June 11-15, 2008
Jun 11 03:31 On the Verge of Victory? Jun 11 04:43 USA Today: Drilling In ANWR Must Happen Jun 12 10:32 Why Elections Matter: Five Liberal Idiots Setting National Security Policy Jun 13 03:30 Flanked By Radicals Jun 13 11:01 DiFi: Gitmo A Terrible Blight Jun 13 11:40 Norm On Oil, Nuclear Power Jun 14 02:06 Bush is a Wise, Brave Man Jun 14 09:03 Typical Liberal Gibberish Jun 15 10:44 Dueling Plans
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
On the Verge of Victory?
Harry Reid, John Murtha and other anti-war fools might soon be dining on second and third helpings of crow if this NY Post article is right. Here's what they're reporting:
The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army, just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists, forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).The Iraqi military was either incompetent or corrupt. Now it's becoming a proficient fighting machine. Democrats, initially John Murtha, said that there wasn't "a military solution" to Iraq's problems. Eventually, Sen. Obama joined the chorus of naysayers :
Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul, a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.
US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.
In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement, a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.If I were cynical, I'd ask what Sen. Obama meant when he talked about "a political settlement." Was he talking about Iraqis reconciling its political differences or was he talking about political conditions becoming right here in the United States for Democrats to abandon our patriotic Iraqi allies?
What's most important is that Sen. Obama was wrong that there wasn't a military part on the path to Iraqi reconciliation. It's important to note that Sen. Obama has campaigned on the same anti-war message since jumping into the race. That was fine when he was running for the nomination. Sen. Obama could still get away with it if the war was being lost.
Though Sen. Obama won't admit it, the war is being won and his opponent is the man who advocated the right policy. I'm betting that that won't cut it with voters this November. I'm betting that they'd rather get it right than stick with a failed plan for ideological purposes.
That's why Sen. Obama doesn't dare visit Iraq. The minute he sets foot in Iraq, he'll be inundated with good news reports. That's also when the media will highlight the improving conditions. That will draw lots of comparisons on the issue, none of which will cast Sen. Obama in a flattering light.
Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:32 AM
No comments.
USA Today: Drilling In ANWR Must Happen
I thought I'd never see the day that USA Today would advocte drilling in ANWR that's exactly what they did in this editorial .
We supported drilling in ANWR long before gas topped $4 a gallon and continue to do so. But let's be clear about what it would and wouldn't do. It wouldn't bring relief from today's high prices, as President Bush implied Monday . And it wouldn't make the United States energy independent.I agree that driling in ANWR isn't an immediate fix but it's a important part of the solution. While I appreciate USA Today's advocating this policy, I appreciate that they put this in context:
So does that mean, as critics suggest, that it's not worth doing? Not at all. Drilling in ANWR and offshore is an important piece of any long-term strategy to make the nation less vulnerable to oil-producing nations and supply disruptions. It is one of many imperfect steps needed to both increase the supply of oil and curb the demand for it, while seeking energy alternatives.
It's true that any serious oil production from ANWR would take about 10 years. But dealing with the energy situation requires an ability to look beyond quick fixes. The fact is, ANWR oil would be flowing now if President Clinton hadn't vetoed a drilling bill in 1995 .
Environmentalists charge that drilling would despoil a pristine area in northern Alaska that is about the size of South Carolina and is a critical habitat for caribou, musk oxen, bears and birds. In fact, exploration in the 19 million-acre refuge would be confined to 1.5 million acres, and drilling to just 2,000 acres , an area less than half that of Atlanta's airport .
Oil production would inevitably affect the refuge. But studies at Prudhoe Bay to the west, where oil has been produced since 1977 in an area more than twice the size of the one planned for ANWR, show that the effects can be minimized and wildlife protected, particularly with today's newer exploration technology.This week, I've seen a couple of liberal radio talk show hosts interviewed on TV. Ellen Ratner said that we'd only get a few months of oil out of ANWR. What she said after that, I don't know because I couldn't take her seriously after that.
What would the nation get in return? Not enough to solve the nation's oil problem, but enough to make a difference. Estimates are that the area could eventually produce about a million barrels of oil a day for 30 years. That's nearly 5% of the 21 million barrels a day Americans consume, and almost as much as the United States imports from Venezuela , where the money Americans spend for oil enriches a leader who bitterly opposes U.S. interests and helps fund an armed insurrection against U.S. ally Colombia.
I remember all the environmental groups in the 1970's telling us how the Alaskan Pipeline would disrupt caribou migrations forever while producing a couple years worth of oil. The caribou haven't been affected and the pipeline is still delivering oil 30+ years later.
Congress has been arguing about ANWR for nearly three decades; it's time to break the gridlock. The Senate had a chance to say yes to ANWR drilling last month but did not, opting instead to rail about energy prices and take the almost purely symbolic step of suspending efforts to fill the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.Democrats are painting themselves into a corner on this. They're fearful that if they change their position on drilling in ANWR and other federal lands, contributions from the environmentalists will dry up. They're probably right about that. That said, if they don't change positions, voters will likely put a bunch of them on unemployment.
With a few fitful exceptions, such as raising car and truck mileage standards, Washington seems unable to take the nation's energy crisis seriously.
Both parties share the blame. Democrats, fearful of offending the environmental lobby, have led the effort against ANWR and offshore drilling. Republicans ganged up late last year to kill a smart but modest proposal that would have required the nation's utilities to produce as much as 15% of their electricity with renewable energy such as solar, wind and biomass by 2020.
On another front, House Republicans have started a discharge petition on H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act . Here's what Steny Hoyer said about that:
"More drilling. More drilling. More drilling. That is the Johnny One Note policy of the Republican Party, of the president, of this Republican leadership in the House, and the Republican leadership in the Senate ," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Hoyer said that in the last three years conservation efforts and alternative technology have drastically reduced the projected need for oil in the future.
"So conservation and alternative use of energy sources [have] made a very dramatic impact," Hoyer said. "Those alternatives have consistently been rejected by the Republican Party, and they have been in charge exclusively for the previous 6 years", meaning 2001 through 2006.
What a gem. Please keep harping on that note. In fact, get Rep. Hoyer a bigger bullhorn. What Hoyer is hoping is that people will be satisfied with a possible future maybe instead of voting for people who'd do something to rectify the problem within the next 5-7 years. Drilling won't solve the problem instantly but it'll solve the problem quickly.
Increasing oil exploration is this year's equivalent to the Iraq War in 2006. In 2006, people were fed up with what was happening in Iraq because they didn't see progress being made. I'd submit that people see nothing subtantive getting done to solve the high gas prices. I'd further submit that they see the Democratic Party as standing in the way of someone trying to fix the problem quickly.
People know that increasing oil production will drop prices because they understand supply and demand. They'd like to believe in alternatives and conservation but they aren't confident about those options yet. I'm confident that that will change with time. Until then, though, rest assured that people will see drilling as a vital part of the solution.
That's borne out in
this Gallup Poll
:
- Fifty seven percent support drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas.
- Americans also support releasing supplies from the federal government's strategic petroleum reserve (58%).
Last week, the Congress called oil company executives to testify on Capitol Hill and then berated them about surging gas prices and their companies' record profits. While such actions might have a positive "jawboning" effect at best, they no doubt reflect the lawmakers' sense of Americans' growing frustration over increasing gas prices at the pump.In other words, opinion is dramatically shifting to the Republicans' favor. We'll see if this trend is sustained. If it is, then Democrats are in trouble in November. Frankly, I don't think that the people are confident in the Democrats' plan. If that's the case, then Republicans running on increasing exploration and production will have a decided advantage this November.
Ironically, the intensity with which Americans see oil companies as "gas price villains" may be fading a little, according to opinions respondents volunteered in a new Gallup Poll, conducted May 19-21. Over the past year, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%; the percentage pointing to oil refinery problems fell from 16% to 9%; and those attributing the increase in prices to problems in the Middle East and the Iraq war fell from 13% to 8%. On the other hand, the percentage of Americans suggesting prices are increasing as a result of the economic forces of supply and demand increased from 10% to 15%, while 6% now point to speculators and 4% to the shrinking value of the dollar and the poor U.S. economy, both new reasons not even mentioned a year ago. More Americans also mention crude oil prices, the shortage of oil supplies, and U.S. dependency on foreign oil.
Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:43 AM
Comment 1 by Byron at 11-Jun-08 06:47 AM
Funny that Gallup poll. Yep, what it really shows is that the Big Oil spin machine is working overtime and it's paying off. Deflect attention away from Big Oil.
http://www.prweekus.com/Exxon-buoys-PR-amid-oil-industry-backlash/article/54119/
With a long history of lies and deception they couldn't be manipulating events could they? Nah...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html
Again, as I stated in another post I find it pretty CONvenient that with just months to go in W's residency suddenly prices are shooting up and he's calling for drilling in ANWR.
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=2832
You say, "They'd like to believe in alternatives and conservation but they aren't confident about those options yet."
The government should have been easing us down, weaning us off oil and moving us to renewable alternatives decades ago. But the Republicans have done all they can to stymie research into renewable alternatives and throw up roadblocks every chance thet had while giving Big Oil big breaks all along the way. That's a inexcusable scandal in it's own right.
"Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.... The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks - worth $17 billion over the next 10 years - with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/republicans-block-extra-t_n_106282.html
Also
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-19-09.asp#anchor2
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_4_85/ai_63127627
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Jun-08 09:29 AM
Byron, yap all you want but the American people know that we need to increase supply, something that the Democrats refuse to do. Call it spin if you like but that's just the hard truth about this issue.
You say that it's convenient that sudeenly prices are shooting up & he's calling for drilling in ANWR. He's been calling for drilling in ANWR since his administration began.
QUESTION: Why are you so deathly opposed to drilling in ANWR & off the coasts? There's huge oil reserves there of both oil & natural gas?
EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Would you rather the American economy tank than drill in these places?
Comment 3 by Byron at 11-Jun-08 12:57 PM
My question Gary is, WHY have Republicans been so DEATHLY opposed to changing over to renewable energies??? We all know that oil is finite and many experts say that it's on the cusp of, if not already, peaking after which all bets are off. And even if it isn't peaking right now physics demands that it will.
Why have renewables been so back burnered all these years? There was absolutely NO REASON to be in this predicament! People have been demanding alternatives for decades, but no, we want to make sure that the Fat Cats in Big Oil could bleed every possible dollar out of the American and world's people while oil lasted, oh and line the politicos pockets in return for huge subsidies, tax breaks and the tripping up of alternatives.
Disgusting.
Comment 4 by Phidippides at 11-Jun-08 01:10 PM
"Why have renewables been so back burnered all these years?"
Yes - why was this during Bill Clinton's tenure in office? Why did this occur when Mr. Green, Al Gore himself, was VP? Surely he could have held enough sway to get something done. But neither of them did, at least not to the expectations of liberals.
And who says "many experts say that it's on the cusp of, if not already, peaking after which all bets are off"? Are these the experts from so-called "Big Oil" who might know about the situation? Or are these commentators who are on the outside looking in?
Tell me - who would you trust in regard to future oil reserves - those who work in the field or those who despise the industry?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 11-Jun-08 04:01 PM
We all know that oil is finite and many experts say that it's on the cusp of,
We don't know that. In fact, I've read seismologists' reports that say we have at least 100 more years of oil left in the continental United States. That doesn't qualify as being on the cusp of running out in my books.
Comment 6 by Byron at 12-Jun-08 12:49 AM
""Why have renewables been so back burnered all these years?" Yes - why was this during Bill Clinton's tenure in office? Why did this occur when Mr. Green, Al Gore himself, was VP? Surely he could have held enough sway to get something done. But neither of them did"
Sorry but your wrong. Clinton/Gore tried but were stymied at every turn by the Republican Congress.
"Over the past seven years, Congress has approved only 12 percent of the increased funding proposed by the President for energy efficiency and renewable energy."
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_130025_2000.html
"And who says "many experts say that it's on the cusp of, if not already, peaking after which all bets are off"? Are these the experts from so-called "Big Oil" who might know about the situation? Or are these commentators who are on the outside looking in?"
If you knew anything about the issue you'd discover that, yes, many "peakers" are also oilmen.
Comment 7 by Walter hanson at 12-Jun-08 08:38 AM
Byron:
Okay you want to think the Democrats now the answers. So can you please explain:
* If I'm a producer of oil and I'm taxed extra for producing my product how that will increase production. You might not have been alive when they tried that during the Carter administration production went down.
* Can you explain how the threat of a Justice Department lawsuit department will getting oil producing countries like OPEC to dramatically increase production?
* Can you explain how since nations like India and China have been exempted from Keyto why they will dramatically lower their energy and lower their future life styles because you, Al Gore, and Obama will impose that on us so the people of India and China can live better.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by Byron at 12-Jun-08 09:46 AM
Walter, I think the taxing of Big Oil's windfall profits is a step in the right direction but that was just voted down by Republicans.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-big-oiljun11,0,6453796.story
Right now with Big Oil making record profits
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008013115
there is simply too much motivation for them to cheat and find excuses to cut back on supply or raise the cost, and they are good at finding all kinds of reasons to do that. It is a fact that energy companies have done this before, although on a more limited scale. Limiting supply and claiming that unrest in some Kalamazoo is the cause or shutting down power plants for maintenance during peak use periods all of which drives up the cost. I'm not just talking American oil companies here but OPEC nations as well. Some kind of way to deprive them of extra profits during down times or questionable periods would help IMO. Take away the motivation to cheat. Still, why do we insist on making ourselves dependent on oil rather finding better solutions.
But again what we should be doing, should have been doing long ago is a major shift away from oil toward renewables. If you have your own solar panels on your own roof your not paying some big central company to provide it for you. Once you've bought your system it's free energy after that. THAT'S what the big energy companies don't want. And if we moved in that direction wholesale that would drive down the cost of photovotaic or wind (etc.) systems.
At the least what we should have been/should be doing is outfitting all buildings in the country with the renewable energy system that works best for them. Had we done that we could have made the oil we've used so far last much longer to power our vehicles until we found a better, less polluting way to power them.
I agree with you about India and China. They should also be subject to Kyoto or better agreements. The fact is though that the first world has more economic slack to do more than 2nd and 3rd world countries. And it's hard to get countries that are just now emerging from millenia of poverty to make voluntary cuts in growth. On the other hand they figure that since the U.S. has been consuming 1/4 of the world's energy and thus disproportionately contributed to the pollution they should be held responsible for a major part of the cleanup, and I can't say that's a bad argument.
Comment 9 by Ginger at 12-Jun-08 10:40 AM
http://www.rallycongress.com/warroom/1124
An online petition that supports drilling in ANWR.
Comment 10 by Gary Gross at 12-Jun-08 10:53 AM
I think the taxing of Big Oil's windfall profits is a step in the right direction.
Why do you think that? What possible good can come of it?
there is simply too much motivation for them to cheat and find excuses to cut back on supply or raise the cost, and they are good at finding all kinds of reasons to do that.The fastest way to get companies to stop doing something, other than making something illegal, is by eliminating their profits.
It's really that simple. No conspiracy theories. Just basic economic principles.
Comment 11 by Byron at 12-Jun-08 09:03 PM
"I think the taxing of Big Oil's windfall profits is a step in the right direction." "Why do you think that? What possible good can come of it?"
As Obama recently said,
"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills".
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00963020080609
That's what good would come from it. And if Big Oil decides to strike back by raising their prices so as to make sure that they don't lose one penny of profit then I'd propose nationalizing oil. No, I don't mean the government taking over the oil companies Venezula style, but GOING INTO COMPETITION with them. Companies exist to make a profit, and make the biggest one that they can, which we all pay for, while the government exists to provide services and create cohesion to the states and lesser governments, NOT to make a profit.
I know some people will scream that, oh my God, that is tantamount to dreaded socialism. But if that's what works in this case then so be it. Others will decry the inefficiency of the government. Not quite. There are government sectors, like for example the United States Postal Service that run (and have for a long time) an amazingly efficient office with pretty inexpensive products considering the gargantuan task they shoulder. Without them in competition what do you think the cost of mailing via just UPS or FEDEX would cost? It wouldn't be lower I'll tell you that much. Leave it up to the free market and in short order I'd predict that oil prices would be coming down everywhere. When you have Exxon charging XXX dollars per gallon (and giving their top execs multi-million dollar bonuses) while the government run station across the street is charging XX dollars who do you think will get the business? Sure there'd be all kinds of complications and probably some mistakes at first and Big Oil would be all over it with dire tales of woe if we were to break up their monopoly that way but isn't it just maybe time to try other things? Even if we don't do that though, making the switch to renewable energies is, er, rather obvious.
"The fastest way to get companies to stop doing something, other than making something illegal, is by eliminating their profits."
That's not what I said. There's a difference between making a profit and making a killing. I don't believe that it would be that hard to determine what percentage of their profits are way out of balance with the actual products and costs to extract them + reasonable profits.
Or we can just keep on doing what we've been doing until we all fall off a cliff...
Comment 12 by Gary Gross at 12-Jun-08 11:39 PM
And if Big Oil decides to strike back by raising their prices so as to make sure that they don't lose one penny of profit then I'd propose nationalizing oil. No, I don't mean the government taking over the oil companies Venezula style, but GOING INTO COMPETITION with them.If a windfalls profit tax were imposed, it's more likely that oil companies would shrink production of oil. What's the sense of drilling when you're penalized for it?
As for your stupid idea of the government going into competition with the oil companies, where would the government find the oil that it needs to drill in order to go into competition with the oil companies? Wouldn't it come from the oil reserves currently offlimits?
Byron, I don't often say this but you're a blithering idiot. Your half-baked ideas show that you don't think things through.
I simply request that you either start thinking things through or to just simply stop commenting here. Your comments are truly painful to read.
Comment 13 by Byron at 13-Jun-08 12:33 AM
And the band played on.
Comment 14 by Phidippides at 13-Jun-08 01:38 AM
Executive orders? Policies that did not require increased funding? What about the 12% that did get passed? What about these? Surely "renewables" could have been part of that 12% package if it was of utmost importance during Clinton-Gore.
The fact that Exxon Mobile is still exploring for oil suggests that even if there is a "peak", it's a long, gradual drop off. But I don't even know that Exxon Mobile thinks there is a peak. If you know of any major oil company that thinks that we're at or have passed a "peak", please let me know.
Comment 15 by Walter hanson at 13-Jun-08 03:29 AM
Hey Bryon:
I hope you can create that oil company that can compete against Exxon. Some business hints:
* Put a cap on the price of your company's gasoline (lets say $2.00) since you obviously think that the rest is profit. You will find it is very easy to keep your product in stock.
* Don't complain about not being able to drill in ANWAR, off shore, or the continental shelf. After all you think the oil companies are already producing what they can produce.
* No matter what the company profit is turn the entire profit over to the government since any profit is evil.
What do you think of those business suggestions.
You do understand the bull you have been spewing on this post if you don't understand these rules.
And if you want to complain about profits why is it that the government gets sixty cents per gallon plus corporate income taxes while the oil companies if you use $4.00 a gallon a price of gasoline gets a profit of forty cents minus their corporate income tax which is 40%. Um it seems like the organization getting the windfall profits is government Bryon. And you support them wanting to increase their profit while you attack the people who go out and create the product!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 16 by Kat at 13-Jun-08 08:42 AM
Try checking out the Drive $marter Challenge (www.drivesmarterchallenge.org). You can enter your specific vehicle data and figure out how much money you can save my taking six fuel-efficiency steps. They also provide other fuel-efficiency tips to help you save on gas costs.
Why Elections Matter: Five Liberal Idiots Setting National Security Policy
The five liberal idiots on the Supreme Court just gave Gitmo detainees the right to challenge their being held as enemy combatants in US courts. This is why elections matter. This is why busting our hump to win back control of the Senate while maintaining control of the White House is imperative for Republicans.
People have groused about McCain being too much of a maverick. They've also said that Norm Coleman has gone green too often for their likings. To some, that's the only reason they need for not busting their hump in getting these men elected. While I agree that both gentlemen have given us pause with some of their policy positions, it's instances like this that sharpen our focus on what the most important things in life are.
The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.This isn't a ruling based on the Constitution. It's essentially a policy decree from the third legislative branch of government.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Captain Ed nails it with this observation :
The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the Constitution applies worldwide rather than just to the US and its residents, which makes it pretty difficult to go back to the well a third time. Also, with very little time remaining in the Bush administration, they will not have enough time to push through a third attempt to address the Court's concerns, and this ruling appears to be much broader than the two that preceded this one.These bunch of black-robed liberal idiots should be run out of DC for their incompetence. At minimum, they should have to run as legislators because that's what Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are.
It seems absurd to apply criminal law to unlawful combatants captured during hostilities abroad. Will they require a Miranda reading, too? Do we have to bring the soldiers and Marines who captured them to the trial? In our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed that kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the US itself?
This cabal started by saying that the tribunals were illegal because they were created solely within the Executive Branch. After that ruling, the White House made its case to Congress, which pased legislation that created the laws for military tribunals. Now the five liberal idiots moved the goalposts again, this time saying that that wasn't good enough either.
I strongly suggest that Republicans and sane-thinking Democrats, if any such creatures exist, put together a constitutional amendment that would essentially render this ruling moot. A constitutional amendment stating that enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields don't have Habeus Corpus rights is the sledgehammer needed to void this ruling.
Those people who stall the constitutional amendment or vote against it should be labeled as not giving a damn about national security. PERIOD.
This is a disastrous overreach on the court's behalf. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The bigger point is that we need to get more justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. That won't happen if we don't maintain control of the White House and retake the Senate.
Anyone who thinks that that isn't worth fighting for needs to re-examine their priorities as well as their responsibilities to the rest of society. We can't afford to have liberals in the Senate and in the Supreme Court putting us at risk.
Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 12-Jun-08 01:43 PM
Silly question? Can't we just arrest those five stupid judges and send them down to Gitmo under the charges they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Flanked By Radicals
There's substantial proof that Barack Obama surrounded himself with radicals. That's why it isn't surprising that one of CODE PINK's co-founders is an Obama fundraising bundler :
A co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, which has made a name for itself by interrupting hearings on Capitol Hill, is a fundraising bundler for Barack Obama.Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with extremists, whether we're talking about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss III, Michael Pfleger or Jodie Evans. I didn't know that Jodie Evans was a co-founder of CODE PINK but I've known forever that they're a radical, hatemongering organization. Ms. Evans is a radical in her own right, though. Here's what Sarah Rode wrote about Ms. Evans in Human Events:
Jodie Evans has pledged to raise at least $50,000 for Obama, according the Democrat's campaign site.
According to research being circulated by GOP sources, Evans has a record of inflammatory statements such as saying that women were better off in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, "Men are dying in their Hummers in Iraq so you can drive around in yours" and, my favorite, that the invasion of Iraq amounted to "global testosterone poisoning."
While Code Pink activists condemn President Bush for his "fear-based politics that justify violence," they applaud brutal dictators like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Three of their top leaders, Cindy Sheehan, Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, took a trip to Venezuela last year to meet and socialize with Dictator Chavez. He endorsed their efforts to subvert American authority and denounce the President of the United States as imperialistic. Jodie Evans reported after the meeting, "He called Cindy (Sheehan) 'Mrs. Hope.'"Ms. Evans isn't just another anonymous contributor. She's a fundraiser who pledged to raise $50,000 for the Obama campaign. The question demanding answering is whether there's proof that Sen. Obama is a postracial, postpartisan politician. Wherever we turn, we've seen radicals at Sen. Obama's side. What I haven't seen is proof that he's anything but a radical partisan.
Miss Evans' approval of Mr. Chavez was gushing: "He was a doll. Generous, open, passionate, excited, stimulated by the requests and happy to be planning with us. He was realistic but willing to stretch."
For once in my life, I agree with Michael Dukakis. His most famous line during the 1988 campaign was "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck." You're known by the fruit you bear and the company you keep.
BTW, am I the only one who's getting sick of hearing shit-for-brains pundits like Dick Morris saying things like "Of course nobody thinks that Obama is a radical" right after talking about Obama's radical connections? Note to idiot pundits: If the guy surrounds himself with radicals, then refuses to distance himself from radicals until it's politically expedient, shouldn't we at minimum entertain the possibility that he's a radical?
This latest episode of having a radical anti-war activist being a prominent fundraiser just raises more questions about whether Sen. Obama is a radical. Here's a final question: Just because the Adoring Media won't talk about Obama's radicalism, does it mean that he isn't a radical?
Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 3:31 AM
No comments.
DiFi: Gitmo A Terrible Blight
Following the Supreme Court's idiotic ruling giving terrorists the same rights as a street criminal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is now saying that Gitmo was a blight on the integrity of the United States. Here's what she said specifically:
"Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation," says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has proposed closing the prison complex.This is typical Democrat thinking on foreign policy. They say these things because they're more worried about being popular than respected. In fact, they worry more about being popular than being safe. Their go-along-to-get-along attitude isn't keeping American safe.
What's keeping America safe is George Bush's policy of attacking terrorists where they live. President Bush hasn't given the terrorists any breathing room. As a result, we've gone almost 7 years without a terrorist attack. That didn't happen by accident. Because President Bush had the wisdom to implement this aggressive policy, we've been protected.
Had DiFi gotten her wish, there isn't any doubt that we would've been more popular with America-hating squishies like Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Shroeder and Jose Zapatero of Spain. Big deal. Their dislike for President Bush's hardnosed policies should be worn as a badge of honor. The commander-in-chief's affirmative responsibility is to protect America from her enemies. PERIOD.
Democrats are too nuanced to get that. That's why Americans have rightly rejected them in 7 of the last presidential elctions. That's why they should restore Republicans to the amjority in the Senate. We can't have unserious people engaged in world popularity contests. We need serious people who'll make smart decisions that will protect us.
Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 11:02 AM
No comments.
Norm On Oil, Nuclear Power
Norm Coleman has gotteen beaten up quite a bit lately from his base, mostly about the Cap and Tax Bill. Since then, people have gotten his overall policy positions wrong. Many have assumed that Norm was against drilling in ANWR, he was against drilling everywhere. Today, I got this email from the Coleman campaign outlining his energy policy:
Yesterday Senator Coleman delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate where he outlined his new, comprehensive energy bill that aims to bring energy prices down. Notably, this legislation includes increased domestic drilling, more nuclear energy, clean coal technology and an increased use of renewable fuels.I've posed questions about his energy policy during past blogger conference calls. Sen. Coleman has consistently stated that he favors an "all of the above" energy strategy with the exception of drilling in ANWR.
I know that several of you are interested in both increasing domestic oil production and investing in more nuclear energy, so below you will find information on how Senator Coleman's legislation would help in these areas.
Increased Domestic Drilling
With an estimated 2.8 million barrels of oil and 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sitting under the Outer Continental Shelf, Senator Coleman feels it is essential that we tap this unused resource. As a way to lower oil prices. Unlike Democrats like Al Franken, Senator Coleman knows that with an ever-increasing demand for oil, the only way to see a decrease in the price-per-barrel is to increase the supply. This has the potential to offset foreign oil imports by as much as $145 billion dollars. This bill would give governors of affected coastal states a say in the matter and would allow them to negotiate deals that are in the best interests of their citizens.
Investing In More Nuclear Energy
As Senator Coleman is fond of saying, "the French are not braver than we are" when it comes to investing in nuclear. Senator Coleman's legislation would implement a tax credit and loan guarantee system for nuclear production as well as training for an expanded nuclear workforce. And, he has been a strong advocate for lifting Minnesota's moratorium on expanding nuclear power.
If passed, this legislation would go a long to help bring energy prices down and go a long way in securing our energy independence.
On that, he said that he's opposed because he made a campaign promise when he first ran and he isn't going to break that promise. While I think most Minnesotans would cut him some slack now that the situation has changed this dramatically, I admire Sen. Coleman's desire to not break a campaign promise.
He's repeatedly said that he's for increased oil exploration, including the OCS and on federal land. He's said that he's for tapping the huge shale oil deposits in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.
Sen. Coleman's campaign needs to update his energy issues page to reflect his comprehensive energy policy, not just say what his policy is on renewables. Their campaign website should highlight his "all of the above" policy, not just renewables.
If he does that, I suspect that alot of conservatives will agree with him on energy policy. If we're able to harvest the shale oil in the Mountain West, ANWR won't be that important.
Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 11:41 AM
No comments.
Bush is a Wise, Brave Man
I've consistently said that historians would see President Bush in a more favorable light than today's Democrats paint him in. Based on this article , this Iraqi general thinks highly of President Bush without waiting for history's declaration:
This courageous sheikh, Ahmad al-Rishawi, says of President Bush, "He is a brave man. He is a wise man. He is taking care of the country's future, the United States' future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq."Hearing that must burn Democrats' ears. If the Kos and other hatesites are paying attention, they're undoubtedly calling al-Rishawi an American shill and worse. That's good news for President Bush or Republicans. I'd rather trust an Iraqi general on the ground than a herd of egotistical generals/pundits stationed in downtown DC.
Sheikh al-Rishawi says he would like U.S. troops to remain in his country for the sake of fortifying the Iraqi army and establishing security. "We also have to make a friendship treaty based on mutual respect between the two parties, and then the United States will be able to withdraw from Iraq, and we will succeed in Iraq the same way America succeeded in Japan and Germany." He also says, "We fully trust the Americans. We know the United States never in its history occupied a country."
The more Democrats hate on President Bush because of Iraq, the more they live in the past. That's what's holding Sen. Obama back. He's still living in the past, just like most Democrats. That isn't how people win elections.
While the terrorists grab headlines, my sources in Iraq tell me that those Iraqis who are quietly working to build a civil society, and who are grateful to the U.S. for our continued (if temporary) presence to help insure security in their country, are the silent majority. Kudos to The New York Sun's Eli Lake for his great reporting here.This story isn't being told because the Agenda Media don't want the American people to know it. They'd rather see Sen. Obama win, then start 'noticing' how much Iraq has improved so they can accelerate the return of the troops. It isn't more complicated than that.
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 2:07 AM
No comments.
Typical Liberal Gibberish
El Tinklenberg's campaign has a blog for this fall's campaign. One of the first things that stood out for me was the caption in the header:
Rebuilding Optimism In AmericaThat slogan is followed by a number of posts going negative on Michele Bachmann. I'd expect that because Tinklenberg can't win without going negative. The post currently at the top of his blog is about global warming . Here's Tinklenberg's take on global warming:
The evidence is in and speaks overwhelmingly; global climate change is real. It's the biggest long-term challenge our nation and world face. Those who continue to deny its reality gamble with our children's and grandchildren's futures. We need to reduce America's dependence on the coal and petroleum products that are the primary causes of global warming. Alternatives can be made available in bio-derived, nuclear, solar, and wind energy.That's typical liberal gibberish. It's like someone winds up the liberal doll and it spits out the same answer time after time after time. Several things are noteworthy in this milquetoast answer, specifically:
This is not just an environmental issue. We need to get away from petroleum-based fuels in order to escape the natural security threat of being held captive to hostile or unstable regimes that control our primary sources of energy. Our economy also demands that we minimize dependence upon foreign sources of energy, for the largest single contributor to our current imbalance of trade is the massive wealth we squander on oil. What's more, the bill for gas to fuel the family car is one of the biggest problems for American families' rising cost of living.
These problems are long-range and complex. No immediate or simple remedies are available that will correct the current situation, but prompt action by our nation is essential.
- The politician declares that the debate is over and anyone who disagrees with them either hates clean air or is an idiot.
- The politician suggests that global warming is caused by humans and must be fixed by humans.
- The politician doesn't offer proof that his declarations are valid.
- The politician declares that global warming, not terrorism, is "the biggest long-term challenge our nation and world face" without explaining why he believes that.
The undeniable fact is that we won't conserve our way out of this gas crisis. We won't alternative our way out of it either. Tinklenberg's policy will lead to higher gas prices. That isn't a worthwhile policy. That policy will just lead to a shrinking economy.
That's what Kyoto was all about. It wasn't about lowering greenhouse gases as advertised. If Kyoto was about lowering greenhouse gases, then China and India wouldn't have gotten exemptions from it.
It's time that Mr. Tinklenberg produce proof that climate change is manmade.
Guess what makes it into Mr. Tinklenberg's policies too:
Substantial increases in funding for mass transit and highway improvements to enhance transportation efficiency and reduce gridlock on our streets and highways.A Democrat who wants massive funding increases for transit? Who would've thunk it? That isn't his only policy perscription. No Democrat's energy policy is complete without this:
We need a Manhattan Project for Energy Independence. This can easily be funded by means of a windfall tax upon excess earnings of Big Oil. America is ready once again to be challenged to greatness in meeting a great need.What did the oil companies do to warrant the Democrats' incessant complaining about them? Why do they get a bullseye painted on them? Congress has more to do with high gas prices than do the oil companies. We wouldn't have this problem if Congress hadn't put huge oil reserves offlimits to satisfy their environmentalist allies. That's what forced the high prices.
Mr. Tinklenberg doesn't just stop there. Bad policy isn't enough with Mr. Tinklenberg. Knowing that he has to go negative to have any chance at beating Michele Bachmann, that's what he does in this post :
When it comes to her record on energy independence and climate change, Michele Bachmann is consistent if nothing else. She has repeatedly ignored scientific evidence and has thwarted efforts to tackle the tough challenges of energy independence and responsible conservation policies.One statement is an outright lie, the other just foolishness. It's a bald-faced lie to say that Michele Bachmann doesn't support "responsible conservation policies." It's pure foolishness to say that Michele Bachmann supports the "unsustainable use of petroleum products." Which advocacy group did he get that from? What proof does Mr. Tinklenberg have that the current use of petroleum products is unsustainable?
Instead, Rep. Bachmann has consistently voted for status-quo policies that support an unsustainable use of petroleum products over renewable energy alternatives.
WAKE UP MR. TINKLENBERG!!! There's over a trillion barrels of shale oil waiting to be tapped in the Mountain West. That's before we start talking about the OCS or ANWR.
To say that we can't sustain our current use of oil is fearmongering. The statistics simply don't support that assertion.
Let's make something else abundantly clear: environmentalists say that opening up ANWR, the OCS and the Mountain West won't give us much in terms of oil. I've even heard idiots saying that there's only six months of oil in ANWR. That's pure bullshit.
It's insulting to listen to that crap. Why would the oil companies care about opening up these areas if it wasn't worth their while? Do you really think that these supposedly greedy companies would spend millions lobbying Congress for a tiny drop of oil?
Mr. Tinklenberg isn't a leader. He's a lobbyist's shill. If he was a leader, he wouldn't mindlessly say the unsubstantiated things that he's saying.
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 9:03 AM
Comment 1 by Brent at 14-Jun-08 04:40 PM
Tinklenberg is proving he doesn't understand how business works and that he may as well be running for a seat in the Soviet Politburo not the US House of Representives..
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Jun-08 04:59 PM
Brent, I totally agree that Tinklenberg is clueless. There's a reason why he's doing miserably with his fundraiasing: He doesn't have a fire in his belly & he isn't credible.
Comment 3 by Shoebox at 14-Jun-08 05:21 PM
I love this:
"These problems are long-range and complex. No immediate or simple remedies are available that will correct the current situation, but prompt action by our nation is essential."
While complex, apparently not so much so that Tinklenberg isn't able to figure out what the exact solution is!
I also like this one:
"Substantial increases in funding for mass transit and highway improvements to enhance transportation efficiency and reduce gridlock on our streets and highways.
How long do you think it will be before these folks figure out that $5+ gas will reduce the need for any highway improvements and that gridlock will cease as no one will be able to afford to drive any longer...and if he says "oh goody, mass transit only!" Ask him how he's planning to feed the US, let alone the rest of the world with fuel is over $5?
The Dems (and McCain to a lesser extent) have a bright light heading towards them. Right now they're guessing it's the end of the tunnel via "Alternative energy" when in reality it's a train called "wrecked economy and the loss of substantial federal revenue."
Dueling Plans
I've written alot about high gas prices here in the past week. This is another such post, this time focusing on the parties' weekly radio addresses . First, let's start with Peter Roskam'saddress:
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) said Republicans want to increase domestic energy production , clear the bureaucratic path for new refineries , push for more nuclear plants to generate electricity and enact tax breaks for "green" homes.The Democrats picked a father from New York to deliver their message:
But he said Democratic leaders who control Congress have refused to advance the energy legislation he has introduced.
"Rather than hearing bipartisan solutions, the Democrats have insisted on a partisan agenda absent of any solutions that would bring real relief to the American people," Roskam said.
Senate Democrats tapped a father of three from Auburn, N.Y., to make the case that their efforts to repeal tax subsidies for oil companies , enact tax incentives for development of alternative energy and fight climate change is the best response to the rising cost of gasoline.Let's look at the Democrats' plan for lowering gas prices. One 'leg' of their plan is to increase taxes on oil companies. Another 'leg' is to "fight climate change." "Fighting climate change" is code for keeping vast oil reserves offlimits for oil exploration . The other 'leg' is to incent companies to develop alternative energy products. Developing alternatives is worthwhile but it hasn't had a history of lowering energy prices.
Jeff Alberici said the cost to fill up his gas tank has doubled and the family's weekly grocery bill has shot from $125 to $200.
"Republicans are spending their time blocking Democrats from getting anything done at all, including those three bills to lower energy costs," Alberici said. "And that's the difference: Democrats are trying to change things, but Republicans only want more of the same old ideas that got us into this mess in the first place."
Now, let's look at the GOP plan. Republicans want to increase domestic energy production. gas prices are high because supply is low. Another part of their plan is to build nuclear power plants, which is the most sustainable green energy in the world. Yet another part of their plan is to increase refinery capacity, thereby eliminating bottlenecks in the gas 'pipeline'. This part is especially important in summer, when boutique fuels interrupt processing unleaded gasoline.
To summarize, two parts of the Democrats' plan to lower gas prices is to increase production costs.
It's important to ask yourself two things:
- When was the last time you heard of the cost of something dropping when the cost of producing that something increases?
- Have you ever heard of the price dropping after you raise the cost of producing something?
Remember, too, what the Democrats' putative leader thinks about gas prices:
Sen. Obama doesn't think that $4 a gallon gas is too high. It's just that it got that expensive too quickly. How many people agree with Sen. Obama's statement? I'd bet the ranch that, if that question were asked in a nationwide poll like Gallup or Rasmussen, fewer than 30% of the people would agree with Sen. Obama's statement. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that figure was closer to 15% than to 30%.
In fact, here's more of Sen. Obama's beliefs :
"If we reduce our consumption of oil, that's what will reduce gas prices, the presumptive Democratic nominee said in a one-on-one interview with The Post-Crescent during a campaign stop in Kaukauna.Conservation isn't enough on its own to lower gas prices. For decades, Democrats have told us that conservation is the way to energy independence. That still hasn't worked. On the other hand, every time we've increased energy production, costs have stabilized, if not gone down. Based on that statistic alone, shouldn't we take a multifaceted approach instead of a conservation-only approach?
"There's really no other way of doing it."
" We can't drill our way out of the problem because there's just a finite amount of oil out there and you have got increasing demand from countries like China and India.
"And so the way we are going to see gas prices reduced is when we start using the oil
that we get, more intelligently than we are doing now."
It's worth noting that Sen. Obama agrees that China and India are contributing to the increasing demand on oil. He doesn't say that they're willing to consume energy efficiently. It's indisputable that shrinking demand isn't possible if China and India don't use energy more efficiently.
If demand won't shrink anytime soon, isn't increasing energy supplies the only way to drive costs down? Based on their statements, Democrats are opposed to that. Since that's the case, and since gas prices are the single most important issue this election, shouldn't we vote Republican?
It isn't like Democrats have any solutions. It isn't like Democrats have any solutions. The best they have to offer are emotional pleas made through a school teacher.
Originally posted Sunday, June 15, 2008, revised 30-Jun 4:03 PM
Comment 1 by Kat at 16-Jun-08 08:44 AM
Try checking out the Drive $marter Challenge (www.drivesmarterchallenge.org). You can enter your specific vehicle data and figure out how much money you can save my taking six fuel-efficiency steps. They also provide other fuel-efficiency tips to help you save on gas costs.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 16-Jun-08 09:07 AM
hey one thing you should point the Republican solution of trying to increase energy production has never been implemented because the Democrats block it along with a couple of Republicans they can con like John Mccain who thinks drilling in ANWAR is like destroying the grand canyon.
How about the Democrats actually try the Republican solution first before they say it can't work.
I heard on the radio the democrat was a teacher. He must be one very bad teacher.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
