"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-

"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-

Petition For The FairTax

GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Friday, May 30, 2008

Morsal Obeidi, 16, Stabbed By Her Brother, Ahmed, 23, In Hamburg, Germany Honor Killing

How many more deaths of innocent young girls will it take before Old Media and the public in general learn the truth about the Islamic religion? How much more violence will the unprotected have to endure before we come to the conclusion that a religion that is based on hating those who believe otherwise cannot be truly called a religion?

From Front Page Magazine:

Morsal Obeidi, barely 16, arrived in Hamburg from the war-torn country of Afghanistan when she was three, probably barely remembering her country of origin in her new homeland. The German Muslim student, who had won a prize in her multicultural school for tolerance and peaceful co-existence with others, was stabbed 20 times by her 23-year old brother, Ahmed, who ambushed her at a commuter train station.

The reason for Morsal’s murder is a common one for female Muslim victims of honor killings who emigrate to the West with their families and grow up between two cultures: she was living too western a lifestyle.

“She had a different life than the family wished,” admitted Ahmed, who assaulted his sister so severely that he wounded himself and had to be treated in hospital.

Notice what is missing from this story? Other Muslims speaking out against such an evil atrocity. Where are the moderate Muslims who claim to be so tolerant and peaceful? Why are they being silent about this and other "honor" killings being perpetrated in the name of Islam?


[Morsal] was tired of living by the rules of the family’s Afghan-Muslim culture that see the daughters confined at home and made to do housework when not at school while the sons have all the freedom they want.

Such girls from South Asian and Muslim communities are also monitored very carefully after reaching puberty, as the male members of the family are very concerned that they remain virgins until marriage, since this involves their “honor.” One German Muslim woman wrote that the physical attributes she developed upon turning 13 filled her Turkish father with “deep worry.” This male obsession with virginity is manifested in the expression, common in these traditional cultures, that “…a man’s honor lies between a woman’s legs.”

Ahmed was most likely one of those male family members concerned about his sister’s chastity. It was reported he watched Morsal very closely and, when he was not available, he had cousins, uncles and aunts do it for him.

Morsal’s rebellion against such strict control included such normal, western behaviour for teenaged girls as wearing “uncovered hair, makeup and jeans” as well as smoking, drinking and staying out late, all of which brought her into conflict with her family. But all in all, it was reported the young schoolgirl simply wanted the same freedoms her German classmates had.

Like in many families where honor murders occur, violence was already extensive in Morsal’s. Before her death, the teenager had suffered numerous assaults at the hands of her father, Ahmed and a 13-year-old brother, who had once knocked her tooth out. An older sister is also suspected of mistreating her.

This is yet another result of Europe not fully integrating Muslims into the Western culture.

Count on more of this happening as time goes on. Human beings should be treated with dignity and respect, even if they are members of your family who believe differently than you do.

It's too bad that Muslims can't come out of the 7th century and learn that lesson of modernity.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Honor Killing Horror In Hamburg
Stephen Brown
FrontPageMag.com via CrossAction News
May 30, 2008

Congressional Democrats Come Out Against Free Speech, Especially For Good News Coming Out Of Iraq

Think the Dems are good for free speech? Think again! The party of the left is so heavily vested in our defeat in Iraq that they are now embracing legislation that will silence anyone who comes back from Iraq with good news about us winning and the terrorists losing!

This is no joke. Check out this item from Investor's Business Daily:

House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq. They are so invested in losing that they apparently fear a popular backlash against them from victory.


Democrats have decided this election year that American voters can't handle the fact that victory in Iraq is at hand.

In its passage last week of the defense policy bill, the House issued a prohibition against the Pentagon's "concerted effort to propagandize" the American public regarding the Iraq War.

It came in the form of an amendment authored by Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., which also would authorize an investigation of the Defense Department's "propaganda" efforts by the Government Accountability Office.

Hodes' addition to the bill passed by voice vote and the overall bill passed the House by a large margin. The Senate will wait until after the holiday recess to consider it.

It's not as if the Pentagon brass, as they wage a global war on terrorism, don't have better things to do than sit down and answer foolish questions about public relations operations from a bunch of GAO bean-counters.

Besides, haven't congressional Democrats insisted all these years that it wasn't the military they had a problem with regarding the Iraq War? Haven't they been saying how much they support those in uniform, that our military leaders really agreed with Democrats that Iraq was unwinnable, and that it was only the civilians who run war policy in the Bush administration they were attacking?

Where was this Congressional concern for "propagandizing" the war when the New York Times exposed one of the most powerful tools we had against the terrorists, the SWIFT program? That was clearly a propaganda effort by a leftist leaning publication, but Hodes had no problem with it.

This bill would effectively mean that the GAO can control all information coming out of Iraq which under a Dem controlled Congress means that the Dems would only allow the bad news out while censoring the good news. That way, the Dems can lie to the American people about how the war is really going.

Anyone else living in fear of a leftist controlled Congress?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Safe From Truth
Investor's Business Daily
May 23, 2008

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's Tax Hike Fails, Dunkin Donuts Realizes A Mistake With Rachel Ray's Keffiyeh And UK Calls It's Own Flag Racist

Got three really good ones today. They may not be attention grabbing headlines at the Washington Post or New York Times, but they do need some attention since very often it is just as necessary to learn what is going on behind-the-secnes as it is to learn the up-front stories.

First, let's take a look at Michigan, particularly their recent tax-hike and how it has faired. Not to well according to the Wall Street Journal:

Officials in Lansing reported this month that the state faces a revenue shortfall between $350 million and $550 million next budget year. This is a major embarrassment for Governor Jennifer Granholm, the second-term Democrat who shut down the state government last year until the Legislature approved Michigan's biggest tax hike in a generation. Her tax plan raised the state income tax rate to 4.35% from 3.9%, and increased the state's tax on gross business receipts by 22%. Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance.

Not quite. Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales.

Michigan is now in the 18th month of a state-wide recession, and the unemployment rate of 6.9% remains far above the national rate of 5%. Ms. Granholm blames the nationwide mortgage meltdown and higher energy prices for the job losses and disappearing revenues, but this Great Lakes state is in its own unique hole. Nearby Illinois (5.4% jobless rate) and even Ohio (5.6%) are doing better.

Leon Drolet, the head of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, complains that "we are witnessing the Detroit-ification of Michigan." By that he means that the same high tax and spend policies that have hollowed out the Motor City are now infecting many other areas of the state.

This is more evidence that lower taxes increase government revenues while higher taxes decrease government revenues. Yet the liberal Dems still insist on raising taxes to "raise more government revenue." Unfortunately, reality steps in throws things the other way.

Michigan is the example of what will happen to all of America if a Dem gets into the White and has a Dem controlled Congress to rubber stamp all sorts of new economy-crushing tax hikes.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Granholm's Tax Warning
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
May 28, 2008

Michelle Malkin has a piece about Dunkin Donuts and their spokesperson, Rachel Ray. Apparently, Rachel unwittingly wore a keffiyeh while posing for a Dunkin Donuts ad.

Here is what Michelle had to say at TownHall.com:

[I]t was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company's ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh.

The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.

And why is this so bad? Read on:

Three years ago, pop singer Ricky Martin donned a traditional red-checked keffiyeh with the phrase "Jerusalem is ours" inscribed in Arabic. Apologizing for his obliviousness, Martin said: "I had no idea that the keffiyeh scarf presented to me contained language referring to Jerusalem, and I apologize to anyone who might think I was endorsing its message." Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Spain's Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, Hollywood darlings Colin Farrell, Sienna Miller and Kirsten Dunst, and rapper Kanye West have all been photographed in endless variations on the distinctive hate couture. So has Meghan McCain, daughter of the GOP presidential candidate, who really ought to know better given that her dad positions himself as the candidate best equipped to "confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism."

The scarves are staples at anti-Israel rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley. Balenciaga made them chic on the runway. British retailer Topshop sold them stamped with skull prints. Urban Outfitters turned the keffiyehs into a youth trend a few years ago and marketed them as "anti-war scarves." Which brings us to Rachael Ray.

Ray hawked Urban Outfitters scarves on her website before appearing in the Dunkin' Donuts ad. If she (or whichever stylist is dressing her) wasn't aware of the jihad scarf controversy before she posed for the Dunkin' campaign, she should have been. Urban Outfitters initially pulled the keffiyeh merchandise and apologized when Jewish customers protested, but reintroduced them with different names and colors in several global markets. This is the same company that marketed a bigotry-laced "Everyone loves a Jewish girl" T-shirt stamped with dollar signs and shopping bags. Most recently, the company halted sales of a violence-promoting T-shirt last week depicting a young Palestinian boy in a keffiyeh carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, over the word "Victimized." The T-shirt also featured the Palestinian flag, a map of the Palestinian territories and a small white dove.

Fortunately, Dunkin Donuts got the message and pulled the ad. It's too bad that other retailers and outlets don't have the integrity that Dunkin Donuts has.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Rachael Ray, Dunkin' Donuts And The Keffiyeh Kerfuffle
Michelle Malkin
May 28, 2008

And finally, we have more evidence that Mark Steyn was right on the mark with his book America Alone. This little news item comes out of the United Kingdom and should be a little more than eye-opening:

A teenage motorist was told to remove an England flag from his car by a police officer because it could be offensive to immigrants.

Ben Smith, 18, was driving back home to Ingram Road in Melksham on Thursday evening after filling up with petrol, when the officer stopped him on a routine patrol.

He checked the tax disc and tyres on his Vauxhall Corsa but when he noticed the flag of St George on the parcel shelf he told Mr Smith to take it down.

Mr Smith, who works for G Plan Upholsterers on Hampton Park West, said: "He saw the flag and said it was racist towards immigrants and if I refused to take it down I would get a £30 fine.

"I laughed because I thought he was joking, but then I realised he was serious so I had to take it down straight away. I thought it was silly - it's my country and I want to show my support for my country."

Anyone still not understand as to why the Islamists are going to win in Europe?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Motorist Told Flag Could Be Racist
Charley Morgan
Wiltshire News
May 23rd, 2008

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Senator Domenici Introduces The American Energy Production Act (S. 2958)

It would have been nice if this legislation had been introduced and passed two years ago when the Republicans still controlled the House and Senate. But if nothing else, this bill will definitely show how the Democrats have beholdened themselves to special interest groups, even when such groups push agendas that are not in line with the well-being of the American people.

The Press Release for the American Energy Prodcution Act (S. 2958) can be accessed here:

Summary Of The American Energy Production Act S. 2958
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
May 1, 2008

Here is the executive summary:

The American Energy Production Act, introduced today by Senator Domenici and Senate Republicans, will address America’s soaring gas prices by focusing on common sense measures that will increase production of oil and gas in America.

If enacted, the American Energy Production Act will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil—enough oil to keep America running for 5 years with no foreign imports. And that doesn’t include billions more barrels of potential fuel from oil shale and coal to liquids in the bill. By expanding production offshore and in Alaska, and removing obstacles to domestic production in the West, this bill will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

That sounds really good to me and if you are concerned about rising gas prices and the fact that we send $40 billion annually to nations that have anti-American agendas, then it should sound good to you too.

As such, I have written my Senators to express my support for this bill. I encourage all who are reading this blog to do likewise. Just copy and paste the following, then print it out and mail it to your Senators:

Dear [Senator's name],

I am writing this letter to ask you to support and/or co-sponsor the American Energy Production Act (S. 2958) introduced by Senator Domenici (R-NM) on May 1st, 2008. This bill would provide the American people with a potential 24 billion barrels of oil which we can sell to ourselves much more cheaply rather than paying an annual $40 billion to buy oil from overseas.

The benefits of this bill are many-fold. Not only will it help ease the price at the pump by increasing supply, it will also help reduce the amount of money we send overseas to buy oil, much of that money going to fill the coffers of governments that actively pursue an anti-American agenda (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.). Additionally, the money saved by supplying ourselves with our own oil can go into research for truly viable alternative energy supplies.

The price of gasoline has gone up for many reasons, most of which can be attributed to the policies enacted into law by this very Congress. For example, the mandate of using ethanol, despite its supporters’ promise of bringing down gas prices, actually drove the price of gasoline up as it also drove up the price of food. The end result: people now have to pay more at the pump in order to get to the store to pay more for food. This has also had a worldwide impact as food prices have gone up globally resulting in food riots in Mexico and Egypt and people starving as close to home as Haiti. Further, there was also a promise of lower carbon emissions, but since it requires the burning of 1.5 gallons of petro-chemicals to produce a single gallon of ethanol, that promise was nothing more than fantasy as well.

The main reason for the high price of oil is simple supply and demand. Nations that have been aggressively developing the industrial sectors of their economies (India and China) have been using more and more oil which means demand has gone up. As any first year economics student knows, when demand goes up, so do prices. But, when demand goes up and supply does not keep pace, or even goes down, prices rise even faster. Evidence of this can be seen every time OPEC announces there will be reduced production. Prices are pushed up.

Domestically producing oil would help ease the supply issues that we now face and would help ease the burden on the American consumer. That is one of the best actions Congress can take to help bring us out of recession.

Please support S. 2958 so that we can get our economy back on track and stop funding those who would do us harm.

Thank you.

This is the reality we live in now. We need to bring our Congressional representatives out into this same reality.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Essay By Tim Inwood: How A Democrat Controlled Congress Is Making Our Energy Crisis Worse

This is a little gem from The Cincinnatus Standard. Pulling no punches, this essay hit right to the point on all the energy issues facing us and why Congress refuses to act and do the right thing to alleviate the situation.

Read on:

I get rather frustrated listening to the politicians moaning about the oil crisis we are having at the moment, especially since they are the biggest part of the problem on the domestic front. Since most of the Democrats are in the pockets of the extreme environmentalist groups—and their party is in the majority—we are making no progress in fixing our problems by domestic drilling. The other night I had to sit and listen to Senator Charles Schumer lecture us that getting oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not the solution to our problems. He said even if we were to start drilling today it would not reach our supply system for ten years. He then blatantly lied and claimed that even if oil were flowing from ANWR to the U.S. market it would only drop the price at the pump by a penny a gallon. What he did not say is that the only reason we are not drilling in ANWR is that Democrats have been blocking drilling for oil there since Bill Clinton vetoed the bill to open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge back in 1995. Do the math: had he not done that, crude oil would indeed be flowing from there, helping with the shortages we currently face.

ANWR is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other huge oil reserves that we should be going after that the Federal Government has prevented us from collecting. Off the coast of Florida, there are billions of gallons of oil under the ocean floor. We could go as far out as 75 miles where no one would see a single boom, but the politicians won’t let us go out there and get it. They say they fear soiling the beaches in doing so and are worried about tourism. This is pure idiocy. As I am typing this, Communist China, along with Cuba, are going after those oil deposits. Now, you tell me who is going to be more careful about the environment getting that oil: the United States or two communist governments who have trashed their own environments? I think we all know the answer. I would like a dollar for every news story I have seen fretting over the health of athletes as they compete in the Beijing Summer Olympic Games. The air is toxic in that city.

Yeah, the environmentalists only want to stop U.S. exploration for oil. But nations like Cuba and China, whose records on environmental protection are nothing short of disastrous, can drill right off the coast of the U.S. and not a single environmentalist will raise his or her voice in protest. The environmentalists seem not to think very rationally.


On top of this we see the political pressure to create biofuels. Friends, I live in Ohio and what I am about to say may cause farmers to march on my home or burn me in effigy. I am truly about to say something heretical, but it is true. Turning corn into fuel has been a huge mistake. First, it takes more energy to convert the corn to fuel than you get out of it. Second, it has tied the cost of corn to the oil market. In the Orient, they have used rice in the same way that we have converted corn. The end result is that food costs are rising, and there are food shortages worldwide. Overseas there have been food riots and people have been killed. Also, if you own an older car you might discover your vehicle will not run well—If at all—with ethanol in the tank. A friend of mine bought my old 1993 Range Rover County. He has fully restored the vehicle and it is in show room condition. But he has discovered he must be careful of where he refills the fuel tank. If he puts ethanol in there it will not start. The other issue is the alcohol in ethanol dries out rubber gaskets and hoses at an accelerated rate, meaning additional wear and tear as well as maintenance costs for your vehicle.

We cannot afford to sit and wait for foreign sources to solve our problems. OPEC is clearly not motivated to open up the spigot. The population of the world is growing, as is the number of countries using more oil. In recent years, China and India have begun using huge quantities of oil. Both nations now have a rapidly growing middle class and with that affluence comes the desire for automobiles. India has a car company building a vehicle for the equivalent of $2500 called the Tata and they are selling quite well. The population of India is over a billion people —1,132,446,000 to be exact. The People’s Republic of China now stands at well over a billion people, with a census saying they had 1,321,851,888 last year. So it is clear, with those nations consuming more oil the situation will become more dire for us if no domestic action is taken in the United States as soon as possible.

Sadly, there seems to be no rush in Washington D.C. They seem to satisfy themselves with arguing about the concept of a summer suspension of the federal gas tax, hardly a serious solution to this serious problem. Their fear of the environmental groups seems to be the biggest impediment to getting something done. We the people must rise in one voice and demand they do something and do it now.

Congress is not sharing our pain at the pump either. Many are unaware that you and I—via our tax dollars—are funding a special program to provide lease vehicles to members of Congress. Congress has members who think of themselves as royalty. Sheila Jackson Lee is famous for saying she expected to be treated like a queen. A chauffer picks her up every day and drives her less than 100 yards to her offices. I suppose I should be happy she is not taking advantage of the lease program, but I am sure the chauffer cost more. Democrat Congressman Greg Meeks tools around in a Lexus, which sets us back $1,062 a month—not including gas. Charles Rangel (D-NY), best remembered recently for his self-aggrandizing pork of a 2 million dollar education center named after himself, drives a leased Cadillac DeVille that is setting us back a mere $998 a month. When asked about his Caddy the pompous Rangel said his constituents expected him to ride in style. Notably, some members of Congress do not take advantage of the taxpayer. Steve Chabot (R-OH) still drives his personal 1993 Buick with 161,000 miles on it—and he pays for his own gasoline.

Frankly, I think Congress should be more like the character of Colonel Hessler, played by the late Robert Shaw in the old movie, Battle of the Bulge. He refused special meals and demanded to eat as his troops did so he knew how much strength and energy they had. Only then could he understand what his men needed. Perhaps if our Congressional overlords lived without all the perks and were more like us serfs they would better understand our plight. Then maybe they would get up off their rather sizable posteriors and clear the way for drilling where we know the oil is, loosen up regulations so we can build a new refinery or five, and get our energy crisis behind us. For this to happen, we must make contact with those in Washington at all levels of government. So please use the link at the bottom of this article and demand action now. Acting in unison we can get things moving, but your inaction will surely result in failure. So I hope you will join this effort to get those who can lift these restrictions to do so.

Therein lies the problem. Members of Congress don't have to pay their way like we working Americans do. Congress is so full of perks and bennies that they have forgotten what it means to actually have to roll up their sleeves for a living. As such, we can no longer trust them to fight for America's principles nor to fight for the benefit of the American people.

The Democrats promised to change all of that when they took power in 2006 but they have simply taken more benefits for themselves and have basically said, "To Hell with the rest of us."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Oil Is Plentiful, But Idiots Stand In The Way
Tim Inwood
The Cincinnatus Standard
May 8, 2008

Robert Menendez, Luis Gutierrez And Hilda Solis Had No Idea About Trouble At The U.S.-Mexico Border

Okay, say whatever you want about the trouble the Republican Party is in, but this goes beyond pathetic. Three Democrats admit that they did not know there was trouble brewing on the U.S. border with Mexico.

From Dr. Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA:

Three Democrat legislators spoke to reporters about what they claim is "anti-immigrant coverage" by conservative media outlets. Apparently, they think floods of illegal aliens crossing into America and the crime and violence at the border are just overblown incidents developed by conservatives to attack our neighbor to the South.

After they spoke, the Democrats were asked if they realized that the State Department had issued a "travel alert warning Americans about military-like 'combat' along the southern U.S. border in Mexico, where Americans are being kidnapped and murdered." None of the legislators knew about it.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said, "I haven't heard about the report specifically."

Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) also spoke to Cybercast News Service and said "they had no knowledge of the travel alert but were aware of the volatility along the U.S. southern border."

Volatility? Americans are being killed and yet all these liberals want to do is pander! The State Department alert states that "violent criminal activity fueled by a war between criminal organizations struggling for control of the lucrative narcotics trade continues along the U.S.-Mexico border." Although the alert states that the attacks are primarily aimed at "members of drug trafficking organizations, Mexican police forces, criminal justice officials, and journalists," the alert goes on to state that "foreign visitors and residents, including Americans, have been among the victims of homicides and kidnappings in the border region."

And these three claim that they weren't aware of it.

Someone please remind me, which party is out of touch?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

'Trouble At The Border? I Had No Idea!'
Dr. Bobby Eberle
May 23, 2008

Letters To Senator John Warner And Senator James Webb Concerning The OPEC Accountability Act

The Senate will soon be voting on a resolution to file a lawsuit against OPEC. The bill is called the "OPEC Accountability Act" and it is without a doubt one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation to ever come out of this Dem controlled Congress.

As such, I have written my Senators (John Warner and James Webb) asking them to vote against this foolishness. The following is a copy of my letter. Feel free to copy it, paste it to a word document and send it to your own Senators.

Dear [Senator],

I am writing this letter to ask you to vote “Nay” on an upcoming bill (S. 2976 IS) that was introduced by Senator Lautenberg and co-sponsored by Senators Dorgan, Casey, Levin, Sanders and Clinton. This bill is known as the “OPEC Accountability Act.”

The co-sponsors of this bill claim that launching a lawsuit against OPEC will somehow bring down the price of crude oil and in turn reduce the price of gasoline. I’m sorry, but only a fool would believe such claims.

The price of gasoline has gone up for many reasons, most of which can be attributed to the policies enacted into law by this very Congress. For example, the mandate of using ethanol, despite its supporters’ promise of bringing down gas prices, actually drove the price of gasoline up as it also drove up the price of food. The end result: people now have to pay more at the pump in order to get to the store to pay more for food. Further, there was also a promise of lower carbon emissions, but since it requires the burning of 1.5 gallons of petro-chemicals to produce a single gallon of ethanol, that promise was nothing more than fantasy as well. But I digress.

The main reason for the high price of oil is simple supply and demand. Nations that have been aggressively developing the industrial sectors of their economies (India and China) have been using more and more oil which means demand has gone up. As any first year economics student knows, when demand goes up, so do prices. But, when demand goes up and supply does not keep pace, or even goes down, prices rise even faster.

Many of your peers are trying to blame the oil companies for the situation in the world market, a few of them ignorantly throwing out the charge of “price gouging.” However, the oil companies’ profit margin is well under the average profit margin for other commodities, the market traders of which are not being accused of price gouging. This means that no price gouging is taking place. As such, if Congress carries out its threat to raise taxes on the oil companies in response to this mythical price gouging, the price at the pump will sky-rocket even further.

As you can clearly see, Senator, it is the Congress that has been hurting the American people at the gas pump, not OPEC or any of the oil companies.

And finally, I need to ask the obvious. Why would members of this Congress actively try to damage our relations with OPEC nations by filing a lawsuit when those same members of Congress are criticizing the President for damaging our relations with these OPEC nations? Wouldn’t you consider that to be hypocritical?

When S. 2976 IS reaches the Senate floor for a vote, please do the right thing and vote “Nay.”

Thank you.


[Your name here]

Thursday, May 22, 2008

CBS Found Obama Rule: 'Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message'

So, exactly how out of touch is Barack Obama? Well, his grasp of reality is so tenuous that he doesn't even remember the statements he made to his own headquarters staff.

Tim Graham over at NewsBusters has this:

In all the fuss over Barack Obama going on ABC and telling his opponents to "lay off my wife," some might have assumed that Obama was implying that Michelle Obama wasn't a major player in the Obama campaign. Read the transcript again, and you'll notice he never says that. (Michelle, however, felt compelled in that interview to deny Robert Novak's buzz that she axed Hillary from the ticket.)

All this reminded me of an April 24 CBS Evening News story where Katie Couric spent some gummy-grinned giggle time inside the Obama campaign HQ. As she surveyed the press shop, a camera found this sheet of paper with a Barack declaration of policy: "Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message."

Think this is all made up? Here's the sign that CBS videotaped:

And here is what Katie Couric said during her tour of Obama HQ:

Then there's the press operation, answering questions from reporters, trying to tamp down any controversy, in constant contact with the road while trying to make sure the message of the day survives.

So, exactly why are we supposed to lay off his wife?

CBS Found Obama Rule: 'Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message'
Tim Graham
May 21, 2008

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

McCain And Obama Differ On Supreme Court Appointees, Global Warming Innocent Of Hurricanes And Doctors Head To Texas

Three really good stories today. Let's start with McCain vs. Obama on Supreme Court Justices. McCain has promised to appoint strict Constitutionalists in the mold of Justices Alito and Roberts. Obama is promising activist Justices who are more emotional rather than rational.

From the L.A. Times:

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions."

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.


Obama has also praised current Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through," Obama said.

Remember, it was "empathy" and "feeling" that brought about the socialist policies that have universally been disasters wherever they have been adopted.

It is not just a theoretical policy debate.

Whoever is elected in November will probably have the chance to appoint at least one justice in the next presidential term. The court's two most liberal justices are its oldest: John Paul Stevens turned 88 last month, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75.

McCain promised that, if elected, he would follow President Bush's model in choosing Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Right now, they way things are going for us Conservatives, John McCain represents our last, best hope for keeping the Judiciary in the hands of Justices who truly respect the Constitution and all of the principles our Founding Fathers wisely wrote into it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

John McCain And Barack Obama: Two Visions Of The Supreme Court
David Savage
Los Angeles Times
May 19, 2008

A new study coming out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is showing evidence of what many of us already knew: Global Warming is not responsible for hurricanes, despite Al Gore's screeching claim that the hurricane season of 2006 was going to be twice as bad as 2005. (The truth is that 2006 was notable for it lack of storms.)

According to Fox News:

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

What makes this study different is [Tom] Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors — anywhere west of Puerto Rico — will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors.

The biggest storms — those with winds of more than 110 mph — would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

I know the libs just hate it when they are confronted with real facts and data rather than the emotionalistic rhetoric of a man who is making millions of dollars off of his eco-pandering. (BTW, someone should ask Al Gore how much profit he makes every time he sells a carbon credit. If it is higher than the 6% margin that the oil companies make, someone should investigate Al for price gouging.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Study: Hurricane Spike Not Caused By Global Warming
Associated Press via Fox News
May 19, 2008

And finally, we note that doctors are headed for Texas. Why? Tort reform. It is once again economical in Texas to open new practices withour having to worry about ambulance chasers like John Edwards using you and your insurance company to make themselves rich while at the same time driving health care prices so high that the lower class can no longer afford it.

From the Wall Street Journal:

In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down.

The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

And this is a really good idea, one that might have stopped John Edwards from doing so much damage in North Carolina:

One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.

I know, I know. The libs will still blame the "greedy" insurance companies in the rest of the U.S. But it is clear that liberal trial lawyers who seek their fortunes at the expense of insurance companies are the true culprits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why Doctors Are Heading For Texas
Joseph Nixon
The Wall Street Journal
May 17, 2008

Friday, May 16, 2008

Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 To $5 A Gallon

Get ready for it folks. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is the bill that is going to cost you more at the pump while at the same time not doing a damn thing to influence climate change. Why? Because we humans cannot control our own sun, that's why.

But that's a scientific debate that I've covered elsewhere on this blog. The economic realities of what Congress is about to screw us with is here:

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.

Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.

“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).

Let's see, currently, gas prices are pushing $4.00 a gallon. Adding $1.50 to that is $5.50 a gallon. And since supply is nowhere near keeping up with demand, expect it to go even higher.

This is a bill that will do nothing except further erode the American economy and cause more unemployment and other losses. But I doubt those who will be responsible for these consequences will be stepping forward to admit that they did so. They will find other excuses or other reasons to deflect the blame.

This bill must be defeated.


Gas prices have been one of the most reported news stories of the past several years. Reporters have repeatedly warned of prices approaching the levels Inhofe and Sessions warned about. However, journalists have consistently complained about oil company profits, not taxes, making gas prices higher.

On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline.

“Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.”

The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 To $5 A Gallon
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
May 15, 2008

Al Jazeera Reports Palestinians Phonebanking For Obama

As if his recent flap with Mid-East Advisor Robert Malley, who was in talks with Hamas, was not enough.

From The American Thinker:

It appears that some Palestinians in Gaza share American Thinker's skepticism over Barack Obama's devotion to the cause of Israel. Jim Geraghty of NRO's The Campaign Spot draws our attention to this video news report broadcast on Al Jazeera television, showing Palestinians in Gaza running a phone bank to call American voters before primary elections and urge them to support Obama.

Hamas support Obama, and Palestinians in Gaza, which is run by Hamas, are manning phone banks on his behalf. A number of Obama's foreign policy advisors have troubling track records, and one of them, Robert Malley was talking with Hamas and resigned when this became known. I suppose it will be called "old politics" to even notice these facts. But Palestinians, and many American voters, can and do read the signs he is giving on his Middle East policies.

Check out the video:

Video on YouTube.com

This is yet another reason why we cannot allow the Dems to have the White House in November.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Al Jazeera Reports Palestinians Phonebanking For Obama
Thomas Lifson
The American Thinker
May 14, 2008

Senate Blocks ANWR Oil Exploration, McCain Joins The Obstructionists

You know, the main reason I am a McCain supporter is that I look at all issues and weigh the entire situation accordingly. It is something akin to a teacher grading students on their work over an entire semester. The teacher cannot simply give an overall grade based on a few of the assignments. All assignments and work must be taken into consideration.

That is how I look at the Presidential candidates. I look at everything they stand for and decide which one more closely represents my viewpoint. If I had to give them grades, Obama and Clinton would each get an "F" while, at least until yesterday, "B-" is the grade that John McCain would have recieved.

I cannot give Obama and Clinton any lower marks since "F" is the lowest grade on the scale. They still remain failures. But Senator McCain's grade took a major nose-dive recently. He currently stands at "C-" with me.

From E. Ralph Hostetter at NewsMax.com:

The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday, May 13, to block oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the offshore areas of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

It is indeed remarkable how quickly the U.S. Senate can organize a negative vote when the issue is of such magnitude and importance to the economy and welfare of the nation.

To reverse the damage this vote has done to America’s energy independence will take months of endless hearings, making certain that every dissident is heard.

The National Center for Policy Analysis also on Tuesday, identified the U.S. Congress as the responsible party for the high price of gasoline and summed it up in this manner: “Over the last 28 years, Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our drilling for oil in Alaska’s ANWR; during the past 31 years Congress has repeatedly prevented us from building any new oil refineries; most recently congressional Democrats defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea, 100 miles out.”

Gas and oil prices are a simple function of supply and demand. When supply goes down, price goes up. Congress, especially Congressional Democrats and certain misguided Republicans, has done everything in its power to ensure that supply remains low so that prices remain high. It isn't the Oil Companies doing this. It is the liberals.

Thus, average Americans are punished with higher and higher gas prices while members of Congress enjoy the luxury of not having to pay for their own gas. Does Congress care? No, not at all. They all need to be voted out and replaced with people who are familiar with the reality that we are faced with. Our economy is tanking because of high energy prices, especially for gas and diesel. Hearings, leftists politcal agendas and obstructionism are not a part of the solution here.

So, why does John McCain get a lower grade in my book? Here's why:

Apparently all the presidential candidates have expressed their opposition to development of ANWR.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., announced on May 13 that he had missed the vote in the U.S. Senate, but had he been there, he would have voted against further exploration in ANWR.

It would appear as though the majority of present day politicians have no concept of the energy source of 90 percent of America's transport vehicles.

"C-" is his grade thus far. I sincerely hope Senator McCain gets a clue and sees the light before November. Statements like the one he made about ANWR exploration are more likely to keep Republicans home on Election Day.

And that only bodes well for the liberal Dems.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senate Blocks ANWR Oil Exploration
E. Ralph Hostetter
May 14, 2008

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Nothing Is Certain But Death And The FairTax by Dr. Mike Adams

The movement is growing! Despite what naysayers and negativists are parroting in their misguided criticisms about the FairTax, this is becoming a bigger and bigger issue and soon, Congress and the American people are going to have to seriously study and consider it.

Read what Dr. Mike Adams has to say in his latest column from TownHall.com:

The idea comes to me from a former student who was waiting on me the other night at the bar of a seafood restaurant in Wilmington. I had a beer in one hand and my copy of FairTax: The Truth in the other when an Obama supporter asked the following: “Why do you support the FairTax? We just need to change the tax code to punish corporations that are sending our jobs over to China.”

Armed with FairTax: The Truth, I responded with the following: “I’m from Texas as is Representative Bill Archer. He testified in front of Congress about the results of an interesting study of 500 companies in Japan. When asked what they would do if the U.S. abolished its present tax system and went with a consumption tax, 80% said they would build their next plant in America. The remaining 20% said they would relocate to America altogether. Now that’s change you can believe in!”

Yes, it is. But I still find it amazing that there are educated people out there who still believe that a more punishing tax code will bring jobs back to the U.S. You might as well believe that more anti-semitic laws would have brought more Jews back to Nazi Germeny.

And how does it compare to the proposed Flat Tax? Dr. Adams looked at that too in another conversation:

Supporter of the Flat Tax of Yesterday (SOFTY): Sorry, I support the flat tax.
Adams: How often do you change your underwear?
SOFTY: What?
Adams: I assume you change your underwear every day?
SOFTY: Yes, what the hell does that have to do with it?
Adams: That means you’ve changed underwear 8036 times in the last 22 years.
Adams: And the I.R.S. has changed the tax code 16,000 times in the last 22 years. They change the tax code twice as often as you change underwear. How long do you think a flat tax would remain flat?
SOFTY: (Silence)
Adams: Would you like to borrow my book?

While the Flat Tax is far superior to what we have now, I don't believe it goes far enough in addressing the issues that our income tax system has produced.

What does the FairTax do? It replaces the entire Federal Tax Code with one simple, easy to understand and completely visible national sales tax on new goods and services. No more income tax, no more hidden taxes, no more death tax, no more any tax on personal wealth or income.

The FairTax:

  • Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
  • Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
  • Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
  • Allows American products to compete fairly
  • Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
  • Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
  • Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
  • Abolishes the IRS

Additionally, the FairTax is the only Tax Reform plan that addresses the three following end-goals:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

You can access Dr. Adams' complete column online here:

Nothing Is Certain But Death And The FairTax
Dr. Mike Adams
May 12, 2008

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Democrats' Energy Plan: Tax, Sue, And Investigate by Sen. John Cornyn

Over at TownHall.com, Sen. Cornyn's column cuts right to the chase about current energy policy and the effects such policy has had on us:

More than two years ago, now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues promised what they called a “common sense” energy plan to bring down prices at the gas pump. Since that time, the average cost of a gallon of gas has soared from $2.33 to $3.62, an all-time high.

That's it in a nutshell. That is the grand result of what a Dem-controlled Congress has brought to the American people.

So, what are the new plans? Read on:

A central component of the Democrats’ energy bill is to increase taxes on U.S. energy companies. This is almost bizarre. Democrats have clearly not learned the lesson from the 1980s when the windfall profits tax—a tax on oil produced in the U.S.—was first enacted.

We know now as a matter of certainty that this tax had the opposite effect than what was intended. It led to lower domestic oil production—not lower prices at the gas pump. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates the windfall profits tax decreased domestic oil production by as much as 1.2 billion barrels between 1980 and 1986.

Not only did it result in decreased production, but the taxes were simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Further, if these new taxes are enacted, anyone who has a 401k with investments in Oil Companies will see the size of their retirement checks reduced as a result.

In addition to other idiotic ideas such as bringing back the Federal Tax Commission, the Dems have this little gem in store for us:

The final component of the Democrats’ energy plan is to sue OPEC to force them to release more oil in the market. This is clearly an exercise in futility, and I suspect my Democratic colleagues know that. The idea of threatening foreign governments, and particularly our Middle East allies, is particularly ironic coming from the same Democrats who have routinely accused the Bush Administration of damaging our relationships with other nations. It is also ironic to sue other countries in an effort to get them to produce more oil, while at the same time preventing production here at home and making us even more dependent on foreign oil.

Whoo boy! I wish all Republicans and Conservatives had the cojones to tell it like this.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Democrats' Energy Plan: Tax, Sue, And Investigate
Sen. John Cornyn
May 7, 2008

Monday, May 12, 2008

Barack Obama Sacks Adviser Over Talks With Hamas

If this little "incident" doesn't make you stop and think about the consequences of an Obama Presidency, then you should do the rest of the country a favor and not even show up to vote in November.

Here's the timeline of some very current events:

1. The terrorist group Hamas endorses Barack Obama for President. (This is no hoax. It really happened.)
2. Senator McCain noted that a major terrorist group endorsed Barack Obama and said that the voting public should be able to "make judgments accordingly."
3. Senator Obama accuses Senator McCain of "losing his bearings."
4. Senator Obama fires his Middle East Policy advisor for being in talks with Hamas.

Obama claims that he did not know that one of his advisors was speaking with a vicious terrorist group and yet, he feels it's okay to make the ridiculous claim that John McCain is somehow lost? If this obvious double-standard weren't the reality of the 2008 Democrat Presidential Campaign, it would probably sound like the plot to a really bad "B" movie.

Disregarding the John McCain angle for the moment, what does this say about the Democrat front-runner who had absolutely no idea that one of his advisors was in communication with known terrorists? Advisers are the people who will have the President's ear in the Oval Office. Shouldn't the President be aware of who is advising him and why?

If anyone has "lost his bearings," it is Barack Obama.

From the Times of London:

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation.


Mr Obama, who has been trying to assuage suspicion towards him among the influential Jewish and pro-Israel lobby, spoke at a Washington reception marking the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence on Thursday when he promised that his commitment to the country’s security would be "unshakeable." However, Mr McCain has high-lighted the Democrat's pledge to negotiate directly with nations such as Iran – whose leaders talk of wiping Israel off the map – and a statement from Hamas saying that it hoped that Mr Obama would win the presidency.

This was denounced as an offensive smear by Mr Obama.

So, stating facts is an "offensive smear?" I wonder what the Democrats call it when they tell lies about John McCain's POW experience or tell lies about the fire aboard the USS Forrestal?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Barack Obama Sacks Adviser Over Talks With Hamas
Tom Baldwin
Times of London
May 10, 2008

BTW, have you noticed that this story is not being picked up and played over and over by American Media outlets? If Obama had been a Republican candidate, this would have been front-page news for the next three months.

Friday, May 9, 2008

Petronomics 101

I am almost amazed that there has been no major outcry from the American consumer about the price of gasoline. After all, it is the life blood of our economy.

But the price keeps going up and up and up. Not because of any "greedy" oil companies (their profit margin is a lowly 6%) but because of two reasons:

1) Increasing Global Demand
2) Decreasing Supply

Either one of these by themselves will drive prices up, but a combination of both will be like launching prices with JATO packs. What we have is a combination of both. The global demand is something that is out of our control. We simply cannot tell India and China that they have to stop using so much oil as it is the life-blood of their economies too.

The decreasing supply on the other hand, is something we could do something about, if only the leftist Dems (and a few Republicans) in Congress would get off of their high horses and join the rest of us in reality.

Lt. Col. Oliver North's most recnt column deals with these topics. From TownHall.com:

While Washington's political elites in both parties have debated and dithered, the price of crude oil has risen to $123 per barrel -- nearly double what it was at this time last year. The average cost of a gallon of gas at the pump is approaching $4 per gallon. Some analysts now are predicting that the price of a barrel of oil could approach $200 in the next two years -- and that gasoline could be $6 a gallon. An equal amount of diesel may cost truckers as much as $7.50.

But, when Congress tried to do something about it, this happened:

Ethanol: The Side Effects
April 29, 2008

And this:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
March 13, 2008

And Lt. Col. North continues:

The cost of crude oil is out of sight and climbing. Petrodollars are funding a radical Islamic jihad being waged against us. Here at home, the cost of everything from fuel to food is going up, and we're sending out of the country capital needed to resuscitate an economy that is, at best, sluggish and, at worst, foundering.

The majority in Congress has responded by proposing tax increases for domestic energy production, suggesting new mandates on producers, demanding that coal-fired electric plants be shut down, and whining that foreign governments need to increase oil production -- while opposing exploitation of reserves here at home. In a news conference two weeks ago, President Bush criticized Congress for blocking efforts to expand domestic oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And this week, in a noteworthy understatement, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel observed, "We have here, in this nation, resources that we are not utilizing."

No, really? The newest oil refinery in the United States was built by Marathon in Garyville, La., in 1976. Since then, every effort to construct new facilities has been thwarted by protests and lawsuits from "environmental" groups and government red tape. It has been 12 years since the last nuclear reactor came on line to generate electrical power in the United States.

But not all in Congress are so blinded by PC idiocy:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has proposed a realistic solution: the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008. Her bill would permit exploitation of more than a trillion barrels of U.S. territorial oil and nearly 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- more than the combined hydrocarbon reserves of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya and Iran. The measure also would streamline the process for building new refineries and clean, safe nuclear power plants, as well as funding to develop alternative fuels.

But none of that -- and the consequent reduction in energy costs -- ever will benefit American consumers, unless Congress acts.

The longer we wait to get a comprehensive energy plan, the higher gas prices will go and the less money we will have to research and convert to alternative sources later on.

Please write to Congress and ask them to stop being so short-sighted and to support the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Petronomics 101
Lt. Col. Oliver North
May 9, 2008

McCain's Former Hanoi Cell Mate Describes Character In Deplorable Conditions

Colonel George "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.) is currently the most decorated American Veteran alive with more than 70 medals and citations. But he will probably be most remembered for one thing: He was John McCain's cellmate at the North Vietnamese POW compound known as the Hanoi Hilton.

From Fox News:

"They told me we were gonna get a roommate and it was gonna be the prince. The Vietnamese called him the prince so I asked my nurse what was his name? They said John McCain," Day told FOX News.

Both he and McCain were taken captive in 1967, and held until their release in 1973.

Anyone who knows even a little bit about the conditions the POWs endured at the hands of the Communists knows how inhumane the North Vietnamese were. Colonel Day describes the conditions that he and (then) Lt. Commander McCain were forced to live in:

The U.S. soldiers were held sometimes five to a cell, barely big enough for two.

"He had this gimpy knee where he'd busted his knee, this arm had been fractured in a couple places, he'd been bayoneted in the leg, this arm was out at the shoulder and, in fact, during that time it was out at the shoulder so long it wore a hole in this bone," Day said.

During captivity, they were tortured mercilessly, Day said, describing one tactic that McCain has also recalled.

"They roped me under the arms, tied my hands behind my back, ran another rope to that, got me up on a chair, threw that rope up over a rafter and jerked the chair out from under me and your own weight just tears your body apart," he said.

Day’s broken arm was re-broken during torture so he would never fly again.

But John McCain became an ad hoc doctor and physical therapist:

"John said, 'Well we'll gather up some bamboo,' and he was in a bandage on his leg at that time. So I got some strips of bamboo, smuggled them into the room, John put his foot in my arm pit and pulled on my wrist 'till we could get the bone forced back down … it wasn't exactly perfect but it worked out he got it back to where it was functional," Day said.

But nerve damage was extensive — his crushed hands were useless. Meanwhile, McCain was treated no better than the trash they were fed in the form of a soup.

"I mean you could smell him for 25 feet. Bunch of food and nasty stuff in his hair, and down his neck and inside his cast. The cast was not lined so every time he would move inside this cast, it was just eating a hole in his arm or his elbow or someplace, and he was just in — he was in pain," Day recalled.

Yet McCain, now 71, made efforts to help Day recover from his own injuries, Day said.

This speaks volumes about the character of John McCain. I seriously doubt that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would have attempted anything even close to what McCain was doing for his fellow POWs. In fact, I think it would have been more likely that if put in the same situation, Hillary and Obama would have been cutting selfish deals for special treatment, something that McCain absolutely refused to do:

Day said by any humane standard, McCain would have been a good candidate for early release from the camp, but that wasn’t in his playbook.

"It also wasn’t in his playbook to die. In fact he quickly became a leader."

Day said he asked McCain if he would be one of his preachers.

"He said sure. He had a great handle on the Episcopalian liturgy, he could just repeat it verbatim," he said.

But repeating what he went through during his incarceration is something McCain almost never does as a presidential candidate. Day said he thinks he should.

"I've never seen any shortcomings or any shortfall out of him talking about that, but he just doesn’t trade on that. I think he feels that it’s wrong to trade on being a hero, but he is," Day said.

Whereas Vietnam Veterans quickly let the world know of their disdain for the back-stabbing John Kerry, these same Vietnam Veterans know who kept the faith.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain's Former Hanoi Cell Mate Describes Character In Deplorable Conditions
Carl Cameron
May 8, 2008

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Right Solution To Lower Gas Prices By John Cornyn

Here is a Senator with some Common Sense:

I like to describe Washington as 68 square miles of logic-free environment surrounded by reality. But the antics of Congress this month make that appear an understatement.

Gas prices are now hovering near $4 per gallon. High fuel costs are causing disruption in our society, prompting layoffs in some industries. Yet Congress is doing virtually nothing to address the problem. In fact, it’s talking about ways to make the problem worse.

In my view, the solution is straightforward. We need more energy. Government should get out of the way, let the free market work and allow more domestic energy production. This would reduce gas prices even in the near-term, expand job opportunities in Texas—a world energy leader—and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

But earlier this month, the Senate actually considered a massive climate tax bill that headed in the exact opposite direction. This massive $6.7 trillion Rube Goldberg scheme proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would undermine our economy and likely lead to $10 per gallon gasoline. It could well eliminate some 330,000 Texas jobs, sending them to places with limited regulation like China and India.

How can this be explained? After blocking American energy production and oil independence, Congress pursues bigger government, added taxes and higher energy costs—with no guarantee of actually improving the world’s climate.

It is vital that we be the best possible stewards of the environment. Fortunately, improved technology has enabled us to take advantage of America’s own abundant natural resources in an environmentally sensitive way. Yet the U.S. remains the only country in the world that refuses to develop many of its natural resources.

America is aggressively moving from fossil fuels to more diverse energy sources, including wind, nuclear, solar and clean coal. We need all of this supply. The government and private industry are both investing to promote and expedite this transition, and using steps such as increasing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.

In the short term, however, oil, gas and coal will remain our dominant sources of energy. The free market could provide significant additional supplies—but Congress continues to prevent that.

Some of my colleagues are pushing a novel plan to address the energy crisis. They want to tax, sue and investigate our way out of it. But boosting taxes on American companies and pursuing phony price gouging inquiries are proven losing strategies—and might even make the situation worse. These approaches would not produce a single drop of additional oil and would actually increase our dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

As demand for energy increases, prices go up. Congress cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. But it can repeal the unnecessary government restrictions that prevent exploring additional American energy supplies.

I will continue advocating for removal of government barriers to increasing the supply of energy, from traditional to alternative sources. There is no instant solution to the problem we’ve helped create. But we should not wait any longer to take the first steps to provide Texans relief at the gas pump.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Right Solution To Lower Gas Prices
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
June 6, 2008

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

McCain Castigates Obama For Voting Against Chief Justice

Seems like Sen. Obama is everyone's favorite target these days. But this article by Libby Quaid from the Asssociated Press shows a track record that seems all but unspoken about the presumptive GOP nominee:

McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

"They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me," McCain said .


McCain often is viewed as an independent because he antagonizes fellow Republicans and likes to work with Democrats. Some conservatives dislike his decision to join the "Gang of 14," ... who averted a Senate showdown over whether filibusters could be used against Bush judicial nominees.

On Monday, McCain told reporters he didn't know whether conservatives would forgive him for that decision.

"You'll have to ask them, but I think I was right to do it; we got all but two of the president's nominees through the Senate," McCain said.


McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for abortion


He also has cast conservative votes on judges. In fact, McCain has never voted against a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court or federal courts, the Democratic National Committee pointed out.

I guarantee that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama has a track record or a Presidential platform like this one.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Castigates Obama For Voting Against Chief Justice
Libby Quaid
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
May 6, 2008

Monday, May 5, 2008

A Reality Check

The following facts and figures never get reported on the nightly news and are among the reasons why I do not trust Old Media and you shouldn't either.

This post is in three parts:

Part 1: Economy

In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Consider the "change" a Dem controlled Congress has presided over.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% ( 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and got it!

Remember, Congress makes the laws not the President. He works with what's handed to him.

Barack Obama's campaign slogan is: "Change we can believe in."

Well, we've seen the change that Barack and the Dems have in store for us. It is not good.

Part 2: Taxes

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008

Taxes under Clinton 1999
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both Democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; scam people out of money and they don't even know it.

PART 3: Illegal Aliens vs. Funding The War on Terror

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Continue reading.

We have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq War and the War on Terror that is bankrupting us. The data shows that to be RIDICULOUS.

Feel free to forward the following 14 reasons until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. URL's have been included for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: Immigration and Welfare

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: The High Cost Of Cheap Labor

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: Bureau Of Justice Statistics

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

10 The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: A Line in the Sand:
Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

Verify at: National Policy Institute

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

Verify at: Migrant Remittances From The United States To Latin America To Reach $45 Billion In 2006, Says IDB

14. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.

Verify at: Violent Crimes Institute

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Yet the Dems and certain Congressional Republicans think the Iraq War is what is costing us!

Are we THAT stupid?

Pass this data along to as many people as you can for as long as you can. We need to get the job done that Old Media and the Democrats won't do.

Friday, May 2, 2008

The Time For Complaining Is Over! The National Campaign Is Now!

My God! Here it is! May! And there are still several sore loser types who refuse to accept the fact that John McCain is going to be the GOP nominee for President in 2008!

Just who are these people? Well, they claim to be Conservatives. Many of these self-styled Conservatives are hoping for a Dem victory in November in the mistaken belief that somehow a stronger, more energized Republican Party will come out the other end. Some are even suggesting that at the Convention, John McCain should step aside and allow someone else to run for President. Sorry, but that is the lamest idea I've heard yet.

What really irritates me about these self-styled Conservatives is their extreme short-sightedness and their inability to accept responsibility as a group.

What would happen if the Dems win the White House in November? Alot, and most of it bad. Not only would we see our economy get beaten down by higher taxes and a full scale retreat from the terrorists, we would see massive appointments of leftist judges to Federal benches and at least two leftists appointed to the Supreme Court. That is the short-sightedness of those who believe a Dem win will result in a stronger GOP. The exact opposite is true. It will weaken the position of the GOP and we won't be able to re-strengthen it for another 30 to 40 years. Those Republicans who want to see a McCain defeat would do well to look beyond 2008 and 2012 and see what they are really pushing for.

And then there are those who say they would vote for Republican Congressional candidates while leaving the door open for a Dem White House. The idea here is that by retaking the Senate, it would force a Dem President to appoint more Conservative jurists to SCOTUS. Well, let's look at historical precedent on that issue.

In 1994, the Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate through "good, Conservative leadership." That good leadership failed to stop the confirmation of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to the Supreme Court, despite a GOP majority. Even though Republicans had more than enough votes to stop the seating of an uber-liberal to SCOTUS, she was seated anyway. Now, imagine what would happen with a Dem-controlled White House and a Dem-contolled Senate (which is looking more likely than a GOP-controlled Senate at this point). That is why we need to look beyond 2008 and 2012 and contemplate the consequences of our actions today. Anyone out there who still thinks that a Dem winning the White House would be good for the GOP needs to go get their head examined. It would be a disaster for Conservatives everywhere.

Now, what about this "group responsibility" thing? I asked about this in a blog posting back on February 12, 2008 and no one ever bothered to answer my question. Here it is: Where was the Conservative Base of the Republican Party on Super Tuesday and during the primaries and campaigns prior?

I don't know where they were, but I do know where they were not. They were not in the voting booths nor were they out campaigning for candidates with solidly Conservative credentials.

Think I'm joking? Look at the combined support of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson. The three of them didn't equal the support enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani. Where was the Conservative Base of the GOP? I was a supporter of Tom Tancredo and I was doing everything I could to support his campaign. I blogged, I donated money and I participated in polls to support him right up to the day he announced he was dropping out.

But I don't feel like the GOP let me down. I feel like my fellow Conservatives abandoned me. And yes, I am referring to those same Conservatives who were conspicuously absent on Super Tuesday and before.

So, now these same Conservatives who were nowhere to be found prior to John McCain winning the GOP nomination are getting energized. I'm sorry but their energy is coming several months too late for me to seriously listen to anything they have to say. The energy with which they disparage John McCain today would have been better spent rallying around Tancredo, Hunter or Thompson back in December of 2007. In other words, the vaunted Conservative Base is just a little more than a day late and a dollar short.

So, the time for complaining is long since over. If you are one of those self-styled Conservatives who wants to see a McCain defeat in November, before you complain to me about my support for the Senator from Arizona, please explain to me the conspicuous absence of the Conservative Base during the Super Tuesday voting and during the months before. I'd love to read that excuse.

P.S. Please don't try the lame excuse that the media picked McCain. I refuse to believe that 8.6 million GOP voters allowed themselves to be swayed by a left-leaning media rather than thinking for themselves. If that were true then it wouldn't matter who the GOP nominee was at this point.