Just what are they accused of? Basically, sharing with the public one of the major hidden costs of the Obama administration’s health care reform plan, now law, specifically the impact of the bill on the profitability of American businesses. It seems that they have announced a major hit to their bottom line because, as noted in a piece at InvestmentWatch, they “can no longer deduct from their taxes the subsidies paid by the federal government for retiree drug benefits.”

More simply stated: When the prescription drug benefit was passed, the Bush administration was concerned that major companies would encourage their retirees to move to Medicare to take advantage of the new benefit, thereby dramatically increasing the costs of Medicare. To significantly minimize this potential, the government provided these companies with subsidies to help cover the cost of retiree prescription drug plans. Since those subsidies were going directly to the retiree plans, they were tax exempt. In other words, these companies didn’t have to treat these subsidies as income. Well, under ObamaCare, these subsidies now have to be treated as additional income and are therefore taxed as such, resulting in billions in additional taxes.

It would appear that the Obama administration isn’t concerned with increasing costs to Medicare — not at all surprising, considering that Barack Obama’s ultimate goal is the eventual implementation of a national single-payer health care system.

Back to the point at hand.  For companies with a large number of retirees, the loss of these subsidies will have a significant impact on profitability, which according to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 409) passed by Congress on July 25, 2002 must be reported to investors and potential investors (the public). For global companies, this is essentially the world.

According to the Act, companies are required “to disclose to the public, on an urgent basis, information on material changes in their financial condition or operations,” disclosures which are to be presented in terms that are easy to understand.  In other words, Section 409 clearly states that “material changes to their financial condition” are to be presented “on an urgent basis” and in “real time.”

With this kind of transparency, why is Rep. Waxman calling these Four Horsemen to appear before the committee? The administration’s problem is that this disclosure exposes the lie which is the root of so much of their health care-related rhetoric — that the new law is paid for and that it will not cost the taxpayers any money. In reality, though, when corporations receive a major hit to their bottom line, millions of stockholders (taxpayers) are affected, essentially receiving a hidden tax increase, and that increase trickles down to the public at large as the potential of higher prices needed to cover these additional expenses.

Just why Caterpillar, AT&T, John Deere, and Verizon were chosen to appear is a mystery. Many other companies have announced first quarter “writedowns” because of the passing of ObamaCare, including Boeing, AK Steel, 3M, and Valero Energy. There is no doubt that ObamaCare is causing a problem for these companies and, obviously, because of the demand to appear before Congress this is an unintended consequence to the bill. What other unintended consequences are in our future? What other “lies” about this bill will be discovered as the weeks and months and years pass?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe these four companies don’t represent the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Maybe, just maybe, they represent the Four Musketeers–Athos, Portos, Aramis, and d’Artagnan–riding to Washington to save the day, educate the elite in Congress (those that don’t know they don’t know, but think they know more than anyone else). We need the men who are representing these companies to ride to our defense, to carry our standard, to let Congress and American citizens know that we will no longer be treated as serfs whose ideas, beliefs, and commitments don’t matter. That we will no longer allow our laws and ideals to be trampled on and changed to meet the whims of those in power.

In addition, they have a legal and moral obligation to protect their investors. Those that have bowed down and kissed the ring of the Obama Administration have not fared too well. Look what happened to the stock and bondholders of General Motors and Chrysler, or just look at what’s happening to the banking industry … while the administration completely ignores the government’s role in the current financial crisis.

We can hope that these four won’t be cowed by the power of those in Congress, but instead will stand tall and speak truth to that power. There is precedent for this.

On August 6, 1947, Howard Hughes appeared before the Senate War Investigating Committee and essentially destroyed the reputation of the Republican senator from Maine, Owen Brewster. The senator had targeted Hughes as a favor to his friend and financial contributor, Juan Trippe, president of Pan-American Airways, a fierce competitor of Hughes-owned Trans World Airlines.

Hughes came prepared with the facts, not only the facts regarding his use of government funds during the war but also facts which shed light on how the rest of the industry fared and showed that his purported misuse of those funds was, in fact, not as significant as other airplane manufacturers that were not under investigation. He also didn’t hesitate to clearly state, for the record, Brewster’s relationship with Trippe and, his own opinion that the investigation had more to do with assuring Pan Am had exclusive rights to fly people and freight across the Atlantic than it did to Hughes’ “misuse” of government funds.

Do our current Musketeers have the courage to speak truth to power as Hughes did?

Well, Hughes was a fearless entrepreneur, a man with a vision who would not allow anything or anybody to stop that vision from becoming reality. When he appeared before Brewster’s committee he had the facts to support his views, and he wasn’t afraid to use those facts. He saw Congress for what it was: a group of men who were more interested in their agendas than in what was best for the American People. Here’s how the congressional hearing was portrayed in The Aviator, the 2004 film directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes:

Well, how about our Four Musketeers? Do they have the courage to do the same? To be fair, the situation is somewhat different. None of these men are entrepreneurs, but instead are businessmen with a responsibility to their companies, investors, and the public at large. How they interpret this responsibility will make all the difference. Will they fear a public backlash should they challenge Congress? Will they fear a loss of government contracts should they speak the truth? Will they reconsider their positions, based on the Obama administration’s oft-demonstrated ability to circumvent current laws and governmental policies (as it did regarding the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler)?

This is the first test of the viability of ObamaCare. These companies, through their own representatives, have the opportunity to show the American people that there are major problems with this bill, problems that will prove the truth of its unacceptability to the majority of American voters. One of two things will undoubtedly happen — either the CEOs will come out swinging and this will be the first challenge to the false promises of the Obama Administration regarding health care reform, or it will be another instance in which the righteous swallow their pride, bow, and kiss the ring of power.

What will transpire, nobody knows.  But in case you want to support a choice of the path of righteousness, here is the contact information for the four companies’ executive offices:

• Caterpillar: 100 North East Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois USA 61629; (309) 675-1000
• AT&T: 208 S. Akard St. Dallas, Texas USA 75202; (210) 821-4105
• John Deere: One John Deere Place, Moline, Illinois 61265; (309) 765-8000
• Verizon: 140 West St. New York, NY 10007; (212) 395-1000

Horseman, or Musketeers — you make the call.

Now, we’re making a return trip to Whole Foods.  And it’s not to check prices.  We’re roaming the aisles to show exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party.  And, at a time when the right kind of Republicans are emerging, it’s all too important to know the difference.

In mid-December of last year, a week before the health care reform legislation now signed into law had even passed in the Senate during a Christmas Eve vote, an op-ed piece entitled “Whole Foods Republicans” ran in The Wall Street Journal, and demonstrated the real problem with the GOP.  The author was Michael Petrilli, a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and the second part of the headline read as follows:

“The GOP needs to enlist voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics.”

The basic premise, suggested in the subtitle and stated clearly in the article itself, is that the vast majority of us conservatives (he doesn’t use this term, but there’s no doubt this is what he means) who oppose many of Obama’s progressive policies are uneducated rednecks who are extremely judgmental against anyone who lives a lifestyle different from their own. Bottom line: Mr. Petrilli proved himself a moderate Republican elitist — and that, my fellow conservatives, is the problem with the Republican Party, and the element which needs to be excised before we move forward.

My definition of an elitist is, simply, “a person who doesn’t know they don’t know but instead thinks they know more than anyone else.” This definition fits Mr. Petrilli’s arguments perfectly.  Take a look, using is own words.

The voting patterns of the college-educated is another story. About 30% of Americans 25 and older have at least a bachelor’s degree; in 1988 that number was only 20% and in 1968 it was 10%. As less-educated seniors pass away and better-educated 20- and 30-somethings take their place in the electorate, this bloc will exert growing influence. And here’s the distressing news for the GOP: According to exit-poll data, a majority of college-educated voters (53%) pulled the lever for Mr. Obama in 2008—the first time a Democratic candidate has won this key segment since the 1970s.

There are two major flaws in this statement. First of all, by stating that the GOP will have difficulty as “less educated seniors pass away and better-educated 20- and 30-somethings take their place in the electorate,” what Petrilli is suggesting is that being “college-educated” means you are better educated. Well, I have taught a total of eight different undergraduate and graduate courses at three different universities and, in my personal experience, our current college graduates are anything but better educated. In fact, many of them are not interested in becoming educated at all. In my opinion, my own father, mother, eldest son and daughter–none of whom received a college degree–are all better educated than many of the students I taught in my upper division and graduate classes.  Education comes from experience, not pedigree or diploma; for a shining example of that, take a look at the inhabitant of the Oval Office, and the dire straits facing our nation.

His second assumption is that the “college-educated voters” who “pulled the lever for Mr. Obama in 2008” are probably still committed to Obama’s progressive policies and in opposition to those who have a more conservative view. Anyone who does serious research on the Tea Partiers and similar groups know that their main focus is on taxes and politics. This is the same focus seen in the vast majority of educated independents who believe they were snookered by Obama and the liberal media regarding the president’s political philosophies. It is only the Republican elite and the liberal media who believe that the conservative movement is, in the main, focused on other societal issues.

Petrilli also buys into the myth, propagated by the liberal media, that the vast majority of conservatives are opposed to anyone who doesn’t embrace their conservative lifestyle. As with most myths, this one has no basis in fact. Here’s another example of where Petrilli goes wrong, in Petrilli’s own words:

Let the Democrats have the Starbucks set, goes the thinking, and we’ll grab working-class families. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, for instance, wants to embrace “Sam’s Club” Republicans. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pitched himself in 2008 as the guy who “looks like your co-worker, not your boss.” Even Mitt Romney blasted “Eastern elites.” And of course there’s Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.

In this quote, Petrilli suggests that Pawlenty, Huckabee, Romney, and–of course!–Sarah Palin are not interested in appealing to those in the United States who are educated, but rather to the “’Sam’s Club’ Republicans,” the average guy, the guy who is more like “your co-worker, not your boss.” This, of course, is a ridiculous assumption and is far from the truth. Conservatives line up against the elitist, that person who doesn’t know they don’t know but thinks they know better than anyone else. Sometimes, this is indeed the boss, as I’m sure most of us know warehouse workers or other lower-tier personnel who truly know more about the true business of the company than the elite management running it. This was very true for many companies I’ve been intimately involved with, including both Atari and MVP.com.

Furthermore, his attack on Sarah Palin is so typical of the same elite who refuse to look beyond their bi-coastal bubbles, who believe everything they read in the newspapers and nothing they see from real people in real America. Take, for example, this quote from the former Alaska governor:

The Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes in the name of their engagement policy. America and our allies watch as sanctions are eased on Cuba. Letters are written to Iran’s mullahs only to see that regime start killing protestors in the streets of Tehran. Envoys are sent to North Korea as they continue to defy the world’s demand to give up their nuclear weapons. The Burmese military junta’s representative is allowed to travel to our nation’s capital. The President’s envoy for Sudan talks about giving that genocidal regime “gold stars,” while the President shakes hands with Venezuela’s tyrannical leader. In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel.

Or this one:

Months ago I discussed Washington’s decision to allow U.S. dollars to flow to Brazil for that nation’s off-shore oil drilling projects, while D.C.’s attitude towards America’s own offshore developments appeared less than enthusiastic. We gained hope though when our President promised in his State of the Union address that he’d be “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” Most of us optimistically assumed that “making tough decisions” meant allowing at least some offshore drilling. … Turns out that was just more drilling doublespeak … .

While everyone has been focused on Obamacare, the Obama administration took advantage of America’s distraction and quietly said that it’s planning to place a hold on offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf until at least 2012.

At a time when our country is desperate for job growth, deficit reduction, and energy independence, it’s simply astonishing that the administration refuses to allow additional offshore drilling, even while supporting energy development in foreign countries.

Do these quotes sound like they come from a person whose “entire brand is anti-intellectual”? And these are just two examples of many from Palin’s public Facebook page.  It is Palin’s folksy charm–the very thing which makes her attractive to so many tired of the John Dingells and Nancy Pelosis and Chuck Schumers and Henry Waxmans of the world–which is so often intentionally mischaracterized as an intellectual drought.  Much in the same way that so many Tea Party activists–normal, everyday Americans–are dismissed as unintelligent.

Additionally, Petrilli said:

What’s needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate “Whole Foods Republicans”—independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated individuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods, which has become a symbol of progressive affluence but is also a good example of the free enterprise system at work.

Note especially his comment above: “never tell racist or homophobic jokes.” His ignorance of the true conservative is appalling. I personally don’t know a single conservative who would tell racist or homophobic jokes; in fact, I don’t know a conservative who has any problems with the homosexual lifestyle. I do know some who are against gay marriage, while strongly supporting civil unions that would guarantee gays all of the legal rights of a married couple. Nor do I know a conservative that is against immigration; but I do know plenty who are against ignoring our laws and allowing anyone and everyone to enter, live, and work in our country without going through the proper channels.

As far as racist attitudes, the reality is that progressives are just as prone to these types of remarks as any conservative, if not more so.  In fact, it is progressives who are obsessed with everything race, who look to inject racial controversy into each ancillary issue.  More over, it is their belief that the government must protect the down- trodden which leads them to a deep-seated racial prejudice that has not been helpful to blacks, nor will it be helpful to Hispanics.

In many ways the conservative is much more “inclusive” than the progressive, but are characterized as anything but.  In reality, the conservative believes that all races are equal in intelligence and wisdom and only need to be given the opportunity to excel, while is is the progressive who believes that there are those races who are not as blessed and, therefore, need help from their “betters” if they are to have a chance at a satisfactory life.

For me this attitude was best exemplified by one of the heroes of the progressive movement, Robert T. Greenleaf, author of the book Servant Leadership. His attitude of elitism becomes apparent as he bemoans that certain groups of the “dark-skinned and the deprived and the alienated of the world” are trying to solve their own problems. This is what he says:

… some of those of today’s privileged who will live into the Twenty-first Century will find it interesting if they can abandon their present notions of how they can best serve their less-favored neighbor and wait and listen until the less favored find their own enlightenment, then define their needs in their own way, and, finally, state clearly how they want to be served.

In this way Greenleaf reflects the condescending attitude of elitism that has been prevalent over the centuries: the attitude that only a few are chosen to lead and that these are the elite among us, those that will show the way and will save us from ourselves. Time and time again, we’ve seen that same sentiment present in so many comments from stalwarts on the left.  Look at these, for example, from the Hip Hop Republican:

You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.
– Sen. Joe Biden

Mahatma Gandhi ran a gas station down in St. Louis.
– Sen. Hillary Clinton

You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.
– Former Sen. Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?
– Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos to learn how to read and write.”
– Mike Wallace, CBS News.

Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They’d rather take pictures with black children than feed them.
– Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager for the 2000 election

…a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.
– Spike Lee, on United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.
– California State Senator Diane Watson, on Ward Connerly’s interracial marriage

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
– Former Klansman and current U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate,” in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.

And Petrilli accuses conservatives of being racist!

Meanwhile, he continues with basically the same rant, fearful that the Republican Party is becoming anti-intellectual and will therefore never achieve prominence again. The truth is that conservatives, who will make up the vast majority of Republicans in the future, are not against intelligence and in fact are out front in doing needed intelligent analysis of many progressive issues — ObamaCare, anthropogenic global warming, U.S. future energy needs, and amnesty among them, to name a few. It is the Progressives who are accepting the “truth” of these issues without doing the needed intelligent analysis.

Petrilli has it all wrong. We are not against making intelligent, well-considered decisions. But, we are against signing 2,700-page bills without any idea of what they contain and how they will change our lifestyles. We are against elitists who don’t know they don’t know but think they know better than anyone else.

Nor, by the way, are true conservatives against shopping at Whole Foods.  Full disclosure: I, too, shop there.  And I like it.

However, I’d like to take another look at this situation from the perspective of management needing to replace a critical manager who was not only doing an outstanding job, but was also extremely well-liked. This replacement is controversial because of the attitude of those dealing with this manager on a daily basis; when replacing an exceptional individual, any candidate becomes controversial. This situation, from the point of view of the acceptance of a “controversial” candidate, may be reflective of Miers’ nomination and Alito’s approval to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

In regard to the promotion, it is extremely difficult for someone to gain acceptance when replacing a manager who is excellent in all respects, is “loved, admired, and respected” by the vast majority of those they worked with (reports, peers, clients, etc.) and, in other words, “can walk on water.” This is true no matter how good the new manager might be. To the executive who must make this decision, it’s like throwing the new manager to the wolves.

So, if you’re an intelligent executive, do you take your best candidate, the one that you really want, someone who must succeed, and throw them to the wolves? Not if you can help it.

What you do is bring in a transitional manager (TM) so that the team can get used to a new person, someone who they don’t know and love, someone who isn’t “perfect” in their eyes. After six months or a bit more, most of the people who work with the TM have been weaned from their dependence on the original manager and will judge anyone new against the TM, the result: your first choice has a much better chance of succeeding.

Rove appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show on Friday morning and, while justifying the Bush administration’s success at getting two excellent Justices (John Roberts and Samuel Alito) confirmed for the Supreme Court of the United States, stated (paraphrasing): “Maybe we made a mistake in judging the reaction to Miers’ nomination, but you have to give us credit for the justices we did get Senate confirmation for.” Laura, for all of her insight as a lawyer and former Supreme Court clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, had trouble arguing with that.

However, there is another possible scenario that runs counter to Rove’s explanation that the political storm resulting from Harriet Miers nomination might have been a mistake. What if it was a Bush, Cheney and Rove plan to make sure that they got confirmation of the candidate they really wanted? They were, after all, always very good at getting what they wanted.

Roberts’ nomination and acceptance as Chief Justice came first, but it was difficult for the Democrats in the Senate to find significant reasons to fight his approval. His judicial opinions, intelligence, and speaking ability essentially left them speechless. Alito, however, was a different matter. He was a well-known conservative, possibly even a Libertarian. The Senate Democrats would have found much to dislike about his nomination, as would many of the moderates in the Republican party.  They gave him a rough time to say the least and, according to Justice Alito, to this day when walking past the Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., he will cross the street to the other side of the road and keep his distance.

So, let’s assume for the moment that Alito was really Bush’s first choice. Reports from the White House suggest that it was Laura Bush who was lobbying for a female candidate, so it isn’t unreasonable to suggest that Bush, Cheney and Rove had someone else in mind. If that someone else was Alito, they would have known that they had a tough fight on their hands. In addition to past experience, all kinds of candidates were being suggested by everyone who believed they had a stake in the outcome — which meant about anyone with a platform from which to give their opinions.

The problem was, however, most of the “acceptable” candidates tended to be moderate in their approach to the Constitution and in their previous decisions. There was concern that another John Paul Stevens could be appointed, someone who appeared moderate (at least to President Ford) but ended up to be very much on the liberal side of the bench.

Also, remember, conservatives had already lost one excellent candidate, Robert Bork, while having a terrible time with another, Clarence Thomas. The Bush administration wouldn’t want their first choice to have to go through what those two candidates experienced, but they also wouldn’t want to take the chance that he wouldn’t gain Senate approval. The critical issue was to get unanimous support from Senate Republicans because the vote was going to be close.

So, with all of these issues, what do you do?

Well, if you’re smart, you nominate someone that most people–even conservatives–might complain about, knowing that there was a good chance that this person would not be able to gain Senate confirmation. It would have to be someone that you’d be happy with should they get confirmed, but that you wouldn’t worry too much about should confirmation be a problem.

Then, you’d go to this person and tell them what your plan is. That you were going to nominate them, but there was a good chance that the nomination would come under a lot of criticism. If that happened, you would want them to withdraw their nomination, so that you could nominate another candidate.

The nomination of Harriet Miers caused tremendous controversy, with suggestions even being made that Bush was nominating a friend that lacked acceptable credentials to be considered seriously for the Supreme Court. This was one of the few times that there was agreement between conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats. Nobody, it seemed, could figure out why he would nominate such a “poorly qualified candidate.”

After a relatively short time, Miers withdrew her nomination, stating that she was “concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country.” A strong feeling of relief went across the country as everyone from liberals to conservatives believed they had won the day.

Now it was up to Bush to present another candidate, and his nomination was Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.; a known conservative. How would this nomination fly?

As it was, the battle was very close with Alito having to survive a concerted effort by the Democrats to sink his nomination as they did Bork’s and almost did Thomas’s. Alito even had to survive a filibuster attempt by Ted Kennedy. Without what was essentially the unanimous support of the Senate Republicans (all but one Republican, plus a few Democrats), this nomination too would have been in trouble.

Nobody has even hinted that this was Bush, Cheney and Rove’s plan from the beginning. Regardless, it is my contention that, whether planned or not, Alito would not be on the Supreme Court today if Miers had not been nominated first. In essence, Harriet Miers was “sacrificed” so that Alito could serve and the United States could maintain the slight conservative advantage in the Supreme Court that is so essential to the maintenance of our freedoms.

As a side note, it’s obvious that the Democrats are willing to do anything possible to stop Supreme Court confirmation for anyone that doesn’t support their view of a nation run by progressive principles, while the Republicans seem to believe that the president of the United States ought to be able to nominate the person of their choice with little more than a stamp of approval by the Senate. Both of these attitudes are a problem for conservatives who are rightly convinced that only individuals who are strong supporters of the United States Constitution as it was written by the founders should be allowed to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

After all, they do swear to  “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion … So help me God.”

In all three of these areas, faced with indisputable opposing information, Progressives hold on to their beliefs with the fervor of religious fanatics. I have two examples of this, one personal and one well known. Recently, I had a conversation with a close friend regarding American policies on immigration. He believed that we could do better, that the current policies “weren’t fair.”  I asked him if he was aware that the United States probably had the most liberal immigration policies in the world, and that we allow more permanent legal immigrants and refugees than any other country.

His response was essentially that “it doesn’t matter,” and that “we can do better.”

I wondered how much better we could do, since we are already doing better than the rest of the world.

This philosophy is essentially utopian, the belief that we could have a world where everything is fair, everything is shared, and nobody suffers. I’ve come to the conclusion that those that hold this belief system have a genetic defect that doesn’t allow them to see the world that really exists. That they didn’t hear it when their mother told them, “Honey, life isn’t fair.”

This “genetic defect” exists at the very highest levels. For an example, look no further than a conversation between Al Gore and Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer about the nine significant errors a British judge had found in Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and specifically an error in the movie which pertained to “climate change” and the polar bear population.

Regarding Al Gore’s assertion that the polar bear population is in sharp decline [despite a wealth of scientific explanation which proves the opposite], the former vice president continued to insist that they were endangered, while McAleer continued to respond that the number of polar bears are actually increasing.

“If the number of polar bears increased,” McAleer said, “surely they’re not endangered.”

Throughout the entire exchange, Gore’s expression was one of an adult trying to explain a fact of life to a small child and being frustrated that he couldn’t grasp this obvious truth. The fact that there is no proof concerning the danger of polar bear extinction, even if global warming proved to be true, has no effect on Gore’s argument that the endangerment of polar bears is one of the main reasons to stop global warming.

This inability to see the facts when they conflict with their powerful belief system is not limited to Progressives. In fact, most of us have problems seeing, accepting, or even considering any data that conflicts with what we strongly believe. However, what makes the Progressive belief system different than what most of us experience is that it is essentially “religious” in nature, based on a faith that goes to the core of who they are.
The problem, of course, is that most often Progressive policies have unintended consequences that are significantly worse than the problems they are trying to solve.

With regard to immigration and because we are a welfare state, most concerning is the ability of the United States to be able to support the millions of people that would flood into our country once any sort of Democratic Party comprehensive immigration bill is passed. While with global warming, it is the loss of opportunity that will result when trillions are spent on a project that will result in very little improvement, whether the problem actually exists or not.

The issue where the religious fervor is especially strong is in education. Any intelligent look at our current public education system, especially in schools populated by a majority of children from families dependent on welfare, would uncover very few success stories. The unintended consequences of Progressive policies regarding education is almost a total lack of education in that segment of population that so badly needs to experience success in this area.

While the failure has many faces, perhaps no such facet serves as a better example than the total lack of classroom discipline, caused by Progressive policies that insist on “civil rights” for all students, regardless of the unintended consequences. Obama showed us yesterday that he has no intention of changing these failed policies and in fact will “toughen civil rights enforcement in the nation’s schools … everything from academics to discipline.”

This runs completely counter to what has been observed by many of the people serving these children. In fact, we are losing excellent, committed teachers because they have lost their passion for teaching when they have to spend the vast majority of their teaching hours struggling with disciplinary issues. Here’s a couple of anecdotal examples that I am personally aware of:

The first involves a woman whose family moved from an area where the majority of the students in her children’s classes were on welfare to an area where only a small minority were dependent on governmental assistance.  She had been very concerned about her own son’s inability to read and so had decided to volunteer as a classroom aid. As such she was able to view firsthand what happened in the classroom.

I asked her how her son was doing in the new school. She told me he was doing “much better.”

I believed that the school in her new middle class neighborhood would have better resources and teachers than the previous one. However, she explained to me that the previous school actually had better resources, including more computers and a more complete library. Furthermore, she thought that the previous school’s teachers were very committed and well qualified.

When I asked her about the difference between the two, and why things were looking up if the school she and her son left had better resources than where they had settled now, she explained that in the previous school there was a complete lack of classroom discipline. “In my experience,” she said, “a conservative estimate of the classroom time teachers spent on disciplinary issues in that school was at least 70 percent.”

“How much classroom time is spent on discipline in the new school?” I asked.

“Zero, nada, not a single minute.”

In order to be absolutely fair to the “civil rights” of all of the students, Progressives are allowing a small minority to significantly denigrate the educational experience of the majority. So, the unintended consequences of the Progressive policies regarding classroom discipline is that most students attending schools in low-income areas are not getting the education they need to succeed as adults.  And it has nothing to do with resources, textbooks or fancy computers.  It has to do with a achool administration’s willingness to enforce policies already on the books.

Not surprisingly, when strict discipline is enforced, the exact opposite happens.

For another example, consider the story of a very close friend of mine currently in his second year of teaching in a school district where almost 100 percent of the student population is from families on welfare. Initially, he had terrible discipline problems, but decided to install the discipline from his military experience into the classroom.

The first year, things went extremely well and his fifth grade class was the highest performing in the district. The second fifth grade class scored so well in the mid year tests (92nd percentile) that the principal insisted that he take over a sixth grade class that had scored extremely low.  Again, he was faced with a total lack of discipline. In fact, on the first day, one the students gave him the “one-finger salute.” My friend told him to leave the classroom and wait for him in the hall. After calling in a substitute teacher, he confronted the student, telling him to “stand up and face me.”

As the student stood, however, he pulled a loaded gun from his sock and pointed it at my friend’s head. My friend slowly backed up toward an exit, hoping to at least get the kid out of the school building. Luckily, a teacher down the hall saw this happen and quickly notified the police. As they got outside of the building the student was overpowered and the incident ended. Of course, the story spread quickly throughout the school and the students in his new sixth grade class were sure that they has seen the last of him.

They were wrong, however, and there my friend was — in class, the very next morning, acting as if nothing had happened and still demanding the level of discipline that had served him so well. I more recently asked him how things were going.

“It’s a struggle,” he said.  “The average kid in this class is reading and doing math at the second grade level, it’s hard to catch them up in just one semester.”

“How about the discipline?” I asked.

“Oh, that’s was taken care of quickly. When I showed up the next day they knew I was serious and that was all it took. When I think about it, I realize that I have at least taught them the value of discipline. Each day starts with, ‘Good morning Mr. Smith.’”

I have no doubt that the kids will do much better, even if my friend only has them for half a year. They’ve not only learned the value of discipline, he’s teaching them that they do have some control over what will happen in their lives.  He’s teaching them the value of personal responsibility, single-handedly looking to turn back the years of Progressive influence in the schools.

The latest figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that fatality data for 2008 “placed the highway death count at 37,261, a drop of 9.7 percent from 2007.” While safety continues to improve, note that approximately 37,000 people died in a traffic accidents in 2008.

If you’re concerned about these figures, and if you’ve been paying attention to the drama unfolding surrounding Toyota Motor Company, you probably want to know the answers to two questions:  First, what are the safest cars on the road today?  Second, how does Toyota stack up in regard to producing safe cars?

On the latter, the answer is “very well.”  In fact, a recent study of the NHTSA’s complaint database found that “NHTSA’s own data shows: Only drivers of Mercedes Benz, Porsches and Smarts have less to kvetch than Toyota owners.”

Out of the 20 top brands, Toyota ranked 17th. In addition, 25.3 percent of the complaints were for automobiles produced by the federal government’s own General Motors — however, when looking at complaints per car, GM actually ranked in 11th place, better than Ford, Chrysler and Volvo. Toyota, of course, had fewer complaints per car than all of the major automobile manufacturers, U.S. and Foreign, except for the three mentioned above. As the driver of a 1995 Toyota station wagon that stills performs like a new car, I’m not the least bit surprised.

So, if this is the case, why is everyone–especially Congress and the media–so hyped up? Actually, this reminds me of the Ford Pinto case from a number of years ago. At that time, Ford was accused of causing hundreds of terrible, fiery deaths as a result of rear-end collisions and a badly placed fuel tank. The press went wild, Congress went wild, and Ford took it on the chin.

Still today, many are convinced that Ford was at fault and that they had allowed these people to die even though they knew that the placement of the fuel tank was a problem. You will find this case still being discussed in many college ethics classes as an example of unethical corporate behavior. But is it the truth?

Even though the impression was left by the media (which has never been good at reporting data that doesn’t support their agendas) that hundreds died in Ford Pinto fires, research by Gary T. Schwartz of Rutgers University shows that the number of deaths when Pintos caught on fire due to a rear-end collision were 27 — not hundreds. While no deaths are acceptable it is impossible to build a car, even today, that guarantees nobody will die in a crash. When you consider the number of Pintos sold–two million–and the miles driven, that’s an exceptionally low figure.

In fact, the Pinto was the safest car in its class sold in the United States at that time, meaning that it had less fatal accidents than any other subcompact and no more fatal accidents than the average mid-sized car. What this tells us is that people who purchased the competition had a better chance of dying in a crash than those that purchased the Pinto. It is true that, in regard to rear-end collisions, the Pinto’s fatality rate among subcompacts was somewhat higher — but certainly was “not enough to support a claim of it being a major highway hazard.”

What Ford had done was look at the potential for death as it related to company costs, which directly affects profitability, which directly affects the ability of a company to hire employees, pay dividends, and do the research needed to make their cars even safer.  While on the surface it seems insensitive to relate costs to risk that could potentially lead to deaths, the idea of balancing risk with cost savings is not only acceptable but in many instances recommended; even considered essential. It may pain you to know this, but this practice will probably become even more prevalent in the future. In fact, not only do all kinds of industries treat this as a normal and recommended practice, the National Health Plan being presented by the administration will depend heavily on this kind of analysis.  In fact, the plans proposed by the House and Senate and White House all have provisions for the creation of boards, commissions and bureaucracies solely intended to balance risk of death with cost.

So, if all of this is true, why the hype and why didn’t Ford fight it? There are a number of reasons, all of which are very common in our “freedom of the press” society:

Number one, only bad news sells papers. If it bleeds, it leads, and the media has a habit of sensationalizing on the front page and running corrections at the bottom of page A-16.

Second, Congress is always looking for ways to prove that it is “looking out for the people.” With our current system of electing representatives every two years, any controversy where Congress can “prove” that they are worthy of being re-elected is jumped on. Or, as Rahm Emanuel said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” For those in Congress, this means, “I need every crisis I can find to get re-elected.”

And third, it is extremely difficult to justify any deaths at all when you are under this kind of scrutiny; using a cost/risk analysis as your “excuse” would be counterproductive at the least and a PR nightmare at the worst. It’s better to just take your lumps and move on; as Toyota seems to be doing today.

Finally, Toyota is non-union and that is a great threat to the unions which, especially in this administration, wield major power. If there’s any way to force Toyota to become a union shop or make non-union life more difficult, the current administration–with its close links to and intimate relationships with the most powerful unions in the world today–would not hesitate to make that happen.

The Toyota case has a couple of other ingredients that the Ford Pinto case did not have. Unlike earlier, this time around the government has a major stake in General Motors  and Toyota is undoubtedly its single-greatest competitor.  This conflict-of-interest, of course, is one of the best reasons for keeping the government out of the private sector, including health care.  It’s not unreasonable to question he ulterior motives of everyone involved, and as the power the government to eliminate competition is unraveled, anyone who thinks government run health care won’t ultimately end up as a single-payer system is extremely naïve.

Ultimately, what we’re seeing now with Toyota is all smoke and mirrors, as millions of Toyota owners will happily attest to. If the media and Congress prevail, Americans will be forced into cars that are less safe and the chances of a traffic-related death happening to someone you love will be increased, and not lowered.

I wouldn’t expect someone like Barack Obama to understand this; his education is woefully inadequate for the challenges that he is expected to meet. In addition, like a whining child standing within feet of a baseball and a broken window, he is always searching for someone else to blame.  He couldn’t be at fault — after all, he only has the best interests of the American people at heart.

For me, when it comes to his propensity to shift blame, the most telling quote came from his remarks on Friday during a remarkable event in which the president strayed into the lion’s den–a room full of House Republicans–and answered questions peppered at him by the opposition.  The quote:

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December; I’m assuming you’re not faulting my policies for that. We had lost 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in, I’m assuming it wasn’t my administration’s policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs in subsequent months, before any of my policies had gone into effect, so I’m assuming that wasn’t as a consequence of our policies—that doesn’t reflect the failure of the Recovery Act … but those jobs losses took place before … any stimulus, whether it was the ones you guys proposed or the ones we proposed, could have ever taken to effect, now that’s just the fact …

Actually, he’s got a couple of his “facts” wrong. First, he blames the House Republicans for the first stimulus package, which is an extremely misleading statement. The truth is that all of the stimulus packages since the successful 2003 tax cuts under former President George W. Bush have taken place with the Democrats in control of Congress. It is true that the first one was proposed in late 2008 by the Bush Administration; however, to blame that on House Republicans is unacceptable.

Second, and even more important, is that Obama has full responsibility for all job losses after November 4th when he became the president-elect. In fact, a strong case could be made that the downturn in the economy began when the Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections.  An understanding of why this is true demands an understanding of the impact of images of the future on a society’s current economic health, and of how business people think — how and why they make the decisions they do.

I have stated previously that I received my Master’s in Futuristics (societal futures).  The subject of my thesis was: “The Influence of Images of the Future on Current Socio-Economic Health.” While my study dealt mainly with the power of positive images of the future, “negative” images of the future can have a disastrous effect on a society. In this instance, “negative” is in the “eye of the beholder.” While Obama sees the future he is planning as a very positive one, where fairness and equality will be spread throughout society, others–especially business owners and investors and anybody who trades in growth and prosperity–tend to see Obama’s vision as an extremely negative one.

There is no doubt that Obama–and, in large respect, the Democratic Party–has made it very clear that they do not support business or embrace the profits that come from running a successful one. In fact, statement after statement has been made during the entire time that the Democrats have been in control of Congress, and even more blatant during the campaigns, that profits were evil and that, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” The whole concept of profit being a bad word, to the redistribution of wealth from those who have achieved to those in need, to an overall War on Success and Prosperity and American Exceptionalism have been made very clear by Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign.

In addition, of course, were the threats of cap-and-trade, government-run health care and “card check” legislation.  Any one of these measures taken alone could cause major problems for business — especially small businesses, the business segment that drives the U.S. economy by creating “more than half of the private non-farm gross domestic product, and … 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs.” (see SBA).  Together, they mean disaster for the American economy, and with so much uncertainty on the horizon, the last thing any business owner is going to take on is more personnel and related expenses.  Nope — unfunded mandates are the domain of the federal government, not the private sector.

Therefore, the image of the future that Barack Obama and a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party paints is an extremely negative one for American business, resulting in more regulation and higher taxes and as a result making it much more difficult to succeed, let alone be profitable. As soon as the Democrats gained control of Congress in January 2007, businesses began to feel negative about the future. Increased government control, which always effects small businesses (97 percent of all firms) more than the large businesses, seemed to be the wave of the future.

Then, with the election of Obama—and the clear understanding to anyone who was listening carefully that he was extremely negative regarding business in general (but especially profitability) while being very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth—the handwriting was on the wall. It was now clearly understood that times were changing and the future for American business was not all that bright. Businesses went from “began to feel negative” to knowing that they had to prepare for the worse possible scenario and the potential of a dramatic decrease in profitability. This attitude was shared by the vast majority of investors.

Make no mistake — this was the image of the future that Barack Obama had painted. This was the future that he seemed committed to bringing about. His image or vision of the future was much more powerful than any of the stimulus packages.

Once businesses realized that there was a strong possibility that they would be seeing a dramatic increase in the costs of doing business, they had no choice but to “batten down the hatches” and prepare for the future that seemed to be on the horizon. How does business prepare for the potential of bad times? They lay people off, instigate hiring freezes and freeze salaries. At the same time, investors get extremely fiscally conservative, only putting their money where there is minimum risk, which means that new businesses find it extremely difficult to just get started.  As a result, jobs become scarce, projects are shelved, and even the best ideas have trouble finding funding.

This is why Obama can be blamed for any downturn in the economy from the day he was elected, and why the Democrats have a major responsibility for any downturn that took place after January 2007. To ignore the effect of the images of the future they have created is to show a level of ignorance that is unacceptable in those in charge of our country.

John F. Kennedy understood this. Many, especially conservatives, want to give all of credit for the success of the economy during the Kennedy years to his tax cuts. While they certainly played a major role, we should not minimize the impact on our economy of his commitment to land a man on the moon. It wasn’t just policy.  It wasn’t just science.  It wasn’t just a race with the Russians.  This was a moonshot.  This was the impossible.  And it was this image of the future which was an extremely positive one, perfect for driving the engine of a society. Businesses and investors were taken in by the vision of seeing an American walk on the moon. Investments were made, businesses were formed, employees were hired, and taxes were paid. During my research for my Master’s, I estimated that approximately $5.00 in taxes was paid for every $1.00 that the government spent on the space program during this exciting time.

In many ways, the Apollo program and the Second World War were two of the best investments made by the United States Government. While the loss of an entire generation of young men in the trenches of northern Europe and in the expansive seas of the south Pacific was something we never want to see repeated, the truth is that we came out of the Second World War the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth. The vision that drove us during World War II was obvious — it was saving the world from totalitarianism, it was assuring a world in need of reassurance that freedom would reign.

The Apollo space program’s vision was essentially to prove the superiority of the American way of life. That once we made a commitment to do something, nothing could hold us back. In addition, for many it was the beginning of a new future for America and the world, a future that included space travel, space industrialization and the promise of new frontiers.  After all, those very same images–travel, industrialization and a promise of new frontiers–are the precise images which have driven the American dream from the very beginning.

So, images of the future are extremely important and very powerful. When the vision is perceived as being very positive, with great potential, businesses and investors search out new opportunities, invest with confidence and gladly take financial risks, believing that the rewards justify the risks they are taking. Yet when the image is perceived by these same people as being negative, they instead pull back, protect their investments and become more fiscally conservative.

Thus, whether he believes it or not, Barack Obama is responsible for what has taken place in the United States since the day of his election, if not months before. And, the Democratic Party has a major responsibility for anything that has happened since January 2007. Both Obama and the Democratic PArty are totally responsible for the images of the future they have created, and those images have had a major impact on our nation’s socio-economic health.

The president of the United States needs to wise up and realize that it is his vision of our society that is causing problems and that, quite probably, our current rebound is due more to the possibility of a Democratic defeat in November and a one-term presidency for Barack Obama than any stimulus package that they can force upon the American public.

It is unacceptable and dangerous that we have anywhere between an estimated 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States with no idea as who they are or why they are here. This problem must be solved, and solved now.  That the problem has not been solved, however, speaks directly to the arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence that exists at the highest levels of our government. I have no doubt that there are good people serving our country in Washington, D.C., people who truly want to do what is right — but as a group, all areas of our government are just broken.

Especially this Congress and White House.  But this problem, and the desperate need for a solution, goes beyond person or party.  In my opinion, when it comes to the immigration problem, in the short term there are only two solutions:

1. Immediately close the borders.
2. Immediately identify and document all illegal immigrants presently in the country.

We cannot allow the continuing influx of illegal immigrants, and the southern border should be our priority. It is ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that the northern border deserves equal attention. Law enforcement–Border Patrol and local and state law enforcement agencies alike–from this moment on should follow the laws of the land. Any individual caught trying to sneak into the United States of America should be placed in a holding facility (Deportation Holding) to await return to their nation of origin at the earliest possible opportunity. There should be no legal rights whatsoever for those entering illegally; standing defiantly in the face of American immigration law should be reason enough for any would-be illegal immigrant to abdicate their rights. Nevertheless, a legal process should be established for those who are in real danger in their own country as well as for refugees; entering illegally, however, can no longer be tolerated.

While it appears that documenting 12 to 20 million individuals immediately would be an extremely difficult task, the solution to this problem is actually very easy and obvious. My solution:  give all illegal immigrants–of any age or circumstance–30 days to obtain an “Immigration Ticket,” which will be sold by all ticketing agencies (Ticketmaster, TicketsNow, TicketNetwork, eBay, etc.) and will show the individual’s, name, age, parents name (if underage), address, phone number, employer, and country of origin.

During this 30-day period, there will be no penalties to either the illegal immigrants or those entities which employ them. The ticket identification number will act as the temporary government identification number until such time as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has awarded the ticketholder immigrant status.

The identification information on the ticket will be immediately uploaded to ICE computers where arrangements will be made on a first-come, first-served basis for a meeting with the agency so that the illegal immigrant status may be changed to immigrant.  In order to obtain legal status, immigrants must be employed and have a permanent address. Unemployed immigrants will be given 90 days to find legal employment and those without a permanent address will be given 90 days to find a place to live. Any illegal immigrant having a felony conviction will not be given legal status and will be taken immediately to the holding facility to await deportation.  No exceptions.

Of course, there are those who will cry out that 30 days is not long enough.  The illegal immigrants in question, however, were responsible and industrious enough to figure out how to find their way into the United States of America and how to provide for themselves once they arrived — after what they have already accomplished in order to set foot and establish a life in a country in which they do not belong, there should be no concern whatsoever about their capacity to figure out how to buy an Immigration Ticket in 30 days.

At the end of the 30-day period, no more Immigration Tickets will be sold and any illegal immigrants found will be immediately placed in Deportation Holding. Once ICE has officially registered all of the ticketholders, Immigration Tickets will no longer be sold, nor will they continue to act as an official government immigration document.

And with that, the first two phases are taken care of, quickly and easily. The major issue, of course, is taking our laws seriously and not allowing “bleeding hearts” to either delay or control the situation.  After all, while the controlling agency here is named Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it seems as though the “enforcement” part has been left out of the equation.  Of course, there will be opposition.  Of course, those who support any kind of immigration law enforcement will be branded as hopeless, heartless, merciless racist xenophobes who want nothing more than to rip babies from the arms of mothers to be deported for a mere technicality.  See, the American political left inside the beltway views the Hispanic vote as far too valuable to alienate, and the left outside the beltway simply lets emotion trump common sense.  The thing is, when it comes to the scourge of illegal immigration, fact and reality are on our side.  Consider:

• From 1989–2006 the United States welcomed an average of 1,000,000 immigrants per year; equal to the highest number allowed at any time in the past century.
• The current “flood” of immigrants has not abated in spite of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on America.
• Mexico is the largest source of United States immigrants followed by China, the Philippines, and India. These figures do not include refugees; nor do they include illegal immigrants. Effectively, the United States accepts as many immigrants as the rest of the world combined and more than twice the number of refugees as the next nine countries combined.
• Approximately 50 percent of immigrants file for citizenship. The number attaining citizenship is, of course, much higher than any other country in the world. In fact, many countries do not allow any immigrants to become citizens; this is very true of all Middle Eastern countries (except for Israel), who do not allow even other Middle Easterners to become citizens. In the Middle East, newborns are citizens of their ancestor’s country, not the country of birth.

As can be seen, the idea that the United States is somehow not living up to its heritage of receiving immigrants is very wrong; the United States is, in fact, continuing to be the most welcoming nation in the world.  So, the next time someone states that our immigration policies are unfair, ask them: “Why do you think it is reasonable to expect us to do more than we are already doing, when we are already doing as much as the rest of the world combined?”

Furthermore, according to a January 2006 poll by Time magazine,  the majority of U.S. citizens believe the laws of the land should be followed — in fact, 89 percent of the American public felt that illegal immigration was a “serious” problem, with 63 percent seeing it as either extremely or very serious.  More recently, in May 2007 The New York Times found that 82 percent of the public believed that not enough was being done to secure our borders.  And, at the time of the last presidential election in November 2008, a Zogby poll found that only 21 percent of all voters supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

The vast majority believes in the laws of the land.  The understand that we have a process for obtaining U.S. citizenship that should be followed — essentially, it involves getting in line.  Those who cut or otherwise skip forward at the expense of others should be promptly directed to the back of the line.

—————

Brad Fregger is a Texas-based writer, professor and publisher with a Master’s Degree in Futuristics.  He has been writing for America’s Right since December 2009.

More than a fortnight ago, Brad Fregger’s inaugural piece at America’s Right was an interesting one in that it was half-article, half-interview.  Regardless, “The Promise of the Electric Vehicle” sparked a bit of controversy (which will be more apparent once the 34 comments finally import from the old site), and I was thrilled yesterday when I received another piece of writing from the good professor.  So, as this is his first traditional work here at AR, I’d like to formally introduce Brad Fregger as the newest contributor here.  Now, if I could only get this place figured out enough to get the contributor information up-to-date . . .  –Jeff

It is surprising that many experts don’t seem to understand that we are fighting the war with terrorism on two fronts, and that doesn’t include the actual engagements in Iran and Afghanistan. This should have become extremely obvious with the massacre at Fort Hood and most recently the Northwest Airlines incident. For example, as reported on the Houston Chronicle website:

The FBI said today that it appears Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan acted alone in the Fort Hood shootings, and was not involved in terrorist activities when a joint terrorism task force crossed paths with him last year. “At this point, there is no information to indicate Major Nidal Malik Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot,” the FBI said in a statement.

There is some hope in that the Obama administration has indeed recognized the Northwest Airlines incident as a terrorist attack. However, it is interesting that foiled attacks seem to be quickly labeled as “attempted terrorist attacks” while successful attacks need more research and receive a token “we mustn’t jump to conclusions here.”

The FBI isn’t the only organization or individual that assumes that an attack or attempted attack isn’t terrorist activity unless there are “co-conspirators” or an instance that “was part of a broader terrorist plot.” This is dangerous thinking, leaving us wide open to the fear, pain, and suffering which could easily be caused by “lone wolves” with only one goal in mind — killing as many of the “infidels” as possible before being sent to heaven and their reward. Read “infidels” as American citizens, including women and children; the Jihadists don’t discriminate.

The danger potential of fanatical Muslims has been known for decades, even though most of the general public has only been aware of this danger since the morning of September 11, 2001. The Muslim faith is mainly a peaceful and open faith, as accepting of other religions as most Western religions are.  Mohammad, even though he considered it to be the wrong spiritual path, allowed people to worship in their own faith, even allowing Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to be built. However, only Muslims could rule — which was pretty much standard practice in those days, regardless of the religion.

Nevertheless, the dream of a global Caliphate where all peoples are ruled by Islamic law has been the objective of jihadists for decades. We’ve also known for decades that there is a branch of the Muslim faith that is determined to rule the world according to their interpretation of Mohammad’s writings, and that all jihadists have the responsibility to do whatever is in their power to bring this about. So, why don’t the experts realize that we are fighting the war on terrorism on two fronts? There is little doubt as to the existence of groups planning terrorist attacks against freedom around the world, but there is little acceptance that the Muslim fanatics are also strongly encouraging individuals to fight their own battles in the name of Allah. The Associated Press, for example, reported on a posting on a fanatical Imam’s web site:

The posting on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion. Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to “follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

In other words, if you are a follower of Anwar al Awlaki’s version of the Muslim faith, and you serve in the U.S. military, you should do as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did and, when the opportunity presents itself, kill as many “infidels” as you can. This statement neither condemns nor speaks for the vast majority of Muslims across the globe.  The small minority who do in fact support Jihadists activities are still many in number, and we do need to identify them and ensure they do not have the freedom of movement and privacy that all other U.S. citizens have a right to, regardless of their religion.

The Imams of Anwar al Awlaik’s ilk are preaching to individuals, commanding them to be true to the Muslim faith, to act on their own if they must — but, ultimately, their objective must be to cause as much pain and suffering as possible to the “infidels.”  To us.

This is the second front of the war on terrorism and it is just as dangerous as the first, considering the fear, pain, and suffering that it could bring to the United States, our communities, our families, and our people.

A good friend of mine, losing faith in the ability of humanity to survive, once told me:  “In the beginning, the tools of war were such that each battle was one man against another. Then, better weapons were developed and one man could kill many. Now, our technology has increased to the point where one man can kill hundreds, even thousands,  soon millions, and  ultimately the whole world. Once this is possible, there will be that one man who will make that choice.

We cannot afford to forget the second front of the war on terrorism.

—————

Brad Fregger is a Texas-based writer, professor and publisher with a Master’s Degree in Futuristics.  He has been writing for America’s Right since December 2009.

It’s been a great few weeks for people like myself who have been shouting to the rooftops in an attempt to shed light on the fraud which is the global warming movement. Following the exposure of hacked e-mails from East Anglia CRU showing that scientists actively engaged in data suppression and outright fraud, comments from Climatology’s high priests have smacked of desperation. Watching them squirm has been satisfying, to say the least.

Lost in a lot of the hubbub, however, is the reality that it is indeed in the best interests of us all to be responsible stewards of our planet and make best use of our resources, not for concern that the seas will catastrophically rise or that the thriving polar bear population will drown, but because true energy independence is in our national interests, and because–like Boy Scouts striking camp and leaving a campsite–we have an overall responsibility to leave this place cleaner for the next generation than it was for us.

Technological advances made every day are allowing us to do just that while simultaneously growing our economy and facilitating ingenuity, rather than slowing our economy and stifling imagination, as the global warming alarmists would have us do. Considering that, it is my pleasure to present a guest commentary on electric vehicles as an essential component of our future by Brad Fregger, a writer, professor and publisher with a Master’s Degree in Futuristics. I’ve also asked him a few questions (which, honestly, could have been a whole lot better on my part) about his assertions as well, and those appear afterward. I hope you enjoy his piece as much as I did.

The Promise of the Electric Vehicle
By Brad Fregger

The ultimate promise of the electric vehicle (EV) is lost on many of us who have a conservative viewpoint. For example, here’s Rush Limbaugh with quotes from Adam Victor of the New York Post:

If a few thousand well-meaning dupes plug a few thousand new Chevy Volts into electrical outlets, … you could actually add millions of pounds of dangerous, dirty, unregulated pollution and carbon into the air,” … Okay, we got an electric car. “Yeah, no gasoline! No petroleum! Less pollution! Plug it in.” What powers the plug? What powers the socket? “Dupes” is the right word.

And that ends the discussion. If we support the promise of the EV, we’re “dupes.” In some ways it’s similar to trying to discuss the global warming fraud with liberals. Their minds are made up. In addition, just as many of us have questioned where Al Gore obtained his information regarding the purported dangers of global warming, the same could be asked with regards to: “a few thousand new Chevy Volts … add millions of pounds of dirty, unregulated pollution.”

An intensive search of the Internet doesn’t uncover anything to support that statement. It has been suggested that the savings will not be as great as intended. But even here, there is no consideration for improvement in pollution control for power plants, when in reality the technological improvements to date have been spectacular. Also, most EVs–the Volt included–will be charged at night when the demand for electricity is at its lowest.

Sure, we’ll be having an increase in electrical usage, but the amount of pollution caused by that increase will be significantly less than would have been produced by gasoline-powered vehicles. This will be even more evident as new technologies gain further use. And, let’s not forget, when electricity is being produced by non-polluting sources (nuclear and hydro-electric for example), the EV really is zero-emission. While California is not a perfect example, it is worth mentioning that only 18 percent of their power comes from coal; the rest comes from either natural gas (45 percent) or other sources that are completely emission free.

There is little doubt that the EV can make a significant difference regarding two of our most compelling issues: First, our dependence on foreign oil, and second, the pollution that is a byproduct of gasoline-powered vehicles. These problems, like most problems, can be solved in the marketplace if the government will just leave the capitalistic system alone and let the innovative minds that drive new developments free to do what they do best; give us new and better products. In other words, don’t save the dinosaurs.

The EV is the answer for both the short and long term. Other alternatives just don’t match up.

Natural Gas: Building the infrastructure to service the nation’s automobiles with natural gas would be a major undertaking taking years and billions of dollars..

Ethanol and other biofuels: The problems here are well known. That we continue to support this solution is laughable; with only Congress not in on the joke.

Biodiesel: Almost as bad an idea as Ethanol — that we could, collect, create, and then distribute enough biodiesel to run a significant percentage vehicles on the nation’s highways is ridiculous.

Hydrogen: It might be decades before hydrogen is ready to replace gasoline as a vehicular fuel; and, again we have the infrastructure issue.

Yes, EVs are way ahead of the competition, and they are the only potentially zero-emission alternative available. A close analysis shows that there are really very few negatives.

The major problem with EVs has been range — the distances that they can travel before needing a charge. Technologies continue to improve, however, with Tesla all-electric cars getting up to 300 miles on a single charge. With regard to performance issues and concerns, the Tesla Roadster accelerates from zero to 60 miles per hour in less than four seconds and has a top speed of 125 miles per hour.

How about the infrastructure issue? Well, there are well over 300 million refueling stations already in existence. This includes, of course, every home and business in the United States. Furthermore, adding more “service stations” at every parking garage, motel, office, etc. will be a very simple process. For long trips, there could very well be battery stations where drivers can switch out a spent battery pack for a fresh one.

Ultimately, we will have to build additional electric-generating power plants. Again, regardless of whether or not the EV becomes the ultimate personal vehicle, we will still need additional power plants. Sustained growth is critical to the socio-economic health of our society and energy is critical to sustained growth. And, controlling emissions from a relatively small number of power plants is much easier than doing it for 300 million plus vehicles.

With the focus on and support of EV technology, we can be on the road to energy independence while dramatically reducing vehicle-caused pollution in a very short time, effectively eliminating it altogether in the long run.

And, believe it or not, there are other significant benefits to supporting this technology. First, even the potential of an EV-based society will force the price of oil down almost immediately as speculators lose confidence in the future demand for oil. Second, the global warming fanatics will lose a major piece of their argument as soon as it is shown that this one societal change, a change driven by the market, will do more than our government could ever do with new laws and excessive taxation.

How will the market cause this change? Stop and think about it for a second. What if you were made aware of a vehicle that looked sharp, performed well, was extremely reliable, needed very little maintenance, cost two cents per mile to run, and you never had to go to a gas station again. Would that interest you? Many of us would be extremely interested; the only thing that might hold us back would be the price. Computers were expensive a few years ago and now … well … you get the drift.

While it would be better for the government to stay out of the way completely, there is one thing government could do, and that’s providing facilitative financial support for research needed to provide for a much better electric storage capability. A “Manhattan Project” to help solve this would probably be a good idea and has been mentioned by others:

You can find folks across the political spectrum—Obama, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Thomas Friedman, Sam Brownback —who seem to think a multibillion-dollar, government-led research and regulatory effort is just what is needed right now to develop clean energy sources in America.

They talk about better coal technology, developing biofuels (Obama especially, showcasing one more example of his ignorance), and Hydrogen fuel cells. But not once did they mention the need for better battery technology. The real clean energy sources–wind, solar, and tidal–all need better storage technology in order to be viable. Not to mention how better battery technology would solidify the EV as the only viable choice. This is where we need a new Manhattan Project.

The negatives of the EV are essentially economic, and therefore are a major problem for big business, local and state governments which depend on gasoline taxes, as well as the environmental lobbies. It is interesting that these groups, which have no great love for each other, form such a strong alliance against those of us making the right decisions for energy independence, our socio-economic health, and the future of our country; not to mention an end to vehicular pollution.

JEFF SCHREIBER: Between coal, natural gas, offshore oil and oil shale, we have hundreds of years of storable energy. Surely, you’re not suggesting a myopic focus on electric vehicles at the expense of mining, drilling, exploration and extraction?

BRAD FREGGER: Of course not. Energy is the engine that drives modern society. Without it, we will fail and suffer more than most can imagine. Presently we need all of the sources of energy available. To limit our alternatives is to risk our future and the risk is an ignorant one. To make clean energy possible, we need a technological breakthrough in storage capability, and one never knows when a technology breakthrough will happen — next year, or fifty years from now … or even more.

JS: I’m a big fan of an all-of-the-above approach to achieving true, real energy independence. Part of that includes things like wind, solar and tidal power, sources which are less feasible due to storage problems. Do you think that a new Manhattan Project, as you put it, working toward more efficient battery power for electric vehicles could also lead to technological breakthroughs in energy storage applicable to those other sources?

BF: I thought that was clear in my article, in fact, I was trying to state that the Manhattan Project needed to focus on your issue, with the EV getting some added benefit. Obviously, I didn’t make that clear. [He did; I was just being obtuse. -- Jeff]

JS: Even if the vehicles are plugged in at night, during off-peak hours, they’re still drawing power when charged, power which currently–due to nuclear-phobic bureaucrats–is produced in ways which, in turn, produce pollution. Are folks like Rush Limbaugh and even myself so wrong in saying that, as things stand right now, electric vehicles are by no means zero-emissions?

BF: Again, I thought I was clear that research has shown that, at the very least, there has been a slight improvement. Perhaps not much right now, especially in areas where they are using mostly coal to produce the electricity. However, in California for example, where there has been a movement toward clean energy, there would be dramatic decrease in pollutants where they have very clean energy, using only 18% coal, and this includes the electricity they import. Also, the coal problem has essentially been solved, and there’s just the cost of converting the plants — a move which will take place at sometime in the future.

JS: Isn’t Al Gore an investor in Tesla? Who else has a financial stake in the mainstreaming of electric vehicles?

BF: I wouldn’t be surprised — the crook has his fingers everyplace he thinks there’s a chance to make a lot of money off of global warming. However, if the people wise up and we get rid of Cap and Trade and any carbon taxes, much of his investments will disappear. And I will be one to celebrate that.

JS: If we’re focusing on more efficient battery technology, wouldn’t the natural progression of things produce super-efficient gas-electric hybrids first? And with our vast stores of oil and natural gas ready to be tapped, what’s so wrong with a more efficient hybrid that charges with inertia versus one that plugs in and draws power from polluting plants?

BF: What — you want to use polluting cars instead of “polluting” plants? Sorry, doesn’t make sense to me. Remember, the hybrids have to gain some inertia before they can use it to charge the batteries. Also, I’ve always thought it was a bit dumb to put two engines into a vehicle, as all associated costs just go up.

JS: A math question: How many electric vehicles would it take to match the harmful emissions spewed from Al Gore’s various orifices in a given month? (Show your work.)

BF: I’d have to know how many times he lets loose each day. Presently, I’m not privy to that information. And my last math class was in high school; that’s why I failed P-Chem and missed my Chem major.

JS: Finally, how long until ownership of electric vehicles is feasible for struggling middle class American families like mine?

BF: The Tesla Sedan is down to about $50,000 and that’s only the second version of an acceptable EV vehicle. I’d bet, with an honest focus on this technology, it would happen very quickly much like the price of computers has come down. And it will happen long before we see a viable Hydrogen or Natural Gas vehicle; Hydrogen still needs a technology breakthrough and they both have major infrastructure issues. However, in the meantime, I do think that T. Boone Pickens’ idea of using Natural Gas for long-haul trucks traveling our interstate highways is a very good idea. Adding that infrastructure should be relatively easy to accomplish and could make a significant difference in truck pollution almost immediately.