Obama implies the federal government or world government should regulate how much we eat, what we drive, how we heat our homes
Posted on May 18th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Republican Party, food, police state, Barack Obama, bureaucracy, collectivism, conspiracy, Democratic Party, economics, elections, environment, federal government, free will, freedom, global warming, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, liberty, nanny state, Oregon, politics, prohibition, regulation, Senate, United States, USA, your rightsPitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
Sounds like more of this green globalization totalitarianism that the far eco-left has been pushing for years. I hear more and more Obama supporters comment that they like the guy but they really don’t know who he is or what he’s about and that worries them. Shouldn’t that be a prerequisite for supporting someone? You shouldn’t be second guessing your vote because you were too lazy to do research on the guy you’re helping put into power yet enthusiastically promoted before hand.
The more Obama opens his mouth the scarier he gets. It pains me to say this but given the reality of the situation… that we will likely have an even larger majority of Democrats in the House and Senate… I’m starting to hope that if one of the top 3 are to win… McCain wins in November just to provide some sort of conflict between the two branches. The two parties and in particular McCain and Hillary are very much alike… but they have to put on a show for those who believe they are in fact quite different. That show may be enough to help minimize the damage done. This in no way means I’d vote for that warmongering idiot. Just speculating.
3 Responses to “Obama implies the federal government or world government should regulate how much we eat, what we drive, how we heat our homes”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Could this be what he is reacting to? As for your headline, a little sensationalist don’t you think?
May 18th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
No. The headline says "implies" …. does he not imply that? Does he not have a record of wanting more power in the hands of international government? Yes and yes.
I don’t care what he’s reacting to. If it took this Indian-born researcher to get him to understand the link between our stupid policies and the world food shortage then he’s a bigger dope then I had thought. Ron Paul and others have been saying this for months if not years but none of them made comments implying that international government bodies or other nations would or should restrict our consumption. Our consumption has nearly nothing to do with that report anyway. She’s talking about subsidies and redirection causing increased demand raising prices. She first talks about the waste in "farm to fork" but I’d like to see exactly how she claims it can be done better. She sounds ("when things go awry on the unregulated world commodities markets as they have") like a typical greeny eco-liberal bitching about big-arga who wants everyone to grow tomatoes in on their apartment roof. I’d bet if current farm to fork methods were so expensive the market would figure out a cheaper method if possible. She, like Obama, make allusions to more and greater government control without outright coming out and saying it nor do they have a strong understanding of economics and the effects of interventionism.
And what the hell is wrong with ‘Land that once grew food or grazed cattle or sheep is now called upon to produce vast amounts of corn and other grains to be turned into ethanol,” she says. “To eat, these families now have to purchase what they once grew.’ in and of itself? So what? If they are making more money that way then growing something else…. I fail to see the problem. They are reacting to the market as it’s been manipulated. If the money doesn’t provide the same same quality of living that the food they used to grow did they fucked up and should go back to the old methods. Otherwise they are idiots. What has happened has nothing to do with unregulated markets and has everything to do with interventionist government policies.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I’m not going to defend the Indian researcher’s position, right or wrong. If India is willing to participate in trading directly or indirectly with the US, then it must live with the consequences. I think what Obama was trying to say is that by largely wasting resources, doing so by our relative position of wealth, we are pissing off the people at the bottom. Ie, acting like rich spoiled children. If you want to draw a line from "… That will not happen" to enacting hippie socialist bullshit, go ahead, you’re probably right. Personally I think Obama is chock full of feel good platitudes that suit his present audience. He isn’t the great speaker the MSM wants us to believe after all.