This ARTICLE appeared on on July 16, 2011.  It talks about Obama’s new proposed fuel mileage standards that would require vehicles to get 56 miles per gallon by the year 2025.  Kelly Blue Book is quoted here and points out a huge misrepresentation in the plan which concerns how much we would save if we had one of these ultra-high mileage cars (if we could afford it – but that’s another subject that the Washington politicians don’t really care about).

New fed fuel efficiency standards solve everything

Last month we took a look at some of the possible side effects of the administration’s proposed, higher fuel efficiency standards in light of the law of unintended consequences. Jumping the gun to guidelines calling for better than fifty miles per gallon vehicles before the science caught up to these desires was already looking pretty dubious. Now, Kelley Blue Book (one of the older names in all things automobile related) has weighed in on the subject and are equally unimpressed.
The typical recounting of the scenario largely goes like this: Federal sources estimate that increasing fuel efficiency to 56 mpg by 2025 will be accomplished at an average cost of $2,100 to $2,600 per vehicle, but the savings resulting from higher fuel economy would save vehicle owners $5,500 to $7,000 over the vehicle’s lifetime. Sounds just fine, doesn’t it? There will be higher initial costs, but they will be a good investment, because car buyers will save money in the end.
But if one looks past the rose-colored predictions of the politicians (from both sides of the aisle, by the way), the picture gets a little cloudier. First, what the previously cited estimates fail to mention is that the typical new-car owner won’t own the car over its entire lifetime, so one has to wonder how interested new-car buyers will be in paying significantly more for their vehicle – and an average of $2,500 is significantly more – for little obvious benefit to their own pocketbooks. (The cynical answer to that is if they want to buy a new car, they won’t have any choice). Given the scenario that has been painted to prepare the way for the approval of the new regulations, owners would break even sometime between two and-a-half and three-and-a-half years of ownership, when many cars are still in their original owners’ hands. But the breakeven point and the accuracy of the entire scenario depend on correctly predicting future fuel prices, which is an iffy prospect at best.
(emphasis mine)
Their conclusions about the Obama administration’s predictions regarding 56 m.p.g. standards are rather harsh, and actually include the phrase, “built on a house of cards.” Other sources we have contacted have been less kind. You can try to force the auto industry to deliver higher mileage cars, but you can’t tell them to take a loss on the sale, so if the needed changes drive the price through the roof, guess who gets handed the bill?
People without jobs are looking to hold on to their cars for longer, and if they must replace them, they’re going to want the best deal possible. The number of unknowns which the White House is trying to juggle shoves this argument into the realm of fantasy. In addition to having to predict the cost of gas, what sort of loan arrangement will the buyer be able to obtain in an uncertain, floundering economy? What will the interest rates be to pay back a larger loan on a more expensive vehicle? All of these factors subtract from any projected savings and simply result in saddling the consumer with a higher price tag.
Before the White House decides to jump this particular shark, they may want to get a few more people involved in the discussion. Maybe somebody for example… oh, I don’t know… who actually designs and builds car engines? Food for thought.

This is just another Obama tactic called avoidance.  The real issue is the freeze on drilling for our own oil right here with a 200 year supply right under our feet.  

Obama has not learned from the past thirty-six years of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or C.A.F.E standards.  Since these regulations were passed, our dependence on foreign oil has risen from 40% to 60%.  You absolutely cannot conserve your way out of a problem.  It has worked in over three decades, and it will not work over the next three.  

One thing that Obama doesn’t mention (or care about) is the deaths that have occurred that are directly attributable to the C.A.F.E. standards.  Smaller, lighter cars are far less safe due to the lack of sturdy frames and much smaller interior areas that served as “crash zones” in the older larger cars.  American Thinker has an excellent ARTICLE on this subject.  The statistics regarding the increased number of people killed in the name of higher fuel mileage are horrifying.  One example is a finding by USA Today that 7,700 people die in traffic accidents for each mile per gallon gained in fuel economy.

So, is it worth it, or should we drill here? The choice is simple.



It looks like the left, after all of these years, would add SOMETHING else to the Liberal Playbook so it would at least make it more interesting to the other 80% of the population (SOURCE).


This is an excellent ARTICLE posted on the American Thinker website on July 6, 2011.  It exposes the devisiveness of the liberal left and their latest tactic they tested in Wisconsin recently.

Return to the Article

July 6, 2011

Democrats Unveil the Weapon of the Future

By J.R. Dunn

What do the political battles in Wisconsin and the Spanish Civil War have in common?  A disturbing characteristic.

The Spanish Civil War is one of those events that are on the way to becoming forgotten history.  The term “civil war” is a bit misleading, since the conflict internationalized itself in short order, with Hitler and Mussolini lining up with the rebels, or “Nationalists”, and Stalin backing the “Republicans” (actually a motley gaggle of various left-wing elements). The dictatorships utilized Spain as a proving ground for new tactics and weapons, including the Me-109, fighter-bomber, the Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber, along with Rotte fighter tactics and area bombing raids, such as that carried out against Guernica.  The war ended in 1939 with the defeat of the Republicans, even as World War II was looming. The Germans learned quite a lot in Spain that they applied to the Blitzkrieg campaigns against Poland and France. (Uncle Joe might have picked up a few things if he hadn’t decided to have most of the officers sent to Spain shot on their return.)

Something similar, though on a much lower key (no massacres or bombing raids yet) has been occurring in Wisconsin over the past few months: a nearly open civil war instigated by the left in order to test an array of new tactics.

Last February, newly-elected governor Scott Walker signed a budget containing minor reforms aimed at the public-employees unions. Union members would be required to pay small amounts into their pension and health-care funds. Collective bargaining was curtailed on this and other matters in order to assure that these reforms would remain permanent.

Wisconsin’s civil war started then and there. The Democratic senators fled the state to deprive Walker of a quorum. Shortly afterward, tens of thousands of union members — many imported from out of state — laid siege to the capitol. They remained for weeks, engaging in vandalism, menacing state officials, and uttering death threats against anyone voting in favor of the reforms.

The bill was finally passed thanks to a clever parliamentary maneuver, only to be set aside by Maryann Sumi, a county judge attempting to punch well above her weight, on procedural grounds.  It developed that Judge Sumi was closely entwined with the unions through family connections. 

At the same time a campaign to recall Republicans who had voted for Walker’s budget was put into motion. (A smaller number of the Democrats who fled were also targeted.) These recall elections are still overhanging the senators.

With the bill headed for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the left next targeted an ordinary state Supreme Court election, importing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to defeat incumbent David Prosser, a centrist conservative, in favor of Joanne Kloppenberg.  Thanks to a comically inept local election official, it seemed at first that they had succeeded, but when the smoke cleared, Prosser had won by a healthy 7,000 votes.

And finally, we have the latest purported incident, in which we are asked to believe that Justice Prosser, in the midst of a discussion in the chambers of his liberal opposite number Ann Walsh Bradley, suddenly and apropos of nothing bounded across the room and attempted to strangle her in front of most of the other justices. The man is even worse than Clarence Thomas.

This is an extraordinary series of events, of a type that we haven’t witnessed before. Even more singular is the legacy media’s insistence on covering the story (with the exception of the siege of Madison, which got the standard “unions unbound” treatment) as if it were commonplace to the point of boredom.  It is no such thing; it is an ideological campaign of a magnitude and breadth that we have not seen in quite some time, if ever.

What all this amounts to is the baptism of fire of what I have taken to calling the “liberal superstructure.”  This superstructure is the vast constellation of advocacy groups, think tanks, single-issue outfits, unions, and various other flotsam constructed by the left over the past half-century or so. There are literally thousands of these groups, ranging from the ACLU and the Sierra Club with their hundreds of thousands of members to the local “Friends of the People’s Venezuela” outfit which amounts to a retired feminism professor and her six cats. These organizations are ubiquitous, universal, and networked to a fare-thee- well. They are also liberalism’s last great hope of controlling politics in the United States.
t’s scarcely arguable that, in the political sense, liberalism is on the ropes. Obama spent their last nickel. They have lost the House and will lose the Senate, with little chance of regaining them in the near future. The same is true of the White House once the messiah gets the bum’s rush come 2012. Liberalism is on the skids, its programs uniform failures, its ideology barren, its slogans worn out, its long hold on the independents being relentlessly pared down by the Tea Parties.

So what is a political movement to do, particularly one as fanatic and apocalyptic as this one?  Well, if you have an alternate system made up of outside organizations not subject to governmental oversight, a system populated with self-selected fanatics and true believers, a system poised and ready to march, you can do what was done in Wisconsin. You can turn the superstructure loose to threaten the public peace, smash things up, abuse the electoral process, create a media spectacle, and pressure the state to do things your way.  You can use nonpolitical organizations (in the electoral sense) to get a political result.

All the groups involved in the Wisconsin campaign were superstructure groups. The unions, the very core organizations of the superstructure, without which it’s no more than a pack of vegetarians and aging hippies. The media, which serves as its propaganda arm. And the judiciary, which is broadly infiltrated by leftist partisans whose allegiance has been awarded to something other than the law.

But it’s when we review the Prosser accusations that the picture attains clarity. According to Byron York,  the story (which had been held back for nearly two weeks) was first reported by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism working with Wisconsin Public Radio.  (Two guesses as to which end of the spectrum they lean toward.) The Prosser story was billed as the result of a project funded by the Open Society Institute to enlighten the public about Wisconsin government.

The report was picked up by ThinkProgress, the strike force for the Center for American Progress, which both tweeted and posted the story, as well as calling for Justice Prosser’s ouster.

The interesting thing here is that the Open Society and the Center for American Progress are the flagship organizations of the liberal superstructure, the outfits that call the shots, handle the funding, and coordinate efforts. They are also funded by Old Spooky himself, George Soros. The left rolled out their big units for this effort. Why?  To wreck the career of a junior state Supreme Court justice?  To take control of the Dairy State?   Perhaps so, but I believe it was also in hopes of testing out the superstructure as a political delivery system in a relatively closed environment.

If that’s the case, they’ll need to reevaluate, because the effort has blown up in their faces. Take a closer look at the Prosser accusation, which fell apart as soon as a little basic reporting  was carried out. Almost every point made in the story released by the Soros groups turned out to be false:
  • Prosser was not inside the room, but standing in the doorway — no minor point considering how matters developed.
  • He had made a heat-of-the-moment remark about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson after being put on the spot concerning an overdue decision. Prosser had agreed to delay the decision to avoid an appearance of undue haste, only to hear the chief justice announce another delay on no grounds whatsoever. This prompted Prosser to state that he had “lost confidence” in Abrahamson. (What was the decision, you ask? Why, the one dealing with Judge Sumi’s interference with Governor Walker’s budget. Funny how this all dovetails, ain’t it?)
 At which point Justice Bradley attacked Prosser, fists flailing — not the other way around.
  • Justice Prosser fended her off, perhaps grazing her neck in the process. Bradley started screaming that he was choking her. Another justice stated, “You were not choked.”
This is quite a different scenario, with Justice Prosser coming out more as victim than perpetrator.  No wonder the legacy media refused to touch it, instead choosing to await an official report.  It seems that that Spooky George’s money was wasted this time around.  But that’s the case with a lot of things he gets involved with — consider Project Obama for another example.

The superstructure’s debut as a political weapon has been less than impressive. It failed to overawe the Wisconsin state senate. It failed to halt Gov. Walker’s bill. It failed to vote Justice Prosser out of office, and it has now failed to enmesh him in a faked criminal incident. All that remains is the recall efforts, and they will likely be an overall failure too.  
So there will be no liberal Blitzkrieg coming out of the Wisconsin civil war. But these are early days, and this is the first effort to utilize this enormous and complex system. It remains pregnant with possibilities, with its millions of members and effectively infinite levels of funding.  It is also the only thing that the liberals have left.  We will encounter it again, perhaps in a more liberal-friendly environment in the Northeast or on the West coast. 

Along with the first major defeat of the public-employee unions, Wisconsin may have given us a clear warning of an emerging threat from the left.  Not a particularly impressive threat, as yet, but a threat all the same, and one that deserves closer attention than it has gotten.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker. He is the author of Death by Liberalism, dismissed by Frank Rich as a “demented right wing screed.”


Your tax dollars and mine are still going to ACORN through back door funding of an ACORN offshoot, the AFFORDABLE HOUSING CENTERS OF AMERICA.  And looky HERE: the ACORN website is still up even though there are no recent posts. Wonder where the money to keep the website up is coming from? Just wondering.

Anyway, the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to AHCOA despite a 2009 Federal law cutting taxpayer funding of ACORN and its affiliate, the DEFUND ACORN ACT.  At the time the law was enacted, AHCOA was known as the Acorn Housing Corporation, Inc. It filed papers last year changing it’s name to AHCOA. 

According to the Federal government’s website, USASPENDING.GOV, AHCOA, still listed as the ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc., received $461,086.00 in January 2011 from HUD. Click HERE for the listing.  More recently in March of this year, HUD granted AHCOA $79,819 (click HERE for the listing on HUD’s website, and scroll down to Florida).

As you may recall, ACORN employees had been caught fraudulently registering voters such as cartoon characters and professional athletes (without the athletes’ knowledge of course), giving information on how to evade taxes, and immigration and child prostitution laws.  And, HUD’s inspector general last year conducted an audit of AHCOA and found that it had “inappropriately” spent over $3.2 million dollars in grants that was supposed to have been used in eliminating lead poisoning in its housing program.  That’s a lot of lead.  A lot of the money went instead to fattening AHCOA employees’ wallets, and continuing to pay some after they were no longer employed by AHCOA. (Click HERE for the story by The Examiner).

In spite of all of this, and the fraud investigations taking place during Obama’s tenure in office, we find he is still taking care of his political cronies.  If it were possible, I think it would be very interesting to follow this money trail all the way to the lowest common denominator.  I believe we would find the list of names quite interesting to say the least.