August 8, 2008, The Opening Day Of The Olympic Games

As a former athlete, I am completely opposed to the idea of mixing politics and the Olympics. I was stunned back in 1980 when America's worst President of all time, a disaster named James Earl Carter, used our Olympic athletes as political pawns and punished them for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by not allowing them to compete in the Moscow Games. The boycotting of the Games changed nothing and the only symbolism it produced was that it showed how flaky Carter had become. When the boycott was announced, the rest of the world finally saw how spineless and ineffective he was.

But I am also opposed the idea of a host country mixing politics and the Olympics, especially by revoking visas of private citizens who wish to attend the Games and by attempting to silence any criticism athletes may have of the host government.

Such is the case with Gold Medal winning speed-skater Joey Cheek who co-founded Team Darfur. His visa was revoked by the Chinese government because he is very critical of the Chinese support of the Sudanese who have been causing genocide in the Darfur region.

USA Today has a nice article about that situation and the fact that a Team Darfur member will be carrying the U.S. flag in the opening ceremonies:

Lopez Lomong, a Lost Boy of the Sudan and a member of Team Darfur, was selected Thursday as flag bearer for the U.S. Olympic team in Friday's opening ceremonies. His selection came the same day winter Olympian and Team Darfur co-founder Joey Cheek had his visa revoked by China. Cheek, a 2006 gold medal winning speedskater who had expected to arrive in Beijing on Thursday, is angry that the Chinese government is taking this "effort to suppress discussion about human rights." He was happy about Lomong's selection but said it had no bearing on his situation. Lomong, 23, a 1,500-meter runner, was born in Sudan and driven from his family after a rebel attack — a fate shared by thousands of children. After escaping from a rebel camp at 6, he spent 10 years in a refugee camp in Kenya before arriving in Tully, N.Y., and becoming a citizen a year ago "His selection is a statement to how moving his story is," Cheek said. "The fact that he survived these tragedies is an amazing story." Cheek had planned to attend the Games to support the 70-plus athletes competing in Beijing who have signed onto Team Darfur. The group is critical of the Chinese government's funding of the Sudanese regime responsible for the genocide in Darfur. Cheek is less concerned about not going to the Olympics than he is about "the muzzling of athletes" who are competing. "I really hope the International Olympic Committee will make all efforts to protect competing athletes and their right to be able to speak about this or any issue they consider to be relevant," he said.

President Bush was also critical of the Chinese government's record of human-rights violations during a speech at the new U.S. embassy in Beijing. But the President never entertained the idea of boycotting the Olymipics and he has made it clear that his attendance at the opening ceremony is to support U.S. athletes, not to give any kind of legitimacy to the Chinese policies.

From the Seattle Times:

Eager for the Olympics to begin, President Bush gave a pep talk to U.S. athletes Friday and then settled in for the opening ceremonies, after starting his day with another swipe at China's human rights record. "It's gotta be really exciting, thinking about marching in that stadium and representing our country, "an enthusiastic Bush told the cheering American contingent gathered in the Olympic fencing center. "We appreciate all the hard work you've put in to get to this spot," said Bush, accompanied by wife Laura and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. team's honorary captain. "We want you to win as many golds as you possibly can. Go forth, give it all you got." ... Bush earlier used the dedication of the new U.S. Embassy to prod China to lessen repression and "let people say what they think." The communist nation, which tolerates only government-approved religions, has rounded up dissidents ahead of the Olympics and imposed Internet restrictions on journalists that some say amount to censorship, all contrary to Beijing's commitments when it won hosting rights for the games. "We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful," Bush said at the vast American diplomatic complex, built at a cost of $434 million. The past week has seen blunt language from both sides - with China clearly unhappy that its record of repression was being repeatedly aired even as it was seeking to revel in its long-anticipated debut on the world's biggest sporting stage.

At one venue, the embassy dedication, the President rightly criticized the Chinese government. At the other venue, a pep talk for the American Olympians, the President rightly offered praise and support for U.S. athletes. That is how it is done.

The athletes are in agreement:

Dwyane Wade, a member of the superstar-laden men's basketball team, said he was happy Bush would be in the stands. "We get support of our president, that means a lot. That means a lot of people ... back home want us to succeed," Wade said. "So we have to go out there and play like we're representing the US of A," he said. "If we do that ... we'll win it."

That's all I have to say about the politics of the Olympics. The Games are about the athlete and the sport. If the athletes want to say a few words, let them. But don't forget why they are there to begin with.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Darfur Refugee To Carry Flag For U.S. At Opening Ceremony
Janice Lloyd and Dick Patrick
USA Today
August 7, 2008

Bush Gives Pep Talks To US Olympians In Beijing
Paul Alexander
Associated Press via The Seattle Times
August 8, 2008

Jimmy Carter Vs. Barack Obama: Can You Guess Who Said What?

A few months ago, Barack Obama tried to link John McCain with the current administration by saying that electing McCain would be "Geroge Bush's third term." Not to be outdone, John McCain fired back charging that Barack Obama would be "Jimmy Carter's second term."

That quip may have been lost on the younger crowd but those of us old enough to remember the disaster that was the Carter Administration understood it perfectly.

We remember the double-digit inflation, the double-digit unemployment rate, the gas-lines, the weak-kneed response to Islamic terrorism and a complete ignorance of the threats that were pointed directly at the United States. It was all there and all of it will be repeated under a President Obama, except with even more devastating effects. Jimmy Carter's economic policies were very Socialistic in nature, but Barack Obama's is bordering on collectivist.

Anyway, Lisa Fabrizio has come up with a quick quiz to see if you can tell the difference between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

From Intellectual Conservative:

So go and get your cardigan out of mothballs and take this little quiz, keeping in mind that the following quotes are taken from a single speech Obama made in Lansing, Michigan this week and one that Jimmy Carter delivered in July of 1979 to cheer the country during our “crisis of confidence.” Was it Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter who said: 1) Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream. 2) We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own. Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. 3) In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. 4) Back then, we imported about a third of our oil. Now, we import more than half. 5) Will we allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of tyrants and dictators who control the world’s oil wells? 6) Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. 7) These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. 8) I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now. 9) In just ten years, these steps will produce enough renewable energy to replace all the oil we import from the Middle East. 10) I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade. 11) Think about how World War II forced us to transform a peacetime economy still climbing out of Depression into an Arsenal of Democracy that could wage war across three continents. 12) Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. 13) I’ll also extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy like wind power, solar power, and geothermal energy. 14) I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. 15) Think about when the scientists and engineers told John F. Kennedy that they had no idea how to put a man on the moon, he told them they would find a way. 16) We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years ago put a man on the Moon. 17) We will set a goal of making our new buildings 50 percent more efficient over the next four years. 18) I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source. 19) And we’ll invest in the technology that will allow us to use more coal, America’s most abundant energy source . . .

To get the answers, access the complete column on-line here:

Birds Of A Feather
Lisa Fabrizio
The Intellectual Conservative
August 7, 2008

Mexican Military Aggressively Crosses U.S. Border And Arctic Ice Still Not Melting

If you think the current Presidential campaign, economics and oil prices have erased the illegal immigration problem, think again. Another very troubling incident has occurred down in Arizona and we cannot afford to ignore it.

From the Washington Times:

A U.S. Border Patrol agent was held at gunpoint Sunday night by members of the Mexican military who had crossed the border into Arizona, but the soldiers returned to Mexico without incident when backup agents responded to assist. Agents assigned to the Border Patrol station at Ajo, Ariz., said the Mexican soldiers crossed the international border in an isolated area about 100 miles southwest of Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who was not identified. It was unclear what the soldiers were doing in the United States, but U.S. law enforcement authorities have long said that current and former Mexican military personnel have been hired to protect drug and migrant smugglers.

That was a military incursion into our soveriegn territory. I know that production of domestic energy is in the forefront of our national debate right now, but we need to remember that other issues are still going unresolved.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Border Patrol Agent Held At Gunpoint
Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
August 6, 2008

---

And according to the Seattle Times, three vessels are stuck in the Arctic ice pack off of Alaska's northern coast.

The Alaska Patriot, Riverton and Hudson Bay Explorer were traveling east when they became stuck. It is not known how many people are aboard. The Coast Guard says it has diverted the Coast Guard Icebreaker Healy to open the ice around the ships. However, it will take the Healy a minimum of two days to get to the ships.

I wonder if the people aboard those ships were up there trying to document the claim that the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free this summer.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Three Vessels Stuck In Arctic Ice
The Seattle Times
August 5, 2008

The National Education Association (NEA) Spells Out Its Policies

Over the 4th of July weekend, the NEA held its annual convention in Washington D.C. and once again they showed the U.S. that they are not a force for educating our children, but a political lobbying group bent on taking money from taxpaying Americans and then giving that money to liberal politicians and far-left special interest groups.

They even went so far as to spell out their policies and not a single one of them has anything to do with teaching children how to read, write, do math, improve in science or understand history. They are all completely politcal and clearly show the NEA agenda as being one of indoctrination, especially when such indoctrination goes against the wishes of the parents, whom the NEA routinely ignore anyway.

From Phyllis Schlafly's July 28, 2008 column at TownHall:

The NEA fiercely opposes any competition for public schools, such as vouchers, tuition tax credits, parental option plans, or public support of any kind to non-public schools. The NEA strongly opposes designating English as our official language even though such a designation is supported by more than 80 percent of Americans. The NEA opposes home schooling unless children are taught by state-licensed teachers using a state-approved curriculum. The NEA wants to bar home-schooled students from participating in any extracurricular activities in public schools even though their parents pay school taxes, too. The NEA wants many additional (job-creating) services and programs to be provided by public schools such as early childhood education (i.e., baby-sitting for preschoolers). NEA resolutions call for "programs in the public schools for children from birth through age 8," and for "mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance." NEA resolutions include all the major feminist goals such as "the right to reproductive freedom" (i.e., abortion on demand); "comparable worth" (i.e., government control of wages according to feminist ideology rather than the free market); full funding for the feminist boondoggle called the Women's Educational Equity Act; and "the use of nonsexist language," i.e., censoring out all masculine words such as husband and father. The NEA even urges its affiliates to work for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was declared dead by the U.S. Supreme Court 26 years ago. ... The NEA urges its members to offer "diverse role models" via the "hiring and promotion of diverse education employees in our public schools." The NEA puts "domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriage" on an equal footing. The NEA wants every child, regardless of age, to have "direct and confidential access, without notification to parents, to comprehensive health education. That would include things such as learning how to use condoms for premarital sex, as well as social, and psychological programs and services." The NEA wants public schools to take over the physical and mental care of students through school clinics that provide services, diagnosis, treatment, family-planning counseling, and access to birth control methods "with instruction in their use." Family planning clinics are called on to "provide intensive counseling." The NEA wants all sex-education courses, textbooks, curricula, instructional materials and activities to include indoctrination about sexual orientation and gender identification plus warnings about homophobia. The NEA is very generous with taxpayer money spent on illegal immigrants. The NEA not only favors amnesty for illegal-immigrant students, but also in-state college tuition and financial aid to illegal-immigrant college students.

And yet American students in public schools continually lag behind other nations in terms of math and science. The NEA is just like their Socialist Dem peers in Congress. They are ignoring the important issues and pandering to a minority of far-left activists.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The NEA Spells Out Its Policies
Phyllis Schlafly
TownHall.com
July 28, 2008

Barack Obama's Economic Ignorance: More Taxes Means Less Oil (And Higher Prices)

Barack Obama has of late sent insults in the direction of John McCain saying McCain has little economic knowledge.

I don't know what level of understanding John McCain has, but I do know that Barack Obama has an even lower level of understanding. Take Obama's proposal to tax the oil companies and then redistribute the wealth to Americans in the form of $500 and $1000 checks. (Nothing like buying a few votes, eh?)

Investor's Business Daily has some commentary on this tax-scam:

Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin, recently declared that, "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Why is there no limit to the increased taxes Obama and the Democrats want to take in this economy?

Why is it that Socialists always think that government has more right to private money than does the private entity that earned that money? Why do Socialists like Durbin and Obama think that the working American is some sort of bottomless well of funding?

More:

Obama once called the McCain-supported plan for a gas-tax suspension a "stunt." Now he wants to take a "reasonable amount" of oil company profits and rebate, a la George McGovern, $1,000 to families and $500 to individuals as a part of a second stimulus package to offset high gas prices, a big part of which is federal, state, and local taxes on both oil producers and consumers. Obama does not define what a "reasonable amount" is. Nor does he define at what point profit, which is an indicator of success and not greed, becomes a windfall. Exxon made a dime on a dollar in 2007. The oil and gas industry as a whole made 8.3% compared with 8.9% of all U.S. manufacturing. Meanwhile, the federal government operated at a huge loss. Electronics company LG saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories saw its profits soar 110% Google had a profit margin of 25.3%, more than double Exxon's. GE's profit was 10.7%, about the same as Exxon's, but do its subsidiary media outlets such as NBC and MSNBC report that?

So, if a profit margin of 8.3% is "price gouging" than why are all the companies and corporations who pull in profits over 8.3% not being dragged before Congress?

Because the oil companies are not price gouging in any way, but the Socialist Dems are hoping that you and I will not be smart enough to see it. Their hope is a futile one because I do see it.

And how much does the government make on gasoline in the form of taxes? Check out the graphic below:



Government taxing makes up 13% of the price of a gallon of gasoline. That's four points higher than the 7.4% the oil companies are making (on gasoline alone). So, why isn't Congress investigating itself for "tax gouging" the price of oil? Getting rid of the Federal gas tax would take the price of a gallon of gas back down below $3.50/gallon. That would be a very good start.

Barack Obama is the ignorant one here and his blind followers, Pelosi, Reid and Durbin, are equally ignorant.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

More Taxes Will Mean Less Oil
Investor's Business Daily
August 5, 2008

Domestic Terrorists Target American Scientists And Republicans Call The Blue Dog Bluff

It is an unfortunate fact of life that there will always be a vocal minority seeking to impose its will on the majority. It is also an unfortunate fact of life that said vocal minority will invariably engaged in illegal and immoral activities in order to impose their will on the majority.

Such is happening today in America where terrorists who hide behind the nomenclature of "animal rights activists" are terrorizing medical researchers and their families.

Debra Saunders has more from TownHall:

They perfected the art of intimidation in the United Kingdom. First, extremists vandalized research labs. Then, they targeted companies that did business with researchers. In 2004, activists finally went too far when they dug up the remains of the mother-in-law of a guinea-pig breeder. Now animal rights extremists are targeting University of California researchers. First, they placed bombs that did not go off. When that didn't shut down labs, they ratcheted up the violence. Wanted posters warned UC Santa Cruz researchers: "Animal abusers everywhere beware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse." Early Saturday morning, a firebomb destroyed a car belonging to a UCSC scientist. Shortly afterward, a firebomb erupted in the nearby townhouse of assistant biology professor David Feldheim. As smoke and flames filled the first floor, Feldheim, his wife, their 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter were forced to use a drop ladder to escape from a second-floor bedroom.

And the animal rights activists claim to be on the side of the good? Read what their spokesman has to say about the acts of terrorism being committed:

Jerry Vlasak, who, as a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Press Office, serves as an apologist for animal rights zealots, issued this statement: "This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously, whether human or nonhuman. It's regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age."

I don't know what is more infuriating. Mr. Vlasak's irritating spin on the story or that he actually believes us to be stupid enough to accept what he is saying. Scientists are not putting their families at risk, the animal rights terrorists are illegally and immorally putting the families at risk by committing crimes that endanger the lives of innocent children!

More:

UCSC professor Marty Chemers already had called a rally for 5 p.m. Monday to express outrage at these attacks. "These are people who want to do violence and they cloak themselves in this kind of moral stance," Chemers [said].

They are indeed terrorists and should be rounded up as such and sent to Gitmo to live with their Islamic brethren.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The War On Scientists In America
Debra J. Saunders
TownHall.com
August 5, 2008

---

Republicans are still in the House of Representatives to protest the fact that Congress never dealt with the Energy Crisis before skipping town while Democrats are on a five week vacation. The message is clear and the American people are starting to see the Dems for what they really are.

Even Nancy Pelosi is starting to get it since she has privately been telling certain Dems whose seats are now at risk to support domestic drilling to help in the upcoming elections. House Minority Leader John Boehner is calling the bluff.

From Amanda Carpenter at TownHall:

After a contentious weekend with the GOP over energy, Politico reported Monday that Pelosi had indicated to some Democrats that they should position themselves as pro-drilling if it would help them win upcoming election races. Boehner told those Democrats to “put it in writing.” “If you aren’t willing to put it in writing, you’re fooling no one,” Boehner said. “You’re siding with the Speaker of the Drill-Nothing Congress and radical special interests that favor higher gas prices at the expense of energy-strapped American families.”

How many Dems, if any, are willing to put that writing?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Boehner Calls Blue Dog Bluff
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
August 5, 2008

Drill, Drill, Drill! And An Open Letter To Nancy Pelosi By House Republicans

This story has got big enough legs and more than enough endurance to go all the way up to the election. That's good for Conservatives like me, but bad for libs. Why? Because the high cost of gasoline is not an issue that the libs and Dems can just spin away. It's here and it's right out in the open for everyone to see. There is, quite simply, no way to hide it, not even behind those idiotic words: "I'm trying to save the planet."

To give you a good example of how out of touch the Dems are with the American people, check out this exceprt for Lawrence Kudlow's latest column:

While Republicans on the House floor shouted "vote, vote, vote" and "lower gas prices," the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras, and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they'd overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied "no." When he raised the price to $5, $7, and $10, they cried "no," "no," and "no."

Even if the American people had to struggle with paying $10/gallon for gasoline, the Democrats made it clear they still would not take a common sense approach to lowering prices, i.e. increasing supply. Their excuse? "It would take seven years to see the effect." Apart from the fact that President Bush's announcement that he was removing the executive ban on domestic drilling resulted in an immediate psychological effect that brought down prices, we should also keep in mind that had we done this seven years ago, we would be seeing the effects today. The longest journey begins with the first small step.

Lawrence goes on:

Polls suggest that two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation wants to drill. To wit, while a just-released Obama campaign ad attacks McCain as a tool of big oil, McCain has taken his first-ever lead in a Rasmussen tracking poll. There is a voter revolt going on, and it reminds me of the anti-tax rebellion that lifted Ronald Reagan into office twenty-eight years ago. Is the conventional wisdom about to be swept away? As Republicans press home the drill, drill, drill message, might they pick up seats in Congress this year? And might the national clamor for a more realistic and balanced energy policy -- one that includes more oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and the alternatives of wind, solar, and cellulosic -- carry John McCain to a convincing victory over Obama? Without even realizing it, the GOP drilling offensive has become a new contract with America. And it appears to be working. The public is putting aside global warming and choosing instead new-energy production, a stronger economy, and more job creation. Voters want growth, not austerity. They want Ronald Reagan, not Thomas Malthus. And by resisting this grassroots call, the Democratic party is digging itself into one of the biggest political dry holes in history.

Sound like empty cheerleading rhetoric? Think again:

New economic statistics highlight the damage done by the unprecedented oil-price shock. Only a year ago real gross domestic product was growing at 4 to 5 percent. Then came the dramatic rise of energy prices and down came the economy. GDP contracted slightly late last year and rose a miniscule 0.9 percent in this year's first quarter. And although real growth picked up to nearly 2 percent in the second quarter, that number is suspect since the government does not count surging import prices from food and energy. Wall Street blames everything on the housing slump and the sub-prime credit crisis. Of course, these are significant. But the drop in housing starts, sales, and prices has been going on for nearly two years, without crunching down the economy. It's the oil shock that has brought us perilously close to recession. In fact, despite a slight rise in GDP, nonfarm corporate payrolls have declined for seven consecutive months while private payrolls have fallen for eight straight months. A year ago the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. Today it's 5.7 percent. Topping it off, the inflation rate has climbed from 2 to 4 percent over the past year. Right now the recession call is still an open question. But the economic damage caused by skyrocketing energy prices is a no-brainer.

But the Dems in Congress appear to have no brains in this issue at all. High energy costs effect everything. Food, clothing, consumer goods, tourism, travel. As gasoline prices go up, so do these other prices.

We need to get the Dems out of Congress and make sure that Barack Obama doesn't gain the White House in November. If the latter happens and he gets a rubber-stamp Congress, we will be in for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Drill, Drill, Drill Is Working
Lawrence Kudlow
RealClearPolitics.com
August 5, 2008

---

And here we have an open letter to Nancy Pelosi from Republicans John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Adam Putnam, Eric Cantor, and other members of the House Republican Conference:

On Friday August 1, 2008, at 11:23 a.m., your Democrat majority in the House of Representatives adjourned the House for five full weeks.House Republicans believe that Congress should not go on vacation until we take action to lower gas and energy prices for struggling American families. For the last two months we and our House Republican colleagues have used every tool at our disposal to try and get you and your Democrat majority to vote on legislation to lower gas and energy prices by expanding environmentally sound domestic production of oil and natural gas, improving energy efficiency, and encouraging the development of alternative energy technologies. Many of the proposals we have asked you and your Democrat majority to allow us to vote on are bipartisan proposals that we believe would enjoy the support of a majority of the Members of the Congress. Yet because you and your Democrat Leadership personally oppose these proposals, you are not allowing them to come up for a vote. This past Sunday, you even told George Stephanopoulos that you will never allow this vote to occur (see transcript on the reverse). In protest of you and your Democrat majority not allowing an up or down vote on producing more American energy, we and our House Republican colleagues were prepared to take to the floor on Friday, August 1, 2008, and speak to the nation. Rather than allowing that to happen you and your Democrat majority adjourned the House, turned off the television cameras, shut off the microphones and turned out the lights. Nearly 50 House Republicans remained on the floor of the House in defiance speaking to those citizens gathered in the galleries and to the media. Today we have again returned to the Capitol to continue speaking to the thousands of Americans from all across our country who are visiting the Capitol. We would have preferred if instead we were joined by our colleagues to have a true debate on this issue that ended in an up or down vote. We think it is unconscionable that Congress has gone on vacation before we have addressed the high gas prices that are crippling our economy and hurting millions of families. We are asking that you reconvene the House from your five-week vacation and schedule a vote on legislation to increase American energy production. Let us be clear, we are not asking for a guaranteed outcome, just the chance to vote.

Anyone think that Nancy Pelosi is going to respond to this well-reasoned letter? Or is she going to continue screwing the American people at the behest of the Socialist left?

Stephanopoulos To Pelosi: Why No Up Or Down Vote On Drilling? The Pelosi Premium Goes Higher

Nice graphic, eh? Gasoline prices have increased 74% since Pelosi and kin took power in Congress, and now they want to push the price even higher. What happened to the party that claimed to have so much compassion for the working class and the poor? Do the Dems just not realize how badly high energy costs are hurting the lower classes? Where is the compassion and the desire to provide relief for these people? The Dems have done nothing but lie about how much they want to help.

And Nancy Pelosi really went off the deep end on the energy issue. She has created a huge problem for herself and for Senator Harry Reid as well. They both know that over 70% of the American people want the United States to begin producing oil domestically and are becoming very angry over the high gas prices as shown in the above graphic. But at the same time, both Pelosi and Reid are beholden to a minority in the far-left environmental movement. That is why they both decided to take five-week vacations rather than allow a debate and a vote on domestic drilling. Both Pelosi and Reid know that they will lose.

They're right. They will lose. But instead of being courageous leaders and facing reality, they have both chosen to tuck their tails between their legs and run like scared children.

Even George Staphanopoulos was taking Pelosi to task over this. He asked her no less than seven time whether she will allow a debate on the floor of the House. She ducked and dodged each time. Here is the exchange from ABC's This Week which broadcast August 2, 2008, as reported by NewsBusters:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote? NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that's part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a part of it. STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership and a vote must happen. PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let's step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they're saying is let's have more of the same. Let's have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don't really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they're permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies. STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling? PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote? PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices. STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on -- PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don't lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We've talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal. PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It's not to use a tactic of one -- one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that's cheaper, better for the environment -- STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for America," let me show our viewers, you said that “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote? PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It's simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling. STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal. PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them -- STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling? PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that -- you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I'm not giving the gavel -- I'm not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own? PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well? PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don't you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it's drill, drill, drill, drill and we're going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we're going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.

And yet 700 billion dollars a year goes to purchasing foreign oil. While Pelosi and company continue to parrot the line about an "oilman" being in the White House, the Dems are content to let themselves be the party of OPEC in that they would rather we continue sending money to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia instead of starting the process of gaining energy independence.

The Republicans are still in Congress trying to put together a bill that will allow us to produce energy domestically while the Dems are off on vacation after having succeeded in doing nothing. We need to get the libs out of Congress so that we can get America moving forward again.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Stephanopoulos To Pelosi: Why No Up Or Down Vote On Drilling?
Noel Sheppard
NewsBusters.org
August 3, 2008

Nancy Pelosi's Delusional Stance On "Trying To Save The Planet"

I swear, the Dems never cease to amaze me with how incredibly naive they are in their own beliefs and with their sadly mistaken idea that we will beleive anything they say. Nancy Pelosi's comments to the Politco about why she refuses to allow a vote on domestic production of energy is proof positive of that.

When asked why she was blocking a vote on a bill that is overwhemlingly supported by the American people, she said: "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

Well, Charles Krauthammer over at TownHall looks into that and finds that by forcing Americans to buy foreign oil, she is doing more harm to the environment than if we were producing oil here at home.

From his column:

Places like Nigeria where chronic corruption, environmental neglect and resulting unrest and instability lead to pipeline explosions, oil spills and illegal siphoning by the poverty-stricken population -- which leads to more spills and explosions. Just this week, two Royal Dutch Shell pipelines had to be shut down because bombings by local militants were causing leaks into the ground. Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill. The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down, then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large. Additionally, the U.S. has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.

So, what is Pelosi and company trying to save us from? A healthy economy? Lower energy costs? She certainly isn't trying to protect the environment, not by a long-shot.

More:

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic? The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

But Pelosi would never let facts get in her way. She apparently believes that she knows best despite the fact that doesn't even know what the facts are. One of her party's favorite lines to parrot is "We can't drill our way out of this!"

But apprently, the Saudis can drill for us.

Check this out:

Democrats want no oil from the American OCS or ANWR. But of course they do want more oil. From OPEC. From where Americans don't vote. From places Democratic legislators can't see. On May 13, Sen. Chuck Schumer -- deeply committed to saving just those pieces of the planet that might have huge reserves of American oil -- demanded that the Saudis increase production by a million barrels a day. It doesn't occur to him that by eschewing the slightest disturbance of the mating habits of the Arctic caribou, he is calling for the further exploitation of the pristine deserts of Arabia. In the name of the planet, mind you.

Not only are the Dems completely out of touch on the energy issue, they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes as well.

It won't work. Too many of us can see right through it. They offered us bio-fuels and we got higher food and gas prices as a result. Is this the "common sense approach" to lower energy costs that Pelosi promised back in 2006? That promise was nothing more than a bold-faced lie.

Here's more:

The other panacea, yesterday's rage, is biofuels: We can't drill our way out of the crisis, it seems, but we can greenly grow our way out. By now, however, it is blindingly obvious even to Democrats that biofuels are a devastating force for environmental degradation. It has led to the rape of "lungs of the world" rainforests in Indonesia and Brazil as huge tracts have been destroyed to make room for palm oil and sugar plantations. Here in the U.S., one out of every three ears of corn is stuffed into a gas tank (by way of ethanol), causing not just food shortages abroad and high prices at home, but intensive increases in farming with all of the attendant environmental problems (soil erosion, insecticide pollution, water consumption, etc.). This to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain. There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don't care. We come to save the planet!

Clearly, the Dems are caught up in their own delusions and expect us to blindly follow them. No, thanks. I'll stick with the facts of reality.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Drilling And Blissful Ignorance
Charles Krauthammer
TownHall.com
August 1, 2008

An Ice Free Arctic? Not This Year.

June 27, 2008. Maggie Rodriguez makes a wild claim on CBS's Early Show. In case you don't remember, here is what she said:

"Also ahead this morning, we'll talk about a disturbing new report from some scientists in Colorado who say that there is the very real possibility that for the first time we will see the ice in the North Pole melt away completely during the summer."

Yes, I said wild claim and that is exactly what it was. National Geographic had it with this article before it got picked up by CBS:

North Pole May Be Ice-Free For First Time This Summer
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008

But there is always a problem when politics trumps real science. The problem is that predictions go wrong and the wild prediction above was very wrong.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers (3.83 million square miles), it was 1.05 million square kilometers (0.41 million square miles) above the value for July 16, 2007 (see Figures 1 and 2).

In other words, the Arctic Ice is thicker this year than it was this time last year and that means the chances of an "ice-free Arctic" are becoming more remote.

That goes counter to National Geographic's claim that "[T]his summer's forecast serves as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change."

Clearly, the "climate change" they are referring to is going in the right direction according to the data and we are getting more ice, not less.

I wonder if Maggie Rodriguez will report that there is really more ice up there than this time last year? Doubtful. That would require integrity on her part.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Arctic Sea Ice News And Analysis
National Snow and Ice Data Center
July 17, 2008