Obama cars will kill more Americans on highways

If it isn't that we don't have enough fatalities on our highways just from the 12,000 Americans killed every year by drunk-driving illegal aliens from Mexico - fine by Geraldo Rivera because as he says, "It's a cultural thing" - now we may soon have new standards set for American cars and trucks.   And I predict that these new standards will result in:

• more vehicular deaths of Americans on our highways;
• cars Americans do NOT want to drive;
• higher costs for moving cargo along our highways in mini-trucks; 
• more SOCIALISM (federal government control over your life); and
• the final DEATH of the American home-based automobile industry.
• PLUS:  higher taxes on gas because we will hypothetically be using less gas.

 One of my cars is a 1998 Honda Accord, top of the line in 1998.  On the open highway, that baby gets 42 miles to the gallon and uses regular gas.  Why in Heaven's name would I want to buy 1/2 of a car? 

From Tom Krisher, we have this article:  Obama's rules will transform US auto fleet.  In it Krisher states:  "That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient."  

What Krisher neglects to mention - because he probably wants to keep his job - is that the cars will be less safe - by a long shot.  From USA Today, we have this to back me up on the safety concern.

Americans will be forced to drive scooters and little mini-cooper-like roller-skate cars that might be fine for New York or Paris but death traps on our interstate highway system/network.

If the federal government will leave our private sector alone, they'll make the cars we want and they'll make money too.  

It is becoming more clear that the goal of this administration, following fast on the heels of the previous three administrations - and who can forget the boost Jimmy Carter gave us with inflation and long gas lines at the pump - is now slipping the noose around American ingenuity.  Our death throes may be grueling but Socialist and Marxist dictators have never worried about that in their countries.

Oh, for car restorers, wait until Cuba is opened up again.  You'll be able to get all the 56 Chevys you want;  you just won't be able to have them in America.

Can State legislatures do what they are doing with gun laws when it comes to cars?  Refuse to enforce federal laws on cars made in their state?  

If we can have "sanctuary cities" such as Virginia Beach and San Francisco where federal immigration laws are not enforced, why can't we have States Rights where States and their citizens have sovereignty?  To say the federal government may be over-reaching a tad is an understatement.  And no, they have no right to force mandated requirements on the States and then leaving the States holding the financial bag.  Shame on them.   

Has our Federal Government leviathan become the King George III of our times?

Dust off your copy of the U.S. Constitution and see exactly what the limited powers of the Federal Government are.  High on the list is to protect us from foreign invasion.  How're they doing on that one?  Ask insane California that is bankrupt specifically because of the entire range of benefits it gives to illegal aliens.  And we are supposed to bail out California?  I say, send the bill to Mexico's Calderon.  He looks like a nice fellow.

Cars are just one issue;  another is SOCIALIZED medicine where health care will be 'rationed.'  Do you want to see a loved one die a slow death because he or she is deemed out of the 'acceptable' range for certain medical procedures?  Check on Denmark.  

The word for "managed health care" is euthanasia.  

Do you want a low-level bureaucrat following a check-list and deciding what medical procedures you will be allowed to receive?

First they came for our cars....  you know the rest.

Obama: bank bailout all about SOCIALISM

If one does not believe that Obama is not leading us into SOCIALISM then read the linked column to see that Obama is forcing the "jackboot" of SOCIALISM on our necks and clamping us in chains, read Obama leap to Socialism by Dick Morris.

That may not have been the "Change you can believe in" or the "Change" you voted for but it is the "Change you'll have to explain to your children and grandchildren" as this becomes known as the "generation that voted American into slavery."

You can also find Dick Morris columns at Dick Morris.com.

From Watchdog: The Price of Socialism

For Helen of Troy, it was the face that launched a thousand ships. From Mindless and Spineless, Watchdog gives us a graphic: The Price of Socialism. The Price of Socialism outweighs a tea bag any time. And the weight of debt being put upon our children will leave them hating the generation that did this to them: robbed them of their future and instead of snipping off their baby ID hospital bracelet, Nancy Pelosi's House, Harry Reid's Senate, and the past and present administrations slipped on the chains of slavery and the poverty that accompanies it - for all of our children.

Bailout and the 2008 Election

Socialism / Nationalization fails every time! Remember that. Socialism stifles our spirits and breaks our will to work and/or to be exceptional. Socialism teaches men to do as little as they can to get by in the workplace... Now, I have trust in the American people - if we are informed. The more we demand that the government "do" for us, the weaker we become individually and the more the government controls us. Every facet of our lives. Did you know that if you want stay in a motel when you are traveling and you want to pay your bill in cash, you must let them make a copy of your driver's license! Why? Federal law. Now we have an important election coming up and it is important for many reasons - not because of "skin color" or "gender." It is important because it will speak loudly about we, the people. Do we want a Socialist/Marxist society? One in which the working class FINALLY figures out that whether they do a good job at work or not, it doesn't matter. Do we want to continue "loans to anyone" who cannot prove that they are a good credit risk? Because of "political correctness"? Or can this financial "crisis" be a turning point where we, the people, return to common sense and demand it of our elected leaders? I assure you, regardless of our financial situation when this "crisis" is averted, they'll still get their salaries and their benefits as well as their automatic pay increase. AND, if we do not re-elect some of them, THEY'LL STILL get their pay and benefits for life. Now, that may be "law" but that is criminal. The North American Union is fact; we cannot stop it as things stand now. There are ways to stop it but only the Texans and maybe the folks in New Mexico and Arizona have the grit to do what needs to be done. Socialism is getting more pervasive and that WE CAN CHANGE! At the very least, we need some serious gridlock in DC. We cannot afford, our children cannot afford, this long slow - Batan march - into Socialism. And Obama along with Harry Reid and Madame Speaker "I'm only two heartbeats away from the presidency" Pelosi (the richest woman, if not richest person in either branch of Congress) are chomping to bury our independence and the fire that beats in the American heart. This election is not about you as Obama said, but it is up to us. Freedom or Socialism? You decide... Is Freedom just to hard a task anymore or do we have the "fire in our souls" to stand up and fight for freedom - RIGHT HERE AT HOME where it is most threatened? You won't find freedom in "government handouts"...

Bailouts - Dr. D speaks

Here is a response from Dr.D. to one of my posts. He has great points that need to be in any "plan" that is enacted:

"You say that we should lend the money to these "failing companies." But the truth is, they are not credit worthy, so you are asking us, the American people, to do exactly what the banks have been doing for the last 20 years, namely making bad loans. How does this solve anything at all? If we are to make the loans you describe, I think that there need to be criminal penalties for the executive officers of those companies receiving the loans if they fail to pay them back on schedule. There needs to be strict control of the company's ability to pay high salaries to executives until such time as the loans are repaid. Too many big shots will see this as just another opportunity to rip the American people off. You asked if this was Constitutional. Surely you were joking! Of course, it is not. We have not had Constitutional government in ages. Our federal government abandoned the Constitution many years ago when it became just too inconvenient and restrictive for their taste. What we have is nothing at all like what the Founding Fathers had in mind!"

Couldn't have said it better myself. Of course I was joking! But not about this: How about "jail with no bail" to the executive officers... But one more thing, Letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell I have been calling and e-mailing my Congressman and Senators. I'm sick of "throwing" money at failing enterprises such as our government educational system without strict penalties for "failure". If anything proves we need less Socialism and more "free market" Capitalism, this bank/lending debacle proves it in Aces. How does loaning the money make it better? Loaning it with strict penalties, jail-time, and NO golden parachutes to the execs is better than "giving" the money to them. I don't trust the Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve, or any one in the Democrat Leadership on this issue. So "strict control" over any money loaned is essential. That and ending "affirmative action" lending, period. As far as I am personally concerned, I'd never run my household finances like the "loons" have set up and established the monopolies and the combinations of tasks - banking, home mortgages, brokerage houses - within institutions. The "bundling" that has led to this mess is the cross-inbreeding of tasks under several financial institutions. Down the road, we should dissolve the "monopolies" we have established under legislation/deregulation legislation passed by Congress and signed into law or continued by several respective presidents. Nobody is squeaky "clean" on this one up until now but some folks better start washing their hands with anti-monopoly soap PDQ. One more quotation from Rich: "Beach Girl: Catching up on all of your recent posts; right on! This entire fiasco is a distraction to what is so obvious to me, government precedent to run our economy. We have heard Senator Boxer say she would take over the oil companies when they were making too much money. Now they want to take over Wall Street when they are losing money. These politicians want the keys to the "capitalist treasury". Imagine if they could get their hands on a vehicle to make money instead of graveling to the taxpayers all the time. Nirvana! Not one democratic leader beleives in our system. They want to over throw it any way they can. They are all corrupt and need to be changed; now! Term limits by force of the vote on November 4th. I am sick of these idiots. Frank and Dodd should be investigated at a minimum. The entire congress most likely will be tied to the dirty political money of Wall Street. It is time for a real change. If not now, when?" I concur - Barney Frank and Chris Dodd need to investigated at the least however, with Czarina Pelosi in control of the government - no chance of that.

Bailout - US Government, not US Realtors!

The United States government should not turn "we, the people" into the United States of Realtors. We should "loan" money to these financial institutions at reasonable interest rates and let them "work their way out" of the mess they have created. The United States government should keep itself out of any further "social engineering" and not demand that financial lending companies "loan to anyone who they know cannot pay the loan back." Part of our capitalist system is based on "free enterprise", a "free market" which means an open market without government interference. What has been going on at the behest of our Congress over the past 14 years or so has been interference / tinkering with sound lending practices. Many people are part of that "free market" system through their 401Ks offered through the companies for whom the people work. Now, Congress wants us to buy "bad paper" which we wouldn't do... So, lend the "failing companies" the money. Charge realistic interest rates. Demand that loans are no longer given to folks or to businesses that simply do not have the credit history that would demonstrate that they could in any way repay their loans. That is foolish, bad business, and SOCIALISM writ large. See where it got us. Thanks, Congress... Keep the American people from buying "bad paper" which none of us would knowingly do. We aren't that stupid and any of us who have home mortgages and work hard have had to develop the credit inorder to be able to get the home loans in the first place. We had to meet criterion or standards before any bank would loan us money. Lastly, let's break up the monopolies that Congress has created. Banks should do bank stuff; stock brokerage houses should do stock stuff. Merging these functions was clearly a very "bad" deal for the American people. I have just one tiny question here. Constitutionally, is it even "legal" for this kind of machinations under the US Constitution? I'm talking about from the beginning? Encouraging "social engineering" that opened the door for greed and bad financial practices. Doesn't the Federal Government have limited powers? Or do they just screw us any which way they can under the "commerce clause." I don't think that is what the Founders had in mind...

Islamic terrorists, evil spawn of Globalists and Theocracy?

Last night I ranted a bit about "multiculturalism" and how the concept has been put into practice for decades to erode and reduce the planet to a globe without nations in Multiculturalism, infectious globalism now pandemic!. The consequences of breaking down Western Civilization and destroying weaker developing nations are becoming more apparent daily with the chaos and confusion along with the feeling of defenselessness as citizens watch their governments, once the bastions of national sovereignty, actively work to introduce hoards of people from very divergent cultures into once stabilized nations. For Globalists and the One World Order crowd, the League of Nations was a failure but then too is the United Nations in being the panacea to cure all ills. The hypocrisy of the United Nations is chronicled in a myriad of places, not the least of which is Screw the UN and books such as The Tower of Babble: How the United Nations has fueled Global Chaos by Dore Gold. A biography of Dore Gore can be found here. For an interview with Gold on Saudi Arabia's funding and providing safe refuge for al-Qaeda, the following may be of interest, The War on America is not over". So the answer, tear the nations down from within through "multiculturalism" and then censor all honest discussion through "political correctness." My simple question in this post is this: Is Islamic terrorism an unintended consequence of the globalists effort at "world" dominance? Has "multiculturalism" - with the help of American and European liberal Socialists - become the effective and efficient method of spreading Islamic terrorism? Many of us have written about the clash of "cultures" and the current Islamic push for Islamic domination as being one more battle in the centuries-old war between Christianity and Islam. I believe that is still true at the ground level; the soldier-to-soldier level. But is the reality more sinister than that? I have to wonder if Globalists - along with their Leftist Socialists - intended to give birth to violent Islamic terrorism or was it somehow an "accident" of conception that, with the advent of "multiculturalism" and the establishing of Islamic beach heads in Western nations, the physical world leaders of Islam saw their chance to move into the destabilized nations of the West? Western leaders are begging for them to migrate, so why not oblige? We thought we had "defeated" Communism; we believe in national sovereignty. The Globalists seem to believe that all the world should be "third world" and powerful nations brought to heel. The Socialists seem to believe that my hard-earned dollars belong to them to give to their "beggar-based constituency" (coined by Rush Limbaugh I believe). The Globalists depend on people being able to "buy" things to keep the Globalists power in place. The Socialists seem to believe in reducing us all to submission. For purposes of this post, I see the Globalists and Socialists as one, just perhaps with different methods toward reaching their respective end of world domination. And along comes the 7th Century blushing bride - Islamic Theocracy which believes that its "physical leaders" are destined to rule the world. A marriage frought with all manner of consequences. But before the honeymoon, whoops, their bastards - Islamic terrorists - blinked their eyes in this "brave new world" of "one world order" and said, "Yowsah! This multiculturalism was made for us. We can hide anywhere and cry that we are victims. That'll work." Are violent Islamic terrorists the intended spawn of the "one world order" crowd to keep us off balance and to enable them to chain us in the world of "Real ID" cards, microchips in the butt, or are the violent Islamic terrorists just an accident that needs to be aborted before the grand designs of the Globalists go up in smoke?