The economy… been there, done that!

26 08 2008
Our economy is based on growth. Growth from investment and creation. It’s where “new” jobs come from. It’s that new business, or new factory down the street or road. It’s what all those kids coming out of school are counting on, the ongoing creation of a place for them. The money that comes from all that is called “Capital”. The growth of capital is the return on investment, and that’s where all the Newness in the creation of jobs occurs. Through ‘Capital Gains”. Obama want to raise the taxes on that return.

Obama wants a bigger cut of what is earned off the investment. He wants to take a big part of the money, money that expands our economy and creates new opportunity – new jobs for our kids, new industries, and the hope for better lives – and use it to give to the have-nots of the world. He wants to take what America generates through its hard work and ingenuity, and create more and bigger government programs. Democrats love programs!

George H. W. Bush made the mistake of raising the Capital Gains tax when he was President (remember the broken promise of “no new taxes!”). We saw the whole Savings & Loan industry crash when investors moved their money away from the projects that created those “Capital Gains”. Money is fluid, it can go and grow here, or it can flow away from here. It will go to wherever whoever has it can get the most return out of it.

In a time when we need to be expanding job growth and creating new opportunity through expanding our industries and new jobs, should we be taking away the incentive to invest in those projects? Taking it away to create more and bigger government, and giving it to the have-nots of the world?

That’s what makes Obama’s plan scary. He sees it as a measure to raise more money to create more Government and redistribute a good portion of the wealth that is the very vehicle that creates whatever wealth there is to tax in the first place. How do you carry on a larger expanded government and those programs once your source is gone.?

So many people listen to the words that flow out of the Obama camp, yet don’t hear a word that is being said. They heard someone say “Hope” and “Change” and think that’s what it all means… but the hope is for a change to socialism, changing the very face of America. They don’t hear that, though it spoken load and clear.

America and Capitalism have always gone hand in hand. Part of the backbone of our country is the ability of it’s people to create, the reap the benefits of that creation. A big part of that has been that people know best about what it takes to give the people what they want. Our industry have thrived on it’s ability to give people what they want at a price that they can afford. That’s a big part of the “American Way” that we’ve always heard about. And it’s been a fundamental part of why this country obtained the greatness that it has.

Programs, on the other hand, while in many cases worthy, are more or less a leach on all that. You take a cut and spread it around and do things that need to be done. Like tithing or charity you take a portion of your good fortune and give to those that fortune hasn’t smiled upon. But when it comes to a point that the “programs” are the driving force, it goes from a social instrument of ‘the people helping people’, to the socialist instrument of the government, taking from the people to help other people. There is a big difference between need and want. Government thrives on taking from one to give to another. The trouble is government can never see the whole picture. ALL needs are viewed as a potential program for bigger and bigger government. Wants can often become needs. Industry is seen as a source to fund expanding government programs.

What is there that government can do that business and industry and the ingenuity of Americans can’t do better? Name something that government control improved.

Government never sees the big picture. They see problems and potential solutions. But not being experts in any field they (our legislators) seldom see the consequences of their actions. Often those results are plain enough to see, but politics seems to block their vision.

A good example of that is with our current energy troubles. The public sees the hit it’s taking in the pocketbook. They see the costs add up, on there food, on what it takes just to get to work and back. They see what the potential cost might be to that job itself. And they see the potential for it to effect the security of our country. The politicians seem to see the potential that it might mess up a beach somewhere, or interfere with the travel plans of a polar bear.

They can’t seem to put into perspective the true costs of taxes or mandates or compliance with wants over needs. The economy verses the ecology. The consequences of not reconciling the two.

Prices? Money? That’s not an issue with many of our democrat friends. They only see money as either a contribution, or something to tax and take in order to implement policy and programs. One of the biggest “programs” and “policies” that the democrats are pushing right now is conservation and protecting the environment. Consequences of how that is accomplished be damned.

While the American public takes a hit in the pocketbook at the pump (and when those utility bills come due) the democrats can’t see it as anything but good for the environment, and continue their push to do even more. Right in the middle of all of the turmoil and hurt due to the high cost of energy, the democrats push policy and programs that would raise that cost even more. ‘Cap – and – Trade.” According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the liberals in Congress were trying to pass a massive new energy tax, saying “After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon, and really would raise energy prices.” They lecture us about the Kyoto agreement, and don’t bat an eye at the massive amount of money and huge number of jobs that it would cost.

Obama? Like most other democrats, higher energy prices are not a big concern to him. Asked if high energy costs were good for the United States, Barack Obama replied to CNBC’s John Harwood: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”



Answers to Jack Cafferty’s ponderings…

20 08 2008

In some kind of rambling commentary posted on CNN’s site Tuesday (8/19) CNN commentator Jack Cafferty gave his take on McCain’s appearance at the Saddleback Forum last Saturday. Cafferty, I’d suspect disappointed in Barrack Obama’s performance, seemed to want to take out some of his frustrations on John McCain, and in his typical Bush bashing fashion tried to make a few points of comparison. Perhaps he misunderstood, or perhaps it was just sour grapes, but it’s obvious that he has some deep seeded need to try to tear down republicans, and took the opportunity to go after McCain.

That Jack holds a certain bias I doubt that he would even disagree. After all, his forte is to puff and blow and create and cause consternation among republicans in general, and the Bush Administration in specific. Though a good bit of what Jack Cafferty has to say should most of the time be taken with a grain of salt, here I thought appropriate that just in case he might need the obvious pointed out to him, I’d take his commentary and see if I could maybe shine a little light on things for him. What follows is his commentary, with some response from me in bold (if I may be so bold, lol):


It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. “It means I’m saved and forgiven.” Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we’ve all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand. Jack, that’s what Christianity IS. It’s John 3:16. I’m shocked that you don’t realize that Jack. Just because you’ve heard his “cross in the sand” story a hundred times doesn’t make it any less valid, for its part of his walk in faith. Great scholars HAVE wrestled with the meaning of Christianity for centuries, and do you know the answers that they have come up with? That it means “I’m saved and forgiven.”

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not? Perhaps because he wasn’t asked that question, even though the answer is self evident to most anyone. That statement alone shows the depth of his morals. Not that he cheated, or lied, or anything else, it’s that he failed his vows. Seriously, you don’t understand that?

Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day. Jack, his answers are his answers, yesterday, today, tomorrow, the next day. Is he supposed to make up new stuff or change something each and every time? Was this the format to expound at length on things? No. Methinks some of you in the media have come to expect something ‘new’ each time a candidate opens their mouth. Maybe that comes from many of them changing their positions with the wind. And when you make a living on “soundbites” I can see your problem, but like you said, he’s been around a while. I’d imagine he’s figured a lot of things out by now. He does seem open to change, however, when the new comes along, but then again y’all seem to find fault in that too.  

He was asked “if evil exists.” His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to “the gates of hell.” That was it….  Well, then let me clarify it for you since you didn’t understand. YES, he believes evil exists, and he believe Osama bin Laden is a personification of evil and worthy of fighting. He needed say no more.

One after another, McCain’s answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has — virtually none. I myself am curious about your intellectual curiosity and capacity Jack. You call George Bush simplistic, but fail to understand what he has truly done for not only America, but the world. Your views (and other) seem to want to make some extremely complicated things simple, and some simple things complicated. You have little understanding of the threats we faced (STILL face) and want to measure intent and consequences with some tangible thing, which here is impossible. Most of it is in the realm of what could be or might have been.

You misunderstand (or mischaracterize) the intent of administration actions meant to keep us safe and secure in our homes. You play games with words with intent to scare people into thinking that Bush is doing something to them, instead of for them. Where is this “litany” of broken laws and promises, and cloaked secrecy and how does it affect Joe Average? Isn’t there STILL a check and balance called the Supreme Court to hold all that in balance? I don’t see where they’ve been any blank check for this administration. How do we, as American’s, suffer? Any more than we already suffered in line at the MVB? And where is our international reputation in shambles? Seems to me France, Germany, Italy, and others have elected PRO-American leader for a change, so just where is our reputation worse that it has always been. Venezuela? Iran? Cuba?

Americans want straight answers Jack, not opinions mired in myths and theories. No double speak and political correct gibberish. Say what you will, but John McCain is a straight talker. Americans, we like that. That all seems to have gone over your head Jack. Maybe it’s you who is the shallow one.

Where are John McCain’s writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America’s moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.? I would think in the Congressional Record. I’d believe there is more tangible proof of his beliefs and views there than in all Obama’s writing put together. I believe his record is set in stone for all to see there.

John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet. Now Jack, you can criticize members of our Service Academies if you want to, but in my opinion the one that is in last place is far superior than most of the rest of us. Somebody must be first, somebody must be last. How does that exclude John McCain from anything? Especially in light of his long time public service? Just his having been there, however, gives him far more qualification as Commander In Chief than Barack Obama will ever have. MOST people that get into our Service Academies get in via somebody. His father and grandfather being an admiral should count for something to you, too. It’s telling that it doesn’t. My IQ was measured at 142. My academic record in college? Awful.

He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the “Straight Talk Express” for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he’s reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner — short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly. Jack, seriously, can you blame him? Every mistake is reported as some sign of senility, or lack of understanding or such. The Press seems to go to some length to report and expound on each. Obama’s mistakes, which there seems to me to be more of and much bigger in nature, tend to be ignored, or explained away due to tiredness from campaigning or such. And that TelePrompTer comment, GET REAL! Obama is far more dependant on one than McCain. Please don’t insult the American public with comments such as that. They’re just…rude. As far as his answers at Saddleback, he was sharp as a tack.

I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me….  Then you need to do some self evaluation there my friend. It far more YOU than HIM.

George Bush’s record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself. A Yale Graduate with a Masters Degree from Harvard? I’d take being a failure like that as a student. He was selected as a “Bonesman” at Yale, and from what little I know of that they only select the “Cream of the Crop” and people expected to go places and do things in life. Apparently correct in that too, it would seem. As a military man he was allowed to train and fly Jet Fighters, and our military doesn’t allow dummies to fly their aircraft, much less their Jet fighters, so that speaks well of Mr. Bush. And the fact that he flew MORE than the required hours in less time speaks well, too. Nothing much wrong with that record… unless you’re trying to say that serving in the Air National Guard like thousands of others is somehow less than honorable. If that’s the case there are a whole bunch of people out there that would like to explain otherwise to you. The National Guard was no “out” from having to go to Vietnam as many went, served, and died for their county there.

I, for the life of me, don’t see the failure that you see Jack. That we sit here in America and haven’t suffered another terrible terror attack speaks well for his leadership as President, for that has been his focus. You may quibble with his sending us into Iraq, but at the time the whole free world was good to go. Everybody had the same Intel as he. No, we didn’t find the hoard of WMD’s that we thought were there. Do you seriously think he’d sent us in knowing they weren’t? I think he could have come up with a better excuse than one that he knew he couldn’t prove in the end. But what we DID find in Iraq was the capability to still make those weapons. The Scientists, the labs, the command and control, AND all the necessary ingredients, all still available to him. Jack did you trust Saddam Hussein? Given his history and spoken desires, do you really believe he would have not provided one at first opportunity to do harm to us, Israel, or one of the moderate Arab nations he so despised? What would have happened Jack if he would have sent one against Israel and killed thousands? Perhaps World War 3? Perhaps a Nuclear retaliation from Israel, killing maybe millions? Again Jack, did you trust Saddam Hussein? George Bush did not. Perhaps saving countless lives.

I thank God that George Bush isn’t some wishy washy person unable to stand by his beliefs and lacking in self assurance. Most call that self confidence a trait of leadership.

He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens’ faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been. Yes the country is $10 trillion in debt. No dispute about that. Two wars, several hurricanes, floods, fires, and an out of control congress I guess you can easily ignore, but I can’t. George Bush entered office with some big plans for using the surplus that Bill Clinton and a republican controlled congress left him. Plans for educating the disadvantaged so they could move up into the mainstream of life, fighting AIDS (which he pumped far more money into the fight than ever), fixing healthcare and Social Security. Sadly 9-11 came and plans changed. He didn’t get the luxury of peace and prosperity that he thought he’d have. I’d bet’cha if he could he’d change it all back, but that isn’t possible is it? Sadly, too, is the fact that faith in our country has been ripped to shreds by people like you Jack Cafferty, who make a living tearing things down instead of building them up.  When did all this tearing down begin? Election time, 2003-04.

I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him. I’d think that would be unfounded. That the two of them have tussled quit often over policy should alleviate any of those fears. Jack, my fear is that Barack Obama is the complete opposite.


“…were substantiated by intelligence information.”

18 08 2008

A new book hit the stands just recently by Ron Suskind. A long time detractor of the Bush administration, Suskind puts forth certain tired claims that Bush led us into the Iraq war under false pretence. Almost like a broken record this stuff comes out regularly, but each time the press jumps upon it like its some great revelation from on high. Study after study has come up empty however. Even the democrats own grand attempt to bring the heat on Mr. Bush failed to do so (even though to listen to his detractors one would think they had presented the goods).

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt gives the following look at one such report from the Democrats on the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence. In part it says: “…dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.


On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.


On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”


On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.


As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.” *

Suskind gives us a view that Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what, claiming even the forging of documents to support the invasion. What should also be noted is the fact that Bush tried to end the invasion before it ever started with missile attacks on at least two occasions meant to remove Hussein from the scene. And also there was the offer of safe passage to Syria for he and his sons, where Saddam could be living today and enjoying his ill gotten fortune in comfortable surroundings. Any of these, had they been successful, would have prevented the invasion. So much for bound and determined.

Several reasons for the implied want of Bush to invade range from retaliation for the assassination plot against his father to some kind of misguided support for Israel. One theory which many want badly to believe is the lust for Iraqi oil. However easy this is to believe by those that hate Bush, it falls face down when logic and facts come to play. If we wanted Iraq’s oil, instead of wasting precious American lives and the fortune this war has cost, it would have only been a simple matter to declare that Iraq had “done enough” for us to at least allow the general sale of oil by them. Indeed, that could have been accomplished with the stroke of a pen to paper.

In truth however, it all boiled down to what Clinton’s Secretary of State said a few years before Bush was ever President. “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

It wasn’t that there were WMD’s, but the threat of what could be if they did… which was a risk we could not afford to run. We (99.9% of all of us) firmly believed that they were there. There or not, Saddam STILL had the capability to build them. That is fact. The pertinent question was whether or not he would use one, or supply one to someone who would.


There is still so much wistful hatred for Bush among the democrats. Literally months before he leaves office they still search high and low for reasons to criticize… some even still cry to impeach. All basically still wearing their feelings on their sleeve first from Gore’s loss, than Kerry’s failure to win the presidency. Still searching out the conspiracy that cost Gore his Florida victory (a recount by the press showed Bush the winner anyway). Still complaining that the several hundred veterans that served with Kerry and refused to support him, calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, were somehow less believable and less trustworthy than the eight or ten or twelve that came out in support of him. About Bush many are willing to believe any and everything, facts having no baring.

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” — Abraham Lincoln



Pelosi flips. Will it be a flop?

14 08 2008
“There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payments deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin.” – columnist Charles Krauthammer.
A democrat, doing what democrats do best, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stuck her finger into the air and got herself a good feel on which way the wind is blowing. She now seems to want to support a vote on allowing drilling in the now banned areas off our shores. ‘Seems‘, however, may be the operative word here.

Not a single argument seemed to move her. Not the high cost that our public was suffering under. Not the very security of our country. No argument about self sufficiency or money flowing to foreign dictators mattered one iota to Madam Speaker. What seems to have turned her head is what typically tend to turn liberal heads – votes. Voters anyway.

Of course her new response is also the typical democrat response – word games.

It seems that what Ms. Pelosi now supports is some kind of roundabout, tied together, lumped with and full of issues and projects and programs that wouldn’t normally even see the light of day package to put up for vote. All of the above has now seemingly become everything but the kitchen sink or nothing. A plan that she can expect to go down to defeat, thereby preserving what she wanted in the first place, but at the same time allowing her and her cronies to stand before the American voter and say that it wasn’t her who stood in the way of oil independence. She’s already made the play that what the republicans want is some kind of fraud on the American public.

Several times over the past few weeks she and other dems have stood before microphones and made the statement that “it’s the President [Bush]” who hasn’t offered an energy package that would have prevented all of this. But that’s just wrong. Bush made the case and offered the plan back in early 2001. Democrats and republicans alike didn’t listen back then. But the plan was on the table. That was then, and they didn’t see any compelling reason, but this is now… and their memory doesn’t seem to go back that far. So they keep giving the same excuse… takes too long… up to ten years.

We should see no surprise with Pelosi. She marches to a different drummer… or something. She certainly sees things in a bit of a different way. And being the skilled San Francisco politician that she is she’s able to read events and results in a much different way than many. While most of us saw the ‘surge’ in Iraq as a rousing success and heaped the credit onto our troops (where it belonged) for all their hard word, sacrifice, and the resulting vast improvement in the stability and security of that country, Pelosi said, “Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians – they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities – the Iranians.”

In other words, to her, more Americans died in vain… it was not the success we were looking for at all. Somehow, as glaring as it is to everybody else, she fails to even see the vast political change in Iraq as well as the improvement in security there. Even though it has been headlines in several papers, and scrolling across the bottom of the screen in our televisions. What IS easy to see, however, is why – because to do so would be giving credit to Bush. What’s more important? Reality, or Bush bashing? I wonder, would she turn back the clock on that surge?

Sooner or later the House will find itself back in session. Will the democrats have bought enough time so this issue isn’t as important to the public as it was just weeks ago? Will something else come along to sweep our need for domestic energy independence off the radar and out of the voting publics mind, or will she have to bite the bullet and allow a vote? And if the vote that’s allowed will it be something worth voting on…, or some poisoned package put together to assure she can protect the special interests that is her base? Time will tell.

Meanwhile, McCain and Obama duke it out over who has the better approach and plan to alleviate the demands of the public. Neither relish the thought of drilling in these now protected areas. McCain seems to see the reality and necessity of gaining more independence in our energy sources. He supported much of what’s offered up for a good long while. Obama, it seems, has seen the light (or wind direction) and now has changed his stance to support more domestic production by allowing access to those forbidden areas. At least he now says he does. That’s subject to change again as well.

There is a lot going on in the world right now, and the price of a barrel of oil has started down now that the talk about expanding production has started for real. Will any of this still be a issue come November? It’s an issue that, in the long run, won’t go away. So, we shall see.



Gone, but not (to be) forgotten.

4 08 2008
Arriva diarchy…
On August 1st, 2008 the democrat leadership of the U S House of Representatives showed America just exactly how much they really care about helping the little guy, the common man, the ordinary individual working class taxpaying citizen of the United States of America. In the middle of a crisis; a crisis that is extremely far reaching and touches almost the total population of not only America but across a goodly portion of the world, they took a vacation. It should have come as no shock. They have been telling us for a good long while that they don’t intend to do anything at all about the current price of gas and oil. Nothing that is, except point fingers and make some threats. Put the blame off on the “other” guy.

But before the democrats went home they DID offer some legislation that would have effected the high cost of energy. They tried to pass a “Carbon Tax”. Luckily (thanks to republican efforts) it failed. It would have skyrocketed the cost of energy, making our energy cost us even more.

You know, the main thing the democrats have offered us during all this is pessimism. They seem to be able to make excuse after excuse as to why this won’t work, or that will have little or no effect. And that pessimism doesn’t just come from house democrats, their Senator’s ooze it too.

While on ‘Meet the Press’ Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), in referring to the oil companies, said, “They have now leased 41 million acres of offshore leases. They’re only pumping in 10.2 million of those acres. . . And John says they need more? And it would take 10 years for it to come online.

About this Newt Gingrich writes in his blog, “There are a number of problems with these arguments. First, when federal waters or lands are leased to energy companies, the first step is to explore for oil – in other words, look for it. Most of the acres leased for oil end up being determined to not hold enough oil or gas to make it profitable for energy companies to actually extract it. So the vast majority of those 68 million acres are not being used for a simple reason: they’re currently unusable.”

One of the problems with Biden argument that Newt, and almost ALL others, seem to overlook is one of simple logic… and math. We don’t put oil rigs on each and every acre of land (or sea) and carpet whole areas with drilling rigs. It’s no longer like those photo’s out of the past with hundreds of individual derricks blanketing the landscape. ALSO, much of what is leased HAS been explored, with limited success. Not all of the land that the oil companies wish to lease is guaranteed to have oil underneath, anyway. But we should allow them the right and ability to search. It’s in our countries best interest to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

…By the way, what’s 41 divided by 10.2? The answer: almost 1 out of every 4 acres IS being pumped.

Don’t misunderstand, I don’t think for one minute that the search should be careless or haphazard. But things are far different now than years ago when the pollution concerns were very very real. Is it better to guarantee a pristine beach, and a ruined economy with many people suffering and struggling to make ends meet… and even perhaps see our country and our constitution fall because we allowed ourselves to be vulnerable to foreign domination? And will those “dominators” respect those beaches or those wildlife areas that we seek to protect? What will the environmentalists have to say if and when it’s Venezuela, or perhaps maybe even China, drilling for Oil in ANWR.

And another thing… where did this idea that it would take “10 years” for any new oil to come “online”? I have friends that work in the oil industry (on the ground level) and rest assured, it doesn’t take any ten years to get a well drilled and oil flowing… My guess is that they are talking about doing environmental impact studies and such, which in some cases won’t have to be done, and in the cases where it does, Congress could act to speed that process up…, being it in the interest of our National Security after all. (But it seems they care little for that… our National Security that is.)

And as far as allowing exploration and drill effecting the price of oil, just the fact that President bush offered to take any executive prohibition off drilling in those areas caused a drop in the price of crude. The market is, after all, a “futures” market, and they don’t call it that for nothing. Imagine the effect actually opening those areas up would have!

 Wake up America! That is exactly opposite from what the democrats want. The democrats have been pushing to get the price of gasoline on par with what they pay in Europe for many years now. Even wanting to place taxes on it to reach that goal. If you think for one minute that they will do ANYTHING to help reduce the cost of gasoline you are sadly mistaken. This fits right in to their agenda. They don’t care how many jobs are lost or how many of our industries are in trouble because of it.

Bush warned us in early 2001 that this was coming and offered the solutions necessary, but we wouldn’t listen. And now they have us so conditioned to blaming everything on him that’s where we automatically point the finger. Meanwhile they sit back and laugh… at us. Because they know they have created a situation where we look toward the government for help and that creates further dependence on the government. That’s called socialism… and that’s their goal.



It IS the economy, stupid…

1 08 2008

Do something!


Ms. Pelosi, we really don’t need you to “Save the World”. The American people will do a good enough job of that. After all, they always have… What we’d like YOU to do is save us some money at the pump, and maybe a whole lot of jobs while you’re at it.


‘WASHINGTON (Reuters) – It really is the economy, stupid! Economic models that have correctly predicted the winner of almost all post-war U.S. presidential elections say recession fears will secure a victory for Barack Obama in November….’

That’s truly baffling, as it’s the high cost of energy that has the economy on the ropes, and it’s the democrats (and Obama) who refuse any help.


Why would Americans vote for the party who is at the root cause of all the misery? Possibly because the press believes that the public is what they called them in the first line of the above story – stupid. They hide the facts and try their best to pull the wool over the publics eyes… and with a good bit of success it seems.


Does anybody really think that the U S House of Representatives had the American peoples best interest at heart when they adjourned today? Or were they perhaps just getting the heck out of Dodge so they wouldn’t be forced by public pressure and the republicans to actually do something? Something they very much want to avoid. After all, the more they stand pat and do nothing while in the public eye the more American will come to realize just who really is to blame for this mess.


Obama has stood several times upon a stage and announced that he intends to do nothing about the high cost of Oil. But they don’t report that, or when they do they obscure the meaning of what he said. The only problem Obama has with that high cost is that it went up faster than “he wanted” it to. They (Obama and the dems) want to use the high cost of gas and oil as a tool to somehow help the environment. To them the high cost is a GOOD THING. It doesn’t matter the fortune that it will cost some to heat their homes this winter. It is meaningless to them that people will have to struggle just to get to their jobs, much less put ever more expensive food on the table. They don’t care that it will cost thousands their jobs. It already has! It just makes us more dependant on the government, and that’s what it’s really all about anyway. Governmental control. Democrat control.


How helpful is it really to reduce a people’s standard of living? How helpful is it to the environment to create more poverty and have people across the world, and right here in America, starve?


People, they want you to believe Bush is behind all of this, but look around you. The democrats tell you to your face that they plan to do nothing for you. Nothing but take your hard earned money. Beware, anytime they mention ‘national, or want to ‘nationalize’ anything, they are taking away something of yours. It’s called socialism. Name something that the government does that it does better than the people and private enterprise. Do we really want to put our healthcare in their hands?


Socialism couldn’t defeat us from the outside. But it seems to be growing strong from within. What’s the difference between socialism and communism? – The spelling.


– Al