Obama On A Roll : 4 More Years of Irresponsibility

Hey, how does this work for you - especially now as our country is going into the toilet? Did you vote for this, again?!

Wind Power Is Always A Loser : Taxpayers Always Pay

This is just one more instance where the federal government has failed. This subject has been discussed over and over but the result is always the same, wind energy is a loser costing states and taxpayers billions for little or no realistic return.

By PHIL GRAMM

Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.

Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.

The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.

In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.

But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.

Middle East On Fire - America In Decline : Why?

The irony of all this posturing by the progressive socialists on the Middle East moving to Democracy is just wishful thinking. The progressives believe all they have to do is give lip service to a situation and that's all that is needed to change outcomes. Really?

Has the media asked Mr Obama how his strategy has worked in Lydia, Syria or Egypt? For that matter how is siding with the tyrants in Iran against the uprising of the people brought about any kind of Democracy. By his refusal to support the people in the street demonstrating for freedom in Iran, in which one woman died, he assured the continued power of a mass killers that are now threatening the entire Middle East and the world with nuclear weapons.

Whose fault is it that we are in this situation of half of the world on fire and our own country in decline? That easy, Barack Obama and the progressive socialist left Democrats. Who voted for this nightmare? Who are these people and where do they live?

Middle East Democracy
Walter E. Williams

Here's the first paragraph of my last year's column "Democracy Is Impossible":

"After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and 'experts' in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, 'Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy.' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that 'Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy.'"

It's good to have hope, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little chance for Middle East emergence of what we in the West call democracy.

Almost a year ago, both Egyptians and Westerners welcomed and celebrated the downfall of three decades of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak's tyrannical rule. It was called an "Arab Spring." A year later, Egyptians are once again taking to the streets, this time protesting the tyrannical acts of President Mohamed Morsi, who represents the vision and ideological orientation of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal has always been to impose Shariah law. Egyptian tyranny hasn't been eliminated; its form has changed.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship is now being challenged by a hodgepodge of armed resistance groups nominally united as the Free Syrian Army. Speaking for our nation, last year President Obama said, "The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples' pursuit of a peaceful transition to democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government." Is al-Assad's downfall in any way more likely to produce democracy than Gadhafi's downfall or Mubarak's downfall? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is optimistic in saying the rebel protest shows "the strong desire of the Syrian people ... for a Syria that is democratic, just and inclusive."

Benghazi : Who's Responsible? Obama? Clinton? Both!

Give this some thought - and then try and decide what is going on in our government. Who is in charge and who has to take ultimate responsibility for all things government. Is it Obama and Clinton? Were they in charge on 9/11 or off that day? 

Did the press let Bush off the hook for everything that went wrong? Hey, the press attacked Bush for even the things that went right.

MCCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE: Critical questions still unanswered on Benghazi - Washington Times

With U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s withdrawal from consideration for the position of secretary of state, some have assumed that Congress will now be less insistent on a full accounting of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
This is wrong, for one simple reason: The president of the United States is ultimately responsible for the safety of Americans serving our nation overseas. Regardless of whom the president nominates for national security positions in his administration, the American people deserve to know what happened three months ago in Benghazi - and why.

The release this week of the State Department's Accountability Review Board (ARB) shows widespread failure within Mr. Obama’s administration.
Contrary to Mrs. Rice’s assertion after the attack, the ARB found that security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “grossly inadequate” - the result of “systemic failures” of leadership and management. The report thoroughly discredits the administration’s narrative - pushed for two weeks after the attack - that the murder of four Americans was a result of a “spontaneous” protest to an offensive video.

While the ARB report sheds important light on some of the failings within the State Department, many important questions still remain unanswered, including:
Did the president’s national security staff make him aware of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that occurred in April and June of this year and the assassination attempt on the British ambassador in Benghazi around the same time? If the president was informed, why did he not take the lead, which is the president’s responsibility, to ensure that our consulate and our people were better protected?
What were the president’s and the secretary of state’s activities during the 7-hour time period that our consulate was under attack?

When did Secretary Hillary Clinton become aware of the previous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and the deteriorating security situation in eastern Libya, and what steps did she take to protect State Department officials in Benghazi?
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history, after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests in Libya, and with rising insecurity in countries across the Middle East, why were American military units and assets in the region not ready, alert and positioned to respond in a timely fashion to what should have been a foreseeable emergency? After all, two of the four people we lost in the Benghazi attack were killed seven hours after the fighting began.
Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on Sept. 12 - eyewitnesses who knew there never was a demonstration outside the consulate - not immediately factored in to the judgments of our intelligence community? Does this failure reflect obstacles that still exist to the free sharing of information across executive branch agencies, which was a key concern of the 9/11 Commission?

Why do we still not have clear answers on the internal process that produced inaccurate talking points several days after the attack?
Perhaps most importantly: Why did the administration not do more to support and assist the new Libyan government that took power after the fall of Qaddafi as al-Qaeda, affiliated groups and local militias established sanctuaries in the ungoverned spaces of eastern Libya - a development that directly impacts U.S. national security interests, and which is the real explanation for why four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi?

This last is perhaps the most troubling question of all. The pattern of violent extremist activity in eastern Libya was well documented for months leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, yet the administration did too little to support our Libyan partners. These partners were grateful for America’s help in their fight for liberation. They elected a pro-American government in July, and they sought greater U.S. assistance to treat their war wounded, train their national security forces, secure their borders, build their democratic institutions and expand the rule of law. Libyans do not want al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists and militias running amok in large parts of their country. Sadly, that is the reality they now face. This is the broader failure of the administration’s “light footprint” approach toward Libya.
Until answers are provided to the questions that still remain, we will continue to demand them, and the lessons that should be learned from them, to better protect our citizens in a dangerous world.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/critical-questions-still-unanswered-on-benghazi/#ixzz2G4hqBL7u
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Progressive's Agenda to Disarm Citizens : Step One

I believe to ignore your enemy is to accept defeat as a way of life. An armed population is a direct threat to the progressive socialist that seeks to bring the entire population under the control by disarming them and then by creating economic conditions that forces them into dependency.

 

To believe the progressive socialist wants what's best for all of us is a fatal error in thinking. In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, to believe the progressive socialism will make us prosperous and safe is "a willing suspension of disbelief".

 

Firearms Refresher Course

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson 2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams 3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. 4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. 5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them. 6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. 7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for. 8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety. 9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. 10. Assault is a behavior, not a device. 11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. 12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. 13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others. 14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand? 15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians. 16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. 17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control. IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS. "I love this country, it's the government I'm afraid of."

North Korea Has an EMP Device? Now?

North Korea and Iran will determine our future? It seems this is a possibility but at the same time our own president if helping to ensure we do not survive by deciding we are the problem in the world and must be punished. Interesting stuff to ponder.

 

The question remains, who voted for Mr Obama, given what he has done in the last four years and what he said he wants to do in the next four, and why would any think things will be different?

But the 'low information' voter or the progressive socialist liberal always has the fall back position, 'that dam Bush, it was worse then we thought'.

PRY: North Korea EMP attack could destroy U.S. — Now           
Washington Times
By Peter Vincent Pry

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

North Korea now has an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to the United States , as demonstrated by their successful launch and orbiting of a satellite on Dec. 12. Certain poorly informed pundits among the chattering classes reassure us that North Korea is still years away from being able to miniaturize warheads for missile delivery, and from developing sufficiently accurate missiles to pose a serious nuclear threat to the United States . Philip Yun, director of San Francisco ’s Ploughshares Fund, a nuclear disarmament group, reportedly said, “The real threat from the launch was an overreaction that would lead to more defense spending on unnecessary systems. The sky is not falling. We shouldn’t be panicked.”

In fact, North Korea is a mortal nuclear threat to the United States — right now.
North Korea has already successfully tested and developed nuclear weapons. It has also already miniaturized nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery and has armed missiles with nuclear warheads. In 2011, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that North Korea has weaponized its nuclear devices into warheads for ballistic missiles.
North Korea has labored for years and starved its people so it could develop an intercontinental missile capable of reaching the United States . Why? Because they have a special kind of nuclear weapon that could destroy the United States with a single blow.

In summer 2004, a delegation of Russian generals warned the Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission that secrets had leaked to North Korea for a decisive new nuclear weapon — a Super-EMP warhead.
Any nuclear weapon detonated above an altitude of 30 kilometers will generate an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy electronics and could collapse the electric power grid and other critical infrastructures — communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water — that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans. All could be destroyed by a single nuclear weapon making an EMP attack.

A Super-EMP attack on the United States would cause much more and much deeper damage than a primitive nuclear weapon, and so would increase confidence that the catastrophic consequences will be irreversible. Such an attack would inflict maximum damage and be optimum for realizing a world without America .
Both North Korean nuclear tests look suspiciously like a Super-EMP weapon. A Super-EMP warhead would have a low yield, like the North Korean device, because it is not designed to create a big explosion, but to convert its energy into gamma rays, that generate the EMP effect. Reportedly South Korean military intelligence concluded, independent of the EMP Commission, that Russian scientists are in North Korea helping develop a Super-EMP warhead. In 2012, a military commentator for the People’s Republic of China stated that North Korea has Super-EMP nuclear warheads.
A Super-EMP warhead would not weigh much, and could probably be delivered by North Korea’s ICBM. The missile does not have to be accurate, as the EMP field is so large that detonating anywhere over the United States would have catastrophic consequences. The warhead does not even need a re-entry vehicle, as an EMP attack entails detonating the warhead at high-altitude, above the atmosphere.

So, as of Dec. 12, North Korea’s successful orbit of a satellite demonstrates its ability to make an EMP attack against the United States — right now.
The Congressional EMP Commission estimates that, given the nation’s current unpreparedness, within one year of an EMP attack, two-thirds of the U.S. population — 200 million Americans — would probably perish from starvation, disease and societal collapse.
Thus, North Korea now has an Assured Destruction capability against the United States . The consequences of this development are so extremely grave that U.S. and global security have, in effect, gone over the “strategic cliff” into free-fall. Where we will land, into what kind of future, is as yet unknown.
Nevertheless, some very bad developments are foreseeable. Iran will certainly be inspired by North Korea’s example to persist in the development of its own nuclear weapon and ICBM programs to pose a mortal threat to the United States . Indeed, North Korea and Iran have been collaborating all along.
If North Korea and Iran both acquire the capability to threaten America with EMP genocide, this will destroy the foundations of the existing world order, which has since 1945 halted the cycle of world wars and sustained the global advancement of freedom. North Korea and Iran being armed with Assured Destruction capability changes the whole strategic calculus of risk for the United States in upholding its superpower role, and will erode the confidence of U.S. allies — perhaps to the point where they will need to develop their own nuclear weapons.

 

Most alarming, we are fast moving to a place where, for the first time in history, failed little states like North Korea and Iran, that cannot even feed their own people, will have power in their hands to blackmail or destroy the largest and most successful societies on Earth. North Korea and Iran perceive themselves to be at war with the United States , and are desperate, highly unpredictable characters. When the mob is at the gates of their dictators, will they want to take America with them down into darkness?
Story Continues →

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/north-korea-emp-attack-could-destroy-us-now/#ixzz2FsZfmOhy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Liberal Progressive Democrats Use Race As A Tool

That progressive socialist liberal Democrats are obsessed with race is nothing new, it's just that now the liberal insanity has come out of the shadows into the light with renewed vigor and vitriol. It appears that they are totally unhinged as they spew the hate for black people that they supposed proclaim to support.

The liberal support goes only so far, that is as a voter block, but beyond that blacks are just a tool to win election.

The sad part is this has gone on for decades but black people can't seem to see how this has degraded them. They voted over whelmingly for Obama, 93%, even thought Mr Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to help black people - ever!

Liberal Obsession with Race is Growing Old
Jonah Goldberg

When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?

I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.
It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.

Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."
These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.


Just this week, in an essay for the New York Times, Adolph Reed attacked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley -- the first female Indian American governor in America -- for appointing Rep. Tim Scott to retiring Sen. Jim DeMint's seat. Scott is a black man and a conservative Tea Party favorite.
So obviously, this is a very clever ploy to restore Jim Crow.

"Just as white Southern Democrats once used cynical manipulations -- poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests -- to get around the 15th Amendment," Reed writes, "so modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests."
That's it exactly. Indeed, that's what the Tea Party was always about: undermining black interests.
When Herman Cain -- another inconveniently black man -- was the overwhelming preference among Tea Party activists for the Republican presidential nomination, a historian writing in The New York Times suggested that Cain could be seen as proof the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan lives on.

You know you've been pounding a square peg into a round hole for too long when you find yourself insinuating that a black man from Georgia represents the KKK tradition in contemporary politics.
More recently, liberal writers apparently convinced themselves that Republican opposition to Susan Rice becoming the next secretary of state was payback for the Emancipation or something.  http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/12/21/liberal-obsession-with-race-is-growing-old-n1471873/page/full/

Krauthammer On Obama : Self Righteous & Narcissistic

I can't add much to this from Krauthammer on how it seems the president is becoming more and more unhinged after what he thinks was a landslide in his reelection.

If this disability continues to get worse so even those sitting in the front pew in the church of Obamaism can see and understand that their man has gone over the cliff with the country, Mr Obama will have to find a new strategy to win over the hearts and minds of the 'low information voter' as Time Magazine has characterized his winning strategy.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the president invoking the massacre of children to essential say the Republicans need to accept his terms of surrender in the negotiations is not just a non sequitur, I think it's sacrilege. And it's of a piece with the whole tone of his news conference and this is the way he conducts them generally, which is he is excessively self-righteous. He talks about the other side of being unprincipled, not interested in the national interest, slaves of ideology which he says makes no sense. And as you mention, invested in opposing him to the point they are willing to let the country suffer.

So it's a combination of self-righteousness and narcissism. It's just a very unpleasant tone and there is no reason he can't either avoid that or give some credit to the other side for sincerity in just seeing a different way to approach the crisis the country has. I think that would be respectful but it's a lot to ask of Obama and he never delivers on that.

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Progressive Obama Sells General Motors Stock : Taxpayers Lose Again

We knew this from the very beginning when Obama said the General Motors union would get the lions share of the stock and the bond holders got virtually nothing. Now the Obama administration has been reelected so he has decided to give the finger to the citizens who will have to take the loss of the sale of stock.

This is just one thing that makes the citizen wonder why they voted for four more years of a progressive socialist liberal Democrat. Who are the people that voted for him and why?

How Much Did We Lose On Auto Bailout?
You may recall that during the presidential election, the Treasury Department refused requests by General Motors to unload the government's stake in the giant automaker.
Taxpayers had sunk $50 billion into a union bailout in 2009 and were now proud owners of 26.5 percent of the struggling company. Reportedly, GM had growing concerns that the stigma of "Government Motors" was hurting sales in the United States. At the time, any transaction would have come at a steep loss to taxpayers and undermined the president's questionable campaign assertions that the auto union rescue had been a huge success.

Well, now that the election is over and the Treasury Department is freed of political considerations, it plans to sell its 500 million shares of stock over the next 12 to 15 months and ease its way out of the company. GM will buy around 200 million shares at $27.50 per share by the end of the year. GM's buy brings taxpayers back to around $5.5 billion of the $27 billion the company still owes. The special inspector general for TARP estimated in October that the Treasury would need to sell the remaining 500 million shares at $53.98 per share just to break even on its investment.
Once GM buys its 200 million shares, the taxpayer stake in the company will drop to 19 percent, but the price to break even on the remaining 300 million shares will be around $70 per -- or, in other words, probably never. As of this writing, GM shares are trading at around $27 per share. That, in the Obama era, is considered a successful transaction between the state and private industry. So successful that you'll also remember that during the campaign, Obama maintained that "what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America."
Taxpayer funds and unions for everyone.
Even if taxpayers recouped all of their money from the bailout, there are a slew of economic arguments against rescuing failing industries. But the more immediate problem is that we will never get our money back, anyway.
GM's labor costs, estimated at $56 an hour, still are higher than any of its competitors. Since the Obama administration cajoled the normal bankruptcy hearings and eradicated the pensions of nonunion workers to ensure union success, employees, like the ones at Delphi, the auto parts manufacturer and one-time GM subsidiary, took it on the chin while $26 billion of taxpayer funds were used to keep United Auto Workers in a secure position.
The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it's all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.
"This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue, it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM's progress and our future," claimed GM Chairman and Chief Executive Dan Akerson in a press release. But really, the bailout exemplifies much of what's wrong with government. The cronyism. Wasted taxpayer money. The government's propensity to interfere with the marketplace and prop up losing propositions.
With news of the government getting out of the car business, we'll probably see a spike in the stock price. Maybe once Obama has completely dropped our "investment" it'll take off. But a success for taxpayers? Hardly.

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Education in Chaos : Who Will Pay - Who Will Teach?

Education in the next four years will be a hot topic for the progressive socialists as this is the future of their movement. It's clear that most universities, and other institutions of higher learning, have already been co-opted into the liberal congregation, and many public schools systems now are dominated by progressive teachers unions bent on establishing a solid front to totally control who will teach the kids and what is taught.

Believe if parents don't become involved in how the public schools are run, the result will be a completely new breed of people that will take control of the seats of power for which we all will suffer. The evidence of this is taking place now in Washington.

What's Ahead for Education After Election of 2012
Source: Michael Q. McShane et al., "What's Ahead for Education after the 2012 Election," American Enterprise Institute, December 4, 2012.

December 18, 2012
Although education policy has seen much change and activity in the last four years, newly elected and veteran leaders will encounter three key trends following the 2012 election: the federal government's lack of K-12 funding now that the stimulus dollars of the last few years have dried up; a split in the Republican Party concerning education reform and statewide education reform initiatives; and the undaunted political power of teachers unions, which won several victories at the state level, say researchers with the American Enterprise Institute.

While the Obama administration's first term has focused on competitive grants and waivers, its second term will shift toward managing implementation and pushback while coping with staff shake-ups within the Department of Education.

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Congress will have to compete with other priorities, like the fiscal cliff, federal deficit and health care reform. State-level leaders will have to continue to navigate the ongoing influence of teachers unions and popular reform issues like charter schools. All of these changes add up to an uncertain outlook for education reform over the next four years.
Key points made by the authors:

• Following the 2012 election, the authors see three major trends in education reform: reduced federal funding for K-12, a growing divide over education reform within the GOP, and the staying power of teachers unions.
• The attention of the new Congress will likely be monopolized by economic issues and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, leaving it little time for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization or other significant education reforms.
• Issues surrounding ESEA waivers and higher education will likely be focal points at the federal level, with charter schooling, union and teacher evaluation issues dominating at the state level.