"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

I mentioned in my last post that President Obama was supporting offshore oil drilling in America.

But only in SOUTH America, not here. Following are the details of that support, from the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount

So, we're lending Petrobras $2 billion or more. Sure, why not ? The good old USA is loaded ($11.6 trillion in debt) and our economy is doing so darn good (2.2 million jobs lost this year).

Here's a little information about Petrobras, the Brazilian state-run oil company. In 2008, Petrobras made an $18 billion profit. No wonder they need money from Uncle Sam. $18 billion is hardly enough to buy bread. Plus, poor Petrobras has been hit hard by the recession. Their profits are down 20% this year. For the first half of 2009, Petrobras has only made $7.4 billion in profit (link).

So, we're lending $2 billion or more to a foreign oil company that has made $25.4 billion in the last 18 months alone. I'm sure that makes sense somehow, but my little brain can't fathom it, even if big-time financier and left wing slush-funder George Soros can. Soros repositioned his holdings in Petrobras just days before the U.S. loan guarantees to Petrobras were announced. Soros sold 22 million shares of common stock and bought 5.8 million shares of preferred stock, which pay higher dividends. I'm sure Soros didn't have any inside information though. That would be, you know, illegal, and there's nothing at all shady about George Soros.

It would be nice if the USA had it's own offshore oil to invest in, wouldn't it ? We don't know exactly how much we have (lots), because nobody is looking for it. Offshore drilling has been banned off the East and West coasts for years, thanks to the environmentalists and other left wingers like Barack Obama.

I guess the new White House mantra is…….

Drill baby drill, but only in Brazil.

I sure hope we get a President someday who cares about America.

NORTH America, that is.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

The House Energy And Commerce Committee has approved the American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 (cap and trade). Although no members of the committee actually read the nearly 1,000 page bill, the House did employ a speed reader for a day to read part of the bill aloud (think Pittsburgh Pete), which didn't help inform Congress at all, but did provide some excellent material for all the late night talk show comedians.

The aim of the bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, is to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from automobiles, coal plants, and factories by 83% over the next 40 years. Here's the bill's primary sponsor, Representative Henry "Clueless" Waxman (D-CA), explaining what is in the bill when he was asked the other day:

"You're asking me ? Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill….I don't know the details. We rely on the scientists."

Excellent leadership, Mr. Waxman.

Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post describes the cap and trade legislation:

There remains a robust argument over whether the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 represents a crucial step in preserving life as we know it. But there is no question that there are few pieces of legislation that are likely to have a more profound effect on the U.S. economy. It would bring about dramatic changes in the relative prices of energy and goods produced by energy-hungry industries. It would redistribute trillions of dollars in business sales and household income and generate hundreds of billions in government revenue. And it would represent the most dramatic extension of government's regulatory powers into the workings of the economy since the early days of the New Deal.

For all that, there are probably not more than a few hundred people who really understand what's in this legislation, how it would work and what its impact is likely to be.

The other thing to say about it is that it is a badly flawed piece of public policy. It is so broad in its reach and complex in its details that it would be difficult to implement even in Sweden, let alone in a diverse and contentious country like the United States. It would create dozens of new government agencies with broad powers to set standards, dole out rebates and tax subsidies, and pick winning and losing technologies, even as it relies on newly created markets with newly created regulators to set prices and allocate resources. Its elaborate allocation of pollution allowances and offsets reads like a parody of industrial policy authored by the editorial page writers of the Wall Street Journal. The opportunities for waste, fraud and regulatory screwup look enormous.

Sounds just peachy. Sure, cap and trade may cost a million jobs and drive up everybody's energy costs by several hundred to several thousand dollars each year, but we get an enormous new government bureaucracy to boot ! What could possibly go wrong ? Besides, we're in an economic boom period now, right ? Who cares if job losses, costs, and taxes go up ? It's not like we're in a recession or anything, where something like this cap and trade legislation would REALLY hurt.

As if all that isn't enough, here's a little about the 'trade' part of cap and trade from David Sokol of the Washington Post:

If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you're going to love cap-and-trade. Just read Title VIII of the bill, which lets investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators participate in the cap-and-trade market. They don't have emissions to cut; they have commissions to make.

The Waxman-Markey bill imposes a market-based (read: unregulated) trading program on a highly regulated industry that must make enormous long-term and least-cost capital decisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In an unprecedented and unwise fashion, it turns American industry over to the federal Environmental Protection Agency by giving the agency the authority to change the rules on allowances every five years. Is this sound public and economic policy? I think not.

Well, at least Wall Street will make money, even as American industries and American consumers take it up the tailpipe.

I think this cap and trade legislation could work, but it will require the "nuclear option" to succeed. By that, I mean it could work if we use nuclear weapons to destroy China and India, because that's where the rest of our industries and jobs will go if this legislation goes into effect.

Other than that, it sounds great. And after all this, what impact will cap and trade have on the environment ? Beats me. Maybe a little, maybe none whatsoever. Does that even matter anymore ?

Baffle 'em with you-know-what.

If Washington D.C. has a credo, that must surely be it. The media isn't far behind.

But before I get into that, I'd like to take a moment to thank President Obama for saving us all from last week's swine flu pandemic (worldwide epidemic). Just think, if Bush was still the President, we'd probably all be dead now. Plus, Obama saved the country for the bargain basement price of $1.5 billion, which hasn't even been spent yet. Oh man, that Obama is GOOD.

The media was speculating today that the recession has bottomed out, because we only LOST 539,000 jobs in April. This rosy optimism came because the experts had predicted job losses of over 600,000. The media left out that the government hired 66,000 people to do the census, and the government hired many others as well (which accounts for almost the entire difference between the projections and the actual job numbers). Those government jobs are all on the taxpayer dime, of course, and add nothing to economic growth. The private sector is still hemorrhaging jobs as fast as ever, but I guess the media is looking for something positive to hand their hat on, because Obama is the president now, and that means CHANGE has come. Call me crazy, but I'll say the recession is over when we start CREATING jobs instead of losing them. The media's optimism comes in spite of the fact that GDP shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter, and that we're $11 trillion in debt, and that we'll be running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and that we have massive deficits projected as far as the eye can see, and that Obama is projected to double the national debt in four years and triple it in eight years, and that unemployment is 8.9%, the highest in 25 years, and that we had a Treasury bond auction with demand so weak that we had to pay higher interest rates just to continue selling our long-term debt (which will raise Obama's deficit and debt projections even higher), and that our industrial base is vanishing, and that what's left of it is collapsing, and that we have massive unfunded entitlement liabilities looming on the horizon (growing at the rate of $2 trillion yearly), and that most of our state governments are broke, and that many banks failed the stress tests (they need $75 billion more bailout dollars, with more surely to come), and that credit still isn't flowing after $700 billion spent on TARP, and that companies all across the country are cutting back the hours of the workers they are retaining, and that if you add the folks who have fallen off the unemployment rolls to the unemployed numbers, unemployment comes out close to 15%, and that the federal government is spending dollars it doesn't have at an all-time record pace, and that the government is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, and that the government has committed a total of $12 trillion thus far in fighting the recession, and that on top of that, Obama wants to raise energy prices through the roof and create lots more entitlements…………

I guess other than that, happy days are here again.

Oh yeah, and we're still fighting two wars, Obama has no idea what to do with the Gitmo prisoners, we're funneling money to Hamas, we're pondering whether to charge Bushco with war crimes, Pelosi's STILL lying about her knowledge of waterboarding even after the leaked CIA information proves she lied her butt off, Obama is looking for a Supreme Court Justice who is "empathetic" to certain groups as opposed to one who follows the law, the price index is rising in while we're in the depths of recession, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons soon, the Pakistan government is in jeopardy (and Pakistan has nukes, which just maybe could be a problem if the Taliban gets their hands on)…

But other than that, everything's coming up roses.

Plus, Obama cut $17 billion from the budget. Golf clap for Obama. What the media left out of that story was that Obama isn't reducing the deficit by that $17 billion, oh no, he's going to use that money for OTHER government programs, so the net savings to taxpayers is ZERO. This is what passes for fiscal responsibility in the new Obama CHANGE era.

But it's all good. Thar's a new sheriff in town, and he reads that thar teleprompter REAL good.

Never mind that in order to avert fiscal armaggedon, Obama is going to have to come up with a tax increase of proportions never before contemplated in this country's history. By my reckoning, it will have to be at least $2 trillion per year to cover the deficits, interest on the debt, and the unfunded entitlements. It's either that or make drastic government spending cuts, and you know our new sheriff ain't 'bout to do that. Only them thar rightwing extremist fellas talk that kind o' crazy talk.

Welcome to the age of universal government.

I've gone on several rants on this blog previously about what a Ponzi scheme Social Security is. I now realize I've been thinking too small. It isn't just SS that is a Ponzi scheme. It's our entire federal government, and that Ponzi scheme is unraveling. The new funds required from the taxpayers can no longer keep up with the demand for funds the federal government requires. Like all Ponzi schemes, even one on as grand a scale as our government, it is destined to collapse.

But remember, put your hand over your mouth when you cough, and wash your hands frequently. Then everything should be fine.

Following are some news stories our esteemed mainstream media just can't manage to find time for, at least not when such pressing issues as whether or not Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has had a boob job are still under investigation. Prejean, the 21-year old liberal hate media target of the week, also had some racy Victoria's Secret modeling photos taken of her when she was 17, so it's perfectly understandable why the media missed the following stories. I imagine they are too busy working up a full-scale profile on the hypocrisy of the entire Christian movement after Miss California had the audacity to politely say she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Prejean is obviously worse than Hitler, and must be destroyed, along with that Sarah woman from Alaska. Those b's (or are they c's ?) better zip it, and go bake some cookies. This is the hope and change era, dammit. We can't have these dames going around offering their pretty little opinions, even when asked for them at a Miss USA pageant or a national Vice Presidential debate. It's not like they didn't know what they were SUPPOSED to say. If we don't put these gals in their place, before you know it, women will be running around giving all kinds of opinions about stuff, and not the always the RIGHT ones either. Who wants THAT kind of country ?

On to the news the media can't use.
—
The Obama administration has decided not to release the photos from the Scare Force One New York flyover that terrified the residents of lower Manhattan. This sets an interesting standard of what constitutes classified or privileged information to the Obamans. The Bush "torture" memos – NO. The Iraq prisoner abuse photos – NO. Photos that might embarass the President – YES. It appears "the most open administration in history" is only open about OTHER administrations, not it's own.
—
Multiple Chrysler creditors are saying the Obama administration engaged in political threats and intimidation to get the creditors to surrender their contractual rights as the Obama administration wants. From Business Insider:

Conversations with administration officials left them [Chrysler creditors] expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The audacity of hope. The politics of fear. This is why the government shouldn't run businesses, and why government should be limited, as the Constitution intended. It looks like Obama's Chicago political machine training is coming in handy. Make 'em an offer they can't refuse. One creditor, who voted for Obama, called him "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet – and I knew Kissinger."
—
Recent polling suggests Americans don't believe in man-made global warming, despite the finest scare tactics the left and the media could muster up. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 34% of Americans believe man is causing global warming. A Pew Research poll found that out of twenty important issues facing the country, global warming ranked dead last, the least important. I'd say maybe Al Gore should make another movie to protect his green investments, but Democrats are pressing forward with climate change legislation anyway. House Democrats say they'll have a bill ready by Memorial Day, and intend to pass it by year end.
—
In the $3.5 trillion budget approved by Congress, President Obama's much hyped "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" end after NEXT YEAR. Y'all really didn't believe the hype, did you ? Notably, Bush's tax cuts for the lower and middle classes will be kept (I thought those were "tax cuts for the rich"). Also, the budget stops Republicans from blocking Obama's health care plans (but I'm sure they are blocking the GOP in a "bipartisan" and "inclusive" fashion).
—
But I want to be fair to our media. Here is a great story MSNBC broke about Obama and Biden going to a burger joint in Virginia. It seems our Telemprompter-In-Chief and his Gaffemaster VP walked right up to the counter, ordered their own burgers, and waited until the burgers were done. End of story. Do I smelll a Pulitzer in the air for MSNBC ?????

Be the coolest dude or dudette on your block by owning this new environmentally friendly auto from GM (Government Motors) !

Yes We Can !

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" – Barack Obama, 2008

Candidate Obama wasn't kidding when he made the above statement, and now President Obama and the Democrats are preparing to raise consumer energy prices through the roof. It isn't only their cap and trade proposals that will drive up energy costs either. Alternative energies will have the same effect. As the New York Times reports:

experts…estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant… The cost of solar thermal electricity, made by using the sun’s heat to boil water and spin a turbine, would be nearly three times that of coal and more than twice that of natural gas. (It would be almost double the cost of wind energy, too.)

Carbon dioxide regulations will also drive up the costs associated with producing coal-based electricity, which will be passed along to the consumers as well. Jason Furman, deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council, has said the annual costs of cap and trade could be $250 billion (other cost estimates are MUCH higher). Government mandates on green energy usage also increase the price. It's no coincidence that California, the state with the highest renewable energy mandates (20%), has the highest energy prices in the nation.

Naturally, those hardest hit by the skyrocketing energy prices will be those among us who can least afford it, the poor and the middle class (but, don't worry, Obama is only raising taxes on the rich ! LOL. Some people will believe anything).

So, what can we do about these skyrocketing future energy prices ?

Not much. You see, our fourth branch of government (and you thought there were only three branches, didn't you ?), the Environmental Protection Agency, has ruled that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health by causing global warming. This gives the EPA the power to control energy under the Clean Air Act. Our cars, homes, and businesses are all subject to EPA regulations and mandates now. Through either EPA mandate or Congressional legislation, the greenies have us boxed in. As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) put it, "It is now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between legislation and regulation. The EPA will have to act if Congress does not act." Game, set, and match. Get out your wallets, America. It's a darned good thing our economy is humming along so nicely, isn't it ? I'm sure we'll hardly feel the pinch, right ?

As for those "millions of green jobs" President Obama promised, consider this, from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK):

“It’s estimated by the Heritage Foundation that if they are successful in their [CO2] endangerment findings in the White House, it will cost us 800,000 jobs almost immediately. The jobs, where would they go? They would go China, India, Mexico. They’d go to places where they don’t have any emissions restrictions.

“Consequently we would have a net increase worldwide in CO2, so it just doesn’t make any sense. But when you’re dealing with the Hollywood elitists, the extremist environmentalists, you don’t have to make sense.”

A Spanish study indicated that there were 2.2 jobs lost for every job created by wind and solar power.

If we're not careful in what we are doing in the energy sector, we could jack up consumer energy costs, jack up taxes, lose jobs, and after all that…HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING.

Other than that, I guess there's no problem.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

A famous American weather forecasting animal, the groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil, emerged at Gobbler's Knob this morning and allegedly saw his shadow. As we all know, that means we're in for six more weeks of winter. Sigh.

I say Punxsutawney Phil "allegedly" saw his shadow because, as it turns out, Groundhog Day isn't just a weather forecasting tool (and a funny Bill Murray movie), it's also a vast Gobbler's-wing conspiracy. It seems nobody really knows or cares if Phil sees his shadow or not every year. The result is determined in advance by 14 poobahs from the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, collectively known as the Inner Circle (sorta like a groundhog Illuminati).

My friends, we've been scammed. The little groundhog can't predict the weather. Double sigh. Say it ain't so.

This brings to mind another famous weather forecasting tool, Al Gore, who recently emerged from his energy-sucking mansion in Tennessee to inform us the earth will only support human life for four more years due to global warming climate change. The Goreacle's Illuminati are referred to by the acronym IPCC, which I think stands for International Purveyors of Carbon Credits (or something like that). The IPCC consists of 2,500 scientists who are certain that global warming climate change isn't just a theory, it's a fact. Since 2,500 scientists could never be wrong (even though they were wrong about global cooling in the 1970's), who are we to question them ? We're just peons, and they are SCIENTISTS. Case closed. As the Goreacle says, "the debate is over." Let's kill all the cows (the number one source of "unnatural" carbon dioxide emissions) and run all our vehicles on solar or wind power (also referred to as "peddling").

Like Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Well, except for a few other inconvenient truths I'd like to share, such as…

- The planet has experienced no global warming since 1998. During that time, the Earth has cooled. (link)

- Over 31,000 American scientists say there is no convincing evidence of man-made global warming, or evidence that it will cause catastrophic weather changes on the Earth. (link) This brings up a mathematics question. Are 31,000+ American scientists more than 2,500 IPCC scientists ?

- IPCC scientists have been caught promoting fraudulent data to promote their global warming hypothesis (link)

- The proposition that Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking is suspect, and the Antarctic ice is growing (link)

Now, I'm the first one to admit I don't have the answers, but neither does Al Gore (who is NOT a scientist, btw). The debate is not over, so when you hear the Goreacle say something like this:

"[Global warming] would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fiber of life everywhere on the earth….If we stopped global greenhouse gas emissions today, according to some scientists … we would [still] see an increase in temperatures that many scientists believe would be extremely challenging for civilization…If we continue at today's levels, some scientists have said it can be an increase of up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit." – Al Gore testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.

There really should be an accompanying laugh track.

The bad news is, President Barack Obama buys into the Goreacle's future shock scenario, unproven though it is. Obama would implement the onerous cap and trade system to control carbon emissions, and his stimulus bill contains lots of money to combat global warming (how will that stimulate the economy again ? The point keeps eluding me).

But Obama doesn't believe in global warming when it comes to HIS lifestyle. He's been turning up the White House thermostat, because, darn it, it's COLD outside (cue the laugh track):

"He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

You see, Obama only believes in global warming when it comes to YOUR lifestyle:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." – Barack Obama, May 2008.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Same as it ever was. It's Groundhog Day all over again.

Time for a little economic straight talk. This week's headlines informed us that Exxon/Mobil made a record profit of $14.3 billion for the 3rd quarter of 2008. Barack Obama immediately added this tidbit to his campaign stump speech to illustrate the unfairness gap between the haves and the have-nots, and also to bash John McCain's tax plan. The Barack Obama's of the world get very upset when private companies make such large profits. They see it as E-V-I-L and G-R-E-E-D-Y. In ObamaWorld, the more money you rake in, the more evil and greedy you are (federal government excepted). What Obama and friends leave out of the equation is this – Exxon/Mobil also paid $11.3 billion in taxes for the 3rd quarter. Isn't that enough ? Isn't that too much ? That money funds those endless government programs Obama loves so much (Obama has proposed increasing spending on no less than 175 government initiatives. I wonder when he finds time to sleep). You see, in order for Obama to redistribute wealth, there must be wealth to begin with, and it's our private sector that creates it. With so many American businesses struggling and/or failing right now, why is Obama holding up for derision the one company that is doing the best ? The reason is, Democrats play class warfare games to get elected, but Obama should realize that killing the golden goose doesn't make for very smart economic policy. It's not like we'd be better off if all our companies were losing tons of money, as the automakers, banks, airlines, and many others are doing. Count me as one who wishes all our businesses were as successful as Exxon/Mobil. That would take care of 98% of America's problems right there. In order to help our businesses be successful, which in turn enables our citizens to become employed, successful, and prosperous themselves, it just might be a good idea to HELP the business sector rather than add ever more hurdles for it to overcome. That's why John McCain's tax/economic policy, which lowers the business tax rate, keeps the capital gains tax rate low to encourage investment, and enables American businesses to be more competitive, is a REAL GOOD idea, while Obama's tax/economic policy, which penalizes business success and adds new business burdens, is a REAL BAD idea, unless we as a nation have some sort of perverse death wish.

While I'm on the subject, let's explode another Obama falsehood, one that he's repeated about 100,000 times by now. McCain's tax/economic policy is NOT the same as George W. Bush's, not at all. Bush cut the individual income tax rates for 100% of us, like Obama is proposing for 95% of us. McCain is NOT proposing individual income tax rate cuts. What McCain is proposing is to cut the business tax rate from 35% (second highest in the entire world) to 25%. I only wish McCain was cutting that tax rate even lower to attract more new businesses and more new jobs to this country. The object of taxation isn't to centralize wealth in the hands of the federal government, it's to help the people. Nothing helps people more than jobs. No government entitlement even runs a close second to employment for promoting the general welfare.

All this brings me to the news item of the day. In Janurary 2008, Barack Obama described his energy policy as follows:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

Obama plans to bankrupt the coal industry, by design. The coal industry supplies 70% of our electricity. Funny, the Messiah didn't mention his coal bankrupting plans when he was campaigning in coal mining states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia. He pretended to be a friend of coal then.

During the same interview, Obama went on to say, "under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket".

And you folks thought Obama was a friend to the middle class. You won't think so when you get your utility bills during an Obama administration. Obama's plans for coal come from the same left wing environmental mindset that have restricted our domestic oil supply and stopped nuclear power, leaving us dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia. If you are naive enough to believe Obama when he says he isn't beholden to special interests, you better think again. The environmental lobby is one of those special interests. Barack Obama will hurt every person in this country to appease them, by his own admission.

Most amazing of all is, Obama said he planned to bankrupt the coal industry and send electricity prices soaring BACK IN JANUARY, yet we haven't heard a word about it until now, on the verge of the election. Millions of people have already voted, and I bet next to none of them knew about this.

Instead of getting substantive information from the media, information that could help us make an informed decision about who should be the next president, we get "hope and change", and we get questions like the ones that Leisa Zigman, a reporter for KSDK-TV in St. Louis, asked Obama during a recent interview:

1.) “Your presidential campaign may go down as the most organized in history. Yet the polls remain tight in Missouri. In the last seven days what else can you say to sway undecided and McCain-leaning Missouri voters?”
2.) “Today, Bob Clark, founder of Clayco Construction, sent a letter to his employees. In part it read, ‘Sometimes, but rarely, a person appears at the right time and the right place to transform ordinary people into thinkers and doers who can accomplish more than they ever thought they could. That truly is the definition of inspiration. Barack Obama has this quality. I have witnessed it personally many times.’ In 2004, Mr. Clark raised thousands for the Bush campaign, but for the past two years, he’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for your campaign. Please respond.”
3.) “Who has helped your campaign more: Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill or Oprah?”
4.) “What was it like when you were in St. Louis in front of 100,000 people? What were you thinking as you looked out from the Arch to the Old Court House and beyond?”
5.) “Many people are worried about your safety. What are your thoughts in light of the alleged skinhead plot?”

One only marvels at how the Messiah maintained his composure under such withering journalistic scrutiny.

Wake up, America. You only have one more day.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Planet) adjourned the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday morning at 11:23am, so our esteemed representatives could go on their five week summer recess. The adjournment vote was along partisan lines, with Republicans voting to stay in session to get an up/down vote on offshore oil drilling (which Congress and 78% of Americans support), and with the Pelosi-led Democrats voting to flip America the bird. The Dems turned off the lights and the microphones. C-SPAN turned off their cameras.

But a group of House Republicans stayed right where they were and kept on talking in protest, in the dark, without microphones, and without the cameras rolling. Some news media, including Politico, stayed to chronicle the events, even though the KGB Democrats were trying to kick them out.

“This is the people’s House. This is not Pelosi's politburo,” said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). Amen, brother.

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.

Update: The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don't want Republicans getting any press for this episode. GOP leaders are trying to find other Republicans to rotate in for Blunt so reporters aren't kicked out.

Update 2: This message was sent out by Blunt's office:

"Although this Democrat majority just adjourned for the Democrat 5-week vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN cameras have been turned off, House Republicans are on the floor speaking to the taxpayers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican energy proposals.

"All Republicans who are in town are encouraged to come to the House floor."

Update 3: Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.

Update 4: Republican leaders just sent out a notice looking for a bullhorn, and leadership aides are trying to corral all the members who are still in town to come speak on the floor and sustain this one-sided debate.

The House adjourned about three hours ago, but GOP lawmakers — outraged that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats went home for five weeks without allowing a vote on offshore drilling — have refused to leave the floor. Even though C-SPAN can't show you what's going on (C-SPAN is prevented from showing what's happening on the floor when the House is out of session), Republicans are holding an unprecedented session on the House floor. They have brought in dozens of their members, who are walking up and down the aisles making speeches. They have packed the floors and galleries with staffers. When Capitol Police tried to remove reporters from the gallery, Republicans stopped it from happening. The crowd has repeatedly broken out in chants of "Vote, vote, vote!"

Update 5: The scene on the floor is kind of crazy. Normally, members are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor galleries, and visitors are prohibited from cheering. But in this case, the members are walking up and down on the floor during their speeches, standing on chairs. The visitors are cheering loudly. Some members even brought in visitors, who are now sitting on the House floor in the seats normally filled by lawmakers, cheering and clapping. Very funny.

Democrats faced a choice here: Should they leave the cameras on and let Republicans rip Pelosi & Co. on C-SPAN, or should they leave the cameras off and let the Republicans have their "tantrum," as one Democratic aide characterized it, with the cameras off? So the cameras are off, but Republicans, and the crowd, are clearly enjoying the scene.

Update 6: Republicans are literally hugging each other on the House floor. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), not normally known as a distinguished orator, just gave a rousing speech, accusing Democrats of stifling dissent. He referenced President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after being defeated in his presidential reelection bid. Waving his arms and yelling, Manzullo brought the crowd (including a lot of staffers shipped in by GOP leaders to fill up the place), and he left the floor to hugs from his colleagues. You don't see that up here every day.

Update 7: Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chamber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said, "I am a Democrat, and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around the House floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

Update 8: It's over.

Right at the stroke of five Georgia Rep. Tom Price announced that House Republicans were ending their impromptu protest on the floor of the chamber, ending a five-plus hour rebellion with a round of "God Bless America."

The assembled tourists, aides and members in the chamber gave Price and his compatriots a standing ovation. They left the chamber to shouts of "USA! USA! USA!"

Call this a stunt if you wish, but I think this is exactly the type of stunt we need more of, to awaken America and to force the Democrats to do the right thing. The Republican protest already bore fruit, as Hopey McChangerson (aka Barack Obama, the Human Jellyfish) FLIP-FLOPPED on offshore oil drilling as the Republicans were protesting. Now he's in favor of it. Hopey, of course, only flip-flopped because he's losing votes as the GOP gets traction on the drilling issue, but who cares why he did it. It only matters that he DID do it. The voice of the people still works, but we can't stay silent and think everything is going to work out anyway. If we have to drag Dems kicking and screaming into the light, so be it. Way to go, GOP.

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.