Ever since the exit of George Bush, late night comedians have struggled with the void: for the first time in recent memory, they had no Dubya (or Clinton) to lampoon during their monologues.

And to dare make fun of Barack Obama was completely off limits-- a first degree crime of political incorrectness.

There's the one where Mr. Obama said..."I will promise every American the same health care plan that I have as Senator!"  Hardy-har; guffaw-guffaw. Now that's funny!

Or how about the one where he claimed..."We're going to create five million alternative energy  jobs-- jobs that can't be outsourced!" Indeed--even funnier! And these were supposed to be those highly-coveted, "green-collar" jobs of the future according to Professor Barack-O, the energy master of disaster.

Are we ready for more jesting? How about when he was campaigning in Pennsylvania (and West Virginia) where Obama claimed he was for "clean coal"---basically an oxymoron -- just like all the rest of the "green energy" ideas.

But the apex of Obama's levity hit its peak in late summer "08, during a tour of an alternative energy plant near Monaca, Pennsylvania -- an operation synthesizing biofuels from chicken fat.  Mr. Obama had enthusiastically declared, "We can duplicate these plants all over America!"

This was undoubtedly Obama's greatest-ever idea! U.S. industry would churn out poultry fat-based biodiesel, and we'd thumb our energy noses at Saudi Arabia-- literally playing chicken with OPEC; and it would reduce foreign oil imports, plus show 'em thing or two about good ol' American ingenuity. 

But what came first; the chicken or the egg? It seems that every company who took up the Obama green banner (in 2008) is suddenly "chickening-out." Fat-generated biodiesel is about to bite the dust.

Thus far, every corporate player-- attempting to roll the dice and "play" the green energy game-- has thrown snake eyes.

A prime example is Green Fuel Technologies, one of the earliest, best-funded and most publicized "algae" companies. Green Fuel is shutting its doors; a victim of the credit crunch.

The company's plan was to pump carbon dioxide from smokestacks into "bio-reactors" (cavernous plastic bags filled with algae and water). The algae then grows fat within its cells (as lipids and carbohydrates) and is then converted into oil for biodiesel.

Of course, getting the process to run smoothly became quite another matter:

Green Fuel easily grew the algae; the problem was CONTROLLING it. The algae grew much faster than it could be harvested, and the process became highly unmanageable. The company also found its system would cost more than three times its target. Estimates were that algae- based green fuel would have cost American consumers $12-15 dollars per gallon-- now wouldn't Professor Obama have loved that!

But that’s typical: whenever Obama announces a new policy, he omits the details-- he just puts it out there for "discussion", and lets the media & public run with it.

And all politics aside, why was the threat of the algae fiasco not analyzed, nor the plight of the hapless chicken population ever mentioned?

Hundreds of millions of chickens would have been facing doom-- their innards destined not for the dinner table, but the fuel tank.  It would have meant open season on chickens everywhere-- possibly driving the species to extinction.

Has PETA been asleep at the switch?

And what about the EPA? After it became public that the algae-to-biodiesel process couldn't be controlled, this should have immediately set off  alarm bells in DC -- the specter of an unstoppable green tide of algae engulfing mankind, and possibly taking over the earth.

It would have made the disaster portrayed in the 1969 movie, "the Green Slime", tame by comparison.

And what about economic considerations? The chicken-biodiesel boondoggle would certainly have been another replay of the corn-ethanol disaster, further jacking up worldwide food prices. To what new heights would it have taken the price of poultry? Four-five- even six dollars per pound?

And our science-challenged anti-president never once mentioned the complicated process of "hydro-cracking," where chicken fat is converted to biodesel-- a process not easily performed in basements or garages. 

Chicken fat vaporizes at temperatures varying from 275 to 325 degrees Celsius (527 to 617 degrees Fahrenheit)  After liquefication and weighing, the contents are transferred to stainless steel reactors. Water and catalysts are then added to help achieve the desired pressure. 

But the law of economics always prevails. Costs of production for chicken-biodiesel = approx $40/barrel HIGHER than for conventional diesel; which would translate to fuel costing around $7/gallon!

And we thought $4.43/gallon gasoline was ridiculous (the all-time high of the 2008 peak gas prices).

So Mr. Obama, we only have one final question... wouldn't it just be easier to drill?

Global warming? It all goes back to science.

The summer solstice will occur this year on June 21, 2009, at 1:45 am (EDT).

But missing from the "radar" of the global warmongers is the little-publicized fact that in the month of January, earth is precisely 3 million miles NEARER the sun as opposed to June. 

So why the disparity? Shouldn't January be the warmer of the two months?

Earth's distance from the sun-- at any given point during the year-- is irrelevant to what is actually responsible for the 4 seasons (not the 60's singing group), and why we have such large temperature variations between summer & winter. 

Once again, it all goes back to science: the earth leans slightly on its axis, like a spinning top-- suspended in an off-kilter position-- which directly affects the angle of the sun's rays upon earth's surface; and it's this precise angle that makes the difference.

This means that in January-- although earth is closer to the sun-- it is leaning the "wrong way," and our northern hemisphere receives only indirect sunlight.

So as the earth literally wobbles through its annual 365-day cycle; it leans an exact 23 degrees (and 26 minutes) off the central plane of its orbit.

And if we hark back to our 7th grade science books, we recall this planetary lean not only causes seasonal climatological variety, it determines why the days are either longer (or shorter) in each of the two respective hemispheres  

Indeed, it's the amount of direct sunlight that determines earth's temperatures.

But apparently, there is one "all-knowing" congressman who begs to differ:

Of course, it's our good friend Henry Waxman (D-Cal), who-- evidently having skipped seventh grade-- has written "climate change" legislation, requiring that by the year 2020, CO2 emissions be reduced 20 percent (from 2005 levels), and that  emissions of other "greenhouse gases" be reduced 80 percent by 2050.

Actually-- in a biblical sense-- Mr. Waxman appears to be giving mankind an offhand complement, implying that it is MAN who controls earth's temperature, and NOT the sun; and it's the irresponsible actions of we Americans who hold the fate of the world's climate within our energy-wasting hands.

But Waxman aside, it all goes back to almost 40 years ago:

Back in 1970, James Hansen (previously an unknown NASA scientist) released an earth-convulsing statement on climate change, proclaiming...(quote) "The world was warming, and greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels were the reason." 

Hansen ominously predicted that by the turn of the century (2000 AD) earth would undergo a  rise of 2.6 - 4.2 F* in temperature, melting ice sheets would threaten Manhattan Island, and worldwide sea levels would rise anywhere from 6"- 8"-- and possibly, even 12 inches.

However, it seems like Mr. Hansen was just a wee bit off the mark.

But despite his grievous miscalculation, Hansen, and his other chicken-little comrades from the UN international panel on climate change (IPCC), are at last poised to cash in:

The coming specter of climate change/cap 'n trade legislation stands to extract trillions out the world's economies by 2035, and will eliminate untold millions of energy-related jobs, as attempts to ban the internal combustion engine gain momentum, and wreak worldwide economic disruption for a solution to a problem that may not even exist.

But given the recent spate of cold weather in the Northern hemisphere, (and the reversal of the warming trend since 1998)  the IPCC has been chirping a different tune: Global warming has cleverly morphed into "climate change," and progressing to the even more ominous-sounding, "carbon-loading" of the atmosphere.

And the IPCC-- rather than apocalyptic predictions-- is now "giving odds"...50-50 probability earth's temperatures rise 2 degrees (Centigrade), and 20-80 probability of a rise by 3.5 C*...all by the end of the 21st century.

But so what? Even if earth does begin to heat up rapidly-- another 2, 3, even 4 degrees-- so what? What then?

Plant life would proliferate, as trees expand everywhere, happily going about their natural, atmospheric self-cleansing process, inhaling (and negating) an ever-expanding supply of CO2 by the world's continuing use of fossil fuels.

The decline in the world's rain forests would reverse its trend, and jungles would commence spreading in Brazil, Indonesia, and Africa.

The timberline would migrate to the north in North America-- all continents would thus benefit.

Previously, areas that were too cold would now sustain agriculture; ergo, earth's food supply would increase-- food prices would decrease-- and the all the world's economies would improve.

Residential homes and commercial buildings would require less heat, burn less fossil fuel, and earth's atmosphere would benefit from the reduction.

And what about the so-called threat from the oceans' rise-- supposedly the  main reason we must fear global warming-- what then?

Pre-emptive, high technology "sea defenses" could be constructed; mankind could shine with his ingenuity & ability to engineer solutions, such as sea walls, breakwaters, and even a system of dikes, which could serve as a breakthrough in designing foundations for seaside condos, which would spark the real estate and construction industries.

It's all about turning negatives into positives, and compelling these global warmongers to "go back to the drawing board," and try to fabricate yet another way to scam the world. 

And if these liberal doom 'n gloomers claim that mankind has the "power" to warm the earth, it begs the obvious question...why then would Man not be capable of counter-acting it?

Let's repeat: if global warming becomes reality-- so what?

It could bring about the discovery of new, revolutionary farming methods; improve air conditioning technologies; promote construction of de-salinization water-purification plants; and possibly, new improved home-construction methods to deal with the so-called increased intensity (and frequency) of hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc.

Mankind could use global warming as the most positive boost to the world's economy since James Watt's invention of the steam engine, which  precipitated the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

Global warming could harken the the dawn of a new era of re-industrialization, where the world responds pre-emptively in unison.

And rather than undergo the foolish economic upheaval of eliminating fossil fuels (and the internal combustion engine), the so-called onset of global warming could spark an "Apollo-type" mission to engineer an environmentally "clean" motor-- perhaps using some after-burner mechanism that would assure virtually zero emissions from the exhaust.

This would not only pre-empt the fear of global warming, it could provide a huge economic boost to employ thousands of new engineers (and support people) to get after the task at hand, rather than pursuing a solution to a problem that may never come to pass.

But rather than crafting solutions, the crafty global warmongers in Congress only see fit to create problems.

They are quite willing to sacrifice the economic security of  America, because climate change is yet another way to rape every American household out of every extra dollar for their own pockets-- yet another scam that is less about ecology, and more about solidifying their control in Washington for years to come . 

Estimates from the Heritage Foundation predict the Waxman Clean Air bill will increase energy prices, eliminate jobs, and reduce the country's GDP; but conceals the fact that as China and India increase emissions, it will only cancel out any benefits of a perceived healthier atmosphere-- the so-called purpose of the bill.

The Waxman bill- as it attempts to put a "cap on carbon"-- is nothing more than a guarantee that all heavy industries will pay to the point where they may no longer even exist by the time it expires in 2050; and upon its passage, by 2015, it would:

-raise electricity prices by 90%

-raise residential natural gas prices by 65%

-increase the amount of inflation-adjusted federal debt by 33%

-annually destroy 900,000 jobs-- gradually increasing to peak of 1.7 million jobs lost by 2020 

-raise each household's annual energy bill by $1500

-reduce aggregate gross GDP by $7.5 trillion by 2015, and only go upward from that point

Ironically, climatologists have calculated that by 2050, the law's impact on global temperatures will be a whopping two-tenths of a degree-- or perhaps NOTHING.

And how much cleaner would the world's air be? Unless we were to erect an atmospheric "bubble" over the northern hemisphere --as China and India progressively emit more CO2, (and the U.S. attempts to reduce emissions) -- it all eventually mixes in earth's upper atmosphere anyway.

But arguing with liberals is akin to herding cats. Why bother with the futility of factual scientific explanations? Why bother arguing that it's the SUN that controls earth's climate?

Why don’t we all just agree with 'em. Confound 'em! Throw an 800-ton monkey wrench into their scheme, and play along with their delusions.

We'll all just come to a common consensus that YES, fossil fuels contribute to climate change...but SO WHAT?

Global warming? Bring it on! If one were to look at the overall picture, it'll be the best thing that ever happened to the earth.

Everyone would welcome warmer winters.

Everyone would welcome more trees and plants-- the birds and animals would all become so much happier! The world's farming and lumber industries would flourish as never before.

As these leftist radicals increasingly attempt to coerce their foolish tyranny upon us, we must countermand with equally "foolish" arguments-- that actually make sense -- just to keep these greedy, power-hungry desperados at bay. 

PREFACE: This post has been written as a challenge to the reprehensible predictions broadcast yesterday on ABC's Sunday morning "This Week"-- an insipid political talk show, hosted by Obama-crat George Stephanopoulos, plus his panel of pundits, who were all cackling in unison (save for George Will) about the perceived tribulations of the Republican party.

Heretofore is the "flavor" of what was discussed by this so-called "roundtable" of panelists (leftists):

1st Panelist: "The Republican party seems to be dwindling down to mainly Southern, right-wing conservatives...

2nd Panelist..."and may not survive much longer as a viable political party."

3rd Panelist: "If the Republicans aren't careful, our traditional two-party political system may not be around much longer." 

4th Panelist: "The Republicans have to either moderate their message, or face extinction."

Given the haughty arrogance of these leftist media types, loud alarm bells should be ringing amongst the American electorate-- they MUST realize what's now at stake:

Whenever  the so-called "mainstream media" begins trumpeting the downfall of the Republican party (with the ominous implications of one-party rule), the very survival of our democratic republic is now called into question.

This tacit threat to our traditional lifestyle implores that average Americans must now "rise up" in opposition. Otherwise, freedom from government tyranny is about to be lost-- perhaps forever.

This cannot be overemphasized! Every average American must be aware that his (her) constitutional freedoms are now periled by the gravest threat in our nation's history.

But how do we define these so-called Average Americans? Who are they? What must they do?

Most everyone in the USA --despite their level of wealth-- likes to be known as an "average American."

Unlike most countries, Americans have never been defined by their social strata-- mainly because of the unique mobility and free nature of our society.

Americans have always existed as a free people, devoid of classes. So given that-- and without exception --the average American is EVERYONE.

In the beginning, when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, it was a document  formulated for everyone, because we have always been a country of equals.

But now, there is an ominous, pervasive feeling that all is not well in America-- that something's amiss-- an uneasy, disquieting sense of anxiety, as though things have become different...much different.

For the last 235 years, the average American was free to be, well, an average American!  But now, the average American now perceives that his freedom to advance along in his station of life is invariably dissolving away:

There is a subtle fear of the right to speak out.

Property rights are no longer sacred.

Freedom of speech has turned to whispers; our Bill of Rights is being torn asunder.

Our beloved lifestyle is inexorably being lapped away by the creeping tide of Obammunism.

Today's average American--doing his best to keep himself healthy, informed, busy, hardworking (and minding his OWN business)-- is finding that it's no longer possible to live that way, all because 52.7% of the electorate voted for Barack Obama-- and his inner circle of Chicago thugs--- in conjunction with a fascist-minded Congress. 

Hence, all average Americans:

-will be forced to pay for health insurance-- whether they want it or not

-are threatened with the silencing of talk radio--Obama's attempt to censor speech

-are now forced to pay higher taxes for those who cannot (or will not) maintain gainful employment

-will be forced to pay more for energy because of so-called 'climate-change' legislation

-must worry about their jobs or whether they will even be employed tomorrow

-must worry about their automobiles & lawnmowers because they "contribute" to global warming 

-must worry about their children's education and the leftist teachers who indoctrinate them

-must worry about what they hear/read in the news or whether its even factual

-must worry about the comfort in their homes, or if their government will regulate energy use 

-must worry about the right to defend their property if guns or ammunition are outlawed

-must worry about their elections, and if the outcomes are corrupted by ACORN subversives

-must worry about cuts in the military and their nation's security as a declining superpower

-must worry about their commander-in-chief and his highly provocative policy of appeasement

-must worry that the internet may become threatened by censorship & cybersecurity laws

-must worry about IRS audits because they "earn too much"

-must worry about their speech or actions-- the possibility they might offend someone-- and be charged with a "hate crime" 

Average Americans are now faced with a direct and vile attack upon their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to be left alone.

And this is where the Republicans must rally; this is their base-- the average Americans! Not conservatives; not the religious right; not the anti-abortionist faction; not the tea parties; not the Reagan coalition; not the big tent; not the moderates-- but EVERYONE. 

This shall be the new GOP banner: "Party of the average American"-- upholding American traditons the same way since 1776, when the Declaration of Independence put forth the doctrine of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Vote Republican.

Vote freedom:

And above all...vote for YOUR COUNTRY.

Defend your right to remain an average American.

After World War II, American auto designers seemed to be stuck in a rut:

Beginning in 1946, they produced tank-like creations, which later "evolved" into the strange-looking, garrish tailfin designs of the early 1950's.

But in October 1954, the Chevrolet division of General Motors literally astounded the automotive industry: they introduced the sleek, 1955 Chevy Bellaire-- a stunningly beautiful design that caused a flurry of curious Americans to flock into Chevy dealer showrooms, and drive away in the car that would make the division the premier sales leader for the next 20 years.

Previous to 1955, American cars were solid, reliable, and durable; they used heavy-gauged steel, and had frames worthy of military vehicles. But they were bulky-looking, slow, and rather ugly.

Then came the introduction of the 55 Chevy, and everything changed:

Along with the revolutionary design, Chevy had crafted an equally ingenious ad campaign. "See the USA, in your Chevrolet" resounded from billboards, radio spots, and from the most popular television variety shows of that time.

Not only did the slogan have a decided "ring", it carried a subliminal message: it literally opened up American pop culture to the era of the drive-in, cruising, and "heading out onto the highway."

Almost overnight, American lifestyles had been transformed into the "car culture", which remains to this day.

American drivers --who had bought the new Chevy because of it stunning looks-- were to discover an even more delightful surprise under the hood... the Turbo-Fire 265 V-8;  It delivered exceptional torque, and packed raw acceleration not found in other low-priced cars.

The engine quickly spawned a new "performance" paradigm-- drag racing from stoplights turned  ’55 Chevies into defacto race cars whenever they were challenged.

Shiny, "souped up" 55 Chevies dominated the drive-in scene. The car became a status symbol -everybody wanted one. Just under 2 million 1955 Chevrolets were sold, accounting for more than 20 percent of ALL cars sold that year.

Pontiac noticed the trend to performance, and how quickly it could "goose" sales figures. In 1957, they introduced their upgraded 347 cubic-inch, 290 hp "Trophy" V-8, plus a 317-hp mechanical-lifter job sporting three, two-barrel carbs, which was essentially a racing engine

In 1958, Pontiac introduced its legendary 389, with a camshaft specifically designed to deliver maximum torque between 20 to 60 mph-- the speed where most street races were either won or lost.

Chevy again countered with another legend-- the "327"-- undoubtedly the best American V8 of all time. It produced an astonishing 350 hp when ordered in its hottest, "solid-lifter" format. A 327 Impala-- thanks to its thundering powerplant-- was capable of leaving long black strips from the rear wheels for an entire city block

From 1962 to 1964, the high-torque, fast-winding 327 Chevy could blast almost anything off the road.  So quick were these demons (from a stoplight) that a good, four-speed-shifting driver would often defeat its larger cousin, the "409" in the eighth mile-- the distance of most red light encounters.

The 327 Chevy would dominate America's stoplight parade until 1964, when Pontiac upped the ante and  introduced its fabled GTO, powered by the equally-fabled 389, replete with 10.75 compression, and triple 2-barrel, "3 deuce" carbs.

Car sales reflected the trend: between 1962 to 1965, Chevy sold an incredible 5.8 million Impalas; and in its first two years, Pontiac sold an amazing 112,000 GTO's.

But after 1965, GM began to experience a slow, ominous decline-- and at the time, no one knew it was to culminate in its eventual bankruptcy.

But what had gone wrong?

Of course, the liberal "do-gooders" in Congress-- lobbied hard by Ralph Nader—had decided they would make cars SAFER; and legislated the "improvements" which would significantly increase prices --decrease performance-- and eventually drive Americans to imports.

Of course, we all remember the first time Detroit added some federally-mandated, all-new safety feature that absolutely drove one into passionate fits of frustration & anger.

In 1966,  it was the requirement for seat belts. Nobody wore 'em; they were little more than some loosely-fastened lap restraint (something like worn at an amusement park kiddie ride). 

Even when you were a kid boarding a ride at carnival, you thought to yourself..."Is this skinny stupid belt supposed to keep me from getting hurt? If this ride DOES go haywire, this flimsy thing wouldn’t do nothin!"

The practically useless seat belts were indeed a nuisance- especially when you sat on the buckle, or cleaned the interior of the car. But it all probably goes back to Ralph Nader's childhood; perhaps-- as a little kid-- he got his ideas from some kiddie ride that he obviously didn't think was too safe.

In any event, the world has never been the same. Once seat belts became law for all the "Big 3" manufacturers, there was no looking back.

Next--in 1968-- it was those incredibly stupid, and worthless front-passenger head restraints. And they're still with us! But rather than preventing whiplash, these vision-blockers have caused far more woe than they've prevented-- it's much more difficult to spot an adjacent car coming up beside (or behind) you.

Remember the first time you sat in a car equipped with the new, oversized headrests, cowering menacingly behind you? You couldn't help thinking..."What in the *&%$** are these stupid things supposed to do ? Prevent whiplash?  NO WAY...especially if  if some drunk rear-ends me!"

And from the back, all headrest-equipped cars now looked as if they were occupied by two giant-headed, alien passengers. And worse, anytime you found yourself in back of a stalled-out car, you could no longer discern if the car had a driver, or what was going on inside.

Next, it was the loss of the ultra-cool side-vent windows. Everybody remembers 'em--everybody misses them. They opened up diagonally, delivering nice, breezy air...cooling and refreshing. And the faster the car went, the bigger the blast of fresh air. But in 1969 (who's ever stupid idea it was) side-vent windows disappeared from all the new cars. The convenience of  easy, fresh-air circulation in the car was now gone.

And then...ta-da!  The 1970's marked the dawning of buzzer- flasher -warning light civilization. Driving annoyance was now taken to a much higher level.

Upon opening the drivers' door...buz-z-z..."you left the key in, dummy," said the buzzer to the driver. Or if you didn't buckle your seat belt...buzzzzzz...or...e--e-e-e-e-e! And what was worse, the buzzer would be persistent-- it would not silence itself until you obeyed. And if the car had a low battery, it would ring even more annoyingly (o-o-o-o-o), like it needed a transplant operation or something.

But this time drivers fought back. They would go to their old reliable mechanic, at the old reliable gas station (yes--they actually fixed your car back then); and he would REMOVE the wire to the goddarn buzzer.

But then auto manufactures wised up. Because "too many lives were being lost," the car engineers wired them into the horn-harness assembly. So now, you couldn't foil the seat belt and ignition buzzers anymore-- and driving in America has never been the same.

Next it was unleaded gas. Then the catalytic converter. Sure, they made the air a lot cleaner; but V-8 cars were no longer fun to drive. Now, you could no longer  impress anyone by jamming on the gas and produce that ear-splitting, masculine sound of peeling tires.

Unleaded gas had all the punch of lighter fluid; and the customary fun of peelin' out of Mickey-D's, or Arby's-- or laying a strip in front of your high school-- faded off into the environmental sunset.

It's no wonder the young drivers are ALWAYS at home playing video games; today's cars are sterile, and for travel only.

The old cars had room. They had cache'. Everyone knew you by what kind of car you drove. You didn’t even need a destination, because just driving around and cruising was such fun.

Well now; it's back to reality: today's American cars are no fun. They're not even cars now-- they're basically a truck disguised as an s.u.v. Of course, they're safer than a Soviet tank-- IF you crash-- but that's where it all ends.

But what if you're never in a violent crash? Oh well... it's the THOUGHT of being safe that's worth it . Yes safety...saving lives...preventing deaths-- it’s all about doing good; doing what's right. Everything must now exist for the sake of feeling safe. Nowadays, safety counts for everything.

But stop and think... just HOW dangerous were those, "unsafe", super-fun cars of the old days? Do we know of anyone who survived the peril of living through that terrible, UNSAFE era, when there were no seat belts, no buzzers, no flashing dash lights, no head restraints, air bags, etc?

This means less work for auto parts makers; less work for heavy industry; less money for  local economies. Laid-off auto workers can no longer eat out, deposit a weekly paycheck into the bank, buy a new shirt or shoes, or even see a movie at a local theater-- or even contribute to the church. They will stay at home now --watch TV-- and collect "compensation".

And this is what Congress has been doing to our entire economy for the last 40 years; making our lives more annoying, more miserable, less fun, less exciting-- but were so much safer!

Apparently, we’ve gone off the road, and have traded our semi-affluent, middle class lifestyles for a rust belt economy--basically because today's cars must be "made safe." This is on par with the stupidity of passing laws that make our offshore (and Alaskan) oil development illegal-- because drilling "harms" the environment.

So why don't we just pass a law that says auto accidents are illegal? It makes about as much sense. Let's all write in to Washington..."no more illegal auto accidents!"

We are literally being made 'safe to death' by the people on Capitol Hill!

You can hire 30 million traffic and highway patrolmen, you can install 25 seat and head restraints into every vehicle- and air bags "for every occasion"-- whatever. But you cannot eliminate traffic accidents unless you outlaw cars!

These coconut heads in Washington have done a bang-up job of eliminating most of our high-paying jobs (in one way or another) in the interest of safety!

QUESTION: what built America's middle class after World War II? It was mainly the auto industry, with the millions of jobs it provided, and its unlimited economic-multiplier effect.

Oil companies drilled for oil. Gas stations sold gas. Steel mills made steel, which required miners to mine coal, and iron ore producers to ship ore pellets across the Great Lakes to the mills in the East.

This was the "rust belt" back then. It was the economic envy of the world! A person with no formal education could come out of high school and live a life with a secure income and retirement-- all because of the so-called UNSAFE auto industry.

But today, Congress hasn't learned. They won't let the auto companies survive building conventional cars; and once-again, it's for the purpose of safety, and protecting the environment.

After Congress mandates "green" autos, Honda and Toyota will certainly beat us with a better product to the market. WHY? Not because they're better than us, but because they have better ENGINEERS than us.

We cannot our improve our lifestyles unless we improve our economy. And this means manufacturing jobs where we make our own goods, and keep the money earned within our country for reinvestment.

But with the government in control of the auto industry, it will only magnify the mistakes of the past: more regulations; more ugly green cars; and now, the calimitous environmental regulations of the Waxman- Markey "clean air" bill will guarantee the ultimate downfall of the American auto industry-- and the tens of millions of jobs that go with it.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

By the late 1850's, thousands of late-arriving fortune-seekers had been doubling back from the over-mined gold fields of California-- roving through the Western territories-- all hoping to be the one to discover the next big bonanza. 

But in August, 1863, some electrifying news had arrived from the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevadas - a fabulous silver bonanza! The legendary Comstock Lode-- the greatest single mineral strike in world history.

During the next year, 17,000 adventurers from all corners of America swarmed into the Washoe region, which would soon become Nevada .

The incredible bounty of silver from Comstock had a critical effect on the national economy; and seemingly overnight, Virginia City developed into a metropolis of 20,000-- the second biggest city in all the West.

This was at the height of the Civil War; and so eager was President Lincoln to bolster the Union with another free state, the Washoe territory became Nevada in October 1864-- just weeks after Sherman's march through Atlanta.

From its mineral riches, Nevada contributed $45 million to the federal government until the war's completion; and with the gold from California, the combined wealth proved to be a critical factor in the defeat of the Confederacy.

In 1869, a railroad would link up Virginia City with the nation's first transcontinental railway-- all completed within that same year.

During this period, mining technology would come to the forefront. Picks, pans and shovels in stream beds gradually gave way to steam power; and hydraulic-powered, high-pressure hoses could quickly wash away an entire hillside.

But differently from California, Nevada 's treasure lay deep within the ground, and its geography required the development of new technologies, such as “T-square mining”, which was used to reach two miles underground before all the precious minerals had finally run out.

Mining the Comstock Lode required costly equipment for sinking deep shafts into the earth. It would challenge the era's best minds. Engineers from Europe arrived, bringing new ideas and inventions to the old practices of mining.

But despite the progress, mining Nevada's great silver lode was perhaps the most dangerous occupation on earth. 

Working in the teeming, humid underground tunnels was akin to hell on earth. Between 1864-1873, hundreds of miners were killed, maimed, or seriously injured. There were periods when a man was killed every other day. Silver miners were injured by falling into shafts, or critically scalded by sumps of hot water.

Working 2,000 feet underground, the heat increased 5 degrees Fahrenheit for every additional hundred feet gone lower. At 3,000 feet, wooden pick handles became so hot that miners required gloves. Heat exhaustion, pneumonia, the bends, and various other pulmonary diseases often limited workers to careers spanning only months. 

But overall, Comstock was the dominating financial event of the 19th century. From 1859 until 1882, the official amount taken out of the Lode was $305,779,612. equal to approx 3.5 trillion in today's money.

But what has gone largely unnoticed is the politics of that day-- or more importantly, the lack thereof. Between 1865 to 1900 was a period of undistinguished presidents; and a time when politicians have been basically forgotten in American history.

But perhaps we should honor these unknowns as heroes now; they may have been some of the shrewdest, most important politicians of all time, because they stayed OUT OF THE WAY. 

Indeed, it was the laissez faire attitude of those days that had enabled America to 'leapfrog' England, and become the world's richest nation by 1900.

But what if the radical liberals in today's Congress had been dominate in Washington back then (1850-1870)?

What if there had been an environmental lobby to protect the Western forests? What if there had been mining safety laws to..."prohibit the devastation of our treasured western lands." What effect would that have had on our history?

And what would have become of the California gold rush if Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) had been the Speaker of the House?  There would have been no gold rush!

Pelosi would have pushed through a bill to...."stop the mining of the streams" because..."it might harm the Sierra dove-tailed mountain blowfish," or some other hapless creature that might have stood misfortune.

And what would have been the fate of the Nevada Comstock Lode if Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had been under siege from environmental groups? He would have shut down all legal claims in the territory because..."mining was inherently dangerous...and too many lives would be lost working in such dark and dangerous conditions."

There would have been no Comstock Lode silver bonanza!  Radical environmental groups would have urged Reid to ..."stop the destruction of our Western woodlands" and ..."eliminate the toxic threat to the water table by run-offs from underground tunnels."

Indeed, the fate of our country would have been ENTIRELY different; the South would probably have won the Civil War.

And besides no California gold rush, or Comstock silver strike, would there have been a transcontinental railroad? Of course not! Because..."too many valuable trees would be sacrificed for the thousands of railroad ties." 

And for the rails? "All the iron and steel made in the eastern regions would contribute to the fouling of the air, and the warming of the planet."

Doesn't it all sound ridiculous?

And today, is the political climate in Washington DC any less ridiculous? How much worse has the quality of life become in America (in only the last decade) now that the radical environmentalists have seized control --how's that been going for America?

Schumer; Boxer; Durbin; Frank; Dodd; Markey; Hoyer; Waxman; Baucus—what they (and the other leftists) are doing basically amounts to the economic blackmailing of America; and by keeping them in power, we enable these knaves to stifle America’s modern day Comstock Lode buried deep underground- our domestic oil!

Haven't these odious leftists damaged the wealth of America enough? Look at the economic destruction they have already wrought upon our country:

Nancy Pelosi has blocked all Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted! For what? The Sierra Club? Greenpeace? Earth First?

We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles, or energy expansion in Alaska, or in the Gulf of Mexico; or to encourage new  R&D for high technology and pharmaceutical advancements; for grants toward hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas, which would spawn a bounty of new small businesses-- creating a plethora of innovations-- and a bounty of new jobs that would accompany it all. 

The list is endless.

But Earth First; Green Peace; the Sierra Club-- do they drive gasoline cars? Don't they fly on fossil fuel-powered airplanes? What contribution do they make to society other than the millions in secret campaign contributions to these liberal traitors? Could the Congressional left survive politically without the covert co-operation of these "agencies?"

And where is the sacrifice from them that they require of us? Where are their contributions to the environment; where is their concern for global warming? Do they not drive around Washington in chauffeured limousines? Do they not fly around the globe in chartered jets?

And worse--why does the media ignore their arrogant hypocrisy?

Is radical Islam America 's number one enemy...or these radicals in Congress?  If they had existed 150 years ago, would there even be a United Sates? And if they continue to promulgate these traitorous environmental policies-- by the next generation-- will there be anything left of our country's economy? Like the ancient Roman empire, and early 20th century England-- are we about to become the next great nation to decline and fall?  

In 1995, Bill Clinton—under pressure from the environmental lobby-- blocked oil exploration in ANWAR; and there was no "squawk" because oil was at $12 barrel. But since then, the price of oil has increased seven-fold, and the price of American gasoline has more than tripled. And in these last 14 years, how much of America’s wealth has unnecessarily been passed along to OPEC? 

Since 1995, the rate of discoveries of oil fields in the U.S. has greatly decreased; and it seems unlikely that any new large fields of oil and gas will ever be found again--unless these radicals are defeated!

The U.S. trade deficit on net petroleum imports was $48 billion in 1995, which was about 30% of the total trade deficit (and 7% of total imports). And last year, when the United States broke its 20-year record for oil-import dependence, few voices (republican or democrat) were heard decrying these outrageous (and unnecessary) levels.

If we were to go into energy expansion mode, the DOE estimates that 828,400 jobs in the U.S. economy would result by the resumption of offshore drilling-- and a gain of $13.4 billion in tax revenues/royalty payments would flow to state and federal treasuries; money that could be used to bailout bankrupt states (California-New Jersey-Michigan). 

High oil prices are at the root of high gasoline prices. As the world's demand for oil keeps growing, oil prices will invariably keep rising, and that increase has been reflected at American gasoline pumps-- and continues ruining the quality of life in our nation.

Since 1995, estimates of the costs to the U.S. economy--due to dependence on foreign oil imports-- are in the vicinity of $17 trillion, about as large as the sum total of payments on the national debt.

This is an incredible wealth transfer abroad; and money that will never return

If Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in ANWAR, America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia .

Yet Congress will have none of it; and Saudi Arabia (plus our other sworn enemies) will continue to literally bleed us dry of our precious wealth, while Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Leahy, et al. will continue to live the life of the rich and famous, as they hide behind their environmental shields-- wielding their swords of economic fascism-- and continue to slash our economy to pieces.

One of the great mythological tales of the stock market involved Joe Kennedy, father of our late, beloved 34th president, John F. Kennedy.

By 1929, it was commonplace for shoeshine boys who worked near Wall Street to give stock tips. They would overhear their customers' conversation, and pass it on to whomever cared to listen.

And as the old storyline goes, Mr. Kennedy had made a killing in the roaring 20's bull market, and was believed to be one of the very few who had managed to preserve his gain by selling before the crash.

Supposedly, Mr. Kennedy had happened into a shoe shine parlor where stocks were being discussed; and, after surmising..."when shoe shine boys enter the market, its time to get out," and allegedly sold out his position just ahead of "Black Tuesday" when the market crashed.

Or so the myth goes; but the reality is quite another story in itself.

Think about it; has any mortal investor in the market ever been able to call an EXACT top, or buy in at a precise bottom? The answer of course is a resounding no! No one in history has ever been capable of timing the market-- that would be fortune-telling.

And neither Joe Kennedy, nor any of the other large investors-- who started the decline in late October '29 -- could have known they would be touching off the most cataclysmic financial event in American history.

Once myths start, they take upon a life of their own. But despite the liberal license of Kennedy's story, it does bear some resemblance to reality:

Instead of his "shrewd insight", it was sheer luck that, on October 29, 1929-- Black Tuesday-- Joe Kennedy had been at the right place, at precisely the right time. He actually had made his fortune on Wall Street the exact same way most "smart" investors always had done-- by trading on insider information, and 'bending' the rules.

Mr. Kennedy had befriended a shoe shine boy who worked at a parlor nearby the New York Stock Exchange, where the CEO's, who ran the large N.Y. banks, would get their shoes shined after breakfast. At that time bankers had access to their customers' deposits, and were the ones who made the large block trades which influenced the market's direction.

The shoe shine boy would overhear all the talk of the "big shots", telling Mr. Kennedy (who would walk in precisely at 9:15 AM) just what they had discussed-- all he would need to know.

Kennedy-- apprised of what stocks would be moving that day-- would pay off "floor runners" (those who submit trades on the floor of the NYSE) to "front run" his order. His trade would be placed illegally, preceding the huge "buy" orders of the big shots; and upon market opening, this "strategic" placement would, of course, spike up in value, and Kennedy would have a surefire profit when he sold later in the day.

Over a period of time, Kennedy (along with bootlegging imported Irish scotch) quickly got very rich; and there was no SEC around to detect any foul play back then.

But after several years-- one morning in late Oct. '29-- the shoe shine boy had some startling news: "Mr Kennedy, I overheard all the big banking gentlemen, and they said they're not gonna buy any more...they're all gonna start selling everything!" Kennedy abruptly jumped off his chair and ran to the exchange to place sell orders (on the opening) for every one of his positions-- and had "gotten out in time."

Indeed, it was sheer luck that enabled Kennedy to get out "at the top," and why, in 1933, he became a presidential advisor to his good buddy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who appointed him as the original head of the newly-established SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).

After all, if you were to start a home security company, whom would you hire for advice? A house burglar!  And correctly figuring Kennedy knew all the unscrupulous ways to play the market, Roosevelt  appointed him to formulate many of the rules that are in place to this day, protecting investors from the dishonest, who are in the business of stock-brokering.

And so, the myth that Kennedy knew "just when to sell" persists to this day.

But truth be told, in 1929, most Americans didn’t play the stock market, but kept their savings in banks. It was the failure of small banks-- along with rising unemployment-- that caused the bulk of the suffering during the early 1930's.

In fact, if you ask the "old-timers" who lived through that period, there are many anecdotal stories of angered people who, having been refused the withdrawal of their savings (to prevent a "run" on their bank) would later return with firearms, holding tellers and bank presidents at gunpoint until they got their money, or were arrested by the local sheriff.

Another persistent myth of the late 20's concerned "ruined investors, jumping en masse out of skyscraper windows" and plunging 50 floors, until they came to the inevitable sudden stop that awaited them at street level.

Actually during that period there were 23,000 suicides nationwide, but they occurred over a span between 1929-1933 until FDR was sworn in, and restored hope.

However, a few documented cases exist where despondent investors had actually jumped from windows, which started the whole myth in the first place; but they were both few and far between:

A vice president of  RCA (Radio Corporation of America ) jumped to his death from the window of a Manhattan hotel. His suicide note read, "We are all broke. Last April I was worth $100,000. Today I am $24,000 in the red."

Another person was reported to have jumped from an upper floor of the Plaza Hotel in midtown Manhattan, the day after the market tumbled. Will Rogers, the great humorist, picked up on the incident, and included "jumping out of windows" in his radio routine for a number of years-- and so the legend began.

Winston Churchill (by sheer co-incidence) was visiting New York in October 1929, He was awakened the morning after Black Tuesday by a crowd outside the Savoy Hotel, writing..."under my very window a gentleman cast himself down fifteen stories, and was dashed to pieces, causing a wild commotion and the arrival of the fire brigade," 

On October 29th, 1929, the Dow dropped 69 points to 230. And bad as that day was for the market, it got worse; it didn't bottom until August 1932 when the Dow hit a low of just 63-- all the way down to where the Dow had begun in 1896-- a total wipeout. 

But will history repeat? Could this be the dawn of a new, and even more prolonged bear market-- yet another total wipe out?

A wise man once said. "a fool and his money are soon parted."

Throughout the years, any "smart money" trader in the market knows that the "little man" (small investor) invariably buys in at the "top"; and whenever that occurs, it's time to SELL.

And ever since the1920's, experienced traders (like Joe Kennedy) have played hapless small investors for the fools they did not intend to be. And along those lines, we recall yet another relevant quote: "When a person with experience meets a fool with money; the man with the experience walks away with the money; and the fool with the money walks away with the experience" (origin unknown).

So now let us introduce the one, well-practiced hypothesis of investing that has led many an unsuspecting lamb (the small investor) to the slaughter-- the "Greater Fool Theory." 

This "theory" basically suggests that one can pay much more for an asset than it's actually worth, and can be explained rather succinctly in Wall Street parlance:

The Greater Fool theory is best described as... someone who buys something at a certain price, for no other reason than the belief that they will-- in time-- be able to sell it to some other sucker for an even HIGHER price.

And besides stocks, (like any bubble) the theory could also apply to the real estate market (such as the recent housing fiasco).

One will readily invest in anything, as long as he (she) knows they can sell it at an even higher price-- to an even greater fool.

Question: what is a stock (or property) really worth? Answer- whatever someone else (a greater fool) is willing to pay for it at that time.

The point remains: stocks are not only priced on their earnings; they are priced on what people believe they can sell them for. Hence the "Greater Fool" theory always prevails.

The internet bubble of the late 90's is a prime example of just how many small investors (sheep) had "over-invested" their entire life savings, only to lose it all, and thus, fulfilling the "scriptures" of the greater fool theory-- which is timeless.

There were hundreds of high-tech enterprises, all introducing new technologies in computers, software, and information services. NASDAQ companies with big prospects saw the price of their shares run up thousands of percent in just a couple of years. Some stocks would double in only a week; a few were up 5,000%.

But this bumper crop of greater fools couldn't see the possibility that one day, the bubble had to burst. The bear market of the early 2000's, having wiped out the many thousands of new "paper millionaires," left them feeling indeed, like greater (and greedy) fools. 

But now, after the calamity of Autumn '08 on Wall Street, the "little guys" are again creeping back into the market with "toe in water", yet to be the next wave of greater fools. 

Small investors-- who nervously sold stocks last fall (or otherwise avoided the market)-- have been "lured" back by a two-month rally, beginning in mid March, carrying the Standard & Poor 500 index 37 percent higher.

But if you were to ask any truly experienced trader their "gut" feeling, the recent upward move from 6800 to 8600 is..."nothing but a bear market rally."

The question remains:is this most recent recovery (from the March lows) the beginning of the next big leg up? Is this the "real one"-- marking the true end of the bear market of '08-- or just another very large, and deceptive-looking bear market rally?

Some of the largest and most intense bear market rallies in Wall Street history occurred after the crash of 1929. And given the outlook for the next few years, it portends the making of yet another sucker play, where experienced traders buy in for the short term, and then sellout their positions to the ready crop of greater fools who now "sheepishly" have returned to the market.

Bear market rallies can be brief, intense, and explosive to the upside. But they tend to be especially vicious, after having lured everyone back in, and then cruelly dashing them on the rocks of despair.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has bounced an astounding 30% from its March 9 low of 6547. But there are mighty big hurdles to clear. You can have a "jobless recovery", which can spark a bear rally; but a profitless recovery always ends bad-- or perhaps in disaster.

No matter the propaganda from the Department of Labor, or the so-called "professional economists," or the stock-market TV pundits, corporate earnings are either sub-par, or non-existent.

And given the intense anti-business policies of  Barack Obama-- which mimic those of Franklin D. Roosevelt 80 years ago-- the stimulus has been an anti-stimulant, Congress' latest budget projects a $1.84 trillion deficit, and the current administration has fabricated the most tax-happy, anti-investor climate since the 1930's.

California is dead broke, health care may be nationalized, cap and trade will bump up electric bills and gasoline prices by 30%-- not to mention that GM and Chrysler are bankrupt.

Has NBC found a replacement for Jay Leno to host the "Tonight Show"?

They only need look to our Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner (one of America's fastest-rising comedians) who, while in Beijing, recently told the Chinese..."Stand with us; we're doing all we can to protect the value of the dollar!"

Despite the uproarious absurdity of Mr. Geithner's pledge (con job), apparently the Chinese weren't much amused, with their $1.3 TRILLION in U.S. currency reserves now at risk to inevitable hyperinflation, as the U.S. Federal Reserve continues to churn out more paper money than in the entire history of Parker Brothers (creators of the game "Monopoly").

Picture the hapless situation of Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao:

After years of China's putting its "full faith & credit" in the United States, and buying reams of our AAA-rated treasury bonds, out of the blue comes Barack Obama on television ("60 Minutes") happily proclaiming..."deficits don't matter"...and predicting..."trillion dollar deficits for years to come." 

So is it any wonder that the U.S. dollar has now begun to head south, and along with it, the value of U.S. Treasury "T-notes" (bonds)?

The Chinese-- plus our other large creditors-- have now leaned away from purchasing (financing) our debt, and-- more ominously-- going so far as to suggest the creation of an alternative reserve currency as a hedge against the feeble dollar.

Evidently, world credit markets have had enough of  Mr. Geitnhner's con job.

The values of  U.S. T-notes have begun to fall in recent weeks, and  fears of inflation are now at the point where interest rates are being forced ever-higher to "bribe" the Chinese (et. al.) to go along with Geithner's appeal, and keep up their accumulation of  U.S. treasury bills.

Chinese economists have long fretted that at some point, the world would eventually lose its willingness to finance America 's rocketing national debt, as foreign bankers become ever more disdainful of our proclivity to consume far more than we produce.

And now, that point may have been reached:

Last year's turmoil in U.S. mortgage markets has profoundly shaken the world's faith in the resilience of the dollar-- more so than the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, or even the terror attacks of 9-11. 

While most economists just recently would have dismissed the prospect of an outright dollar collapse, they now are debating the possibility that something on par with the debacle of the 1970's (when Nixon declared the dollar would "float" and no longer be backed by gold) might just happen again, and set off rampant inflation.

If the U.S. currency does begin to inflate rapidly, the Federal Reserve will find itself in between the proverbial  "rock-and- a-hard place," forced to either ratchet up interest rates-- which strangles the economy-- or alternatively, let the dollar fall, and watch prices of imports (and eventually, competing domestic goods) rise sharply; therefore, touching off even more inflation.

But even worse, Fed chairman Bernacke's reckless running of the printing presses has also raised the prospect of an unprecedented historical nightmare; one that could befall the United States in as little as the next 3-5 years-- a hyper-inflationary depression!

Currently, the only factor keeping inflation under control is a lull in American consumer spending; and the continuing reduced demand for imported goods portends an ongoing period of deflation.

But the storm clouds on the US currency horizon are gathering--and fast: 

Standard and Poor has put Great Britain on "watch". England's credit rating is about to suffer its first downgrade since 1914, as the country's debt approaches 100 percent of gross domestic product. 

The world's bond markets reacted with stunning surprise, taking U.S. Treasury bond yields up 1.5 percent for the year, and the 30-year long bond toward an astounding 5%.

In "plain English" this meant that the credit markets see no problems for the U.S. dollar in the short term (hence, the lower short term interest rates ), but down the road, there is now rampant fear of dollar inflation.

Attention has now suddenly focused on the possibility that-- like England-- the United States might lose its prized triple-A credit rating, placing additional calls for either large "defensive" interest rate hikes, or else trigger massive selling on the world's credit markets-- a possible collapse in both U.S. Treasuries and U.S. dollar values.

The world's investment community cannot easily be conned!  Obama's insane budget deficits will do nothing other than to hasten the end of the U.S. domination of the world's credit markets, which go back some 95 years to the onset of the first World War.

There is an inevitable, inescapable dollar crisis coming.

At some point, as the U.S. continues to print unbacked currency, our foreign creditors may no longer accept paper dollars because they are just that-- paper!  They may demand gold instead of payment in dollars.

Traditionally it  has always been the policy of the Federal Reserve to protect the banks-- not the dollar; but if we look beneath the rhetoric of Geithner, it's apparent that the Fed is now more concerned about “inflationary expectations” than inflation itself; and the Obama administration has deliberately misled the public about what inflation actually does, and how fast it’s happening.

And as the  U.S. continues to go along its merry way of importing everything, and exporting virtually nothing (other than software and entertainment) what then? The value of the U.S. dollar eventually becomes little more than a confidence game.

EXAMPLE: what makes a 100-dollar bill any different from a one-dollar bill, other than Benjamin Franklin's portrait vs. George Washington?

Answer- NOTHING. The only difference one is worth more than the other is simply because people say it is; ergo...the "confidence game."

This situation, where specie (i.e. gold or silver) no longer backs a nation's currency, is defined by the term "fiat money" ("fiat" is a Latin intransitive verb that means "it is" or, "it exists").

Fiat currency is simply the printing of notes (out of thin air) with no intrinsic value. The "confidence" is that the country's money is "valuable" because of its economic and military strength-- thus allowing the removal of gold and silver backing for its currency.

And as the U.S. prints new dollars at an unprecedented rate, you would normally find depreciation in its value because of dilution. But this is where the "con" played by Geithner has come into play:

Up till now, confidence in the Fed's ability control inflation has ben reflected by low, short-term interest rates; but to control the 30-year "long bond" (the  real indicator of inflation) will eventually become impossible; and rest assured, this will trigger hyperinflation.

Multiple choice question (select the best answer) 

Hyperinflation is usually triggered when:

a) Government spending as a percent of GDP approaches 40%

b) There is a large amount of government debt owed to foreign interests

c) The country has undermined its industrial base.

Answer: all the above

Every single example in history-- all the way back to Rome-- reveals that hyperinflation always begins during a deflationary period, combined with a rapid increase in the money supply, coupled with a rapid loss of confidence in the system.

So how can it be any different this time? As Obama continues to undermine our industrial base, and borrows from the Chinese to finance his insane deficits, what now happens? If the dollar's value sinks to the point where it can go no lower, and our recession deepens...then what?  
 
Then it's time to to break out the Kruggerands or Sovereigns (gold coins) hidden in the cellar, because American money won't be worth the paper it's printed on, and we enter a hyperinflationary depression-- a possible scenario where the U.S. might never recover.

Obama's reckless monetary policies are setting the scene for unprecedented disaster. Over time, this excess printing of money is akin to money growing on trees, and it will eventually destroy the value of the dollar in a wave of hyperinflation.

And without some economic miracle, we are headed into an inevitable downward, and irreversible spiral.

Despite the Obama administration's haughty portrayal of U.S. economic invinciblity, the immutable laws of economics cannot be repealed, even by the "Chosen One" himself.

Back in pre-war 1937, Messerschmitt (the famed German aircraft manufacturer) began designing a long-range bomber. The massive, 4-engined plane (designated the Me-264) would carry a bomb load of 11,000 pounds, and would have an astounding range of 12,400 miles-- long enough to reach America.

According to historians, Hitler--when shown a mock-up of the plane early in its development--became highly enthused about the project, declaring..."Such a bomber would at last, stuff the mouth of arrogance across the sea" (President Franklin Roosevelt).

Despite this, in the late 30's, the Me-264 only got intermittent support from the Nazi government, who thought more of the idea of medium range bombers, in support of a rapidly-advancing, "blitzkrieging" German army.

But by late 1941, the priority of the Me-264 project suddenly changed; Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering (chief of the Air Ministry) got serious about attacking America's eastern coast from France. 

Messerschmitt was contracted to build six prototypes of the Me-264: and if they met requirements, the German government would order an additional 44 planes for use against the United States.

Initially, Hitler saw the plan as a way to bomb New York City because of its Jewish population, and its many retail stores that were Jewish-owned.

But Goering reminded Hitler that-- just as the British 4-engined Lancaster bombers were inflicting great damage at Essen, the home of the famed Krupp Steel Works (Germany's heart of industrial production in the Ruhr Valley)-- the true way to strike at the United States would be to destroy its industrial heart: the Great Lakes region.

Hence, instead of trans-Atlantic flights originating from France, Germany would capture bases in Iceland, giving the long range M-264 bombers the ability to hit Detroit and return safely.

But the British (who had no idea of Hitler's idea to strike America) were themselves being critically endangered by German air attacks (based from Norway) on their convoys, and invaded Iceland before Hitler could act.

A German airbase in Iceland would have meant surefire defeat for Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic, and would have given Hitler his most coveted objective of the war-- the chance to destroy "America's Ruhr Valley"-- Detroit!

But because of the British bombing onslaught (beginning in late 1940, and later on by the Americans in 1942), the Messerschmitt factories were forced to churn out only Me 109 fighters for air defense; and the leveling of Detroit was "tabled" to little more than a languorous daydream in Hitler's mind.

But now, we have his Royal Arrogance, Barack Obama, who-- in just 4 brief months-- has managed to accomplish what Hitler could not do in 4 long years...complete his own successful attack on America's Motor City.

If Detroit collapses from a now-jeopardized GM and Chrysler, the U.S. could be destined to end up like 1945 Germany--completely de-industrialized, with its economy in total shambles.

With the government now in control of 70% of GM, and Chrysler absorbed by Fiat, the U.S. could experience an overseas job migration as never before, if Obama's "hurry-up" auto industry reorganization fails to go as planned.

First in line would be Ohio, who'd lose an additional 160,000 jobs; and Michigan as many as 140,000. And job losses nationwide would climb an estimated 1.3 million higher from the five million already lost since the last quarter of 2008.

Currently, U.S. steel plants are operating at 38 percent of capacity; tire plants are at 50 percent.  And should the U.S. auto industry go down, the steel and rubber industries inevitably will follow suit.

Once the de-industrialization of America is underway, it stands little chance of ever being reversed, as surviving auto manufacturers-- seeking to avoid uncertainty-- will immediately look overseas to China (and other countries) for their steel, auto parts, and all the other "spin-off" products necessary to assemble automobiles- all would now become imports.

Last January, U.S. Steel's "Great Lakes Works" (located in Encorse, Michigan) temporarily shut down because of declining demand-- one of eight plants that U.S. Steel has partly or completely idled across North America.

And General Motors-- forced by the government into drastic cost cuts-- plans to close 16 U.S. manufacturing plants, while increasing imports from China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea- all with the blessing of Obama, who will support the idea with federal loans. 

Of course this bespeaks volumes about Obama's hidden objective -- by de-industrializing America (and stripping the private sector of its economic power) it will consolidate Obama's political power in Washington D.C.-- perhaps even permanently.

And if Obama succeeds in destroying Detroit, the economic crisis quickly spreads to the rest of the Great Lakes. And as the auto industry goes, so goes America.

But recall how a true American hero once handled an equally bedeviling problem in Detroit a generation ago: 

In 1978. Lee Iaccoca  was hired by a nearly-bankrupt Chrysler Company to deal with its crisis of that time; making large, clumsy-looking cars nobody wanted, and a rapidly-hemorrhaging market share to GM, who had, in1977, released their highly-successful "B"-bodied line of cars that Americans were buying in droves.

Iacocca persuaded Congress to lend Chrysler $1.5 billion, mandated layoffs, WAGE CUTS, and plant closings, and moved to the more fuel-efficient "K cars" he had himself designed.

Iacocca then crafted an aggressive advertising campaign that introduced his crowning achievement --the Chrysler Minivan-- the most brilliant vehicle introduction in America  since Iaccoca's original masterstroke... the 1964 Mustang. 

Within a few years Chrysler was showing record profits, Iacocca had become a national celebrity, and was even being urged to run for the Whitehouse.

Of course, if Obama was acting in the best interest of our nation, he could have used his unique talents of "persuasion" to deal with the auto industry as Iacocca had done before, striking at the heart of its basic problem-- the UAW.

Obama could have easily wielded a stick-- "requesting" that a stubborn UAW (and its pensioners) "share in the sacrifice"-- and could have proposed a temporary cut in wages and pension benefits for say, the next 2-3 years.

This would have dramatically cut the costs of U.S. cars, and made them competitive with the foreign manufacturers , enabling GM, Chrysler (and even Ford), to recapture market share and return them all to profitability.

And by 2012, the UAW would then receive their carrot-- a huge, end-of-the-year, tax-free bonus, making everyone happy, and giving GM and Chrysler a model to renegotiate contracts, and assure their competitiveness well into the future.

But Comrade Obama chose to espouse the only economic law he understands -- government control of everything; and GM and Chrysler will be forced to make little "green cars" that no one will buy, and hence, doom them to eventual ruin anyway.

And hapless American consumers will be left with few options: either keep their old cars, or be forced to buy them from overseas manufacturers, keeping the economy in constant state of downward momentum.

But once again, it begs the question... why would Obama INTENTIONALLY tank the economy? Simple...Obama 's ruthless ambition knows no bounds! He will take NO chance of ceding power in the Whitehouse, having witnessed what's happened to other 1- term presidents that have come (and gone) before.

In 1992-- despite his brilliant direction of the first Gulf War-- George Bush Sr. fell victim to Speaker Tip Oneill's con job, and raised taxes.  And to the democrat's surprise, the ploy worked beyond O'Neill's wildest expectations-- slick Willie Clinton became the ultimate benefactor of the clever scheme.

So, taking a lesson from history, Obama knows even if he DID revive the economy robustly, an unforeseen foreign policy crisis (North Korea or Iran, etc.) could render him-- ala Jimmy Carter-- a one-term president.

Even a scandal uncovered from his esoteric political origins in Chicago (or from his association with ACORN) could destroy his grand plans.

Thus, with a horrible economy, and an ever-expanding "out-of-workforce," Obama will have a ready-made democratic voting majority-- they'll have no other chioce but to re-elect Sir Arrogance, who'll be the one now signing their "paychecks."  

During the early stages of his presidential campaign, Obama's soaring, inspirational rhetoric was reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, as he quickly garnered enough popular support to wrest the nomination away from a heavily-favored Hillary Clinton.

But just as Lloyd Benson humbled an arrogant Dan Quayle in the V.P. debate of October 1988; deep down inside, an arrogant Barack Obama-- devoid of foreign policy experience (or patriotism)-- knows he's indeed, no John Kennedy, but rather his alter ego, America's first-ever anti-president.

In 1961, President Kennedy openly stated that..."Americans were being taxed too much", and drastically lowered business and personal income taxes, while concomitantly expanding the federal defense budget.

America's economy then went into huge expansion mode for the entire decade of the 60's.

And after his extraordinary heroics in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, who knows? Kennedy was so beloved that he may have gone down in history like Franklin Roosevelt-- the Constitution might have been changed unanimously by Congressional acclaimation, and Kennedy would have served his third and fourth terms.

But Barack Obama (the anti-Kennedy) has his own marxist plans to keep power in the Whitehouse.

Short of blundering America into an unplanned war, Obama- now having destroyed Detroit-- will continue to lay environmental wreaths on the doorsteps of the energy, steel and other heavy industries- then move onto his final objective:

As long as the private sector continues to go down-- and people become more impoverished-- Mr.Obama maintains political power, and could care less about the economic calamity that he wreaks upon America...a "foreign" country that he never grew up in. 

THOUGHT FOR TODAY:

"You can live in your car-- but you can't drive your house." (circa 2008)

After gas prices rose insanely in the fun summer of '08, Americans saw their disposable income flowing down the filling pipe of their gas tanks, as $75- $100 SUV and truck fill-ups sapped the economic life out of American households everywhere.

Many cash-strapped, debt-laden Americians-- forced into abandoning their houses-- began living in their SUV's & RV's, parking them at Walmarts around the country, reminiscent of the "Hoovervilles" of the 1930s.

Americans, beseiged by the downturn, now turned to insurance policies, retirement funds, or even pawn shops to keep afloat. 

Everyone suffered at the hand of expensive foreign oil imports. Companies-- forced to trade profits for higher energy costs--began lay-offs, as cost-cutting became a necessity for survival.

Consumers-- after their savings, credit card limits, and retirement accounts were bled dry-- faced severe household budget crunches, and the mortgage-default "great foreclosure parade" had begun.

America had been hit below the belt. Freedom to travel was now held hostage to the gas pumps; and as consumer spending dried up, the economy headed south.

And then, to add insult to injury-- because of the Dummycrat's foolish rush into corn-grown ethanol-- food prices took off, reminiscent of the incredible inflation of summer of 1973, when President Nixon removed his wage & price controls.

And since the downturn of '08, little has changed since.

But don't try telling that to Barack Obama. And as he travels around the country in "campaign mode" -- living the life of the rich and famous-- does he seem worried about the average American?

In a speech to his Beverly Hills sycophantic (brownie) audience, Obama proudly hailed..."The economy has fallen back from the brink!"

But while Mr. Obama yukked it up with his Hollywood swinger crowd, many Americans are wondering if their economic picture will ever see the light of day again.

At a Cleveland jobs fair, 6000 people stood in a serpentine line around the city's convention center, competing for an available 500 jobs.

In Elkhart Indiana, a manufacturing town making RV's, employment is approaching 21%.

The nation's unemployment rate--supposedly a LAGGING economic indicator-- hit a 25-year high. The April number of  jobless claims rose to seasonally adjusted 637k, up from a revised 605k from the previous week. 

Around the country there has been a rash of small bank failures -- the canary in America's "economic coal mine" is singing an ominous tune. 

Despite rock-bottom prices (portending future stagnation), the huge backlog of foreclosed homes on the RE market is not being cleared-- there has been no bargain hunting. In normal times, opportunists with money would’ve moved in and taken advantage of this so-called "bottoming." 

But these are NOT normal times: even the wealthy --knowing Obama's personal tax calamity awaits them-- are holding back. Hence, the foreclosed homes will stand vacant; and so will the recovery.

But listen up everybody...here's the main reason why the U.S. economy may not recover for another decade:

In the corporate world, we have nothing but fear itself, and may already have entered a period that could be termed a "stealth depression."

Like Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's (and his disdain for the private sector), Obama's reckless violation of the Chrysler bankruptcy pact-- where he trashed the rights of the secured bondholders-- has set an ominous precedent: fear in the capital markets-- the lifeblood of American corporate financing.

QUESTION: Why would any rational investor purchase a corporate bond, knowing that at anytime, Obama-- with  gestapo-like interference-- could step in and declare the deal null & void-- forcing one to settle for pennies on the dollar if the company went 'belly-up'.

This is having (and will continue to have) an Orwellian effect on corporate credit markets for years to come. 

In "normal" times, companies finance their operations by floating bond issues, all which receive standard "investment quality" ratings, such as aaa. AAA. aab, etc. 

EXAMPLE: lets say GM had an idea to copy the smashing success of Chrysler's revival of its 1970 Dodge Challenger, and wanted to resurrect the GTO-- GM's original muscle car, introduced in the mid 1960's.

This would require capital, and the company would go to the "commercial paper" or bond markets, procuring the money to retool up their factories to produce the new car.

That's basically how any company operates. It requires borrowing---and the main source is the corporate bond market.

But here comes Barack Obama; and now, his thuggish bullying of the Chrysler debt holders has all but destroyed the integrity of the ENTIRE corporate bond market. 

Secured creditors (the bondholders) -- who should have been first in line in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement-- have suffered disastrous losses, having been forced to "sacrifice" for pennies on the dollar, in order that Obama might appease his UAW, who unlawfully, received a better settlement.

What Obama has done is akin to blackmail, where a legal contract is now no longer valid, subject to the whims of the government.

In the warped economics of the Obama administration, "sacrifice" supersedes legality; and the effects will be lasting and deep, as all future potential investors will think twice after witnessing  this new "precedent."

And --acting as if nothing's amiss,-- Mr Obama now crows, "we've stepped back from the brink", implying (ala Herbert Hoover)..."prosperity is just around the corner!"

But lurking around the corner is economic reality:

Americans-- in fear of the down-sizing bogeyman--are afraid to spend.  

Companies, having jettisoned all their 'fat', are down to cutting their muscle: management and key employees now find themselves on the unemployment line. 

And were about to receive the final coup de gras... a tax increase!  The greedy dummycrats in congress are now out to hang the economy completly out to dry with the VAT (value added tax).

So where is the possibility of a recovery? Only in the mind of Obama.

And the calamitous loss of auto jobs from the Chrysler & GM fiasco is the icing on the cake. The nations' manufacturing base will shrink to new lows.

Each auto assembly job supports anywhere from 6-8 "accessory jobs"; so Obama's paring of auto jobs (and retail dealers) is sparking a rolling recession in auto part suppliers, salespeople, mechanics, designers, engineers, managers, and a plethora of other job categories--all contingent on auto-manufacturing.

And what about all the other large and small companies who remain unable to obtain financing? What possible expansion can they accomplish, strangled in the tourniquet of Obama's insanely socialist anti-business policies?

There will be no recovery! The wealth-producers-- who create jobs-- are under attack! Obama's raising their taxes, cutting off their supply of capital, and all the while, keeps expanding the government workforce.

Government produces no wealth-- it only absorbs it. The great sponger generation of the government workforce is now weighing heavily upon us

Government workers' salaries now average $75 000/year, including full medical, paid sick days & vacation, and they can retire at FULL salary in their early 50's.

In April the BLS ( Bureau of Labor statistics) released their figures-- 611,000 jobs lost in the private sector, while government at all levels ADDED 79,000!

This is government growing at a mind-boggling, 13% monthly pace (although much of the spike reflected newly-hired census workers). But now, we see where the real recovery lies; all on the backs of the private sector, whose incomes are shrinking, their taxes rising, and who see little hope for the future.

And as government workers --who produce nothing-- continue to sponge (with ther fat salaries, aristocratic benefits, and obscene pensions), they will eventually kill the goose that laid the golden egg, as the U.S. economy continues to hemorrhage jobs, and wealth continues to be tranferred from the producers to the leeches.

Just look at California, then we'll have an idea of where the rest of the country will be in the next 3-5 years.

Meanwhile, Obama blithely speaks about some ethereal hope on the horizon, pretending that his stimulus plan is working, (play "Prince" music) and acting like we should be celebrating like its "1999".

"Power to the people!" This hit song was penned by John Lennon in 1969.

At the time it was considered just another typical hippie "protest song" against authority; but its title actually was more elementary of what our Founders had intended when they wrote the Constitution.

The Constitution sought to limit federal power to basic rights and to maintain order; but the ultimate power was to be with the PEOPLE, who would elect representatives (the "republic" form of government) to express their will in Washington DC.

But after 235 years, we are witness to an ominous reversal: more than at any other time in our history, power is rapidly reverting from the people to Washington.

140 years ago, the Reconstruction Period followed the Civil War; but it could be better known as the period where the re-construction of the American economy took place in a way the world had never seen before.

This was the era when America experienced its first great economic boom-- the rise of the first great generation of emerging inventors and entrepreneurs-- enabling the U.S. to supersede England as the world's richest country.

During 1866-1900, there was an amazing burst of economic expansion due to the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of that glorious period.

The Civil War had all but bankrupted the Union; but England (then the wealthiest nation) would supply much of the capital that drove the great post-war economic expansion of the railroad, steel, oil, mining, manufacturing, and agricultural industries.

The innovations in all of these would not have been possible without European capital.

Everyone would profit because of their own ideas and initiative. European capital providers knew their investments would be "maximized'', free of any government regulation or taxation. Thus, the U.S. was where all the world's investment capital flowed, because it was where one could realize the maximum profit.

By 1900, America was now world's wealthiest country, which would lead to yet an even greater period of economic expansion: 1920-1929.

During World War 1, the U.S. was the arsenal of "plutocracy".

From 1915 to1918, America's wealthy "merchants of death" siphoned billions from the warring European countries, as both the Allied (England-France-Russia-Italy) and Central Power nations (Germany, Austria-Hungary) were at the doorsteps of our munitions and armament industries, swamping them with purchase orders.

Dupont; Colt; Browning; Remington (et.al.) sold black powder, explosives, rifles, pistols, artillery shells, machine guns, ammo belts, bullets, bombs, etc., as fast as they could be manufactured.

By the end of the First World War, America had now become a super-rich country, and ready for its second post-war boom.

The U.S. no longer needed to seek overseas investment. Because of its newfound wealth, America now had its own domestic capital supply, and it would be  placed it where it could multiply into an even stronger investment pool --the stock market.

Once again, free market capitalism unleashed a second incredible economic expansion-- the roaring 20's

From 1919 to1929-- unencumbered by the government-- entrepreneurs again emerged and created a huge employment boom, a huge innovation boom, and a huge capital boom-- all financed by the great decade-long expansion of the stock market. 

Republican presidents (Harding and Coolidge) cut taxes & spending; thus the entire available capital pool of the period was utilized for private investment.

By1925, unemployment was 3%. New inventions and consumer goods became mass produced. Cars, appliances, radios-- the media & entertainment industry-- all  flourished as never before.

But by 1929, greed had  become rampant. Rabid stock market excesses (margin trading abuses) caused Wall Street to crash, and Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) emerged and took the U.S. in an entirely different direction:

For the first time, power began shifting back to Washington; and predictably, the socialistic whims (political uncertainty) of FDR prevented private business and entrepreneurs from stepping forth again to pull the country out of depression-- which would last until the next world war.

Then, yet a THIRD post-war boom emerged after 1945:

The U.S. again had found itself in an ideal position: American industry had the "only game in town". After the Second World War, the rest of world's manufacturing base lay in ruins.  

America would again draw the plurality of the world's investment capital, and other nations had no other option than to purchase their manufactured goods from the USA.

Detroit began going like gangbusters. Fortune 500 companies emerged. Consumer booms in autos, housing, retail, education, appliances, television, pharmaceuticals, all would make America the envy of the world.

The boom would continue almost unabated for 6 decades .

But like FDR 70 years before, Barack Obama emergered; and once again, he takes America in a different direction, posing yet a second, and more ominous danger to free market capitalism than his predecessor of the 1930's.

Obama-- seeking control of the banks, insurance, health, and auto industries-- is now targeting the energy industry, fulfilling his pernicious objective as our nation's first anti-president: depriving America of its primacy, and ultimate source of economic power-- free market capitalism.

Of course this begs the question: Why would a sitting president be out to destroy the basic driver of our economy?

Answer: This is how our anti-president will ultimately consolidate total control-- the Obama econo-political "domino theory."

As Obama tranfers wealth from the private sector to Washington, private industries disappear, unemployment rises; and now-- deprived of their wealth-- people are deprived of their choices, and therefore, making them dependent on Washington.

Simple isn't it?

Once this rising "class" of federal dependents tips toward 50% of the electorate, Obama and his democrats will retain power for a second term, and THEN, the true dictatorial aims of Mr. Obama will emerge:

a) Amnesty: Obama-- in giving all the illegal aliens the full rights of citizenship --will give them the vote.

b) Now the democrats-- with a permanent voting majority-- will retain power for perhaps the next fifty to seventy five years...or longer. 

c) Obama-- now in complete control during his second term-- will seek a constitutonal amendment (which will resurrect the halcyon days of FDR)  giving Obama his third and fourth presidential terms.

The Obama triumph now stands complete; he will have consolidated total power, holding it until he sees fit to no longer "serve."

Is Barack Obama about to sing the swan song of our economy...his undeclared war on free market capitalism? After his assumed re-election in 2012, would anything stand in his way to finish off the private sector, leaving it in a final "post-war" state of ruin?

Tax the corporations! Send them offshore. Tax the smokestack industries that "pollute". Tax the energy companies into oblivion, because they are "too profitable". Put them ALL out of business! Let our chief export become the billions we send to OPEC.

Obama's anti-business, pro-government, class-warfare doctrine is a total anathema to what our Founding Fathers originally intended for the American people, when they wrote the Constitution.

And is this anything different from what the European Marxists accomplished during the early 20th century?

Subvert the educational system-- change the textbooks-- poison the young about their country. Seize control of the unions; procure the manipulation of the media; propagandize the people-- tell them their country "is no longer what it once was". Corrupt elections. Drive a wedge between the masses; and complete the triumph of socialism over our about-to-be lost way of life as a once-free nation.

Ta da! Great news on the "green energy" homefront. Barack Obama wants to make America the Saudi Arabia of battery producers!

Recently, he announced his goal aimed at turning the U.S. into a "battery-manufacturing powerhouse" exclaiming...(quote) "Battery-powered, plug-in cars are Detroit's future, and will be instrumental in saving and creating jobs in the auto industry."

And now that Obama has said the word "Batteries," there has been a virtual stampede: 

The U.S. Department of Energy has been accepting a blizzard of applications for $2.4 billion in funding, with the objective of creating new incentives for building "renewable energy" vehicles.

Companies vying for the federal money include GM, Dow Chemical, Johnson Controls, and A-123 Systems-- a battery-maker subsidiary of GE. States such as Michigan, Kentucky and Massachusetts are also weighing in with applications.

In a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, Obama is offering billions in government 'carrots' to encourage private industry to set up battery plants in rust-belt areas, and bribing everyone into going along with Washington's green energy "auto revolution."

But not so fast there, Mr. Obama:

As the old saying goes; you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink-- or think.

Does our humble President actually think Americans are going to scrap their beloved, gasoline- powered vehicles, just because he says so? We shall see.

Obama, the Green Lantern master-salesman of the electric car boondoggle, is packaging the idea as some high-tech, great leap into the future, and a viable solution to the "dirty," fossil fuel, pollution-spewing machines that we all drive today.

Mr.Obama paints such a pretty picture about electric cars-- just plug 'em in and GO!

But stop and think for a minute; just like you plug in your cell phone at night to re-charge, just how advanced are electric cars ?

Alexander Volta, the great physicist, was born in Como, Italy on February 17, 1745 ; and after returning from a scientific conference in Vienna in 1799, he came up with an idea, and designed the first battery-- and little has changed since.

That's right; the futuristic, high-tech electric car that Obama is touting is based on 18th century technology that remains stuck in time. No matter the source of the power carrier-- lead, nickel, or lithium -- it's still just a battery.

And electric powered cars -- a bunch of batteries "lashed" together-- are nothing more than golf carts designed for road duty.

These so-called green electric cars of the future will create far more problems than they solve, and will be an anathema to the lifestyle Americans have come to love over the last 95 years:

POINT- you can't just get into your electric car and take-off for the hinterlands. No matter how hard the engineers try, a battery is a battery-- it can only deliver power for so long (40 miles), and then you run out of juice.

POINT- electric cars are dangerous. They run silent, posing a threat to pedestrians, runners, the sight-impaired, and cyclists .They really need an outside speaker (or something) blaring fake engine noise, just so that people can hear them coming.

POINT- electric cars are structural lightweights. If you get T-boned at an intersection, you'll be headed for the cemetery instead of the emergency room.

Or how about if you get stuck in a winter blizzard on the way home from work? You can literally spin your wheels until you become frostbitten. If the battery goes dead, so might you if the temperature is below zero.  

And how about the other inconveniences of winter? Your teeth will chatter while scraping the ice off the inside of the car windows, because to make a powerful enough heater/defroster, it would flatten the battery charge and reduce its limited range even more.

POINT- electric cars have scant room. You can't keep a golf bag in the trunk, or expect to go to the grocery with the kids on weekends. Baby sitters become mandatory for large families on certain days. 

POINT- once your batteries become low, and you come to a steep hill, the electric car becomes the little engine that couldn't .You'll need to take a detour.

POINT- electric cars are not a boon against pollution. With every one shouting about hybrids and pure electric cars, let's not forget where the electricity comes from: fossil fuels; and most likely from a coal-generated power station, which coughs out thousands of tons of so-called "poisonous Co2."

POINT- if everyone does switch to an electric car, it would be like going backwards--a vehicle that travels only 40 miles, yet takes 8 hours to re-charge. The equivalent load of an plugged-in electric car is similar to that of running your dishwasher or air conditioner for 8 hours at peak rate.

Picture the nice surprise when you get your electric bill: That **&^%#$!* Obama!  I knew I shouldn't have listened to him about his stupid environmental subsidy, and got rid of my old car! This battery-powered thing is *%^$#@!!**

POINT- there is another problem with electric cars... the price. These death-boxes are incredibly expensive! Obama will need untold billions in federal subsidies to bribe Americans into these ugly, little monstrosities.

POINT- electric cars are the classic chicken- egg conundrum. At the present, there’s nowhere to re-charge these things. Hence, no charge points makes ownership impractical, while no electric cars makes it uneconomic to build charge points.

Has Mr. Obama given much though to that? Apparently not. How can something that has to be constantly plugged in, be described as convenient? It can't! Electic cars will shock Americans back to reality; they'll rue the very day they ever decided to drive one.

POINT- after traveling 40 miles (easily done in less than 1-2 hours), it will necessitate having a second, GASOLINE car in the driveway for most drivers; one for commuting, and one for "other" days.

SUMMARY:  Electric cars are too small, too underpowered, and too expensive. Americans today are "large" people; they need something that they can get themselves (and the family) into.

So no matter how much the media, Obama, the environmentalists, the politicians (or whomever) tout them, Americans will reject electric cars in droves; and like the Cubans, they'll hang onto their old cars until they literally fall apart-- effectively killing this "new" industry before it even gets started.

Used car dealers, repair shops, auto-parts stores, etc: prepare for a bright future in the new era of green-energy Obamanomics.

CONCLUSION--unless someone works out a cheap, clean, and very fast-charging battery technology that allows drivers to use filling stations exactly as its done now, switching to electric cars will pose too great of an economic & cultural hurdle-- and 95% of Americans will be unwilling to take the leap.

For the government to throw so much money into such an outlandish, ill-considered scheme (intended to overturn an entire existing infrastructure) shows that Obama is either blatantly obtuse, or is out to overthrow our conventional auto industry for his "Giant Green" energy folly.

"BOOM"...North Korea explodes yet another underground test of its nuclear capability--the largest to date.

"MEOW"...President pussycat Obama fires back with his predictable warning..."The United States and the World Community must take action in response!"

Once again, our Appeaser-in-Chief has struck trepidation into the hearts of renegade dictators everywhere, threatening them with the one thing that that they truly fear the most-- a STRONGLY-WORDED  United Nations' resolution!

North Korea is undoubtedly quaking in abject horror--- panic-stricken by the thought of a doomsday, worse-case scenario-- economic sanctions!

What a co-incidence; it seems like only yesterday that the North Koreans had literally DARED anyone to stop their now-triumphant test of a 3-stage ICBM.

And having successfully done that, Kim Jong Il will be able to market his "wares" to the Syrians, Iran, and other radical governments, to finance further his dastardly program of regional black mail, and continue to keep the nuclear pot on fast-boil.

Predictably, whenever liberal presidents are faced with foreign policy challenges, they always open up the democratic playbook, and stop abruptly on the first page: "A"-- appeasement.

In 1978 Carter appeased Ayatollah Khomeini, and we got radical Islam.

In 1993, Clinton did not respond forcefully to the World Trade Center bombing (nor the Cole incident), and we got 9-11.

And now, not having responded to North Korea's recent missile test, we get Jong's most grave threat to date.

In 1962, it was a democrat, John F. Kennedy, who avoided a possible nuclear war with the Soviets by rejecting the easy way out (appeasement), and delivered a decisive threat -- a blockade of Cuba. Then, it was Nikita Khruschev who blinked, and little was ever heard from him again.

Of course, in today's politics, Kennedy would be considered a "radical right-winger," and his policy of force would have been met with a flood of liberal criticism for..."putting the ENTIRE world at risk."

But what has Obama done by his refusal to confront Kim? He's inviting the very thing he seeks to avoid...a possible war, resulting from the brinkmanship of a tin-horn dictator, whom-- by his inaction-- Obama continues to elevate ever-higher on the world stage.

History is replete with examples of those who stood up to threats, versus laying low with inaction.

In 1988, Moammar Khadafy decided to enter the terror game, and was directly responsible for downing an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.

But what would have happened then if President Reagan had decided to "act with the World Community" (done nothing)? Would that have stopped this madman from engaging in further perfidy?

But Reagan acted unilaterally; and in a Kennedy-esque show of strength-- after bombing Mr. Khadafy's home-sweet-home neighborhood -- our Libyan friend was quick to decide that early retirement from the terror game would be optimal for his continued health.

What if Obama  had actually displayed a spine, and blown up Kim Jong's last missile test on the launchpad? What could North Korea have done in retaliation? Nada-- absolutely nothing.

Having done that, Kim Jong would have lost credibility with his military, and gone the way of Khadafy (and Khruschev)-- never to be heard from again.

Backbone is not a part of the democratic foreign-policy playbook. It has been replaced with negotiation--indicating weakness-- a sure invitation for future "disagreements."

And moving along to the next player of the brinkmanship game-- Mamoud Ahkmadinejad; as Obama continues to play Mr. Rogers with the Iranians, what then?

Examine the mind of this so-called "madman." Analyze the real Ahkmadinejad stategy:

As he continues to menace Israel ( making one outrageous threat after another), it's all part of the cover: the real Iranian agenda moves forward-- the looming, inevitable subversion of the entire region-- winning the Mideast war "without firing a shot."

While Obama continues to be waylayed by Ahkmadinejad's nuclear bluster (and focuses on when/if  Iran has nuclear weapons in the future), officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain all complain about what Iran is currently up to within their own countries --political subversion.

The Iranians have taken the "CIA concept" to new heights-- scattering hundreds of their agents around the region-- covertly spreading Shiite Islamic beliefs in Sunni-majority countries.

But the Sunni countries have competent security forces of their own, and are fighting back effectively in this spy-vs-spy, undeclared Arab war:

Morocco recently severed all diplomacy with Iran in March.

Egyptian officials-- using their  top-notch counterintelligence-- recently accused Hezbollah (Iran’s proxy force in Lebanon) of sending agents to Egypt to set up networks of terrorist cells; charging that Iran is going all-out to subvert not only their country, but the entire region. 

The Iranians continue to act with impunity:

They have sabotaged reconciliation between Palestinian factions; are instigating uprisings against the Egyptian government; and are roiling domestic politics in Sudan, Chad and other neighboring countries;

In the biggest surprise of all, Iran denies ANY meddling in other Arab nations' affairs, as Obama looks on passively, offering "carrots", with never a mention of any sticks.

And as Obama fiddles, the Mideast will continue in a slow burn, as America renders itself oblivious to actual Iranian threats...and everywhere else.  

Iran-- knowing pussycat Obama's tendency to negotiate --now has carte blanche to import more centrifuges from Russia, keep manufacturing more weapons-grade uranium, and all the while, surreptitiously moving forward with the export of its revolution into the rest of the Sunni countries.

As the liberal media continue to rant away about "this crazy, madman Ahkamadinejad" and his "insane threat to destroy Israel,"  we are falling right into his clever trap.

 Is Mr. Ahkmadinejad really crazy? Sure-- crazy like a fox.

Why would he consider the folly of nuking Israel, when it would destroy the neighboring Palestinians, as well as render the entire region into a Chernobyl-like nuclear wasteland for years to come? 

And as Obama (and his attorney general) treasonously act to de-claw our CIA (and continue to render it toothless) we'll continue to have more of these "unexpected" surprises.

We have no idea of what's actually going on Iran, nor any clue of what North Korea’s doing; and no concept of the actual threat of the Taliban in Pakistan, or how far along they might be toward seizing the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Even if Obama DID decide to act, we have no idea where the Pakistani nukes are located, and wouldn't be able to destroy them before the Taliban arrived first. And then WHAT?

Jimmy Carter all but destroyed our CIA in 1977; and pussycat Obama is out to finish the task, feeling that by de-fanging the CIA, we are showing the world that… "it's American ideals that make us safe."

Safe? From what? History has shown that appeasement is provocative-- it always invites attack.

After Chamberlain appeased Hitler at Munich, was there peace?

And after Franklin Roosevelt appeased Stalin at Yalta, all we got was a brief, 40-year period of Cold War.

As Obama continues to toss diplomatic spitballs at these despots, the rest of the western world-- as they look to Washington for leadership- will continue to get nothing but nuclear brinkmanship, and yet another unnecessary future war.

With a nuclear North Korea in the Far East threatening South Korea and Japan, and Iran in the Mideast likewise threatening that ENTIRE region--what then? Peace in our time?

By the end of 1780, the "southern front" of the American Revolutionary War was in total disarray.

The Americans had been humiliated at the battle of Camden. The Brits controlled the Carolinas. Nathanial Green was bottled up near Charlotte by the "British Tiger"--Colonel Tarleton-- the feared commander of Cornwallis' famed Dragoons (the "special-op forces" of the redcoats).  

But now, the Americans were to begin their comeback, led by perhaps America's most underrated military hero of all time, Virginia's Daniel Morgan.

George Washington was the man who led America's revolution; but Daniel Morgan was the one who saved it. America's "upset" over General John Burgoyne at Saratoga-- opening the way for the French to enter as allies-- was in large part due to the heroics of Daniel Morgan.

In 1776, the Continental Congress voted to establish special brigades comprised of frontier sharpshooters. Daniel Morgan was appointed Captain of the Virginia brigade, and had directed his riflemen masterfully under Benedict Arnold during the war's early battles in the north. 

But unlike Arnold, Morgan cared not for ceremony, promotion, fame, or fortune-- his satisfaction lie in his dedication, patriotism, and his determination to fight on for his country until the final victory had been won .

Both commanders--although they lived 2000 years apart-- possesed the same rare abilities: supreme confidence, the abilty to sum up an opponent's weakness, and then choose (use) the topography of the battlefield to win improbable victories against overwhelming odds

And also like Alexander, Morgan was masterful at intelligence-gathering, and believed in knowing his opponents thoroughly before engaging them.

Daniel Morgan was America's original "out of the box" military strategist:

Unlike contemporary tacticians, Morgan would place his weaker troops up FRONT, and the strongest troops in the REAR--- which is exactly what was to take place at the storied Battle of Cowpens.

In late 1780, a Carolina militia force (commanded by William Campbell) defeated a contingent of British regulars at the Battle of Kings Mountain,

General Cornwallis, who had been resting his troops-- upon hearing of the embarrassing loss--now decided to again go on the offensive, and undertook plans to search out & destroy Nathaniel Green’'s southern force once and for all.

But the haughty Cornwallis was about to discover otherwise. It was to be Daniel Morgan who would thwart his plans.

December 1780: Daniel Morgan is promoted to Brigadier General by his commander at Saratoga, Horatio Gates, and ordered to join forces with General Nathaniel Greene near Charlotte.

After reporting for duty, Greene assigned him 770 men for a hit & run action. Morgan was to annoy & maraud the enemy, buy time for Green to rebuild his main force, and above all, AVOID any direct confrontation with the enemy (which risked big losses).

But when Morgan's tactics had become apparent, an incensed Cornwallis sent Colonel Tarleton’s vaunted Dragoons to destroy the American "marauders," with a detachment of 1100 men.

But Morgan, having talked with locals who'd fought Tarleton-- and discerning he was vastly overrated-- decided to disobey orders.

After 2 weeks in the bullseye of Tarleton's hot pursuit, Morgan changed course on January 16, 1781, and marched his men along the Pacolet River, having received word he could hook up with a local militia force nearby.

After an all-day march along the river, Morgan stopped at a clearing and declared "Halt...we make our stand here."

Morgan's plan was to take advantage of Colonel Tarleton's impulsiveness (and disdain for militia), as well as the terrain Morgan had chosen: a 500-yard stretch of land, separated by two hilly eminences, stretched 100 yards apart in front of the river:

Tarleton's odds were overwhelming: 500 hand-picked British Dragoons, three times the number of Morgan's cavalry, and an overwhelming advantage in artillery.

But Morgan knew his marksmen's Kentucky rifles--with an effective range of  350-400 yards, vs. the 60-yard range of the British "brown-Betty" muskets--- would more than even the odds.

After dusk, on the night of January 16, about 150 local militia arrived from Spartanburg, plus 50 additional volunteers.

Morgan knew his officers were battle-tested and ready; but to have any chance, the general needed to convince his militia they too could be "trusted to perform like any good soldiers."  

Morgan inherently understood the psyche of raw, untrained militia; their tendency was to talk bravely, but would usually flee at the first sight of advancing Redcoats in precise formation, bayonets drawn, with the crashing noise of artillery firing behind them.

This was the reason Morgan chose Cowpens-- he knew that with their backs to the river, the militia could only run so far, and would have to fight for their lives--or die like cowards.

That night, General Morgan--forgoing sleep-- went around to every militia tent and campfire, making them feel they were as important as any of the uniformed men under his command, knowing that if he talked to them like experienced soldiers, they would likely perform that same way on the battlefield.

After making sure his militia & volunteers were sufficiently warm and fed, Morgan made a stirring appeal to their gallantry..."Hold up your heads boys, all ye need do is give me 3 volleys and you're free! And upon returning home, how the old folks will bless you, and the women will kiss you!"

It would turn out to be one of the most effective pep talks in military history.

Morgan-- a master of battle psychology-- not only had been able to peer into the minds of his volunteers, he correctly surmised that the cocky overconfident, Colonel Tarleton would be "drunk with confidence", especially when faced with an apparent rag tag militia standing "alone" on the battlefield, .

During the night, Morgan sent patrols to execute his initial feint...they were to "accidentally" engage Tarleton’s advanced guard, and give them a sense that the Americans were weak, fearful, and in retreat.

Next, Morgan met with his officers and laid out his master strategy: an upfront "skirmish line" comprised of Georgia riflemen--hidden in pine trees-- were to fire once then fall back to support the militia, and fool the attacking dragoons into a trap, like waving a red cape at a bull.

The militia line would fire 3 times, then fall back in apparent retreat uphill toward a second line, comprised of Continental Army regulars, and flanked by the cavalry. All would be hidden behind the hillcrest. 

Then, about 100 yards to the rear, lurking behind the second eminence-- a third line, comprised of South Carolina marksmen-- were to lay concealed, and be at the ready. 

Morgan's prescient strategy would succeed beyond the Americans' wildest expectations:

As the battle began at sunrise, it was 900 Americans facing 1100 redcoats-- plus heavy British artillery.

As expected, Colonel Tarleton led the initial charge; but upon seeing his men around him fall from sniper fire, Tarleton at once shouted for his main body of Dragoons to advance under cover of an artillery barrage, and charge toward the militia force standing upright along the first battleline.

But the militia executed like seasoned vets; and within less than 100 yards of the British advance (told to aim the officers), they cut loose with a deadly first volley, which temporarily stymied the Dragoons into disarray

And as Morgan correctly had planned, the militia-- after firing 3 volleys-- began their "sucker" retreat, turning and firing as they fell back.

Tarleton --thinking he had the won day-- immediately ordered his cavalry into all-out charge, and right into the hidden 400-man force of  Morgan's regulars, who suddenly appeared at the first hilltop, and delivered a withering volley of musket fire- creating a virtual killing zone of fallen redcoats!

But Tarleton's troops, initially deceived, regrouped, and a bloody confrontation ensued, as volley after volley of American fire cut down the now-faltering Redcoats.   

Tarleton, sensing defeat, now committed his reserves, who--seeing the slaughter ahead--seemed hesitant to rush forward.

But General Morgan -- seeing opportunity-- shouted, "Now's your chance boys! They're falling back!"

The Maryland cavalry on the left charged forward, cutting a large swath through the faltering British line, and rode to their rear. And to Morgan's sheer amazement, the aroused militia joined the cavalry in combined pursuit.

Tarleton now committed his final reserves, who formed a second advance, and it was the Americans who now were being slowly forced back toward the river.

Morgan-- blessed with non-pareil battle instincts-- instructed his remaining cavalry on the right to parry forward, then quickly "flee" back toward the river-- a brilliant maneuver that would prove to win the day.

The British-- now suckered twice by Morgan's clever feints-- charged all-out toward the river at the 'retreating' cavalry, while just behind the crest of the second hill, the Carolina sharpshooters suddenly emerged on cue, and fired into the surprised British at point-blank range-- with devastating effect. 

Now, the remaining redcoats who could still fight, suddenly chose to turn and run.

Morgan then thundered "Charge," and hand-to-hand fighting ensued. 

American bayonets were now at the hearts of the fleeing British, and the Maryland cavalry-- in a Napoleonic-like pincer move-- closed up ranks from the rear and delivered the final coup de gras.

Suddenly, it was all over-- an amazing, improbable American victory had been won.

And by this time, the British artillerymen had fled for their lives, enabling Morgan to capture the battle's unexpected bounty-- the prized English 3- pound cannons, making the American rout complele. 

Morgan had his militia take charge of the prisoners, and sent his cavalry in fierce pursuit of Colonel Tarelton, one of the few lucky Brits who had managed to escape.

The battle proved to be costly to the English in not only quantity, but quality-- their losses were the very best of Cornwallis' troops...his prized English Dragoons.

In a brief but poignant victory dispatch, Daniel Morgan would write to his commander, Nathaniel Greene:

"Dear sir;

The troops I have had the honor to command, have gained a great victory over a detachment from the British army; under command of Colonel Tarleton. The action was on 17th January, at the instant of sunrise, at a place called Cowpens, along the Pacolet river.

I am dear sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Morgan."

Cowpens, a classic military victory, proved to be the one of the most critical of the Revolutionary War: American morale was revived, and an entire British force had been captured.

The British lost 910 men--210 killed and 700 taken prisoner-- as well as all of their supplies--and most critically, their prized 3 pound artillery pieces, that would soon be employed against Cornwallis himself,  playing a seminal part of the seige-like bombardment that ultimately forced him to surrender at Yorktown.

The American casualties were astoundingly low-- 12 killed; 61 wounded.

Although it did not involve many people, Cowpens began the direct chain of events that culminated in the final American triumph to win the War of Independence.