Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘George Bush’ Category

EPA Mandates You Buy Unicorn Farts

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/06/23

The federal EPA has mandated that oil companies buy a certain amount of cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips, switchgrass, corn cobs and the like, a product that doesn’t even exist (unicorn farts for short), or pay hefty fines. And oil companies have already been forced to pay those fines for their 2011 non-compliance in their refusal to buy those unicorn farts. As a result, Americans get to pay more at the pump for their fart-free gasoline; an artificial, government-forced fuel cost inflation. Howard Portnoy writes:

Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?

As Mr Portnoy notes, George W Bush called for this sort of thing in his 2006 State of the Union address, and signed it into Law in 2007. This terrible government mandate to be fined for not putting unicorn farts into the nation’s gasoline was written by the 2007 Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into Law by the squish Republican George W Bush, when not a single commercial cellulosic ethanol plant was up and running. There still isn’t a commercial unicorn fart plant running, even after the government pumped over a billion tax-payer dollars into businesses promising to make those unicorn fart plants.

A December, 2011 article from Bloomberg notes the bankruptcy of one such failed company.

Range Fuels Inc., a cellulosic ethanol company backed by as much as $156 million in U.S. loans and grants from President George W. Bush’s administration, is being forced by the government to liquidate its only factory after failing to produce the fuel.

The closely held company, which counts Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist and Sun Microsystems Inc. co-founder, as an initial investor, shuttered the factory in Soperton, Georgia, in January after not delivering on its promise to convert woodchips into ethanol, which was intended to help the U.S. become less dependent on foreign oil.

So, Range Fuels Inc shuttered its doors in January, 2011, after proving incapable of producing the unicorn farts, and after soaking up millions of dollars in tax-payer money. The government picking winners and losers, and still, those winners lose. And we all lose in the process. But that’s not all. A January, 2012 article from The New American has even more.

EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn told the Times that the 2012 cellulosic ethanol quota is “reasonably attainable.” The paper continues: “By setting a quota, she added, ‘we avoid a situation where real cellulosic biofuel production exceeds the mandated volume,’ which would weaken demand.”

Milbourn need not worry that production will exceed the EPA’s quota for many years to come. There are simply too many barriers to overcome.

First is that cellulosic ethanol production is so difficult and expensive that no one in the private sector is willing to invest in it without hefty government subsidies. Thus far the feds have poured at least $1.5 billion into ethanol startups, with more subsidies on the way. Not surprisingly, “the half-dozen or so companies that received the first round of subsidies never got off the ground,” the Wall Street Journal noted in a December editorial. Georgia’s Range Fuels, for example, received $162 million in federal and state subsidies to produce ethanol from pine chips; last week The New American reported that Range had folded a year ago, an utter failure. The Journal cited Alabama-based Cello Energy, whose ethanol production was supposed to account for some 70 percent of the 2010 cellulosic ethanol mandate. The company went bankrupt in October of that year, having achieved nothing except bilking taxpayers.

“Incredibly,” the Journal remarked, “those projections [of Cello’s production] were made before Cello had built its plant to produce the fuel and before the technology was proven to work.” Similarly grandiose claims for upcoming ethanol plants are thus to be taken with several grains of salt.

Did everyone get that? There is no commercial production of unicorn farts, but the EPA has stated the 2012 requirement to purchase millions of gallons of unicorn farts is reasonably attainable, knowing there are no unicorn farts to buy. And the businesses that are getting millions of dollars each in tax-payer money are going bankrupt without adding the first gallon of this “product” into the marketplace.

Last year, I wrote about corn ethanol being a net energy consumer instead of a net energy producer. I also showed that corn ethanol produces even more pollution than gasoline, is more expensive than gasoline, is harder on engines than gasoline, and causes “corn for food” prices to artificially inflate. And now, on top of that, we get to foot the bill for a nothing-burger.

Ain’t Big Government Leftists grand?

Posted in economics, Environmentalism, George Bush, Law, Liberal, Oil, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Syria Misses Bush

Posted by Yorkshire on 2011/12/20

Found on Facebook from the Weekly Standard. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/missing-bush_613588.html

Posted in Character, genocide, George Bush | Comments Off

Obama “Jobs” Bill Fails Sniff Test With Senate Democrats

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/14

That’s right, folks, the Leftist slush fund and class warfare pandering bill Obama introduced and is touting is getting blasted by Senate Democrats who don’t have to worry about the 2012 elections. Let me say that again. Senate Democrats who don’t have to worry about getting their electorate to vote for them are saying “no” to Barack Obama.

Ed Morrissey quotes Pollutico (and since I don’t link to Pollutico, you’ll have to follow the link to the Hot Air story to find the Pollutico link):

As he demands Congress quickly approve his ambitious proposal aimed at reviving the sagging economy, many Democrats on Capitol Hill appear far from sold that the president has the right antidote to spur major job growth and turn around their party’s political fortunes.

“Terrible,” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.”

“That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama’s elimination of oil and gas subsidies. “Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

“I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), discussing proposals to slash the debt by $4 trillion by overhauling entitlement programs and raising revenue through tax reforms. “That’s better than everything else the president is talking about — combined.”

And those are just the moderates in the party. Some liberals also have concerns.

Let’s be perfectly clear, shall we? Barack Obama never expected his “jobs” bill to ever get through the Republican-controlled House. In fact, Obama depended on it not getting through the House, so he could continue to blame the “obstructionist” Republicans for his abysmal failure. But a funny thing happened on the way to his deceitful campaign propaganda. Sane Democrats stood up to loudly reject his radical Leftist agenda.

This bodes well for Republicans and the US for the 2012 elections and the direction of the nation. But it also bodes well long-term.

Like a song sung simultaneously with two opposing sets of lyrics, Obama’s agenda and speeches and actions, when combined with the TEA Party movement’s agenda and actions, makes for beautiful music. Obama’s complete radicalization is being rejected even by Democrats and the Ruling Class Republicans’ spineless ever leftward shifting “go along, get along” garbage is being rejected by We the People. And the nation begins to recover and heal.

Contrary to the Democrat leadership and the mainstream media (same thing), the Republicans have not been shifting ever rightward since Reagan. Rather, it’s the Democrat Party that has been radicalizing since the JFK days. This is not your daddy’s Democrat Party. It is something completely alien, something completely radicalized.

Reagan moved the Republicans to the right, closer to where they should’ve been and once were. But then came George H W Bush, who rejected the Conservative Reagan Republican Caucus (while simultaneously coat-tailing it into the White House). Reagan’s shifting of the Republican Party to the right and the powerful electoral victories pushed the Democrat Party to the left as conservative Democrats migrated to the Republican Party. But as the elder Bush and the Statist Republicans worked to retake control of the Republican Party and shift it leftward again, the Republicans lost strength in Congress and lost the White House. And the Democrats continued their leftward shift.

Bill Clinton’s overreach caused the Republican wave of 1994 as once again the Republican Party shifted to the right, but not as far to the right as during Reagan. And many moderate Democrats switched over to the Republican Party. The combination of historic electoral losses and sizable numbers of defections caused the Democrat Party to lurch leftward. But the Ruling Class Republicans refused to take advantage.

George W Bush, with major help from Karl Rove, worked tirelessly to dismantle the remnants of the Reagan Republican Caucus as, once again, the Republican Party jumped to the left to fill in the void left by the leftward-lurching Democrats. And George W Bush cost the Republicans many seats in Congress during his tenure as a result. As ever consistent, the Democrat leadership continued its radicalization of the Democrat Party.

Enter 2008, with the most radical Leftist to ever win a major party nomination becoming President. And the radicalization of the Congress accelerated to new extremes. Suddenly, the people stood up and shouted “NO MORE!!” But the radical Leftists Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the Democrat leadership refused to listen to the people. Many of the radical Leftist Democrat leadership even mocked the people.

And 2010 happened, with the most sweeping rejection of Democrats at the polls since the 1930s. Unlike the 1994 Republican wave, where Bill Clinton changed course and co-opted Republican agenda items for himself, Barack Obama and the radicalized Democrat leadership continued on in its radical Left agenda. So, unlike 1996, where the people thought the Democrats were sane, the build-up to 2012 is seeing continued decay in the Democrat Party and continued outcry from the people and a continued growth in Conservatism in the US.

What do I see for the 2012 election? I see further big gains for Conservatives and Republicans. I see a further weakening of the Ruling Class Republicans within the Republican Caucus. I see a much further radicalization of the Democrat leadership as even more left of center Democrats lose elections, leaving, for the most part, only the most radical of Leftist Democrats in office. And I see the US healing from the wounds caused by the radical Left.

But beyond 2012 is the real question. As the NY-9 special election showed, where Bob Turner’s campaign was directed at sending Barack Obama a message, a great many Democrat voters are beginning to see their Democrat Party radicalized and are beginning to reject it. The question, after 2012, is will the Democrat everyman retake control of the party from the radicals running it into the ground, or will the Democrat Party become ever further radicalized into Socialism and thus relegated to a permanent minority party as the Republicans were for over 50 years of the 20th century? I would like to think the saner Democrats would wrest control of their party away from the radicals in charge now. But time will tell.

Regardless, Obama/Reid/Pelosi have done a great service to the country. They have awakened the country to the extreme radicalization of the Democrat party and the extreme radical agenda being pushed down the people’s throats in direct opposition to the people’s wishes. They have also awakened the country to the destruction caused by the Ruling Class Republicans. Sometimes, a body needs a good swift Gibbs head-slap to realize the dangers of current events, and that’s exactly what Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz have done.

The future is indeed bright for the country.

Posted in Conservative, economics, Elections, George Bush, history, Liberal, media, Obama, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

White House Debt Graph Lies

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/07/30

It’s to be expected from this White House. The Obama Administration couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

Read the whole article. HT Ocean Shores Patriot

Here’s a glimpse:

This graphical mis-truth has another major flaw. While showing 8 years of “domestic and defense spending” for President Bush, the White House propaganda bar shows no spending whatsoever for the Obama administration.

Lastly, the farm bill was passed in 2008 by a Democrat congress over George Bush’s VETO. That spending should fall on Pelosi and Reid, not Bush. The farm bill was $300 billion so almost that entire part of the chart does not belong to Bush.

Integrity is a thing of the past as far as the Democrat leadership is concerned. They don’t need no stinkin’ integrity!

Posted in economics, Elections, George Bush, Liberal, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, Tax, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

It’s The Spending, Stupid

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/07/27

Jim Hoft says:

Thanks Barack… Obama’s Record Deficits & Debt Will Likely Cause a Downgrade in the US Credit Rating

and provides this very telling chart:

Note the first year of the George W Bush Presidency, there was an accounting surplus. That was the year of 9-11, when Islamic terrorists did great economic damage to the US. The final 2 years of the GWB Presidency, Democrats held the majority in both Houses of Congress, but the 2007 Budget was written by the 2006 Republican Congress while the 2008 Budget was written by the 2007 Democrat Congress (and later modified by the 2008 Democrat Congress). Also note that it has been over 800 days since the last Budget that came out of the Harry Reid-run US Senate, and Harry Reid (D – NV) has declared he is not interested in putting forth a Budget.

Sarah Palin says it’s the spending, stupid (video format not supported by WordPress).
“ObamaDrama”, Obama’s fear-mongering, negotiating with Obama is negotiating with Jell-O.

On a related note, if you want the Fiscal Conservative base in your camp, it is a good idea to get a Sarah Palin endorsement. Hot Air commenter “unseen,” who often brings in relevant quotes to the comment sections, does so in spades in this regard.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would beat incumbent Republican Rick Perry “in a landslide” if a primary for governor of Texas were held today, according to a North Carolina polling firm.

Public Policy Polling currently has Hutchinson at 56 percent, and Perry at 31 percent.

Read the polling memo here. Says PPP:

That 27% of likely Republican voters who have a dim view of Perry is obviously part of his problem. Those voters support Hutchison 85-8.

But they’re not necessarily the biggest thing that could keep him from nomination for another term. That’s because 47% of those surveyed have a positive opinion of both Hutchison and Perry, but within that group the Senator leads 49-33. When you have higher negatives than your opponent and lose out among your mutual admirers, that’s a recipe for defeat.

Hutchison leads Perry within every demographic group by race, gender, and age.

“Rick Perry is in grave danger of losing in the primary,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It’s partly because he’s worn out his welcome with a certain segment of the Republican electorate, but the even bigger reason is that Kay Bailey Hutchison is just a lot more popular than him. It would be hard for anyone to beat her in an election.”

Kay Bailey Hutchison garnered the George H W Bush endorsement.
Rick Perry garnered the Sarah Palin endorsement.

GHWB was not and is not a Reagan Republican, but he did ride Reagan’s legacy into the White House (and promptly lost it by divorcing himself from Reagan’s fiscal conservatism).
Sarah Palin is a Reagan Republican.
Barbara Bush, blue-blood that she is, said Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska.

While correlation is not necessarily causation, Perry (who was a well-known “Austerity Democrat” in the Texas Legislature during his early years) was trailing Hutchison badly before Palin weighed in. And Perry won that “divisive” Primary and went on to win re-election.

Posted in Character, Conservative, economics, Elections, George Bush, history, Liberal, media, Obama, Palin, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

All Democrat Senators Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/07/17

The year was 2006. The President was George W Bush. The debt ceiling was being approached. And every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling.

Let’s see.
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Harry Reid
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumer
And the rest of the Democrats

I guess they all wanted the US to default on its debt. I guess they all wanted senior citizens to lose their Social Security checks. I guess they all wanted Medicare and Medicaid recipients to lose their healthcare.

To hear the Democrats talk now, that’s exactly what the Democrats wanted to do back in 2006.

HT Gateway Pundit

Posted in Character, economics, Elections, George Bush, Health Care, history, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

We Are Involved In Four Wars

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/06/10

The US is involved in four different wars. We are still in Iraq, fighting insurgent Islamic Terrorists. We are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (yes), fighting Al Qaida and the Taliban. We are in Libya (with ground troops as well), fighting Qadafi and giving aid to Islamic Terrorists who are fighting Qadafi. We are in Yemen, bombing Al Qaida.

Here’s the real deal, folks. Barack Obama and much of the Left are being hypocritical. I’ll get to whether we should be doing what we are doing later, but the point is the Left’s position under Bush compared to the Left’s position under Obama. And the dishonesty among the Left in regards to Obama’s actions compared to Bush’s actions.

The Left, and Barack Obama, accused Bush of Cowboy Diplomacy in his actions against Hussein and the Taliban. The Left accused Bush of unilateral engagement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the truth proving the Left lied. And now that Obama has continued both of Bush’s actions, and amplified the actions in Afghanistan and into Pakistan, the Left has been largely quiet.

Obama entered into Libya with an international coalition that is less than half the size of Bush’s Iraq coalition, but the Left declared Obama’s actions to be internationally supported and Bush’s actions to be unilateral. Typical hypocrisy and deceit from the Left. Obama also entered into Libya without Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act, and continues to thumb his nose at the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. And Obama has gone well beyond the UN permissions upon which he based his attacks. The UN permitted “no-fly zones” and not regime change. Obama, from the beginning, went well beyond “no-fly zones” in his war on Libya. And Obama sent in ground troops, which is outside UN approval. (The UN can go suck green persimmons for all I care, but it’s the UN decision that Obama used — and subsequently violated — for his actions.)

Obama has unilaterally involved the US in bombing campaigns against Al Qaida in Yemen. Ed Morrissey states that Obama has Congressional authority in an over-broad authorization Congress gave George W Bush. Okay, fine. I’m ambivalent. But I do support the killing of Al Qaida members and the obliteration of Al Qaida. That’s not the issue. The issue is Obama’s and the Left’s utter hypocrisy in this regard.

If anyone is using “cowboy diplomacy” it’s Barack Obama. Obama is acting like a dictator, making decisions without approval of Congress, totally disregarding Congressional oversight and the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. Obama is acting unilaterally in Yemen, beyond his UN mandate and without Congressional approval in Libya (with a far smaller coalition than Bush’s Iraq coalition). Obama is continuing Bush’s Iraq campaign despite his and the Left’s despise for it. Obama has greatly increased the Afghanistan battle sphere to include Pakistan, while hamstringing the military with outrageous Rules of Engagement. And far more innocents have died from Obama’s collateral damage than under Bush. And more US military have died or been injured due to Obama’s ROE than under Bush, year to year.

Should we be in Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely. Destroy the terrorists. Destroy Al Qaida and the Taliban. But Obama and the Left are busily wallowing in their hypocrisy regarding both.

Should we be bombing Al Qaida in Yemen? Absolutely. Destroy them. But Obama is going in unilaterally, which is hypocritical of him. And the Left’s silence is highly hypocritical.

Should we be in Libya, trying to overthrow Qadafi? Meh. But Obama has refused to get Congressional approval, a violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. It is also hypocritical of Obama and the Left. Obama has also exceeded the UN mandate from day one, the very thing he and the Left used to permit the Libya war. Obama has also armed the very Islamic Terrorists we are fighting elsewhere. And the Left’s silence on that is highly hypocritical (Iran-Contra).

Whether we should be involved in the four wars is secondary to the absolute hypocrisy out of the Left in regards to each of the four wars. But without hypocrisy, the Left would have very little to operate with.

Posted in George Bush, history, Islam, Liberal, media, Obama, politically correct, politics, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

They Absolutely Refuse To Understand

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/06/03

Hot Air Headlines title of Washington Post article:

GOP wonders: Can we revive the evangelical base?

Washington Post title:

Republicans hope to spark political revival among evangelicals for 2012 race

The WaPo article starts out:

Is it possible to revive the evangelical political movement into the potent voting bloc it once was?

The answer to that question may help determine who wins the GOP presidential nomination next year, as well as whether it will be possible to defeat Barack Obama come November 2012.

While WaPo references the TEA Party, the article itself pretty much misses the whole thing.

Hot Air Headlines grabbed:

“What’s likely to happen is what a lot of us have wanted to see happen for a long time — a social conservative movement that speaks to a broader set of issues but which never strays from the foundational issues of life and family and marriage,” said longtime political operative Ralph Reed, who as a baby-faced 33-year-old leading the Christian Coalition in 1995 was dubbed “The Right Hand of God” on the cover of Time magazine…

“Among the older generation, there was a comfortable conflation between faith and partisanship. To be a Christian meant to be a Republican,” said Jonathan Merritt, a young evangelical leader whose father, Atlanta megachurch pastor James Merritt, is a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “What you’re finding is not a new evangelical left, but you’re finding a rise of political orphans.”

And my bolding is the key. The Republicans are looking for a “revival” of “Republican because Republicans rock” Evangelicals. There is, indeed, a very powerful political revival going on right now, a revival that has existed since very early in 2009. And there is, indeed, a very powerful Christian revival going on right now in the political world, a revival that has eisted since very early in 2009. And while the correlation is not a congruency, it has more in union than it does outside union.

Ruling Class Republicans have, since the beginning of their existence, depended on Christian Conservatives to vote for the RCRs as “the lesser of two evils.” And that’s key. RCRs depended on a sleeping Christian Conservative bloc that instinctually votes for whoever the Republicans put up. No more.

Ruling Class Republicans have always told Christian Conservatives “you cannot win without us.” Ronald Reagan proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that claim is not true. Regardless of RCR historical revisionism and Liberal and lamestream media (redundancy) historical revisionism, Reagan was reviled by Big Government power-brokers on both sides of the aisle as well as the bought and paid for Leftist lamestream media. But Reagan beat the Big Government Progressives of both political parties, and beat them badly (huzzah for USA and world freedom). In the process, Reagan utterly destroyed the lamestream media’s power over his message. George HW Bush ran as an “end to Reaganism” President, while riding on Reagan’s coattails. During the Clinton era, Republicans declared Reaganism dead. George W Bush, with the aid of Karl “Tokyo” Rove, threw Christian Conservatives to the wolves as he continued the “Reaganism is dead” meme while expanding Big Government.

And Barack Obama happened. While a left-of-center Republican was running as the top of the ticket, Obama ran against George W Bush (and depended on the masses who are not atuned to government activity). Karl Rove basically advised GWB to leave the Christian Conservatives and the Fiscal Conservatives hanging out to dry. Where else could they turn? Third Party? The Democrat Party was absolutely out of the question, with their radical Leftist, anti-Christian Socialist agenda.

But eight years of Republicans ignoring Christian Conservatives during the GWB era had an impact. (Ignoring the fiscal Conservatives had an impact as well, but that is the subject of another article (on someone else’s site).) In 2008, Christian Conservatives started telling the RCRs “you cannot win without us.” A complete reversal of “power.” The Ruling Class Republicans (with chunks of Democrat cross-over in the early states) chose a Left-of-Center Republican as their whipping boy nominee. The only thing that made the race close was McCain’s choosing of a Christian Conservative (Sarah Palin) as running mate.

But as I said, 2009 marked Barack Obama’s rise to power, and the resultant awakening of the sleeping giant. The question is not “Can Republicans awaken the Evangelicals?” The question is “How long will it take for all Conservatives to regain control of the Republican Party and return it to its roots?”

The Evangelicals have fully awakened. The Christian Conservatives are fully awake. And the Republican Aristocracy thinks it can rule over the Christian base, as if “Republican” > “Providence.”

No, the Republican Party is in a fight for its life. Either it returns to its roots or it dies and a new party replaces it, just as it replaced the Whig Party when the Whigs waffled.

Posted in Character, Christianity, Conservative, Elections, George Bush, history, Liberal, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, TEA Party, truth | 1 Comment »

Carter, Clinton And Obama Land Grabs

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/06/03

Here is one of many reasons why merely defeating Obama isn’t good enough. Only a Conservative President will suffice. From Right Pundits, March 2010:

Clinton and Carter were grab happy – Carter for land, Clinton for land…and other things. According to a Washington Times article by Sen. Jim Demit, Carter snagged 50 million acres in Alaska, despite strong opposition from the state, and Clinton snatched 5.9 million acres across the country creating 19 new national monuments.

But Obama has big plans for his 10 million acres. He’s going to save the prairie chickens in New Mexico, a “center of climate change scientific research” in Nevada, and an oil-rich plot of land in Colorado because it’s under the threat of being developed for actual usage.

Clinton’s land grab stole 1.7 million acres from Utah — land that has a massive “clean coal” field, which could produce 100 million tons of clean coal over 45 years. And it was purely political.

Michelle Malkin has been keeping up with the Obama Administration’s land grabbing and Independence-minded people fighting to put a stop to it.

Since day one of the Obama administration, I’ve chronicled Loathsome Cowboy Ken Salazar’s War on the West, War on Jobs, and War on Science/Rule of Law. The last straw was his attempted Wild Lands grab. GOP leaders rose up with farmers, ranchers, and Western governors to stop the scheme in its tracks. Utah and Alaska have filed suit. Wyoming joined the litigation this week.

And now, Salazar has officially announced the backpedal:


“On December 22, 2010, I issued Secretarial Order 3310 to address the BLM’s management of wilderness resources on lands under its jurisdiction. Under Secretarial Order 3310, I ordered the BLM to use the public resource management planning process to designate certain lands with wilderness characteristics as “Wild Lands.”

On April 14, 20II, the United States Congress passed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10)(2011 CR), which includes a provision (Section 1769) that prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 in Fiscal Year 2011.

I am confirming today that, pursuant to the 2011 CR, the BLM will not designate any lands as ‘Wild Lands.'”

That may put a temporary halt to the Obama Administration’s land grabbing. But it may not. As you may recall, the Obama Administration is in contempt of a Federal Court Order to re-open the Gulf for off-shore drilling and end the moratorium.

Regarding George W Bush, Tom DeWeese wrote in March, 2001:

For those who thought the election of President Bush was the solution to America’s property rights problems, think again. The issue of property rights is rapidly emerging as a major battleground for those who remain legitimately fearful of the federal appetite for more and more land. This runs counter to the basis for our entire economy, the right to own and manage land for its development and use.

Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton has stated that the Bush administration will not overturn any of former President Clinton’s arbitrary designation of millions of acres of federal land as “national monuments”, putting them off-limits to mining, timber, grazing, and other commercial activity.

Instead, the Bush administration offers vague promises of working with western lawmakers and private property owners to ‘adjust the boundaries’ and ‘alter the rules’ governing commercial activities.

This is Beltway talk for doing nothing. The federal government currently owns an estimated quarter of the entire landmass of the nation. It is land Congress has mandated for ‘multiple use’ to insure that the vast natural resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and timber can be accessed to meet our current and future needs. This do-nothing property policy, coupled with an apparent lack of an energy policy, exists despite the obvious need to vigorously reverse the restrictions put in place by the Clinton administration.


Map via Frank Jacobs, Strange Maps blog/Big Think

As you can see, Big Government Liberals have been grabbing tens of millions of acres of land for decades. Energy-rich land. Natural resource-rich land. For purely political reasons. And Big Government Republicans have not returned that land back to the states and private citizens. Simply slowing down the land grabs will not do. Simply putting a stop to the land grabs will not do. As soon as a Liberal becomes President again, ever more land will be stolen from the states and from We the People. It is imperative that a Conservative be elected President in order to actually reverse the land grabs and return the land to its rightful owners (which is NOT the Federal Government).

UPDATE: Very related, Jazz Shaw reports on the Obama Administration’s outside-the-Legislature-where-it-belongs power grab and war on the coal industry.

While much of our attention on matters of domestic energy production has been focused on questions regarding oil and natural gas, (and to a lesser extent, nuclear) which, as Ed pointed out earlier, might be more plentiful than we currently imagine, the EPA has certainly been a bunch of busy beavers on other fronts as well. Even though cap and trade went down in flames through legal routes, as The American Legislative Exchange reports, the commission has been using extra-legislative procedures, cloaked under the guise of the Clean Air Act, to to effectively declare war on the American coal industry.

Do read the rest of Jazz Shaw’s article. It’s very informative. And Ed Morrissey’s article Jazz Shaw linked is likewise very informative. Do read Mr Morrissey’s entire article. His sourcing and quoting suggests we may be at the beginning of the fossil fuel era and not approaching its end. His conclusion? “As I said earlier, the energy crisis in this country is entirely self-inflicted, mainly because the demagogues and Chicken Littles have controlled the narrative for far too long.”

Just more evidence that simply stopping the Big Government and radical Leftist power-grab and land grab is not enough. Just throwing Obama out is not enough. We need a Conservative to actually reverse the Big Government, anti-Freedom, anti-Individual agenda, not just stop it.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, Environmentalism, George Bush, history, Liberal, Obama, Oil, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, TEA Party, war | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Robert Reich Is All Wet

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/29

Things Robert Reich does not understand:

The TEA Party movement
Conservatism
Economics
Tax history
Regulatory history
That Big Business in bed with Big Government is Crony Capitalism and not Free Market
That our debt and deficit problems are spending problems and not revenue problems

What Robert Reich pushes:

Class Envy (which is a sin)
TEA Partiers are fake
TEA Partiers are real but they’re evil and insane
Conservatives want to hurt grandma and sick people
Only insane people don’t want to raise taxes and the debt limit

HT Hot Air Headlines

Robert Reich starts out with the same old false premises and Big Government memes as all Leftists and Big Government Republicans have been pushing for decades.

Who’s more influential in the Republican Party – the so-called Tea Party or Wall Street and big business?

There’s the “TEA Party is fake” attack. And there’s the false premise that Wall Street and Big Business is Republican. Let’s see how Republican Big Business is, shall we?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, George Bush, history, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party, truth, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Republican Path To The Presidency

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/24

The lamestream media wants to nominate the Republican Presidential candidate for us like it did in 2008 with the help of Democrats voting in the Republican Primary. Then, they propped up the squishiest of candidates until McCain gained the nomination. And KABLOWIE!!! The lamestream media turned on him in an instant, printing unsubstantiated rumors that turned out to be lies, and attacking him with everything they had. But only after he beat out more conservative candidates. McCain didn’t help matters by absolutely refusing to fight Obama and refusing to allow his people to fight Obama. And throwing a hissy fit when other people fought Obama. McCain’s only saving grace was choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly, many people were willing to vote for the Republican Ticket. I, myself, was ready to vote Third Party until he chose Palin. No way was I going to vote McCain, and I didn’t — I voted Palin.

Once again, the lamestream media is trying to nominate the Republican candidate — a candidate they won’t vote for, regardless. And the Big Government Republican machine is acting as the accomplice. You see, the Ruling Class Republicans are more afeared of the Grass Roots than they are of Democrats. And that’s the huge problem.

7 in 10 grass-roots Republicans and a majority of independents deem the Ruling Class Republicans (inside the beltway Republicans) to be out of touch with and to the left of the base.
42 percent Conservative
36 percent Moderate
20 percent Liberal
And the Ruling Class Republicans are Moderate, the whole lot of them. “You cannot win without us” is a two-way street, folks, and don’t you forget it. Lamestream media and the RCR want you to forget that. The RCR cannot win without you and they want to keep you down and ignorant and stupid so you vote for RCR-approved candidates instead of voting your conscience.

Due to my weak research skills, I couldn’t find the famous quote from the famous European writer who described Americans as rubes and country-class folk who eschewed aristocracy and governed themselves. But that’s how Americans were until the 20th Century. And that’s what made America great. The 20th Century rolled around and the Ruling Class gained power, and that has been the downfall of the US. Our 20th Century achievements have been made as a result of inertia and world events (WWI and WWII propelling the US onto the World Stage because nobody else was able to produce). Ruling Class Socialism in the US began prior to World War One and has caused the deterioration of the US since then.

But I did find some very worthwhile quotes.

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.” — John F Kennedy (Too bad the Democrats absolutely demand surrender and submission today.)

“I think the most un-American thing you can say is, “You can’t say that”.” — Garrison Keillor (And the Left is very busily working hard to prevent anyone on the Right from being able to say anything. The same goes for the RCRs and the grass-roots.)

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson (Hello, Democrats and RCRs.)

“We can have no “50-50″ allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.” — Theodore Roosevelt (Hello, Democrats and Barack Obama)

“America’s abundance was not created by public sacrifices to “the common good”, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes.” — Ayn Rand (Hello, Democrats and Barack Obama and RCRs.)

“The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” — Henry David Thoreau (Hello, Democrats and Barack Obama and RCRs.)

For most of American History, Americans have rejected the Aristocracy, the Ruling Class mentality of Europe. And for most of American History, we have outclassed the entirety of the world in every measure (except barbarity). But as the 20th Century rolled in, we started giving in to Socialism (which has never, anywhere, succeeded) and European-style Aristocracy. And that has been to our demise. Ronald Reagan changed that picture.

The Democrats absolutely ate him alive. The lamestream media absolutely ate him alive (but I’m repeating myself). The RCRs, including George Herbert Walker Bush, absolutely ate him alive. But he won anyway, despite being called a dunce and considered stupid, ignorant, unwise, a fool by both the Democrats and the RCRs. He won because he appealed to the regular people. He made sense to the regular people, who eschewed Aristocracy and Socialism and held to the original American Values that made this country great.

Reagan was mostly victorious against the Democrats and the RCRs. Reagan absolutely brought about the collapse of the Stalinist Iron Curtain and ushered in a new age of Freedom to Eastern Europeans. Reagan oversaw the crushing of the Carter Malaise/Stagflation and brought about the greatest economic boom since the 1940s.

Then came the RCR Bush 41 and his “read my lips” lie, which brought on the Big Government “think with his prick” Democrat perjurist Clinton and the RCR Bush 43. And the free-fall into Socialist Hell was once again in full swing. But Barack Obama changed all that. The Socialist Democrat Barack Obama put a jet-pack on the free-falling US to send us into total Socialist impoverishment (as all Socialist schemes inevitably lead to impoverishment).

But there is a cure. And it’s pretty much the same cure Ronald Reagan used. Ignore the lamestream media which has sold its soul to the Far Left and focus on the people themselves. But today is very different than 1980. Today, true American Values cannot be found in some regions, so those regions may as well be written off from the get-go (and repaired later in the process).

As such, my view for a Conservative Republican’s path to the Presidency:
1. Forget about California’s Primary.
California will vote majority Democrat, regardless of who runs.
California’s Republicans are majority RCR regardless, and a candidate who wins the RCR vote will not defeat the Democrat who scores higher in the areas the RCRs work in.

2. Forget about most of New England.
Aside from maybe New Hampshire (and possibly Maine), the Democrat will win New England regardless of the Republican candidate.
The majority of New England Republicans are RCR types and the Democrat scores higher on RCR values than RCR candidates.

3. Forget about the lamestream media.
While they will try to pick the Republican nominee like they did in 2008, they will still destroy that nominee and vote for the Democrat, so their opinions are worth less than a possum skin after it was run over by a CSX train.

4. Focus on the grass-roots Conservatives outside California and New England.
The best chance for a Republican victory resides everywhere except the West Coast and New England. As such, those are the Primary and Caucus voters the Republican candidates need to focus on.

5. Don’t be “me, too” to the Democrat or RCR position. Provide a true contrast in agendas.
Too many people see the two Party monstrosities as basically the same thing. Six of one, half a dozen of another. Provide a true difference from the “government owns and rules all” Democrats and RCRs. As Reagan proved, and the TEA Party groups demand, this is the winning hand. A return to what made America great is what the people demand, not a “me, too” Aristocracy and continued government dominance over every aspect of Americans’ lives.

Note to you RCRs out there: Be warned, you are on your way out of grace. This includes Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Karl “Tokyo” Rove, and others.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, George Bush, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Obama Waited Sixteen Hours (Good) Bush Waited Ten Minutes (Bad)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/05

When Barack Obama learned Osama bin Laden’s location, he waited 16 hours before his team gave the order to go get Osama.  When George W Bush learned terrorists flew two planes into the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001, he waited for less than ten minutes before he left the second grade class at Emma E Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.

While it is good that the Islamic Terrorist Osama bin Laden was killed, and President Barack Obama deserves some of the credit, the fact remains that Obama waited 16 hours before giving the go-ahead for Special Forces to do their jobs and take Osama down.  During Obama’s dithering time, Osama could have easily just up and drove away.  Then what?  Nobody except for a very few in-the-know would have known Obama had a chance and dithered it away.  And since that was Top Secret information, the chances of that information getting leaked would have been exceedingly small.  As Hilary Clinton said during the 2008 Presidential Primary campaign, Obama is still not ready for the 3AM phone call.  It’ll take him 16 hours before he (or someone else) makes a decision.  And in that time, the target could get away or the situation could become unmanageable or far more expensive in terms of dollars, lives, duration.  But Liberals that I’ve read don’t want to look at that — at all.  Or they give Obama credit for “being deliberative and not a Cowboy.”  And we all know what that sentiment is.  It’s partisanship, plain and simple.

But when George W Bush heard that terrorists (nobody knew they were Islamic Terrorists yet) had struck the World Trade Center while a Florida second grade class was reading to him, the Liberals wanted Bush to get up and leave right then and there.  As if Bush could have done something in those ten minutes to change anything.  What was it Bush could have done in those ten minutes that would have changed anything?

There are already plans in place in the event the US is attacked.  Since the attack was by civilian planes, President Bush was in no immediate danger in a Florida grade school.  There was nothing that needed done right that minute that couldn’t be handled at a command level below the Commander in Chief.  In short, President Bush’s seven to ten minute delay was in no way going to make matters worse or prevent matters from becoming better.  So the Liberals’ demand that Bush was wrong or indecisive, or whatever other Liberal attack meme, is pure partisanship or pure ignorance or a combination of the two.  But don’t take my word for it. Take the words of those who were at Emma E Booker Elementary School — in the second grade class with President Bush — for it. From Time magazine, no right-wing media outlet that, come the words of the then-second grade students who witnessed President Bush being told terrorists had flown planes into the World Trade Center. And they say President Bush did the right thing.

Lazaro Dubrocq’s heart started racing because he assumed they were all in trouble — with no less than the Commander in Chief — but he wasn’t sure why. “In a heartbeat, he leaned back and he looked flabbergasted, shocked, horrified,” recalls Dubrocq, now 17. “I was baffled. I mean, did we read something wrong? Was he mad or disappointed in us?”

Similar fears started running through Mariah Williams’ head. “I don’t remember the story we were reading — was it about pigs?” says Williams, 16. “But I’ll always remember watching his face turn red. He got really serious all of a sudden. But I was clueless. I was just 7. I’m just glad he didn’t get up and leave, because then I would have been more scared and confused.” Chantal Guerrero, 16, agrees. Even today, she’s grateful that Bush regained his composure and stayed with the students until The Pet Goat was finished. “I think the President was trying to keep us from finding out,” says Guerrero, “so we all wouldn’t freak out.”

Williams, also a junior at the military academy, says those moments spent with Bush conferred on the kids a sort of historical authority as they grew up. “Today, when we talk about 9/11 in class and you hear kids make mistakes about what happened with the President that day, I can tell them they’re wrong,” she says, “because I was there.”

Clearly, the two situations are completely uncomparable. For George W Bush, there was nothing he could do at the time and staying for the next few minutes served a purpose — keeping a bunch of 7-year-olds calm. President Bush made the right decision. For Barack Obama, there was something he could do and he chose to wait 16 hours and possibly miss the window of opportunity. Obama’s waiting provided no benefit and introduced a lot of risk.

Yes, Obama gets some credit for Osama being taken out. But so does Bush get some credit. And the overwhelming majority of the credit goes to the Intelligence community and the US Armed Forces.

But it’s pure partisanship for Liberals to claim these two events prove Obama is a successful military leader while Bush is a failure. Pure partisanship with zero grounding in truth.
_____________________________________________________________
Cross-Posted on Common Sense Political Thought and Caffeinated Thoughts

Posted in George Bush, history, Islam, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, society, terrorists, truth, war, Youth | 2 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 223 other followers

%d bloggers like this: