Lies, Damn Lies…and Liberals

If you’re thinking about buying a fuel-efficient hybrid, electric or otherwise eco-friendly vehicle as a way to save money over time, do your homework — or be prepared to wait.

Buyers who choose Nissan’s all-electric Leaf ($28,421) over its approximate gas-powered equivalent, Nissan’s Versa ($18,640), will likely wait nearly 9 years until they break even, according to a new report by The New York Times that examines the cost of fuel efficiency.

For drivers of the Chevrolet Volt ($31,767), the wait is even longer— 26.6 years.

A few vehicles begin paying off relatively soon after leaving the dealership. Two hybrids— Toyota’s Prius ($23,537) and Lincoln’s MKZ ($33,887)— as well as Volkswagen’s diesel-powered Jetta TDI ($25,242) all take less than two years before they start saving their owners money.

Another reason to buy the Obama Vehicle- The Volt. 🙂 It promises great things, costs too much and is a fake (only 40 miles on electric charge) and then underperforms spectacularly.

But I’m sure it’s the Republican’s Fault!!! 🙂

In an interview with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), TIME magazine asks if she will tip Sikh taxi drivers more during her visit to New York City.

Haley, who was born into a Sikh family, now identifies herself as a Christian.

“In New York City, which you’re visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?” Belinda Luscombe, a TIME editor, asked Haley.

“I give the same tip to everyone,” Haley responded.

Wow.

Mary J Blige is apologizing for A Burger King Commercial which according to some race obsessed Liberals (who see racism everywhere and in everything): “Having a black woman sing about chicken was no mistake. They’re trying to reach the ‘urban’ (aka black) demographic and they used you,” in an open letter. “Because God knows black folk won’t buy anything unless there’s a song, and preferably a dance, attached to it.”

“Crispy chicken, fresh lettuce, three cheeses, ranch dressing wrapped up in a tasty flour tortilla” — is set to “Don’t Mind,” a song from Blige’s album “My Life II… The Journey Continues (Act 1),” the Washington Post reports.

Yeah, that was what I was thinking… 😦

SO Blige decides to cover her butt:

“I agreed to be a part of a fun and creative campaign that was supposed to feature a dream sequence,” Blige tells Us Weekly in a statement of the spot, which was slammed by critics and subsequently yanked from the airwaves after going viral earlier this week.

Furthers Blige: “Unfortunately, that’s not what was happening in that clip, so I understand my fans being upset by what they saw. But, if you’re a Mary fan, you have to know I would never allow an unfinished spot like the one you saw go out.”

So the next time you see a Burger King ad, you must think , gee was that racist in your wildest most insane moments? Because the Liberals will.

Since even You Tube buckled.

Here it is: http://www.tmz.com/2012/04/04/mary-j-blige-burger-king-chicken-ad/#.T37nftU0jTo

If after seeing it you don’t get it, you’re not a Politically Correct Race Obsessed Liberal and have some brains left in your head.

ERIC HOLDER SCOLDED

Attorney General Eric Holder’s 3 Page Homework assignment about Judicial Review and his whiny ,”yes, mom” response is here : http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/04/05/justice-department-letter-to-5th-circuit-court-appeals/

“Sure, SCOTUS can overturn a federal law, declaring the law unconstitutional, but SCOTUS should give President Obama and congressional Democrats what they want anyway.” (Wizbang)

I agree. It’s a typical liberal argument. I want what i want when I want it and how are you have the temerity to question my superiority.

OBAMACARE

During a tense White House press briefing Wednesday, Jay Carney had a long exchange with Fox News reporter Ed Henry about what President Obama really meant when he said the Supreme Court would be engaging in activism should ObamaCare be struck down. Carney’s response to the outrage?

Americans just didn’t “understand” what President Obama said because he is a “law professor.” 

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

So you are too dumb to understand. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!

At that press event, Obama told any justice thinking of overturning ObamaCare’s central tenet that “in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care.”

But this is false.

In fact, Obama himself argued precisely the opposite during the 2008 campaign, saying a mandate wasn’t needed to achieve universal coverage. “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it,” he said then. “It’s because they can’t afford it.”

Plus, ObamaCare itself proves a mandate isn’t needed to cover those with pre-existing conditions. The law set up federal “high risk” pools that offer insurance to those denied it by private companies. Yet instead of making this a permanent solution, Obama kills these pools off in 2014 in favor of the mandate.

Obama also claimed at that press conference that the law “was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Also false.

The House approved it by a slim 7-vote margin, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican to oppose it. Less than a year later, the House voted to repeal ObamaCare by a significantly larger margin, 245-189.

It was only in the Senate, where Democrats held a temporary supermajority, that it did well, and even then they could only get it through using a variety of unusual parliamentary tricks. What’s more, just 51 Senators voted to keep the law in a 2011 vote.

But as the old saying goes, lies beget more lies. Here’s just a sampling of past Obama prevarications about his signature reform law:

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 20 million will be forced off their plans as employers dump workers into the government health exchanges to avoid ObamaCare’s costs. A survey by McKinsey and Co. found that nearly a third of employers were likely to drop coverage for employees once ObamaCare kicked in.

And an analysis by the Medicare actuary found that ObamaCare’s attacks on Medicare’s private insurance options would force nearly 8 million seniors out of plans they’ve chosen.

“If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that’s not a bill I can support.  It’s going to have to control costs.”

Fact: The law Obama signed contains no meaningful cost-control provisions, something every honest health care analyst admits.

“We will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.”

Fact: The CBO projects that premiums over the next decade will climb at a faster rate than they did in the past five years. The CBO also projects that premiums in the individual insurance market will be as much as 13% higher in 2016 as a result of the law. Premiums for small businesses could go up 1%. Meanwhile, a study done for Wisconsin by one of the architects of ObamaCare found that “the majority of individuals in the nongroup market will pay more in premiums for health insurance in 2016 than they do today.” The average increase: 30%.

“And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.”

Fact: ObamaCare will accelerate spending at every level. In 2014, when the law takes full effect, national spending on health care will shoot up 8% and go on climbing at more than 6% a year, according to official government forecasts.

“The plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.”

Fact: The current Congressional Budget Office report pegs the 10-year cost of ObamaCare at $1.7 trillion. The only way Obama could get his price tag down so low is by putting off the start date by four years. Once Obama-Care fully kicks in, it will add $260 billion a year, and rising, to the budget.

“To help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured.”

Fact: Despite spending $800 billion to subsidize premiums in the government-run exchanges, over the next 10 years, along with $931 billion in new Medicaid costs, ObamaCare will still leave 27 million — or 10% of the population — uninsured, according to the CBO.

We could go on, but you get the idea.

The best thing the Supreme Court could do for the country is to chuck the entire law, and give Congress the opportunity to put together an honest package of reforms.(IBD)

But Liberals want what they want when they want it and will lie to get and if you don’t you’re a racist and a liar.

Ah, 2012 in America.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Freedom a Dinosaur?

Recommended Viewing: Gov. Christie of NJ gives a whining member of the teacher’s union a slap back. For once, someone who will stand toe to toe with liberals and push back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuri7p_9pm4&feature=player_embedded

********************

Now on to the Financial “reform” bill being finalized in the Congress.

It’s supposed to protect you and me from “too big to fail”.

It’s supposed to protect the consumer against the greedy capitalist pigs called Banks.

Naturally, these are Liberals, so it doesn’t really do that at all.

Just like Health Care reform wasn’t really about Health care. It was about granting the government the power to decide who lives and who dies. Period.

Well, here’s the next nail in your coffin.

But, we are from the government and we are here to help you!

The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury – a political appointee – to seize any financial company (bank or nonbank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency.  This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding, or any other abuse bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive.  It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

The legislation also requires that any business that extends credit, in any form, needs to clear the loan instrument in advance with the new consumer protection agency.  The backlog of pending applications will strangle consumer credit.

And the bill fails to do the one thing it must do — regulate derivatives and make them transparent.  Senator Chris Dodd (D Ct) bowed to pressure from his sponsors on Wall Street and deleted the regulatory provision and set up a commission to study the situation for two years!  Senator Maria Cantwell (D Wash) protested the cop out with a no vote against the legislation.

These would be the financial fake money traders who caused the problem in the first place when all the bad debts from the subprime mortgage debacle-in-waiting started and eventually crashed.

Curiously, this was championed by the same guy who also championed the Subprime Mortgage mess, Now-retiring Sen. Chris Dodd.

Coincidence I think not.

So how did it pass?  Four Republicans sold out, that´s how!  Among the RINOs were, of course, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.  But, surprisingly, Scott Brown (R Mass), the newly elected Massachusetts Miracle defected as did the normally stalwart Chuck Grassley (R Iowa).

Now the federal government has effectively taken over about one third of our national economy by passing Obamacare and regulatory reform in almost the same breath.
But that is only part of the story. The bill gives the secretary of the treasury (appointed by the president) powers that are a dictator’s dream come true. He would have the power to seize any bank or financial institution if, in his opinion, it is in danger of insolvency. One can imagine the threats coming from the White House to those banks who failed to make campaign contributions or endorse the presidential agenda.

Then there are the implications for our individual lives. The bill, as we explained in a previous story, would give the feds the right to peer into our bank accounts . . . yours and mine. But also the banks would have to get permission from the government to make individual loans. This is not merely a bank getting general approval to make loans. It is banks going to the government for approval of each and every individual loan.

It might look like this. John Smith goes to First Bank of Elm Street and asks for a car loan. The bank then sends an application to the federal government asking for permission to loan Mr. Smith the money. The feds look at Mr. Smith’s bank statement and find that he contributed money to the president’s political opponent last election. Mr. Smith can forget about his car loan . . . or home loan . . . or financing a new pair of socks.

With possible implications also, according to Glenn Beck, that it will be the “fault” of the lender if the person who they loan the money to defaults.

So imagine this: Your a Bank. If you loan Mr. Smith money, for say a house, and he defaults. He can go to the Consumer advocacy bureaucrats and complain that his rate was too high or whatever and the government can just say,” Bank, you were too greedy” and that’s that.

Now if you were a bank, would you loan any Mr. Smith’s any money?

And the economy comes to a grinding halt.

But at least your safe from greedy capitalist pigs!!

The Financial Stability Oversight Council will be created and identify non-bank financial companies that “may pose risks to the financial stability of the United States in the event of their material financial distress or failure”

So if the government “deems” you too big a risk they can come in and break up your company, fire anyone they like and do what they deem necessary to “protect” you from these greedy capitalist pigs! 😦

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will be created — for you. They’ll be able to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. And the bill mandates any financial institution that takes deposits, keep a record of the number and amount of those deposits and that customer addresses be “geo-coded for the collection of data regarding the census tracts of the residences or business locations of customers.” Geo-coded? Are they linking deposits to the Census Bureau?

They claim to be protecting you from “unfair and deceptive” practices. Unfair and deceptive are two words that are defined and often used in our laws, but there is another word they put in the bill: “abusive.” What does that even mean? No one really knows because it has not been used in this context before. Will its definition be up to the new super regulator who will be in charge of the agency? What is abusive? What if someone defaults on their loan or their house is foreclosed upon and they say “the interest rate is too high” or “I did not understand adjustable rate would adjust up” or “I am old, you should’ve explained it to me.”

Will the regulator decide the lender was abusive? It puts the pressure on the lender to not only offer full disclosure, but take full responsibility. Don’t worry if you can’t pay your loan, blame it on the abusive greedy bank.

Glenn Beck continues…

And here’s what is coming in the House’s financial bill:

First and foremost, it does nothing to address the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two helped create the housing mess and then needed a $125 billion bailout, which they haven’t even scratched the surface on a payback.

It creates a special protected class of “too big to fail” firms. In section 113, a “Financial Stability Oversight Council” is established, which will choose the firms deemed too big to fail. Hmm, can you think of any other massive financial institutions that don’t care if they fail because they know they will be bailed out by the government? Fannie and Freddie. So not only is this bill not doing anything to stop Fannie and Freddie, as they continue to lose hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, this bill will create more of them.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The secretary of the treasury can order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds “in danger of default.” Again, a bureaucrat arbitrarily getting to make the distinction to just take over a financial firm whenever they feel like it. And, once the decision is approved, it’s nearly impossible to reverse.

This Financial Stability Oversight Council, they’ve got nine regulatory authorities out there and this expands the reach outside of just financial firms. They can declare if a non-bank financial firm (insurance, finance companies, hedge funds) are “in trouble.” And guess what? They can turn it over to the treasury for regulation. Again, this distinction is completely arbitrary and comes from bureaucrats.

Opens a line of credit to the treasury for additional government funding. Guess who’s irrelevant? You are, Congress! No more begging those pesky politicians for billions of dollars, like with TARP. No, we’ll just skip that and tap the ATM.

Regulators can guarantee the debt of solvent banks as well. If there is a ‘liquidity crisis’ …

The bill creates a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” They just want to “protect” consumers. Uh-huh. This bureau will have broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers.

It’s supposed to help, but it will only reduce choices and likely make credit more expensive and harder to get. It also allows them to track all of your financial transactions, just to “protect you.”

Non-financial firms would be subject to financial regulations. Listen to how broad this is: Section 102 defines a “non-bank financial company” as a company “substantially engaged in activities… that are financial in nature.” Aren’t all companies financial in nature? Sure, bakeries are making cupcakes and bread, but isn’t that financial in nature?

And they’re making sure this bill is jammed down America’s throat by, I’m not kidding, July 4th.

So here is the Frankendodd monster giving us our independence by chaining our children and our freedoms by snooping through our credit cards.

This fits the progressive agenda to a T: Power and control. These guys are power hungry. This financial bill is the biggest reform since FDR. We’re making the same mistakes we make in the 1930s, except the first time we made these mistakes, the American people didn’t know what progressives were really about and there was no global structure in place. When FDR died in office, we could still reverse many of the things he tried to do. But this time, we won’t be able to, because your representatives won’t have any control.

Again: “Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.”

Again, I ask you to call your representative at the IMF and complain if you don’t like that fact that America spent $50 billion in tax money to bail out Greece. Call your representative at the U.N. and say you won’t vote for him next time. Contact the World Bank and let them know that you’ll close your bank account with them if you have to.

This is why all of this matters: You have no representation. It’s just the way the world is now. It’s a global community.

Another thing FDR did not have, but Woodrow Wilson did, was Cass Sunstein.

He’s the regulatory czar, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He controls everything — he nudges you. He never tells you what to do — he nudges you. Remember “The Truman show”? Sunstein is the director up there in the control room. You still have his “freedoms.” Sunstein is just using a lot of “choice architecture” around you.

Cass Sunstein has wanted that job in the control room his whole life — his whole life! In 2008, on the campaign trail, he went on a date with his soon to be wife, Samantha Power. She asked him what his dream job was. She said, “I expected him to say he dreamed of playing for the Red Sox… his eyes got real big and he said, ‘Ooh! OIRA!'”

Most people will say what’s the big deal with that job? Here’s a guy who’s wanted this job. What kind of geek wants this job? Well, any geek who knows history knows that’s one of the most powerful jobs in the world. You are looking at the power of the Fed and more.

Oh, by the way, if this financial regulation bill passes, how much control does government have over the economy? Twenty percent? Forty-eight percent? No — 60 percent.

We are teetering on the brink of totalitarianism in the land of the free. Folks, write your congressmen while there is still time.

But at least the government is looking out for you! 😦

*******

An analysis of government data by USA Today found that “paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year.”

That’s only part of this sad story: “At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.”

If the share of private-sector pay is shrinking, income from government must necessarily be growing. Sure enough, during the first quarter, the federal government added 81,000 jobs while the private sector lost 4.71 million.

President Obama wants more. He’s asked federal agencies to accelerate and streamline hiring of federal workers at a time when laying off bureaucrats would be the far better course.

Even before Obama began to push federal hiring, working for Washington was a lucrative career choice. In 2008, the typical federal worker took home on average $67,691 in salary compared with $60,046 for the private sector.

During the first 18 months of the recession, USA Today reported in December, “Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.”

Government workers have also avoided the job losses we’ve seen in the private sector. Their unemployment rate from 2007 to 2010 has been 3%; the rate across private industry has been 7.9%.

************

And finally, this liberal ditty. Now keep in mind the Liberals have no problem with a 13-story Islamic mosque being built practically across the street from ground zero by a radical muslim cleric…

But they do object to…The American Flag!!

(But don’t expect the Ministry of truth to tell you this one.) 😦

An Army veteran in Wisconsin will be allowed to display an American flag until Memorial Day, but the symbol honoring his service in Iraq and Kosovo must come down next Tuesday, his wife told FoxNews.com.

Dawn Price, 27, of Oshkosh, Wis., said she received a call from officials at Midwest Realty Management early Wednesday indicating that she and her husband, Charlie, would be allowed to continue flying the American flag they’ve had in their window for months through the holiday weekend. The couple had previously been told they had to remove the flag by Saturday or face eviction due to a company policy that bans the display of flags, banners and political or religious materials.

“It’s basically an extension so we can fly the flag on Memorial Day,” Price told FoxNews.com. “It does need to come down after that.”

Charlie Price, 28, served tours of duty as a combat engineer in Iraq and Kosovo, his wife said. To honor his eight years of service, she began decorating their apartment during Veterans Day in November. An American flag topped off the display, she said.

“I knew it made Charlie really proud to see that,” she said. “And this isn’t something new. This has been up for quite some time now.”

Veterans’ groups were furious at the realtors’ refusal to allow the flag to fly.

“As a veteran, it sickens me that the Dawn and Charlie Price’s building management company would imply that the American flag could be construed as offensive by their residents,” said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AmVets.

“We’re talking about our most revered national symbol. This is insulting to anyone who has defended our flag honorably, like Charlie Price.”

Dawn Price said she now works to amend the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which states no “condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association” may stop someone from flying the American flag. The law, however, does not apply to renters.

“This has been eating at us since Friday,” she said. ‘The best way to fight this isn’t getting an eviction and going after these people in court. That’s just going to cost us a lot of time, energy and money.”

Instead, Dawn Price said she either intends to place a curtain between the flag and the apartment window to block it from onlookers or will move it to a rear balcony come next week.

“We don’t want to fight the eviction,” she said. “We know we’d lose.”

Officials at Midwest Realty Management, which manages Brookside Apartments, where the Prices live, did not return several messages seeking comment. In a statement to the Oshkosh Northwestern, company officials said the policy was established to provide a consistent living environment for all residents.

“This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds,” the statement read. “By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained.”

Despite the brief reprieve, Dawn Price said her husband is disappointed by the flag flap.

“He actually sees it as a slap in the face to his service,” she said. “He’s pretty upset about it, especially right around Memorial Day.”(FOX)

*******

But the good news, if there is such a thing these days, there’s a Tea Party in San Francisco!!

No, the world did not end because of this fundamental contradiction.

But great “Unifier” can’t even win in San Francisco these days.

So there is hope.

Hope FOR Change.

Or else, in my lifetime, it will all go the way of the dinosaurs….