The Conservative Edge

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.

“War—what is it good for?” is a line from a classic rock song. There aren’t too many people who can tolerate even the thought of war or conflict. But, wars have been fought for centuries, and for various reasons. Some wars have been waged in the name of religion, which we are seeing right now. Other conflicts have arisen because one man or nation wanted to control the rest of the world.

But there are times when fighting, without declarations of war, can bring about desired results. Sometimes, a mere threat of rebellion, or news of some trouble brewing between two countries, can affect a society far removed from the area of crisis. Let me explain what war is good for.

On December 17, 2008, the oil cartel OPEC agreed to cut 2.2 million barrels of oil from its daily production. It was OPEC’s single largest reduction ever. Iran, especially, was a vocal proponent of such cutbacks. When asked whether the size of the cut was enough to get oil prices up again, OPEC President Chekib Khelil said, “I hope we surprised you.” He also added, “If you’re not surprised, we need to do something about it.”

However, the oil markets did not react as OPEC had hoped. Crude oil sank to $40.20 after the announcement. The fear of world recession, and lower energy consumption, was enough to override OPEC’s reduced production, which is to be put into effect January 1, 2009.

Is it a coincidence, then, that Hamas started firing rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, within 2 weeks of OPEC’s announcement? Hamas is supported by Iran, which is part of the OPEC cartel. When OPEC saw that oil prices weren’t moved by the threats of reduced supply, it put in force the statement made by Mr. Khelil: “…we need to do something about it.” That “something” is an old tactic used time and again by Mideast countries. Make war, and threaten the supply of oil to the Western countries, and the price of oil will go up. And one of the surest ways to start a war is to fire some rockets into Israel, because Israel almost ALWAYS retaliates.

Hamas doesn’t care if Gaza citizens get killed in the process. In fact, they hope for civilian casualties, because it then emboldens other terrorist organizations, and other countries, drawing them into the conflict too. Before you know it, you’ve got fires burning all over the Mideast, and oil markets in chaos. That is exactly what war is good for!

If the United States truly wants peace in the Mideast, then perhaps we should be pumping our own oil. Then those other countries would have fewer reasons to fight. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot more violence, initiated by Iran, Lebanon, Hamas, and Hezbollah against Israel. We’ll see how this unfolds in 2009.

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.

Although I left these thoughts as a comment to one of my posts, I wanted to make a separate entry containing some feedback concerning oil and gas prices. It seemed appropriate, as I just read a column by Bob Herbert, regarding Obama’s “two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America…we’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges…”.

Thanks to Mark for a comment about the temporary drop in gas prices. I too will not be selling my fuel-efficient vehicles anytime soon. For the record, I own a 2004 Chevrolet Aveo and an old 1990 Ford Festiva that I use for work-related commuting. I bought my Aveo back in 2005, when I thought that gas would rise past $2 a gallon. It turns out I was right, although I never expected to see gas at $4 a gallon!

Also, I agree with “crude oil futures”, in the fact that oil prices can be excessively high, or low, depending on the supply/demand relationship. We need to be mindful of this, as our President-elect plans to introduce infrastructure projects to spur job creation. Infrastructure materials (especially asphalt) need to be affordable, which means that petroleum needs to be plentiful. Since it’s a safe bet that foreign countries won’t be too cooperative, we should be vigilant in securing our own supplies to keep up with future domestic demand.

Do you think that Iran and Venezuela, who have recently demanded cuts in oil output, will be as eager to increase production if our demand goes up? In fact, there are reports that OPEC will likely cut production again as soon as mid-December. Remember, infrastructure and construction projects require energy; more of it needs to be supplied here at home!

I’m sure people aren’t thinking too much about the high price of gasoline right now. It’s as cheap as it’s been in roughly 2-3 years. Here in southwest Ohio, we’re paying $1.89 for a gallon of regular gasoline. It’s funny how, when gas was costing $4 a gallon earlier this year, everyone was blaming George W. for the high prices, but nobody now will associate him with bringing prices down.

Actually, oil and gas did start declining in price after President Bush made a public statement about expanding U.S. exploration and drilling efforts here at home. When he made the statement in July, oil dropped every day during the following two-week time period. Apparently, the mere threat of increased supply was enough to cause oil speculators to begin pulling money out of the futures markets.

And now, we are seeing that the spectre of decreasing demand for oil is having the same effect on prices. But what’s going to happen when demand goes back up? Are we increasing our supply capabilites in anticipation of future use? If not, then we will surely see another spike in prices. I don’t think the current price levels will remain for long.

As other countries cut back on production and exporting, we should be endeavoring to find and secure more of our own energy supplies. Some countries like to routinely stage some kind of oil crisis, just to have an excuse to withhold oil from the evil United States. We shouldn’t let them affect us so much.

Here’s an example of what regularly happens abroad (from Yahoo Finance):

“Prices this week fell even as militants in Nigeria resumed attacks on the country’s oil installations. The military said it killed eight people while guarding a facility in the oil-rich south of the country.

Militants frequently attack oil facilities, seeking to hobble Africa’s biggest petroleum industry and force Nigeria’s federal government to send more oil funds to the southern states where the crude is pumped.”

Just click on the link for the full article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gasoline-continues-plunge-apf-13535926.html

The American government should allow Americans to use energy provided BY Americans. What could be more patriotic?

After writing my previous post, I found a very interesting article on Yahoo. This, to me, validates what I wrote about gas and oil prices and their effects on cities’ efforts to keep up street and road repairs.

Here is the link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_bi_ge/asphalt_shortage

I’d also like to include a short excerpt from the Yahoo article:

“Dozens of road repairs were delayed last summer and municipalities around the country may face another shortfall next summer. Road-maintenance projects that have gone forward cost significantly more as the price of asphalt nearly tripled over the past year.

The dearth of asphalt compounds the challenges states, counties and cities already face in fixing bridges, highways, local streets and other critical infrastructure at a time when budgets are squeezed by falling income, sales and real-estate tax revenues — not to mention higher costs for fuel, steel and other raw materials.”

This is why we can’t stop using oil. Doesn’t it make sense that we need to secure our own supplies, and not subject our economic stability to the whims of foreign countries? If, for example, Nigeria experiences a coup, and the oil production stops, why should that affect us, if we have established our oil drilling and production? A lot of jobs could be created, from the extra workers needed to repair roads in small towns, to the people hired to drill/pump/refine/transport oil and oil products. The Democrats have talked about infrastructure projects being key to reviving the economy, but cities and towns need to be able to afford the materials. Think about it!

So now that the election is over (although the media is still obsessing about Sarah Palin’s clothes), it’s time to think about what to expect after January 2009.

I personally believe we will see higher oil/gasoline prices beginning in Spring of next year. President-elect Obama is already considering using Presidential authority to reverse the executive decision made this year by President Bush to expand drilling in U.S territories. Many Democratic leaders and other liberals are expressing concern about the fragile and delicate environments in Utah and Alaska. I wish they could show equal concern for the tremendous economic price we pay for buying foreign oil. It is truly mind-boggling to think that there are Americans who adamantly oppose the production of American energy.

I recently read an article in my local newspaper about the difficulties many communities are experiencing in keeping their roads paved. Some towns are cutting back on repair and repaving of roads and streets. This is due to the dramatic increase in the cost of asphalt, which is a PETROLEUM-based product. Simply put, we could get more people working to pave more roads, if only asphalt was cheaper. What are we to do—start driving our cars on solar panels, instead of blacktop?

Let’s take it further—what other products have become more costly due to higher oil prices? How about all of the plastic containers that store all of those food products in the supermarket? How about cosmetics? Vaseline, for instance, is actually PETROLEUM jelly! Think of all the plastic chairs we sit on, or the computers made with polycarbonate materials. Think of how it costs more to get the oil changed in your car—you never see any $9.99 service specials any more. Tires cost more too. And let’s not forget how much more shipping charges we pay now, when we buy something from QVC or Amazon or eBay.

So, if the Democrats want to stimulate the economy, they should EXPAND oil and gas production, not restrict it. Think of all the jobs that would be created in the exploration, drilling, production, refining and transporting of oil, gasoline, and natural gas. Not to mention all of the related industries such as service and repair companies, trucking, and others that would increase hiring as well.

And we needn’t get upset with the oil companies’ profits, either. We’ve made the Saudis far richer with the money we’ve been sending them for the past few decades.

By the way, have you ever see the Democrats who are so concerned about the environment, actually spending time IN the environment? I’m not sure they could tell the difference between a maple tree and a pine tree. There aren’t too many of them I could equate with a Teddy Roosevelt!