Here's another story the majority of the mainstream media will conveniently forget to report.

In the latest example of the Democrats ongoing effort to destroy America, the Democrats have voted down a proposal to allow offshore oil drilling. The measure, offered by Representative John Peterson (R-PA), was voted down 9-6 by a House subcommittee, strictly along party lines, with ALL the Democrats voting against Americans and ALL the Republicans voting for Americans. If adopted, the measure would have opened up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles offshore for drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimated that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban, which has been in effect since 1981. Link

Yeah, who needs 86 billion barrels of domestically produced oil ? It's not like there's a problem with the price of gasoline (over $4 per gallon and rising daily). It's not like there's a problem with the foreign sources of our imported oil (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria). The Democrats seem to think they can wish this problem away by improving CAFE standards and increasing wind and solar power. In short, the Democrats are idiots, and not just run of the mill idiots either. The Democrats are DANGEROUS idiots who are risking our economy and national security. Just listen to the flimsy braindead excuses the Dems give for not drilling offshore or in ANWR:

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI).

No, Mr. Obey, we're kidding ourselves if we think worldwide oil demand is going to do anything but RISE in the future. Drilling is what we MUST do for the shorter term to get ourselves off of our dependence of foreign oil, especially when the sources of that oil include unfriendly and unstable regimes led by nuts like Hugo Chavez or Wahabbists like the Saudis. We have to be crazy to put our economic future and national security in the hands of people like those, but that is exactly what the Democrats have done by prohibiting most domestic oil production for the last 27 years.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Holly Binns, Environment Florida spokeswoman.

Ms. Binns, we aren't going to be off of oil in 7-10 years, so all you are doing is providing the reason for us to get started on domestic oil production RIGHT AWAY, not to mention that you have also unwittingly exposed the catastrophic results of the Democratic ban on domestic oil production for all this time. If not for the Democrats ban, we'd be far better off now.

"There are 68 million acres right now that is available for exploration right now that the oil companies have — an area the size of Illinois and Georgia. We ought to be focusing on doing that", Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

This is a doozy of an excuse. The oil companies DO have some 3-5 year leases on land, but that DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS ANY OIL UNDER THAT LAND, a fact that Blumenauer leaves out. It doesn't do much good to drill for oil on land that doesn't contain any oil. We KNOW there is oil offshore and in ANWR, so that's where we should be drilling.

Blumenauer is also one of many Democrats who have blamed the oil commodity speculators for driving up the cost of oil. While this is true, Dems like Blumenauer leave out the fact that oil supply and demand is very tight, and worldwide demand is increasing, which leads to the increased price among speculators. The speculation doesn't operate in a vacuum. If the U.S. began producing it's own energy supply, that would drive down the speculated price in the commodity market.

Dems also love to blame Exxon for making big profits, even though Exxon's profit margin (7.5% on the dollar) is less than the industrial average (8.4% on the dollar), even though the government makes more money from a gallon of gas than Exxon does, even though the government doesn't do anything to get the gas to the pump. Exxon DOES.

Why should we be propping up unfriendly regimes by sending our oil money to them, when we have the ability to produce what we need right here at home ? There is NO valid reason. I'm not saying oil should replace renewable energy. Domestic oil should work in concert with renewable energy sources to meet our needs, so we can stop funding worldwide extremists, and so we can secure our own economy. Democrats are standing firmly in the way, and they must be stopped. If we took full advantage of our domestic oil reserves, we could stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria completely for decades, and probably forever if we do an adequate job with renewable sources to reduce demand. This is vitally important to our country. I can't think of an issue that is more important, because our entire economy is dependent on the price and availability of energy. We should be storming Washington D.C. to stop the Democrats on this issue, but it seems most of us are unaware or misled. When I went down to talk to the blue collar working men at the local pub, most of them actually thought Bush was the one setting the high gas prices, when Bush has little to do with it. Ignorance is NOT bliss. Ignorance is dangerous, and the Democrats thrive on it.

Recent comments by Barack Obama indicate the view that many liberals have had for years - that we needed to drive up the prices of energy in order to force demand down. The NY Times has promoted that view for quite some time. Here's what Obama said about the high gasoline prices during a recent CNBC interview:

"I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing…if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now".

Did you get that, people ? Obama doesn't mind the high gas prices, just the abrupt way they rose. That's because the DEMOCRATS WANT GAS PRICES TO BE HIGH. The price of a gallon of gas has risen about $1.50 since they took over Congress in january 2007. That's less than a year and a half. Obama and the Dems WANT the price to be high, so they can get their energy policies forced through. They don't care who suffers in the meantime, and the "meantime" in this instance could last for a couple decades. It's downright evil, and completely unnecessary. It completely nullifies the Democrat's claim to be "for the little guy". They aren't for the little guy at all. They are royally screwing the little guy with their energy policies, and have been for years. We shouldn't have to turn America into a third world country in order to switch to renewable energy sources, but the Democrats policy seems to be exactly that.

Btw, Obama's middle class tax cut of $1,000 isn't going to come anywhere close to offsetting the gasoline price hike, and you poor people, well…apply for welfare, I guess. I'm sure there will be some scraps for you at Obama's big government table. Good luck. You'll need it.

There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress. - Mark Twain

As I was watching our distinguished Senators debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, which has been amended into the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, I was wondering why it is that such a group of educated ladies and gentlemen can disagree so profoundly about such an issue. Even more curious is how the disagreement seems to follow so closely along party lines. The disagreement I'm speaking of is not about whether man-made global warming is real or not. Most of the Senators from both sides of the aisle speaking yesterday seemed to agree it is real, with the exception of a couple prehistoric bone-waving Republican heretics who dared question the SCIENCE OF THE CARBON GODS (amen). No, the disagreement I'm speaking of is the disagreement over the remedies for global warming (pardon me, the CARBON GODS inform me I am to use the term "Climate Change" from now on, not "Global Warming". The operative words are "Climate Change". That way, ANY inclement weather AT ALL can be attributed to global warming, er, climate change. My bad). Not only do our educated Senators disagree over the cap-and-trade program, they also disagree over whether the Climate Change bill is the biggest new government bureaucracy since the New Deal, which will raise everyone's energy prices drastically, destroy our economy, and accomplish very little in the way of curbing CO2 emissions (the Republican position) - or whether the Climate Bill will save us from extinction, cost nothing, and create jobs (the Democratic position). Talk about polar opposites (hey, is that a pun ?).

So, who is right ? The title of this post might provide a hint. You'll have to read the link to get all of the info, because there is too much for me to write out here.

Nobody quite knows how much the current Climate Change bill will cost (which is a reason to vote against it right there), but here are some estimates:

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

Most independent studies have calculated the costs to be even higher than those estimates.

The Democrats solution to everything is to create a huge new government bureaucracy, impose onerous regulations and restrictions on business and/or society, increase taxes, and increase government spending. I have come to believe it is the liberal Democratic modus operandi to interfere with capitalism and free markets as much as possible in order to later complain that capitalism and free markets don't work (all evidence to the contrary). It's their self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is intentional. They've done it with health care. They've done it with business, jobs, poverty, education, retirement. They've used it to destroy the middle class. They use their philosophy to get as many Americans as possible dependent on the government, which in turn forces those Americans to vote for Democrats to maintain the free flow from the government teat. It's a clever and insidious strategy, and the bigger our government grows, the more irresistible that strategy becomes. You aren't supposed to notice that such a strategy ends with the death of liberty. I actually heard Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say on the Senate floor yesterday that if the Climate Change Bill she's co-sponsoring drives up the cost of energy, that's okay, because then we can just increase the HEAP entitlement program to help people pay their higher energy bills. That is dastardly, folks.

Nevertheless, the cause of diminishing CO2 emissions (if you believe they must be diminished) may be one case where some measure of government interference is unavoidable, but we must exercise extreme vigilance with the system we impose. The considerations of energy, environment, and economy must all be carefully balanced. The current Congressional majority wants to do SOMETHING about climate change just so they can say they did something, but what they are proposing IS a boondoggle. It's a huge tax and regulatory bureaucratic nightmare that will send the prices of gasoline and electricity soaring at a time we can least afford it. The current bill will probably be voted down, but the issue isn't going away. Regardless of which Democrat wins the presidency in november, Obama or McCain, expect the Climate Change bill to return with a vengeance next year, because both Obama and McCain favor cap-and-trade (Bob Dole, will you please send McCain a nasty e-mail ?). We the people had better keep a close eye on Congress and get involved, or we'll soon be looking back on today as the good old days of low energy prices. I don't think anyone wants that.

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.

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.")

In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said:

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

Fast forward to this week.

TUESDAY (4/22/08): Republican House members send a letter to Pelosi, reminding her of that Democratic "comonsense plan" to lower gas prices. The letter is signed by House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) and others in the GOP. Republicans say maybe now would be a good time to roll out that Democratic plan, seeing as how gas prices are a bit on the high side:

“Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a ‘commonsense plan’ to ‘lower gas prices,’ ” the letter said. “In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this ‘commonsense plan’ so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.”

The letter points out that gasoline prices have risen $1.18 since the Democrats took over Congress last january. Take that, Democrats.

WEDNESDAY (4/23/08): Pelosi sends a letter back to Boehner (don't these two work in the same building ? What's with the letters ?), which points out the Dems have already fulfilled the "commonsense plan", and against the resistance of Republicans to boot. The letter names the following pieces of legislation — the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act, the Energy Price Gouging Act, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and the market manipulation section of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. So take that, Republicans, and don't try to play politics on the gas price issue with the Democrats, or they'll play politics right back at you.

Thus, I judge…the Democrats win this little political game on points. They did implement the "commonsense plan".

Except for one minor detail — The "commonsense plan" to bring down skyrocketing gas prices won't do anything to bring down skyrocketing gas prices. It didn't really even have much to do with bringing down gas prices. It was more about raising taxes (Dem raison d'etre) on energy companies and conducting investigations of energy companies (the appearance of doing something vs. actually doing something). The "commonsense plan" also subsidized ethanol, which hasn't brought gas prices down either, but sure has jacked up our food prices. Putting our food supply into our gas tanks is starting to look like a world class bad idea.

Thus, I also judge…the "commonsense plan" was pretty lacking in common sense. It was more of a 2006 election campaign tactic than anything else.

FRIDAY (4/25/08): Barack Obama makes a speech about gas prices while standing in front of a gas pump (WHAT A TIMELY COINCIDENCE, EH ? BHO doesn't miss a trick). Obama's "solution" is to institute a windfall profits tax (Dem raison d'etre) on the oil companies (uh, won't that INCREASE the price of gas ?), give middle class america a $1,000 tax cut (to pay for the higher priced gas and pander for votes in the fall), and spend money to pursue alternative energy sources (everybody agrees on this one). The one thing Obama said that is undoubtedly true is that politicians have had decades to address this problem, and they have failed miserably. I only wish Obama truly was the post-partisan politician he pretends to be. Then, he would have acknowledged all the ways his Democratic party has prevented America from obtaining more energy independence through the years and called for an immediate end to it. Sadly, he didn't do that. Instead, he peddled the same old Dem energy talking points, all the while pretending the same old, same old was some new and exciting breakthrough in leadership on his part. Nuts.

So we have another Democratic plan to reduce gas prices that doesn't do anything to reduce gas prices, at least not for another 20 years, if ever. At this time, all the alternative means to power our automobiles are MORE expensive than gasoline. In addition, Dems are always wanting to declare war on the big bad oil companies, which won't help anything either (other than maybe the Dems #1 special interest group, the lawyers). Double nuts.

YES WE CAN (ride bicycles).

The lies and distortions are coming at us so fast and furious that it's almost hard to keep up. The historic Democratic presidential campaign has deteriorated into a daily discussion of Who's Zoomin' Who ? (my vote goes to Hillary, for Lifetime Achievement In Falsehood).

However, since Congress put on it's annual dog and pony show with the oil company executives yesterday, I want to say a word about one of Obama's distortions. Obama claims that he doesn't take money from the oil companies:

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.” - Barack Obama

Barry claims he doesn't take money from oil companies, and it's true, he doesn't. The part Barry leaves out is that NONE of the candidates take money from the oil companies. They can't, because it's ILLEGAL. The other part Barry leaves out is that he DOES take money from oil company executives, and two of his largest fundraisers are oil company executives, according to factcheck.org. I'm sure it just slipped his mind. We can call this the Obama Oil Slick.

I'm also growing a little tired of Democrats like Obama talking about taking away the profits of the oil companies, especially since THE GOVERNMENT MAKES MORE MONEY FROM OIL COMPANY SALES THAN THE OIL COMPANIES DO ! If the government truly cares about us little people, why don't they ever talk about removing the 65 cents tax on every gallon of gas ? Why is it immoral for oil companies to make a profit, but perfectly fine for the government, who doesn't drill, refine, or deliver one drop of oil to the pump, to make even bigger profits from oil ? Who IS zoomin' who ? What the Dems are really saying is that THEY want to steal the oil company profits for themselves. That ain't free market capitalism, folks. That's a whole different -ism, one we've fought wars against. One we shouldn't tolerate for a second.

The Democrats also ask why the oil companies should continue to get tax breaks when they are making record profits. That's a valid question, but, do the Dems realize that raising taxes on oil companies won't lower the price of gas, but will instead raise it ? They DO realize that, don't they ? Please tell me they do.

Amid all the blame being doled out to the mean old oil companies by the Democrats, one congressman actually asked a useful question (golf clap):

"What would bring lower prices?" asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Republican

"We need access to all kinds of energy supply," replied Robert Malone, chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country's coastal waters are off limits to drilling.

Source

What's this ? You mean increasing the supply of gasoline (combined with reducing demand) might reduce the price of gasoline ? Too bad some economist hasn't come along and realized that this supply vs demand thingy might be important, huh ? I think it could even be some kind of economic law, maybe. Perhaps someone should look into it.

And guess which political party has been responsible for restricting the supply of oil in the good old U.S. of A, by restricting drilling, among other things ? If you said "THE DEMOCRATS", the same people bitching about the price of gas now, you win a cigar (just don't try to smoke that cigar. The Dems don't like smoking or oil drilling. They've restricted both).

By the way, since the Democrats took control of Congress following the 2006 elections, the price of gasoline has risen by about $1.00 per gallon. Those SOB's.

The increase in the price of gas isn't the Dems fault, of course, I was the one zoomin' you that time, but since this is election season, and since I've heard Bush blamed for the price of gas about ten billion times by Democrats, I thought I'd throw that in to score a cheap and dishonest political point. It's the Democrat way… Ewww. Suddenly, I feel dirty. This must be what those Dems in Congress would feel like…if they had consciences.

Exxon/Mobil made $40 billion in 2007. I think their net profit margin was about 9 percent. That's not a very large profit margin. It's pretty low when compared to other businesses, even though the absolute profit number is huge. I'm not saying this to defend the oil companies, I'm saying it because it's true. Exxon's profit is due to Exxon's enormous record sales. I couldn't find the exact number, but CNNmoney has some of the numbers here.

If the Democrats would agree to expanded offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and new refineries, Exxon could and would use a lot of those profits for new oil exploration to increase the supply of domestic oil and reduce foreign consumption until such time as alternative fuels are ready for mass use and cost effective. That would be sensible and would benefit america, but the Dems are against it, apparently because a polar bear or fish might have to relocate. They'd rather just point the finger and steal Exxon's money instead. Those are some oily politicians, and their policies are providing NO help to americans.

The price of oil is at an all-time high, having recently reached $105 per barrel. As a result, we are paying more for gasoline at the pump than ever before. Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, continually blame the high price on George W. Bush, as if Bush personally sets the market price, or as if Bush policies drive up the cost of oil (and Dems do have at least one point there: war). You hear a lot of talk from Democrats about Bush having buddies in the oil industry, or Bush being a former oilman himself. What you don't hear from Democrats is how THEIR policies have consistently driven up the price of oil, have inhibited the production of domestic oil, have resulted in america importing more oil from foreign countries, have driven up our trade deficit, and have funded our enemies. Such Democratic policies include: forbidding drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), forbidding offshore drilling increases, imposing so many regulations that no new oil refineries have been built since the 1970's, high taxes on gasoline, a virtual ban on more nuclear energy……

And now the Democrats are at it again, seeking to drive up the price of gas and home heating oil by imposing $18 billion more in taxes on american oil companies via the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Axt of 2008 (H.R. 5351), which passed the House last week. Those additional taxes and removal of subsidies will undoubtedly translate directly to higher prices at the pump for you and I, and will hit the pocketbooks of the poor and working class the hardest. You remember the poor and the working class, don't you ? Those are the ones Democrats claim to help. Maybe Obama can explain this "help" in his next speech about hope and change and unity. When I heard Obama talk about "taking away the profits of Exxon-Mobil" to raucous applause at YSU a couple weeks ago, he left out the part about the resultant higher prices at the pump. I wonder if the crowd would have applauded had Obama told the truth and said, "I'm going to make you all pay through the nose for oil because there MIGHT be global warming". I think not, but that's why he's a politician. Yes we can (destroy the country).

In addition, H.R. 5351 only raises taxes on companies that drill and refine oil in the United States (Exxon, BP, Conoco-Philips, Shell, Chevron), so CITGO, the personal ATM machine of Venezuelan leftist coca-head Hugo Chavez, is exempted and receives a 6 percent advantage over the american companies. I'm sure that will do a lot to reduce our foreign oil dependence. NOT. On the bright side, it has been a week or two since Chavez last threatened to stop selling oil to the U.S.A.

Here's Nancy Pelosi and company making a statement about H.R. 5351, in a stunning example of up-is-down speech:

"With the price of oil above $100 a barrel, this Congress is again taking action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and support the domestic production of renewable energy…Already pinched at the pump, American families are now feeling the effects of higher energy prices throughout the economy. This legislation is another critical step in a series of concrete actions this Congress is taking to address soaring energy costs, grow our economy and create new jobs, strengthen national security, and begin to reduce global warming."

Pelosi is actually pretending these new taxes will reduce energy costs ! She left out the part where the reduced energy costs won't happen until maybe the year 2025, if ever. This leads me to another point. Why do Democrats keep insisting they are going to create millions and millions of new "green" jobs ? Since when does the government create jobs, other than government jobs ? The private sector is where all the "green" jobs would be created. There is already an enormous market for "green" jobs. Pretty much all the government has to do is get the hell out of the way. Maybe offer some tax breaks as incentives for the new technologies. Huge tax increases is the last thing the government should be doing here, the last thing the government should be doing now, with the price of oil already the highest ever and the country on the edge of a recession.

Bush has threatened to veto this legislation. When he does, I'm sure the Democrats and the media will portray him as being in the pocket of big oil. You can count on that.

In other news from the House of Representatives, 3 post offices were named and two inaugural balls were scheduled last week. The Protect America Act is still unaddressed, hampering our intelligence gathering capabilities against suspected terrorists. Maybe, in another example of up-is-down speech, Pelosi can call a press conference to say that means "americans are safer from terrorism". Oh wait, she already did that.