Archive for the ‘2012 Campaign’ Category

Via HotAir, from Forbes:

If you think the Obama administration’s Enterprise Prevention Agenda has been wildly aggressive during the past four years, believe me, we really ain’t seen nothin’ yet. A new report released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Committee enumerates a slew of planned EPA regulations that have been delayed or punted on until after the election that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more.

Titled “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013: Numerous Obama EPA Rules Placed on Hold Until After the Election Spell Doom For Jobs and Economic Growth”, it lists and describes new rules concocted over the past year ranging from additional restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, tougher water guidelines and tightening of the ozone standard. Taken together, they will further drive up pump prices, impose construction bans on local communities, and cripple oil, natural gas and coal production.

As the Washington Post notes, the report puts a spotlight back on the Obama EPA which has earned a “reputation for Abuse”, serving as a stark reminder that “President Obama has presided over a green team administration that works every day to “crucify” oil and gas companies and make sure that “…if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem.”

Remember, Obama has said he’d bankrupt coal, and his interior secretary is a big fan of a boot stamping on human face forever.

Meanwhile, the EPA is “proving” their “science” through debunked cooked books, crooked mad science and human experimentation.  It’s all watermelon environmentalism, though.  They don’t really care about the environment, they care about social/ecological/environmental “justice”, rebalancing the scales against colonialist imperialist pig-dog oppressors of whatever oppressed minority they feel gives them enough justification to destroy the industrialized west and free markets, and ushering in a glorious land of “sustainable” communism.

Thirty years ago, that might’ve been parody, rather than an accurate description.

A few more highlights from the article:

As reported in the New York Times last year, President Obama admitted that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” of  tightening the ozone standard would harm jobs and the economy … but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

Unseen costs.

Under the Obama administration the EPA is but one of fourteen different federal agencies that are working to find ways to regulate hydraulic fracturing in order to limit and eventually stop the practice altogether. Others include the Department of Energy (DOE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and even the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The BLM, under Secretary Salazar’s control, will be finalizing new regulations sometime after the election.

That’s Interior Secretary Ken “Boots” Salazar, noted above.  Also, fracking is only considered bad because of propaganda against it, including anti-fracking propaganda films made by oil-rich Middle Eastern nations.  And of course there’s also the accusations that fracking sets water on fire… which has been shown to be totally unconnected in some cases and hoaxes in a few others.

But then what’s the explanation for the most dramatic part of the movie: tap water so laden with gas that people can set it on fire?

It turns out that has little to do with fracking. In many parts of America, there is enough methane in the ground to leak into people’s well water. The best fire scene in the movie was shot in Colorado, where the filmmaker is in the kitchen of a man who lights his faucet. But Colorado investigators went to that man’s house, checked out his well, and found that fracking had nothing to do with his water catching fire. His well-digger had drilled into a naturally occurring methane pocket.

Then there’s the “greenhouse” gas emissions laws that are there to prevent Manbearpig, which is really about destroying agriculture as well as cities:

Known as the “cow tax”, there would be a cost-per-animal outcome. EPA itself estimates that in its best case scenario, there will be over 37,000 farms and ranches subject to greenhouse gas permits… at an average cost of $23,000 per permit annually… affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the United States.

And of course there are the sulfur particulate matter regulations:

Tier III Gas Regulations:

EPA is preparing to propose a rule-making called Tier III, which reduces the content of sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The cost of this rule could be up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion annually, and it could add up to 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs. These costs would inevitably be passed on to consumers at the pump. Many, including those on the far left, believe that political motives have caused President Obama to delay this rule until after the election.

And how’d they push for that?

There’s plenty more worth reading in the Forbes story.  It’s also worth it to consider how the cumulative effect of those regulations is going to have an effect not just on your personal pocketbook, but how those increased costs are going to influence everyone else in the US, pushing costs ever higher and harming the economy further.

Thomas Sowell penned this column earlier in the week, and it’s well worth reading.

Confidence men know that their victim – “the mark” as he has been called – is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out – but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,” and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”

It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.

Sowell’s column goes on to cover the lies, deceit, and coverup of the Benghazi consulate attack and how it morphed from a “spontaneous protest” which it wasn’t , into a non-issue, which it also isn’t.  The real-time video of the attack, the denials by the administration, the arrest of the “inciting filmmaker” by a SWAT team complete with news media perpwalk, are all “telling the truth slowly”.  Now that we know that Benghazi wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration, something noted early on… as no one goes to demonstrations with coordinated mortar fire.

Yes on Proposition 19!

But Benghazi, which Sowell elaborates on, isn’t the only case of “telling the truth slowly” from the Obama administration.  The other very notable example is Operation Gunwalker/Fast and Furious.

Consider that this week, ATF head Kenneth Melson went out and stated that the lies told to congress by the ATF & DOJ were known months in advance.

The former head of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told congressional investigators he discovered the Obama administration’s original account to Congress about the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal was inaccurate as early as March 2011 and urged the Justice Department to correct the record, an action that did not formally occur until eight months later.

The full testimony from retired Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson has not yet been officially released by Congress. But excerpts were obtained by the Washington Guardian as House and Senate investigators this week issued their second report into the gun-running scandal that has become an embarrassment for the administration and prompted a court fight over executive privilege.

At issue is the Obama administration’s initial account when the Fast and Furious scandal broke in February 2011 that ATF agents never knowingly let semiautomatic weapons fall into the hands of smugglers for the Mexican drug cartels. Senior officials held that position in varying forms for months as the scandal grew, but then reversed course last December in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

The DOJ, Eric Holder, the ATF, and every part of the Obama administration involved lied, lied, and lied again.  They lied for months, then when they were proved completely to be liars, they “reversed course”.  They didn’t acknowledge lies, they “told the truth slowly”.

With complicit media, it’s how the Obama adminstration has managed to keep Fast and Furious, Castaway, and the dozen or more other gunwalking operations silent, as well as hush up Benghazi until after the election.

A final point with Benghazi: as has been often noted, there are very few people in the chain of command who could deny military assets to the consulate.  There’s Petraeus, Clinton, Panetta, and Obama.  Petraeus and Clinton have already said they didn’t deny military assets or aid to the consulate.  So the only remaining people are Panetta and Obama, or someone directly in their office.  The “investigation” is a stall tactic, because the only thing that matters is the election and power.

This is all the longer the investigation has to be, with the people changed, and the question changed to “did you deny military assets?”

Official Portrait of Congressman

Official Portrait of Congressman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Las Vegas TSG Business News:

Democrat Gerry Connolly from Virginia has told constituents that his challenger for his congressional seat, Colonel Chris Perkins, is “unqualified” to hold congressional office. His reason? Connolly believes that Colonel Perkins hasn’t been around enough to “…demonstrate, sweat-equity….”

Wow…

Some of Connolly’s remarks concerning Colonel Perkins “availability”:

“In an October 22nd Washington Post interview, Connolly “dismisses Perkins as unqualified” (my emphasis) for Congress, despite Colonel Perkins’ many leadership assignments that included command of a Special Forces Battalion of over six-hundred men, and numerous combat deployments.”

“While speaking to a local Chamber of Commerce a few weeks earlier, Connolly asked the audience, “Where has my opponent been” (my emphasis) while Connolly served in local government for 16 years.”

“Days later at a neighborhood civic association, Congressman Connolly subsequently pressed his line of attack dismissing Colonel Perkins’ extensive military experience saying, “I expect a [Congressional] candidate to have demonstrated some sweat-equity” (my emphasis) on local issues, ignoring the 24 years Colonel Perkins served as an Army Green Beret.”

So all those years of Colonel Perkins’ service to his country are moot? Just because he was off giving service (federal service at that) to his country? Really? That’s the best you can do to keep your seat? What about your record? Can’t run on that? Sounds like a presidential candidate I know.

Colonel Perkins’ response to this issue?

… I am disappointed that Congressman Connolly believes that military men and women are ‘unqualified to serve in Congress’ of the country they gave their lives to protect and defend…. Connolly’s statements are outrageous and demonstrate an out-of-touch career politician that thinks that only those who climb the ladder of local politics can graduate to higher office…. By Congressman Connolly’s standard, many of our forefathers, including George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, would have been ‘unqualified’ to hold office…. His statements are offensive to every service member, career first responder and their families who have sacrificed so much for the country we love…. Mr. Connolly asked where I was when he was building schools and laying sidewalks locally…. I’ll tell you where I’ve been. I was in Iraq hunting down SCUD missiles that were targeting Israel.  I was chasing down mass-murdering terrorists in Bosnia, Kosovo and Africa.  And, I was at Arlington National Cemetery seventeen times paying last respect to the brave men and women that I had the privilege and honor to serve with…. Our country’s Veterans and career first responders don’t just have sweat equity in their community, they have blood equity in America””

People of the 11th congressional district of Virginia it will be soon time to choose. Where will your vote go? To a career politician who thinks a veteran is unqualified to hold a congressional seat because he hasn’t invested enough “sweat-equity”, or to a retired special forces with “blood-equity” in the United States? Which was the greater “public service” (which the democrats are so fond of) sacrifice sweat or blood?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama Accepts Osama’s Donations

Posted: October 30, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Corruption, Crime

From WND:

WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

It’s a very sharp sting by the WND staff.  Obama’s campaign has been noted for accepting overseas donations and for not bothering to check to see if the money coming in is from legitimate sources.  Every time the campaign is asked, they dodge the question and work around it.  They’re all about taking foreign money and illegal campaign contributions.

To the left, the end always justifies any means.  In fact, it’s considered unethical not to use every means in order to achieve victory.

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals pg 25-26

Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets

Posted: October 24, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics

Sharp.

But why has it taken this long to juxtapose the words that came out of both sides of his mouth?

On Bayonets and Horses

Posted: October 23, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics, US Military
Tags:

One of the highlights of last night’s presidential debate was Obama, who can’t pronounce corpsman, smugly insulting Romney about what the military uses and doesn’t use.  The highlight of the highlight, was of course, horses and bayonets.

We don’t use horses, either, according to Obama.

This is where Obama’s stupid really meshes with other types of stupid.  The saying is that you always fight the last war.  For those unfamiliar with the saying, what it shows is that your military acquires experience based on one war, and then tries to reapply it.  Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t.  Civil War and Napoleonic tactics weren’t up to the task of The Great War, WWI tactics and strategies and tools weren’t up to use in WWII, WWII tactics had to change for Korea, Korean ideas didn’t work in Vietnam, Vietnam didn’t work in Gulf War I, Gulf War I didn’t work in Afghanistan, Afghanistan didn’t work the same in Iraq, and Iraq’s successes don’t translate back to Afghanistan so well.  Generals had years to train on what they just fought, though, with up-and-coming officers and NCOs who set the culture of the military being those who fought the last war, so they apply that expertise and often forget the past.

Obama’s spiel about aircraft carriers was not only insulting to Romney, but it ignores that there are ways to make carriers go away.  A couple ASBMs and suddenly the carrier is a white elephant.  And with Obama’s pledge to slow development of future weapons systems and missile defense, we know we won’t have a defense against ASBMs.  The technology he wants to rely on he also wants to keep undeveloped.  You can’t have it both ways, Mr. President.   And you certainly can’t lecture us on technology you’re halting as the solution.  A large navy is very important to power projection.  Numbers of ships are important.

This dovetails into the recent news story about Congress putting money away for tanks the military says it doesn’t need.

Congress doesn’t want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is “necessary to protect the industrial base.”

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn’t halted production since before World War II.

Congressmen not wanting to kill jobs and “protecting the industrial base” is stimulus and earmark pork nonsense.  They’re speaking Keynesian gibberish and want to keep govt. money flowing into their districts and that’s the best they can come up with.  Maintaining tooling and factories for production certainly isn’t a bad idea, but that has to be balanced with what the country should and should not be spending.

On the other hand, the argument that “the last real tank battle was 20 years ago” is precisely the “last war” mentality.  The “last war” is now Iraq and Afghanistan.  Suddenly, smart men with no wisdom declare we will never again need tanks because we didn’t need them this week.  There’s some semi-famous quote saying how military men are like children and how they’ll drop blankets when it’s warm and rain gear when the sky is clear because they can’t think for tommorow; and there are plenty of proverbs about prudent men vs foolish men.  Exactly opposite the article, we should be keeping up tank production and refurbishment exactly because they’re valuable military tools.  That they provide jobs in some congressman’s district is entirely irrelevant to the inherent military usefulness of a tank.

While it doesn’t float and is ultimately crewed by DATs, it’s a very useful tool.

Obama’s ignorance of the military isn’t just that we still use horses and bayonets, it’s that he doesn’t understand why we use them, nor does he understand that technology (that he’s trying to stop, no less) is not magic.

Update: HotAir has an excellent piece on how horses, bayonets, and most importantly ships still matter.  Ships are power projection, and that piece goes into much greater detail.  It’s worth the read.

From Washington Times:

The super PAC backing President Obama raised $15 million last month, including $300,000 from Samuel Rawlings Walton, an heir to Wal-Mart, a traditional Republican-leaning organization.

Also contributing $1 million to Priorities USA was filmmaker Steven Spielberg, whose colleague Jeffrey Katzenberg is an Obama bundler and gave $1 million himself. Fred Eychaner, who has raised at least half a million dollars from acquaintances for the Obama campaign, gave $2 million personally to the super PAC.

And Washington Examiner via Drudge:

My favorite detail, though, is this Washington Times report by data hound Luke Rosiak: Wal-Mart Chairman Sam Walton has apparently given big to Obama’s SuperPAC.

This is at first surprising for a couple of reasons. First, the Waltons tend to be Republican. Second, the conventional wisdom is that megacorps like Wal-Mart are a Republican thing.

But Sam Walton gave the maximum $30,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, and $40,000 to the OVF this election.

Seems surprising, given that Walmart has been socially a bit conservative for decades.  But then you have to remember what Milton Friedman has said about big business; and what Don Rumsfeld said waaay back during Friedman’s Free To Choose series.  Their point was basically that businesses don’t have an ideology beyond profit for owners & shareholders.  In general, wholly unethical businesses will be punished by the market as people will stop buying their products, so the people running them are rarely monsters, but a business sees nothing wrong with buying favoritism from government.  Government is supposed to set up the rules of the game, and businesses, if given the opportunity, will readily bribe the officials running the game in any legal way in order to increase their own standing.  Plus if one business doesn’t, another will.

Policy-wise, there’s plenty of reason for Sam Walton to like Barack Obama:

  1. Wal-Mart endorsed the employer mandate in ObamaCare, which gives Wal-Mart an advantage by crushing smaller competitors.
  2. Wal-Mart has profited from Dodd-Frank, which fixes the price Wal-Mart has to pay banks for processing debit cards.
  3. Wal-Mart has lobbied for and profits from higher minimum wage.
  4. Wal-Mart is a top beneficiary of eminent domain takings, a government power protected by the types of judges Obama appoints.
  5. Big Business generally benefits from Big Government.

Walmart, ultimately, is looking out for its interests.  Obama’s big government sets up barriers to entry to competitors, and favors big businesses that he favors quite a bit.  Putting folks like GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt in positions of power at the White House, while GE is getting favored contracts in wind power subsidies and other politically favored anti-Manbearpig grants and such ultimately establishes barriers to entry, and improves the standing of certain big businesses by giving them power.

Walmart could also just be covering its bases.  No business wants to throw all-in with a loser and end up punished by the administration.  They saying goes “if you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re on the menu”.

Worth looking at is the “Heavy Hitters” list of political donations at Opensecrets.org.  Note ActBlue is a Democrat organization.  Also very much worth looking at are the numbers from a few years ago, showing who gave to Obama/Dems in 2008.