by Tina Grazier
I’ve been in discussion recently with one of our friends on Post Scripts and we were not in agreement. I contended that this administration is destroying the nation. I am not alone in my thinking. Many people on my side of the aisle have speculated about whether the destruction or potential for destruction we see is being done out of ignorance, carelessness, or simply a love for big government control. We wonder at the Marxist nature of many of the things that are included in legislation and the some of the methods used for passing legislation. We notice the increased power being given to government agencies. We compare them to how the business of government is conducted in Marxist countries. A number of us have concluded that this is all being done on purpose…and that it will destroy the country.
A story I read last evening is one example of the kind of extreme overreach that is worrisome:
Last Thursday, the EPA revoked a permit it issued more than three years ago for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan Country, West Virginia citing the Clean Water Act ** Mingo Logan, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, obtained the permit in 2007 after a decade of review and costly analysis determined the project to be in accordance with the CWA. Since obtaining the permit in ’07, Mingo Logan invested $250 million in the project and hired 250 workers to begin construction and mining. The EPA ruling has brought the Spruce Mine to a standstill and will in all likelihood scuttle the project and the workers it employed. ** Employers are taking notice. Businesses, manufacturers, public works agencies, and energy producers are wondering if they could be the EPA’s next target. The threat of legal fees and rescinded building permits is enough to keep businesses on the sidelines deterring investment until the fog clears. ** Echoing this sentiment, West Virginia’s newly elected Senator Joe Manchin, said that the “EPA decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country’s history.” ** Equally disconcerting is the fact that the EPA has no clear authority to repeal permits once they have been properly vetted and issued.
Business is already finding it difficult to compete with the high tax structure in America compared to other countries. This move adds to their worries and concerns. Almost all forms of energy production have been scuttled, hampered or placed off limits by this administration. Some of the parts production in the solar industry has been sent to foreign countries like China and Australia and has been financed with stimulus money. Solar businesses have had to cut back on plans to expand because of the faltering economy. Without affordable energy not much business will get done. Without business very few will find jobs. The economy will remain sluggish or falter even more and prices for goods and services will go up.
If this is not being done on purpose then by what reasoning is this insanity being done? Anyone?
“A number of us have concluded that this is all being done on purpose…and that it will destroy the country.”
Can we please know the steps you took to reach those conclusions?
Are you saying then, that President Obama is purposefully destroying the country?
Are you saying that President Obama is intent on destroying the United States of America?
Can you tell us then, please, WHY Obama would want to destroy the United States of America?
I agree with you Tina – but, thats not really anything new is it? lol
Obama said he wanted to change this country.
Regarding Cap and Trade, he said it will greatly increase our energy bills, but wants it passed anyway.
Obama himself said he wants redistribution of wealth, remember Joe the Plumber?
I think this philosophy will destroy the country as we know it, but to him, probably not,
Q: Your civility is a welcome change. I confess I can’t help thinking that sarcasm is lurking behind every word.
First of all let me qualify my own statement by saying the country, as we’ve known it, will be destroyed. Obama would consider it improved. Thank you for helping to further clarify my opinion for our readers.
“Can we please know the steps you took to reach those conclusions?”
I didnt take any stepsI noticed and observed the man and his actions:
1. I noted Obamas influences and lifetime associations: Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Mendelson, Saul Alinsky and “Rules for Radicals”, Illinois Chapter of the Democrat Socialists America (DSA), William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, ACORN and others.
2. I researched his activism and record in Illinois politics and noted his belief in government over the individual to solve problems.
3. I witnessed remarks he has made off the cuff such as, spread the wealth around. He thinks in terms of the “collective and his congressional voting record was deemed the most far left.
4. I noted his legislative and policy agenda was based in big government power and control without regard to the people. His Stimulus Plan, Cap and Trade, Healthcare, and involvement in banking and auto industries expand the power of government and undermine private business. His actions against the energy industry have caused greater unemployment and will cause energy costs to go up affecting all Americans.
5. His policies oppress business, savings, and innovation and remove wealth from the private sector. The lower and middle classes will be stifled in their efforts to save and provide for their own futures or move up in terms of economic status.
6. He has used stimulus to expand and save government jobs. His stimulus targets sectors like wind or solar energy rather than stimulating the overall economy.
7. He does not think of America as exceptional or special and says as much in his speeches both here and when speaking abroad. He doesn’t promote exceptionalism favoring the mediocrity of the collective. He seems to favor U.N. (universal) power.
8. He governs by fiat using his czars and government organizations like the EPA to bypass the legislative process.
Im certain there have been more red flags but that should be sufficient. These articles are revealing:
http://www3.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
Are you saying then, that President Obama is purposefully destroying the country?
Obama thinks that we can force alternatives to the forefront and has failed to take a transitional approach to energy. He said himself that he would bankrupt the coal industry and that under cap and trade, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. See video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxnT5tHVIo
Given this and everything else I’ve mentioned its difficult to think otherwise. As my comments in the article above demonstrate business cannot thrive with high energy costs…or oppressive tax structures and regulation.
Can you tell us then, please, WHY Obama would want to destroy the United States of America?
Ideologically he would think he is contributing to the communist/socialist utopian idealor at least moving America decisively and swiftly in that direction.
Can you connect the dots bewteen expensive fossil-based energy and the destruction of America?
I am not sure how one would follow the other.
On the other hand, I could connect the dots between the spending of trillions of dollars and the destruction of four US military divisions with the destruction of America in pursuit of fossil-based energy far easier.
Perhaps if we invested trillions in alternative energy instead of giving it to Donald Rumsfiled and the other signatories of PNAC, we could tell the people who want us destroyed to choke on their damned oil.
There would be the added bonus of NOT having 40,000 US troops killed or maimed for life.
Wouldn’t that be better for the United States, Harriet?
I don’t want to get shot, Tina.
A man I deeply respect–and listen to–came up to me at the Farmer’s Market and said, “Watch your back, Quentin.”
I am deathly afraid of you TEA partiers.
You guys are unbalanced and dangerous.
You wrote that you did not take any steps.
So, you are saying you cannot make the logical conclusion.
Or, are you saying you did not choose to make the logical conclusion?
I’m afraid it is true Quentin. The Tea Party folks are armed to the teeth, and in some case their false teeth. Why just last week they had weapons qualifications for the TP ladies aged 70-90. Watch your back, there’s nothing more dangerous than a woman in her mature years armed with the Constitution and large handbag.
Q: “I don’t want to get shot, Tina.”
I don’t either Quentin, but I have the same concerns and have for a number of years now and I understand your concern completely.
Political expression involves a certain amount of risk. Character assasination is not my aim. I don’t hate Obama I just disagree with him profoundly. My life and business and the lives of my children are being compromised severly by the policies of this man. I can’t ignore his ideological underpinnings and beliefs.
I too recognize that really crazy people exist in our world. When politics is as divided as it is today the crazies stand out more than usual. I think the importance of this is worth taking a risk. I try to be reasonable when others are reasonable with me. I cannot help their prejudices when they read my words but I’m more than willing to clarify if given the chance. I pray that you remain safe and other of all political pursuasions remain safe.
“I am deathly afraid of you TEA partiers.”
That’s a shame Quentin. I am certain your fears are generally unfounded. Tea Party people are angry but not crazy and we are generally conservative…we honor the rule of law and have deep respect for life. You are no more a target from some nut than is anyone else and certainly not from the Tea party.
“You guys are unbalanced and dangerous.”
How do you know? What has brought you to that conclusion?
“You wrote that you did not take any steps.”
Other than researching, writing or posting articles to express my opinion and concerns I have not taken any “steps”.
“So, you are saying you cannot make the logical conclusion.” ** Or, are you saying you did not choose to make the logical conclusion?”
Obama policies will destroy the country if allowed to stand or expanded further.
As I write this you have commented once again. Your own irrational comments to Harriet make this entire exercise a complete waste of time. I thought you were ready to engage in discussion…I guess not.
Be well Q.
Jack not new…bigger faster…more intense!
Harriet: “Obama said he wanted to change this country”
Great point!
Lets look at what exactly he said because it makes a difference and is illustrative of the assertion that he wants to destroy America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – Candidate Barack Obama
Words mean things. Change: 1 : to make different: a : to make different in some particular but short of conversion into something else
Transform: to change completely or essentially in composition or structure; to change in character or condition; synonyms METAMORPHOSE, TRANSMUTE, CONVERT, TRANSMOGRIFY, TRANSFIGURE: these all signify in common to change one thing into another or different thing.
BIG DIFFERENCE! Obama qualified transform by adding the word “fundamentally”:
fundamental: serving as an original or generating source: being the one from which others are derived; serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function: forming the foundation on which something immaterial is built; of or extending or relating to essential structure, function
So we could say that Obamas statement meant that he wanted to make the US into a completely different place by changing the very foundational character and structures of our nation. This was received with loud ovation and cheers. It made me shudder.
Thanks Harriet.
How to “connect the dots bewteen expensive fossil-based energy and the destruction of America”
Another person who claims to know so much cannot connect dots? Oh dear!
There is a way to keep fossil fuel from being expensive..cap and trade isn’t the way. In fact it will make prices go higher. THE CONSUMER PAYS FOR EVERYTHING!!!
Why would anyone want to burden the lower and middle classes and all business with high energy bills, expensive food, and shortages due to the high cost of bringing goods to market. Make them high enough and there will be less competition…small businesses will fold. Making our energy expensive will destroy America for all of these reasons and it isn’t necessary. America has large reserves of coal, oil, and gas. America has the technological ability to build nuclear plants. America is innovative and can begin to employ alternative energies, however, these are not even close to becoming a majoe source for energy. SO WE NEED A BALANCE APPROACH…ALL OF THE ABOVE! The result will be low priced, plentiful energy to fuel the nation and a lot of JOBS!!! WE ALL WIN!!
DUH!!!
I heard someone say once that we are the only major nation in the world that denies ourselves our own natural resources.
Here in Northern California we have minerals, timber, oil, natural gas, you name it. But the people who it belongs to are not allowed by the Government to harvest it. How many people could be put back to work if we were allowed to make use of our own resources again?
My disclaimer: This is not intended to be or to sound like hate speech or inciting violence. I’m sure it will be accused of that anyway.
Steve, no one would accuse you of advocating violence, or hate speech, for what you just said.
I would accuse someone of advocating violence if they said, for example:
“Well now maybe you have a point. the left is so hard headed, disrespectful, unreasonable and authoritarian that taking up arms may be the only way to get the job done.”
Tina told me this yesterday, and in doing so, she gave me, Quentin, and everyone else in this country plenty of reason to be afraid.
Maybe I should add to the list…unreasonable, authoritarian, AND incapable of recognizing sarcasm.
I also said this: “Actually I think you were discussing it…if you call it that. I believe this discussion has devolved into a pi**ing match and frankly…I’m a bit bored.” (typo corrected)
Which was why I was being sarcastic.
Chris you’re one of the more rational debaters, I wouldn’t expect crazy accusations from you. But I do disagree, there are many on the left who would say my calling for increased mineral and timber harvest are violent. They prefer the phrase “raping of the earth” if I recall. They would also claim that the resulting pollution is an assault on minorities and the poor. Never mind my own belief that the best life expectancy boost you can give anyone is a JOB, which environmentalists seem intent on killing in this state.
The educated fool on this website today said that my grandmother’s Sarah Palin bumpersticker makes her more dangerous than a muslim terrorist. But I don’t consider that person to be very rational anyway.
Tina, I didn’t recognize your comment as sarcasm because it was so dangerously close to many of your actual, serious positions.
Plus, in my experience, the view that arms may be needed to taken up against the government sometime soon is not considered a radical opinion by the Tea Party any more. The idea of a second civil war has been heavily promoted by Beck and the like. It wasn’t all that out there to think you might seriously be considering it too.
Not that I think you would actually take up arms against the government for the petty grievances you have with the Obama administration…I believe that, at most, you were just letting off steam. But an unserious threat is still a threat. And it could lead someone else, who isn’t quite as sane as you, to do something crazy.
Steve: “They prefer the phrase “raping of the earth” if I recall.”
As I recall, Ann Coulter likes this phrase as well (and attributes it to the almighty God).
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”– Ann Coulter, “Hannity & Colmes,” 6/20/01
But you are right, there have been leftist environmentalist groups that have used similar language as well. Progressives who focus on feminist issues, such as myself, find this terminology as offensive and stupid as you do, no matter who’s saying it and what position they’re advocating. You can’t rape an object, and using that term to describe anything but actual rape just isn’t OK in my book. It trivializes actual rape.
“The educated fool on this website today said that my grandmother’s Sarah Palin bumpersticker makes her more dangerous than a muslim terrorist. But I don’t consider that person to be very rational anyway.”
If he said that, you absolutely shouldn’t consider him rational! May I ask whom you’re referring to?
Chris: “…it was so dangerously close to many of your actual, serious positions.”
If you will please, which of my positions do you find dangerous?
“…the view that arms may be needed to taken up against the government sometime soon is not considered a radical opinion by the Tea Party any more. The idea of a second civil war has been heavily promoted by Beck and the like. It wasn’t all that out there to think you might seriously be considering it too. ”
It’s not like secret messages have been intercepted or strange gatherings are being observed down at the grange. Get a grip.
I speculated that things could come to that in America…I did not say “sometime soon”. And I have told you, I do not follow Glenn Beck. I would have to ask someone who does their opinion on whether he promotes the idea of civil war sometime soon or merely speculates that it could eventually come to that.
The left is very touchy and quick to point fingers when it comes to language that falls from the mouths of the right wingwe are serious and dangerous and extreme. But you guysah shucks, youre just funning with us.
Chris you are attaching meaning, and especially emotion, to things I say that just isn’t there. I can’t do anything about it but I do feel a strong need to defend myself against false charges and innuendo.
Thanks Chris,
I think we can agree there’s been plenty of wild rhetoric from both sides and we all just need to work on doing a better job of debating without flying off the handle and alienating each other.
Tina: “If you will please, which of my positions do you find dangerous?”
I said that your (sarcastic, I guess) call to arms was “dangerously close” to your actual positions, not that those positions were in and of themselves dangerous.
Here is what you said:
“Well now maybe you have a point. the left is so hard headed, disrespectful, unreasonable and authoritarian that taking up arms may be the only way to get the job done”
Now, clearly you do think the left is “hard headed, disrespectful, unreasonable and authoritarian.” Given that your comment contained much of your actual beliefs, surely you can understand why it wasn’t clear that your conclusion was sarcastic.
If I or any other liberal had said that the government under Bush was so hard headed, disrespectful, unreasonable and authoritarian that taking up arms may be the only way to get things done, would you have shrugged this off as sarcasm, or would you have seen the statement as hateful and potentially threatening? Heck, if it were a Muslim or a Black militant saying something like this, it would probably be a featured video on Post Scripts. The sarcasm defense wouldn’t have flown.
I won’t argue this point any further, but I will encourage you once again to think through your words and how they might be interpreted. Obviously there will always be people who interpret things unreasonably, but I don’t think my interpretation of what you said was unreasonable at all. We are in the middle of a national debate about the role of violent language in political rhetoric, and people from both sides have encouraged that we tone it down. You don’t seem to have gotten anything from this ongoing conversation. I hope you will.
Chris: ” would you have shrugged this off as sarcasm, or would you have seen the statement as hateful and potentially threatening?”
Nope. I’ve heard that kind of yak from liberals for decades…people say a lot of things, especially inn the heat of disagreement/argument.
I asked about whether you found any of my positions dangerous simply because you used the word to qualify “close”.
Hardheaded, authoritarian, disrespectful and unreasonable are pretty bad descriptors. Being accused of starving old people or capable of inspiring or commiting mass murder is mild by comparison. I believe that is we began…and yes I’m still being sarcastic.
“We are in the middle of a national debate about the role of violent language in political rhetoric, and people from both sides have encouraged that we tone it down.”
Yes we have, haven’t we? Funny how “we” only have to “tone it down” when your side has just been kicked in the butt at the polls and has made complete asses of themselves making false accusations less that 12 hours after the shooting. SUDDENLY it’s time to tone it down. Well guess what? It hasn’t toned down and it won’t. In fact I imagine it will get worse; the election of 2012 has already begun.
“You don’t seem to have gotten anything from this ongoing conversation. I hope you will. ”
What was I supposed to get? That you can’t stand to hear words that sound dangerous…like target, or shoot for, or war room without thinking the shooting starts in fifteen minutes?
The left tried to USE the terrible, unfortunate, sad, heartbreaking event in Arizona to harm Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and others. They didn’t even wait till the blood had dried on the sidewalk. This was a tactic…a very heartless and tacky tactic, to damage the Republicans going into 2012. Instead I imagine they have further damaged themselves, hopefully pretty badly. Your own attempt to connect those dots is obvious.
I hope you will learn something from this exchange.