Newt’s "yellow-green" conservatism

How else to explain the absence of any references to either the tenets of the Church of Man-Made Global Warming (or even global warming per se) or domestic oil bonanzas available in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico or off the east and west coasts of The Lower 48 that are currently off limits under current law, in the Speaker’s recent Case for Green Conservatism on Redstate?

Newt states that:

As a key part of green prosperity and green development, there has to be a green energy strategy which is designed to enable the human race to make the transition from historic fossil fuels which dramatically improved the quality of life over the pre-industrial period to a new clean generation of energy which will: enable us in national security terms to be liberated from dependence on dangerous dictatorships; enable us in economic terms to be effective in worldwide competition; and enable us in environmental terms to provide for a much cleaner and healthier future.”

Earlier Newt states that his green conservatism “transitions’ will result in a “safer planet.”

A “safer” planet? What is he talking about if not paying penance to the Church of MMGW?

Newt admits that fossil fuels improved our quality of life but fails to mention that absent our use of same we would live under tyranny now, right before he suggests that a transition away from said fuels is necessary to liberate us from dependence on dangerous dictatorships.

Newt ignores the fact that we have fossil fuels we aren’t tapping while we pay confiscatory prices to those same dictatorships that use the money to wage war against us.

Newt cites Reagan’s early 70’s call for conservation and reduction of pollution but fails to cite the fact that we have dramatically reduced pollution without making the transition away from oil.

What we have done is allow green liberalism in the Democratic Party to prevent the opening up of new oil fields in a kind of self inflicted suicide that Republicans have been fighting since 1978 only to be thwarted by congressional Democratic Party majorities, a Democratic Party president and Democratic Party led filibusters in the Senate.

The dramatic reduction in pollution since the late 1960’s required the Left to find a new justification for their attack on America’s economic prosperity.

So they slander The Sun with their usual presumptuousness, and claim that Man is dangerously warming the Earth.

Bill Clinton claims we could lose 50 feet of Manhattan over the next 50 years due to MMGW. Where will the Knicks play?

Where did the Knicks play when half of the states of North and South Carolina were under the Atlantic Ocean for thousands of years before the Model T or even Cro-Magnon man traversed the Earth?

How can we take the MMGW tenets seriously when The Sun or Mother Earth itself could cause new shark teeth banks to be created in the once coastal town of Columbia, S.C.?

Man is 98.6 degrees, which is hotter than the average temperature of the Earth. Less men means a cooler planet. Some leftist is liable to use those stats for another one of their “final solutions.”

And exactly what is the politically correct average temperature of the Earth? Are the homeless in NYC better off homeless in the cold or in the tropics?

It turns out that the other planets in our solar system have gotten slightly warmer lately, yet only Earth has man and Chevys.

Could it be that some other force is responsible for the warming of planets?

Hence my slander lawsuit against the Pope of the Church of MMGW, Al Gore.

If Newt doesn’t get back to "Winning the Future" through capitalism, which would drill for our own oil, instead of conceding the chief tenet of Gore’s church in “dialogues” with Kerry, Dodd and other liberal laymen of the MMGW Church, we may have to add him as a party defendant.

Newt wants a science and technology based green conservatism.

Who doesn’t? Who doesn’t also want a fact and historically correct based answer to the left. Their demonization of Big Oil and conservatism republicans generally on energy and the environment needs to be tackled head on, not through Redstate essays that fail to mention two elephants in the room.

Surely the architect of the post-Reagan conservative takeover of the House after 40 years in the wilderness can spot elephants as big as the MMGW he conceded to Kerry and the oil America could drill for when he writes at THE elephant website.

The fact is that the Democratic Party has done for free the past 30 years what the former Soviet Union, al Qaeda, and Iran would have paid them to do, i.e. self inflicted totally unnecessary wounds on our energy dependence and national strength.

This all took place while I became able to swim in Lake Michigan and breathe in Pittsburg. Earth, literally, to Newt: we HAVE cleaned up the 60’s pollution mess while still using oil, as Reagan called for.

We have oil we could use instead of paying these dangerous dictatorships for so much of theirs.

Let’s use our oil and call out the Democrats for weakening this country. I spent 15 years as a useful idiot helping the Democrats do this before my repentance and epiphany in 2000.

Don't ask me to be a useful idiot so you and Kerry can make nice.

My conversion vision saw the modern day conservatism that Reagan and Newt built as having already incorporated the best that classical and policy driven liberalism had to offer. This included policies relating to the environment and energy.

Especially energy. We have the better arguments, especially now in the war against Islamo-facists that own oil or seek to own it.

I saw the left as morally and intellectually bankrupt as was the vessel that advanced its agenda, i.e. the Democratic Party.

The left never had an extra share of wisdom or compassion, as evidenced by the results of their policies as compared to ours, all of which gave us the White House and then Congress.

So for Newt to run around this country with the liberal Democrats that never speak the truth, have called Bush a liar 24/7 since 2003 and demonize good conservative people as racist, bigots and homophobes 24/7 since 1972 seems a betrayal to a convert like me.

I was won over to the conservative Republican side based on the merits and have converted others that way.

Newt seems to concede defeat based on a year six anomalous 2006 election that had nothing to do with MMGW. His recent articulations are far from what he wrote about in his pre-2006 election book referred to above.

Newt wants a safer planet? Yes, so does Gamecock. The planet, and especially that part of the planet call The United States of America, is safer when we are strong. Stronger than any other nation or group of same. Oil is the fuel of Liberty. The Sun warms the Earth.

Let’s drill for our own oil and let The Sun do its job. The market will take care of future alternatives.

Reagan once made a famous “bold colors” speech calling on conservatives to boldly and unapologetically make our case by drawing sharp distinctions between us and the liberal Democrats.

By contrast, Newt seeks to blur distinctions and meet liberals halfway on “green” issues. But watering down liberal green turns conservatives yellow.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008