Friday, December 19, 2014

Taxpayers Still Paying For The Failings Of Obama's Energy Secretary Chu

Basically, Steven Chu was picked by Barack Obama to be his Energy Secretary because he was a climate change zealot who wanted to eliminate all fossil fuels.  So, like any zealot, he never saw a green business or green technology that he didn't like.  Even if that business or technology made no operational or economic sense.  As a result, the list of failed companies that he recommended while in office continues to grow.  So too, do the billions of taxpayer dollars lost to his bad judgement.

Recently we learned of the biggest of the Chu losers: The Ivanpath Thermal Solar Power Plant.  Built at a cost of $2.2 billion, Obama and Chu -- actually the taxpayers -- footed $1.6 billion dollars of that cost as a loan, but the plant is only producing a quarter of the energy output promised and that means that it is losing money big time.  As result, that loan is looking a lot like another $1.6 billion taxpayer loss.

On top of the loss of money, thermal solar technology is literally incinerating any birds that gets near it.

That fact that this plant is 75% short of its power output just proves that Chu, and the people who reported to him, didn't do an adequate scientific or engineering review of the project.  It is simply more proof that ideology is being put ahead of all else in Obama's failed presidency.  What the new Congress needs to do in 2015 is to cut off funding to the President's Energy Department so this kind of abuse of funds is put to an end.


At Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, Energy Production Falling Well Short of Expectations:

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility:

Steven Chu:

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions:

Green Energy Failures:

Thursday, December 18, 2014

The Cuba Deal: Another One of Obama's One-Sided Negotiations

In March 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama told Iran:
"if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us"
Despite the fact that Iran has never unclenched its fist by continuing its nuclear weapons program; and, by continuing the development of long range missiles; and by continuing to undermine infant democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan by arming anti-government rebels; we stupidly, and one-sidedly, extended our hand by removing sanctions against them.  Even though the removal of such sanctions has produced  zero slowdown in their nuclear weapon ambitions. 

Then there was our "reset" with Russia in 2009 and our one-sided gifts to Putin such as agreeing not to put missile defense systems in Europe.  Where did that get us?  Relations with Russia are now almost as cold as they were throughout the Cold War.

Also, Obama announced a climate change deal with China in 2014.  This, too, was another one-sided effort where we specifically set targets, while China, somewhat, agreed to goals.  Goals with holes wide enough to drive a train through.  In fact, the Chinese have declared that their carbon emission reduction programs under this agreement will not be subject to any measurable scrutiny.  In other words, just believe us when we say we are meeting goals.

So, now, we learn about another one-sided deal.  This time with Cuba.

In exchange for one American held in Cuba for 5 years, we gave up 3 highly-valued, convicted Cuban spies.  We agreed to open an Embassy in Cuba.  We will review dropping the U.S. label of Cuba as a  state sponsor of terrorism, and there will be an easing of economic sanctions and a removal of a 54-year embargo on Cuban products such as cigars.

So, what did we get in exchange?

Nothing. No promises of better treatment of the Cuban people. No promise for democracy. No freedom of press or expression. No lifting of travel restrictions on Cubans wanting to visit the U.S. and, no agreement to stop international sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing!

Once again, Present Obama has proven to be a failed negotiator.  He can't negotiate with Congress and certainly can't negotiate with our international enemies.  Instead, he's more like a game show host who won't just give you what's behind door number three, he'll throw in 1 and 2 as well.

What's really interesting about Cuba is that they have maintained a cozy relationship with both Russia and Iran.  The two other countries that Obama showered with gifts and got nothing in return.

One last thing. Obama claims that we need to normalize relations with Cuba because 54 years of isolation hasn't worked.  Really?  What about nearly 70 years of isolation with North Korea?  Are we now expected to normalize relations with them just because the clock ran out? By the way. Cuba is also a close trading partner with North Korea.  It is surprising that a President who uses sanctions against Russia now admits sanctions haven't worked against Cuba.  They obviously haven't worked against North Korea either.  Then, why ever use them?


Obama offers Iran 'new beginning':

United States Has Been Secretly Lifting Iranian Sanctions:

Obama Lifts Sanctions, Iranians Win, Regime Loses:

Iran nuclear talks extended to 2015 after failure at Vienna:

Obama Administration Caves to Putin on Missile Shield:

Obama's One-Sided "Reset" With Russia | RealClearPolitics:

Obama's Epic Climate Change Deal With China Falls Apart:

Obama hails 'new chapter' in US-Cuba ties:

Obama: Isolating Cuba hasn't worked:

Cuba–Iran relations - Wikipedia:

Cuba-Russia relations - Wikipedia:

Cuban relations with North Korea - The Economist: 

China–Cuba relations:

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

The False Narrative That The "Hands up...Don't Shoot" Protesters Are Perpetuating

Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, once said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  I believe that is what is happening as a result of irresponsible black leadership and the "Hands up...Don't Shoot" protests.

In a recent CBS poll, 74% of blacks and 28% of whites believe the police in this country are "too quick to use deadly force".  The problem with that belief is that the statistics don't support it.

Last year there were exactly 320 officer involved killings.  This out of an estimated 13+ million arrests (data estimated because the latest FBI arrest statistics are for 2010).  That's one shooting death for every 40,600 arrests.  Not nearly solid proof that cops are "too quick to use deadly force." At the same time, 105 police officers were killed in 2013.  So, in essence, for every 3 civilian shooting deaths, one officer is killed each year. 

The protests, mostly organized by Al Sharpton, are irresponsible and based on a huge exaggeration of a statistically rare occurrence.  It is even more irresponsible for members of Congress on the House floor, and for their staffers to stand on the Congressional steps with their hands in the air in order to perpetuate the lie.  Worst of all is having America's top cop Eric Holder, and his boss Barack Obama, and the Mayor of America's Largest city Bill DeBlasio, and strengthenong and supporting the fantasy.

I don't know what these protestors expect to accomplish, but one thing is sure, they are damaging the character and reputation of our police forces.  Police, who day after day, risk their lives to protect us all.


Joseph Goebbels On the "Big Lie" | Jewish Virtual Library:

Police Too Quick To Use Deadly Force:

 List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013:,_2013

FBI Statistics: Crime in the United States:

Honoring Officers Killed in 2013:

Four Members of Congress Put Their Hands Up in Solidarity With Ferguson Protesters, None Voted to Limit Police Militarization:

U.S. Capitol Staffers Raise Hand For Ferguson: 

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Because Obama Is Black?

Recently, a number of polls have been taken to see if race relations have improved since President Obama took office.  Polling that was mostly driven as a result of two Grand Jury decisions following the shooting of two unarmed black men.  A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 53% of Americans sampled believe that race relations have deteriorated since Obama was sworn in.  In a CBS poll, 46% of blacks and a total of 36% among all races thought race relations have worsened.

But, don't think that race relation have just recently turned downward because of the Grand Jury decisions. In 2013, an NBC/Street Journal poll found that, among whites, the belief that race relations had gotten "very bad" in this country has gone from 4% in January 2009 to 13% in July 2013.  In that same poll, the opinion among whites that race relations had become "fairly bad" went from 13% to 32% in the same relevant time frame.  Among blacks, the "very bad" answer went from 12% to 33% and, for the "fairly bad" question, the percentages rose from 18% to 25%.

So, why have race relations gotten so bad in just 6 years?  Obama was supposedly our first "post racial" President; thus implying that racism had to be pretty much nonexistent in America.

Well, I firmly believe that you can blame four words, "because Obama is black", for the deteriorating situation between the races.  Ever since Obama took office, his supporters, and he himself, have attempted to nullify any opposition to his policies by saying those four words.  If you don't believe it, just Google "because Obama is black" (link below) and you will finds hundreds, if not thousands, of links to stories where any number of Democrats, black leaders, celebrities, or the President himself, claim that any difference of opinion regarding everything from ObamaCare to Immigrant Amnesty is based on Obama's skin color.

Ultimately, this makes everyone angry. Blacks are angry because they believe the first black president is being unfairly treated because of his race, and whites are angry because they are being unfairly labelled as racists if they oppose Obama on anything.  

So, simply, the people who claim to want to improve race relations in this country are the ones hell-bent on destroying them by scapegoating the President's skin color, and are just using it as a political tool in the battle of left versus right in everyday Washington, D.C. politics.


Bloomberg: Most Americans See Race Relations Worsening Since Obama's Election:

CBS: POLL: Race Relations in U.S. at Low Not Seen Since 1990s:

IBD/TIPP poll: Obama Poisoned Race Relations In America:

July 2013: NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: Page 14: Question: In general, do you think race relations in the United States are (ROTATE) very good, fairly good, f airly bad, or very bad?:

Post-racial America - Wikipedia:

Google search: because Obama is Black:

Monday, December 15, 2014

Court: Obama Loses Flat-Roofed Housing Discrimination Claim

Back in June, I wrote a blog  entitled: 'Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before'.  In it, I pointed out that, in previous Administrations, the average win rate in the courts was about 70%.  Nearly the opposite has happened under President Obama, with his Administration losing two-thirds of the cases that go to court.

The reason for this is simple.  Obama and his ideologically driven people seem to think they can take existing laws and interpret them in ways that were never intended by Congress.  In other words, create new legislation through reinterpretation; thus, bypassing Congress completely.

Obama's latest loss had to do with his Housing and Urban Development's reinterpretation of the federal Fair Housing Act.  They argued that Allstate Insurance, by refusing to insure flat-roofed houses, was practicing discrimination because they were disproportionately not insuring minorities since a higher percentage of those homes were owned by minorities.

First of all, the intent of the the Fair Housing Act was to prevent intentional and widespread discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religion when someone was either buying  or trying to finance a home.  But, Allstate's supposed discrimination was not intentional.  It was a business decision based on the fact that flat-roofed homes carry an inherently high insurance risk.  Flat roofs leak more frequently than other types.  As a result, they have higher incidents of water damage, mildew and mold.  Often, the damage is inside walls resulting in the entire wall being replaced.  They may also sag and, as a consequence, have a high rate of collapse after extremely heavy rain and snow fall.  Surprisingly, they also have a higher burglary risk. As a result, they have low market values because most people don't want to deal with all the problems, and the high cost of insuring and/or  maintaining a flat roof.

So, the unreasonableness of this racial bias claim was why a U.S. District Judge had no other choice to side with Allstate against Obama.  This is, as noted before, very typical. For example, the Obama Administration is now trying to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act in order to control wells, ponds and marshes; even on private lands.  But, the intention of the Clean Water Act was to only have federal environmental say over navigable waters.  Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.  So, I am quite sure that this, too, will wind up in our courts with another smack down by Obama's out-of-control regulations.


Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before:

Court rejects Obama housing bias rule as 'wishful thinking':

If your house has a flat roof, or even if some of its roof is flat, it can complicate insurance arrangements:

Clean Water Act Expansion Draws Ire From GOP As White House Prepares To Regulate Waterways:

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Drone Strikes Are More Detrimental To America's Reputation Than Torture

Amid all the flap over Democrat Senator Feinstein's release of the so-called "Torture Report", many have questioned why she, President Obama, and other Democrats seem to think that there is no "moral equivalency" between Obama's use of drones and George Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. 

But, understand this.  Unlike Bush's so-called torture techniques -- which only affected a few dozen highly-valued captive terrorists -- two separate studies have shown that Obama's use of drones has resulted in thousands of civilian causalities.  Casualties not limited to men but, also, women and children.  While the lucky ones (I guess) are the civilians that were killed, many others have been  maimed or disfigured for life.  Other survivors are known to have suffered severe psychological trauma equivalent to PTSD. If that, in itself, isn't torture, I don't know what is.

Yet, even so, the White House claims that the drone strikes are precision/surgical strikes and that all care is given to protect civilians.  But, the world thinks differently as this chart from a 2014 Pew Research report shows:

So, if Senator Feinstein and President Obama think that releasing the torture report shows that we are taking the high ground by "admitting our mistakes" then, why aren't we also taking the high ground by admitting that drone strikes kill innocent civilians?   After all, the "torture" (enhanced interrogation) was known to the world almost a decade ago, and right now, drone strikes continue and are even being ramped up because of our fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  As such, the number of civilian deaths and injuries just keep piling up.  Perhaps, it will take another president, following Obama's exit from office, to admit that drone strikes were moral mistakes in a similar attempt at regaining s lost trust in this country around the world.


Video: Henry to Earnest: How Can You [Obama] Claim 'Moral Authority' On Drone Strikes:

2012 Study: Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says:

2013 Study: US drone strikes more likely to kill civilians than US jet fire:

Death toll of Obama’s Drone Campaign 5 Years Later: 2,400:

Pew Poll: Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones:

Obama on CIA torture report: "When we make mistakes, we admit them":

US airstrikes in Syria, Iraq could lead to high civilian casualties:

Saturday, December 13, 2014

The Sad Truth About Black Murder In America

The only time that President Obama, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson ever show any concern about a black person being murdered in this country is when a white cop is involved.

Yet, of the approximate 12,500 victims of murder each year, 50% are black.  This despite the fact that blacks only makeup 13% of the population. And, of those deaths,  93% of them are at the hands of other blacks.

By ignoring these statistics and only focusing on killings involving cops, black leaders are cheapening the deaths of all too many blacks.

According to the FBI, in 2011 there were only 393 officer-involved deaths.  So, cops killing Americans of any color is a small fraction of the murders in this country.  Certainly, nowhere near the 6,329 blacks who were slain in 2011; primarily by other blacks.  In my opinion, this tells us that we don't have a policing problem.  However, one would think so, based on all the commentary and protests over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Grant.

I think its time for black leaders -- including our President -- to focus in on the real problem of black murders in this country instead of sidestepping the issue by only blaming cops. While there are no statistics to prove it, I'm quite sure that the total number of black murders would actually be a lot higher without the police doing their jobs and maintaining order in highly black populated neighborhoods.  Every time a police officer (black, white, or whatever) is able to remove an illegal gun from someone following a traffic stop or in some other interaction, the chances are pretty good that a life may have been saved as a result.  In Chicago, alone, 7,000 illegal guns were taken off the streets in 2012.  If even 1% of those guns would have ultimately been used in a murder, that's 70 lives saved;  probably 35 of which would be statistically black. 

As a country, we need to appreciate the roll of our police and not denigrate them.


FBI: Expanded Homicide Data:

A look at statistics on black-on-black murders:

Why does Chicago have so many illegal guns?: