Policy and Legislation
Conserving Oneself to Death
Exporting American Security on Behalf of Nature
We have a problem in this country. And, like so many other things that we humans do, this problem is not going to get attention until it hurts us so bad that we take action way later than we should have.
Want a traffic light at a busy intersection where a lot of accidents happen because there is no traffic light? Well, believe it or not, at City Council meetings what you will hear them say that the light is slated to be installed in 2009, unless there is a rash increase of deaths at the intersection before then.
Like the rest of life, we plan our fixes in government and socially the same way a smoker quits… “Tomorrow” .
Our addiction to oil in this country is going to be the downfall of us. Our economy is in the hands of ragheaded sheiks with backwards ideals on the other side of the world. Our national security is tied to this same exact oil. We are like crack addicted freaks running to the dealer in the bad part of town, the Middle East.
Why do we do this? Why have we handicapped ourselves so?
One reason is Middle East oil was easier to get at than a lot of our oil, therefore cheaper. But the real reason is, we are hamstrung in this country by greenies who chain themselves to trees to save owls. The same militants who put their boats in between whales and whaling harpoons.
They call themselves activists, I call them militants. And they are as dangerous to the future of this country as the terrorists in the Middle East, because they undermine our ability to provide our own energy solutions because they think that saving some fish is more important than saving the free world. They claim some species is a treasured resource while ignoring the fact that freedom is more precious and important a commodity to peace and the well-being of this planet than a bird. They are more worried about an oil spill than they are about thousands of deaths of Americans, either from terror attacks or from direct conflict in our efforts to keep the Middle East in the “right” hands.
As I wrote in “That Blood on your hands is GREEN”, these conservation militants are partly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in the future in ANY war that is partially or mostly motivated by oil concerns in the Middle East. Their incessant insistence that we put wildlife above national security is now coming back to haunt us.
This country has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. The number I heard was somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 BILLION barrels in the form of crude and shale oil. The stark raving lunatics of the left chant “we won’t drill in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades” but what they don’t talk about is any rational approach to the mining and drilling of other areas in Colorado or on the gulf and Ocean coastal waters. Their ignorance of improvements in the safety of those technologies is driven mostly by lust for a policy of NOTHING as opposed to putting their Country first.
The holistic approach to the world these radicals espouse prevents any compartmentalized discussion about the finer details as to how to go about reaching all of our goals collectively and with compromise, instead of simply their all or nothing world of NOTHING.
Their rants of “we can’t drill out way out of this problem” and “were ANWR online right now the price of gas wouldn’t go down more than a few cents” is like a smoker not stopping smoking because the risk of cancer for him won’t go away the day after he quits. Moving ahead NOW with increased drilling, and the raising of the federal ban on offshore drilling, would be a part of a broad policy change in this country to get agressive in seeking solutions that can help us get off the Middle East tit that we seem to be content suckling until we die.
In the coming election, we should expect the two proposed leaders to go head to head on such issues. This country should be very ready to change course. I for one expect strong and agressive changes.
Thus far, I am not impressed with Obama’s approach, and only mildly more impressed with McCain’s.
Maybe our screaming will help them “get it”.
Conservative Blog Political Potpourri for March 9th, 2008
Water Boarding- Surf’s Up!
The Dims are bashing President Bush’s veto of a bill that would prohibit waterboarding. I personally like ocean sports, and I am happy to see that we can all hope that the CIA will keep their lifejackets on for a while.
Bush stated that this is the wrong time to restrict a practice that has saved American lives. I agree. The opposition states it will cost American lives, and that it will endanger prisoners of war. Apparently they have not seen video of Daniel Pearl or others having their heads cut off. I don’t think you can endanger any of our people any more than they already are, nor can you tout anecdotal evidence of any kind that indicates that the response has been “ramped up” by the enemy in response to water boarding.
Surf’s up…
Obama for VP?
Republicans are so principled as to be sometimes backwards in their thinking, creating “cut off your nose to spite your face” scenarios. I have to love my fellow GOP’ers for holding such staunch positions on principles that thier logic becomes mindbending. Liberals on the other hand will
It ain’t the Gestapo you have to worry about…
The legislators from the left of the Democrat Party would like you to think that they have your security in mind. They want you to know, that, when it comes to protecting your information, who you are, what you do, and the records that follow you, that they are on your side, watching your back. How we know this is they ride Bush’s hind side day in and day out when it comes to phone records. But, really, what do phone records have to do with protecting your actual security?
"You can’t HANDLE the truth!!!" - Why liberals cannot be trusted with judgement on "justice"…
The death of Bhutto in Pakistan now has some on the left loosely using that phrase, “brought to justice”, again, when it comes to terrorists. And, like the attempts to give licenses to illegals, liberals are showing over and over that they just don’t understand the equations of the world well enough to handle the seriousness of issues such as these.
Another example? “Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people.” It is a very simple concept to put your mind around, if you have a mind. But we have never been able to get those on the left to understand it.
When you deal with a problem, you have to understand it with your mind, first, before you try to address it with your “heart”. If you do the heart thing first, well, good luck. If you do the heart thing only, you are lost.
We have seen, over and over again that the approach of the left, when dealing with problems as serious as illegal immigration or terrorism, is to be soft hearted, and offer olive branches, or licenses to illegals so they will “come out of the shadows”.
Clearly, clearly, those on the left don’t understand the minds of those people they are trying to administer “justice” to.
First off, illegals do not come out of the “shadows” to sign up for Drivers Licenses. Why? Because they are ILLEGAL, and afraid of being identified.
How utterly stupid does one have to be to not recognize that the action of signing up for a form of “identification” is something that someone who is “illegally” here does not want?Anyone who thinks this will bring out nearly 12 million illegal people so we can “track and identify them” clearly has an intellectual deficiency that cannot be understood.
Secondly, when you think that “bringing terrorists to justice” means “arresting, detaining, and prosecuting” them, you clearly don’t understand your enemy.
Anyone who is willing to blow themselves up to kill 140 people and “maybe” get their target does not care about prisons, trials, or execution.
Anyone who is willing to use children as suicide bombers does NOT care about lawyers, due process, or being confined to a cell.
Not one of the approaches that people on the left would propose would work for serious issues like illegal immigration and terrorism.
I don’t equate the illegals with terrorists, or as being equal acts.
But I do equate them as being equally difficult to solve and address, and nearly equal when it comes to our national securityClearly, those on the left are not equipped for such decisions.
That Blood on your hands is GREEN
I am going to tie the war in Iraq, OIL, and the responsibility of the left for creating that war, all together.First, I want to say out loud that I promised myself when I started this blog that I would try to make it entertaining, AND informative. It can’t be just ONE of those, and it really is far too easy to just take pot shots at the left and ridicule them, even thought it does take some skill to be entertaining while doing so.
With that in mind, I have to try to avoid writing an article on the “nine second” Senate farce of today. Apparently the Dems felt they needed to be the mouse that roared as they gaveled in and gaveled out a meaningless expression of “power”, in order to make sure that Bush did not have the opportunity to make a recess appointment for the Assistant AG. Yahoo for them. Wow. Big move on their part.
What I would rather focus on is the failures of the left, most notably on National Energy Policy, over the decades, as driven by the left of the Democrat party- and illustrate how they are responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in the Middle East.
Let’s start with one basic premise of the left.”The war in Iraq is over oil.”
OK. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, “You’re right.” I mean, we can make the argument, pretty easily, that the US is not gaining any OIL benefits at this time for attacking Iraq. That would normally be enough to dispel the idiotic logic of the left that the war was about securing some kind of oil windfall for the west or the United States.
On the other hand, there might be a reason to concede ONE thing when those on the left say “The war is over oil.” We could concede that, were there NO oil in Iraq, there would have been no reason to go into Iraq after September 11th, right?
WRONG.
Afghanistan is not exactly oil rich. Yet we went in there because their was a perception of threat from there, after September 11th. It had nothing to do with oil. (Some will argue it has to do with a proposed pipeline… whatever.)
Similarly, were there no oil in Iraq, the perception of a huge threat was there, in the form of WMD.
My point is, “we did not invade either country purely due to oil interests.” No matter how many times we repeat that, we still come back and find the left saying we invaded Iraq for OIL.
So, I have a bitter pill for the left to swallow.
For decades now, the green movement has killed Nuclear Power plants; has attacked Coal Power plants; has fought the expansion of US refineries; has fought to breech Hydroelectric Dams. At every turn, where energy can be obtained, the far left is there, to tell you, wagging their finger “Nuh-UH UHahhhhh!”
For a Country that won the race to the moon- we have been crippled from producing our OWN energy by the green left.
Nuclear energy is (especially now) incredibly reliable. Even INCLUDING the Chernobyl accident, the amount of accidental deaths worldwide per year eclipse that “disaster” by incredible numbers.
France obtains a majority of their energy (electric) from Nuclear plants. And they have done so for DECADES, without incident. Do most of us really think that with all of the environmental regulations on everything in this country that we are as lax and apt to have the accidents that the USSR had? Yet, the left will not budge on any proposal to move into true “energy independence”, as they cannot stomach the “costs”.
What is the cost? US lives, or a few Caribou? War in the world, or storing Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain?
The reality is, in this Country, we are so preoccupied with being “perfect” and submissive to the littlest squeak of the left that we are selling our energy future down the tube.
And while the left pushes that future farther and farther out, the more likely it is that US forces will have to DIE fighting to maintain order in a part of the world that has OIL that is ready to be pumped out of the ground.That is, if you believe the left when they say the war(s) are about oil in the first place.
Sounds like a bit of a logical conundrum to me. I mean, IF you are on the left and believe the war (or any war in the Middle East) is a product of U.S. interest in OIL, then you have to come to the conclusion that barring the U.S. from utilizing energy sources that we have available to us, NOW, which might make us more independent of foreign oil, is also a “vote for war”, so to speak. Can you really have it both ways???
How many lives are lost in the next “War over Oil” when Ted Kennedy and friends prohibit clean wind turbine energy off the coast of Natucket?
How many lives will be on the minds of greenies the next time a war over oil erupts in the Middle East, and they spent their time fighting offshore drilling near Florida or California?
When the next Nuclear plant is not opened or developed due to the left, will there be signs showing the faces of the next generation of youth to die in the next “war over oil in the Middle East”?
How many soldiers lives does one Nuclear Power Plant represent? How many Caribou might have to be slightly inconvenienced in ANWAR to avoid the next war?
The far left, especially on energy, has to start realizing that there are consequences to their obstruction of U.S. Energy Policy expansion. If they want to support the idea that the wars are about oil, they DO have some control over how important oil IS.
I think one could make the argument that the blood of our soldiers is on the hands of the Greenies…
In Search of the Free Lunch…
The left-driven Democrat party will, early next week, ‘push’ through a bill (one of the few of this pathetic “majority” party). This bill should be exposed for what it is- not an “Energy Bill” but an “Energy Wish List”. Despite the laws of thermodynamics, the far left still believes that you can insert the words “alternative” and “clean” next to the word “energy” and- “POOF!”, we will have what we need, the world will be clean, and everyone will be happy!
The first thing one should note about the energy bill is that it has little to do with actually achieving realistic energy creation on a massive scale. More accurately, their proposal sounds like a pie in the sky approach to a massive problem.
The first part of the bill worth noting is the CAFE standards. The left keeps insisting that higher mileage automobiles will help make us energy independent. Aside from the numerous holes one could poke in that theory, the most important point one could make is that even by achieving these standards, we do nothing, nothing, to make this Country “independent”. All this will do is kick the can down the road.
Energy Independence means you produce your own, not that you use less of what is provided by others.
Considering the “visions” of the far left, the cynical side of me says these higher CAFE standards are more likely intended to punish auto manufacturers by making their product cost far more than it does now; and in turn, this will promote a fertile ground for mass transit bills on a federal scale.
With raising the CAFE standards, what the left does is create the illusion of “saving” energy, while in fact, it will do next to nothing to help us achieve that elusive word, “independence”. To extend this point out, imagine what happens in say, 25 years from now. The left will want cars to achieve 70mpg??? Is that possible? No, it is not. Not unless you want 0-60 in just under 4 miles, eliminate hills, and don’t ever intend on having a car as large as a Yugo, let alone, carry a passenger.
The “energy” bill proposes support for ‘alternative’ fuels. Essentially, what the left envisions is an energy source that has nearly zero impact on the planet. The closest thing we have to that on a massive and practical scale is nuclear, but we all know that is not anywhere on the horizon while leftist environmentalists are around to throw their tantrums.
So that leaves us with ethanol, biofuel, solar, and wind. Clean, “renewable” (this is a misleading term in this case), and earth friendly, right?
The last time we thought we had a clean, renewable, and earth friendly source of energy, we built a several hundred dams. The wonderful clean renewable hydroelectric source had an unforeseen effect on nature, most notably fish runs, but also on downstream wildlife that relied on flooding, erosion, and sedimentary factors. What are the potential effects of wind and bio energy?
Biofuel/ethanol seems harmless enough, right? Food into fuel! But wait… we already are hearing the cries of others on the left, about how absurd it is to make food into fuel when much of the world starves. And imagine the need for fertilization, in a world that gets its energy from say, corn. Isn’t fertilizer one of the killers of the streams, rivers, and oceanic continental shelf life?
So this somewhat lofty idea, supported by the left, is also threatened, by others on the left. So much for ‘harmless’ energy.
Strike ONE.
“What about wind and solar power!”
Wind and solar power seems harmless enough. Nice and squeaky clean, quiet, “renewable” (there’s that misleading word again!). But, wait… they have tried for over 6 years to get a wind farm off of Nantucket amidst the screams of rich ninnies and leftist groups (including Ted Kennedy) that the turbines will ruin the “view” of the ocean. That is right, the “view” is more important than energy independence. “I am all for energy independence, but not in my backyard” seems to be the mantra with both wind and solar, which would have similar footprint issues.
Even beyond those issues of “aesthetics”, honestly, you have an unknown effect on the environment when you start talking about carpeting the desert with solar panels or poking thousands to tens of thousands of turbine towers into the ocean. You think the ‘wildlife freaks’ are out of their minds about foresting? Just wait until you start creating false reefs with thousands of ocean bound wind turbines; or California Condor populations (and other birds) are threatened with an increase of 100 fold of wind turbines in that State. Imagine the hooplah about desert life being disturbed by hundreds of thousands or even millions of Solar panels. The desert is like the arctic… it takes years and years to adjust, show the problem, and then recovery takes even longer.
Do you think we can gain large amounts of energy resources there without an enormous fight from the left???
So, Strike TWO.
This bill clearly does not address increasing funding or putting effort into developing cleaner coal based energy, a resource our Country has a bounty of. Nor does it address trying to continue down a path towards drilling in ANWAR.
Again, like the “view” in Nantucket, independence on foreign oil is related to something like preserving caribou in a place no men ever even trod. And of course, again, the Democrats put their ideological objections to Nuclear in front of freedom from foreign energy dependence.
The long and short of it is, there really is NO energy source on this planet that will have zero effect on our environment. This is something that far lefties do not realize. They think you can take grease from a restaurant deep fryer and save the planet by turning it into fuel for one truck. Some of these same people think “Why don’t we have more electric cars? I mean, electricity comes from the wall socket. It is clean.”
Back to the laws of thermodynamics… trying to get something for nothing… “ain’t gonna work”.
The “Energy Bill” is nothing more than a proposal of pipe dreams, which do not move us closer to energy independence.
Strike THREE.
How sad is it that this Country would be held hostage between radical Islam controlling a large part of the world’s oil resources, and radical American leftists controlling the ability for America to become energy independent. I mean, which side is worse? One side is the enemy; the other side is supposed to be on OUR side. Yet they (the left) can’t see past a harbor seal or a bird, when it comes to saving a Country from evil from without. Incredibly sad and shortsighted.
What this Country needs is a comprehensive energy policy and mandate, much like we had in the Cold War with the “Space Race”. Kennedy had the insight to know that beating Russia to the moon held the promise of defeating them militarily concerning the missile race. THIS Country now needs to recognize that a race for Nuclear Fusion is at our feet, as a challenge. If we can race to the moon in 10 years, we can perfect Nuclear energies to the point where they are nearly harmless to the environment or the safety of mankind.
It is time for the President to make such a speech, and mandate, for the development of THIS nations resources, in spite of the left. It is time for a Nuclear program on a par with the Moon Program of the 60’s. It is time for leadership.
It is time that we realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy. Not yet, as long as our source of energy is generated on this planet. And until this Country realizes that NEW energy is the only path to independence, we will be slaves both to the environmentalist left, and the radical Middle East.
Energy production and independence needs to become a “top five” issue for the Republican party. As long as we are slaves to oil from the Middle East, we are not free.
The left needs to realize that until we find such a source, their objections to the fuels that are available to us have to stop standing in the way of achieving our goals.
Otherwise, THEY are the enemy of this Country.
The utterly BRILLIANT left wing ideologue scientist, Nobel winner, internet creator, and "Champion of the chad recount", Al Gore has once again wowed us with some more amazing feats of observation.
Gore says the most recent Myanmar tragedy, Cyclone Nargis, which claimed 200,000 lives, was the result of Global Warming.
Nice job, Nostradamus.
This has brought on a chorus of rejection from scientists worldwide that claim that NO storm could be directly attributed to either the global warming phenom OR the science... neither of which could support Gore's claims.
And this is supposed to be one of the left's "best". God help us. He could have been PRESIDENT.
The passing of Tim Russert brings to mind, for me, the importance of excellent journalism. Russert was one of the finest. While loving life, he would still grill your butt on anything that was the buzz... no free passes, and he understood that journalism was the 4th branch of the US democratic process.
Our US political process and the field of Journalism will sorely miss Tim Russert.
Paul Begala, bomb throwing liberal pundit and talk show man, recently made clear what the left truly thinks. And remember, the "left" is supposed to be the party that blacks should love and vote for.
Said Begala "We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of the first George Bush."
I totally agree by the way. You cannot win with only black Americans. You CAN win with only eggheads, though...
This insinuation that African American support of Obama is the reason for Obama having ANY chance is correct. I think what Begala is saying is the same thing Clinton is saying, in a more veiled way.
And I think what Begala is trying to say is "Obama is propped up by an African American vote- and that is IT. He cannot win without it."
I agree... but I think it is a stupid to take that approach, or point out such a point of view, especially if you are a person from the party that claims (falsely) to represent the black community BEST.