She did things her way and was always a lady.






If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? 


If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? 


If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?


If George W. Bush joined the country of   Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?


If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed? 


If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?


If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how  inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?


If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? 


If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given the Queen of   England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?


If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of   Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?


If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in theUnited States, would you have said that he is clueless.


If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit his walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.


If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?


If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?


If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?


If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?


If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?


If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.


If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?


So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 15 months -- so you'll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer. 


Every statement in this is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.


What Obama's Cap-And-Trade Plan Will Cost You, are you ready!!!!!

March 03, 2009 08:07 AM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print

A study from the George C. Marshall Institute tries to quantify the costs of a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions. They're not small, to say the least: And although this study uses 2008 as a baseline, the Obama plan would hit in 2012 and could come in combo with a hike in investment and incomes taxes for wealthier Americans and the creation of a special healthcare tax:

The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.

Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).


The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading.


The cap-and-trade

system being touted on Capitol Hill would create a multibillion-dollar playground that would, once again, create a group of wealthy traders benefiting at the expense of millions of average families—middle to low-income households that would end up paying more for food, energy, and almost everything else they buy. 

Enron executives—before their well-deserved fall—did little to conceal their lust for cap-and-trade. In 2002, the Washington Post reported that "an internal Enron memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."

Promoting the bottom lines of opportunists is not the job of policymakers. Assisting the staggering 2.6 million American workers who lost their jobs in just the last four months should be. With our nation struggling through the worst economic crisis in over 70 years, Congress shouldn't risk further economic damage by pushing a risky carbon emission mitigation scheme. There are far better alternatives for dealing with climate change.

Albert Einstein once observed that things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. The corollary is that policies should be made no more complex than necessary. Cap-and-trade, however, is excessively complex.

President Obama has pledged to use cap-and-trade to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, and projects over $3 trillion in revenue from the auction of emissions permits to domestic companies. And the carbon trading system outlined in the draft bill released by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on Tuesday calls for an even more aggressive target—a 20 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. But even a casual look at Europe's existing cap-and-trade program provides ample reason to believe that it just won't work.

European governments and industries, in an attempt to stave off the economic impact of cap-and-trade, have found plenty of ways to game the system. Governments have freely handed out emissions allowances. Meanwhile, European consumers have suffered as energy rates have increased. Homeowners in Germany are paying 25 percent more for electricity now than they did before the implementation of cap-and-trade.

The European legal system encourages a "wink and nod" approach to regulation; to date, ours does not.

In contrast to the burdens borne by European households, traders have been reaping the benefits of emissions trading with little regard for the environmental concerns cap-and-trade is supposed to address. The emissions permit market has constantly fluctuated. With the price of carbon up or down by an average of 17.5 percent per month and with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent, European companies have been left to simply guess at how much their environmental compliance costs might be each month. Consequently, investors have been reluctant to invest in these businesses and there is little incentive to invest in new technologies.

As a result, UNCCC data show that the European emissions rate under cap-and-trade increased by 3.5 percent from 2000 to 2006 while U.S. emissions increased by only 0.7 percent.

Washington has little reason to expect different results here. Emission trading has the potential to be the next sub-prime housing market, the next Enron, the next blow to our already weakened economy.

The U.S. unemployment rate is verging on double digits. Taxpayers are being forced to shoulder the burden of a $1 trillion-plus stimulus bill. Yet, the administration and some in Congress are still pushing a high-risk carbon trading strategy—a flawed approach likely to put even more Americans out of work.

Environmentally or economically, it just doesn't make sense.


Links to the best stuff out there

Larry Elder

Mike Church

Glenn Beck

Sean Hannity

Michael Reagan

Laura Ingraham



Obama seams to have spent his entire life being mentored by people who follow the teachings of Karl Marx. His father is a communist, and also Muslim, and Obama has stated that he will talk with Muslim nations with no pre-conditions. This does not speak well for the person holding the highest office in the world.

 Mr. Obama has said that people are looking to the Federal Government for answers. Well Mr. Obama, as my father told me many years ago, the only people who look to the government for answers are the communist and those who are to DAMN LAZY to work for what they need.  





Home ]

Send mail to with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2014 Jeff and Freda's