It segues well with this, wherein he talks about "price signals", a fancy word for screwing upper middle class people on their energy bills for the sake of the planet and their less fortunate neighbors:
Notice he says "per unit", suggesting the government could set income level pricing that would force higher wage earners to subsidize energy for the low earners, just like his proposed tax plan. A subsequent clip indicates the prices would skyrocket but again he's made it clear the lower classes wouldn't pay, so that leaves no doubt about who he thinks should fund our response to global warming. Kinda puts that paltry middle class tax cut he's throwing out in perspective--it's akin to a bone thrown to a dog on the verge of being caught by the dogcatcher. He's playing people for suckers.
Any cap and trade scheme would not only affect the mining industry--have you noticed all the recent TV commercials for railroads? Two eastern lines, CSX and Norfolk Southern, are ad-blitzing with images touting their fuel efficiency, something that hasn't changed in well, forever. Suddenly it's vital for the general public--most of whom will never ship a single parcel of freight on a railroad in their lifetimes--to understand the fuel efficiency of steel wheels on steel rails? What other reason could it be than coal?
Both these railroads have extensive coal business in the east (Kentucky, Illinois, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc) and make a lot of money from carrying it:
But the eastern coal is of much higher sulfur content than western coal from the Powder River basin, therefore it tends to burn dirtier. If this isn't politically correct now with Bush/Cheney in office just imagine the pressure during an Obama regime when the global warming juggernaut gets rolling. Sudden limitations in this business would likely have immediate deleterious effects on their bottom lines, stock prices, ability to obtain credit for improving their lines, and overall long-term viability. It would seem prudent for mining and rail workers be afraid of Obama, right?
Is so, they sure ain't showing it. Both are highly unionized and many of their members support Obama. Indeed, the United Mine Workers heartily endorsed the same man who's now on record as threatening to bankrupt people who attempt to invest in new business for the companies that employ them. The endorsement was so strong it reads like an Obama web commercial. And here's a thank you note from Obama to the UTU, United Transportation Union for their endorsement.
Certainly not a man bites dog thing; unions endorse Dems in almost every election. Both organizations probably feel their memberships' lives will improve under a nanny-state leader versus a supply side guy but maybe the true reason is a bit more stealthy. The "Employee Free Choice Act" has the potential to expand union power and membership, through intimidation tactics if necessary and Obama strongly supports this bill, of course.
Yet he also strongly supports cap and trade schemes that will undoubtedly lead to alternative energy sources replacing coal, threatening miners and railroad workers. Hmm. Perhaps there is an understood wink-wink escape pod in play here--the obligatory government bailout or better yet, perhaps even nationalization of these industries should the collapse get bad enough. Precedent has already been set with the banks and credit markets and like them, mining and railroads are key industries that can't be allowed to fail.
Speaking of precedent, the government already has some history in running a railroad and Truman once seized the steel industry. But none of these instances included a man as liberal as Obama; a man with Marxist/socialist friends and upbringing coming into office vowing to change the world. Gee, Mao, Che, Marx, Lenin and others have also vowed to change the world, so the nature of the change is important.
Many are still trying to pin it down but McCain might have summed it up best in the final debate when he called Obama "Senator Government". Indeed, Barack believes there is a big government solution to everything, including changing the atmosphere. Why not just try to cool the sun?
Actually, climate change is like a modern drug to the ex-hippies and they want absolute moral authority ownership of the issue, for obvious reasons. Climate change trumps everything and excuses just about anything, such as confiscation of firearms or suspension of the Constitution. What's more important than saving the world, people!
And what's the culprit? Capitalism is the culprit. Ayers and Dohrn saw the monster in the early 70s and wrote about in Prairie Fire, suggesting an overthrow of imperialistic capitalism in favor of life-saving communism (ironically the communist government of China is now doing most of the emitting). Obama was only 14 when they wrote their manifesto but Ayers can be found on You Tube today saying essentially the same thing--down with capitalism--meaning he's still unrepentant. But, but, but, how does this relate to Obama?!
Well, if we had a compilation clip of all the things he's suggested to save the world in the name of global warming, economic justice, social justice, terrorism and lifting America's global image it might clear things up just a bit. By themselves his moments of candor amount to a sort of populistcicle and often seem quite rational. Taken together it's a framework; a movement; and quite similar to what these associated radicals believe.
His supporters might argue he's only trying to exhibit Christian principles of loving thy neighbor and taking care of the least among us. Don't we all want that? Of course. But the issue is HOW TO GET THERE. Conservatives (and most of the old white men who formed this country) believe in the power of the individual to achieve and give back while Obama believes in the power of the collective (from many, one; it takes a village) to provide and force giving. He wants the state to drive the opportunity train (feel free to make a cattle car analogy at this point) because left unattended racism and other bigotry will derail it. Only the state can truly be fair. And if that's not socialist-leaning, nothing is.
MORE 11/02/08
This is why conservatives like Palin. Girl got guts and knows how to hit back in a hurry.
No comments:
Post a Comment