Robot Butlers and the Redistribution of Weath
With the “science” behind Global Warming disappearing before our eyes faster than the warmth itself, I keep focusing on what could have been with the loss of time and money invested in this made up problem. Just imagine if “scientists” had instead developed robot butlers. If they had, I would have awoken to the smell of sizzling bacon and freshley brewed coffee. Instead I woke up cold because it is freezing outside.
In truth I believe the money and time would have been best spent by the people to whom both belong, the American citizen. Our government had no right to embark upon the crazy quest to “save the planet” robbing us blind in the process. This is what differentiates a conservative from a liberal, robot butlers aside, while I think about how the individual could have spent their money better, liberals are busy plotting the next scheme to steal more.
For an example of this difference look at the Iraq War debate. Never did I hear someone on the left complain that the money spent in Iraq would have been better in the pocket of taxpayers. Rather they complained the money could have gone to domestic programs or the war machine better utilized in more deserving places like Darfur. “How can we spend so much money in Iraq when it could go to {public schools, the environment, health care} and really do some good.” The fact that funding War is in the Constitution but universal health care and other massive programs are not, never phased them.
This is, in fact, the root of our global warming mess. The issue has little to do with true love of nature, everything to do with redistributing wealth. Progressives have wisely reframed their argument to one of “clean air and water” countering that anyone against their spending is for pollution.
No one is against clean drinking water. Having clean water run from the tap doesn’t cost hundreds of billions to trillions more in spending. Neither does clearing up some smog. These goals don’t require thousands of pages of new laws or giving up power to global government. They just require slight changes, most of which local communities can get their people to support.
In the beginning there were undoubtedly a few people on the warming bandwagon who truly cared about conservation of nature and a clean environment. Those now in power have a much different agenda. Every proposal for the environment contains an action that takes money from one group and passes it to another. The enforcer of these transactions are of course the bodies and the leaders proposing the exchange.
The argument is classic socialism and progressivism. The assertion is that global warming is produced by large nations with wealth. Their actions have a reaction that effects smaller nations without weath. The solution? Take wealth from large nation, give to poor nation and everything will work itself out because poor nations have better natures than wealthy ones.
What does this actually do to solve the asserted problem? Absolutely nothing and since there really is no problem when the weather evens out, as it is doing now, they can claim success. Best of all these individuals and groups have found ways to transfer a bit of that wealth to themselves. How nice for them!
“The single solution to (these problems) is a green economy that is inclusive, that’s strong enough to lift millions of people out of poverty.” – Van Jones Obamas former Green Jobs Czar
The wealth of democratic nations comes from the labor of the people. Progressives are not taking money from some shadowy group of evil people known only as “the rich” they are taking our money. We the workers and taxpayers fund the United States and it is our money they seek to redistribute. Do you consider yourself evil? Do you not deserve the money you earn? Are poorer nations more deserving of your own money than you?
Warming has become a global money laundering scheme. Our money is taken and funneled into nations that have less money with the notion that it will aid the collective. Remove for now the reality that many of these nations are run by corrupt dictators and gangsters. Even if the money went to other individuals, no government has the right to engage in the wealth redistribution from one to another. The government cannot take your house and give it to a “more deserving family” any more than they should be allowed to take your income with a similar intent.
In historic times this type of action was taken by nations through invasion and War. Progressives using Global Warming have actually convinced leaders like President Obama that the looting of the United States is necessary for our survival. Think about that for a moment. Our leaders want our nation’s wealth to be given to others, many of which are hostile to us. Rather than come to our shores with guns drawn, the rest of the world has found a way to convince our nation to just give them our treasure and we are convinced we should feel good about it. Is that not absurd?
As the Global Warming nightmare ends, progressives will not stop seeking ways to perform their wealth redistribution. Right now they are experimenting domestically with “public health epidemics” like H1N1 and childhood obesity to divert money to communities they say are most effected and so most deserving. They seek behavior modification through government and with every taxpayer dollar spent another level of control appears.
There will be a new global epidemic too. When the last ounce of credibility is lost for Global Warming, they will find some nightmare scenario polluting our planet that must be addressed.
We must be vigilant in attacking these schemes from the start, a difficult task because so many of them are cloaked by issues nearly everyone can agree upon. Everyone wants healthy children just as they want clean drinking water. We must question why federal taxpayer funding should be used to secure the things we want and why so much of it, when personal responsibility and a few dollars spent by local government is the better option.
We must also patronize only those charities and organizations that do not take federal government welfare. This was made more difficult with President Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives, a ploy that put many honest organizations on the government payroll. Still there is a great deal being done without federal help. We must solve our issues on our own in order to disprove the notion that the ever expanding federal government is needed.
We must present solutions community solutions to community problems.
Conservatives must do better at explaining and embracing state and local rights. If New York wishes to bankrupt itself with welfare programs, that is our right. The line in the sand is expanding these programs to the federal government. In 2008 Mitt Romney, for example, proposed taking his Massachusetts health care system to the federal government. His plan is now basically Democrat health care reform. We should not race to simply scale state or local projects to the federal level believing that what works for a local community will now work across the nation and then the globe.
We must, in the most simple terms, return to the Constitution and the founding documents of our nation. We must recognize the role of government and ward off those who propose grand schemes to usurp individual liberty and steal wealth. Global Warming is falling apart faster than the Obama presidency. In its place, Democrats will attempt to build something new. Conservatives must work tirelessly to fight this replacement while rebuilding our government to be at one with the Constitution.
I still think all of the money spent could have procured the people some pretty cool robot butlers. Still, I would rather make my own bacon and hold onto my own money rather than embrace the socialist nightmare being created through plots like Global Warming.
