Terry Kivlan of the National Journal looks into the newest round of punches being thrown on Capitol Hill. Republican lawmakers are ready to allow the offshore oil drilling ban expire on October 1, 2008. But the Dems are already parsing words, preparing to throw the well-being of Joe and Jane Average American under the bus in the name of some misguided Socialist policy.
From his column:
| Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has announced that 36 of the 49 GOP senators had signed a letter to Senate leaders supporting the designation of Oct. 1 - the deadline for renewing the ban for the 28th straight year - as "American Freedom Energy Day" and opposing the extension of the prohibition. The letter, addressed to both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also targets the ban imposed last year on oil shale leasing. "Many people aren't aware that these bans on drilling must be renewed every year, and that all we have to do is to allow these prohibitions to expire on Oct. 1," DeMint said in a statement released Tuesday. "In just 50 days, Americans will have the freedom to pursue their own energy resources here at home," he added. DeMint argued that it was "irrational to say 'no' to American energy" because it was needed to reduce independence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices. Today, the senator announced he will begin a tour across South Carolina Thursday to promote greater dependence on domestic energy supplies. "The only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower prices at the pump is for America to rapidly pursue our own energy sources," DeMint said. "America should remove barriers to a wide array of new energy supplies ... The first step to lower energy prices is to allow the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale to expire on October 1st," he said. Aides to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said 136 House Republicans had signed a similar letter that the Texas lawmaker started circulating on July 23. |
But Harry Reid (D-NV) was quick to bring the Dem talking points into the fray:
| A spokesman for Reid was quick to warn that, because the bans are attached to annual appropriations bills, an attempt to block them could lead to a reprise of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that resulted from an impasse over government spending bills that pit President Clinton against congressional Republicans, led by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich. |
So, the Socialist Dems want to shut down the government in order to make sure that American families will continue to pay higher energy costs? How stupid is that?
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Republicans Threaten Renewal Of Offshore Drilling Bans
Terry Kivlan
National Journal
August 13, 2008
And Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at the future of globalism and what would happen in the world if we Americans backed down from all of our convictions.
| In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions: First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth. Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Moammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, or the Taliban. Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers. |
But we cannot keep up this pace, especially when so many within our own nation are trying to force us to become weaker (e.g. Congressional Democrats who continue to block all viable efforts at relieving high energy prices). It is causing us to turn inward with the possibility that we may be going back to the mindset of the 1930's.
More:
| Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free-trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America’s immigration attitude. Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantánamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia’s democracy and bombing its cities. Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants. It has been chic to chant “No blood for oil” about Iraq’s petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China’s sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur. Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized. So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions. |
So, what would happen if the United States simply turned its back on the world the way the world has been turning its back on the United States? Just this:
| Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite. If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause. If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won’t listen to the United Nations, the European Union, or Michael Moore. Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must. |
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Brave Old World
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
August 14, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment