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.

After listening to the Democratic candidates this past year, I have decided to help them express their policies in simple contract format so we the people, who are not so good at figuring out complicated concepts, can better understand liberalism and express our support for liberals’ superior intellect. Sign it and keep it filed away for when they come to take you away. It might get you out of jail free (or maybe not):

WHEREAS, IN ORDER TO BE A MORE PERFECT LIBERAL NATION, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:

AGREE that there is not necessarily a Creator, thus we cannot be endowed with inalienable rights by a Creator, thus the government may remove such privileges if it deems it necessary for our protection, or to preserve the all important wall of separation between church and state.

AGREE to give up numerous freedoms and accept government mandates governing our behavior whenever government finds that such mandates are good for us.

AGREE to be taxed more than 50% of an average salary; or a much higher percentage if we make more than the average salary or own a business.

AGREE to be grateful for government run industries, such as health care, education, energy production, transportation, food production, etc, because it is important that everyone have equal access to these services even if such services don't work or are of poor quality.

AGREE to pay significantly more for all staples and accept chronic shortages of such goods.

AGREE to settle for universally substandard education controlled by teacher unions and politicians, eliminate parental control, and avoid teaching our children about our founding principles or religious heritage.

AGREE to have no limits on abortion and kill over 1.5 million babies each year forever, including babies in the third trimester if the mother so desires.

AGREE to push more and more older people into euthanasia for the good of society and to lessen their burden on the health care system.

AGREE to have no constraints on illegal immigration and make every person and their families who arrive to the U.S. full citizens and registered Democrats.

AGREE to end or make meaningless the institution of marriage and teach our children that a gay lifestyle is as normal as a man and a woman raising a family.
        
AGREE to eliminate the private health care system and institute government run universal health care that allows the government to be responsible for our health care needs, and to:
    Let government employees make decisions regarding who is treated for what deceases,
    Let government employees deny treatment if we demonstrate “dangerous” behavior (e.g too many burgers and donuts),
    Wait a year or more to get a non life threatening doctor appointment,
    Put small business out of business because of increased taxes to pay for the system.

AGREE to stop scientific investigation when it is not consistent with politically correct liberal thought or conclusions.

AGREE to implement regulations to address global warming without regard to economic impact since supposedly saving the planet is far more important than freedom or maintaining a reasonable standard of living.

AGREE to limit free expression, including political speech, religious speech, any subject considered to be politically incorrect, or speech that may in any way offend someone (and therefore hate speech).

AGREE that certain religious beliefs are counterproductive and therefore illegal to express, especially if it offends anyone.

AGREE that patriotism should be discouraged and that citizens of all countries should consider themselves citizens of the global community with common goals administered through the United Nations.

AGREE that only official law enforcement has the right to use force, that the right of personal self defense does not exist, and that the government has the right to confiscated all firearms.

AGREE that protecting animals and plants, even insects and primitive plants, regardless of any scientific data that shows the animals or plants are not threatened, is more important than addressing human suffering or property rights.

AGREE that property rights do not exist except as granted temporarily on a case by case basis by the government.

And, finally, we AGREE that the United States Constitution is a living document written by a bunch of dead white guys in a time that could not foresee society as it is today, and was meant to be interpreted to account for such societal changes whenever judges feel it is necessary to make such a case.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and, in recognition that certain trade offs must be made to protect society, we declare that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Even though such attempts to construct a utopia have failed in the past, often resulting in massive death and destruction, such attempts were tried by people who were not as smart as us. Because we are good people, it will work this time. Our collective society shall become a model for the centuries to come, proving once and for all that belief in a Creator is unnecessary. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and there will be no further need for elections.

Signed _______________________________