Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

h1

An Obama Lie Which I Embrace

December 3, 2008

Get ready for the lefties to start throwing Christmas ornaments (I just wanted to write Christmas in my post to piss off the far left no-fun-having-morons).  Obama has again flip flopped on promises he made during the election.  This time I accept his definition of change with open arms. 

Throughout the election Obama attempted to discredit McCain by saying McCain’s tax plan was going to give more tax breaks to the oil companies who are making “obscene profits”.  I hadn’t heard this much rubbish and fact twisting since the last Kevin Trudeau infomercial about “The (Fill in the Blank) Cure the Government Doesn’t Want You To Know About.”  Here are the two major fallacies in Obama’s assertion.

1. McCain’s Plan was not going to give more tax breaks to the Oil companies as Obama made it sound.  He just wasn’t going to raise their taxes because McCain planned on extending or making the Bush tax cuts permanent. 

2. When a monopoly or an oligopoly (the oil industry is an oligopoly) is involved, profits grow exponentially when price increases.  More importantly, extracting oil costs a lot of money and capital.  Especially for American companies who face huge health and liability insurance costs and labor laws to enforce.  However, Obama failed to mention that the american Oil companies only had an 8-10% marginal return on their investment last year.  That is well below the return of other vital industries in this country.  Again, Obama did not mention this point when talking about the “obscene profits”; he should have said obscene marginal revenue…which the Oil Companies did not have last year.

Again, during the election Obama promised a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.  Essentially, this is a “redistribution of wealth” FROM those who dared take the expensive risk to raise capital in order to drill and refine oil TO those who the Government deems in need.  Thank heavens Obama had a change of heart

According to MM

President-elect Barack Obama has shelved a proposal to slap the oil and gas companies with a new windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped so much in recent months, the transition team confirmed today.

“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” a transition aide said. “They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that.”

Obama’s proposal had called for using the proceeds from the tax to give American consumers an energy rebate worth up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per married couple.

This is great for free market operations, but it raises an even more important question.  Obama expected the windfall tax to pay for many of his programs; where is the money going to come from now?

Hotair explains:

Obama now claims that his tax relief, based on refundables rather than actual cuts in marginal rates, no longer relies on the supposed income that windfall-profits taxes would have generated.  If so, it’s difficult to see where the money will originate in a sharp recession.  They want to raise the marginal rates on top earners, with some suggesting an increase from 36% to as high as 44%, which will have the effect of halting capital investment and extending the recession.  Under static analysis, that money might exist, but any dynamic analysis will show that the revenue from those rate hikes not only won’t fund the expansive vision of new government spending Obama promised, it won’t pay for the massive refundables either.

If Obama has reneged on his windfall profit tax, expect him to renege on most of his promises over the past year or so; there won’t be sufficent funds.  If he continues on his trek for a “Great Civilization” or the installation of a “New Plan: Part Deux”, we will see deficits even larger than that of President Bush.  The people wanted Change, but I don’t think this was the change his supporters expected.

-reagan21

Advertisements
h1

Al-Qaida Insults Obama

November 19, 2008

From the AP:

Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri insulted Barack Obama in the terror group’s first reaction to his election, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

Al-Zawahri also called Obama—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—”house negroes.”

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term “abeed al-beit,” which literally translates as “house slaves.” But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as “house negroes.”

PE-BHO should just ignore this part as it would only demean the office of the President to respond to such an ad hominem attack. However, it is in PE-BHO’s best interests to respond to this part:

He said Obama’s plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

“Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them,” he said.

Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was “facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see.”

He said Obama’s victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush’s policies were a failure and that the result was an “admission of defeat in Iraq.”

We are still unclear as to what PE-BHO’s Middle East policy will be. He ran early hard left indicating a time table to pull out, but he moderated his position near the end. That is the great unknown and the biggest problem in electing a man with no record who was put into office on malleabe promises. I hope he succeeds and understands that victory in Iraq is necessary to establish Basra and Baghdad as economic centers of the middle east in the same vein as Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There has already been much progress in Baghdad metro and it would be a shame to see Al Qaida come in and infect it on the weakness of American foreign policy.

h1

Ayers Confirms “Family Friends” with Obamas

November 14, 2008

I don’t think this would have changed the outcome of the election if it came out before November 4, but it is an interesting reflection on the character of the man who will be President. Unrepentent terrorist, Ayers’ relationship with Obama is far from “Just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Anyway, from the Chicago Sun-Times:

 

In a new afterword to his 2001 book, Bill Ayers, former leader of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground, describes President-elect Barack Obama as a “family friend” and denies he wished his group had set off more bombs in the 1960s.

[…]

“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign,” he writes.

But right-wing commentators tried to use those connections to smear Obama, he says.

“Obama’s political rivals and enemies apparently saw an opportunity to deepen a dishonest narrative about him, that he is somehow un-American, alien, linked to radical ideas, a closet terrorist, a sympathizer with extremism,” Ayers wrote.

h1

What Obama Meant When He Proposed “Change”

November 10, 2008

Towards the end of the 2008 campaign, Obama started pumping up his website Change.gov because it laid out his intriquite plan which covered 25 important political issues.  Over the weekend, Obama scrubbed Change.gov and removed his plan from the website, eventhough his now irrelevant campaign website retained the plan.  The plan is now more generic and very ambiguous regarding his plans for this country, oh and it’s one paragraph long; cut down from roughly 65 pages.  According to the Washington Times, Obama’s new plan is:

“to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.”

Luckily I printed a copy out and I am still in possession of it.  I read it including my highlighting and markings in the margins.  I am going to make sure Obama is exposed on every change he makes.  I have a feeling the changes will not be minimal but relevant and patent changes.  Sorry Obama worshipers, but you have been duped.  Change is right…changed plans.  Obama 2008.  Please print the plan fron his campaign website BarackObama.com because I have a felling that that website will be scrubbed clean very soon.

-reagan21

h1

Obama Ready to RULE on Day 1

November 10, 2008

Ready to Rule?

“given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.”

Kings rule, Presidents lead. At least in the Old World Order

h1

The One to Reverse President George W. Bush’s Executive Orders?

November 9, 2008

The Washington Post reports that some of the One’s first actions as Pres. will be to reverse several of President George W. Bush’s executive orders:

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s.

Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama’s final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama “can simply reverse them by executive order.” Obama, she said, “was very receptive to that.” Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

“We have been communicating with his transition staff” almost daily, Richards said. “We expect to see a real change.”

AS has been noted in multiple venues, we are currently funding placental and umbilical cord stem cell research. It would be folly to fund embryonic stem cell research as long as Roe v. Wade is law in the U.S. If embryonic stem cell research is funded, whereby cells from a destroyed pre-born infant are used, we would only be a stone’s throw away from federally funded abortions. Once something becomes federally funded it can only expand in that direction.  If Roe v. Wade were to be reversed, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would not be as much of an issue because the issue of abortion would be a state issue whereby each state can adopt whatever abortion laws they want. It would not be a federal issue so any action with regard to embryonic stem cells would neither expand nor contract the right to terminate a human life in utero. 

With regard to the Mexico City rule Ed Morissey writes:

While American voters feel some ambiguity on abortion, they overwhelmingly do not want their tax dollars paying for or facilitating abortions.  The Mexico City rule forbade federal funds to be used to facilitate the acquisition of abortions by groups abroad, much as the Hyde Amendment prohibited federal funds to be used in the same manner domestically.  If Obama rescinds it, he can expect a great deal of outrage from pro-life groups and a reopening of the debate over the use of tax money to procure abortions anywhere.

In addition, on the energy/environmental front:

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some — such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards — that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. “Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer,” Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA’s deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

More than a suspect economic policy, nothing in the nascent Messiah administration scares me more than his energy policy. We are only a baby steps away from cap and trade. The One has showed an unwillingness to drill for new energy, to build safe nuclear power plants, and to expand clean coal. In fact, he believes his policies, specifically cap and trade, would bankrupt the coal industry. We, the American people will be left with a rising electricity bill and rising oil prices while we act as a test kitchen for alternative methods of generating energy, many if not all of which are bound to fail. 

– Yossarian

h1

Change (in positions) #2 – Missile Shield

November 9, 2008

We saw #1 yesterday with the One’s backtracking on required community service.

Now it appears that we have reached the second change in positions since the One’s ascension to PE-BHO. Specifically, the BBC reports that Obama has changed his position on missile defense with regard to a vow he made to Poland:

In a statement published on his website on Saturday, Poland’s president said Mr Obama had “emphasised the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military co-operation between our countries.”

“He also said that the missile defence project would continue,” the statement added.

When asked about the declaration, [Obama aide, Denis] McDonough said that the US president-elect had had “a good conversation” with Mr Kaczynski about the American-Polish alliance and discussed missile defence, but “made no commitment on it”.

“His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defence system when the technology is proved to be workable,” Mr McDonough told the Associated Press.

In the past, Mr Obama has said he wants to review the plans for a missile defence system in central Europe to ensure it would be effective and not target Russia.

But the BBC’s Adam Easton in Warsaw says the Russian government believes the plan to locate 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic will do exactly that.

AFP has more on this:

The statement by President Kaczynski appeared to put a different spin on the conversation between the two men.

“Barack Obama has underlined the importance of the strategic partnership between Poland and the United States, he expressed his hope of continuing the political and military cooperation between our two countries,” the statement read.

“He also said the anti-missile shield project would go ahead,” said a statement said.

Warsaw and Washington signed a deal on August 14 to base part of a US missile shield in Poland, despite Moscow’s opposition and mounting East-West tensions over Georgia.

The United States wants to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland plus a radar facility in the neighboring Czech Republic by 2011-2013 to complete a system already in place in the United States, Greenland and Britain.

Washington says the shield — endorsed by NATO in February — is aimed at fending off potential attacks by so-called “rogue states” such as Iran, and is in no way aimed at Russia.

This is a poor choice by Obama early on in his nascent administration. Russia recently made it clear that it was going to deploy short range missiles to the Baltic. Russia also made it clear that this is a direct protest to the missile shield. This is a bad sign if PE-BHO capitulates to this show of aggression. No, I am not advocating a ground war with the Russians (we could win), but I am advocating that the President Elect with “steel in his spine” not make his first act as PE-NHO an act made from a position of weakness. We here on the right are rooting for PE-BHO to succeed. It is in our best interests as a country to remain a superpower. As such, he needs to ignore Madeline Albright’s declaration that the United States should not be the only superpower and show us some of the Chicago Politics Thuggery in foreign relations. 

– Yossarian