19 Oct

Barack Obama channels Joe McCarthy [Reader Post]

                                       

enemy of the state

Not alone, of course.

Yesterday’s Drudge headline describes Barack Obama as being in a “panic” over the upcoming election with its catastrophic potential for Democrats.

The link goes to a video at RCP. In it Obama says:

“They’re fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.”

But that’s not what caught my ears.

“They don’t have the courage, they don’t have the gumption to stand up and disclose their identity.”

Then the money line:

“It could be insurance companies, banks…”

Now let’s remember for a second that Barack Obama took $280 million for his Presidential from unidentified donors (this proves to me that nearly all Democrat voters have zero long term memory and Obama and Democrat leaders depend on their early-onset Alzheimer’s).

But with those words Obama identifies two more of the “enemies” of the state- insurance companies and banks. Obama sees more enemies inside the United States than outside the United States. Obama is channeling Joe McCarthy. Everyone who opposes him has become anti-American- a “threat to democracy.”

The “Threat to Democracy” has become the new Democrat meme.

Barack Obama has said that the Chamber of Commerce is a threat to democracy.

“This is a threat to our democracy…And if we just stand by and allow the special interests to silence anybody who’s got the guts to stand up to them, our country’s going to be a very different place.”

That’s what the President just said about the Chamber of Commerce, a right-wing group spending $75 million to beat Democrats this fall, and reportedly taking money from foreign corporations — some even owned by foreign governments.

David Plouffe says that those who support Republicans are a “threat to democracy.”

“They are becoming the central financial actors in the 2010 election,” Plouffe told reporters in Washington yesterday. “What’s happening out there is really a hijacking of our democracy.”

Karl Rove is a threat to democracy.

Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO, also got into the act:

AFL-CIO Leader Sees Anger as Threat To Democracy

And golly, even Rupert Murdoch is a threat to democracy.

Murdoch’s Threat to Democracy

Arguably the most frightening of all, Obama says information is a threat to our democracy.

While knowledge is power, the information age could be too much of a good thing. That’s the message some heard in President Obama’s weekend commencement speech in which he bemoaned

Speaking at Hampton University in Virginia, the president raised alarms when he said “information becomes a distraction, a diversion” that is putting “pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

The man who has a website dedicated to his own glory, the man who spams nearly everyone in the country on a daily basis, thinks information is a bad thing?

I think not. What Obama is saying is that information coming from sources other than God Obama is a bad thing and a threat to our democracy.

Stalin felt the same way.

We are all threats to Obama’s democracy.

And let us all remember something else. This country is fundamentally a Democratic Republic and it was none other than Barack Obama who promised us he would “fundamentally transform” it into something else.

Were Democrats to maintain control of the Congress, one could just see it- hearing after hearing, with Chairman Henry Waxman banging the gavel.

“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Tea Party?”

Mr Obama, have you no decency, sir?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Economy, Politics, POWER GRAB!. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 at 6:00 am
| 1,100 views

39 Responses to Barack Obama channels Joe McCarthy [Reader Post]

  1. minuteman26 says: 1

    The number 1 threat to this Republic is the Obama/Soros regime. And the Country is finally starting to figure that out.

    ReplyReply
  2. savage24 says: 2

    We need more threats to democracy, especially Obama’s style of democracy, and more support for the Republic. For another thing, McCarthy was trying to get the communist out of our government and Obama is bringing them into his government with open arms. It is going to be a long and tedious job cleaning up this government that is against “We the People”.

    ReplyReply
  3. OLDPUPPYMAX says: 3

    Well of COURSE Hussein has no decency…he’s a leftist, after all. If the ONE truly IS in a sweat over the midterms it isn’t due to the necessary assault on his ability to destroy this nation and further trample the liberty of its people. Rather it must be a sense of foreboding…the ominous threat of actual INVESTIGATIONS into the breathtaking corruption of the past two years. Even his media shills will be forced to report on widespread scandal. The question–will republicans have the GUTS and SPINE required to DO it, or will they surrender to the McCain/Grahamnesty forces of “bipartisanship.” One thing is certain…if republicans should make massive gains in November, recapture the house and even things up in the senate and then sit back and do NOTHING for fear of offending the media or the “moderates” or whatever the latest excuse might be for hiding under their desks, they can forget ever be given power again. The republican party will cease to exist as a threat to the left. Voters would NEVER forget the betrayal.

    ReplyReply
  4. Tobias says: 4

    He is one to talk about disclosure.

    ReplyReply
  5. Nan G says: 5

    “It could be insurance companies, banks…”

    Gee, and Obama was touted as the world’s greatest orator just a few short months ago!

    But we should ask ourselves who is Obama’s REAL audience.
    It isn’t us.
    It isn’t the common man and woman.
    It looks like it is the deep-pocketed donor.
    The man/woman who can open the wallet and write the BIG check.

    Obama speaks to the audience on hand and we get to hear about it if/when someone records it.

    So, who was there?
    It was a Boston fund-raiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
    That little group wrote $900,000 in checks after Obama spoke.

    Obama made those rich donors feel smart and superior to us by implying they still have their wits about them.
    WE, otoh, are ruled by emotions.

    I don’t know.
    Insulting the vast number of voters so you can get a few thousand bucks might make sense in the short term, but are those insulted voters so ready to forget and pull the lever for more Obama in a few days?

    ReplyReply
  6. kcanova says: 6

    When is someone going to step up and point out to these asshats that we not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. History has shown over and over that a true Democracy does not work. It eventually leads to Socialism which then leads to a Oligarchy.

    ReplyReply
  7. tarpon says: 7

    The little whiny one is counting on the dregs of society to bring society down. Hugo Chavez style.

    But the demonic US president, never seen that before.

    When does he start banging on the lectern with a machete to get the natives revved up…

    ReplyReply
  8. Tom in CA says: 8

    Oh great.

    The guy who was puny enough to run as a moderate because he knew he could not get elected otherwise, states his opponents hide their identity.

    He is such a twit.

    Guess what buddy, you will be voted out next.

    ReplyReply
  9. Skookum says: 9

    Some of Obama’s Czars:

    Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar: the Free Market is non-sense. We agree with Mao, Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

    Kenneth Feinberg, Pay Czar?: nobody should receive more than a base salary of $500,000

    John Holdren, Science Czar: Redistribution of wealth within and among nations is absolutely essential.

    Anita Dunn, former White House Communications Director: Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control.

    Paraphrased from, Trickle Up Poverty, by Dr Savage

    These are the virtuous Communists our Communist in Chief has surrounded himself with, he and his henchmen are the enemies of the people; we are in critical danger until we get rid of all these Socialists who followed Obama as if he was the messiah of Communism and they were going to have a position in the Elite circle of oppressors. They and all the RHINOs need to be flushed away and prosecuted if possible or else you can sit around in your self-imposed Socialist Hell on earth and be grateful to Obama for turning North America into a Third World Cess Pool of his dreams.

    ReplyReply
  10. B-Rob says: 10

    There are two separate issues here that are conflated by Obama and ignored altogether by the GOPers. One is corporate speech, the other is anonymous speech.

    The history of anonymous speech is long, going back to the anonymous pamphlets published advocating insurrection against the British. The crown’s fear of this speech, as well as its effectiveness, let to the crown trying to control publishing, requiring prior approval before anything was published, and permitted censorship.

    Corporate speech, in contrast, is relatively new, since corporations have not been around nearly as long and, frankly, have had lesser rights to speech free of regulation going back more than 100 years. Corporations are not people and the Bill of Rights was originally intended to protect THE PEOPLE from the government, not non-human entities. Corporations, therefore, have not been permitted to run false ads about a product, even though an individual saying the same kind of thing would go unpunished. In addition, historically speaking, there was no fear of a foreign government or corporation trying to sway us one way or another through advertising because foreign entities just were not that active. But with the explosion of foreign trade the last 50 years, and the explosion of technology, we are in a very different world where foreign corporate influence is concerned.

    On one level, I am in favor of corporations being permitted to run ads. Honda of America and its Japanese parent company have an obvious stake in the foreign policy, currency policy, industrial policy, labor policy and tax policy of this country; in a lot of ways, they have a bigger stake than many domestic companies. But you have the ask the question, though: exactly how far do we want this to go? A Japanese corporation that has assets and customers in the US has some interest in the continued vitality and success of the US economy. But a Chinese government owned corporation that wants to spy on us and, therefore, opposes new encryption laws; or a Libyan government owned corporation that wants to get a toehold in selling oil to our military (which is, as I understand it, the single largest oil customer in the world); or a Dubai corporation incorporated by Osama bin Laden? They would not have our best interests at heart and would be expected to run candidates and advocate positions that would be beneficial to them and harmful to us. We need to be able to know who is behind ads so that we have siome understanding of what their motivations might be to taking a particular position or backing a candidate.

    The elf looking GOPer Gary Bauer, unfortunately, unwittingly exposed why I think corporations (foreign or domestic) should not be allowed to hide behind non-profits and run political ads. Bauer used an old Jim Crow era case, NAACP v. Button, to argee that he should be able to shield from the public who contributed to his non-profit. This was an ahistoric, counterfactual, and misleading argument. In NAACP v. Button, the NAACP refused to disclose its membership lists to the racist local government. Why? Because between the Klan and the complicit police officers, people would have been killed for being members of the NAACP if that list had been disclosed. Bauer takes this case about life and death and lynching, though, and uses it as a shield against anyone knowing who is behind his ads. He is hiding his organization’s donors (not members, but donors) because he claims those donors would be “harassed”, i.e., boycotted or subject to ridicule, if people knew they were running those ads. Quite different, of course — the donors want the freedom to speak anonymously without any countervailing speech aimed their way. How do we know that the Chinese government is running those ads, or Osama himself? We don’t.

    The best solution: corporations get to run all the ads they want, but they have to identify themselves. And they cannot hide behind non-profits that don’t disclose donors, either. Just as you cannot sell widgets on the open market without some way for consumers to trace who made the product if it proves injurious, we should be able to at least know who is running ads so we can figure out what their agenda might be. Just as lobbyists havd to register if they represent a foreign country, no foreign company can run an ad unless the company is registered with our government first. We the people need to be able to know who is trying to influence us to buy into a particular candidate or policy position.

    ReplyReply
  11. Pingback: Tweets that mention Barack Obama channels Joe McCarthy [Reader Post] -- Topsy.com

  12. drjohn says: 11

    I won’t have any of this “they need to identify themselves” nonsense until Obama has to do the same.

    ReplyReply
  13. Tom in CA says: 12

    #10

    The elf looking GOPer Gary Bauer….

    Why don’t you post a picture of yourself and we can all judge what you look like?

    ReplyReply
  14. Pingback: ThinkingMeat · Hilarious hypocrisy at Flopping Aces

  15. Granny says: 13

    You are misquoting. He does not say “is a threat to democracy.” He says specifically and repeatedly “is a threat to OUR democracy” – something entirely different. “Our democracy” is marxist speak. You must understand that “democracy” under marxism is very far from what any of us believe democracy to be. Individual rights under marxist “democracy” extend only to your right to acquiece to whatever your rulers believe to be best.

    ReplyReply
  16. B-Rob says: 14

    drjohn –

    So you have no problem if foreign countries, foreign armies, foreign intelligence services, etc., funneling hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in cash into our elections via non-profits tht don’t disclose their donors — because Obama did not disclose the identies of people who donated less than $100 to his campaign two years ago? And that makes sense to you? OK . . . .

    ReplyReply
  17. Tom in CA says: 15

    #14 – I take that one drjohn, if you don’t mind.

    You mean the same foreign folks we were told that were supposedly in love with the non-foreign language speaking Obama? Those folks? Why is it that they give the Republicans cash?

    And hey, how about that photo, handsome.

    ReplyReply
  18. kcanova says: 16

    @B-Rob #14

    Yeah individual donations of $100 but multiple times, being as his campaign removed the security check to verify addresses on Credit Card transactions. out of the 248 Million he received in individual donations 120 Million can not be accounted for. Unless I don’t know otherwise he still has not sent that money back. So again he doesn’t have the soap box to stand on.

    ReplyReply
  19. kcanova says: 17

    @B-Rob #14

    Yeah but those $100.00 individual donations added up. Especially when the address matching security check was removed by his campaign to facilitate easier donations. Out of the 248 Million he received in individual donations 120 Million can not be accounted for (that is for his Presidential campaign alone), that is more than double than what the US Chamber of Commerce has put into multiple campaigns. So again Obama or his staff do not have a soap box to stand on. Unless you can point me to a resource that shows that unaccounted for money was returned?

    ReplyReply
  20. plainjane31 says: 18

    Unless you can point me to a resource that shows that unaccounted for money was returned

    It was returned to BO and MO for “mad money”.

    ReplyReply
  21. Nan G says: 19

    Looks like Obama’s Chicago, Ill., is setting the mark for potential voter fraud pretty darn high this election.

    Here’s the newest way to cheat:

    Overseas and military voter ballots will have election judges “recreating” their ballots before they are fed into the tabulating machines.

    In Illinois, military and overseas voters may ask for either a paper ballot or a ballot sent by email.

    Ballots sent by email must be reprinted by the voter on the voter’s printer and send back.

    In most Illinois counties the electronic choice is made by about a quarter of voters.

    Three quarters want good old fashioned paper.

    The highest rates of choosing electronic is in Champaign County and Lake County – which is about 30 percent.

    There is one place, however, that is strangely off the scale:

    Chicago.

    In Chicago, the rate of voters “choosing” to get an email attaching their ballots is a whopping eighty six percent.
    86%

    In addition, many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan do nnot have access to computers and printers.

    They wanted PAPER ballots.

    They did NOT want Chicago election officials, pencil in hand, deciding who the they want to vote for in the U.S. Senate race, and faithfully “reproducing” their mark on a nice new official ballot.

    But that’s what they are going to get.

    I bet Obama’s DOJ will be all over this…..NOT!

    Via http://electionlawcenter.com/

    ReplyReply
  22. Doug says: 20

    @B-Rob: I’m all for keeping corporations out of politics as long as government stays out of business.

    If government stayed the hell out of business, business would have no interest in participating in government policy in the first place. That money could be far better spent on business-related items.

    If I own a coal company, and Obama threatens to shut down my coal operation, I have a vested interest in fighting the government that seeks to kill off my business. If I am a doctor and wish to accept patients of my choosing, but Obama threatens to have the IRS audit me if I try to “discriminate,” then I have a personal interest in seeing this man is politically annihilated.

    Now multiply the above by Obamacare to the tenth power, with a slurry of EPA as a side dish, and you’ve got a recipe for a political war. The War of 2010, to be precise.

    This is a war against tyrannical government, plain and simple. As long as these asshats continue to ignore the Constitution (Obamacare being a prime example), then it’s a good bet that “democracy” is going to rise and say “nope, you gotta go.” Instead, Obama thinks HE is Democracy, that no one can oppose HIM.

    He’s about to get his ass handed to him on a platter, and I couldn’t be happier.

    ReplyReply
  23. Greg says: 21

    A day may be soon coming when you will have a voice and a worth only to the extent that you have money. That’s the logical outcome of allowing concentrated wealth to anonymously spend without limit to shape public perception and opinion to its own advantage.

    Anyone thinking that the extension of Constitutional rights to powerful corporate entities is a step in the direction of individual freedom should probably have their head examined.

    ReplyReply
  24. drjohn says: 22

    Greg

    That’s already true. Only the truly wealthy can run for the Senate in most states. If you want a precedent for hidden money, look to Obama. He set the standard. Now you and the rest of the liberals want the laws changed so that others may not do what Obama did.

    That’s crap.

    ReplyReply
  25. Old Trooper 2 says: 23

    @ Greg, We are already at that point regarding the huge pile of chips required to campaign for any office even at State level, just in case you missed it. A Governors race is fund raising intensive in any State. At levels above that like Congress or the Senate the ante is way higher. Holding Public Office has a “Price of Admission”, either your Own Personal Wealth and/or OPM, Other Peoples Money and there Laddie lies the fault.

    The Framers and Founding Fathers never dreamed of Career Politicians when the foundation of Government was laid. Congress never met year round, Congressional Pensions were unheard of, Public Service was a Sacrifice made by Statesmen, Not Political Whores. The early members of Congress left their primary occupations to Serve the Nation, not Themselves.

    The Judicial Branch was an appointment that was made into lifetime Duty with pay so that undue influence by those with money could not compromise the system.

    Big Government was feared as much as Royalty Ruling during the Colonial Days with smaller non intrusive Government favored overall. States Rights mattered more than the power of a huge Federal Government because it was less oppressive and overbearing. Taking on debt by the Government was carefully considered an evil to be avoided unless very dire circumstances were on the horizon. Taxation was levied on imported goods to favor Domestic Industry over Foreign produced goods due to the experience with the Colonial Days.

    All of this was designed for good reasons and by sound judgment on the part of the architects of the Republic. The less Meddling by Federal Government was preferred. The less Foreign entanglements and influence over our Republic regarding Trade or Alliances was preferred.

    Now Career Politicians are meddling in issues that both the Constitution and it’s 10th Amendment limiting it’s power legally exclusively is at issue. Authority granted solely to the States is being infringed upon by the Federal Government and your Individual Freedoms and Liberties are at risk.

    I spent a year at the Army Command and General Staff School as an instructor on several subjects to prepare Junior Officers for Staff Duties and Command at levels above Company Command and the basic notions of the Constitution, the UCMJ, Treaties, Status of Forces Agreements, the Geneva Conventions and the relationships of US Industry to National Security
    were a part of that duty. I taught ROTC Commissioned, West Point Grads and certain Foreign Students.

    The point here is that Government has Roles set in place by the Constitution as written that apply to this day and regardless of how things have evolved and changed for the Nation there are boundaries that must be respected and limits to Authority by Branches of Government, Agencies, and Cabinet Level Appointees that are compromised by money and influence of position that have overstepped their lawful scope of employment and lawful authority.

    My neighbors and my Daughter want me to run for Public Office but I believe that Politics soils the integrity under the present conditions where Money talks louder than the Rule of Law or the will of the informed Voters and Taxpayers.

    Marx, Lenin, Hitler. Stalin, Mussolini, Alinsky and others were Community Organizers. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and other signers of the Declaration of Independence were Patriots. Obama & Company revere the Organizers and not so much the Patriots. They are confused on the Constitutional Limits of Power and there is the point where I cross swords with you and others that post here.

    I am a Businessman when not recalled to Active Duty, make a payroll, manage land and stock with hooves, pay my taxes, employ some folks with non-assembly line skills, sell a product that depends on the weather, disease, State and Federal interference on how I do business and must make a profit to stay afloat with no Government subsidies whatsoever, resent paying oppressive taxes or providing Free Ice Cream to members of Congress, folks that are Great Society wards of the Government for generations and despise Career Politicians that personify waste, fraud and abuse of Office. I frequently refer to Congress as the Parliament of Whores and to their Special Interest Groups, Unions, Academic types and others as parasites. I am a Fiscal Conservative and view TARP and ARRA as grand theft from the US Treasury. I view Smaller Government as necessary as the one we have is unsustainable and a cancer to the Republic.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 24

    Old Trooper: The Framers and Founding Fathers never dreamed of Career Politicians when the foundation of Government was laid. Congress never met year round, Congressional Pensions were unheard of, Public Service was a Sacrifice made by Statesmen, Not Political Whores. The early members of Congress left their primary occupations to Serve the Nation, not Themselves.

    That, my friend, was before career politicians discovered how financially prolific being a “statesman” was. Ask Harry Reid.

    oops… I believe Sharron Angle already did! LOL

    ReplyReply
  27. OLD TROOPER2: LIKE I SAY often; I love my blog, we have some smart here, that we treasure.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  28. Old Trooper 2 says: 26

    @ MataHarley, nowadays, as it was back a century ago, a Man with a briefcase still can steal more money than a man with a gun…

    Rope, Tree, Politician, some assembly required. :wink:

    Tar, Feathers & Rail is far more labor intensive…

    (Justice the Old Fashioned way for those that want to Rule but fail to Govern)

    ReplyReply
  29. billhedrick says: 27

    “It could be the insurance companies, the banks” or could it be the Joooooos?

    ReplyReply
  30. B-Rob says: 28

    @ Doug –

    It is fascinating to me that every time a Dem wins the presidency, people on the right act as if the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding across the ridge, followed by the ghosts of 10,000 dead cavalrymen, all carrying bloody swords. The panic and the mania, however, are laughably misguided. Hell, I was living in Chicago when then Bears coach Mike Ditka endorsed a hapless GOPer Senate candidate by claiming that if Clinton was elected president, we would be facing a new depression. Yeah . . . how’d the 90s turn out for you, Mike? Likewise, bunching up your panties because Obama is president is just nutty. Shutting down your coal mine? Only if it is unsafe and will kill your employees. But if you follow the safety rules and the dust dispersal requirements, and you don’t have an explosion and cave in, your mine will continue to operate. Remember: Obama was Senator of a coal producing state. Given that coal produces most of the electricity in the midwest, and battleground states Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Indiana all have coal mining, Obama will NEVER propose or sign off on anything that would jeopardize those states’ economies . . . and neither will any other president.

    You obviously missed the point of my post, too. I tend to agree that corporations should be permitted to weigh in. But they should not be permitted to hide their identities any more than they get to hide that they manufactured or sold an item. If Target wants to back a gay baiting GOPer for governor in Minnesota, so be it. But Target should not be surprised if pro-gay people chose to stop patronizing their stores. It is the fraud and duplicity of hiding your identity in order to avoid the natural consequences of your advocacy that I oppose. That anonymity also permits people to say things behind a mask that they would not say showing their face. Anonymity then becomes like sniper fire in the marketplace of ideas.

    And as I said, anonymity is most troubling with foreign companies or American subsidiaries of foreign companies. I think they do have a stake in the game and should be permitted to have their say. But we need to know if COSCO (the Chinese shipping company, not the store) is behind a proposal to permit quadruple tractor trailers on US roads, or opposing customs inspections of containers. There should be no loopholes through which a company controlled by Osama can advocate positions in this country without us knowing it.

    So, Mr. Coalmine Operator, if you oppose Obama because he has promised to do more mine inspections and put more money into MSHA (the Mine Safety and Health Administration), say so. But don’t hide behind a b.s. name like Citizens for Safe Energy Generation and disguise your real positions and your real purposes.

    ReplyReply
  31. neil says: 29

    @ BROB

    The nineties we’re pretty swell, BROB… but it wasn’t because of Clinton’s economic genius so much as it was that he was mostly riding off the coat tails of Reagan’s tax cuts in 81 that set America on a straight path clear into the next decade. Kind of a typical line of thought from Dims to claim fame to success that was not of their own work. Nice try though.

    ReplyReply
  32. Missy says: 30

    @B-Rob:

    Likewise, bunching up your panties because Obama is president is just nutty. Shutting down your coal mine? Only if it is unsafe and will kill your employees. But if you follow the safety rules and the dust dispersal requirements, and you don’t have an explosion and cave in, your mine will continue to operate. .

    Oh, really?

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant is currently garnering most of the attention from the agency’s critics, but it is far from the only problematic EPA regulation in the works. Another proposal that also deserves strong opposition is the agency’s attempt to label coal combustion byproducts (CCBs) as hazardous waste. Doing so is not only environmentally unnecessary but downright counterproductive, and would raise energy costs and kill jobs to boot.

    Like several other Obama administration regulations, this extreme proposal goes well beyond anything contemplated under Bush or under Clinton. In fact, it was the Clinton administration EPA that concluded in 2000 that CCBs, chiefly the fly ash from burning coal to produce electricity, should be categorized as non-hazardous and handled in a manner not unlike municipal solid waste. The Obama administration has offered no convincing evidence that this determination was wrong and that CCBs pose a public health threat. Nonetheless, it is moving forward with the hazardous proposal.

    A hazardous designation would not only raise CCB handling and disposal costs, but would put an end to their beneficial uses. Large volumes of fly ash are added to concrete, both stretching the supply of this ubiquitous construction material as well as improving its quality. Another kind of CCBs can be used in wallboard, taking the place of mined gypsum. Fully 44 percent of the 136 million tons of CCBs produced annually are put to good use, and the percentage has been growing. No actual problems have emerged with the use of recycled CCBs in these materials.

    However, if EPA slaps the hazardous label — and attached stigma — on CCBs, such uses would very likely come to an end due to liability concerns — imagine the field day tort lawyers would have over supposedly toxic sidewalks and poisonous walls.
    :roll:

    Thus, a hazardous designation would almost certainly preclude any productive uses of CCBs. As a consequence, more virgin concrete would have to be made, and more gypsum mined. All the attendant energy and other resource inputs as well as emissions associated with these processes would increase — a clear negative for the environment.

    From the coal-fired utility standpoint, a hazardous listing would transform CCBs from a valuable byproduct to a costly liability. Many new disposal sites would have to be created and maintained. Half the nation’s electricity is generated from coal, thus the higher electricity generation costs would impact tens of millions of homeowners and businesses. Some coal-fired power plants would have to shut down completely – indeed, a hazardous designation for CCBs fits in perfectly with the Obama administration’s larger anti-coal agenda.

    Employment would face a painful double whammy from a hazardous designation. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 2,000 of its member manufacturing companies may be involved in using CCBs in the products they make. For the rest, the resultant higher energy costs would further hamper competitiveness and growth. Either way, the rule would reduce manufacturing jobs.

    Back in 2000, the EPA wisely concluded that it did “not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial uses of these wastes, because they conserve natural resources, reduce disposal costs, and reduce the total amount of waste destined for disposal.” Too bad this kind of common sense has all but disappeared at the Obama EPA.

    http://www.openmarket.org/2010/09/08/kiss-your-ash-goodbye-regulating-coal-combustion-byproducts-as-hazardous-is-an-unnecessary-job-killer/

    Remember: Obama was Senator of a coal producing state. Given that coal produces most of the electricity in the midwest, and battleground states Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Indiana all have coal mining, Obama will NEVER propose or sign off on anything that would jeopardize those states’ economies . . . and neither will any other president

    No kidding?

    “Over the past year and a half, we have been fighting President Obama’s administration’s attempts to destroy our coal industry and way of life in West Virginia,” Manchin said today. “We are asking the court to reverse EPA’s actions before West Virginia’s economy and our mining community face further hardship.”

    ~~~~

    The agency has “usurped the authority of the state and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to oversee and regulate important aspects of our environment, like water quality,” Manchin said today. “These actions by U.S. EPA are threatening not only to end surface coal mining in West Virginia but to affect all forms of mining in the state.”

    ~~~~~.

    The National Mining Association last month also sued EPA to void the rules, and 16 representatives — including Democrats Zack Space of Ohio and Rick Boucher of Virginia — have signed on to legislation (H.R. 6113 (pdf)) that would require EPA to revert to its pre-Obama permitting program.

    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/06/06greenwire-wva-sues-obama-epa-over-mining-coal-regulation-48964.html

    No wonder, eh?

    It’s too late to back out now because President Obama is already racking up frequent flier miles on his Western campaign swing, allegedly to help out embattled Democratic senators.

    But a new Gallup Poll out this morning puts the top Democrat himself at his lowest approval rating ever and finds most Americans do not want the Real Good Talker to have a second term.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/obama-approval-record-low.html

    ReplyReply
  33. johngalt says: 31

    From BRob:

    But don’t hide behind a b.s. name like Citizens for Safe Energy Generation and disguise your real positions and your real purposes.

    Kind of akin to the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn’t you say?

    Maybe all the leftist, progressive groups could change their monikers and relate them to what they are really after.

    ReplyReply
  34. B-Rob says: 32

    johngalt –

    Pay attention: I am talking about corporations hiding their spending through non-profits. Corporations are not natural persons and they are a government approved mechanism for limiting the liability of shareholders. Why do cons always insist on changing the subject?

    ReplyReply
  35. johngalt says: 33

    @BRob

    Several points.

    One, there is precedent for government treating corporations as single entities.

    Two, explain how corporations differ in any way, shape, or form from the national unions who use member’s dues to influence elections with money. And in addition, why is it that liberals/progressives conveniently leave the unions out of the discussions involving campaign financing when railing about corporate money.

    Three, in the statement I was referring to, you stated that some one/group was hiding behind a misleading moniker to disguise their true intentions. Is that not what many liberal 527′s do? Does MoveOn.org claim to be the voice of the little people, yet uses the donations they receive to promote progressive candidates only? How about Healthcareforamericanow.org, which resides in the same offices as several other progressive groups all pushing socialistic agenda’s?

    You, of course, do not see, or won’t see the relationship between your stated comment, and that of mine. Liberals/progressives are famous for accusing the opposition of doing exactly that which they do themselves, and then act outraged when the accusations come right back at them. Spare me your condescending rhetoric, as well(Why do cons always insist on changing the subject?). It isn’t changing the subject, genius. I only challenged your insinuation that ‘cons’, as you call us, are the ones using deception to lure support, and that the left is innocent of doing the same. Hypocrite. Look it up.

    ReplyReply
  36. Smorgasbord says: 34

    How can conservatives be a threat to democracy when the USA isn’t a democracy? Most conservatives know what it is. One way you can tell if a media is liberal is if they call the USA a democracy. Every time someone calls the USA a democracy you are confirming to the propaganda media that their propaganda worked on you, and they are laughing at you each time they see or hear you say it.

    “…information becomes a distraction, a diversion….”

    When you figure in that “information” includes conservatives, you have to admit that it ain’t good for the liberals when the general public has access to Joe The Plumber, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc., etc.

    “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Tea Party?”

    Proud to be guilty on both counts. I want my sentence to a lifetime of a free republic.

    ReplyReply
  37. Pingback: Obama indentifies Americans as enemies [Reader Post]

  38. ditto says: 35

    I have no problem if corporations were banned from contributing ONLY if such law applies to ALL non-human but “legal” entities. (That includes, corporations, unions, PAC’s, Campaign support groups, Issue support groups, clubs, social groups)

    If I had my way, ONLY private and legal Citizens of voting age in this nation would be allowed to contribute to campaigns, and they would still be required to identify themselves. (not for persecution, but only to verify that they are legally entitled to contribute.) ALL foreign based contributions of all kinds would be banned regardless of whether they were legal entities, foreign agents, nations and their citizens.

    ReplyReply
  39. Pingback: Which American citizen will Obama kill next? [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>