The latest talk show circuit talking point by the liberal apologists is the claim that the oil companies have millions of acres of land already leased for oil development, but the companies are not using them. The inference is that they do not need to drill offshore or in Alaska, because they are already sitting on a bonanza approved for drilling. They use the statement as evidence that the oil industry is creating the current crises on purpose.

Of course, none of that is true. There is an excellent article in the Opinion page of today’s Wall Street Journal penned by Red Cavaney (is that an oilman’s name or what?). Mr. Cavaney is president of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association that represents the oil and gas industry, (i.e. the horse’s mouth)

In it, Mr. Cavaney outlines how oil leases operate. The bottom line is that the oil companies pay millions of dollars to state and federal agencies to lease land for the privilege to explore for oil. That’s “explore” not necessarily “find”. Lots of wells are dry, and costly. If the companies do not find oil, they move on, but it still shows up as leased on government books. And the government is making lots of coin on the transaction, whether or not oil is found. Of course, if oil is found, the government gets much more money in royalties. Then they tax the crude when it moves, tax it when it gets refined, tax it when petroleum products are sold to retailers, and tax it when it is sold to consumers. Then they accuse the oil companies of gouging. Wow, what gall. The only party guaranteed a profit in the oil business is the government. The higher the price, the more profit the government makes, whether or not the oil companies make money. Do I detect a little conflict of interest here?

If, after all this cost of exploration and taxing the oil companies are still able to make a profit, then Congress threatens to impose a "windfall tax". Who needs King George?



This is typical of the misinformation spread by liberals in their attempts to justify bankrupt policies. Next time you hear liberals make statements that supports their position, don’t just take their word for it. It’s probably not true.

That's a quote from Red Cavaney of the Petroleum Institute in response to Democrats' suggestions that domestic drilling will not affect our energy supply for 10 years, so it is not an answer to our energy problems. Such short term reasoning makes no sense. If a farmer never planted his fields because it will take a whole season to harvest a crop, we would starve. Are the liberals saying we should never look for anymore oil? How, then do we heat our homes, drive our cars, plow our fields? Alternative energy is also years away, even more so.

President Bill Clinton vetoed legislation from a Republican congress allowing drilling in the ANWR. That was 13 years ago. If he had signed it instead, we would not be having this conversation.

The talking heads that say increased production in the U.S. will not affect gas prices, are the same ones who want us to beg Middle Eastern oil producers to increase their production, so it will lower the price of gas. Go figure.

The liberals are so steeped in talking points, they forget to analyze what they say. These arguments coming from otherwise intelligent and educated people are truly bizarre. We are intelligent and educated, also, and we're not buying it.

I recently read a publication by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (published during the Clinton administration, citation below) that presented a short history of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a summary of the wildlife resources that occur on the Coastal Plain. Not surprisingly the writers conclude that the area proposed for oil exploration should remain forever off limits. They use noble prose extolling our high calling to worship Mother Nature and disdaining our efforts to destroy her ever so fragile home. You get the feeling you must hold your breath because merely breathing on it will destroy it “irreparably” (they like that word).

The article reprises quotes from several preservationists, including one of their high idols, Cecil Andrus, Former Secretary of the Interior under President Jimmy Carter. He said about the ANWR:

"In some places, such as the Arctic Range, the wildlife and natural values are so
magnificent and so enduring that they transcend the value of any mineral that
may lie beneath the surface. Such minerals are finite. Production inevitably
means changes whose impacts will be measured in geologic time in order to gain
marginal benefits that may last a few years."

Anyone trying to get a permit from the Service to develop a piece of land has heard all this before. I have seen similar language used to justify permit denials for filling in a muddy tire rut on an empty lot because some allegedly endangered fairy shrimp showed up in it. That is the problem with state and federal environmental agencies. They are filled with idealistic biologists who cannot bring themselves to balance competing interests in the use of natural resources. No undeveloped piece of land is too small, too disturbed, or too isolated to stop it from being developed. Their only answer is to say no to everything and duck when the yelling starts. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose, but in any case, it is expensive. It takes months, if not years, to get a reasonable decision from these agencies on even the most trivial of impacts because the landowner must delicately appeal staff decisions to multiple levels of senior management, sometimes all the way to the top.

So, with that background, we are now asked to believe that the ANWR is so sacrosanct and pristine that even walking on it will do harm with incalculable repercussions for the entire region? I think not.



Without going through each of their arguments, which is easy to do, but perhaps a bit boring for most, I’ll cover a few of the main points. I have the same information they do, but I believe I have a more rational and balance outlook. I am, after all, a conservative.

• First, we are only talking about 2,000 acres of oilfield development out of 1.5 million acres on the coastal plain. The entire ANWR is 19 million acres. We cannot access this postage stamp sized area without destroying the entire northern hemisphere? Give me a break.

• The doomsday scenarios proffered assume no advancement in exploration and production technology since 1960. Comparing dated technology to the current sophistication in oilfield development and product transport is like comparing a paddle boat  to a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Most of the potential impacts discussed in the Service article can be avoided, and has been avoided in other regions around the world for decades. Prudhoe Bay has been an ideal testing ground for all manner of new technologies that minimize or eliminate impacts.

• The area in question is not pristine to begin with. There are natives nearby in the town of Kaktovik. They have homes, roads, power lines, wells, etc, and they hunt the animals in question. The U.S. military has a manned early warning radar facility there. It’s not like there are no impacts in the area today.

• The article mentioned that there is unlikely to be much oil in the ANWR and that it was not worth the effort to get it. Funny, several federal agencies think otherwise. The USGS, for example, estimated that daily production from ANWR would exceed what is now being produced in any other state, including Texas or Louisiana; for many years to come.

• But most importantly, biologists love to speculate that any disturbance of a species’ natural habitat will automatically have far reaching and “irreparable” consequences to the species ultimate survival. This “reality” is held irrespective of the facts or past experience that is almost never so dire. Yet, for a layman to challenge this viewpoint is to be labeled uneducated and ignorant. For a biologist to challenge it is to be accused of being a prostitute to industry. No biologist wants to be accused of sacrificing his integrity for a paycheck, so most who know better just sit down and shut up. Internal dissension is harshly quashed behind the scenes.

In this case, the Service article addresses several potential impacts that they concluded will irreparably impact the entire ANWR. They call this frozen, dark, featureless, and desolate place the “Heart of the ANWR”. Quick. Someone break out the defibrillator. Some examples of such hated impacts are running a snow tractor across a frozen field, or disturbing (i.e. being observed by) caribou or muskoxen. It makes many far fetched assumptions and ignores past experience that had neutral consequences. When challenged, their response is that this time it will be different; irreparably. Right. Do I hear someone crying “wolf”?

I could write a book on all the arguments and counter arguments centered around these misguided policies and rules, but this is not the forum. The bottom line is that most science today is based on conclusions arrived at with little or totally absent empirical data. It’s called Junk Science. True scientific method commands that one gather data and live with the results, even if the results are unexpected. Junk science is forming a conclusion, then looking for the evidence to support it. But, if the evidence is not available, they don’t let minor problems like that get in the way. We have a planet to save.

Many of the policies of environmental agencies are based on inadequate evidence. But, as with global warming, a totally fabricated computer model theory, bureaucrats are willing and anxious to promulgate policy anyway because, in their view, the consequences of inaction are too dire not to act. Problem is, we don’t even know that a problem exists let alone how to fix it.

So, the point of this post is this: Just because a big agency of the federal government says it is so, does not necessarily make it so. The Service’s opinion of the effects of drilling in the ANWR is Exhibit A.

Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern. Web page of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. 18 October 2000.

Another walking fish pulled itself onto dry land today as the Democratic Party platform evolves into Marxist dogma. Adding to Rep. Maxine Waters' threat to nationalize the oil industry, now Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey said on Fox News today, "We (the government) should own the refineries; Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

After, I am sure, a stern talking to by the more circumspect Democrat leaders, the congressman equivocated on his meaning. But even his backtracking revealed a sigh of "If only we could".

Besides Ms. Waters' comment a couple of weeks ago, there was also Malia Lazu, a Democratic Strategist and Obama supporter, who asked Neil Cavuto, why don't we just nationalize the oil companies?"

Does this sound like the beginnings of a campaign? First raise the trial balloon and see it get laughed out of the room. But then, keep it popping up here, there, everywhere, until the public says, "Yeah. Why not?"

These big government liberals want control of business and the money it accesses. Most of them have no clue how to start or manage one themselves, so they see a heavy handed government as the road to success. First, the Democrats spend almost 3 decades to create a problem by limiting supply of a vital national resource; then, when the inevitable crises hits, they point fingers at industry and use it as the pretext to take it over. Could this be more transparent? Do you want to stand in a DMV type line to fill up your tank on your assigned day, at quadruple the cost? That's how government would manage oil.

The voting public is smarter than that, but these people need to be marginalized, and fast.

The Democrats are not interested in working toward energy independence. Remember that in November.

Bush to Urge Congress to Allow Offshore Drilling

As expected, environmental groups are falling all over themselves to use the recent listing of the polar bear as threatened to stop oil exploration and production.

These groups, especially the Center for Biological Diversity, line their pockets with millions filing lawsuits against industry. These are the people most responsible for our dependence on foreign oil and the voluminous bureaucratic regulations that take years to overcome. Through it all, the environment is not protected or improved. These "environmental" lawyers tell the public that industry is destroying the earth; but they have no evidence proving any such thing. Instead, they challenge projects on procedural grounds. Even if they lose, it takes millions of dollars and years of legal gymnastics for companies to clear lawsuits so their projects can finally move forward. All the while the ultra-litigious environmental extremists stuff their bank accounts with the money they extort from American business through court awarded fees and settlements. The liberal courts and the press are their constant allies in this unholy alliance.

Senior staff of regulatory agencies consistently tell me that industry almost never sues. It's always the environmentalists that sue. So, besides the fact that most wildlife agencies sympathize with the preservationists, regulators are more afraid of the environmentalists than American business. Say no to industry and nothing happens. Say no to an environmentalist and get sued.



So, next time you fill up your gas tank and see almost a hundred dollars fly out of your pocket, thank the Center for Biological Diversity.

Isn't it time we fought back?

The Wall Street Journal today reported that B.H. Obama said in an interview that Globalization, technology and automation all weaken the position of workers, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

Karl Marx couldn't have said it better.

My focus on oil in this blog might lead one to believe that I do not support alternative energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any process that produces energy in a responsible and environmentally benign manner should be pursued with enthusiasm. My point is, we know oil. We know where it is, how to get it safely, how to refine it, and there is a distribution system in place that gets it to the market quickly and efficiently. If an alternative source that replaces the current oil based economy arises, it will not be for decades. So, while we pursue other energy sources, our main focus should be getting more oil from within our own shores.

The price of oil should further create an incentive for the private sector to develop more energy sources. Contrary to flowery speeches by politicians and environmentalists who want to end our relationship with oil and instead conserve and use “renewable resources”, people have been working on just that for a long, long time. Billions of dollars are being spent on the search for an oil replacement. But depending on that research to replace oil anytime soon presents a few problems:

1.  The reason an alternative energy source has not gone into full replacement production is that they are all either too expensive or woefully inefficient.

2.  Even if an alternative source is found, it will take many billions of dollars and many years to establish an infrastructure to distribute the alternative. Think of building all of the existing gas stations around the country overnight. It’s not going to happen.

3.  Many renewable resources have their own set of environmental problems. You will find all the usual suspects who cry for an alternative to oil also decrying the earth-ending impacts of each of the so-called alternatives:

Wind power kills birds, especially raptors. Environmental agencies and activists groups routinely oppose construction of windmills because of potential bird kills. They are also unsightly in the view of people who have to look at entire hillsides covered with windmills. Just ask Ted Kennedy and his family who oppose one windmill on Martha’s Vineyard because it’s ugly.

Hydro power means damming up streams to force water into turbines to create electricity. Every time an existing hydroelectric dam is up for its 50 year federal license renewal, a cabal of environmental groups come out of the woodwork to lobby for its denial. They want the dam to be removed so the stream can be returned to is natural state. Forget about building a new hydro dam.

Solar power requires many acres of photoelectric panels to capture the sun’s rays. Environmental groups oppose this because the panels shade the desert floor, affecting the natural habitat for the desert tortoise and sensitive desert plants. A solar plant also require significant support facilities and human activity that changes the land use from open space into an industrial purpose. Permitting such a facility takes many years and millions of dollars of mitigation or replacement habitat and management.

Using solar power on individual homes is not cost efficient. The solar panels that go on the roofs of homes are expensive, and they corrode easily. Maintenance costs can be prohibitive. It takes at least 10 years to make the investment back (given current energy rates), and they will likely need to be replaced by then.

Geothermal power can be used in areas where there are volcanic forces near the surface. Its overall contribution is very limited. It also has its detractors. Environmental groups oppose them because they require ancillary development in delicate areas, and they can deplete the water table, causing adjacent thermal fissures to go dry. Injection plants can also create instability in geohazardous areas typical of geothermal fields.

Nuclear energy has been extinct in recent decades due to a raft of Hollywood leftest movies acting out doomsday scenarios of the earth’s destruction should one melt down. Three Mile Island was the last straw. Even though no serious radiation leak occurred and it was an expensive accident to clean up, it was quickly contained and cleaned up. That’s because that was how it was designed. Accidents will happen. The test is what happens then? With Three Mile Island, no health hazard resulted. The Soviet Union on the other hand, that bastion of liberal, Marxist thought, totally destroyed a city for the next thousand years due to their incompetence. Marxism has little regard for the health of its workers, and there is no economic incentive to be the best. So we in the U.S. are to be held to their standards, and are not allowed to build any more plants.

Then there is the issue of storing nuclear waste generated by power plants. There is a perfectly fine, state-of-the-art facility to store nuclear waste in a safe and efficient manner in the Nevada Desert. Yucca Mountain is available, but unusable because liberals in congress will not allow it to be used. The Marxist majority leader of the Senate, who happens to be the Senator from Nevada, says, the Nevada desert will not be the dumping ground for the rest of the nation. He makes this statement irrespective of the fact that the “dump” is underground, safe, provides lots of jobs, provides the state with royalty revenue from other states that store their “product”, and is hundreds of miles from the nearest significant settlement. In other words, it’s in the middle of nowhere. Thanks, Senator.

There are other, boutique methods of energy development: ocean wave generators, various bio fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced electrical storage, etc., but even the potential of any of these becoming mainstream is 20 to 30 years away, if ever.

So, this brings us back to oil. If there is a better energy source, I’d like to hear about it. Meanwhile, we need to drill here, now.

Now that the price of gasoline and transportation is going through the roof, the subject of achieving more energy independence is finally gaining traction in the news and blogs. That’s great. The biggest impediment to establishing a rational energy policy has been the lack of attention over the past several decades. It was just too cheap to bother with.

However, while the outrageous cost of filling up our fuel tanks is a major issue, there is another, far more important reason to work toward independence: National Security.

Think about it. Much of our crude oil comes from counties that hate us. Yet, for decades we have freely handed them a potent weapon as we become more and more dependent on their crude. And now they are using it.

Oil is not a dirty word. It is the lifeblood of our economy. True, it makes our cars run, but I’d bet most people do not realize how much of what they use everyday is also oil related. Besides running planes, trains, and automobiles to distribute everything we use, oil is the base material for many plastics. Is there anything today not made of plastic? Oil is the base material for synthetic clothing, fertilizer, pesticides, synthetic weapons grade material for national defense, industrial materials; the list is almost endless. Who needs a nuclear bomb when you can bring a powerful nation down without firing a shot?

We can see how much power these oil producing countries have on rapidly escalating prices. Our national economy is reeling over it. So what happens if this cabal decides to withhold oil from us altogether? It is easy to do. China and India will certainly buy what we would have bought. How do we grow food, process it, get it to the store, get it to our kitchens? Pretty soon the mantra “no blood for oil” will become “go to war for food”. A radical statement, and an overreaction? Maybe, but certainly not impossible given the radical zealots among our enemies.

A few examples of oil producing states include Saudi Arabia (the 9-11 hijackers), Syria, Yemen, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Indonesia, Russia, Venezuela (their president Hugo Chavez calls our president the devil), Mexico, Ecuador; the list goes on. Given how dependent we all are on oil, why would we allow the leaders of these nations to have such a hold on us?

We need to drill now on U.S. soil.

Sign this petition to move toward energy independence.

http://www.americansolutions.com/drillnow

Remember that email that went around a few years ago citing frightening statistics on the character of individual members of Congress? It listed convictions for fraud, writing bad checks, bankruptcies, bad credit, drug-related charges, shoplifting, drunk driving, and spouse abuse. While specific individuals were not mentioned and that congress is long over, there is no argument that many in the current ruling class are pretty classless. No wonder their approval rating is down to 11%, half that of President Bush.

I mention this as a backdrop to the embarrassing circus we observed recently as a panel of congressional members grilled big oil executives. The energy producers, the people who provide the fuel for the country’s economic engine, were treated no better than FBI perp walkers, minus the handcuffs. They were accused of everything short of child molestation. But to see these elected ingrates on the panel pointing spindly fingers at these business tycoons was hard to watch. Especially embarrassing was the always entertaining Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize the oil industry if they did not lower the price of gasoline. Ms. Waters appeared to have forgotten that it is her party that has for several decades blocked drilling and new refineries in this country. As demand steadily rises, supply remains the same or decreases as a direct consequence of her actions. What did Ms. Waters think would happen to prices?

So, let’s say Ms. Waters and her Marxist cronies really do take over the oil business. I am curious what their plan might be once we have state run gas stations. When can I expect to get my $1.89 a gallon gas at Maxine & Barack’s Filler-Up Quick Mart? Will Ms. Waters also nationalize the milk duds and beer? They are too expensive, too, you know? And how, exactly is the government going to get cheaper gasoline for me? Or am I going to pay $10 a gallon so the “underprivileged” can get free gas stamps?

I have a better idea. How about, instead, allowing an increase in domestic supply, lowering the federal gas tax, and lobbying the states to lower their gas taxes? In California the federal and state gasoline taxes are 61 cents per gallon and rising. All the government has to do is sit back and count the money as it rolls in. It rivals the percentage OPEC makes on crude. They are the ones cleaning up here. The oil companies make 8 to 10 cents profit on every dollar it collects. They, on the other hand, must explore for new oil fields, come up with dry wells and successes alike, produce the oil, transport it, refine it, sell it to retailers, and pay back investors (you and me) into their 401(k) stock plans. Who is the gouger here, Ms. Waters? Maybe we need to nationalize the congress? Maybe you and your ideology need to leave congress so someone who is really looking out for the people can serve instead.

We the people must send a loud and repetitious message to congress . . . unloose the engine of freedom and prosperity. Ms. Waters should get out of the way and let the people do what they do best. And, unless she has credible evidence that the oil guys are doing something illegal, and last I heard making money for stockholders, reinvestment, and their paychecks is still legal in this country, leave them alone so they can get on with their business.

Oil Exploration in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

You probably have seen numerous TV news reports discussing drilling for oil in the ANWR. Typically, during the voice over news report, the background video displays spectacular natural features in Alaska, such as the majestic Brooks Range mountains or the Yukon River, complete with caribou, salmon, bears, and a panorama of incredibly beautiful landscapes.

But that is not the coastal plain of the ANWR where oil is located. That part of the 19 million acre ANWR is a flat, treeless, and featureless 1.5 million acre desert of frozen tundra that extends from the Brooks Range northward to the Beaufort Sea. The temperature can drop below -40 degrees Fahrenheit during the 56 days of total darkness in the winter. Very few animals inhabit the coastal plain especially in winter.

Several species of birds, a few polar bears that den on the Beaufort Sea pack ice, and lemmings that burrow beneath the snow are the only animals that endure the long winters. May or June brings a few more birds, the arctic fox, and a portion of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Environmentalists usually cite the caribou and polar bear as the most threatened animal species if oil exploration is allowed. The coastal plain is not an important polar bear habitat, as few are observed in the area. As for the caribou, that issue was put to rest decades ago after the Alyeska oil pipeline was built. Environmentalists and their press enablers had a meltdown in the 1970s, warning that the caribou herd would be decimated. The caribou, they said, would not reproduce due to construction of the heated pipeline and proximity of humans in their wilderness habitat. After construction of the pipeline the central Arctic caribou herd grew from 6,000 in 1978 to about 25,000 today according to estimates by wildlife agencies. (There are over a million caribou statewide). Caribou actually calve and graze around the clearings near the warm pipeline. I worked along the pipeline for 2 years and I have seen it myself. They even hang around the drill rigs in Prudhoe Bay as trucks drive by. They don’t even look up.

So what gives? Either these news reporters are too lazy to do their homework, are clueless on anything remotely scientific, or are purposefully encouraging the devolution of freedom and democracy into Marxism. The typical way to create a Marxist regime is to take away fundamental necessities, then endear themselves to the population by rationing it back (party loyalists get more). I suspect it is a combination of all these motives, but mostly reporters are just too lazy. They allow themselves to be manipulated by Marxist environmentalists. These are the truly dangerous people. Not the rank and file dupes, but the leadership who are the greatest and best hope of the disaffected communists who now use environmental doom as the new fear tactic to lead us into another try at utopia.

We will get nowhere with the MSM. But with so much new media available, the rest of us, all of us, need to sound the clarion call repeatedly: The United States needs to become energy independent, and soon. Drill in the ANWR, off our shores, and anywhere else on our soil. We have the technology to do it safely and we cannot allow foreign terrorists or opportunist nations to threaten our freedom. There is nowhere to escape to this time.


Coastal Plain of ANWR (during daylight and without snow)

Unlike many middle aged adults, I did not become a conservative; I was born that way. I first noticed it when I campaigned for Goldwater when I was 12, and was glued to the TV listening to Reagan’s speech during the 1964 election. Even a lifetime of associating mostly with liberals has not altered my conservative outlook. In fact, it has only strengthened my observation that liberals talk a good game but do not deliver. Conservatism has historically been the ideology that most benefited the environment. We deal with facts, not feelings and bluster. I think they use to call that the scientific method, before science was abandoned for political correctness.

This was never more evident than when I became the administrator for the $30 million annual budget of the California Environmental License Plate (ELP) fund under Governor Deukmejian. The governor’s administration took over after Jerry Brown. Conventional wisdom dictated that Governor Brown was a champion of environmental protection. But just looking at his past budgets for the ELP fund, which was supposed to be spent for environmental projects, was instructive. Most of the money was flitted away on nonsensical projects in districts of political allies. For example a music camp in Lake Tahoe for the City of Berkeley.  Besides not being an environmental project, there was nothing to show for it, if you don’t count rumors of great parties at the lake. You can imagine what went on at those parties, and I got an earful during the audit. On the other hand, our “slash and burn Republican” administration used the money to partner with reputable nonprofit organizations and local governments to purchase, create, enhance and manage thousands of acres of wetlands and endangered species habitat. For eight years we ran environmental circles around Brown’s past budgets.

Did we get any credit for it? Well, you know the answer. In fact, within the first couple of years of Governor Deukmejian’s term, the Democrat legislature demanded that he submit a report to the legislature detailing how he spent the funds and how he helped the environment. They thought they would use the report to bash the governor during the next election. Problem is, I jumped at the opportunity to toot our own horn and listed in glorious detail all of our good environmental deeds. All verifiable. I also contrasted it with the previous governor’s administration. The report was delivered and quickly buried. We never saw it again; nor were we ever asked to submit another report.

This is but one, minor example of why conservatives are the real environmentalists. We need better PR, but in the past, we only had the MSM to help us out. Now, with a new outlet, we all need to work to inform the public that they have been fed a lie for decades. Liberals do not walk the talk. Conservatives make a difference. A big difference.

I am a biologist who made a career of balancing protection of the environment and healthy economic growth. It has become abundantly obvious to me that free, democratic, growing nations do the best job of protecting the environment.

That statement, while counter-intuitive to some, can be proven by simply looking at the state of the world today. Look at the utter destruction upon the natural environment that is being wreaked upon nations whose populations are either enslaved in Marxist dogma, or are fighting to survive another day. Of all the nations that use nuclear energy, which is the only one in the history of the world that experienced a catastrophic nuclear meltdown (Three Mile Island does not count because it was immediately contained and cleaned up) or dumped toxic waste in numerous lakes and streams? What continent has for decades denuded the native vegetation simply to cook meals and keep warm? What nation spends significant portions of its GNP to address environmental concerns, and those of other nations? Need I say more? Healthy business is good for the environment and a healthy environment is good for business. Get over it, Marxist environmentalists.

Given an alternative, conservatives should vote for no candidate who:

1. Refuses to responsibly drill or otherwise develop oil and energy resources on U.S. soil.
2. Is willing to pass or sign bills that destroys our economy and freedom in the name of bogus climate change.
3. Refuses to pursue in the most energetic way any terrorist or terrorist nation that aims to harm U.S. citizens.

If there are no candidates that are bull's eye on every issue, then at least aim for the board. B.H. Obama does not even know there is a board in the room.

The best way to protect the environment is to support business, growth, and freedom. That does not mean we do not prosecute violators who ignore reasonable environmental protections. Human nature dictates that there will be those among us who try to take advantage of circumstances to enrich themselves at the expense of others. They should be prosecuted and sent away if convicted. On the other hand, environmental laws should be straightforward and reasonable. Being convicted of outrageous laws is not environmental protection . . . it is state-sponsored environmental terrorism that does not protect the environment. It enslaves the populace while it destroys the environment.

Yes, energy independence is 10 years away. But if we wait until next year to start, it’s 11 years away. We need to get moving now.