5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit – Robert Bryce @ WashingtonPost.Com

Here is a 10 day old editorial from the Washington Post by Robert Bryce regarding the 5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit.

What are these myths? Here is the summary:

1. Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.
2. A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction.
3. Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries.
4. Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.
5. Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.

If anything is holding us back in becoming energy independent, its those who wants to be, but won’t let us doing anything about it.  In order to have a growing economy, we need the flexibility to take steps to ensure our country’s economy continues to grow.

This may mean making choice certain groups may not like.  In fact,  I believe there are too many extreme environmentalists dictating what our energy policy should be.  Look where it has gotten us in last 30 years by listening to them. We need to reduce their influence over our country’s energy policy and establish a policy which will help this country grow.

If Washington Post article is not available, check these alternative site at KitSap Sun, Detroit News.

Is Conservatism Dead?

With the latest news stories, you have to wonder, is conservatism dead?

The recent results in South Carolina, the MM seems to go to the extreme to pronounce that it is finished. Like they are trying to bury anybody who is conservative. The Era of Regan is over. Or the fact, that a conservative friend of mine will vote for Clinton. See Newsbusters.org blog here about this bit of news.

However, there are some good analysis on this subject today:

Peter Wehner’s This Is “Diminished Power”? piece at National Review.

If you think that Rush has lost influential why do they write about it. Also, got like his own digg on wishing the end of the Clinton Era. He shares this two bit pieces in his closing paragraph:

Having made the mistake of declaring the end of the Clinton Era prior to the New Hampshire primary — perhaps I was the victim of my own wishful thinking — I would caution others against dancing in the end-zone when it comes to declaring the diminishing influence of Limbaugh and the “conservative establishment.” Rush in particular has maintained his talk-radio fastball for 20 years, and his run of success is akin to what Johnny Carson achieved on late-night television. Both men were phenomenally talented and endured through all sorts of different circumstances. They developed a bond with their audience which was deep and enduring and difficult for others to fully grasp. I suspect in the case of Limbaugh, that’ll continue for some time to come. And by the way, if he’s lost so much of his influence, why in the world does it seem like everyone is writing about Rush these days?

Lisa Fabrizio’s Rush and Reagan at The American Spectator.

Lisa make a good point about it as well:

IF THE REAGAN Revolution is stalled in this election cycle, it is because those at the head of the movement have stopped emphasizing its personal appeal to the average American. This is not the fault of Limbaugh — who is rightly perturbed that he must constantly spell out a candidate’s conservative bona fides or lack thereof — but of those who forget that conservative ideals can resonate with voters in a way that liberalism cannot.

Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer has more in this topic here as well.  He muses me with this emphasized sub-headline:

On Limbaugh’s Importance, Pundits Keep Changing View

That has been typical of MM during this part of the election cycle.  It just plain funny to witness.

It is apparent to everyone, there is no real conservative running now on the GOP side.  And we definitely know that there is no conservative democratic running.  Such a candidate would not survive the process on the democrat side. But, the ideas of what conservatism offers have not died. When they are tried, they work.