Home > Perspective
The Extreme Leftist Energy Non-Policy
We need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. The left repeatedly excoriates our beloved President for his alleged failure to address this issue. However, he has repeatedly stated that there has been no energy policy in thie country since Bill Clinton took the oath of office. In his first term, President Bush set forth a prototype energy policy; the leftists attacked both him and Dick Cheney for supposedly having Enron and Halliburton write the policy for the government (a charge never proven).
"Now come on, we all know that if it is good for America, itís hated by the left, as it shows its virulent hatred of this country with its every action."
Now our President sets forth more things needed to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. So the left will hop on and help out, right? Now come on, we all know that if it is good for America, itís hated by the left, which shows its virulent hatred of this country with its every action. You see, we can only reduce our dependence on foreign energy in a way that completely pays obeisance to the leftís America-hating, extremist positions on everything. Rush brought this up today on his show. We cannot build nuclear power plants; we cannot build more oil refineries; we cannot drill for a drop of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fear of hurting the Caribou (ironically, the last Alaskan oil drilling operation was berated for this very thing; yet the Caribou flourished as never before, because of the pipelineís heat); we cannot burn one extra atom of our massive coal reserves lest we actually have to mine the coal; we cannot add any ports that can receive imports of Liquified Natural Gas, nor can we drill for our own gas reserves.
What does that leave? Conservation. Now please donít take this article as any kind of knock on conservation. It is the opposite. Conservation is good. We should not squander any natural resources. However, this does not mean that we need to adhere to the leftís definition of "conservation", which is that we abandon virtually all uses of energy, even if it means that we weaken the countryís economy, or make us more vulnerable to foreign attack or dominion. The left would have no more nuclear power plants ever built, shut all of them down, and advocate the lifetime imprisonment of every person ever associated with nuclear energy.
"The left holds that America can be neither powerful nor innovative while a conservative government is in place. See, if we innovate when a conservative government reigns, there is no way to funnel the details of the innovation to our enemies!"
Why does the left hate nuclear power? The atomic bomb. It shows America to be a powerful and innovative nation. The left holds that America can be neither powerful nor innovative while a conservative government is in place. See, if we innovate when a conservative government reigns, there is no way to funnel the details of the innovation to our enemies! Yet it is OK for socialist countries like France to work assiduously toward 100% nuclear power, and for terrorist countries like Iran, which ironically, as our President noted in last nightís news conference, sits on a pool of oil, to develop nuke plants (we all know that they are building these power plants as a pretense for building an atomic weapon, which would thrill any self-respecting liberal).
Were we to convert all of our oil and gas-fired power facilities over to nuclear, we would massively reduce the air pollution that causes liberal hand-wringing. Would we blow ourselves to kingdom come? Ainít happened yet! Would we end up Chernobyl-izing the country? Our safety standards are too strict. Would Osama come out of his cave and blow one up and kill millions? Well, when he could have made a difference and installed a weasely leftist wimp into power here, during the 2004 election, the only thing he could use to attack us was a nasty VHS tape. And that "weapon" was not sent into the USA, it was only delivered to Al-Jazerra in the Middle East. We should immediately undertake to convert all electrical power generation fueled by oil or natural gas to nuclear power. We have the congressional delegation to mandate a schedule to make it so.
What about converting old army bases to oil refineries? Interesting idea. No, scratch that, an outstanding idea. We are woefully under capacity to refine oil. Of course the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd will howl loudly about this, even as they also howl about fuel price hikes caused mainly by this lack of refining capacity. The present refineries in the USA will soon have to start shutting down for maintenance, and unless there are facilities that will take up the load, weíre screwed. So we should immediately allow three federally-subsidized oil refineries to be built, where the subsidies will be paid back with interest over 30 years (just like a mortgage) by the oil companies, on three closed army bases. My guess is that the NIMBY crowd will change their tunes when everyone and their uncle are hired into new jobs to operate these refineries.
And what about ANWR? Come on, just do it. 1500 acres out of 19 million would be occupied. The Caribou will not be harmed. History has taught us that this is the case. We could, when combined with the other options listed here, eliminate all dependence on any foreign oil! Not one drop!
Of course, then the left loses another point with which to carp on against our beloved president. The Extreme Leftist Energy Non-Policy is this: Hurt America with poor energy policies until the people feel forced to put the left back in power. The problem is this: The people are not stupid and can see through this gambit.