Will Freedom Be Lost?

What we can and cannot do makes a huge difference in what the United States will be. Many now question, “Will Our freedom be lost?” We must ask this question and begin to understand just how we got into the position where our very freedom may be questioned at all! We must wonder why is it that so many people voted for Obama when so many hated the health plan he produced? There are so many more questions that will linger until 2016 and if they are not answered, our nation, the United States may no longer cease to exist! We all felt that our nation was not headed in the right direction but when it came time to vote, it seemed like so many voted wrong or for a man they felt could do so much better. We do not care for just a two party electorate, but what can we do to stop it? How can we, or do we create a legitimate third party that will not just challenge, but win?

Will our freedom be lost? That remains to be seen, but within 48 hours Obama has gone out and made statements that he now wants the United Nations to talk with him about their idea of gun control here in the United States! This should never happen, but with Obama winning as he did, it gives him the idea that what he does should not matter anymore since he was, in fact, re-elected. Yes, Obama will not care about the Constitution or the laws, he will just circumvent them and Congress with executive orders that go against the Constitution. He has done it before and expect more from him. By the way, executive orders do not have Constitutional standing and as such do not have to be held as law nor even be held to compliance! Has anyone wondered just what may be in store for the United States? Well, just the day after the election, Obama did the gun control thing, but Harry Reid also placed that “climate change” scam up there for consideration and possible passage! Then Harry Reid also asked to allow the debt ceiling to be raised once again this time by some 2 trillion dollars!

Sunday we celebrate Veterans Day and we would almost be willing to bet that Obama has something else already scheduled for that day! On Friday children all across the United States gave time out of their school day to honor the Veterans for their sacrifice and time to this nation. The children carried the flag of the United States and saluted to it giving it their respect. It is just too bad our President does not do the same. These children are the future of the United States and if we as parents, dads, moms, grandmas, grandpas, and all those to whom these children look up to do not give them the inspiration of what it really means to be a citizen of the greatest nation on earth, then we have lost! These children inherit the mess we have created both with the elections of 2006, 2008, 2010, and now in 2012.

Trending: Hogg Bullies Himself? YouTube Pulls David Hogg’s Video After Drudge Makes It Go Viral

We now hear of Harry Reid going forward with the phony and truly epic scam called climate change, and we hide no worries that what we state here is true. Global warming is a huge scam to only get more taxes from everyone to pay for the huge deficit getting ready to hit us square in the backside. Below is but a small idea of what the Democrats, especially those with the socialist agenda, wish to push down the throats of the United States citizens.

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

As Ezra Klein reports on the president’s climate agenda in the Washington Post:

We want our kids to grow up in an America… that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” That was the president in his acceptance speech Tuesday night. Now that Obama has won reelection, apparently, he feels free to talk about climate change — a topic notably absent during the campaign. Now what does he actually plan to do about it?

An Obama second term could have fairly significant implications for energy and climate policy. Many of the bigger initiatives from his first term now won’t likely be repealed, from strict fuel-economy standards on automobiles to regulations on coal-fired power plants. And those could all have a modest effect on the America’s oil use, its energy mix — and ultimately its heat-trapping carbon emissions. Yet doing anything bigger on climate change will likely require working with a Republican Congress.“

Now how did we let this slip by? Simply by not watching what Obama was really doing! Obama sent forth the people upon a chase of varied interests while he hid his agenda on global warming, gun control, and other ideas he would not have wanted the people to see before he got re-elected! Now all his skeletons are coming out of the closet and it is not a pretty sight

How will all of this connect to our freedom? That is simple, Obama will push the people into a corner where they either have to accept his ideology or go broke! It will be that simple!! Sad as it may sound, it is already being shown that he does not worry about being right nor does he worry about having the right ideas about the United States! Obama is now going to move “Forward” with his ideology on coal, shutting the coal industry down completely while buying more oil from our enemies! Our coal industry should not be shut down, but Obama will do so and that will be just one part of our freedom that will be shoved out of our free choice to make. Then he will begin his war on drilling and oil. Then he will go after the last frontier natural gas adn when he shuts that down then our nation will be as close to a third world nation as he wants it to be. That way he can declare martial law and gain the rest of the power he wants and our freedom will be no more. Yes, this is my opinion, but with just the three things that Obama and his friends are already screaming for, it will not take long for the rest to fall down to the new king.

Now as far as coal goes, read what is in line for these poor people!

Coal was already in trouble before these rules were established, as the market found ways to vastly increase the production of natural gas by employing new drilling and extraction methods. Of course natural gas is not going to stay that cheap if coal fired plants are shut down. And it appears the plan is precisely to wage a war on coal that will end with the industry’s destruction. It will also cost the economy a fortune and hit numerous poor communities especially hard. According to the non-partisan Manhattan Institute, the cost could amount to $700 billion. The Institute writes:

On March 27, the EPA proposed what it calls the first “Clean Air Act standard for carbon pollution for new power plants.” The proposal, if enacted, will effectively outlaw the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States. It is one of a myriad of rules leading to what some have called the “regulatory death” of domestic coal-fired electricity production. Shortly after the EPA announcement, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said the move shows that the EPA is engaged “in a war on coal.”

There’s no denying that coal has earned its reputation as a relatively dirty fuel. Generating electricity by burning coal results in higher levels of carbon emissions than does burning oil or natural gas. But the EPA should not prohibit the use of coal based on its carbon dioxide emissions. Doing so ignores modern advances in plant design and construction that have steadily improved air quality. But more to the point, prohibiting coal will increase the cost of producing electricity—a cost which will ultimately be paid by consumers—while doing almost nothing to reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions.

Despite its drawbacks, coal remains a cheap, easily accessed, and abundant domestic fuel source. In other words, there is still a case for coal. The EPA should revisit its proposed ban on new coal-fired power plants. It is bad policy for several reasons:

1.The anti-coal regulatory regime reduces access to a vital source of energy.

2.Electricity producers need to retain a balanced fuel mix. Prohibiting a specific fuel has been tried in the past by regulators.

3.The newest coal plants are clean by traditional EPA measures.

4.Prohibiting construction of new coal-fired generation units won’t do anything to achieve the EPA’s stated purpose of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions.

(emphasis added)

We need to include the cars in this mix, since Obama also has plans for them. Remember that Obama wants to have cars getting about 50 miles per gallon and this will be done by a pure guess rather than by facts. It becomes clear when one sees what is written about the “average miles per gallon”.

As the “Post Libertarian” blog wrote on the fuel efficiency standards and the way they were sold to the public (the entire post is well worth reading as it were):

“The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program always felt like an amusingly bureaucratic invention to me. First you have to quantify “average miles per gallon” for a single vehicle that varies significantly by highway or city and various driving conditions. Then you have to quantify that average across an entire manufacturer’s fleet (is it by number of vehicles sold? is it by number of models?). Additionally, a mandate based on miles per gallon is built on an assumption that the MPG is fairly constant regardless of trip length, but hybrid and electric vehicles break that assumption. Now you have to forcibly quantify into your old system a vehicle that uses no gas for X miles and then either uses Y mpg after that or can’t go anywhere at all. Finally, once you assume you can quantify everything satisfactorily, you build a new assumption that future technology will be able to meet an arbitrary number sometime in the future.

Another suspicious aspect about the mandates is that most of the major auto manufacturers “welcomed the standards.” Industry support for regulation is often used as proof that the regulation is good, but if you’re familiar with economics you know that established big businesses tend to support regulation because it increases costs they can handle while raising barriers to entry that protect them from new competition, which ultimately hurts consumers with higher costs and less innovation.

They say these mandates are supported by 13 manufacturers that make up 90% of the market, and there’s still plenty of competition between them, but I don’t understand the alleged reason for manufacturer support: it gives them “the certainty they need to make manufacturing plans far into the future.” If consumers already want better mileage, and they think they can handle it, why do they need a mandate to do it? Why don’t they just supply it already? It’s supposed to be a win for consumers because now they’ll get better gas mileage, but the whole thing feels to me like a bizarro paradigm where The White House sets the Reality of What Is Possible To Make. Consumers can’t demand and manufacturers can’t supply better cars until the Voice of the Executive Branch speaks, but once it speaks, suddenly it’s possible for more efficient vehicles to roll off the assembly lines. (Why doesn’t the Voice speak an even higher number?)”

(emphasis added)

Now that the election is over and these numbers can be played with by the Obama team and after he appoints new Supreme Court justices, then the entire play ground will belong to Obama and the Supreme Court will back up their master. Apparently what was good before the election is now bad.

We would add to this that it isn’t even clear to us why carbon dioxide emissions are considered bad. There is plenty of evidence from ice cores that suggests that the link between global warming and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works exactly the other way around from that claimed by the “climate consensus.” This is to say, increases of CO2 in the atmosphere appear to follow temperature increases with a considerable lag. A recent paper suggests that this lag effect (which has to do with the release of CO2 from the oceans) is even observable in much smaller time frames, which strongly supports the ice core evidence. One of the most important highlights of said paper is the following point:

CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

And of course it is known from the ice cores that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the past were often orders of magnitude higher than today’s, long before human civilization could possibly be fingered as the culprit. Lastly, why care about CO2 anyway? 95% of the greenhouse gas effects, respectively feedback loops, are due to water vapor!

Even More New Regulations

Klein continues:

The EPA could also set new rules on polluters. There are plenty of unfinished EPA rules on the horizon, all technically mandated by the Clean Air Act. The agency has to figure out how to regulate carbon dioxide from existing power plants, refineries, cement plants, and so forth. There are standards for ground-level ozone pollution (smog) that still need to be revamped. And the EPA faces a choice on how to regulate toxic coal ash waste from power plants.

Naturally, no one is in favor of pollution. In nations where the State once controlled all the means of production, i.e., in the former communist bloc, an absolute wasteland was left behind by the socialist managers of the economy, who allowed pollution to get completely out of hand. Why is it so important to point that out? Because it is a big hint as to what the most effective protection against pollution is: strictly enforced, strong private property rights.

Problems like industrial pollution and overfishing are typical ‘tragedy of the commons’ type problems. As Murray Rothbard demonstrated in the seminal treatise “Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution,” strong property rights are the best defense against pollution, as polluters transgress the property rights of others. It is important to note that enforcement of property rights does not require a State and ‘regulators’ at all. This article is not the place to go into the details of how the anarcho-capitalist society would work, but there exists a considerable body of work on the topic (we will on occasion post a comprehensive list of links to relevant articles and books).

New Regulations on Natural Gas Drilling

Klein goes on further:

Natural gas drilling could face tighter regulation. The natural gas boom in the United States, driven by new drilling techniques known as fracking, has upended the energy industry. But fracking also brings with it plenty of concerns — from air pollution to potential water contamination. So far, the states have been regulating the drilling boom. But federal officials have signaled that they may increase oversight in some areas, such as developing national standards for waste water disposal.

The previously feared “end of natural gas” in the U.S. has been transformed into a surprising “abundance of natural gas” by the application of new technologies, creating a veritable cornucopia of the very fuel that is widely acknowledged to provide the “cleanest” fossil fuel type energy. Just as that happens, new ways and means are explored to make it more expensive again and restrict the supply. Remember this is timed to parallel with restricting the supply of coal-fired energy. You couldn’t make this up!

Now how could this man Klein make statements like these? It is very simple; they were withheld until after the election so those who want this type of action to stop would be helped out by Obama after the election. This means that Obama has once again “hoodwinked” the people. Now just how does it feel to know that you voted for an individual that had no intentions of doing anything to really help the middle class at all? Especially since those most hurt by this type of action are those of the middle class, not to mention those that are poor will become even poorer and they will have to depend on an ever widening big government.

Yes this is the way our freedoms will vanish, by the government under Obama pushing the people to use other less efficient fuels and energy just to satisfy the green people like Al Gore as they get even richer. Now that is a lot to digest so we will leave it here to show just how our freedoms will be eroded in the next four years to the point where our nation will have only two classes of people, the elite and the poor. This is how freedom will be taken away: one small step at a time, and the people allowed it to happen.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous Dr. Ron Paul on Secession
Next Talk Like A Socialist

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.