About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

California...the malignancy threatening our democracy

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 5:45:50 PM
 

Syria. Iran. Hamas. North Korea. Afghanistan, and... California?

 

Don't flinch. You read correctly. California is now a foreign, hostile land - an avowed enemy of the United States!

 

And why not? What now does California have in common with the rest of our resourceful country?

 

First and foremost, California is home to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a closet Marxist, supported by George Soros and his goal of instilling full socialism into the United States by 2015.

 

California is a bilious, fractured place of multiculturalism; a land where English is now commonly spoken as a "second language."

 

California's politics? To the far, radical left. Ever since the late 1960's, California has always been at odds with the rest of America.

 

Beginning long ago with Black Panther supporter, Angela Davis, California's leftists have literally bubbled up with praise for Marxist societies, where everyone is at the same level of misery.

 

And nowadays, we are faced with the likes of Henry Waxman; Barbara Boxer: Diane Feinstein; Maxine Waters; and the despicable Fidel Castro sympathizer, Diane Watson; a veritable who's who of public enemies, with Pelosi starring as public enemy number ONE.

 

Wake up, America, and realize what these people actually believe. They are sick, unbending communist sympathizers - out to destroy the land of the free. We are now witnessing an era when California's Congressional delegation is now politically to the left of even a country like Russia.

 

Listen to their voices…arrogant…strident…anti-American. And most ominously of all, they are using our electoral process to conquer America. They no longer represent the United States, but rather  a Cuba,  Venezuela, China, or even Great Britain.

 

As we speak, California seems to be the divisive source of a new, "reverse racism" where radical haters - people like Los Angeles' Waters & Watson, and Oakland's Van Jones, are bashing the rest of conservative America - as if we were the source for ALL evil that exists in the world.

 

And the more they continue to castigate this country, the more likely these haters will continue to stay in Washington election after election, regardless of term limits (or if a non-incumbent runs in opposition). 

 

Do they put something in the water in California? How can sane people support (or vote) for these radicals while keeping a straight face? And the more they shift to the left, the more they continue to garner the support of their government-dependent constituents.

 

Having said that, let's play "what IF."

 

What if California had the calamitous "Big One?" A huge catastrophic earthquake, say in 1971, and had literally tumbled into the sea? Sure, it would have been a calamity: but where would America now be?

 

POINT- We would be drilling for our own abundant, offshore oil; the country would be independent of OPEC, and free of the annual, unsustainable export of $700 billion a year. The national debt (and perhaps, our trade balance) would be close to zero, were it not for these radical "green" ideas that Californians have since introduced into Washington, and made law.

 

POINT- There would be no "multiculturalism:" No immigration problem; no threat of alien amnesty, nor fear of giving the vote to 20 million illegals, who lack even a high school education, or have the capacity to speak English. America would not be faced with the horror of one-party rule for perhaps a generation (or more ) to come.

 

POINT- There would be no economic threat to our economy from cap and trade, or the Sierra Club; and no push for driving green cars, nor stupid, noisy windmills, and solar power; the United States would have no less than 50 to 100 high-efficiency, CLEAN nuclear power plants generating vast (cheap) megawatts of power, were it not for the radical environmentalism of California.

 

POINT- The ever-divisive liberal movement for same-sex marriage and homosexual rights would have been a non-event

 

CONCLUSION: California is no longer just our most populous state ; it is a land that frightens the rest of a right-center country, continually forcing its leftist ideals on a nation wanting no part of them. Yet we are continually dragged into this morass because California's power-mad politicians refuse to back off! 

 

Our Founders never pictured a state where its radical Congresspeople could destroy the integrity of an entire nation.

 

And when one state sets out to strangle the other 49 with its brand of hatefulenesss, radical leftism, and divisiveness, its time to become serious about "impeachment" - getting rid of California!

 

EXAMPLE: Diane Watson of L.A... "Fidel Castro is one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." U.S. Representative Watson held a town hall meeting where she praised Che Guevara for using violence (and murder) to expel the rich from Cuba.

 

"They kicked out the wealthy." So where was this woman when she was making this comment? Where else in America but California would she feel comfortable?

 

Watson’s black socialist ideology is illustrative of the culture that defends crime and socialist marxist control, so long as it advances the entitlements and dependency that governments like Cuba want to provide.

 

And what about Nancy Pelosi? She is highly supportive of unlimited immigration:

 

According to her, we can never have enough unassimilating Hispanic people with less education than high a school dropout. Pelosi seeks amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens that are already here, so they can bring in 80 million poor sick relatives- all eventually to become a permanent democratic voting bloc. 

 

Then we have the lovely and charismatic Maxine Waters, who refuses to vote for a healthcare reform package that..."does not include a provision for creating a government-run medical insurance plan;" an idea opposed by 70% of all Americans-- a statement that drew loud cheers at a town hall meeting at Los Angeles Southwest College.

Waters then reserved her most searing critiques for Senate Democrats who have not embraced the public option.

(Quote)..."Not only are we going to do everything we can to organize and put pressure on the senators -- some of whom are Neanderthals -- we're going to say to the president, 'We want you to use every weapon in your basket in order to get those senators to do what they should be doing.' "

This is the same woman who said she wanted to "socialize" the oil companies. So is it any surprise that she now wants to socialize medicine?

 

California possesses more than it's share of liberal Congresswomen who are an anathema to ALL of America. Remember...these are people in powerful positions - sponsoring and voting on bills that greatly impact our lives.

 

So is it any wonder California is beginning to resemble Cuba – bankrupt, overflowing with the jobless; a horrid education system, with flocks of its citizens trying to escape?

 

As they say, you get the government you deserve; and with Watson, Waxman, Boxer, Pelosi and the rest, California not only deserves to be a third world cesspool, it is moving there at a record pace. And our destiny will be to follow unless we take drastic, apocalyptic measures to stop all this idiopathic madness!
 
California's legislators are brainwashed with the Marxist ideal. The Democrat Party encourages them to keep dolling out the freebies - paid for by taxing all other Americans who work for a living - to subsidize those who continue to vote for them. 

 

As far as most American citizens are concerned, California is the bottom of the barrel; so why let these "rotten apple" marxists spoil the whole bunch?

 

It is truly astounding how we have come to the point when people like Congresswomen Watson & Waters (and Van Jones) are tolerated and praised for their political philosophies.

 

But only in California.

 

California is a dangerous foreign land. It stands for anarchy. Lies. Corruption. Racism . Marxism. A land of oppressors where voting them out has become impossible - elections are useless; they know that they can perpetually retain their power by continuing to impose their harsh leftist tyranny upon us all.

 

With a mammoth Hispanic population, and a state government the size of Brazil - California comprises a permanent democratic voting bloc that can NEVER be dislodged!

 

Hence, the cancer of California's political demagogary must be done away with,  BEFORE it undermines our entire nation.

 

In medical parlance, radical cancer calls for radical measures - complete surgical excision.

 

This demon state must be eradicated lest our entire nation be forced to move hopelessly left. We must go opposite of what Abe Lincoln once intended: nullifying a criminal state from the Union.

 

We must draw up a modern "Declaration of Separation"- paraphrased from the original:

 

Quote..."When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people (United States) to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another (California), and to assume the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."

 

Let California go about its own wicked path; let them grant amnesty to 20 million aliens; let them have their unending entitlements, socailized medicine, parallel societies; massive government; and the desire to regulate and dominate everyone around them.
 
Back in 1776, our Founders revolted against tyranny, oppression and dictatorship. If not for these brave, intelligent men, we would not enjoy the freedom we now have. 

But how much longer we will have it? 

Why let unapologetic, California radicals undermine our society, and defile everything it once stood for? We must fight them to the end.

 

Better we cut off California, and excise this cancerous limb, than permit this evil entity to engulf us.
 
 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Haw-haw; Obama gets the last laugh on America again!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, March 23, 2009 6:01:23 PM

William Joyce, the infamous British traitor, was the German counterpart to Tokyo Rose during World War II.
 
He was nick-named Lord Haw-Haw by the English press; and from Oct 1939 to April 1945, his nightly broadcasts (originating from Hamburg) would rail against Winston Churchill, and supplied England with a endless line of propangandized stories of Nazi superiority, and the sheer futility of Allied efforts to defeat them.
 
So it wasn't long before Lord Haw-Haw (originally from Ireland) became a figure of fascination and hate during the long six years of the war.

Through his nightly broadcasts, Lord Haw-Haw attempted to discourage and demoralize American troops and the British population within radio listening range. Many found the broadcasts so absurd (hence the name Lord Haw-Haw) that they were seen as a way of relieving the tedium of life in Britain during the war.

Stories by Joyce sought to unnerve the British public. He often revealed information which was censored, and could only have been known via Germany's spy machine in Britain. As a result, Allied troops and British civilians listened to Lord Haw-Haw's broadcasts with great curiosity in spite of the infuriating content and grievous exaggerations.

Lord Haw Haw had a widespread audience (estimated at a peak 9 million) even if the majority of what he said was nonsense. Joyce was also occasionally credited with broadcasts that would alter Allied battle strategy-- such was his reputation at the time.

Finally, at the end of the war, he was arrested by British Military Police, taken to London and found guilty of treason, then hanged in 1946.

But now, the Lord Haw Haw of the Whitehouse, Barack Obama, and his "straight man",  Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary) are now broadcasting a new battle strategy in their war on capitalism: they’ve decided to use their cover from the AIG furor and 'morph' the tempest into a juicier target--executive pay--a cancer upon socialism.

And like any cancer, Dr. Obam-o & staff will be treating the executive pay "problem" with a large dose of Marxism.

Executive pay is definitely not the reason for the world's economic mess-- and Obama knows it; but his Politburo (crisis management team) senses a huge opportunity and they're certainly not given to passing it up.

A recent New York Times press release revealed how the Obama "attack plan" on executive pay would work: (quote)..."The new rules will cover ALL financial institutions, including those not now getting federal bailout money, and could also be applied "more broadly" to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the SEC"…"A central aspect of the plan would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large ‘troubled’ companies that are unregulated by Washington."

Translation: We’ve had a minimum wage law for years. Now the Obama administration senses an opening -- a MAXIMUM wage law.

Da! Is good policy for Amerika , eh Komrades?

So after placing salary restrictions on any remaining banks, Wall Street firms, and other major corporations, who’s next? Those remaining who "make too much" and "have more than they need", such as anyone with an income greater than 250K? Da!

And what would stop the DC marxist monsters from changing the rules, and going after pre-existing 401 K's, and rescinding the tax-free, after age-59 cash distributions? This new regulatory threat will put a chilling effect on small business SEP investments, and will slash the number of Americans who open Roth IRA's, because of fear of double taxation.

Yes indeed, Lord Haw Haw Obama will laugh away as he assaults working Americans from all sides-- a relentless barrage upon the wealth of upper income people-- as he merrily tranfers it to the leeches of society who will vote him a second term.

But now-now America, let’s not complain too much. Just remember last fall. Mr. Obama campaigned as a moderate, and told America... "My lack of executive experience doesn't matter."

And when it comes to lacking experience, Barack Obama leaps forward with shining credentials-- he’s never managed anything in the private sector-- not so much as even a paper route.

And no one in Obama cabinet, nor in his circle of advisors (or any of his czars) has any business experience in the private sector.  They're all ex-bureaucrats, lawyers, teachers & ex-politicians of similar ilk, all of whom share his marxist disdain for capitalism and free markets.

The result? None of them –not one--have a clue about what to do about the banking crisis, let alone the economy in general.

So Obama is basically 'winging it', incapable of coming up with any ideas, and going from one crisis to the next relying on his political instincts, his teleprompter, and of course...his sense of "gallows humor."

Hardy har everyone--especially for all those 52.7 % who voted for the anti-president.

And while Obama bashes away at the private sector, he reacts to crises by simply keeping up his poll numbers--his surefire way to solve things.

So he goes on ESPN to draw up his NCAA brackets--a grave priority of national concern. He goes on the "Tonite Show" and cracks sarcastic jokes. He goes to Camp David to shoot some hoops; he goes on "60 Minutes" and laughs off questions about the crisis of the economy.

Obama visits elementary schools; he travels back ‘n forth to Chicago; he parties every Wednesday night in the Whitehouse with the stars.  He flies around on Air Force One, acting like a college freshmen away from home for the first time-- the big man on the DC campus with national credit card in hand.

Meanwhile, he’s spending the nation towards catastrophe and yuks it up--calling it necessary to “fight the economic missteps of the past 8 years.”

But all the while, he tells people…”I HAVE JUDGMENT.”

Examples of Obama's sound presidential judgment abound:

Example #1: barely two weeks ago, he was telling everyone "it was the worst crisis since the Depression." But now, seeing his poll numbers drop, Obama claims "the economy is FUN-damentally sound". Um-hmm. Very sound indeed.

Example #2:  Barack's recent proposal for taxing Americans' workplace health benefits,
only to do an about-face after the virulent wave of unpopularity that quickly ensued.

Example #3: Closing Gitmo and releasing the prisoners, echoing the foolish Carter Marielito debacle of 1980, where thousands of violent murderers were unleashed upon the U.S.

Example #4: deficit spending trillions, similar to paying off one credit card with a new higher interest credit card-- and calling it "sound economic policy".

The new Congressional Budget Office predicts Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion WORSE than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy-- figures that are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product-- a dangerously high level--involving wild federal spending programs, and trillions of dollars of debt that will be placed on our families for generations to come.

Example #5: no new domestic drilling, while we'll send OPEC an estimated $3/4 trillion in badly needed U.S. capital this year, perhaps the most insanely ludicrous energy policy of any nation on earth!

And instead of tax cuts for those who create jobs, our anti-president will tax them more onerously, further dragging down the economy. Obama's plan is to increase taxes by more than $1 trillion in the middle of an economic crisis.

And how much more of Obama's hilariously sound judgment can we take? It's only a matter of time before it all blows up into a protracted recession, hyperinflation, or a second depression, or worse-- he blunders us into a flash Mideast war.

But the best part of Obama's judgment? He never takes the blame for anything; always some excuse, but always an explanation.

As Abe Lincoln once said... "you can't fool all the people all of the time". But Mr. Lincoln never figured that some day, there'd be an Obama to come upon the American political horizon, a man who absolutely, positively, is the most clever American politician EVER.

And the Great Distractor's judgement is absolutely bulletproof when it comes to mastering marxist tactic number one--creating a common enemy.

Last fall, Obama had America literally frothing at the mouth with President Bush. And now, the new Obama strawmen are the AIG executives.

And no matter how dire his circumstance, Lord Obama always miraculuosly escapes, and gets the last laugh on the voters, who always are eager to swallow his political bait.
 
And here's a cool "for instance"-- ACORN is behind all the ‘protests’ at the AIG homes! How's that for a shocker? And who else besides the Great Distractor could have come up with such an ingenious scheme of having ACORN operatives call all the talk shows, and mass e-mail their congress people about how "OUTRAGED" they were at the AIG bonuses.

And it worked. Even the congressional Republicans fell for the ruse. And the media ran with it.

So think about it; what average American would take the time to fabricate "homemade" signs and march downtown in protest against AIG? Or who would actually pay their hard earned money (plus time) to go on bus tours in posh Connecticut suburbs to sight-see and rail against the AIG executives' lavish homes?

What do people expect... that AIG execs prefer public housing? Maybe after Congress & Obama get done with them, they'll be eligible to apply for section 8.
 
Liberal democrats always take satisfaction in punishing achievers and rewarding the leeches, as if making rich people poorer will spark the economy.

Yup...we swallowed the bait again. Obama is laughing, ACORN is flourishing, and democracy is languishing, as we continue to march in lockstep with a leftist Congress, and follow our anti-president into his utopia of marxist oblivion.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Obama and hyperinflation destroy this nation? Yes he can!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:16:00 PM

Get out the wheelbarrows. Prepare for heavy lifting. Congress is setting us up for 1920's Germany, and the hyperinflation that once destabilized that country-- leading to the rise of a Austrian lad who's grandfather went by the name of Shicklegruber (Adolf Hitler).
 
In only the last five months, the U.S. overall money supply (M-I) has nearly tripled. M1 includes cash, total demand and government deposits with commercial banks, and money in all the federal reserve banks. And according to best current estimates, M2 (the current money supply in circulation) is hovering at just around 7 trillion dollars--give or take a few hundred billion.
 
But ho hum--a hundred billion here and a hundred billion there-- no big deal to a Congress bent on keeping themselves in power, while they simultaneously destroy every American wage earner's standard of living-- perhaps permanently.
 
Our hallowed 111th Congress is acting like a college freshmen who's just received his (her) first credit card, deficit spending as if they were awarded some unlimited ethereal financial prize, to be spent as one sees fit --with no accountability--and no consequences.
 
To an extent this is true.
 
Yes, long after the inevitable hyper-inflation overcomes America- perhaps ten, fifteen, or even 20 years down the road, the recklessly-spending Congressional perpetrators can choose not to run, and retire on federal pension worthy of a monarch.
 
But does anyone realize that this money the Congress is now delegating for stimulus, supplemental budget expenses, etc. isn't real money, or in fact, that it is not OUR money?

The money is not borrowed. The money is PRINTED.

Current amount of money in circulation (M2) = 7 trillion. Now add the 1 trillion anti-stimulus bill Obama signed into law recently, and every dollar American workers will now earn is worth 14.2% less-- just like that.
 
Now add the 410 billion supplemental budget federal spending bill (earmark-laden) that has just passed, and do the math again: $410 Billion divided by $7 Trillion = 5%. That's right sports fans, in just 3 weeks, your buck has just turned into little more than 6 bits...an inflation rate of almost 20% in less than a month!
 
And the wheelbarrow is getting heavier --basically amounting from more debt to pay off debt. Such fiscal brilliance! The "big money" liberals trying make the impossible possible-- printing money backed by nothing, pretending the interest is free (non-existent).
 
Nancy Pelosi wants a second anti-stimulus bill; Fed chairmen Bernacke says the first one "may not have been enough". Barney Frank is calling for more stimulus. Obama wants 600 billion for revamping (socializing) health care...a Congress running rampant with earmarks...Hillary wants almost a billion to rebuild Gaza. And always accompanied with that ad-nauseum exhortation: "We need to act now."
 
Sure: Act now-- but pay later-- and to what disastrous end?

But mysteriously this fiscal recklessness is never called into question by the media. Even Herbert Hoover would probably know that to add more debt onto an already growing $12.4 trillion existing pyramid of financial obligation would invite catastrophe.

The annual debt interest payment right now is at $600 billion--and growing--an unsustainable amount. Yet Obama and the Congress want to add another 3.4 trillion in deficit spending to fund a boundless plethora of unending federal programs--fiscal insanity on steroids!

Meanwhile, "the bearded one"- Ben Bernacke-- will be toiling away, printing all this "new money" in the fed basement.

And it matters not when Bernanke injects this newly printed money into the economy—it’s how much that counts, because all fed injections immediately act to distort the nation's production structure. The larger the injections (and the longer they continue) the larger will be the distortions. These "funny-money" injections equal more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services-- ergo...inflation-- which exerts downward pressure on the value of the dollar.
 
With the eventual surging of prices at home, and a depreciating exchange rate, foreign holders of greenbacks might one day decide that they have had "enough"-- starting a run on the currency by dumping their dollar balances-- forcing the Fed to raise interest rates ever higher, and triggering a more devastating recession; or a scenario even worse than the original Great Depression-- a second hyperinflationary depression-- 1920's Germany revisited.
 
In a more simple analysis, let's say we've been building a debt pyramid over the last decade, and now we'll be adding huge new amounts to the base at the bottom, while all the while, the interest will be coalescing at the top. And given time and the continuation of reckless deficit spending, the debt pyramid may become distorted in shape-- growing top heavy-- and at last, it tips over.

Ergo...hyperinflation.

But our beloved anti-president, Mr. Barack Obama, will be long gone out of office when and if that occurs; and of course, living large on his ex-presidential pension.

So should the "average Joe" be mindful about WHEN and IF we do run out of the printing option? And how much of a concern should it be now for all Americans, who already have more than enough to worry about concerning the economy?

Could the world eventually become so flooded with PAPER dollars, that some of our lesser foreign creditors begin to say: "Okay Meester Bernacke...we hold enough of these flimsy dollars now, so if your foolish American Congress wants more credit, we'll need something more solid than all this paper currency in return."

So bye bye Fort Knox...hello national insolvency. And then what?

Then it'll be time to break out the Kruggerands (gold coins) hidden in the cellar, because American money won't be worth the paper it's printed on-- and the Fed won't even have enough credit left to purchase the the green ink.

And the OPEC countries and the Chinese (previously reluctant to dun their number one trading partner) will then be forced to pull their "debt  triggers", and deliver the final coupe de' gras. Then its turn out the lights America-- the party's over. We'll have descended into the financial nether existence of a third world nation, totally bereft of all liquid assets, with liabilities extending "as far as the eye can see..."

So Mexico-- prepare for a taste of your own medicine: Americans might one day be reverse-migrating into your territory, with all of them seeking a sense of survival after hyperinflation comes to the fore, and completely destroys the affluence of a once-proud and powerful nation.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's as true as ever: As GM goes, so goes America--bankrupt!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, March 06, 2009 4:40:47 PM

The timing was perfect. In fall of 1976, GM had introduced their long awaited new line of B-bodied cars.

Back then, TV commercials splashed the news all over the airwaves..."GM introduces its downsized Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac full-size and luxury cars; so visit your nearest GM dealer-showroom today!" Then the commercial would fade out showing the once-famous GM-Fisher body logo.

This was all in conjunction with the ending of the harrowing OPEC oil embargo (which had started in October, '73) when the nation realized that it could no more be complacent about its transportation's lifeblood--cheap gasoline- which no longer could be taken for granted.

The GM engineers and designers had done their homework; the B-bodied cars were a smash. They were all newly-designed. They all had gorgeous back-pillared roof lines, with opera-style rear windows. They were well-engineered; they ran beautifully.

Americans responded in droves; they flocked into GM showrooms. Everyone wanted a new GM car. Teenagers saved their paper route money. GMAC couldn't make the loans fast enough. All five GM divisions boomed; factories hummed . GM towns across the country, such as Pontiac and Flint Michigan, and Southgate California were prospering as never before.

The entire auto parts industry and all the automotive spin-off supplemental suppliers boomed as well.

And in conjunction with GM's new auto introduction, America also welcomed the opening of the Alaska Pipeline, and two million barrels/day of new domestic oil came on line and quickly dropped the price of gas, bringing the economy completely out of its OPEC- induced 1974-76 recession; and bringing the onset of the disco era "hey day".

Who was it that said, " As GM goes, so goes America"? And in the late 70's this  proved to be "right on" brother!  It was when America still had its full manufacturing base, and we still had a prosperous middle class, and the entire world still looked upon the U.S. as the "economic colossus" and manufacturing power of the universe.

And for GM it was a pivotal time. The company hired thousands of new workers; new plants were opened. Others were expanded. It seemed as though America would never experience another recession.

But after just 4 glory years, GM caught the "disease" and became obsessed with profit margins. Flushed with success, the GM executives decided they would go for broke--literally-- by appointing Roger Smith as CEO, who proved to be a turnaround expert in reverse.

What else beside greed could have caused General Motor's board to break a sixty year tradition, and pick a non-engineer, bean-counter accountant as its head honcho?

Smith was a no-nonsense type, who had started with GM back in1949. So "Mr. Bottom Line" then decreed... "We shall wringeth the maximum profit margins out of our customers! We shall charge premium price for shoddy designs. And make 'em smaller; make 'em cheaper; and make all the models look alike from the same basic body shell; and power them with engines worthy of a sewing machine."

"And damn the 50,000 mile warranty! Let the repair aspect prosper, along with the company-dealer profits! And damn the long time customers-- it's shareholder value--that's the bottom line."

And then there was the UAW...the cancer within the assembly lines. If you could peer into the mindset of the UAW, they seemed to have had some brain-addled idea that they would be an adversary to GM-- and bite the hand that fed them so generously.

Auto assembly-line work is hell; it's loud; it's monotonous...and it's back breaking. You must walk along with the moving line, and do strenuous work simultaneously; and because it's "one after another", there is little satisfaction; as soon as you complete your assigned task, here comes yet another car--for an eight hour shift.
 
There is a peculiar, indefinable, "mental-physical wear-down" aspect to the job. Thus early retirements are the rule, rather than the exception.

But the UAW members, misled by their own union bosses, were somehow driven to believe that the company was to blame for the difficult job that all auto assembly work entails.

Union disputes over assembly line speeds; strikes; threats; discipline problems; absenteeism; drunken, hung-over workers; deliberately shoddy workmanship-- all began to take its toll on the final products.

GM began to acquire its fateful reputation:

Unreliability; poor fitting parts; frequent breakdowns. But customer's complaints went unheeded. And getting no satisfaction caused Americans to abandon the company in droves, as word quickly spread-- the Japanese had the answers to the GM " junk syndrome".

And the rest is History.

Yes; it was under the "misguidance" of the bean-counting Roger Smith, who reigned during the time when those horribly designed, front-wheel-drive, X-body compact cars, the Buick Skylark, Chevrolet Citation, Oldsmobile Omega and Pontiac Phoenix, were in the process of quickly destroying the 75 years of goodwill that GM had built up with America.

These were the models that were hailed by the company as being "perfected" by computer; but were rejected by the auto-buying public en masse.

The cars were the polar opposite of what Americans wanted --certified rolling junk on wheels.

Even worse, the American buying public had been duped by all the phony publicity.  The cars turned out to be not at all what the magazines (such as "CAR and DRIVER") had been all a-twitter about-- GM’s "fabulous" X-Body platform. The X-car proved to be not fabulous-- but disastrous-- for both the customers and the company.

Its front-wheel drive and transverse engine broke down frequently; the engine made a peculiar whirring sound-- you could actually tell them apart by just listening. Its so-called “sleek styling” and “intelligent hatchback design,” were flops -an abject failure. And the price tags were on the moon.

And they were ugly--so ugly that it was if the company had deliberately designed them as sort of some weird joke on the American auto-buying public. And nothing turns off Americans from buying cars more than ugly--or having bad heaters.

GM X-body heater cores were made of plastic that easily fractured from hitting a deep pothole, or even a minor fender-bender. When they broke, they dripped smelly anti-freeze into the passenger compartment . Then you had to pull the engine to replace them. Huge repair bills were an anathema to all customers who owned the little devilish demons on wheels.

Long time GM customers were alienated, often having to spend their money two, or even THREE times to replace the insidious heater cores.

So predictably, another recession hit America in 1981, as car sales tanked, and the disaster of Jimmy Carter's economic policies had taken full hold.

But Roger Smith was undeterred, doing just the opposite of what was called for. Instead of going back to its roots and redesigning a good reliable new line of models, Smith, in 1984, foolishly recommended  a "new organizational structure" for GM's North American Passenger Car Operations.

And even after it was formed-- it again proved to be another huge misstep. Instead of learning his lesson, the complacent Smith persisted in his bean-counting, and insisted GM go onward with the re-organization. Two integrated car groups, Chevrolet, Pontiac, GM of Canada, and Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, were to each have complete responsibility for their respective products, including engineering, manufacturing, assembly, and marketing.

But what good is reorganization if your division is assembling junk?

Predictably, 4 years after the 1984 directive; the "re-reorganization" in 1988 also fizzled when GM introduced its 'GM 10' family of newly redesigned midsize cars -- the Buick Regal, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, and Pontiac Grand Prix.

These cars were also ugly, unreliable, and to the fast disappearing customer base--unacceptable.

In 1989, even uglier four-door sedan versions of the 'GM 10' Pontiac Grand Prix and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme were introduced. And predictably again, GM market share began to plummet; and GM factories closed down; and the once prosperous GM towns did likewise.

But despite the all the reorganizations, the redesigns, the new divisions, etc., the problems remained -the cars were ugly, unreliable, and decidedly overpriced.

So is it any wonder that throughout the 80's, GM market share went south as Americans turned to the imports in droves? And word of mouth was proliferating--Japanese cars don't fall apart-- and they're actually fun to drive...another nail in the GM cofffin.

But GM fought back with even uglier, flimsier, and more plastic-laden vehicles-- the Pontiac Trans Sport and Oldsmobile Silhouette "all-purpose" minivans. These models featured the large plastic panels, that made the cars resemble some alien design from perhaps some other planet from another universe.

The OLDS Silhouette in particular seemed to be inspired by its similarity to a dustbuster hand-held sweeper. And it had these incredibly stupid, elevated tail light panels that marked it as something from yet another alien planet- the most bizarre looking minivan ever made.

And speaking of other planets,  GM introduced the "Saturn"-- yet another, plastic-bodied disappointment.

By the mid 90's with total sales tanking even further, GM continued to go the cheapskate, bean-counting route again and in 1996, Pontiac and GMC marketing divisions were merged to form Pontiac-GMC Division.

Bob Lutz, another, so-called turnaround expert from Chrysler, was then hired to revitalize the company. Lutz (the father of the Dodge Viper) had the right idea, but he too suffered from greed, and decided to turn another good idea into a misguided reality-- the concept of a world car-- the revitalizing of the famed original muscle car...the GTO.

Lutz proved to be a swaggering, self-confident arrogant CEO. But Maximum Bob, as he was called, once again got everything flat out wrong;  His “world car” idea was as old the auto industry itself. Had Lutz not been busy being greedy, and had gone retro and designed the GTO to resemble its '64- '69 predecessors, the cars would not have been able to have been made fast enough.

But GM decide to go for a "world look", and made the car in Austaralia to save money.

But the hideous-looking Australian-built GTO was an abject failure. The GTO lost GM tens of millions of dollars, squandered precious development resources, and drove yet another Lutz-shaped nail into GM’s coffin.

Contrast this now with the gorgeous retro-designed Ford Mustang, a direct knock-off of the classic '68 model year. And then there are those hot-selling, muscular looking, Dodge Challengers, which are a direct knockoff of the 1970 model of the same name.

Retro 60's and early 70's has always been the classic way to go; but GM never could reconcile their greed for something that would have worked magnificently--but was rejected by GM because "it would have cost too much to retool".

Yet Ford will survive, and Chysler-Dodge along with them; and the retro-GTO might have saved GM .

But in retrospect how could GM think that a car company, that would dare sell such poorly engineered automobiles, could survive while realizing that the American people knew that someone else (the Germans-- the Japanese) made a better product.

Today (and again misjudging the market) GM has a gigantic backlog of hybrids; further testimony that Americans still demand conventional cars that look good, run on gasoline, and come equipped with engines suitable for safe freeway driving.

And looking into the near future, if GM somehow can survive, they should learn a lesson from the free market itself.

Americans do not want the silent (but deadly) electric cars, whose drivers risk freezing to death in the winter should you get stuck in snow, and your batteries (and heater) go dead before you can get moving again.

And Americans don't want the ugly, insect-like "green cars of the future," where if you get smashed an intersection, you'll not go to the hospital, but be taken to the cemetary.

But with the government now about to take control of the auto industry, they'll be telling us what kind of cars we'll drive; how many we can own; and with the mandatory installation of GPS-- how far we shall drive them.

And the public will revolt en masse. The auto industry will never recover. The economy will stay in recession. And Americans will continue to worship the classic cars of the 50's and 60's, and wonder how such a technologically advanced industry could have been so irresponsibly greedy over one generation, and throw it all away for the sake of "progress"-- in reverse.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the American Left uphold the Law of Civilization and Decay?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:58:12 PM

It was cast as an unprecedented new compromise-- the heralded revival of California's offshore mega-barrel Tranquillion oil field-- a plan that would have been the state's first approval to drill for oil in its waters since 1969.

But as fast as the proposal came to be, it disappeared within a tidal wave of leftist, environmental rejections.

California's State Lands Commission, headed by the radical environmentalist, John Garamendi,  killed the deal, citing that, "Approval would have been a message heard very, very clearly around the world by those who call for "drill, baby, drill."

So score another big one for the left; and another brick in the wall toward cutting off America’s vital domestic flow of crude oil.

It was a deal that would have allowed a Houston based Texas oil company, Plains Exploration and Production, to sink new wells off the Santa Barbara coast in return for an agreement to shut down all four of its existing offshore platforms within 13 years.

Santa Barbara County approved the plan without controversy last summer. But with horizontal "slant-drilling" technology, Plains Exploration had an ingenious plan-- sink wells deep into the sea floor, and then burrow sideways from under the federally regulated waters, to where Tranquillion sits underneath the ocean floor under state waters.

Thus it would have eliminated all environmental concerns of a possible ocean spill, like the disastrous 1969 well-head blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara

But the uncompromising California State Lands Commission wasn’t swayed: by a controversial 2-1 vote, they upheld the contentions of Santa Barbara's most vociferous anti-oil groups, who said, "allowing any new drilling in state waters would suggest the state welcomes offshore drilling, and send a "come-hither" message to other oil companies".

So just what are these idiopathic environmentalists talking about? A "come hither" message to the oil companies? Were they implying some kind of sexual innuendo; or are we talking about energy policy? But whenever it comes to U.S. energy policy, the leftists have never made sense

Of course, this was we'd expect.  It’s always been the left's anti patriotic duty--blocking what’s vital for America's economy, and disregarding the country’s most critical need--domestic energy.

it was your usual "just show ‘em whose boss thing"... exercising one's authority for the sake of power; the control factor (i.e. the abuse of political power); the lust of all leftists.

Never mind that California is bazillions in debt; never mind that the hundreds of millions of barrels of Tranquillion's oil would relieve our  domestic energy shortage. And never mind the 40 billion we continue to send OPEC every month- a crippling, unsustainable drain on our capital.

None of it matters except for California's leftist, mindless insistence of keeping control-- controlling the inevitable slide downward of our country into third world status-- and upholding the law of civilization and decay.

Can this law be repealed? Not if our leftist new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has his way.

Predictably, Mr. Salazar's first major decision — to cancel oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of public land in Utah — could not have sent a clearer signal that his department is under new management; a rather haughty introduction indeed.

Salazar's appointment as Interior Secretary was a strong indication that the Obama administration intends to take a "more measured approach" to energy exploration on the public lands, and that, "drill-now, drill-anywhere" policies are "a thing of the past".

Mama-Mia! Drilling is to be a thing of the PAST?

What could be more counterproductive to America's economic survival than stating that domestic drilling is passe? OPEC is celebrating as we speak! Fully 95% of America's transportation needs are met by the refined products of petroleum--something that the off shores of the U.S. holds in abundance

So what is America’s future transportation system supposed to run on? Renewables? Wind and solar power?

Sure! Just picture the all new, all electric, 40-ton semi tractor-trailers on the roads; and the heralded hydrogen- powered freight trains; and the wind powered F-22 stealth fighter planes; and don’t forget the massive torque output of the new solar-powered line of Caterpillar bulldozers. Is the Obama administration ready to  deliver these vehicles to replace our conventional powered machines? Not yet?

Yet they contend drilling for oil is a thing of the past. And will these disastrous, economic absurdities of the left ever cease? But haven't these treasonous liberals already damaged America enough? Look at the calamitous wealth destruction they have wrought upon our country:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has blocked all previous Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. lt's liquid gold--4 TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted.

And for what? The environment.? For the insistence on developing renewable resources? This is wealth that could go for investment. It's the money a deficit-plagued America needs at a most critical time.

We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles; new money for corporate expansion; building high-speed rail corridors; or for R&D toward high tech medical and pharmaceutical advancements; or for developing new inventions and hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas.

The list is endless.

But without capital, nothing can move forward. And the leftists have chosen to stifle all this, and have declared our own domestic energy resources to be illegal--putting us on the slippery slope downhill toward the fulfillment of the prophecy of the "law of civilization and decay."

So what exactly is this law of civilization and decay?

This is a hypothesis- first proposed by the famous historian Brooks Adams in1894; a law that was the reason for the decline and fall of the Roman and Spanish empires. It held that the seat of world power, throughout history, has consistently followed a westward movement from the ancient crossroads in the East

To illustrate, let’s expound upon this hypothesis: The tendency of history is that power is not static, and the foibles of human nature are the reasons for the inevitable fulfillment of the law.

From ancient Persia; to Alexander the Great in Macedonia; to Athens in ancient Greece; to Rome; to Constantinople, to Spain, then France, and to London; and finally, to America; in accord with a law relating to the density of populations, and the development of new and centralizing techniques of trade and industry, the "law" commands that the seat of power eventually, and invariably, transforms from one country to another in an inevitable westward direction.

In summary, the law upholds that throughout the constant progression of history, the status of each dominant country always declines, and that…"All civilizations fall because of the actions of certain people who made these civilizations vanish."

And this law portends huge trouble for the U.S. And could it be that the radical left is the straw that breaks our nation's back, and moves the seat of power westward? Could our downfall be imperceptibly underway, and migrating westward across the Pacific as we speak?

Right now, China is taking advantage of the worldwide economic downturn to go on a major shopping spree, investing in energy and other natural resources that could give it an economic advantage over the United States that it has never had before.

This should set off alarm bells; but so far it's slipped entirely below our radar. China’s newest investments position the country as a threat to becoming the world's new dominate nation-- a new seat of power-- eclipsing our United States.

And the main reason is painfully obvious: we remain energy static-- while the Chinese proceed ahead at a voracious pace. Unlike the American left, the Chinese are not fools; they see that oil has been (and will continue to be in the foreseeable future) vital to projecting economic power, and key to dominating the world’s economic landscape.
 
Chinese money continues to talk around the globe--so are you listening Nancy Pelosi?

In a recent move, the China Development Bank will lend the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras $10 billion in exchange for a long-term commitment to send oil to China. And with their recent deals they've signed with Russia and Venezuela, this brings Beijing’s total oil investments to $41 billion.

The result? This will prepare China to expand even more rapidly during the next boom when supplies of commodities (like oil ) are likely to tighten again as global growth picks up. And China will have a foothold it lacked during the recent previous  boom, when it grew phenomenally, even with its limited access to domestic resources.

China is flush with cash, thanks to trillions of dollars from decades of selling goods to the West; and they are using it to proceed in the exact opposite direction of the U.S.  The Chinese continue to accumulate huge petroleum energy deposits-- possibly eclipsing America as world's dominant economic power as soon as 2030 

China is a capital rich nation; the U.S. is a capital starved, beggar nation-- woefully lacking in cash-- thanks to the treasonous energy policy of the left, which results in the exportation of our capital to OPEC at a perilous pace of 700 billion a year.

And recently, Venezuela borrowed $6 billion from China and agreed to increase their oil exports to China, bringing China’s total investment in the country to $12 billion. In Brazil, China signed a $10 billion “loan-for-oil” deal that guarantees the country up to 160,000 barrels a day at market prices.

This is sounding more ominous by the minute! But is the Obama administration even paying attention?

In total, China has built up nearly $2 TRILLION in foreign currency reserves, giving the country access to capital for dealing with cashed-starved nations around the world, such as America – the world’s number one debtor nation. And analysts are projecting grave worries about what lengths China will go to compete with the United States (and India), for oil and other natural resources.

The Chinese now could, by virtue of their cash rich position, easily outspend the U.S. for critical oil reserves, and lock out America from being able to compete for limited supplies of the world's strategic military minerals, such as lithium, titanium, nickel, and chromium.

China has struck deals in countries that have access to large supplies of oil and other mineral resources-- right smack where American and European countries are not well positioned-- in Africa and the Middle East.

First, the Chinese took over our manufacturing capacity; and now, we are being outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and outspent for the world's oil and mineral resources. And the Chinese continue to lend us the money we must send to OPEC every month.

So the handwriting is on the wall; and the leftists continue to be the authors. We are losing the race to the Chinese-- and to our great peril-- we are fulfilling the law of civilization and decay.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Climate Change We All Can't Believe In

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, February 20, 2009 4:03:18 PM
 

Here's a "burning" question Americans should be asking themselves: "How has climate change affected me?"  Am I choking? Boiling? Freezing? Sneezing? Sweating? Gasping? Coughing? Aching? Allergic? Paranoid? Fearful? Anything at all?

So why even consider it? Who amongst ourselves is actually aware of anything strange about the climate?

 

Does your air smell funny...or seem any different? Have you noticed anyone in public wheezing for their lives? Does anything-- anything at all-- seem altered about the weather? Is our children's growth being stunted; or our pets dying prematurely...or are our houses being flooded by rising sea levels?

 

Today climate change is being blamed for everything from drought in California to late delivery of the mail. But seriously, if we weren't constantly exposed to the ominous drumbeat of global warming, we wouldn't give climate change so much as a sniff-- or a wink.

Dangerous powerful storms, drought, melting glaciers, dying polar bears, calamitous tornadoes, apocalyptic hurricanes, tsunamies in the Far East, and anything hinting of catastrophe--all have been ascribed to the fallacy of climate change.

 

About the only things that have been left out are volcanic eruptions, and plagues of locusts.

 

Meanwhile back in Washington, the Obama administration is taking a new tack concerning the so called danger from climate change. It's now being melded into America's "newly revamped" policy of our national security.

 

Yes folks you heard correctly; climate change poses a threat to our national security. Oh my golly!

 

And how's this for their reasoning: A strategic studies report from the Institute for Public Research states..."the rise in sea levels is hugely important for the Navy, as it effects the use of beaches, piers and "facilities".

 

Yes indeed, Americans can sleep well, knowing that the Navy is in the process of dealing with the dreaded threat that climate change poses to our beaches and piers.

 

The Obama administration feels it's necessary to make a 180 from the previous administration, and has decided that it's imperitive to develop "21st-century" procedures to deal with the challenges of climate change--worlwide shortages and unprecedented migrations of adversely affected nations -- leading  to violent clashes and world war horror.

 

Quite a stretch. 

So forget al-Quida; forget nuclear proliferation-- future wars will be caused by migration of besieged refugee nations, fleeing from the torments of climate change.


Such absurdity!

 
But for Barack Obama, obfuscating reality comes naturally . His climate change assumption reeks of fallacy-- that Americans must learn to think differently about national security--and that we have no other choices.

 

Obviously, the handwriting's on the wall. It can be read a mile away. Obama is going to use climate change to alter everything toward his marxist way of thinking. This includes downsizing the military; wresting control of the economy; attacking the private sector with environmental regulations, and going after every entity that uses energy--which encompasses everyone.

It's Barack Obama's personal vendetta -the war on the status quo! And it could end up as the most costly war of all time. Higher energy bills; higher food prices; 6 dollar/gallon gasoline; the destruction of heavy industry-- etcetera ad nauseum.

But ironically, the real threat to our national security may be the very thing Obama is proposing to alleviate climate change --the refusal to drill offshore --and the rising tide of importing more and more OPEC oil.

From virtual nowhere comes Obama, and his condemnation of all fossil fuels, inviting disastrous future energy shortages, including the precise kind of energy truly vital to our national security...oil. So now America's ticket has been punched: we're on our way to the wondrous world of alternative green energy --and damning demon petroleum.

On paper, Mr. Obama's ideas sound great. Obama will clean the planet; he'll curb the rise in the oceans. He'll create 5 million new green collar jobs that can't be outsourced; and no more so-called "dirty oil". 

 

Thunderation! Holy Moses! Let the Red Sea part-- Obama is about to lead the U.S.out of its 40 year plague from OPEC! But unfortunately, it's all fictional. But fiction has great political box office appeal these days to many Americans, who naively believe we could abandon oil, and move to alternative sources without missing a beat.


Yes Mr Obama; he makes it all sound so very easy.

But retooling America's energy infrastructure is far more complex. It isn't one challenge, it's thousands—a total overhaul of the American lifestyle involving deep changes in every home, vehicle, and business in the country--let alone the military implications.

 

And Commander in chief Obama is poised for take off. He wants to launch a 150 billion energy plan, and free our nation of foreign oil in ten years. But what kind of calendar is Mr. Obama going by? In ten years, because of his ban on drilling, the U.S. could be importing 90% of its oil.

Obama is anti-oil, anti-nuclear, AND anti coal! So lets dub him as the anti-president.

So where would all these anti-energy policies of our beloved anti-president put us in five or ten years? It could leave us without a viable energy supply for this entire 21st century!  95% of our nation's transportation needs are currently met by fossil fuels. And despite the environmental protests to the contrary, oil and gasoline will be around for the next 50-100 years.

 
Or does the anti-president have some miraculous new energy source in mind? We need gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel to run our nation's cars, trucks, trains, heavy equipment, and fighter planes. 

 

Mr Obama's proposing a blue sky energy fairytale that could jeorpardize our nation-- a national security crisis during an emergency-- leaving our strategic petroleum reserve at near zero capacity, and a vulnerability to critical unforeseen events, such as a flash outbreak of war in the Middle East. 

 

This is the real danger to our national security-- not this patently absurd, so called threat of climate change.

We are a nation that runs on oil; and a country that runs on oil can't afford to run out.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The grand economic anti-stimulus...our path toward "Europeanism"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:45:53 PM

"In a crisis, be aware of the danger, but recognize the opportunity"-- John F. Kennedy; from an excerpt taken from his book, "Profiles In Courage".
 
Wise words indeed from one of America's most beloved presidents. But today, wisdom is precisely what's lacking in Washington DC.

The reality of our economic crisis can be traced directly back to last year's spike in the cost of energy. The 4 dollar-a-gallon economic anti-stimulus triggered the mortgage crisis, and the subsequent onset of the worldwide recession-depression.
 
Currently, we seem to be locked into an ideological tug of war between fossil-fuel realty and renewable energy fantasy:

On one side there's the one basic necessity of ALL modern economic growth --cheap reliable energy--lined up against the fantasy of alternative fuels, which currently supply less than 4% of America’s energy usage. And we're overlooking one of the few benefits of the economic slowdown-- the welcome drop in petroleum prices.

As far as green energy goes, actual commercial demand is weak. Installation of wind and solar power is plummeting, due in part to the attractiveness of current cheap energy prices .

But instead of using this short term drop in prices to shore up our energy policy, the Obama administration has other ideas, which could leave the country short on oil in its second term. This could put both our economy and our military in the gravest of all circumstances-- not enough gasoline, and a strategic petroleum reserve bled dry!
 
So Instead of drilling for oil (or building nuclear plants) the Obama energy team of enviro-radicals has decided to stubbornly focus on renewable alternative energy, and all but deliberately ignore the basic structural problem of the nation's economy-- the mind-numbing amount of money we export to OPEC for foreign oil.
 
Talk about irrational ignorance.
 
Let’s play make believe. What if the U.S. had a prudent energy policy in place back in the 70's, and America now was energy independent. The result? Instead of the country being in dire economic straights, we'd be experiencing a prosperity boom.
 
Example: take the $750 billion we spent last year on imported oil.

What instead if that money could have been used to fund an economic expansion, the likes of which not seen since the early 60's? This was when President Kennedy cut taxes across the board, and initiated an investment tax credit for companies wishing to expand commercially. And back then, America was a creditor nation.
 
Think... 750 billion we wouldn't have to borrow...750 billion toward investment tax credits for corporations... 750 billion toward small business loans-- the true job engine of the U.S.
 
And we're just getting warmed up. 750 billion could go a long way. We could mail out stimulus checks totaling $2000 for every one in the country.
 
We could build a badly-needed high speed rail network.  We could fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure...rebuild the nation's manufacturing base ...or have the financial latitude to cut payroll taxes for everyone for a year.
 
The salient point here is that America, as a capital staved nation, could remedy itself from the primary source of its capital shortage-- the calamitous sums of money we send abroad for imported oil.

But the Obama energy czars--Stephen Chu and Carol Browner-- are heavily prejudiced against offshore drilling, and coal and nuclear power
 
So according to these environmental Nazis, what are supposed to do? Fill 'er up with a tankful of french fried, re-refined biodiesel? Or drive the currently non-existent green cars of the future? Or maybe we could revisit  the stone age era, and design a modern foot-powered Fred Flintstone yabba-dabba car. Just think of the mileage.
 
But in reality, petroleum now accounts for 96% of our transportation fuels. And without a concerted effort to increase domestic production of our own oil reserves, the U.S. is likely to face ever-rising future energy prices, ever more dependence on foreign sources; and ominously-- less reliable supplies in the future from hostile nations.
 
And we haven’t even considered the imbalance of our trade deficit.
 
But yet, the environmental Nazis argue that, "the age of oil is over ....we need to move to new forms of energy."
 
Bravo! Profound! But of what new forms of energy are they talking about? Oil and gasoline are here for the next 50-100 years. Currently there are 300 million internal combustion engines parked in the nation's  garages and driveways. And mass production of wind, solar, and biofuels literally remains a pipe dream.
 
It's true that more diverse sources of energy would be a good thing; but Obama and his green energy lieutenants conveniently say zilcho about the need to produce energy from existing sources, such as oil, coal, and nuclear.
 
In reality, renewable energy sources are years away--they are mere symbols of what should be done. But the enviro-radicals ignore the stark scientific and technological realities of what can be done.
 
Environmental symbolism shouldn’t drive public policy. Starting exploration in offshore coastal areas (and ANWAR) would be important steps toward influencing the world market; and it would keep petroleum prices low enough that it would provide our economy the chance to become robust in the long term.

And we must shun this idiopathic notion that wind/solar/biodiesel fuels will be available any time soon in sufficient amounts to replace fossil fuels. This reckless propaganda is both a danger to our economy, and our long term national security.
 
America must also shun environmental symbolism. And long into the foreseeable future, we'll need sufficient oil resources, and we'll continue to burn coal--it's as bluntly simple as that.
 
And here's a most welcome thought: by expanding America's domestic energy supply, we can turn the tables on our good buddies, OPEC and Venezuela. The recent dip in energy prices have hurt these regimes rather grievously.
 
But the U.S. remains the ONLY oil-producing nation on earth that's deemed its reserves illegal! According  to the Minerals Management Service, there are 14 billion barrels of petroleum in the restricted areas off our continental outer shelf. But the leftist environmental Nazis, in their zest to "save the planet", have used their treasonous influence in Congress to retain the mindless offshore drilling restrictions.

But it's for sure that the Chinese, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other nations will continue to explore offshore.

So why have we unilaterally chosen to disarm our oil exploration industry? Surely our current safeguards against environmental damage are as good as any in the world. And ironically, America was the technological innovator for deepwater offshore drilling.

And rival nations continue to use our technology to their advantage; while we sit back and worship polar bear sanctity, and mail huge monthly checks to OPEC for the same oil we could be pumping from our untapped energy resources.

So is it any wonder that the U.S. is a debtor, capital-starved nation, all but begging OPEC for a break? Compare our situation to that of other oil-aggressive nations. They’re not going forward with green energy, but expansive worldwide petroleum exploration.

And with all these government restrictions on our energy production, just what actually are we saving?

In a short period of time, we will eventually become another Europe; a nation of people sleeping in 60 degree bedrooms, and riding bicycles and roller-blading to work, unable to afford the coming specter of 6-dollar a gallon gas.

This is indeed frightening; and we should kid ourselves no longer...it’s soon to be a reality, unless something changes.

We have abundant energy sources all around us. But yet the politicians seek to deny the people the fruits of our great nation.

Perhaps Cicero, the great Roman orator and philosopher of the first century A.D., had it right when he wrote..."Governments are the enemy."

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America's proud OPEC "alliance"... will it pave the way to permanent energy dependence?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:13:51 PM
 

Shiver me timbers...those meany Saudi Arabians are at it again! They are out to pirate a big price hike for a barrel of crude oil with their announcement of a huge OPEC production cut. And two other non-OPEC outsiders, Russia and Azerbaijan, also announced similar production cuts, in sympathy with the move of the Saudis.

 

In a quote from the New York Times, it was reported that..."Saudi Arabia, the world’s top exporter, issued a cut of 2.2 million barrels a day, or the equivalent of 2.5 percent of global production, to “bring things in balance,” according to the Saudi oil minister, Ali-al-Naimi" (unquote). 

 

OPEC and the oil ministers of the 11 nations, under the group's quota system, agreed to take a total of 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, the largest single production reduction in history.

 

Oh well; just when it looked like cheap, buck-n-a-half gas might be the remedy for an America mired in a debilitating, bone-rattling recession, we can instead look for prices to zoom back up to $2.50-3.00/gallon in the next 3-6 months or so, because OPEC is taking no chances: they've seen this "oil-oversupply" movie before, and they'll keep cutting production until the price gets back up to the 70 dollar-a-barrel level.

 

But what is most disturbing, is that Americans have also seen this exact same movie before in the 1990's, and learned ZILCH. Bill Clinton's presidency is widely regarded as the 'roaring 90's'. But Clinton was a leftist liberal, who luckily benefited from the perfect storm of falling oil prices, productivity gains of the computerized workplace, the explosive growth of the internet, and the concomitant dot-com job creation machine.

 

And in the eye of the perfect storm, was a republican Congress, who passed welfare reform, drilling in ANWAR, and a balanced budget-- and literally dragged a reluctant, kicking and screaming Bill Clinton, into a golden decade of prosperity.

 

But the Clinton administration made one of the most costly and long term damaging blunders in U.S. economic history, when slick Willie vetoed the congressional bill to initiate drilling in ANWAR. Back then, Mr. Clinton had 'succumbed' to the radical, Al Gore environmental lobby, and willingly danced at the end of the puppet strings of the Sierra Club.

 

But Clinton's 1995 veto didn't just restrict drilling in ANWAR. His lethal blunder set the stage for grievous long-term structural damage to the U.S. economy, due to the eventual result of the ban: a huge net capital outflow of  $700 billion annually to OPEC over the last decade, with no end in sight.

 

The veto also set the precedent for the current political-environmental insanity we have today, where 4 trillion dollars worth of American oil reserves have been declared to be both illegal, and also to be a supposed ecological disaster waiting to happen. 

 

What America stubbornly refuses to learn is that OPEC has directly affected the quality of our lives just as much as Congress, or any of the presidents or foreign wars in the last 40 years. Consider where America would be if ANWAR had come online in 2000, and the price of gas had stayed below a dollar-fifty/gallon. What then? Would we even be in a recession today?

 

Well, for starters, the U.S. would now be producing close to 50% of its domestic needs, rather than the current 30%. Instead, were importing 70% of our oil, and U.S. domestic production from aging oil fields is currently dropping at a rate of 2% a year. In just the next decade, we will be importing better than 80% of our oil, and falling further down into the unsustainable drain of our capital outflow to the foreign oil producers.

 

Currently, the United States remains a capital starved country. We produce practically nothing. We import almost everything. We are literally a debtor nation; and when it comes to our energy needs, we’ve been reduced to the status of a BEGGAR nation. Our economic fortunes are no longer in our own hands, but in those of the very people who despise our culture and way of life, and will do all they can to see us continue to falter.

 

And as a beggar nation, a once-proud America can only hope and beg for OPEC not to continue to short their production, and further burden the world's economy with yet another energy price shock, similar to the four dollar gas we saw as recently as last summer; and which is sure to return again--it's only a question of when.

 

But regarding our self-defeating energy policy, we're the nation of hope. We can only hope oil prices stay low. We can only hope that OPEC doesn't get any greedier. We can only hope that somehow, a new miraculous source of alternative energy will magically emerge to replace oil, and provide us with the hope for cheaper energy prices, and better times ahead. Yes, let's all just sit back, and keep on hoping for the best.

 

But hope is basically an excuse for DOING NOTHING.  And given the current political climate, it's what America does best...doing nothing but hoping, and watching our standard of living decline ever further, with every new tanker of foreign oil that docks within our ports.

 

But can their be any hope that America will see any relief from OPEC, when the politics of the country is so virulently against 'Big Oil'? Barack Obama, during his presidential campaign, cleverly was able to create a common enemy, the Exxon corporation, and constantly railed against "big oil" as though Exxon was being run by Lucifer himself. This political insanity of opposing domestic oil companies is only going to make a bad situation much worse, as the rest of the entire industrialized world seeks to develop new oil resources, while America is worried about turning back the oceans, and saving polar bears from drowning.

 

Perhaps Obama will consider a new State Department cabinet position-- the Secretary of Hope. This person would be in constant contact, and travel abroad to brownie-up the various OPEC heads of state, and tell the oil producers very nicely that... "We sure hope you don't lower your oil production!". This person would also be informing the Chinese that we hope they DO change their plans to horizontally drill offshore with their partner Cuba, and hope they DON'T suck our domestic reserves dry from underneath the Florida continental shelf just 60 miles offshore of OUR borders.

 

But goshdarn; it's just so much easier to hope, because reality seems so bleak. OPEC is out for OPEC. And the Chinese are out for China. They care not about America. They only seek what's best for their countries, and undoubtedly howl about the folly of the United States for restricting its own oil production for none other than blatantly insipid political reasons, like putting the prosperity of people subservient to the welfare of animals.

 

And because of the blunders beginning with Clinton, our OPEC "alliance" will continue to keep us over a barrel for the next decade or so, given the politics of the day, as the Obama Administration teams up with an expanded liberal majority in Congress. And this same majority will no doubt begin an all new, even more disastrous environmental assault on "Big Oil" in the next four years, and continue to enrich OPEC to the unnecessary detriment of our nation.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama says,"In ten years, no more OPEC oil"-hardy har har!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, August 29, 2008 4:13:40 PM
 
Just beam me up Scotty: Commander Obama is poised for take off. He wants to launch a new $150 billion alternative energy plan, and free our nation of foreign oil in ten years. Great idea Barack! But what kind of calendar are you going by? In ten years, if your ideas are implemented, the U.S. will probably be importing over 90% of its oil if we're to follow your fantasyland proposals for energy independence.

On paper, Obama's ideas sound great. No more dirty oil. He'll clean the planet; curb the rise in the oceans. He'll create 5 million new green collar jobs that can't be outsourced. Holy Moses, let the Red Seas part, Obama will save our world and lead America out of its near 40-year plague of OPEC oil dependence. This is the stuff of greatness! Sheer brilliance!  

But unfortunately, it’s all fictional. But just like another Star Wars movie spinoff, fiction has great political box office appeal these days to many Americans, who actually believe we could abandon oil, and move to alternative energy sources without missing a beat,

Currently U.S. domestic production of crude oil is declining at a 2% annual rate. OPEC currently supplies 70% of our needs. So do the math. If we go along with the Democrats and abandon all new drilling, it means that 10 years times 2%, equals 20%. Now add this to the 70% level of current OPEC imports, and we arrive at a perilous 90% of oil coming from OPEC by 2018. So do we place our trust in Obama and believe his math, or do we look at the real world situation of science-based predictions about our energy quotas?

Ironically, the synfuels proposals of Jimmy Carter back in 1980 were the last alternative energy directives that were practical, and made economic sense.  But they were discontinued then because it was more convenient to import oil than to continue researching tar sands and oil shale. Regrettably, all the progress was abandoned when OPEC cleverly lowered oil prices from the 1979-80 highs. OPEC tricked us back then, and they have us hooked again now.

But Obama it seems, prefers to ignore the facts. Is he, like many of the younger generations, so totally dumbed-down about science that he truly believes the internal combustion engine is headed the way of the kerosene lamp?

Earth to Barack...what do we do about all the heavy vehicles that are essential to our way of life? We need dump trucks and bulldozers to build our infrastructure. We need airliners and railroads to haul our freight and move passengers. We need jet planes and tanks and humvees to defend our nation. What will they be running on in ten years...wind; solar; biodiesel? What the heck is biodiesel any way? It's cooking grease!

But in the alternative energy world of Obama, are we supposed to believe that used french fry oil from McDonalds will become a major source of alternative energy? Yeah, sure Barack- we'll become the Saudi Arabia of used cookery grease. After all, don't we lead the world in fast food outlets? Well show those OPEC meanies a thing or two about American ingenuity!

How about Obama's wind power ideas?  A cross-country proliferation of 30-foot diameter wind blades would be a visual environmental travesty. It would ruin the pristine beauty of the western states, which ironically, are the windiest. Windmills are NIMBY intensive...no one wants them in their backyard. Would Mr. & Mrs. Obama be okay living within sight of one? Windmill farms have proven to be decidedly eco-unfriendly. They produce nonstop maddening whirring noises that drive both animal and human life away. They kill birds by the tens of thousands wherever they've been placed.

To Obama's credit, he does speak positively about "clean coal technology".  But are we to believe this? Obama is such a staunch enviro-crat, it's doubtful he'd be OK with any type of move toward using clean coal. Sulfur scrubbers are capital-intensive. Retrofitting them on existing coal plants would suck up much of the 150 billion he has allotted in his energy budget. He has already promised 5 million new green jobs; but the only way he could come close to that would be to create an entirely new labor-intensive industry, such as making solar panels, and setting up new alternative energy power lines for transmission.

But a seismic shift from coal to solar power, which is the more likely Obama move, would require a titanic new infrastructure project: constructing an entire new grid of power lines needed for solar energy distribution. How cost-effective would that be? And how many arrays of solar panels would be needed to equal the mega-wattage of John McCain's proposal of 40 new nuclear facilities? Do we even have enough sun-drenched states to accommodate where all these solar arrays would go?  Why is no one in the media asking Obama these questions?

The most troubling aspect of Obama's 10 year proposal is the enthusiastic response he gets from people upon hearing it. It would require lifestyle and economic disruptions. Retooling America's energy infrastructure is complex. It isn't one challenge, it's thousands—a total overhaul of the American lifestyle involving deep changes in every home, vehicle, and business in the country. If Obama had said 50 years, it still would be questionable. But in ten? This is sheer folly. Could we even be off oil in 100 years?  And If we move to supersede oil, how then do replace the 125 year old internal combustion engine? 

Oil has such a unique molecular structure, that no scientist yet has any idea of how to replace or improve it. Like the internal combustion engine, it's replacement would require the great-great-grandmother of all inventions. And engineers know this. That's why the oil companies haven't had any breakthroughs...why spend research money on hope? This is why we can't just clap our hands and say,"yay Obama". There won't be any alternative energy breakthroughs in the next ten years to even come close to supplying the energy  that we currently get from oil.

But Obama isn't that naive. He's playing the good ole game of politics on its highest plateau. He knows that if a lot of Americans enthusiastically support his 10 year alternative energy plan, then so be it. It fits quite nicely with his message of change. He's out to get elected any way he can, so why not portray a 10 year future scenario of clean renewable energy, clean air, a clean pristine environment, millions of non-exportable jobs, etc. What's wrong with a good pie-in-the-sky political promise if it sounds plausible?

But the real payoff isn't in the form of alternative energy power; it's the economic power that would pass to Obama with a veto-proof democratic Congress. Obama would then get passed the grandiose carbon credits trading platform that Al Gore has devised. This is another aspect of Obama's clever energy play that's been swept under the rug--the ability to impose an environmental tax on companies worldwide for their use of fossil fuel energy. This would mean trillions of new tax revenues in the hands of the Democrats.

The carbon credits trading platform is nothing more than a huge new imposition on the cost of energy. Gasoline, natural gas, coal, diesel fuel, jet fuel; companies that require these fuels to operate would all be saddled with massive new regulations, and would drive up the price of everything. This portends a shrinking economy under an Obama administration, because it would suck capital from the private sector, and into the hands of the government, where it would be wasted away in a wave of new entitlements and programs where no one is accountable. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy independence?...Have you ever wondered about all those unnecessary trafffic signals everywhere?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:43:41 PM
 
Watching the Democrats on TV during the convention, it was only a matter of time before the magic catch phrase was heard..."OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL". Everyone knows foreign oil is draining petrodollars from our economy. But did you ever wonder how much of the oil we import goes to gasoline wasted at unnecessary, stupid traffic signals? It's hard to imagine that anything so blatantly stupid and so unnecessarily maddening, can still persist in our society and with such prevalence. And the more you think about it, the more stupid it becomes.

 

How many of us drivers out there are plagued everyday by stupid red lights? They're especially annoying on your way to work. Think about it...if you were elected the mayor of your town, wouldn't the first thing you'd get around to doing would be to get rid of all the stupid red lights in your municipality? After you'd done that, you'd be re-elected for life. After all, wouldn't you vote annually for the person who got rid of all stupid red lights around town?

 

Now you could run for governor. From the very moment you began to campaign on a platform of removing all those stupid red lights in your state, you'd instantly garner a landslide of approval. Your opponent would probably concede the election, or else co-opt (steal) your idea. "Vote for so-and so! He (she) wants to get rid of all the stupid red lights."

 

The word would spread like wildfire...people would be going door-to-door. It would make the national news. "Gubernatorial candidate so-and-so, from such-n-such is proposing to get rid of all the unnecessary red lights in their state"!  Now the movement begins to pick up steam.  All the other mayoral and gubernatorial candidates nationwide are adopting the same platform..."Git rid a them stupid red lights".

 

And now their opponents, not wanting to be left in the dust, begin chanting..."Not only will I get rid of all the stupid red lights, I'll get rid of all the stupid stop signs"! And the war on dumb traffic signals has finally been joined..."Not only will I get rid of all the stupid red lights, and the stupid unnecessary stop signs, I propose to synchronize all the traffic signals, so no one has to slow down or stop unnecessarily"! 

 

Whoa...now we're getting somewhere.  But seriously, at what point do we actually wise up and consider the time and gasoline that's collectively lost nationwide everyday by idling away at unnecessary or unsynchronized red lights? You can drive through any town today, large or small, and whether you live there or not, you encounter red lights that you know are unnecessary. Perhaps they were put there when traffic patterns were different, or before populations shifted.

 

We do need red lights. They prevent pandemonium at intersections; and to go through a red light at a busy intersection is kamikaze driving. But if the nation's traffic signals were synchronized for traffic flow all across the country, it would definitely save huge amounts of gasoline, time and road rage. Plus it would cut down on traffic fatalities. 

 

Since 90% of fatal traffic accidents occur at intersections, the incidence of running red lights would be lessened if drivers didn't have to guess about the duration of the yellow. If everyone knew that yellow lights were all standardized for equal time duration everywhere, (say 3 seconds) they wouldn't have to play chicken, and risk T-boning into a car coming from the opposing street.

 

But still, the stupid red light insanity persists. Every city has them, and every signal has a different time duration for the yellow. So it makes you wonder. Are all these unnecessary red lights there for safe traffic flow, or do they remain there to DELIBERATELY create disrespect for the law? Instead of removing the stupid red lights from where they have no purpose, many cities now are placing red light cameras or patrol cars at intersections where drivers crash stupid red lights most frequently. They can claim it’s for "safety."

 

This is truly sinister. Everyone suffers that one red light that dogs each of us to no end. You dread to approach that intersection, praying this will be one time you make this light. But it always turns yellow when it "sees" you coming. Now it's decision time. Do you stop? Nope: you decide to pour on the coal and go for it. Your car and your heart speed up...you're now within ten yards of making it...a-a-and...it turns red! "AARGH", you hit the brakes. Yup; caught again by a stupid red light.

 

You sit there idling away, with no opposing traffic in sight. Your blood pressure has spiked now to 220/180.  Fearful of a possible lurking police car, you dare not crash it. Hapless, you continue to glance in your rear view mirror, daring yourself to go through the beast. But you can't.

 

Now, you're running late for work. Your heart is nearing ventricular fibrillation. Think about it...fired after all those dutiful years because of a stupid red light. And what if you're a road-raging, "type A" driver?  Would a coronary occlusion, resulting from a stupid, unnecessary red light, be considered a traffic fatality? The sheer irony of it all!

 

But with the mega-buck gas prices we now have to pay, maybe traffic signal synchronization will finally make enough sense to become a reality. It won't end our dependence on foreign oil; but it might save some hapless souls their jobs.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Will catastrophic ignorance doom America's energy future?"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:06:01 PM
 
A lot of people believe that Barack Obama has a keen eye for America 's energy future. Well then, just drive by any large demolition or construction sight, and picture  America's energy future for yourself. You'll probably see huge Caterpiller front-loaders, heavy dump trucks, and cranes of various heights. These cumbersome vehicles run on diesel power; and they'll be here for a long time to come. They are vital to our economy, and essential to our modern way of life.
 
Then consider Obama's plan to abandon oil in ten years, and his alternative energy proposals for wind, solar and biodiesel; you may then be overcome with a chilling feeling about him as our first truly green president. Have we become a nation of such total ignorance, and so bereft of scientific knowledge, that we're now incapable of making any logical conclusions about our own best interests as a free nation?
 
We are moving toward a society of self-condemnation...that we are dirtying the planet in front of the eyes of the rest of the world, and selfishly using the earth's resources to the disadvantage of all the other countries on the planet. So should we plead guilty to energy treason, and apologize to the U.N. for our mortal sin of "addiction" to oil?  
 
Yes, we Americans are the environmental villains that are using up 25% of the world’s energy, and fouling the clean air with our mammoth CO2 footprints. If we don't stop this dirty fossil fuel habit, we will literally burn up the world in an inferno of climate change, and sink the land masses with oceanic overflows from polar ice cap melting.
 
Yes, this is the mind set that is seeping through all the media.  It's being taught in the schools: it's being supported by scientists with credentials. We Americans are the problem. We are the guilty ones. We need to be the ones to change all this.
 
But do the pundits ever say what's going on across the pacific 6000 miles away? Do they make any mention that the developing nations of China and India are full speed ahead with finding new oil resources, and building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants? Is anyone over there talking about wind, solar and biodiesel? Can you imagine the laughs when they hear of our dedication to stopping climate change- that America  can unilaterally reverse "global warming".
 
Does any one in America actually believe its possible to INVENT new sources of energy?..or that the earth is warming so fast that the rising oceans will literally swamp all coastline life off the earth in this century? Well that's what Obama and the environmentalists want us to believe.
 
Are we aware of the fact, or have any idea of how many billions of dollars are behind this global warming anti-oil initiative? Any time any scientist does a study, and discovers evidence of climate change, they automatically qualify for grants of research money from universities, foundations, and governments (particularly Britain ) to do further studies.
 
And are we cognizant of the fact that you can't invent a new source of energy? Or that theres no way to..."put all of our best minds together in a room and pay them to until they achieve a breakthrough". It may be awhile before any new sources of energy are discovered. Energy can only be harnessed. It cannot be created or destroyed.
 
How about the story of, "the guy who has an invention that will enable a car to get get 100 miles a gallon, but the oil companies pay him to keep it off the market". Or there's the belief that we could mandate all the auto company's fleet vehicles to average 50 MPG by the year 2025. The only reason these myths persist is the nation has become extraordinarily dumbed down about science, math, and physics. If these wives tales were repeated to a group of phycisists, they would chuckle.
 
Force, mass and energy all are considered when calculating the distance any vehicle can travel. For a car to get 100 miles a gallon, it would have weigh less than a thousand pounds with passengers, and have a lawn mower-sized engine, traveling on completely level ground. For a truck to get 50 MPG, it would have to be made of plastic and aluminum, which would not stand up under heavy duty.
 
But Americans everywhere believe that they are a well-informed, intelligent body of people, who are capable of rational decisions about their lives, and the leaders and officials they elect. But look around everywhere and all the evidence is to the contrary.
 
Newspaper readership is declining...internet chat sites and social sites are thriving. Network news viewership is shrinking, while John Stewart's ratings are booming. Saturday Night Live has become a major influence on our elections. More people get their news from Comedy Central than from the nightly news. People view sound bites and video clips on YouTube, instead of reading newspapers. 
 
Where is all this leading our nation? Is the present generation better informed than the previous generation behind them? Ask the young people why they primarily all support Obama; most of them will tell you that, "he's a lot cooler than McCain".
 
So with all these things "going for us", is it any mystery then why Barack Obama could propose that wind, solar and biodiesel will replace oil by 2030, and America won't miss a beat? The media isn't questioning this absurdity. Is it any mystery then that our military might be unable to defend us in 10-20 years because we were cut off by OPEC, who by then will be supplying 90% of our oil (at our 2% annually declining U.S. production rate). Do people believe we could develop a solar-powered tank, or wind-powered fighter jet, or a fuel cell Hum-vee by 2030? This is what the trend of our popular political thinkers would have us think.
 
We ignorantly cling to the past- that America has always risen to any previous occasion. So this would seem to automatically guarantee our welfare in the future. But what safeguard can there be for America when its people's beliefs have no basis in reality, and a population whose information is compromised by television and the internet? If knowledge is power, we are soon to become a skeleton of our former selves as a nation
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »