Harry Reid's Hypocrisy On Illegal Immigration

Apparently, Harry Reid (D-NV) was against amnesty before he was for it. Perhaps the idea of a millions-strong voting bloc that was pro-leftist/liberal/socialist/Democrat was just too much for him to resist.

Even so, what he said on the issue back in 1993 is still very true today.

Obama's SEIU Thugs Attack A Black Conservative

Okay, this should show exactly how the Dems in Congress are nothing but thieving liars. For the past week, Dems like Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been lying to the press about angry mobs, violent protesters and swastikas.

The truth is, what we have been seeing is a grassroots movement in which people were rightfully asking their Congressional delegations if they've read what's in HR3200 (the socialized medicine bill), whether the government that let Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security go broke can run a socialized medicine system, and whether or not Congress will limit its own health care plan choices to only that which is provided to Joe and Jane Average American under this bill.

For their efforts at trying to communicate their concerns to Congress, the Democrats have labeled the American people "radical" and leveled false charges against them.

Well, the violent angry mobs didn't start until the Dems unleashed the SEIU thugs against Joe and Jane Average American. In a page right out of the Nazi Brown-Shirt playbook, Dems from the White House and Congress called on their union thugs to go after the peaceful opponents of Obamacare.

Here is an example what happened in St. Louis:

Obama's SEIU Thugs Attack A Black Conservative

Those of us on the right want answers from Congress and we want our concerns to be heard. Those on the left want to stifle the debate, even if it means visiting violence on people exercising their First Amendment rights.

Look for more violence from left-wing street agitators like SEIU and ACORN as this debate heats up. Despite Obama's claim that he is some sort of "uniter," he will not ever condemn the violent Nazi-style tactics of his leftist minions.

BTW, if you want to see photographic examples of the "angry mob" and "violent protesters" that Pelosi, Reid and company have been leveling false charges at, look here:

Meet The Mob
Dana Loesch
The Dana Show
August 6, 2009

(If you hapen to spot any swastikas in the audience, please point them out to us.)

The New Democrat Image: A Culture Of Corruptness

Even the most dyed-in-wool Democrat has to admit that the major promise of Nancy Pelosi and company in 2006, that is the promise to rid D.C. of the "culture of corruption," has been utterly and completely broken.

And despite Barack Obama's promise to bring change to D.C., he only brought with him the business as usual Chicago-politics style.

Take for example Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). He is in deep trouble thanks to some whistle-blowers who have exposed him. But, contrary to the campaign promises of 2006 and 2008, the Dems are taking no action to get rid of the corruption that Dodd represents.

Michelle Malkin has this:

The troubled Democrat is in deep over his sweetheart Countrywide home-loan deals, corporate bailout cash and crony associations. New revelations by Countrywide whistleblower Robert Feinberg confirm what more and more of Dodd's constituents in Connecticut are coming to realize: He's a lying weasel. Dodd denied knowledge of the special treatment the subprime mortgage company had given him and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad on home loans. (Dodd's were worth more than $800,000.) Feinberg flatly contradicted him in secret testimony on the Hill this week.

And what does Obama do in response to this evidence of corruption? Read on:

"I can't say it any clearer: I will be helping Chris Dodd because he deserves the help," Obama announced in April. "He just has an extraordinary record of accomplishment, and I think the people of Connecticut will come to recognize that."

So far, Obama has not withdrawn his support.

But it isn't just Dodd that is a problem. Many Democrats have their own corruption issues, none of which are being addressed by a president who made a campaign promise to address such things.

More:

Obama progressives should cringe at their president's bear hug of one of the most ethically compromised politicians on Capitol Hill. The Beltway swamp is teeming with Democratic corruption scandals -- Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha's earmark factory and tax-subsidized airports and radars to nowhere; New York Rep. Charlie Rangel's rent-controlled apartment scams and tax scandals; California Rep. Maxine Waters' business ties to a minority-owned bank that received $12 million in TARP money under smelly circumstances, for starters. But Dodd's career epitomizes the most fetid aspects of Washington's culture of corruption. It's a textbook case of nepotism, self-dealing, back scratching, corporate lobbying, government favors and entrenched incumbency.

And let's not forget Tim Geithner who failed to pay taxes.

The Democrats, rather than nobly standing up to the corruption in D.C. (including that within their own party) are instead hypocritically engaging in the very corruption they promised to fight!

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats have transformed the "culture of corruption" into their own "culture of corruptness." Dems, instead of draining the cesspool, have jumped in and started splashing around.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Dodd And Obama: Corrupt Birds Of A Feather
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
July 31, 2009

Health Care Lies From The Obama White House

It's no secret that Barack Obama is getting desperate to pass a nationalized health care bill. With many Blue-Dog Democrats lining up against the measure, time is clearly running out for Obama, Pelosi and Reid. But what time-frame are we talking about?

We are talking about the time-frame in which Congress and the President can pass this disastrous bill before too many more Americans read what is in it and discover what it is really all about.

Writing for Town Hall, David Limbaugh notes several inaccuracies and outright lies in the arguments made for this socialized medicine package:

--Despite White House-generated hysteria about the urgency of reform, the only urgency is in preventing this fiasco because it would destroy America's economy and liberty. Doing nothing -- even given the many problems that exist under the present system -- is far preferable to adopting this monster. --Proponents claim the present system leaves 47 million people without insurance and unable to get it. Bull. Almost half of these uninsured could afford coverage but choose not to obtain it; almost half only remain uninsured for four months; and millions are noncitizens. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million would remain uninsured after the plan is implemented. --Obama says his plan is not socialized medicine because he's just providing a "public option" to make the private insurers more competitive. Well, he's stacking the deck with mandated coverage -- which, by definition, reduces competition -- and subsidizing the public option. He would provide incentives to businesses to move employees to the public plan. Also, once you lose your insurance, your coverage choices would no longer be grandfathered, and you'd be forced to buy a plan that includes Big Brother's mandates -- meaning most would gravitate toward the government plan. A single-payer system is virtually inevitable. --The plan is being sold as a necessary element of reviving the economy. No one, including the Congressional Budget Office, believes this bill would improve our economy, and most believe it would exacerbate our problems. The bill, with its taxes on successful small businesses and its Draconian regulations, would destroy job creation, as would increases to the deficit and debt the bill would cause. --Health care costs would not be reduced, but increased -- and shifted. Studies show that preventive care measures would not reduce costs. More importantly, the CBO says that even with the planned confiscatory taxes on higher-income earners (which no one can deny constitute real costs to them) and the penalties on employers who don't provide coverage, the plan would fall $239 billion short of covering its initial cost estimates of $1 trillion. And that's assuming everything goes well. But cost estimates for government programs are always understated. The actual costs for Medicare Part A were $67 billion, seven times higher than the government's 1965 projections of $9 billion. Even worse, the Medicaid special hospitals subsidy was $11 billion, more than 100 times the government's projection of $100 million in 1987, just years earlier. The only efforts at cost containment would come from artificial price controls, which would result in rationing -- most likely for the elderly. --The quality of socialized health care would not be improved as promised, but would necessarily deteriorate, as it has in all countries that have tried it and in our own government-run experiments of veterans care, Medicaid and Medicare. It's inescapably true -- as noted by Dr. Thomas Sowell -- that price controls would reduce quality care because they would reduce the incentive to provide quality. --Health care choices would not be expanded, but essentially eliminated, by government mandate. The White House isn't even denying it would force taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

The longer it takes to get this abomination through Congress, the more time people have to study it and learn about the points Limbaugh made in the above excerpt.

Socialized health care has been a disaster in every single country it has ever been tried in. So much so that countries like Great Britain and Switzerland had to bring back privatized care in order to achieve the universal coverage that was so woefully missing from their nationalized systems.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

More Health Care Lies
David Limbaugh
TownHall.com
July 21, 2009

Essay From A Retired Army Command Sergeant Major

Got this in an email. One thing about this CSM (Command Sergeant Major), he does not waste time getting to the point! This essay has been around for a long while, but the points made are still extremely valid.

(I checked this out on snopes.com but didn't find anything to indicate that this wasn't written by J.D. Pendry, US Army, Retired.)

"The Axis of Idiots" Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief. Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and our embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001. John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it. John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John. Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run. Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a Communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to Do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum. American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer. You are all America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your collective stupidity will destroy us. self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it. Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. J. D. Pendry - Command Sergeant Major, USA (Retired)

You've got to admit, nothing was served cold in that essay!

J.D. Pendry is the author of The Three Meter Zone: Common Sense Leadership For NCOs available at Amazon.com

Are The Democrats The Teapot Or The Kettle? Dems Wanted Bush To Fail For 8 Years

This is yet another example how the Dems and their media surrogates seem to think that we Americans don't have very good memories or that we are not smart enough to see the contradictions in their words and actions.

The recent flap over Rush Limbaugh's comments that he wanted to see Obama's policies fail are more than enough proof of that. When Rush made his comments, the Obama White House panicked and tried to turn it into a national scandal. Unfortunately, like everything else Obama is trying to do, things worked out in the exact opposite manner. Ever since the Dems initiated their smear campaign, Limbaugh's ratings have skyrocketed.

Now, contrast this with how the media reacted when the Dems publically stated that they wanted President Bush to fail. Bill Sammon at Fox News has a very interesting piece about that. From his column:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. "We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted. The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails." Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

Well, the Dems certainly didn't disregard it. For the next seven years, the Dems were publically stating that they wanted President Bush to fail. Even Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, went so far as to give moral support to the terrorists by proclaiming that in Iraq, "The war is lost!"

It even showed up in a Fox News poll taken in 2006. 51% of Democrats said they wanted President Bush to fail. From that poll:



It gets even worse when former Clinton pollster Craig Charney wrote the following:

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. [...] In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people—suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies—detest George W. Bush. When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

So, why do the Dems think it is okay for them to say that they want a Republican President to fail, but then cry foul when someone else publically says that they want a Demecrat President to fail?

We want to know: Are the Democrats teapot or kettle?

You can access the original articles on-line here:

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush To Fail
Bill Sammon
Fox News
March 11, 2009

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Fox News
August 10, 2006

NY Post Hate Trap
Craig Charney
Charney Research
September 24, 2006

An Appropriate Photo-Spoof For Today

Video: Sarah Palin Addresses The Republican Governor's

Sarah Palin, despite the insults and personal attacks thrown at her by those who are afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome or the insults hurled by those who can't accept a strong, independent woman in politics, still gives one hell of a speech.

She addressed the Republican Governor's Association recently and gave her remarks on the current political landscape and where we should go from here.

Regardless of your opinion of her, she is going to be around on the American political scene for a very long time. Here is what she had to say:



According to Town Hall:

Sarah Palin called on fellow Republican governors to keep the new president and his strengthened Democratic majority in check on issues from taxes to health care as she signaled she'll take a leadership role in a party searching for a new standard-bearer. ... Palin noted that Congress is led by the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Barney Frank, and said it was incumbent upon GOP governors to ensure that the federal government doesn't take over the health care system. She said if Obama and the new Congress "err on the side of excess taxes, we have to show them the way."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Urges GOP Governors To Keep Democrats Honest
Brendan Farrington
TownHall.com
November 13, 2008

How Much Will Your 401k Be Worth In The Next Four Years?

While Barack Obama is promising a tax cut to a majority of Americans, the truth is that his economic policies will send us spiraling into a deep recession if not a depression. One of the ways to see this clearly is to look at your 401k or other savings that you may have for retirement.

Americans For Tax Reform (ATR) has a 401k calculator that predicts what your 401k would look like under four different tax schemes. There is the Barack Obama plan, the John McCain plan, the House Dems' plan and the ATR Fantasy plan. Check it out:

If you know the value of your 401k, enter it in the box and then click "calculate." You'll see how much the value will go up or down as a result.

As bad as Barack Obama's plan is, the plan presented by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Congressional Democrats is actually worse.

To find out what the ATR Fantasy plan is go to the following website:

Americans For Tax Reform

Are You Better Off Than You Were Two Years Ago?

I’ve been away for a bit. I spent an extended weekend in Virginia Beach with my wife. This trip represents our “babymoon” since this will probably be the last time we have a chance to get away before our new baby is born in December.

Anyway, I know there is plenty out there to talk about right now. There is Troopergate and the fact that Todd Palin is refusing to testify. I applaud Todd for this. After all, we have already shown how Troopergate is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Todd did the right thing in saying "no" to the partisan efforts of Democrats Hollis French and Ken Elton.

Then there is the bailout being considered by Congress. It is becoming known as the “Mother of all Bailouts” and it is a very bad idea. It will allow companies and firms who engaged in bad business practices to survive those bad decisions rather than allowing them to fail as the market dictates and thus allowing companies and firms who practice wiser and sounder business policies to step in and take over. That is what should have happened.

But I think a good place to start this week is by asking the question: “Are you better off than you were two years ago?” I think we can all answer: “No.”

Ever since the Democrats took over Congress, they have done nothing but allow or cause more damage to the American people. How can I say this? Easy. Check out the most recent Mullings column by rich Galen:

Just to review the bidding. On January 5, 2007 (just about the time Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took control of the House): - The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400. - The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3. - The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6% - According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.

That is where we stood. Now, this is where we are:

- Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern, the Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago. - The Conference Board's latest take on the pulse of consumer confidence had it at a very thready 56.9 in August - a drop of about 48% - The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the BLS an increase of 33%. - Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a whopping 68% jump.

So, why blame Congress rather than the Bush Administration? Because, Congress is supposed to have oversight power. But rather than use that power to tackle real problems head-on, the Dems instead used it for pushing their own agendas, trying to grab and consolodate power and trying to embarrass the President. All of this happened to the detriment of the American people.

In fact, Congressional hearings were held to determine whether or not Major Laegue Baseball players were using steroids at the same time as a housing and mortgage crisis was brewing. They've held vote after vote of resolutions to surrender in Iraq at the same time that energy prices were going higher and higher.

I don't know very many Americans who are more interested in steroids and surrendering than they are in where they are going to live and how much it will cost to have transportation for their familes. The only ones I can think of at the moment are the Democrats in Congress.

So what changed in 2007 that helped to facilitate all of this? Read on:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate Banking Committees. Rep. George Miller (D-Ca) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) took over their respective Labor Committees. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) became chairs of the Energy Committees.

If you read that closely, you will notice that all of the above chairmen have D's after their names.

The Democrats have been more interested in wrecking President Bush's foreign policy rather than working on the problems that they are required to work on under the Constitution. As a result, the American people have been suffering and will continue to do so as long as power-hungry Democrats who are willing to do anything, including hurting the American people, in order to gain and maintain power are in office.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Are You Better Off ...
Rich Galen
Mullings.com
September 22, 2008

Harry Reid's Arrogant Hypocrisy

No campaigning today due to the 9/11 Remembrance.

But I do want to share something with you that Old Media and the leftist blogs and websites probably only half-reported.

According to The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday questioned Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for not scheduling time away from his presidential campaign to participate in Senate votes. With 56 days left until Election Day, Reid used an afternoon press conference to note that McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, is not planning to attend the Senate’s debate this week on the Department of Defense policy bill. ... Reid did not raise the likely absence of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate, or Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Obama’s running mate, from votes.

Imagine that. Harry Reid forgot to mention that two Senators from his own party are missing votes just like the singleton John McCain.

You can access the complete column (and hypocrisy of Harry Reid) on-line here:

Reid Calls McCain Out For Skipping Votes (But Neglects To Mention Two Absent Democrats: Obama And Biden)
J. Taylor Rushing
The Hill
September 9, 2008

Governor Sarah Palin Blasts Senator Harry Reid

Still not sure about why Senator McCain chose Governor Palin as his running-mate? Read this letter that Gov. Palin sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just a few months ago.

It will become clear why the left is so frightened of her and what she represents and why they are going to such extreme lengths to attack her and her family. She is intelligent, bright, strong and knows how the issues intertwine into the fabric of the average American's concerns.

The letter:

June 23, 2008 The Honorable Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader United States Senate 528 Hart Senate Office Building . Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senate Majority Leader Reid: In previous correspondence to members of Congress, I have urged the enactment of legislation to authorize development of oil and natural gas in a small portion of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I will not repeat the arguments in favor of this legislation but will briefly focus on a few key points that have become even more evident since my last correspondence. That letter began, "With the price of oil hovering around $100 per barrel". Now, just a few months later, the price is close to $140 per barrel, and there is no end in sight. What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic production of oil and gas, renewable and alternative energy, and conservation? It seems to us outside of the Capitol Beltway that Virtually every effort to accomplish this is met with criticism and failure. In my opinion, the debate about energy policy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daily lives and has begun to affect America's place in the world. In the last few days, proposals have been tabled to permit oil exploration and development in the 80 percent of the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is off limits to such activity. I strongly support oes development in Alaska and elsewhere as a necessary component of a sound energy strategy. However, it makes no sense to consider the oes and to ignore the possibility of exploration and development in highly perspective upland areas, including the coastal plain of ANWR-the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America. With appropriate stipulations, oil exploration and development in the OCS can be conducted in a safe manner. Uplands development can be accomplished even more safely. Advanced technologies, such as directional drilling and the re-injection of oil wastes, ensure that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres (approximately one-quarter of the size of Dulles Airport). In advocating for oil development in ANWR, I have never guaranteed that this new domestic production would immediately reduce the price of oil. However, incremental production from the coastal plain should help reduce price volatility in the U.S. Additionally, ANWR development would send a strong message to oil speculators and producing countries that the United States is serious about addressing its energy problem. Yet, there is an even more important point. The location and quantity of oil production are changing world geopolitics. Countries that produce significant quantities of oil and natural gas are gaining in power and prestige. Several of these countries have objectives and value systems that are antithetical to U.S. interests. We are becoming increasingly dependent on these insecure sources to our long-term detriment. Further, it has become clear that U.S. petrodollars are financing activities that are harmful to America and to our economic and military interests around the world. Much attention has been focused on the importance of crude oil and gasoline in fueling our nation's transportation system. This need for petroleum will not end anytime soon despite efforts to develop new technologies and to diversify our transportation system into mass transit and more fuel efficient automobiles. Meanwhile, the true significance to the nation's economy of products refined from petroleum is becoming increasingly apparent. These products undergird our entire society and economy and provide precious jobs and revenue. The soaring prices of chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, and other products - and the loss of jobs - graphically illustrate this point. We must recognize that it will be many years, if ever, before we discover alternatives to the petroleum-based products that every American uses in our daily lives. If we don't move now to enact an energy policy that includes more oil and gas production from domestic sources, including ANWR and the federal OCS, we may look back someday and realize that we failed to perceive a critical crossroad in the history of this nation. I don't think it's overly dramatic to say that this nation's future and the quality of life for every American are dependent on the decisions you make or don't make in the next few months. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Sarah Palin Governor cc: President George Bush Vice President Richard Cheney The Honorable Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior The Honorable Samuel Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy The Honorable Ted Stevens, Alaska Congressional Delegation The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Congressional Delegation The Honorable Don Young, Alaska Congressional Delegation

Governor Palin is more in touch with the American people than any Democrat in Congress or running for the White House ever will be.

You can access the orginal article containing this letter on-line here:

Governor Palin Blasts Senator Harry Reid
TownHall.com
Rep. Michele Bachmann
September 3, 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

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

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

Will To Drill Is Strong And A New Political Cliche

Two items today that go right to the heart of our energy crisis. The first is from Investor's Business Daily. Just the first paragraph alone sets a very telling tone:

Contrary to claims by Al Gore and others that global warming is the greatest challenge of our time, Americans by better than 3-to-1 say the price of gasoline is a bigger problem now, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. Moreover, they stand willing to do something about it, including and especially drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal shale reserves in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Even drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is backed by a plurality of Americans. ... Only 23% say climate change is more important. The sentiment prevails across the board — among men and women, old and young, rich and poor, and Republicans, independents and Democrats, two-thirds of whom say gas prices are more important.

That really says it all. So, when is Congress going to do something about it? More importantly, when are we Americans going to get rid of the do-nothing members and vote in people who will get things done?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Will To Drill Is Strong, Poll Finds; Climate Change Pales As Concern
Investor's Business Daily
July, 14, 2008

---

And why should we boot out the Congress we elected in 2006? Hugh Hewitt gives us the answer, once again right from the very first paragraph:

The economic mess the country confronts can be laid at the feet of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The Don’t Drill Democrats are forcing deindustrialization through depression brought about by soaring energy costs. This is a man-made meltdown, and make no mistake: The Democrats could halt and reverse the skyrocketing cost of oil, but they are choosing not to.

The results of their inaction/choice not to act have been staggering and will only get worse:

The impact of the massive oil shock brought about by the rise of oil to more than $140 a barrel has just begun to be felt. The airline industry has gotten organized to alert everyone it can that it cannot continue to stagger along at this price. Eight airlines are completely gone that flew a year ago, and many others are on the brink. Layoffs and new charges to battle soaring costs are hardly worth noting they arrive so frequently. Tremors continue to course through Wall Street as investors shunned mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and yesterday worried Congressmen throw questions at the Fed Chairman and the secretary of the Treasury: How bad can it get?

Very bad. As I noted in another blog posting, oil is not our lifeblood; it is our energy. We need it like the human body needs food. To repeat the idiotic mantra that we need to "wean ourselves off of oil" is like saying that we humans need to "wean ourselves off of food." Only an idiot would believe such a claim.

More:

The environmental lobby owns Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and Barack Obama –the brave new leader—doesn’t dare take it or them on. That lobby is applauding the deindustrialization underway, and their attitude is that a depression wouldn’t be such a bad thing as a lesson in learning how to live within our environmental means. Their jobs aren’t on the line, after all, and their disdain for the impacted industries is complete. What they and the Triple D Democrats hasn’t counted on, though, was America making the connection between the deteriorating economy and their anti-energy agenda. Energy is freedom. Energy is prosperity. Every Democrat on the fall ballot is part of the anti-energy party which is wrecking havoc on the economy and every family’s budget. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for shortages, rising gas prices, rising unemployment, and falling production.

I don't like political cliches, but the one for 2008 is "It's the oil, stupid!"

You can access the complete column on-line here:

It's The Oil, Stupid
Hugh Hewitt
TownHall.com
July 11, 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

Gasoline Price War Hits The Senate And Nancy Pelosi's Promise Of Lower Energy Prices Keeps Getting Emptier

Harry Reid is a prime example of how out-of-touch the Democrats are with reality. Here is what he said in front of a Fox News camera:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don't see on the bottom line. Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming. It's ruining our country. It's ruining our world. We've got to stop using fossil fuels."

Well, as I noted in a recent posting, that is like asking humans to stop eating. It just won't happen, at least not without seriously fatal side-effects.

Jed Babbin notes something similar in his most recent column:

America’s, like it or not, is an oil-based economy. People who drive, fly and ship by truck are the basis for our commerce. Without the ability to drive, fly and ship we cannot buy and sell goods and services.

Apparently, the Democrats are still addicted to the fantasy that we can make cars, planes, trains and ships go on pixie dust and unicorn whiskers. They have this fantasy that some super-scientific technology is going to come and rescue us. Not so.

Read on:

Airlines are -- once again -- facing bankruptcy and the cost of fuel is driving up the price of every kind of goods and services. Neither the President nor the Democratic Congressional leadership is doing anything to bring the price of gasoline down now, before the election. Politicians seem to be immune to reason. They’re talking about things that may -- not will -- happen decades from now. If we began today, and bent all our attention, spent every dime we have on it to the exclusion of all else, we’d not be able to “stop using fossil fuels” for fifty years or more. The Democrats seem impervious to the facts. There is no cost-effective way to “stop using fossil fuels” in an economy that is completely dependent upon that use. Even if there were, the burden of gasoline costs on our economy demands that effective action be taken now to drive that price down. Reid and others chant the mantra that “you can’t drill your way out of this problem.” We -- and the OPEC cartel -- have drilled our way into it. Why can’t we drill our way out, at least to buy enough time to figure out a long-term solution?

So why do the Dems act the way they do, to the complete detriment of the American people? For the same reason they refuse to acknowledge reality and vote to do the right thing:

Because the environmentalists would be unhappy. Their contentment is more important to Reid and the other Dems than the economic survival of the American voter.

Yes, keeping the radical left happy is more important to the Democrats than keeping their promise to the American people. Remember that promise, made back in 2006? Here is a reminder of what Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006:

"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."

We need to get the Dems out of Congress and replace them with people who really know what the needs of the United States are.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Gasoline Price War Hits The Senate
Jed Babbin
Human Events Online
July 7, 2008

---

And here is a little something from the Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee:

Natural gas futures have jumped 82% since the start of the year. Heating oil and propane prices are also soaring. The increased natural gas prices already have resulted in electricity bills jumping twice since March for customers of Milwaukee-based We Energies and Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service Corp. Including increases authorized for three other state utilities, customers of the state’s five investor-owned utilities have seen rates rise by $210 million since the start of the year. Spokesmen for the state’s large natural gas utilities said it’s too early to predict what customers may pay this winter. The futures price of natural gas, which finished last week at its highest point in more than 2 1/2 years, could still fall below its current, abnormal high, they said. “Prices right now are in the scary range,” said Kerry Spees, spokesman for Wisconsin Public Service, an electric and natural gas utility. “It makes you look toward the winter with a little trepidation.”

Anyone still gullible enough to believe that Nancy Pelosi and the Dems have us on the right track?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

High Natural Gas Costs Expected To Boost Heating Bills This Winter
Thomas Content
Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee
July 6, 2008

Democrats Dug In For Retreat

Remember when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) yelled: "The war is lost!" into a microphone? I do. I remember thinking how disrespectful it was to the troops who were serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it was no surprise that a Dem would so publically show such disrespect.

Well, the Dems seem to have invested themselves into Reid's position because they cannot seem to get a grip on reality nor do they seem the least bit able to communicate that reality to their followers. Over at Real Clear Politics, Charles Krauthammer shows us a quote that came from a man who was an outspoken war critic:

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008

But the Dems just go meekly running back to Harry Reid and his disrespectful and pessimistic attitude.

Charles goes on:

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding. After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation. "National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks. Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

And the fledgling Iraqi Parliament has passed more meaningful legislation in the past year than our own Dem controlled Congress has gotten out. In fact, the Iraqis passed a provincial powers law, a partial prisoner amnesty and an Iraqi Federal budget. What would the Dems say about this?

They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran? Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?

And that's what it really comes down to, Bush Derangement Syndrome. The Dems are so blinded by hate for the current sitting President that they are willing to cause damage to the entire United States in order to hand President Bush an embarrassment.

Way to go Pelosi and Reid!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Dug In For Retreat
Charles Krauthammer
RealClearPolitics.com
February 22, 2008