Stuff Nick Says

Earlier today I read an article which talked about something that I hadn’t really thought about before: how to charge people who charge their electric vehicles at public outlets. It got me thinking… why hasn’t anyone mentioned that before?

In 2008, Obama won the Presidential election promising “hope and change”. One of those changes was to eliminate our dependance on fossil fuels by aggressively pursuing alternative fuels. So far, we’ve tried hydrogren fuel cell vehicles, but those aren’t getting much traction, even though they make the most sense (more on that later). Some people have worked on solar-powered cars, but those were mostly gimmicks and would never work in real-world practical application. There’s always biodiesel, which is a viable fuel and is readily available; however, it is not going to replace gasoline as our #1 fuel source anytime soon. (And, as proven by Shell, algae is NOT the answer to biofuels… no matter how much Obama wants you to believe it is… and no matter how many biofuel companies the Department of Energy throws money at.) Now, hybrid drive vehicles are taking off, and they’re pretty decently efficient… however, they’re more expensive for automakers to make and they lose money selling them.

So, that leaves us with everybody’s favorite saviour, the electric vehicle. Now, on the surface, the EV is great: Clean power, quiet, low emissions… what’s not to like? And therein lies the problem. Nobody wants to look past the surface and ask the one question that should be on everybody’s mind: where does the power to charge the batteries come from?

That, my friends, is where the Kansas City Shuffle comes in.

For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure of watching Lucky Number Slevin, I highly recommend it. Just don’t watch it with your kids. But for those who haven’t… allow me to demonstrate the Kansas City Shuffle:

the kansas city shuffle by Anyclip

Now that we’re all on the same page… let’s continue.

You see, Obama’s entire presidency is based on the Kansas City Shuffle. His state-run mainstream misleadia cohorts will gladly downplay any news that may be detrimental to Obama and the Democrats in favor of American Idol, Jersey Shore, and Real Housewives. And they’re doing it again, now, with electric cars.

How can I be so sure of this? Oh… the pieces to the puzzle are there. You just have to sift through the liberal lies to find them.

• Lie #1 is quite obvious. The media wants you to believe that the high gas prices are a result of economic growth. That’s nonsense. How can the economy be improving when Gallup is reporting that unemployment will be over 9% for February? (So much for the seasonal hiring boost.)
• Lie #2: Biofuels will solve our energy crisis. Ok, even the mainstream misleadia knows this is at best a big-time stretch… and more than likely a complete farce. And even if they could solve our energy crisis, it wouldn’t be anytime soon… after all, the “algae theory” is nothing new. It’s been discussed for 60+ years.
• Lie #3, and the biggest lie of them all: Electric vehicles will be the end of Big Oil.

So, there’s your first half of the Kansas City Shuffle. Everybody looking to the right? Ok, good… now it’s time to go to the left while nobody’s paying attention.

While everyone has been concentrating on high gas prices, two things are at play behind the scenes that will make a big difference in the way everything plays out. First, the fact that hydrogen fuel cell cars are being pushed out of the picture. And second, the EPA regulations that kicked in January 1st, 2012.

How are these two things going to work together affect the course of this “crisis” (which wouldn’t be a crisis at all, if we’d just lift the Clinton-era regulations on refineries and the various bans on drilling for oil around the country)? Well, you have to remember my earlier point: How, exactly, are these EV’s going to get their batteries charged? It’s quite obvious the power grid will be involved. This is dangerous ground, for one main reason: The government controls the power grid. But again, more on that in a minute.

In January of 2008, Obama discussed a cap-and-trade system. In the following video, you can see exactly how far this man is willing to go to destroy our economy, in his own words:

And in this video, the results of his cap-and-trade system would bring about necessarily higher electricity rates:

Now, Obama didn’t get his way. The Cap-And-Trade bill never made it through Congress. But it was never going to and Obama knew it. What you didn’t hear about was what Obama’s EPA was doing in the background.

What was the purpose of Cap-And-Trade? In a nutshell, it was intended to cap off the level of allowable greenhouse gases produced by power plants and factories, and charge any overages back to the companies responsible. I shouldn’t have to go into great detail about why that is an insanely asinine thing to do, but let’s put it this way: every other country with a cap-and-trade system in place is working to dismantle that system because it doesn’t work. Well, as I said, Obama had a backup plan. Obama has the EPA in his pocket. The EPA recently initiated new regulations on greenhouse gasses that are punishable with fines and/or forced shutdowns of non-compliant power plants. In short, Obama circumvented Congress to force the closure of approximately 20% of the nation’s coal power plants, which happen to provide 45% of the power grid’s power. Obama, through the EPA, got an illegal, unconstitutional version of Cap-And-Trade. This all kicked in on January 1st of this year. And as you should have figured out by now, this is going to severely short the Supply side of Supply and Demand… and when something is in short supply, the price goes through the roof.

Have you figured out where this is headed yet?

Gas prices are skyrocketing. Electric cars are being heralded as the “wave of the future”. But that wave is going to be fueled by government-controlled, government-priced electricity from the power grid. And people who bought these electric vehicles because they were cheaper than gas vehicles won’t be able to afford to use them, and if they are there’s no guarentee there will be enough power to actually charge them with 45% of our power grid’s supply being phased out and no immediate replacement of it in sight. And when too many people try to charge up at once? The EPA will be there waiting to fine the power companies on the pollutant overages. So people will go back to gas vehicles, and pay $5/$6/$7 a gallon for gas… or they just won’t use their cars at all. In short… these policies will work together to bring the transportation industry to a sudden and immediate collapse.

Another added “benefit” to the push for EV’s, at least from Obama’s point of view, is simple control: It’s a lot easier to shut off the power grid than it is to shut off every single gas station in the country at once. By forcing us into electric cars, the bulk of the population could easily be rendered immobile and without electricity, simply by flipping a switch. Instantaneous government control of the entire population at the flip of a switch? A dictator’s wet dream realized.

Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars would solve all of this. No energy from the power grid, because they make their energy from the fuel cell, and the only byproduct is clean, drinkable H2O. But car manufacturers are saying that a viable fuel cell vehicle is at least eight years away. (Even though Honda has the FCX Clarity currently for lease if you live in Southern CA.) Why the delay, when at least one manufacturer already has a working, mass-produced fuel cell vehicle?

Because Obama’s Department of Energy won’t give you money for fuel cell vehicles. They only give you money if you make EV’s. Because they want total control of where you get your energy… and if you could get your fuel by using hydrogen, they can’t just turn off the supply at the flip of a switch.

Everybody looks right… Obama moves left.

Recently, one of the pages I follow on Facebook posted a joke about the difference between liberal and conservative thinking. Here’s the joke, for reference:

“I recently asked my neighbors’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, who are liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?’

She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’

Her parents beamed with pride.

‘Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.’

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ’Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?’

I said, ‘Welcome to Conservatism.’

Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.”

Of course, numerous liberals immediately took offense to this. My favorite response of all was this one:

**********
To the point of the joke not the humor:

The conservative stops there and think’s he’s made a good point and that a question is an answer. The Liberal realises the daughter has made a better point, and realises that the question can only point towards answers. “’ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?” The conservative stops there thinking the only outcome to the question is the homeless person is lazy. The liberal thinks maybe he’s lazy, but what’s the greater harm: letting a person go hungry or giving him the basics of a home and food or not. As Jesus said in Matthew 25:45 ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ The liberal also thinks maybe the homeless person has a mental problem which might be getting in his way of working. Maybe norms of society are getting in the way. Most people will rarely hire a person off the street or some other random person they don’t know to do work out of mistrust of what the person is after. Especially in the case where the person has to use your tools to do the work for you. The liberal might also ask is this person willing to work but for one reason or another has been passed over for someone else and is thus not hired or rehired. The percieved liberal realises that there are many more questions and answers that could come from that first one, but is happy with their daughter because her answer, while childlike, was based on helping others and not just herself, whereas the conservative was only looking at the individual while trying to frame a young girl wanting help others..

“My brothers, what use is it for a man to say he has faith when he does nothing to show it? Can that faith save him? Suppose a brother or a sister is in rags with not enough food for the day, and one of you says, ‘Good luck to you, keep yourselves warm, and have plenty to eat’, but does nothing to supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So with faith; if it does not lead to action, it is in itself a lifeless thing.” (James 2:14-17)

Matthew 25:  31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.  34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’  37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’  40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’  41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’  44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’  45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
**********

Sometimes, I use liberal “logic” for comic relief. This time, however, I couldn’t help but respond to this.

**********
Again, as I said to Mr. Fong… The percentage of those homeless people who are mentally ill, or are otherwise not able to take care of themselves, is vastly outnumbered by the people who lost their homes due to drug abuse, loss of work, or just plain stupidity. It is not my job, nor my moral obligation, nor even my Christian duty to help people who refuse to help themselves. However, if I am able to help someone who asks for that help, I will. Not because I’m OBLIGATED to, but because I CHOOSE to. I will not have my government legislate whom I must help and who I must not help!

I love this part of your post, by the way: “The liberal thinks maybe he’s lazy, but what’s the greater harm: letting a person go hungry or giving him the basics of a home and food or not.” If someone is too lazy to take care of themselves, and you give them food, shelter, etc… all you’re doing is incentivizing their laziness. You’re not helping them by doing that… you’re CRIPPLING them.

I also love this: “As Jesus said in Matthew 25:45 ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’” Since we’re quoting scripture here, how about I fill you in on something you probably didn’t see when you Googled these verses for your post: Matthew 22:29 – “Yeshua answered and he said to them, ‘You do err, because you do not understand the scriptures, neither the mighty works of God.’” You’re twisting these words to make your point, but you err in your understanding of them.

You see, the difference between liberal thinking and conservative thinking is very simply stated. Conservatives believe that the burden is on one’s self to resolve their problems. Liberals believe the burden is on everyone else to resolve their problems.

A conservative thinker will take on the responsibility for a problem, even if it’s not their fault. A liberal thinker will never take on the responsibility for a problem. Liberals concentrate on the PROBLEM. Conservatives concentrate on the SOLUTION.

As a conservative, if I do choose to help someone, I do it not because some liberal told me it was my fault, nor because I feel guilty that I have something another person does not. I do it because I WANT to. I need not have another reason than that.

One last thing. I have two cars. Both of them are rather old. Most of the cars I’ve owned have been used cars. I’ve been broke down on the side of the road plenty of times. Do you know how many times I’ve had a liberal stop to help me?

Not ONCE.

So for every verse you quote about helping those in need (which you’re misquoting and taking out of context, but that’s beside the point), for every time you look at a person and immediately place the blame for their situation on anything other than their own actions, for every time you help someone because you feel guilty that you’re better off than they are, remember Luke 13:24-27 – “But Yeshua said to them, ‘Strive hard to enter the narrow gate, for I say to you, many shall seek to enter and they shall not be able.’ Then the Lord of the house will rise and shall bolt the gate, and you will be standing outside knocking at the gate and you will begin to say, ‘Our Lord, Our Lord, open to us.’ And he shall answer and he shall say, ‘I say to you, that I do not know you. From where are you?’ And you shall begin to say, ‘We ate and we drank before you and you taught in our streets.’ And he shall say to you, ‘I do not know you and from where you are; depart from me, workers of lies.’”
**********

I still don’t understand liberal “logic”… but I’m getting a lot better at explaining why it doesn’t work.