Role of pure electric vehicles in solving the transportation fuel crisis.

We are currently at the mercy of OPEC and big oil companies. The vehicles we drive and the trucks that deliver our goods to us burn fuel produced by the distillation of oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

There is available today, the means to resolve much of this crisis if we pressure automakers into acting responsibly. In the past they have sided with big oil and refused to produce a viable electric vehicle.

Some exceptions did occur which embarrassed automakers when C.A.R.B. ( California Air Resources Board ) mandated electric vehicles in California. Until they over turned their own requirements, all automakers shipped pure electric vehicles to be tested in California. Those who were fortunate to drive them loved them. Sure there were a few bugs to work out but those were mostly resolved when the plug was pulled ( no pun intended ). GM had the best of the lot in it's EV1. It had sufficient range and speed to meet over 90% of the typical drivers daily needs. It looked like a sports car! It was a good vehicle that could be charged at home. No trips to the gas station. See: http://ev1-club.power.net/

Today the Tesla Motor Company ( http://www.teslamotors.com/ )produces a roadster that can blow the doors off of a Porsche and travel 200 miles on a $3.50 charge from an outlet in your home. That's 135 equivalent MPG efficiency! This is a $80,000+ car though, because it is not mass produced. But it proves the technology is here now. EV1 proved that years ago but GM took them all back despite public outcry, and destroyed all but a few left in museums ( which were disabled ).

Ford allowed its electric vehicles, mostly modified Ford Ranger pickup trucks to remain in service. Most people who own them would not part with them.

Chrysler imported an existing electric vehicle from Scandinavia and returned most of them to daily service there after the mandate was dropped.

GM and others did all they could to discourage people from knowing about the EV1's in other states and their ads were designed not to sell the vehicles but to discourage people from buying them in the first place. GM did not want to build electric cars. It was not that they couldn't do it....they did not want to.

No one can be sure of private influence on Detroit by big oil interests but I would not be the least surprised to learn they play a major part in halting progress on electric cars you and I could buy in order to assure the oil companies stand between us and our energy to move.

The big hype these days is hydrogen powered fuel cell cars. This is just a fancy electric vehicle like the above but instead of chemical batteries it would use a fuel cell that requires hydrogen gas to generate electricity. So to build these the automakers have to build an electric vehicle.

Why hydrogen fuel cells vs. batteries? There is the advantage that you can have range only limited by distance between fuel stations offering hydrogen gas. Not many exist. I know of one I have seen with my own eyes on the West side of Washington DC. A whole new infrastructure would need to be built out across the US to accommodate any hydrogen powered vehicles. We know who would have to build those stations at great expense, the major oil companies. They would still control our fuel and have us on yet another energy leash.

The fact that is hidden is that for over 90% of the average American's daily transportation needs, a battery powered car is more than adequate even with today's technology. The infrastructure is already in place. All you need is an electric plug and you can "fuel" your car at home while you sleep. For many they can also plug in at work so they always start their journey with a "full tank" and never a need to stop at a gas station.

Without providing the hint an answer, those who would have you buy into the hydrogen fuel proposal will discourage a pure electric vehicle saying it lacks the range for long trips.

Range is not an issue because: (a) you can just rent a gas-electric hybrid, still fairly cheap on gas for the few times a year you take a long trip or (b) electric vehicle dealers can offer you a "time share" gas vehicle you borrow when necessary.

The rest of your normal daily needs are met without gas, using your standard house current to fuel your car. No ties to big oil. No pollution at the vehicle. Silent and fast.

Yes, electric vehicles can out perform their gas counter parts. An electric motor produces more power and torque per pound than a gas engine and does it a zero RPM offering quick acceleration with almost no sound. There is no idle. The motor, when at a light, is off. Braking puts some of that energy back into the batteries.

Wouldn't you like to thumb your nose at every gas station you drive by?

Now the issue of trucking and the goods they deliver to you. Electric is not viable for them today. They need long range and the ability to pull a heavy load. Better efficiency, perhaps bio diesel fuels can help their economy. Congress needs to treat the trucking industry as it does farmers by providing fuel tax-free. If you have ever notices, diesel fuel sold to farms is died red to make it easy to inspect to make sure it is not used on the roadways for non-agricultural purposes. This same fuel should be available to licensed trucks at truck stops. This would offset the cost of delivering nearly everything we buy or eat, helping to keep the costs down for consumers.

Remember, business does not pay taxes, you do. They may fill out the forms and write the checks to the states, but that is a cost of doing business they pass along to the consumer. The tax they pay on fuel is added to the loaf of bread you bought today.

While on the subject of taxes and incentives, Congress needs to get in the act to push this idea and make it happen. There are tax credits available today but the problem with a credit is that the consumer must first be able to put down the full price of the vehicle and be in a tax bracket that enables them to benefit from the credit. Often the average tax payer fails on both accounts. Rather than a tax credit offered to those who's incomes enable them to use the credit ( people with more money ) Congress needs to provide an equivalent rebate at time of purchase to bring the cost of buying an electric car down. Perhaps provide loan guarantees similar to HUD so lower interest rates are available to buy electric vehicles. Perhaps tie these price incentives to conditions that dealers offer either "time share" or low rental rates for hybrids for those occasional longer trips beyond the range of the electric. The fuel savings would then be a great additional incentive for they buyer. This could be based on the cost so that those who opt for a luxury version get a credit while those who buy a basic daily commuter car get the instant rebate.

We have the means and the technology to cut the hose. What we need are incentives to build them and incentives to buy them. A start is in properly and honestly educating the consumer.

One reason the rich get richer while the rest of us get poorer is tax breaks and loop holes available ONLY to the richest. Watch this video.

It's time to yell not only at the White House but at Congress who writes these loop holes into the law to help out their wealthy buddies as thanks for campaign contributions. More reason to dump them all out of office.

This is also on my site at: target="_new">Rich get Richer

Officially English? Or nation of "babble"?

Make English America's Official Language

So far Congress has not worked to make English the official language of our nation.

It must do so.

According to recent U.S. Census figures, over 24 million Americans cannot speak English -- that’s more than double the 1990 total. Increasingly, English is being replaced by Spanish, Chinese, Korean and other languages.

Read the full story here. CLICK then come on back to comment.

Spy vs Us ( US )

The President, Vice President and every member of Congress was required by the Constitution to take an "Oath of Office" which binds them to uphold and defend the Constitution. Should any elected official be permitted to place themselves above the law, to throw away that oath and proceed to trash the very Constitution they sore to uphold?

It has been reveled that the White House has been illegally snooping on American Citizens in numerous ways. They have enlisted major telecommunications carriers to help divert YOUR private conversations and internet use to the NSA without obtaining a warrant. This is specifically prohibited by law. Now Bush is trying to twist Congress's arm into granting immunity, not only to himself, but to the telecommunications giants for their part in this illegal and criminal activity.

If Bush succeeds in obtaining immunity, then there is nothing left to prevent him from totally ignoring the very constitution he took an oath to uphold.

Should any president be permitted to ignore the very laws he swore to uphold when taking office. Should Congress be able to ignore their own oath of office?

Here is some more background on my main site. CLICK

Some good books to read.

Here are some pretty interesting books to check out.

---

• Ron Paul:The Revolution: A Manifesto
  
• Barach Obama: The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American
  Dream
  
• 
  Hillary Rodham Clinton: Living History
  
• Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First
  Century
  
• Stephen Colbert: I Am America (And So Can
  You!)
  
• Jesse Ventura: Don't Start the Revolution Without
  Me!
  
• Naomi Wolf: The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young
  Patriot
  
• George Orwell: 1984 (Signet
  Classics)
  
• Cliff Schecter: The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't
  
• Arianna Huffington: Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America,
  Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe
  
• Andrew P. Napolitano: A Nation of Sheep
  
• Jimmy Carter: Turning Point
  

Is immigration law broken?

Immigration law is not the problem. What is wrong is not the law but the Federal Government's failure to enforce the laws we have now.

Primarily, at the urging of companies addicted to cheap labor, we have looked the other way as millions of illegal immigrants poured into America seeking cash. Many do not respect America except as a source of income, much of which they mail home. Many refuse to learn English and continue to fly their own flags.

Many don't pay into social security yet they and their families are breaking the banks of some states by consuming services that they don't pay for.

Many Americans, my self included, can't obtain health care, while the "poor" but illegal immigrants receive care.

A slap in the face of Congress.

When the President signs a bill presented by Congress, it becomes the law. The President's obligation is to enforce the law. Given the fact that the Constitution provides the President with the power to veto, is it ethical or even legal to sign a bill into law, then prepare a "signing statement" declaring that he does not agree with the law and may choose to disobey or not enforce it?

Changing the election system.

Some thoughts on changing the system. Candidates for federal office, Senate and House.

1) State Legislature set and pay salaries and determine benefits of their own representatives and senators in DC. Congress, cannot set its own pay.

2) Federal government does not pay any elected officials other than President and Vice President, salary set by Congress and not changed to benefit currently serving administration.

3) Campaign Contributions and Funding.

• No contribution in excess of $3,000 per candidate ( up to $1,000 primary and $2,000 general election )
• Contributions go to Party account earmarked for the candidate. Party disburses the money to candidate's committee.
• Identity of contributor withheld by law until 30 days after elections and any recounts are over.
• Anyone who contributes may do so only if they are registered AND voted in the last election unless they are newly registered voters or recently moved into the state.
• Ban "committee" or any "accumulation" of donations from any source other than individual tax payers.
• Make illegal, any kind of corporate kick backs or bonus to employees for their donations.
• Contributers must reside withing the candidates state.
• State legislatures may elect to match contributions, but by no more than an equal amount.

4) Term limits. Congressional seats shall have consecutive term limits. 2 terms for Senate and 3 terms for House. Non-consecutive terms shall be permitted.

5) Same campaign contribution limits and conditions above to apply for candidates for President except for geographical limitations.

6) Voters disenfranchised for criminal convictions in their home states shall be permitted to register, donate to and vote for Presidential candidates. ( Ideally there should be no such disenfranchisement. )

7) All elections shall be by popular vote. Disband electoral college system.

8) Recount shall be mandatory and automatic if there is a difference of less than 5 percentage points between apparent winner and next runner up and in all cases where there is reasonable cause shown to believe there is any instance of fraud, uncounted ballots or vote tampering. Recount may be restricted to precincts where discrepancies exists.

9) As part of rule making, FCC require broadcast licensees to provide at equal and discount cost, equal access to any certified candidate in equivalent time slots. PLUS each certified candidate shall receive free air time of up to ____ minutes per week in the final 5 days prior to election.

10) Candidate qualifications ( certification ) shall be set by Congress and be uniform across all states with regard to eligibility and number of signatures required to be placed on ballot. There shall be no discrimination based on political affiliation, race, gender, national origin etc.

11) All districts to be drawn by the state legislatures and shall be contiguous and as compact and simple in configuration and shall be based entirely on population without regard to political, racial, tax base or economic demographics of their residents.

12) Candidate qualifications shall stipulate that a candidate must be a US Citizen, and if naturalized, must have been a citizen for not less than five years prior to seeking federal office.

Is the White House above the law?

The President, Vice President and every member of Congress was required by the Constitution to take an "Oath of Office" which binds them to uphold and defend the Constitution. Should any elected official be permitted to place themselves above the law, to throw away that oath and proceed to trash the very Constitution they sore to uphold?

Visit the main site...where it all started.

Politicians are not your friends.

Your elected officials have forgotten their oath of office. They have sold out to the highest bidder ( Big Business ) and patronize the voter only to the extent necessary to win their seat of power.

"We the People" have a tool we can use to recover America for the average American. It is our vote. You can vote for who they tell you to vote for, and perpetuate the status quo or you can educate yourself and vote in a way that can make a change.

To start with, don't re-elect anyone currently in office. They ARE the cause of the problems and putting them back will assure the same results as in the past.

Read more and learn by going to Re Elect No One today.

Become involved in your future.