Dear Editor:
I am 28 years old. Some of my comrades say that Obama is not Santa Claus. My "Papa" -- which is short for "PAtronizing PAtriarch" -- is a middle-class capitalist. He runs his own small business. He has recently kicked me out of our home. He says that I should repay the $350,000 in student loans I have taken out.
This, in spite of the fact that I've only just finished my Masters in Marxist Musicology and I have not been able to find a job in my chosen field: the folk music of Che Guevara.
Anyway, "Papa" says, "If you see it in American Thinker it's so." Please tell me the truth. Is Obama going to pay off my student loans and provide me a job? Is Obama Santa Claus?
Virginia O'Hanlon IV
Last Address: Tent 4, Row F, Zuccotti Park, New York
VIRGINIA, your comrades are wrong. They have been affected by their lack of employment in the Golden Age of Obama. They do not believe what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds and caused by greed on Wall Street. All minds, be they men or children, are little (except Obama's). In this great country of ours, citizens are mere insects, ants, in their intellects, as compared with the boundless intelligence of our President, as measured by his ability of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, Obama is Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as the billions of dollars he has "loaned" to the people who raised money for his first campaign. Obama has given to their lives the highest beauty and joy: cold hard cash. Alas! How dreary would be the country if there were no Solyndras, Beacon Powers, and NextEra Energies to receive billions of dollars of your "Papa's" tax dollars! It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAs protesting against Wall Street and ignoring the real corruption. There would be no fraud, no poverty, and no mystical promise of nonexistent green energy to save the economy. We would have real employment, and the unemployment numbers would not be constantly rewritten to look better than they are.
Not believe that Obama is Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies or Keynesian economics! You might get your papa to vote for congressmen, who monitor all the loans and grants to Obama's friends, to catch Obama dropping money down the green energy chimneys on Christmas Eve. But even if they did nab Obama distributing huge bundles of cash, what would that prove? Nobody wants to admit that Obama is corrupt, but that is no sign that he is not Santa Claus. The most real scams in the world are those that neither children nor congressmen can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on your lawn with huge checks from the Department of Energy? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive of or imagine all the Keynesian wonders that are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the Obama administration which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of the Tea Party, could tear apart. Only truth, honesty, open-mindedness, and a firm grip on reality can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal lies, deceit, and self-deception beneath. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else as real and abiding as the corruption of the political class.
Obama is not Santa Claus? You should thank Obama! The spending spree lives, and the deficit goes on forever. A thousand years from now, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, your children will be paying for it....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/yes_virginia_obama_is_santa_claus.html#ixzz1hS218StlThe
Ùnfortunately many people do believe Obama is Santa Claus
A a Fracking ShameThe Fifth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." For government to harm investors in a private business by bringing false charges against that business is most certainly a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Environmental Protection Agency, it seems, has been engaged in just this sort of unconstitutional activity ever since Obama appointed Lisa Jackson as director.
The main target of this overzealous prosecution has been companies that produce fossil fuels. Whether it be mountaintop mining, offshore or Arctic drilling, or hydraulic fracturing, the Obama EPA has moved swiftly to block new exploration and production. The bias against fossil fuels that exists at the agency would be bad enough, but the fact that the EPA may have employed illegal and unconstitutional tactics in support of its green agenda is far worse.
Over the past 50 years, tens of thousands of oil and gas wells have been drilled using hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" (6,000 recently in the Bakken shale region of North Dakota alone). During this period, only two significant cases have been brought to light suggesting contamination of sub-surface water -- both by the EPA and both involving questionable if not outright fraudulent data.
The most recent case involves natural gas wells in the vicinity of Pavillion, Wyoming, a metropolis of 126 souls in a remote region in the central part of the state. The EPA was quick to make public its draft report of the Pavillion wells and made sure the report received extensive press coverage, thus trying the case in the court of public opinion before the facts were known.
This practice of issuing draft reports before scientific analysis has been completed is, in and of itself, a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens. Once a company's reputation has been damaged as a result of false or incomplete reports receiving extensive national media coverage, that company and its investors have suffered irreparable harm. Sen. James Inhofe has correctly charged that the EPA's issuance of the Pavillion report is "irresponsible." Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead also charged that the report was unsound. The EPA should be held to account not just for the Pavillion report, but for a pattern of releasing speculative draft reports.
But it's not just that the EPA has a habit of releasing incomplete reports based on inadequate research. Those draft reports are not just incomplete. It seems that they contain scientific errors and apparent fabrications that raise serious doubts about the ability of the agency to do its job. The Pavillion fracking case is a good example.
While charging the drillers in question with contaminating groundwater, the EPA suppressed information in a manner that would compel any court of law to dismiss the case and issue a serious reprimand, if not bring charges of contempt, against the prosecution. Surely, the EPA was aware, or should have been aware, of the fact that well water in Pavillion has been "contaminated" with polluting chemicals for half a century. This natural "pollution" is not the consequence of fracking, as the EPA charges, but of natural contamination.
Not only did the EPA report suppress this evidence -- evidence that argues strongly against contamination on the part of drilling company -- but it failed to address further scientific evidence that would rule out contamination. Not only were Pavillion's water wells already polluted decades before drilling began, but the pollution that the EPA says entered the system from drilling involved chemicals never used in fracking. (They are, however, used in the construction of water wells of the kind that might be found in Pavillion, not in oil and gas wells.) And yet the EPA persisted with its charges, knowing that the very chemical it discovered in well water could not have entered the wells in the manner suggested....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_epas_unconscionable_war_on_fracking.html#ixzz1hAifRkI6
Fracking and energy are the hope of America to get back our economical success. For the past 30 years we have ignored the energy that lays beneath our feet and have paid countries who are hostile toward us to give us their energy.
Obama Transparency
President Obama has a trait that Republicans should appreciate. He’s utterly transparent. His motives are anything but hidden. No matter what he says, it’s abundantly clear that he has one thing in mind these days: getting reelected.
Obama wasn’t so transparent when he first emerged as a prominent political figure with his speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention. In the 2008 campaign, he sought to transcend politics with his talk of hope and change and reforming the way Washington does business. Now he’s obsessed with politics—the politics of reelection—and not much else. Obama once fancied himself a uniter. For reelection purposes, he’s become a divider.
It’s true Obama isn’t the first president to tailor his policies to aid reelection. But no president since Richard Nixon has focused as single-mindedly and relentlessly on winning a second term as Obama.
Just last week, the Obama administration announced that states, not Washington, would decide the level of health care benefits required of insurers. This policy shift aims to take the edge off the single most unpopular issue of Obama’s presidency, the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
It sounds quite accommodating, except it can be instantly reversed if Obama is reelected. The same is true of the sidelining of tightened regulation of ozone emissions that the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to promulgate. For the moment, the delay provides a talking point to combat the charge that Obama is bent on overregulation....
A good warning from those who might think Obama is changing. He isnt. He is merely running for reelection. It is similar to Woodrow Wilson who ran in 1916 with the slogan, He kept us out of War. On April 9, 1917 he took us into war.
No comments:
Post a Comment