In fact, the information contained probably explains why Reagan is considered “the greatest president in American history” and Obama is “the most polarizing president in American history” (both as measured by Gallup).

So do you want to recover or do you want another Obama term of abject failure?

The $1.2 Tril Gap: Obama’s Subpar Recovery Continues
Posted 06:50 PM ET

 

Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama’s policies aren’t helping the country get stronger. Rather, they’re smothering what should have been a solid recovery.

Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.

To get a better sense of how bad Obama’s recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.

By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.

Had Obama’s recovery been as powerful as Reagan’s, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.

And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.

So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we’re just now getting back on our feet.

Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.

Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).

But even that didn’t stop a rip-roaring comeback.

Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008.”

Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was.

So what’s different? The presidents’ policies.

Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.

Obama’s approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan’s approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations “has never worked” to spur growth.

Obama might think the U.S. is “getting stronger,” as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.

It strikes even me as strange to conclude one article by producing the opening paragraphs of another, but I wrote this about what Ronald Reagan accomplished a couple of years ago:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

And the only thing that could truly destroy the fruit of Reagan’s policies was the coming of another Jimmy Carter.

And of course that’s exactly what we got in this turd:

Obama obviously has no solution to anything but trying to get himself re-elected so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America into a failed socialist banana republic.

Instead of answering the direct question (which was basically, “Are you thin-skinned?”), Obama punted to this:

“I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right,” he told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, laughing. “Too relaxed.”

Well, let me assure you of something: I’VE sure never called Obama “too relaxed.”  I’VE sure never called him “No Drama Obama.”  In fact, the reason I write this blog is to try to document the incessant never-ending drama and histrionics that constitutes the Obama presidency.  Every day is a fresh, new outrage.

The man who is “the most polarizing president in American history” is hardly “too relaxed.”  You just don’t get to be “the most polarizing president in American history” by being “too relaxed.”

A partial list of reasons why I openly mock the “No Drama Obama” bullcrap of “I’m usually accused of not being intense enough” appears below:

“Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
“Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
“Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
“I want all Americans to get in each others faces!” – Obama
“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
“Republicans are our enemies“–Obama
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
“the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/commenter?id=4d2ba389ccd1d58425050000#ixzz1l0CejqKX

So I thought it was interesting to learn a little more about this incredibly angry man who inhabits our White House rather like a Chicago thug.  And here’s a triad from the Orange County Register’s Mark Landsbaum:

Obama the Angry
January 25th, 2012, 3:49 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

During the State of the Union speech last night we had the TV turned up very loud so I could hear the speech while following along in the released transcript on my computer screen and taking notes at the keyboard while simultaneously roughing a draft of our editorial today.

Let him make this perfectly clear…

During the 65 minutes he spoke, I developed something of a headache.

It seemed to me the president virtually shouted his entire speech. I though that maybe it was the louder-than-normal TV volume. But all the same, it seemed as if the guy was, how should I put it? Angry.

Now, given what he had to work with, stupefying unemployment, a dead-in-the-water cap-and-trade scheme, a soon-to-be-ruled unconstitutional ObamaCare, an economy that’s doing an excellent imitation of a recession and the likelihood of losing not just his support in Congress, but his own job, I can understand why the president might be a bit on edge.

Then this afternoon I clicked on to one of our favorite items, James Taranto’s Best of the Web column in the Wall Street Journal. And what did he have to say?

“This guy is angry.”

Maybe it wasn’t just the TV volume.

Considering that the SOTU speech essentially marks the beginning of Obama’s reelection campaign, what does this portend for the campaign trail as the president ratchets up his mood and voice another notch every time he is greeted with underwhelming response? He could be hoarse by June.

How about voters?

We don’t know about you, but there is little in politics that turned us off as did Al Gore’s pretentious and pompous tone, or Hillary’s fingernail-scraping shrillness. Little, that is, until we got 65 minutes of Obama’s screaming, ranting performance last night.

And:

Obama the Angry, part II
January 27th, 2012, 4:54 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

We normally don’t comment on blogs in the neighborhood, but this one was too sweet to ignore. Some fella named Prevatt over at some blog called TheLiberalOC.com took exception to our characterization of the angry fellow in the White House as being, well, angry.

Our post was titled “Obama the Angry,” for reasons pretty much apparent to anyone with ears to hear. But Mr. Prevatt said that we went on, “to promote the stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president’s” State of the Union speech.

Stereotype of an angry black man?

We checked and sure enough, we didn’t identify the man in the White House by his race. Which means once again the Angry Left has jumped to the conclusion that any unflattering characterization of Obama must be rooted in something racial.

What we did, of course, was simply identify an angry man.

Perhaps “an angry black man” fits some stereotype of Barack Obama held by Mr. Prevatt. After all, it was he not we who drew the inference of stereotype.

For our part, we think Barack Obama is much different than any stereotype. We find him almost singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced and, well, angry. Particularly so for a president. In fact, he couldn’t in any way be described as stereotypical. We’ll give him that. He’s definitely one of a kind.

Let’s reiterate here, just in case someone other than Mr. Prevatt is reading this. It was Mr. Prevatt who invoked the “stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president.” Not us.

As it happens, we also had alluded in that blog post and linked to the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto column, headlined “The State of the Union Is Angry.” Lo and behold, it was another characterization of the president as being angry during his speech. Taranto, like us, also didn’t mention race.

Have you noticed how often the Angry Left finds race and racism in, well, in just about everything? And have you noticed how we (and Mr. Taranto too) never seem to? Why is that?

But we digress. Taranto actually has written recently on this tendency of the Angry Left to see the world through racial lenses. Check here for a sample in his recent column, The Genetic Fallacy. In that column Taranto offers interesting insights into why the Left does what it does. It’s rooted in “a new kind of inequality that developed in the wake of the civil rights revolution, defined by Shelby Steele in his brilliant 2006 book, ‘White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era’.”

We put it another way. We call it projection, the defense mechanism in which a person transfers or projects his feelings onto another person. We think there’s a lot of this among the Angry Left.

Feelings of white guilt result in projection by Angry Leftists of their own failings and shortcomings onto their opponents.

Anyway. We found Mr. Prevatt’s blog transparently so. But what are you gonna do?

We’re not even going to complain that Mr. Prevatt referred to us by our first name, something we find just a tad presumptuous from a stranger, and for the record we can’t ever remember shaking the hand of anyone named Prevatt, let along being friends with one, although we wouldn’t rule that out, provided he stops projecting onto us.

And we aren’t going to make too much of Mr. Prevatt’s rather crude suggestion that “Mark, try … investing in a hearing aide,” or make a big deal about him misspelling it.

This Prevatt fellow may not even know that our otolaryngologist diagnosed yours truly to have substantial hearing loss in both ears, so Mr. Prevatt probably didn’t mean to be crude or rude. That may just be the way he is.

But to clarify, the reason we turned up the TV volume to listen to the president’s speech had nothing to do with our somewhat impaired hearing, which actually doesn’t require a hearing aid. It was because we were typing at the keyboard in THE NEXT ROOM.

We don’t doubt that even Mr. Prevatt may strain when it comes to listening to a television from another room.

But be all that as it may, let’s deal briefly with whether Taranto and we correctly identify the president as an angry person, whatever color he may be. Google for yourself the words “angry” and “Obama.”

Here is just a sampling with our emphases:

“Obama’s gracious tone has diminished almost by the hour since his election. He snipes at the American people for not being smart enough to get how smart his plans for them are. He blames others for his failings. Bush, Congress, rich people, even poor people.”

The Washington Post’s headline Friday: “Obama exchange with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reveals his testy side.” Oh those stereotyping guys at the Post.

Writes Michelle Malkin: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, “He was a little disturbed about my book.” Then “In the shadow of Air Force One, Obama complained that Brewer hadn’t “treated him cordially,” and then stalked off while she was responding mid-sentence.”

Recall this one? “Angry Obama walks out on debt-limit talks” By S.A. MILLER, New York Post Correspondent.

And this account: “…Cantor explained, the president became ‘very agitated’ and said he had ‘sat here long enough’… Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.’ He then ‘shoved back’ and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.”

Then there was this Washington Post account last week by David Nakamura and Rachel Weiner, not exactly card-carrying Tea Partiers: “AURORA, Colo. — President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals. The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as ‘no-drama Obama,’ reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.”

“Testy” was the reporters’ characterization. Reporters from the left-leaning Post.

Brewer later told reporters “He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least.”

Oh we could go on. And on. But that would be sort of like, well, piling on. And we don’t want to make him angry, so we’ll let it go at that.

But testy. Angry. Yelling his speeches?

These are signs of a guy who is frustrated and can’t seem to make things work the way that he wants them to. That’s because things don’t work that way. He’s not organizing the illiterate unemployed in Chicago slums. He’s trying to deal with some of the most argumentative and experienced political animals on the planet.

Did we mention inexperience and ineptness?

When others complain, he has no solution but to figuratively stomp his feet and blame them for not getting it. On a couple of levels he’s right. They don’t get the money that used to belong to them but thanks to Obama redistribution logic now is handed to someone else.

They also don’t get how that’s supposed to benefit anyone except the cronies who walk off with the dough.

Such a degree of frustration with people who don’t get it is enough to make any singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced person angry. Whatever color he may be.

And:

Obama the Angry, part III
January 30th, 2012, 1:51 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Nah, he’s not an angry guy. Not much.

We no sooner observe how the Hothead in Chief gets snippy at the slightest provocation than another incident comes to the fore to verify that this president is out of his league. Criticisms and things that don’t go his way seem to have a disproportionate effect. The guy loses his cool. And we had such hope. Oh well, another change unanticipated.

According to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, after the Gulf oil spill the president visited.

“He grabs me by the arm, takes me aside,” Jindal said, “Here’s the strange thing … I thought he’d be angry about the oil spill, the lack of resources; I thought he’d get down there and say, look governor, we’re going to do everything we can to work together. Instead, he was upset he was going to look bad; he was worried about some routine letter we had already sent to his administration, nothing important.”

The reaction shocked Jindal.

“I was amazed at two things: one, that he was mad about the wrong things, and two, that he was so thin-skinned.” In a time of crisis, Jindal said the last thing he wanted or expected was for the president to stage what was “clearly a media stunt. I wanted him to be the president of the country, and instead he was playing political theatrics.”

Why’s this guy so angry? Why’s his threshold so low?

It’s because he’s been in over his head from Day 1. He’s never managed anything more robust than a political campaign, and even then not all that many of them.

The only reason you’ve kept hearing about “No Drama Obama” is because the mainstream media is the most dishonest since Joseph Goebbels and TASS were in business.

And the liberal protest is every bit as white as the Tea Party ever was:

The color of protest
Friday, January 27, 2012 3:07 AM EST

Progressive Media Project writer Randy Jurado Ertil seems nonplussed the far-left Occupy Wall Street movement is mainly white. “If the Occupy movement is to succeed this year, it needs to become more diverse,” he says in a Jan. 13 op-ed.

It seems like it was just yesterday that people of the left were saying the same thing about the tea-party movement. What gives?

Could it be that minorities feel disenfranchised by both sides — the left and the right — though for radically different reasons? As black conservative columnist and economics professor Walter Williams would say, let’s look at it.

The scarcity of black and brown faces in tea-party crowds has been chronicled gleefully by the liberal news media and activists, who have strived mightily to characterize the tea party as a racist enterprise. Is it any wonder more minorities don’t try to shoulder their way into the mix? If they believe even a fraction of what they read, hear and see on television, they’ll believe people of their race are unwelcome in tea-party gatherings — especially if they’re not told tea-party icons include black leaders such as Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., and Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

“The Occupy movement needs to recruit minorities not only to reflect accurately the ethnic diversity that does exist in the United States but also to respond to the fact that economic injustice falls most heavily on the backs of minorities,” Mr. Ertil writes.

And whose fault is that? Ask black intellectual Thomas Sowell; he’ll tell you:

“Over the years, some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats … None cost blacks more jobs than minimum-wage laws, (which) have a track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities. … Urban renewal was another big Democratic liberal idea. It destroyed mostly low-income minority neighborhoods and replaced them with upscale housing the former residents could not afford. … Even when liberal Democrats try specifically to help blacks, the results often backfire. …”

Arguably, the worst policy of all was the vast expansion of the family-destroying welfare state beginning in the 1960s. Mr. Ertil mentions the large disparity in wealth between white and black households, but neglects to add that this disparity shrinks dramatically among households led by married couples.

There’s probably no way to find out precisely why minorities are scarce in Occupy encampments, but here’s a theory: middle-class African-Americans and Hispanics recognize the movement has nothing to offer them; and the rest are starting to catch on that the left has been lying to them and holding them down ever since the days when the Democrats’ primary Republican target was Abraham Lincoln.

We have a rather inconvenient truth about the liberal Occupy movement as noted by the Washington Times:

The Occupy Wall Street movement wants the world to see it as an inclusive, multicultural grassroots uprising representing the full spectrum of America’s rich ethnic tapestry. But the group’s internal documents reveal what any casual observer knows; the movement is almost entirely dominated by a bunch of disaffected white kids.

White people.  A sea of vile white people:

That’s right, I said vile white people:

You might similarly remember how the media climbed all over themselves to apply the label “violent” to the Tea Party.  It didn’t matter that in thousands of events across the country nobody got arrested and the parks they protested in were invariably left cleaner than they’d been before the Tea Partiers got there.  Versus this sort of behavior from Occupy.

And versus the 6,319 documented arrests so far at Occupy protests.

It is of course irrelevant that the OWS movement is an inherently violent group of fascists.  With violent uprisings all over the country.

Because the same mainstream media that was all over “allegations” of Tea Party violence even though they didn’t exist has decided that the OWS movement is to be celebrated as being ”non-violent” no matter how violent and fascist it is.

If you rely on liberal media for your “news” you are one pathetically stupid sucker.  You’re an obnoxious little baby hungrily sucking on the tits of propaganda.

A big bet on electric vehicle manufacturing goes bust
Production of electric vehicles and batteries was supposed to create high-tech jobs in Indiana. Think City and Ener1 set up shop, enticed by government incentives. But soon they filed for bankruptcy.
January 27, 2012|By Julie Wernau

Reporting from Elkhart, Ind. — For politicians betting on electric vehicles to drive job growth, the view from inside Think City’s plant here is their worst nightmare: 100 unfinished vehicles lined up with no word on whether they will be completed.

 Only two years ago, the tiny Think cars (two can fit in a regular parking space) were expected to bring more than 400 jobs to this ailing city and a lifeline to suppliers who once made parts for gas-guzzling recreational vehicles.

“We’ve said we’re out to make Indiana the electric vehicle state. It’s beginning to look like the state capital will be Elkhart County,” Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said in January 2010 in announcing government incentives used to attract Think to his state.

 Instead, the Hoosier State’s big bet has been a bust. The plant is devoid of activity; there are just two employees. A Russian investor who recently purchased Think’s bankrupt parent in Norway has been silent about its future.  A government-backed Indianapolis battery maker that was to supply Think wrote off a $73-million investment in the car company and Thursday declared bankruptcy. Two unrelated electric truck makers Indiana planned to nurture have yet to get off the ground.

 Indiana’s foray into electric vehicles is a cautionary tale for states in hot pursuit of high-tech manufacturing jobs. Think’s story illustrates how politicians so badly wanted to stimulate job growth that they showered the automaker and the battery supplier with tax benefits and incentives while at the same time failing to determine whether there was a market for the car: a plastic two-seater with a top speed of about 65 mph and a price tag approaching $42,000.

 ”Where’s the value?” Gregg Fore, an Elkhart recreational vehicle industry executive, said of Think. “I could buy a golf cart for five grand if that’s what I wanted to drive.”

 Fore says the federal and state governments as well as Elkhart subsidized the Think project apparently believing those tax benefits would drive down the vehicle’s price and make the cars more attractive. “By giving money to the battery company and electric car company, they are saying, ‘We want you to buy their products even though we know you don’t want them.’”

 Indiana’s total losses aren’t immediately known. Katelyn Hancock, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Economic Development Corp., the state’s economic development arm, declined to disclose how much Think and battery-maker Ener1 had received in taxpayer-funded credits and incentives, saying such information is confidential. Ener1 also refused to provide the information.

 What is known, however, is that the Obama and Bush administrations poured millions of dollars into battery production in a quest to power thousands of Think City vehicles with lithium-ion batteries. To date, Ener1 has spent $55 million in federal funding, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

 Some analysts say government backing of the car didn’t seem like a bad investment at the time. “It looked like electric vehicles were it in 2008. It really did,” said Theodore O’Neill, an analyst who has followed the electric car industry. “You had the government calling the shots and doling the money out with the major” automakers.

 Still, O’Neill says he wouldn’t buy such a car. “For $40,000, you can get a certified pre-owned BMW convertible and a Vespa scooter. Both of them. And if you want to have a good time, put the top down.” General Motors’ Chevy Volt electric car sells for about the same price.

Think City’s plant, a 10-minute drive from Elkhart’s Main Street, appears all but abandoned these days. When a reporter visited recently, the parking lot was empty and the visitor entrance and lobby were laced with cobwebs. A single pickup truck and a sign telling visitors to ring the buzzer were the only signs of life near the rear of the building. Inside two men were quietly baby-sitting the plant, awaiting headlights and seat belts from Europe so the cars could meet U.S. standards.

 What eventually is supposed to happen to these cars isn’t clear. No one in Elkhart could point to a local executive in charge of production. A person identified as a spokesman declined to comment, saying he was no longer on the payroll.

 The person who may have the most to say about Think’s future also isn’t talking. Russian investor Boris Zingarevich bought Think Global, the Norwegian parent company, at auction a month after its bankruptcy.

 Reached by phone in Russia, Slava Bychkov, a spokesman for Zingarevich’s Ilim Group, said he could not provide details of plans for the car company.

 ”The management is now under the restart process and will communicate their strategy in [the] near future,” Bychkov said.

Okay.  So Democrats’ bright idea to impose “green” cars on America was a rather stupid one and all the promises they made about such vehicles and all the jobs they would create were all a bunch of lies.  So we’re finally abandoning that idiotic boondoggle, right?  I mean, obviously nobody but a collection of abject idiots would keep demanding we keep pursuing the same utterly failed policies, right?

Wrong.  You can NEVER underestimate the sheer imbecilic stupidity of liberals or their determination to implode America with said stupidity:

California orders hike in number of super clean cars
The state’s air board issues new rules to automakers as part of its effort to cut greenhouse gases.
By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times
January 28, 2012

California, long a national leader in cutting auto pollution, pushed the envelope further Friday as state regulators approved rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and put significantly more pollution-free vehicles on the road in coming years.

The package of Air Resources Board regulations would require auto manufacturers to offer more zero- or very low-emission cars such as battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid vehicles in California starting with model year 2018.

By 2025, one in seven new autos sold in California, or roughly 1.4 million, must be ultra-clean, moving what is now a driving novelty into the mainstream.

The board also strengthened future emission standards for all new cars, making them the toughest in the nation. The rules are intended by 2025 to slash smog-forming pollutants from new vehicles by 75 percent and reduce by a third their emissions that contribute to global warming.

“Today’s vote … represents a new chapter for clean cars in California and in the nation as a whole,” said Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols.

Auto manufacturers are uneasy with some of the provisions but generally support the package, which took three years to develop. “We know the board wants to push the automakers,” said Mike Love, national regulatory affairs manager for Toyota Motor Sales. “We said we’re willing to go along with you and do our best.”

The requirements are expected to drive up car prices. The board staff predicts that the advanced technologies needed to meet the new standards will add $1,900 to the price of a new car in 2025. But that would be more than offset by $6,000 in estimated fuel savings over the life of the vehicle, according to the board’s staff.

Zero-emission autos now make up a minuscule portion of the more than 26 million cars in California, with just a few hundred fuel cell cars and about 34,000 battery electric autos on the road.

“The fact that we are going to change what consumers can buy is one of the most important things we can do,” board member Ken Yeager said before the panel, at the end of a two-day hearing in Los Angeles, voted 9 to 0 to approve the rules.

Manufacturers are poised to introduce a number of new electric and plug-in hybrid models. “This year, two dozen or more new vehicles are going to come out in the market,” Love said. “Everyone is trying their idea for EVs (electric vehicles), plug-ins.”

Nichols said she has seen “a real change in attitudes on the part of auto companies that have seen the handwriting on the wall…. The reality is that companies see the future is going to be in electric drivetrain vehicles. They’re moving there as fast they can.”

But automakers do still have concerns, particularly whether consumers will buy the ultra-clean cars.

“Automakers are mandated to build products that consumers are not mandated to buy,” said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. “If the electric vehicle infrastructure is not in place, consumers may be reluctant to buy these technologies.”

Jack Nerad, Kelley Blue Book market analyst, predicted that “the added expense and lesser versatility of the ‘environmental’ vehicles” will continue to make them less desirable to consumers. Manufacturers might have to sell clean cars at a loss to meet the requirements, and “buyers of conventional cars will pick up the remainder of the tab,” he said. One of the most disputed elements of the rules centered on a clause that in the early years of the mandate gives credits to automakers who reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their fleets more than required. Those credits would cut the number of electric, fuel cell and plug-in hybrids the companies had to offer in California.

Jay Friedland, legislative director of Plug In America, called it “a loophole you can drive a truck through” that will undermine the 2025 goal of having ultra-clean cars make up 15% of the new vehicles sold in the state.

A zero-emission mandate is not new in California. It dates from 1990 but was progressively watered down over the years.

The state’s ambitious goals to slash its greenhouse gas production renewed focus on the role that super clean cars could play.

“The steady drumbeat of the need to get off the dependence on petroleum is really what is driving this,” Nichols said. “It’s taken longer than we’ve hoped.”

Starting with model year 2015, automakers will have to meet tougher standards for smog-forming emissions and, in 2017, greater limits on pollutants that contribute to global warming.

By 2025, the standards are designed to reduce the average smog-forming emissions of new cars and light trucks by 75% compared with those sold today.

The greenhouse gas limits, which would be the same as the federal government has proposed for vehicles nationally, should cut those auto emissions by a third more in 2025 than required under current standards. To meet the new limits, the board staff anticipates the auto industry will make greater use of advanced hybrid technology, stronger and lighter materials and improved emission control equipment.

If oil companies don’t reach an agreement with the state to voluntarily install alternative fueling stations, such as for hydrogen fuel cells, the new rules will also require them to do so when a certain number of cars using that fuel is reached. The outlets could be placed at an existing gasoline station or a free-standing site.

“I hope the oil industry will get on board rather than dragging its feet,” said board member Hector De La Torre.

Democrats are more rigidly determined to be stupid and to impose their immoral stupidity on others than any other people who have ever lived.  I say that because they come from the greatest nation on earth with the greatest example of the success that comes from liberty and economic liberty.  And then they choose every single time to choose the 100 percent failed track record of centrally planned economies.

Democrats are also fascist to the cores of their shriveled little souls.  They have long-since convinced themselves that they are better than you and smarter than you and more moral than you.  And that gives them the right to dictate – because that’s precisely the right word – what kind of health insurance you must have and what kind of light bulbs you must use and what kind of car you must drive.  Whether it is utterly insane or not.

It doesn’t work.  But that is completely irrelevant:

Conservatives who want the government to end all energy subsidies say they are not surprised that Obama won’t let go of the clean-energy mantra.

“They don’t look at Solyndra as part of the larger problem of the Energy Department and the federal government intervening in the markets,” said Jack Spencer, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “They see it as a failed program within the larger context of a succeeding policy.”

Solyndra.  Ener1.  Think City.  Beacon Power.  Evergreen Solar.  AES.  SpectraWatt.  Amonix.  It doesn’t matter how many times Obama or Democrats fail with other people’s money.  Because they are maximally immune from reality.  And when they create these boondoggles they invariably seem benefit their big Democrat donors (crony capitalist fascism alert).  And did I mention that they play their games with other peoples’ money?

We have the most important election in our entire history coming up this year: we either vote Democrat and vote to go the way of the Dodo bird or we vote Republican and vote for a chance – and I mean only a chance – to survive.  Because Obama has already wounded this country so terribly in his “fundamental transformation” that it may well not survive no matter who runs it.

And, of course, he has.

Food stamps:

This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Government-dependency benefits:

According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries

Direct government payments to the permanent welfare class that Obama has massively increased:

The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press points out the fact that:

“Most know by now that Obama dedicates his time to the end of America as it presently exists.”

One of the ways to illustrate what has happened in America is the flak that Newt Gingrich has taken for talking about a vision to not only put a man on the moon, but have a space station there.  There is doubt, skepticism and outright mockery of him in the mainstream media (“Newt Skywalker“?).

Greta Van Sustern asked Newt about why that was.  And Newt went right after Obama for killing America’s dreams and her future.

Gingrich pointed out that JFK in 1961 offered an even MORE audacious vision of putting a man on the moon when not only had no man ever been on the moon but when only the Soviet Union had ever even sent a man into orbit.  JFK said we would put a man on the moon within ten years.  And while he did not live to see the day because a leftist socialist assassinated him, we DID put a man on the moon within ten years of that famous speech.

Why can’t we now?

Because Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a country that can’t do anything and knows it can’t do anything, that’s why.  And of course how could we with such pathetic, failed leadership?  How could we possibly ever thrive under the wings of a man whose only talent is reading off a pair of teleprompter screens?

And the naysayers are completely right: nothing great is possible under this fool.

Only real leadership can get us to the Jetsons.

Newt Gingrich is dreaming of a day when America isn’t under the disgraced and failed leadership of “the Failure-in-Chief.”

Obama is taking us to the Flintstones.  And the sad fact is that the dinosaurs we’ll encounter won’t be anywhere near as friendly as that cartoon described when we get to where Obama is taking us.

Please vote for the destruction of America and a future that takes us – and in particular our children – down into collapse and depression.  Please give us more Obama because we simply don’t deserve to continue the way we’re going.

P.S. Hat tip to Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld for his “Jetsons-Flintstones” analogy.

Another Global Warming Oops Moment, and it’s a dilly
January 27th, 2012, 9:48 am · posted by Mark Landsbaum

The Wall Street Journal has a letter today signed by 16 noteworthy scientists who wanted to go on the record about global warming. What they had to say constitutes today’s Global Warming Oops Moment, one of those delightful public displays that reveal the emperor has no clothes.

We quote:

“Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”

Oops. As we so enjoy saying.

It’s sad that the bullies who run the global warming scare machine have intimidated so many for so long, threatening to label any critics as cranks and not real scientists, even cutting them off from tenure, funding and membership and publishing in journals. But thuggery sooner or later is exposed and courage sooner or later overcomes it. Here’s one of those tipping points, as delineated in the WSJ letter:

“Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. “

What’s this remind you of? If the old Soviet system comes to mind, you’re correct. Also from the letter:

“… we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

As we have written for years, global warming alarmism is not and never has been about the earth heating up dangerously, which it isn’t. It’s always been about control and money – their control over your money.

It seems these 16 scientists understand this motivation:

“Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Did we say Oops?

Incidentally, these scientists also echo our long-standing observation that global warming simply isn’t dangerously warming the earth, and hasn’t at all this century.

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 ‘Climategate’ email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

We have to repeat, Oops!

Hey, anyone in a hurry to scuttle the economic engine of our society so we can subsidize these masters of deceit and fraud? Count up the things government tells you that you must do – and pay for – because of global warming. Subsidizing Solyndra, and countless others, is just the tip of the iceberg.

=-=-=

RELATED POSTS:

• Playing global warming games with glaciers
• Global warming quote of the day
• Republican 11th commandment apparently has been amended, if not revoked
• Cap and trade tax ahead
• Global warming report card: not what you might expect
• 2011 global warming wrap up

I used to live in Orange County and loved the Register.

I miss it even more reading this guy.

He’s got another short piece that supports the one above (Bob Lutz being one of the best engineers in America):

Global warming quote of the day
January 26th, 2012, 4:51 pm · · posted by Mark Landsbaum

It’s been a few days since our last Global Warming Quote of the Day, and because our readers probably have yearned for another, we bring you without further ado, today’s Global Warming Quote of the Day.

“I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

“The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.” - Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors.

These words came when Lutz was asked to give context to words he previously had uttered regarding global warming. You recall what he said then, right?

He said global warming was “a crock of *$%*#@.”

There’s a great article that explains what Bob Lutz was saying available here called “An Inconvenient Truth.”  If you read it you will begin to understand the incredibly deceitful bait and switch that global warming alarmism truly is.

Here is the real science of “global warming” posted on What’s Up With That:

What in the world is going on with global temperatures?
Posted on January 26, 2012by Anthony Watts

Multiple indicators show global temperatures headed down this month, and fast.

by Joe D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

As shown above (see the datapoint in the square box), the UAH AMSU daily temperatures are the coldest for the globe at 600mb of all the years tracked since 2002 (warmest 2010, previously coldest 2009).

The new Dr. Ryan Maue reanalysis based global temperature anomalies has declined dramatically this month – almost a full degree Celsius!

Forecasts for temperature 8 days in advance are appended to the reanalysis values.

Is this a reflection of the stratospheric warming pushing the cold to middle latitudes?

The cross section suggests that initial warm burst has ended. Often they repeat as the cold reloads and dumps again.

The 10mb warmth has only backed off slightly.

Notice at the north pole how temperatures warmed 50C (90F) at 10mb.

See how the warmth at the top has spread north then east then west.

Some lowering of the cold as warmth above presses down.

Meanwhile much of the lower 48 and western Europe is having a mild winter in contrast to recent years. It may end up among the coldest ever in Alaska. With a recent heat wave that I am sure Gerald Meehl at NOAA/NCAR is looking at where temperatures in Fairbanks rose to a balmy -3 (warmest this month), the average monthly temperature is an amazing 16.5F below normal. In Anchroage it has been about 13F below normal with double the normal snowfall.

The Alaska temperatures follow with the PDO. A cold PDO (with cold water offshore) means colder than normal, a warm PDO warmer than normal. Any surprise warming was observed as we moved from the La Nina rich cold PDO before 1977 to the El Ninos and +PDO in the 1980s and 1990s (attributed the CO2 of course). Any surprise with a negative 2 STD PDO and La Ninas, it is brutally cold again.

How will all of this play out in February and March???

BTW, instead of taking a PR cruise to Antarctica during their late summer to see melting ice maybe Hansen, Gore and Trenberth should go to Alaska in mid winter to see their fairy tale collapse as they freeze their tails.

So it’s looking more like an ice age than it is global warming.

James Hanson was one of the pseudo-scientist frauds who predicted an ice age in the 1970s before he started predicting global warming in the 1990s.

It just never ends.  The more wrong global warming religionists are the more they claim that all the science is on their side and everyone who doesn’t agree with them is some kind of heretic.

I’ve written a couple of articles on Obama and his birth certificate and Social Security Number maladies, but have largely refrained because I am neither a lawyer, nor a document expert, nor someone who has the ability to subpoena or even view the actual original documents at issue.

But check out the facts that are being presented in a Georgia quote about whether Obama was legally able to run for president according to that state’s laws (which appears in the context of the following article at the very end):

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama’s alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama’s passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

For the record, I have no idea what Social Security Number Barack Obama is using.  I frankly hope he doesn’t know mine, either!  But if in fact Barack Obama is using a bogus Connecticut Social Security Number given that his own claim is that he was born in Hawaii, that in and of itself should be utterly devastating and he should be forced to either resign or be removed from office immediately.

January 27, 2012
Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By
By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

Two AT writers attended yesterday’s hearing in Georgia over President Obama’s eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O’Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

Ms. O’Brien commented to Professor Lott: “Gods don’t debate. They just issue decrees.”

And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on Georgia’s 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, “The Birthers Went Down to Georgia” and “Georgia on Obama’s Mind,” I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

…Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority…evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary…”

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp “bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.” Jablonski’s letter concluded: “We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26^th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.

Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz. Irion’s argument focused on the definition of “natural born” citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of “statutory construction” in the interpretation of the 14^th amendment. Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between “natural born” and “native-born” citizenship.

Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.

After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.

Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately — primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama’s eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court’s opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also “decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated…that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it.”

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

And most of the media has followed along right behind him.

Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia’s Election Laws

Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26^th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a “Natural Born Citizen” and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court’s Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama’s attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled. Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them “they did so at their own peril” if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen’s Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 — the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother’s passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.

Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing. Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama’s attorney in particular.

She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960′s. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.

The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama’s records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama’s, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama’s exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the “trier of the facts”. Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal! The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law — Georgia’s. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama’s records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public’s hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.

________________________________________________________________________

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama’s alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama’s passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

This is an important story, if for no other reason than that we should finally be able to know for certain the issue of Obama’s elegibility to be president.

Liberals want to depict these questions as racist; very well, then: it was racist LIBERALS who demanded to see John McCain’s birth certificate.  So we’re all of us racist alike.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Who also said:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” — Benjamin Franklin

Pretty much at every opportunity, liberals continue to live down to my low opinion of them.  This from the other day in California:

Poll: Governor Brown’s tax initiative gaining support
Wednesday, January 25, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed ballot initiative to raise taxes has wide support among California voters, but his path to victory in November remains far from certain, according to the results of a poll released Tuesday.

More than two-thirds of California’s likely voters say they favor the Democratic governor’s proposal to raise taxes as a way to stabilize state finances. Yet roughly the same proportion say they strongly disagree with a key element of that plan, raising the statewide sales tax, according to the Public Policy Institute of California survey.

 The poll, conducted in mid-January, illustrates the difficulty the governor faces in navigating the state’s political cross-currents as he pushes his top priority for 2012.

Likely voters overwhelmingly say they favor raising taxes to pay for K-12 education and support raising income taxes on the wealthy, the cornerstones of the initiative Brown hopes to place on the November ballot. But they also do not want to raise the sales tax, believe the state could spend less money while maintaining the same level of services and are pessimistic about the direction of the economy.

 ”Therein lies the challenge for the governor,” said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute. “He has some things he has attached to his tax initiative which do resonate with voters … but there are lots of other elements to question.”

 Brown and his supporters have been cleared to gather petition signatures for his initiative, which the governor refers to as “The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012.” His title does not refer to the temporary tax increases, which would raise between $4.8 billion and $7 billion a year.

 The initiative would boost the statewide sales tax by half a cent for four years starting in January 2013. It also would raise the income tax rate on those making $250,000 a year, increasing it from 9.3 percent to a maximum of 11.3 percent, depending on the amount of income. The income tax increase would start in January 2013 and last for five years.

 Most of the additional revenue would be dedicated to K-12 education, with much of the rest funding the governor’s plan to have counties house lower-level convicts who otherwise would have been sentenced to state prison.

Would I be in favor of seizing money from other people to force them to pay for the stuff I want?  SURE! says the left.

Would I be in favor of actually giving up some of my own money for the stuff I want?  HOW DARE YOU ASK ME TO SACRIFICE!!!

We live in a country in which the top five percent pay FIFTY PERCENT of the federal taxes, while the “bottom” fifty percent pay ZERO PERCENT of the federal taxes, and we’re told the rich don’t pay their “fair share.”  Because liberalism and honesty are like slimy toxic oil and clean water and these simply do not mix.

When it is somebody’s ELSE’S money, there’s no problems and no questioning.  Raise other peoples’ taxes!  Yeah!  When it is even a tiny percent of their own money, suddenly they’re saying, “The government wastes an awful lot of money and they could make do with a whole lot less, so….”

Benjamin Franklin had it right: he saw the day when America would vote for its own collapse as fifty percent plus one decided to vote itself the possessions of the few.

The “good news” – unless you’re a Californian, anyway – is that these nasty people will suffer for their own greed as the wealthy simply increasingly leave the state:

Several studies, including the American Legislative Exchange Council’s “Rich States, Poor States,” and past reports by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation have documented the movement of taxpayers from high tax to low tax states in recent years.

These studies present compelling evidence that taxes are the single largest factor in interstate migration, compared to factors such as climate, employment, family relocation, etc.

 

Our analysis takes this methodology one step further. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), we calculated both the number of taxpayers migrating, and also calculated the adjusted gross income (AGI) that left the state as well. That is, we have calculated how much money—in terms of personal income—states lose or gain due to migration. Our findings confirm that taxpayers are leaving states with higher taxes and unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities.

 

Due to the ease of interstate movement, taxpayers can easily avoid higher taxes by moving to another state. As such, there is a significant Laffer effect wherein a rise in tax rates can lead to lower government revenues as individuals flee the state. There are nine states with no income tax – Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. In 2008 alone these states gained a net total of over 80,000 new residents from the other 41 states. These migrants brought with them over $900 million of net adjusted income according to IRS data.

 

In contrast, the ten states with the highest tax burden, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania lost around 129,455 residents and $10.2 billion of net-adjusted income in 2008 alone.

 

From 1998 through 2008, the ten states with the highest tax burden lost over 3 million residents. These residents took with them a staggering $92 billion in income.

 

[...]

 

It is also clear that individuals are aware that unfunded liabilities will eventually become taxes; states with large unfunded liabilities for public employee pensions and health care are seeing workers flee, particularly workers between ages 30 and 40, who are most likely to see future tax hikes.

 

In addition to higher levels of emigration, higher tax states also maintain higher unemployment rates, placing an expanding tax burden on a shrinking tax base. It is unsurprising, then, that the top five highest-tax states consistently have about a 0.5 percent higher unemployment rate than the five states with the lowest tax burden.

 

States that attempt to raise taxes to balance their budgets encourage their most productive citizens to find more welcoming homes. They also discourage productivity, as taxpayers get to keep less of what they earn in high-tax states. Worst of all, increased taxes provide government with the permission it needs to grow by sustaining the bloated spending of irresponsible state governments. Absent significant changes in their tax-and-spend schemes, these high tax states will soon find themselves without a populace to support the extravagant costs of living in those states.

That begs a good question: just what IS California’s liberal-created pension time bomb?  I’m glad you asked:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

And since Art Laffer’s name was mentioned, one ought to cite him to point out that the so-called “Buffett Rule” Obama is demagoguing and pimping wouldn’t make Warren Buffett pay more in taxes where it would touch Warren Buffett:

Waving Mr. Buffett’s op-ed for all to see, Mr. Obama wasted no time in proposing a surtax on millionaires called the “Buffett Rule.” Putting aside all the oohing and ahhing over Mr. Buffett’s selflessness, his effective tax rate on his true income would hardly budge if this “Buffett Rule” were applied. What’s worse, raising the highest tax rates would most likely worsen the budget deficit and lead to a further weakening of the economy. Everyone would suffer.

The piece goes on to point out that Warren Buffett disingenuously understates his income by 250-fold.  And Buffett’s “rule” wouldn’t touch 249/250ths of Buffett’s real income.

What we are being force fed by the Democrat Party and by the mainstream media who serve as their propagandaists is pure Marxist class warfare.  And Marxism is a failed economic system for good reason.

Even the POOR are leaving high-taxed states for lower-taxed states.  Why?  Because many of them want a job, not a handout, and states like California kill the golden goose to rip out a few eggs rather than create opportunity:

California’s rich are leaving for lower-tax states. The state (slogan: “We’ll Owe You”) has among the highest tax regimes in the country, with a top marginal tax rate of 9.3% and an additional 1% tax on those earning $1 million or more a year.

Three states with no personal income taxes—Nevada, Texas, and Washington—are among the top five destinations for the highest-income fifth of California households, according to the Institutes own data.

Those states also are among the top destinations for California’s poor.

The real lesson here, in my view, is that high taxes and broken government chase away rich and poor alike.

But as long as there are Marxist liberals (and ALL liberals are Marxist liberals, because ALL liberals agree with the Marxist statement, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need“), screw the rich.  And screw the poor who actually want a job and opportunity to improve their own lives too.

I wrote an article titled, “Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.”  It certainly isn’t my biggest article ever (as an example, I once had someone who called herself “Ann” come across one of my articles titled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” and it turned out to have been Ann COULTER.  She linked to it on her site and it just went ballistic), but this more recent article is definitely in the top ten in terms of views in a single week:

Now, I’m sure that some bloggers who might come across this might think, “9k views in a week for one article?  Big Deal.  I get that all the time.”  But as I said, this is definitely one of my top ten most viewed in such a short time period.

I obviously love it very much when an article I write takes off, because I’m writing to try to make a difference.  But the problem is that somebody must have re-posted my “Who Spent More” article under a rock or something.  Because a bunch of liberals suddenly started coming to visit me.

Now here’s the thing that annoys me.  I’ve got a very clear premise that clearly matches my title: Democrats demonized George Bush for spending, but lo and behold Obama’s spending makes Bush’s spending look Lilliputian in just three years in office.  But do liberals want to talk about Obama’s spending?  Nope.  That is pretty much the last thing they want to talk about when they comment to me.

What is the real important subject as far as they’re concerned?  In a word, it’s that I’m “mean.”

And, you see, if I’m mean it means that facts don’t matter, so nyah, nyah, nyah.  Or something to that effect.

I tried to respond to somebody the other day that if Aristotle had a scowl, he’d be just as good of a philosopher as if he wore a smile.  But that didn’t seem to wash.  The “You’re a mean meany so I get to disregard all of your facts” meme continued to play and play like puppies who afterward can’t control their little bladders.

If you were racing down the road at 120 mph and I had a scowl on my face when I shouted that the bridge had washed out, would it really matter whether I had that scowl and shouted?  I mean, if you’re genuinely sane?

The bottom line, for the record, is that liberals are giving me a play from the Saul Alinksy playbook.  He said on page 75 of his Rules for Radicals (which was dedicated to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man”):

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”

And, to an extent, this is true.  For one thing liberals don’t have any rules or code of honor that binds them; they can be as vile as they wish: Lucifer sure won’t care.  And the Kingdom Jesus established is a spiritual one.  And you must therefore either recognize that strife and violence is a part of this world while you strive for the better one to come, or you simply bow your head to the next dictator that comes along.  But it is very difficult to fight for a very political world in the here-and-now against a side that has no rules beyond “Rules for Radicals.”  It’s a genuine dilemma for Christians.

This dilemma has increasingly overtaken us during the course of the last century.  It was there when the Germans used first poison gas and then total war and then the intentional bombing of civilian populations.  Should we have used these vile tactics against an enemy that had no moral restraint, or should we have encouraged more and more of the same by displaying that we wouldn’t fight in such a way that the enemy knew there would be consequences for such terrible actions?  By using poison gas ourselves we forced the Germans to quit using it; wouldn’t not using poison gas have amounted to an immoral sacrifice of our own troops?

I’ve come to realize that I can turn the other cheek to the guy I’m trying to bring into the kingdom of heaven and I can shoot the home invasion psychos who are breaking in my house to murder my family.  And I believe that any morally intelligent individual can understand that difference.

I also believe that most of the reason that culture has degenerated to the shocking extent that it has (I mean Lady Gaga?  Seriously?) is related to the fact that too few Christians were willing to stand up and fight – even wrestle in the mud as necessary – for their culture.  It was far easier for too many to create their own little sub-culture, much as the monks did in walling themselves up in monasteries lest they have to face a nasty world.

So I’m fighting as best I know how.  And I often must fight against a pseudo-righteousness from a side that calls me all kinds of terrible names and labels even as it hypocritically demands I refrain from doing the same thing they’re doing to me.

In any event, I’ve recently gotten a larger dose in a shorter period of time crap from liberals that I’ve basically been experiencing since the day I got my “very first comment” and it turned out to be from a liberal hater.  I’m getting my fill of liberal avoidance and victimism and projection and other disorders.

“Victimism” in this context is when a liberal practices a particularly bizarre form of psychological jujitsu in order to make themselves the victim in an argument or debate.  You see, in their warped little minds, if they can manage to make themselves the victim, they win.  It doesn’t matter how strong your case is or how weak theirs is otherwise; in liberalism the victim always wins.  Period.  And look; they’re the victim!

So, of course, if I say something mean – (regardless of anything vile they previously said to me) – they become the victim and therefore they win the debate.  Because that’s the way their world works.

You can, of course, translate this into the larger socio-economic-and-political issues: victimhood means everything to the left.  It is a cherished status to be sought above everything else – especially above facts.

I would rather have someone sitting right next to me raking her fingernails over a chalkboard than be involved in such a “debate.”  But as a conservative blogger I am nevertheless forced to endure it most every day.

There’s a flip side to the victimism, and that is avoidance.

Liberals do not like things called “facts” or “arguments.”  They are too constraining and isn’t “liberalism” all about feeling free from such constraints?

So I write an article on the issue of abortion and as a result I get called a “KKK racist.”  I get a very similar accusation of being a racist if I talk about government spending.  Because, as we all know, being pro-life or anti-reckless government spending is very clearly “racist.”  I mean, what liberal doesn’t know that?

Why talk about the facts when you can talk about something else instead?

So all the time I respond to liberals, carefully try to interact with and refute their arguments, and it’s like I haven’t said anything, or maybe like I’m writing in a different, incomprehensible language.

I get very bored very quickly arguing with somebody who doesn’t bother to even acknowledge anything I say.  I start thinking about all the things I could be doing that would be far more productive usages of my time.

Again, that’s pretty much just par for the course of being a conservative blogger.

There’s another psychological malady that’s pretty typical of the liberals who comment on my site: a bizarre identity disorder which results in liberals being unable to simply admit what they are.  All the time I get people who are very clearly committed leftists/Democrats trying to pass themselves off as “moderates” or “independents.”  Because, you see, if they’re “moderate,” then they represent the giant voice of the middle.  And how on earth can I debate someone who is the living embodiment of The Middle.

So I get liberals all the time who will post comment after comment – with every single ONE of those comments arguing for liberal/Democrat positions – and then they’ll tell me that they’re most certainly NOT liberals or Democrats.

Often I catch them red-handed being deceitful, such as a guy who started calling himself “Moderate Conservative” to try to fool me shortly after introducing himself as “Moderate Liberal.”  He lacked any shame for his deceit in attempting to pass himself off as something he was not, but at least I got him to acknowledge what he was doing.  And this same guy was posting to the “Who Spent More” article, fwiw.  He was lecturing me on being more civil while dissociating himself from the vileness of his own side.  Because the Democrat Party – at the highest national levels – call conservatives “terrorists” and “racists” and “anti-immigrant” and every hateful pejorative they can think up.  We want dirtier air and dirtier water and we want children to suffer from Down Syndrome and autism – and those last according to the guy who is calling himself “the President of the United States” as though he represented the entire country rather than just the radical left.

Notice everything I’m linking to is recent.  I don’t have to dredge stuff up from 16 months ago; I get this crap ALL THE TIME from liberals.

It’s not enough for me to say that I would never go to a liberal’s blog and try to pass myself off as a liberal in order to achieve some perverted goal; I have never even HEARD of a conservative talking about trying to pull that kind of stunt.  It is a peculiar disorder that only liberals suffer.

But, again, the left does it all the time.  It’s simply a documented fact that they have done this and continue to do it.  They pretend to be conservatives and do something vile to make people believe the lie that conservatives are vile rather than the TRUTH that liberals are vile.

And you might notice that liberals have to manufacture crap by deceit against conservatives.  Liberals just crap all over the place all by themselves:

Personally, I believe that liberals, at least at some subconscious level, intuitively understand that they are cockroaches and really ought to feel ashamed of themselves if they could only possess the virtue of shame.  But that’s just a pet theory of mine.

This reminds me of another personality disorder that defines the left: projection.  In psychology, you’ve got the pathologically angry person who immediately assumes that everyone around him is angry – which of course justifies his constant angry outbursts.

Well, we don’t have to stretch very hard to think about all the labels and demonization the left handed out to the Tea Party.  And then the Occupy (OWS) movement came along and showed us what all the ugliness the left was falsely accusing the Tea Party of REALLY looks like:

Call The Occupy Protest Movement And The Left That It Comes From What It Truly Is: Fascist

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Vile Occupy Protests In Videos

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Tea Party Vs. Occupy Protests: The Winners Of The Out-Of-Control Violence Trophy – For The Millionth Consecutive Time – Is The LEFT

Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Obama, Media Propaganda ALL Support Occupy Wall Street

So, yes, liberalism IS a mental disorder.

But rather than simply walking around muttering to themselves like they ought to, liberals find a way to make their unfortunate mental condition as annoying and harmful as possible.

I just wish they wouldn’t do it so much around me.  But as a conservative blogger, I am a light.  And they are a bunch of moths.