The Middle is Always Evil

Barack Obama has announced his major Energy appointments, and the news isn’t good. Our new Energy Secretary under Obama will be a professor of physics at the University of Berkeley named Steven Chu. Liberals will be quick to point to his Nobel Prize as one of his strengths, but I will be quicker and point out that his Nobel Prize is in physics, which has nothing to do with energy policy. Despite the fact that climate science is not his academic expertise, Chu has made finding solutions to global warming into something of a “passion,” according to the New York Times.

What is his solution to the “problem” of global warming?

We need to alter the playing field with tax and fiscal polices… Developed countries have made this step with air and water pollution by enacting outright regulations and installing a cap and trade system.

Uh huh. So the new Energy Secretary has no plans on how to create new energy in the United States? Just more regulation and taxes on energy that we already have?

More:

Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

The new Energy Secretary is not interested in energy independence. In the strictest sense of the word, he is looking to foster a new energy dependence– not a dependence on foreign suppliers, like in the past. No, Chu’s new energy plan is to socially-engineer the American people towards a further dependence on the government. The state will decide what kind of cars we drive and how close we live together.

The media is taking much enjoyment in pointing out that Obama disagrees with Chu on gas taxes. Its true. In the past, Obama has opposed a raise in the gas tax, but it is likely that his reasons were rooted in political pragmatism (remember gas prices in the summer?). But now that he’s got the top job, Obama can appoint ideologues like Chu to high-level positions in his cabinet and let them make all of the hard decisions for him.

In addition to wanting to dictate to oil companies what they should charge for their products, Mr. Chu has referred to coal powered energy as his “worst nightmare,” and has said that even clean-coal technologies will not be enough. “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal,” he said.

Take a look at this graph of where our electricity came from in 2007. As you can see, coal power makes up about half of all of it. That’s a good thing; and Steven Chu wants a “solution” for it.

In summary:

This is breaking news via Gateway Pundit:

Obama is “confident” and Rham Emmanuel is… Under investigation?

Hopefully more will become availible on this as the day progresses…

Breaking:

Free republic is reporting the possibility of an Obama team connection to Blago-gate; apparently, when Blagojevich asked if Obama could push some clout around to get his wife placed on a paid corporate board, Advisor A responded that he, “thinks he could,” and that a “President-elect can do almost anything he sets his mind to.” The indictment names Rahm Emmanuel specifically as an advisor to the president elect; could he be Advisor A?

No matter who it is, the Obama team has been implicated; Obama now admits that a two hour long conference call took place between his team and the Blago-team about the Senate seat, and he has declined to out and out deny any wrong doing. He has, however, expressed “confidence” that there was none. This thing is obviously only beginning to unravel…

This morning, while my governor, Rod Blagojevich was being thrown into a paddywagon, “President-Elect” Barack Obama was meeting with Al Gore, since he is a man who knows things that an incoming president needs to know (apparently). After his meeting, Obama had this to say on the Blagojevich situation:

Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney’s office today, but as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time.

He also paused to make one thing clear about his contact with Blagojevich on the Senate-replacement:

I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, this video of David Axelrod was discovered immediately afterward:

Awkward.

And even though the Obama team has since released a statement saying that Axelrod “misspoke,” we still have to ask the question: What did Obama know, and when did he know it? Oh, I know, I’m terrible for asking questions about a senator’s relationship with the governor of his state, but don’t forget that Obama served as a top advisor to Blagojevich in his first 2002 run for the state house and endorsed him again in 2006.

Ask yourself this question: If the shoe were on the other foot and John McCain had won the election, and something of this magnitute came out about one of “President-Elect” McCain’s close associates and political ally’s, would the media be so generous to him? Ha!

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

President Obama can define his legacy in the first 100 days by laying the groundwork for a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions that is effective, efficient, equitable and enforceable. An effective, harmonized tax on C02 emissions must stabilize the growth of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs by no later than 2020. The tax must also be adjusted annually, by a global body, according to this objective.

I’m glad that I did not misunderstand Mr. Nader; for a moment I was concerned that he wanted the United States government to tax carbon emissions– I can take a small solace in knowing that under his plan, CO2 usage will be taxed by a foreign body that does not represent me. But don’t worry! You’ve heard of it; its called the United Nations! Who ever heard of “No Taxation Without Representation,” anyway?

Let’s get specific. What are your plans?

The most efficient way to apply a carbon tax is at a relatively small number of major carbon bottlenecks, which cover the lion’s share of GHGs. The key points where flows of carbon are the most concentrated include: trunk pipelines for gas, refineries for oil, railroad heads for coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals, cement, steel, aluminum and GHG-intensive chemical plants.

I’m not entirely sure, but what Nader is asking for here might be entirely without precedent. Nader is seriously suggesting that the United Nations send an army of bureaucrats into the United States. These men will busy themselves measuring the emissions of all of the above industries. They will then convene, most likely in secret, to decide exactly how high a tax they will impose on each industry, a figure which will be based on how much said industry has produced. This is something that Nader wants done every year.

In case you’re wondering what the goal of such a plan could possibly be, here’s this:

Nader’s final sentence:

If President Obama hits the ground running fast in the direction of a global carbon tax, he can usher in a new dawn that might finally make peace between man and climate.

Nader betrays himself. He views man and the environment in the same way that Karl Marx viewed the bourgeois and the proletariat. Oppressor, oppressed. There is nothing new about the environmentalist movement. Yesterday it was a Class Revolution, today it is the Green Revolution.

This is the new Marxism. These are the new Marxists.

Dear People of America,

It appears that The Economy™ is in some trouble.

Everyone (all of you) seems to be telling me that if The Economy™ had been more regulated by the government, there wouldn’t be a problem. If you believe that, I have a bridge to nowhere I want to sell you. In short, the problem is not that we have too little government interference, the problem is that we have too much. Please heed this.

Where do you get this idea that politicians, people who not have to do anything of value in order to earn money, have the incredible economic foresight and knowhow to enact the perfect regulations on The Economy™? Most of the men (and Nancy Pelosi) who are brokering The Failout are career politicians, who have no understanding of how the free market works, who have never run a business, or even worked for one for any considerable amount of time. These are the people you are entrusting to fix everything. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you.

If you honestly believe that our present situation is the result of the unrestrained “greed” of men on wall street (notice how its always men on wall street; of course, there are no greedy women), and that the government needs to step in and save us from them, then you deserve to lose your home and to be poor. 

Any group of people that honestly believes that The Economy™ is suffering because of productive individuals and needs to be saved by unproductive ones, who nominates Barack Obama to be head of state with John McCain as the conservative alternative, deserves to suffer their own contradictions, which means:

America, you deserve to be poor.

But ignore me. Let’s put every CEO and every member of every Board of Directors of every Fortune 500 company in prison tonight, after the debate, with Barack Obama at the head of the mob (John McCain can shoot any that try to escape). After all, they are all greedy, self-interested bastards who contribute nothing to the economy, right? They are only out for themselves, and in today’s economy, we can’t afford anyone who isn’t out to serve the greatest good.

Last night, Sarah Palin gave what was by all accounts an excellent speech.

This is a woman who, in the last week, has been the target of multiple, scurrilous attacks. The left wing press has made her into a pariah, a target upon which it can unload all of its hatred for conservatism. Much has been said, and it has been roundly speculated that McCain’s vetting process was anything but thorough. But between Palin and Barack Obama, can there be any question as to whose record has been more carefully examined by the media– by the American public?

Briefly consider the following facts, and ask yourself how many times you’ve heard about them in the mainstream press:

Obama, a black man, is a former member of a church that endorses Black Liberation Theology, a faith that believes that Christianity teaches us to free the “oppressed” through redistributing the wealth– the oppressed, in this case, being everyone who is black; this is a church that he attended for twenty years.

While visiting his father’s homeland, Kenya, in 2004, Obama met with and campaigned on behalf of fellow Lou tribesman and openly socialist Ralia Odinga, who is now the Prime Minister of Kenya.

Obama is a known associate of William Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist directly responsible for bombings on both the Capitol Building and the Pentagon; it is in that man’s home where Obama held his political coming-out party in 1995, when he first announced his candidacy for State Senator of Illinois.

Many are familiar with Barack Obama as a “community organizer,” but few seem to know what work he did specifically; Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project of the Calumet Community Religious Conference in Chicago, organizations based around the principles of the Communist writer, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky wrote a book called Rules for Radicals, which Obama says he read in college in his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope. Considered by many to be the Bible of bloodless socialist revolution, Rules for Radicals surely had an effect on the just-out-of-college Obama, considering that he went to work for organizations dedicated to the principles that were laid out in it. Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, recently said to the Boston Globe:

“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

According to Alinsky, Obama has learned his lesson well. What lesson, and from whom? The answer: how to affect “Change” as taught by an avowed Communist. This is how Obama earned his stripes– organizing.

When Barack Obama, the man who may quite possibly be the next Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, is free from the intense scrutiny that has been given to Sarah Palin’s seventeen year-old daughter’s romantic life, something is not right.

This post is best begun with a YouTube clip (be patient its a bit slow to load). Watch:

I have to point out the stark difference between Barack Obama’s bumbling, backtracking and general verbosity and John McCain’s conciseness of response– this difference is due in large part to the fact that while John McCain has principles (even though I disagree with many of them), Barack Obama has none– at least no consistent ones. But this is to be expected. John McCain has led a life of public service, and Obama hasn’t even finished his first term in the Senate.

If you watched the clip, you’d know that the Junior Senator said that answering the question of when a baby gets human rights is “above his pay grade.” In other words, he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know? A one-year old is a baby– does he have human rights? Of all the things that he could’ve said, this was the dumbest.

Strange words coming from the most liberal, pro-human rights candidate in history. Do you think the folks who presented him with the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award feel a bit… awkward?

But Obama has had plenty to say on the issue of Human Rights; here are some highlights.

At the Council on Foreign Relations in 2004:

In every region of the globe, our foreign policy should promote traditional American ideals: democracy and human rights

Yes, but how, under your leadership, can the US promote Human Rights when you don’t even know at what point people get them? Lets move on. At the ‘Citizen of the World’ speech in Berlin:

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe?

I don’t know Barry, how can we, under your leadership, if the question of whether they deserve them at all is ‘above your pay grade’?

But Obama did not think that it was above his pay grade in 2001 as a state senator, when he voted against the infanticidal Born Alive Infants Bill, which would require that a child that has been born and has survived an abortion to receive the same care as a child that was born prematurely; Obama would rather the baby be left to die. Ironically, Obama made substantially less money then than he does now: maybe his standards went up?

Perhaps Senator Obama does not realize that as president of the United States, he’ll be making decisions that effect the lives of millions of people, including the unborn. If that question is above his pay grade, then –in all seriousness– maybe he should apply for another job. If I had been Rick Warren, I would have stopped him before he continued into his bloated elaboration, and I would have asked him, “Senator, if its above your pay grade to answer that question, do you believe your daughters have human rights?”

My father has done quite well for himself in his life, the majority of which he has spent working. He started his own plumbing company, which is now one of the most successful on the northshore of Chicago; he did all of this himself. I have a lot of admiration for him.

Today, I had a rare conversation with my father. We often talk about politics, since he is the more conservative of my parents, and therefore has more in common with me; but our talk is usually filled with levity– it never takes on a serious tone. Today was different.

I asked my father how much money he makes a year. I thought I had a pretty good idea, but I wanted to be sure. The number that he gave me seemed very low– much lower than I thought, considering my family’s lifestyle. I asked my him if he was sure about the figure he gave me, and he started to talk to me about tax deductions; thats when I realized why the number seemed so low to me– he wasn’t talking about how much money he made each year, he was talking about how much he made after taxes. I asked him how much he really made each year.

“Why does that matter?” He asked.

It was at that moment, looking into my father’s tired eyes, that I realized that when the government takes money from him, it takes so much more than just monetary wealth– it takes a piece of my father’s pride; it robs him of the joy that comes from the achievement of a value. It takes a piece of my father’s spirit.

Just to come to the understanding that my father doesn’t look at how much money he earns each year in terms of how much wealth he was able to create, but rather– of what tax bracket he belongs in, to really understand the full implication of that fact– it truly saddens me.

And to come home and to talk to these people on the internet who are my age, who think they know everything, who talk about how much they are inspired by Barack Obama’s plan for “social justice,” who talk about how they find socialism “interesting,” who speak voluminously about their love for humanity…

I just think about looking into my father’s eyes in that moment.

Last night, the two remaining contenders for the presidency took the stage together for the first time in the election cycle. The event, as you probably know, was held at Saddleback Chruch in Lake Forest, California. All in all, this event showed us two things:

• Any casual observer learned (and probably already knows) that Barack Obama cannot preform well off-the-cuff, and that John McCain can; this means the debates between these two are going to be interesting, and that this election may be a lot closer than many of us previously thought.
• We also learned that both candidates despise their own happiness– or at least consider it something to feel guilty for, to try to hide from the public.

Case in point: when asked what his greatest moral failure was, Senator Obama mumbled something about drug use, but then went on to say that it was a “fundamental selfishness”

I am proud to say that what Barack Obama lists as his greatest moral failure is the thing that I would consider to be the greatest moral achievement a person could aspire to: selfishness.

When Pastor Rick Warren asked McCain why he wanted to be president, he said that he wanted to,

“inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self interest.”

For all their disagreements (and agreements) on foreign and domestic policy, these two candidates sure do come down together on the issue of whether or not Americans have the right to live for their own sake: the answer, firmly, emphatically, is: no.

John McCain is not the first politician that has called for a generation to bow to a cause greater than themselves; watch the clip. Barack Obama is not the first politician to call for a country that– like in the clip above– “knows no class distinction;” This is not a Change I can believe in– in fact, its not a change at all. Its been done before.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, the actors change, but the course of history stays the same.

John McCain wants you to serve your country; Barack Obama wants you to serve, not just your country, but an amorphous “others.” But what these men forget– or rather, what they do not forget– but instead, what you forget is that where there is a servant, there is a master, ladies and gentlemen.

And don’t comment saying that its inappropriate for me to compare modern day political figures to Adolf Hitler, because it isn’t; watch the video.

Besides, that’s just what I do: I compare people to Hitler.