The War on Coal Is Really A War On Americans

Posted on December 19, 2014 by Tony Heller

Obama’s war on coal has no impact on skyrocketing global coal usage. Its only purpose is to hurt Americans

ScreenHunter_5336 Dec. 19 09.52

fuels_co2_emissions.jpg (940×709)

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The War on Coal Is Really A War On Americans

  1. Pathway says:
    December 19, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    The Marxist president is at war with the American people on every front. An the eunuch Republican party has abricated their constitutional duty of removing said president.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      December 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm

      The republican party is just the ‘Controlled Oposition’ to give the American people the illusion we actually run the country instead of America’s Ruling Class

      ….Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

      Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter…. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

      Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones….

      The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what.….

      … while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics. [This is why Rasmussen Reports show only 2% rate Congressional Performance as Excellent while 64% rate it as Poor.]

      Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled….

      Let’s hope that writer’s last sentence is correct. Meanwhile the Democrats via Amnesty and Community Organizers is doing their best to see that we have more Pauls than Peters. While making sure Peter is crippled and can produce less and less.

      “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw

      https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/piglets.jpg

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        December 19, 2014 at 4:52 pm

        The cartoon is from Question for Leftists: What Happens When There’s Nothing Left to Steal? by Dan Mitchell.

        Too bad none of the ‘looters and moochers ‘ have figured out what will happen after they finish killing of the host…. But then Leftist Useful Idiots don’t think they Emote.

        Reply
      • rah says:
        December 20, 2014 at 10:02 pm

        I would disagree. The Democrats are not the Harlem Globe Trotters and the Republicans the the Washington Generals. They trade roles to be sure at times. But also there are certainly definitive differences between the two.

        Do your really think that this would happen if the Republicans were in charge?:
        Top Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35% , an increase of 62 %
        Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6% , an increase of 13 %
        Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2% , an increase of 52 %
        Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28% an increase of 87 %
        Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6% , an increase of 164 %

        Do you really think that things would have played out the same in Iraq and Afghanistan if the Republicans were in charge?

        Do you really think that all the pure racist crap that the DOJ has pumped out the last 6 years would have happened if there was a Republican in the WH?

        Would Amnesty have been mandated by executive order with the Republican in the WH?
        How about the recent thing with Cuba?

        How about the insults to our traditional allies of the UK and Israel? Reaching out to talk to Iran with no actions to stop their nuc program?

        And in the realm of the topic of this blog. Would a Republican President have come out with all of this Climate stuff and allowed the EPA to run amok?

        There are plenty of other examples I could give Gail. And though I actually HATE the establishment Republicans because they are nothing but Democrat lite, the simple fact is that the conservative votes and influence that counts abides ONLY in the Republican party. it is nonexistent in the Democrat party and the Libertarians only steal votes from Republicans.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          December 20, 2014 at 11:15 pm

          RAH,

          I would agree if we had a decent presidental candidate like Eisenhower. But McCain really gave me the willies. Romney was better (at least he is sane) but he was still too close to a Democrat.

          Remember all the stuff that came out via Gruber about Romney as MA governor with the help of Ted Kennedy made Romenycare look viable by STEALING national tax payer money with the blessings of Bush. Would we be better off being boiled slowly or have the whole nasty mess front and center so normal people wake-up and start screaming bloody murder.

          I just hope we get an actually choice this time around. This country can not take many more Marxist/Fabian/Progressive/Socialist/Fascist governments and with the exception of Ike (I really liked Ike) and Reagan we have not had a real leader who cared about this country in close to 100 years.

          …The story begins in Massachusetts where Gruber helped create the state’s universal health law, now known as Romneycare.

          “We had a pretty powerful senator you may have heard of named Ted Kennedy,” Gruber said during an event at Simmons College in February. ”Ted Kennedy had managed to figure out a way to rip off the federal Medicaid program to the tune of about $500 million a year through a series of strange manipulations.

          “Here was Mitt Romney’s dirty little secret that we don’t like to talk about in Massachusetts, which is the way we passed our law is the federal government paid for it….
          “George Bush said why am I sending this Democrat $500 million a year, I’m taking it back,” Gruber explained, adding “Mitt Romney to his credit went to George Bush and said, look, can we keep the money if we use it for universal coverage. And Bush to his credit said yes.”

          “We realized that we can’t do this at the state level anymore,” said Gruber. “The feds are going to have to get involved.”

          …Gruber was referring to Kennedy’s procurement in 1996 of a Section 1115 Medicaid waiver from the Clinton administration. The waiver was seen as a key component of Massachusetts’ “MassHealth” program….
          http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/obamacare-architect-ted-kennedy-ripped-off-medicaid-video/

        • rah says:
          December 21, 2014 at 12:17 am

          There is a war for the control and direction of the Republican party going on. If the libertarians would join with the Conservatives that war would already be over and we would be well on our way to moving back to the right.

          Ike, while I respect his record, is not my ideal. Regan came closer for me. He was the best of my lifetime I believe. But Ike, unlike Regan did not have the benefit of a Republican congress. In fact Ike got so frustrated that he eventually threw up his hands and said to hell with it and spent most of his time out on the putting green. When the Kennedy’s moved into the WH Jackie was appalled that the floors in the west wing were scarred by the cleats from Ike’s golfing shoes. Of course Queen Jackie was appalled by the shape of the WH in total and went on a big spending spree to fix it up. But perhaps she had a point. The attic then still had the pulleys and bell ropes dating from Lincoln’s administration in it.

        • Beale says:
          December 21, 2014 at 12:20 am

          I don’t recall that the Republican presidents were much less willing to indulge “this Climate stuff” than the Democratic ones – before Obama, I mean.

        • rah says:
          December 21, 2014 at 1:13 am

          Beale says:
          December 21, 2014 at 12:20 am

          I don’t recall that the Republican presidents were much less willing to indulge “this Climate stuff” than the Democratic ones – before Obama, I mean.”

          Really? So Bush spent billions on green energy? Bush pursued the “war on coal” and has his administration produce this policy document? http://www.scribd.com/doc/149894606/Barack-Obama-s-Climate-Action-Plan
          And made EPA rules setting the standards for emissions so high that it will virtually impossible for coal fired plants using the current technology to meet the goals?
          Bush refused to implement Kyoto!!! You say that Obama would not have gone for it whole hog within the limits of political viability? Heck the Bush administration was accused in congressional testimony “Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”

          Me thinks you should probably read a little of the history to refresh your memory.

        • Beale says:
          December 21, 2014 at 2:18 am

          rah,
          I said before Obama.

      • Beale says:
        December 21, 2014 at 12:27 am

        I think there is reason to hope that Shaw’s cynical observation will prove to be less than the truth, at least as far as America is concerned. The Pauls seem to be figuring out that they’re the Peters, too.

        Reply
  2. rah says:
    December 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    That war began long before Obama was elected President and in fact before he was in the Senate.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      December 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm

      It began more than one hundred and fifty years ago.

      Reply
    • There is no substitute for victory. says:
      December 20, 2014 at 2:25 am

      The war on coal first began when Karl Marks went to work as a foreign correspondent for the New York City paper, The Daily Tribune. Marks had some success following in Mark Twain’s footsteps by lampooning the coal barons as uncaring Capitalist pigs without empathy for their fellow man. Mr. Twain however was a better humorous in that regard.

      I guess humor just doesn’t translate well from the German into English. Or maybe Marx was such a confirmed boozer that Fredrick Engels actually had to write a large number of Karl’s articles to keep Marx from blowing by too many deadlines and losing his gig at the Tribune.

      Reply
  3. Andy says:
    December 19, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    Americans should be in the 21st Century, not the 19thC

    End of story,

    Andy

    Reply
  4. Cornelius says:
    December 19, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Why no, haven’t you heard that Chinese coal causes global cooling, and American coal global warming? Really, you must get your web site in line with consensus story-telling.

    Reply
  5. There is no substitute for victory. says:
    December 19, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    Or as our German friends say, “Black Anthracite and Bituminous coal is bad but brown Lignite coal is good.”

    Reply
  6. philjourdan says:
    December 21, 2014 at 12:04 am

    If you look at every “success” of Obama, they are all wars on America, specifically the middle class. The middle class stands between Obama and his socialist utopia.

    Reply
  7. Gail Combs says:
    December 21, 2014 at 12:41 am

    rah says:
    “There is a war for the control and direction of the Republican party going on. If the libertarians would join with the Conservatives that war would already be over and we would be well on our way to moving back to the right.”

    That is my dearest hope. I am NOT in favor of a new party, I would like to see ‘Flyover Country’ grab the reins back from the international moneyed elite who are controlling the republican party.

    The Democrats/Progressives are hopeless. The only thing that would wake them up is a year or two in North Korea.

    Reply
    • Colorado Wellington says:
      December 21, 2014 at 1:58 am

      It may be rewarding to watch, Dr. Combs, but your Hippocratic Oath prohibits such experiments on the sick. Individuals not responding to the maximum allowed dose of two months are considered unfit to give informed consent and must be returned to the custody of the Democratic Party. Research shows that 97% of patients from the responsive group are healed after two weeks.
      —–
      *) Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.

      Reply
  8. Beale says:
    December 21, 2014 at 2:31 am

    I recall that 2012 Romney said something (I forget the details) about limiting the use of coal. Obama of course declared that Romney was engaged in a war on coal. Romney thus proved again, as if we needed more proof, the self-destructive futility of appeasement.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *