More Lunancy

Green Energy. The bailout for GM (no, not General Motors, but Government Motors) WAS successful at a $250,000 per job saved to tax payers. Really?  Another report, or admission, is that the development of the Chevy Volt has cost us $2.5 billion.  Boy, we're heading in the right direction!  What the liberals pushing green energy don't understand is where the electricity comes from to plug these worthless four wheled contraptions into. Most all electricity comes from fossil fuel powered plants that create electricity. So here's the Administration's plan: lets over regulate the oil and coal industry so production is practically impossible,.... .....raising electric rates - remember when Obama said they will necessarily double?,........then create or mandate a bunch of electric cars that only go 80 miles before needing an 8 hour re-charge. Let's make the American people use green energy,...after all we know what's best for them,....whether it tanks the U.S. economy or not. 

Politicians Out of Touch with the American People. This was the claim against Mitt Romney when at a Republican Presidential debate, he bet Rick Perry $10,000 that he was wrong on facts relating to Romney's book. The mainstream (read liberal) media jumped all over Mitt claiming he was "way out of touch with common Americans who could never even dream about betting $10,000." Now we have Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) former shamed speaker of the House spending $10,000 a night for hotel accomodations in Hawaii and not one stinking peep from the media about how out of touch fanciful Nancy is with the People by spending $10,000 a night for a hotel room.


More Borrowing Power Requested. Obama just requested $1.2 Trillion in additional borrowing power. He wants to raise the debt ceiling again. This time before Congress reconvenes in session so they can't do anything about it. After running up a HUGE debt in his short three years, Obama has the gall to request even more borrowing. What? the Unions need more money to bring the votes in? Now it is even harder to debate the people who think that Obama is intentionally ruining this country as this new debt ceiling may be taking us over the edge.

Marine Generals Against the NDAA

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, both 4 star Marine generals, wrote a op-ed letter, published in the New York Times on December 12, 2011, demanding that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill in order to protect our country from the “false choice between our safety and ideals.” Their problem with the NDAA is that it allows the government use the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

It then gets into one of the most blatant anti American treasonous provisions in the history of the United States.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise. The NDAA basically throws Posse Comitatus out the window. This is a power that the military have not even asked for this extreme new power.....however, they can be ordered to use.

OP-ED Piece, 12 Dec, NY Times

Guantánamo Forever?

By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR

In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week (Cowboy's note: This Op-Ed was written before the vote. The NDAA did pass and was signed into law by President Obama.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an
unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counter-terrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.

Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.

A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut
Guantánamo, not extend it.

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

Things that Piss Me Off Right After Christmas

New York Times calls the U.S. the stingiest Nation. I shouldn't even get mad at anything coming out of the New York Times which basically has the same credibility as the National Enquirer, but,...these America haters continue to pick a topic and get it bass ackwards. Not only does the U.S. give generously to all sorts of charities and nations, we give money to our enemies. We give hundreds of millions of dollars to Palestinians who were cheering in the streets while watching the 9-11 attacks on Television. The problem is that we are too generous to the wrong people and nations.

Social Security Payroll Tax Cut. This is the issue where the Federal Government reduces the amount of tax that comes out of our pay checks towards Social Security. Rather than enact any kind of Federal Income Tax or Capital Gains reduction or reform, Obama's brilliant brainstorm of reducing the amount we contribute to the already unfunded and going bankrupt Social Security is a brain teaser to put it mildly. The Democrats and the mainstream liberal media (there I go being redundant again) sure spun this as a Democrat victory and a Republican defeat. A rational person will see this as a defeat for the American People. We the People get a tiny amount of additional take home income in out checks, while social security continues heading towards a cliff. Obama gets to shelf any decision on the oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S., and we'll be back in the same boat again in two months. The promise of the Democrats to work towards a year long reduction in social security payroll tax is like staring at a flat tire when your engine is blown and the steering wheel is missing.

Then we have that idiot Harry Reid (D-NV who stated: "Everything we do around here does not have to wind up in a fight." Well Harry, I reckon it does when one side wants to spend this country into bankruptcy and default, while over taxing the job creators to sabotage the economy, meanwhile placating the people by giving them tax reduction gimmicks that put a few bucks in their pockets at the expense of Social Security solvency. Are we to be bought that cheaply?


Making Newt to look like a Bomb Thrower. With George H.W. Bush formally supporting Mitt Romney, the media train is reporting that Newt Gingrich is too much of a bomb thrower,...much too caustic to gain mainstream Republican support. On the other hand, they paint him as a classic political insider. Wonder which one is closer to the truth as it can't be both. Where the "Bomb Throwing" rep comes from is the 1990 fight between the first Bush Administration's desire to raise taxes, despite Bush's promise not to do so. Anyone remember the "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech? Gingrich's refusal to support Bush's 1990 budget deal was seen as both disloyal and anti-pragmatic, and that's we the lack of support from the Republican mainstream comes from.