Think About It

Alternative Energy - Will it Solve the Energy Crisis?

 With oil costs increasing and supplies becoming more problematic, our Congress and politicians are talking a great deal about alternative energy.  This, of course, will come in two different types: 1) Energy to power cars, trucks, airplanes and other vehicles.  2)  Energy to generate electricity, which in turn can be used for home heating and general power.  There is lots of pie in the sky talk about alternative energy, but in which direction should we move to produce the fastest results?  We, of course, can start drilling in the Artic and offshore, but that will take an estimated 10 years to get any appreciable results. 

OK, alternative energy for vehicles.  Most experts are saying Ethanol is good for less than 10% of our fuel needs.  With its unintended consequence of causing food shortages, it looks like the Ethanol craze will have a short life.  Hydrogen Fuel Cells look very promising, but there is the matter of gearing up for their manufacture, and there is the matter of refueling them.  Where?  Electric cars look promising, but the battery technology hasn’t advanced to where it needs to be for commercially viable vehicles.  McCain made his famous $300 M offer for the first inventor to come up with the right battery, but who knows how long that will take.  And of course this will have no effect on semi-trucks, aircraft, trains, ships, buses, and so on.  And this doesn’t address the needs of the military, which is no small item.

Energy for electricity.  The Green people like solar and wind energy, but the percentage of its contribution to the overall energy production in the U.S. is quite small.  Solar hasn’t proven to be terribly effective, and wind turbines are expensive to install and maintain.  There is also lots of local opposition to wind turbines.  Ask Teddy Kennedy.  This leaves nuclear power plants.  The U.S. only has about 100 of them and none has been built in the last 30 years.  France, meanwhile, gets about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power plants. 

Questions:

What will be the dominant alternative energy choice to power vehicles – and why?

What will be the dominant alternative energy choice to fuel power plants – and why?

Will our alternative energy development come in time?

Europe's Energy Crisis - Obama are you Listening?

If Americans think they have it tough when it comes to filling up their gas tanks, they should be thankful they don’t live in Europe where gas can cost as much as $8 a gallon, with diesel prices at nearly $10 a gallon.

Part of the problem (Obama are you listening?) is that European drivers pay the highest gas taxes in the world.  In the UK, 65% of the pump price is TAX.   The high price of diesel is reportedly driving a number of haulage companies out of business.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, following American conservative’s leads has called for European Union (EU) cuts in fuel sales taxes to help consumers, noting that as fuel prices have shot up, so has the tax take.  And just like in the U.S. EU liberals are complaining this would drain public coffers and merely benefit oil producers.

Meanwhile EU officials are going hat-in-hand to Turkmenistan to ask them to increase their exports of gas to Europe.  And the EU, like many in the U.S. are scrambling to switch to renewable and alternative fuels.  Only one problem (Obama are you listening?) It won’t make a significant difference in fuel supplies for many years.

Next, the EU like the U.S. has asked OPEC to increase oil production.  That didn’t work any better than when we asked.

Questions:

With the price of gas being so much higher in Europe, will their economies collapse before ours?

Will they be able to get enough oil from Russia to make up the difference?

Will their alternative fuel program outpace ours?

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

1 Can we lose this war?
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of
some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned-- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .. and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

U.S. Congress Votes to Sue OPEC

The price of oil hit $133 today, but not to worry, our Congress is speeding to the rescue.  Their solution?  Sue OPEC.  The House of Representatives approved legislation by a wide bi-partisan margin that would allow the Justice Department to sue members of OPEC for conspiring to set the price of crude oil and for limiting oil supplies.  The bill would also create an energy task force within the Department of Justice to investigate energy manipulation.

The White House is opposed to the bill as it was with a previous version of the bill.  The Bush Administration says targeting OPEC investment in the U.S. would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction of oil available to U.S. refiners.  The OPEC investment is in U.S. oil refineries, but this investment has been in steady decline for several years.

The White House pointed out that less oil going to the refineries would limit available gasoline supplies, resulting in higher fuel prices.

It appears that Congress is seeking a quick fix to quell the anger of American voters, but they haven’t thought through the long-term consequences.  We are taking a BB gun to hunt Kodiak bear.  This bill, like the BB, will only enrage the bear, and that is bad news for the person with the BB gun.

Questions:

What can the U.S. gain by passing this bill?

How will the OPEC nations retaliate?

How will this affect our relations with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Will an energy task force within the Justice Department be able to make any cases of price manipulation, if so against whom?

Will the OPEC nations be able to cut our supply of oil in that oil is a world commodity?

If OPEC retaliates, how will this affect the November elections?

Kansas Governor Sebelius Vetoes Power Plants

Kansas is emblematic of the war between sanity and the eco-nuts.  At issue are two 700 megawatt coal-fired power plants that were to be built in Holcolmb, Kansas, a small farming town of 2,000 that sits on the plains of southwest Kansas.  The Kansas legislature has tried and failed twice to build the two power plants.  Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius,  backed by the Sierra Club, vetoed the bills.  The Kansas legislature failed to muster the necessary number of votes to override her veto even though riders were placed in the final bill that would have mandated the energy company, Sunflower, to invest huge amounts in wind and solar energy.

The Governor’s veto is especially ironic in light of the sharply rising cost of oil, not to mention its availability.  But, in the most ironic twist of all, the U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world.  America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and has known coal reserves of 275 billion tons, which is nearly twice that of Russia and China.

Coal plant opponents are trumpeting the defeat of the power plant bills, saying this is the turning point at which Kansas will lead the country away from old energy sources toward more environmentally friendly types of energy.  Governor Sebelius, who is frequently mentioned as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, is asking legislators to work with her on a new comprehensive energy policy.

As could be expected, the vote fell along regional lines. Legislators who live in and represent the affected area voted for the bills.  Legislators in the more heavily populated eastern regions of Kansas voted against the bills.

The eco-nuts would have everyone believe that Conservatives love the smell of dirty air and prefer that their children and their children’s children be raised on a polluted planet.

The environmentalists have effectively shut down the building of more nuclear and coal fired power plants.  Solar has proved dicey at best in providing reliable ongoing power, so that leaves us with wind energy.
Wind turbines, as an auxiliary energy source shows some promise, but they are expensive to install - and the wind doesn’t blow all the time.
And, wouldn’t you know it, they are opposed by many environmentalists because they kill birds.  So that leaves us with.......?

As usual, the eco-nuts are long on criticisms, but short on coming up with VIABLE alternatives.

Questions:

At what point, will the people wake up and bring some sanity back to our energy policy?

How long will it take to produce viable alternative energy sources?

Will Obama adopt an eco-nut stance on energy?