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