Did you ever wonder why the New Socialist Progressive Party's, NSPP, agenda includes driving a wedge between those that have and those that don't have as much? hmmmm - this article sheds a lot of light on this subject. It's called 'Class Warfare'.
Notice I didn't use the term 'have-nots' as there aren't very many in this country that fall into that category anymore, especially compared to the rest of the world. And as you might expect, most of us in the middle that are satisfied with our lot in life as are those below and above us.
But there are enough in all class levels that want more but aren't willing to work hard enough to obtain the needed resources to accomplish their personal goals of moving up to the next class. So the asiest way to get what they want is to bring down those that are moving ahead. Another leg of the NSPP agenda is 'income redistrubution".
The philosophy of the NSPP is to feed on this minority of Americans that have this inability to work hard for what they want, convincing them to vote for them and they will crush those with skills to get ahead; those that are motivated by workmanship and those that take pride in a job well done. And it's easier than one might expect because many that find themselves happy with their lot in life see how their neighbor has used the system proposed by the NSPP to get ahead without hard work and dedication. He wonders, 'why not me'?. Why should I work my tail off while this other guy just coasts along with his hand out, feeding off the me and others that pay our own way? Will this happen? Maybe?
And really all he had to do to get the hand-outs was vote for the NSPP and give up pride and country. No big deal - I want mine now so I can enjoy the good life - future consequences be damned. Too many of us are blinded by high expectations and low motivation. The Lotto mentality.
This how the seeds of discontent are spread by the NSPP in a prosperous society.
This article will show how the NSPP agenda, i.e. liberal Democrats, is designed to obtain power and wealth for themselves, while and the conservatives represent the best interests of the population, pride and passion in work well done, taking responsibility for your own successes and failures.
The majority in this country still believes in pride and has a passion for a job well done. Don't allow the NSPP to turn your head - Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc
A legislative proposal that was once on the fast track is suddenly dead. The Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from megamillionaire hedge fund managers.
The decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, surprised many Washington insiders, who saw the plan as appealing to the spirit of class warfare that infuses the Democratic party.
Liberal disappointment in Mr Reid was palpable at media outlets such as USA Today, where an editorial chastised: "The Democrats, who control Congress and claim to represent the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed."
Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich".
More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.
This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.
The next rung of House leadership shows the same pattern. Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer's district is home to the booming suburban communities between Washington, DC, and Annapolis. It boasts almost 19,000 wealthy households and a median income topping $62,000. Mr Hoyer's counterpart, minority whip Roy Blunt, hails from a rural Missouri district that has only 5,200 wealthy households and whose median income is only $33,000.
Income disparity - to use the class warrior's favourite term - is greatest among the districts of lawmakers that lead each party's campaign arm. Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen chairs the Democratic congressional campaign committee. With more than 36,000 prosperous households and a median income of nearly $70,000, his suburban Washington district even out-sparkles Ms Pelosi's. In contrast, fewer than 5,000 such wealthy households are found in the largely rural district of his Republican counterpart, Tom Cole from Oklahoma. The median income there is only $35,500.
Democratic politicians prosper in areas of concentrated wealth even in staunchly Republican states such as Georgia, Kansas and Utah. Liberal congressman John Lewis represents more than 27,500 high-income households in his Atlanta district. The trend achieves perfect symmetry in Iowa. There, the three wealthiest districts send Democrats to Washington; the two poorest are safe Republican seats.
Soon this new political demographic may give traditional purveyors of class warfare the yips. To comply with new budget rules, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill are readying a tax increase of at least $1,000billion over the next decade. Ms Pelosi says she wants to extract all of this from "the wealthy".
When has a party ever championed a policy that would inflict so much pain on its own constituency? At what point will affluent Democrats crack and mount a Blue State tax rebellion?
Will we see the emergence of a real-life Howard Beale, the television anchorman played by Peter Finch in the movie Network ? Beale was disgusted with America's deteriorating 1970s economy and culture. One night he snapped and implored viewers to get out of their chairs. "Go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell: 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more!' "
Or will Democratic voters follow a different cinematic lead, that of the fraternity pledge in Animal House? Perhaps they will accept these tax rises as a political and economic hazing and greet each new tax hike with: "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"
Michael Franc is vice president of government relations for The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Old Democrats - New Socialists - Rust Belt Politics
Thomas Sowell always has the right hammer for the task of hitting the nail - look past the rhetoric and use common sense to decide what is reality - Obama, with 'Barack Shock', has turned real people into sobbing children - I know because I have a woman friend that demonstrated this before my very eyes as she related her encounter when Barack came to town. She didn't faint as far as I know, but was visibly shaking with excitement as she related her experience.
All this doesn't bode well for the majority of us that doesn't see the halo and are scratching are collective heads wonder just what did he say to make such a difference in so many people. As far as I can tell, he hasn't said anything of any substance since he declared he was running for president. It's just saying what ever it takes to win - politics Bill Clinton style.
Whether it's Clinton or Obama giving the speech, the message is the same: we have to take away your freedom to chose your own destiny and give it to those that know what is best for you. People that are much smarter than you and will take good care of your every need. A government that can and will control every aspect of your life.
These smart people will take from those that succeed and give to those that don't - Income redistribution - that's fair, isn't it? Why should you have all of the nice things in life when so many don't - besides, who do you think you are anyway?
Sowell nails the New Socialist Progressives, the old liberal party Democrats, here in his discussion of how they 'destructed' the "rust belt". The unions and old Democrats, nationally and locally, used income redistribution back then as they are trying to do now again. This is reality.
Remember, think about what you want out of your life before you pull the lever in November.
Also keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Rescuing the Rust Belt?*
Policies that promise a free lunch leave you hungry in the long run.
By Thomas Sowell
It is fascinating to watch politicians say how they are going to rescue the “rust belt” regions where jobs are disappearing and companies are either shutting down or moving elsewhere.The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is being blamed for the jobs going elsewhere.
Barack Obama blames the Clinton administration for NAFTA, and that includes Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is “fair trade.” That is election-year rhetoric at its cleverest.
Since “fair” is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for “free trade.” Clever.
We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.
When the American automobile industry was the world’s leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions. Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers’ market share — leading to huge job losses in Detroit — proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.
Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red-tape work rules that added costs. State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes — again, without considering repercussions.
In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost. While American automakers are laying off workers by the thousands, Japanese auto makers like Toyota and Honda are hiring thousands of American workers. But they are not hiring them in the rust belt. They are avoiding the rust belt, just as domestic businesses are avoiding the high costs that have been piled on over the years by both unions and governments in rust belt regions.
In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn’t die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon. But the people who lose their jobs, and who live in communities that decline, need to look beyond the political rhetoric to the grim reality that there is no free lunch.
Many workers in the new plants being built by Toyota and others apparently already understand that. They have repeatedly voted against being represented by labor unions. They want to keep their jobs. Where does NAFTA come into the picture?
International trade is just one of the many ways in which the competition of lower-cost producers can cause higher-cost producers to lose customers and jobs. Technological improvements or better management practices by domestic competitors can have the same result. Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are not being replaced by new jobs.
Rust belt policies that drove out old jobs also keep out new jobs. NAFTA makes it easier for politicians to blame the problem on foreigners. In fact, foreigners make ideal scapegoats for politicians. After all, people in Japan or India can’t vote in American elections.
Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.
All this doesn't bode well for the majority of us that doesn't see the halo and are scratching are collective heads wonder just what did he say to make such a difference in so many people. As far as I can tell, he hasn't said anything of any substance since he declared he was running for president. It's just saying what ever it takes to win - politics Bill Clinton style.
Whether it's Clinton or Obama giving the speech, the message is the same: we have to take away your freedom to chose your own destiny and give it to those that know what is best for you. People that are much smarter than you and will take good care of your every need. A government that can and will control every aspect of your life.
These smart people will take from those that succeed and give to those that don't - Income redistribution - that's fair, isn't it? Why should you have all of the nice things in life when so many don't - besides, who do you think you are anyway?
Sowell nails the New Socialist Progressives, the old liberal party Democrats, here in his discussion of how they 'destructed' the "rust belt". The unions and old Democrats, nationally and locally, used income redistribution back then as they are trying to do now again. This is reality.
Remember, think about what you want out of your life before you pull the lever in November.
Also keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Rescuing the Rust Belt?*
Policies that promise a free lunch leave you hungry in the long run.
By Thomas Sowell
It is fascinating to watch politicians say how they are going to rescue the “rust belt” regions where jobs are disappearing and companies are either shutting down or moving elsewhere.The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is being blamed for the jobs going elsewhere.
Barack Obama blames the Clinton administration for NAFTA, and that includes Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is “fair trade.” That is election-year rhetoric at its cleverest.
Since “fair” is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for “free trade.” Clever.
We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.
When the American automobile industry was the world’s leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions. Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers’ market share — leading to huge job losses in Detroit — proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.
Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red-tape work rules that added costs. State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes — again, without considering repercussions.
In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost. While American automakers are laying off workers by the thousands, Japanese auto makers like Toyota and Honda are hiring thousands of American workers. But they are not hiring them in the rust belt. They are avoiding the rust belt, just as domestic businesses are avoiding the high costs that have been piled on over the years by both unions and governments in rust belt regions.
In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn’t die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon. But the people who lose their jobs, and who live in communities that decline, need to look beyond the political rhetoric to the grim reality that there is no free lunch.
Many workers in the new plants being built by Toyota and others apparently already understand that. They have repeatedly voted against being represented by labor unions. They want to keep their jobs. Where does NAFTA come into the picture?
International trade is just one of the many ways in which the competition of lower-cost producers can cause higher-cost producers to lose customers and jobs. Technological improvements or better management practices by domestic competitors can have the same result. Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are not being replaced by new jobs.
Rust belt policies that drove out old jobs also keep out new jobs. NAFTA makes it easier for politicians to blame the problem on foreigners. In fact, foreigners make ideal scapegoats for politicians. After all, people in Japan or India can’t vote in American elections.
Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
With What and When Will Oil be Replaced?
Good article from the Wall Street Journal on just where we stand on alternatives to oil - certainly we will have something to chose from but for now, in my view, we must drill for more oil and build more nuke plants.
I think when we start paying five and six dollars for a loaf of bread, the general population will believe we haven't found the next best alternative for fossil fuel.
Watch your food bill going sky high and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
In Search of Alternatives - There will be a successor to oil and gas. But what will it be? And more important, how do we get there?March 24, 2008; Page R8*
Investment in ethanol is surging. But how much of a role will it play in powering automobiles?
Vinod Khosla, managing partner of Khosla Ventures, has invested in a number of alternative-fuel ventures. Red Cavaney, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, is cautious about when alternatives can make a big difference.
Messrs. Khosla and Cavaney talked to The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley A. Strassel. Here are edited excerpts.
THE JOURNAL REPORT
Ethanol's Future**
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL:*
"What role will ethanol play in the future? What are its limits, what are its potentials, and how does it fit in with everything else?"
*VINOD KHOSLA:
The way to think about the problem is over the next 15-plus years, we'll ship one billion new cars. When it comes to transportation and carbon reduction in transportation, what technology can get into 500 million to 800 million of these cars, at least, to make any material difference? There's one and only one choice, and that's cellulosic ethanol, because biomass is scalable in a big way, so it has to be the feedstock. You have to start with a scalable feedstock. You have to start with a technology that doesn't cost any money. A car costs the same whether it's flex-fuel or not.Cellulosic ethanol and flex-fuel cars are the only ones that can get to 500 to 800 million cars. So what's the fuel? We need a low-carbon fuel. The only feedstock is biomass.*
MS. STRASSEL:* But right now, we're dealing with the corn-based ethanol industry.
*MR. KHOSLA:* Corn-based ethanol has been a good steppingstone. It has established the market. It's made it easy for me to have 10 different cellulosic ventures, because now it's worth me taking the technology risk, which I would not have taken had the market not existed. But there's no question [about] the kinds of price targets we are talking about -- about $1 a gallon within five years and probably within two. Both oil and corn ethanol will have a difficult time competing in price with biomass-based fuels. In fact, last year, I forecast oil would have to decline to $35 a barrel by 2030 to be competitive. It is the alternative fuel 20 years from now.
*RED CAVANEY:* I think there's no question that there is going to be some successor fuel to oil and gas. The issue is that the transition, for which nobody knows the duration, be managed sufficiently so that the consumer has a reliable supply of fuel so they can continue to rely on automobiles, trains, whatever the case may be. We are presently absorbing as much ethanol as can be made. It does a lot of advantageous things for us. It adds octane to the fuel, gives it more power. It helps us rely a little bit less on having to import into the country.[Image]Vinod KhoslaWe have some challenges, and I think the most important thing that could happen is that we get away from the myths about things and start to deal with the facts.
*MS. STRASSEL:* What do you think the myths are?
*MR. CAVANEY:* That we can move overnight from wherever we are today to cellulosic ethanol. It will take time. [Ethanol] is going to play an important role, but it's got to be a longer transition, and that's why we don't want people to act too precipitously upfront. Let's learn, let's move together, and the right solution for the consumer will end up coming out at the end of the pipe.
*MR. KHOSLA:* Red said that we need an alternative fuel. It may or may not be ethanol, and I think we would probably agree on that. We're working on cellulosic ethanol, cellulosic gasoline, cellulosic jet diesel, cellulosic biocrude. You name it; we're looking at the fuel. And I can't tell you sitting here that cellulosic ethanol is going to be the answer. Fortunately, we were able to change the energy bill to refer to cellulosic fuels, not cellulosic ethanol alone, to allow for the wide variety of experimentation.*A Viable Industry*
*MS. STRASSEL:* Give me a year in the future when you think we're going to have a viable cellulosic ethanol industry.
*MR. KHOSLA:* Starting next year.
*MS. STRASSEL:* Commercially viable?
*MR. KHOSLA:* The first commercial plants that are cheaper than both oil and corn ethanol are targeted to start operation at the end of next year, probably be in full operation in 2010.
*MS. STRASSEL:* 'When you say cheaper than oil, is that standing on its own or with --'
*MR. KHOSLA:* Every time I talk about cheaper, I mean unsubsidized market competitiveness. Whether you get subsidies on top or incentives doesn't matter. Every single effort I talked about is meant to be competitive with oil at $45 a barrel, unsubsidized, within five years.
*MS. STRASSEL: Red, what year?
*MR. CAVANEY: I don't know the exact year, but it's later rather than sooner, not that we won't make the technical breakthrough, not that Vinod's plant won't come on and produce it. But to really have a meaningful impact, you need to get the volumes up.Everybody has a scheme to say, "Well, we ought to go tax the oil and gas industry to fund all these alternative products." We invest more than our total income, and we've done that for decades because we're a capital-intensive depleting industry.So what we want to do is make sure you keep oil and gas there until these other things really can stand on their own, they get the volumes, and as Vinod said, we're not sure what the ultimate successor is going to be. It may be something we haven't even thought of yet.*Chicken and Egg*
*MS. STRASSEL: Don't you have a chicken-and-egg problem here? There are something like 169,000 independent retail gas stations across the country, all of whom would have to decide that they were going to make this big investment to sell ethanol to their customers. If you don't have that in place, people won't buy the cars. If people don't buy the cars, the retail gas industry or anybody in the industry won't want to take the step of putting this out there for customers who don't have cars. Which comes first?
One of the big challanges that we have, of course, is how do you get that product from where it's actually in the refinery to where the consumer is. Of the 169,000 retail outlets that you spoke of, almost 95% of those are not owned by the oil companies; they're owned by individual entrepreneurs who have to make a decision on whether to invest. They're not going to do that till they see demand.
We have a love-hate relationship with the auto, but let me tell you something that we did that we thought was in everyone's best interest and worked it out.We went forward over the last four years and put over $8 billion in investment in ultralow-sulfur diesel. We took 97% of sulfur out of the diesel. It is now the cleanest diesel fuel in the world. We had to do that before Detroit ever produced their first new generation of diesels that they're trying to sell. So we went first, made the investment.
When you look at E-85 [85% ethanol, 15% gasoline], the autos have got to go first because if they don't create the vehicles to get the demand, how are you going to convince those people to make the investment?
*MS. STRASSEL: Why is it different from diesel?
*MR. CAVANEY: Because in diesel, we had to make the investment to go first, and they had to trust us that we would do it to bring their cars along.Here, we're saying the autos have to produce the cars first. It isn't going to all come on overnight, but it can come on gradually.
*MR. KHOSLA: This is the chicken-and-egg question that has to be solved by policy. The three largest U.S. auto makers -- GM, Ford, and Chrysler -- have said by 2012, 50% of their cars will be flex-fuel cars. That's a lot of new cars. And they stood with President Bush and announced that last year. What needs to happen is the oil companies [need] to sign up for a mandate. And there's a very simple mandate on pump distribution that makes sense. You don't want every one of those 169,000 stations to offer E-85. You don't need the mom-and-pop stores to offer it.
Every station that sells more than $5 million of liquid fuel a year [would have] an E-85 pump, if that was the mandate. If you have one E-85 among the 16 different pumps you have, we will cover 25% to 30% of the automobiles in this country. That, with Detroit's commitment, would solve our problem. That's the voluntary commitment we need from the oil companies and their franchisees. Who Pays?
*MS. STRASSEL: Who pays for that? Who pays for that mandate?
*MR. KHOSLA: There are strong federal incentives to put those pumps in. I do believe in the end it needs to be a mandate, and the sense I get is the auto companies would sign up for a 50% flex-fuel-car mandate by 2012 if the oil companies signed up for 10% of the highest-volume pumps to have E-85.
*MS. STRASSEL: Red, do you think that's the case?
*MR. CAVANEY:* There are enough mandates in this business right now that makes it complex enough.This is a big challenge. It's not going to be solved overnight, and even a mandate isn't going to do that. So what we need to do is work together, and I think that's the solution.
*MR. KHOSLA: There is no reason this mandate doesn't make sense. You know, we do have a mandate on what your tailpipe emissions can be. Why not this? Because it is so critical to global security and global climate change.
*MS. STRASSEL: I have been surprised by the number of people I've talked to in the audience who are involved in different forms of alternative technology, who have been a little miffed at the ethanol industry. They feel as though it has gotten the lion's share of government help and support and that its time should be over, that it doesn't actually do enough for global-warming reductions, for instance, and other things. What do you have to say to these people? When will ethanol be set free to do its own thing without government mandates or help?
*MR. KHOSLA: I don't believe we need continuation of subsidies for a long time. I've always said every renewable technology, be it solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, should not get subsidies for more than five to seven years after its introduction in the market. But we need to get competition started. We need competition for oil.
I think when we start paying five and six dollars for a loaf of bread, the general population will believe we haven't found the next best alternative for fossil fuel.
Watch your food bill going sky high and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
In Search of Alternatives - There will be a successor to oil and gas. But what will it be? And more important, how do we get there?March 24, 2008; Page R8*
Investment in ethanol is surging. But how much of a role will it play in powering automobiles?
Vinod Khosla, managing partner of Khosla Ventures, has invested in a number of alternative-fuel ventures. Red Cavaney, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, is cautious about when alternatives can make a big difference.
Messrs. Khosla and Cavaney talked to The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley A. Strassel. Here are edited excerpts.
THE JOURNAL REPORT
Ethanol's Future**
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL:*
"What role will ethanol play in the future? What are its limits, what are its potentials, and how does it fit in with everything else?"
*VINOD KHOSLA:
The way to think about the problem is over the next 15-plus years, we'll ship one billion new cars. When it comes to transportation and carbon reduction in transportation, what technology can get into 500 million to 800 million of these cars, at least, to make any material difference? There's one and only one choice, and that's cellulosic ethanol, because biomass is scalable in a big way, so it has to be the feedstock. You have to start with a scalable feedstock. You have to start with a technology that doesn't cost any money. A car costs the same whether it's flex-fuel or not.Cellulosic ethanol and flex-fuel cars are the only ones that can get to 500 to 800 million cars. So what's the fuel? We need a low-carbon fuel. The only feedstock is biomass.*
MS. STRASSEL:* But right now, we're dealing with the corn-based ethanol industry.
*MR. KHOSLA:* Corn-based ethanol has been a good steppingstone. It has established the market. It's made it easy for me to have 10 different cellulosic ventures, because now it's worth me taking the technology risk, which I would not have taken had the market not existed. But there's no question [about] the kinds of price targets we are talking about -- about $1 a gallon within five years and probably within two. Both oil and corn ethanol will have a difficult time competing in price with biomass-based fuels. In fact, last year, I forecast oil would have to decline to $35 a barrel by 2030 to be competitive. It is the alternative fuel 20 years from now.
*RED CAVANEY:* I think there's no question that there is going to be some successor fuel to oil and gas. The issue is that the transition, for which nobody knows the duration, be managed sufficiently so that the consumer has a reliable supply of fuel so they can continue to rely on automobiles, trains, whatever the case may be. We are presently absorbing as much ethanol as can be made. It does a lot of advantageous things for us. It adds octane to the fuel, gives it more power. It helps us rely a little bit less on having to import into the country.[Image]Vinod KhoslaWe have some challenges, and I think the most important thing that could happen is that we get away from the myths about things and start to deal with the facts.
*MS. STRASSEL:* What do you think the myths are?
*MR. CAVANEY:* That we can move overnight from wherever we are today to cellulosic ethanol. It will take time. [Ethanol] is going to play an important role, but it's got to be a longer transition, and that's why we don't want people to act too precipitously upfront. Let's learn, let's move together, and the right solution for the consumer will end up coming out at the end of the pipe.
*MR. KHOSLA:* Red said that we need an alternative fuel. It may or may not be ethanol, and I think we would probably agree on that. We're working on cellulosic ethanol, cellulosic gasoline, cellulosic jet diesel, cellulosic biocrude. You name it; we're looking at the fuel. And I can't tell you sitting here that cellulosic ethanol is going to be the answer. Fortunately, we were able to change the energy bill to refer to cellulosic fuels, not cellulosic ethanol alone, to allow for the wide variety of experimentation.*A Viable Industry*
*MS. STRASSEL:* Give me a year in the future when you think we're going to have a viable cellulosic ethanol industry.
*MR. KHOSLA:* Starting next year.
*MS. STRASSEL:* Commercially viable?
*MR. KHOSLA:* The first commercial plants that are cheaper than both oil and corn ethanol are targeted to start operation at the end of next year, probably be in full operation in 2010.
*MS. STRASSEL:* 'When you say cheaper than oil, is that standing on its own or with --'
*MR. KHOSLA:* Every time I talk about cheaper, I mean unsubsidized market competitiveness. Whether you get subsidies on top or incentives doesn't matter. Every single effort I talked about is meant to be competitive with oil at $45 a barrel, unsubsidized, within five years.
*MS. STRASSEL: Red, what year?
*MR. CAVANEY: I don't know the exact year, but it's later rather than sooner, not that we won't make the technical breakthrough, not that Vinod's plant won't come on and produce it. But to really have a meaningful impact, you need to get the volumes up.Everybody has a scheme to say, "Well, we ought to go tax the oil and gas industry to fund all these alternative products." We invest more than our total income, and we've done that for decades because we're a capital-intensive depleting industry.So what we want to do is make sure you keep oil and gas there until these other things really can stand on their own, they get the volumes, and as Vinod said, we're not sure what the ultimate successor is going to be. It may be something we haven't even thought of yet.*Chicken and Egg*
*MS. STRASSEL: Don't you have a chicken-and-egg problem here? There are something like 169,000 independent retail gas stations across the country, all of whom would have to decide that they were going to make this big investment to sell ethanol to their customers. If you don't have that in place, people won't buy the cars. If people don't buy the cars, the retail gas industry or anybody in the industry won't want to take the step of putting this out there for customers who don't have cars. Which comes first?
One of the big challanges that we have, of course, is how do you get that product from where it's actually in the refinery to where the consumer is. Of the 169,000 retail outlets that you spoke of, almost 95% of those are not owned by the oil companies; they're owned by individual entrepreneurs who have to make a decision on whether to invest. They're not going to do that till they see demand.
We have a love-hate relationship with the auto, but let me tell you something that we did that we thought was in everyone's best interest and worked it out.We went forward over the last four years and put over $8 billion in investment in ultralow-sulfur diesel. We took 97% of sulfur out of the diesel. It is now the cleanest diesel fuel in the world. We had to do that before Detroit ever produced their first new generation of diesels that they're trying to sell. So we went first, made the investment.
When you look at E-85 [85% ethanol, 15% gasoline], the autos have got to go first because if they don't create the vehicles to get the demand, how are you going to convince those people to make the investment?
*MS. STRASSEL: Why is it different from diesel?
*MR. CAVANEY: Because in diesel, we had to make the investment to go first, and they had to trust us that we would do it to bring their cars along.Here, we're saying the autos have to produce the cars first. It isn't going to all come on overnight, but it can come on gradually.
*MR. KHOSLA: This is the chicken-and-egg question that has to be solved by policy. The three largest U.S. auto makers -- GM, Ford, and Chrysler -- have said by 2012, 50% of their cars will be flex-fuel cars. That's a lot of new cars. And they stood with President Bush and announced that last year. What needs to happen is the oil companies [need] to sign up for a mandate. And there's a very simple mandate on pump distribution that makes sense. You don't want every one of those 169,000 stations to offer E-85. You don't need the mom-and-pop stores to offer it.
Every station that sells more than $5 million of liquid fuel a year [would have] an E-85 pump, if that was the mandate. If you have one E-85 among the 16 different pumps you have, we will cover 25% to 30% of the automobiles in this country. That, with Detroit's commitment, would solve our problem. That's the voluntary commitment we need from the oil companies and their franchisees. Who Pays?
*MS. STRASSEL: Who pays for that? Who pays for that mandate?
*MR. KHOSLA: There are strong federal incentives to put those pumps in. I do believe in the end it needs to be a mandate, and the sense I get is the auto companies would sign up for a 50% flex-fuel-car mandate by 2012 if the oil companies signed up for 10% of the highest-volume pumps to have E-85.
*MS. STRASSEL: Red, do you think that's the case?
*MR. CAVANEY:* There are enough mandates in this business right now that makes it complex enough.This is a big challenge. It's not going to be solved overnight, and even a mandate isn't going to do that. So what we need to do is work together, and I think that's the solution.
*MR. KHOSLA: There is no reason this mandate doesn't make sense. You know, we do have a mandate on what your tailpipe emissions can be. Why not this? Because it is so critical to global security and global climate change.
*MS. STRASSEL: I have been surprised by the number of people I've talked to in the audience who are involved in different forms of alternative technology, who have been a little miffed at the ethanol industry. They feel as though it has gotten the lion's share of government help and support and that its time should be over, that it doesn't actually do enough for global-warming reductions, for instance, and other things. What do you have to say to these people? When will ethanol be set free to do its own thing without government mandates or help?
*MR. KHOSLA: I don't believe we need continuation of subsidies for a long time. I've always said every renewable technology, be it solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, should not get subsidies for more than five to seven years after its introduction in the market. But we need to get competition started. We need competition for oil.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Barack Obama's America is Corrupt, Deceitful - Without Hope
I guess life in this country can be seen as great or depressing depending on one's perception. If you can't see above the horizon and the best that you can hope for by living in America is when someone will come and hold your hand, than you will vote for Barack -
The following article is just one of the many ways Barack is misleading then people in the church of Obama.
On the other hand, if you see living in this country as an opportunity to build and create a new life when things don't go well, your chances of being more than you ever thought you could be are very good. Freedom to choose one's destiny is what America is all about.
Where there is freedom to grow, there is prosperity - without pride in one's accomplishments, there is only a life time of failure. History has proved this over and over.
So when you walk into the voting booth, decide what you want for a future, success or failure - it's your choose. Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Factory-Sized Deception*
Obama, freely trading in dishonesty.
By Stephen Spruiell
In the days leading up to the March 4 Ohio primary, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign aired a TV ad that featured a man named Steven Schuyler standing in front of a Delphi Packard Electric plant in Warren, Ohio. In the ad, Schuyler says he worked for Delphi, an automotive supplier, for 13 years until NAFTA enabled the company to ship his job to Mexico.
“Barack Obama was against NAFTA,” Schuyler says, adding, “We need a president that will bring work into this country.”
The Delphi ad might qualify as the most deceptive of the 2008 race.
First, Delphi did not exist as an independent company when Congress passed NAFTA in 1993. It was part of General Motors until it was spun off as an independent supplier in 1999.
Second, foreign competition did not drive the company to eliminate American jobs. It declared bankruptcy in 2005 because the legacy labor costs it inherited from GM made it impossible to compete against other /U.S.-based/ suppliers.
Third, workers at the Warren, Ohio plant were offered generous buyouts and early-retirement packages. Its employees were not just kicked to the street.When Delphi became an independent company in 1999, it inherited GM’s high-wage, high-benefit autoworkers’ union contracts.
Addressing reporters after Delphi declared bankruptcy in 2005, then-CEO Robert S. “Steve” Miller explained, “other U.S.-based suppliers, many of which were organized by the same unions . . . were paying less than half the automaker wages and benefits [that Delphi was paying].” Contrary to Obama’s ad, domestic competition played a bigger role in Delphi’s downfall than did competition from Mexico.
Even with its legacy costs, Delphi might have managed. But its relationship with GM harmed it in other ways. When Delphi declared bankruptcy, GM was still its biggest customer, responsible for about 50 percent of its sales. When GM’s market share tanked in 2003, so did Delphi’s profits. Delphi’s fate and the fates of its U.S. employees are tied to the fate of GM, which for multiple reasons has struggled, along with Ford and Chrysler, to stay afloat in recent years.
In his 2005 remarks to reporters, Miller argued that the U.S. auto industry’s problems have little to do with import competition. “Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are competing from assembly plants in our back yard,” he said, “but without the crippling work rules and social costs embedded in [GM, Ford, and Chrysler’s] labor contracts.”
The example of Honda is particularly relevant to any examination of Ohio’s economy. The Japanese automaker opened its first plant in Ohio in 1979, and since then it has opened three more and become one of the state’s top employers. Workers in Honda’s Ohio plants don’t belong to a union, but the company pays competitive wages and benefits and has never laid off any of its Ohio employees.
As for Delphi Packard Electric in Warren, Ohio, it was downsized as part of the corporate restructuring that followed the bankruptcy, but — unlike other Delphi plants in the U.S. — it wasn’t shuttered or sold. All but 700 of the plant’s 3,800 employees took buyout offers or early-retirement packages. Those who stayed on accepted a new labor contract that brought wages and benefits closer to the prevailing rates in the supply business.
In April 2007, the Youngstown /Vindicator/ ran a story about a former Delphi employee named Karole Kowalski who took a $140,000 buyout and invested it in an associate’s degree at Youngstown State University. “She’s excited about her plan,” according to the report, “and is hopeful the cutbacks at Packard were the best thing that could have happened to her. She couldn’t work as a laborer any more because of her back, and the buyout has given her the chance to retrain.”
If all ex–Delphi Packard workers were offered buyouts or early-retirement packages, it stands to reason that Steven Schuyler, the man in the Obama TV ad, took a similar deal. The Obama campaign ignored /National Review Online/’s repeated requests for more information about Schuyler, but a Delphi retiree told the /Vindicator/, “Schuyler took the buyout and got a good cash sum to quit his job.” When I spoke to /Vindicator/ editor Todd Franko, he said he still hadn’t been able to contact Schuyler to confirm this.
Kowalski and Schuyler offer dramatic contrasts for participants in the debate over free trade in this country. Kowalski’s approach speaks of a willingness to embrace the changes that are occurring in the U.S. economy and view them as opportunities. Schuyler’s approach — the one Obama has apparently embraced — is characterized by bitterness that things had to change, and rank dishonesty about why they did.—
Stephen Spruiell is an /NRO/ staff reporter.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Inside Looking Out
What is wrong with this picture? Can it be that the cat is for ferocious that we had to pin him up to protect the dogs? hmmmmThe truth be known, the two pups like the cat because when they bit him he squeaks like one of their toys - what fun they have with this new squeaky toy that even lets them chase it down.
But for the sakes of fair play and all that, we have to step in once in awhile to even the odds, especially when both pups are on the attack - sign - this place is a zoo - literally.
Enjoy the week end and keep the faith. Life in this country cannot be found anywhere else. We have it all!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
New Mexican Boarder Map an Outrage
Here is another example of what is going on in Mexico regarding their northern neighbor and how much they care what we think about them.
The Mexican government and a lot of the people see the United Sates as an opportunity to get something for nothing without even trying. They find the more they abuse us the more concessions we give them.
What's the answer. build the fence and do it now - then attack the employers that hire illegals. The liberals don't want the fence as it will stop the flow of voters to the party - the NSPP, the Socialist Progressive Party, formally liberal Democrats, relies on illegals and criminals as part of the voting base.
Again, it's time to stand and be counted - on what side of the fence will you find your self? keep the faith, the battle is joined!
An Absolut Outrage
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008
A vodka maker's ad campaign in Mexico is more than a marketing faux pas that offends many Americans. There's a real movement out there that feels our Southwest is really occupied Mexico.
The first rule of marketing is know your customer base. So when the makers of Absolut vodka began an ad campaign in Mexico featuring what a map of North America might look like "In An Absolut World," it was well aware it might appeal to many Mexicans there and here.The ad by the Swedish Absolut Spirits Co. features an 1830s era map where Mexico includes California, Texas, Arizona and other southwest states. The U.S. border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico ceded to the U.S.
The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of the leading Latino advertising agency in the U.S., Grupo Gallegos."Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, " the Argentine native said of the Absolut campaign, "so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."This isn't the first ad campaign targeted at what some Mexican activists call the "Reconquista" movement of those who dream and work toward the day when the American Southwest will be reconquered.
To them, illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border are merely returning home.In 2005, a Los Angeles billboard advertising a Spanish-language newscast showed the Angel of Independence, a well-known monument in Mexico City, in the center of the L.A. skyline, with "CA" crossed out after "Los Angeles" and the word "Mexico" in bold red letters put in its place.
The activists working for this cause actually see themselves as "America's Palestinians" and view the Southwest as their Palestine and Los Angeles as their lost Jerusalem. An editorial in the newspaper La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles stated: "There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States."The editorial went on to say: "The similarities are many. The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have used military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
A key player in the "Reconquista" movement is the National Council of La Raza. Its motto: "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing."Few caught the significance of the warmly received words of then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo before the Council in Chicago on July 27, 1997:"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." During a 2001 visit to the U.S., President Vincente Fox repeated this line, calling for open borders and endorsing Mexico's new dual-citizenship law.
A secondary group in the "Reconquista" movement is an Hispanic student activist group known as MEChA, for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan).It has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming that the American Southwest was stolen and should be returned to its rightful owners, the people of Mexico, under the name "Nation of Aztlan."Aztlan is the mythical place where the Aztecs are said to have originated.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez award. Another MEChA member is former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 annual convention.
We have an idea: Let's build the border fence and pay for it by selling ad space, even to an ideologically driven company such as the makers of Absolut vodka. We'll drink to that.
The Mexican government and a lot of the people see the United Sates as an opportunity to get something for nothing without even trying. They find the more they abuse us the more concessions we give them.
What's the answer. build the fence and do it now - then attack the employers that hire illegals. The liberals don't want the fence as it will stop the flow of voters to the party - the NSPP, the Socialist Progressive Party, formally liberal Democrats, relies on illegals and criminals as part of the voting base.
Again, it's time to stand and be counted - on what side of the fence will you find your self? keep the faith, the battle is joined!
An Absolut Outrage
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008
A vodka maker's ad campaign in Mexico is more than a marketing faux pas that offends many Americans. There's a real movement out there that feels our Southwest is really occupied Mexico.
The first rule of marketing is know your customer base. So when the makers of Absolut vodka began an ad campaign in Mexico featuring what a map of North America might look like "In An Absolut World," it was well aware it might appeal to many Mexicans there and here.The ad by the Swedish Absolut Spirits Co. features an 1830s era map where Mexico includes California, Texas, Arizona and other southwest states. The U.S. border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico ceded to the U.S.
The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of the leading Latino advertising agency in the U.S., Grupo Gallegos."Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, " the Argentine native said of the Absolut campaign, "so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."This isn't the first ad campaign targeted at what some Mexican activists call the "Reconquista" movement of those who dream and work toward the day when the American Southwest will be reconquered.
To them, illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border are merely returning home.In 2005, a Los Angeles billboard advertising a Spanish-language newscast showed the Angel of Independence, a well-known monument in Mexico City, in the center of the L.A. skyline, with "CA" crossed out after "Los Angeles" and the word "Mexico" in bold red letters put in its place.
The activists working for this cause actually see themselves as "America's Palestinians" and view the Southwest as their Palestine and Los Angeles as their lost Jerusalem. An editorial in the newspaper La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles stated: "There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States."The editorial went on to say: "The similarities are many. The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have used military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
A key player in the "Reconquista" movement is the National Council of La Raza. Its motto: "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing."Few caught the significance of the warmly received words of then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo before the Council in Chicago on July 27, 1997:"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." During a 2001 visit to the U.S., President Vincente Fox repeated this line, calling for open borders and endorsing Mexico's new dual-citizenship law.
A secondary group in the "Reconquista" movement is an Hispanic student activist group known as MEChA, for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan).It has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming that the American Southwest was stolen and should be returned to its rightful owners, the people of Mexico, under the name "Nation of Aztlan."Aztlan is the mythical place where the Aztecs are said to have originated.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez award. Another MEChA member is former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 annual convention.
We have an idea: Let's build the border fence and pay for it by selling ad space, even to an ideologically driven company such as the makers of Absolut vodka. We'll drink to that.
Coming to America : More Violence in Mexican Cities
Here is another report of the problems headed our way if we don't act on the boarder fence. I have posted on this earlier but it never seems to stop. We, of course, believe America will go on for ever enjoying freedom to do what ever we want in complete safety.
Think again - violence that is taking place in Mexican cities can and will happen here if we do nothing to stop it from coming here. We are not immune - we are not bullet proof!! Are we completely blind and stupid not to see this coming our way? We need the fence as well as a good comprehensive immigration policy that is fair for everyone and we need it now.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Seeking Asylum From Palomas
*By Rene Romo Southern Bureau
LAS CRUCES— The small Mexican border town of Palomas, ravaged by drug-related violence in recent months, apparently grew too dangerous for its police chief. Officials with the U.S. Border Patrol said Friday that the Palomas police chief, identified as Emilio Perez, went to the Columbus port of entry late Tuesday seeking asylum in the United States, asserting concern for his safety. "He applied for asylum due to the fact he felt that Mexico is not the safest place for him right now," said Chris Mangusing, assistant patrol agent in charge of the Border Patrol's Deming station, which covers the Columbus area.
"My understanding is maybe there were some death threats made." According to Border Patrol officials, the police chief told Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the port of entry that his two officers had fled to parts unknown. Mangusing said the police chief was taken to a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso. Leticia Zamarripa, ICE spokeswoman in El Paso, declined to comment on the case, citing privacy issues.
Typically, refugees seeking asylum are taken into custody for 48 hours until they are interviewed by a federal official seeking to determine whether the applicant has a credible fear of harm if returned to his home country, said Marilu Cabrera, a Chicago-based spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The decision to grant asylum is made by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, an arm of the Department of Justice, Cabrera said. Recently, Palomas, a town of about 8,000, has been beset by border violence. The newspaper El Diario of Juárez reported Friday the discovery Thursday of two bodies wrapped in blankets and dumped along a road near Palomas. Two other people were killed last weekend in Palomas, Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos said. And at least four men were shot and killed in Palomas in February in what local officials said is a violent battle for control of the area by rival drug gangs.
"We understand the dynamic of why he requested asylum, given the circumstances of what's going on in the Palomas area," said Doug Mosier, spokesman for the Border Patrol's El Paso sector, which includes all of New Mexico and two western Texas counties. "We, too, have concerns about increasing violence in that area, and we've taken steps to be vigilant to make sure the violence does not spill over onto this side of the border," Mosier said. Cobos said the recent violence, coupled with the departure of Palomas' police chief, concerns him because of the potential for violence to affect people on U.S. soil.
"If they have a complete lack of police presence in Palomas, then obviously that opens the gates to whomever wants to step in and claim authority," Cobos said. "If it's the criminal element, or narcotics-related elements, that's bad for people on both sides of the border. Cobos said his primary concern is the safety of roughly 400 U.S.-born children from Palomas who pass through the Columbus port of entry each weekday to attend school in Columbus or Deming. "I have deputies standing by to provide security as much as they are able and given the environment," Cobos said.
Think again - violence that is taking place in Mexican cities can and will happen here if we do nothing to stop it from coming here. We are not immune - we are not bullet proof!! Are we completely blind and stupid not to see this coming our way? We need the fence as well as a good comprehensive immigration policy that is fair for everyone and we need it now.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Seeking Asylum From Palomas
*By Rene Romo Southern Bureau
Saturday, March 22, 2008
LAS CRUCES— The small Mexican border town of Palomas, ravaged by drug-related violence in recent months, apparently grew too dangerous for its police chief. Officials with the U.S. Border Patrol said Friday that the Palomas police chief, identified as Emilio Perez, went to the Columbus port of entry late Tuesday seeking asylum in the United States, asserting concern for his safety. "He applied for asylum due to the fact he felt that Mexico is not the safest place for him right now," said Chris Mangusing, assistant patrol agent in charge of the Border Patrol's Deming station, which covers the Columbus area.
"My understanding is maybe there were some death threats made." According to Border Patrol officials, the police chief told Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the port of entry that his two officers had fled to parts unknown. Mangusing said the police chief was taken to a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso. Leticia Zamarripa, ICE spokeswoman in El Paso, declined to comment on the case, citing privacy issues.
Typically, refugees seeking asylum are taken into custody for 48 hours until they are interviewed by a federal official seeking to determine whether the applicant has a credible fear of harm if returned to his home country, said Marilu Cabrera, a Chicago-based spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The decision to grant asylum is made by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, an arm of the Department of Justice, Cabrera said. Recently, Palomas, a town of about 8,000, has been beset by border violence. The newspaper El Diario of Juárez reported Friday the discovery Thursday of two bodies wrapped in blankets and dumped along a road near Palomas. Two other people were killed last weekend in Palomas, Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos said. And at least four men were shot and killed in Palomas in February in what local officials said is a violent battle for control of the area by rival drug gangs.
"We understand the dynamic of why he requested asylum, given the circumstances of what's going on in the Palomas area," said Doug Mosier, spokesman for the Border Patrol's El Paso sector, which includes all of New Mexico and two western Texas counties. "We, too, have concerns about increasing violence in that area, and we've taken steps to be vigilant to make sure the violence does not spill over onto this side of the border," Mosier said. Cobos said the recent violence, coupled with the departure of Palomas' police chief, concerns him because of the potential for violence to affect people on U.S. soil.
"If they have a complete lack of police presence in Palomas, then obviously that opens the gates to whomever wants to step in and claim authority," Cobos said. "If it's the criminal element, or narcotics-related elements, that's bad for people on both sides of the border. Cobos said his primary concern is the safety of roughly 400 U.S.-born children from Palomas who pass through the Columbus port of entry each weekday to attend school in Columbus or Deming. "I have deputies standing by to provide security as much as they are able and given the environment," Cobos said.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Greenpeace Champions Politics of Fear over Science
I believe following article is not, as the author points out, a new face for Greenpeace making fraudulent demands on our lives, but just one of the foundation philosophies that is driving the hysteria of 'man made' global warming.
The use of fear and intimidation to force their agenda of control on an unsuspecting world should send a message to all of us to stop what we are doing for just a few minutes and try to understand what impact this will have on our lives. That is, what will be the result to our safety and freedom to decide our own fate.
I am a firm believer energy is the single most important factor in our survival as a nation. It effects everything we do. It is the most important driving force in our expanding economy. Little wonder the environmentalists want to stop any expansion of fossil fuel, drilling of new oil wells in our own country or new refineries, or the construction of nuclear power plants. And now they want to stop coal fired plants as well due to their "carbon foot print". You really don't buy into this nonsense, do you?
How much more of this nonsense can we take before we say 'enough is enough' and come down to reality. Will it be when we are freezing or roasting? Will that be too late? Will there be anyone that we can point to that will take the responsibility for such insane policy? Will they stand up and say " I made that decision to stop all development of power generation for oil, nuclear power and coal for the betterment of our world, and I take full responsibility for the deaths of the thousand from freezing and excessive heat as a result". Of course they will - right? What a hoot -
What do you think? Is the Autobahn Society or Greenpeace dedicated to the environment or their own well being? This article brings a lot of light to the true meaning of 'environmentalism".
You decide - you will be the ones trying to stay warm and finding the money to pay the heating bill. As all ways, keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Why I Left Greenpeace*
By PATRICK MOORE April 22, 2008
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs.
Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm.
DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.
Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure. It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, "If DINP is to be replaced in children's products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP."The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.
*Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.*
The use of fear and intimidation to force their agenda of control on an unsuspecting world should send a message to all of us to stop what we are doing for just a few minutes and try to understand what impact this will have on our lives. That is, what will be the result to our safety and freedom to decide our own fate.
I am a firm believer energy is the single most important factor in our survival as a nation. It effects everything we do. It is the most important driving force in our expanding economy. Little wonder the environmentalists want to stop any expansion of fossil fuel, drilling of new oil wells in our own country or new refineries, or the construction of nuclear power plants. And now they want to stop coal fired plants as well due to their "carbon foot print". You really don't buy into this nonsense, do you?
How much more of this nonsense can we take before we say 'enough is enough' and come down to reality. Will it be when we are freezing or roasting? Will that be too late? Will there be anyone that we can point to that will take the responsibility for such insane policy? Will they stand up and say " I made that decision to stop all development of power generation for oil, nuclear power and coal for the betterment of our world, and I take full responsibility for the deaths of the thousand from freezing and excessive heat as a result". Of course they will - right? What a hoot -
What do you think? Is the Autobahn Society or Greenpeace dedicated to the environment or their own well being? This article brings a lot of light to the true meaning of 'environmentalism".
You decide - you will be the ones trying to stay warm and finding the money to pay the heating bill. As all ways, keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Why I Left Greenpeace*
By PATRICK MOORE April 22, 2008
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs.
Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm.
DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.
Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure. It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, "If DINP is to be replaced in children's products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP."The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.
*Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.*
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A Man and His Horses - Fantastic
What a splendid video - a very entertaining look at the connection between a man and an animal and just what can be accomplished if we allow them into our very souls. After all they are Gods creatures like us-
Enjoy and keep the faith!
http://canecorso.com/lorenzo.htm
Enjoy and keep the faith!
http://canecorso.com/lorenzo.htm
Environmentalism Will Destroy Us
Environmentalism, like any religion, has believers that will not be dissuaded from their faith. Most religions believe in a God that is compassionate and loving - one that stands for truth, honesty and integrity. A God that protects and heals the mind and soul.
The environmentalist god is not one of compassion but one of destruction and plunder. The environmentalist god is a small god created by men and based on greed and power.
The environmentalist religion is designed to take power from the individual to determine their own destiny. Nothing more. The environmentalist demands all individuals give up their individual rights for the good of the planet, but in reality it is to gain control of the population, not the planet.
If these small groups of Marxist go unchecked, the destruction of our way of life will be certain. I have posted several times on this subject but it never hearts to be remained every now ant then what can and will happen if we do nothing to stops them.
A great time to get a handle on this will be in November - The New Socialist Progressive Party, liberal Democrats, has the agenda that will bring us to our knees with taxes and social programs that will crush our economy.
The following article will explain in finer detail how the environmentalist will dictate how we live our lives in the future and they are starting to right now. What do you pay for a gallon of gas?
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
ENVIROMENTAL
By MAX SCHULZ April 20, 2008 --
Tuesday is Earth Day, the calendar's High Holy Day of Green theology. With each passing year, environmentalism more clearly assumes the trappings of a secular religion. Now, along comes Iain Murray to assert that the Green God is dead.
Murray's new book, "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About - Because They Helped Cause Them," clarifies the difference between caring for the environment - a reasonable and virtuous belief that people rightly harbor - and the modern-day movement known as environmentalism.
The latter, Murray notes, has amassed a shameful legacy over a half century that has killed millions of people and consigned billions of others to backbreaking poverty.
"Environmentalism deserves to be as discredited as Marxism," Murray argues.
His book does a superb job of doing just that. Murray, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, lives a low-carbon lifestyle. He loves nature and the outdoors. He's practically a tree-hugger. Nevertheless, he makes clear, "I am not an environmentalist."Why? Because, as he explains, environmentalism has become a socio-political movement exploiting people's genuine regard for nature as a smokescreen for expanding government and exercising power. And the results have been disastrous for both humanity and the environment.
Murray chronicles seven environmental catastrophes, and shows the hand of the professional environmental movement in each one.Thanks to the efforts of Green patron saint Rachel Carson, environmentalists have succeeded in curbing the use of DDT, which, Murray writes, is "highly effective in controlling malaria and thereby lifting millions out of poverty." While it's unclear if banning the pesticide has had much in the way of environmental benefits, it has been unquestionably harmful to humankind.
Unchecked malaria has killed tens of millions of people, particularly in Africa, and continues to cost people their lives each year. "In 2005 alone, across Uganda, 50,000 children died from malaria," Murray notes. "That is the true Silent Spring.
"The current biofuel craze is another case in point. Greens have long favored government mandates to convert corn into motor fuel. They claim this will cut into our supposed addiction to oil, while minimizing harmful greenhouse gas emissions from our tailpipes. The Greens got their wish, and in recent years Congress has ordered billions of gallons of ethanol to be introduced into our fuel supply. European nations have passed similar biofuel mandates to fight global warming.The result, by almost any account, has been a fiasco.
Pouring corn into our gas tanks has led to a spike in food prices worldwide. Those high prices have caused food shortages and even riots in other countries (several in just the last month). While people starve, biofuels are creating an environmental disaster as well. In places like Indonesia, forestland is being cleared at alarming rates in order to plant palm oil crops and cash in on the artificial demand for biofuels. The result is a holocaust for many endangered animals. "The orangutan is being crucified on a cross of green," Murray notes.
Murray also has the number of environmentalists who demand higher automobile fuel efficiency mandates. These government standards have meant smaller, lighter, less crashworthy vehicles. "The tradeoff the liberal environmentalists demand is actually safety for gas mileage. In other words, blood for oil."At bottom, Murray notes, the environmental movement is rooted not in a concern for the environment, but in a disdain for personal freedom and free-enterprise capitalism.
Humanity is the disease plaguing the planet. The antidote must be environmental policies enforced by government diktat, relying on mandates, bans, orders, restrictions and punishments to achieve its goals.
The better answer is conservation by private stewards, individuals and corporations, who understand caring for the environment is important, while making choices that are actually logical - and sustainable.
Put in such stark terms the choice isn't that difficult, Murray notes. "Marxism brought us the Gulags. The worst that most commentators can say about free enterprise these days is that it brought us McDonalds."
Max Schulz is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
The environmentalist god is not one of compassion but one of destruction and plunder. The environmentalist god is a small god created by men and based on greed and power.
The environmentalist religion is designed to take power from the individual to determine their own destiny. Nothing more. The environmentalist demands all individuals give up their individual rights for the good of the planet, but in reality it is to gain control of the population, not the planet.
If these small groups of Marxist go unchecked, the destruction of our way of life will be certain. I have posted several times on this subject but it never hearts to be remained every now ant then what can and will happen if we do nothing to stops them.
A great time to get a handle on this will be in November - The New Socialist Progressive Party, liberal Democrats, has the agenda that will bring us to our knees with taxes and social programs that will crush our economy.
The following article will explain in finer detail how the environmentalist will dictate how we live our lives in the future and they are starting to right now. What do you pay for a gallon of gas?
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
ENVIROMENTAL
By MAX SCHULZ April 20, 2008 --
Tuesday is Earth Day, the calendar's High Holy Day of Green theology. With each passing year, environmentalism more clearly assumes the trappings of a secular religion. Now, along comes Iain Murray to assert that the Green God is dead.
Murray's new book, "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About - Because They Helped Cause Them," clarifies the difference between caring for the environment - a reasonable and virtuous belief that people rightly harbor - and the modern-day movement known as environmentalism.
The latter, Murray notes, has amassed a shameful legacy over a half century that has killed millions of people and consigned billions of others to backbreaking poverty.
"Environmentalism deserves to be as discredited as Marxism," Murray argues.
His book does a superb job of doing just that. Murray, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, lives a low-carbon lifestyle. He loves nature and the outdoors. He's practically a tree-hugger. Nevertheless, he makes clear, "I am not an environmentalist."Why? Because, as he explains, environmentalism has become a socio-political movement exploiting people's genuine regard for nature as a smokescreen for expanding government and exercising power. And the results have been disastrous for both humanity and the environment.
Murray chronicles seven environmental catastrophes, and shows the hand of the professional environmental movement in each one.Thanks to the efforts of Green patron saint Rachel Carson, environmentalists have succeeded in curbing the use of DDT, which, Murray writes, is "highly effective in controlling malaria and thereby lifting millions out of poverty." While it's unclear if banning the pesticide has had much in the way of environmental benefits, it has been unquestionably harmful to humankind.
Unchecked malaria has killed tens of millions of people, particularly in Africa, and continues to cost people their lives each year. "In 2005 alone, across Uganda, 50,000 children died from malaria," Murray notes. "That is the true Silent Spring.
"The current biofuel craze is another case in point. Greens have long favored government mandates to convert corn into motor fuel. They claim this will cut into our supposed addiction to oil, while minimizing harmful greenhouse gas emissions from our tailpipes. The Greens got their wish, and in recent years Congress has ordered billions of gallons of ethanol to be introduced into our fuel supply. European nations have passed similar biofuel mandates to fight global warming.The result, by almost any account, has been a fiasco.
Pouring corn into our gas tanks has led to a spike in food prices worldwide. Those high prices have caused food shortages and even riots in other countries (several in just the last month). While people starve, biofuels are creating an environmental disaster as well. In places like Indonesia, forestland is being cleared at alarming rates in order to plant palm oil crops and cash in on the artificial demand for biofuels. The result is a holocaust for many endangered animals. "The orangutan is being crucified on a cross of green," Murray notes.
Murray also has the number of environmentalists who demand higher automobile fuel efficiency mandates. These government standards have meant smaller, lighter, less crashworthy vehicles. "The tradeoff the liberal environmentalists demand is actually safety for gas mileage. In other words, blood for oil."At bottom, Murray notes, the environmental movement is rooted not in a concern for the environment, but in a disdain for personal freedom and free-enterprise capitalism.
Humanity is the disease plaguing the planet. The antidote must be environmental policies enforced by government diktat, relying on mandates, bans, orders, restrictions and punishments to achieve its goals.
The better answer is conservation by private stewards, individuals and corporations, who understand caring for the environment is important, while making choices that are actually logical - and sustainable.
Put in such stark terms the choice isn't that difficult, Murray notes. "Marxism brought us the Gulags. The worst that most commentators can say about free enterprise these days is that it brought us McDonalds."
Max Schulz is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
