Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Herman Cain Wants EPA Victims in His Administration
By: Hrafnkell HaraldssonJun. 30th, 2011more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Corporations don’t care about people; they care about profits. Neither do the Republicans, who are, after all, loyal corporate employees. They don’t care if you have a job or if you are fairly compensated for your work or if you have adequate benefits; they care only about the bottom line. The board of directors doesn’t report to the public (neither, arguably, do Republican legislators); they report to the stockholders. If profits are made, all is good. These days, even if profits aren’t made, all is good, at least for the CEO and his top cronies, who receive obscene amounts of money in pay and benefits even if they drive the company into bankruptcy or insolvency.
Herman Cain, a former CEO himself (Godfather’s Pizza), is of course most interested in upping corporate profits. His latest rant is “the abuses of the EPA.” The EPA, established as its name – Environmental Protection Agency – would suggest, to protect the environment, was stripped of that mandate by the Bush Administration, which claimed the EPA didn’t have that right at all. Herman Cain has decided that the EPA is some sort of renegade outfit bent on destroying the American economy by unfairly picking on your friendly neighborhood corporation.
Somehow, if a federal agency does what it is mandated to do, it is abusing its power.
Cain wants to find “victims” of the EPA so he can give them jobs in his administration:
“Whenever science does not back up a regulation, it’s gone, that’s the idea. If you have been abused by the EPA you are a candidate for this commission. We need to stand up average Americans and job creators and we need to get government back in check.”
Get the government in check. And of course, Cain isn’t talking about actual science. He is using a tried and true Republican euphemism for corporate-approved science.
Not the out of control corporations who want to deprive us of collective bargaining rights, fair pay, benefits, and then pollute our air and drinking water on top of it all.
They don’t want to protect the environment. They want to plunder it – and the American people – to line their pockets. But according to American Electric Power Chairman Michael G. Morris:
“We will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants. The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling.”
The historical connection between radical environmentalism and communism may not be bad theme for Cain to pick up. Adam Bitely, an editor with Net Right Daily unpackages the history here in great detail.
Say what? The problem is, of course, that no such connection exists. Isn’t this the communist regime that is guilty of some of the most egregious environmental disasters of the past century? Communism doesn’t care about the environment; the environment was for communism as it is for American conservatism: something to be plundered. Let’s take a look at Adam Bitely’s “evidence” that Cain is supposed to make so much use of:
Not only is April 22 Earth Day, it is also the Birthday of Vladimir Lenin and the National Day of Communism in the U.S.S.R..
Oh no! Are you kidding? So because these two dates are identical, one must automatically be associated with the other? Seriously? According to Bitely’s logic, if you were born on April 20th then you have to be a Nazi, because that’s Hitler’s birthday.
His argument doesn’t get any better, sorry to say. He cites Alexander Marriot from an article in (you guessed it) Capitalism Magazine:
Think of the parallels between Lenin and environmentalists. Lenin once said that, “It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.” Environmentalists second this wholeheartedly when they restrict the ownership and control of private property through the guise of saving the environment. The Endangered Species Act is used voluminously to take the property of anyone if an endangered species is living on it. President Clinton cordoned off thousands upon thousands of acres of land in the form of national parks with the alleged concern of saving the natural resources thereon from development. The federal government now controls nearly forty percent of all land in the continental United States. Lenin’s goal was to destroy private property and this goal is obviously shared by environmentalists (emphasis in the original).
Let’s try to sort this out. Because Lenin said “It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed,” environmentalists have a lot in common with communists? How about my freedom to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water? Corporations aren’t trying to “carefully ration” my liberty?
Bitely’s argument is a woefully pathetic one. He asserts that environmentalists want to “restrict the ownership and control of private property through the guide of saving the environment” but he offers no proof of this, and everything which follows is based on this assertion. The idea that the creation of national parks is a method by which the Obama administration and environmentalists can destroy private property is absurd.
Perhaps he doesn’t realize that many Republican presidents have set aside lands for National Parks. After all, it was a Republican president – Ulysses S. Grant – who established the first national park – Yellowstone – and a Republican president – Herbert Hoover – who established the National Park System. Does Bitely mean to say that Grant and Hoover were communists? Or perhaps Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who defended Yellowstone National Park from commercial development? Roosevelt also established Pelican Island Bird Reservation in order to protect shorebirds from extinction. PBS details his accomplishments:
Year by year, act by act, proclamation by proclamation, Roosevelt built his natural empire. In Alaska, he created the Tongass and the Chugach forest reserves. In Hawaii, he set several small islands aside as the Hawaiian Islands Bird Reservation. Everywhere, it seemed, TR added acreage. Mount Olympus in Washington State. Lake Malheur in Oregon. Culebra Island in Puerto Rico. Mosquito Inlet in Florida. And perhaps his greatest achievement-Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona.
“I hope you will not have a building of any kind, not a summer cottage, a hotel, or anything else, to mar the wonderful grandeur, sublimity, the great loneliness and beauty of the cañon,” Roosevelt said at a speech at the Grand Canyon in 1903. Under the auspices of the Antiquities Act, he signed the Grand Canyon National Monument into being on January 11, 1908. It was the 11th such monument he had created to date. He would create 18 in all, among them Montezuma Castle, Arizona; Gila Cliff Dwelling, New Mexico; Devil’s Tower, Wyoming; and Muir Woods, California.
Apparently, a great many of our presidents (and capitalist leaders) have been unwitting communists. I wonder what makes President Obama different from Grant, Hoover, and Roosevelt other than he’s a Democrat and he’s black.
Never mind that the corporations aren’t creating more jobs. They aren’t. They’re shipping them overseas. Or like the Koch brothers, even as their profits increase exponentially, lay off workers rather than hiring new ones. Republicans love to talk about jobs but they have yet to create one. It’s all a code word to make the rich richer, because that’s the pay the GOP really cares about, coming as it does from their true employers – the corporations.