Democrat-Controlled Congress Still A Do-Nothing On Energy Prices, Obama's 'Post-Racial Reparations' And How Networks Use Blacks

Okay, some good stuff to look at and chew on today as you go through your daily life. We have a Do-Nothing, Dem-Controlled Congress doing everything in its power to ensure that gas prices remain high. Sean Lengell of the Washington Times has written a pretty comprehensive article about this.

Excerpt:

Lawmakers failed again Wednesday to reach a compromise on how to address the rising cost of gasoline, with no deal in sight before Congress adjourns for its five-week summer break on Friday. The impasse centers on Republican demands that any energy plan include a provision to expand domestic oil drilling to areas currently off-limits, including a wildlife reserve in northern Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Democrats oppose the idea, saying oil companies already have millions of available drilling acres on land they're not using.

But the Dems seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact the reason the oil companies are not drilling on the lands they're not using is because ... (hang on to your seats) ... there is no oil under those lands! The Dems and libs are actually complaining that there is no drilling on lands under which there is no oil!

But this gets better:

Senate Republicans Wednesday blocked a wide-ranging Democratic measure that would extend tax breaks to an array of renewable-energy entrepreneurs. The measure, which also called for tax breaks for teachers, businesses and parents, failed to proceed on a vote of 51-43, with 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

Another concept that the Dems are completely incapable of grasping is that alternative energy is not a viable solution to the problem we have now. If you look at what energy sources compose what percentage of our energy supply, you will see that alternative sources are less than eight percent of the total. Getting that percentage over even twenty percent is not feasible at our present level of technology. Further, there are no prospects for any massive breakthroughs in research on these alternative technologies to make a large increase feasible. The Dems are literally trying to fund a pipe-dream while simultaneously punishing energy suppliers who have proven track records of supplying the energy we need.

But really, the problem is that Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are worshipping at the alter of environmental extremists and are constantly maneuvering to in order to satisfy that small minority to the detriment of the majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had earlier this week offered Republicans four amendments after Republicans requested dozens. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, on Wednesday said he agreed to the offer, but Mr. Reid denied a compromise had been reached. "We've tried so hard to do something on energy. We've been trying for months," said Mr. Reid. "But Republicans have basically rejected everything." Republicans said Democrats balked after calling their bluff, adding that Democratic leaders are afraid to allow a vote on any Republican proposal to increase domestic oil production because they fear many of their members would cross party lines and support such a measure. "Democrats keep moving the goal posts," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart. "They can't take 'yes' for an answer."

Given Reid's questionable ethics and Pelosi's antics over in the House, I am more inclined to believe Senator McConnell.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Energy Compromise Elusive As Recess Looms
Sean Lengell
The Washington Times
July 31, 2008

---

Barack Obama claims to be "post-racial." But is he? Will his actions equal his words? Not according to James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal.

Here is what he writes:

One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. ... But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations": "I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

That sounds to me exactly like the politics of race used by Jesse "Love Child" Jackson and Al Sharpton. Taranto takes it even further:

Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences. The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.

That's it. It's all about buying votes from the black community. Too bad. It shows that King's dream of "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" may have been completely thrown under the bus by a black candidate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Check, Please
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
July 30, 2008

---

And what does Old Media think about race-relations? Larry Elder exposes that very nicely with a letter he received from a friend who participated in one of those racial "specials." From Larry's TownHall column:

Dear Larry, OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. … I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry. The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable. It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow … eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites. Had to vent a bit. --Your friend.

If anyone here is the least bit surprised, please leave a comment and tell us why.

But Larry gives the real reasons for what is happening in the black community:

The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

A Black Conservative Lament
Larry Elder
TownHall.com
July 31, 2008

Nancy Pelosi's Delusional Comments, Breaks Yet Another Promise From 2006

9%. That's all. 9%. That's how many people think the Democrat controlled Congress has been doing a good job. But if you look at their record, the only thing they've done is said, "No."

"No" to lower gas prices. "No" to new refineries. "No" to new nuclear power plants. "No" to keeping taxes low. In fact, they haven't been able to keep a single promise they made back in 2006 in order to get themselves elected to power.

Nancy Peolsi recently gave and interview to CNN and clearly, she has deluded herself into believing that she and the other libs who now control Congress are doing something good. She is doing this in the context of the criticisms that President Bush rightly leveled at Congress, but mostly she is doing it to try and deflect the fact that the President's criticisms are right on the mark.

From CNN:

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview. The comments came two days after the president sharply criticized Congress over what he described as relative inaction over the course of the legislative term. At the White House on Wednesday, Bush noted that there were only 26 legislative days left in the fiscal year and said Congress would need to pass a spending bill every other day to "get their fundamental job done."

And what President Bush said was absolutely correct. Despite promises of bi-partisanship (a promise that was broken in less than a week after assuming power), the libs and Dems have absolutely nothing to show for their time in office while the American people languish under high energy costs and a looming economic disaster when the 2001 tax cuts expire and billions of dollars get sucked out of the economy.

More:

"For him to be challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again -- at the end of the day, Congress will have passed its responsibility to pass legislation," she said. But Pelosi's comments come as a new Gallup poll registers the lowest level of congressional approval among Americans in the polling organization's 30-year history of conducting that survey. That poll showed that its approval rating had reached an anemic 14 percent, while more than 70 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the job Congress is doing. The House speaker said she doesn't consider those numbers a negative referendum on the Democrats in charge, saying she thinks they stem largely from Congress' failure to end the war in Iraq.

But, what Pelosi fails to see here is that we are winning the war in Iraq and it is no longer a major concern to us mainstream Americans. The big concern to us is energy costs and gasoline prices which have skyrocketed under the Democrat-controlled Congress. This is what makes her comments delusional. She cannot accept reality and must instead fabricate her own rationalizations.

Check this out:

In the wide-ranging interview, the entirety of which will air Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," Pelosi also reiterated her longtime opposition to lifting a congressional ban on offshore drilling as well as opening up areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. Bush and congressional Republicans have pushed for those two policy changes. Pelosi has long opposed drilling offshore, a popular policy position among Californians, many of whom fear its environmental consequences along the state's coastline. But a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than 73 percent of Americans polled approved of lifting the 1981 ban, and the move holds support among many in Pelosi's own party, whose constituents are growing increasingly angry over rising gas prices.

Yet again, a reality that Nancy Pelosi cannot see since she and the libs have completely fallen out of touch with the American people. Like other Dems, she has been parroting the line that oil companies should be drilling on lands that are already leased out. The disconnect with reality here is that the reason the oil companies are not drilling on those lands is because there is no oil underneath them. I wonder if Wolf Blitzer pointed that out to her during the interview? Probably not.

We need to get her and her delusional friends out of office. Her detachment from reality is causing nothing but harm to the American people. But all she can say is: "Bush is a total failure."

She truly is the worst Speaker of the House in history.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pelosi: Bush 'A Total Failure'
Alexander Mooney
CNN.com
July 17, 2008

A Glimpse Into How Gas Prices Are Affecting Local Economies (Harry Reid Territory, No Less) And The EPA Makes A Power Grab

It's kind of ironic when Dems who are deliberately keeping energy costs high are causing so much damage to their own constituents. Such is the case of Harry Reid (D-NV), the current majority leader of the Senate. Check this out from the Las Vegas Sun:

Southern California gamblers who regularly drive to Las Vegas have cut back their visits by a third because of record gas prices, and those who still come say they’ve cut their gambling back by 29 percent, a new poll has found. The findings indicate that gas prices are having a greater impact on tourism than can be gleaned from statistics generated by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. They compile key figures such as the number of visitors who drive or fly to Las Vegas, hotel occupancy and room rates, but don’t try to quantify how gas prices affect tourism. ... Medick said he wasn’t attempting to quantify the drop in tourism, but rather to identify why some gamblers have stopped coming and at what point they are priced out of Vegas because of gas prices. The survey follows one he conducted in 2005 gauging the response of Southern California gamblers to gas prices that had risen to more than $3 a gallon at the time. About 48 percent of the polled Southern California gamblers in 2005 said gas prices had affected their decision to drive to Las Vegas casinos, but the survey didn’t ask motorists to explain what the impact was.

The tourism industry is huge in Las Vegas as well as other major resort destination such as Orlando, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii. All tourism will take a hit as a result of skyrocketing energy costs and the economy as a whole will take a major downturn unless Congress joins President Bush in calling for more domestic energy production.

It almost seems like justice that Harry Reid's home state should be among the first to begin feeling the pinch of inflated gas prices as brought on by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Survey: Gas Prices Deter Southern Californians
Liz Benston
Las Vegas Sun
July 8, 2008

---

And the Heartland Institute has issued a warning about a new set of rules that the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to impose on us. These new rules really amount to an attempted power grab by a group of people who have no accountability whatsoever.

Here are some key points:

Two weeks ago, EPA staff leaked a draft of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on "Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act," which was published in Energy Washington. This document and the policy direction it takes pose a major concern for consumers. The White House deserves credit for recognizing and opposing the huge economic costs and proposed government restructuring of the recently defeated Boxer-Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, but this draft ANPR is even worse policy than that flawed and rejected bill. 1. The leaked ANPR provides a roadmap to economy-wide regulation of greenhouse gases; it is not a solicitation of comments for a proposed rule. Normally, federal agencies release Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain preliminary information prior to issuing a proposed rule or to decide whether to propose a rule. This document goes far beyond that first step. EPA is not requesting preliminary information, but instead is providing a roadmap to economy-wide greenhouse gas regulation. ... 2. EPA's ANPR supports "all pain, no gain" regulation. Reducing emissions is painful. An analysis of a carbon "cap-and-trade" proposal considered by the U.S. Senate in 2008 -- the Lieberman-Warner Act -- found it would destroy between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and between 3 and 4 million jobs in 2030; impose a financial cost of $739 to $2,927 per year by 2020 on national households, rising to $4,022 to $6,752 by 2030; and would increase the price of gasoline between 60 percent and 144 percent by 2030 and the price of electricity by 77 percent to 129 percent. (National Association of Manufacturers / American Council for Capital Formation, "Study of the Economic Impact from the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act," 2008.) ... 3. The science underpinning ANPR is lacking. Policymakers should be appalled by the lack of sound scientific analysis in the leaked ANPR. The science is important because the point of the document is to help the EPA Administrator determine whether greenhouse gases "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare or to explain why the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it prevents making a reasoned judgment on such a determination." This is the entire point of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. ... 4. Apparently EPA has not independently assessed the science; it defers to the United Nations. EPA apparently has not independently assessed the science of global warming. Instead it seems to rely exclusively on the global warming reports from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is disturbing because the IPCC's reports are not peer-reviewed and they do not include the latest science. The IPCC cut-off for science papers was May 2006. (For a critique of the IPCC's latest report, along with more recent research and data on issues ignored by the IPCC, see Singer, S. Fred, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project, April 2008; http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22835) ... 5. Congress, not EPA, should be the principal in developing energy and climate change policy. The proposed ANPR is an attempt by a rogue agency within the executive branch of government to establish new regulation under the Clean Air Act without the consent of Congress. This type of regulation is the prerogative of elected officials, who are accountable to the electorate and must authorize such activity, not unelected bureaucrats. The regulatory changes envisioned in the ANPR are sweeping, even breath-taking. If such a vast expansion of the regulatory state is to be brought about, it must be a legislative effort, not a purely regulatory effort. This effort by EPA appears to be designed to force Congress to enact greenhouse gas regulations that would redistribute wealth rather than address climate change or energy policy. Congress should not be forced to act at regulatory gunpoint. The Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill was an attempt by members of Congress to address the issue of climate change. The bill failed because constituents, labor unions, and special-interest groups contacted their representatives -- elected officials -- and indicated their strong displeasure with the economic costs, the reorganization of government, and the impact on domestic energy supplies. Because it is accountable to voters, Congress defeated the bill. EPA must not be allowed to circumvent this democratic procedure.

This needs to die before it goes any further. The EPA has stepped way out of bounds here.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

EPA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR): Alert 1
Heartland Institute
July 9, 2008

Holding Democrats Accountable For Our Energy Crisis

This is one column that holds back nothing. It is clear, concise and unambiguous about what is happening with regards to energy production, the world market and how the Democrat controlled Congress is actively working to make the problem worse thereby "sticking it" to the American middle class.

It is no secret that the Dems have been laboring feverishly to ensure that we Americans cannot produce lower-cost energy here at home. They have blocked drilling in ANWR, off-shore and they've blocked the construction of new nuclear power plants. Additionally, they have blocked the construction or upgrade of oil refineries.

Chris Adamo, writing for GOPUSA, notes that the American public is getting wise to the Democrats and also explains what the public is becoming aware of. From his latest column:

Simple economics, the principles of which are becoming painfully apparent to every American who stops to fill up the family sedan, dictate that when disproportionate multitudes of customers have to compete for a limited supply of fossil fuels, prices will rise. Thus all of the liberal/environmentalist efforts to curtail the availability of the world's oil, specifically by hamstringing America's ability to exploit its own natural resources, have only succeeded in driving up the cost of those resources for all who want or need them.

Yes. And I feel the need to once again bring up the promise that Nancy Pelosi made back in 2006 about the Dems having a "commonsense" plan for bringing gas and energy prices down. They have done nothing but drive prices up since they took over Congress. But it isn't just their policy of constantly saying "no" to domestic energy production. There is much more to it than that:

From a worldwide perspective, the "free market" would currently yield a much lower price for a barrel of oil than recent numbers which exceed one hundred forty dollars. This fact being well understood among oil producing nations, particularly in the Middle East, where major oil producers banded together to form the infamous "Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries" or OPEC. ... In essence, an artificial "monopoly" has been created among the member nations, whereby they can unilaterally determine what the rest of the world will pay for its energy needs. But for this monopoly to survive and thrive, it requires the defacto cooperation of all other parties involved. Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this situation is that such "cooperation" is effectively coming from the Democrat controlled Congress of the United States. By stubbornly refusing any consideration of exploring, drilling, and thus expanding American oil production, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) and Senate Majority Harry Reid (D.-NV) along with their Democrat political machine in Washington, are effectively forcing the entire American oil industry into the role of collaborating OPEC members. In a sinister sense, America is officially refusing to increase the world production of oil, thus strengthening the OPEC monopoly and its ability to deliberately inflate the price of crude oil.

So, the Dems are not just screwing us here at home. They are actively allowing oil producing nations to screw us from abroad as well. Why isn't Old Media or even the rank-and-file Democrats holding Nancy Pelosi's feet to the fire for breaking her 2006 promise?

More:

It makes no difference when paying the bill at the gas pump that Pelosi, Reid, and their liberal political cohorts are claiming to do their deed for the sake of the planet, as opposed to the Arab nations who simply want to maximize profits. The end product is the same. Americans are senselessly forced to crunch their personal budgets in order to keep the family car rolling. Elsewhere around the world, the predictable fallout from liberal policy making hits much harder. Food prices are soaring, both as a result of higher costs to grow and transport edible crops, along with the insane practice of sapping food supplies in order to use basic grains for the production of ethanol in a dubious scheme to supplement gas supplies. Meanwhile, those most responsible for the current energy calamity offer only environmental sanctimony, entwined in the hoax of "global warming," as their justification.

And let's not forget that Congressional approval ratings have fallen to single digits for the first time in history. Also keep in mind that this happened less than two years after the Dems took control and began their assault on our economy. But the Dems are hoping to deflect from these issues by bringing out smoke-and-mirror tactics such as fabricating an impeachment of the President. This will only hurt them.

America's families suffer a loss of buying power, and American workers are barred from gainful employment among the abundant natural resources that exist across this land and just off its shores. In response, Representative Maxine Waters (D.-CA) expresses her desire for the government to nationalize the oil industry, and Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama reveals his contempt for middle America, which he believes is excessively lavish in its lifestyles and use of energy resources.

Those are the real issues. Socialists don't want to confront the disaster they would inflict on everyone else. They simply try to dodge the issue by falsely claiming that the blame lies elsewhere. The American voting public isn't buying it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Holding Liberals Accountable For Energy Woes
Christopher G. Adamo
GOPUSA.com
July 10, 2008

Companies Begin Quest For Oil Offshore: Oil And Gas Prices Emerging As #1 Issue

So, how much have you been paying to fill your gas tank? Quite a bit more than you were when the Democrats took control of Congress back in 2007. Gas prices have gone up over 38% since then. The American people want change. Not the change Barack Obama is proposing (i.e. more disastrous Socialism), but a change in domestic energy production policy.

That change would be to lift the stifling rules and regulations that prevent us from producing our own energy right here at home. Conceivably, our domestic oil companies could produce oil at $60/bbl instead of having to pay $145/bbl or even $200/bbl when the price gets that high.

According to the Associated Press:

Oil companies once viewed drilling in the deep waters off Florida as cost prohibitive. Politicians feared even the slightest sign of support would be career suicide. No more. Record crude oil prices are fueling support for oil and natural gas exploration off the nation's shores. In Florida, movement was under way even before President Bush called on Congress last month to lift a federal moratorium that's barred new offshore drilling since 1981. The early activity here stems from a 2006 Congressional compromise that allows drilling on 8.3 million acres more than 125 miles off the Panhandle — an area that had been covered by the moratorium, which was enacted out of environmental concerns. In exchange, the state got a no-drilling buffer along the rest of its beaches.

2006. That's when the Republicans controlled Congress. They had more than enough votes to force the issue, but certain Republicans decided to become obstructionists, including the GOP Presidential candidate John McCain.

McCain better be singing a different tune today, because Barack Obama is the one constantly saying "no" to viable solutions to our energy crisis. Here's what the American voter is thinking:

With gas topping $4 a gallon, recent polls show Americans, Floridians included, more supportive of drilling in protected areas. Some politicians — including Gov. Charlie Crist — have switched sides. "We think the public is way out ahead of the politicians on these issues. People are more open to (offshore drilling) now," said Tom Moskitis, spokesman for the American Gas Association, a trade group. At the same time, oil companies, driven by the record energy price, are more willing to risk $100 million or more to begin exploring new regions. The Interior Department estimates there could be 18 billion barrels of oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath the 574 million acres of federal coastal waters that are now off-limits.

And when people realize that the energy crisis is going to threaten the family vacation to Disney World, they will end up voting for the candidate who will work the hardest to remove the threat. That is why John McCain had better be listening to the people on this one.

More:

But politicians who once supported the ban are changing their minds. Sen. John McCain supports lifting the ban and allowing states to decide whether to approve drilling of their shores. Crist, Florida's Republican governor and a possible vice presidential candidate, reversed his long-standing opposition to lifting the ban last month. The ban won't be lifted without a fight. Sen. Bill Nelson, who has led opposition to offshore drilling among the state's congressional delegation, criticized the governor for reversing his position, accusing Crist and McCain of putting oil company profits before protecting the state's $65 billion annual tourism industry.

But Nelson seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that if people can't put gas in their cars, or airlines can't put fuel into airplanes, then the tourist industry in Florida is going to take a huge hit. People aren't going to walk hundreds of miles to get to Florida, especially if they have children.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Companies Begin Quest For Oil, Gas Off Florida
Associated Press via MSNBC.com
July 4, 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

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
CNN.com
June 23, 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.)

More:

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
CNN.com
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)
OPEC
April 2006

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

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
Reuters
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

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.

More:

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.

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.

More:

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

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
NewsMax.com
May 14, 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
TownHall.com
May 7, 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
84rules
April 29, 2008

And this:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
84rules
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
TownHall.com
May 9, 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.