Domestic Policy: November 2008 Archives

Censorship has many faces - and labels (via Newsmax Insider):

Barack Obama has said he won’t seek to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine requiring broadcasters over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views.

But he could instead mount a "far more dangerous attack" on free speech and conservative talk radio, a media watchdog discloses.

The tactic: Using a vague rule already on the books to threaten any radio station that airs conservative programs with the loss of it broadcast license, according to Jim Boulet Jr., founder of the Web site KeepRushontheAir.com.

The Federal Communication Commission rule in question is called “localism,” and it requires radio and TV stations to serve the interests of their local community — by covering local issues and providing an outlet for local voices — as a condition of keeping their licenses.

Writing on the American Thinker Web site, Boulet observes: “Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming,” such as Rush Limbaugh’s top-rated show.

In September 2007, Obama submitted a statement supporting localism to an FCC hearing.

The head of his transition team is John Podesta, whose organization, the Center for American Progress, issued a report last year complaining that there is too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urging the FCC to “ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.”

Podesta’s choice as head of the FCC’s transition team is Henry Rivera, whose law firm is also the former home of current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin — himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements, Boulet points out.

He warns that a single complaint from anyone can hinder a station’s license renewal process or even lead to the loss of the license.

To protect free speech and conservative talk radio, “station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own congressman and senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals,” Boulet urges.

“If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.

“This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican congressmen and senators will find it easier to fight back.”

Of course, "their own congressman and senators" are far more likely to be Democrats in the next Congress, and thus wholly sold out to the cause of repealing First Amendment protections from the center-right and not open to civil liberties "education".  And however motivated the pathetic, impotent Republican remnant is to "fight back," they simply will not have the numbers with which to do so.

But neither, I guess, did we have the numbers to "fight back" in 1993-94 against the Clinton/Donk health care juggarnaut, and we did anyway.  I just question whether we can muster the same leadership, and whether the Dems will make the same complacent mistakes.  I fear the jackboot will fall far harder and more decisively, to where even if it generates the same sort and magnitude of backlash, the irreparable damage will have been done.

The Enemy Within is not going to piss away another opportunity to once and for all communize America.  "Localism" will simply be another of the many propaganda deceptions under which they do so.

Click here.  The following is, in my opinion, the Newsmax piece's money shots:

1. A bailout would provide money only for short-term survival. It wouldn't alter carmakers' flawed business models. GM is running through cash at the rate of $2 billion a month. So $10 billion from the government would give it only five months’ breathing room. Can they turn over their business practices in that period? Please. The temptation would be simply to come back to taxpayers for more.

2. A government handout would allow the Big Three to avoid necessary cost cutting. Because of a strong union, the average GM employee received $70 an hour in combined pay and benefits last year. And it’s not just line workers who are making too much. GM chief executive Richard Wagoner garnered about $24 million a year in 2006 and 2007, while leading his company toward oblivion.

3. Bankruptcy isn’t all bad. It doesn’t mean liquidation. It means taking the painful steps the companies have been unwilling to contemplate to date. The real losers in such a deal are carmakers, equity shareholders and creditors [annnnnd Big Labor]. Bankruptcy would give the automakers the chance to throw out existing employee contracts with their onerous health and pension systems. The unions would be forced to temper their demands if they want the car companies to survive....

However, if the taxpayers are shafted with an endless series of bailouts, inserting the government further and further into ownership of the auto industry like they've already functionally nationalized the financial sector, Big Labor would not be forced into any retrenchment whatsoever.  And they will own Congress and the Brown House lock, stock, and French tickler.  Which is why though this bailout has died for now, it is inevitable next year.

Compare that to simply letting the "creative destruction" process of the free market work its omniscient "magic":

6. Big Three bankruptcies wouldn’t mean the end of auto industry in the United States. Foreign companies, which already have plants here, could pick up the slack and open new factories. Some 78,000 Americans already work for foreign carmakers, a number likely to rise in the wake of any U.S. automaker demise. The depressed South could benefit particularly from increased production of foreign auto companies.

7. Other industries have survived bankruptcy just fine. Most of the major airlines have spent time in bankruptcy, including United, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways. Their predicament looked particularly dire after 9/11. But the major carriers made it through. And to the extent that they suffered, low-fare competitors such as Southwest and JetBlue picked up the slack, often offering superior service in addition to cheaper prices.

That, gentlebeings, is the REAL "Yes, We Can!"  Tragic it is that sixty-eight million voters turned OUR back on it to follow a socialist charlatan instead.  God willing, they will be the ones who pay most of the economic price for that latest exercise of colossal foolishness.

I'm never quite sold on the notion of Dick Morris as a supposedly center-right commentator.  This is the guy that was the architect of Bill Clinton's presidency, after all.  At best, he's a mercenary -which I suppose all political consultants are to a certain degree, but he long ago abused the privilege - and at worst, he's Fox News' version of David Gergen.

But if what he reports in this column is correct, George W. Bush may be the twenty-first century Herbert Hoover after all:

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan Administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.

Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.

According to the Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations."

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices.

The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

So much for the implications for national sovereignty and economic growth; now to their political counterparts:

Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government!  The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to.  George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union.  In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe....

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush? 

How much you wanna bet Red Barry will figure out a way to use this as his PR deflector shield against the dark economic times to come?  And how much would you wager that ol' Toe-Sucker himself won't find a way to get on Lucifer's payroll before it's all said and done?

Another public service announcement from the Hard Starboard Radio Network....

~  ~  ~

Since the 1970s, Detroit's Big Three auto makers have failed to keep up in the competitive auto industry.   High labor costs and inflexible work rules, as well as a failure to overcome negative consumer sentiments have combined to bring the Detroit-based auto manufacturers to their knees. Now they are begging the federal government for a bailout to the tune of $75 billion!

Take Action Now and send a message to Congress and the president that taxpayers should not have to pay for decades of bad business decisions by the Big Three auto makers.

Ten years ago the Big Three posted a combined profit of over $16 billion dollars.  But management failed to wisely invest these profits.

The Big Three are heavily weighed down by irresponsible labor costs.  The problem in the auto industry is caused by unrealistic union contracts written decades ago.    These contracts did not give the industry the flexibility it needed to respond to market changes and burdened the industry with legacy costs. But if Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have their way, the taxpayers are going to get stuck with the costs of Big Labor's demands!

General Motors is leading the call for the $75 billion taxpayer bailout, speeding up the $25 billion loan program to develop fuel-efficient vehicles, $25 billion in general support to keep the companies operating, and $25 billion to bailout promises to union benefits.  

A GM-funded grassroots campaign is even threatening us with blackmail.  They are saying, "We can loose $25 billion now, or lose $156 billion later."  They want to make their problems our problems.   They claim "domestic auto production would fall to zero" - as if suppliers and other profitable manufacturers would not adjust.

It is time to draw the line in the sand when it comes to federal bailouts. So far, the forgotten man, the middle class U.S. taxpayer, has had to bail out Wall Street, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We are sick and tired of having to pay for the recklessness of others, and we are not going to take it any more.

Take Action Now and let the politicians know how you feel about this latest government bailout. The Senate vote is likely this week and if we speak loudly with one voice on this issue, perhaps we can put an end to the madness.

Thanks for your continued support for lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

Sincerely,

Another public service announcement from the Hard Starboard Radio Network....

~  ~  ~

Do you believe that liberals already dominate the media?

Do you think biased coverage played a large part in the outcome of the presidential election?

If you think things were bad in that regard...

IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE ALLOW LIBERALS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THEIR PLANS TO IMPOSE THE SO-CALLED FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND SUCCEED IN SILENCING CONSERVATIVE TALK-RADIO HOSTS LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY AND LAURA INGRAHAM!

Do liberals actually believe that conservative opinions are pornography?

Are liberals so threatened that they're plotting and planning right now, at this very minute, to silence conservative thoughts and opinions from the public airwaves? 

You be the judge.

FOX News asked Senator Chuck Schumer if liberals in Congress will try to implement the so-called Fairness Doctrine - a measure specifically designed to shut down Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and conservative talk radio. 

Schumer replied indignantly:

“Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television or radio." 

Huh? No, it's NOT a joke! And he didn't stop there. 

Schumer nastily admonished decent Americans for some imagined hypocrisy:

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.... That’s not consistent.” 

It's almost beyond belief. 

We couldn't have made it up!

Is Schumer so unhinged that he's not even capable of understanding the fundamental difference between smut and political expression?

Craig Parshall, general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters said:

"I was stunned by Senator Schumer’s suggestion that by keeping filth off the air, the federal government has somehow become empowered to take over the control of legitimate programming content of broadcasters."

But Parshall missed one very important point.

With control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Schumer and his liberal colleagues are twisting the First Amendment’s guarantees of Freedom of Speech and of the Press – ALL TO SET THE STAGE TO SILENCE RUSH, HANNITY AND OTHERS.

If you're a liberal, you can burn the flag, put four-letter-word bumper stickers on your car, commit lewd acts on-stage, play profane rap music loudly on your car radio, produce, rent and distribute the most disgusting filth in broad daylight and on the Internet in plain view of minors and even use taxpayer dollars to depict Jesus suspended in bodily waste.

But when it comes to shutting down conservative thoughts and opinions, now that they have grabbed the reins of power, liberals are making control over the content of speech a top priority!

They're plotting and maneuvering behind the scenes to make it happen RIGHT NOW!

Peter Kirsanow writing in National Review Online tells us why this fight is URGENT:

"Imposition of some form of the Fairness Doctrine likely will be one of the Democrats' agenda items for the first 100 days of the new administration. It's important that conservatives begin working now to stop it."

Kirsanow went on:

"Waiting until Inauguration Day to get geared up is too late. By that time the Fairness Doctrine Express will be at full steam — wavering Democrats will be pressed to support the new Democratic president, weak-kneed Republicans will want to display comity, the mainstream media will not be saddened to see talk radio annihilated and much of the public will be too enraptured by Obama's Camelot inauguration to notice or care."

Kirsanow is right.

There is not a moment to lose. If we take a stand now, we can defeat this threat to our civil liberties.

If we wait, it will be too late.

Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.

We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.

We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinenmii.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

"Congress Shall Make No Law..."

You might think it's almost beyond belief, but our Founding Fathers understood and dreaded the danger we presently face.

They feared the danger to such an extent that they ratified, as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, words they thought would be our primary line of defense against the government evolving into a tyranny that would trample on the rights of the people.

To them the danger was real:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...."

It was not a fluke that the above words came first.

Our Founding Fathers knew that all of our rights flow directly from those fundamental liberties.

And they knew that once the government began eliminating our First Amendment freedoms, all of our other rights would fall like dominoes.

Despots in the modern era knew it as well.

Gaining control of the media is typically the first act of a leftist usurper.

When Castro took power in Cuba, he imprisoned journalists en masse and continued to do so throughout his regime, holding those who opposed him indefinitely without charges. When Josef Stalin returned from exile in March of 1917 he immediately assumed control of an underground publication founded by Leon Trotsky called Pravda (which, ironically, translates as "Truth") and made it an official arm of the Soviet Communist Party. Pravda became and remained the chief propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party until it was shut down in 1991 by Boris Yeltsin. Subscription to Pravda was MANDATORY. Immediately after assuming power in 1933, Adolf Hitler placed Joseph Goebbels in charge of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. All journalists, writers, and artists were required to register with the ministry.

But this is the United States where, unfortunately, such strong-arm tactics are not necessary because liberals already control the media, EXCEPT for conservative talk radio.

Kirsanow again:

"Talk radio is the most important medium conservatives have. It's the only medium conservatives dominate. But liberals aren't content to have only NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, Newsweek, Time, the NY Times, Washington Post, Hollywood, etc. Stray conservative thoughts might escape into the population, you know."

CNSNews quoting Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland:

"The government 'has the responsibility' to make sure there are a 'variety of opportunities for people to get information,' said Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday."

"Variety of Opportunities"... ?

Without conservative talk radio THERE IS NO "VARIETY"... period!

It's simple. No conservative talk radio means there is no voice of dissent. No voice of dissent means no free speech and no free speech means that nothing stands in the way of those in government who wish to oppress the governed.

Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.

We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.

We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinenmii.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

How It Works...

The sad truth is that liberal elites in the media and in government are totally oblivious to concepts like freedom and fairness and balance. 

Their ONLY agenda is to control all debate, opinion and political discourse.

And the so-called Fairness Doctrine is their means to achieve that end. 

How, you ask?

Years ago the Fairness Doctrine was simply policy at the FCC. 

Bill Ruder, John F. Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, spelled it out:

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." 

Former Reagan Budget Director James Miller put it another way:

"Put yourself in the position of the broadcaster: your very existence is dependent on the FCC's renewing your license every few years. And the FCC says you must offer 'balanced' programming. What does this mean?"

To put it another way, what do you suppose stations would do if they had to provide "balance" to Rush and Hannity and Ingraham AS DICTATED BY NANCY PELOSI and Charles Schumer? 

Say good-bye to conservative talk-radio.

Make no mistake, the racket you'll soon be hearing in Washington will be the ker-blam of the wrecking ball, battering down freedom of speech in America, as Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid use the so-called Fairness Doctrine to reduce the First Amendment to rubble and haul it away in dump trucks.

Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.

We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.

We can win this fight. It only takes forty Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinenmii.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

It Is No Secret.

Liberals in Congress have been trying to shut-down conservative talk-radio for years. 

It's the first item on their agenda!

Here's a quote from Senator James Inhofe recounting a conversation he claims he heard between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hillary Clinton:

"They said we've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists.... There's got to be a legislative fix for this..."

Here's former Vice-President Al Gore, unable to squelch his contempt for conservative talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular:

"[T]hen immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves."

Here's Michael Ortiz, a spokesman with the Obama campaign, explaining why Barrack Obama believes the so-called Fairness Doctrine does not go far enough. Pay particular attention to the code words:

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible, that is why Senator Obama supports media ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Here's a quote from Senator Richard Durbin, the man who compared our brave men and women in uniform to "NAZIs," but had to begrudgingly apologize after being called on the carpet by conservative talk-radio hosts:

"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

Here's Senator John Kerry attempting to advance the idiotic fantasy that conservative opinion dominates the media and liberal opinions are not heard:

"I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there... one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views."

And here's Senator Dianne Feinstein equating shutting-down the opinions of the minority with fairness:

"I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness."

Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.

We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.

We can win this fight. It only takes forty Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinenmii.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Our Side Knows The Score As Well.

Here's President Bush:

"By insisting on so-called balance, [liberals] want to silence those they don't agree with. They know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas."

Here's Martha Zoller, writing for the Business & Media Institute recounting a quick Q and A with Nancy Pelosi a few months ago:

"The do-nothing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week that she supports reviving the Fairness Doctrine... When pressed further on whether she would allow the Broadcaster Freedom Act to repeal the Fairness Doctrine permanently, Pelosi said, ' No... The interest in my caucus is the reverse.'"

Here's Cliff Kincaid with Accuracy in Media quoting the Democratic Platform; as with the statement from the Obama campaign, pay particular attention to the liberal code words:

“'We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,' the Democratic platform says."
And finally, David Limbaugh sums it all up:

"The left supports campaign finance reform, the Fairness Doctrine and other policies allegedly aimed at ensuring that both sides of the political argument be aired. But it's a colossal fraud. Can you imagine what would be in store for political speech in this country if liberals resumed regulatory control of the airways? I can and am horrified at the prospect; and you should be, too."

The time to act is now.

Pelosi, Schumer, Reid and other extreme-liberals in Congress will move quickly... possibly any day now.

When they're done, the First Amendment might as well read:

Congress shall endeavor to make laws disrespecting establishments of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.

We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.

We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm. But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinenmii.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

Yours In Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org

We laughed at his "We don't need to drill if we just keep our tires inflated" gaffe; we scoffed at his "Luddite" anti-energy platform.  Now, on Election Eve, another long-lost dose of Barack Hoover Obama energy policy "straight talk" surfaces.

Somehow, it just doesn't seem all that humorous anymore:

Patterico and Beldar have a fuller transcript:

“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal — I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”

No coal?  No nuclear?  We already know he won't drill for domestic oil and that he sure does want to "pick the winners" of his energy policy sweepstakes ("renewables") by requiring that ten percent of our energy come from those sources in just the next four years.  The only way that outcome can practically be achieved is by reducing the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.  A greenstremist/global warming fetishist cap & trade scheme that would bankrupt the coal and nuclear industries would fit into that equation quite nicely.

We also know that Lucifer wants to reduce U.S. electricity demand by a whopping 15% by 2020.  His blueprint for that "achievement" was also offered in this same San Francisco Chronicle interview:

What's the most effective way to depress demand for a product?  Make it ruinously expensive.  Plus, as an added bonus, it would provide the ruling Donk junta with another gift-wrapped excuse to demonize the "greedy profiteering" of whatever scattered segments of the energy sector that had not yet been nationalized - and set the stage for rectifying that "oversight".  After which would follow even bigger shortages, as the Lord Barack and his party bulldozed America technologically (if not politically) back to the eighteenth century.

How do you sell the American public on getting gouged for eight trillion dollars over the next dozen years for a purported technological payoff that will be unaffordable by definition and an even more dubious climatological payoff that was a hoax to begin with?  Simple - you don't tell them before Election Day, only after which you reveal your "plan to radically transform our entire economy as part of some enviro-utopian pipe-dream."  And by "transform," you mean "disembowel."

Good thing Barracuda was paying attention:

Responding to the discovery of an audio tape of an old Barak Obama interview Sunday, Sarah Palin accused the Democrat of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry,” as she campaigned through the coal regions of Ohio.

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he's comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”

The audiotape Palin referred to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a January 17 interview and uncovered by the Drudge Report.

“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin said, according to CBS News.

Someone in the crowd shouted, “Liberal media!”

“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”

That IS the role of a free press, actually.  Which is why freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment.  I doubt the Founders ever imagined a mass psychosis like Obamanationalism would ever completely subvert the "watchdogs of government" that are supposed to keep a sovereign people from getting bilked out of the Republic they bequeathed them.

Is this latest ought-be-devastating revelation too little, too late?  Or might it be the nail in Barry O's coffin?  We'll soon find out.

It isn't that Barack Hoover Obama doesn't understand supply and demand; it's that he doesn't believe in it.  He really believes that economic freedom doesn't work, markets are evil, and everything should "trickle down" from the federal government.

B.O. is an orthodox Marxist.  Take Mark Steyn's eloquent word for it:

As John Hood pointed out at National Review, communism is not “sharing.” In a free society, the citizen chooses whether to share his Lego, trade it for some Thomas the Tank Engine train tracks, or keep it to himself. From that freedom of action grow mighty Playmobile cities. Communism is compulsion. It’s the government confiscating your Elmo to “share” it with someone of its choice. Joe the Plumber is free to spread his own wealth around — hiring employees, buying supplies from local businesses, enjoying surf’n’turf night at his favorite eatery. But, in Obama’s world view, that’s not good enough: the state is the best judge of how to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around.

The Senator is a wealthy man, mainly on the strength of two bestselling books offering his biography in lieu of policy and accomplishments. Many lively members of his Kenyan family occur as supporting characters in his story and provide the vivid color in it. But they too are not merely two-dimensional cartoons. His Aunt Zeituni, a memorable figure in Obama’s writing, turned up for real last week, when the dogged James Bone of the London Times tracked her down. She lives in a rundown housing project in Boston.

In his Wednesday-night infomercial, Obama declared that his “fundamental belief” was that “I am my brother’s keeper.” Back in Kenya, his brother lives in a shack on twelve bucks a year. If Barack is his brother’s keeper, why couldn’t he send him a ten-dollar bill and near double the guy’s income? The reality is that Barack Obama assumes the government should be his brother’s keeper, and his aunt’s keeper. Why be surprised by that? For twenty years in Illinois, Obama has marinated in the swamps of the Chicago political machine and the campus radicalism of William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. In such a world, the redistributive urge is more or less a minimum entry qualification.

The government as wealth-spreader-in-chief was not a slip of the tongue but consistent with Obama’s life, friends and votes.

A vote for Barack Hoover Obama is a vote for permanent economic depression and a permanent energy crisis.  It's that simple.

"Never find out," indeed.