About Me

Name: RME KRNL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

American Clean Energy and Security Act

Posted by RME KRNL on Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:27:36 AM
[Note 1: The American Clean Energy and Security Act, also called the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill or H.R. 2454, is known to its critics as the clean energy cap-and-tax bill. Herewith, my latest attempt at reason with my U.S. Representative, Gerry Connolly, even though he is a liberal Democrat. I sent similar emails to my two Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner, asking that they vote against the legislation in the Senate.]
 
Dear Representative Connolly:
 
Despite its euphemistic title, this legislation will not deliver "clean energy" in a timely manner nor increase our "security" by independence from foreign oil. Instead, it will burden especially small businesses, the primary engine of our economy and therefore of our economic recovery, and all Americans with a substantial energy tax at a time when we are in a deep recession, unemployment numbers continue to rise and the Democrats' stimulus plan still has yet to stimulate much of anything. And taken all together, that's not "American." In fact, it's pretty "un-American."
 
So, (a) it's not very American, (b) it won't deliver clean energy in a timely manner and (c) it won't contribute to our security with any near-term independence from foreign oil. Other than that, I guess it's aptly named "The American Clean Energy and Security Act."

Some measure of foreign oil independence would be gained by opening up our own vast stores of offshore oil, coal, and natural gas, as well as building more nuclear power plants, to sustain us while we develop cleaner sources of energy, like wind and solar, as well as the power distribution grid that will be necessary to deliver that cleaner energy to where it's needed.

I must say your vote for this legislation was predictable -- you've voted the Democrat Party line consistently since becoming a Member of Congress -- but that doesn't make your vote for it any less disappointing.
 
[Note 2: Have you contacted your U.S. representative or senators about any issue lately? No? Then, you must either be happy with things the way they are, or you're just "too busy" to care, or you're just oblivious to what's going on. Well, no offense intended, but to me, that makes you part of the problem -- just so you know.]
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

White Roofs? Really, Mr. Secretary?

Posted by RME KRNL on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:27:29 AM
Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and President Obama’s Energy Secretary, recently told a conference of Nobel laureates in London: “If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color and if you do that uniformally [sic], that would be the equivalent of ... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years."

Uhhhh, what? And just how much would it cost to paint all our residential and commercial and industrial rooftops white and redo about half of all our roads? What a lame-brained idea and an even dumber thing to say out loud in public! I guess it's a good thing that Chu's Nobel in physics had nothing to do with climatology. Instead he was one of three scientists who received a joint award for developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.

Now, his being a physicist presumably means he's intelligent, but it may also be that he's like a couple of people with whom I went to college -- smart as a whip but no common sense. You know, the type who can discuss almost anything about anything but can't remember to tie his own shoelaces. Yeah, that guy. We've all known at least one.

Oh, and before you get too impressed by Chu having a Nobel, so does Al "the Goracle" Gore, who never struck me as even being all that super-intelligent about anything. In fact, a lot of people have been awarded the Nobel in a lot of different fields, a lot of them for highly specialized stuff. On the other hand, for example, Yassar Arafat also won a Nobel, and for peace, no less. He shared it in 1994 with Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres after their secret meetings in Norway resulted in a peace agreement between Israel and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

But Arafat was a life-long terrorist. And Chu, Nobel prize winner or not, certainly could use a healthy dose of good old common sense -- and maybe double-check that he tied his shoelaces. But, what worries me most is that this is who Obama chose to oversee our country's energy policy?

So, we've got Democrat Representative Henry Waxman and the Democrat Congress trying their best to hurry up and pass the draconian, minimally effective (for global climate change) but maximally damaging and costly (for American businesses and consumers) Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme that Obama wants sooner rather than later -- and no common sense Chu is in charge of our energy policy? Great. Just great. Oh well, just something else to worry about, folks.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Appeal to Congressional Common Sense

Posted by RME KRNL on Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:43:08 AM
(This is the most recent missive I've sent my Congressman and two Senators. Maybe you should email yours too. Use part of mine if you like.)
 
I am calling on you to urge House and Senate Budget Committee conferees, soon meeting to craft a compromise budget, to cut spending, eliminate tax increases and reject any "budget reconciliation" instructions so that major overhauls of the nation's healthcare, energy and education systems are not rammed through Congress with little or no debate.

The recent grassroots TEA Party protests across our country clearly demonstrated that there is a growing portion of the general electorate which is highly dissatisfied with the President and Congress acting like kids in a toy store, spending money their taxpayer parents don't have for every shiny, new thing they want but can't specify how they will afford. 

Far-reaching changes to our economy and society demand time for careful discussion and consideration, not only within the halls of Congress but also among "ordinary Americans" like me.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has predicted that the blueprint offered by President Obama and largely adopted by both chambers of Congress would push the federal deficit to a mind-numbing $1.85 trillion this year alone and would pile up $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, on top of the existing $11 trillion national debt.  CBO called these deficits "unsustainable."

In short, this budget proposal taxes and spends at a rate that Americans like me today, and my children and grandchildren tomorrow, simply cannot afford. Unless you, and the budget conferees, can clearly explain how the CBO is wrong about this, no votes to advance the budget as proposed should even be cast by anyone. It would be totally irresponsible to do so. One could argue that it would amount to a criminal misfeasance of office to do so.

The President's proposal would impose a whole host of new and higher taxes just as our economy is struggling to emerge from its current recession and while increasing millions of Americans have already lost their life savings or are also losing their jobs and their homes. 

The $636 billion income tax increase on individuals and small businesses would discourage entrepreneurship and stifle job creation.  The President and members of Congress have repeatedly said that small businesses are the economic engine of our country, and it is a fact that they create 70 percent of our nation's jobs. It's time for the President and Congress to stop just paying lip service to this concept on the one hand, while on the other hand increasing taxes on this very sector. That's a shell game that more and more of the general electorate is catching on to.

The plan for a cap-and-trade energy system - in other words, a carbon tax - would raise the costs of electricity, gasoline and other products and services for all Americans.  I've seen estimates that this so-called "light switch tax" could cost American families as much as an additional $3,100 annually. That would be ridiculous at any time but is especially so now, with people already struggling to pay their bills.

It makes little sense to say, as the President and some members of Congress incessantly do, that 95 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut when (a) it's not a tax cut, because tax rates have not been reduced and 45 percent of Americans already don't pay federal income taxes anyway, when (b) taxes in other areas are being increased at federal, state and local levels, and when (c) politicians try to deflect the argument about the skyrocketing energy taxes that are coming by saying that families will get rebates to offset their incredibly increased energy costs. And on that last point, I have yet to hear any politician who has used that offset rebates deflection describe at all, much less in any detail, just exactly how that will work, since energy costs of various types will increase all across the country but will often greatly vary region by region.

In other words, what is the "plan" to ensure that my increased electric, gasoline and other services taxes will be exactly offset by a rebate that I get from the federal government? How do you devise a plan that ensures that I am not under- or over-rebated for my increased energy taxes, and therefore either cheated because I am under-rebated or even more government waste is generated because I am over-rebated? And while you ensure that is not the case for me in Northern Virginia, how do you tailor such a plan to ensure the same for the citizen in California, South Carolina, Vermont, Alaska or Hawaii?

So far, the President, our whiz kid Treasury Secretary and the Congress have poured billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into bailouts or stimuli of one kind or another but have not been very successful in getting banks to loan, credit to unfreeze, toxic assets to go away or the overall economy to recover, so please excuse me if I doubt any of you have a clue about devising such a definitively planned and practically executable increased energy taxes rebate program.   

The bottom line is that America cannot continue on its current course of taxing, borrowing and spending. I urge you to adopt a budget that cuts spending, promotes fiscal responsibility and encourages economic growth. And having some "bipartisan" and "transparent" debate on the House and Senate floors would be nice, too.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Hokey Pokey Dance

Posted by RME KRNL on Monday, August 11, 2008 2:50:47 PM
When I've seen Senator Barack Obama on TV shows where he's been prevailed upon (or had it prearranged) to demonstrate his dancing style, it seems to be a pretty smooth combination of club freestyle and the Hustle. He handles it with good humor and some degree of "coolness," which I guess is the point of a presidential candidate even doing such a thing on national television -- "Hey, he's one of us. Look at him dance. Ain't that cool?"
      
However, his real dance, as he hopefully hustles himself toward the White House, reminds me more of that old song, Do the Hokey Pokey. For any not old enough to remember, here are the opening lyrics:

Put your left foot in,
Your left foot out,
Your left foot in,
And shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Pokey
And turn yourself around.

Now put your right foot in,
Your right foot out,
Right foot in,
And shake it all about.
And then you do the Hokey Pokey,
Turn yourself around,
That's what it's all about.
 
Part of the fun of doing the Hokey Pokey was that the lyrics went on to describe various other body parts which you had to pay attention to put in, take out, shake all about, then turn yourself around, while trying to do it in synch with the music and the words. I'm sure the Hokey Pokey is no longer considered a "cool" song, if it ever was, but the fun of it was just trying to keep up with what to do next and laughing at yourself and others as awkward mistakes were made.

Well, despite his relatively smooth TV dancing combo of freestyle and the Hustle, Obama's political dance is the Hokey Pokey. During the overly protracted Democratic primary season, he danced to the left. He danced hard to the left. He danced to the left all the time. It was left hand in, left arm in, left foot in, and left leg in. Left, left, left. He won that dance competition, and that won him the nomination.
 
However, now in the general election campaign, he's definitely dancing more to the right. In fact, he's dancing to the right so fast and on so many issues that it's hard to keep up with what his next "dance" move may be. Will he dance to the left, or will he dance to the right? And if he danced hard to the left before and is now dancing hard to the right, which way will he dance if he dances his way into the White House? He's definitely "turning himself around" and "that's what it's all about."
 
Now, politicians dance around things all the time. They dance around answering pointed questions. They dance around on positions they hold or on votes they've cast. They do the equivalent of pirouettes and glissades -- some more gracefully than others -- to dance away from whatever they don't want to talk about, be held accountable for, or take action on. Some of them even contort themselves like Chinese acrobats, which is entertaining to watch but is not really even dancing at all.
 
As the presidential campaign progresses, Obama increasingly reveals himself to be not as much the new "hope" and "change" and "yes, we can" candidate, much less the new "messiah" or the next JFK, but more and more as just another politician. As Jeremiah Wright, his own former preacher, mentor and father figure of over 20 years, said of Obama: "He's a politician. He'll do what he has to do."
 
In some respects, Obama reminds me of the smooth club "playa" who asks the pretty girl to dance. She hesitates, sensing that he's just a player. He encourages her by saying, "C'mon, it's just dancing." Well, no, it often is not "just dancing." A player's ulterior motive is often to have it lead to other things -- unforeseen, unanticipated, maybe even harmful things. Sometimes the pretty girl is better off refusing to dance a particular dance with a particular guy. If she wouldn't accept his invitation to the prom, maybe she shouldn't dance with him at the club, either.
 
Although a lot of dancing around occurs during any given political campaign, our presidential election process itself is no dance, much less any place for shadow dancers. It is serious business. And in a time of war, it may be deadly serious business.
 
Noting Jeremiah Wright's blunt statement and continuing the dance analogy, we had better ask ourselves: What kind of dance is Obama doing now and why? More importantly, if he dances his way into the White House and not only continues to dance but also becomes the leader of the band, what tune will he have for all of us to dance to?
 
Obama is already going to the prom -- his party's national convention -- but we don't have to accept his invitation to go with him, much less dance with him after we get there. If he hustles his way into the White House, perhaps hustling us along the way, many of us may just suddenly discover that he and we are out of step with each other -- and that doesn't lead to good dancing, especially not for a four-year-long dancing marathon.
      
And it won't be as much fun as the Hokey Pokey, either.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Magical Media Middle East and Meet and Greet World Leaders Tour

Posted by RME KRNL on Friday, July 25, 2008 7:24:31 PM
As everyone not living in a cave somewhere probably knows by now, presidential pretender Senator Barack (Hussein) Obama is currently on his "Magical Media Middle East and Meet and Greet World Leaders Tour," part of which is cleverly disguised as a senatorial fact-finding trip.

[Aside: I put the freshman senator's middle name in parentheses lest the PC Police accuse me of not too subtly pointing out that all three of his names are Muslim (which they are), or something. However, I'm guessing I would get no such retribution if I insisted on saying Senator John Sidney McCain. Well, unless there are some overly thin-skinned and defensive Scots out there somewhere. Weird, huh?]

But, anyway, let's see, does that mean we taxpayers pay only for the fact-finding part of the trip and the Obama campaign pays for the rock star tour part? I wonder how that works, exactly. It's not that I'm all that cynical, mind you, but if I had to bet, I would bet that we taxpayers are probably paying for most, if not all, of the whole she-bang.

Obama's accompanied, no less, by all three primary "news" anchors of the alphabet TV networks -- Charmin' Charlie Gibson, Barritone-y Brian Williams, and that CBS cutie Katie Couric -- hard-charging field reporters and unbiased journalists, all. Let's see, the last time any one of the alphabet network "news" anchors accompanied Senator John McCain on any of his many senatorial fact-finding missions was..... Um, it was..... Hmmm, I guess that means none of them are competing to be Senator McCain's presumptive Press Secretary. Either that, or they already just think (hope?) he won't win.

Oh, but wait! Forget that part about someone living in a cave perhaps not knowing about Obama's trip. Osama bin Laden probably knows about Obama's trip, too. After all, he's already publicly supported Obama, as has the terrorist organization Hamas, anti-American and racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, convicted federal felon Tony Rezko, unrepentant former Weather Underground leader William Ayers, and..... Who else? I don't know, but do you see an associative trend here? Has Hezbollah, Syria or Iran signed up for the Obama campaign yet?

But I digress.
 
On last Friday's CBS Early Show, a correspondent reported on Obama's then-impending international tour and declared: "Senator Obama is taking to the skies to stride on the world stage. It's a chance for Americans to take a look at how he measures up as a statesman...it's an attempt to demonstrate he has the necessary gravitas to maneuver through diplomatic minefields, especially in the Middle East."

Taking to the skies? He's flying on an airplane, along with a lot of other people, for goodness sakes. It's not like he has a cape and a big "S" on his chest (although the mainstream media often act as if he does) and is flying over there all by himself, worried only about who might have some Kryptonite. And "...to stride on the world stage"? How about hopping from country-to-country on an airplane, then walking around on the ground? You know, the way ordinary mortals get around on international trips. How he measures up as a statesman? He hasn't even proven himself a competent freshman senator yet, much less any kind of statesman. He started running for his "next job" as president with less than 150 workdays as a freshman senator under his belt and has not been responsible for any significant legislation so far in that job.

Oh, but at least it's good that he's finally visiting Afghanistan for the first time on this trip, since he's on a Senate committee which is supposed to oversee our efforts there and for which he has held NO hearings nor conducted any previous fact-finding missions. I'm sure, after visiting for one day -- his first and only day on the ground in Afghanistan -- and shooting some hoops with the troops, that he will know exactly what we should do to "win" in Afghanistan. After all, anybody knows that basketball informs strategic military planning, right? In fact, I guess that's how he "knows" -- it must be something like prescience (a gift of the gods!) -- that we should have put more emphasis on Afghanistan than in Iraq all this time.

And, finally, "...an attempt to demonstrate he has the necessary gravitas to maneuver through diplomatic minefields..." Gravitas? Maneuver through diplomatic minefields? Can we be at least objective enough to tone down the "purple prose" about everything Barack Obama says and does? His actual record reveals someone with the "gravitas" of an empty suit. He has soaring oratory, but actual gravitas? No, I don't think so. There's an implication that gravitas is, at least in part, gained by experience -- and Obama's is limited, to say the least, on both the national and international stage.

And, so far as maneuvering through diplomatic minefields goes, he -- and we -- had better hope that he is really good at that, especially since he wants to meet with the likes of Iran's ideologically and theologically driven Israel and America hater Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But, oh, wait, Obama's lately changed that position -- among many others (causing virtual whiplash in some sectors) -- and now says that some preconditions may be necessary.

Does that give you any real confidence that Obama really knows what he's doing? Or is he just making some of this stuff up as he goes along, pandering to whomever he needs to in order to get elected? And, if that's the case, how do we know he won't just change his mind again, as he's recently done on a whole host of issues, if and when he's elected? And, if he is elected, do we really need him making stuff up as he goes, while being tested by other world leaders or perhaps when and if we're all challenged again by a radical terrorist attack? I don't think so, but you really think about it -- and I mean r-e-a-l-l-y think about it -- and decide.

Besides, be honest now, at least with yourself, does one world-wind media tour really establish anyone's -- even Obama's -- bona fides as an expert on what's needed for Iraq or Afghanistan? Or, for that matter, anywhere else? Does it really give him any real gravitas? Does it make him -- almost overnight -- a statesman, instead of a mere freshmen senator of little real accomplishment or record? Does a media tour alone really qualify him to be our Commander-in-Chief, especially in a time of war? Color me crazy, but I don't think so. I think the Magical Media Tour is just that -- maybe not that magical, but definitely more of a media than an actual fact-finding (or mind changing) tour. Lots of photo ops, though. His campaign can make good use of those, making him look presidential and like he knows what he's doing. (After all, who could not like that beaming smile of his, anyway?)

But that's just it -- appearing to know what you're doing and actually knowing what you're doing are two entirely different things. In the Army, we had a couple of phrases that sum up what I think this Magical Media Tour is really all about: "smoke and mirrors" and "dog and pony show."

I guess we're at least lucky that all the Middle Easterners (even the terrorist ones) and Europeans can't vote in the American election for president. If so, Obama might just be a shoo-in.   

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yes, We Can!

Posted by RME KRNL on Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:27:55 PM
Ann Coulter wrote a recent article, "This Is Not A Drill," taking the Democrats to the woodshed for not supporting efforts to expand drilling as a way to eventually ease our current gas pump pain.
 
My comments: 

Truth is, the Democrats just hate Big Oil, and Big Business in general (unless they, or a relative, or somebody's girlfriend is in that business), just about as much as they hate Bush. None of that has to be rational for the Democrats. They are "old school" -- don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up. Sort of like Senator Obama's "strategy" for Iraq before he's ever gone there to see things for himself. Typical "Cart before the horse."

The Democrats' first mantra was "We can't drill our way out of this." Yeah, yeah, sort of like: "The war is lost, the war is lost," as so often espoused by Senator Chicken Little -- er, I mean Senator Harry Reid -- about Iraq. Well, yes, we can drill our way out of this, at least in part. We have the best -- and most environmentally safe -- oil producing technology in the world. It won't be by tomorrow, but then it took 30 years of Congressional (and presidential) "inattention" to get us into this mess in the first place. Although, some credit to Bush, the "oil man," because he's been saying for over six years that we should drill, just not often enough or loud enough.

Then, the Democrats came up with the canard that it's the oil companies' fault anyway, because they haven't drilled on millions of acres they've already leased. Well, if they've tested there and not found anything, why should they spend their and their shareholders' money drilling there? Duh! Besides, uh, there was the little problem of both an Executive and Congressional BAN on drilling where the oil and natural gas actually is anyway -- never mentioned by the Democrats, of course. Now, the president has done the right thing, which he should have done long ago, and lifted the executive ban. The Congress should come together for a change (it's called bipartisanship and doing what's right for the American people) and rush to do the same thing -- and BEFORE taking the month of August off, too!

Next, the Democrats came up with the red herring that it was (again) all the oil companies' fault, that they are making historic (one might say "obscene") profits from the ever-increasing price of gasoline, and that their "windfall profits" should be taxed. Sure, punish the guys with the technology to help us out of this mess, take some of their profits so they have less for exploration, drilling, refining, distributing and all the rest. Yeah, seems like that would both help produce more oil AND bring the price at the pump down. That makes sense -- ahhh, wait a minute -- NO, IT DOESN'T!

[Hmmm, I've noticed that the Democrats, who could just as well be known as the Obstructionist Party, seem to be pretty long on why we CAN'T do something -- environmental special interests, trial lawyer special interests, union special interests, pro-abortion special interests, gay rights special interests, liberal education special interests, global warming (alarmism) special interests (that's all I can think of at the moment) -- but they're often pretty short on what and how we CAN do something. Hey, guys and gals, wake up! You're not the Congressional minority party anymore. You won the Congress! DO something positive for a change!]

In fact, we should be doing it all -- off-shore, oil shale, clean coal, ANWR (sorry, Senator McCain, but you're as wrong about ANWR as you were about "comprehensive immigration reform," otherwise known as amnesty for illegal, scofflaw immigrants), building new refineries, new nuke plants, new pipelines, mandating higher vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, incentivizing new alternative fuels, deincentivizing ethanol (which costs more to produce than it's worth and whose production generates more so-called green house gases than it offsets, produces a fuel less efficient than gasoline, and has now hiked food prices as well).

The mere fact that we signaled our firm intention and united resolve to begin "doing it all," and as fast as we can, would settle the oil speculators down, would send a strong message to our dollar-hogging current oil providing "friends," and would buy us time to discover that next "best thing" (or "things") in alternative fuel sources and efficiency -- and I predict that alone would beneficially impact the price at the pump and do it SHORT-TERM.

Look, folks, this is America.....and we're Americans. United together, we can do almost anything we set our minds, our will, our ingenuity and our backs to -- go into space, land men on the moon, send probes to Mars, defeat the Nazis, the Fascists and the Imperial Japanese Forces (all in one, big war -- then also help them all to rebuild their countries). For another example, we built the Hoover Dam in only about four years (and that was in the 1930s, for goodness sakes! Hmmm, so what's so hard about building a double fence along our southern border, as promised? Okay, okay, that issue is for another day.) Oh, and win the war in Iraq....and Afghanistan. Yes, that too.

So, my apologies to Senator Obama, because I know he invented this phrase, along with the words "hope" and "change," but we're Americans, and "Yes, we can!"

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »