Thursday, December 12, 2013
Now that the United States, because of its abundant supply of natural gas and shale oil, has the opportunity to become energy independent, opposition to fracking for gas and building pipelines for oil is heating up.
A worker hangs from an oil derrick in North Dakota, which set an oil-production record for the fifth year in a row in 2011.
2011 File Photo/The Associated Press
Some of our politicians, unelected regulators and environmentalists are waging an all-out war on both fracking and the construction of oil pipelines through overly burdensome regulations and scare-tactic media propaganda, including movies.
There has been speculation that much of this opposition to energy independence for the United States is being financed by Saudi Arabia, which has a vested interest in preventing us from becoming energy independent. It is apparent that there are some people in our country determined to prevent the United States from making any economic headway.
Meanwhile, as reported in the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 29-30, a Chinese billionaire is the primary financier of a project to blast the top off a hill in Nevada called Mount Hope to remove and ship to China the hill's lode of a metal called molybdenum, a metal used to harden steel. Mount Hope is reported to have one of the largest undeveloped deposits of this metal in the world. The Bureau of Land Management has given approval for this mine to operate.
Even though it is a private project, it is known that the Chinese Communist government supports, helps and coordinates the development of such enterprises. How is all this in keeping with concern about the environment and our national security?
We in the United States are so eager to restrict any progress to improve our own economy, but are so ready and willing to be exploited by the outside world. Where are our leaders who keep harping about doing the right thing for our country?
Lack of information stalls progress on U.S. gun policy
As a nation, we need to enact meaningful changes to our gun laws. I am a gun enthusiast, and I support new gun laws. The problem is that the public remains largely uninformed on guns.
There are three meaningful changes that we can make.
First: If we extend background checks to private sales, then we can help keep guns in safe hands.
Second: We can ban high-capacity magazines. It will decrease an individual's killing power. Unfortunately, it will have no immediate effect. It will take decades to decrease the number that have already been sold.
Third: The issue of "assault weapons." There is only one change to be made: banning collapsible stocks and short barrels. They make a weapon easier to conceal and make it better in tight places, like a school or movie theater.
The other characteristics of "assault" rifles are just cosmetic. The term comes from the rifles being knock-offs of military weapons. The difference is in its action. Real assault rifles are fully automatic, while the civilian versions are not.
I will remind you that fully automatic weapons are already illegal and have not been used in any of the killings that we are talking about.
There is nothing about the semiautomatic weapons that makes them more dangerous than a classic hunting rifle. The pistol grip that is characteristic of these weapons was designed to help control the gun while firing 800 rounds per minute on full automatic. They are irrelevant on the civilian versions.
Flash suppressors and muzzle brakes were also designed for fully automatic rifles and are also irrelevant on civilian versions.
(Continued on page 2)