"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, June 27, 2008

Volcanoes Under The Arctic Ice May Be Behind The Ice Melts Of The Northern Hemisphere

But don't expect Al Gore or any of the Global Warming alarmists to be talking about it. In fact, it is probably in their best financial interest to try and hide it.

But, what is even more important is that this may be the explanantion as to why the Arctic Ice retreated recently (and then came back) while Antarctic Ice seems to be getting thicker and growing.

Take a look at this from Yahoo News:

Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.


[W]hen a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.

What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.

Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.

Which is why no one considered the possibility that a volcanic eruption under the ice pack may have greatly contributed to the melt-off. Certainly, Al Gore's trained parrot "scientists" never thought about it.

You can access this complete article on-line here:

Volcanic Eruptions Reshape Arctic Ocean Floor: Study
AFP via Yahoo News
June 25, 2008

So, what does all of this really mean? It means that man-made global warming just took another major blow to the head. The next logical question to ask is: Is there any evidence that volcanoes are having an effect on ice melts in the northern hemisphere? And, could this be the reason why ice melts are happening in the northern hemisphere despite declining global temperatures while the ice in the southern hemisphere is getting thicker?

We can look to the Ohio State University for an answer to that one:

Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice.


“The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said Ralph von Frese, leader of the project and a professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts, too.

And it is these "natural impacts" that Al Gore and the global warming alarmists have been completely ignoring.


von Frese's team combined gravity measurements of the area taken by a Naval Research Laboratory aircraft with airborne radar measurements taken by research partners at the University of Kansas. The combined map revealed changes in mass beneath the Earth's crust, and the topography of the crust where it meets the ice sheet.

Below the crust is the mantle, the partially molten rocky layer that surrounds the Earth's core. The crust varies in thickness, but is usually tens of miles thick. Even so, the mantle is so hot that temperatures just a few miles deep in the crust reach hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit, von Frese explained.

“Where the crust is thicker, things are cooler, and where it's thinner, things are warmer. And under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica , natural variations in the crust will make some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others,” he said.

The ice thickness, the temperature at the base of the ice, and ground topography all contribute to the forming of an ice stream -- a river of ice that flows within a larger ice sheet. In recent years, Greenland ice streams have been carrying ice out to sea faster, and ice cover on the island has been diminishing.


The newly discovered hotspot is just below the ice stream, and could have caused it to form, the researchers concluded. But what caused the hotspot to form?

“It could be that there's a volcano down there,” he said. “But we think it's probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice.”

So, scientists are finally acknowledging what we skeptics have been saying for years: The issue is a hell of alot more complex than just human actvity and it is looking like nature is playing a larger role than humans could ever hope to.

Thus far, there are no hotspots or volcanoes being reported in Antarctica where the ice is getting thicker.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Earth's Heat Adds To Climate Change To Melt Greenland Ice
Pam Frost Gorder
Ohio State University
December 7, 2007

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Statement By John McCain On Today's Supreme Court Ruling On Second Amendment Rights

For anyone who still thinks that Sen. Obama equals Sen. McCain:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Time to start drawing these very sharp distinctions between the two candidates.

You can access the Press Release on-line here:

Statement By John McCain On Today's Supreme Court Ruling On Second Amendment Rights
June 26, 2008

Lawmakers Request Investigation Of Prosecutor Johnny Sutton In Border Agents Case

This is big. Johnny Sutton will now have to give account of himself for the way he railroaded U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.

From a Press Release coming out of the office of Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC):

In a letter this week to the U.S. Department of Justice, Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) – joined by Reps. Ted Poe (R-TX), Virgil Goode (R-VA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), John Culberson (R-TX), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Don Manzullo (R-IL) – requested that the Office of Professional Responsibility investigate the actions of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in the prosecution of U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The agents entered federal prison on January 17, 2007, to begin serving sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across the U.S. border in 2005.

Part of the letter reads:

“It is our firm conviction that, by these actions, Mr. Sutton is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, which has imposed an irreversible and substantial effect upon Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean and their families. Prior to the return of the indictment against Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean, Mr. Sutton must have known that it was impossible for there to be probable cause for a ‘crime’ never enacted by Congress, as authoritatively and previously decided by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. According to Rule 3.09 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, a prosecuting attorney is to ‘refrain from prosecuting ... a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.’”

“Mr. Sutton has manipulated the federal criminal code to obtain a conviction against two U.S. Border Patrol agents, preferring to win at all costs over his duty as a United States Attorney, and his duty under the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. This is a matter which your office has a duty to investigate and, on the basis of what we now know, to remedy.”

You can access the complete Press Release on-line here:

Complaint Of Prosecutorial Misconduct Filed Against U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton
Walter B Jones
United States House Of Representatives
June 19, 2008

You can read a complete copy of the letter on-line here:

Complaint For Prosecutorial Miconduct Against Johnny Sutton, United States Attorney, Western District Of Texas
(Letter is in .pdf format)

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Nancy Pelosi's Promise To Lower Gas Prices Has Been Broken

And why should that be a surprise? Many of us knew that neither she nor any other Democrat in Congress had any intention of bringing gas prices down. Pelosi made that promise for one reason and one reason alone: to get elected.

The truth is, she and other Dems want to keep gas prices high. They actually believe that higher gas prices work in their favor. As long as prices are high and show no sign of coming down anytime soon, they can throw all the blame they want on President Bush.

But the real culprits for sky-rocketing energy costs are in the halls of Congress and most of them carry a "D" after their name. In fact, the Dems have done nothing to bring gas prices down and are instead working to make prices go up.

But what is really interesting is a statement that Nancy Pelosi made on April 24, 2006. Here is what she said:

"Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels."

And here is what she and the Democrats delivered. From a column in the Huntington, West Virginia Herald-Dispatch:

Well, over a year after taking the Senate and the House on Jan. 4, 2007, and promising to lower oil prices, the Democrats have presided over the highest oil price increase in history. Last week, gasoline prices averaged $3.94 per gallon, $1.03 higher than when now-Speaker Pelosi made her politically motivated promise.

Right now, only the Republicans are proposing anything to give some relief to consumers at the pump:

At a recent news conference, President Bush called upon Congress to increase domestic oil production in response to soaring gasoline prices by approving legislation allowing oil and gas drilling in ANWR.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced legislation, along with the bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, that would automatically open ANWR if the price of oil tops $125 a barrel for five days.

"Americans are tired of hearing about why the cost of energy is so high. What they want to know is what we in Congress are doing to drive down prices," Murkowski said.

At Pelosi's news conference in April 2006, she stated, "All you have to do is drive down the street in your car, see the price at the pump, and you know that Americans can no longer afford George W. Bush as president and his rubber-stamp Republican Congress."

At least then people could afford to drive down the street.

Libs are out there yelling for "change." Well, they got "change" when the Dems took over Congress and we are in a bigger mess than we were before.

I don't want change, I want improvement. Right now, our best chance at getting improvement is to put the Republicans back in power.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Didn't Deliver On Promise To Cut Gas Prices
Mark Caserta
The Herald-Dispatch
June 1, 2008

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

John McCain’s Energy IndependencePolicies And How They Compare With Democrat Claims

Here's a good little article from Front Page Magazine. It puts energy policy into context, not just Democrat vs. Republican but also McCain vs. Obama. If the Republicans and McCain come out swinging on this issue, it will be the knockout punch that will put the Dems back into the minority where they belong.

Last week, McCain pledged to end the 1982 moratorium on offshore gas and oil drilling in the continental United States. This week, he proposed offering $300 million to any automaker or individual that can develop a better car battery, as well as $5,000 in tax credits to consumers who buy zero-emission vehicles. Speaking directly to Americans’ concerns about an energy crisis, McCain's two-pronged offensive also has put Democrats on the defensive.

Despite their advantage in the polls, Democrats are especially vulnerable on energy issues. In 2006, they promised a "common sense" solution to oil prices. All they have done, however, is blame oil companies and threaten new taxes.

Yep. That is all the Dems have done. They have not proposed one single new initiative that will help ease our pain at the gas pumps. They have only proposed that which will make our pain worse.

The article continues:

The United States has the largest oil shale deposits in the world in the Green River basin, from which it is (conservatively) estimated that 800 billion barrels of oil can be recovered. Meanwhile, according to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR probably could produce another 10 billion barrels. With resources like these, America would no longer need oil from adversarial oil-rich nations. And this is just scratching the surface. Technologies that convert coal into synthetic fuel are already economical and feasible, and America has 25 percent of all the coal reserves in the world. No wonder many conservatives want these regions included in future exploration.

And not just conservatives. As quoted in news reports, even some Democratic insiders and strategists "admit privately" that that "they are impressed with the new Republican campaign” because "gives the GOP an opportunity to talk about taking action on a matter of huge importance to the voters.”

And therein lies the opportunity that I mentioned above. We are very angry at the Dems. We are angry that gas, energy and food prices have gone up beyond the national inflation rate ever since they took control of Congress and passed that idiotic ethanol law.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently captured her party’s deafness to national concerns on energy. “We cannot drill our way out of this,” she insisted. Instead, the California Democrat fell back on conspiracy theory, blaming the president and vice-president for high gas prices. "A barrel of oil now costs four times more than it did when President Bush took office," she argued. "Two oil men in the White House, cost of oil four times higher. Price at the pump: $4 a gallon."

The claim will not withstand scrutiny. Experts have argued for some time now that the growing economies of China and India and their demand for oil are the main reason for higher energy prices worldwide.

But it's hard for liberals to abandon their old, anti-capitalist orthodoxies. Listen to Maurice Hinchey, a left wing New York Democrat, who contends that oil companies are not drilling on the lands they already lease because they are waiting for the price of oil to go up to "$200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits." Acting on that assumption, Democratic congressmen are introducing legislation that will force oil companies to explore the properties they already lease or pay fees (an indirect tax) that will increase over time. This idea is almost as bad as Hinchey's proposal last week (from which he later retreated) that the federal government should own oil refineries to gain some control of the supply.

Lost on these politicians is that any new fees oil companies pay will be passed on to consumers at the pump. Barack Obama's plan for a tax on oil profits would have exactly this effect. Drivers would simply pay more.

The Dems are so far out of touch on this one, most important issue that we really need to get them out of office before they send us flying head first into a new Great Depression. Nancy Pelosi's embrace of hair-brained conspiracy theories is proof positive of that.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

McCain’s Energy Independence
Stephen Brown and Sean Daniels
June 24, 2008

Monday, June 23, 2008

Congress Aims At Oil Trading: Democrats Offer Another Bill To Curb Oil Speculation

Reality Check: Americans are suffering from high prices at the gas pump, the price of oil is being pushed higher by higher world demand and a clear majority of Americans want something done to ease the pain and a viable solution for long-term relief. So, what do the Dems do? They hold hearings in an attempt to shift the blame away from where it properly belongs: with Congress.

First, they tried, unsuccessfully, many times, to blame the oil companies for price gouging. But the truth prevailed and it became clear the Dems were leveling false charges. So now, the Dems are going after investors or "speculators" as the culprits for the high price of oil. Does anyone else see where this is going and why it is such a sham?

From CNN:

Congress will focus on energy speculation on Monday, as some lawmakers blamed Wall Street traders for record oil and gasoline prices.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., the chair of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, will investigate whether further regulation of trading is warranted.


Congress is awash in nine different bills that attempt to limit the role of speculators.

First let's look at the economics here. Oil prices are not high because the speculators came running over to trade futures, speculators came running over to trade futures because oil prices are high. You see, people don't start their car engines because they drove somewhere, they drove somewhere because they started their car engines. Get it?

This is simply another lame attempt at deflecting blame and a clear example of economic ignorance. They tried to blame the oil companies and then they tried to blame OPEC. They failed on all accounts.

Now they are trying to blame investors who are simply responding to the high prices that Congress is responsible for.

Congress has limited our supply by forbiding new drilling. Congress has bowed to environmental extremists and refused to allow new refineries to be built. Congress mandated the use of ethanol which required the use of even more oil and drove the price of gasoline even higher and drove up food prices as well.

Overall, this new attempt by the Dems to shift blame will have the same effect as all the proposed and enacted policies that came from the Dem leadership: not one drop of oil will be produced, not one drop of gasoline will be refined and the cost of energy won't be reduced by a single cent.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Congress Aims At Oil Trading
Dave Goldman
June 23, 2008

Running On Empty: Democrat Energy Policies Ignore Reality

How much longer will they cling to the fantasy that alternative energy will get us off of foreign oil? What are these new technologies that will lead to some sort of prosperity?

We've already seen what a disastrous failure ethanol has been. The ethanol plan has a) caused us to use more oil than ever before b) caused an increase in gasoline prices and c) has lead to higher food prices. And ethanol was supposedly our best hope for an alternative energy source. What are the others? The truth is, they don't exist. Most of the ideas being vaguely alluded to by Barack Obama aren't even off of the planning boards and are not, in any way shape or form, proven to be a more efficient energy supply than petroleum.

So, why are the Dems so dead set on continuing these failed policies?

Fred Barnes, writing for the Weekly Standard notes a few things:

Advances in oil technology--which Obama either doesn't know about or chooses to ignore--allow drilling to go far deeper beneath the sea and thus farther from the coast. Some oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are nearly 200 miles from land. Serious spills from drilling offshore have become practically non-existent. More than 100 rigs in the Gulf were damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single spill.

So Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, was wrong. Now, like other Democrats, he's in a politically awkward position. He opposes new drilling for oil and natural gas at a time when drilling in areas currently off limits has become popular. Three-fourths of likely voters in a new Zogby poll said they favor it, and Republicans have made it their top issue against Democrats.

Democrats appear wary of saying they oppose any boost in domestic oil production, which happens to be the position of a powerful interest group, the environmental lobby. But despite soaring gasoline prices, Democrats are against opening new areas of federal land or offshore for exploitation of oil and natural gas reserves.

Perhaps that is the answer. The Dems are beholden to the radical environmental lobby and are willing to toss Joe and Jane Average American under the bus in order to placate the environmentalists. In other words, they want Joe and Jane Average American to pay for the failed policies of the liberal-leftists.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week that the Democratic Congress is "moving America in a new direction for energy independence." But preserving the ban on offshore drilling isn't new. The ban has been in effect since 1981, but Pelosi said it's not responsible for high gasoline prices. Who's really to blame? The Bush administration and the oil companies, she said.

Pelosi's most implausible claim is that energy companies are hoarding oil. If so, they're doing this as gasoline prices have reached a record high price. And these companies are the same ones that Democrats accuse of being greedy and reaping "obscene profits."

Hoarding oil--keeping it off the market--certainly makes no economic sense, which is why oil companies aren't doing it. As supposed evidence, Democrats cite the absence of drilling in 68 million acres of federal oil reserves leased by oil companies. In truth, these areas are under active exploration that may lead to drilling. Drilling, of course, is the last step in oil production. Whatever Democrats may think, oil companies don't drill first, then explore later to find if drilling is actually worthwhile.

Oil companies pay billions to the federal government each year for oil leases, most of which expire after 10 years. They pay an annual fee as well. In 2007, they paid $7 billion for oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Would they spend so much for leases and fail to follow up and look for oil? Not likely.

Pelosi also made this boast: "The New Direction Congress has enacted into law the first new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in 32 years." The law would boost vehicle fuel standards to 35 miles a gallon--in 2020.

But this legislation was entirely unnecessary. The free market is already increasing fuel efficiency. Car buyers are rushing to trade in gas guzzlers for vehicles with better mileage. And auto companies are closing plants that manufacture low mileage cars as fast as they can as they switch to building more efficient cars.

In other words, the Dems are all talk and no action. They will work their rear-ends off to satisfy a leftist lobby group, but will merely turn a cold shoulder to honest, hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Running On Empty
Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
June 23, 2008

Sunday, June 22, 2008

New York Times Outs CIA Operative: Democrats Conspicuously Silent On Issue

I tell you, if this had been a Republican releasing this kind of information, the Dems and other libs would all be up in arms about it. But since it was a leftist-liberal publication that did this particular outing, the Dems are fine with it.

From NewsBusters:

In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative.

Agency officials and legal counsel told the Times that publishing the agent's name would "invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency."

In an Editor's Note linked from the story on KSM's interrogation, the Times defended its decision by stating that "other government employees" had been "named publicly in books and published articles" or had chosen to go public themselves, by explaining that its policy "is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely," and by arguing the operative's name "was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article."

So, the safety of a man who works to help keep us secure from terrorist attacks is so much less important than getting a scoop? Well, that's the attitude of Old Media. Again, where are the Democrats? Why aren't they taking this issue on?


Of course, this is just the latest in a long string of Times articles that have leaked classified and guarded information critical to America's security and that of its people and public servants. Alert readers have long since stopped expecting any level of consistency from the same liberal media that was obsessed with the naming of Valerie Plame (though they've been considerably less obsessed with the actual source of Robert Novak's column, Richard Armitage).

Not just the New York Times but, as I noted in my previous blog entry, even CNN has a consistency problem with that information.

You can access the original article on-line here:

New York Times Outs CIA Operative
Mick Wright
June 22, 2008

Friday, June 20, 2008

CNN Helps Scott McClellan Deliberately Mislead Readers About Valerie Plame Leak

Okay, here is one of the clearest cases of a major media outlet deliberately skewing the news in order to push an agenda rather than reporting the complete story.

It's no secret the Scott McClellan was in front of Congress today testifying about his recent book. He kept his words conveniently vague so that if it comes up in the future, he won't be charged with perjury. But let's look at what he said, as reported by CNN:

McClellan also also said he could not rule out that Cheney had ordered his former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to leak Plame Wilson's identity. A later investigation showed that Libby, in fact, had been involved in the leaking of the CIA operative's name.

The FBI and a federal grand jury later investigated the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity. No one was convicted for the actual leak, but Libby was later convicted of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice in 2007.


"I do not think the president had any knowledge" of the revelation of Plame Wilson's identity, McClellan said. "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."

Now, those of us who followed this story in detail and know the ins-and-outs of the case can see that something is missing from CNN's report: the identity of the original leaker who revealed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. That person is former State Department official Dick Armitage. You'll notice that Armitage is not mentioned once in the whole CNN narrative.

You see, revealing the truth of Dick Armitage as the leak who "outed" Valerie Plame would make Scott McClellan look like, at best, the fool he is and at worst, a perjurer.

Anyone care to guess why CNN would deliberately leave out that most important detail?

Perhaps we should let CNN answer that, if they have enough integrity to answer the question.

And here is yet another example of McClellan being a fool or perjurer:

"I do not know whether a crime was committed by any of the administration officials who revealed Valerie Plame's identity to reporters," he said. "Nor do I know if there was an attempt by any person or persons to engage in a cover-up during the investigation. I do know that it was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons."

Except that Valerie Plame was not "covert" at the time that Dick Armitage leaked her name to Robert Novak and Fitzgerald even said so in public statements during his investigation. Again, another blatant omission on the part of CNN. McClellan clearly isn't getting anything right, yet for whatever reason, CNN is trying to portray him as if he were yielding some sort of new revelations.

You can access CNN's grossly misleading story on-line here:

McClellan: Cheney Should Testify About CIA Leak
June 20, 2008

Lieutenant Colonel Chessani Prepares Lawsuit Against Democrat John Murtha For Haditha Smear

When I was serving in the Marines back in the 1980's (at a time when political correctness had no meaning to those of us wearing military uniforms), we used to refer Marines who stabbed other Marines in the back as "buddy f*ckers." I can't rememebr how many times a Gunnery Sergeant or First Sergeant or some junior officer would say to us Marines: "Never f*ck your buddy!" Well, John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania has earned the title "buddy f*cker."

Sorry if my language here is a bit brazen and brash, but I really don't think that the above term goes far enough to describe John Murtha and yet I cannot think of anything more appropriately vulgar. That being said, let's look at the most recent case to be dropped agains the Haditha Marines. From World Net Daily:

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Savage, the lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter, Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.

But the attorney, Brian Rooney, said nothing will happen immediately because he wants Chessani, described as a devout Christian and the father of six homeschooled children, completely "out of the woods" legally before any action is taken. The government, through Lt. Col. S.M. Sullivan, today filed a notice that it would appeal the case to the next judicial level.

Here is the first red flag that should be going up. The government is filing an appeal on an acquittal! Yes! On an acquittal! How arrogant is that? Appeals are filed for challenging guilty verdicts, not acquittals!

This shows very clearly how this whole case is being used as a dog and pony show for some politicos in Washington D.C. Rather than letting the wheels of justice turn and do their job, someone in D.C. is using this case to make political hay and will not do the right thing in letting go of it. Why?


Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.


"This is the most important case since Vietnam, if not before," Rooney said. "There's no doubt about it."

He noted the New York Times featured the case on the front page when it was being compared by war critics to the infamous My Lai massacre in Vietnam. But now, with evidence the Haditha accusations were a smear, the story has been relegated to the back pages.


The Time magazine story, according to Rooney, was planted by an insurgent propaganda agent. Publishing of the story was soon followed by a May 17, 2006, news conference by Murtha. The congressman announced he had been told by the highest levels of the Marine Corps there was no firefight and Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

"All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about," Murtha told reporters at the time.

Murtha's assertions, however, conflicted with results from the military's own investigations. An initial probe by Army Col. G.A. Watt found no indications coalition forces "intentionally targeted, engaged and killed noncombatants." Later, Army Maj. Gen. Aldon Bargewell found no cover-up.

It is clearly a political embarrassment to Murtha and now, since he couldn't find a cover-up in Haditha, he and other Democrats are scrambling to cover up their own culpability in judging U.S. Marines to be guilty until proven innocent.

Thus, John Murtha and his fellow Dems are "buddy f*ckers."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Haditha Marine Prepares To Sue Murtha Over Smear
June 18, 2008

Thursday, June 19, 2008

President Bush Asks Congress To Lift Ban On Offshore Drilling, Dems Are Opposed To Lower Oil Prices

If only President Bush had been more forceful on this issue two or more years ago before the Dems took control of both houses of Congress. It would have been much less of a fight and oil and gasoline prices wouldn't be where they are today, at least not for American citizens.

But the Dems are opposed to giving any kind of relief to Americans who are hurting because of high energy prices. In fact, their response was pretty much the same-old same-old that they are being told to give by the radical environmentalists who control them.

From CNN:

President Bush asked Congress on Wednesday to permit drilling for oil in deep water off America's coasts to combat rising oil and gas prices.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement.


Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

Of course, the Dems, who seem to be completely ignorant of economic reality are opposed to any of this. Liberal Dem Bill Richardson of New Mexico made the wild claim that gas prices wouldn't be affected for 30 years, although the Saudis and other oil producing nations know that the global price of oil can be brought down in less than one year after drilling operations commence. I should also note that CNN made no effort whatsoever to impart this latter information to their audience.

But here is something very interesting that was part of a sidebar of the CNN article:

Oil Production Cost

Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted:

- Accessible land: $19
- Shallow water: $20-60
- Deep water: $60
- Shale mining: $30-50
- Oil sands: $50-60

Current price per barrel: $134

Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand, EnCana

With numbers like that, it becomes clear that Bill Richardson has no understanding of economics whatsoever and was merely parroting what he was told to parrot by the greens. With costs being cut in half, it would be only months before world oil prices began feeling the deflationary effect of increased American domestic production. That would be good for Americans.

But in press releases after the President's call for lifting the ban, the Dems were quick to reject it, although they used canned responses and made wild accusations with nothing to back them. Here is one example of their pathetic statements:

"After eight years, President Bush and [Vice President] Dick Cheney have turned the GOP into the Gas and Oil Party. That's the legacy that they are going to leave," said Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

"The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas industry, repeating the requests of the oil and gas industry."

No substance. No data to back it up. No understanding of economics. Just flurry of insults from a mouthpiece for the radical greens.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Asks Congress To Clear Way For Offshore Oil Drilling
Ed Henry, Richard Greene, Brianna Keilar, Hussein Saddique and Ali Velshi
June 19, 2008

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Gas Prices Emerging As The #1 Issue, But Is Senator McCain Listening?

We now have an issue we can lock onto and really draw a direct comparison between the Free Market Republicans and the Socialist Democrats. Gasoline price and domestic energy production. And, if the Republicans and Senator McCain play their cards right, it could go a long way towards bringing some sanity back to the halls of Congress this November.

From Dr. Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA:

It was easy for Democrats to blame the "big" oil companies. They would bring oil executives before Congress, lambast them, and feel good about themselves. However, public opinion is changing. The American people are seeing through the left-wing effort to cloud the issue. The price of gasoline is driven by supply and demand. The proper approach is to address both aspects. We should conserve and look for energy alternatives to hit the "demand" side. We should also look at the "supply" side and see how ridiculous it is to leave the fate of America in the hands of unstable Middle-Eastern countries when we have huge supplies of untapped domestic oil. Americans want to drill at home, and Sen. McCain has a golden opportunity to seize upon this issue. Is he listening?

In a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports, Scott Rasmussen notes that "most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump."

According to the Rasmussen poll, 67% of voters now believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California and Florida compared to 18% who are opposed.

Heck, even China plans on drilling off the coast of Florida and they plan on drilling directionally to tap mineral reserves that lie within U.S. waters! Why shouldn't we drill there instead?

Dr. Eberle goes on:

In his speech, McCain says:

"But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

"We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production."

Here, the senator is right on target. We must increase domestic production to address the "supply" side of the equation. Congress is standing in the way, and the American people must make their voices heard on this issue. Just as we stopped their attempts at amnesty, if we join together, we can demand more domestic oil production. Make no mistake... through legislation and regulations, Congress is responsible for our vast dependence on the Middle East for oil.

This is where the left is so out of touch. People like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer stand up and demand that President Bush pressure countries like Saudi Arabia to increase production, but he won't allow production at home? The president gets criticized by the liberals for being a "bully," but that's exactly what Schumer wants the president to be when it comes to increasing oil production. Rather than increasing our national security and driving prices down by producing more oil at home, the only thing Schumer wants America to do is to actually increase our dependence on foreign oil by demanding OPEC supply more.

Yes, Congress is part of the problem here. Since the Democrats took control, the price of gasoline has almost doubled and rather than actually doing something sensible (like increasing production here at home) they have falsely accused oil companies of price gouging, blocked efforts to bring prices down, and actually driven the price of gasoline up with those idiotic ethanol requirements. Further, those ethanol requirements resulted in us using more oil than ever before so it didn't do anything to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The Dems haven't done one thing to ease the consumer's pain at the pump. Despite Democrat claims to the contrary, they do not care one whit about the problems faced by Joe and Jane Average American.

The next time you see someone who voted Democrat, thank them for the high energy prices.


Sen. McCain is on the right track in calling for lifting the ban on offshore drilling. He is right that we need more domestic production. He needs to step up and lead on this issue. We can't cower to the left and be afraid of angering some environmentalist. McCain needs to stop the global warming chatter, and show the American people that the best way to ensure America's national security interests are to take our fate out of the hands of the Middle East. I certainly hope he can do it.

Senator McCain needs to come out swinging on this issue. Is he listening to us? I don't know yet. But it is clear the American voter is watching closely now to see who promises what before November.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Gas Prices Emerging As #1 Issue - Are You Listening Sen. McCain?
Dr. Bobby Eberle
June 18, 2008

Barack Obama Proposes A Disastrous Socialized Health Care System

Barack Obama has trained his supporters to be parrots and repeat the same lines over and over: "Change we can believe in. Change we can believe in." But, like little children following the Pied Piper without any real knowledge of what the price would be, Obama supporters also have no clue as to what the price of the "change" they are supporting is. In fact, when asked directly, Obama supporters are completely unable to give any specifics and simply repeat the words they have been told to repeat.

As such, Obama is not bringing any sort of new change with his campaign. All of it, taxes, government spending, health care, et. al. is nothing more than the some old failed policies of leftist socialist and collectivist states. In short, his proposed policies would be more disastrous than those of America's worst President in history: James Earl Carter.

Let's look at the health care angle. From the Washington Times:

[I]f you think you will be getting the state-of-the-art treatment Sen. Ted Kennedy is now receiving for his brain cancer, Obamacare is not the sort of change you can believe in. Rather, Mr. Obama plans to make Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion the foundation of his proposal to expand coverage. He would make private health insurance affordable by having the government force doctors to accept below-cost rates for their services and impose a 4 percent tax on physician earnings. Then he would have a national health board determine which drugs and procedures the government would pay for under his new plan.

Many states have used the same approaches to cover the uninsured and to make existing premiums less expensive. Instead of doing so, such proposals have driven many doctors out of government-run programs and have rationed access to new medicines. Private insurers are leaving markets. And patients who are forced to wait months for needed care often wind up not getting the medicines they need.

Normally, I would use the examples of Canada and Great Britain to illustrate how socialized medicine has completely failed in its promise to bring affordable, quality health care to the masses and has merely replaced a private health care system with a slow-moving, money-eating government bureaucracy that has driven the quality of health care down to the ground. But we don't need to do that in this case. We can look to some socialized health care plans right here in the U.S. and see how badly they are failing:

For example, Nicole Garrett's three teen-age children lost their private coverage, so she lost her private coverage and enrolled them in Michigan's managed-care Medicaid program.

According to a 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal by Vanessa Furhmans, when Nicole's 16-year-old daughter, Jada, needed to see a rheumatologist, the one listed in her managed-care Medicaid plan's network would not see her. Nicole notes, "When we had real insurance, we could call and come in at the drop of a hat."

Mr. Kennedy was rushed into surgery less than two weeks after his diagnosis. Jada's wait just for an appointment was a bit longer: The wait to get into a public clinic was more than three months. By the time she found a Medicaid-approved rheumatologist in a nearby county to take her in months later, Jada's debilitating pain had caused her to miss several weeks of school.

Edith Andrews of Zanesville, Ohio, faced the same problem when her twin girls, Sara and Samantha, were born prematurely nearly four years ago. Each weighed less than 3 pounds and needed a ventilator to breathe.

According to an article in the Cinncinnati Enquirer: "To get care she had to take her infants to a Zanesville clinic or an emergency room, where they saw a different doctor every time, if they saw a doctor at all."

When Sara's lung collapsed, Edith couldn't find a Medicaid pediatrician to care for her. "Sarah's complications got worse and worse, and there was never a doctor around when I needed to talk to somebody." She finally found a doctor to take her daughters on as patients after a year of searching.

This is the type of health care systems the libs have envisioned for us. Is it the type of health care system you want?


Mr. Obama would also create a new health board to create lists of "cost effective" new drugs and medical devices, and set prices for their payment. Similar review boards in Canada and Europe delay access to new medicines by months or years and are biased by cost-containment considerations.

In the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, such "preferred lists" have made it harder for people like Melissa Brown of Cincinnati to get the right drugs for her 6-year-old son, Max, who suffers from bipolar disorder and other psychiatric illnesses. Under private insurance, her doctor was able to choose a drug that controlled unpredictable and violent behavior. The drug treatment she got for Max "changed his life."

But now Melissa and Max are in Medicaid and bureaucrats, not doctors, will decide which drugs he will get, based on the cost-effectiveness standards Mr. Obama wants to impose on us all. Max will have to change his prescriptions and get authorizations for new medications.

The change has Melissa worried: "This is a day-to-day, minute-to-minute struggle. She told Ohio legislators, "Please don't make it any more difficult for me." That's a message we should all send to Mr. Obama before November. Affordable coverage should not be difficult or substandard. Under Obamacare, it will be both.

Is that the sort "change" you want to see over the next four years?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Op-Ed: Obamacare, Medicine By Bureaucrats
Robert Goldberg
The Washington Times
June 17, 2008

Monday, June 16, 2008

Not By Content Of Character But By Color Of Skin: Blacks' Judgement Of Obama Has Little To Do With Issues

How many times while in school or while watching TV during Black History Month have we heard the following words: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I think I lost count sometime back when I was eight years old.

Through the years since then, I and millions of other mainstream caucasians have been bombarded and inundated with lectures from the black-community and left-wing white-guilt organizations that I should be colorblind and adhere to Dr. King's words. Well, after reading what various Black "Conservatives" have said recently about why they might consider voting for Barack Obama, I am fast coming to the conclusion that such lectures were nothing but chutzpah.

From Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press via Yahoo:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," [Armstrong] Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."


"Among black conservatives," Williams said, "they tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November."

And this:

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he's thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he's still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

"And Obama highlights that even more," Watts said.

Maybe Rep. Watts can explain to us where the $40 billion in anti-poverty programs aimed at Blacks went. And while he's at it, maybe he can draw on his experience in Congress and explain how we are going to pay for the $200 billion plus in new programs Obama is proposing and be able to pay for them without sending the U.S. into another Great Depression.

But it doesn't stop there:

Writer and actor Joseph C. Phillips got so excited about Obama earlier this year that he started calling himself an "Obamacan" — Obama Republican. Phillips, who appeared on "The Cosby Show" as Denise Huxtable's husband, Navy Lt. Martin Kendall, said he has wavered since, but he is still thinking about voting for Obama.

"I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race," Phillips said. "That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, or find some absolution."

Yet Phillips, author of the book "He Talk Like a White Boy," realizes the irony of voting for a candidate based on race to get beyond race.

"We have to not judge him based on his race, but on his desirability as a political candidate," he said. "And based on that, I have a lot of disagreements with him on a lot of issues. I go back and forth."

So, ignoring the big issues and voting based on skin color will get us beyond the issue of race? How exactly does that work?

It still goes on:

John McWhorter, a self-described political moderate who is a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a New York Sun columnist, said Obama's Democratic Party victory "proves that while there still is some racism in the United States, there is not enough to matter in any serious manner. This is a watershed moment."

"Obama is probably more to the left than I would prefer on a lot of issues," he adds. "But this issue of getting past race for real is such a wedge issue for me. And he is so intelligent, and I think he would be a perfectly competent president, that I'm for him. I want him to get in because, in a way, it will put me out of a job."

Thus, I can only conclude that the idea of being judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is either dead or very quickly dying in the African-American community. Dr. King's speech no longer holds any meaning for those who say they will vote strictly based on skin color.

However, there are some glimmers of hope shining through:

Michael Steele, the Republican former lieutenant governor of Maryland who lost a Senate race there in 2006, said he is proud of Obama as a black man, but that "come November, I will do everything in my power to defeat him." Electing Obama, he said, would not automatically solve the woes of the black community.

"I think people who try to put this sort of messianic mantle on Barack's nomination are a little bit misguided," he said.


James T. Harris, a Milwaukee radio talk show host and public speaker, said he opposes Obama "with love in my heart."

"We are of the same generation. He's African American and I'm an American of African descent. We both have lovely wives and beautiful children," Harris said. "Other than that, we've got nothing in common. I hope he loses every state."

But, unfortunately, Steele and Harris will be largely villified in Old Media and in the Black Community for going by content of character rather than color of skin.

A pity.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Black Conservatives Conflicted On Obama Campaign
Frederic T. Frommer
Associated Press via Yahoo News
June 14, 2008

Friday, June 13, 2008

Oil And Gas Prices Are Going So High That ExxonMobil Is Selling Off Gas Stations For Lack Of Profit

If you are one of those diehards who refuses to believe that the oil companies are not engaged in price gouging, you need to read the following from CNN:

Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to sell its company-owned gas stations, saying they aren't profitable enough even with gasoline selling at $4 per gallon.

Now, how could gas station be "not profitable enough" if they are reaping extra profits through price gouging?

This is simply one of the first signs that serious economic downturn is on the horizon and coming at us fast. If oil companies are becoming reluctant to distribute, that will mean supply shortfalls which in turn will lead back to the gas lines we saw in the late 1970's under Jimmy Carter.

The Dems in Congress need to stop fooling around with idiotic ideas like investigating bogus price gouging claims, suing OPEC and trying to punish consumers by raising the price of gas through harsh taxes. Instead, we need to produce right here at home and we need to do it now. (ANWR, Offshore drilling, Oil-shale.)


The nation's largest oil company, which earned nearly $41 billion last year, says it will sell more than 2,000 stations over the next few years.

"The fuels marketing sector is a very challenging market," ExxonMobil spokesperson Prem Nair said, adding that the company is feeling particular pressure from hypermarkets like Wal-Mart that sell gasoline.

Again, if they were able to manipulate the price of gas, this wouldn't be happening.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

ExxonMobil To Sell 2,220 Gas Stations
Alan Chernof
June 12, 2008

Thursday, June 12, 2008

National Oil Companies Control 94 Percent Of The World's Oil And Gas Reserves And The Prices As Well

Are you among those who believe that it is American Oil Companies that are behind the price surge in oil? Look at the graph above and you will see the truth. This data was compiled by Credit Suisse First Boston and shows where ExxonMobil and BP rank in relation to the OPEC Members. Just look for the two red arrows. Of the 13 entities to the left of ExxonMobil, 11 are OPEC members. Also note that this graph does not include those reserves that could be under exclusive U.S. control if we would only begin to drill and exploit them.

And if you look at the OPEC Statute, you will see from Article 2 that their interest is in maintaining control of the price of crude oil. Check it out:

A. The principal aim of the Organization shall be the co-ordination
and unification of the petroleum policies of Member Countries
and the determination of the best means for safeguarding their
interests, individually and collectively.

B. The Organization shall devise ways and means of ensuring the
stabilization of prices in international oil markets with a view to
eliminating harmful and unnecessary fluctuations.

C. Due regard shall be given at all times to the interests of the producing
nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income
to the producing countries; an efficient, economic and regular
supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on
their capital to those investing in the petroleum industry.

So, the next time you hear about some idiot Senator calling oil company executives for another round of false and uninformed accusations of price gouging, remember this graph and remember Article 2 of the OPEC Statute.

You can access the OPEC Statute on-line here:

OPEC Statute (Requires Adobe Reader)
April 2006

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Dennis Kucinich Introduces Resolution To Impeach President Bush But Measure Is Based On Faulty Intelligence

It never ceases to amaze me. Just when I thought the Dems could not have done anything more stupid than what they did the last time, one of them has to go and prove me wrong. In this case, it is Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. He has introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush.

From CNN:

Kucinich announced his intention to seek Bush's impeachment Monday night, when he read the lengthy document into the record.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.

Most of the congressman's resolution deals with the Iraq war, contending that the president manufactured a false case for the war, violated U.S. and international law to invade Iraq, failed to provide troops with proper equipment and falsified casualty reports for political purposes.

Kucinich also charges that Bush has illegally detained without charge both U.S. citizens and "foreign captives" and violated numerous U.S. laws through the use of "signing statements" declaring his intention to do so.

Other articles address global warming, voting rights, Medicare, the response to Hurricane Katrina and failure to comply with congressional subpoenas.

Let's see, the economy is tanking, energy prices are going through the roof and Kucinich thinks this will somehow bring about a better world? This guy is in a fantasy world that is as much detached from reality as Barack Obama's fantasy world in calling for War Crimes Trials.

Besides, Nancy Pelosi has already said that impeachment was "off the table" after she and other Dem leaders gained access to the same intelligence reports the President recieved. They saw the truth of the matter right then and there.

You can read the complete column on-line here:

Kucinich Introduces Bush Impeachment Resolution
June 11, 2008

And here is another reason why this whole thing is so laughable and why this is the lastest "stupidest thing" the Dems have done.

According to the Washington Post (yes, that leftist-liberal rag that is published here in Washington D.C. and is best used as fish-wrap), the premise behind this resolution is wrong.

From to Fred Hiatt, the Editorial Page Editor:

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."


But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

If Kucinich did his research a little better, he might not have looked so foolish as he did when he presented that resolution.

You can access the Washington Post entry on-line here:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple
Fred Hiatt
Washington Post
June 9, 2008

Barack Obama Plans War Crimes Trials (A Power Grab In The Making?)

Robert Mugabe must certainly be proud of Barack Obama, especially after the Dem nominee made certain statements in an interview with Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

If what he said and what he implied doesn't scare you, then Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and any number of other petty dictators must be among your personal heroes.

From Thomas Lifson and the American Thinker:

Barack Obama's plan for imposing unity on the nation after he takes office apparently entails a close look at war crimes trials for Bush administration officials. He has even said so in an interview with Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

This kind of change -- putting your predecessors on trial for their conduct of policy -- may not be what most Americans really want or expect from someone with Obama's gauzy rhetoric of unity. But unity has a dark side in the hands of people who regard their opponents as criminals. America has two centuries-plus of history lacking the totalitarian practice of jailing the predecessors when a new president takes office.

This is the sort of proposal one might expect from a man steeped in Marxism at his church, from his friends like Ayers, and as a member of the Alinsky Left.

Here is what Obama said in the interview:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. Left.

Man! That is a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it! What kind of precedent would be established if newly sworn-in Presidents suddenly began jailing their predecessors simply because they have a difference of policy?

We've seen things like this before, all in third-world petty dictatorships. It all comes down to the incoming President making a power grab. Unfortunately for Obama, he is so detached from reality that if he manages to get elected and pulls something like this, it will start a civil war. As Lifson noted above, we are one of the few nations that have 200 plus year of peaceful tranfers of power.

Anyone here still planning on staying home this Election Day?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

What Kind Of War Crimes Trials Does Obama Plan? (updated)
Thomas Lifson
The American Thinker
June 9, 2008

Right Solution To Lower Gas Prices - By John Cornyn

Here is a Senator who gets it. John Cornyn (R-TX) has the right ideas. We need to get behind him and get our Reps behind him as well.

Read what he has to say:

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 complete column on-line here:

Right Solution To Lower Gas Prices
U. S. Senator John Cornyn
June 6, 2008

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How Obama Wants To Send The Economy Spiraling Into Depression And The Democrats Want To Help Him Do It

We know the economic news isn't good. We know that high energy prices are to blame for the current situation. When gas prices go up, transportation prices go up which means the price of anything being transported goes up and the American consumer pays for it all at the retail cash register. That's called inflation. Gas prices are currently driving a very inflationary economy and eventually, it is going to drive us into a full-fledged depression.

So, what does Barack Obama want to do about it? Read this from Reuters:

Barack Obama said on Monday he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies as he sought political gain from Americans' pain over high gasoline prices.


"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

So, Obama's plan for dealing with "skyrocketing energy costs" is to force Americans to pay even higher prices for energy by raising taxes, which get passed on to the consumer, on the oil companies? And then, he is going to redistribute wealth so Americans will feel okay with paying higher energy costs?

This guy is so detached from reality that it is difficult to believe that even the Dems could have nominated him. His socialist policies, if implemented, are going to end up in disaster. He must be stopped.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Says He Would Impose Oil Windfall Profits Tax
June 9, 2008

And while we are on the topic of high gas prices, the House GOP rightly laid the blame at the feet of the Democrats in Congress.

From The Hill:

"Today marks another dubious day for this Do-Nothing Democratic Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stated. "On their watch, gas prices have soared to new heights, and by refusing to schedule a vote on a plan to increase American-made energy to help lower gas prices, congressional Democrats are complicit in this unprecedented surge in fuel costs."

Yes, on their watch, we were promised lower gas prices. The truth is, the Dems have forced gas prices up. They know what the effects of supply and demand are just as well as anyone else. Yet, they are bound and determined to keep supply low in order to keep prices high.

Read on:

Boehner touted the GOP's plan to reduce the burden at the pump and blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not bringing it to a vote.

"Every American has a right to ask: What will it take for the Democrat-controlled Congress to finally take action and help ease the pain of the Pelosi Premium on behalf of struggling families and small businesses?" Boehner stated. "Speaker Pelosi has the power to schedule a vote on our plan to begin breaking America's costly dependence on foreign sources of energy. She should not wait another day to do so."

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) added: "Enough is enough. It's time for Democratic leaders in D.C. to put American interests above their special interests – and allow a vote on increasing America's homegrown energy supply. We’ve tried it their way -- and with $4 gas as the result, it's time to do something worthwhile for the American people."

We need to start drilling at home. We need to start drilling offshore. We need to tap into the massive amounts of oil we have underneath us and begin bringing prices back down and hopefully prevent a Democrat-induced depression.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

House GOP Seeks To Pin $4 Gasoline On Democrats
Klaus Marre
The Hill
June 8, 2008

Friday, June 6, 2008

How U.S. Policies Put Most U.S. Oil Off-Limits And A 21 Part Series On What We Can Do About High Priced Gasoline

The high price of gasoline has become a huge topic in today's political discussions. But unfortunately, the talk is about a) the high prices and b) why certain common sense solutions are, at present, not viable options. there is rarely ever any talk about the common sense solutions themselves.

Pete Winn of Cybercast News Service takes a look at this issue through a report that was requested by Congress and recently released by the Bureau of Land Managament. From his column:

Huge basins of untapped oil can be found on federal lands throughout the United States, according to a new report from the federal government. But much of it cannot -- and may never be -- recovered, because it lies under national parks and national monuments, or it is subject to environmental laws and restrictions that make drilling prohibitive.

The report, which was produced at the request of Congress by the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), said there are 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially could be extracted.


"The total onshore resource is 31 billion barrels," said BLM's lead scientist Richard Watson, who authored the report. "Of that, 19 billion barrels are currently inaccessible or 62 percent. A little over 2 billion barrels, or 8 percent, is accessible under what we call standard lease terms."

If you add in the 85.9 billion barrels of oil that lie offshore, as determined by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, there are 117 billion barrels of oil on lands owned or managed by the U.S. government.

117 billion barrels of oil. That's what we are sitting on and yet Congress still continues to force Americans into paying higher prices by keeping us dependent on foreign oil.


Adding in what's available on privately held land, the figure rises to 139 billion barrels of oil, according to the government - more than the known oil reserves of Iran, Iraq, Russia, Nigeria or Venezuela, respectively.

The biggest untapped land-based oil deposit in the United States lies within ANWR, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, which is currently off-limits.

"We estimate there is something on the order of 7.7 billion barrels in that one area alone," Watson told Cybercast News Service.

How much more energy independent could we be if we were able to implement a common sense solution and begin drilling where the oil is? How quickly could we cut off the funding for terrorist organizations if we began drilling where the oil is? Why not let India and China pay $200 a barrel while we charge ourselves a more modest fee per barrel?

Part of the solution to finding alternative energy is to have enough money to do the research and come up with viable solutions. Every dollar we send overseas to purchase oil is one less dollar that we will have to do such research.

Our current economic infrastructure is based on petroleum products. It will cost money to convert it over to some other medium of energy. Every dollar we send overseas to purchase oil will be one less dollar available to manage a change-over.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

U.S. Policies Put Most U.S. Oil Off-Limits To Drilling
Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 06, 2008

And here is a series of articles by Investor's Business Daily that deal with what we can do about the skyrocketing cost of gasoline.

Part 1:

Drilling The Future

Energy: America's energy crunch is sadly self-inflicted. While others around the world engage in a mad dash to find more oil reserves, the U.S. seems to think $111-a-barrel oil won't be affected by more supply.

Part 2:

Energy Relief Now

Energy: As Democrats bicker over campaign-trail trivia, GOP standard-bearer John McCain has come up with a couple of good ideas to ease the pain of the energy crisis. Let's hope they have legs.

Part 3:

Scrap The Gas Guzzlers

Energy: One way to bring down the soaring price of gasoline is to decrease demand. We can do that fairly painlessly by taking older, less fuel-efficient cars off the road.

Part 4:

Back To The '70s?

Oil Shock: When it comes to energy policy, Democrats always talk a good game. But look at their actual record while in control of Congress in the last year and a half. It's been nothing short of disastrous.

Part 5:

Democrats Fumble Ball On Energy

Energy Policy: After weeks of dithering and fearing for her party's political life, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has finally said something about energy. We listened. As the old Peggy Lee song asks, "Is that all there is?"

Part 6:

Congress Vs. You

Energy: President Bush let the Democrat-led Congress have it with both barrels Tuesday, lambasting lawmakers for fiddling while the energy crisis burns. It was a well-deserved takedown of do-nothing lawmakers.

Part 7:

Amber Waves Of Pain

Energy: Senate Republicans want to freeze ethanol mandates that don't cut the price of fuel or help the environment. Even farm-state Democrats worry about the unintended consequences of putting corn in our cars.

Part 8:

Profits Of Doom?

Profits: Exxon Mobil's first-quarter earnings of $10.9 billion, up 17% from a year earlier, are stirring outrage in Washington. Some are calling such profits "obscene." What a sad lack of understanding of economics.

Part 9:

The Ship Turns

Energy: Call it the paranoid theory of petroleum. Somehow, dark forces behind the scenes keep us from doing anything about soaring oil prices. In fact, something is being done to bring down oil prices. And you're doing it.

Part 10:

Going After OPEC

Energy: Hillary Clinton says she wants to dismantle OPEC if she becomes president. Actually, that's not a bad idea. And we have just the way for her to do it.

Part 11:

Barack Obama's Fuzzy Gas-Tax Math

Energy Policy: Barack Obama thinks a federal gas-tax holiday is a political ploy. But when he was in the Illinois Senate, he voted for a state holiday three times. These days, he prefers a holiday on gasoline production.

Part 12:

Democrats' Windfall Tax — On You

Energy: In their ongoing war against U.S. oil producers, Senate Democrats say they'll slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax and take away $17 billion in tax breaks, among other punishments. This is an energy plan?

Part 13:

Who Is Really Responsible For The High Prices You Pay For Gasoline?

For the last 28 years, Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR area when we knew it contained at least 10 billion barrels of oil we could be using now.

Part 14:

To The Junk Heap

Energy Policy: With pump prices still climbing — Wednesday's national average was $3.76 a gallon — many Americans are trying to get rid of their gas guzzlers. Those who drive old clunkers should be accommodated.

Part 15:

Crude Mistake

Energy: With the price of oil spiking above $127 a barrel, the search for scapegoats has begun. Some point to the Saudis, OPEC's No. 1 producer. Others blame the oil companies. We have a better candidate: Congress.

Part 16:

Crude Scapegoats

Energy: It's now a cliche: fat-cat oilmen control our destiny by holding back supplies, letting prices soar, then pocketing the profits. But if any fat cats are to blame for the energy crisis, it's those on Capitol Hill.

Part 17:

Blame Washington, Not Oil Companies

Energy: Senate Democrats, dragging executives from five major U.S. oil companies before them for a second day, say they're alarmed by our "failed" oil markets. What they should be is ashamed.

Part 18:

House Of Oil Repute

Congress: Democrats oppose extracting 10 billion barrels of oil from ANWR because it won't affect prices, but want to tap our strategic reserve of 700 million because it will. Come again?

Part 19:

Peak Oil: An Idea Whose Time Is Up

Congress: Analysts have found that investors spooked by the peak oil theory — the belief that crude production has topped out and is in decline — are partly behind the soaring oil prices. Someone should set them straight.

Part 20:

Getting Oil From A Stone

Congress: Exxon Mobil's CEO says his energy company's "corporate social responsibility" is to produce more energy. While Congress wants to tax oil profits, he wants to spend them to find more oil. What a concept.

Part 21:

Dakota Gas House

Energy Policy: Thirty-two long years have passed since the U.S. had a new oil refinery. But a small South Dakota community wants to change that. Finally, some rational thinking.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Obama's Policies And Platforms Show That The Road To Hell Is Paved With Democrats

Well, the battle is joined. For the Republicans, we have John McCain, a right-of-center candidate who probably isn't as Conservative as we'd like him to be, and for the Dems we have B. Hussein Obama, an uber-leftist who takes his cues from Marxists/Socialists and other followers of the Communist Manifesto. Do you think I'm being dramatic? I don't.

In a column for TownHall.com, Richard H. Collins looks at the overall policies of B. Hussein Obama and where those influences came from:

Obama makes a lot of promises. He promises universal health care where everyone has coverage whatever the circumstances and yet costs go down. But it doesn’t take an economist to figure out that this is an expensive project and no amount of technology can magically give people free health care. Someone will have to pay more. Michelle Obama admitted as much, remarking on the campaign trail:

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Take a wild guess who that someone is going to be. If you said American taxpayers you guessed right. Obama, like all Democrats, promises to only raise taxes on the “rich.” But once the reality of the budget – including all the new spending he proposes – hits, it is amazing how flexible that term can become.

Michelle's comment clearly shows where the Obama's are on economic policy. She might as well have just come out point blank and said, "We intend to levy higher taxes in order to confiscate more money from those who work to earn it and then give that money to people who did not work to earn it."

In other words, the average American is going to have to pay. As soon as B. Hussein Obama figures out that taxing the top earners also causes an increase in unemployment and a decrease in tax revenues, he will redefine "rich" to mean most of the middle class as well. For him and the other libs, it is all about controlling people and he believes that the best way to do that is to control their wallets, just like the Soviets and their satellites did.


Obama campaigns against free trade and for more union power as if those positions will lead to higher paying jobs. I am sure passing a card check bill that takes away the right to a secret ballot, and is favored by the big labor unions, will help a few of Obama’s supporters in their high paying jobs but for everyone else it will simply stifle the economy and restrict the rights of workers and companies.

Without the onerous restrictions of big government regulations and the inflexibility of union power, American companies can compete anywhere in the world and their doing so means economic growth. But Obama wants to tell companies where and how they can run their businesses. He wants to restrict trade in order to protect his union supporters. But a middle class built on union power is a vision from the past not the future.

Obama’s leftist positions should come as no surprise. After all, Obama sought the support of the far left New Party when he ran for state senate in Illinois. This is a party who felt the Democrats were not liberal enough and was organized by a collection of Marxist/socialists seeking government control of the economy. Obama has a clear history of working with these leftist groups in Chicago, and steering money and power their way.

And it has been us bloggers and others in the New Media who have been bringing this information out. You will never hear this mentioned on CNN, NBC, ABC or CBS. In fact, Steve Doocy of Fox and Friends went so far as to call NBC the National Barack Channel and he is correct in his assessment. None of those outlets will ever allow the truth behind B. Hussein Obama to ever come out.

And finally:

The question of this election is whether the American people are going to mistake Obama’s charm and charisma for real leadership and effective solutions; if they are going to ignore his troubling past because he gives a good speech and looks good on TV; if they are going to fall for the promise of a government who can give them everything.

To Americans who are tempted to be taken in by the smooth talking snake oil salesmen, I say beware. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The promise of big government often sounds good, but it always ends in broken promises and higher taxes. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Clearly, B. Hussein Obama knows nothing about real change. His idea of change is to go back and try more leftist/socialist policies that we already know will fail and cause nothing but pain and hardship here in America.

Is that the change you want? If so, move to North Korea or China and you may find out that the real "worker's paradise" is a free and unencumbered United States of America.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Democrats
Richard H. Collins
June 4, 2008