HOT NEW FUEL MILEAGE PLAN NOT EVEN LUKEWARM

This ARTICLE appeared on hotair.com on July 16, 2011.  It talks about Obama's new proposed fuel mileage standards that would require vehicles to get 56 miles per gallon by the year 2025.  Kelly Blue Book is quoted here and points out a huge misrepresentation in the plan which concerns how much we would save if we had one of these ultra-high mileage cars (if we could afford it - but that's another subject that the Washington politicians don't really care about).

New fed fuel efficiency standards solve everything

Share

POSTED AT 12:00 PM ON JULY 16, 2011 BY JAZZ SHAW
REGULAR VIEW

Last month we took a look at some of the possible side effects of the administration’s proposed, higher fuel efficiency standards in light of the law of unintended consequences. Jumping the gun to guidelines calling for better than fifty miles per gallon vehicles before the science caught up to these desires was already looking pretty dubious. Now, Kelley Blue Book (one of the older names in all things automobile related) has weighed in on the subject and are equally unimpressed.

The typical recounting of the scenario largely goes like this: Federal sources estimate that increasing fuel efficiency to 56 mpg by 2025 will be accomplished at an average cost of $2,100 to $2,600 per vehicle, but the savings resulting from higher fuel economy would save vehicle owners $5,500 to $7,000 over the vehicle’s lifetime. Sounds just fine, doesn’t it? There will be higher initial costs, but they will be a good investment, because car buyers will save money in the end.

But if one looks past the rose-colored predictions of the politicians (from both sides of the aisle, by the way), the picture gets a little cloudier. First, what the previously cited estimates fail to mention is that the typical new-car owner won’t own the car over its entire lifetime, so one has to wonder how interested new-car buyers will be in paying significantly more for their vehicle – and an average of $2,500 is significantly more – for little obvious benefit to their own pocketbooks. (The cynical answer to that is if they want to buy a new car, they won’t have any choice). Given the scenario that has been painted to prepare the way for the approval of the new regulations, owners would break even sometime between two and-a-half and three-and-a-half years of ownership, when many cars are still in their original owners’ hands. But the breakeven point and the accuracy of the entire scenario depend on correctly predicting future fuel prices, which is an iffy prospect at best.

(emphasis mine)

Their conclusions about the Obama administration’s predictions regarding 56 m.p.g. standards are rather harsh, and actually include the phrase, “built on a house of cards.” Other sources we have contacted have been less kind. You can try to force the auto industry to deliver higher mileage cars, but you can’t tell them to take a loss on the sale, so if the needed changes drive the price through the roof, guess who gets handed the bill?

People without jobs are looking to hold on to their cars for longer, and if they must replace them, they’re going to want the best deal possible. The number of unknowns which the White House is trying to juggle shoves this argument into the realm of fantasy. In addition to having to predict the cost of gas, what sort of loan arrangement will the buyer be able to obtain in an uncertain, floundering economy? What will the interest rates be to pay back a larger loan on a more expensive vehicle? All of these factors subtract from any projected savings and simply result in saddling the consumer with a higher price tag.

Before the White House decides to jump this particular shark, they may want to get a few more people involved in the discussion. Maybe somebody for example… oh, I don’t know… who actually designs and builds car engines? Food for thought.

This is just another Obama tactic called avoidance.  The real issue is the freeze on drilling for our own oil right here with a 200 year supply right under our feet.  

Obama has not learned from the past thirty-six years of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or C.A.F.E standards.  Since these regulations were passed, our dependence on foreign oil has risen from 40% to 60%.  You absolutely cannot conserve your way out of a problem.  It has worked in over three decades, and it will not work over the next three.  

One thing that Obama doesn't mention (or care about) is the deaths that have occurred that are directly attributable to the C.A.F.E. standards.  Smaller, lighter cars are far less safe due to the lack of sturdy frames and much smaller interior areas that served as "crash zones" in the older larger cars.  American Thinker has an excellent ARTICLE on this subject.  The statistics regarding the increased number of people killed in the name of higher fuel mileage are horrifying.  One example is a finding by USA Today that 7,700 people die in traffic accidents for each mile per gallon gained in fuel economy.

So, is it worth it, or should we drill here? The choice is simple.

U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY DRIVES SUV TO REVEAL NEW FUEL ECONOMY STICKERS!

U. S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently introduced the new fuel economy window stickers for new cars and trucks.  And just what did he drive to the location?  You guessed it!  A Chevrolet Suburban that gets a whopping 12 miles per gallon!  Have you heard, "Do as I say, don't do as I do?"  This administration's motto.

(SOURCE)

JUST WHERE ARE THE PATRIOT ACT PROTESTERS?

This one can't be blamed on Bush.  Obama owns this one lock, stock, and barrel.  The Obama administration plans to introduce a bill to Congress next year that would require all Internet communication services to be able to comply with wiretap orders.  Included are encrypted e-mail transmitting devices such as  Blackberries, social networking sites such as Facebook, and even software that allows direct person-to-person contact like Skype.  If passed, the law would include allowing the government to intercept and unscramble messages.

                     

                      

This has very obvious possibilities for abuse.  The stated purpose of course is to monitor suspected terrorists.  But given this administration's designation of those who oppose Obama's policies as terrorist threats, the FBI, CIA, and NSA could eavesdrop on many law-abiding Americans (over half of us according to the most recent poll numbers showing a clear majority of voters disapproving of Obama's policies).  

                                    

The FBI tried to head off objections by the public.  According to the New York Times ARTICLE that reported this, FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni said, "We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts. We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security." Oh really.  Has Ms. Caproni NOT read the Homeland Security report issued by Janet Neopolitan characterizing anyone who believes the Bible, is a veteran, supports the Tea Party, or any one or combination of these as a terrorist threat?  Is she REALLY not aware of Obama asking citizens to report anyone sending e-mails or blogging that opposed his Socialist health care bill?  Anyone believing that this would be used in such a limited context is very naive indeed.

                         

Social Security is a great example of the "limited context" claims by the government.  When Social Security first came into being, the government assured everyone that their information and Social Security numbers would never be used for anything but receiving Social Security benefits.  I even still have a Social Security card that says, "Not to be used for identification purposes."  Just try to buy a house or conduct any number of personal business transactions while exercising your right not to give out your Social Security number.  Just try to get a job without  providing it.

The "limited context" never ever stays limited.  It's ever-expanding, many times well under the public's radar as regulations are tweaked along the way every single year.                               

So far, I don't hear loud protests of the left like we did with the passage of the Patriot Act.  I haven't heard anything from the liberal left about "invasion of privacy", "warrantless wiretaps", and on and on.  It will be very interesting indeed to see the left's reaction to this considering it's originating from a wildly leftist Democrat administration and can't be blamed on Bush.  Yes, Obama owns this one . . . totally.

                                   

MOVE ACT NOT MOVING

There was a law passed last year called the MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTER EMPOWERMENT (MOVE) ACT.  In short, it requires all states to mail absentee ballots to military personnel stationed overseas at least 45 days in advance of an election.  This is an increase from 30 days which the Department of Defense had maintained that 30 days was not enough time for the ballots to reach service men and women at forward bases and be returned in time to be counted.

Now, there are ten states, Washington, D. C. (figures), and the U. S. Virgin Islands, that are trying to get waivers so that they do not have to comply with this law.  The states are Hawaii, New York, Delaware, Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Colorado.  

The law was passed in October 2009.  The waivers are being requested because of claims that, due to the dates of their elections, there is not enough time to comply with the 45 day requirement.  Sorry Charlie, but that just simply "doesn't wash."  All concerned have known this was coming since last year giving plenty of time to plan how to comply with the law.

We all know how fast-moving the U. S. Department of Justice when it comes to quashing the will of the people.  The latest example of this is its lawsuit against the State of Arizona for daring to copy the Federal government's anti-illegal immigration law.  Want to guess at how fast they are moving to enforce the MOVE Act?  

                                         

But in this case, the snail is winning.  Two former U. S. Department of Justice Voting Section litigation attorneys have accused the DOJ of STALLING on enforcement of the MOVE Act.  Because of the DOJ's inaction, thousands of military votes may not get counted this November. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, who co-sponsored the MOVE Act, wrote a letter to U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing concerns  about the Department of Justice allowing states to opt out.  Click HERE to read the letter.  Do you really think it is any coincidence this is happening when Obama knows he will lose control of Congress this November?  Yeah, and I have some beachfront property in Knoxville for sale that I'll sell you cheap too. 

What I would like to know is where are all the protestors that were screaming after the Bush-Gore presidential election?  All we heard was how voters were "disenfranchised" because of the type of ballots used in Florida that were just fine as long as the Democrats were winning the elections.  We heard this ad nauseum for weeks.  Votes were counted, recounted, and recounted.  Al Gore tried to get the military vote thrown out because the Postal Service doesn't have branches on aircraft carriers and overseas military bases.  Just where are all of these people now that our military personnel stand to be disenfranchised because of DOJ's lack of compliance oversight?  Mighty quiet out there.  But wait!  The military overwhelmingly votes Republican.  Now I get it. 

OBAMA "THE FIXER"

This news is about two months old, but I haven't had much time lately to research this. But not all of it's old news. The pattern with this administration continues.

During the Pennsylvania primaries earlier this year, Democratic Representative Joe Sestak was running against incumbent Senator Arlen Specter. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, using Former President Bill Clinton, offered Sestak a bribe in the form of a prominent advisory position within the administration in exchange for Sestak dropping out of the race. According to the New York Times, one of the jobs offered was a position on the PRESIDENT'S INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD. Click HERE for the New York Times article.

Here's Clinton doing the Washington Ignore the Question Dance:

As you know, Sestak refused, then went on to defeat Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate primary.

Fast forward to June 2010 and a report on Fox News, INTERVENTION IN COLORADO RACE COULD CAST PALL OVER OBAMA TRANSPARENCY MESSAGE. This time it was Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina contacted Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in the fall of 2009 to determine if Romanoff was still interested in a USAID job for which Romanoff had applied. Even though White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied making a job offer ("plausible deniability"), the rest of Messina's inquiry was to determine "if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters". The latter refers to the White House's attempt to get Romanoff out of the primary race against incumbent Senator Michael Bennet. The Obama administration, by sheer coincidence I'm sure, supported Bennet.

Here's a clip from CBS News' Washington Unplugged with more:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

According to the accompanying article to the video, ANDREW ROMANOFF BREAKS SILENCE ON WHITE HOUSE JOB TALKS, Messina told Romanoff that the administration would support his opponent, and three White House positions might be available if Romanoff were not in the Senate race. When Romanoff refused, no one in the White House communicated with him again.

There is obviously a pattern here. I wonder just how much of this is going on with this "transparent" administration that we don't know about because the players involved are keeping quiet. "Change"? Not so much. Same as always, business as usual, no real "change". Not surprising though judging from Obama's track record.

Related articles:

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpps/news/white-house-mum-on-sestak-job-offer-dpgonc-km-20100523_7698908

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/28/ny-white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/

OBAMA'S HOUSE OF CARDS COLLAPSING

The following article must have the Obama administration in "Oh You-Know-What" mode. I'm sure he and his staff are scrambling to try to do damage control. One of the things they and the rest of the liberal left are doing is demonizing the protests against the health care legislation being considered in Congress. The article was written by Scott Rasmussen and posted today on the RASMUSSEN REPORTS. There are some interesting poll numbers in this article that must have Obama and the rest of the leftist Democrats sweating like the proverbial pig.

"Seventy-one percent (71%) of U. S. voters say President Obama's policies have increased the size of the Federal deficit."

"Only five percent (5%) say the president's policies have cut the deficit, and 10% say they have had no impact. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure."

Wow! Almost three-quarters of U.S. voters! Obama being responsible for increasing the size of the Federal deficit has always been a no-brainer, but it seems people are now paying attention. This is really bad news for Obama. Can't blame Bush anymore when you consider that the Obama administration and the Democrat dominated Congress have run up the deficit more in six months than the Bush administration did in eight years.

"Not surprisingly, 88% of Republicans blame the president's policies, compared to 52% of Democrats. But 79% of voters not affiliated with either party agree."

Over half of the Democrats agree that Obama has driven up the Federal deficit. Really bad news for the Obama administration and the liberal Democrats in Congress.

An interesting statistic is that even though 54% blame the recession that began under the Bush administration for our current economic problems, but get this: 39% say our economic troubles are Obama's fault. More bad news for Obama.

Let's keep going: 37% cutting the Federal deficit in half over the next four years is number one among four of Obama's priorities, but 66% view it as a goal he is unlikely to achieve.

Nearly have think cuts in government spending helps the economy. Even more bad news for Obama considering his excessive deficit spending policies.

And the last one I'll cover here: "54% of U.S. voters say TAX CUTS (emphasis mine) are more important than new spending for health care reform." People may be starting to realize that tax cuts increase Federal revenue and boost the economy. I think this is also an indicator people are fed up with the tax burden, and the threat of INCREASING TAXES to pay for Obamacare should it pass. So much for 95% of middle class Americans getting a tax cut as Obama insisted during his campaign.

The 2010 elections are coming . . . and so are we the voters. We're not forgetting, and as I have said before, we are NOT going away. Congress better start listening to us now. The thunder of dissent is growing . . .

T.E.A. ANYONE?

This past Independence Day marked another national tax-and-spend protest. There were rallies in all fifty states in every major city and most medium-sized cities. Tea party organizers estimate the overall attendance at 200,000+. The liberal left this time is busy downplaying it and even say the movement is "losing steam." Even if you believe that, there is no one organization that could pull off having so many rallies across the nation in every single state. You have to consider that literally 99.99% of the American population isn't going to participate, and this one was in the middle of vacation season. It was still quite a showing and Washington better take notice. They can all still be voted out, and Congressional elections are coming. We must be getting their attention, because in Atlanta, the Tea Party got closed down. Like one person said, the fact they even bothered to shut it down means we ARE getting their attention, and are getting worried. Good. Just wait 'til September 12th. And speaking of getting the left's attention, watch this video below on how the Atlanta Tea Party was cancelled at the last moment by the owner of a vacant Macy's building in Gwinnett County. The owner, I'm sure by sheer coincidence, is a major fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, an Obama supporter, and his wife was on the inaugural committee.

Interesting. If these protests are such small-scale events that represent just a fraction of the American population and are of no real consequence as the liberal media would have you to believe, then why the opposition and concern?

Here's a report by RUSSIA TODAY. That's right, Russia as in Moscow. They of course sent a reporter from their U.S. Bureau, but Russia Today had a different opinion on the strength of the Tea Party movement, and I think it's very interesting that they felt it was big enough to merit their attention.

Congress, you better sit up and take notice. We're past fed up with you. We were opposed to the Bush administration's running up a massive debt, and we're more than fed up with more debt and spending in 100 days of this administration than the entire eight years of the Bush administration. We're past fed up with the inevitable tax increases and major rise in energy costs with the Cap and Trade bill. We're past fed up with you running roughshod over us.

Congressional elections are coming up. I am watching how you vote.

The best thing that could happen is to vote them all out. If we started voting out the Congressional incumbents, just maybe that would get Obama's attention. If not, we can certainly take care of him too in less than 1300 days! We voted you in, we can vote you out.

NEXT "PARTY": SEPTEMBER 12, 2009. WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY.

ENEMY OF THE STATE

I heard a disturbing news item about a report that went out to law enforcement agencies from the Department of Homeland Security on April 7, 2009. We have all heard the focus on returning veterans being basically "ripe for the picking" for so-called right-wing extremist group recruitment. This is history repeating itself. Those of you who have been on this earth for awhile remember this was the same way Vietnam veterans were characterized. They were portrayed as being DINKY DOW and totally off their nut. Because of this, many found it nearly impossible to find a job. After all, if you owned a business, would you want a nutcase working for you? As we all know, this stereotyping was a product of the mainstream news media who lied about nearly everything about the war, and portrayed our troops as being sub-human, baby-killing murderers. When they came home after serving their country, they were cursed, spat upon, and otherwise mistreated and disrespected. We failed to learn from history, so we're now repeating it.

I obtained a copy of this report and will include some quotes directly from it that may shock you. This is the type of thing you have been hearing about mainly from conspiracy theorists. What I'm about to show you is in the here and now. If you want to read the entire report, click HERE.

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Here's something to consider: it's the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If you believe this, then the Department of Homeland Security considers you a "rightwing extremist". Whatever authority is not specifically given to the Federal government by the Consititution lies with the States and THE PEOPLE. This is an obvious attempt to continue to broaden the power even more of an already bloated federal government by classifying those who simply believe in the Constitution as threats to "homeland security."

If you are Pro-Life, or are against any type of immigration (notice the report made no distinction between legal or illegal immigration), then, according to the Government, you are a threat to "homeland security."

Now we get to an entire section on illegal immigration.

"Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990's with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico."

"DHS/I&A (Department of Homeland Security/Intelligence and Analysis) assesses that rightwing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence."

I'm just loving their use of the words "perceived" and "perception". The implication that illegal immigrants taking American jobs and the government's lack of any real action are just figments of everyone's imagination. So, to summarize this section: if you think illegal immigrants have taken American jobs, the government isn't really serious about stopping it, and oppose NAFTA and other free-trade agreements because of the resulting loss of American manufacturing jobs, then you're a "rightwing extremist."

"Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use."

"Perceived" stance? Were these people not listening to Obama during his campaign, like over and over and over again? Guess not. There's no "perceived" to it. Obama was quite clear during his campaign about his stand on immigration, expanding social programs, and private firearms ownership. The term "perceived" here implies that Obama's position on these issues is not really what the "rightwing extremists" think it is. It was OK to be "antagonistic" towards former President Bush and call him everything but a Child of God, but if you oppose President Obama, then you're automatically a "rightwing extremist."

"Antigovernment conspiracy theories and 'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons."

OK conspiracy theorists, there you are. Seems to bear out some of what you guys have been saying. But, you're just "rightwing extremists."

Next, of course, fundamental Christians had to be included. If you believe the Bible and what it says about the end times, then you're now a "rightwing extremist." That's OK - I make no apology for being a Christian, so, Washington, in the words of the liberal left, "GET OVER IT!" Another example of their "tolerance."

Oh, and don't forget - if you stockpile food, ammunition, or weapons, you're in this too. It's perfectly legal for you to do so, but you're a threat to national security.

"Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time."

Did you see how subtle this one is? If you are, in the government's opinion, a "law-abiding citizen", then you "share a belief" that buying a firearm to protect your family is wise. So, law-abiding citizens are evidently considered a threat. If they're not, then why include them in this report? Remember, this is an advisory to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. This also means the majority of the population since the majority are "law-abiding citizens." The majority of us are a threat?

"Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the 'New World Order' conspiracy theories of the 1990's. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990's led some rightwing extremists to believe that a 'New World Order' would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing on their liberty."

Here we go again. What group of people are the main ones that teach about a "New World Order" and a world government? CHRISTIANS. This is twice in the same report. Again, if you believe the Bible which predicts a one-world government, you are a "rightwing extremist" and a threat. But let's not stop there. Apparently, the government has a problem with people who believe there's a "New World Order" coming.

And the last paragraph of the report:

"The DHS I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."

So, to summarize, since I am Christian who believes the Bible, believes endtime prophecy, believes the endtime prophecy predicts a one world government, is a firm believer in States' rights, opposes abortion, opposes illegal immigration, opposes free trade agreements such as NAFTA, oppose the vast majority of the Obama administration's policies, and believe in the right to private ownership of firearms, I am considered an enemy of the state. Fact is, if you believe in any of these ideas, so are you.