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.

Get your motor running...head out on the highway! Everyone has heard "Born to be Wild", the classic 60's hit song. Especially Barack Obama, and his radical leftist cadre of cabinet appointees.

You can almost read their minds:

Taking a cue from the "first 100 days" of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 presidency, the Obama administration seems to believe in striking while the iron is HOT, and--like the words of the classic song --firing all of their guns at once.

But will all the new radical Obama measures eventually "explode into flames"?

Right now Obama is rattling off one leftist declaration after another, in conjunction with enough deficit spending to defy description. First it was mandatory "no-choice" abortions; next was the anti-stimulus bill; then a spending bill; then educational reform... nationalized health care... renewable energy...card check. Now we have talk of another second stimulus bill.

You name it, and Mr. Obama is planning to "bring it on" before the ardor for his anti-presidency cools off and falls back to reality.

America is about to realize that Obama's Kennedy-esque speeches (and soaring rhetoric) were not of the heart, but from only a teleprompter screen. Now he's removed his campaign mask and assumed his true socialist identity.

And next on comrade Obama's target list: destroying the energy industry.

Despite the fact that America uses gasoline and diesel to run 95% of its transportation needs, Generalissimo Obama has decided to make war on fossil fuels, and has wasted no time in reversing a decision that would have allowed oil exploration offshore, and opened up new exploratory leases within public lands in our interior.

Remember last year's horror of seeing, "regular 4.29", posted on street signs of gas stations? Just keep Mr. Obama's reversal in mind the next time pump prices head back up to 4 bucks/gallon.

But Obama would like to arrive at the European levels of 6, 7-- even 8 dollars /gallon. After all, didn't he accuse America as being wasteful and profligate? And that we are a nation comprising 5% of the world's population, yet consume (hog) 25% of the world's energy?

Mr. Obama will soon remedy that! How? By what he's about to do-- cleverly restrict our energy supply. And all under the masquerade of saving the environment, and halting the decline of the polar bears before its too late.

Despite the fact that we have a huge tracts of land containing an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil (in the shale of our western states), America keeps getting drilled again and again.

First it was Nancy (Nazi) Pelosi, who has prevented every Republican domestic drilling bill from even reaching the House floor. And now our leftist Interior Secretary, Mr. Ken Salazar, is putting the brakes on a Bush administration plan to open 77 new parcels of land to oil and natural gas drilling, while instead promising a “new way forward” for offshore wind projects. 

Salazar criticized the Bush administration’s “drill-only approach,” saying the U.S. needs a "comprehensive energy" plan that considers all the "potential resources" in the oceans.

Great. Marvelous. No new oil drilling, no new domestic supply, and an open invitation to the commodity traders to again bid up the world price of petroleum back to $144/barrel -or even higher-- once the world economy revives.

Obama and the dumbo-crats keep lecturing about renewable and alternative energy (the justification is always environmental); but they're openly hostile to cheap and readily available fossil fuels, and are more than willing to treasonously allow us to send $700 billion a year to OPEC than drill our own oil and keep the money at home.

Yes America-- elections do have consequences.

And at a time when proposals for higher taxes are politically unpopular, the radical leftists in Congress have decided to thumb their noses at the average Joe, and are about to spring another cleverly disguised way to squeeze even more tax money from Americans.

Right now, Congress is debating legislation that would create a European-style scam that "caps" the maximum allowable amounts of CO2 from power plants, heavy industries, manufacturers, and you guessed it-- our vehicles.

So once it passes, everytime we get our motors runnin', and head out on the highway, every American driver will not be victimized as a taxpayer--but as a consumer.

This cap and trade system is "designed" to give companies incentives for reducing emissions; but unsuspecting Americans will soon realize it's nothing but a hidden tax in the form of higher utility bills (natural gas & electric) that will jack the prices of everything, including gasoline, food and consumer products.

Obama and his Stalinist minions claim that, "Cap and trade is there for a reason...you cap and trade to pay for investments in renewables, which will lead the country to energy independence."

Energy independence? The arrogance of the democrats know no bounds! And it's all courtesy of an American electorate that is so dumbed-down scientifically, that they know not the difference between harmless CO2 (carbon dioxide ) and poisonous CO (carbon monoxide).

So who was it that said, "We get the government we deserve?" And its a treasonous one indeed. 

Realistically, by collecting cap and trade fees from American companies--with the cost borne by consumers-- we are in effect, subsidizing our foreign competitors (China, India, et. al) who have already stated that they're placing economic development above any environmental considerations

It's economic war on every working American who uses energy, and will reduce our economy into a miasma of plunging competiveness, lost jobs, and foolishly misplaced alternative energy investments.

Now let's introduce Dr. Steven Chu, (aka "Dr. No"- no new drilling)  Obama's Energy Czar, who doesn't have "faith" in nuclear power, has called coal, "his worst nightmare," and predicts "dire consequences due to global warming".

But meanwhile, Sweden is "warming" to nuclear power, because in their misguided lengthy attempt to be a leader in alternative energy, they've discovered it's extremely difficult to replace conventional energy with solar and wind. So the Swedes will set aside a 30 year ban on nuclear reactors, and are joining a rapidly growing list of nations who view emission-free nuclear as the best way to deal with "climate change".

But predictably, the Obama administration has lent a deaf ear to all this, and has taken an opposite tack-- no nuclear-- at least  for now.

Expansion of nuclear power could create tens of thousands of badly-needed U.S. corporate jobs (such as with GE and Westinghouse) and would require a multitude of construction workers to erect new reactors. And these would be high wage jobs--not just some make-work stimulus proposal. And more importantly, it would put America on track to returning to the 90's when the country last prospered as a full-wage economy.

But leftist Chu (and comrade Obama) are having none of it, and have rejected the already agreed-upon desert site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage, saying... "that it's too close to the water table and could harm the environment."

So another solution to America's energy (and employment) problem literally "bites the dust."

Next in line for battle is the EPA's attack on coal, which will be led by Climate Czar, Carol Browner, who recently declared..."The Obama Administration will soon make an "endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide"...and that..."The next step is a notice of proposed "rule making” for new regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions".

An "endangerment finding?" Rule making?

Translation: Coal companies --prepare for chapter 13. Consumers --prepare for a 100% hike in your electric bills; and America-- get ready to turn out the lights.

How much more insanity can our country endure! This will turn out to be the ultimate attack on all of America-- the EPA determining that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant-- and setting off the most extensive set of costly regulations in American history.

So you think insane too strong of a word? Hah!

Browner's new clean air decree will tag any source as emitting more than 250 tons of a "declared pollutant" as being subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers-- even commercial hog farms and bakeries.

So if you like to eat meat, or enjoy an occasional donut or a fresh loaf of bread, get ready to go vegetarian, unless you want to pay dearly for your dietary staples-- they're gonna cost a lot more once Ms. Browner gets through with her destruction of America's standard of living

So prepare for a revival of that the beloved tradition, "Depression Era cooking". Beans and greens anyone?

The EPA's so called "registry plan" would cover about 13,000 facilities that account for 85 to 90 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas output. EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, in a recent statement, crowed..."This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment -- all without placing an onerous burden on our nation's small businesses".

But unless you push a hot dog cart or have a roadside hamburger stand, count on the EPA breathing down your neck with these so-called "reporting regulations". Even a farm with more than 25 cows would have to document their "emissions" of methane and other greenhouse gases.