Generally speaking I like to leave discussions about American energy policy to our faithful Tejano correspondent. After all, he grew up in the shadows of the largest petrochemical complex in the United States and his family counts energy company employees among its host of legitimate American members. On the other hand, with the recent embarrassment of riches when it comes to analyzing the bankruptcy of lib'rul thought, nothing quite says "galactically stupid" like a certain democrat senator from California.

For years the looney left has been telling us that we need to develop alternative energy sources and safer fuels than oil. Ostensibly this was in order to:

A. Save the planet from harmful vehicle exhaust.
B. Reduce pollution from power plants.
C. Save the earth from harmful oil drilling.
D. Wean us off of the finite and dwindling supply of oil.

Now mind you, I've been around the block once or twice, I didn't just come in on the turnip truck and so I have to ask some questions of the looney left, since 35 plus years of doomsaying on their part has yielded only higher gas prices.

Question number 1 would be exactly when will alternative fuels be more economical than fossil fuels? You see there have been solar arrays and windmills all across the land for 3 plus decades and yet the technology has not spawned any massive shift in either wealth or research dollars to these renewable energy sources. Being a reasonable man I must conclude that either the technology to make them useful on a mass consumer scale isn't available or more likely, isn't economical.

Question number 2 would be, you all have been telling us for 40 years and more that the supply of oil is running out. Can you explain to me then how it is that the world's known supply in proven oil reserves continues to expand each time it is surveyed?

Question number 3 would be, can you explain the staggering hypocrisy of lib'ruls who campaign on a platform calling for development of alternative energy sources, who want to reinstate the ban on offshore drilling and who also state that solar arrays might harm the desert and so the politician in question is opposed.

For those of you guessing as to the identity of the senator with the moribund capacity to reason, it is none other than Dianne Feinstein, glamour gal of the left and career politician who probably couldn't tell you the price of a gallon of gas if she was stranded at an AM/PM station.

I reckon that this demonstrates that the environazis, Sierra Club members and Earth Liberation Front have more drag with Dianne than do the nascent green energy company executives. Of course Dianne has long profitted by doing business with America's enemies so it should come as little surprise that she is opposed to anything that might make America stronger. You know, small things like increased energy independence.

I'm no rocket scientist but as a legitimate American and reasonably intelligent man it seems to me that one of the problems with solar power is going to be cloudy days. Since I have a solar powered light over our corral, I know that when the skies are cloudy for a few days, the light doesn't have the same power and longevity that it does in summer. Naturally then it would appear to me that the best location to place a large array of solar panels to provide something approaching a meaningful power supply, would be like...um...maybe like...uh...a large desert.

California happens to have a very large desert in the southeastern portion of the state. Since it is not currently being used as a dumping ground for gangsters driven out of urban areas, it ought to be considered as a prime site to locate a solar farm. One would think that lib'ruls would rejoice. Alternative energy being actively pursued, in California no less, and renewable alternative energy at that. Not so fast my friends. You misunderestimate the density and perfidy of the average lib'rul politician. Dianne Feinstein stands opposed to the solar farm in the DESERT, because it might harm the "delicate ecological system".

Thus we can sum up democrat and lib'rul energy policy for America in a single phrase, Not In My Back Yard. What have we learned here? Simply that the left is opposed to any development of any kind, even their own kind, if it has any merit or potential to improve life in America or America's preeminent position in the world. Of course, if we wanted to harness that power and send it to some repressive foreign regime that despises us, I'm certain that Mrs. Feinstein would be only too happy to find a way for the American tax payer to fund it.

Smilin' Paul Villa U.S. Senate 2010
cyber-Congressman, R-Reno
Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and 2 LSUV Family

Considering the dire situation confronting the national economy, I had hoped to keep our postings around these parts focused on domestic issues. Of course when you put teenagers in charge of foreign policy you can’t help but keep one eye on it as the policy evolves, and it’s a good thing too since it appears as though the O’bamunist seems intent on insulting our friends, antagonizing some enemies and paying off others. Of course this should have been expected considering the following:

O’bama himself had no creditable foreign policy experience when he took office, which of course goes hand in hand with his utter lack of executive experience. One of the first insults that O’bama offered the American public was his nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Many Americans will fondly recall her as a failed presidential candidate, I recall her as the power hungry wife of an IMPEACHED ex-president whose major previous forays into foreign policy were twofold: She once screamed at a harried aide that he was a “f**king Jew bastard” and she also, acting in the capacity of “we are the president”, sold away our precious national nuclear secrets to the Chinese in exchange for contributions to her husband’s campaign.

At least Hillary can holler though, I don’t know how that skill set will help her when it comes to dealing with the Arabs and Palestinians, people who seemingly converse while screaming. On the other hand, Hillary’s ability should hold her in good stead when it comes to browbeating the French, a task that shouldn’t be out of her realm at all. An added bonus to having a socialist in the White House and a communist at Foggy Bottom is that the old media will fall in love again. Look for increased circulation due to society page coverage that will detail the lavish menus consumed by Hillary and her minions during their travels, exotic fare that no doubt never enters the home of any legitimate American unless they happen to pause on the Travel Channel during their cable surfing.

Naturally the hypocrisy of O’bama and Hillary never cease to amaze. While they entertain themselves jetting around the world and dining on $100 dollar a pound beef, ala O’bama, the lower classes continue to watch their savings and retirements vanish. O’bama can promise $900 million taxpayer dollars to terrorists fighting Israel while simultaneously signing executive orders reinstating taxpayer funding of fetal stem cell research that had thus far proven fruitless, thereby becoming the first president to fund two holocausts at the same time. To legitimate Americans this is hypocrisy and stupidity. To the insane Left it is talent.

As if things weren’t bad enough, we have Hollywood conducting foreign policy. When Annette Benning goes to Tehran and attempts to meet with the Iranian leaders she should be soundly renounced but instead, the silence concerning her trip is deafening. And why not? After all, she once played a paramour to an American president portrayed by Michael Douglas so she has at least as much foreign policy expertise as the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. With Benning and Clinton conducting our foreign policy, we can look forward to more emphasis on dining and shopping opportunities than on actual diplomacy. Although to be fair this might not be a bad thing. After all, when the juvenile president offers the leader of our oldest ally a box of DVDs as a gift, perhaps he could use some instruction in shopping beyond what he got from the homies in da’ hood.

It’s not every day the British Prime Minister pops into Washington. When he does, it is customary for the leaders to exchange gifts. O’bama obviously gave all the thought and attention to selecting PM Brown’s gifts as he does to economic policy or constitutional intent. O’bama probably distilled the elegant art of gift giving among world leaders down to a simple order to some unfortunate underling to cruise by the local Blockbuster store. That way the Prez got to use up the gift cards that Michelle put in his stocking at Christmas/Kwanzaa/Hannukah. I mean when the British PM presents you with obviously highly symbolic and thoughtful gifts and you respond with DVDs’ of American movies that he probably already has, it is a national embarrassment. At least it would be if the American media were reporting on the incident as the British have. Of course the Brits are rightfully miffed while O’bama goes about the business of the presidency with all the contrition of a teenage boy who has just explained away a bad grade to his fawning parents.

Of course not all is gloom and doom, after all the unfolding of events presents a compelling tragic-comedy for the American people. It certainly makes for interesting times, even on depressing matters. Fortunately for me the ol’ B bar V got six inches of unexpected snow last night. The Nevada landscape is a carpet of white stretching out to the northwest and east. Such a lovely sight makes me forget for a moment the incalculable damage being done in Washington by those elected to protect us, empower us and most of all, to carry on the vision of our Founders.

Smilin' Paul Villa U.S. Senate 2010
cyber-Congressman, R-Reno
Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and 2 SUV Family