President Obama’s auto fatality gaffe

President Obama said some rather strange things during his appearance on The Tonight Show last week, but one gaffe in particular has flown low under the radar. While he was attempting to downplay the resurgence of al-Qaeda, the President said, “The odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately.”

This was before he came up with the idea of sub-dividing al-Qaeda into a bunch of little micro-divisions so he could claim he was telling the truth when he repeatedly claimed al-Qaeda was decimated and on the run during the 2012 campaign. Now he claims to have meant “core” al-Qaeda was on the run, but not New al-Qaeda, Diet al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda Classic, Cherry Vanilla al-Qaeda, or al-Qaeda Plus. On Leno, he seemed more interested in assuring us there was no reason to panic about terrorism, which explains why it’s important for the National Security Agency to monitor the electronic communications of everyone in America.

For a smooth orator, Obama’s delivery of that line was awfully clumsy. It’s unfortunate that more people aren’t killed by terrorists? I suspect late-night comedians would have made George Bush pay for dropping a lead balloon like that. But of course, Barack Obama will never have to worry about widespread mockery for his gaffes.

Clearly what he was trying to say is that more people die in car accidents that terror attacks, and it’s really unfortunate that so many people die in car accidents. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated just over 34,000 traffic fatalities in 2012, a five percent increase over the previous year. That’s a lot of fatalities, and it is indeed most unfortunate. It’s rather facile to compare terrorism on U.S. soil to such a death toll. We are routinely instructed by President Obama and his media allies to panic over far lower body counts from a variety of other sources.

But the other grating thing about the highway-fatalities gaffe is that lighter cars from elevated fuel standards are a significant factor in automobile deaths, and President Obama is four-square in favor of such elevated standards. He often brags about imposing higher fuel-efficiency standards, even though the auto sales industry has expressed concerns about how sticker shock from meeting these standards will reduce consumer demand. Larry Bell at Forbes put it bluntly in an August 2011 article entitled “New Auto Fuel Economy Standards Will Regulate Us to Death:”

These changes will have important safety ramifications. A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that every 100 pounds of weight taken off a car weighing more than 3,000 pounds increases the accident death rate slightly less than 5%, and the rate increases as vehicles become lighter than that. Two years earlier a National Academy of Sciences study estimated that CAFE standards at that time were responsible for as many as 2,600 highway deaths in a single year. A 1999 study conducted by USA Today applying federal government Fatality Analysis Reporting System Data attributed deaths of 7,700 people for each additional mpg mandated to meet CAFÉ regulations.

And that’s even before we consider the dangers of sending people into inclement weather conditions while driving tiny, unreliable electric cars. You really don’t want to be stuck on a lonely winter road in sub-zero temperatures when your electric-car battery dies. On the bright side, they’ve been known to burst into flames on occasion, so that would at least keep you warm for a while.

This is one of many examples of government policies presented as an unalloyed, nearly cost-free boon to the people, by hiding the true – and sometimes very “unfortunate” – costs, or passing them off as “unintended consequences” that nobody could have foreseen, even though plenty of critics foresaw them. Perhaps the American people would decide that more fuel-efficient cars and reduced pollution are worth a certain number of traffic fatalities every year, but the question is never put to them with such brutal honesty. We may be confident that Obama’s “if it saves just one life” standard, unveiled when he was pushing for gun control legislation, will never be applied against anything he supports, from increased CAFE standards to abortion.

I have an Irish friend a bit like Obama, but it is humorous because he admits it and knows he is like that, while all of us make fun of him as part of the piece of entertaining each other. It’s like he is persuaded everything is just absolutely fine with himself even when he is utterly miserable and completely stupid.

See, “Obama is not boring, it is Putin who is behaving like a bored child”. They insult and take custodies against others like this, all the while they may have zero custodies and are obvious total b!tches and idiots to their interlocutors or group of friends who use them to make fun of them. It’s like the response is “yeah, sure, how about you go clean my truck now” and goes out and does what the group tells him to do. It’s the level of self delusion, but to the amazement of those who know him, he always manages here and there to snooker someone or some girl at a bar into his shallow narcissistic bull crap. I suppose liquor factor is what makes those girls impressed, while we all know he is just the butt of the joke of whatever group really knows him.

Interestingly my friend was in and out of juvenile courts and somewhat neglected when young, and even suspected of having a thing for men or men’s cosmetics, as if he probably was molested and just repressed that part.

Thus, even if gay, he’ll think he is a man for women and vice versa and will boast about that. Obama seems to be a typical person who lives with a heavily repressed mind and who loves liquor, “always winning”, even when at his worst in terms of relationships.

This brings one to other bilingual people in America. I have another Mexican friend who is a total joke in Mexico, but no one in America knows how much of a joke he is. He always seeks to rise in the ranks of Mexicans, acting like he can be gangster and snooker Americans for them. He will use his ability to translate and play one side against the other that way. So, he’ll act to his Mexican family now that he has all those American connections, while acting to Americans that he is the top bad a$$ Mexican in Mexico, when all Mexicans have no respect for him.

This is the Marxist gamer. He suddenly finds a niche where he can game things for himself, despite being a total wretch and incompetent being. He always hides at the border fence and manipulates sides. It is how he or she rises temporarily or in key manner in ranks. The diplomatic corp is heavily infestated with this kind of people.

Obama is supposed to look like he is this great bridge between whites and blacks and globalisticaly between foreigners and America, when in fact he is used and uses the whole thing to trash us and make himself look good. I still do not understand what we hope to accomplish with him in terms of global trade, because more and more take us less and less seriously, except the most backwater idiotic Kogelo tribes of this planet.

They are back stabbers. They will cry one day for mercy, and the next you forgive them, they will aggrandize themselves, take your job and totally lie and destroy whoever helped them. Oprah is also known to having been helped by white people to rise in fame only to turn on the people who helped her rise.

Their “power” is of holding a few keys to the house and being given these keys, and that is very scary, because they will use these keys to make others look incompetent and tyranically destroy their abilities to excel in relationships, cares and jobs.

It is most irritating in AMerica that more and more people seem to fall for this kind of key holder. Take the keys from them, and they would fall apart. But apparently there are powers of manipulations of greed or what not out there which want the management to be accomplished that way.

We cannot let them do it. We have to make demands of respect and communications. We cannot let these people get away with “mistakes” or “incompetences” and their ways of empowering themselves over us with these lies and get aways like this. We must demand recognition of our accomplishments and talents, without alienating people around.

The key is when they say they make mistakes or that we cannot communicate. That is a dead giveaway that they are trying to get away with keeping us down while completely incompetent themselves at getting the job done correctly. They want recognition for a job they cannot do and make us admit we cannot do that job, signing this or that paper of admitting incompetence. We cannot let them do this to us or persuade the rest of that. It’s complete catastrophe for everyone involved. Unfortunately, at the interview, a lot of BS is involved and BS artists are what are sought. No one of real seriousness is ever contemplated, unless a point is made at the interview. This is when smart lawyers can be involved. But there again, with some lawyers, you have the smart ones and the smart a$$ ones acting as key negociators when in fact they back stab and rise through ranks that way in companies and government.

And that disease of law school shtick is very depressing in America and has given us through Harvard BS school the like of Obama.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.