Cash for clunkers: two crimes, justified by a lie

A guest post from Alec Rawls.

Crime 1: Another multi-billion dollar subsidy for Government Motors.

When Obama stole Chrysler from its stockholders and gave it to his union cronies, we knew he would take every opportunity to waste taxpayer dollars trying to keep this lead balloon afloat. The Cash for Clunkers subsidy is just particularly egregious, since it works by subsidizing the last people in the world who need a subsidy: those who are well off enough to be buying new cars in the midst of a deep recession. Talk about a middle class welfare program!

Crime 2: Eliminating Government Motors’ competition by gratuitously slagging an expected 750,000 perfectly good used cars in the sub-$4500 price range.

The Obamacrats aren’t just subsidizing cars for the well-to-do. They are destroying the cars that the less well-off are in the market for, driving up used car prices as part of their effort to make new cars more attractive:

Some parts may be kept but the engine and drive-train must be destroyed. Specifically the engine will be injected with a liquid glass solution to permanently disable the engine and it will be the responsibility of the dealer to make sure this is done to the engine.

Injected with liquid glass? Sounds like a Quentin Tarentino murder fantasy, and the reality isn’t any prettier. Witness Obama’s procedure for destroying the would-be cars of the non-wealthy:

Here is another one, a spiffy-looking Volvo that holds out for 4-plus minutes. Some clunker, and check out the row of semi-new cars lined up to go next:

Take THAT all you graduate students, newlyweds, store clerks, aspiring actors, single moms, non-deadbeat dads, warehouse workers, journalists, hippies, and other assorted poor relations. You want a car, you can scrape together your savings for a down payment on the privilege of paying hundreds of dollars a month to Government Motors for FIVE YEARS, just like everybody else.

The Truth About Arms Trafficking in Mexico

This was just released today by the NRA:

Hey, What Ever Happened to all those Anti-War Protesters?

Well, I’ll give you a hint:  Think Health Care Deform…

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent – Washington Examiner
August 18, 2009

Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party’s most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military (“General Betray Us”). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush’s Texas ranch.

That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan — 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 — anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.

No group was more angrily opposed to the war in Iraq than the netroots activists clustered around the left-wing Web site DailyKos. It’s an influential site, one of the biggest on the Web, and in the Bush years many of its devotees took an active role in raising money and campaigning for anti-war candidates.

In 2006, DailyKos held its first annual convention, called YearlyKos, in Las Vegas. Amid the slightly discordant surroundings of the Riviera Hotel casino, the webby activists spent hours discussing and planning strategies not only to defeat Republicans but also to pressure Democrats to oppose the war more forcefully. The gathering attracted lots of mainstream press attention; Internet activism was the hot new thing.

Fast forward to last weekend, when YearlyKos, renamed Netroots Nation, held its convention in Pittsburgh. The meeting didn’t draw much coverage, but the views of those who attended are still, as they were in 2006, a pretty good snapshot of the left wing of the Democratic party.

The news that emerged is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have virtually fallen off the liberal radar screen. Kossacks (as fans of DailyKos like to call themselves) who were consumed by the Iraq war when George W. Bush was president are now, with Barack Obama in the White House, not so consumed, either with Iraq or with Obama’s escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan. In fact, they barely seem to care.

As part of a straw poll done at the convention, the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg presented participants with a list of policy priorities like health care and the environment. He asked people to list the two priorities they believed “progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most.” The winner, by far, was “passing comprehensive health care reform.” In second place was enacting “green energy policies that address environmental concerns.”

And what about “working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan”? It was way down the list, in eighth place.

60,000 Have Cancelled AARP Memberships Since July 1st

No matter how flippant AARP tries to be about losing 60,000 members in about a month, it is a serious blow to their Libtard agenda.

If you are still an AARP member and/or looking for a Conservative alternative, might I suggest the American Seniors Association? (click here for their profile).

They are adamantly against ObamaCare.  Membership costs only $15 bucks a year.  And, if you cut up your AARP card and mail it in to ASA, they will give you another year for free!!!  How can you go wrong with a deal like that?

American Seniors Association

American Seniors Association
3700 Mansell Road
Suite 220
Alpharetta, GA 30022
US

Telephone: 1-800-951-0017
Email: info@americanseniors.org
Website: www.americanseniors.org

Thousands Quit AARP Over Health Reform
Tens of Thousands Don’t Like the Health Care Overhaul

CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group’s position on health care.

Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, “I’m extremely disappointed in AARP.”

Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, “I don’t wanna be connected with AARP.”

Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative as CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports:

Watch Extended AARP Interview Here

Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came.

Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards.

“I think that probably the seniors are most upset with cuts in Medicare,” said ASA President Stuart Barton.

The American Seniors Association is flat-out against President Obama’s plan, which calls for $313 billion dollars in Medicare cuts over ten years. The AARP is widely viewed as supporting the President.

Last week, Obama told a town meeting in Portsmouth, NH, “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.”

The AARP called the President’s statements “inaccurate,” saying it hasn’t endorsed any plan or bill.

Some were left with the feeling that AARP was waffling.

“I feel they’re supporting it through the backdoor, and telling members that they’re not through the front door,” said Guardiani.

“AARP has not endorsed any plan at this point,” said Cheryl Matheis, AARP VP for Social Impact.

Yet the AARP’s Cheryl Matheis couldn’t find anything to quibble with, including the Medicare cuts which she says will not affect benefits.

“We haven’t seen provisions in legislation yet, so we’re going to reserve judgment until we see them,” said Matheis.

Meantime, the AARP’s image suffered with this town meeting already seen by hundreds of thousands on YouTube.

Faced with skeptical questions from the audience, the AARP representative ends the meeting abruptly. When the discussion continues, she pulls the plug on the microphone.

AARP says for a group with 40 million members that adds hundreds of thousands each month, losing 60 thousand is just a drop in the bucket. But to the much smaller American Seniors Association it’s a flood.

Here’s a little Biblical advice for AARP:  Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before the fall…

OMG! A *gasp* Black Man Openly Carrying Guns Outside of Convention Center Where Obama was Speaking!

Considering that Obama’s  purple-shirted SEIU jackboots beat the snot out of a black man in St. Louis for protesting against Obama’s Health Care Deform, is it really that much of a mystery as to why Tea Party protesters are showing up with their guns?

Unlike most Lefturds and Libtards, the majority of Tea Party protesters, like myself, are proud gun owners who believe in the God-given right to self-defense.  Not to mention that we  are real big on that whole Constitution thingy.  So, if Obama’s purple-shirted jackboots are going to play rough in an attempt to violate our Right to Free Speech, as they did in St. Louis and Tampa, then they best be prepared to suffer the consequences.  Obviously, it wasn’t a very wise move on the part of Obama’s jackboots to attempt to intimidate us through violence—NEVER piss off a “gun-clinging, Bible thumping ” Conservative; we know how to instantly restore our Right to Free Speech.

H/T – AZ_Conservative

Man with assault rifle at Obama rally sparks concerns
Scott Wong – AZCentral

A man carrying an assault rifle outside the Phoenix Convention Center where President Barack Obama was speaking today has renewed concerns about protesters bringing firearms to presidential events.

“It is extremely disturbing that you have that kind of weapon in close proximity to where the president is,” said Ruben Gallego, a military veteran and Arizona Democratic Party official who observed the man.

[Maybe it is disturbing to him, but I find it quite comforting to know that the Secret Service has some citizenry backing them up in case things go south.]

“He was demonstrating his Second Amendment rights,” Gallego added, “but he was clearly there to intimidate people who were there exercising their First Amendment rights.”

[Uhm, who was he trying to intimidate there, Mr. Gallego?  The other Tea Party protesters?  I think not!  “Clearly,” he was there to PROTECT those who were exercising their First Amendment rights, you pustulant ignoramus!]

Neatly dressed in a white shirt, black tie and gray slacks, the man, who only gave his first name as Chris, also had a pistol holstered at his side as he engaged in heated debates with those rallying in support of Obama’s heath-care reform plan.

[Yeah, r-i-i-i-i-ght.  More of that “angry mob” propaganda from the media.  Unless, of course, the writer of this article meant to imply that he was “packing heat” while socializing. ]

A Phoenix police spokesman said plainclothes detectives were monitoring about a dozen protesters carrying guns, though no one broke any laws or was arrested.

[So, what’s the problem?]

Arizona is an “open-carry” state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it’s visible. A permit is required if the weapon is carried concealed.

[Hey, if Obama and his sycophants don’t like it, then just steer clear of Arizona from now on!  End of imaginary problem!  Besides, I’m sure Sheriff Arpaio would greatly appreciate it if Obama kept his Pinocchio nose out of Arizona’s business.]

“Because I can do it,” Chris said when asked why he brought guns to the rally at 3rd and Washington streets. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms left.”

[Remember:  If you don’t use your Rights, you’ll lose your Rights.]

[…]

In response to the armed demonstrators in Phoenix, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called on the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to tell their members to leave their weapons at home when attending presidential events.

[Oh, the Brady Campaign, eh?  As if anyone in the NRA is going to care what the heck those Constitution shredders have to say.]

“Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers, thus stretching their protective efforts even thinner,” Helmke said. “The possibility that these weapons might be grabbed or stolen or accidentally mishandled increases the risks of serious injury or death to all in attendance.”

[Sheesh!  What a crock!  The reality of it is that the more guns there are in the crowd, the less likely a nutcase is going to be insanely stupid enough to (A) grab someone’s gun, and (B) try to take a shot at anyone, let alone the Resident in Chief!  Obviously, any gun grabbing nutcase would become an instant water sprinkler before he even had a chance to chamber a round.  Nope.  The Secret Service is probably more concerned about the guns they don’t see, than the ones they do see…]

Calls to several NRA officials in Arizona were not returned.

Probably too busy laughing themselves silly about this whole thing!