The Conservative Edge

I noticed the results of an online survey this past week regarding the cost of gasoline. The survey leads me to believe (to continue to believe, I might say) that the elected officials in Washington aren’t listening to the people they supposedly represent. The liberals, especially, continue their sky-is-falling scare tactics about global warming, while doing nothing to alleviate Americans’ fears that gasoline costs will again rise in the near future.

The polling group Ipsos conducted an online survey from May 19 through May 25. Following are some of the results:

• When asked to choose between lower gas prices and reduced auto emissions, 66 percent of Americans said that lower gas prices was the more important issue.
• When asked whether the government should subsidize food crops or ethanol production, 82 percent felt that food subsidies were more important; 56 percent felt that ethanol production created higher food prices.
• When the survey asked whether energy independence or lower food prices was more important, 55 percent opted for energy independence.

So it seems that, generally, Americans desire lower gas prices, and then reduced food costs, ahead of any emission or greenhouse gas concerns. If the liberals in Washington were attentive to these issues, they could put more Americans to work producing more American energy, to the benefit of society. The American people aren’t necessarily as stupid as the liberals believe. People understand that energy dependence leads to higher energy costs. Most of us remember that the spike in oil prices (all the way to $147 a barrel) not only led to a rise in gas prices, but caused food prices to escalate as well. This vicious cycle will be repeated as long as the liberals keep their stranglehold on American society, and fail to heed the working class.

Feel free to send these survey results to your elected officials. They need to hear our voices. You can bet that they will soon attempt to impose higher gasoline taxes (just look at what they did to tobacco products). We can’t let that happen without a fight.

I’m sure that nearly everyone who reads this post is familiar with a certain line spoken at many marriage ceremonies. Namely, if someone has good reason why a man and woman should not be married, the person should “speak now or forever hold his peace.”

I’d like to pose a similar question about the development of American energy resources: Is there any good reason why we shouldn’t use domestic energy that is so readily available? There is much said about the need to wean ourselves from the use of foreign oil. That makes sense. But it would be equally sensible for our government to look for domestic resources to replace what we currently purchase from abroad.

It seems, however, that the liberal Democrats in Congress have a different idea. They really think that windmills and solar panels can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is a terrible misconception. Solar and wind power will never meet our transportation energy needs. In fact, oil may continue to be the dominant energy source until the year 2030. So, it becomes clear that a reliable supply of oil must be established for the American consumer.

Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey revealed that the Chukchi Sea, just northwest of Alaska’s landmass, holds 1.6 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. As the June 1 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily observes, that’s 30% of the world’s supply of natural gas, and 4% of global oil reserves, respectively. Tapping into those massive reserves would go a long way in establishing a dependable supply of domestic energy, as well as removing threats to our national security. We would no longer be held over a barrel, so to speak, by OPEC, the oil cartel whose membership includes several countries which are hostile to the United States.

I’m reminded of the Biblical story about the man who found a buried treasure in a field. Upon the discovery, he promptly sold everything he had to raise enough money to buy the field. In buying the field, then, the treasure belonged to him. He had sense enough to realize that the treasure was worth more than anything he had ever owned before. So, it was no big sacrifice to sell his posessions to be able to buy the land.

If only our government had the same kind of vision. Apparently, the liberals don’t value our natural resources. If our government doesn’t secure the oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea, the Russians will likely seize it. The Chinese are already moving in on oil reserves discovered off the coast of Florida. Foreign countries are determined to hoard oil supplies wherever they are found. But what is our current administration’s response? It suggests that we paint our roofs white, to make our homes more efficient.

Brilliant!

Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced a plan to require new cars and trucks to become more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. The goal is to cut auto emissions and increase mileage up to 30 percent by the year 2016. Vehicles will have to meet a fuel mileage standard of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Right now, it is estimated that consumers will pay an extra $1300 (or more) per vehicle for the cleaner cars and trucks. Before the Obama plan was hatched, carmakers were going to meet a mileage standard of 31.6 mpg by the year 2015. To meet that standard, it would cost the auto industry $47 billion. How much more will it cost them to meet the new requirements for both fuel efficiency AND emissions? Can we be sure that we won’t end up paying $2,000 or $3,000 more for cars and trucks that will meet the new regulations?

What’s really amusing (but also infuriatingly dumb) is the comment by an Obama administration official on the added costs. Here is an excerpt taken from a report on Yahoo!: “Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

“That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections.” Notice the “so what?” attitude about consumers paying more for new vehicles; if we’re already paying extra, what’s a few hundred dollars more, right? Shouldn’t the government be finding ways to make cleaner technology cheaper, so more people could afford to buy better cars and trucks?

But the real joke is the statement that we will get the money back through fuel savings if gas prices follow government projections. There is absolutely no way that the government will be able to predict gas prices with any kind of accuracy. Nobody can predict prices for the next 6 months, let alone project out to the year 2016. Is this the government’s way of telling us that it believes gas prices will be 6 or 8 dollars a gallon by 2016? That could be the final nail in the coffin for the auto industry and personal transportation.

The only way that our government could forecast gas prices for the next 7 years is if we had our own supply of oil. With much of our oil coming from unstable countries, it is impossible to predict what will happen to the supply and the price of crude. But if our government would put more people to work securing a predictable supply of oil, we could stabilize prices by cutting our need for foreign oil. The United States and Canada have roughly 15 percent of the world’s proven reserves. We need to get more of that 15 percent to market, available for use here at home.

The Obama administration may be crowing over its new plan to squeeze the life out of the auto industry. But no one is willing to talk about the higher costs the consumer will be shelling out. Not only will new cars cost thousands more, but gas prices will skyrocket again, perhaps from additional future gas taxes. And you can be sure that mandatory emission tests will soon be required, resulting in even more fees to be compliant. It looks like the real reduction in fuel use and emission output will come from the fact that no one will be able to afford cars anymore. Maybe that’s what the liberals want after all.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled “The Big Picture.” In it, I tried to make it easier for people to understand that the actions taken now by the government result from ideas conceived a generation ago. I know I keep going on about events transpiring in the auto industry, the oil and energy industries, and our personal uses of tobacco and firearms. But, we need to comprehend just how serious the liberal movement is about removing the freedoms and products we now use and value as good and necessary.

In “The Big Picture” I made this statement: “The liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.” Now there are, I will admit, some short-term reactions to the various flaps and controversies that pop up in the media. For instance, it is amazing to watch Nancy Pelosi squirm about her obvious knowledge of interrogation techniques. She is Clinton-like in her ability to turn a lie into an accusation. But her crisis is only temporary, and will soon fall from the headlines. Meanwhile, the great social engineering of the 21st century marches onward, orchestrated by the liberal dictatorship. The liberals have gone from planning to enacting.

I wish there were some conservatives or Republicans who could articulate, or at least identify, this danger to our country and society. Instead of just being the guys who say “no” to Obama, the Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops about the rapid pace at which we’re headed off the cliff. Many Republicans are fond of invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but they can’t portray America’s strength and purpose the way he could. Watching some Republicans make speeches is about as exciting as watching paint dry. They have no fire, no cause, no raison d’etre as the French would say.

Here is an example of how Ronald Reagan could identify and explain a liberal ideological threat. In 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency, Reagan spoke of the liberals’ desire to dismantle the American auto industry. He said, “It is fashionable in some Washington circles to be hostile to the automobile, especially the American automobile. After all, everything in Washington is close by, and even those without limousines or Volvos can get around in the taxpayer-funded Metro subway. But those who must get from one place to another in such locales as Texas, Kansas, or Los Angeles can’t afford the luxury of seeing cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.”

How prophetic Reagan’s words have become. He understood, way back in 1980, that the liberals desired to destroy the automobile and its use as personal transportation. Listen to his phrases: “hostile to the automobile,” and “cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.” He knew it, and identified it as a part of the liberals’ plan to reshape America, and not for the better. Twenty-nine years later, look at what is happening to the auto industry. Like I said, the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.

Unbelievable. That’s the word that kept coming to mind.

I visited three different sporting goods stores this weekend looking for some .40 caliber pistol ammunition. I have never before seen such prices and restrictions on ammunition. One store clerk told me that he only had some .38 Special and .45 ammo. He didn’t expect any new deliveries of the other semi-auto products. Another store had restrictions on .40 caliber, 9mm, .380 auto, and .45 auto—3 boxes per customer, if the product was in stock. The third store I went to was selling a 50-round box of .40 caliber for $44.95 AND restricting purchases to 2 boxes per customer. Unbelievable! Just a few months ago, I purchased a box for less than 20 bucks.

The reason ammo costs are sky-high is due to extreme demand. There is a shortage of the materials that go into making ammunition, which can increase the cost of the final product. But with such a demand by the retail customer, prices have gone through the proverbial roof. It makes sense, in a way. After Barack Obama was elected President, there was a marked surge in gun purchases across the country. One store here in Ohio has a picture of Obama displayed, with the phrase “The best gun salesman ever” or something to that effect. So, it stands to reason that if gun sales go up, ammo sales will follow.

My concern is that ammo prices will remain high for some time. Meanwhile, the liberals are working on legislation to add taxes on ammunition, intending to make it so expensive that we can’t afford to use it. Hey, that sounds familiar—that’s what they are doing with tobacco, and planning to do with gasoline and oil products. So, we need to keep pressure on our elected officials to prevent the anti-gunners from taxing us into submission.

In the meantime, buy your ammo when you get a good deal. Keep the shotgun handy. Or, you might start practicing with a slingshot and a longbow. Until you can’t afford them, that is.

This past Thursday (May 7) was Gary Cooper’s birthday. I mention this fact because Cooper was one of the great introverted actors in American history. Turner Classic Movies has a nice tribute to Cooper on its website. The TCM video, made in 1991, is narrated by Clint Eastwood.

It was appropriate for Eastwood to do the narration, since he is a self-confessed introvert. In addition, you can see some similarities between Eastwood and Cooper, in both acting styles and physical characteristics. Charlton Heston once said of Cooper that “If this wasn’t what the American man was, it was what he was supposed to be,” and I think we might be able to say the same for Eastwood.

I am writing about these actors because it seems that we don’t get to see their kind on the screen anymore. We used to at least grudgingly admire the rugged characters created by actors like Cooper, Eastwood, John Wayne, and others. We once respected the strong, silent individual who let his actions speak louder than his words. Masculinity was defined by characters like Rooster Cogburn, Dirty Harry, The Man With No Name, and even the Road Warrior. But today, masculinity is smothered by political correctness and feminism.

It might seem counter-intuitive to think that introverted actors could deliver such powerful performances on the big screen. After all, aren’t introverts supposed to be weak, quiet pushovers? Hardly. For one thing, it takes much more strength to be silent than it does to chatter on and on. I believe there is an ancient Eastern proverb that says “He who speaks does not know; he who knows does not speak.” This is the power of introversion. While many content themselves with incessant ramblings about the weather or shopping (think Tweeter), introverts are taking things in, and thinking deeply about ideas and big issues. Maybe introverts make better heroes. They are more willing to act, alone if necessary, as the idea or situation requires.

And now, I’m about to take a strange turn. You see, I’m reminded of someone who is seldom seen as a personality type. Many people read the New Testament, but how many try to imagine what kind of man Jesus Christ was? There was a live person who spoke the words recorded in the four Gospels, and He ate, cried, walked, slept, and breathed just like we do. But when many people say they “know” Jesus, I tend to think they are knowing their imaginary Jesus. My guess is that Jesus was an introvert. He was a man who acted alone when He had to. He spoke from His understanding of principles and ideas. He was a big thinker. But, He was also a very private person, and preferred to associate with a chosen few. He ultimately—tragically—faced death alone, because of what He believed in, and what He saw in us.

He made a pretty good hero, I’d say.

Have you ever been thinking about an issue that is important to you, and then see that issue expounded in a magazine or newspaper? Maybe you feel that nobody else could ever have the same viewpoint on a particular subject. But when you see an article that expresses your own point of view, it feels good, doesn’t it?

I’m having that good feeling this weekend. If you have read any of my previous posts (feel free to check the archives) concerning American energy production, then you know that we’re giving up on crude oil way too soon. I know that runs contrary to liberal thought. Those liberals evidently think that we should solve the foreign oil problem by just getting rid of cars altogether. And with the government now practically running GM, and with Chrysler in bankruptcy, we can see that the automobile is doomed. This administration is set to dismantle the car industry and the freedom of personal transportation.

Until that happens, we will continue to rely on the auto as our primary mode of transportation. Which means, of course, that we will need plentiful supplies of gasoline at reasonable cost. (No ethanol, please; that’s a terrible waste of corn that could be otherwise used to feed hungry people.) Crude oil must remain a vital part of our energy policy. Not only do we use it to make gasoline, but crude oil is also used in the manufacture of paint, plastics, rubber, and hundreds of other products we take for granted.

My regard for crude oil was reflected in the special Monday, May 4 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily. Within the editorial pages, Robert J. Samuelson writes “Wind and solar (power) mainly produce electricity. Most of our oil goes for transportation; almost none—about 1.5%—generates electricity. Expanding wind and solar won’t displace much oil; someday, electric cars may change this. For now, reducing oil imports requires using less or producing more.”

That’s been my position, and it makes me feel good to see similar thoughts expressed in a pro-American newspaper like the IBD. I’ve listened to Obama and the other liberals talk about job creation, but they are castrating American industry, especially oil companies and car makers. If we developed more resources here at home, think of the jobs that would immediately be created. There would be a demand for geologists, engineers, truck drivers, and refinery workers. This demand might be enough to give the economy the “jolt” that Obama promised.

We will never be able to wean ourselves off foreign oil by building more solar panels or wind turbines. Samuelson notes that in 2007, wind and solar generated less than 1% of U.S. electricity. Increasing that ten times will still have those industries contributing only 10% of our electricity needs. And that still would do nothing to reduce our consumption of oil.

Even though some resources, like oil shale, would take time to develop, that’s no reason to avoid getting started now. Remember, it’s also going to take a lot of time to establish that tenfold increase in solar and wind output. There is still the electric car that needs refinement, and fuel-cell technology that should be explored. Until these and other advancements become practical and affordable, we shouldn’t let crude oil fall out of favor. Two dollars for a gallon of gas is still a pretty good deal.