Congressional Democrats, stridently opposing the Development of domestic energy in the United States, have run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Their battle cry of "Millions for conservation but not one thin dime for domestic resource development", which seeks to have us reading by candle light as we, quaintly, sit around our wood stoves after riding our bicycles home from seeking work during a depression, does not address the United State's need for energy AFTER conservation has been implemented by the United States.
No nukes, wind, oil, coal or any other form of, domestically available, energy is acceptable to these modern day Luddites and their failed philosophy that we can conserve our way out of our energy crisis. However, conserve as we may, we still need infusions of energy. Such is the burden of all industrialized nations. The question, then, is not whether or not we can rely on conservation alone to supply our energy needs, it is where the necessary additional energy will come from.
Congressional Democrats, through their refusal to even allow discussion regarding a Domestic Energy Policy (beyond conservation), are demanding that the energy status quo of the United States be maintained. This would be an ever increasing demand on foreign oil. Our energy demands are increasing, in spite of conservation, and alternate sources of energy are, congressionally, unacceptable because none of them represent a perfect solution.
Unfortunately, most of our demand for foreign oil is sated by that unstable region known as the Middle East, which requires our military presence to keep the pipelines open, thereby requiring a large portion of our military resources. This commitment of our military, in regions of the world in which our energy interests must be protected, renders this portion of our military unavailable in other emerging hot-spots of the world.
The rest of the world has taken notice of this, congressionally mandated, dilemma and is taking this opportunity to misbehave due to the United State's entanglements in the Middle East.
Together with all of the calculated consequences that Congress recognizes and refuses to correct, there is this, additional, application of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Spreading our military thin in regions of the world, for purposes which could be corrected by Congress through a comprehensive domestic energy plan, is inviting unforeseen instabilities in the global scheme of things.
Wake up you Democrats, or are you getting paid by someone, somewhere, to remain asleep? If you and your ideologues can accuse Bush and Cheney of being big oil men, aligning themselves with big oil because they are seeking to resolve domestic energy problems, it is fair to portray you as aligning yourselves with foreign big oil interests who are not particularly friendly to the United States. Clearly then, the question must be asked, "Just who does this allegiance benefit?" Certainly not the United States who is footing the bill for the demands on our military to keep the oil flowing from these unstable regions of the world. Certainly not our men and women in uniform who are dodging bullets and flak to keep the pipelines open.
It may be time for an audit of the personal and campaign finances of all those, in Congress, who are obstructing domestic energy production in favor of maintaining the luxurious lifestyles of middle eastern big oil moguls. Perhaps its time to follow the money.
Their battle cry of "Millions for conservation but not one thin dime for domestic resource development", which seeks to have us reading by candle light as we, quaintly, sit around our wood stoves after riding our bicycles home from seeking work during a depression, does not address the United State's need for energy AFTER conservation has been implemented by the United States.
No nukes, wind, oil, coal or any other form of, domestically available, energy is acceptable to these modern day Luddites and their failed philosophy that we can conserve our way out of our energy crisis. However, conserve as we may, we still need infusions of energy. Such is the burden of all industrialized nations. The question, then, is not whether or not we can rely on conservation alone to supply our energy needs, it is where the necessary additional energy will come from.
Congressional Democrats, through their refusal to even allow discussion regarding a Domestic Energy Policy (beyond conservation), are demanding that the energy status quo of the United States be maintained. This would be an ever increasing demand on foreign oil. Our energy demands are increasing, in spite of conservation, and alternate sources of energy are, congressionally, unacceptable because none of them represent a perfect solution.
Unfortunately, most of our demand for foreign oil is sated by that unstable region known as the Middle East, which requires our military presence to keep the pipelines open, thereby requiring a large portion of our military resources. This commitment of our military, in regions of the world in which our energy interests must be protected, renders this portion of our military unavailable in other emerging hot-spots of the world.
The rest of the world has taken notice of this, congressionally mandated, dilemma and is taking this opportunity to misbehave due to the United State's entanglements in the Middle East.
Together with all of the calculated consequences that Congress recognizes and refuses to correct, there is this, additional, application of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Spreading our military thin in regions of the world, for purposes which could be corrected by Congress through a comprehensive domestic energy plan, is inviting unforeseen instabilities in the global scheme of things.
Wake up you Democrats, or are you getting paid by someone, somewhere, to remain asleep? If you and your ideologues can accuse Bush and Cheney of being big oil men, aligning themselves with big oil because they are seeking to resolve domestic energy problems, it is fair to portray you as aligning yourselves with foreign big oil interests who are not particularly friendly to the United States. Clearly then, the question must be asked, "Just who does this allegiance benefit?" Certainly not the United States who is footing the bill for the demands on our military to keep the oil flowing from these unstable regions of the world. Certainly not our men and women in uniform who are dodging bullets and flak to keep the pipelines open.
It may be time for an audit of the personal and campaign finances of all those, in Congress, who are obstructing domestic energy production in favor of maintaining the luxurious lifestyles of middle eastern big oil moguls. Perhaps its time to follow the money.
