About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Skyway robbery? Obama's blowhard energy folly


Last January, during his address to Congress, Barack Obama declared..."We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

The statement drew thunderous applause. Nancy Pelosi almost hit the ceiling, so fast did she arise from her chair. But all levity aside, let's step back for a moment and get realistic about our country's energy future.

In Denver, Mr. Obama recently signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, proclaiming..."it will lay the groundwork for new green energy economies that can create COUNTLESS, well-paying jobs!"

Countless jobs? Umm-hum.

Sure Mr. Obama-- there's nothing wrong with developing alternative energy, but keep in mind the old saying: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

So let's call Mr.Obama's statement 'onto the carpet' and check for veracity:

When we think of alternative energy sources, windmills sound so appealing… so romantic...so green. It's like power from heaven; and according to the green energy fruitcakes who insist upon its promotion, it's as if all wind-sourced power were free!

An oil well drilled in North Dakota or Montana would cost $2-4 million, and would independently produce 1000-2500 barrels of high-energy-density oil per day.

But just one windmill costs $2 million from start to being hooked onto a grid; and in comparison, each would produce a paltry amount of low-density wind energy on a breezy day.

The reality of wind power is different from the environmental romance. Windfarms are weather-contingent, unreliable, and require back-up-- an inefficient and periodic power source useful only in certain locations.

But what about the countless jobs it will create? So let us now do the math:

How many employees does it take to man a spinning gaggle of windmills, or a functioning array of  solar panels, versus just ONE of those dirty/dreadful coal or nuclear power plants?

A coal fired facility requires anywhere from 150-400 people to operate & maintain; while a nuclear plant not only produces huge amounts of regional power, it's also an economic generator for 1,500 - 2,000 jobs, and plays a critical role in its local economy.

In the Northeast, a recent study of a plan for 33 wind-turbine towers 410 feet high, with blinking lights on top, strung out over 6.5 miles of rural landscape, aided by 40 miles of service roads-- with a 5.8-mile transmission line-- would support a whopping 70 permanent jobs.

Green energy will displace-- not create-- countless jobs.  And for what, a better environmental national conscience, at a cost of abandoning our nation's existing energy infrastructure?

But undaunted by all the current evidence to the contrary, Mr. Obama (in a recent speech at Georgetown U.)  favorably cited Spain as an example of how to boost an economy by creating green jobs. But he may have exaggerated just a little.

Since the year 2000, the Spanish have gone "full blown " to wind turbines. But a new study from Rey Juan Carlos University shows that if the U.S. adopted similar green energy policies, it would destroy more than double the number of conventional energy jobs in current existence.

The Spanish study also calculated that it cost 571,138 Euros to create each job. That's more than $755,000 for each green collar job! How’s that for economies of scale?

And how about Britain? Gordon Brown's ambition to become a global leader in renewable energy may also be gone with the wind. Recently, Shell and BP pulled out of renewable energy projects, including a £3 billion project for 341 turbines in the Thames Estuary, and scrapped a proposed £2.2 billion windfarm off the Welsh coast.

And surprise, the English are returning to good ole king coal.

Mr. Brown’s target of generating 35 per cent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 would cost England an estimated extra £100 billion vs. coal. His plans have collapsed as funding dries up, and the price of oil and coal has fallen.

In Britain, coal is abundant and at present, very cheap-- the main reason why British power stations love it. A recently approved coal-fired station in Pembroke will be the largest in Britain, producing 2,000 megawatts, a full two-thirds of the TOTAL power produced by ALL of the country’s wind turbines.

And throughout northern Europe, wind farms have proved to be no answer to global warming.

The Germans have invested more than anyone in this form of energy, but are finding (according to newspaper "Der Spiegel") that despite installing more than 17,000 wind turbines, the nation is now emitting more CO2 than BEFORE it built them.

In Canada, it might be good idea to take a close look at recent developments regarding noise pollution from wind turbines.

A windfarm in Cherry Valley (Ontario Province) began operation a couple of months ago, and now complaints are coming in from residents ( including those who favored the project) that noise is penetrating their homes and disturbing sleep.

In the United States today, we get less than 2 percent of our electricity from wind. And President Barack blowhard Obama's energy plan calls for 10 percent of American electricity from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

But does anyone know how President blowhard plans to build all these solar and windmill farms? Does he furnish any blueprints, companies to work with, estimated power output, etc?

Did he present any allocations of how he is going to spend the money, or did President blowhard just say we are going to nullify the conventional energy companies to make an angry public feel better?

Yes, our common enemies--coal & big oil!

It's the same old tried and true socialist propaganda. Obama presents no DETAILED plan-- only vague ideas. He just drops buzz words, and lets the media and general public "take it from there."

Lets start by telling the truth--the big inconvenient truth about green power-- it is hugely expensive: triple the cost of coal power; almost double the cost of nuclear. Advocates of green power insist that the price will soon decline. But this remains a promise that may never come to pass.

The big costs involved are not only the turbines and solar panels. There are vast land acquisitions required for siting, and for stringing wires from thousands of small-scale generators to the distribution grid spanning all the way to the cities. And throughout the next few decades, these costs are more likely to rise than to fall.

Wind and solar suffer from inherent dis-economies of scale that can never be corrected vs. carbon-based fuels, who's price depends on free market supply/demand ratios--not skewed from government subsidies.

And what about the NIMBY factor, and its effect on local real estate values? Who would invest a quarter of a million dollars to build a residence nearby an unsightly, noisy wind turbine, when they could just as easily go elsewhere?

These behemoths are over 40 stories high, and have blades which swing over an area larger than a football field. The towers require vast amounts of real estate, and cannot be concealed. Moreover, they create annoying television interference.

The drive for cleaner energy will irrevocably change the landscape. People resist windfarms for one simple reason-- they despoil the beauty of their communities. It seems perverse to ruin the landscape in the name of preserving the environment.

The big push to turn farms into wind factories-- to take agricultural land and turn it into an industrial wind turbine complex--is NOT farming; it is industrialization!

Lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas (i.e. Texas and  the Great Plains) to places with high energy demands (Boston, Chicago and New York).

Obama's so-called "climate solutions" could irrevocably damage the planet they are intended to protect. Our biologically rich and arid desert ecosystems are remarkably fragile.

In our haste to combat global warming, we could very well hasten the demise of our beautiful avian species, and insect-devouring bats, all of whom would have to dodge fast spinning blades of 450 foot tall turbines, strung out all along major migration routes.

And once topsoil and plant life have been disrupted for the placement of solar arrays, wind farms, and transmission lines, restoration would be cost-prohibitive, if not impossible.

Mr. Obama's plan for renewable windpower amounts to dismantling our dependable existing energy system, in exchange for an unreliable,16th-century technology solution-- all for a problem that does not even exist!

The reason why we are still stuffing black lumps of carbon into furnaces is simple: it makes economic sense, and the financial markets are shouting this message louder than ever before. We must carry on burning fossil fuels for the time being, and the media must stop supporting green energy lies to a scientifically dumbed-down American public.

Does it make sense to trample sensitive ecosystems in the new rush to develop alternative energies? It would be an oxymoronic case of destroying the Earth in order to save it.

Before the Obama administration and his congressional cohorts are done, we could be reeling from one of the most extraordinary spectacles in American political history-- a wholly misguided war against our own economic self-interests as a nation.



www.kenobserver.blogtownhall.com


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

Obama's energy lunacy: Clean air...bankrupt economy

 

Runnin' scared! That phrase could be applied to Allied troops whenever they came up against the most intimidating weapon of World War II, the dreaded MG-42 Machine gun.

 

The "Maschinen-gwehr 1942," or MG-42 was used by both the German Wermacht (army) and was the standard armament in all the planes of the Luftwaffe (air force). During the war, MG-42 had the fastest rate of fire of any weapon, an astounding1500 rounds per minute!

 

At this rate, the human ear cannot discern the sound of individual bullets being fired. When in use, the MG-42 made a sound like "ripping cloth" or a "screeching belch", hence it's two nicknames--the "burp gun", and "Hitler's Buzzsaw".  
 
The MG 42 is regarded by many experts as the best machine gun ever.

 

American soldiers received special basic training about how to react to its incredibly fearsome sound. They were told to approach the gun from its flanks, and be scattered individually (so as not to present multiple targets), and stay low at all times.

 

The GI's were advised to not be intimidated by the screech of the MG 42, and proceed to take out the emplacement-- and above all-- avoid withering under its fire. 

 

But at a recent Senate hearing, energy secretary Dr. Stephen Chu-- lacking in basic political training-- withered under intense fire from John McCain, and flinched meekly under the senator's angry inquisition concerning the fate of Yucca mountain.

 

Time and time again, the Obama administration has undermined the energy policies of the Bush administration; but of particular ire to Mr. McCain was Chu's ambiguity toward nuclear waste storage, and the administration's announcement that Yucca mountain--the ageed-upon national site in Nevada-- was being scrapped, with13 billion dollars (plus 25 years of on-site preparation) now gone down the drain.

 

Needless to say, Senator McCain was near apoplexy about the abandonment.

 

McCain grew more irascible toward Dr.Chu about the administration’s intention to suspend work at the planned nuclear waste site. “What’s wrong with Yucca Mountain, Dr. Chu?” he demanded repeatedly as Chu tried his best to explain.

 

The slight, soft-spoken Nobel Prize laureate at last weakly replied, "I think we can do a better job,” But Chu (and the Obama administration) have no plan "B",  which only served to inflame McCain even more, as Chu insisted that nuclear waste storage and reprocessing spent fuel rods would require "more research."

 

Predictably, this doublespeak was what we'd expect from the Obama administration's line about conventional energy. Anything to block progress, hamper the economy, and defy rationality on how to solve America's supposed energy crisis-- a crisis of our own making.

 

For now, Obama's pro-environmental approach may be winning plaudits from green groups (the Sierra Club is gushing about the decision to abandon Yucca) but our anti-president is disregarding the economic effects on the U.S. altogether, and is doggedly proceeding with his agenda to set a strict cap on carbon emissions and possibly (unnecessarily) extract an estimated $700 billion to $1.2 trillion out of the economy between 2012 to 2019, should his energy lunacy become law.

 

Although he has the advantage of a democratic Congress, Mr. Obama's lack of Washington experience is showing; he'll soon realize that party affiliation counts a lot less than local politics where energy costs are concerned.

 

Its the regional economy-- stupid!

 

Mr. Obama may be about to run into a political buzzsaw-- an MG-42 type hell-fire from both Democrats & Republicans alike-- all concerned about how the economic effects from his policies will impact their own districts and states.

 

It's about "getting re-elected--stupid!"

 

In his budget unveiled late last month, Mr. Obama "sketched" his environmental green energy platform, but as always, details were in short supply.

 

Meanwhile, back at the Senate hearing, Energy Secretary Dr. Chu (a.k.a. "Doctor No"--no new drilling, no new nuclear plants, no more dirty coal) was doing his level best to be ambivalent about greenhouse emissions, upgrading the power grid, oil and gas drilling, and so-called 'clean coal' technology.

 

Currently, the big oil companies, utility companies and the stock market are all in a state of paralysis as they wonder..."do these people actually KNOW what in the heck they're doing?"

 

A wide spectrum of organizations, such as the Edison Electric Institute (which represents coal-fired power plants) all agree on the need to cut pollution emissions, but can get no answers from either Congressional lawmakers OR the administration about policy or how it's to be done.

 

And answers from Dr. Chu have been best described as being "nebulous in nature", and with "no apparent cohesion".

 

After being nominated as energy secretary, many praised Dr. Chu’s academic credentials, calling him Mr. Science. But Chu's positions so far have merited nothing more than a "smokescreen" . The true energy and climate change policies are being made at the White House by a small team led by "climate czar" Carol Browner, the former Clinton administration's head of the EPA.

 

This begs the question...“Is  Doctor Chu secretary of energy...or secretary of research and development?”

 

Chu came to Washington after serving as director of the Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, a civilian research organization with 4,000 employees and a $600 million annual budget.

 

Chu maintains that, "I'm eager to get on with what I see as my main task; finding and financing the scientific breakthroughs that will end the nation’s dependence on carbon-based fuels, and solve the climate change problem".

 

But can Dr.Chu really be serious? Skeptics abound. Is a scientific breakthrough actually possible? Maybe Chu has been watching too many "Star Trek" reruns for his own good. He seems to be oblivious to Sir Isaac Newton's first law..."Energy cannot be created or destroyed".

 

Chu appears to believe he can repeal the very laws of physics, revealing his shocking ignorance of basic science-- a very dangerous ignorance-- one that could delay domestic drilling until 2016, after Obama's expected second term runs out, as WE run out of domestic oil completely, and have to import nearly 100% of our supply.

 

Beam us up Dr Chu.

 

But while waiting for Chu's "breakthrough", OPEC presently drills us for a $700 billion per year annual oil payment, as we now depend on imports for 'only' 70% of our supply.

 

The Obama administration's arguments about energy alternatives rest largely upon wishful thinking. None are currently practical; ALL  would require some degree of lifestyle or economic upheaval.

 

And probing deeper lays bare the scientific facts: there are NO energy alternatives on the horizon pertaining to TRANSPORTATION. Why? Because all previous forms of energy were DISCOVERED-- not invented, including oil, coal, nuclear and electricity. But does our Nobel prize laureate have a clue about this.? Apparently not. Chu seeks the impossible breakthrough, the holy grail of energy!

 

Who among us can even imagine our civilization without gasoline or diesel engines? George & Jane Jetson? Fred Flintstone? Luke Skywalker? Can you picture a 200-car hydrogen-powered freight train? Or a battery-powered concrete truck? Or a fuel cell airliner?  It's almost as absurd to think we could eliminate oil any easier than we could electricity. 

 

Oil has a very complex, unique molecular structure. Science (and Dr.Chu) presently haven't the slightest idea of how to replace it or improve upon it. 

 

Like the internal combustion engine, to displace oil altogether would require the great-great-grandmother of all inventions. Engineers and scientists know this. That's why the oil companies haven't had any breakthroughs. Why spend research money on hope? They know that it's better to go with the flow, and leave the fantasies to Hollywood and Star Trek re-runs. 

 

So we can expect the worst and forget about any forthcoming solutions to the energy crisis. Just remember; less conventional energy means higher costs for Americans-- and Obama will use Chu and his czars as sacrificial lambs to take the heat.

 

With no forthcoming answers from anyone, Obama is cleverly leaving the dirty work up to his EPA Stalinists--Carol Browner and Lisa Jackson-- who have just released their fallacious "endangerment finding" about harmless CO2 , and are about to levy the most costly set of environmental regulations in history-- all under the umbrella of the Clean Air Act.

 

So Obama will continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth; Chu will continue to spout off platitudes about "doing better" and conducting "more research", and Americans will experience 150% increases in electric bills, with more layoffs coming from coal mining companies, heavy industries, and manufacturers -- all under the green banner of saving the environment, protecting the polar bears, rolling back the seas, and thrusting America into a bankrupt, third world socialist country with the cleanest air of any industrialized nation on earth.

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

A Climate Change We All Can't Believe In

 

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

Environmental Obammunism, part I...Chu to the rescue!


Here we go again.

President Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has been discussing the threat of global warming in new, stark, very frightening terms. Mr. Chu (a Nobel prize-winning physicist) said that all agriculture in California could be undermined by global warming by the end of this century.

Yes--all agriculture-- gone!  In effect, it was Chu predicting a calamitous scenario-- the desertification of southern California during the next 80-100 years.

Of course, what did you expect from an enviro-Nazi scaremonger like Chu? Straight talk? Sound scientific conclusions? Hah! But what was the reason behind Chu's somber warning?

California is in its third year of drought, and currently the Sierra Nevada mountain snow pack holds only 61% of the water it stores in a normal year-- the result, (as Mr. Chu contends), of global warming.

So is Chu implying that it'll never rain hard (or snow again) in California in this coming century...or what?

Mr Chu sounded very ominous in his recent "LA Times" interview..."I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," Chu said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California," adding, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."
 
So according to Mr Chu, nothing will grow...and everyone residing in cities will soon see tumbleweeds blowing across California's urban terrain, as the southern part of the state turns into a dustbowl reminiscent of 1930's Oklahoma.

But meanwhile, a few degrees of latitude north of California,  the entire United States is witnessing its worst winter in 30 years.

So what's going on? Of course... its regional global warming!  What else could possibly explain these contradictory weather mutations of the climate?

Chu's premise-- California is burning up, while the rest of America is in a frozen funk-- bears no resemblance to scientic reality.  It's Chu's idiopathic contention that abrupt regional cooling, and gradual global warming, can unfold simultaneously.
 
So what's next, the discovery that earth is actually FLAT?

Scientifically, Chu is speaking like someone who couldn't pass a seventh grade science midterm. Mr Chu is not challenged because the entire nation has been perilously dumbed down to about the second grade level about how the earth actually functions.
 
Of course we'd expect someone (Chu) with Nobel prize credentials to realize that just one good gulley-washer over southern California could remedy the entire so-called catastrophe. And Eastertime has traditionally been the rainy season for the Los Angeles basin.
 
You could also expect  that a learned scientist like Chu, to have an idea of how ocean curents affect weather.

ACTUAL scientific data has identified the one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and play a fundamental role in governing Earth’s climate.
 
But it seems as though Mr. Chu has selective amnesia (i.e. political motives) when it comes to what actually could bring about changes in climate. He's mysteriosly (deliberately) neglected the oceans’ essential role in his scientific "calculations" (i.e. scaremongering).
 
Meanwhile, back at the Whitehouse, Obama is pushing a stimulus package that blaringly omits the one infrastructure project begging for California's attention---the construction of water desalinization plants along the westcoast.
 
But such projects are extensive in scope. They require engineering. They require planning; they are not shovel ready. Thus they would not serve Obama's main purpose of his first term...getting re-elected for his second.

So water desalinization is at the bottom of the list-- no time for that.

Obama must act NOW....he must move now, because now is his best chance to consolidate his power. Taking  control of energy policy is a vital cog to his strategy of keeping the people concentrated on how bad things are (economy-environment) while Barack, the savior, is busy planning our rescue.

That's the present reality...striking while the political iron is hot.
 
scene: telephone call from Obama (in D.C.) to Chu (in San Francisco)

Chu: Hello Mr. President! How did I do? Do you think I was convincing enough?

Obama: Hello Steve! You did a fantastic job. I think you've got them sufficiently scared enough out there (California) that if it doesnt rain heavily in the next few weeks, Waxman wiil be able to ram his climate change package right on through, with very little republican opposition.

Chu: thanks Mr President. And I'll do my best to keep the ball rolling. In my next big announcement on climate change, I'm going to discuss how my reaserch has revealed that fossil fuels will be leapfrogged by 2020, and Americans should start now to prepare for this "inevitable transition."

Obama: Hey! I like that Steve! The inevitable transition! It'll give us the opportunity to stop all drilling; put a carbon tax in place on the utility companies; and frustrate the nuclear lobby.

Chu: And don't forget Mr President; I can use my Nobel prize in physics to convince all these dumbed down people that gasoline should cost more, in order to induce everyone to drive less to save the envirionment. 

Obama: Your my man Steve...  that's why picked you as my energy czar! See ya in San Francisco soon.

Chu: good bye Mr President.

(end of scene)
 
Obama, like the radical Chu, is only interested in advancing the leftist agenda, and both are looking for ways to assert the cap and trade taxation masquerade, so as to wrest control of power companies from the private sector.

Obama, the control freak, and Chu as his right hand, enviro-nazi puppet, are trying to foment fear, and convince a dumbed down nation that carbon dioxide is a poison gas, and global warming somehow is the blame for every weather aberration around the world.
 
Obama seeks not to solve the nation's basic structural problems, but to only fulfill his political destiny. If Chu and Obama really wanted to solve the California crisis , they obviously could propose the seawater desalinization projects, which would provide a prolonged boom to that region.

But with Obama it's a no-go; no mention of such an obviously beneficial project that would solve California's freshwater problem once and for all.
 
Desalination plants process seawater directly from the ocean through offshore intakes, and supply fresh water through pipelines to the cities along the coast. How many thousands of jobs would this create? And would this not be the silver bullet for both California's climate and economic woes?

Desalinization plants would be projects on a massive scale-- extending a freshwater network of pipelines from the west coast to all points radiating outward: Las Vegas; the Imperial Valley; the agricultural basket, and irrigation networks spanning any area to where freshwater was needed.
 
But it would take years-- time Obama doesn't have right now.
 
So Obama knows better. He's betting big that the dumbed down American electorate will willingly accept monstrosity ideas-- climate change destroying California, and that fossil fuels emit poisonous CO2 into the atmosphere.

Obama is moving all his pieces in place, and Americans are about to sufer grievously for their misjudgement. He is betting that that America is ready to embrace centralized, top-down government, and that people are willing to pay higher taxes and utility bills to afford it.

Obama, in time, pushing his "clean environment" agenda, could eventually scour America to death.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

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


"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

Barack Obama...President of the world?


Well lookee-lookee! Did the cat slip out of the bag? Carol Browner, Obama's proud choice for climate Czar, was recently "unearthed" as a member of the radical socialist (Stalinist) organization known as "Socialist International" (S.I.). And these people aren't exactly your basic local rotary club, but rather a leftist hardball group determined to put forth their radical environmental agenda upon the ENTIRE world.

S. I. calls for the, "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That's bureaucrat lingo for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries. So Ms. Browner--can we get any more socialist than compelling all U.S. inventors to "share" with less developed countries? What in the name of Thomas Edison are you planning?
 
Despite the controversy, president elect Obama, who chose the ex-60's radical Browner for this all-important cabinet position, staunchly supports the nomination, declaring that, "Climate change will be a priority of my administration". Supposedly, in the name of stimulating the economy, Obama plans to spend at least 500 billion dollars (which the government does not have) to convert the economy from carbon-based fuels, to greener alternatives. 
 
The main focus of Socialist International centers on America, as the world's largest energy user, must shrink its economic output (energy usage) in conjunction with the smaller countries of the world increasing theirs. And the mechanism for this philosophy is based not upon climatological factors, but on economic ones-- a third world wealth transfer done incognito through the U.N.
 
An in-depth look at Socialist International would reveal that the organization is pushing hard for "global governance", and that America must shrink its economy, whose energy usage emits far too much Co2, in deference to smaller nations, which emit miniscule amounts of Co2. 
 
But looking inward, this climate change guilt trip is really nothing more than an excuse to tax energy users and providers, and send the money to the U.N. to be distributed to third world dictators abroad. The goal? Increasing the political power of the Obama administration to all continents....i.e. Barack Obama-- president of the world!
 
Socialist International purports all the shop-worn liberal mantras: peak oil; co2 is a pollutant; we've reached the verge of irreversible climate devastation; and the U.S. is poisoning the atmosphere. And all this can only be "counteracted" by cap-n-trade. But why would S.I. wish to shrink the U.S. economy in favor of third world countries, such as Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela?
 
First, let's shed all the arguments about human-generated global warming.This brand new theory postulates a more plausible (and diabolical) presentation of the real underlying agenda of Socialist International, Carol Browner, Obama, and all the other enviro-marxists, They're all actually hiding within a "smokescreen", under the guise of saving the environment.
 
So why do they purport this Machiavellian masquerade? Lets officially brand it as, "The smoke screen theory". 
 
The foundation of this theory rests upon the conservative right always thinking, "You liberals  ARE really stupid, believing that man can change the climate".  But herein lies the brilliance--who are the ones ACTUALLY being stupid? 
 
One thing you cannot deny is that many liberals are decidedly brilliant, and politically astute about obtaining positions of power-- which begs the question..."What if these liberals actually realize that global warming via mankind is sheer scientific folly, but they're cleverly using it as a 'cover story' for obfuscating their real agenda, wealth transfer, and the worlwide consolidation of their political power.
 
Therefore, the smoke screen theory can be explained like this: These enviro-marxists use global warming as a way to hoodwink all the world from their true intent---cementing  cap and trade laws into permanent existence, which will produce giant sucking sounds of seemingly boundless money flowing to the government, via the environmental taxation of all the energy producers and energy users in the United States.
 
Its almost like a plot from the old "Batman" TV series of the mid 60's... "We environmentalists feign stupidity, and outsmart all those on the right who think we're the fools"...ha-ha!
 
The smokescreen theory is designed to turn the tables, and outfox the right..."Go ahead and argue with us, you foolish conservatives; we, the liberals, have the media on OUR side...we have the school children on OUR side; we have assumed the moral majority of an ignorant American electorate over to OUR side. And because of all this, we intend to keep it this way!"
 
"And beginning this January 21, we will get our climate change legislation railroaded  through congress, and tax the heavy industries, coal companies, and utilities out of existence; and then, put forth our green agenda. And you cannot stop us, because socialism is now mainstream".
 
So is the smoke screen theory sounding pretty clear now, or do we need some further explanation?

Socialist International, the people who feed us all this alarmist B.S., is treating Americans as if they are too foolish to know what the REAL political spectrum is about-- subversion of the capitalist system, and advancing the cause of socialism by whatever means necessary (i.e. artificial environmentalism to obtain political power over the entire world).
 
NEXT: let's introduce the future icing on the enviro-marxist cake--senate bill s1389; a bill to authorize a National Science Foundation Climate Change "Education Program". Look for it to be introduced first thing into the senate on Jan 22.
 
Of course any proposal with the phrase "education program"  sound innocuous enough, but what is even more interesting, Senate bill 1389A was authored by no less than His Highness, Barack Obam-0h.
 
And the nuts and bolts of bill 1389 requires the establishment of an education program to:
(1) broaden the understanding of the possible consequences of climate change,
2) apply the latest scientific discoveries to provide "learning opportunities"
for people (brainwashing);
(3) emphasize "actionable information" (more leftist brainwashing) to help people promote implementation of energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction.
(4) postulate potential solutions to the "problem." 
 
So who's going to pay for all these directives to fight climate change? WE will. How? The Obama administration will tax the coal companies, power plants, steel companies, and all of heavy industry according to their usage of fossil fuels; they will be required to buy carbon credits, and trade with nations that produce no energy or emissions .
 
"No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gases for free,” Obama declared. “Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution.”

Perfect! Why has a politician not thought of this before? Only someone as diabolical as Obama could have thought of charging for pollution, and be clever enough to sell it to America.
 
Obama's plan would require all credits to be purchased at auction, rather than allocated by industry -- a move ensuring that all "polluters" pay for every ton of emissions released. It's also a move that would massively increase the political power of his administration and go along way toward international wealth redistribution to the third world--a cause Obama and Browner fanatically (but esoterically) have supported for many years.
 
And by appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.

The incoming chief executive stands at the very foundation of the smoke screen theory--environmental policies aren't really about protecting or preserving the earth, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.

This enviro-radicalism of the Chosen One could push the nation so far to the left, we will never again recover the right path to sound energy policy, and get back to the economic expansion America has always enjoyed, because of the freedom we once had from government restriction.
 
And with the huge, predictable price increases of energy as a result of this enviro-radicalism, everytime we fill up our tanks, or mail in our electric bills, it'll be us--not business-- who'll really be paying the so-called price for pollution.
 
The smokescreen theory will go along way explaining how a scientifically challenged American electorate supports Obama's green-leaning rhetoric- which is nothing but a half veiled attempt to implement a clearly ideological, leftist agenda.
 
This is all part of an even more hidden agenda-- an undeclared war on capitalism; and its implementation will significantly alter the fabric of American society, as we have known it for decades.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

First Obama administration- an unclear and present danger...the impeachment of our democracy.

 

Dear Fellow Americans: please pay attention; you are free to take notes:

QUESTION: Just what if, after the election...Barack Obama removes his mask...and turns out to be a socio-psycho-quasi-marxist liberal, and surprises America with a cascade of censorship, unionism, radical environmentalism, and ultra-liberal judiciary choices? So then, what recourse have we? ANSWER: Zero!

Impeachment? Sorry; even if 99% percent of the country wanted Obama gone, our esteemed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (aka Nazi Pelosi), would have none of it. And America would have to sit back and take it-- no chance to do anything: no legal or civil recourse whatsoever. We would have to swallow his unpalatable socialist medicine, and hold it down for at least four years...and possibly for eight.

Today many Americans-- to our great peril--- know not of even the basic nuts and bolts of their own government; with no concept of civics. They aren't aware that the House Speaker has absolute legislative power. She can block any impeachment bill from reaching the House floor for a vote! It's strictly her decision, if Nazi Pelosi says so.

Most citizens are blinded to this fact: the government checks and balance system that our founders installed into our Constitution is about to nullified by the free will of the voting public: all because of their vitriolic, mindless revenge against George W. Bush.

Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States. The one and only, el- Barack-O...in all his socialistic splendor.

He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like. Leopards never change their spots.

Recall the "Know Nothing" political party from mid 19th century American history: In 1856, the American Know Nothing Party ran Millard Fillmore as its candidate for President of the United States.

Now history is about to repeat. Our democracy is vulnerable; and about to be washed away in a perfect storm of ignorance--a galaxy of political stupidity-- the new revival of the modern know nothing party in 21st century America.

This is our shameful new political order; a dumbed-down electorate-- consisting of a well meaning, but unsuspecting coalition of political sheep-- all headed for the slaughter.

Today, most young voters are too young to know better. They will lend their staunch support for a candidate like Obama for some truly mindless reason...they think he's "cool"; or because the comedians all like him...or Comedy Central lampoons his opponent as being "too old".

But elections are serious stuff. And we may have now reached that ominous day: "When the politics of comedians are taken seriously, democracy is soon destined to become a a joke".

Well America, whose brainstorm was it to change the voting age from 21? Was it done in the interest of fairness? Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea after all.


SCENE: Man on the street in front of polling place on election day:

Say there young man...may I ask you...what is socialism?"..."Uh-not sure--but it sounds kinda cool"..."Okay...and how about wealth redistribution?"..."Yeah man, I'll try it".

Women overwhelmingly prefer Obama because they speak of him so highly... "he's so calm...he's so-o articulate...behold the eloquence! He ACTS so presidential!"

But that’s basically what we'll be doing -- electing the consummate on-stage actor; capable of donning a different face for every political occasion; in lawyer's parlance: a man of "situational ethics". But behind our backs, he despises all what America stands for.  

Suburban people for Obama: baby boomers for Obama...retired people for Obama; young people for Obama... women for Obama, all united in purpose: "That stupid babbling George Bush! We don't want four more years of Bush. We'll take our chances. We'll ignore Obama's past. The news people all said he was okay. You guys are wrong; you'll see...he's not too good to be true...stop questioning his judgment!  Were sticking to the issues!" You McCain supporters are the ones who are lying!

"It's the economy. It's about the middle class. It"s what he'll DO for America! WE WANT CHANGE! HES OUR CANDIDATE FOR HOPE! DOWN WITH MCCAIN! Down with all republicans...you fat cats had your chance. GIVE US OBAMA!

Okay every one. Enough of the venting. Back to reality .Yes Barack Obama, you're our candidate for change...the man who promises everything, but was elected on a platform of rhetorical nothings.

Yes; we all have heard what he would do FOR America; but are we truly aware of what he will do TO America? Just start at the outset... Jan 21, 2009...as we tune into Barack Obama's first State of the Union address. Obama will ascend the podium, and debut the prologue of the first act of his Marxist play upon us all...

..."I’m sorry America, I didn’t see this coming…I looked at the budget...I didn't realize things could be that bad. That George Bush...he really laid one on us all (big broad grin). We're faced with an even bigger challenge. But we can deal with it if we all pull together to help. So I'm post-poning all the tax cuts...I’m gonna have to raise your taxes... each of us Americans will have to pay more"... (audience gasps).

..."but I want everyone to be patriotic...our country a needs it. After 20 months of fighting to bring about the change we need, we can't hold back now (he dramatically jabs at the air with his left forefinger). We need to dig deeper! It will only be temporary; but what's good for each American is good for us all. Everyone will have to pay their fair share" (audience is stunned...weak applause).

But this is only beginning. Obama sheds his skin; and the marxist serpent now emerges from within. The political chameleon changes his green color to red. Picture the world as Obama REALLY sees it. Now America realizes that all along, the eloquent speeches have failed to wash away the leopard's marxist spots. Now we must look deep into the mind of Obama, to grasp this new reality.

Here is an excerpt of Obama's unspoken post-inaugural part of his speech. He is reciting it to himself...we are listening to it in first person tense..."Well America; besides the tax hike surprise, you ain't seen nothin' yet. I won in a landslide-- you people wanted change. You agreed with my plan. I told you the free market has failed us; the government does it better; so it'll be socialism for all. 

This will be my four-year plan for the new America...I have the mandate. I will crush all dissension. I will demolish the first two precepts of the Bill of Rights. The old ways are obsolete. It will be a new living Constitution, interpreted as I deem fit...my Obamian manifesto-- it will be for the benefit all.

If you are an achiever, I will tax you into submission; because you have earned more than you need. I will redistribute your wealth; you will be a victim of my fairness. 

Free speech will be free-- but only if you're for me. I will deal with all opposition...I will demolish the source. I will re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.. I will banish talk radio...No FCC broadcasting licenses will be renewed for anybody who publicly dare speak out against me.

Assualt weapons are banned. Ammunition will be restricted. Hand guns are forbidden. We must make the nation safe, but I will defend the criminals. I will protect them from the death penalty. I will absolve teen felons-- they deserve a second chance.

My newly-appointed federal  judges will expand opportunity. The disadvantaged will be advantaged... affirmative action is to be my new creed of equality!

I will revive all unionism. I will banish secret balloting; and if you dare  resist, you will be intimidated into compliance. A new multitude of union leaders shall further consolidate my base of political power. It will ensure my re-election

I will demand the rewriting of all textbooks. I will strip all American history of its murderous, war-mongering past. I will wash them of all their oppressive racist content. I will melt the melting pot...I will open the borders.  America will be more representative of the new world of order. We must all acknowledge.

My judges will be liberal. And from their benches, they will legislate my living Constitution. Gay marriages shall be held sacred. Planned parenthood will sit on my cabinet... right next to ACORN, my endearing dedicated mob; my right hand of  harassment... I trained them for this moment. They have served me well.

I will make the workplace more equal. I shall expand the national minimum wage . I will mandate it everywhere. Let the businessmen be burdened. The income playing field shall be leveled.

I will redeem the impoverished. I will pass the World Poverty Act.  And through our great U. N. they will redistribute our country's abundant wealth on a worldwide basis. They shall see to it that America's bounty will rescue poor children everywhere.

I will cleanse the environment. I will tax the coal companies. I will tax the steel industry. Their smoke stacks shall be clean. The entire world will acknowledge my example. It's for the betterment of everyone. It was my plan all along.

I am Barack...my ambition knows no bounds. Emperor of the new order. Transformer of equality. When my legacy is past, the world will be awonder of all that I accomplished!

I transformed America. I redeemed the environment. I cleaned up the planet. I rolled back the seas. I cooled the atmosphere. They will never forget me…because I saved the whole world. 

 

 

 

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

"Set your alarm clock Senator McCain...it's time for your wake-up speech"

                                                                           McCain Wakes-Up-His-Campaign Speech... 
 
...My friends, I am addressing you now because I think the entire country is in dire need of a wake up call. Now that my opponent has taken the advantage, it's time for more than straight talk; it's time for some blunt talk because we're rapidly approaching the time of decision. And before you all make your choice, the one thing to remember... the primary job of a president is to make important decisions...sometimes ones where the lives and fortunes of many people are at stake.

 

But I must point out, that although my worthy opponent is an articulate, intelligent, calm and level-headed fellow, who certainly looks presidential, the one thing he excels at is his INDECISION: he's expert at taking both sides. My friends, this gets you by in a political campaign...it's great for the pollsters, but not in the Whitehouse. Has Senator Obama ever been forced to make a really important decision?...one that could involve the lives of hundreds of our soldiers...or react during a critical moment that could lead to either averting or blundering the country into an unforeseen war?

 

 

Has Mr. Obama ever been confronted with ANY crisis? A commander in chief must make unwavering decisions when lives are at stake; What I perceive Mr. Obama doing is to basically use his Joint Chiefs of Staff as subcontractors for any crucial military decisions.

 

Every president faces international crises. Kennedy and the Cuban missiles. Johnson and the gulf of Tonkin; Nixon and the Pueblo incident; Ford and the Mayaguez crisis; Carter and the hostages; Reagan and Korean flight 007; Bush I and Saddam's Kuwait invasion; Clinton and Kosovo in the Balkans; Bush II and Sept 11. A president must always be ready to answer the zero-hour call for either decisive action, or inaction to avoid war. There is no time to negotiate. You can't vote "present", appeal to the UN, or hide in the Whitehouse.

 

Look back at our recent history. The last time our country was disgusted with a Republican administration, our nation chose to make a 90* turn. The public voted for an inexperienced liberal named James Earl Carter, a peanut farmer, who tortured our nation with 444 days of indecision during the Iranian hostage crisis. The man meant well, but he waffled in the Whitehouse, consulted with the U.N. and the World Court, and froze in his tracks, while our hostages were tortured and badgered until Reagan brought them home.

 

Examine my opponent's LATEST position on Iraq. He's had several. Yes he was against the war in 2002. Since then he's been dependably inconsistent. But now, the situation has decidedly changed. History is about to prove that we made the right decision. We are about to achieve a near-miracle accomplishment, a stable functional Muslim democracy, in the center of what was previously an area of instability and hostility. And Senator Obama wants us out. He would have us not only forfeiting our hard fought victory, but also he would be forfeiting the great peace dividend we are about to reap that could go on for the next hundred years.

 

Yes my friends, the war has been costly, but eventually we may recoup our expense a hundred-fold. As we speak, foreign investors are preparing a surge of their own. A United Arab Emirates developer will soon break ground in Baghdad on a 30-story $270 million hi-rise tower. It will house shopping malls, office space, and apartments. The cessation of sectarian tensions, and the dramatic improvements in security have attracted developers worldwide to Iraq.

 

The Mayor of Baghdad, Saber Nabat el-Essawy, is positively exuberant: His vision is to one day look across the city and see billions of dollars worth of malls, luxury hotels, apartment towers, outdoor amphitheaters, gardens, stadiums, and parks.

 

At our 80-acre military base at Rashid, a massive 5 billion dollar development has already attracted 16 foreign bids. This will include a state-of-the-art medical center, apartment complexes, hotels, shopping centers, and a sport stadium. A sports stadium? Apparently the Iraqis are planning on some long term stability, which well might last A HUNDRED YEARS! Now that the fighting has subsided, the Iraqi people are demanding cars, satellite dishes, phones, I pods, computers, and high definition TV's. Cell phone use has surged to over 70% in Iraq.

 

The future possibility of Iraq becoming one of our main export markets is there for the taking. The abundance of Iraqi oil is a resource for the capital they would send us to buy American goods...appliances, software, hardware, prescription drugs, airplanes, food, electronics, beverages, and whatever other markets we could develop.

 

But Senator Obama wants to cut and run, because he feels our money would be better spent on the alphabet soup of social agencies he has planned. Mr. Obama would subordinate our free market economy to his own liberal big-government style of socialism. Maybe he should be running for president of Sweden. Who knows?...maybe he could grow their government from the bottom up? But I don’t think that would work very well here!

 

But now that we've largely solved our problems in Iraq, the next president will undoubtedly be facing an even more menacing situation next door in Iran. How will the next president deal with a nuclear Iran, in the hands of Mr. Ahmadinejad? He's testing missiles. His engineers are spinning uranium into its heaviest molecular form, so it can be used to trigger a nuclear explosion. His first nuclear test could be in less than two years, and it could very well occur in Israel’s backyard.

 

Mr Obama said he would start negotiations with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Would he return successful, or would he only succeed in becoming the next Neville Chamberlain? What if Iran then launches a surprise attack on Israel? Or Israel strikes first at Iran? Would Senator Obama agonize in the Whitehouse? Would he waffle, or get involved, and risk a wider conflict by aiding Israel? What if Iran blocks the straight of Hormuz? We would face a fuel shortage overnight, and our military planes would quickly run out jet fuel. 

 

These Muslim dictators have no moral code. You can't hold them in good faith in any diplomatic agreement. Yes...they will lie, and try to lull us into a false sense of security. That's why you don't negotiate with a dictator or a sworn enemy. An Islamic theocracy and our American democracy are polar opposites. Iran has spent the last five years buying up American technology on the black market, and making electronic detonators for the roadside bombs, which have been used to kill and maim our soldiers in Iraq. This Ahmadinejad character is no friend of ours!

 

My friends, the best way to assure our own national security is to develop our own resources, so our children don't have to fight any future energy wars. If we were to begin a Manhattan project of new offshore drilling, in the short term, it would put one million people to work! In the long term, it would translate to even more workers, more oil, lower gas and diesel lprices, and we can keep that 700 million we send annually to Opec in this country for new investment in jobs; and enable people to purchase a new car, or washing machine, or home improvements, because people would no longer be spending so much on gas!

 

Mr Obama would create five million new green jobs in alternative energy. But he must have been quoting from an estimate from the National Council of Mayors, which said five million new alternative energy jobs will be created in the next 30 years! THIRTY YEARS!

That's a long time to wait for a new job.

 

Mr Obama says we use 25% of the world's oil, but we have only 3% of its reserves, so we should plan on driving less, turn down our thermostats, and reduce our standard of living so the rest of the world can catch up. That's his plan for real change.

 

My friends, you can't grow the economy without a low cost supply of energy. Our factories run on natural gas...our heavy industries use diesel vehicles, and our airlines run on kerosene. Mass-produced electric and hydrogen cars are years away. 60% of our electricity comes from coal. And I plan on supplying the rest of it with new nuclear plants, that would put many other people back to work. And Mr Obama is against it all. He promises to replace all fossil fuels in 10 years. This would jeopardize our military security. Tanks, Humvees and jet fighters can't run on wind or solar.

 

Mr Obama is the taxman. He would place a carbon tax on coal plants; a tax on natural gas. Like that old song from the Beatles...he will literally tax your heat! Mr. Obama despises fossil fuels. He will have Al Gore whispering in his ear, as he dismantles our present energy infrastructure.

 

If you want to know what your Obama future will really look like, just watch the news from Atlanta, and see the gas lines winding around the block. This is what the democrats have done to our country from their anti-American energy policies. No new drilling...no new refineries... tax the energy companies. Blame George Bush. Strangle the free market. Do the bidding of the environmental puppeteers. Pretend alternative energy is just around the corner. Let the people keep paying 4 dollars a gallon, so they can continue to send their money to Opec, instead of to the bank for their mortgage payment.

 

My friends, as your president, in my first act of bi-partisanship, I will go directly to the Congress, and meet with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I will tell them that we are going make a maximum effort to drill our way out of this present energy crisis.

 

We will develop our alternative energy supplies. We will build 45 new nuclear plants, and we will get rid of Opec in ten years after we perfect our shale-to-oil, and coal-to gas domestic energy supplies. There's your five million jobs!...and they're all ready to be filled now under a new McCain-Palin administration.

 

Governor Palin is America's most shining example of the perfect energy czar. She has the experience where America needs it most...solving our energy problem! We are going to find as much offshore oil as we can, which will lower the price of gas, and restart our economy.

 

And we will go to work on our infrastructure, and construct new corridors of hi-speed rail, and take the burden off our airports and interstates, conserve fuel, and create another job boom in alternative transportation, and put our engineers to work developing geothermal, solar and more efficient wind power.

 

But my friends, none of this will happen without your support this November. You may not agree with all my policies, but as your president, we'll regain our prosperity and place in the world, because the economy comes first, and restarting it requires realistic policies backed by firm, unwavering decisions. And I ask you to think very carefully about whom you choose to send back to Congress, because a president can accomplish little unless the people and the entire government are all on the same page.

 

And after you go into the voting booth, and begin to mark your ballots, I'd like you to think of our soldiers abroad, who are serving in Iraq and the Middle East. They're not on the front page any more, or in many news stories, because we're winning: but just the same they are still out there everyday, accomplishing their missions, and securing our freedom back home. Keep them in your prayers. Remember those who have died, or have survived with amputations and terrible burn wounds. We've payed a heavy price, so like Ronald Reagan always said... we must stay the course. 

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

"Watch out for that Joe Biden...the Abominable Coalman!"


 

 

Throughout U.S. history, we've experienced many bitter coal strikes, resulting in much suffering, deprivation, hunger, violence and even loss of life. One of the worst was in summer of 1902, when  anthracite coal miners in Pennsylvania went on strike for over 160 days, and sent the nation into a panic over a possible coal shortage. It even prompted President Roosevelt to invite the United Mine Workers and coal operators to the White House.


On October 3, 1902, after becoming the first president to personally intervene in a labor dispute, the miners went back to work, and the nation breathed a deep sigh of relief. Theodore Roosevelt was seen back then in the public's eye as an understanding and concerned president. Many would have suffered greatly if not for Roosevelt.

 

 

 Now flash forward 106 years, and get ready for the next great coal strike. But this one would be undeclared. And it could do more than just great economic harm; it could damage our national security.

 

 

 Yes everyone, get ready to fetch them old "Jimmuh Cah-ta" sweaters out of the mothballs, because some mighty cold economic winds will surely be a'blowin' through the Pennsylvania coal country pretty soon (and a lot of other places), if Barak-O and Biden take charge this January. And instead of Jimmie Carter sweaters, ole grandma may be be weaving wool Obama blankets for us all, once he gets done raising taxes on fossil fuels, and spiking our utility bills.

 

 

 

Now if Obama had a big, insurmountable lead, he'd probabaly still be talkin' away about "wind, solar, biodiesel, cleaning the planet, turning down the thermostat", etc. But now Barack-O, ever the political chameleon, seems to have abruptly changed the color of his stump speeches from green to brown. In Pennsylvania coal country recently, Obama said..."as president, I will tap our natural gas resources...invest in clean coal technologies...and find safe ways to use nuclear power". The crowd cheered wildly. 

 

 

 Whoa... a shiny all-new Barack energy policy! What a surprise. Obama must surely be up late at night thinking of new ways to solve our energy crisis. But what happened to your wind-solar-biodiesel-green technologies ideas, Meester Obamo? Oh, that's right; the latest polls now show you as dead even in Pennsylvania. Boy, that'll sure give you some new wind energy!

 

 

But while Obama was blowing mightily away about clean coal technologies in Pennsylvania , Joe Biden was blowing some hot anti-coal rhetoric of his in own next door in Ohio. Obviously, the two running mates were not on the same page.

 

 

 While smiling broadly, and shaking hands down a rope line, Joe B. was asked by an Ohio anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal. Abrutply, Biden's face scrunched up in anger, and he sneered rather vitriolicly through clenched teeth: "No coal plants here in America!" he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there in China. Make them clean."

 

 

Then he offered..."We’re not supporting clean coal," Then Sir Joseph got even more melodramatic, and began pointing back at himself..."I was the first guy to introduce a global warming bill  22 years ago!...and the first guy to support solar energy was ME twenty years ago!"

 

 

Tsk-tsk...better watch out for ole Joey, particularly when making inquiries about coal plants; it might be safer to wave a red flag at a bull. He could use a few lessons on cool from mate Obama, who's recently become "the alternative energy whisperer", but only when in certain states ( Pennsylvania- Kentucky); and particularly when he's speaking to mining towns, like he did last spring during the Kentucky primary

 

 

 How conveniently political of you Mr. Obama! You just may go down as another Roosevelt, with your sincere concern for all the people residing where coal is the primary driver of their local economy.

 

 

 Not surprisingly, Obama has been a energy chameleon throughout his campaign. He has seldom mentioned coal in any positive light until recently. His usual standard stump speech on energy would always contain a loud clamor..."We need to adjust to changing energy conditions, and prepare for long term changes in our energy use, while developing new sources of alternative power." (yay).

 

 

 The subtle implication of his words has always portended that if Obama gets elected, our energy future could be in limbo for four years...and in total jeopardy a decade later. Why? Following his altruistic motives, Obama, with Gore whispering over his shoulder, would set about to dismantle our entire coal infrastructure.

 

 

However, he's sure not saying that now. So in just a few years, the entire coal mining industry might be in dire straights, after Obama and Gore lance it with their 'carbon footprint' trading-credits plan, which would jack up the price of all fossil fuels.

 

 

 But has Obama considered the implications for all the mining workers in coal states? Instead, he airbrushes over the certainty of lost mining jobs with his standard rhetoric of..."creating five million new jobs in the green technologies". Five million? In their peak days of the seventies, the entire UAW and steelworkers unions amounted to less than 1.5 million! How many men does it take to cast a windmill? Or to staff a solar panel assembly plant?

 

 

 

And coal has long been our major fuel of choice for electricity generation. Fifty-six percent of our electricity is generated by coal, while alternatives accounted for less than 0.5% of the total amount of electricity produced in the U.S. last year. Persistent high natural gas and oil prices, and capacity limitations at nuclear plants will favor greater coal utilization to fuel all the projected increases in electricity demand. 

 

But does the liberal media ever raise questions about the sheer folly of replacing all the coal plants? What other energy source is there that can produce electricity in quantity and at such low cost for our future, especially when Obama blathers on about electric cars, and green power replacing all fossil fuels in ten years? TEN YEARS? Five million new jobs?


C'mon Barack, are you actually that naive? Jeez! Didn't you ever study your science books in school, or were you too busy preparing to be a community organizer? Other than socialism, what in the world did you study in college before you graduated from Columbia

 

Obama and Biden certainly won't be in line for any Nobel Prize nominations if they get elected. They both could most definitely use a few science lessons about coal plants and global warming, and they only need go back to 1980. In May of that year, the eruption of Mount St. Helens spewed trillions of tons of sulfuric gases and particulate matter skyward, which blew to the east over all of North America that spring. But the summers of '80 and '81 were normal.

 

 

But historically through the ages, these sun-blocking volcanic eruptions are linked to global COOLING periods. If massive clouds of volcanic sulfur emissions cause cooling, contrast that with Midwestern power plants burning high-sulfur coal. A volcano is nature's herculean-sized smokestack...a vent for earth's molten core. Yet coal plants are blamed for global warming; but basically emit the same volcanic-like content.  

 

 

But read between the lines fellow Americans, especially you people in certain mining states...Obama and Biden share the same ominous disdain for fossil fuels. Both steadfastedly ascribe to the philosophy, "thou shalt not burneth any impure coal". In fact, after Biden's gaffe in Ohio that he's virulently anti-coal, and was an original proponent against global warming, this answers why it was he, rather than Hillary who was Obama's final choice for VP.  

 



Biden's gaffe also confirms Obama's crusade to "clean the planet, and turn back the oceans". Thats his numero uno priority. If you recall last spring, that was the standard ending to all his rock star stump speeches. But his rock star lead in the polls has evaporated.  But el slicko Barack-O, wary of any Biden-like "gaffes" (i.e. revealing the truth), will probably continue to be an alternative energy whisperer anywhere he thinks it'll help get him into the Whitehouse

 

 

But wait, there's an even a more bedeviling scenario-- what if the Democrats gain electoral majorities in both the House and Senate? Yup; you can most certainly count on new taxes going through on your heating bills, because Obama favors 'forced conservation' via higher energy prices.

 

 

 

Now don't dare forget about those dreaded ever rising gasoline prices; Obama would tax "big oil" heavily, and he would rail against any new domestic drilling, and devise all sorts of ways to relive his fond days as a community organizer to help 'disadvantaged' people with their energy costs. So what's next...gasoline stamps? Don't be surprised. Obama thinks his mission is to eliminate poverty. It would be like Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' on steroids.

 

 

 And will Barack and Michelle will be turning down the Whitehouse thermostat if they are living there next winter? Nah; that's for the middle class. Poor people would stay cozy-- they would get the energy bill assistance, because that's "fair". The rest would bear the brunt of the costs for his socialistic environmental radicalism.   

 

 

 

Plus, lets not dare forget the honorable Joseph R. Biden-- who came out of his environmetal closet in Ohio, and revealed that he'll probably be no Theodore Roosevelt, champion of the mining people; but rather he'll be turning into Washington D.C's dreaded abominable coalman.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »