Ed Rogers: ‘Obama wants to punish America for its wasteful past. But of course, the rules don’t apply to him and his family’

GOP strategist Ed Rogers writes in the Washington Post:

I believe the president is ideologically motivated when it comes to global warming. He believes American lifestyles are unnecessarily wasteful and that we should temper our ambitions and adopt a lifestyle more to his liking. Essentially, it would suit him if we all lived in a college town and rode a bicycle. Also, I believe part of the president’s motivation for his pointless act is punitive. Obama wants to punish America for its wasteful past. But of course, the rules don’t apply to him and his family. A life of large homes, private jets, big cars and cash payments from the oil and gas industry await him in his private life. Just ask former vice president Al Gore. Voters notice that Democrats have a blind spot to the hypocrisy that surrounds global-warming politics.

Read more…

3 thoughts on “Ed Rogers: ‘Obama wants to punish America for its wasteful past. But of course, the rules don’t apply to him and his family’”

  1. Obama is indeed the image of the New Puritans, who were the New Pharisees, who were the New Philistines, and so back to some Cro-Magnon equivalent, I’m sure. If we like it, it’s bad for us or the environment or God’s law or something. But no, his own lifestyle is going to be the same.
    To a core point: America’s past is not, in fact, wasteful. We have more efficient methods now than in 1950 or 1850 but the methods used at those times were, generally, the most efficient available to those innovators. And innovators they were: more effective appliances, transportation, agriculture, communications. And those 1850 and 1950 innovators owe their opportunities to the innovators of 1750 and 1650 and so on. Right back to the Cro-Magnon who used red on his cave wall and torqued off the Cro-Magnon equivalents of James Hansen and Barack Obama.

  2. It’s worthwhile to add here the three paragraphs preceding the above extract from Rogers’ opinion piece:

    On Tuesday, President Obama will announce his plan to increase everyone’s power bill. Or, as he puts it, “a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it.”

    If you accept the science of global warming, then you accept the fact that the president’s unilateral action on climate change will have absolutely no effect in terms of adjusting the global thermostat to a temperature Obama finds desirable. The rest of the developing world, anchored by India and China, are building carbon-burning factories, power plants and even whole new cities that will overwhelm any new rules the president may impose on Americans and our struggling economy.

    Other recent events confirm the president’s isolation and his lack of advisers who will challenge his biases, but even in this extreme isolation he must know his actions will have no effect on the Earth’s climate. So why is he taking this step — especially now, when our economy is so fragile? Driving up the cost of energy will, at the very least, add stress to U.S. households and further erode U.S. manufacturing.

    This helps to put into even better perspective not only the vicious stupidity of Michelle’s Metrosexual Meatpuppet but the utter futility of his arrogant, overweening, lawless violation of Americans’ unalienable individual rights to their lives, their liberties, and their property.

  3. One idea, and it has some merit, is that this kind of action will push more people into needing subsidies of many kinds (I recently got a look at the subsidy schedule for DemBamaCare and it’s far worse than I thought). Those on subsidies tend to vote for those who support subsidies. As Glenn Reynolds says, “They’ll turn us all into beggars because they’re easier to please.”
    Those who would trade essential liberty for energy assistance deserve neither liberty nor energy assistance. And in the end, they won’t have either.

Comments are closed.