Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Let Them Eat Cake

Investors Business Daily did an editorial on the 'myths of high oil prices.' The title could have been, 'the myth of the democratic talking points.' It is too bad that we have to waste time on such things - dispelling some ridiculous notions such as:

- the oil company executives are driving up prices or
- 'we can't drill our way out of this'

Nancy Pelosi's comments were predictable. The energy situation was created by Bush and the Republicans and "like with everything else, she has had to come in and pick up the pieces."

So, what is she doing to pick up the pieces? Lifting the ban on offshore drilling? Allowing drilling in the shale deposits in the U.S.? Loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants?

As one example, IBD cited a study that concluded that there could be as much as a three hundred year supply of oil in the shale deposits of the United States. I am not an economist, but that has to help pricing !!

In short, Pelosi and company are doing NOTHING !!

Nancy's strategy is consistent with her views of 'America being the problem of the world.' She is doing nothing in the hopes that cars that run on wood pellets and solar energy will replace the gas engines that are on the road today- all within the next few months. She sees little political risk to her plan, she can just blame Bush.

Who is being hurt by high oil prices? It is not Pelosi's well-heeled close friends or political benefactors. Four dollars a gallon for gas and a 40% rise in food prices (driven by burning our food supply for fuel and by high gas prices) is hurting the poor, working and middle class. These are the very people that the Democratic party is 'officially' trying to help.

When Pelosi and her well-to-do California crowd get together for cocktails, you can bet they are not talking about the poor or middle class. They have an agenda, but protecting America, allowing for inexpensive energy and pro-growth economic policies are not on the top of their list.

I am sure the conversation about what they will do when the dems are no longer hamstrung by a Republican president's veto is more along the lines of global-warming, becoming more like Europe, gay marriage, universal health-care, re-distribution of wealth and all the other liberal obsessions that have replaced real issues and have usurped the governance in this country.

When it comes to economic growth or affordable energy, her policy is more consistent with the extreme views of Al Gore than with the needs of Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Monday, July 14, 2008

Showdown !!!

I hope the Republicans are finally serious about attacking the Democrats on their weakest of their weak platforms...energy. Some may argue that National Security is their weakest platform, but all indications are that the democrats will keep all of President Bush's policies to fight terrorism and conduct surveillance in place.

My answer to 'you can't drill your way out of this' is, 'you can't sound bite your way out of this.'

President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet.

1. The president has lifted the ban on offshore oil exploration. He said, the only thing standing in the way is the U.S. Congress. See the Link above.

2. At the G8 Climate change summit, President Bush's senior environmental advisor had this to say:

Jim Connaughton, senior environmental advisor to President George W. Bush, told Der Spiegel that nuclear power plants are a "litmus test for the seriousness on climate change" and that "a country that has the capability to responsibly use nuclear energy, in my view, has a responsibility to do so."
Zero Emissions !! Sounds like a litmus test to me.

It's time to 'drill' this home. Pound them on it. Every time the gas pump tops out at seventy-five bucks, it will remind the electorate who is serious about energy and who is beholden to one tenth of one percent of the population.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Wednesday, July 9, 2008


Obama has flip flopped on the most virulent anti-Bush knee-jerk issues; all the wedge issues that he used to defeat Hillary.

The partial list:

He has backed off his pledge to use federal funds to finance his campaign.

He has said that he would not immediately withdraw from Iraq but would respect the recommendations of the 'generals on the ground.'

He supported in the senate a renewal of the liberal-despised Patriot act and the associated domestic surveillance plan. He had vowed to filibuster to end it because of the protection it awarded American telephone companies that cooperated with the federal government (sic).

He has flip flopped on gun rights, energy policy and the right of Israel to protect itself.

As Charles Krauthammer put it "all of this is expected from liberal candidates, but the audacity that Obama has displayed in labeling anyone that points these things out as cynical and engaging in negative politics is outrageous" (Paraphrased from Fox News)

It would be nice if the candidates would say what they mean and mean what they say. But...why should they? The average voter can't even name the secretary of state.

Obama is the cynic. He knows that he can smooth talk his way past McCain and he won't have any trouble getting the readers of the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post to show up in November.

When he gets there, watch out. The policies that he, Reid and Pelosi will craft will make the Great Society look like a government of rugged individualism, low taxation and individual freedom. Don't expect them to defend America and don't expect them to fight for affordable energy or fair trade. The priorities will be abortion on demand, redistribution of wealth, global warming, United Nations global priorities and lots of laws to maintain their power in the face of public outrage (e.g. Fairness in Media Act).

I hope we can stop it. I am voting for McCain, donating to his campaign, writing letters to the editor and blogging on his behalf...but I wouldn't bet my life savings on him.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Canceling the Fourth [LINK]

In an article that demonstrates the idealistic divide existing in America today, Chris Satullo wrote yesterday in the Philadelphia Enquirer that we should cancel celebration of the Fourth of July this year because of our national sins. Satullo writes:

This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

Satullo argued that we have failed to live up to the intentions of the founders and have "spit on [their] memory." While I do not dispute that statement nor the need for national repentance and atonement for our sins, the list that Satullo compiles shows that He and I view the current problems in America from totally different perspectives. He gives the following reasons:

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

From my own perspective, I would like to add a few more categories that Satullo left out.
  • The America those men founded would never commit infanticide of the unborn and call it "choice."
  • The America those men founded would never work to grant legal sanction (i.e., marriage) to those engaged in sexual perversion (homosexuality) and call it a "constitutional right."
  • The America those men founded would never seize a private citizen's property and then turn it over to a real estate developer.
  • The America those men founded would never confiscate (tax) the fruits of a successful man's labor to subsidize those who will not work.
To echo Satullo's words, "Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion."

It is ironic that Satullo mentions that we need to spend the Fourth in atonement. Atonement is a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept that acknowledges our sins as being against a holy God whose wrath must be placated by a blood sacrifice lest we suffer for our disobedience of His laws.

In its Christian expression, that blood sacrifice was provided by God in sending His Son to die and to serve as the only savior through which He would deliver mankind. In contrast, the America that Satullo represents sees no holy God, no objective laws that must be obeyed, no divine wrath that must be assuaged, and, of course, no unique Savior that all must obey.

The America I see is an America that protects its citizens and their rights from government seizures and the imposition of moral perversions that are rejected by the majority of the citizens. The other America desires to protect our enemies and use the power of the courts to impose new "rights" that most Americans find offensive, if not criminal.

Chris Satullo and I view America in two totally different ways.

I like mine better.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Half-Truths and Misrememberings

On a tight timeline, so have to resort to some Obama quotes today...

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." -- September 2007

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election." -- June 2008

"I love the town-hall meetings, where I'm just interacting with voters, and they're asking me questions and making comments. There's an exchange there that's real. I hear their stories... that actually is what then informs my speeches and the message that I'm delivering." -- Rolling Stone, June 2008

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement... that (Obama) offered to meet McCain in five joint appearances between now and the Nov. 4 election. But only one of those was a town hall meeting. -- June 2008

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." -- June 2008

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage." -- May 2008

Barack Obama...no better than a "typical" politician

-- Submitted by R Wellesley