| September 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Congratulations - per the LA Times, you are now helping to finance a new car company, Fisker Automotive Inc.:
Plug-in hybrid maker Fisker Automotive gets $529 million from Obama administration
The loan will go toward development and production of its Karma plug-in hybrid sedan and development of Project Nina, its next-generation plug-in.In its latest bid to help finance the car of tomorrow, the Obama administration said it would lend more than $500 million to Irvine-based Fisker Automotive Inc. to develop a pair of plug-in hybrids.
This isn't GM or Chrysler, where the government could argue that it would be wrong to let such large institutions fail. This is a relatively unknown car company, that the Obama admin thought you should invest in, while simultaneously denying you your fair share of profits, of the kind you would get if you had bought stock.
You should also be aware that it's not just a mere half-a-billion dollars that the Obama administration is forcing taxpayers to invest in this way. Not at all. In fact, this is just the tip of a $25 billion iceberg:
The loans, announced Tuesday, come from a $25-billion Department of Energy program to fund development of alternative vehicles. According to the administration, the funding will help create or save 5,000 jobs at Fisker and its suppliers.
It's not just Fisker you're now an investor in. There are many other companies your tax dollars have already been invested in as well:
The $528.7-million low-interest loan "is another critical step in making sure we are positioned to compete for the clean-energy jobs of the future," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. Over the summer, the department lent $8 billion to a variety of other automakers and suppliers under the same program.
What clause of the Constitution provides the government with the authority to force Americans to invest in companies of the government's choosing, and to deny them the share of profits they would be entitled to had they invested as stockholders?
Click the image (or click here) to see Andrew Klavan's excellent 9-11 video, on PJTV.
This is a suitable day to remember the fight that we are in. Let's not forget the cause in which the 9-11 hijackers fought, when they killed 3000 civilians. Per the NY Times, documents used by the 9-11 hijackers state that they were following the instructions of the Koran:
3) Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Qur'an] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things that God has promised for the martyrs.
From the USC Muslim Students' Association translation of the Koran, here is a passage from al-Tawba:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And from same site, here are two passages from Anfal:
Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."
...So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
According to the documents used by the 9-11 hijackers, they were following specific chapters in the Koran, which instructed them to kill non-Muslims.
Unbelievable - not to be missed - this undercover video expose of Acorn, on Andrew Breitbart's new site, BigGovernment.com, will fry your brain.
Here's a quick list of Obama's insults of those who disagree with him, from last night's healthcare speech.
Obama called opponents 'cynical, irresponsible liars':
"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics."
"Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."
"In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate."
Obama called opponents 'bickering game-players who make wild claims':
"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."
"And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now. "
Obama is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule #12:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Obama is insulting those who disagree with him, and insults are by definition, the opposite of civil debate. He is doing this to attack civil debate because civil debate leads to people discovering the truth - the truth which will set you free - the truth which, if widely recognized, spells an end to his efforts to turn America into a totalitarian state.
Under Obama, the Democrats are the party that attacks civil debate.
This leaves a massive opportunity for the Republicans to accurately brand themselves as the party that welcomes civil debate, that loves civil debate, that invites civil debate from all sides, all parties, all races, creeds, and colors, because it leads to the truth, and brings us together, after the motto of the U.S. - "E Pluribus Unum": "Out of Many, One."
From the front page of yesterday's LA Times:
The caption reads, "President Obama waves to union members after a speech at the AFL-CIO's Labor Day picnic in Cincinnati. Obama said it was time for the healthcare debate to end and accused opponents of spreading lies and fear."
Under Obama, the Democrats are the party that attacks civil debate. Per yesterday's LA Times, Obama said "it was time for the healthcare debate to end" - explicitly demanding an end to the public debate on healthcare reform. And to further attack civil public debate, Obama insulted those who disagree with him, saying they are "spreading lies and fear."
Obama is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule #12:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Obama is insulting those who disagree with him, and insults are by definition, the opposite of civil debate. He is doing this to attack civil debate because civil debate leads to people discovering the truth - the truth which will set you free - the truth which, if widely recognized, spells an end to his efforts to turn America into a totalitarian state.
This leaves a massive opportunity for the Republicans to accurately brand themselves as the party that welcomes civil debate, that loves civil debate, that invites civil debate from all sides, all parties, all races, creeds, and colors, because it leads to the truth, and brings us together, after the motto of the U.S. - "E Pluribus Unum": "Out of Many, One."
According to a variety of reports, Obama's czars are in charge of spending the $780 billion in the stimulus package.
From Newsweek, re: Van Jones:
What Green Jobs?
Washington is spending $60 billion to create the careers of the future, but not a single green job yet exists. Obama's 'green czar' explains.President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his stimulus package to building a new green-based economy rich in renewable energy and strategies to cut carbon. But despite the price tag, not one green job yet exists.
Wikipedia lists Earl E. Devaney as "Stimulus Accountability Czar, Stimulus Oversight Czar". From the Washington Post, re: Devaney:
President Obama plans to announce Monday that he wants a former Secret Service agent who helped expose lobbying corruption at the Interior Department to oversee the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, an administration official said Sunday.
Per Politico, the TARP czar is Herb Allison. Allison appears to share responsibility with Devaney, in overseeing the $787 billion stimulus. Per Reuters:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to name Fannie Mae Chief Executive Herb Allison to head the U.S. government's $700 billion financial rescue program, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.
Isn't it a subversion of our Constitution for Obama to hand oversight of $787 billion of taxpayer money over to unelected czars who report to him personally?
Background: Ex-President of Honduras, Zelaya, tried to overthrow his country's Constitution, and got thrown out of the government. From Miguel A. Estrada, writing in the LA Times:
Honduras' non-coup
Under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country's military arrested President Manuel Zelaya -- in his pajamas, he says -- and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this "coup."
Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.
What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."
So why is Obama supporting Zelaya, who tried to overthrow his own country's Constitution?
From Hugh Hewitt:
Dramatic And Dark Turn As Obama Stands More Firmly Against The Honduran People And Their Duly Elected Government
Posted by: Jude at 2:25 PM
Just can't find an excuse for this stunning rebuke of democracy. Hugh asked me yesterday about how this might compare to the last days of Nixon. Well, imagine that foreign countries were pressuring the U.S. to return Nixon to power after his resignation in the face of impeachment. Just imagine that and then realize that Obama is demanding the same of the Hondurans. He is insisting that they follow the San Jose Accord, conveniently drafted in Costa Rica under another president interested in extending his term extra-constitutionally, and put Zalaya back into power - or else the U.S. may not recognize the legitimate results of November's scheduled elections in Honduras!
Wow. Talk about keeping your enemies close. At Patterico they put it bluntly: "This goes against everything America stands for in the world: Free elections, democracy, and the rule of law. The Obama Administration was willing to work with Ahmadinejad in Iran despite credible evidence the election had been fixed, but now it’s willing to negate a democratic election before it’s even held? This is wrong."
Update: Powerline suggests a protest in front of their Embassy, since complaining to the Zalaya supporters there would be kind of like, oh, complaining to the Trial Lawyers about malpractice abuse...
Update II: National Review calls on Obama to Stop Bullying Honduras.
Is it possible that Obama hopes to emulate Zelaya?
From Rush Limbaugh, on Beck:
My first hour yesterday was chronicaling how this man [Obama] is systematically our ability to gather intelligence to protect ourselves against an attack. He is purposely, using his attorney general to make the United States the villain of the world. And I'm gonna tell you, folks, from the bottom of my heart, I am uncomfortable thinking and saying these things about a man who's been elected President of the United States. It is terribly upsetting and disconcerting. And I wish I didn't think it. And I wish I didn't have to say it. But there's no way to sugar coat it. This is not politics as usual. This is not left versus right. This is not Republican versus Democrat. This is statism, totalitarianism versus freedom. And if these people are allowed to go where they want to go, unchecked, then some people, a lot of people, I don't think half the country but close, will wake up one day and find, "My God, what the hell happened?" Because this is not what they voted for. They had no intention of this. They thought they were getting something entirely different.
It appears possible that Obama wants to undermine U.S. national security to the point where we have another 9-11, and then a) declare marital law and b) call a halt to all further U.S. Presidential elections so that he can remain in power.
If Obama tries something like this here, he will suffer the same fate that Zelaya did in Honduras.
Per Karl Rove, in the Wall Street Journal:
...Mr. Obama is trying to overhaul health care without being able to tap into widespread public unhappiness. Nearly nine out of 10 Americans say they have coverage—and large majorities of them are happy with it. Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million. Americans don't believe this problem—serious but correctable—justifies the radical shift Mr. Obama offers.
Let's see what that looks like in a pie chart:
It's just 2% of the population.
I think this may be the final answer to two questions that have appeared baffling for years, specifically: why do the arguments of Liberals appear to be so illogical, and, why do Liberals hurl so many insults?
It's the same answer to both questions. Before we get to the answer, let's recap the background.
ILLOGIC, IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEFT
You don't have to look far to see illogic in the arguments of the Left these days. A few examples:
See especially Evan Sayet and Victor Davis Hanson on this.
THE USE OF INSULTS BY LIBERALS
If you read or watch Liberal media - Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Kos, and on and on and on, you can't miss the insults. Olbermann is famous for having an actual section of his show titled "Worst Person in the World."
Under the radical leadership of Obama, top Dems have even been hurling insults, calling Americans - who are using their rights to free speech and free assembly to speak out against Obama's proposals - insulting names including, "un-American," "thugs," "racists," "nazis," "political terrorists," etc.
THE FINAL ANSWER
The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate. Insults are an attack on public debate. The use of illogic is an attack on public debate. As I recently posted:
By intentionally using illogic in debate with the opposing side, meaningful debate is destroyed. The public, unable to tell who's winning the argument, is puzzled. The benefit to the left is that they are saying to all, "Join us and win power and money. Nothing else is relevant."
Yes, there are those who are fooled by the illogic of the arguments - e.g. many high schoolers and college students to whom these arguments have been preached by liberal teachers - and who fall for it. But that's not the case with the intellectual leadership of the left, many of whom are too smart to be fooled. The more profound thinkers on the left understand that the illogic is being used intentionally, to achieve a given goal, namely to confound all logical debate, and issue a siren call saying, "join us, and we will help you, and nothing else matters."
Public debate works. The truth defeats the purposes of the Left. Therefore the Left wants to shut down and destroy public debate.
STRATEGY TO COUNTER THE LEFT'S ATTACK ON PUBLIC DEBATE
First, don't respond to insults with insults. That's exactly what they want. Then they can claim, "The argument broke down into name-calling, and nothing was proven on either side. " Ignore their stupid insults and clobber them with the facts.
Second, bear in mind that most people in this country, regardless of political party, love America, and that civil public debate that communicates the facts to them will win, just as it has been winning on the health care debate throughout August. That's why the leadership on the left is trying so hard to shut civil public debate down. Seek ways to communicate the facts to friends, neighbors, contacts on Facebook/Twitter, etc. etc., because the truth is massively on our side.
Page 1 of 1 pages
