that occurs.

And and even more disturbing, is that a country under the rule of Obammunism, (or any communist country), is the fact that morality will be trivialized, and belief in God may become politically incorrect under the Obama regime. Look for new legislation and legal challenges to get God out of our sociey as much as possible.

Look at how the liberal leftists have already gone out of their way to marginalize Christmas as "just some holiday", which is to be held in the same esteem as kwanzaa, or even the atheist way of expressing it...'being good for goodness sake'. Public nativity scenes are the equivalent of obscenity, and receive court challenges from people who're "offended". If these people are so offended by God, one wonders what will happen to them when they are about to reach their final destination, and discover, to their ultimate dismay, that their atheism had played an eternally malevolent trick upon them.

And worse, under Obammunism, well see a litany of "San Francisco" behavior freely exposed around the rest of the country. There will be gay parades in every major city; and hundreds of same-sex court challenges for everything from gay rights for marriage, down to gay protection from harassment, or offensive, anti-gay language in any public venue. There will be gay wedding specialists, gay escort services, and every other type of "underground" behavior now openly visible in the public discourse.

And aside from all this, we haven’t even considered all the planned parenthood clinics that will expand around the country faster than the dollar stores, and the resulting abortion on demand mentality--all abortions all the time-- will further diminish our country's long-standing tradition as a God-fearing Christian nation, as life itself becomes cheap. Look for euthanasia to become legal, and Dr.Kevorkian office expansions in all the major population centers. All this could become  stark reality during a second 4-year term of obammunism.

Who knows...Obama would probably attempt to even remove the inscription "in God we trust" from our coinage and currency if the political climate so permits. And the pledge of allegiance doesn’t stand a chance...one nation, under God? And a child heard saying..."my right hand up to God" during recess could be grounds for expulsion.

 

Yes, look for the expansion of parallel societies, and political correctness taken to previously unimaginable extremes, during the regime of Barack Obama. And if America wants to see a vision of itself after two terms of President Barack Obama, they only need to look today toward the left coast at San Francisco, and judge for themselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Hold your horses, everyone...they'll be time a-plenty to land one of them green jobs of the future"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:32:30 PM
 

Whoa-Nellie! The Congressional liberals are getting restless indeed. Like stallions jammed into the starting gate, they are literally champing at the bit waiting for the Obama presidency to blast them off to liberal la-la-land. But mysteriously, their fearless leader has told them to "hold your horses."

Critics of President-elect Barack Obama's transition policy have been rebuffed several times after Obama was quoted saying, "There is only one president at a time. That president is George W. Bush, and he will be president until I'm sworn in on Jan. 20."

Democrats are growing impatient with Barack's refusal to inject himself in the major economic crises confronting the country. But the Chosen One continues to send mixed signals. He has stymied Barney Frank by refusing to weigh in on how to handle the auto bailout; but on the other hand, he has given a very detailed outline about his proposed mega- trillion stimulus package.

 

Obama wants to 'put people to work' on government infrastructure projects. He wants to 'modernize' school and federal buildings. He wants to invest in technologies to create 'green jobs of the future'.

After a private meeting in Washington with former Vice President Al Gore, President-elect Obama held a brief, impromptu press conference: He was quoted as saying, "We have the opportunity now to create jobs all across this country, to re-power America, to redesign how we use energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and make us competitive for decades to come, even as we are saving the planet."

TRANSLATION: Were gonna tax all you fossil-fuelers to green oblivion, and all points beyond!

O.K., get ready America for another law...it's Murphy’s prodigal twin brother-- the law of Unintended Consequences. And like Murphy’s law, its a law that cannot be repealed, an unfortunate circumstance for all indeed.

Let take a close look at the thought process behind this law. You start with some liberal do-gooder intention; oh, something noble, like saving the planet; rolling back the oceans; and changing the climate back "to what it was"...you know, something simple. Then you make a big announcement. Then you gather in all the accolades, take a bow, and the law passes with flying colors. And then rather ingloriously, everything LITERALLY crashes around it after it's been in effect for about 3-5 years down the road.

Evidence of this law abounds everywhere. To illustrate, lets rewind back to an example of this exact situation in Michigan last year, and  hear what Governor Jennifer Granholm (a member of Obama's economic advisory team) had to say in her, "Jobs Today, Jobs of Tomorrow" speech to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce:

 

(quote)..."Let me talk for a moment about one sector that has blockbuster potential for Michigan: Alternative energy. Because of the need to reduce global warming and end our dependence on expensive foreign oil, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries will create millions of good paying jobs. I say we will win these jobs for Michigan, and replace the lost manufacturing jobs with a whole new, growing sector..."(unquote).


Uh-oh. Barack Obama is sounding just like Governor Granholm, trumpeting the millions of green jobs of the future. Michigan has only gotten much worse since Granholm delivered her hollow promise. Michigan leads the nation with 9% unemployment, high taxes, and everyone looking to head for greener pastures, but cannot sell their houses to escape the woe. It's exactly what happens to a state's economy when people wait for the green jobs of the future to materialize.

 

But oh boy, it sure sounds promising. And what a great election slogan! Who wouldn’t want one of the green jobs of the future? But of what green jobs are Granholm and Obama referring to? Green is a nice color, favored by all. Everyone knows what green stands for. But can ANYONE actually define a green job of the future? Yup, the silence is deafening! 

What if you walked into your local state unemployment office, sat down with a case worker, and declared..."I'm here to apply for one of the green jobs of the future!". You'd probably be escorted out by the security guard after the case worker got up and moved away from where you were sitting.

Or, what if you submitted your resume to the local power company, trumpeting your qualifications, and then at the bottom, you stated..."my objective is to obtain one of the green jobs of the future". The H.R officer reading it would probably buzz the entire floor and invite them all in for a group laugh. You'd certainly be mocked in the break room. They'd probably even write you back and tell you, "yes...come in for an interview'', so they could meet you in person; and for sure, nobody in the department would miss work the day you were scheduled. 

But why would it be funny to human resource people in the first place? Simple. Everybody knows there is no DEMAND from anywhere in the private sector for providing green jobs of the future! NONE. Why? Because there are no problems in our energy pipelines to begin with.

Consider the average homeowner, who thinks..."what's wrong with the way it is now? I turn on my furnace...set the thermostat, and nice, warm, clean heat comes out of my baseboards in my house. Then I pay my utility bills once a month. I don't see any problem with that."

Consider the average auto owner: "I start my car in the morning. It's reliable in the summer and winter. It gets 20-40 mpg. And once in a while, I change the oil and replace the tires. I don't see any problem with that."

Or consider the average utility company. "We send out our power to our communities. We take delivery of our gas/coal from the energy providers. And according to the costs for commodities , we adjust bills to our customers periodically by applying for rate changes through our state PUCO. We don't have any problems with our current system."

Now here comes Barack on his green high horse, riding in with his environmental posse, trying to solve a problem that does not even exist. So where will that take us in 3-5 years?


Lets now play hypothetical: President Obama is in his second term; and let's pretend he's magically infused our entire society with those green jobs, and all of his environmental directives of the future.

 

First, lets revisit our homeowner who's opening up his mail. "Oh my gawd! Another hike in my electric bill! What's wrong with that *#^!^*!**#!* Obama, with all these environmental taxes he keeps imposing on our utilities? Jeez, thing's were OK before he got in".

 

Now, lets revisit our auto owner, who's also opening up his mail...."Oh my gosh, look at this electric bill!  Ugh! That *!*^#*!#*! electric car I bought because of Obama, is the worst! I have to use up all my electricity charging up that ugly thing for 6 hours, and it only takes me 40 miles. I wish I would have kept my gasoline car, instead of falling for Obama's tax deduction to trade it in on this stupid thing that I'm stuck with for now".

 

And the utility companies? Devastated. Crippling environmental regulations. Crippling taxes and penalties for excess emissions. Stock holders decimated. Dividend checks shrunk down to practically zilcho. Communities suffer because the job losses, higher municipal operating costs, and the onerous regulations now prevent the utility companies from supporting local charities; and citizens of the community are furious with the local leaders who all were urging everyone to vote for Obama.

 

But the environmentalists will get their way in the Obama administration. The Sierra Club will get their day in court, and push the green agenda on a society that wants no part of the supposed threat of global warming...er, climate change . And why was 'global warming' morphed recently into 'climate change'? Because even the staunchest supporters know they need wiggle room-- there are too many unanswered questions.


First, anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows it's impossible to have warmer winters and "global" warming within the Arctic circle at the North Pole, but freezing terrible winters in the temperate zone of the United States, which is not that many degrees of latitude farther south. But according to these environmental marxists, should we just change it to regional global warming? No? But still, they continue to force this climate change-pseudo religion upon us. Slick indeed! After all, it was Lenin who first wrote: "The big lie, when told often enough, becomes the truth". (and were not talking about John Lennon either). It was Vladimir, that communist dude. Remember him?

But lets re-introduce common sense. How big is the earth's atmosphere? (Infinite in size). Now how many actual vehicles burning gas and oil are there in the world? (a finite number). So, what if you drove every SUV in the world up to the north pole and ran them at full speed for the entire winter? How much warmer would the Arctic Circle get as a result? This is laughable. But according to these climate-changers, they actually have millions of people believing that fossil fuel burning can warm the earth.

There cannot be any regional global warming! Yes; there is climate change...spring to summer, and fall to winter. But that's what they'll call it for now. And political correctness will support it.

 

But it all goes back to the liberal idealism of, "government should always be expanding, and always seeking change". Why? Because the liberals are smarter and the masses are inferior. And because, “its the right thing to do”. Yes...liberals always feel they have the moral authority to change the lives of the poor huddled masses for the better; but they always end up making them worse because of the law of Unintended Consequences. And despite all evidence to the contrary...they’ll never learn.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hello America... Are you still there?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:17:04 PM

Question: What's the best job in government, where by following the rules, you are virtually guaranteed a lifetime of service, and then retire on a permanent pension with cost-of-living adjustments, and no co-pay health care to boot!

Answer: It's the con job, stupid!  Just be a con-man,  and be rewarded for life.

Nowadays, voters are in a better position than ever to make informed political decisions. They can access the internet, the blogs, and the portals to get election information. Plus there are now many more cable and national news networks like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, Bloomberg, etc. all of which carry political programming. And we haven’t even mentioned the traditional news sources, such as the three major TV networks, or the great newspapers like the New York times, Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune.
 
Yes, nowadays voters have access to more information than at any previous time, to make informed choices before they enter the voting booth-- yet they keep getting fooled over & over again. But why?

Today, Americans are not only more ignorant about their government than ever before, THEY DO NOT CARE! Ask the average American a simple question like, "what are the 3 branches of the federal government?" And 60% cannot answer correctly! And that's just for starters. Over 25% of Americans foolishly believe that the UN, along with the president, determines our foreign policy! This is beyond stupid...it is downright idiopathic, which is stupidity to the point where it becomes dangerous.
 
How dangerous is it to be stupid when it comes to one's knowledge of their government? Duh... just look at the way the average American votes nowadays. But first, a little historical perspective on voting stupidly.
 
In the election of 1976, it was Jimmie Carter, a dangerously inexperienced, peanut-farming, 1-term Georgia governor, who was running against Gerald Ford, who'd served well as an interim president after Nixon resigned. Ford was a long time Michigan congressman, and was an all-American football player at his Michigan University alma mater. But during the campaign, Ford was depicted as a clumsy, bumbling, oafish Republican, while Carter was portrayed as a sincere and confidant liberal reformer, who championed human rights and "would always tell the truth".
 
Of course Carter won because he was the adopted candidate of the liberal media. But in the final long term analysis, what was the REAL reason Carter defeated Ford? Was it because of Ford's blunder in the 2nd presidential debate, as history would tell us? Or was it because the country was ready for a president who would be the antithesis of the lying Richard Nixon, and would always be straight forward with the American people? NOPE! The real reason Carter won was because he had better hair than the shiny-pated Gerald Ford.
 
The one MAIN credential nowadays in major elections is: you cannot be bald. When's the last time America voted in a presidential candidate who was bald? DUH... give up? It was Dwight Eisenhower, who won less because of his popularity, and more because of Truman's unpopularity and rating of 35%. And despite the disastrous 1-term presidency of Jimmie Carter, would Ronald Reagan have succeeded him if he'd been bald? And to further the point, Reagan (fortunately) for his age had the thick hair of a 30 yr old.
 
Today, American political hairmania is pervasive in almost any electoral contest. Thinking about running for governor? Well friend, if you ain't got good hair, then try the school board.  How about senator? i.e. Look at the average serving senator's age, and then look at all the "older" men who serve there with great hair! Are either of the senators from your home state bald? Probably not. Or they had real good hair back when they were elected.
 
It's probably incalculable all the damage these great-haired conmen of our government have done to this country, in lieu of the competent bald men who might have served instead, would it not be the fact that they were scalp-challenged with little or no hair. Americans detest a bald political pate; and comb-overs are verboten in national politics. Maybe we should resurrect the Whig party, and highly-qualified honest candidates who lack hair, could now get elected wearing some well-fashioned toupe'.

Even the Founding Fathers had it figured out back then; they all wore powdered wigs, and all the best men were able to serve. And fortunately, they showed what honest, well-intentioned people of government can actually accomplish when they are free of artificial restrictions such as hair, or how they look on television.
 
Yup-- that's the bottom line and basic reason for America's obsession with voting stupidly-- it's how you look on television. In the recent election, what might have been the outcome if John McCain had been a member of the 'wig' party? Interesting question indeed. And to play devil's advocate here, could Obama have won his 'mandate' if he had hair like Micheal Jordan (shiny bald), or had gap-teeth like Micheal Strahan? If you don’t have great hair, or are 'challenged' facially, you cannot be serious about running for president. Just ask Rudy Julianni, Fred Thompson, or geeky Dennis Kucinich.
 
Would (could) homely Abe Lincoln have defeated Obama if he had been born 130 years later and was alive today? NO WAY! Lincoln wouldn't have been even able to make it into congress. Honesty and politics are like oil and water together.

Example: in the warped politics of today, a gaffe is when a candidate unintentionally "lets down his guard" and reveals his (her) true position. Yes, it's a fact...besides one's physical appearance, a political candidate cannot reveal the truth, lest it may damage their chances to win.
 
How did America get to this point? It's the con job stupid, and the 'rewards' of being dishonest. Today Americans are so lacking in ethics in their daily lives, that they seem to be "more connected to" the candidate who can promise them..."I'll create thousands of new jobs....I'll fight for working families everywhere"...etc.
 
Yes; they'll fight for working families everywhere. But the laws the con men sponsor are those of the special interests, who transform working families everywhere into unemployed families everyplace. And these con-men congress-people collect a HUGE payoff in the form of campaign contributions, so they'll have a "warchest" for their re-election, so they can perpetuate their misery.
 
It's a fine way to elect a government isn't it? And the con-men usually serve for life using this "fail safe" formula: Promise everything ...deliver nothing...and blame the failed policies of your political opponent as the cause. (quote) "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...the truth is the greatest enemy of the State"... Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister).  “A lie told often enough becomes truth”...Vladimir Lenin. Who he? He founded the communist party during the Russian Revolution in 1917.
 
Can anyone deny that this is exactly the current state of politics in America today? You must be a con man or you cannot win. If you make too many gaffes, and let the truth 'slip out', then that's the kiss of death. During the presidential debates, people look for gaffes, rather than the candidate's true position. Policy matters not. The drama of the "gotcha moment" is what the public lives for in a campaign. And the candidate who provides enough "gotchas" is the inevitable victor; as the media will relive the gotcha moments over and over, and the gotcha candidate's ratings soar higher and higher in the polls.

And where does this all lead to? Well, it's become an American tradition: voting like an idiopathic moron; voting against your own best economic and social interests. Keep perpetuating the misery! Keep returning the conmen back to office! Never mind seeking the truth, it matters little. What's important is going with whatever candidate the media selects, that's how you're virtually guaranteed to elect the least worthy, and most specious person to office.

And what's even more idiopathic is to vote the choice of the comedians. Of course! let the comedy channel choose the "best " candidate. Take the advice of Stephen Colbert, and John Stewart Liebowitz, because they're the ones who're looking out for you. Do your part to make our democracy a joke. Let clowns like Bill Maher, and Lettermen and the the other clowns of comedy to make sure we keep re-electing congressional clowns like Barney Frank, and honest Chris Dodd, the odious Chuck Schumer, and the con man of ways and means, Charlie Rangel, because they always get the last laugh on you once they're done taking away what's left of our fast-disappearing, constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

And take special note of how our Founding Fathers used the word "pursuit" in the Preamble. Why? The longer we continue to re-elect these malevolent, fat-cat incumbents, we'll never catch up to being happy or feeling free from the ever-encroaching tentacles of our rapidly-expanding federal government; and the onerous regulations that destroy the freedom we have left in our lives to keep our money for ourselves, and to speak and act without the fear of political incorrectness, which will soon become another way for these liberals to control our lives, thus making us more miserable than ever.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oh my stars...it's the Czars! Will they be the new fat-cats on Capitol Hill?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 6:53:50 PM

Welcome everyone, to the new Camelot on Capitol Hill-- the czarist dynasty of Barack Obama! After 210 years of presidential succession (via something called the Constitution), we've had an orderly process of power transfer. But now in the new Obamian order of holy rule, we are about to be inundated by czars. Bow down everyone...break out the jeweled crowns and golden goblets, here come the czars...they're b-a-a-a-a-ck!
 
William Simon was the original American czar. At the height of the Arab oil embargo in December 1973, Nixon selected Mr. Simon as head of the Federal Energy Office.

Yup, it was actually a republican's idea that initiated the czarist thing. Energy was a sacrosanct topic back then, because the Arab oil crisis had caused gas lines, and the doubling of gas prices, which caused inflation to rocket upward. OPEC was public enemy #1.
 
As energy czar, Simon instituted a mandatory fuel allocation program, and he was able to stem the rising public hysteria about possible gasoline rationing until the embargo was lifted in spring of '74.

But other than subduing the rationing thing, as far as jaw-boning OPEC to mitigate oil prices, Simon proved to be simple simon, and accomplished little else. So the U.S. czarist dynasty of D.C. died out prematurely due to lack of a successor.
 
But the czarist revival was not long in coming. The next was Wild Bill Bennett, named drug czar by Bush (the first) in 1988. At that  time the war on drugs had hit a crescendo: the word "crack" had become an intimate part of our lexicon. There were "crack" mothers who'd given birth to "crack babies". There was crack cocaine, crack houses, crack dealers, crack law enforcement officers, and even crackdogs, (it was the dawn of the "driveway" pit bull). The whole evening news was one big crack war...one story after another .
 
But like William Simon a decade before, wild Bill Bennet proved to be mild bill, and was ineffective in doing anything about crack; so he was morphed into a talk show host, and faded into the A M airwaves
 
However, the czars were sure to return again someday, because the word had become ingrained into our culture. Everyone likes the sound of 'czar'. It has that subliminal aura of power behind it, like if you put a czar up against a king in a toughman contest, the czar would kick grass, and leave the king prostrate in the ring.
 
And wouldn't the game of chess be more enhanced if a czar could be placed on the back row of the chessboard? (i.e. my czar takes your queen, check!). Maybe now they'll modernize the rules of chess, realizing they forgot something; and maybe supplant the wimpy bishops with the intimidating czars now lurking back there. They might even do it pretty soon because it stands to reason that a bishop vs.a czar would be no contest. Plus the anti-religious liberals in congress would support it.

Or how about football? What if it was the Czars vs. the Raiders! A sell-out, standing room only game, no doubt, would be the result.

But too many czars can spoil the effect. Mr. Obama and the leftist congress seem to be developing fatal cases of czarmania,  and are set to go canaries appointing new czars.

There may be senate filibusters; and they'll probably be burning the midnight oil (er, midnight hydrogen) thinking of new czar-compatible federal agencies, because by now, they're obviously aware that secretary and czar are worlds apart in wielding political clout. After all, wouldn't some big-oil CEO feel more intimated if the "energy czar" was on the phone, rather than some lily-sounding "secretary of energy"? And besides, the word 'secretary' implies the glass ceiling, and that’s being anti-feminist.
 
So bombs away! Let the new czars of the federal government step forward! There will be the bailout czar... the infrastructure czar...the superstructure czar...the car czar, and the job creation czar.  Barack says (on his website)..."got a new program or idea for a federal agency in mind? Well then-- have we got a czar for you!"

Barack campaigned on the promise that he would build the economy from the bottom up. So should we look for him to name the Community Organization czar? The Homeless czar... the Salvation Army czar, and czar for ethical treatment of animals? (i.e. the animal czar).

But one thing they keep forgetting about--the word "czar" is chauvinist. Female czars, by virtue of the name, are an oxymoron. But back in Russia they were addressed as "czarina". But this raises another concern; it takes all the power out of the word 'czar'--and thus defeats the original purpose-- because czarina sounds just as lily as "secretary".  A coal company executive would probably chuckle if his assistant buzzed him with, "the environmental czarina is on line #3."
 
But even more disturbing is the consideration that with all these czars and czarinas on Capitol Hill, what if they decided to form a union, so they could define their power base...then what? What if one czar proved to be czar-challenged, and needed to be fired? But then, if all the other czars threatened to strike, could  the country then be faced with a constitutional crisis? Would Barack be forced to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to force all the czars-czarinas back to work?
 
Back in the early 80's Reagan canned all the striking air-traffic controllers, and let 'em know who's boss. But would Obama have the presidential moxie to fire all the striking czars, and force replacement czars across the picket lines? Everyone will just have to be all pins and needles, waiting and hoping that such a crisis never comes to pass. But in the meantime, look for a new czar appearing in your neighborhood soon.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hey, wait everybody! Aren't we supposed to have only one president at a time?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, December 08, 2008 8:25:50 PM

Students of history, take notice. We're all about about to make a sudden sharp left, and we're not talking about someone's back-seat driving instructions, either.

Hints of this upcoming "transition" (i.e. our "centrist" president-elect turns leftist) were evident in Obama's recent post-election "60 Minutes" interview on CBS, with Steve Kroft. One could literally see Obama's face brighten up like a sunrise during this exchange:

Kroft: Have you been reading anything about the Depression?
Obama: There’s a new book out about FDR’s first 100 days; and what you see in FDR is what I hope my team can "emulate"...

From this little snippet, it's overtly evident that Obama has studied Franklin Roosevelt assiduously. Obama could undoubtedly author a term paper titled, "Our 32nd President: How FDR saved America from prosperity for ten years, expanded the federal government and presidential power to unprecedented new levels; and became a cult hero and was re-elected 3 times, after creating millions of new government dependents."

This is basically the role Obama (the blank slate) was looking for all along ever since November 5. So he's now...ta-da, "the self adopted Son of FDR."

Presently, the democrats want Obama sworn in immediately. They're calling for him to "take charge"..."be more proactive". Translation: "Roll out the pork barrel now--our constituents are murmuring-- we cant wait any more!"

Since Obama has promised a massive rebuild of the nation's infrastructure, after January 21 it'll be governors galore coming out of the woodwork with..."Hey Mr. President, have I got a bridge for you!

Democratic freshmen Congressmen are lining up madly like at the entrance of Walmart on black Friday. They already smell the green to buy the votes they'll need for re-election in 24 short months , and are salivating in a virtual feeding frenzy. This pork-picnic anticipation has been building ever since that 60 Minutes interview, after Obama dropped this neutron fiscal bomb:

Kroft: Where is all the money going to come from to do all of these things...?
OBAMA: We have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again...and that we SHOULDN'T WORRY about the deficit next year or even the year after.

Attention everybody...now hear this! The Almighty Barack hath spoken; deficits do not matter now, so start the printing presses...break out the monopoly money, and give out the community chest cards to everyone 'cause Santa Barack is coming to town!

In the interim before his inauguration, Obama will spoon feed enough centrist rhetoric to keep his critics at bay, while he knows the economy is sliding downhill faster than the May 1940 fall of France. So under the guise of..."there's only 1 president at a time", O-bam-0 will act presidential, but non-committal. Then, just like FDR "taught him", he'll continue to let the crisis build, let the nation hope and worry, and then... poof! He'll magically appear as their savior on January 21. It's a pretty good game plan, and FDR hit a grand slam with it as far as being able to acquire power that was unprecedented in history up until that time in 1933.

Obama will act just "presidential enough" keep the nation in awe of his "coolness under crisis", and at the same time, he can continue to blame the falling economy on "the failed policies of the Bush administration". It's the old football strategy, running the same play as long as it keeps working.

And speaking of work, Obama recently has come out with a "2 year plan" (careful Barack, we're getting rather soviet here). Obama has directed his economic team to come up with a two year plan for job creation..."The key for us is making sure that we jumpstart the economy in a way that does not just deal with the short term, does not just create jobs immediately, but also puts us on a glide path for long term sustainable economic growth...a plan that not only creates jobs, but also puts the public agenda ahead of the agenda of the private interests."

But ironically, the private interests are those who would seize the opportunity to create ACTUAL work, which are the real job problems Obama claims he can solve, but will not.

Now lets get hypothetical: let's say Obama were to split the money 50-50 public vs private, and declare; "may the best sector win". The entrepreneurs and so called special interests would emerge. They would invest the government grants and put capitalism to the task of creating real wealth. America is a nation unrivaled for innovation, and new ideas would flood into the market, and people would be put to work fabricating new goods (electronics, communication devices, etc) which creates newly-needed support services, that beget more hiring, and then generates the wealth-multiplier effect that all viable markets create.

Markets create wealth because people are needed to carry out the demands of the users who seek those very same services and goods. But Obama knows nothing about free markets or real jobs, because he's never run anything, not even a paper route. And since Obama has never experienced real work, he thinks the government does everything best; just as did his patron saint of government failure, Franklin Roosevelt.

Back in 1933, FDR saw his opening to forge opportunity from crisis, and succeeded on a historic scale. We had the FERA, CWA, WPA,, the CCC. and the RFD, and every other thing he could dream up back then. Sure he created a lot of jobs, but not any real work! So the depression was prolonged because FDR for all his glory, couldn't create any wealth, which can only be done in the private sector. And previous history bears this out

The Egyptian pharaohs were probably the original socialists and originators of government programs to "create" jobs; and look at all the gigantic public works projects they produced; the pyramids, the Sphinx, and all the grand monuments of Egyptian innovation and engineering and construction. But since these were the original government make-work programs, other than the weather worn structures, when the Pharaohs died out, so did the economy, and the culture and the country fell into disrepair. And not much is different there today.

But what if the Pharaohs had used the private sector? If King Khufu had cut a deal with maybe some Assyrian contractors, they could have come in and HIRED the engineers and foreman, and laborers, stone cutters, block layers, and surveyors, and the waterboys. They would have been paid WAGES; and once the job was done, the contractors would have maybe moved on to Athens to construct the Parthenon, while all the workers would have been left with lots of money to spend.

Now this wealthier new Egyptian middle class could afford to buy things. They would have undoubtedly demanded some good provisions, and nice housing, and some cool garb, so than all new industries would have sprung up to provide them. There would have been an agriculture industry. There would have been a new apparel industry, there would have been new housing industries; all creating the need to HIRE more people, doing real work. Now the great new cities of Egypt would have sprung up. The population would have multiplied, and created a permanent supply/demand PRIVATE economy that may have flourished and possible elevated CAIRO as the Rome of its day, because all great nations were built and sustained by WEALTH!

All governments if they see fit, can create jobs but not wealth. If they could, poverty would be virtually non existent in the world.

A federal agency could hire people to dig holes, and hire a second group to fill them up. But then after the "project" was completed, (or the grant ran out), both groups would be dependent on unemployment compensation. This may be getting a little too flippant, but it illustrates the point-- government programs employ, but they do not HIRE. And these programs are paid by grants...they are not wages. But hiring and wages imply permanence, while employing and grants imply obsolescence...the government jobs never last because the demand for them was not there in the first place; it was created, not needed.

Once again, the missing part of the economic equation in government programs is THE demand side. If only the taxpayers money could have been better put to use, it would be different. The idea for any government is to create a political climate for the creation of wealth.

Example: if the government instead would provide low interest loans and tax breaks to small business (the real job engine of the United States), look at the huge difference. New small businesses from creative entrepreneurs now spring up everywhere; unemployment drops sharply; newly enriched workers begin buying new homes, TV's, cars, phones, computers, creating a new wave of demand for more workers who are paid more wages, and they now expand the unfettered free market ever further, and so on.

But Obama despise free markets, they diffuse power away from the government and back in the hands of the private sector; which is what Obama will be fighting against. The more power he can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; basically doing exactly what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms, by creating a culture of government dependency. But wouldn't people be much better of with a real semi-permanent job rather than a monthly government hand out from the savior?

But it all goes back to expanded government dependency (socialism). And socialism doesn't generate wealth, but instead creates dependency, anxiety, misery, and class envy.

Obama may be our most promising, most inspirational president-elect ever, but the jury is out as to how America will fare under the soviet model of central planning, two year and three year programs, with czars appointed to run major industries, health care, energy and all the other czars that will be deemed necessary to "fix this crisis".

Obama's grand utopian vision will not create any private jobs. It will not create any permanent wealth. But it WILL dangerously inflate the dollar, and WILL saddle us with a 10 -to-20 year "plan" of huge ballooning budget deficits, burdened by the unsustainable interest on an out-of-control national debt, and portending nothing good for the long term; only the possibility of insolvency, bankruptcy, future misery, and a 3rd world economy, just like they have in Egypt now.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hold you nose America...the smell of green will be foul indeed!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, December 05, 2008 8:02:12 PM
 

Hoo-Ray! Rejoice! Tidings of great news from Washington D.C.! Congress will be entering the automobile business, and coming to the rescue of the greedy, incompetent Big 3 auto companies. Millions of jobs saved! Lookout Honda and Toyota, because automobile oracles like Nancy Pelosi,  Charles Schumer, and Henry Waxman are gonna really show us all how it's supposed to be done.

 

The infallible Pelosi hath decreed that: "auto manufacturers should produce the green cars of the future"...but there was just one small catch-- empress Pelosi also demanded that..."the auto industry must show a plan for viability on how they go into the future. Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money".  Hey-hey, catchy indeed Nance..."show them the money". Wasn't that nice of her! In effect, Pelosi has appointed herself and her chosen radical-left blackmailers as acting CEO's of the auto companies.

 

Yes, it's that same old liberal leftist strategy..."a crisis is a terrible thing to waste". These radicals see their chance, and they won't pass up the opportunity to grab the auto industry by the throat, saying..."ha! We gotcha now...either you make electric cars the way we say, or you will make none at all!" This is basically what the auto companies will be cornered into doing.

 

Americans are now being set up for the worst of the worst. In 3-4-5 years we'll see law after law passed by these arrogant liberals that will engulf our lifestyles with these horrendously ugly, plastic, alien-looking green cars of the future...ecch. But they make it sound exciting! The green cars of the future! Boy, we should all be clawing and panting away for the green cars of the future. Hi-ho! What stirring adventure awaits us all!

 

Actually what awaits us all, from the green cars of the future, is a nightmare of epic proportions. Remember: whenever the government sticks its tentacles into private enterprise, lookout below!

 

Example: consider this typical driving situation in one of the 'green cars of the future'. It's wintertime. You unplug your new GM Volt (after a 6-hr recharge you get approx. 40 miles), drive 17 miles to work, and on the way home a sudden, blinding, blowing snowstorm hits, and you get stuck. You're spinning and thinking...hmm, I'm draining my batteries; oh jeez! Am I gonna have enough juice left to make it home? And worse, you then realize...oh no-o-o! That means my heater will ALSO go out... arrgh! Frost-bite city! Frozen feet amputation is a reality if you get stuck in snow on a rural road driving a Pelosi-mandated green car of the future. 

 

Of course the liberal media is keeping this all under wraps.They're eager accomplices in this plot against our beloved gasoline engines.

 

There is a litany of things to be encountered driving one of the green cars of the future. Let's talk about esthetics. The first thing that strikes one is the thought...yech! Why are all these electric cars so UGLY! Ugh. Can't they MAKE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS BETTER! But the reason they look so ugly is structural: you need a huge compartment to hold the giant array of batteries clustered together that's required to propel a car forward; and this function of size sets up a whole new world of problems.

 

First, your car battery is boiling HOT within the confines of that rectangular black mass of electrolytes under your hood. The need to expand battery packs for more power thus produces enough heat to risk vehicle fires ( a bedeviling, currently unsolvable engineering problem). And we're not being informed that drivers of the dreaded green cars of the future will now be subject to painful, possibly fatal burn injuries! There will be a bonanza for trail lawyers down the road for all the lawsuits from people injured in electric car fires. 

 

And don’t forget kiddies, all-electric means "the little engine that COULD NOT". Current electric car technology is still lagging woefully behind the great public expectation that we can EASILY swap gasoline power for batteries. Electric engines lack torque (pulling power). Therefore, no golf bags or cargo in your trunk while climbing a hill with passengers. And the technological hurdle remains; you can't range much beyond 40 miles.

 

How about taking all the family Saturday-shopping for a load of groceries? No way mom...da cutie-pie little green cars don't allow any room for all dat! You'll either have to get a baby sitter, or buy your food online. You poor kiddies who are being brainwashed in school about a clean-green environment, are about to find out the hard way when you're old enough to drive one of the green cars of the future.

 

Here’s another interesting problem; if we move full-speed to green cars, how do you replace all the 300 million, incredibly reliable internal combustion engines that now sit in our nation's garages and driveways? Once the auto industry is forced to go green, radical leftist laws from Waxman and Pelosi will come pell-mell. We'll see restrictions on emissions from lawnmowers, snowblowers, leaf blowers, ATV's, chain saws, and even marine engines. 

 

Yup, now the sharks smell blood in the water. Get ready for law after law, regulaltion upon restriction . Federal mandates on emissions on everything! You must now do this...you can't do that ...all for what: the environment? No-o! Because of the environmental lobbyists and the Sierra Club, who are at this moment, lined up at the doors of these congressional leftists, who stand to profit enormously once their green machine steamrolls Congress into passing all these mandates.

 

And the press will cover up this new liberal sham saying... "the environment and climate are at risk if we don't fix all this". And for the next 4-8 years, the radicals will have the votes in Congress to do this. The result? The misinformed average American voters will keep allowing themselves to be  brainwashed by this pied piper plunge into a "cleaner environment".

 

But here's the rest of the story that these Congressional fools haven't considered. It's called science. It's about Newtonian physics..."energy cannot be created or destoyed". Therefore, switching gasoline for electric power would be a zero sum game. The gasoline pollution eliminated would be offset by the coal burned at the power plants. But according to the radicals, is all this power just magically going to come out of the plug in the garage? No? From where then? The wind? The sun? The moon?

Despite all this uncertainty, the environmental marxists are going to make coal plants, which generate 60% of our electricity, virtually non-existent with disastrous emission regulations; and they'll stop any new nuclear plants from even getting off the drawing boards.

 

So where does all the juice come from when we plug in our electric cars of the future? Electricity demand will grow almost exponentially because of the huge amounts of power needed to recharge all the huge battery packs for all these thousands of new electric vehicles they'll mandate.

 

And were also not being informed of the huge (disastrous) increase that we'll see in our monthly electric bills. And it will indeed be huge! Just try to even figure how much power will be required plugging a power starved electric vehicle into your garage's outlet. GM's Volt will undoubtedly drain megavolts from your meter, and you'll be paying mega bucks to recharge it everyday for 6-8 hours to go just forty miles.

 

Ironically this impractical limit will necessitate a second gasoline vehicle for, "when I have to go more than 40 miles in one day."

 

And the environmental fun is just beginning. So what happens to all these electric cars of the future when their batteries go dead? How green will that be? Imagine, all the huge numbers of worn out battery packs, now useless...then what? Congress is against nuclear because of the waste storage problem. So where then do we scrap all the wasted millions of batteries? They can't be recycled like a conventionally powered car, that is easily converted to scrap.

 

This is a story that's getting uglier by the minute. Why doesn’t the media talk about any of this? They should be denouncing the fact that this won't do anything to save the environment! It will only create more problems. It'll mean more coal burned, and more highly toxic chemicals accumulating from the millions of useless battery packs, a sure-to-come environmental nightmare. And scientists know it, and the environmentalists know it! 

 

Wise up America! The real goal is to create not green power, but political power. The government stands to take over the auto industry, the utility industry, and to dictate to all the other heavy industries that have anything to do with using energy-- which is all of them!

 

Once again; whenever the government sticks it's nose into anything, America's quality of life deteriorates ever further. And all the while, these congressional radicals laugh all the way to the bank, with their pockets stuffed with the plethora of new green industry lobbyist perks.

 

And while our lives will change for the worse driving these little green nightmares, the congressional aristocracy will continue  to buzz around the world in their private CO 2 emitting jets, and be chauffeured about sitting in the back seats of huge gasoline-powered limos. And the media will continue the brainwashing: "It's the patriotic thing to do!"..."we're all in  this together"...and… "for the sake of the environment".

 

And besides all the upheaval in our lifestyles, how much of our green is it going to cost each and everyone of us in the long run?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Here we go again..."is it the economy?...no, it's the election, stupid!"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:49:59 PM
(QUOTE) "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."...Thomas Jefferson. Lets talk about that quote, and re-visit the good ol days of Jefferson, and compare them to now.
.
Our nation's Founders established a republic set up by a constitution, that had been purposefully drawn up so there would be no possible concentration of power. Their intent was to avoid the tyranny of another king, and keep the authority of the government diluted. And they succeeded marvelously !

But how? Because they themselves had experienced the horrors of a war from a tyrannical British ruler, and sought not to ever allow that to ever occur in America again. Even to this very day, when you consider what the founders accomplished, and look up their writings and famous quotes, the thought can't help but permeate..."How in the world could these guys ALL have been so smart back in those days?

Good question ; but easy answer. Its not that the Founders were so smart, its just that nowadays, everything about our government is so incredibly STUPID.  We vote stupidly, and usually elect the candidates who wreak economic havoc upon us, and usually return them to office for life, in most cases.

Another reason the founders seemed so astoundingly smart, was simple: they were ETHICAL people who set up a government that would give everyone a voice in their own political fate. This was founded on the democratic principle of "one man-one vote".

And an ethical government, run by ethical people, fundamentally makes the most sense. This is the main reason why the Constitutional rule of the majority has survived to this very day. But how much longer can it continue with this recent plague of stupidity and congressional tyranny that's swept over our country in the last 10-15 years?
 
The  average voter of these days can't even define ethics correctly. "Uh...um, ethics? uh...letsee, ah. Ain't it something about right about something...or uh, you think you're always right?"

And because many people now have no correct concept of ethics, and do not practice them in their daily lives, usually the most unethical candidate is the one they feel "most connected to". This plague of 'unethical-ness' is the reason we get the government we deserve.

So why are many Americans having trouble staying ahead, and stuck working multiple low wage jobs, thinking...."why-oh-why is my life such a grind?
 
But is there any mystery? It's simply because of the way they vote. People seem to gravitate to those candidates who go on to tyrannize them and unleash their privileges upon them. This is why America today is an aberration of history-- the only nation in the world with obese poor people, who have more than enough to eat because of all the vote-buying entitlements showered upon them, to "keep them  pacified".

And this all goes back to voting stupid. So why do Americans continue to vote this way? They pay rudimentary attention to election news, and in the 2-3 week hype before election time, they usually decide on whatever candidate the media has chosen to put in the most favorable light.

99% of Americans could probably tell you all about Miley Cyrus, but less than 5-10% know  Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house, who has taken more money out of the pockets of the average American in the last 2 years than anyone else in Washington, with her narrowed legislative agenda that only favors special interests.

This is why talk show hosts are so controversial: they actually DO know all about Nancy-nazi-Pelosi, and they criticize and rightly expose this "fairy godmother of the radical left" for good reason--she is un ethical, and Machiavellian in the way she does her job. But less than 10% of voters listen to talk radio because these hosts are often despised. The main stream media attempts to portray them as vile, divisive, and promulgating an irresponsible information stream that is unfairly conservative. And this also is why most talk show people avoid running for office; they want no part of the unethical Washington DC political elitists, who care little about  the people they represent.
 
Ironically, the few ethical people who do serve in Congress are always "punished" when they reach Washington. They get no committees, and are locked out of the spoils. It’s like being blackballed by your fraternity. So they have nothing to tout around re-election time, so few of them last beyond the first term. And its the media that sees to that.

In colonial days, the founders set up the house of Representatives to do just that--represent their local districts; so they were granted ample time to buggy back and forth to Washington from their home district.  This is why congress today seems to have such a lot of "time-off".

But today, instead of visiting the home front, congress people travel around the world, charge it under "official business," and basically laugh all the way to the bank with their esoteric (hidden)lobbyist lavishments; then merrily return to Washington, conjure up an earmark, and throw home a bone.
 
The Congress people who do stay in touch with home ONLY do so to raise re-election money. They are keenly focused on each  24 month re-election cycle, and thay all have advanced degrees in the political science of scamming the public for everything they can get away with.

Remember when you were in school, and you were taught about writing your congressman ? This goes back to the Founders adopting Ben Franklin's idea of free postage for congress, so they could stay in contact with their home district. This was the origin of the "franking privilege" of free mail. So have you written you congressman lately? NO? Well here's why.

Nowadays, its easier to get in touch with Santa  than your local congressman . Got a problem in your district? Well, just write...er, just call—er, what? E-mail? Toll free number? Is there a pattern here? Of course there is! Do you think a congressperson wants to hear from the average citizen? Oh sure they do! There is no handy address to be found; unless you want to  'research'; and probably whatever you did, you'd  be lucky to receive some form letter in reply that says, "go to my website."

That's right you dum-dum, smelly, average citizen--if you have a concern, just let the website know about it, and that'll surely shake the rafters on capitol hill.

But if the public really wanted to shake the rafters, they would be smart to do a little number crunching. The results would be astonishing. There is virtually no accountability for individual congress people now , unless of course it's politically expedient for one party to do so.

So where do we begin? Lets start with the Congressional "Ways and Means Committee". It's probably the most coveted position in the House. And why is it so desirable? You can really call the money shots from this perch; which means lobbyists galore knocking at the door!
 
Members of the House Ways and Means, (and Senate Finance Committees), are directly responsible for our insanely complex tax laws, but members needn't bother with their own returns. The IRS maintains two "customer service" centers to exclusively assist lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees in filling out their tax forms, at a big cost to taxpayers.

So since members don't do their own tax forms, 90-plus percent of the code complexity is a result of the influences from special interests, who get the breaks, while the rest of us suffer for 3 months of the year worrying about April 15. And ironically, tax preparing has become so complex, its now a growth employment opportunity.

Jackson Hewitt trains and employ thousands of people to prepare tax returns in their storefront offices. H&R Block hires 80,000 tax professionals to work from January until the end of April; many put in 12-14 hour days, and work another job during the "off-season"

Think about that... tax preparation has now evolved into having its own season! This is all courtesy of our beloved congressional ways and means committee, and the fat cats who usually sit on it for life!

Besides not having to bother with their taxes, here are some of the other great hardships involved in serving in Congress (and please try to hold back the tears). Say you're a newly-elected congressperson: you'll get paid a six figure income, and receive 'government-paid everything' perks, right down to free shoe shines and haircuts. You'll travel worldwide, eat at your choice of several private restaurants, and have 24 hr access to your  own limousines, and privately chartered flights.  You'll pay few private expenses other than a residence back home. Yes, pity the poor soul who's called to serve these days!

But hey now –that’s just for starters.  New House members are entitled to a  personnel allowance, from which they may hire up to 18 full-time staff members. They receive official office expenses for travel and supplies. Senate office costs range from $2 million to $4 million PER Senator's office. The best estimate is that a paltry $300-500 million is the annual federal money  spent just for congressional staff and office expenses.

Are you worried about inflation? Well, stop all the frettin’ about it, because if you serve in Washington these days, your pay increases are now automatically linked to that of thousands of other high-ranking personnel in the federal government, including cabinet agency heads, and federal judges. This obviously was done awhile ago to avoid the dreaded public venting in the media about..."Congress AGAIN voted themselves pay raises."

Now all Congress need do for a secret pay hike is agree to increase the salaries of those afore-mentioned judges and bureaucrats, and abbra-cadabra, problem solved!

Congress gets free outpatient care at Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospitals. House members receive free meals and vacations from lobbyists and others. It's a rough life indeed in today's congress. But how much more can they take?

Congressmen often travel to the great golf courses of the world, paid for by private sponsors, who often have direct interests in legislation on Capitol Hill. These trips are tagged as "official business". Members of Congress get to take along spouses and girlfriends-- it's all part of the cover.

House republican Minority Leader, John Boehner of Ohio, (another overworked-to-the-bone legislator) is an avid golfer, AND world-class traveler! He took 42 trips between 2000 and 2005, often with his wife Debbie. And pity...this poor, overstressed guy had to fly 45 times on corporate jets, including 15 times on R.J. Reynolds Tobacco's private plane.

NOTE: To add insult to injury, all House Members keep their frequent-flier miles that the taxpayers paid for.

Ask yourself-- when was the last time you got a letter in the mail asking for your feedback to your district congressman?The ONLY time you'll hear from any of 'em is when they have their hand out for money. Yet they sit  in Washingington sponsoring bill after bill under the cover of, "taking action for their district", and...”fighting for their constituents”. But most fight only for lobbying perks.

Well boys 'n girls, let's hope you all paid attention, because its now time for our pop quiz on congressional ethics:

Multiple choice: A congressman who never consults with his home constituents but writes legislation on behalf of a lobbyist-contributor is:                                         a) unethical
                                             b) unprincipled
                                             c) undecided
                                             d) re-elected


Essay Question: why would a candidate for a single congressional seat, spend millions on an election campaign, if the job pays in the low six figures?



Abraham Lincoln once said, "Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking."

But in congress, staying elected often involves trading ones integrity for privilege and lifelong security, because if you dare to not play by the established rule-- "Thou Shalt Shut the Hell Up and Listen"-- you will get nowhere when the juicy awards of committee seats are passed out...and you'll be a one hit congressional wonder, thinking, "maybe I should have wised up and played along with the crowd".

As long as most people are engrossed with keeping their lives afloat due to the tough economy, and burdened by the regulations from these odious aristocrats in Congress, it's certain that nothing can change anytime soon.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Is it the economy? No...it's the environment, stupid!"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:46:46 PM

All hiel on Capitol Hill! Yesterday, prime minister Nancy-nazi-Pelosi, read aloud her solemn decree of obedience to the auto industry executives in front of the media..."Thou shalt build the green cars of the future or ye shalt not receive thy remittance from capitol hill!"... And the auto executives knew THIS was coming. But they we're in the process of driving to D.C. from Detroit in hybrid cars, which made the situation all the more polyester in meaning.

But the big question hanging in the balance was not "would they get the bailout"? No; the real concern..." would all three hybrid cars manage to make the ten hour trip without breaking down somewhere?

But most Americans took little note of the event. Oh yes, they're aware that the auto industry is in trouble; Chrysler's on the ropes; Ford is still breathing...and GM is on life support, and needs an immediate $4 billion in walking around money by years end, or it's bye-bye assembly lines, and hello ch. 13, ch 7, ch 11, and any other chapters the bankruptcy lawyers care to toss in.

But dear Americans out there, this news concerns YOU a lot more than Pelosi, the "'Big 3", or the financial bailout. Once again, just like with the recent elections, Americans are content to assimilate little bits 'n pieces here 'n there about news stories that will affect their lifestyles, money, and satisfaction with life in general; but they'll absorb every last bit of news about  their favorite team or soap opera like they were going for a doctorate degree.

Pay attention now...LISTEN UP! What Nancy Pelosi said (or read) yesterday is going to begin to affect you PERSONALLY in the next 2-3-4-5 years, and you will notice it immediately, and will probably HATE IT! What the Nazi was saying, in effect, was that Congress (ahem, ahem) is demanding the auto makers go GREEN.

Ai-yee! Is it starting to sink in? We are all soon going to be driving in, riding around in , or getting hit (maimed/killed) by the green cars of the future! HOW, you axe? Just read on.

Don't we all remember the FIRST time Detroit added something onto our new cars (mandated by Congress-or Ralph Nader) that absolutely drove one into a  passionate fit of anger? Oh man...where do we start?

First it was seat belts in the mid 60's cars. Nobody wore 'em ...they were a little more than some loosely-fastened lap restraint, something like they'd put on you at a kiddie ride; and even when you were a kid you thought to yourself..."is this little strappy-crappy thing supposed to keep me from getting hurt? Ha! why'd they even bother? If the ride DID tip over, this thing wouldn’t do nothin!"

Actually the appearance of the wider, little strappy things in our cars was a federal mandate REQUIRING that all auto manufactures back then had to install restraints to save lives. Great. And so, did that set the trend? Well have to ask Ralph Nader; maybe when he was a little kid he got his idea from some kiddie ride that he obvoiusly didnt think much of. In any event, the world has never been the same.

Back in the 60's, once the seat belt mandate became law for all 3 manufacturers, there was no looking back.

Next it was those incredibly stupid front-passenger head restraints. Aaargh...the first time you spotted one, or sat in a car with one cowering menancingly behind you, you couldn't help thinking..."WHAT in the world is this stupid thing supposed to do ? Prevent whiplash? HOW? No way this thing's gonna do anything if some drunk rear-ends you...hmmmm.

And worse, from the back, all cars now looked as if they were occupied by two giant-headed, alien-shaped passengers. So now, if some hapless car was stalled at a red light ahead, you would feel incredibly stupid after honking and swearing at the car in front you, but then when you finally got around the stalled car, you thought ..oh-uh-duh...nobody home in that car! But because of the stupid, alien head restraints, how would you know?

Next it was the loss of the ultra-cool (literally) side vent windows. Everybody remembers 'em...everybody misses them. You could open them up slantways (diagonally) and have instant air; nice breezy air,cooling and refreshing, and it was neat! The faster the car went, the bigger the blast! Then, in 1969, who's ever idea it was, they disappeared from all the new cars that year...gone. Yes the cool breeze was gone...the fresh air circulation in the car was gone.

Smokers were now a grave nuisance; and were commanded to "CRACK YOUR WINDOW OPEN, DAMMIT!" Tsk tsk . This is one idea they should bring back. But sales of air conditioned cars in the north would drop dramatically.

And then...ta-da! The 70's marked the dawn of buzzer-flasher-warning light civilization. Now the annoying was taken to a much higher level! Open the drivers door...buzzz, "you left the key in, stupid," said the buzzer to the driver...didn't buckle you seat belt? Buzzzzzz! or e--e-e-e-e-e! And what was worse, the buzzer would be persistent, it would not silence itself until you obeyed! And if the car had a low battery, it would ring even more annoyingly, like it needed a transplant operation or something.

But this time drivers fought back. You could go to your old reliable mechanic at your old reliable gas station (yes--they actually fixed your car there back then) and get him to REMOVE the wire to the goddarn buzzer. But then auto manufactures wised up quickly. Too many lives were being lost because seat belt buzzer disablements were jacking up insurance premiums; so the electrical engineers wired them into the horn-harness assembly. So now, instead of the customary, "first thing to do with your new car," was no longer an option...you couldn't foil the seat belt and ignition buzzers anymore; and drivers in America have never been the same.

Next it was unleaded gas. Then the catalytic converter. Sure--they made the air a lot cleaner, but V-8 cars were no longer fun to drive. The unleaded gas had all the punch of charcoal starter in your tank, and the customary fun of peelin' out of Mickey-D's or Arby's, or laying a strip in front of your high school, faded off into the environmental sunset.

It's no wonder the young drivers are ALWAYS at home playing videogames; today's cars are now sterile, and for travel only.

Back then, cars were it. They were gorgeous; even the cheaper economy models resembled mini versions of their big brothers. They had shiny chrome, high compression engines; unbelievably muscular-sounding dual exhausts. You could impress anyone by jamming on the gas, and produce that ear splitting, masculine sound of peeling tires on the pavement. If you pulled up to someone at a stop light, the resulting excitement of a heart-pounding drag-race would be something remembered for the rest of your life.

The old cars had room; you could go to the drive in. They had cache. Everyone knew you back then by what car you drove. You didn’t even need to go anywhere in particular, because just driving around in them and riding in them was fun!

And not only did the cars have sex appeal; they had SENSE appeal. They looked awesome. They sounded awesome, felt powerful, and were exciting to drive. The old crummy AM radios even sounded great because the music back then was awesome. They even smelled awesome. Everybody always liked getting in new cars at the showrooms back then, because they had that SMELL. And whatever that was, they should use it now for perfume or cologne, or air freshener; 'cause a smell like that is something you never forget.

Well now; it's back to reality, Today's cars are no fun. They're not even cars now; they're s.u.v. truck disguises. Sure they're safer than a Soviet tank if you crash, but that's where it ends. So if your never in a violent car crash, then?..oh well... it's the THOUGHT of the safety that's worth it . Yes safety--saving lives...preventing deaths …it’s all about doing good; doing what's right...saving something for the sake of safety. Yes safety.

So stop a second; think...just how dangerous were those, unsafe, super-fun cars of the old days back then? Do we know of any one who might have survived after driving all through that UNSAFE era, when there were no seat belts, no buzzers, no red lights blinking...no head restraints etc. Sure the cars of today are safe, but nobody really likes 'em. And that's WHY the American economy has been going down the tubes ever so slowly, but surely.

Now think about this: is there is any other culture tied into the auto like America? Gasoline runs in our veins.  We're like no other country. Your car is practically your life. It involves nearly everything! Besides walking a little (in good weather), you can do nothing or go nowhere without driving.
 
Everything --our economy, our jobs, our family's and friend's jobs-- is in some way or in some fashion tied into either driving, or the automobile. People work at the "drive thru", people work at restaurants, theaters, bars, retail stores, and banks...everywhere you can imagine. And when people can't drive there; these places suffer.
 
How about the people working in manufacturing? If its metallic or plastic-related, its probably in some way auto-related.

Whenever an auto job was lost in the USA, it resulted in an unlimited negative economic multiplier effect. This meant less work for autoparts makers; less work for metal producers; less work for  local economies everywhere because that laid off auto worker can no longer eat out, deposit a weekly paycheck into the bank, buy a new shirt or shoes, or even see a movie at a local theater, or contribute as much to the church. He has to stay home now, watch TV, and collect "compensation".

This is realty! And this is what Congress has been doing to our entire country for the last 40 years... making our lives more annoying, more miserable, less fun, less exciting, and much-much worse off financially! BUT HEY..HO .. were so  much safer now! Cars are safer...driving into crashes is safer.

Yes America—we’ve traded our semi-affluent middle class lifestyles for a rust belt economy, all because it's now so much safer to get into an auto crash! How **!**!*# stupid! It's stupidity on steroids. This is on par with the stupidity of leaving all of our offshore and Alaskan oil in the ground, and instead buying it from OPEC. And it's also apparently safer to do that, according to Nazi Pelosi, who has decreed, in so many words, that offshore oil is illegal! So why don't we just pass a law that says auto accidents are illegal? It makes about as much sense. Let's all write in to Washington..."no more illegal auto accidents!"

We are literally being made 'safe to death' by these people on Capitol Hill! You can hire 30 million traffic and highway patrolmen, you can install 25 seat and head restraints in every vehicle- whatever--but you cannot eliminate traffic accidents unless you outlaw cars! But these coconut heads in Washington have done a bang-up job of eliminating most of our high paying jobs in one way or another.

QUESTION: what built America's middle class after World War II? It was mainly the auto industry, with the millions of jobs it provided, and the unlimited multiplier effect. Oil companies drilled for oil. Gas stations sold gas. Steel mills made steel, which required miners to mine coal, and iron ore producers to ship ore pellets across all the t Great Lakes to the mills in the east.

Yes, this was the "rust belt" back then. It was the economic envy of the world! A person with no formal education could come out of high school and live a life with a secure income and retirement, all because of the so-called UNSAFE auto industry.

But today, Congress hasn't learned. They won't let the auto companies survive building conventional cars--in the interest of safety again.

But this time, it's the environment, stupid! All that dirty gasoline and oil! Yes... millions of people out there-- coughing, wheezing, choking, gasping for clean air --if we don't start manufacturing plastic, little amoeba-like green cars now! And never mind all the millions of oil workers, coal workers, steelworkers, metal fabricators, gas stations, and the hundreds of thousands of others who'll lose their jobs and be miserable. But hey now...we'll have nice, clean, sparkling, safe air to breathe, and in 20 years, we'll be a third world, economically bankrupt country, with a citizenry riding around on bicycles to get to the store...but they'll be breathing healthy air.

Why would we want to go around this block again? If Congress mandates green autos, Honda and Toyota will certainly beat us with a better product to the market. WHY? Not because they're better than us, but because they have better engineers than us.

Today American kids consider being studious as someone who really knows how to google up an answer. Great.  But can you google a complex answer to a physics question? Or a complex calculus problem? Engineering is about problem-solving.  The curriculum is not for indolent American kids, because they have lost their "study ethic". They shun tough subjects, like math and science..."oh those are for nerds and geeks". They text the answers to test questions to each other. School is not for learning; it's for designer clothes and socializing.

44% of Asian students study engineering in college, vs. 6% of Americans. Admit it... we will never catch up to them in this generation because it's a lost generation as far as academics are concerned.

And if the politics doesn't change, and they keep dumbing down the schools, it'll only get much worse. And in the future the Asians will leave us vulnerable, and perilously dependent on them for almost everything. And we're getting closer to that everyday. Yet Americans returned 87% of their congressional incumbents in the November election. Our national ship of State has become a ship of fools.

It's time to get real about our lives in America. And we will never improve our lifestyles until we improve our economy. And this means manufacturing jobs-- we must make our own goods, earn this money for our selves, and keep it in this country for reinvestment.

And buying a foreign car is only part of the problem. It's the attitude (stupid) that must change. We have to change our attitude to politics. If Americans insist on neglecting what's going on in Capitol Hill on a day-to-day basis, then the aristo-crats in Washington will only laugh all the harder as they continue to legislate more misery upon us, and line their pockets with lobbyist lavishments and campaign contributions.

So now-- what is so vitally important about green cars? Why the urgency? Safety? The Sacred Environment? No, it's because of the environmental lobby, and all the companies who'll benefit from the sea change to these little, hideous (and dangerously quiet) cars of the future! They're about as loud as a wheelchair! You cannot hear them coming! They can't go past 40 miles without a 6-hour recharge. Instead of running out of gas, we'll be worrying, and measuring, and calculating-- "uh gee.. will this thing get me home? Instead of watching the gas guage occasionally, we will now be watching a "power resevoir" guage CONTINUOUSLY.
 
And even hybrid cars (let alone all electric ones) are notoriously unreliable! They have so many moving, whirring, spinning, complex parts and assemblies that they often need service; they're a nightmare to fix, and their cost is prohibitive.
 
And electric cars have no torque: if your batteries are low, you WILL slow down going up a steep hill. But will Nancy Pelosi ever have to drive one? No way. She'll be too busy traveling around in her government issued, VIP, co2-emitting  private jet, that holds her entire entourage of family and friends. And she charges it all to us, the taxpayers!

And is Nazi Pelosi suffering about this? How much does she stand to benefit from campaign contributions from the environmental lobby?

And how about House democrat Henry Waxman, who recently won an important chairmanship from Michigan's John Dingell, a loyal, trustworthy backer of the auto industry. Waxman, 69, won a bruising intra-party battle with Dingell, a staunch supporter of conventional vehicles. These two have long been bitter rivals over clean air policy, and the pace at which to limit greenhouse gasses. And the chairmanship of The Energy and Commerce panel is one of the most important and influential House positions to hold.

But we've saved the best for last! Waxman is from clean-air, economically-bankrupt California, and half of his district encompasses Hollywood! Do you think he might be just a little on the liberal side in his outlook? Representative Henry Waxman believes every American has a right to know basic information about environmental hazards. Yes it's Henry Waxman to the wescue. He's got the green light now; he'll be able to save tens of millions of Americans from the  perilous, deadly, kryptonite-like emissions of carbon dioxide...a proven environmental non-hazard!

Henry Waxman has about a seventh grade level of science comprehension. And by today's standard--let's make that 2nd grade. Waxman is of the belief that C02, carbon dioxide (which is one carbon atom in a co-valent bond with 2 oxygen atoms) is a poisonous gas. Of course ALL plant life would die if Waxman had his way, because plants "inhale" co2, and 'exhale' 02 (oxygen) in the life-sustaining process of photosynthesis. But Waxman knows he must save lives, or else lose the environmental lobby and all the campaign contributions and lobbying perks that go with it.

However, this is only the beginning. Waxman wants conventional cars to get 50 miles to the gallon, something nearly impossible in the laws of Newtonian physics (Energy=Mass x Force). So unless we're talking about an all-aluminum /titanium basic car body, with the equivalent of a lawnmower engine, to push the mass forward with sufficient inertia to reach conventional speeds, basically it would have to structurally resemble a Fred Flintstone yabba-dabba type car to achieve such unrealistically high mileage. This would stymie any auto engineer with a conundrum of how to combine sturdiness, practicality, rigidity, and high mileage.
 
Even the Asians would laugh Waxman out of their country if he tried to promote something as far-fetched like that over there.

But Waxman won't be deterred...he knows his limits (they are virtually NIL) and he's controlling the very fate (with Pelosi) of Americans for generations to come! This man single handedly has the power to author the most damaging (but environmentally sound) auto legislation in the history of the industry! Yes; ain't it grand! Henry Waxman to our wescue again with his wonderful enviwonmental wegulations. Oh happy days Lord --we are saved!

Now once he's done burdening the entire America auto industry with ever more complex regulations, then what? You guessed it... what's left of the rustbelt will now go rotten; and what's left of the auto industry will go to the South, where some of those discharged workers will be hired by Honda and Toyota, to handle the huge influx of new business they reap as a result of the Waxman-Pelosi axis of evil environmentalism...all in the name of saving lives, and losing ouir jobs and the rest of the economy that goes with it!

Until Americans can achieve engineering par with the Asians, they'll run circles around us because they can innovate faster/better than Americans. But the Big 3 can compete in conventional autos because it's less about innovation, and more about improvement and refinements.

But Americans will continue to ignore all this, shrug their shoulders, and go about their "merry" ways, worrying about the economy, but ignoring everything that's happening on Capitol Hill, because it doesn't directly affect them. "Nosiree! Not me! That doesn't affect MY job".

So sleep soundly tonight America, since nothing other than sports or TV, directly affects you. Be confident that Nancy Pelosi will come to the rescue of the auto industry with a bailout, and it'll be Henry Waxman wescuing all the rest of us from our poison air, so we can all hope to survive longer and breathe freely someday again! In the meantime well just all have to somehow live through it.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…1213141516171819202122Next »