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.

My Business Trip to Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Last week, I traveled to Calgary, Alberta, Canada on business to complete the turnover of work I have been performing for my company the last 2 1/2 years. Since this was my second visit to Calgary, I made sure I brought my digital camera with me. It provided me with an opportunity to get some more hands on experience with it. [Note: click on the images to view the larger picture.]

What a difference a century makes

I received this e-mail today from my father. An interesting history lesson on what life was life 100 years ago. Enjoy.

---

Show this to your children and grandchildren AND NIECES WHO ARE HALF WAY THERE

?? THE YEAR 1907??

This will boggle your mind.
The year is 1907, one hundred years ago.
What a difference a century makes.
Here are some statistics for the Year 1907 :
************************************

The average life expectancy was 47 years.

Only 14 percent of the homes had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

There were only 8,000 cars and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !

The average wage in 1907 was 22 cents per hour.

The average worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births took place at HOME .

90% of all doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press AND the government as “sub-standard.”

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada , was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea hadn’t been invented yet.

There was no Mother’s Day or Father’s Day.

Two out of every 10 adults couldn’t read or write.
Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacists said, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”( Shocking? DUH! )

Eighteen percent of households had at least one full-time servant or domestic help.

There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE ! U.S.A.

I forwarded this to you from someone else without typing it myself, sending it on in a matter of seconds! *

Try to imagine what it may be like in another 100 years.

---

* [Comment from poster: you might want to share this with others, too!]

Primary Dilemmas by Thomas Sowell @ Townhall.com

In Thomas Sowell’s Primary Dilemmas at Townhall.com, Mr Sowell confirms my belief that there really is not very many good candidates running in either party. How you might say? Read his reply to the following question:

What is wrong with this year’s candidates?

The short answer is that most of the Republicans are questionable and all three leading Democrats are dangerous.

It is a dilemma we as voters are facing.  Mr Sowell shares information about several of the choices we have currently today.  Please consider reading  this piece.

In fact, Mr Sowell confirms why I cannot trust electing another Clinton to the office of the Presidency by sharing a history lesson of the first Clinton presidency:

While Barack Obama and John Edwards have been irresponsible demagogues, the Clintons have a record of lawless and ruthless corruption that goes back not only to their White House days in the 1990s but even back to their time in the governors’ mansion in Arkansas.

Nor is this simply a matter of domestic politics. It was Bill Clinton who ignored the advice of military and intelligence officials when he gave China the technology that can be used to enable their nuclear missiles to hit American cities.

It was Bill Clinton who gave the North Koreans help on their nuclear program in exchange for promises that have — predictably — proved worthless. This was just one of the dangerous problems that he swept under the rug and left for his successor.

People like this are not to be trusted with the highest office in the land in an era when Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons that can easily be turned over to international terrorists.

Now, this is something the MM will not tell us about the Clinton years. He does talk about the Republican candidates, too. But, regardless of your party affiliation, Mr Sowell’s comment on what we should do must be taken by everyone:

The stakes are too high to do anything other than select the best person available, even if none of the candidates seems ideal.

Sitting out, it is not a good option.

Wanted: Suck it up candidate – Michelle Malkin

At Michelle Malkin’s website, she has written a blog entry looking for suck it up candidate.

She starts it off with some points I can agree with her on:

I need a man. A man who can say “No.” A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn’t mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won’t panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won’t succumb to media-driven sob stories.

She further describes other issues that have been addressed by the candidates and/or media, but really do not address the issues at hand, they give us only catch phrases. Yet, no one is standing out to come forward to be the suck it up candidate. She is still looking. What will the candidate do to address the points she makes?

Since I read her post this morning and I am now posting it on my blog, she has posted some updates from the certain readers on the topic of mortgage crisis. Take some to review it.

The Big Three — Michael G Franc @ NationalReviewOnline

From Rush’s Total Stack of Stuff for today, Michael G Fanc has a piece entitled The Big Three at National Review Online.  He shares three issues conservatives should elevate to the forefront in deciding who would make the best president.  These three issues were:

1. Winning the War on Terrorism
2. Confronting the coming fiscal crisis
3. Making the case for pro-growth economic policies and smaller goverment

Mr Franc provides some details on each of these issues the country is facing today.

In regards to terrorism, he states:

The terrorist threat is real. My Heritage colleague James Carafano has documented 19 attempted terrorist attacks against America and American interests, since September 11. In total, Carafano reports, 27 terrorists have either confessed or been convicted and another 45 are awaiting trial.

Regarding fiscal issue, he remind us:

The fiscal gap between the health and retirement benefits promised to boomers and the tax revenues anticipated to pay for them can only be measured in tens of trillions of dollars. That’s a huge problem. Reuters reported last week that Moody’s Investors Service said the United States’s “triple-A” government bond rating will be jeopardized if Medicare and Social Security are not reformed.

Regarding our economy, he states:

America needs a leader literate in the language of free markets, one who understands the wisdom of free enterprise. Today, too many lawmakers blink and accept more governmental intrusion into our lives rather than extol the virtues of individual initiative and responsibility. Families and individuals are best suited to make the most important decisions in their lives, not condescending government bureaucrats, activist judges, or bottom-line-obsessed employers.

These three issues seem to be similar to the formula Ronald Reagan used in 1980 election.  Reagan’s three issues were defeat the Soviets, cut taxes, and make government smaller. 

But, currently there is no candidate using such a formula in their campaigns.  Much of the talk is on what the candidate would do to improve government. But, if a candidate would to use this suggested formula, the candidate could gain a comfortable lead over his/her rivals in their pursuit for their party’s nomination.

At times, I feel that both parties are trying to out do each other on what they can do to get government to help people.  It is not more government that is needed, but less government. I would agree with Mr Franc on his statement regarding the liberal position:

Liberals are poised to extend nanny-state guarantees and subsidies well into the middle-class. Exhibit A: Efforts on Capitol Hill and in many states to provided subsidized health coverage to families earning over $80,000. 
 

The story ties in very well what Rush discussed yesterday about a book by Alexis de Tocqueville called Democracy in America [buy it].  Here is how Rush shared this excerpt:

RUSH: Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the book. He passed away 149 years ago. He came to the United States, traveled around, wrote a book. Parts of this book — well, all of it is amazing, but parts of this book are so prescient. I got this excerpt from the Power Line blog yesterday. He concludes in the book, Democracy in America, “with a warning of the kind of despotism to which democratic societies are usually and especially susceptible. He warns that the passion for equality will give rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender their freedom democratically to a tutelary power.” Now, tutelary power, think protector, think guardian, think Nanny State.

He obtained excerpt from PowerLine blog. It also a good read.

As Rush has said and predicted, it comes down to the fact that this election is about the future of the country.