Posts Tagged ‘environmental’

Liberalism At Work: Get Ready For $50 Light Bulbs (And No, I’m NOT Kidding)

May 18, 2011

Remember those nifty little  incandescent light bulbs?  They actually worked.  Democrats HATE things that actually work.  So they banned them.

Their claim was that within a few years “green technology” would work its magic and we’d have better energy-saving alternatives in no time.

Well, the ban Democrats imposed will soon go into effect.  And now you can choose between a CFL light bulb laden with incredibly poisonous mercury, or an LED bulb that a) doesn’t actually produce light (which really should kind of be the whole purpose of a light bulb, shouldn’t it?) and b) are shockingly expensive.

I think about the idiocy of making an “environmentally-friendly” “green light bulb” out of mercury – one of the most deadly environmental poisons in the world – and I have to laugh.  But as amazingly stupid as that is, it is EXACTLY what liberals do as a matter of routine.  Think of the additive MTBE  goverment forced oil companies to add to gasoline to clean the air; it had one tiny unforeseen effect of poisoning the ground water.  Who but a liberal could possibly be that stupid?  Then there’s the whole ethanol thing, where we are literally burning food as fuel even as we face food shortages and people are starving.  Again, liberals love to depict themselves as the ones who “care.”  But they don’t actually give one freaking damn about the people they falsely claim to care about.  There was the government-imposed ban on DDT due to what we now know to have been totally bogus pseudo-leftwing-“science,” which has caused more than 30 million people to die who didn’t have to.  Then of course there is the whole global warming hoax where leftwing ideologues were paid huge grant money awards to hype a nonexistent disaster.  And the leftist bureaucrats who paid them that grant money are hoping to get trillions and trillions of dollars in forced economic redistribution as their reward.  And it really doesn’t matter that Mother Earth keeps giving global warming alarmists the very, very, VERY cold shoulder.

Putting liberals in charge of the environment is as stupid as, well, putting liberals in charge of anything.

Here’s what you win for having voted for Democrats in 2006 and allowing them to take control of both the House and the Senate (in addition to the financial implosion that resulted from their policies):

100-Watt LED Bulbs Set To Enter Market
Posted on: Tuesday, 17 May 2011, 09:53 CDT

With 100 watt light bulbs soon to be extinct, manufacturers are set to release an equivalent wattage of LED bulb to replace them, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals starting in 2012. The basic design of the incandescent bulb has not changed much in the last century and wastes most of its energy as heat, especially the higher-wattage variety.

The LED bulbs will cost about $50 each and will likely go on sale next year, after the government ban takes effect.

Creating good alternatives to 100-watt bulbs has proven challenging to the lighting industry. The new bulbs have to fit into fixtures designed for older technology.

Compact fluorescents are an obvious replacement, but have flaws. Containing a small amount of toxic mercury vapor which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away, they are technically a health hazard and very few people dispose of them properly. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.

Hmmm.  Pay $50 for a light bulb or sit in the dark while you freeze thanks to Democrat’s equally stupid energy policies???

Or there’s a third option: another Republican tidal wave that will allow conservatives to overturn this brain-dead ban.

I’ve been forced to buy some of these “green” bulbs.  They were advertised to last so many tens of times longer.  That turned out to be just as big of a load of crap as just about every other Democrat promise I’ve heard.

Obama Worst President In History, According To 2004 Democrat Campaign Rhetoric

June 23, 2010

This is just too good.  Barack Hussein is far and away the very worst president in American history.  And that according to the very same standards that Democrats attacked George Bush with in 2004.

Democrats of 2004 Brand Obama Worst President
By Kevin Hassett – Jun 20, 2010

As we approach another general election, it will be interesting to see how the economic performance of Democrats is judged. If voters borrow the preferred method of John Kerry and other Democrats from 2004, Barack Obama will be revealed to be among the worst presidents in history.

During the 2004 election, Democrats constantly reminded voters that George W. Bush was the first president in decades to oversee a net loss of jobs.

The drumbeat was incessant. “This administration is the first since Herbert Hoover’s to actually lose jobs on its watch — 1.8 million jobs,” Kerry said at a campaign stop. His campaign chairman, Jeanne Shaheen, said Bush deserved “the first-ever ‘Herbert Hoover Award’ for having the worst jobs record since the Great Depression.”

The Hoover analogy was a stretch, as some recognized even back then. The watchdog election site factcheck.org wrote, “Comparing the Bush economy to Hoover’s Great Depression is just silly, and implying that tax cuts are not contributing to job growth deserves an ‘F’ in freshman economics.”

As an adviser to the Bush re-election campaign, I regularly rebutted the Hoover charge when I appeared on television to debate Kerry supporters in 2004. Here’s what I said then, and still say now: While some presidents arrive in Washington during boom times, others come during busts, and those often are the ones elected precisely because voters hope that they will change economic policies.

Jobless Recovery

Bush arrived just as the last recession was beginning — a bit of timing that Obama can relate to. Though that recession was brief, the subsequent jobless recovery did little to strengthen Bush’s record as he entered his reelection year.

Obama, of course, is just 17 months into his presidency, and more than two years from facing the voters personally. But with a big midterm congressional election upcoming, let’s see how Obama would fare if Kerry-like tactics were used on him.

The answer: not well. Whether the measurement is job creation, unemployment or growth of gross domestic product, the economy has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush.

First, job creation. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. shed 2.3 million jobs since February 2009, Obama’s first full month in office. Going back to World War II, that is by far the worst record for any president in his first 17 months, outpacing the job destruction experienced in the early Bush years by more than 800,000 jobs.

Campaign Fodder

For Obama, there is an even worse way to play the data, which might just become fodder for a political ad: From November 2008, the month he was elected, until now, the economy has shed an astonishing 4.4 million jobs. That’s worse than Hoover.

Sure, you can blame the first few months of that period on lame-duck President Bush. But perhaps companies accelerated their shedding of jobs because they were bracing for higher tax rates, increased union power and costly environmental taxes under Obama.

Other measurements are only slightly kinder to Obama. The two-percentage-point increase in unemployment rate during his presidency, to 9.7 percent from 7.7 percent, is the third-worst since World War II. Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford saw bigger increases.

GDP growth under Obama, an abysmal 3 percentage points so far, is the fourth-worst in the postwar period. Eisenhower, Ford and Ronald Reagan all began their terms with worse GDP growth.

But hey, it was Kerry and the Democrats who made job creation the be-all and end-all measurement of a presidency, and by that standard, Obama is dredging a new low. It’s probably a good bet that Democrats who became so enamored of Hoover’s name in 2004 won’t be mentioning it much this year.

Republicans should be willing to drop it too — so long as some economic adviser to Kerry-Edwards ‘04 admits the campaign was wrong to bring up Herbert Hoover in the first place.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

So if you want to see the case that Barack Obama is the worst president in history, don’t bother reading what conservatives say; just listen to Democrats own rhetoric from just a few years ago.

This article’s findings as to just what a disaster Obama has been even measuring by the Democrats’ own standards does not include the recent information that Obama’s mortgage modification program has totally failed in every way imaginable, and that sales of new homes has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded? It was the mortgage industry that created the 2008 collapse – and Obama has done nothing but make a black hole of crisis even worse.

I can’t even imagine how shrilly the Democrats would have decried those facts had they occurred during the Bush years.

And, to go on, you want to talk about a president’s ability to handle a national disaster such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, day 64?  No matter how bad you want to say Bush was regarding Hurricane Katrina, Bush is now widely recognized to have done a far superior job.  How about war fighting?  Bush won in Iraq; Obama is floundering enormously in Afghanistan.

Basically, by whatever metric you want to use, Obama is the biggest disgrace to ever occupy the White House.

If this doesn’t prove that Democrats are a) pathological demagogues and b) completely unfit to govern, what possibly could?

A Response To Obama’s Whining About The Right Being Unfair Over Gulf Disaster

June 14, 2010

Without ado, here’s what Obama said the other day about conservatives and tea party people over his inability to get squat done about the Gulf of Mexico disaster:

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

On Obama’s blatantly false portrayal, conservatives think “government is inherently bad.”

Obama’s charge simply rests entirely upon his demagoguery.  Essentially his implicit claim is that conservatives are anarchists who want no government whatsoever.  We want gangs of hoodlums ranging the streets.  We want looting and mayhem.  We want a complete and total destruction of government, such that every man does what is right in his own eyes – or dies trying.

With all due respect (which amounts to none at all), bull crap.  Anarchists are on the side of the left, not the right.  Just as virtually every single terrible political philosophy that has ever existed have been on the side of the left, not the right.

Obama’s conclusion that if someone wants the government to do anything at all, he must therefore necessarily want everything that Obama is doing to massively increase the size of the government bureaucracy is so ridiculously stupid it is frankly hard to believe he’d make such an argument.

If you want any government action at all, you must want want Big Brother.”  I mean, please get real.

I can’t help but wonder if mega-government types like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin described their enemies in the same terms.  The charge would have been no more valid for them than it is for Obama.  They, too, were proponents of huge government who were warring with those who favored less intrusive government.  The argument would have been no more valid for these two leftist socialist tyrants than it is for Obama.

Furthermore, the right is doing nothing more than holding you to the same standard of blame that you personally helped heap on George Bush over Katrina five years ago.  If you don’t like being hit with stones, you shouldn’t have started throwing them.  Bottom line.

What conservatives and tea party activists want and always have wanted is responsible, limited government.  We want the kind of government that is described in the American Constitution, rather than the Constitution of the U.S.S.R.

You’re right, Obama.  We DON’T want you “trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government” as you’ve been trying to do from your first day in office.  What we DO want – in your own words – is for you to “plug the damn hole.”  And unless I’m somehow very mistaken, the two things are clearly not the same, are they???

Am I the only one who thinks that “ObamaCare” and “plug the damn hole” are different?

I can tell you one of the things I most certainly DON’T want my government to do: whine.

So when are you going to stop whining and actually DO YOUR DAMN JOB, Obama???

And if you’re going to kick someone’s ass over this most disgraceful response that demonstrates a fundamental lack of leadership, why don’t you start with your very OWN???

You made so many pathologically narcissistic promises it defies comprehension.  You boasted that you were going to be the guy whose election would mark the day “when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.”  Are we just supposed to somehow not notice that you’ve turned the oceans black instead?

You were also the guy who promised that you would keep unemployment from rising over 8% if we enacted your massive porkulus that has completely failed.  You were also the guy who promised that you could win Iran over and get them to halt their nuclear weapons program through your policy of what always amounted to appeasement.  You were also the guy who promised that you would do a bang-up job winning the war in Afghanistan after demonizing your predecessor’s far more successful efforts.

And now you whine and whine when someone asks the legitimate question, “How’s all your over-the-top bullshit working out?”

You cry about people blaming you even as you systematically blame people who don’t have anywhere NEAR the blame that you have for this mess.  YOU’RE the one who took more BP money than anyone else.  YOU’RE the one who granted the permit for the drilling platform that exploded.  YOU’RE the one who granted a bunch of environmental waivers for that platform before it exploded.  YOU’RE the one who dithered for more than two weeks while a massive crisis unfolded.  YOU’RE the one who didn’t employ the procedure that has been on the books since 1994.  YOU’RE the one who has completely failed to do a damn meaningful thing at every single turn.

If you really want to blame somebody else, Mr. Obama, why don’t you blame the millions of abject fools who elected you when it should have been obvious to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells that you were clearly not up to the job???

At the very least, you’d finally be blaming the right people for a change.