STIMULUS PLANS AND THE RISING UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Was discussing the “Stimulus plans failures and the rising unemployment rate" with a liberal group yesterday.  One of them made an interesting analogy from his liberal point of view:

“It's not that it "was Bush's fault, and then the Congresses fault"....to fix the kind of mess Obama inherited from his predecessor, he needs to spend money and years....it isn't something that you can fix in a year or two, and even worse, without spending anything....it's like you hire a guy to put tile on your floor, you give him a 50% deposit check, he rips out your old tile and then decides to leave without installing the new tiles he didn't even buy....the guy you're going to hire after him is going to need new tile and thin set to fix your floor, and it's going to take some time....I hope I expressed the principle clearly enough, with my example/analogy.... :-)

And here is my response:

Let's go with your spot on analogy. If you are dumb enough to hire a sketchy contractor with very few references (ie...the type who would take your money and not do the job), give him a 50% deposit, let him go to work and not oversee what he is doing, you deserve the less than positive result because you are a dumbass!

But, let's apply your analogy to America today, the American people hired that sketchy contractor with no references, then we gave him a Trillion Dollars because unemployment would rise above 8% and we would all suffer tremendously if not for his "Stimulus plan".  We did and gave him full spending authority.  The Senate went and compounded the problem by giving the President unrestrained spending ability.  First, holding off passing the 2009 budget until well after Obama entered office so the budget could be tailored to him.  They then became completely derelict in their duty by not passing another budget for more than 1100 days.  Instead they passed continuing spending resolutions favoring the administrations enormous spending habits. Deficits soared!  Yet, here we are, more than 3 years later, much deeper in debt, the unemployment rate remains above the point he stated it would never reach and it is ticking higher, not lower.

So, yes my myopic friend, your analogy is very appropriate. We, the American people, do need to fire this inept contractor and replace him with one who has both the experience and references. Would prefer it were not Romney, but he does have the experience and references and is far and away a better choice than the inept contractor currently holding the office.

Based on your own analogy, voting for Obama again would just prove how much of a dumbass you really are, IMO.

A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES

Got into a discussion yesterday with some who claimed that the "privileged class live by a different set of rules than the ones we are forced to adhere to." When I asked what the different rules were being forced on us, I was told I was one of the privileged and out of touch.

I think you all might find my reply interesting:

My issue is with this notion, which the President is exploiting that if you work hard and become very successful thorough your sacrifice and efforts you should be denigrated rather than celebrated for your achievement. That just isn't the American way.  We should all be celebrating success. Pushing and prodding each other to be the best we can be and to gain as much success as we are able to achieve. This idea that we don't build the companies we sacrifice and work

 15 hour days to grow is just a load of crap as far as I'm concerned. I build companies from scratch. I put my personal capital at risk. I sign on the dotted line for the loans and place my personal assets up as collateral. I am the one who meets with the investment groups and gives up pieces of my success in order that the business can grow and hire more people. When the vendors don't pay on time, I write the checks to my staff from my personal accounts. I work alongside the staff doing the same job, but I don't leave at the end of the day.  I am the one who doesn't get paid when the money doesn't come in on time.  I always have to pay my taxes up front whether I make a profit or not and I am the one who has to negotiate the labyrinth of regulatory minions and pay the cost of conforming to regulations even the bureaucrats don't understand just so I can keep the doors open.  It is my responsibility to pay the cost of insuring the business against even the slightest regulatory infraction just so we can continue to operate. Yet, I'm always the last in line to receive any compensation.

So when I hear this foolish rhetoric that I don't pay my fair share, that I didn't build my company, that it wasn't through my efforts that the staff was hired and are gainfully employed I say BULLSHIT to you Mr. President and to anyone else who thinks I am wrong. It was my idea, it is through my creativity that the company began, I did build it, I do operate it and I do deserve all the success and profit which comes as a result of my doing so. 

And the different rules? Let's think of the different set of rules that the successful people live by: up at 5:30 a.m., put in a 15 hour day without complaint, on call all the time because the product never sleeps, wealth is opportunity so don't consume it, don't spend it on the frivolous, the business requires reinvestment. They delay gratification, saving and scrimping so they can hire one more worker because that's how the business will grow, that's how a new branch can get opened in a new city. NO TV, NO online games, never a drink during a weekday, seldom on a weekend (on call) - set aside eating at a sit-down restaurant today, regardless of working 20 hours straight after a 3 a.m., discussion about a distribution problem: one of the new hires has a little son who got injured during a little league game - discuss this because it takes priority and that's how you can make the new hire take a second look at you and feel like they can trust the vision of this company.  Yeah, some rich people live by a different set of rules and they never pay "their fair share".

And guess what, if there weren't a lot of people like me all across the country willing to do the same thing, America wouldn't exist. We are what America is all about,  we are proud of our accomplishments and we won't apologize for our success regardless of what you laggards may think.

Any comments?

Affordable Care Act Ruling by SCOTUS

So, the court ruled that the "individual mandate" is actually a tax and therefore it stands. From what I have been able to determine, this is at best a double edged sword for the Dems. The court didn't really uphold the individual mandate, they upheld the right of the congressional powers of taxation. Remember that Obama declared vehemently on numerous occasions that the individual mandate was not a tax. It was one of the deciding factors in the passing of the Act. Now that the bill has passed and the covers have been pulled back, we can see that Obama did nothing more than deceive the American people to achieve his aims. He has shown his true colors as nothing more than an everyday "TAX and SPEND" democrat who believes he knows better what is good for US citizens than they themselves know.

Time will tell what the final outcome will be, but I believe there is more to the decision than the initial news headlines. To borrow from Madam Pelosi, we will have to read it to see what is actually in it. I predict the democrats have just lost most of the independent and youth vote.

This directly from the mouth of the President on September 20, 2009:

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Rejected that is, until the bill was challenged. Guess his "critics" were right all along.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

This a quote from the majority opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who has just called you out. Basically he said, get up, get off your ass, get involved, if you don't like the decision, YOU have the power to change it...YOU:

“It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

Below are two quotes from Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court’s responsibility in handling the health care law.

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Keep this in mind. The court, acting on a very narrow argument, rendered a decision based on the law, just as they did in the Citizens United case and the Arizona Immigration case. Very narrowly defined arguments, not broad brush policy decisions, but very narrow constitutional interpretations based upon the arguments presented. They made the right choice, taxes are constitutional, the mandate is another issue as is the Act itself.


Remember in November, what the TEA Party stands for -- TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.

Recently I was engaged in a discussion on "the most embarrassing moment of your life".  I can honestly say that I have over the course of my many years I've had many embarrassing moments, but one that sticks out in my mind as perhaps my most embarrassing moment came at the age of 12. 

At that time, our military family was stationed at Camp Zama, in the Sagamihara Prefecture, Japan. My brother (10) and I regularly took our allowance, caught a train outside our base and rode for 40 minutes to the regional shopping district for a day of fun and pachingco playing. One day, we arrived at the station to find a beautiful silver and blue train at the station. Not knowing any better and not being able to read or speak Japanese, we didn't realize that this was the wrong train.  Deciding that it was much more attractive than the regular brown rickety trains we were used to, we hopped on to ride this pretty train. Turned out that this was the fabled 120 MPH bullet train and in the normal 40 minutes, we were deposited in the main train terminal in downtown Tokyo. Suffice to say, this was a rather other worldly experience kind of akin to Dorothy landing in Oz. We found ourselves ambling about Tokyo in fear, awe and wonder about our predicament. We couldn't get help from the Japanese because Japanese of 1966 did not speak English and we didn't speak Japanese.  As we wondered about trying to decide what to to, we came across a beautifully manicured park and wandered up to a small river to sit and discuss our predicament. No sooner had we sat down than a flock of black swans came swimming down the river, raced out of the water and attacked us. As one started grabbing at my brothers red sweater, I picked up a large (for me) stick and started to beat the swans. 

The commotion caused an uproar and we were soon surrounded by a bunch of Japanese officials screaming at us in a language we could not understand. We were taken to a police station, the US embassy was called and an interpreter arrived to determine how two young American kids could be wandering around downtown Tokyo causing such a commotion. 

Turns out that we had wandered onto the grounds of the Imperial Palace, the "river" was the surrounding moat and the swans were the protectors of the moat and were sacred. We caused an international incident and endless embarrassment to my father who had to drive more than 50 miles to come recover us from the clutches of the angry Japanese. I don't think either of us were able to sit for a week and we were never again allowed to ride the train.

Obama's Budgetary Discipline

Does anyone remember that Obama said he would cut the deficit in half in his first three years as president?

Interesting point is that at the time he said it, the deficit was "only" 400 billion and he was blaming Bush for his overzealous spending. I can only assume that Obama was a student of new math because he has more than DOUBLED the deficit every year he has been in office and this is along with directing the use of TARP funds and the STIMULUS program of a TRILLION each.

Of course all this was accomplished with the promise that unemployment would not rise above 8%. I would like to see it get back down to 8%. Hell, he could have given all that money to individual American taxpayers if they were willing to start a business and hire someone and we would have been much better off. Oh wait, that would be like cutting taxes and this wouldn't be "fair" would it?

Remember this in November when you are in the voting booth.

"PREEZY" SETTING AN EXAMPLE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-campaigner-in-chief/2012/04/30/gIQATAfbsT_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

When Dana Milbank decides to call Obama out, you know he has really gone over the line.

I especially like the conclusion:

"Still, Obama’s acquiescence to an intolerable status quo raises a question: Shouldn’t presidential leadership be about setting an example?

Instead, he is erasing the already blurred lines between campaigning and governing. During his “official” speech to the union group Monday, he hailed Tim Kaine as “the next United States senator from the great commonwealth of Virginia,” and his partisan speech spurred audience members to shouts of “Vote ’em out!” and “Gotta throw ’em out!”

“Not everything should be subject to thinking about the next election instead of thinking about the next generation,” Obama said of the Republicans. “Not everything should be subject to politics.”

He should follow his own advice."

Shouldn't we expect the President to set a positive example? Shouldn't we expect the "preezy" to have an uplifting message for the country he governs? Or are the citizens of this country expected to accept our "campaigner in chief" vilifying segments of the population for his own political aggrandizement?

Oil speculators, the Presidents new villian

For your consideration. Yesterday President Obama came out with an anti-speculator speech, vilifying oil speculators. Absolute snake oil being sold to the clueless masses. The oil speculation commodities market is one of the most pure forms of capitalism you can experience in America.

The President made the case that the evil oil speculators are making millions while millions of Americans are suffering from high gas prices. What he fails to mention is that for every speculator who made millions, another speculator lost a similar amount. What the President failed to mention in his rush to judge the speculators is that the speculators are just as happy when the price declines as they are when the price increases. This is because speculators are able to speculate on the fall in demand as well as the increase in demand. They are able to speculate on the increase in supply as easily as they speculate on the decrease in supply. In fact, many speculators who purchased long positions before 9AM this morning lost a considerable amount of money when the price of oil dropped precipitously later in the day. Currently, the price of oil (WTI -- May delivery) is more than $1.50 per barrel lower than it was at this time yesterday.

I find it very ironic that the President is willing to spend $52 MILLION DOLLARS to pay for a watchdog group to look into a pure market when he has his Department of Energy speculating as venture capitalists, and piss poor ones I might add, in extremely questionable green energy projects.

Perhaps the President should stay out of the energy business, tell his bureaucrats tom approve the exploration and recovery leases on public lands and allow the market to work without his interference. If he were to do so, he wouldn't have to look for a new scapegoat for his failed policies.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/11/obamas-ten-worst-energy-policies/

THRASHING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Yesterday the President, while speaking at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada made the following statement, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”. I have to wonder what this has to do with Mexico and Canada and why it would be of interest to them.

More importantly, the question which comes to mind is why does our President who claims to be a “Constitutional law expert” not understand that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches share “equal power”? The President further thrashed the Supreme Court when he questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress and that to do so would be an “unprecedented abuse of power”. This comes from a constitutional Law Professor? How is it "unprecedented"? Congress passes laws and if there is a question about their legality the questions are brought before the SCOTUS for review and legal ruling. There are many examples of unconstitutional laws which were passed by congress being overturned. Since when is it an “abuse of power” to overturn an unconstitutional law? In fact, isn’t this the reason the SCOTUS exists?

I find his statement appalling, especially considering this is the President who said last December, “What I’m not going to do is wait for Congress. So whenever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just going to go ahead and do them”. He is doing this irrespective of whether the people’s duly elected representatives have a say in the matter. Why isn’t the Presidents circumvention of congress considered an abuse of power?

The President went on to state that the “Act” was passed by an overwhelming majority. I am not going to quibble about what constitutes an overwhelming majority, but as I recall the vote in the house was 219 to 212. Personally I don’t consider this to be an “overwhelming majority”. In fact, the bill was only able to be passed in the dead of night by virtue of a manipulation of an arcane rule of the Senate. In reality, a legitimate case can be made that the method in which it was passed is an abuse of power perpetrated against the American citizens. This abuse was answered in the 2010 election when the citizens of America voted overwhelmingly to remove candidates who voted in favor of the Obama cares Act. It seems more reasonable to infer that a clear majority of the American people are not in favor of the Presidents signature legislation.

Due to the majority he enjoyed in the legislative branch and the legislative leaders willingness to push his initiatives using any method possible, the President has ruled with impunity. He has pushed his agenda without any consideration of the constitutionality of his actions. Come June when the court rules on the legality of the “Obama Cares Act” it may just be the time for President Obama to find that his abuse of the Constitution has been stopped in its tracks.

Beware, Big Brother is here.

After reading the entirety of the Patriot Act and I concluded that the Act unconstitutionally deprived American citizens of our liberty. Now, after completing my reading of the NDAA I am sure of it. The Patriot Act and the NDAA give the Department of Homeland Security authority to collect data from all US citizens in order to protect the country from home grown terrorism. NSA has been placed under the jurisdiction of DHS and thereby has its authority extended to all private citizens of the US. This and other intel agencies can and are collecting data on every citizen in the United States. Read the Acts, both of them and you will see that it has been authorized.

Now I agree that the NSA is not taping every phone conversation and never said that they are. What they are doing, outside of congressional oversight and authorization, is building the 3rd largest military operations facility in the country for the express purpose of collecting and storing electronic data on every citizen in the United States. They wouldn't be going to the trouble and expense if they weren't going to utilize these developed resources. Oh, and for the record, the estimated cost of this facility is 2 BILLION US tax dollars. In other words, the government is using our tax dollars to build the worlds most high tech spy facility to spy on us, the citizens of the United States.

And the "private" companies we use every day are the net being cast very broadly to source the data the government collects. Not the likes of AT&T, Bell Labs and UCLA, but new age companies like Google, Facebook, Oracle, Verizon, Direct TV and every other social media site we visit every day. These companies pass the collected data to the government which uses artificial intelligence recognition software which meta tags words, phrases, paragraphs and pages of data such as these I have just written and categorizes them into defined databases. This information, coming from all users of the internet, is, I repeat IS being collected by the government. When an individual uses a flagged word, phrase, sentence or series of words on a page too frequently, the machine flags and highlights it for review by analysts. Every discussion held on line over the past few years, has been collected and is being sorted, analyzed, and categorized by a machine which decides whether we are good citizens or a subversive group out to do harm to the government. Note I said harm to the government, not the citizens, but the government. We the people don't matter, only the government matters to these collectors of our thoughts and conversations.

Bottom line, today, whether you like to believe it or not, our "intel" agencies ARE collecting data and spying on every US citizen every moment of every day. Sleep as comfortably as you can my friends, but you should do so with the full understanding that "Big Brother" is watching, he is the enemy of the people and the enemy comes from within as much as from the outside.

President's Energy Justification

Our President has begun his "All of the above" Energy Justification campaign swing. Everyone should consider that when he pushes solar or wind investments with our tax dollars, it is still not possible to get rid of the coal or natural gas or nuclear plant that is the mainstay of our electrical system.

We will still need that back up generator, the entire infrastructure including the people to man the plant. The current generators must always be on call to provide full power anytime the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. One cannot run an advanced economy, including factories, houses and hospitals, etc. on part time, "potential" unreliable generation.

In summary, even if all the Federal tax dollar investments were successful we might save some coal or natural gas but the savings will be lost to the absolutely necessary double investment in the secondary electrical generation.

Response to the Presidents energy policy speech March 7, 2012

On Wednesday our President put a request in to congress that they increase the tax credit for purchasing a Chevy Volt, quasi-electric car, to 10K from the current 7.5K. In spite of the 7.5K credit, Volt sales have been so anemic that the production facility has been forced to shut down for 5 to 6 weeks and lay off 1300 auto workers. I just wonder when his car Czar or one of the ideological economists on his staff will get around to explaining to him that markets don’t work when subsidies are necessary to create interest in a product. I also wonder when the said economists and Czar are going to explain to him that the people who are buying the Volt are not your everyday “99%ers” but the wealthy who are only buying the car to make a statement that they are being green. Perhaps the President should increase the Volt subsidy to 40K for anyone who makes less than 130% of the poverty level. I mean hell, we are already paying for it with taxpayer dollars and the Pres really likes to help the "handicapped" with his redistribution theories. It can be titled the next phase of the "cash for clunkers" program.

The Volt subsidy is only one indicator of the complete lack of an energy policy coming out of the Presidents mouth on a regular basis. At a press conference this week, President Obama took on the “politicians who claim the have a 3-point plan to bring gas prices down to $2.50 a gallon”. He said we should all tell them we know better. President then claimed there is no “silver bullet” to bring down gas prices. On this issue, Mr. President, yes there is. History has shown that when production increases are approved or rcovered oil is coming into the market, prices drop. Anyone who lived and drove in America during the summer of 2008 will remember that oil spiked to its highest prices due to production disruptions, but then dropped from a high of $147 per barrel in August to $33 per barrel on the day of your inauguration. This didn’t result from an increased supply so much as the approval of increased production. Actually approving the Keystone XL pipeline and approving drilling permits on public lands will have the same affect in bringing prices down. Mr. President, what we know, is that at the time you took office, the cost of Gasoline averaged $1.85 per gallon. What we know, is that gasoline is now averaging more than $3.65 per gallon. What we know is that your policies are forcing gas prices in the wrong direction.

Our President makes the claim that oil production is now at a higher level than it has been in more than 8 years. About this, he is correct, but we really have to understand the rest of the story, as the old saying goes. The increases in production are coming from privately held properties in states where permitting takes only weeks. In states where the EPA and DOE do not restrict the permitting process. The increased production comes from states where recovery begins in less than a year.

What our President does not mention is that he has prohibited, not restricted, but prohibited, the development and drilling of new wells in more than 70% of the coastal development area. What he doesn’t mention is that he has restricted the development of most of the Alaskan shelf to oil recovery. What he doesn’t mention is that since he has come into office the number of exploration and drilling permits in the continental US has declined by more than 14% and the number of offshore permits has declined by more than 6%. What he doesn’t mention is that under his watch, the average time to obtain a permit on federal land has extended to more than 3 years and the cost of obtaining a permit has increased by more than 200%.

In the states where private recovery is not being inhibited by this administration, the production of oil has increased by more than 20% over the past 3 years. What our President doesn’t mention is that in the areas of private development there is a jobs boom and unemployment is effectively at 0%. In those states, employers can’t find enough people to fill the positions available.

The President claims that the oil market is world wide and what happens in America doesn’t affect the price of oil. Let me provide two examples of just how wrong this is. The first, compare the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) to BRENT. WTI is American and Canadian oil traded on the international market. BRENT is the OPEC oil traded on the international market. The average daily price differential is about $20.00 per barrel at any given time. Yes, WTI averages about $20.00 per barrel less. If the price of oil is determined by the world market, why is oil recovered in America not selling at the same price as BRENT?

My second example, WTI is know as “sweet” oil. Meaning that it has very low sulfur and few impurities. If you look at a jar of oil recovered from the Texas or Dakota oil fields, it has a greenish hue and is almost clear. BRENT oil from Saudi, Iran, Venezuela and some of the other OPEC countries is high in sulfur and impurities. In a jar the recovered oil is brown and is impossible to see through because it looks like mud. The reason I mention this, the cost of refining BRENT oil is much higher than the cost of WTI. Bottom line, every barrel of oil produced in America costs less to recover and less to refine than the world oil product. So, yes Mr. President, increasing the production of oil in America, even by relatively small amounts, will affect the price of gasoline in our country.

Now, consider another issue in the cost of gasoline, ETHANOL. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it wanted to have our fuel burn cleaner so it subsidized the development of ethanol. In other words, it pays the producer, with our tax dollars, for every gallon of ethanol produced. When that failed to produce the desired results because the product didn’t meet market standards, the government stepped in and regulated that all gasoline producers must blend gasoline with at least 10% ethanol. The result? Increased cost of fuel and lower gas mileage, but the ethanol producers are now profiting hugely from our tax dollars. Don’t misunderstand, this is not an action taken by our current president, but he hasn’t made any attempts to eliminate the subsidies or requirements to blend gasoline with ethanol either. Eliminating this requirement will cause an immediate drop in gas prices and force the ethanol producers to produce a competitive product or go out of business.

This is just another example of how our President tries to offer platitudes to the unknowing and uninformed in order to bolster his ideology. We have to watch what he does and not what he says, because the two are very different. In fact, actually doing what he says he is doing rather than talking the talk will bring down oil prices dramatically. As we have seen in the past, a true energy policy does include “all of the above”. In order for the all the above scenario to work, the government has to encourage an all the above approach through a market based solution. When the government subsidizes a product or an industry with incentives, loan guarantees, subsides or tax credits, the developers are no longer required to meet the competitive requirements of the marketplace and become less innovative. When the government restricts the development and recovery of natural elements in favor of less efficient artificial products, it corrupts the marketplace and causes the price of all goods and services to increase. This is basic economics that even a lawyer/politician should be able to understand.

The next time the President tells us that we should let people know we are smarter than to believe a politicians line, we should agree. We should tell him we are smarter than to fall for his disingenuous lines and half truths. We need to tell him we would have much more respect for him if he were willing to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. We are tired of being treated like we’re not smart enough to see through his pandering speeches.

The latest Rushbo Controversy

I don't agree with the mandate forcing contraception as a part of all health care plans. My reason is very simple -- I don't agree that the government or employers either, should be involved in the management of an individuals health care. But the issue has really gotten out of hand with all the back and forth rhetoric.

Earlier this week a Law student at Georgetown University complained that her school, operated by a religious organization should be required to provide her with free contraception as part of her health care plan.

At the end of this week, Nationally syndicated radio show host rush Limbaugh spoke out against the lady in question because of her views. Here is the quote from his radio show.

"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. [. . .]

If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."- Rush Limbaugh

I don't care what the reason, this is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Whether you agree with her position or not, she doesn't deserve to be called vulgar names on a public show. Just additional validation of why I stopped listening to Rush back during the early years of the Clinton administration.

Natural Gas -- the real obstacles to its adoption as a vehicle fuel

I wrote this article in September of 2009. It is as appropriate today as it was then and to date there has been very little progress and no reduction in the onerous and unnecessary regulations.

In the very early years of the 20^th century the “Horseless Carriage” came into being. As this new technology evolved everything from steam to electricity was used to power these vehicles. As the demand for convenient, fast long range transportation developed, gasoline became the fuel of choice for the following two reasons -- the power coefficient and the availability. Gasoline is a very powerful explosive when ignited in a confined space and is also easy to transport in a container. This makes it very suitable for use as a transportation fuel. As a result, the entire transportation industry, from trains to planes to automobiles adopted oil derivatives as their preferred fuel.

During the period from the early 20^th century through the beginning of the 1970’s, automobile use in the US increased from Henry Ford creating the Model T through Herbert Hoovers campaign promise of “A car in every garage and a Chicken in every pot” to the late sixties hot rods and drag races. The automobile became an iconic expression of American Freedom. Supplies of gasoline were abundant and cheap. There was little incentive for technological improvement except to make the car go faster or look better.

As the seventies unfolded, we experienced the first signs that the golden days of readily available oil had reached their zenith. Coming of age at the end of this era, I too was a fan of the hotrod, but remember well the day during my senior year in High School when I had to pay the exorbitant sum of $7.00 to fill the tank in my 1969 American Motors AMX.

Around the same time, we experienced our first gas shortages and lines at gas stations. Our President, Richard Nixon, rather than push a national referendum to seek alternative fuels, decided to place wage and price controls on the purchase of gasoline products. As any economics student knew, and as history has shown, this had an opposite effect than the one desired. Gasoline became scarce and industry was negatively impacted to the point that a recession was felt across the entire country.

People were also becoming concerned about the harmful pollutants being emitted from the tailpipes of our cars. Government stepped in and legislated emissions requirements on the auto manufacturers. Gas efficiency, never really great, plummeted and emissions testing became a requirement in order to license your automobile.

When Jimmy Carter became our president, his administration reviewed the situation with the oil supply, determined that America was using more oil than domestic production could supply and that America was importing an incredible 20% of our domestic demand. His response -- create a bureaucracy -- The Department of Energy, to develop ways to decrease our dependence on the importation of foreign oil. The result of this was more shortages, rapidly increasing prices and a bureaucracy which today has a budget of 16.5 BILLION DOLLARS per year while we as a nation have increased our imports of foreign oil to approximately 50% of demand.

During this period of turmoil in the marketplace, the government has responded with additional legislation on fuel efficiency and emissions standards. Regulations have been layered one on top of the other until the goal of lower emissions and fuel efficiency have become contravening interests.

Advance to the spring of 2008, oil traded at the stratospheric price of $55.00 per barrel on the world market. By June, it had jumped to $86.00 per barrel, yet demand continued to rise while supplies coming out of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) declined due to the war in Iraq. World demand exceeded supply by approximately 2 million barrels per day. Prices on the open market continued to rise until they reached their peak at $147.00 per barrel. OPEC increased supply by about a million barrels a day at the urging of then candidate Obama, American consumers cut back on our use of gasoline by a few million barrels per day and the price of a barrel of oil dropped to a low of $36.00 as supply began to exceed demand. Yet we as a country were still importing more than 65% of our domestic demand. As OPEC members cut supply to equalize the supply/demand curve, oil increased in price to its current price of approximately $70.00 per barrel. As time passes, demand will increase and supply channels in America will remain constricted so prices will continue to trend upward.

There are numerous alternatives on the horizon, electric cars will continue to become more popular, but will not become viable until significant advances in battery technology are achieved. Diesel is growing in favor, but doesn’t come close to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Hydrogen fuel cells remain quite a few years from perfection and distribution poses a major problem. The most reasonable alternative in the world today is Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon dioxide per BTU delivered than either coal or oil, and far fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels.

Currently, Natural Gas is selling for less than $2.60 per thousand cubic feet. For comparisons purposes, a gallon of gasoline produces 124,000 British Thermal Units of energy, while 1000 Cubic feet of Natural Gas produces 1,028,000 British thermal units of energy. Both cost approximately $2.60 at today’s prices. Yet, cleaner burning Natural Gas does not compete with gasoline as a transportation fuel because it has been much harder to package and meter in the automobile. The major difficulty in the use of natural gas is transportation and storage because of its low density. The easiest form of delivery is via pipeline and pipelines now cover more than 70% of America. Natural gas pipelines are economical, but many existing pipelines in North America are close to reaching their capacity. Natural Gas supplies are at their highest levels since the beginning of President Reagans second term. There is so much natural gas available in storage that producers are having a hard time finding places to store their supplies.

Contained within the borders of the United States are enough recoverable reserves of Natural Gas to supply all the energy needs of the US for hundreds of years to come. The conversion to CNG as a transportation fuel has the potential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports to virtually zero within the next ten years. CNG is the perfect fuel to bridge the paradigm shift from gasoline to the future renewable fuels.

In countries around the globe, primarily the developing countries of Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, Iran and India use of CNG as a transportation fuel is becoming commonplace. CNG use as a transportation fuel in America is primarily limited to fleet vehicles.

Why has America been slow to convert to the use of CNG? Easy availability of gasoline is one answer. On many street corners, in every community, there is a filling station which open 24 hours per day seven days a week. Another reason is a lack of desire. As long as gasoline is cheap and readily accesible there has not been a desire to seek out alternatives.

As the cost of gasoline increases, why isn’t America rushing to convert their cars to run on Natural Gas? The answer is our government. Natural Gas as a transportation fuel is regulated by our government to the point that producing CNG vehicles is much too costly. Conversion of gasoline or diesel powered engines requires a Certificate of Conformity from EPA or an Executive Order from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This requirement applies to each specific engine family. This means that each type of engine produced must undergo certification. To obtain a Certificate or EO, the manufacturer must submit substantial emissions performance data and related documentation to EPA and/or CARB for review. Additionally, manufacturers may be asked to submit a converted vehicle for rigorous testing to verify this data. The process of engineering, manufacturing, installing, pre-testing and then submitting a proposed retrofit system to an EPA- or CARB-approved laboratory for certification is a time-consuming and expensive process that costs $200,000 or more per engine model. It is economically unrealistic to expect the major automobile manufacturers to undergo this expense for every engine model they build and offer when the demand is so narrow currently.

Most vehicles driven in the United States today are within their useful life as defined by the EPA as roughly 10 years or 120,000 miles. EPA guidelines indicate that certification of the retrofit system IS required for these vehicles which makes the conversion option economically unfeasible. Converting privately owned vehicles does not meet this important criterion and will fail state or local emissions tests.

Vehicles which fall outside the EPA guideline, those older than 10 years or with more than 120,000 miles, encounter another obstacle. They are still required to pass emissions tests. When converted to CNG, emissions levels are so low that an error is indicated on the testing equipment resulting in a fail situation. Without passing the test, State motor vehicle department authorities will not allow the automobile to be licensed.

On July 21, 2009 the House passed HB 1622, with appropriations of 30 million per year for 5 years and sent it over to the Senate where it became the companion W.1350.IS. These actions are redundant, unnecessary, and more examples of the United States legislative bodies intruding into the private sector in ways that are not necessary.

There is no question that CNG produces fewer emissions than burning oil based fuel. This is undisputed fact. There is no argument that Natural Gas supplies come from within our country. The supply of Natural Gas is sufficient to power every vehicle in America without noticeably depleting reserves. There is no argument that increasing the use of Natural Gas will increase domestic jobs. The conversion technology exists, is easy to install and inexpensive enough to make the conversion cost effective. There is no argument that adding CNG pumping capacity to local filling stations is no harder than converting to ethanol (E85) metering pumps.

We don’t need to spend another 150 Million Dollars and 5 years to tell us something we already know. We need to use common sense and eliminate all restrictions and laws on the conversion of vehicles. We do not need protection us from ourselves. Get the government out of the way and let the private sector and market conditions determine what will work most effectively. If we do, within 10 years, we will virtually eliminate the import of foreign oil, all the while, cleaning our air.

Picking winners and losers in the Energy business

The EPA, for whatever reason but I assume it is due to their ever growing need for control, classifies Nat Gas being used as a transportation fuel differently than it does gasoline and diesel being used as a transportation fuel. They require every engine plant to be inspected by them before the engine can be approved for use in vehicles. This takes approximately 6 months per engine submitted and costs approximately 250K. So, if I am a vehicle manufacturer with 4 different engines, I have to submit one of each, pay a million dollars and wait six months to see if they will be approved for use. Next comes the emissions module, it must be modified and approved as well, because it is a federal crime to modify the emissions module in vehicles without EPA approval.

So, now, next year comes along and the engineers change the angle of the plenum chamber or modify the fuel injectors to better disperse the Nat Gas molecules, the engine becomes more efficient, but the change forces the manufacturer to go through the approval process again.

Bottom line, this is not necessary with oil base fueled engines and shouldn't be necessary with Nat Gas based engines. This is just another example of the FED choosing the winners and losers in their game of social engineering. The EPA should do nothing more than develop emissions output standards and leave it up to industry to develop the fuels and protocols which meet their standards. As far as I'm concerned, the EPA shouldn't even be allowed to force fuel economy standards on the auto industry. The consumer should have the right to choose what type of vehicle they want to drive and how much fuel the vehicle consumes, provided the exhaust emissions fall below set standards.

Let the EPA set the tail pipe emissions standards for the different classes of vehicle powerplants and let industry develop and sell the products which meet those standards. There should not be different standards for different classes of fuel because this is extremely discriminatory and inhibits innovation. And stop the bullshit subsidization of various classes of fuel. Ethanol is NOT a competitive fuel and shouldn't be subsidized. Neither should there be depletion allowances for the oil and gas companies. They know that the fuel they recover is available in finite amounts and that is calculated into the cost of doing business. It should not be subsidized by the government any more than the Solar, wind or Algae to biofuel industry should be subsidized by the FED.

THE PRESIDENTS “LONG VIEW” OF GAS PRICING

On Thursday the President flew down to deliver a speech on why gas prices have been rising so much. The jist of his comments can be boiled down to two words spoken by the President -- “it’s complicated”. Well, yes Mr. President it actually is complicated. It is complicated by this administration and the Federal Government in general. Mr. President, the economics of oil and gas are not a relationship status on the Facebook, they are a real life issue which is having a truly negative affect on the pocketbooks of every American citizen.

The President then made the statement that the price of gas and oil was not controlled by the United States, but by the world market. Well hell yes, sure took long enough to figure this out. Seems funny that the President is finally getting around to recognizing and speaking out about this when for the past three SOTU speeches, as oil prices rose, he claimed it was the fault of others such as the big oil companies and anyone else he could vilify.

The President made an effort to blunt his failings in this area by making the statement that we should all be prepared for the Republicans coming comments that they have the solution and it is based on three words - Drill, Drill and Drill. He said anyone saying that we can see “immediate lower gas prices are either uninformed or dishonest”. Yes he actually said those who say that we have to drill more are being dishonest. Of course in the next sentence he stated that we were in fact drilling more today than we were before the Gulf Oil disaster in April of 2010 because of the policies of his administration. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide who is being dishonest.

Here’s what he didn’t say, the increased drilling and production is not coming from public lands, but from private lands where the Federal government cannot stop the recovery process. What he did not say is that the EPA in conjunction with the Department of Energy and the Executive branch are not issuing permits for the recovery of oil and Natural Gas on public lands. So the increased production the President takes credit for and that he claims isn’t really solving the problem is actually occurring in spite of, not because of the Federal Government.

The President barely mentioned the fact that he turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, but in the few statements made, he defended his position. The President knows as well as anyone who studies the situation, or at least he should, that with increased oil production coming from the Bakken fields of N. Dakota and Montana, the Keystone XL is a necessary step to get the oil to the refineries expeditiously and at the most reasonable cost. He knows that the Keystone XL has been approved by ALL the states over which it will cross. He knows that there are literally hundreds of pipelines already crossing the “environmentally sensitive” Nebraska aquifers and that the Keystone XL will be the best designed and built pipeline in the history of the world. Further, he knows that turning down the construction of the pipeline is one of the causes of gas price increases. Yet he still feels the need, even in spite of the rising gas prices, to defend this failing on his part.

The President, didn’t mention Natural Gas in his speech yesterday in spite of how he made it a major part of his SOTU address in January. I assume the reason he didn’t mention it on Thursday is because the EPA hasn’t actually lessened the regulatory restrictions on its development and use that the President promised. Let me make a point here, there has been growing criticism about the use of the drilling technique called “fracking” in the recovery of Natural Gas. This may be the reason the EPA isn’t moving very fast, but the fact is, the fracking process has been used for more than 40 years in more than 1 MILLION, yes over a MILLION wells without one incident of underground water contamination due to the fracking process. Above ground disposal problems have occurred on rare occasions, but they can be eliminated with enhanced monitoring.

As he began to speak about his “Long View” of the President claimed that energy is “one of the major challenges of your generation” and that "anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn't know what they're talking about -- or just isn't telling you the truth." I will tell you the truth, we do need to drill, the economic life of our nation depends on it and we can drill our way out of it. I agree with the President that we can’t drill our way out of the looming crisis with oil, but we can drill our way out with Natural Gas. Natural Gas is the bridge to our future. Our immediately recoverable Natural Gas resources exceed the needs of our country for the next 10 generations. Far longer than it will take to commercially develop alternative sources of energy. Natural Gas can be used as it comes out of the ground. There are no requirements to refine it so the gas is more economical to use. There are currently existent, natural gas pipelines under more than 50% of all the roads in America so accessibility is not an issue. Personal use vehicles (cars and trucks) are very easily and cost effectively convertible to the use of Natural Gas and it burns much cleaner than gasoline or diesel fuel. Converting 35% of the personal transportation vehicles to the use of Natural Gas over the next 5 years will eliminate our need to import any oil or gasoline from sources outside the North America and at the same time cut the demand for oil so dramatically that gasoline prices will drop substantially. The President knows this, yet he chose not to make mention of it because it will shed light on the failings of the EPPA and this administration. So I have to ask, who is being dishonest when they say we can’t drill our way out of the rising gas price crisis?

The President then went on to make comments about his holistic approach to energy development and barely mentioned the solar alternative or the Solyndra and Fiskars fiascos except to say "Some technologies don't pan out, and some companies will fail," Obama said. "But as long as I'm president, I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy”. It is very wise to promote the development of all forms of alternative energy, I have been doing so for many years, but the development of such technology should not be at a cost to the American taxpayer, especially when the companies receiving the funds are “friends of the administration”. The Federal government SHOULD NOT pick and choose which companies should be promoted. This is not the responsibility of the Federal Government.

President Obama went on to promote the development of Algae as a fuel source. This is a very responsible suggestion and one which I have been actively involved for the past 5 years. I wonder if the President and his advisors are aware that algae has more than 5000 distinctly different and identifiable strains and that more than 70% of these strains produce very little oil. I wonder as well if the President and Department of Energy Secretary Lu know that the microscopic spore of these algae strains fly throught eh air and easily invade the strains being used to produce oil rendering them unproductive. Many studies have been undertaken to determine the viability of the use of Algae as a feed stock for use as a biofuel. Almost all the studies have concluded that capital cost, labor cost and operational costs make the use of algae too expensive to be competitive with conventional fuels. Unless new, more efficient methods of growing and refining algae into biofuel are developed, their use may never be realized. This is not an area which the Federal Government should be investing money. I have been asking myself if the President and Secretary Lu have another crony company they either have or are preparing to provide development funding for.

He stated that "It's the easiest thing in the world to make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices". "What's harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem. And it won't be solved in one year, it won't be solved in one term, it may not be solved in one decade. But that's the kind of commitment we need right now." I fully agree with the President on this and applaud him for making the statement so I am going to offer a solution which will solve the problem of rising gasoline prices in the near as well as the long term.

First, approve the Keystone XL pipeline. There is no environmental or economic reason for the delay. Denying approval is absolutely nothing more than a political move which is 180 degrees opposite his statement Thursday that "It's the easiest thing in the world to make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,"

Second, issue permits for the recovery of oil from public land. ANWR should be the first place permits are issued, Off shore permits immediately following and the Barnett and Williston fields to come at the same time or shortly thereafter. The EPA should allow the permits on a bid basis with the only restriction being that 80% of the recovered oil must be refined and sold in the American marketplace.

Third, reduce the regulatory burden on the construction of new oil refineries. The regulatory hurdles are so enormous that the development and construction of refineries is almost impossible forcing the refining US recovered oil to off shore locations and driving up the cost of the finished product.

Fourth, eliminate all EPA restrictions on the use of Natural Gas as a fuel in personal use vehicles except one, that the exhaust emissions meet the same standards as gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles of the same class. If this is approved, the market will take over and you will see Nat Gas fueled vehicles invade the market immediately and as a result, the price of oil decrease in short order.

Finally, stay out of the energy business. It is fine to support and promote innovation, but it is not good to offer enhancements to preferred companies. Let the market develop paradigm shifting innovations at their own pace without governmental assistance or interference. The innovators will do a much better job this way. If this is not possible by the administration, it should at the very least, make the financial assistance be in the form of a post development success fee which is earned on a competitive basis rather than a handout to politically connected companies.

If the President is going to be honest during this election cycle, and really interested in long term solutions, he will follow this advice.

Recently I was asked to state my reasons why I "hated" president Obama so much. This was, of course, after I had been labeled a racist for objecting to the Federal mandate to provide contraception as part of all health insurance plans. I of course, don't "hate" our president, I just don't agree with his ideology and policy initiatives.

So, I started thinking about it and have responded as follows:

I will provide specifics for concern about President Obama from my perspective. While I'm sure many will consider this to be either hate speech or a racist comment, it is actually all true. If you don't agree, provide specifics of any statements which are not accurate.

Barack Obama says throughout his two autobiographies that at college he was drawn to and identified with the Marxist Professors and students. He identifies strongly with his father who was an openly and unbowed communist economist from Harvard in spite of the fact that he only met his father on one occasion when he was a pre teen. His mother was a radical hippie from the 60s who rejected America -- Obama's own writings.

This is not in the books but from other writings, we know that his grandparents were radical progressives who had him mentored in high school by a member of the US Communist Party, Franklin Marshal Davis.

He became a long time member of the Trinity whatever Church in Chicago which is dedicated to Marxist Black Liberation Theology and whose leader, repeatedly damned America in his sermons. Of course Obama denies that he ever heard those sermons, in spite of the fact that he sat in the front row for 17 years and was so close to the Reverend Wright that the Pastor officiated at the Obamas wedding.

He was an instructor for ACORN in the social manipulation methods of Marxist radical Saul Alinsky.

After becoming President, he in conjunction with Reid and (earlier) Pelosi, manipulated the legislative process to enable "continuing spending resolutions" without budgetary oversight which has resulted in more than 5 TRILLION dollars of increase in the debt.

Ultraliberal doesn't even begin to cut it. This is why I can't support the President for reelection. Comments anyone?

Obama "Changes his mind" on birth control

Well, it seems like Obama is flip flopping again, or as a liberal friend is forever claiming, Obama is just changing his mind again and that is fne. Of course in doing so, he is forcing the insurance companies into giving away freebies in the form of contraception and morning after pills. So out of the fire of opposition comes another government forced handout. Give me a freaking break! Will we never see an end to the hypocrisy? This administration would be comical if it weren't so tragic.

This isn't a catholic issue. It isn't a religious issue and it isn't a health care issue This is a freedom issue and another example of Obama's duplicitous self serving nature. The problem as I see it is the fact that there are many more instances like this to come as we get deeper into the "obama Cares Act" if it isn't repealed. Never forget the immortal words of that paragon of intellect Nancy Pelosi -- "we have to pass it so you can see what's in it". Well, we're beginning to see what is actually in it and what we see is even worse than what was envisioned.

I certainly hope the Catholic Bishops don't consider this appeasement justification for stopping any campaign against a president who will so transparently attempt to undermine their principles. They should increase their efforts now that they understand the true position of Obama and the nefarious nature of his health care plan.

2012 ELECTION

Recently I have been asked to gauge the electability of the Republicrat candidates. I do keep my finger on the pulse somewhat and I also know that presidential politics is different than statewide legislative politics. I personally think a flying monkey should be able to beat Obama in November, but then I also believe in the inherent intellect of the American people and their ability to do the right thing. That hasn't done so well for me of late.

Our current political system, a system of symbiotic relationships between government and BIG business, totally screws "we the people". Today’s Democratic Republic, more closely resembles an Oligarchy than a democracy. Business promotes its interest by spending money on the politicians and the politicians accept the money agreeing to “go along to get along”. We the People, get screwed because we aren’t allowed into the game.

So, how do we solve this problem? In the past “we the people” used ingenuity and were part of a society which was willing to pull itself up through a strong work ethic and the value of a good education. Not everyone was treated fairly, but everyone still understood these core values and strived to attain them.

Unfortunately, in an attempt to right perceived wrongs and offer a helping hand in the name of benevolence, the evolving professional political class went overboard with the notion of equality for everyone. Unfortunately, this resulted in a lower standard for everyone rather than a higher standard. Attempting to right this mistake meant that the political class would just throw money at the problem in the dual hope that it would buy votes and then go away, at least as long as they were in office.

So, here we are, a national education system which is a disgrace, creating a middle class with a surprising percentage of people who don't understand how to write properly or add without a calculator. We have enabled a governing class which has stepped in to over regulate our lives to the extent that we are extremely limited in our capacity to effect any change. The scales of justice have tilted towards the “empowered” class of politicians and big business which panders to each other while trampling on the everyday American.

Back on point, here is my assessment of the Republicrat campaign:

1) The Republicrat nomination process will go through to at least the second ballot at the convention and probably longer before the nominee is decided. In my opinion this is a good thing because it will air the dirty laundry of all the candidates to the point it will be old news.

2) The debates will continue which will keep the Republicrat candidates in the limelight and enable them to outline their views of America, highlighting their differences from the Obama view in an unfettered manner.

3) The extended Republicrat campaign will shorten the time Obama will have to unleash a directed hate campaign against any of the candidates individually. This will undoubtedly occur and it will be biased, personal and fraught with half truths, accusations of racism and some downright lies, but it will be diminished the longer the Republicrat primaries continue.

4) Each and every one of the candidates on the Republicrat side has value to add to the country in a manner much improved over the Obama model so whoever wins the nomination will have a well prepared story to counter any of Obama's arguments.

5) There are about 8 swing states which went for Obama in 2008 and are in play during this cycle. The outcome of the election in these states will determine who are next president will be. These states are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.

6) It will not be the Demopublicans or the Republicrats in these states who determine the outcome of this election but the growing body of independent voters. These voters, thoroughly disgusted with the professional political class, are looking for a solid plan which acknowledges the middle class and is willing to stand on principle to shake up the status quo within the Washington power structure.

7) From the indications I get, the independent voters across Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada and North Carolina harbor a real resentment towards Obama. Yet to date there is no consensus of interest in any of the Republicrat candidates. If the Republicrat candidate, regardless of who he may be, can reach them with a legitimate vision and a sense of passion, they will choose this candidate over Obama without reservation.

8) Finally, there is a true sense of malaise in the Demopublican core voter contingent this cycle. In 2008 there was real, palpable energy within the ranks of the Demopublicans. They were excited with the over the top Obama Rhetoric, they were excited about the concept of actually electing a black president and they were excited about the change he promised to bring. Today, this excitement has diminished to the point that the core Demopublican voter, while not willing to vote against Obama, will stay home rather than vote. This will have a real effect on the vote outcome of the election. I think Governor Perry had the best definition of these folk when he asked the question, "Are you better off today, with an additional 4 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt than you were when Obama was elected?"

This is why I so strongly support the TEA Party movement. Setting aside what the unknowing chattering class has to say, the TEA Party, although suffering from some understandable growing pains, really does have the best interests of the country as their highest priority and understands the need for financial and political reform at the core level. This is what America needs in order to go forward as a true light of Democracy for the Country and for the world.