April 28, 2012

“Stimulus”:Obama’s “Green Energy” Fraud

I sincerely hope that when the one minute video spot shown in this article is aired, people pay attention and keep it in mind when they head for the polls in November.

Finland? Mexico? China?

Obama. The best U.S. president nearly every country except the U.S. ever had! :-(

by @ 11:38 am. Filed under " Indeed!, "Stimulus, The Economy, The President

When will we say “ENOUGH!”?

When you give liberals an inch, they will not be satisfied to take a mere mile and, like terrorists, they will continue pushing the envelope to see how far they can get. Such is the case with political correctness, and the way the left keeps pushing more and more of it on the rest of us as a way of knocking down our defenses against their various agendas, none of which are in the least bit friendly to America and the American way of life.

Here we have yet another example of this phenomenon in action;

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at MoveOn.org says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

As usual, they alter the context to make “illegal” aliens out to mean that the peoples, their existences, are illegal rather than their undocumented presences in the United States, semantics intended to villify enforcement of federal law.

It irks me to no end that this practice is allowed to continue, but I suppose that this is the essence of a country like ours, one endowed with freedom for all, including those that would destroy us from within, taking away those same liberties that allowed them to do so.

Having said that, here is the article quoted above, complete with video.

April 27, 2012

Liberal Utopia, the Prime Example


Yes, that big state on the left coast.

From infowars.com:

Once upon a time, millions upon millions of young people dreamed of moving to California. Nearly endless sunshine, pristine beaches and a booming economy made it seem like paradise to many.

But now those days are long gone. Unemployment is rampant, home prices have fallen like a rock, violent crime and gang activity are on the rise, local governments all over California are facing horrible financial problems, millions of illegal immigrants have poured into the state, traffic around the big cities is nightmarish and tax rates are absolutely outrageous. Plus there is the constant threat that your home could be destroyed by an earthquake, a wildfire or a mudslide. In recent years, hordes of hard working families have decided that they have had enough and have decided to move away from California. In fact, since the year 2000 more than 1.6 million people have moved away from the state of California.

There are still a few pockets of the state that are still very beautiful and that have been sheltered from the economic nightmare that is sweeping the rest of the state.

But in general, most cities in California are rapidly becoming giant hellholes.

Without a doubt, the “California Dream” has now become a “California Nightmare” for most residents of the state.

Do you live in California? If so, perhaps now is the time to move. The following are 16 really good reasons to move away from California…

A few of these are: California Is Run By Elitist Control Freaks That Have No Common Sense At All; Political Correctness Runs Rampant In California; California Has One Of The Worst Health Care Systems In America; California Has Some Of The Worst Schools In The Nation; California Has Some Of The Highest Tax Rates In The Nation; Poverty Is Absolutely Exploding In California…

Anyway, there are a whopping 16 reasons “to move away from california” listed and explained, right here.

What got me interested in posting about this, since Wolf and I have absolutely no interest in ever living out there in Liberal “Progressive” Never Never Land, is Seth’s long former residential ties to the state, in L.A. and San Francisco, as well as my big, bad Wolf’s sojourns, during his Navy career, at Coronado, when I read a Wall Street Journal article the other day by Allysia Finley, titled Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus.

‘California is God’s best moment,” says Joel Kotkin. “It’s the best place in the world to live.” Or at least it used to be.

Mr. Kotkin, one of the nation’s premier demographers, left his native New York City in 1971 to enroll at the University of California, Berkeley. The state was a far-out paradise for hipsters who had grown up listening to the Mamas & the Papas’ iconic “California Dreamin’” and the Beach Boys’ “California Girls.” But it also attracted young, ambitious people “who had a lot of dreams, wanted to build big companies.” Think Intel, Apple and Hewlett-Packard.

Now, however, the Golden State’s fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest product is red tape. The first thing that comes to many American minds when you mention California isn’t Hollywood or tanned girls on a beach, but Greece. Many progressives in California take that as a compliment since Greeks are ostensibly happier. But as Mr. Kotkin notes, Californians are increasingly pursuing happiness elsewhere.

Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states. This is a sharp reversal from the 1980s, when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. According to Mr. Kotkin, most of those leaving are between the ages of 5 and 14 or 34 to 45. In other words, young families.

The scruffy-looking urban studies professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., has been studying and writing on demographic and geographic trends for 30 years. Part of California’s dysfunction, he says, stems from state and local government restrictions on development. These policies have artificially limited housing supply and put a premium on real estate in coastal regions.

“Basically, if you don’t own a piece of Facebook or Google and you haven’t robbed a bank and don’t have rich parents, then your chances of being able to buy a house or raise a family in the Bay Area or in most of coastal California is pretty weak,” says Mr. Kotkin.

Above emboldening emphasis mine.

Read the article here.

Yes… Kalifornia, where every liberal’s dream has become reality.

by @ 10:41 am. Filed under Kalifornia, Liberals Have Their Way, The Left In All Their "Glory"

Must Watch Video

From Patriot Update:

Americans for Limited Government opens their new viral hit with a simple line, “If I wanted America to fail …”

From there, the video recounts a number of disastrous energy policies currently being pursued by our government which are stifling growth and hampering the economy.

From smothering entrepreneurship under pages of red tape, to throwing good money after bad on unproven green energy companies, it’s clear this Administration’s energy policies have failed and, as the video above suggests, are working against America’s best interests.

This is an excellent video, a little over 4 1/2 minutes and surprise, surprise, “if I wanted America to fail” bears a striking resemblance, in every respect, to the policies of a certain (ah hem!) incumbent president…

The Video.

April 26, 2012

Coulter On Romney…Again :-)

Well, we guess we know whom Ann Coulter’s voting for, but then again, so are we here at Hard Astarboard. It’s got to be Mitt Romney, though he wasn’t the first choice here — the first choice, whom I still believe would have been our best bet, was Axelrodded out of the game early on via some trumped up scandals using some really pathetic, opportunistic women.

However, now that we’re getting down to the wire (it’s obviously going to be a Romney vs Barack Hussein election), we right thinking Americans (those of us who respect and revere the Constitution and who believe the U.S.A. is worth more than third world country or former Eastern Bloc status) have to get on the same side rather than sit out the election or vote for any third party candidates — Obama must go, he must be defeated this November.

When I first arrived in America, I was in my late teens and Richard M. Nixon was in the White House. Now it’s 7 presidents later and I still haven’t seen a president with whom I’ve found even a tenth as many reasons not to be reelected as Obama; he even makes Carter look almost palatable by comparison, and that says a lot.

But back to Coulter on Romney, Ann tells a few truths here that need to be read by every conservative in the country.

The actual Republican Establishment –- political consultants, The Wall Street Journal, corporate America, former Bush advisers and television pundits — are exhorting Mitt Romney to flip-flop on his very non-Establishment position on illegal immigration.

Both as governor of Massachusetts and as a presidential candidate, Romney has supported a fence on the border, E-Verify to ensure that employees are legal and allowing state police to arrest illegal aliens. He is the rare Republican who recognizes that in-state tuition, driver’s licenses and amnesty are magnets for more illegal immigration.

These positions are totally at odds with Establishment Republicans who pander to the business lobby by supporting the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration, and then accuse Americans opposed to a slave labor class in America of racism. If this continues, America will become California and no Republican will ever be elected president again. Big business doesn’t care and Establishment Republicans are too stupid to notice.

If you’re not sure how you feel about illegal immigration, ask yourself this: “Do I have a nanny, a maid, a pool boy, a chauffeur, a cook or a business requiring lots of cheap labor that the rest of America will have to subsidize with social services to make up for the wages I’m paying?” Press “1″ to answer in English.

If the answer is “no,” illegal immigration is a bad deal for you. Cheap labor is cheap only for the employer.


Romney is one of the few Republicans to recognize that there is no need to “round up” illegal aliens (in the lingo of amnesty supporters) to get them to go home. Illegal aliens will leave the same way they arrived. They decided to walk across the border to get jobs — and welfare, apparently — and they’ll walk back across the border as soon as the jobs and welfare dry up.

Obama has a similar plan, but instead of using E-Verify to stop illegal aliens from taking American jobs, he did it by destroying the entire job market. Hmmmm, drug-war ravaged Ciudad Juarez, or Obama’s America … I’ll take Juarez! Under the booming economy President Romney is going to produce, we’re going to need a really high fence.

It didn’t take a government administrator “rounding up” foreigners and putting them on buses to get 20 million illegal aliens here, and it won’t take a government program “rounding them up” to get them home.

While Romney’s views on immigration are wildly popular with Americans, they are extremely unpopular with the Republican Establishment sucking up to business interests — Bush, Rove, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Gingrich, Giuliani, Krauthammer, Kristol, Gillespie, etc, etc.

(Maybe it’s the Establishment that’s been calling Romney “Establishment.”)

Ann Coulter’s entire column is here.

Go, Ann!

by @ 1:16 pm. Filed under Great Commentary

April 24, 2012

War on Terror? What War on Terror?

At least that’s what they seem to be thinking at that big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue these days.

From Conservative Byte (above link) and Breitbart:

Today, the National Journal reported that a senior State Department official has announced, “The war on terror is over.”

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

The article itself describes the Obama administration’s new vision of foreign policy, which admits no enemies. Everyone, in this view, is a friend. Islamism, says the Obama administration, is just fine, so long as it does not openly support terrorism.

This, of course, is utter foolishness. Islamism is a religious ideological movement that brooks no real alternatives – so while the State Department proclaims “a legitimate Islamism,” it fails to acknowledge that Islamism, “legitimate” or not, is deeply intolerant of any other modes of expression. Not only that, but Islamism works hand-in-glove with terror groups around the world. Simply because a regime does not openly house al Qaida does not mean that the regime doesn’t support al Qaida; just because a regime pretends at democracy doesn’t mean that it has real democratic values.

Obama has created the brave new Middle East – a Middle East that assumes that every human heart has the desire to vote, but not to be truly free; a Middle East that oppresses women and gays and minorities, but pretends at liberalism; a Middle East that despises America but hides that hate behind a façade of multiculturalism, even as it disposes of its internal dissenters.

In truth, Obama isn’t declaring an end to the war on terror – terrorism continues unabated each day in Egypt and the Palestinian territories and Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and Yemen and Syria and Lebanon and a dozen other hotspots around the globe. Obama is truly declaring an end to the war on Islamism. He has made his peace; he has surrendered. In doing so, he has condemned broad swaths of the world to darkness, and more immediately, he has condemned America to a defensive position in the world. Now there is no proactive America shaping the world to her own ends. Now there is only an atomistic world, a series of billiard balls, in which America waits to be struck before bouncing back.

To Obama, the war on Islamism may be over. For Islamists, the war on America is far from over.

Ah, the deceptively peaceful aromas and gentle breezes of the Arab Spring…

All of which goes rather hand in glove with a column by Frank Gaffney.

Have you ever asked yourself why, despite more than 10 years of effort - involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well over $1 trillion spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Muslim activists - we are no closer to victory in the “war on terrorism” than we were on Sept. 11, 2001?

Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys. The sad truth is that by almost any other measure, the prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. No one seems able to explain the reason.

In an effort to provide the missing answer, on Tuesday , the Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new, free 10-part video course titled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com). This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a wealth of publicly available data and firsthand accounts to present a picture that has, for more than a decade, been obscured, denied and suppressed.

In addition to the threat of violent jihad, America faces another, even more toxic danger - a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, that would be the same organization to which President Obama recently transferred $1.5 billion of our tax dollars in a lump-sum payment. For him to do so, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had to waive congressionally imposed restrictions born of fully justified concerns about the nature and direction of the Shariah-adherent government the Brotherhood is birthing in Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidentially directed waiver came despite the following: the Brotherhood-dominated government’s hostage-taking of American democracy activists; murderous Islamist rampages against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities; the toleration and abetting of escalating violence against Israel in and from the Sinai; and official threats to jettison the 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish state. Matters have only gotten worse since the president’s largesse was made available in an unusual upfront lump-sum payment.

Read all of Mr. Gaffney’s piece here.

Whose side, one has to wonder, is Barack Hussein Obama on, anyway?

At American Thinker:

As he tries to expand and extend his extra-constitutional Imperial Presidency, Mr. Obama has devised a new gimmick to fool tens of millions of the nation’s seniors by hiding from the devastating effects on their health care insurance that will be inflicted by his ObamaCare takeover of the nation’s medical delivery systems.

And why not? From the time he first announced his candidacy for president until this very minute, Barack Obama has run one deception, one lie after another on the American people, serving up travisty after tragedy coated in what, for those who don’t read between the lines or look beyond his words, have been proverbial spoons full of sugar…

A large portion of seniors on Medicare opt to participate in programs under what is known as Medicare Advantage. Under these programs, the seniors receive broader benefits than under standard Medicare, need no supplementary Medigap policies at extra cost. The arrangement is based upon extra payments made to the Medicare Advantage providers and the limit on policyholders to choices among lists of physicians who have agreed to accept lower-than-usual fees.

Co-author of an op-ed in this morning’s NY Post is Benjamin E. Sasse, a former US assistant secretary of health and president of Midland University. Along with co-author Charles Hurt, Sasse explains that under the ObamaCare law, Medicare Advantage benefits will be significantly cut back when provisions of the law reducing the funds available to providers are scheduled to take effect just before election time:

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year - herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year - which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Obviously, this will make tens of millions of seniors participating in Medicare Advantage programs sorely unhappy with the president. His answer is through a supposed “experiment,” condemned as an $8 billion waste by the General Accounting Office, which will postpone the effectiveness date of this cutback in available benefits until after the November elections.

“It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president,” write Hasse and Hurd, ” than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

SNIP! and so…

But the president has an ace up his sleeve, they explain. “Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

No Congressional approval is required, and Obama can simply defy the GAO recommendation to scrap the costly “experiment.”

Once again, Obama chooses government by diktat rather than by law and Constitution.

In short, since the seniors involved won’t see any change in their Medicair Plus before the election, those who would otherwise vote for Obama will do so, not knowing that Barack Hussein has once again pulled the wool over their eyes until they later run into the ambush of truth.

It is so sad that such a contemptible lack of morality has finally found its way into the Oval Office…

by @ 8:51 am. Filed under The President

April 23, 2012

So it begins…

Yes, a third post today, albeit as brief as the second.

Egypt has terminated its contract to supply natural gas to Israel, ending a joint venture that was a cornerstone of the peace process between the neighboring states.

Ampal, an Israeli partner in the East Mediterranean Gas (EMG) joint venture that operated the pipeline between the two countries, announced Sunday night that Egyptian suppliers notified EMG that they were terminating the gas supply. A spokesman for EMG could not be reached, and the company would not confirm that it had it had ended its contract.

Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz expressed “great worry” about reports of the Egyptian termination. His office said cancellation would set a “dangerous precedent that darkens the peace treaties and the atmosphere of peace between Israel and Egypt.”

An Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it would be the “final bit that breaks the camel’s back” in the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

Yeah, the “Arab Spring” the mainstream media and our liberals praise so very heartily is now on the verge of getting into full swing.

Read on.

by @ 11:24 am. Filed under Uncategorized

WikiLeaks Exposing the Democrats?

I don’t really know what to make of this.

According to emails obtained by WikiLeaks, which is led by the embattled Julian Assange, Republican Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign staff allegedly had evidence that Democrats stuffed ballot boxes in Pennsylvania and Ohio on election night. However, the candidate chose not to pursue voter fraud, according to internal emails obtained from the private intelligence and analysis firm, Stratfor.

We all have to draw our own conclusions on this one, or wait to see what, if anything, happens next.

My guess is, truth or fiction, nothing will happen as the teflon coated Democratic Party seems to get away with whatever they like these days while the mainstream media runs interference for them.

by @ 11:13 am. Filed under Hmmmmmm....

Even as we sleep, the U.N. creeps onward

From FOX News, an article by George Russell:

The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development will consider a breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement, according to stunning U.N. documents examined by Fox News.

The main goal of the much-touted, Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, scheduled to be held in Brazil from June 20-23, and which Obama Administration officials have supported, is to make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, “a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

Yes, even while we hear little or nothing of what’s going on at Turtle Bay, the movers and shakers at that corrupt, power hungry and mostly useless international institution continue to plot evermore inroads toward world control via the curtailment of liberty of those of us here in the free world, forever trying to bring us down to some level on a par with third world countries in Africa and other places around the globe governed by dictators and theocracies that keep the people poor and themselves immersed in opulence.

Among the proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” according to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

–More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ” “climate adaptation” and other “green economy” measures.

–New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.

–Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, ‘brown’ technologies and newer, greener ones.”

– Major global social spending programs, including a “social protection floor” and “social safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.”

–Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution—including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits.”

There’s all the more reason to vote Barack Hussein Obama out of office this November. All this is right up the alley of both him and his left wing cronies of the modern Democratic party, and they’ll go along with the U.N. 100%, as they do with that anti-U.S. body’s goal of a global gun ban for private civilians.

For years, the “United” Nations has been appointing committee heads whose political dogmas have been one hundred and eighty degrees in opposition to every American belief, tradition and economic theory, just as our own “progressive” elements have done.

The only thing united about them is the backwards, tinpot nations who, jealous of America’s success, are united to bringing us down by ruling against any policies that might benefit the United States or our national or economic security.

The article is here.

by @ 10:57 am. Filed under The United Nations