Revealing the Truth about the Democratic Party...Share Away
by Frantz Emmanuel Kebreau on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 1:23pm
(Video Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UObEdF_uhaw )
I have done extensive research on the subject because at one point, I was a Democrat. A few years ago, I was confronted with a fact that I knew to be false but after an investigation into the point, it turned out to be true. It was that Martin Luther King was a Republican.
This of course forced me to extend my research into other areas. What else could this Political Science Major be unaware of? The Truth became stranger than fiction. The list is quite long so here we go.
President Kennedy had little intention of enacting a Comprehensive Civil Rights Law during his 2 years in office. Tensions in society were running so high due to the riots and such that by the 1963 State of the Union address he had no other choice but to enact some kind of Law. Mind you, for the previous 100 years, it had only been the Republican Party who had supported any Civil Rights Legislations (I was not aware of these facts until I was 35 years old);
13th Amendment: 100% Republican Support Abolished Slavery
23% Democratic Support
14th Amendment 94% Republican Support Slaves to be Citizens
0% Democratic Support
15th Amendment 100% Republican Support Right to Vote for All
0% Democratic Support
CRA 1866 Enacted by the Republican Party Equal Rights
CRA 1871 Enacted by the Republican Party Anti-KKK
CRA 1875 99% Republican Support Anti-Discrimination
0% Democratic Support
-----------It took another 82 years until the next Civil Rights Act---------
-----------The Democratic Party blocked every attempt to equalize citizens of color-----
CRA 1957 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration
Then Senator Kennedy Voted against this Bill
Filibustered by Democrats
CRA 1960 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration
The final version was watered down by then Senator LBJ
Filibustered by the Democrats
CRA 1964 82% Republican Support
63% Democratic Support
CRA 1965 87% Republican Support
Voting Rights 75% Democratic Support
I do not want the “government” to treat me any differently than any other citizen. Therefore, I consider equality of opportunity and equal voting rights to be the summation of Civil Rights in America. If anything extra is afforded me or anyone else merely due to the color of their skin, I consider that to be an entitlement and patronizing.
Given my above statement, the Democratic Party, even if you sectionalize them by North and South, has never outvoted the Republican Party in any Civil Rights Law…Ever. The actual numbers play out like this;
Lifetime Republican Party support for Equal Rights for all Citizens: 94%
Lifetime Democratic Party Support for Equal rights for all Citizens: 35%
Now to the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a proposal that the Republican Party, during the Eisenhower Administration attempted to put forth but alas, their efforts resulted in the first Civil Rights Law in the previous 82 years…The Civil Rights Act of 1957 formed a Commission on Civil Rights. The Plan of the Commission was to eventually enact the very Comprehensive Law of 1964. Remember, this was the Bill that Senator JFK voted against, for political aspirations I’m sure.
JFK had his Justice department write the original Bill in early 1963. The first version passed the House but stalled in the Senate. Everett McKinley Dirksen (R), the minority leader in the Senate took it upon himself to REWRITE the entire Bill. It took him 1 weekend and he had 2 helpers, 1 Democrat and another Republican.
The final version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was written by a Republican which means that since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every Civil Rights Law was written by a Republican with more Republican support than Democratic Party Support.
Due to Dirksen’s tenacity, a cloture vote was successful and the Senate passed the Bill. It then passed the Houses and became Law.
Some notes about its passage;
Robert Byrd (D) filibustered the Bill…the longest filibuster in American History
William Fulbright (D) voted against the Bill. He was Bill Clinton’s mentor.
Al Gore Sr. (D) voted against the Bill
Speaking to two Governors on Air Force One, then President LB Johnson was quoted saying, “"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." according Ronald Kessler's Book in relation to the Law.
So now let’s explore the Dixicrats. This has always been misrepresented. I wrote about it in my book, and I also made a video of it. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdJsPsU55PM
The big question is, did the South really turn “Red” after the CRA of 1964? Well, I researched that also and found the following conclusions.
Presidential Elections (covering “The Solid South”)
The 11 Former Confederate States
Year Blue States Red States
1964 6 5
1968 6 (Segregationist Wallace took 5) 5
1972 Landslide
1976 Landslide
1980 Landslide
1984 Landslide
1988 Landslide
1992 4 7
1996 4 7
2000 0 11
2004 0 11
2008 3 8
At least in Presidential elections, the Solid South wasn’t so “solid” until at least the year 2000 or 36 years after the CRA of 1964.
Now let’s take a look at the Governorships.
Governorships since 1964
(The 11 former “Confederate States”)
State Blue Red Years until a “Red” Gov. was elected
Georgia 7 2 39 years
Mississippi 8 2 28 years
Alabama 9 3 23 years
Louisiana 6 4 16 years
Texas 5 4 15 years
South Carolina 5 5 11 years
Arkansas 9 3 9 years
North Carolina 7 2 9 years
Tennessee 5 4 7 years
Virginia 7 5 6 years
Florida 7 5 3 years
Total 75 39
That’s almost 2 to 1 Blue over Red. I looked at the facts and not the rhetoric. The facts point to a different conclusion all together. The South did not become “Solid Red” after the CRA of 1964.
After finding out that both Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. were Republicans, I tend to deal only in facts and not with what I’ve been told.
Last Points
My former party, The Democratic Party says that they are for the “minority”. In this case, I’ll just say “blacks”. I believe in neither black nor minority but I defer to their thinking for this discussion. If that’s the case, then how could the following piece of history have been erased?
Ninety-nine percent of the country does not know the name Hiram Rhodes Revels. Here is his story and why the Democrats are not for “black” people.
At the end of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was captured and subsequently imprisoned for 2 years. Prior to this time period, Mr. Davis was a Senator from the State of Mississippi. In 1870, the State of Mississippi filled the vacant post of Mr. Davis with one Hiram Rhodes Revels. The curious fact behind this exchange is that now Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels did not only replace the President of the Confederacy, but he was also the First Black Senator in U.S. History…and virtually nobody knows his name.
One last point to explain this lack of universal knowledge…Jefferson Davis, The President of the Confederacy was a Democrat and his replacement, Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels, was a Republican. Democratic leadership today will never share that history with their constituents of which I once was. That led me to believe that the Democratic Party is more interested in my vote than the Truth.
It gets bit deeper. 13 former slaves became members of Congress between 1870 and 1901. We as a nation killed our own citizens in a Civil War to FREE 4 Million slaves. 13 of those freed slaves became members of the U.S. Congress and the history books are silent to this fact. 640,000 Americans died in that war and the result was transformational yet, this groundbreaking and profound history is never taught in “left” leaning schools because it does not serve their agenda. All 13 of the former slaves were Republicans. I had to sift through the Library of Congress to reveal the following information…here it is for you in a video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5O2IVfz8a0
My belief is that the Party’s did not change. The tactics changed. They went from Pro-Slavery to Pro-Segregation to Pro-Entitlement, all of which results in nothing beneficial for the prosperity of an individual and is considered by many of my ilk, “Plantation Politics”.
All I want is the Truth and to be treated as an equal, no more and no less; as an equal. I do not need the Democratic Party telling me that I’m “black” or that I’m a minority who needs their assistance. I am not a color. I am Frantz Kebreau, an American Citizen.
For the Democratic Party, it has always been about “Control” over Freedom. Keeping the Truth from it’s constituents in order to maintain control over them is not what I want from my “Party”
Revealing the Truth About the Democratic Party...On Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UObEdF_uhaw
Frantz Kebreau
CEO, Stolen History
Author of Stolen History
www.Frantzkebreau.com
If you would like more information, please take a look at the “Stolen History” Book and Audio versions at the link below.
http://frantzkebreau.mybigcommerce.com/index.php
“The Truth Shall Set You Free!!”
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Abolotionist Roud Table - Wish blacks would wake up!
Abolotionist Roud Table - Wish blacks would wake up!
This show is on the air on Waam in Ann Arbor Mich.
http://www.waamradio.com/stream/
I wish I could get every black in America to listen to this program. Their goal is to make other blacks understand that today's Democrat (dummycrat) Party has blacks enslaved, and it is thier goal as blacks and free, to free others,
http://www.joshuastrail.org/roundtable.php
Martin Luther King Jr. Was A Republican
Who is looking out for black Americans? Certainly not the Dems.
On this Martin Luther King Day, let us get a refresher course on King and the history of civil rights, via Human Events:
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
08/16/2006
"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a 'trouble-maker' who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as 'that Nigger preacher.'
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist 'Dixiecrats' did not all migrate to the Republican Party. 'Dixiecrats' declared that they would rather vote for a 'yellow dog' than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those 'Dixiecrats' continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a 'Keagle' in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former 'Dixiecrat' is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been 'a great senator for any moment,' including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's 'Southern Strategy,' which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity."
Thomas ( Tom Cat ) Catterall
President / CEO -- Tom Cat Corporation
WWW.WINTHELOTTO.NET
This show is on the air on Waam in Ann Arbor Mich.
http://www.waamradio.com/stream/
I wish I could get every black in America to listen to this program. Their goal is to make other blacks understand that today's Democrat (dummycrat) Party has blacks enslaved, and it is thier goal as blacks and free, to free others,
http://www.joshuastrail.org/roundtable.php
Martin Luther King Jr. Was A Republican
Who is looking out for black Americans? Certainly not the Dems.
On this Martin Luther King Day, let us get a refresher course on King and the history of civil rights, via Human Events:
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
08/16/2006
"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a 'trouble-maker' who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as 'that Nigger preacher.'
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist 'Dixiecrats' did not all migrate to the Republican Party. 'Dixiecrats' declared that they would rather vote for a 'yellow dog' than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those 'Dixiecrats' continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a 'Keagle' in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former 'Dixiecrat' is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been 'a great senator for any moment,' including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's 'Southern Strategy,' which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity."
Thomas ( Tom Cat ) Catterall
President / CEO -- Tom Cat Corporation
WWW.WINTHELOTTO.NET
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Obama phenomenon…Very interesting.
The Obama phenomenon…Very interesting.
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Please wake up Black America!!
I wish I could wake up every single black in America....
http://www.facebook.com/notes/frantz-emmanuel-kebreau/revealing-the-truth-about-the-democratic-partyshare-away/260491327306038
I have done extensive research on the subject because at one point, I was a Democrat. A few years ago, I was confronted with a fact that I knew to be false but after an investigation into the point, it turned out to be true. It was that Martin Luther King was a Republican.
This of course forced me to extend my research into other areas. What else could this Political Science Major be unaware of? The Truth became stranger than fiction. The list is quite long so here we go.
President Kennedy had little intention of enacting a Comprehensive Civil Rights Law during his 2 years in office. Tensions in society were running so high due to the riots and such that by the 1963 State of the Union address he had no other choice but to enact some kind of Law. Mind you, for the previous 100 years, it had only been the Republican Party who had supported any Civil Rights Legislations (I was not aware of these facts until I was 35 years old);
13th Amendment: 100% Republican Support Abolished Slavery
23% Democratic Support
14th Amendment 94% Republican Support Slaves to be Citizens
0% Democratic Support
15th Amendment 100% Republican Support Right to Vote for All
0% Democratic Support
CRA 1866 Enacted by the Republican Party Equal Rights
CRA 1871 Enacted by the Republican Party Anti-KKK
CRA 1875 99% Republican Support Anti-Discrimination
0% Democratic Support
-----------It took another 82 years until the next Civil Rights Act---------
-----------The Democratic Party blocked every attempt to equalize citizens of color-----
CRA 1957 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration
Then Senator Kennedy Voted against this Bill
Filibustered by Democrats
CRA 1960 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration
The final version was watered down by then Senator LBJ
Filibustered by the Democrats
CRA 1964 82% Republican Support
63% Democratic Support
CRA 1965 87% Republican Support
Voting Rights 75% Democratic Support
I do not want the “government” to treat me any differently than any other citizen. Therefore, I consider equality of opportunity and equal voting rights to be the summation of Civil Rights in America. If anything extra is afforded me or anyone else merely due to the color of their skin, I consider that to be an entitlement and patronizing.
Given my above statement, the Democratic Party, even if you sectionalize them by North and South, has never outvoted the Republican Party in any Civil Rights Law…Ever. The actual numbers play out like this;
Lifetime Republican Party support for Equal Rights for all Citizens: 94%
Lifetime Democratic Party Support for Equal rights for all Citizens: 35%
Now to the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a proposal that the Republican Party, during the Eisenhower Administration attempted to put forth but alas, their efforts resulted in the first Civil Rights Law in the previous 82 years…The Civil Rights Act of 1957 formed a Commission on Civil Rights. The Plan of the Commission was to eventually enact the very Comprehensive Law of 1964. Remember, this was the Bill that Senator JFK voted against, for political aspirations I’m sure.
JFK had his Justice department write the original Bill in early 1963. The first version passed the House but stalled in the Senate. Everett McKinley Dirksen (R), the minority leader in the Senate took it upon himself to REWRITE the entire Bill. It took him 1 weekend and he had 2 helpers, 1 Democrat and another Republican.
The final version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was written by a Republican which means that since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every Civil Rights Law was written by a Republican with more Republican support than Democratic Party Support.
Due to Dirksen’s tenacity, a cloture vote was successful and the Senate passed the Bill. It then passed the Houses and became Law.
Some notes about its passage;
Robert Byrd (D) filibustered the Bill…the longest filibuster in American History
William Fulbright (D) voted against the Bill. He was Bill Clinton’s mentor.
Al Gore Sr. (D) voted against the Bill
Speaking to two Governors on Air Force One, then President LB Johnson was quoted saying, “"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." according Ronald Kessler's Book in relation to the Law.
So now let’s explore the Dixicrats. This has always been misrepresented. I wrote about it in my book, and I also made a video of it. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdJsPsU55PM
The big question is, did the South really turn “Red” after the CRA of 1964? Well, I researched that also and found the following conclusions.
Presidential Elections (covering “The Solid South”)
The 11 Former Confederate States
Year Blue States Red States
1964 6 5
1968 6 (Segregationist Wallace took 5) 5
1972 Landslide
1976 Landslide
1980 Landslide
1984 Landslide
1988 Landslide
1992 4 7
1996 4 7
2000 0 11
2004 0 11
2008 3 8
At least in Presidential elections, the Solid South wasn’t so “solid” until at least the year 2000 or 36 years after the CRA of 1964.
Now let’s take a look at the Governorships.
Governorships since 1964
(The 11 former “Confederate States”)
State Blue Red Years until a “Red” Gov. was elected
Georgia 7 2 39 years
Mississippi 8 2 28 years
Alabama 9 3 23 years
Louisiana 6 4 16 years
Texas 5 4 15 years
South Carolina 5 5 11 years
Arkansas 9 3 9 years
North Carolina 7 2 9 years
Tennessee 5 4 7 years
Virginia 7 5 6 years
Florida 7 5 3 years
Total 75 39
That’s almost 2 to 1 Blue over Red. I looked at the facts and not the rhetoric. The facts point to a different conclusion all together. The South did not become “Solid Red” after the CRA of 1964.
After finding out that both Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. were Republicans, I tend to deal only in facts and not with what I’ve been told.
Last Points
My former party, The Democratic Party says that they are for the “minority”. In this case, I’ll just say “blacks”. I believe in neither black nor minority but I defer to their thinking for this discussion. If that’s the case, then how could the following piece of history have been erased?
Ninety-nine percent of the country does not know the name Hiram Rhodes Revels. Here is his story and why the Democrats are not for “black” people.
At the end of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was captured and subsequently imprisoned for 2 years. Prior to this time period, Mr. Davis was a Senator from the State of Mississippi. In 1870, the State of Mississippi filled the vacant post of Mr. Davis with one Hiram Rhodes Revels. The curious fact behind this exchange is that now Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels did not only replace the President of the Confederacy, but he was also the First Black Senator in U.S. History…and virtually nobody knows his name.
One last point to explain this lack of universal knowledge…Jefferson Davis, The President of the Confederacy was a Democrat and his replacement, Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels, was a Republican. Democratic leadership today will never share that history with their constituents of which I once was. That led me to believe that the Democratic Party is more interested in my vote than the Truth.
It gets bit deeper. 13 former slaves became members of Congress between 1870 and 1901. We as a nation killed our own citizens in a Civil War to FREE 4 Million slaves. 13 of those freed slaves became members of the U.S. Congress and the history books are silent to this fact. 640,000 Americans died in that war and the result was transformational yet, this groundbreaking and profound history is never taught in “left” leaning schools because it does not serve their agenda. All 13 of the former slaves were Republicans. I had to sift through the Library of Congress to reveal the following information…here it is for you in a video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5O2IVfz8a0
My belief is that the Party’s did not change. The tactics changed. They went from Pro-Slavery to Pro-Segregation to Pro-Entitlement, all of which results in nothing beneficial for the prosperity of an individual and is considered by many of my ilk, “Plantation Politics”.
All I want is the Truth and to be treated as an equal, no more and no less; as an equal. I do not need the Democratic Party telling me that I’m “black” or that I’m a minority who needs their assistance. I am not a color. I am Frantz Kebreau, an American Citizen.
For the Democratic Party, it has always been about “Control” over Freedom. Keeping the Truth from it’s constituents in order to maintain control over them is not what I want from my “Party”
Frantz Kebreau
CEO, Stolen History
Author of Stolen History
www.Frantzkebreau.com
If you would like more information, please take a look at the “Stolen History” Book and Audio versions at the link below.
http://frantzkebreau.mybigcommerce.com/index.php
“The Truth Shall Set You Free!!”
_________________
The first step in winning is believing you shall…
President and CEO
Tom Cat Corporation
http://www.facebook.com/notes/frantz-emmanuel-kebreau/revealing-the-truth-about-the-democratic-partyshare-away/260491327306038
I have done extensive research on the subject because at one point, I was a Democrat. A few years ago, I was confronted with a fact that I knew to be false but after an investigation into the point, it turned out to be true. It was that Martin Luther King was a Republican.
This of course forced me to extend my research into other areas. What else could this Political Science Major be unaware of? The Truth became stranger than fiction. The list is quite long so here we go.
President Kennedy had little intention of enacting a Comprehensive Civil Rights Law during his 2 years in office. Tensions in society were running so high due to the riots and such that by the 1963 State of the Union address he had no other choice but to enact some kind of Law. Mind you, for the previous 100 years, it had only been the Republican Party who had supported any Civil Rights Legislations (I was not aware of these facts until I was 35 years old);
13th Amendment: 100% Republican Support Abolished Slavery
23% Democratic Support
14th Amendment 94% Republican Support Slaves to be Citizens
0% Democratic Support
15th Amendment 100% Republican Support Right to Vote for All
0% Democratic Support
CRA 1866 Enacted by the Republican Party Equal Rights
CRA 1871 Enacted by the Republican Party Anti-KKK
CRA 1875 99% Republican Support Anti-Discrimination
0% Democratic Support
-----------It took another 82 years until the next Civil Rights Act---------
-----------The Democratic Party blocked every attempt to equalize citizens of color-----
CRA 1957 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration
Then Senator Kennedy Voted against this Bill
Filibustered by Democrats
CRA 1960 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration
The final version was watered down by then Senator LBJ
Filibustered by the Democrats
CRA 1964 82% Republican Support
63% Democratic Support
CRA 1965 87% Republican Support
Voting Rights 75% Democratic Support
I do not want the “government” to treat me any differently than any other citizen. Therefore, I consider equality of opportunity and equal voting rights to be the summation of Civil Rights in America. If anything extra is afforded me or anyone else merely due to the color of their skin, I consider that to be an entitlement and patronizing.
Given my above statement, the Democratic Party, even if you sectionalize them by North and South, has never outvoted the Republican Party in any Civil Rights Law…Ever. The actual numbers play out like this;
Lifetime Republican Party support for Equal Rights for all Citizens: 94%
Lifetime Democratic Party Support for Equal rights for all Citizens: 35%
Now to the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a proposal that the Republican Party, during the Eisenhower Administration attempted to put forth but alas, their efforts resulted in the first Civil Rights Law in the previous 82 years…The Civil Rights Act of 1957 formed a Commission on Civil Rights. The Plan of the Commission was to eventually enact the very Comprehensive Law of 1964. Remember, this was the Bill that Senator JFK voted against, for political aspirations I’m sure.
JFK had his Justice department write the original Bill in early 1963. The first version passed the House but stalled in the Senate. Everett McKinley Dirksen (R), the minority leader in the Senate took it upon himself to REWRITE the entire Bill. It took him 1 weekend and he had 2 helpers, 1 Democrat and another Republican.
The final version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was written by a Republican which means that since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every Civil Rights Law was written by a Republican with more Republican support than Democratic Party Support.
Due to Dirksen’s tenacity, a cloture vote was successful and the Senate passed the Bill. It then passed the Houses and became Law.
Some notes about its passage;
Robert Byrd (D) filibustered the Bill…the longest filibuster in American History
William Fulbright (D) voted against the Bill. He was Bill Clinton’s mentor.
Al Gore Sr. (D) voted against the Bill
Speaking to two Governors on Air Force One, then President LB Johnson was quoted saying, “"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." according Ronald Kessler's Book in relation to the Law.
So now let’s explore the Dixicrats. This has always been misrepresented. I wrote about it in my book, and I also made a video of it. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdJsPsU55PM
The big question is, did the South really turn “Red” after the CRA of 1964? Well, I researched that also and found the following conclusions.
Presidential Elections (covering “The Solid South”)
The 11 Former Confederate States
Year Blue States Red States
1964 6 5
1968 6 (Segregationist Wallace took 5) 5
1972 Landslide
1976 Landslide
1980 Landslide
1984 Landslide
1988 Landslide
1992 4 7
1996 4 7
2000 0 11
2004 0 11
2008 3 8
At least in Presidential elections, the Solid South wasn’t so “solid” until at least the year 2000 or 36 years after the CRA of 1964.
Now let’s take a look at the Governorships.
Governorships since 1964
(The 11 former “Confederate States”)
State Blue Red Years until a “Red” Gov. was elected
Georgia 7 2 39 years
Mississippi 8 2 28 years
Alabama 9 3 23 years
Louisiana 6 4 16 years
Texas 5 4 15 years
South Carolina 5 5 11 years
Arkansas 9 3 9 years
North Carolina 7 2 9 years
Tennessee 5 4 7 years
Virginia 7 5 6 years
Florida 7 5 3 years
Total 75 39
That’s almost 2 to 1 Blue over Red. I looked at the facts and not the rhetoric. The facts point to a different conclusion all together. The South did not become “Solid Red” after the CRA of 1964.
After finding out that both Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. were Republicans, I tend to deal only in facts and not with what I’ve been told.
Last Points
My former party, The Democratic Party says that they are for the “minority”. In this case, I’ll just say “blacks”. I believe in neither black nor minority but I defer to their thinking for this discussion. If that’s the case, then how could the following piece of history have been erased?
Ninety-nine percent of the country does not know the name Hiram Rhodes Revels. Here is his story and why the Democrats are not for “black” people.
At the end of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was captured and subsequently imprisoned for 2 years. Prior to this time period, Mr. Davis was a Senator from the State of Mississippi. In 1870, the State of Mississippi filled the vacant post of Mr. Davis with one Hiram Rhodes Revels. The curious fact behind this exchange is that now Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels did not only replace the President of the Confederacy, but he was also the First Black Senator in U.S. History…and virtually nobody knows his name.
One last point to explain this lack of universal knowledge…Jefferson Davis, The President of the Confederacy was a Democrat and his replacement, Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels, was a Republican. Democratic leadership today will never share that history with their constituents of which I once was. That led me to believe that the Democratic Party is more interested in my vote than the Truth.
It gets bit deeper. 13 former slaves became members of Congress between 1870 and 1901. We as a nation killed our own citizens in a Civil War to FREE 4 Million slaves. 13 of those freed slaves became members of the U.S. Congress and the history books are silent to this fact. 640,000 Americans died in that war and the result was transformational yet, this groundbreaking and profound history is never taught in “left” leaning schools because it does not serve their agenda. All 13 of the former slaves were Republicans. I had to sift through the Library of Congress to reveal the following information…here it is for you in a video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5O2IVfz8a0
My belief is that the Party’s did not change. The tactics changed. They went from Pro-Slavery to Pro-Segregation to Pro-Entitlement, all of which results in nothing beneficial for the prosperity of an individual and is considered by many of my ilk, “Plantation Politics”.
All I want is the Truth and to be treated as an equal, no more and no less; as an equal. I do not need the Democratic Party telling me that I’m “black” or that I’m a minority who needs their assistance. I am not a color. I am Frantz Kebreau, an American Citizen.
For the Democratic Party, it has always been about “Control” over Freedom. Keeping the Truth from it’s constituents in order to maintain control over them is not what I want from my “Party”
Frantz Kebreau
CEO, Stolen History
Author of Stolen History
www.Frantzkebreau.com
If you would like more information, please take a look at the “Stolen History” Book and Audio versions at the link below.
http://frantzkebreau.mybigcommerce.com/index.php
“The Truth Shall Set You Free!!”
_________________
The first step in winning is believing you shall…
President and CEO
Tom Cat Corporation
CASH FOR KLUNKERS
The person who calculated this bit of information is now and has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last forty some years.
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will ruduce gasoline consumption by 320 per year per vehicle.
The Gov. claims 700,000 clunkers have been replaced so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates toa bit over 5 hours worth of US gas comsumption. More importantly, 5.333 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $373 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $373 million dollars.
We, or should I say our government spent, $8.04 for every $1.00 saved.
Do you think they'll do just as well with the Health Care Plan?
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will ruduce gasoline consumption by 320 per year per vehicle.
The Gov. claims 700,000 clunkers have been replaced so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates toa bit over 5 hours worth of US gas comsumption. More importantly, 5.333 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $373 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $373 million dollars.
We, or should I say our government spent, $8.04 for every $1.00 saved.
Do you think they'll do just as well with the Health Care Plan?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)