Editorial

With this May issue, A Line of Sight takes a big step forward in expanding our features and contribution to critical thinking on current public policy and political issues. A group of regular contributors has joined together to provide a broad base of experience and insight for our readers. As a result, A Line of Sight is now much more than a monthly newsletter – it is a full fledged e-magazine. I will continue to serve as Editor and offer my thoughts as in the past. Members of the Editorial Board will contribute on everything from foreign policy, the economy, healthcare, natural resources, homeland security, the courts, radical Islam, western regional and colorado Colorado specific topics. And, there will be plenty of politics throughout to satisfy the appetite of those of us with more than a passing interest in the sport.

I thank the distinguished group that already makes up the new Editorial Board, and look forward to their contributions. In the future, there will be more contributors added to the board to bring you the very best in conservative thought and opinion. Watch our progress!

Still waiting for FISA from Pelosi

More than three months have passed since the expiration of the FISA authority that enabled our Intelligence Agencies to utilize modern technology to intercept enemy terrorist electronic communications. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refuses to even allow the House to vote on a re-authorization bill already approved in the Senate by more than a 2:1 margin. Electronic surveillance is an ability that the entire intelligence community says they need, and Pelosi knows it would overwhelmingly pass the House. DNI Mike McConnell said, "…allowing the Act (FISA) to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability." Meanwhile, Pelosi gloats in her arrogance. Maybe the idyllic life of her San Francisco district has muddled the Speaker's sense of reality – maybe it was something in the air. But, there are still a lot of very dangerous people in the world who seek to do harm to innocent American citizens.

Pelosi's willingness to expose America to terrorist attack and broadcast a vulnerability to al Qaeda and other Islamic jihadists is deplorable. There is no question it emboldens the enemy and weakens American security. The one person who certainly knows the abilities of the enemy and where America is most at risk is the President. In a recent interview George W. Bush said his "doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States." We wish Pelosi shared the same concern.

The Democrat's Energy Paradox

Americans are frustrated at the rapidly rising price of gas and energy in general. It has pinched the pocketbook of every family and driven up the cost of everything from corn flakes to toilet paper. Unlike energy crises of the past, this is the first demand driven price surge in history. Previous price escalations have been due to temporary supply restrictions. Expanding demand, particularly in the rapidly developing economies of China and India (one-third of the world's population) has put pressure on the existing supply of global oil production – much of which is controlled by regimes that take considerable pleasure in profiting from inflicting pain on the West.

So, who is the enemy in all this? Democrats think it's the energy producers. For decades the Democrats not only have caved to pressure from their loyal but demanding environmental constituency but also have resisted attempts to expand development of domestic resources like ANWR and gas rich reserves in western states like Colorado. Democrats complained recently that OPEC had voted against increasing production three times in the last year. They should look in the mirror, because at least four times in the past year, Senate Democrats have resisted legislation that would expand our own domestic production.

Within Congress and Colorado's own State House, Democrats are leading efforts to punish energy producers with higher taxes and increased regulation. What they fail to realize is that corporations don't pay taxes; people do. Increased tax and regulatory costs are a cost of operation that will be passed on to the customer in higher prices. And, when the burden is too great to produce in one country, companies will move elsewhere on the planet – which has lead to our dependency on foreign sources. Exactly how is increasing the cost of production supposed to reduce the cost of gas at the pump?

Energy is a commodity just like anything else; soybeans, computers, cars, etc. It is bought and sold in a global market that reacts to supply and demand fluctuations. The political left believes that demonizing producers and limiting their ability to produce will somehow lead to lower prices. It cannot.

The left has also promoted the myth that America could flip a switch and satisfy our energy requirements from renewable sources. While endlessly pontificating about subsidies to big oil, Congress has for years been quick to pass out tax dollars to prop up renewable energy and even mandate its usage. For example, according to the U.S. Energy Information Services, solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour for electricity generation. Wind is subsidized at $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

Corn based ethanol was the favored one that had "can't miss" written all over it. Farmers would benefit with increased demand and prices (now about 3X more than a couple years ago) and the environment would be the beneficiary of a cleaner fuel that supposedly wouldn't emit all those greenhouse gases.

But now scientists know that ethanol will actually exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, and throughout the media, a February report in the journal Science found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years . . . Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."

Finally, a more complete study of the impacts of ethanol production has taken the bloom off the rose. The Wall Street Journal summarized that, "To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell's David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can't compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption."

In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough "renewable fuel" to meet federal mandates. According to a 2007 Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report, fossil-fuel production is up to 10,000 times as efficient as biofuel, measured by energy produced per unit of land.

The rush to corn-based ethanol has precipitated a rapid rise in food costs and a "world food crisis" – which at least gives politicians and the media another crisis to obsess over – and, one for which they should take considerable blame. Believing in the increased demand for corn, all across rural America producers have again "bet the farm" on public policy, only to find it now exposed as seriously flawed. They have remortgaged their land, bought equipment, and made capital decisions based upon promise contained in a bubble about to burst. When next Congress changes policy and chases a different dream, farmers and the rural communities dependant upon agriculture will have the rug pulled out from under them – again.

Meanwhile, Americans pay more at the grocery store as well as at the pump. One thing for sure: $4.00 gas and $5.00 diesel will encourage greater concern for reducing demand, and also narrow the gap between the cost of fossil fuels and other sources. We wish Congress would just let the market forces work, let producers satisfy demand, and leave consumers free to choose.

Democrats ponder life without a Clinton

Put me among the seriously surprised that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democrat nominee for President. While the race isn't technically over, it sure looks like the writing is on the wall. Among the many reasons for her demise -- something almost inconceivable six months ago -- was a serious mistake by her campaign to assume that she was invulnerable and pre-ordained as the nominee. In doing so, the Clinton camp obviously had no strategy to deal with any serious contender that surfaced. Additionally, the "anybody but the Clinton's" sentiment within the Democrat party is obviously much stronger than expected, and the pitiful attempts by husband Bill to come to her aid created far more problems than they solved. He reminded voters that if they chose her, then they got more of him. Clearly, Bill Clinton around the White House with nothing to do wasn't a pleasant thought.

The default winner is the freshman Senator from Illinois Barack Obama. Very little is known about him. We do know that based upon his votes in the Senate, National Journal ranked him as the most liberal member of the Upper Chamber. We also know that he has some curious friends. His long time pastor and spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright (a pal of anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan) is the gift-that-keeps-on-giving. Wright created a wave of controversy that won't go away with disclosure of his "God D--- America" sermon and others. Then there is the radical couple, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the two members of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization, who are big supporters and chums of Obama. Tony Rezko, who came to fame for political corruption charges, is another of Obama's friends. Rezko has been a big Obama fundraiser and while under investigation by the U.S. Attorney, Obama engaged in a real estate deal with him.

No, we don't know much about the young Senator. What we do know is the kind of company he chooses to keep. It makes one wonder what an Obama administration would look like. I hope we never find out.