A bad idea

Would you believe that Hillary Clinton qualifies as tough on foreign policy because she came under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia 12 years ago as First Lady? Or that Obama was conceived as a result of Martin Luther King’s march in Selma, Alabama and President John F. Kennedy’s efforts to bring African students to this country? When Hillary recently was caught by the media in a lie about her Bosnian visit, she copped out with the excuse, "I do a lot of talking. I misspoke for the 1st time in 12 years." Obama has yet to respond to his lie. When Maxwell Smart tried his "Would you Believe?" line on his boss in the TV comedy GET SMART, his boss knew never to believe his bumbling detective. How does one know when a politician lies? His lips are moving.
So... would you believe we need alternative sources of energy because of global warming? Should you believe meaningless propaganda like America can’t "lose the global race for energy?" No. There’s no stopping a bad idea - energy independence - whose time has come even if it is based on a lie. Our economy runs on oil and will continue to do so for a long time. Energy independence is "hogwash," says Robert Bryce. Oil companies own only 10% of the world’s oil reserves and America has plenty of oil off Florida, on the East and West coasts and especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

The environmental and economic impact of global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases like CO2 from fossil fuels (oil and coal ) is a lie. We Americans are living under the smog of toxic environmentalism. Ethanol is more expensive to produce, pollutes the environment just as or more than existing sources of energy and makes other commodities and foods more expensive. Have you noticed the increase in the cost of grocery items such as milk, chicken, beef and eggs? Britain’s swine production is literally pigging out because global wheat prices have doubled since 2006 because of the rising costs of grain grown for biofuel production. American farmers can’t be blamed for following the money by growing corn for ethanol. Robert Bryce calls ethanol, the "largest scam in our nation’s history." It says it has become "entangled with that other impossible-to-repeal boondoggle, agricultural subsidies." Auto manufacturers and cleanup operations also stand to profit from our "global race for energy." The newly mandated light bulbs are more expensive and dangerous (from mercury) than existing ones. Would you believe even the vice-chairman of GE has called the global warming idea "bunk?" Yet he will not resist taking its rewards to the bank. That’s why a print ad for GE reads that "more and more, the global economy needs energy alternatives." The ad shows GE’s advanced biogas engine using "organic agricultural materials." It might produce lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels, but at what cost to the company, the stockholders and the consumer?

Would you believe the government is capable of efficiently running initiatives such as the research, development, implementation or marketing of alternative sources of energy? Only if you buy into another delusion. If government wastes 76 cents of every dollar collected from the American public via taxes, can we allow the feds to manage environmental spending? Scot M. Faulkner points out in his new book on government spending that government wastes in 5 ways: inefficient operations, inflated overhead costs, poor administration, questionable procurement policies, and an array of fraud and abuse. Without a fixed rate imposed on federal spending as part of the economy, the fed’s spending problem will never be solved. Presidential candidates want to add health care and product safety to the existing failed programs that give back to the public only $.25 of every $1. Since government never makes a mistake and a program once begun rarely dies, we’re in for it when a bad idea like alternative energy sources takes hold.
Would you believe that many environmentalists, who formerly demanded the immediate use of biofuels, now think they contribute substantially to greenhouse gases? What irony! CO2 increases because farmers clear forest land to grow biofuel crops. Deforestation causes a large, quick release of carbon into the atmosphere when existing plant life is destroyed.. Alternative energy sources such as jatropha (a shrub), miscanthus ( a grass), corn (you know this American savior) palm oil or pampas grass are - would you believe - inefficient? It is unclear whether there is enough land or water to keep boosting biofuels’ production at its current rate around the globe. The law of unforseen consequences is at work in the global warming religion. We may be Hell-bent on alternative energy sources, but we cannot control the future use of coal in China (90% of its electric source ) and India or their carbon emissions. The Devil will be in the details.
If you believe that both automobile consumers and taxpayers in general are willing to pay additional monies for the questionable benefits of energy solutions, you approve of a lose/lose situation. GE calls its biogas engine, "part of the blueprint for a better world." What we are building from a faulty blueprint, unfortunately, is a house of cards. Oil, coal and gas are world-wide, plentiful gifts. Windmills, solar panels and ethanol waste the energy of politicians, scientists, pundits and Americans on false promises and premises. Why fall for a bad idea whose time has come?