BIG OIL a.k.a. "Black Gold" or "Texas Tea"

Many "environmentalists" and anti-capitalists (sorry to repeat myself) talk about "Big Oil" as if it's a dirty phrase. Prominent liberal politicians often talk about how she (oops!) will "take profits" from Big Oil. I wonder what effect that would have on the millions of oil employees and shareholders; or the world wide economy that is driven - like it or not - by oil? Whose fault will it be, in that worldview, when all the resulting layoffs happen to the "little guy."

Change Our Energy Policy and Increase Domestic Oil Production: The reason you always hear about the dangers of "special interest groups" is that these groups get enough people to join them that they influence politicians with votes or with contributions. The politicians then have to pander to them, creating a conflict of interest in policy-making that we wouldn't tolerate in the private sector. With energy policy, the modern environmentalist movement has blocked domestic production with irrational and unscientific stances that are, nevertheless, popular. Currently, this has reached the point that we are too dependant on foreign sources of oil, many of which are even terrorism supporters. In fact,

I'll take that a step further and tell you that Islamic aggression is not at all new. The Muslim "expansion" you read about in revisionist history books never tells you that this expansion happened through violent conquest, all fluffy Disney movies aside. That has been the norm since Mohammed, and we only saw that diminished when the Ottoman Empire (a huge state sponsor of Islamic expansion) fell. The resurgence we are seeing now in Islamic terrorism is partly a direct result of Middle Eastern oil revenues, and our environmentalists are the main reason we don't cut off the funds to such groups by relying on our own sources of oil.

We have not built a new refinery in this country in 30 years; and other countries like China and Cuba are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico when we will not....all in the name of misguided environmentalism. My candidate would point all of this out, along with the fact that all of us have a stake in the success of the oil industry (many of us directly, as

43% of Americans have retirement investments in "Big Oil").

Lastly, oil is a natural substance, and thus, pretty "green." What about carbon emissions? If you are worried about that, the best thing to do is work to stop all of the volcanoes from erupting. Just one releases more fluorocarbons than all the cars ever driven combined...even Hummers.

Furthermore, it is a well documented fact that our climate is not a static, unchanging thing. Natural cycles increase and decrease temperature trends no matter what we are driving. I mean, what caused the end of the Ice Age? That was global warming before cars even existed. And....recent studies show that Antarctica is growing, and many climatologists are already talking - just as they were 30 years ago - about global cooling. Energy policy needs to be based on logic and science, rather than the latest fads. The free market will move us beyond fossil fuels when the technology is ready. Government intervention in that only screws up the current oil-based world economy....for no observable benefit.

Can you name one great invention that was a result of government support? Know why you can't? Because a government grant only serves to reward someone even though they haven't yet produced results. The free market gives the inventor in his back yard shed a much better incentive...profit. The free market only rewards winners. My candidate would not force the public to fund the losers. More about all this at my Global Warming article.

Government officials try to keep the public perpetually alarmed about something dire from which they need saving. Saving by whom? Whom might you think? You guessed it. Mencken puts it better than I could when he says...

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." [H. L. Mencken]

For a great - and exhaustively documented - read on this subject, pick up Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Or Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist . Buy both below....

Who Are Extreme Environmentalists Anyway?

The people who used to call themselves anti-capitalist communists found that they could better disrupt the free market by shrieking about spotted owls and SUVs. They don't talk like "anti-capitalists" anymore; they talk like "anti-consumers." Same thing, isn't it? But who would be mean enough to oppose them if their concern was over Mommy Earth? It sells much better than hippies in Mao suits carrying commie banners. You don't see them anymore, but think about it...

do you think all the Communists just went away? No, friend, they are now in the Environmentalist movement.

They want you to feel guilty every time you flip a light switch, drive your nice car, or when you have plenty of food to "consume" ... just as they always have. Same people, different label is all.

The Two Americas

Secondly, a politician's best tool is to play upon your natural jealousy towards people who have it better than you do (incite class envy) so that you will vote for them. They promise to "Rob Peter to Pay Paul." If you are Paul, he gets your vote every time. And guess what? There are far more Pauls in the world than there are rich people...so, in a democratic, one-person-one vote system, what do you think happens to Peter's money? Ask yourself that the next time you hear a politician talk about "income redistribution" or "making the rich pay their far share" or "the two Americas." Did you know that

the top 1% of income earners pay over a third of all the taxes collected? And the top 36% pay 97% of all taxes. How then are the rich not paying their "fair" share?

Plus, what class warfare socialist politicians will never tell you is that those big mean companies provide all the jobs for "the little guy," drive innovation and technology for all of us, and fuel the economy when they spend on materials. And they will never tell you either that the rich people who run businesses (especially big businesses) account for over 64% of all spending - which keeps the economy running for everyone. And I won't even go into the fact that poor people are certainly not the ones doing all the giving to charity. That's another article.

In short, the affluent big companies and individuals carry the rest of society upwards with them. That's what capitalism does. It is impossible to grow a company's profits without hiring more people (providing more livelihoods, in case you are a Florida voter who can't put that together on your own). That only seems "unfair" if you are a victim-oriented, whining socialist.

Have you ever heard a winner say that something was "unfair?"

This is an excerpt from Neal's Nuze on www.boortz.com