Obama Wants Nationalized Car Emission Standards

You should, at the very least, be concerned with the latest shenanigan Obama is trying to push. President Obama wants to put California in charge of mileage and emission standards for the rest of the country. This proposal completely rejects a 200 year-old form of government called Federalism which was abandoned by our forefathers. Obama proposes to create a situation where the most extreme of states makes the decisions and regulates the mileage and emission standards for the entire country.

Maybe he’s just going to put in place all the stupid stuff at the beginning of his term so that he can spend the rest of the four years making good decisions. That would make more sense if he intends to serve a second term. Or maybe his philosophy is to screw the country up completely in the first week or two and then blame everything on George W. Bush.

Contrary to the assertion that this is a free country, it has been our law for quite some time that the federal government gets to tell automobile manufacturers how many miles per gallon their vehicles may get and how much pollution they can emit. Something which seems like it should be a function of science, the marketplace and consumer demand has been replaced by federal government dictate.

This is all done in the name of protecting the environment or freeing us from oil or some other pretense which basically translates to nothing more than a smokescreen for another government power grab. The problem the liberals face, however, is that every now and then a Republican wins an election and so the fuel and emission standards stay within somewhat reasonable standards.

The Democrats would have everyone walk, ride bikes or use public transportation. For whatever reasons, private transportation seems to freak these people out. Perhaps their enmity toward freedom makes them resent the freedom Americans enjoy from getting in their own cars and going wherever they want. If there has to be cars, the Democrats figure, make them hybrids and plug-ins and give them a top speed of 40 mph and a range of 60 miles.

Again, I digress (I am still not quite sure what that word means – probably something like stop jabbering and get back on topic).

Back to the new president.

He called on the federal government to rethink its refusal to allow California to set its own highway and fuel standards. When California asked the Bush Administration for that right, to go outside the congressionally established system and put its own demands on vehicles sold in its state, the answer was a resounding "No." Now that Bush is out, such an idea sounds pretty good to Barack Obama. Have you noticed how he is systematically trying to reverse any policy set down by the Bush administration?

It is, of course, an idea that isn't practical. An idea which could easily push the car companies the rest of the way into bankruptcy. If it passes, it will impose the will of America's most liberal legislators onto the entire country and functionally gives California authority over every other state.

“How can this be?” you ask. Good question.

Answer -

Detroit can't engineer different cars for every state. Fuel efficiency is a function of a car's weight primarily, and you get better gas mileage by taking some of the metal off a car. It makes it more fuel efficient, but it also makes it more dangerous. Either way, a car company couldn't afford to make a car to California's standards, and then a car for everyone else's standards. Or maybe California would have one standard and Florida another and New York a third. Does anyone seriously think that it would be possible for any car company to tailor its products in such a specific way? Would assembly lines have to be completely retooled for each state? This is ludicrous, absurd, and it is simply not possible.

Car companies would have no choice. The state which came up with the highest standards would be the one that got to set the nation's standards. Especially if that state was California or New York -- two of the country's largest and most liberal states. No manufacturer could afford to lose either one of those markets, so they would comply.

That means that the California legislature, easily the most liberal in the country, trumps the U.S. Congress when it comes to vehicle standards. And it means that people who live in the other 49 states, who have no vote in California, will be burdened by the decisions of the California government.

That is nothing short of tyranny, a cunning manipulation which allows Barack Obama to cripple our car industry without having to take responsibility for doing so. The entire plan empowers the most extreme voices in our society, which is exactly what it is intended to do.

Further, it creates a competition among politicians and states, each eager to pretend they are some sort of national leader. Governors bucking to make names for themselves and Democrats hoping to gain national reputations for upping the ante of car standards.

It is chaos. It destabilizes our already endangered automobile industry. It will make cars more expensive. It will take choice away from consumers and power away from the people. This is exactly what Barack Obama wants to happen.

Maybe he's been inspired by Castro. All the subjects of the communist government in Cuba drive around in ancient cars. Maybe that's what they want for the subjects of the communist government of America. They're doing everything they can to make us a politically correct third world country.

And this idea is just the beginning. This guy still has four more years to go.

B. Hussien Obama = Saviour?

I tell you, from the outside, the great unwashed see a savior in B. Hussien Obama. Being Christian, my wife and I think this is scary. Our President is a rock star, no offense intended to rock stars. He is like the Teflon Don. Nothing sticks to him. We know he associated with known terrorist Bill Ayers. We know he got campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants run by the government that all but forced the banks to make questionable loans and now need ANOTHER bailout. He got a ‘sweetheart loan’ from countrywide, another bank that needs a bail out, all of which he was in favor of. He won his Congressional seat by challenging his opponents petitions and getting enough signatures disqualified that they were removed from the ballot and so he ran unopposed.

Obama is hailed as a visionary yet, he fills his cabinet with folks that have all been there before. He promised an end to corruption yet has not proven that he is even a citizen. He promises to end the recession and yet he vows to raise taxes and expand government.

Dick Morris has written a piece for thehill.com here that warrants your attention. He describes the first term of our current President. With any luck, he will grossly over reach and Conservatives will regain some lost ground. I am hoping this happens by 2010. Either way, I fear that Dick Morris is right. Obama will change the landscape and economy of our country forever.

President Obama's Inaugural Address

Like much of the rest of the country, I had to go to work the morning of January 20th, 2009 instead of sit in front of the TV and watch the inauguration speech. But I have read it through, watched the commentaries, and listened to my favorite conservative radio talk show hosts dissect it, rip it apart, and attempt to make sense of it.

My general opinion about it was it was a good speech; not a great speech, but a good speech. That’s my honest assessment. I’m not talking about his legislative record, I’m not talking about his campaign promises, and I’m not talking about his cabinet appointments. I’m talking about an inaugural address that I have printed out and put in a folder next to the copy I saved of Ronald Reagan’s address of January 20, 1981. I go back to President Reagan’s first inaugural often to remind myself of what I value and how our government should be ordered. In the future, I may also go back to Barack Obama’s address of January 20, 2009 to seek inspiration.

This is almost hard for me to write, not only because it goes against my normal reactions to a president which I believe has some seriously dangerous policies and concepts, but also because I know it will anger some people, and leave some other people confused. I am a conservative Republican and he is a liberal Democrat. I fear the great mischief he and his Democrat Congress can do to our country and our freedom

But that talk gave me hope. To the extent he stays true to that inaugural address, he will have my support.

Granted, I don’t agree with his global warming references, and I’m a bit annoyed with denunciations of things related to George W. Bush, but in large proportion it was a talk that is consistent with my conservative principles and patriotic bent.

It was a talk that, if it had been given by a victorious John McCain, we Republicans would have applauded.

Before I go on, I can definitely say that I’ve not caught the Obama lust that seems to grip all of American’s news media. I personally don’t think he’s a particularly good orator, and I think his accent is an affectation. And the inaugural ceremony was a mixed bag.

Rick Warren’s prayer was directed at the audience, not God. Joe Biden did a good job getting sworn in – his voice was strong and enthusiastic. The poet was an absolute illiterate idiot, just a complete embarrassment. The fact she is a Yale professor says a great deal about hiring priorities at Yale. The guy who gave the closing prayer was a racist and his swipe at white people was a disgusting end to the ceremony. Aretha Franklin was simply outstanding. The “Simple Gifts” performance was very strong, even if they did have to add two unnecessary instruments – piano and clarinet – to beef up the racial diversity.

And somebody ought to slap Chief Justice John Roberts. When all you have to do is say the oath, and you goof it up twice, you belong on the idiot list (or the ID10T list for us IT folks).

But back to the new president’s talk.

He quoted the Bible and George Washington, and he made repeated reference to the Founding Fathers and the founding documents. He specifically applied “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to today and he spoke of our military and our military history in admiring tones.

He made the case that the imperatives of our Republic’s founding and history still apply today. He said that though our problems and tools are new, the solutions aren’t – we need merely apply the principles the Founders put in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Those are all things I believe and hope that our President will embrace, not just give lip service to.

He told our enemies they could never defeat us, and he offered the hand of friendship to all who would take it. I especially liked the analogy of offering our open hand, if those to accept it will “unclench theirs.”

He said we wouldn’t abandon our lifestyle. He recognized that nations which blame their problems “on the West” are mistaken. He spoke directly to Muslim nations, but didn’t kiss up to them.

I loved the way he praised America’s heritage, and its generations of solid citizens. He described those who settled our country in heroic terms, and he praised the men who fought at Concord.

All of those things are right in line with what I believe.

I was also grateful that as the first black president gave his inaugural address, he spoke with reverence of the nation’s history and origins. So much of black-activist thinking seems to be disdainful of American history and that has swept into the classroom and the culture.

For Barack Obama, this new hero of black Americans, to describe George Washington as a brave and great leader – instead of as a slave owner – is a wonderful thing. And the fact that he looked over and over to our Founders and founding documents as the definers and originators of our liberty is almost a slap in the face to the politically correct crap that passes for history these days.

If Barack Obama is a role model and example for admiring young people, yesterday he told them in no uncertain terms that patriotism and admiration for the United States are essential to being a good citizen. And I don’t know the last time a Democrat or a black leader did that. The fact that he did is something I am grateful for.

I don’t know how he’ll govern. I’m still worried about some of the people around him. I hope he stays in the center and doesn’t swing back to the left.

But one thing is certain, he gave a pretty darn good speech. And while I might not agree with him tomorrow, I do today. And if I’m going to criticize him tomorrow, I’m going to praise him today.

I’m planning to save that speech because a lot of it says what I believe.

The reason behind the Middle east conflict

The reason behind the Middle east conflict. in 10 minutes or less

State Governors - Are They Really Necessary?

Does every state need a governor? Seriously, with all the out-of-work McDonald’s managers, can’t we find people to handle some of a governor’s administrative responsibilities on a part-time, hourly basis?

Wouldn’t we save a lot of aggravation that way?

Which gets me thinking about a statement issued on Friday, January 2nd by a useless organization called the Western Governors’ Association. Apparently they couldn’t get into the same country club as Arnold Schwarzenegger, so in hopes of reminding people just how “special” they are, they formed their own little group - like in school when the loser kids pretended they were speaking Klingon.

The Western Governors’ Association is comprised of the governors of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming and Colorado. Mostly the organization tries to deal with jackalope overpopulation and those cheesy bets governors make when one state’s football team is playing against another’s. But that’s not sufficient reason for the Western Governors’ Association to exist, because even governors with cowboy boots have egos - giant egos. And giant egos will always make you do dumb things.

Which gets us back to Friday, January 2nd. On January 2nd (the day after New Years for those of you in Rio Linda*) (*shamelessly stolen saying from Rush Limbaugh) the various egomaniacs of the Western Governors’ Association issued a statement on the Middle East. Specifically, the current chair of the association, Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., decided the world needed to know what he felt about the fighting going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Huntsman Jr., who prefers to be called “Jesus”, had such a bad case of “I want to be president someday” that he had to issue a press release. It’s the day after New Year’s, it’s the deadest spot in the news calendar, absolutely nobody cares, and yet he fires off a press release.

In other words, on the day everyone else in his state was fired up about the University of Utah playing in the Sugar Bowl, the governor was pretending he was Jimmy Carter!

Oh, and by the way, yes, I’m a resident of the Great State of Utah. No, I didn’t vote for Governor Huntsman Jr.

Here’s what this bright bulb had to say –

“The recent increase in hostilities between Israel and Hamas is evidence that lasting peace in the region is an elusive goal. The deaths of innocent civilians on both sides of the border as a result of the hostilities are proof that we must continue to work toward peace, rather than resolving our disputes through aggression.

”We support the right of Israel to defend itself from aggressors and to ensure the peace and prosperity of its citizens.

”We, therefore, are calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas and the establishment of a lasting and meaningful cease-fire. For this process to begin, Hamas must end its series of rocket attacks into Israeli sovereign land. The two sides must then work together in good faith to work toward peace in the region.”

For those who have lives, what’s happening over there is this: The Palestinians elected some terrorists named Hamas – the Arab word for “Democrats” – to run their country.

To Palestinians, that means “kill more Jews.” So, while they figured all the world would be busy on Christmas break, the Palestinians started firing missiles into Israel. Part of the calculation was that with the United States between administrations there’d be nobody to tell them to cut it out.

But there was a problem. The Israelis know about the new president, too, and they apparently figured that it might be easier to defend themselves before he takes office. So they fought back.

Let me repeat for the governors: One nation attacked another. The attacked nation fought back and the attacking nation has had its lunch handed to it.

This got all the world’s marching liberals ticked off. That’s because of their anti-jewish-itice (yes, it's a word... deal with it.). For liberals it is a simple equation: Israelis can do no right, Palestinians can do no wrong.

And this concerns very serious people on the evening news. And that concerns governors with too much time on their hands, which is how Friday’s statement came to be made. And all of that happened because the governors had their heads in a dark and unsanitary place, namely, they were sticking their noses where they didn’t belong.

Let’s review. Governors are elected to run states, even small states that pretty much run themselves. A governor of Utah, for example, would be in charge of Utah – if the Legislature is feeling generous. When something happens in Utah, that’s something the Utah governor would look into.

Now let’s review geography. The Middle East, though it is kind of dry and barren, is not in Utah. Actually, it’s not even close to Utah. In fact, it’s in an entirely different country, across an ocean, on another continent.

In other words, it’s none of Utah’s damn business. Same goes for Idaho, Colorado, Oregon and Wyoming.

No disrespect intended, but this is like a pre-schooler giving daddy driving advice. These governors are way out of their league. They have moved far beyond their responsibilities. They have presumed for themselves a relevance which they simply do not have.

Nobody gives a flying fig about what the governor of any American state thinks about some foreign war. All we have here is a display of comical self-importance.

Governors whose states have budget deficits, whose roads need paving and whose highway patrolmen need paying, who are facing increased gang violence and welfare dependency, those governors have decided to weigh in on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They ignore problems at home to opine on problems abroad.

Which honestly makes me wonder if they are necessary. If these states can get by with part-time legislatures – and all of them do – maybe they’d be better off if they also had part-time governors.

Rumors of Layoffs

Layoffs hang like a dark cloud on the horizon. They are a storm which will come and pass, but where they will strike before they do, and whom they will take with them when they go, we cannot know. We are powerless in their face, we cannot stop them or avoid them, and they are not in our control, though we are very much in their control.

There are tens of millions of Americans who today know the truth of those words because there are, today, tens of millions of Americans who face the possibility of being laid off. It is the scourge of the season. It is whispered about at my work, it is whispered about at your work, it is trumpeted on the evening news.

But the one aspect of this that we do have control over is how we react, because if we react poorly, we make things worse. We weaken ourselves and our workplaces, we create needless angst and anxiety, and we spread a feeling of fear and hopelessness. And that is just the exact opposite of what we need. In times of uncertainty, confidence and courage are your best companions; worry and fret are soul-destroying poisons.

So here's the bottom line. Either you are going to get laid off, or you aren't. That's the way it is and there's nothing you can do about it. That's not fatalism, that's reality. It's a recognition of the fact that while it's OK to worry about things you can control, it is insane to worry about things you cannot control.

The layoffs rolling across our country are a reflection of general economic weakness. In many cases, those who lose their jobs won't deserve to lose their jobs - they personally will have done nothing wrong - so they are not at fault or to blame for getting fired. That fact is both torturous and liberating. It is unfair to be fired when you're doing a good job, but it is good to know that your own screw up didn't cost you your career. It is just dumb, blind luck, and the calculations of bosses with businesses to save.

As layoffs loom, people naturally speculate and theorize, trying to figure out who will and who won't be cut. These speculations can grow to near constant topics of conversation and can dominate one's thoughts. But they don't accomplish a thing, and they don't mean a thing. All they do is rile up and roil up; they spread a conspiratorial anxiety across a workplace. They sometimes create divisions that wouldn't otherwise exist, as people look at their co-workers and make an argument why one should go and another should stay.

It is an exacerbation of the dread, a group deathwatch that saps spirits, kills morale and hurts productivity. There's not much point in talking about it because nobody really knows, and no one will until they start calling us in. And when that happens - to ourselves or to others - the test of character begins. We will have to respond with maturity and grace, class and courage. Most importantly, we will have to avoid anger. Specifically, we will have to avoid being destroyed by anger because it can be a cancer that spreads like sewage in a stream. It can overtake and dominate our consciousness, and hurt us more than the loss of a job.

It is also unjustified because these layoffs are not punitive, they are not malicious. They are necessary. That's what makes all of this different. There is no corporate profit-taking going on. There is no outsourcing or union busting; this isn't about our companies turning on us.

This is about our companies fighting to survive. The economic model is being tested and strained, and right now some things just aren't working. And each company has an obligation to survive - too many people depend on them.

For many of us, our companies have employed and enriched us for years. As workers, we have been partners in great enterprises which have brought prosperity and sustenance to many. But now, some of those enterprises will go on without us, in order that they can go on at all.

That will be heartbreaking to some but beneficial to many. It will allow businesses to go forward, to employ who they can, and to be ready to grow and expand again when the economy straightens itself out.

So that's what we know about these looming layoffs. They are necessary and they are beyond our control, and ultimately our companies and our country will be better for them. We can't stop them, we can't predict them, we will ultimately benefit by them. And whether they hit us or our friends, we will all be better if we meet them with courage and confidence instead of fear and worry.

I don't want to get laid off, and neither do you. But let us have courage and go forward with confidence. There is a dark cloud on the horizon, but it's not the end of the world.

And we shouldn't act like it is.

Global Climate Warming Change?

Thomas Lifson over at American Thinker has put together a post that, think would be a real eye opener for anyone in the throws of global warming guilt.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/documenting_the_global_warming.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/documenting_the_global_warming_1.html

Talks about the placement of the sensors used to gather the data used to measure Global Warming. or, as they are calling it now, Climate change.