Hillary says, "Would you believe, that going into Bosnia (12 years ago as First Lady) our plane crashed in flames from an enemy attack and I had to crawl across the airport runway under sniper fire"? A reporter objects, " But there is record of a crash." Hillary attempts another tack, "OK, would you believe that we landed and I had to duck and run under sniper fire?" The reporter again replies, " But our film shows you standing in a receiving line with children." Hillary, tries again, "OK, would you believe that I bent over to help the little girl reading the poem pick up the flowers she dropped?" Reporter satisfied concludes, "That sounds more like reality." When Hillary recently was caught by the media in a lie about her trip to Bosnia, she copped out with the excuse, "I do a lot of talking. I misspoke for the 1st time in 12 years." Maxwell Smart’s boss in the TV comedy GET SMART know not to believe his bumbling detective. We ought not to believe much of what we hear a politician say. How does one know when a politician lies? His lips are moving.

Would you believe we are living under the smog of toxic environmentalism? I know it sounds as crazy as a first scenario from Maxwell Smart or Hillary Clinton, but unfortunately in this case it’s true. There is no stopping a bad idea whose time has come even if based on a lie. Now that the idea of biofuels has caught on now many environmentalists, who formerly demand immediate use of biofuels, now believe they contribute substantially to greenhouse gases - those responsible for global warming - instead of reducing them, as was previously believed, in part 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. Also, how efficient are jatropha (a shrub), miscanthus ( a grass), corn (you know this American savior) palm oil or pampas grass? It is unclear whether there is enough land or water to keep boosting biofuels’ production at its current rate of increase around the globe. The law of unforseen consequences is at work in the global warming religion. The Devil is in the details With so many challenges ahead for increasing oil supplies, the world will have to get used to relying on biofuels - or another alternative? Or will we? Are there alternatives?

You should believe that the environment and economic impact of global warming is based on a second lie, that government is capable of efficiently running any initiative such as the research, development, implementation or marketing of alternative sources of energy. 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 Naked Emperors, having worked in Washington trying to trim federal spending, that these are 5 causes of waste? 1. Inefficient operations, 2. Inflated overhead costs, 3. Poor administration, 4. Questionable procurement policies, and 5, an array of fraud and abuse. I can. Without a fixed rate imposed on federal spending as part of the economy the problem will never be solved. (Candidates want to add health care and product safety to their failed programs that give only $.25 of every $1). The lie (fantasy) of global warming begs to be abused. Since Government never makes a mistake and a program once begun rarely dies, we’re in for a rocky ride due to the impact of the bad idea of global warming and alternative sources of energy.
What does it mean to be in a "global race for energy?" These four meaningless words to be part of a bargain with the Devil because they sound compulsive while at the same time beg for hope and change. ( vague words echoing from Barak Obama ). Ethanol, for example, 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 notice the increase of in the cost of grocery items such as milk, chicken, beef and eggs? New light bulbs have been mandated more expensive and dangerous (from mercury) than existing ones. Farmers seek higher prices for corn. The auto makers will profit from subsidies too. Even cleanup operations will benefit. All based on a lie whose time has come. Would you believe even the vice-chairman of GE has called the global warming idea "bunk" but will not resist taking its rewards to the bank. And why not? Profit is the name of the game.

A print ad for GE reads that "more and more the global economy needs energy alternatives." The ad shows that GE has developed a biogas engine using "organic agricultural materials." It produces lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels. But at what cost to the company, the stockholders and the consumer? Would you believe that both the automobile consumer and the s taxpayers are willing to pay additional monies for the questionable benefits of energy solutions? Furthermore, if the government keeps taking money out of the pockets of Americans to encourage and subsidize environmental policies and we Americans approve, its’s a win/win situation. GE calls its engine, "part of the blueprint for a better world." I call it a bad idea whose time has come.