Search This Blog

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Obama's Housing Problem

That's got to hurt:


This is turning into a massacre:

Excuse me, but your flank is showing. (from the Exurban League)

Diagram 1 illustrates how the Summer 2008 battle was won.




1. With a token force, Gen. McCain taunts Obama as an lightweight, celebrity elitist.

2. After some hesitation, Lt. Obama orders the entire Democratic Army to attack McCain's forces, focusing on his many homes.

3. McCain's small force rapidly retreats to an Arlington condo with Obama's army in fevered pursuit.

4. McCain attacks Obama's exposed left flank with the savage Rezko-Mansion division.

5. At the same time, McCain irregulars attack Obama's exposed right flank led by the Ayers Bombadiers.

Even at this early stage in the battle, even a West Point plebe could see that the day belonged to Gen. McCain's Republican Guard. If Lt. Obama had read more about Cannae, Marathon, Cowpens, etc., he might have been better prepared for the obvious pincer movement Gen. McCain had planned all along.

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN

Ann Coulter (who is a lawyer) makes an interesting point that I have not heard discussed about Obama's performance at Saddleback.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"


Score a big one for Ann.

Further proof that Obama is totally lost without a script. Obama supporters like to call his comments nuanced. This is not "nuance" but foot-in-mouth disease. It is mind boggling.

California mulls probing senator over IndyMac crash

It turns out that Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) released confidential information that caused a run on IndyMac, causing the bank to fail.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - California's attorney general is reviewing a request by former employees of IndyMac Bancorp Inc to investigate whether a New York senator triggered the bank's collapse by releasing confidential information.

At issue is a much-publicized letter that Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, sent in June to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) questioning the company's ability to survive.

The FDIC took control of IndyMac on July 11 after depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion over 11 days. It was the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history. At the time, OTS Director John Reich blamed Schumer's letter for causing the run on the bank.

In a letter to Attorney General Jerry Brown last week, 51 former IndyMac workers wrote: "From the day (Schumer's) letter was made public on June 26 until the closure of the bank, a run on the bank took place and the failure became inevitable."


One person's comment following the article cannot be dismissed out of hand:
I am an Independent Voter... I vote roughly 50/50 between the two parties.
This issue tells me that the far-left liberals WANT the economy to fail, WANT banks to fail, WANT the war against terrorism to fail, so they can promote their own agenda. Schumer is among the worst anti-American socialists in politics, right after Boxer, Kennedy, and Obama.
He would rather help a bank fail to make the odds better for Obama than help its depositers succeed. He threw countless bank customers under the bus to forward the Democrat agenda.
He should be impeached for violating long-standing banking laws. The bank regulators by LAW cannot publicize bank audit results beyond the SEC and FDIC filings. Schumer violated the law for his own political agenda.

The fact is that if you publicize the fact that a bank may be over-extended, there will be a run on the bank and it will fail. That’s how Bear-Stearns failed. That’s how IndyMac failed. It so happens that bank failures help the Democrats make their case that the economy is in the tank. So was Schumer helping to make that impression clearer by causing a big California bank to fail? Don’t be too quick to dismiss it and attribute it to paranoia. As someone once said, even paranoids have enemies and Schumer is among the most partisan people in congress.

As We All Know, Liars ::.

LIE, DAMNED LIARS ARE condemned to hell for lying, and statisticians give lewinskis to the devil with their lies.

It is therefore worth noting that there has been an ongoing statistical falsehood -- a lie by misdirection -- in the statements of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
...
Given the indeterminate value for global CO2 concentrations, I question any assertions made as to the increases in CO2 concentrations -- especially when the global authority is -- as Dolly noted -- sited on a volcano. How stupid is that? Yes, the observations from MLO have value -- as observations of CO2 concentrations near volcanoes!! But for a global value. Pull the other one. It's got bells on.




Read the rest at Baby Trollblog. Good writing.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Annenberg-Gate" - It's not the crime, it's the cover up

This is beginning to unravel.

John Kass at the Chicago Tribune:When Daley says shhh, library is quiet on Obama
Conservative writer Stanley Kurtz—researching an article for the National Review about connections between Barack Obama and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers—made a big mistake.

The poor man took a wrong turn on the Chicago Way. Now he's lost.

Kurtz's research was to be done in a special library run by the University of Illinois at Chicago. The library has 132 boxes full of documents pertaining to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation vested heavily in school reform.

Kurtz believes the documents may show Obama and Ayers were close—far closer than Obama has acknowledged—over oodles of foundation gifts on education projects the two worked on together.

First the librarians told Kurtz yes, come look. But by the time Kurtz landed in Chicago, the librarians changed their minds. The donor of the documents hadn't cleared his research. Perhaps they'll let him look at the documents on Nov. 5.

The relationship between the ambitious Obama and the unrepentant Ayers is a subject that excites Republicans, who haven't really thwacked that pinata as hard as they might. It really irritates Obama and his political champion, Chicago's sovereign lord, Mayor Richard M. Daley.

"This is a public entity," Kurtz told us Wednesday. "I don't understand how confidentiality of the donor would be an issue."

You don't understand, Mr. Kurtz? Allow me to explain. The secret is hidden in the name of the library:

The Richard J. Daley Library.

Eureka!

The Richard J. Daley Library doesn't want nobody nobody sent. And Richard J.'s son, Shortshanks, is now the mayor.


The Wall Street Journal headlines Obama’s Ties to Ayers Come Up Again

Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute:
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge - The Fog Thickens

Marathon Pundit:
Release the Chicago Annenberg Challenge files now!

You just have to ask what's so hush-hush about a project to improve Chicago's public schools? My guess is that's it's all about following the money.

The AP Almost Reports on the Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge archives Story

Just one Minute:
Almost Like Reporting
Pete Yost of the AP covers the cover-up of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge archives described yesterday by Stanley Kurtz at NRO...

Since the mainstream media has never yet reported on this Ayers/Obama link the typical reader is probably scratching his or her head. Mr. Yost provides some background...

That is almost like reporting. Yost makes no mention of the fact that Obama was asked about Ayers at the Philadelphia debate in April and described him as ""a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago...", rather than as "a guy I worked with on education reform for six years without accomplishing anything" (The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was ultimately judged a failure by the Annenberg Foundation.)

Yost makes no mention of the fact that the Obama website produced a "Fact Check" on the Obama/Ayers relationship which made no mention of this failed collaboration on education reform.

Yost makes no mention of the fact that previously the Obama campaign was telling reporters that (a) Obama and Ayers met through kids who went to the same school, or (b) Obama and Ayers first met in the second half of 1995 when Ayers hosted a campaign kick-off for Obama. Since Obama became chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in January 1995, that was false.

In fact, its almost as if the Obama campaign has tried to conceal this Obama/Ayers relationship. And now some mysterious unnamed donor is continuing the cover-up by sitting on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge archives.

And Yost almost reports on it.

It Appears that The Left Was Lying About McCain (Cross in the dirt episode)

It’s absolutely amazing how quickly a lie turns into a fact. After the Saddleback debate, McCain was accused of inventing a story about a prison guard in the Hanoi Hilton who treated him well and made the sign of the cross in the dirt.

The story was instantly attributed to Solzhenitsyn, who – it was claimed – told a similar story in “The Gulag Archipelago.” Except no one bothered to check if the story actually appeared in any of Solzhenitsyn’s books. It turns out that the answer was “no.” So now we have a Left Wing web site admitting that the attribution is bogus, but continuing to claim that the story may never have happened.

This only solves a piece of the mystery, but it's a key piece. It doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that McCain or his biographer, Mark Salter, picked up the tale that this happened to Solzhenitsyn elsewhere and embellished it for their own purposes.



And the comments that follow from the even more rabid followers of the Messiah Obama reflect a mental pathology that is disturbing:

Posted by “bribes”

Loser argument? Did you guys live through 2004 or not? This is attacking McCain right where it hurts. This discredits his POW status, his infallibility when he talks about his time there, his truthfulness, his entire campaign (noun, verb, POW). This is a splinter in McCain's side that casts doubt on all his POW haranguing.
Pay attention people.

Posted by Jonze

I don't think this happened to McCain and believe it was likely Salter who added it in McCain's story to add to the McCain lore, but there is really no way of proving or disproving it, and as has been mentioned it's a political loser for the Dems.
McCain probably believes it now, and Salter is likely the only person who could discredit it and he surely isn't going to do that

There is a desperate need on the part of the Left to believe that McCain is the kind of faux “war here” that John Kerry is. That the story of his capture and torture are as made-up as Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” story. That is why the cross in the dirt MUST be a lie, otherwise they will have to admit that the Swift boaters were right and that Kerry was fraud.

The are desperate to do to McCain what they believe the Swift boat vets did to John Kerry. There is a major difference: McCain isn't Kerry. McCain didn't skip out on the war based on fake wounds, didn't lie about his exploits and didn't smear the troops when he returned.

Prediction: The Duke and Duchess of Edwards

American Digest (good enough to reprint in full):

Flashback to 1936:


"On 13 November, the King Edward's private secretary, Alec Hardinge, wrote to the King warning him that: "The silence in the British Press on the subject of Your Majesty's friendship with Mrs. Simpson is not going to be maintained... Judging by the letters from British subjects living in foreign countries where the Press has been outspoken, the effect will be calamitous. -- Edward VIII abdication crisis

That pesky press... straining at the bit under the pressures of non-restrained press outlets from "foreign countries" [read non-MSM media these days]...In the end that pesky press just had to get in the loop and spoil a perfectly good clandestine affair.

Flash forward to one of the crown-princes of the Democrats today, wannabe-King John Edwards, and his love-child problem stemming from a few light-hearted fornication festivals back in the stone ages of 2006. Of course, even though he has been caught hanging out with the objection of his past affections in the past few weeks, he states that 1) it ended years ago, 2) he did not love her anyway, and 3) does not now love her. As for the baby, well, that's someone else's child who got to the woman before/during/after he did. That person happens to be a campaign aide to Edwards so, if true, you've got to wonder what sort of pass along was going on in the Two Americas tent.

And then you come down to the "other woman" who -- if her web page is any indication -- is a either a deeply deluded blonde with hair growing into her brain, or a woman -- like many women of her ilk -- who knows what she wants and is going to get it no matter what. A baby out of wedlock is the ultimate hook.

And that's the story as of today. But in so many ways it will not stay the story as the coming weeks and years unroll.

Here's how this seedy little Democrat soap opera is going to play out long term. It's going to be a remake of The Duke and Duchess of Windsor as performed by the Clampetts.

Mother of love child hunkers down and, sooner or later, the tsunami of scandal washes over and recedes. She goes on being mom and, in one way or another, money keeps appearing in her account.

Since Elizabeth Edwards' cancer is terminal, John stays loyally and celibately by her side until the end, being seen to support her through her final days.

Showy funeral with a lot of commentary and a good deal of praise for Edwards behavior at the end.

Then a decent or indecent period of mourning (depending on your own internal clock about these matters) and Edwards and Mom of Love Child marry in a quiet, secret, paparazzi free ceremony somewhere on a billionaire's private island. Love Child Mom gets multi-millionaire husband (Her fantasy plan all along come true at last.), love child is made legitimate and an heir, and the new Edwards family lives happily ever after as the Duke and the Duchess of North Carolina.

On their first anniversary they announce "The Elizabeth Edwards Memorial Foundation" to benefit poor children everywhere. They announce this during a dinner to honor Al Gore in Davos.

Then they fly their Lear Jet to Nova Scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun.

I wish I had said that.

MCCAIN PULLS AHEAD 'BY 5 POINTS'

So says Drudge


It's a Zogby poll.

McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.

And McCain not only enjoys a five-point edge in a two-way race against Obama, but also in a four-way contest including liberal independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, the poll reveals. In the four-way contest, McCain wins 44% support, Obama 39%, Barr 3% and Nader 2%.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll is a dramatic reversal from the identical survey taken last month – in the July 9-13 Reuters/Zogby survey, Obama led McCain, 47% to 40%. In the four-way race last month, Obama held a 10-point lead over McCain.
...
Here is how voters rated issues most important to them in choosing a President: economy 47%, War in Iraq 12%, energy prices 8%, healthcare 7%, threat of attack on the U.S. 6%, immigration 5% and the environment 4%.

Little Ice Age Coming

From Milenio:

An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.

Is this the "climate change" we were warned about?

And in New Zealand:


Mt Ruapehu is claiming the biggest snow base ever recorded for a New Zealand skifield with over 4.5m of snow on the ground.

Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, operator of Mt Ruapehu ski area, was celebrating what it called a major milestone today.

The snow measuring stake at Turoa previously only stood at 380cm so had to be extended to measure today's 455cm snow base.

A question asked in deadly earnest: what will be the penalty for spreading the "global warming" hoax?

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Poll Finds British Sadly Uninformed About US

Via Glenn Reynolds:
More than 50 per cent presumed that polygamy was legal in the US, when it is illegal in all 50 states. . . .

Hindsight isn't 20-20

Jeff Jacoby reminds us that there are still people who have a vested interest in calling for defeat in Iraq.

Swiftboating Defined

Glenn Reynolds:

MCCAIN CHARGED WITH PLAGIARIZING SOLZHENITSYN: Tom Maguire is unconvinced. But I agree with a commenter that it's not "Swiftboating," but something far less: "In order to Swift Boat John McCain you will need his fellow POWs to come out and say he is bloviating, etc. Swift Boating means someone who was there who knows you are full of hot air is on your tail. Not, I repeat not, what the left wants it to mean. The only way John McCain can be Swift Boated is if someone who was there with him causes McCain's campaign to scramble to answer the allegations. Otherwise, this is desperation by the left who sees their guaranteed win slipping away." It'll get uglier before it's over.


UPDATE: Thanks to "backhoe" at FreeRepublic

Obama: Infanticide as a public good

Powerline:

At Saddleback Barack Obama responded to the question addressed to him by Rick Warren on abortion as being "above my pay grade." Those who have dug into his record in the Illinois senate, however, have found evidence that Obama is a devout believer in what might be called the sacramental or positive good view of abortion: nothing can be allowed to interfere with the unfettered exercise of the purported right, including the accident of an infant born alive.

David Freddoso considers the evidence in "Life lies." Russell Berman covers the political fallout in "Obama facing attacks from all sides over abortion record." The attacks from the left that are alluded to in the headline of Berman's article date from the primary season. The attacks now at issue come from the right; they have elicited the charge from Obama that they are lies. As Freddoso shows, it is Obama's defense that appears to fail the cherry tree test.


David Fredosso:

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge - The Fog Thickens

It seems someone has wrapped a shroud around Obama’s only policy initiative … in his entire career.

JustOneMinute:
Barack Obama and unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers worked together on public school reform in Chicago for several years through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, co-founded by Bill Ayers and originally chaired by Barack Obama. This aspect of the Ayers/Obama relationship got surprisingly short shrift when Obama was asked about Ayers at the Philadelphia debate and has also been concealed by the Obama website's "Fact Check" and in their recent denunciation of Jerome Corsi's book.

And now the whiff of cover-up grows stronger. Stanley Kurtz, writing at NRO, details his attempt to gain access to hundreds of Chicago Annenberg Challenge records housed at the Richard J. Daley Library of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Although initially assured that the documents were available to the public, Mr. Kurtz has since been given shifting stories the gist of which seems to be that the documents are off limits. And who is making this determination? The library won't say, although it is entirely possible that Bill Ayers is the guiding force behind this delay.

Obama’s punitive liberalism

Roger Kimball on what animates Liberals:

Why are many thoughtful people, including many Democrats, so uneasy about the prospect of an Obama presidency? Please don’t tell me it’s because of “racism.” The race card, in so far as it operates in this election, will operate mostly in favor of Obama (consider, for starters, the fact that he is expected to get in excess of 90 percent of the black vote–a percentage many dictators campaigning in a single-party state would be happy with). It’s not because of Obama’s alleged “elitism,” either, though Obama’s contempt for the “bitter” people “who cling to guns and religion” gets us to the right neighborhood.
...
One finds the same emotional compact among socialistically-inclined liberals in this country: a conviction of superior virtue punctuated by declarations of unappeasable guilt. Whose guilt? Ours–or, to be more precise–yours: all you who have not yet fully acknowledged the miserable condition of Western society, especially the more affluent purlieus of Western society, and above all those parts of affluent Western society that happen to be white, male, and Christian.

This phenomenon, though long recognized, was without a proper name until James Piereson, writing in The Weekly Standard a few years ago, coined the perfect epithet: “punitive liberalism.”
the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism. According to this doctrine, America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement. White Americans had enslaved blacks and committed genocide against Native Americans. They had oppressed women and tyrannized minority groups, such as the Japanese who had been interned in camps during World War II. They had been harsh and unfeeling toward the poor. By our greed, we had despoiled the environment and were consuming a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth and resources. We had coddled dictators abroad and violated human rights out of our irrational fear of communism.

Piereson’s great insight is to stress the punitive, the chastising side of this orgy of guilt. Liberals like Obama come telling us they are making a better world; they omit to mention that what they mean by “a better world” is a world that is distinctly worse for certain groups, in particular groups that liberals decided had hitherto been unfairly privileged. “The punitive aspects of this doctrine,” Piereson writes,

were made especially plain in debates over the liberals’ favored policies. If one asked whether it was really fair to impose employment quotas for women and minorities, one often heard the answer, “White men imposed quotas on us, and now we’re going to do the same to them!” Was busing of school children really an effective means of improving educational opportunities for blacks? A parallel answer was often given: “Whites bused blacks to enforce segregation, and now they deserve to get a taste of their own medicine!” Do we really strengthen our own security by undercutting allied governments in the name of human rights, particularly when they are replaced by openly hostile regimes (as in Iran and Nicaragua)? “This”–the answer was–”is the price we have to pay for coddling dictators.” And so it went. Whenever the arguments were pressed, one discovered a punitive motive behind most of their policies.

This election may well be about payback; payback by an elite class of impudent snobs who have insulated themselves in their billionaire ghettos in San Francisco, New York, Bel Aire and Chicago.

Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams from my Father

When I discuss tax policy with Liberals I ask if there is a limit to the part of men’s earnings they would take.

Obama’s answer appears to be “no.”

This is a must read piece from Investors Business Daily. Barack Obama seems to have spent a lifetime pining for the father who abandoned him at age 2. His first autobiography (and what 47 year old doesn't need two?) was dedicated to the man. Now he has issued the essential blueprint for the Obama Tax Code, and we find that it too is part of dad's legacy.
...
"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine. Obama Sr. continued, " It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."


Obama seems to have adored his father. Knowing about his other associations: Wright, Ayers, Rezko; is it fair to ask about his father's tax policies?

“Green Energy” Corruption, the Elephant in the Room.

As the members of the MSM continue to beat the drums for “renewable” energy, and T. Boone Pickens promises pie-in-the-sky free energy from windmills the corruption surrounding Green Energy is beginning to be revealed.

Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are involved and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is only the latest to be found with her hand in the cookie jar.

Here’s the unvarnished truth: the world has been getting most of its energy from fossil fuels for over a century. During the 20th century we began to see the use of nuclear energy. In the US that path to “energy independence” was quashed by environmentalist allied with ignorant J-school Luddites in the MSM who predicted that nuclear power plants would blow up like atom bombs.

The modern environmental movement also managed to demonize fossil fuels to the extent that oil and gas exploration in and around the US was practically stopped. Ditto for the construction of new refineries for gas and heating oil.

So it’s no wonder that Americans are paying $4 per gallon for gasoline.

Which brings us to the way that robber barons like Pickens, allied with the MSM and the Democrats are on the way to making billions on “alternative energy.” The formula is simple: keep oil prices high, prevent the use of coal, stop nuclear power production, scare people with doomsday scenarios of global warming via “greenhouse gasses,” pass laws mandating the use of power sources that Pickens and the Greens own and rake in the billions as consumers get financially raped.

UPDATE:
We are grateful that Glenn Reynolds has linked. Feel free to browse.

UPDATE 2:
Tom Nelson remarks on the economics of wind power as a source of electricity and points out several facts that people who are open minded about this should know:
1)
The problem is exacerbated by the need to keep the turbines turning even when there is no wind; otherwise mechanical problems can occur. So wind turbines are hooked up to a source of reliable energy like that from a coal-fired plant to keep the blades moving.

If, I hear you saying, you have to hook up the turbines to electricity from a coal-fired, natural gas or nuclear plant, why do you need them in the first place? Good question!

2)
Who, in fact, really likes wind turbines? Answer: The people who make and install them. The reason for this is the tremendous federal subsidies involved. In 2006 alone, the federal tax incentives paid out cost taxpayers an estimated $2.75 billion.

3)
Then, of course, is the fact that the wind does not blow all the time. According to energy industry expert Robert Bryce, in economic terms that means “electricity generated by wind costs more than twice as much as that generated by coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.”


That is why it's necessary for people who invest money in these "renewable energy" devices need to have powerful legislators on their side, keeping the price of fossil fuels high, keeping them off the market, and feeding the "renewable energy" industry subsidies from the treasury.

It's the way the modern day robber barons work. The only thing missing is Nancy Pelosi claiming that "...it's for the children." But she'll get to that in due time.

Pelosi and Pickens, investment partners

From the DC Examiner

...in May 2007, Pelosi invested between $100,001 and $250,000 to purchase public common stock in Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (CLNE). Pelosi's CLNE investment was first highlighted by the Michigan Taxes Too Much and #don'tgo blogs.
CLNE is a cog in Pickens’$6 billion plan to build a massive wind farm in west Texas and to switch millions of vehicles on American roads from gasoline to natural gas. Pelosi’s CLNE purchase is listed on her most recent congressional personal financial disclosure form, which can be viewed at Opensecrets.org.

A search of Pelosi’s official web site found no announcement of the investment in the Pickens operation. A request to the Speaker’s official spokesman yesterday for information about the investment went unanswered. Coincidentally, Pelosi’s investment came the same month as the House passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which she hailed as making the Congress over which she helps preside “the most open and honest in history.” There are numerous ways Pelosi could provide assistance to CLNE and Pickens, including helping secure federal tax advantages. Pickens expects at least 15 percent profits on the wind farm and associated initiatives. At CLNE’s $14 per share value, Pelosi appears to own between 7,000 and 17,000 shares.


From Michigan Taxes Too Much:

Pelosi, showing in her financial disclosures that in May of 2007, she purchased (on the opening public offering apparently) a substantial amount of T. Boone Pickens clean energy fuels corp, CLNE. CLNE apparently is funding a proposal in California? ..ahh the shenanigans begin!

While her “substantial” investment might be a fraction of her total investment package, one wonders about the total investment package when $137 Million assets of the company total find a $5 BILLION dollar emerging California market for natural gas if a particular proposal goes through. The multiplier effect can really make a difference.


And here's the point for people who don't "get it."


Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (Clean Energy) is a provider of natural gas as an alternative fuel for vehicle fleets in the United States and Canada. The Company offers a solution to enable customers to run their fleets on natural gas. It designs, builds, finances and operates fueling stations, and supplies customers with compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Company also helps them acquire and finance natural gas vehicles, and obtain local, state and federal clean air rebates and incentives. The Company serves fleet vehicle operators in a variety of markets, including public transit, refuse hauling, airports, taxis, seaports, and regional trucking. It generates revenues primarily by selling CNG and LNG, and to an extent by building, operating and maintaining CNG and LNG fueling stations.

Now of course, if Gasoline is cheap….
...this whole project fails. That's where Nancy Pelosi, the environmentalists and the Democrats join in and block oil development and mandate "alternative fuels."

From the Dallas Morning News:
T. Boone Pickens' motives in energy plan questioned

While the Texas oil and gas executive has downplayed his self-interest – he's made enough money, he says – a company that he founded has engineered a California ballot initiative to put $5 billion toward renewable-energy incentives, much of which would benefit the firm, known as Clean Energy, by subsidizing the purchase of vehicles powered by natural gas.

And without a government mandate and high gasoline prices that investment goes up in smoke.

Energy analysts have questioned Mr. Pickens' vision and say he's offered few supporting details. According to the Pickens model, wind power would replace natural gas in power generation, freeing up natural gas – produced abundantly in the U.S. and Canada – for transportation.

Mr. Pickens has invested more than $2 billion in turbines for a wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. But without new transmission – paid for by utility customers – the power can't be moved to population centers where it's needed.

"A lot of what he's trying to do is add value to a stranded asset," said Kenneth B. Medlock III, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. "It's a misnomer to say he's doing this with the country's best interests at heart, because he's obviously got millions of dollars on the line."

McCain, Obama, and the "Cone of Silence"

Byron York confirms that Obama knew more of the questions than McCain at the beginning of the Saddleback "debate."

I've been looking into all this buzz that McCain somehow cheated — that he wasn't in a "cone of silence" — during Barack Obama's half of the Saddleback summit Saturday night. The talk got started on "Meet the Press" yesterday, when Andrea Mitchell said, "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that — what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared."

A few points. First of all, it appears that some commentators believe there was an actual "Get Smart"-style "cone of silence" at Saddleback. There wasn't. Pastor Rick Warren was making a little joke when he used that phrase. But he was assuring the crowd that McCain was not hearing any of the questioning of Barack Obama.

Next, McCain, like Obama, knew the first two questions that would be asked of him — the "three wisest people" question and the "greatest moral failure" questions. Both men knew exactly what was coming at the start of the appearance. This morning I talked to A. Larry Ross, who is the media representative for the Saddleback Church, and he told me that Warren "gave both candidates the first two questions because he didn't want them to be nervous…so they would be at ease." Ross says that in separate phone calls with the McCain and Obama, Warren also went through the four general categories of questions and said things like, "I'll probably ask you a question on this, or on that," but gave no specific wording.

In addition, according to Ross, Obama knew a third specific question that Warren would ask — the one about a "president's emergency plan for adoption." "[Warren] felt that since that was basically asking for a commitment, he felt that it was fair to tell them in advance that he was going to ask them that," Ross told me. So Warren told Obama, and planned to tell McCain when McCain arrived at Saddleback, but wasn't able to because of other distractions. So according to what Ross told me, Obama actually knew one more question in advance than did McCain.


So there is no doubt that Obama was better informed prior to his appearance than McCain. That makes it all the more infuriating that the MSM is still chasing the wrong story!