The Conservative Edge

On Friday, June 12, I heard Larry Summers defend the government’s involvement in private companies. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said that President Obama “did not, as he has said many times, run for president to manage banks, insurance or car companies.”

That’s understandable. If Obama had mentioned those ideas, he might not have been elected. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama campaigned on fixing the economy, but, once in office, began implementing the Democrats’ real agenda.

If Obama had been completely honest, before the election, about the liberals’ real intentions, he would have told us that (among other things):

• They would impose outrageous and illogical taxes on tobacco products (supposedly to fund health insurance for children), with further tobacco regulation directed by the FDA.
• They would decimate the American auto industry, causing the additional loss of thousands more jobs. They would have the authority to fire the CEO of GM, and arrange the sale of Chrysler’s assets to a foreign car maker. They would increase the regulation of the auto industry, with the EPA to be in charge of auto emissions.
• They would permit the White House to oversee the upcoming Census, removing the Department of Commerce oversight.
• They would increase spending and our national deficit, leading to inflation and higher interest rates.
• They would refuse to expand the exploration and utilization of our energy resources, risking our national security and maintaining our dependence on foreign oil supplies.

That’s been the focus of the administration during the first few months. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on job creation. We were supposed to get a “quick jolt” to the economy, but I haven’t noticed it yet. Most of the new jobs the Obama administration takes credit for have come from preparation for the Census. Unemployment has spiked well beyond government estimations. And the run-up in oil prices means that the markets are anticipating increases in inflation, due to the massive amounts of new money being released by the government.

It gets worse. If the Obama administration authorizes the pending cap-and-trade legislation, we will all be spending more on energy to heat and cool our homes. That’s besides the higher gasoline prices that are sure to come, because the Democrats refuse to capitalize on American resources. The real growth we are witnessing is not in job creation, but in the size and authority of the Federal government. God help us.

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.

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.

Not too long ago, I wrote a commentary titled “Why Liberals Hate Us.” I referred to a column written by Brock Yates, published years ago in Car and Driver magazine. In his column, Yates cited some other writers, who said that the automobile represented one of the last bastions of unregulated freedom. And that’s why liberals have always hated cars. They resent ordinary Americans who derive such pleasure from driving, collecting, restoring, and hot-rodding their favorite cars. Since the late ’60s and through the ’70s, the car haters sought to regulate the automobile and anything connected with the industry.

So, they made seat belts, air bags, ignition interlock switches and 5-MPH bumpers mandatory equipment on all autos sold in America. While countries such as Germany had brilliantly engineered autobahns, superior driver training, and high driving speeds, the liberals here decided we should crawl down the road at 55 miles per hour. We have also been taxed like the colonists were under King George. We pay more in gasoline taxes than the actual cost of the fuel. We have to pay sales tax every time we buy a used car, much less a new one. Every year, it seems like we pay more and more for our car registration fees and driving license fees. All of this is done because liberals hate us and our cars.

Now, in 2009, we have a President who is just as eager to dump on the auto industry as the rest of the liberals in Congress. With the perfect storm of high oil prices in 2008, a collapse of domestic car sales, and an economic crisis, the Obama administration gets what other Democrats before him could only dream of. He now has the opportunity to dictate to the car companies exactly what kind of cars they can make, and how to make them.

This is confirmed by a recent report made public by the Environmental Protection Agency. As reported by Yahoo!, the EPA has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans’ health. “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem (and) the greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare,” said the EPA. It was the first time the federal government had said it was ready to use the Clean Air Act to require power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

This opens the door very wide for Congress, especially the car-hating liberals, to regulate the automobile right out of our lives. Pay attention to the following quotes: It’s “a wake-up call for Congress” — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate committee dealing with climate legislation. If Congress doesn’t move, Boxer said she would press EPA to take swift action. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hopes to craft legislation in the coming weeks, called the EPA action “a game changer.” “It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation. It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation,” said Markey.

For years, the liberals have been trying to convince us how bad the automobile has been, and how we are guilty for loving such terrible contraptions. Never mind that cars sold in California, for example, have been practically emission-free for years. The liberals have been trying to stigmatize the automobile for a long time, the same way they demonize tobacco and firearms. They are getting set to take it all away.

The Investor’s Business Daily recently quoted Czech President Vaclav Klaus in an editorial piece. Klaus said “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism.” Klaus told the Cato Institute that “environmentalism is a religion” that accepts global warming on faith and seeks to exploit it to reshape the world and economic social order.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’d like to take the opportunity to thank you folks who regularly view this blog site. There have been some great comments left in response to certain topics. I recommend that you read one particular comment by Dave, in response to my post “A Letter to Kathleen Parker.”

I have written previously about my skepticism concerning the whole global warming theory (just look in the December archives link). Notice that I didn’t say “climate change theory.” What’s the difference? Well, our climate may indeed be changing, and may be part of a natural cycle. I’m sure that geologists can find historical evidence of repeated changes in the Earth’s climate. The History Channel recently revealed that some 5,000 years ago, there was melting of the polar ice, due to some climatic change.

But the global warming theory suggests that mankind is responsible for the current change(s) in climate. That is a much different view, and goes beyond any statistical processes used to track environmental patterns. Global warming proponents are using their theory to bring about social and economic changes. America will unfairly be held responsible for causing global warming, and to also reverse the effects. How many billions of dollars will it take to “undo” the damage? What will we have to give up in order to satisfy the alarmists? There is nothing wrong with eliminating sources of pollution, but it seems presumptuous to blame the average American, and American industry, for dumping CO2 in the air and creating a worldwide greenhouse.

Columnist George Will, who also questions the global warming theory, remembers the opinion held in the 1970s that we were headed for a new ice age. He reveals that The New York Times reported on May 21, 1975, that “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was certain that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.” Indeed, I remember seeing reruns of the show “In Search Of” hosted by Leonard Nimoy in the late 70s. One episode showed scientists examining ice core samples for proof that we were headed for a great global cooling. The harsh winters in states like New York and Ohio in 1977 and 1978 seemed to support that idea. But the fears of a new Ice Age were unfounded, and the global cooling never materialized.

George Will shares an interesting fact in his column. On February 18, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of February, there were operational problems with the satellites that measure sea ice. These problems caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles. That’s an area roughly equivalent to the size of California. In other words, we didn’t lose as much sea ice as the alarmists might want us to believe.

Funny how a little thing like a satellite malfunction can blow a big hole in the global warming theory.

The celebrations and festivities are kicking into high gear. Of course, I’m referring to the excitement of the impending inauguration of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. There was somewhere around 40,000 people in Baltimore, Maryland to see Obama on one of his train stops, as he traveled on to Washington, D.C. I have seen photos of people crying, as they stood rapturously attending to Obama’s every word. Thousands of citizens are pouring into our nation’s Capitol, eager to celebrate this historic moment, and celebrate this great time of “change”.

Everyone except me—and others who know, deep down inside, that our country is set for a socialist takeover. I’m not sour about the election, as though John McCain got cheated by a fraudulent election, or some other shenanigans. In fact, the American people made it clear that they wanted someone quite different to perform some miraculous revival of our country’s “greatness”.

It’s just the definition of “greatness” that troubles me. It should trouble most white Americans in particular, but also anyone who values personal liberty above an omnipresent, omniscient government. Americans have come to see our current crises as a unique time for government, with a knight in shining armor leading the way, to magically solve all of our problems.

And government will intervene, too. Americans have lost confidence in themselves, partly because of inaction by conservative leadership, but mostly because of the messages we have been receiving. We have been told that America has spoiled its reputation abroad with its “cowboy” attitude. We have been scolded for burning too much fossil fuel, causing dramatic changes in global climates, and that we must bear the burden for cleanup. Too many of us are stubbornly “clinging to our guns and religion”. Therefore, we must purchase our ammunition coded with ID numbers, so our misuse of lawful arms can be tracked and verified. We must tolerate the establishment of Islamic temples and organizations, some of whom funnel money into terrorist networks all over the world. All Big Businesses (especially oil companies) are evil, so they must be taxed and regulated, to the point that they move their workforces overseas. Individuals who are “rich” must give their wealth to the government, to be given then to the “less fortunate”.

Does this sound like the prescription needed to cure our economic and social sicknesses? Is this the “change” we should celebrate? I read an observation made by an author of one of my favorite books, which states, “…unused power passes imperceptibly from idle hands into more active ones.” This is precisely what is happening in America today. The more active hands belong to the Democratic (I call it the National Socialist) Party. They exert their power more as the power of the individual weakens. So, this is a perfect time for them to ride in as “saviors”, when they are actually consolidating power among themselves.

I’m reminded of a story in Biblical history. When the young nation of Israel tired of being ruled by a prophet or judge, they demanded a king be anointed over them, just as all the other nations had done. Samuel the prophet, the last judge of Israel, tried to warn the people what they would endure under a monarchy. He told them that they would be heavily taxed; that the best of their sons would be conscripted for the king’s guard and the national army; other things they would sacrifice to keep the monarchy fed and supplied. But the people told Samuel that they didn’t care. They demanded a king! So, Samuel anointed a man named Saul as King of Israel. He eventually descended into madness, and nearly destroyed the nation of Israel.

America has demanded its “king”. I certainly hope we don’t get the same results.

I thought I would add some data to go with the arguments I made in my previous post concerning the global warming theory. I personally feel that America will be held economically and socially responsible for cleaning up the environment, even while India, China, and other countries are still considered “developing nations”. Americans are upset at the prospect of bailing out banks and automakers, but we will be liable for trillions of dollars going towards environmental cleanup and “going green”, if Al Gore and others have their way.

Consider this: the Las Vegas Valley had over 11 inches of snowfall this past week. It added up to the most snow recorded for the area in December since they began keeping records 70 years ago! Even Malibu, California experienced some snowfall as well.

David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma recently stated, “The mean global temperature, at least measured by satellite, is the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years, sea level has stopped rising, hurricane and cyclone activity in the Northern Hemisphere is at a 24-year low, and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”

According to the IBD, global temperatures stopped rising after 1998, and have dropped in the past two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the 2007-2008 temperature drop was NOT predicted by global climate models. The drop was, however, predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since the year 2000 and by a cyclical ocean-current phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That is just too logical—when the sun gets hotter, the earth heats up; when solar activity decreases, the earth cools off. Most Americans can comprehend that, but it seems Al Gore hasn’t gotten the message yet.

Also, we need to remember that James Hansen, Al Gore’s main scientific “advisor”, had been doctoring some of NASA’s data that was used to identify the warmest years on record. In fact, the 10 warmest years have NOT all been since 1996. The corrected numbers from NASA show the 10 warmest years as follows: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939.

Finally, consider a point made by Jay Lehr, a science director at the Heartland Institute. He stated that, “If we go back in really recorded human history, in the 13th century, we were probably seven degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are right now.” He added, “If we go back to the Revolutionary War, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period. And now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

I’m all for keeping pollution low, and the environment clean. I’m also glad to see figures that show Americans decreasing their demand for gasoline, even as oil prices continue to fall. It means that we’re understanding the need to adjust our lifestyles to become more energy-efficient. What we don’t need is a dictatorial government, influenced by a would-be messiah, making us shell out trillions of dollars to preprare for a crisis based on a flawed theory. We did it once for the Y2K fiasco—we shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.