Timothy Birdnow

Writing at Net Right Daily, Dustin Howard chronicles an attack by the Obama Administration on car dealers:

From the article:
http://netrightdaily.com/2016/01/obamas-war-on-car-dealers-escalates/

"Peter Roff, who writes for U.S. News and World Report, has recently documented how the Obama Administration's "watchdogs" are waging war on the car dealers of America, trying to destroy their business model. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) organized an event last week that was "designed to show the franchise model on which the industry operates is anti-competitive and results in consumers paying higher prices for new cars than they ought," wrote Roff.

As Roff noted, the CFPB is alleging that dealerships are employing discriminatory practices to harm minority car buyers. He also noted that they have a "specious" empirical basis to do so. He instead points to research that overtly contradict the notion that competition is being restricted by franchisees to harm Obaconsumers. Why then do they press on?

Taken with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) flawed modeling to assume that auto dealerships are discriminating against minority consumers, it seems that a full scale assault is underway.

This begs the question, why would they do this and who stands to gain?

Roff came short of saying that the Obama administration is clearing the way for Tesla, who has enjoyed a cozy relationship with the administration. Tesla has obstacles that prevent them from expanding, particularly that they want to have an Apple Store-like, manufacturer to consumer model that is prohibited in many states. Tesla seems to be leveraging their political connections to ameliorate their growing pains, to the point of using them as a weapon against their competition.”

End excerpt.

And indeed Dustin is correct; the Obama Administration hates the internal combustion engine and seeks its overthrow in our society. Ostensibly the Administration wants to promote "green" automobiles, which means electric cars (which take more energy and generate more greenhouse gases than a regular old-fashioned gas burner) but in the end what they seek is to control the movement of the public. Electric cars, with their limited range, are ideal to promoting restrictions on the movement of the public. That movement is an inalienable right, as I have argued.http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0708/0708drillingconsright.htm

Another point to ponder here; what Obama is doing to the auto industry is exactly what his friends in Congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Housing Bubble was generated by government imposed "fairness" to promote minority home ownership. The government, in it's boundless wisdom, decided that banks should be forced to make loans to people with sub-par credit, and do so in neighborhoods that did not command top dollar. The increase in risk was passed along to investors via bundling of loans and the monetizing of the mortgage industry. The result was a wild west where people without jobs were borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and living well beyond their means. The result was the correction of 2008 which saw America drop into the worst economic period since the Great Depression. All of this was caused by government interference in an industry that thought to manipulate.

There is no difference here, except that cars are a little cheaper and are mobile. It's a lot harder to repossess a vehicle than to foreclose on a home.

This will, of course, drive the prices of automobiles way up, just as it did the price of housing prior to the crash,. That is, in my opinion, the4 whole point; the Feds want to force people out of cars and into Uber or bicycles. It is a part of Agenda 21/30, to get America to eschew the automobile and thus become a sedentary people, one that is easier to control and monitor.

Tom DeWeese has an excellent essay about Agenda 21. Read it here.http://americanpolicy.org/2012/05/12/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-or-threat-4/

As Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild point out in an article on Agenda 21 at American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html

"Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, "Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government's goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left."

Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums. "

End excerpt.

It also has the added benefit of allowing the Federal Government to overturn redistricting in Republican-controlled states by simply colonizing red districts with "blue" people.

And one way to guarantee that the public remain in these high density urban centers is to restrict the means of transportation. That is behind the drive to develop driverless cars that Google - a good friend of Agenda 21 - has undertaken.

Here is an example:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1236826/autonomous-vehicles-are-the-wave-of-the-future-says-stephen-diaco/

"George Gilhooley, an engineer with consulting firm HNTB, says the effort to attain better, more efficient usage of highways is helping drive the adoption of these new technologies. Apart from optimizing road use, the main issue is one of safety. He feels that the sooner traffic managers can respond to a given situation – and get traffic moving again – the better.

According to RITA, because of the variety of vehicle and infrastructure safety systems installed or planned, the focus must be on consistent and widely applicable standards and protocols. There are two forms of connected vehicles: those which can communicate with other vehicles and those that communicate with the infrastructure itself."

End excerpt.

In either case, the driverless car is under the watchful eye of the authorities - and likely under their control as well. And this article in The Guardian gives us a glimpse into the WHY of driverless cars:

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/driverless-vehicles-future-car-sharing

"Point-to-point systems such as bike-sharing programmes allow users to pick-up and drop-off vehicles at different locations. If properly designed these schemes can be complementary to public transport. Users can take a bus or subway train and then transfer to a shared bicycle for the last mile of their trip.

But bikes tend to cluster at popular locations at certain times of the day, while other locations may be devoid of available vehicles. Shared bike programmes solve this problem by redistributing bikes manually via truck. This is very costly and operators can never keep up with the demand for redistribution. Studies point to the significant impact bike redistribution has on total operational costs in running a shared bike programme. Clearly using trucks to move cars is hardly a reasonable proposition.

But with autonomous vehicles, we can solve this problem and release the power of the collaborative consumption economy. Imagine the following scenario: a customer uses a smartphone app to request an autonomous shared vehicle, it arrives at your door and drops you to your destination, and the vehicle then either moves on and picks up another customer or parks itself and recharges."

End excerpt.

So, if the price of cars rises too high we shall go to "shared vehicles". Uber is a start on that, and Uber-like programs will increase over time. As cars become too expensive (and my brother was complaining that he had to buy a five year old vehicle when he has worked for Ford for 20 years!) and traffic more onerous - thanks to bicycle lanes and skinnier streets, two gifts of Agenda 21's planning - the "shared vehicles" will become more and more attractive. And driverless cars will become more and more of a necessity. Of course, those driverless cars will have restricted travel areas.

With the development of hydraulic fracturing we have seen a worldwide collapse of the price of oil, ruining the careful planning of the internationalists and the environmental lobby. It now becomes difficult to restrict the gasoline engine with cheap oil and no global warming, and so the Administration must act tan a different level. Car sales and roads are the next battlefront .

The whole point is to ultimately pen Americans in like cattle. Making cars too expensive and difficult to buy is a great start in implementing this.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:57 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1453 words, total size 11 kb.