Obama got what he wanted...

… and now he’s complaining!

To a gathering in Oregon during the Presidential campaign, Obama talked about the need to “lead by example” with regard to “global warming,” and remarked that "We can't just keep driving our SUVs, eating whatever we want, keeping our homes at 72 degrees at all times regardless of whether we live in the tundra or the desert, and keep consuming 25 percent of the world's resources with just four percent of the world's population.”

Americans seem to have taken Obama’s advice to heart. They have stopped buying SUVs, cut back on cross-country vacations, and drastically reduced their visits to restaurants in favor of eating simpler meals at home. Repeated news reports of lackluster Christmas sales suggest that most Americans have eagerly gone along with Obama’s suggestion that we be “less greedy” with regard to using the world’s resources. And inasmuch that everyone seems to be complaining about the record cold, it is clear that most people have set their thermostats lower and started wearing the sweaters they packed away after they sent Jimmy Carter packing in 1980.

One would think that Obama would be grateful. After all, everyone seems to have taken his Oregon advice seriously. Too many SUVs for his sensitivities? Heck, give us another six months of cutting back, and we patriots can probably see to it that General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler can never again make a big, gas-guzzling vehicle. Just think of all the natural resources that would be saved if the “Big Three” never again make any new vehicles! That should put a smile on Al Gore’s face. (Although some might argue that particular facial function has not yet been programmed for him.)

But now the soon to be economist-in-chief (and Guinness World Record holder for being the first candidate to use the word “tundra” in a campaign speech) wants to spend a trillion dollars or so (that the federal government clearly doesn’t have) in order to “stimulate the economy.” Talk about mixed messages! First we are told that we are using far too much of the world’s resources and are lectured that we should cut back, and now we’re about to engage in a wild spending spree to build bridges and roads and asbestos-free lounges for NEA members. How does Obama expect to start all that construction work without tapping into more of the earth’s natural resources? Does he think steel girders and concrete and ergonomic chairs grow on trees? (And the last time I checked, that big yellow construction equipment was considerably less fuel-efficient than even a Chevy Suburban or a Ford Expedition.)

Obama’s egalitarian lecture suggests that since Americans represent only four per cent of the world’s population we should be limited to only four per cent of the world’s natural resources. Well, we followed his consume-less advice for only a few months - possibly dropping the level of our world-resource-o-meter from 25 to 24.98 per cent - and all Hell broke loose. The rest of the world is now pleading with Americans to go back to their frenzied buying habits. Workers in China and Indonesia seem to value employment over the Gore-Bull warming theory, after all.

A lot of people are, not surprisingly, confused.

Mr. Obama, you may want to pick one script and stick to it. Are we or are not supposed to buy cars? If you do want us to go back to buying vehicles by the millions, you should probably refrain from criticizing us for actually using them after we steer them out of the dealer’s congested lots. After pledging to force Detroit to stop making gas-guzzlers and instead start churning out electric cars that will give Ed Begley, Jr. continued environmentally-correct orgasms, why are you surprised that Americans are holding off on car purchases until you deliver those promised new goods? Let’s have a little consistency, please. Don’t spend months criticizing what Detroit makes and then moan that no one is buying what Detroit makes.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, President Bush advised Americans not to allow the economy of the greatest nation on earth to be destroyed by some toothless, brainwashed thugs who have not yet discovered indoor plumbing. Instead, give al Qaeda the finger by going to the mall while Osama bin Laden rots in a damp cave with only his comrades at CNN to keep him company. Now Obama comes along and says dump the SUVs, reset the thermostats, and enjoy your bread and water so that Al Gore can sleep better in his ten zillion square foot mansion that was likely built with more trees than can be found in your local forest preserve. The next President of the United States - a guy who hasn’t even been able to give up cigarettes, let alone relationships with shady characters like Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rod Blagojevich - is telling the other 300-plus million Americans what they must give up.

The more naïve of the American electorate (i.e., Democrats) thought Obama’s requested sacrifices were to “save the planet.” It turns out they were really intended as an excuse to create bridge-building jobs for overpaid union construction workers and to give unqualified public teachers new laptop computers (pre-loaded with a Che Guevara screensaver and the essential works of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, and some sophomoric Maya Angelou poetry about “hope and change”).

Granted, some took Bush’s advice in 2001 a bit too seriously by spending money foolishly (on $400,000 houses worth only $300,000, or Bernard Madoff investments), but his idea was sound: screw the radical Islamists and enjoy yourselves. Obama’s advice is a bit less intuitive: screw yourselves and help the Unions.

I don’t know about you, but I liked going to the mall to give Osama bin Laden the finger better.

Don Fredrick

December 30, 2008