Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made the following statement today after the U.S. Senate passed a provision by a 97-1 bipartisan vote to suspend filling the 97-percent-full Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This move will add 77,000 barrels of additional oil to the market daily:

“Democrats today led the charge against one of the root causes of skyrocketing oil and gas prices. Instead of hiding barrels of oil in the nearly full Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we want to put them on the market to increase supply and lower prices. It is a good first step, but with oil and gas prices continuing to break record highs every day, much more needs to be done. Republicans must abandon their shortsighted strategy of ‘drill, drill, drill’ and join us to pass the rest of the Democratic energy bill that puts consumers first, forces Big Oil to pay its fair share and invests in renewable energy.”

This schizophrenic statement by Harry Reid both acknowledges the laws of supply/demand and ignores them. First Reid congratulates himself and Democrats for adding oil to the market to "increase supply and lower prices" (while ignoring the fact that Republicans unanimously agreed), but then he turns around and excoriates Republicans for what he call their "shortsighted strategy of drill, drill, drill".

I'm not sure where Harry Reid thinks the world oil supply comes from, but I'm almost certain that it comes from that "strategy of drill, drill, drill". Perhaps Reid thinks it comes from the Oil Fairy, I can't be sure, but whatever he's thinking, he's out to lunch.

And now for the rest of the story.

Also today, Republican Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) put forth another provision for a vote, one that would have opened up a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling and expanded offshore oil drilling as well. ANWR alone is estimated to produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day (for Democrats reading this, 1,000,000 barrels per day is a LOT MORE than the 77,000 that Harry Reid was patting himself on the back for). The Democrats in the Senate shot the McConnell/Domenici proposal down in flames. The vote was 56-42 against, with 41 of the 42 agreeing to the proposal being Republicans. Democrats were almost unanimously opposed, including Harry Reid and that new kind of politician, the post-partisan uniter (LOL), Barack Obama.

Is there any logical reason for Democrats to think adding 77,000 barrels of oil daily to our supply is great and will lower gas prices, but adding millions of barrels daily is no good ?……..Anyone ?…….Anyone ?……Bueller ?

Harry Reid and friends are flat out insane, and they are no friend at all to the american consumer.

Or maybe they aren't insane, but they are putting partisan politics light years ahead of the american people. That is the more likely scenario, because that is how Harry Reid operates every single day of his miserable lying life.

One of the Democrats (I think it was Dorgan) said today on the Senate floor that getting oil from ANWR was 10 years away even if it was approved, so it wasn't really any help. I kept waiting for a bolt of lightning to come down and strike the man dead on the spot for having the nerve to make that statement, since the Democrats have been shooting down ANWR drilling since about 1988 (if memory serves). We could be getting that million barrels of oil per day (actually much more) RIGHT NOW if not for the obstruction of the Dems. That would be a million barrels of oil we didn't have to import from Iran or Venezuela every day. That would be a lot of money that would be staying right here in the USA instead of going to support regimes who hate us.

Democrats, friends to the little guy (retch). Maybe they mean the little guy who runs Iran, Ahmadinejad.

And just for the record, the USA consumes over 20 million barrels of oil per day, with about 12 million of that imported. Harry Reid and his Dem buddies are trying to tell you that another 77,000 barrels is going to drop the gas price. Are any of you naive enough to believe that ? Harry sure thinks you are.

Why do we keep letting these clowns get away with this stuff ? The Dems in Congress today made a show of doing something rather than ACTUALLY doing something about oil, and then they patted themselves on the back for lying to the american public about the whole thing. THAT is politics as usual. I'd like to tell you what I was feeling when I saw Barack Obama on the Senate floor smiling and shaking hands with his friends right after he voted with the Dems to shoot down expanded domestic oil production, but I have a no-profanity rule on this blog, so I'll just stop now.

We are in deep you-kinow-what.

We all remember when Barack Obama said he would meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate, without precondition. Obama said it during a YouTube debate, and has repeated his promise to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends many times. It has even become part of his stump speech. Hillary Clinton used it as an example of Obama's inexperience and naivete on foreign policy. Nevertheless, Barack stuck to his guns, saying that his view represented a break from the politics of the past, was the hope and change that americans want, and probably a few other airy Obamanian catchphrases as well.

Until now.

Maybe it was the way the terrorist group Hamas turned Jimmy Carter into a "useful idiot" and used his meeting to legitimize themselves and propagandize the Israel/Palestine issue, or maybe it was the fact that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, leading to some back and forth contention between Obama and John McCain. Whatever it was, the Obama camp sensed a shift in the political winds, and is now backing away from the idea of negotiating with our enemies, to the point that they are even saying Obama didn't say what we all so clearly heard him say before. The liberal's best friend, the New York Times, is rushing to aid the Obama campaign in changing history. Here's an excerpt from the relevant Times article:

…But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president

Note how the Times says the McCain side has "lost" "important nuances" (love that phraseology), even as the Times is TELLING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD REGARDING WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT IRAN. Classic, typical, and hilarious.

Susan E. Rice, an Obama foreign policy advisor, further added this, according to the same Times article:

“for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

The problem with the statements of Dr. Rice and the New York Times, as I said, is that they they are patently false. They are attempting a little mid-campaign spin, because they have been caught with their pants down. Obama DID say he would personally meet with Iran, without preconditions, and he not only said it in front of the whole nation during the YouTube debate, he also SAID IT IN A NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW, which the Times has conveniently forgotten. Here's a little from THAT interview, from november 2007 (the misty "beforetimes" which have been erased from the Times memory banks):

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president…Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” [Obama] said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change…"

Oops. Blatant lie exposed. When first we practice to deceive….

Here's another interesting part of that 2007 Times interview:

Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.

Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two.

They say Barack Obama represents a new kind of politics, but to me, this sounds exactly like the old kind. Just a bunch of politically expedient BS. No character, no truth, just spin, spin, spin.

We might as well elect this guy.

But first, a joke:

"President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats said it wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce oil for 10 years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago." - Jay Leno

That joke is funny until you really think about the ramifications of all these years of inaction on ANWR and other domestic oil and energy production that has been blocked by the Democrats. Thanks for nothing, Dems. Hope you're happy now. What's that you always say about helping the little guy ? We don't need your kind of help.
====

Barack Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices displays a serious lack of knowledge of how our system of government works. Obama would turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch who would judge cases according to "social and economic justice", as opposed to the rule of law. The following exchange between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rudy Giuliani captures the essence of it:

KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

[Giuliani starts laughing]

KELLY: Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.

And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?

KELLY: Yes. Remember Mr. Mayor, during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the Democratic senators asked him, "Will you stand up for the little guy?" And he said, "Only if the little guy deserves to win under the law."

GIULIANI: Of course. It's not about - this isn't about little guy, big guy, small guy or a large guy, it's about the law. It's about what's fair, what's just, what is the law say. A judge is the interpreter of the law in the American legal system, not someone who creates it.

KELLY: Let me ask you.

GIULIANI: If you end up — if you end up making a judge of somebody who creates the law, then you've made a judge into a legislator, and you really have totally distorted our separation of powers.

The President Of The United States must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obama has clearly stated here that he would not do so, and instead would seek to overturn the rule of law by appointing Justices who would judge cases based upon the social and economic status of the participants rather than the application of the law. This would undermine our entire Justice system, and subvert the power of the Legislative branch as well.

I know Obama supporters are more interested in those words 'hope' and 'change' than anything else, but this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President. This is government 101, and Obama either doesn't understand it or intentionally wants to destroy it. Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.

YES WE CAN [say 'NO' to this fool]. This story should be ALL OVER the media airwaves, because it affects every american and our entire system of government. This is an issue that people SHOULD care about. We can't afford to let the Left hijack our system of justice in this way. On an importance scale from 1 to 10, this is a 10. We can't let Obama lead this undermining 'change'. Some change is bad, and this change would be very bad indeed.

Anyone who disagrees, please go read a textbook on America's system of government, asap. This is a public service announcement.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.

President George W. Bush says the economic stimulus checks will help you peons (formerly known as 'americans', formerly know as 'free').

And he's right, they will.

For maybe a month or so.

Then we are right back where we started, only worse off and deeper in debt. It isn't just Bush doing this type of thing either. The Democrats love the stimulus checks and are asking for yet more freebie government interventions (that aren't free) for the public, before the impact of the first round is even measured. Yes sir, it's an election year, and pandering season is open. Let's shoot everything responsible in sight.

The stimulus checks are NOT paid for. We don't seem to pay for much of anything since GWB became president (or for the vast majority of the last 45 years either). We are the most irresponsible generation (or two) in the history of this country. We have overturned the wishes of the founding fathers, abandoned sanity, decided to give ourselves anything and everything that we want (self-absorbed punks that we are), and the consequences to future generations be damned. It's all about us. ME. ME. ME…We WANT universal health care for FREE, darn it, so we are GOING TO HAVE IT, no matter what economic destruction it wreaks on our children, no matter what it's actual effect on health care or our economy will be…No matter what. It's really all about getting SOMEBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR OUR NEEDS (those 'rich' people are the favored imaginary cash cows). It's really all about stealing someone else's money. It's really all about THEFT. We are not righteous. We are not responsible. We are not worth jack squat. WE……stink. We are criminals. We vote for the biggest criminal on the ballot. We vote for whoever promises to steal the most from our brothers and sisters. We consciously work toward the destruction of all that made this country great, and we have the nerve to call it 'fair'.

What the stimulus checks really tell you is that government has been stealing far too much of your money for far too long. End of story. We've all known that for years and years, really. You'd have to be nearly retarded not to know it. When the government steals half your money, it's really not a surprise that you are SHORT OF MONEY, is it ???? I mean, HELLO ??? When we have the second highest corporate income tax rates in the world, it's really not surprising that business tries to relocate elsewhere, is it ? HELLO ? We actually have one political party (guess who ?) in this country that TREATS THE BUSINESS SECTOR AS THE ENEMY !!! Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm almost completely certain that BUSINESS IS WHERE OUR JOBS AND OUR WEALTH COMES FROM !!! HELLO ??? Providing an environment that is unfriendly to business is about the stupidest thing we can possibly do. No wonder China makes everything, and our economy now depends on how much we spend at the mall. I'm sure this will be mentioned in the future book "The Rise And Fall Of The American Empire'.

We have a Social Security Trust Fund that is neither a Trust Fund nor provides Security. It might keep you in cat food when you get old, but it's actually nothing more than a hidden tax, PERIOD. They take all the money that is not paid out to current retirees and they immediately SPEND IT. They SPEND your so-called Trust Fund, and YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT !!! If you are a brain-dead Democrat, you even TOUT THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RIPPING YOU OFF AS A GREAT FREAKING SUCCESS. How damn DUMB can you be ? You actually celebrate getting screwed. The Social Security RIP-OFF is used as an example of great progressive policy by the dumber-than-a-rock Democrats. Are you kidding me ? That's like holding Enron up as an example of how to do business. &**#$$!!@! Sure, tell me another one, like how Stalin was a great humanitarian.

Then, we have one entire political party who complains about tax cuts (any guesses which one that is ? It begins with a 'Dem' and ends with an 'ocrat'). HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A TAX CUT ???? I hate to break it to you big government types, but taxes are nothing more than a NECESSARY EVIL. The more money the govenrment takes away from us, the WORSE OFF WE ARE. Have we raised entire generations who don't understand basic economics ? Have we brainwashed entire generations to the point that they can't add and subtract ? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Every time you hear a Democrat complain about taxes being cut, slap him or throw cold water in his face to snap him out of it (if the Dem is a woman, you can't slap her, so just rip a dollar bill in half and ask her which is more, the whole dollar or just the half).

Then along came the Compassionate Conservatives (liberals with an 'R' next their names). These people belong in a special circle of hell, because they destroyed Conservatism, and along with it the Republican party. Somebody must explain to me how GWB started a huge new Medicare Drug program when our country was already $7 trillion in debt, and how the current $11 trillion in debt after 7 1/2 years of that 'Conservative' president is actually conservative, because I don't get it. And every single Democrat who agrees with that last sentence can kiss my everlovin' backside, because YOUR party is A HUNDRED TIMES WORSE !!! Your party never met any government spending it didn't like. Government spending is what got us where we are. YOUR party is the reason taxes are so high to being with. YOUR party is the one that actually DESTROYED THE MIDDLE CLASS in this country for the most part. And you keep on promoting those same destructive policies, all the while pretending that YOU are the compassionate ones. In 1960, it wasn't hard to be middle class in this country. Your taxes, regulations, spending, and politically correct stupidity have destroyed all of that, so please stop talking. You are not the solution, you are the problem. All the liberal politicians are running around wringing their hands and wondering how to bring the middle class back (like I heard Obama doing yesterday on his free hour long political ad on Meet The Press). Obama is looking for a government solution to the destruction of the middle class that was caused by the government in the first place. It was caused by liberal policy, Mr. Obama, so guess what ? The anwer is NOT more liberal policy.

I'd love to be able to tell you to vote for this candidate or that candidate and we will suddenly start going down the right path, but I don't believe that. I don't like any of the three presidential candidates who are left. It comes down to picking the lesser of the three evils, as usual. Yippee. I would have told you to vote for Ron Paul had it not been for his insistence on throwing the middle east into immediate chaos with irresponsible foreign policy. Other than that, Paul could have reversed the rudder on this ship of fools. Instead, we have nothing good coming on the horizon. Just more of the same old, same old that brought us to where we are today. Too bad for us. Keep shopping, america (that was Bush's advice post 9/11, if you remember). It's increasingly becoming a house of cards, and you keep voting for more.

I haven't had much time available for posting this week, and only limited access to a computer, so thanks for bearing with me. Things should return to normal soon, assuming any of you think I'm normal in the first place.
====
The following mythical conversation between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and president George W. Bush demonstrates the politics of oil:

Pelosi: Mr. President, you simply must do something about these high gas prices.
Bush: We could drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Pelosi: Forget it.
Bush: How about expanded offshore oil drilling ?
Pelosi: No.
Bush: Build new refineries ?
Pelosi: Definitely not.
Bush: Clean coal technology ?
Pelosi: Not going to happen.
Bush: Nuclear power, then.
Pelosi: You must be joking.
Bush: Um, we could lift the federal gas tax.
Pelosi: No way.

Pelosi (later in a press conference): This administration refuses to do anything about the high price of gasoline, which is hurting hard-working american families.
====
I have to give props to Hillary Clinton for having the nerve to go toe to toe with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. I don't always agree with Hillary, but she made her case forcefully with O'Reilly. Hillary is the superior Democratic candidate by far over Barack 'The Timidity Of Hope' Obama. Here's a link to some of what Hillary said on the show. If you have a chance to watch the video, it's worth it. Hillary has some brass.
====
Unfounded conspiracy theory of the week:

The D.C. Madam committed suicide ? Really ? She knew of people in high places, and I mean 'knew' in the biblical sense. Hmmm……….
====
Random muse:

Since the Democratic primary process makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine, I wonder why it hasn't occurred to the far lefties to completely subvert the will of the people and make Dennis Kucinich the Democratic presidential nominee ? I know how much I'm looking forward to that Department Of Peace.
====
I know I said I was sick of Jeremiah Wright last time, and I am, but this was too funny to pass up, plus it will irritate Obama supporters (and all liberals, who react to Ann Coulter like Superman reacts to kryptonite). Read Coulter's comic take on the Jeremiah Wright story. (link) Here's a snippet:

In his speech to the National Press Club on Monday, for example, Wright described America as a country of "segregation, Jim Crow, lynching and the separate-but-equal fantasy." Then he ran outside to feed more quarters into the meter where his time machine was parked.

Wright described this as a country that supported the "racist regime of South Africa" and "the Contras, who were killing the peasants and the Miskito Indians in those two countries" — as opposed to the Sandinistas, who were equal-opportunity murderers with a more diverse group of victims.

He said this is a country that "cuts food stamps and spends billions fighting in an unjust war in Iraq," neglecting to add that before you can cut the food stamp program, you must have a country that has a food stamp program.

He said we are a country that sent "over 4,000 American boys and girls of every race to die over a lie." And Wright said it is a country "where I can worship God on Sunday morning wearing a black clergy robe and kill others on Sunday evening wearing a white Klan robe." (Unless, like me, you do all your Klan-related murdering on "casual Fridays.")