Wednesday, October 3, 2012


Yesterday the Daily Caller brought forth a video of Obama from 2007 that had not been shown to the mass public.  There are two major points that most sites are emphasizing.  One is the very racially oriented bent of Obama regarding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.  The other is that he profusely praises his infamous Pastor, Rev. Wright, known for his "G-d Damn America" rant.  

But I want to focus on another part of the speech.  The part where Obama so blatantly criticizes spending for roads to and in the suburbs. 

The Daily Caller also highlighted a segment in which Obama questions federal priorities in transportation spending.
"We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest-need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs. If we have people in the cities right now who want to work but have no way to get into those jobs, we've got to help connect them to the jobs that exist,” Obama said. “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”

This statement by Obama confirms the recent writings of Stanley Kurtz titled "How Obama is Robbing  the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities."  From National Review

This (I believe illegal) President, who said there are "no White Americans or Black Americans, just Americans," has been deliberately and methodically destroying the middle class for his entire tenure, a middle class that, for a large part, live in the suburbs. The hate this man reveals for the American way of life is palpable.  He foments division and covetousness more than any public figure I have ever witnessed.  But I digress....

Locally there is controversy and bad blood over a Federal grant called Sustainable Communities Initiative handed out to an unelected Council of Government NGO.  This Federal grant, established by Obama in 2009, is bribery money to funnel money into the inner city and away from rural suburbs.  It says so in the Sustainable Communities Initiative grant.  This is not conjecture.  It states that transportation money is to be spent on walking, biking, and mass transit.  Not roads.  Roads are for people who drive cars.  Obama doesn't want people who drive cars to have transportation money, even though the majority of transportation money is taken from drivers via gasoline taxes and other car taxes.  He wants your money to pay for his inner city buddies and his environmentalist buddies who hate cars and trucks.

So I have some questions.  Who has made cars more expensive to buy?  Who has regulated cars and cafe standards to make cars more unsafe and less affordable for the middle class?  Who has created a GM - Chevy Volt, that catches on fire and is subsidized to the tune of $49,000 per vehicle....using money from those middle class taxpayers? Who loaned American taxpayer money to Fiskar to prop up a foreign car manufacturer connected to Al Gore?  Who has insisted on turning food into bio-fuels?  ( I grant that one was not his original idea...been going on for a while now, but he ramped it up.) Who has taken transportation money and blown it on bike lanes and greenways?  

The United States of America is under attack by domestic enemies.  Obama is just the most prominent public face of these domestic enemies today, but hardly the only one.   There are many in our government.   Just remember this November 6th.  Know they enemy. 


  1. "Who has created a GM - Chevy Volt, that catches on fire and is subsidized to the tune of $49,000 per vehicle....using money from those middle class taxpayers?"

    Cheryl, I believe you have an error in that statement. I think the Chevy Volt subsidy is about $7500 per unit. The $48,000 number, if I am not mistaken is the development cost that General Motors incured in bringing the Volt to market, prorated over the number of units sold to date. As they sell more that number will go down. All that aside, the Volt was a bad idea and the subsidy was a worse idea.

    Your pomint about Obama wanting to take money (taxes) out of the suburbs to finance the cities is spot on. I think it is called "regionalism". Many of our cities are or soon will be bankrupt. What do we do about cities like Detroit, Camden, NJ, and Stockton, Ca.? IMO, Chief Justice Roberts in his Obamacare desission was right about one thing. Elections do have consequences. So, my idea is that, rather than rip off the suburbs to try to save the cities, they should let the cities go bankrupt. The citizens of those cities must finally pay the consequences of their decades of bad election decissions. Once prices have found their bottoms, let the free enterprise system go to work. By that I mean that developers will come in and buy up land and develop new suburbs, Eventionally what was once a large city will become a number of new suburbs. Well, that's my two cents worth anyway.


  2. Jim...maybe I did not make the correlation properly? I was trying to say that the leftists and Obama in particular, have been making driving more and more expensive so that the middle class is soon going to be unable to afford to drive...AND...the money to subsidize all of this madness is coming from the taxpaying middle class...who don't want to live in the inner cities and ride mass transit. So where did Obama get the subsidy for the Volt? From borrowed money and the middle class. Yes, I meant the subsidy was ($49,000) or ($48,000)...something like that. As they sell more of them??? What I hear lately is they are forcing the military to buy them, just to be able to say they sold some of them. Nobody wants these stupid cars.

    The regional plans I've studied, Jim, do not allow for "sprawl," meaning suburbs. That housing model is not allowed under the new Comprehensive Plans adopted by almost every city and county in the U.S., thanks to the American Planning Association who has indoctrinated planners to adopt the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. (Brought to you by Bill Clinton for the President's Council on Sustainable Development, straight out of the Agenda 21 Guidebook. As the cities go bankrupt, the Feds just come in and hand out money for "economic development" with the strings that there will be NO SUBURBS. In the meantime, the unelected regionalists are creating tax base sharing schemes where the suburbs are going to pay for the inner city projects. So, not only will the cities be bankrupt, but now we will bankrupt the suburbs to pay for them. In the end...all of the plans create mega-regions with mass transit and high density "human settlements." If you think I'm kidding...take a look at a site called America 2050. We are being forcefully herded into "human settlements." So, no....they will not allow "a number of new suburbs" to exist. The AIA (American Institute of Architects) has jumped into this with both feet. You can't even get licensed to build anything without "LEED - Green Build" and local Comprehensive Plans telling you where and what you can build. Local elected councils and commissioners are being bribed by the Federal government with grants and subsidies (money that doesn't exist) to comply with all of this. That is what I have been fighting so hard against here in my city and county.

    I agree....let the cities go bankrupt. They broke it. They own it. But the powers that be will not let that happen. Least as far as I can see. No one rolled this back after Clinton...and Obama has doubled down on it. So will Romney call off the dogs? Praying hard, but not counting chickens.

  3. OMG! It's even worse than I thought, I am not at all sure that Romney will starve the beast. feed that beast for another eight years and we are toast.