Thursday, July 31, 2008

How the media make you believe things are worse than they are

Today, the government reported that the economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product or GDP, grew by an annual rate of 1.9 percent. Nothing to write home about, but not bad either.

A caveat in the news business is that good news does not sell. My exposure to this was during the time I worked both in PR, working with the media, and as a newspaper reporter and editor. Bad news sells, good news does not, especially for the front page. And the front page, especially above the fold, which readers supposedly see first, is the Holy Grail of bad news.

The way people digest news these days is changing, but the dinosaur main-stream media has not changed quickly enough, which is why so many are struggling financially.

But the media will make good news look bad, because of this "golden rule" of news editors. They use the English language, choosing their words carefully, precisely. Reporters and editors spend a great deal of time doing this, and their choice of words are seldom by accident.

The AP reported this morning that "economic growth picked up" in the second quarter. Key here is "picked up." As in only. Of course, the reason is that the tax rebate "energized" consumers. This was the first sentence of the story, so you left with a kind of ho-hum feeling.

Next sentence, in the first paragraph (which is called the lead, or lede), reads: "The rebound followed a treacherous patch where the economy jolted into reverse at the end of 2007. The italics are mine to point out the change of emotion from the first sentence to the second.

Second paragraph provides actual figures for the lead (emphasis mine):

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in the April-to-June period. That marked an improvement over the feeble 0.9 percent growth logged in the first quarter of this year and an outright contraction in the economy during the final quarter of last year.

Let's look at some other superlatives used in the article.

"The rebound, while welcome, isn't likely to be seen as a signal that the fragile economy is out of the woods. There are fears that as the bracing tonic of the tax rebates fades, the economy could be in for another rough patch later this year."

One of my favorite passages in the article is this one: "...employers have cut jobs for six months in a row, bringing total losses this year close to a staggering half-million — 438,000."

First of all, 438,000 is closer to 400,000 than a half-million, or 500,000. So if you are rounding to the nearest hundred thousand, it should have read "a whopping 400,000." Get it?

Secondly, there are more than 146 million people working in this country. Cutting 438,000 jobs is only .2 percent of the total. While we all hate to see 438,000 jobs cut, that doesn't really mean that 438,000 more people are out of work. As the AP reports, "The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number of applications for jobless benefits soared to 448,000, an increase of 44,000 from the previous week." A less-than-10-percent increase is not soaring. If there are 10,000 more people unemployed over the number of job cuts, so it must be that many of those people in jobs that were cut have found new employment. Now that would NOT be bad news.

The fact is that the economy grew in the second quarter and the jobless rate remains historically low.

But why paint a rosy picture when you can spin it as bad news?

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Big Bad Oil?

Just recently, ConocoPhillips paid out $700 million in quarterly dividends. For the last year, they paid about $2.8 billion. Today, ExxonMobil announced they would pay out $2.1 billion in dividends, for one quarter. During the last year, they paid more than $8 billion in dividends.

Then there is Chevron, which has paid more than $5 billion in dividends. BP, a little more than $10 billion; Total, $6.9 billion, and Royal Dutch, $10 billion.

Even PetroChina Co, LTD, paid nearly $9 billion in dividends during the last year.

Where does this money go?

Mutual funds, pension plans, retirement accounts, millions of individual investors, and my mother-in-law (an ExxonMobil shareholder), to name a few. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income, which means that millions of Americans can keep more of their dividends. (Of course, Barack wants to raise these taxes).

And this is bad, how?

Whose Failed Policies?

While out promoting her new book, rather than attending to the business of the American people, Nancy Pelosi is defending her stance on energy policy.

"I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy," Pelosi said. “When you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

What debate? She won't allow it on the House floor. And whose failed policies?

"She's got time to go out and promote her new book tour and her new book, but she doesn't have time to schedule a vote on the floor of the House and let the American people have their will expressed?" Rep. John Boehner told FOX News.

"For 25 years, Democrats have blocked more American-made oil and gas. That's why we're in the predicament we're in," said Boehner, R-Ohio. Voters want Congress "to vote on more American made oil and gas. We want to do that. She, Harry Reid, Barack Obama are standing in the way."

House and Senate Democrats are using their control of Congress to avoid voting on opening up the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil exploration, which they say is unnecessary because oil companies already have leases to millions of acres of federal land. Because of the deadlock, Democratic energy priorities have stalled, too.

Pelosi countered the criticism by issuing a statement that listed a series of editorials from newspaper boards critical of the GOP plan to allow more offshore oil drilling.

"American families and businesses are struggling with skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, but President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand in the way of real relief," Pelosi said in the statement. "Instead, the Bush-Cheney policy, an energy plan crafted by two oilmen in the White House, revolves around the best interests of Big Oil – from protecting tax breaks to expanding domestic oil and gas drilling."

David Rogers at the Politico newspaper reports that Pelosi, who initially promised an open debate, has now resorted to what he calls hard-nosed parliamentary devices to block any Republican proposals on offshore oil and gas exploration.

Rogers also calls Pelosi "Nancy the Navigator" because she says, "I have always loved longitude. I love latitude; it's in the stars. But longitude, it's about time... time and clocks and all the rest of that have always been a fascination for me."

This is beyond belief. Even liberals (I assume posters at Huffington Post are liberal) are getting fed up with this Do-Nothing Congress.

In response to Robert Borosage's latest post, where he attempts to blame everything on Republicans, some of the resposes are telling.

Chris: "Wow it is funny how leftiest during the republican control of congress encouraged obstructionist. But now it is bad? Why is that exactly?"

People Proffessor: "Government cannot do everything. And it shouldn't do everything as enumerated in that wonderful document known as OUR Constitution."

PATina: "The Democrats have wasted the last 8 years... DOING NOTHING. There was the voter disenfranchising problems of 2000 and 2004... they should have come up w/ concrete plans to introduce legislation to improve (or change) the way we vote in this country. But they did nothing and then In 2008... it was the DEMS that were accused of disenfranchising voters in FL and MI. Pathetic."

In another reponse to Borosage's post, even some stauch Democrats are finally getting angry:

I heard Nancy on Jon Stewart blaming the lack of progress on GOP obstruction, but let's face it Nancy, you got the ball rolling (or stopped it from rolling) with "Impeachment is off the table" - why didn't you at least LOOK like you were going to changing the course of disaster the GOP had put us on, and said nothing at all or at least "Impeachment is worth looking at".

Nancy and those who rolled over with her right after the elections of 2006 don't deserve to be elected again.

Seems to me that we are getting closer and closer to a real American revolution, in which the majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, are getting fed up.

I say it's about time.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Queen Pelosi to Use Gavel to Save the World While She Destroys U.S.

Rep. (D-CA) Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has told Politico that she’s standing in the way on a drilling vote because she’s determined to use the speaker’s gavel to “save the planet.”

What gives her the right to ignore the will of the people to further her own personal agenda? The House of Representatives is the peoples house, as designed by the founders and specified in the Constitution.

She does not have this right while the average American suffers under higher energy prices, and rising prices in general caused by higher energy prices. Because of her actions, hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs, and other low-income families can barely make it.

She promised a new kind of leadership in the House. But we never knew this would lead to her coronation as Queen of the House, instead of Speaker. This is the worst Congress the U.S. has ever seen.

She needs to step down immediately.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Who's the Most Liberal? Who Cares!

The New Republic today displayed a long article about the National Journal's much-ballyhooed rankings being deeply flawed.

One fact jumped out at me. One of the reasons Obama wasn't ranked more conservative is the fact that he missed 33%, ONE-THIRD, of his votes in the Senate. If I missed ONE-THIRD of my days at work, I'd be FIRED. Once Senators get this far (being the party nominees, we assume) they should resign from their jobs.

So where does Obama really fall on the spectrum? No vote-ranking system can capture it perfectly, since ideology is as much about legislative priorities and emphases as it is about votes. But here's a rough idea: In his first two years in the Senate, when he didn't miss many votes, Obama ranked 16th and 10th on National Journal's "most liberal" list. A separate and more elaborate ranking system, developed by highly regarded political scientists Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole, found him to be the 11th most liberal senator in 2007 and 21st most liberal in the previous Congress. Obama clearly belongs to the party's liberal wing rather than its centrist contingent--he's essentially said as much--but he's not close to being the Senate's left-most member.

Second of all, I don't care if Obama is the most liberal Senator ever. I just don't know what he's going to do. McCain is a more known entity. Obama is not. I watched Obama during the primaries, and he said many things, pandering more left than center. Now that he's in the general election, not only is his arrogance coming to light, be he's now changing his policies.

I don't mind if a politician changes his mind based on new information, but Obama is changing based on the same information that has been available all along.

That worries me. Inexperience, the willingness to pander for political gain, and arrogance is what Obama has. He needs another 15-20 years in government before he's even close to ready.

You should be worried too.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

It is evident by now that it is hard to pin Barack Obama down what his positions are, but don't believe me. Listen to him, in his own words.



Where Has All Our Money Gone?

During the last two years (2006 and 2007), the U.S. Government spent about $5.3 trillion. This astronomical sum of money is almost beyond comprehension. During these same two years, the government collected about $5.0 trillion. Again, a huge pile of cash.

One way to look at this amount of money -- $5.3 trillion over two years -- is how that breaks down for every person in the country, called per capita: It's $17,385 per person for two years, or about $8,690 per person per year.

Another way to look at is how much money does the U.S. Government spends per each worker, those who are employed. During the second quarter of this year, there were about 146 million people with jobs. It comes to $18,150 per employed person per year.

Page 19 of this table will show you a summary of where the government gets its money. Page 22 shows a summary of which agency gets what.

And we've all heard of earmarks. Well, you can find out what is being spent on these little jewels. The Office of Management and Budget has the information.

Our government has grown so large that no one can control it, a concept offered in this article called Insatiable Government by Garet Garrett:

There are many aspects of government. The one least considered is what may be called the biological aspect, in which government is like an organism with such an instinct for growth and self-expression that if let alone it is bound to destroy human freedom — not that it might wish to do so but that it could not in nature do less. No government ever wants less government — that is, less of itself. No government ever surrenders power, even its emergency powers — not really. It may mean to surrender them, but on the first new occasion it will take them all back. One of the American Government's wartime powers was the War Finance Corporation. The present Reconstruction Finance Corporation is a revival of that power in time of peace. And so it goes.


This was first published on June 25, 1932. We haven't learned. From the New Deal to Johnson's War on Poverty, we've allowed the government to control just about everything we do. This is not freedom.

It will only get worse, unlesss we do something about it.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Must Reads for the Day

It should be quite evident by now that the Democrats, and liberals in general, are not about freedom of expression, democracy or letting votes dictate the policy of this government or the will of the people. They are about power. They want to run the country as they see fit, because they are, after all, smarter and better than the rest of us. If you don't believe this, start with the first story below, an editorial in the usually left-leaning Washington Post.

No Drilling, No Vote
Speaker Pelosi won't let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Barack Obama Secretly Runs Senate Banking Committee!
Here’s our pal Barack Obama, saying that the Senate Banking Committee — “which is my committee,” he says — passed some bill about something. Problem is, he’s not actually on the Senate Banking Committee at all. Maybe he meant to say he’s on the SENATE LIARS COMMITTEE where he passed a bill about MAKING SHIT UP. This is significantly more important than John McCain saying the Surge caused things that happened before the Surge.

A Look Back: What Democrats Were Saying About The Surge
The enormous improvement in Iraq's security situation caused by the surge has been so undeniable that even the mainstream press has started alternating between ignoring Iraq completely and acknowledging, albeit reluctantly, that the surge has put victory within reach in Iraq.

Change They Can Believe In
Barack Obama’s recent global tour may have been a media sensation abroad, but back home it was a punch line. “There was a huge reception for Barack Obama in the Middle East this past weekend,” quipped Jay Leno. “People were screaming, chasing him, hanging on his every word — and that was just the U.S. press corps.”

The Surge, the Awakening, the Democrats and Rewriting History
McCain wants to start the surge too early, Wesley Clark gets his facts wrong and also claims the Saudis had a hand in calming the violence - the surge has become a bit of a political football in this not yet official presidential contest.

Summer Madness
So an exasperated Sen. Barbara Boxer screams that the farm-belt senators better support her regional selfishness in opposing California off-shore drilling against the national interest, in the same manner she went along with the ethanol boondoggle. Odd that she was so brazen in her confessional.


Thursday, July 24, 2008

The liberal mind

In a letter to the editor for the TCPalm, a reader speaks her opinion on the Fairness Doctrine, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports. This bill, if passed, would required radio stations to provide the same amount of time to a liberal as to conservatives such as Rush, et al, get to air their shows.

The Fairness Doctrine is not needed. The market-place will provide. Both sides of the political spectrum has what they need to get their views heard. This would probably put some to many radio stations out of business. This is the motivation behind Pelosi's stance: silence any opposition. This is quite clear to anyone who thinks clearly.

Beside the point (which is my point, not the letter writer above), why do we need government to tell us what we need to put on the air?

In reponse to this letter writer, the liberals went balistic. Listen to how they make their case (you should first read the letter above, so you can see the tone in which is was written).

"hey donna to begin with i consider rush to be a comedian, drug abuser who has nothing to do but feed his sheep pure stupidity and as sheep does you follow him, oreilly (a real idiot) hannity another shepherd of the non thinking flock"

How is the 'fairness doctrine" any different than 'fair and balanced" ? One can listen to whomever they want and believe whatever they want . No one is stopping them . If one can not tell the difference between facts and fiction pretty much explains why they listen to Rush, Sean and Bill it enforces their intollerent beliefs. Right wingers have always been easy targets for the hate mongers or groups Weather it was Hitler, Grobbels, Joe McCarthy. S. Agnew, N. Gingrich, Rush, Sean or Bill. You won't find any right wingers in Green Peace or the Peace Corp , but you will however find them in the KKK or American Nazi party .It was liberals who pushed civil rights that why right wingers became REPUBLICANS . Intollerance , this is what appeals to right wingers. REMEMBER JESUS CHRIST WAS A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL. A TRUE CHRISTIAN believes in LIBERAL PRINCIPALS.

Of course, conservatives had their say as well:

First of all many many republicans helped with the civil rights movement, of course left wing nuts like yourself will never admit to that. Secondly,you mention how you will see right wingers in groups that promote hate but you forgot to mention that there are a lot of liberals that also promote hate and many liberals that promote the use of force to get their agenda pushed forward.Look at the terrorrist group FALN from Puerto Rico,they set off bombs here in our country.The Clintons,the liberals that they are commutted the sentences of 19 convicted members of the group.Look at Obama,not only a liberal but a socialist.He belonged to a church that preached hatred towards whites.He attended the church for twenty years.Take a look at Rep Charle Rangel another liberal.He has supported former members of the black panters,a group that went around shooting police officers in the 60,s and 70's.As you can see there are plenty of low lifes on both sides of the aisle.Thirdly,you stated "if one can not tell the difference between fact and fiction it pretty much explains why the listen to Rush,Sean and Bill it enforces their intollerent beliefs.On the other hand if people like yourself who can't tell the difference between fact and fiction is explains why you watch CNN,NBC or CBS.You most likely think that everything Colmes says on Hannity and Colmes is 100 percent correct.Liberals like yourself also have two sets of standards.Look at Obama.Obama attends a church of hate for twenty years,a church that preached hatred towards whites.Obama never objected to any of it.If McCain had attended a church that preached hatred towards blacks or any other ethnic group you and the rest of the liberals would be screaming that he is a racist and the he should be thrown out of the race.Your willinhg to overlook what Obama did because he is a ultra liberal.Now onto the so called fairness doctrine.The fact is the liberals want this pushed thru because conservative talk radio is killing the liberal shows in the ratings and they want to stop that.Like you stated "one can listen to whomever they want and believe what they want".So in other words we do not need this legislation pushed thru if you do not want to listen to conservative talk radio all you have to do is switch stations but the fact is liberals know that more people listen to conservative radio and watch conservative tv than liberal radio and tv and they do not like that.

Besides the facts, the tone of the writing is so much different for a conservative as opposed to the liberals.

A New Kind of Leadership

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised a new kind of leadership in the House of Representatives. Well, we got it.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid continue to block any legislation that would increase our domestic oil and gas exploration and production. As WorldNetDaily comments:

Speaker Pelosi is making similar use of her considerable power, denying access to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for any proposal that would loosen the restrictions on expanded drilling in America. In committees, she has directed that meetings be recessed or canceled when necessary to prevent elected representatives from offering of any pro-drilling amendments.

The appropriations process has been shut down to avoid amendments. It's hard to believe, but this Congress wants to avoid energy votes more than it wants to spend money.

Similar tactics are being applied in the Senate, along with a refusal to delay its August recess to consider energy legislation. The political sensitivity is greater in the House, however, because every one of its members must face the voters this fall, whereas only one-third of the senators will.

Pennlive.com calls Pelosi's tactics as "one person using her power to usurp the democratic process because of personal ideology." And liberals have the gall to call Bush a tyrant.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

In Case You Missed It

Kelly Nuxoll wrote for the Huffington Post on July 15: "Barack Obama is waging a strategic effort this week to shore up his credentials." To shore up his credentials to lead in world affairs means he must have credentials in the first place, which he does not. She is quite impressed with Obama's ability to think strategically. After all, he beat Hillary in the primaries and he's written a best-selling book. She goes on:

My brother, a soldier in Iraq, was "unimpressed and even a little turned off" with the Democratic candidate's plan to leave Iraq -- it completely overlooked whether Iraqi security forces would be ready, how long it takes to redeploy not just combat brigades but assets, and the process for establishing a stable political environment in Baghdad.

Details!...are where the devil is.

She claims tactics don't matter. "Obama won't get bogged down in the hows, but continue to soar high in the whats and whys."

Kind of why liberal policies are always such a failure. By the way, Nuxoll is a free-lance writer and lives in San Francisco.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

How long will this go on?

We're in trouble. And our government has been failing us for more than 50 years.

Are we running out of oil, as "peak oil" advocates would have us believe? Or do we not need to worry about it?

In December 2007, Brazil discovered billions in its Tupi field. In April 2008, Brazil discovered that its Carioca offshore oil field may hold up to 33 billion barrels. China last year made 10 major new energy discoveries.

Most estimates place the U.S. reserves (oil that we haven't pumped yet, but know is there) are about 30 billion barrels. This doesn't include some of the following:

In 2006 Chevron, Devon Energy and Norway's Statoil discovered a field with 15 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico. Other offshore sources hold as much as 10 billion barrels. The 2,000-acre site in ANWR has up to 16 billion barrels. The Bakken oil basin, stretching from North Dakota and Montana into Canada, has about 4 billion barrels. Colorado and Utah are estimated to contain as much as 1.2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in shale below the ground.
A 2005 U.S. Geological Survey reported that there remain some 3 trillion barrels worldwide yet to be pumped.

The numbers are so big that it's hard to put your mind around. So let's do that.

Let's say, for a moment, that the figure of 30 billion barrels of oil left in the U.S. is correct.

How long would that last if we used it all for our consumption of 20 million barrels a day?

We've got just over 4 years of oil left. Wow. We'd better get our bicyles out. I'll invest in some horses for sure.

Ignoring the shale oil for a moment, there is another estimated 45 billion barrels yet to be tapped in the U.S. That would add another 6.16 years. So we have just a little more than 10 years if we used all of our own oil.

If we just use our own oil to replace imports (about 14 million barrels a day), we get just over 14 years before we run out.

Looks pretty bleak, huh?

Add the 1.2 trillion in shale oil, and we get a little breather. This would last us 164 years if we used it for all of our needs, and 235 years to replace our imports. Of course, we would not be importing after a century, because the rest of the world will have run out.

At the current consumption rate of 80 million barrels per day worldwide, we have 104 years before everyone runs out.

So what is the solution to our energy needs? Obviously, we need oil now. So we better get busy, because the downside to not using our own resources is this: every day we send (at today's price of $126 per barrel) some $1.7 billion to other countries, most of who are not very friendly to us. Better to keep those dollars at home, don't you think?

We certainly need to find some viable alternatives. So we better get to work. Nuclear energy, natural gas, hydrogen power, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are all sources to tap. Continued research into fusion is absolutely necessary.

We do not have to ride horses again. But a sane, well-though-out, and continuous energy program is needed. Our government has been failing us for more than 40 years. How long will we let this go on?

Sunday, July 20, 2008

No Evidence that Drilling Will Help

In a recent oped piece for IBD, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne made the following statement: "Promises that more offshore drilling will magically bring down prices are not backed up by the evidence."

Twisted logic. First of all, there is no evidence available, because we can't drill for more offshore oil. Only if we were drilling for more oil would there be evidence one way or another. Second of all, the economic principles of supply and demand aren't "magic."

Next, he quotes Al "I invented the internet" Gore: "We have been drilling for more oil, and the prices have gone up," Gore said in the interview. "A lot more oil has been found, a lot more has been produced."

Typical of liberals, they forget the supply side of the equation. We could drill 10 times more oil, but if it didn't meet needs, the price would probably go up.

But more typical, Gore's statement is not true. Our domestic production of oil has fallen 12 percent over the last several years.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, between 2000 and 2007, drilling of exploratory wells increased 138% while domestic crude oil production fell 12.4% to its lowest level since 1947.

Besides just ignoring the facts, this liberal non-logic is the same as stating that drilling for more oil won't lower the price of gasoline, but syphoning off 70 million barrels or so of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve will. If you put 70 million barrels in the market all at once, this new supply would last no more than three days, based on our consumption of 20 million per day.

The liberal tactic here is to convince us they know best, though the proper use of correct logic would invalidate their premiss, and if that doesn't work, just make up some "facts" to validate their case.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Who Would You Call?

If you had a problem with your plumbing, you'd call a plumber, right? A broken tooth, the dentist. Your car broken down? An auto mechanic. We typically call the experts to help us in areas where we have less expertise.

So if we have an oil "crisis" who are you going to call? An oilman, or a vineyard owner?

George Bush was a successful Texas oilman, before becoming part-owner of the Texas Rangers and then governor of Texas. Then of course, two terms as President.

Nancy Pelosi and her husband own vineyards in northern California, and other than being a congresswoman, she doesn't have any experience with oil exploration or production.

So who are we going to call?

Pelosi's Priorities: Dog Walkers

Our favorite Speaker of the House has her priorities in order. While we are debating gas prices, oil drilling, financial melt-downs, and other problems affecting our way of life, Nancy is worried about the name of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Dog walkers say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attempt to change the name of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Golden Gate National Parks could bar their pooches from running free.

"Pelosi Betrays Her Constituents!" blares one headline on a dog walking Web site, which goes on to say a change to the name from "recreation area" to "national park" would make it easier for the federal government to restrict dogs in areas such as Rodeo, Muir and other Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo beaches.

Under current rules, dogs generally must be kept on leash in national parks. Rules in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area allow dogs to be off the leash in certain areas as long as they are under "voice command."

"I think a lot of dog groups are pretty concerned about the name change," said Sally Stephens of the San Francisco Dog Owners Group. "And this could not only affect dog walkers, but other forms of recreation as well."

Pelosi last month introduced a bill that would change the name, saying she wanted better recognition for the park areas. The proposal will be reviewed by the House's Resource Committee Tuesday.

When President Harry Truman called his Congress a "do-nothing Congress" he had no idea of how do-nothing it would eventually become. Why would any sane person, at this time, even think about spending time on this non-issue today? I guess I answered my own question.

God help us all.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Pelosi: Drilling Issue is an 'Absolute Hoax'

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House, is stuck in the "we can't drill our way out of this problem." She recently told The Hill newspaper that "this call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration."

She doesn't care about the price of gasoline. Worth some $50 million, she is not hurting at the gasoline pump. In fact, she probably likes gasoline at $4. It means we'll use less, which will help the battle on global warming (a recent study suggests that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase crop yields, but I digress once again).

Even if new drilling only reduced the price of gasoline by a few cents, at least my dollars would be buying American oil, not Saudi, Iranian, Nigerian, Venezuelan, etc. Instead of funding rogue regimes, we would be funding our own economy.

How can our Speaker of the House and many other democrats deny us that?

She is intent on preventing votes on opening more areas to offshore drilling despite the stirring of a revolt by rank-and-file Democrats after months of concerted effort by House Republicans. In other words, she has ordained herself Queen of America, and nothing gets voted on without her O.K. Even George Bush doesn't have that kind of power.

We send our representatives to Congress to vote on issues. But not in Pelosi's House, where she, and she alone calls the shots. No wonder the approval rating for Congress is only 9 percent, according to some polls (and at the most, 18 percent).

Even Sen. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, who is normally just as liberal as Pelosi, is twisting, saying that "I'm not knee-jerk-opposed to anything." Of course, we won't include his "The War is Lost" mentality of recent past.

The Democrat solution is more regulation (always the mantra of the left) of oil futures traders, more hearings and grilling of oil executives, and yet surprisingly a couple of good ideas: the Bureau of Land Management should speed up the leasing of approved areas, ban the export of American oil, and urge the completion of the Alaskan oil and gas pipelines.

But no more drilling or using our own resources. We'll just ask the Saudis nicely to provide us more, and I'm sure they will.

How naive. To solve the current energy "crisis" will take a multi-front strategy, and getting more of our own resources is one part of the attack. We have enough to supply our own needs, if only the Democrats had a brain enough to let us.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Gramm's Comments Hide Bigger Story

Phil, you're not helping the conservative or Republican cause when you stay stupid shit. Of course, it doesn't matter that the "mental recession" comment was made in private and then later relayed to a journalist. It gave the liberals more ammunition about insensitive conservatives.

I know everyone with a blog or computer or typewriter will be commenting on Phil Gramm's idiotic comments yesterday. If you really want to know what some people think or feel, take a look at Melody's rant at the DailyKos.

Yes, I occasionally peruse sites like DailyKos and Huffington Post. If you have any stake in what's going on, you gotta know what other people who might disagree with you are thinking. Then you need to think about what they're thinking before you throw it out. Otherwise, you're no better than the left-wing koolaid drinkers.

Anyway, Melody makes some valid points, even though some things aren't quite right factually (like her whining about it being hot in Texas, which it is every summer and this one is not even close to a record, the public pool has closed because the Democrat leadership in Dallas can't manage their budget; like her "cottage" decreasing in value by $50K; home prices in Dallas have been relatively stable, unless you're living in a $750K house, which in Dallas equates to a $3 million house in L.A.), and telling him to stick it up his ass several times losses its one-time punch.

But as a fellow middle-class American, I have to agree with her point that the recent rise in price of gas, energy, and food have made an impact on us, and it's just not mental. So Gramm has done everyone a disservice, and a great one at that.

But he does have somewhat of a point: we are becoming a nation of whiners, especially on the left.

But there is more to this story than meets the eye, especially at first glance. At nearly the same time Phill is making an idiot of himself, Michelle Obama put her foot in her mouth as well. Phil sounds elitist, but so does Michelle when she says, "Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good," she continued. "And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings..." I assume she's talking about the May rebate checks (this isn't a gift from the government, they're just returning my money). Full story here.

Earrings? My wife and I received $1,200 in rebate checks; we're not going to go buy earrings for God's sake, or anything else frivolous. We used it on things we need.

But where is the outrage? The Obamas get a free pass again from the main street media. The conservative gets hammered, and rightly so, but the liberal is so cute. Even the somewhat-more-conservative-than-most U.S. News and World Report ignores it...

That's the bigger story.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Random Thoughts

A liberal would have written the headline above as "Random Musings." It sounds more intellectual. But simple words have an impact as well. Hemmingway and Stephen King wrote at the fifth-grade level.

The American Left keeps looking for institutions, organizations or people to blame for the rapid increase in energy prices. Who is it now? Ronald Reagan, of course. See Richard Cohen's column in the Washington Post. You can read it at IDB editorials; that way, you don't have to register if you don't want to, because the Post will make you register. Interesting quote from the column: "The worst part of Reaganism was its political success."

Somebody shoot me, ok?

Sometimes Liberal Logic doesn't compute. With Obama's lean toward the center, some on the left want to make sure we know that McCain has been flip-flopping on Iraq. The U.S. and Iraq are negotiating a security treaty, and the Iraqis want our departure as part of that treaty. This is great news, because the Iraqis are beginning to stand up for themselves. (I guess the surge worked, but I digress). But Jon Soltz at the Huffington Post wrote "There you have it. The Iraqis are basically telling the US that they endorse Obama's policy..." He continues with twists and turns to accuse McCain of twisting and turning. McCain is a flip-flopper because he hasn't come out immediately and say he'll support immediate withdrawal.

Somebody shoot me, ok?

Why is it that we have to cut our "carbon output" by 50 percent by some future date, but the Chinese, Indians and basically the entire third world get a free pass. Are they trying to spend us to death, like Reagan did to the Soviet Union?

Obama thinks we should be embarrassed because we (Americans) aren't all bi-lingual. Europeans come here and they can speak English, he says, but all we can say is merci beau coup (French for thank you very much, in case you're not bi-lingual). He says we should make sure all of our children speak Spanish. Obama is clueless. I lived in Europe for five years, and while many Europeans do speak English, many do not. English is the world-wide language of business, air traffic control, diplomacy, etc. If the world-wide language was French, as it was around the founding of this country, more of us would speak French, as our founding fathers did. If you're going to blame someone for the dominance of English, blame the British.

Nothing wrong with being bi-lingual, but I get the feeling the American Left would make it a requirement, enforced by government decree.

Leave Europe for the Europeans, America for Americans.

I'm I dead yet?

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Sue OPEC? Congress Should Sue Itself

Michael Cembalest is chief investment officer of JPMorgan Private Bank. Forbes reprinted an exerpt from one of his bi-weekly "Eye on the Market" e-mails in which he states that instead of Congress suing OPEC, it should sue itself.

As the U.S. endures an energy crisis and imports more than 60% of its energy needs, the House of Representatives and the Senate have decided to take action. They overwhelmingly voted to modify the Sherman Antitrust Act and allow OPEC to be sued in U.S. courts for running a cartel. The Senate, however, is currently reconsidering the bill because it was shelved even after the body approved it last year. The mind reels.

Over the last 30 years, elected U.S. officials blocked nuclear build-out and spent fuel storage construction; impeded the construction of oil refineries; refrained from passing meaningful alternative energy legislation; imposed an import tax on cheaper Brazilian ethanol; prevented offshore drilling in Alaska, California and Florida; delayed tighter auto fuel-efficiency standards for 30 years; blocked the construction of liquefied natural gas ports; killed wind farms in their own backyards (and back bays); and neglected opportunities for public-private sector partnerships on energy research and development.

Congress got it wrong; it should sue itself instead.
It's an interesting read, and you can find it here.

Also, Ed Wallace had an interesting commentary on oil in Business Week.

Iraqi Uraniam Transferred to Canada

Iraq had 550 tons of yellowcake, a form of processe uranium used for not only nuclear fuel, but nuclear weapons.

This was reported July 7 by some media outlets. But forget big headlines. This type of news doesn't fit in with the mainstream media's agenda.

To get the full story, here are some in-depth articles and commentaries on the subject:

Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
Saddam's Nukes
Iraq's nuclear 'yellowcake' moved to Canada

Now that we know for sure that Saddam had nuclear and chemical materials, will the American left change their tune? Don't count on it.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Press Slames the Dollar

The press love to report anything negative. You really need to be a glass-half-empty cynic to love reporting the news. I did it for a while, for both weekly and daily newspapers (the European Stars and Stripes), so I know. Good news doesn't sell newspapers, though the papers I worked for really did strive for a balance since they were financed (but not controlled, by act of Congress) by the U.S. Government.

Recently, the Associated Press reported on the Almight Dollar is No Longer Mighty. At least that was one headline a newspaper put on it, and it was actually a line in the story.

Every who follows economic issues knows the dollar is down, and it has both positive and negative issues. Oil costs more, because oil is priced in dollars on the world-wide market (even though its No Longer Mighty!). But exports are cheaper, so companies that export overseas see better sales. So it's a trade off. Right now, it would probably be better if the dollar was more valuable, and it probably will become so, especially if we start drilling for our own oil and raise our interest rates in order to attract more buyers of dollars.

But what pisses me off is the way news agencies use hyperbole to report the news. Let me give you a few examples.

The first sentence of the report: "Things in the U.S. sure are tough." Well, you know where things are going from here. If you think things are so tough, read my previous post "What Are We So Unhappy About?"

The dollar is fanning inflation...playing a major role...Americans in Paris are being clobbared by sky-high tabs...the limp greenback...and on and on and on.

If you do your own investigation, you'll find many economists think the dollar was over-valued in the 1990s, and its approximate 25 percent decrease in value since 2002 against other currencies is just normal market adjustments.

But to the media, of course, the sky is falling.

Monday, July 7, 2008

What Are We So Unhappy About?

A recent poll conducted by the Princeton Survey Research Associates International on June 18-19, 2008 indicated that 80 percent of those surveyed were disatisfied with "the way things are going in the United States at this time."

Ipsos Public Affairs found that 76 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Gallup found that 84 percent were disatisfied with the way things are going. NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 71 percent thought the United States is on the wrong track.

I could site more polls, but they all show the same thing. You can find more on this at PollingReport.com.

The reason I bring this up is because today I received an unsolicited e-mail that quotes Jay Leno as answering the question, why are we so unhappy? I did some research and found that there are also attempts to attribute this to David Letterman.

Well, the truth is that the following passage (I quote parts of it) was originally written by Craig R. Smith in November 2006 for World Net Daily. (You just can't believe something just because it's in an e-mail.)

What are we so unhappy about?

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

Read the rest of it here.

John Kerry Spins Out of Control

John Kerry likes to tell lies. And he has for 40 years and still is at it today. From his Congressional testimony of accusing his fellow Vietnam veterans of being like Genghis Khan, that he was a war hero ("reporting for duty"), about WMDs in Iraq (they were there under Clinton, but Bush lied), to his latest statements that John McCain doesn't have the judgement to be President, he keeps on going...

It's a good thing, then, that McCain rejected overtures from Kerry in 2004 to run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Kerry was on Face the Nation July 6, and had nothing nice to say about his Senate colleague.

As quoted by the Associated Press: "If you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove."

Personally, I liked my middle-class tax cut. The fact that the cuts were for all taxpayers doesn't bother me at all. The fact that the top 10 percent of wage earners pay nearly 50 percent of federal personal income tax says a lot. Yes, they could afford to pay some more, but that's not the point here. The tax cuts spurred new growth, and it helped more than hurt. Raising taxes now, with energy and food prices going higher, will really put the brakes on the economy.

Kerry says that McCain was wrong in his judgement about the Iraq war; however, McCain was the one who stood up to the administration and urged Bush to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to help control violence. McCain supported additional troops from the very start. Kerry and Obama did not support the addition of troops. Violence in Iraq has dropped to the lowest level, the Iraqi government is making progress toward effective self-government and the Iraqi Army is doing more and more each day. All facts that Kerry denies.

Kerry says McCain has flipped-flopped on more issues than he was accused of during the last Presidential campaign. I'm not going to sit down and count the issues, but I'm sure that McCain is much more steadfast in his views than Kerry or Obama has ever been or ever will be. Both Kerry and Obama have said, and will say, what the current set of voters want to hear.

The Associated Press wrapped up the story this way:

Not too long ago, Kerry might have described McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, as a bipartisan ally who could provide guidance on national security issues.

McCain came to Kerry's aid in March 2004 after Bush and his campaign tried to paint the Democrat as weak on defense. He rejected the suggestion in broadcast interviews and chided both parties for waging such a "bitter and partisan" campaign.

The two senators also discussed the vice presidency several times before McCain finally rejected Kerry's overtures to form a bipartisan ticket. Kerry ultimately selected then-Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to join the ticket.

For the record, Kerry is not among those being mentioned as possible running mates for McCain.

However, McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was also on Face the Nation, said that McCain was right about the war.

"John understood we were losing in Iraq, quite frankly," Graham told host Bob Schieffer. "After Baghdad fell, we had the wrong strategy in place. And John, above anybody else in the country, spoke against his own administration, argued to Rumsfeld that we didn't have enough troops. So it's not just a few dead-enders. And he risked his own political career to turn it around."

Graham said Sen. Barack Obama was wrong to predict the "surge" would not work and that troops should be withdrawn. "The big test for this country is, how do you avoid losing in Iraq? If we'd have listened to Barack Obama, we would have lost. If we listen to him now, we will lose in the future and undercut all the gains we've made.

"We're winning because John McCain understood Iraq better than anybody else. The surge has worked. The political, economic and military progress in Iraq is undeniable.

"The biggest loser in Iraq is al Qaeda because the Muslims in Iraq joined with us and turned on them, and they've punished al Qaeda in Iraq. Any time a Muslim will take up arms against bin Laden's sympathizers, we're all safer.

"The only way we can lose this war now is to go down the road that Obama suggests," Graham said.

"And that's pulling out, sending a signal to al Qaeda, 'Don't give up hope'; telling Iran, 'You can still feel the vacuum created in Iraq.'

"The enemy is on their knees and the only person talking in a way to get them off their knees is Barack Obama."

Enough said about the outright distortion of the truth by Kerry.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Getting Facts From Statistical Mushiness

In the course of my continuing research into the state of our current challenges, I came across a blog entitled, "The True Conservative." Through some means of logic, self-invented I think, the author of this blog, Steve Roth, has decided that the "True Conservatives" are actually Democrats.

While this in an interesting concept, and one I'll probably deal with in a later post, I wanted to spend a little time on how he uses statistics (polling data) to come to the conclusion that even Republicans (he calls them Pups) don't like Republican policies. His conclusion:

Example: Only 38% of Republicans support Republican tax policies.

Tell them it's the "Republican" policy position? All of a sudden 66% support it. Whodathunkit...Their problem is that even Republicans don't like Republican policies. They prefer Democrats' policies—except when they're told that the policies they approve of are Democratic policies.

Now that's interesting, isn't it? I thought I'd take a look at the source, and see if I came up with the same conclusion.

First of all, the sponsor of this survey is NPR, a more liberal outfit than say, Fox News. So I'm a little suspicious of the conclusions, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, I thought I'd take a deeper look.

What I'm looking at are two charts, but Mr. Roth comes to the wrong conclusion. The study premise is that two different groups were asked the questions, one identifying the question as a partisan position, the other non-partison. They did not ask the non-partison question, then identify it as partison to the same group.

In addition to this wrong conclusion reached by the liberal Mr. Roth, you must read and analyze the questions on page 31 of the study. Then study the charts on page 32. The questions are so close to each other, I'd have a hard time picking the best one. And the design of the survey is based on this:

On four issues - the economy, Iraq, foreign trade, and taxes, we read voters the issue positions of both political parties and asked them which statement came closer to their own views. Half of the respondents were read a version that included the Republican and Democratic labels, while the other half received questions without partisan cues.

To back up a minute, the first part of the survey, based on a telephone interview of 800 likely voters, has a margin of error of 3.46%, 95% of the time. That is a large margin of error, and many of the charts are statistically insignificant.

So in the second part of the study, the survey sample has actually dropped to 400, instead of 800, because the reseachers divided the groups in half. This increases the margin of error. In my experience, 400 likely voters is not a large enough sample.

So based on just this simple analysis, the study is inconclusive. Mr. Roth, what you are trying to tell us just may not be true, so don't write about it as if it is a fact. At this point, any honest researcher would conclude that more study is needed.

(Just for the record, I have a background in doing research of this type, and have taken statistics at the graduate-school level).

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Friday, July 4, 2008

Robert Sheer: Not Fit To Print

For the first time, I came across Robert Sheer (who calls himself the editor-in-chief for truthdig.com) on the web, while I was just surfing around on this fine 4th of July. The editorial also appeared on Yahoo. I was actually going to take the day off, but I feel the need to point out Sheer and writings, steeped in fantasy from a trip to the Kool-Aid dispenser. He doesn't live in the same world I do, that's for sure.

His readers/commenters are just as insane. Of course, there are still those out there who hate Bush so much, they can't get past the hate. Like another idiot, Stephen Goldstein, who wrote an editorial for this 4th of July for the South Florida Sun-Sentinal.

But let's get back to Sheer. The 4th of July is about "patriotic bluster and beer swilling" so you know where we're going from here. But before we get too drunk, "might we also for once consider our imperfections?"

Just once? Please, don't tease me. So-called "thinkers" like yourself have been doing it since Jefferson wrote the Declaration 232 years ago, so maybe there could be one day in the year were we didn't have to consider our imperfections?

He points out George Washington's warning about imperialistic ambitions, but guess what? While we greatly honor our first president, let's not forget that during his term, we were paying ransom to the Barabary pirates in north Africa (devote Muslims who believed it their duty to kill or enslave infidels). When Jefferson took office he said no more, we went to war. So even our first president wasn't perfect (and he didn't have much of a Navy yet, so his hands were kind of tied).

But let's not let facts get in the way.

We are drowning in the impostures of pretended patriotism, used to cover the lies that got us into Iraq, the defense of torture and the violation of our basic liberties. In the name of patriotism, we presume a God-given American right to reorder the world to our liking, masking the vice of unfettered greed as an obligation of national security.

I'm going to puke. When will these liberal idiots get a new talking point?

He thinks we have an "innate moral superiority" without realizing what that means. We're born with it? Get a friggin dictionary, for God's sake. And it's not true anyway, if you take the time to talk to average Americans, but then elitist liberals won't, can't, or are afraid to.

Then he goes on to blame Bush and Big Oil for the energy mess we're in today. I'm getting so sick of hearing that lie. They think -- as Lenin prophesized -- that if they say it enough, it will become true.

And of course he and his cronies think that now, because the Iraqi government has asked oil companies -- not just American -- to bid on contracts, that the war MUST have been about oil all along. Take off your U.S. Flag Pins and replace them with Exxon or Chevron. That's what I want to hear on the 4th of July, a celebration of our independence.

Geeze, get a brain.

I'm not usually so harsh on liberals, but today of all days, won't they just shut up, just for one day -- I'm not advocating taking anyone's rights way -- but I have a right to enjoy the day with friends and family without having to listen or read their insane tripe. Oh, I supposed I didn't have to read it, but you get my point. Why is patriotism such a bad word for the left. I comment on this in another post, Redefining Patriotism.

God Bless America, the Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth!

Thursday, July 3, 2008

What You Won't Read

Reviewing Victor Dale Hanson's blog earlier today, I came across a couple of items entitled, "What You Won't Read."

I like and admire Hanson's work. He has a Ph.D. in classics from Stanford and is a military historian. I've read a couple of his books, and many of his articles, and if you want a solid, well-grounded take on today's affairs, his website and blog should be on your must-read list.

What You Won't Read (from his June 28, 2008 blog on Pajamas Media):

Two of the Three in the Axis of Evil — Korea and Iraq – seem no longer to be acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Throw in Libya as well, and the end of Dr. Khan’s proliferation business, and things have gotten at least a little better.

I say that because I keep reading about nuclear proliferation and America’s asleep-at-the-wheel posture, when in fact we alone supplied the pressure to stop a lot of it.

Meanwhile, the Iranian theocracy will continue to issue existential threats to Israel, hint that it is nearing completion on enrichment, and rattle more sabers in hopes of creating continuing tension that helps spike oil prices and land it another $10 - $15 million a day in revenue.

And You Won't Read This Either:

That the World’s Saint, Mr. Gore, who lectures on carbon emissions and green behavior, built an ecological monstrosity of a castle that gulps energy at gargantuan rates; while the world’s villain, George Bush, built an eco-friendly, far more modest house that uses a fourth less power than the average home.

But then when one compares the Kerry homes, the Edwards playhouse, and all the other liberal mansions, it makes sense. Modern liberalism for our elites is really a psychological state, in which an individual crafts an all-encompassing world view in the abstract to offset a rather materialistic and self-centered desire in the concrete.

Here in California Sens. Boxer and Feinstein, and Rep Pelosi live like the privileged they are, while decrying the plight of the less fortunate. Someone who forbids drilling in ANWR rarely decides to down-size her home. A Senator Dodd who rails at the mortgage lenders’ greed has no problem taking a cut-rate loan from them–if it is a question of buying appropriate homes for his sixty-something efforts at establishing a young family.

Hypocrisy is a human, not a political sin per se, but something about the combination of neo-socialist politics and extremely elite personal tastes suggests that there is a direct rather than an accidental connection—in the mind at least the former making possible the latter.

There are well-educated people who still make sense, and have an honest view of reality. Hanson is one of them.

Teaching children to hate America

If you teach children to be angry, they will be. As they grow up, they'll resort to violence, commit crimes, and our almost law-abiding society will become anarchy.

How does this happen? Because the freaking liberals have taken over our eduction system.

The place is Tuscon, Arizona, for one. The Tuscon Unified School District has a cirriculum called Raza studies (raza in Spanish means Race, as in La Raza). When Arizona superintendent Tom Horne wanted to get a copy of the cirrcula and textbooks, the school district couldn't meet his request and local papers told him to "butt out."

National Review Online:

When Horne finally acquired the program materials he requested, they included texts with titles such as Occupied America and The Pedagogy of Oppression. And according to John Ward, a Tucson teacher who saw his U.S. history course coopted by the Raza Studies department, the Raza curriculum’s focus is “that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.”

This is not just happening in Tuscon. It's happening everyway, and especially so in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, but no city or state in this country is immune from this indoctrination of our children.

We will lose the battle for this country if we don't take back our schools.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

It's a BANANA case

"We must develop alternative sources of energy," says just about everyone, including Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, even President George Bush. Hey, then there's Al Gore and his global warming crowd. Drilling won't get us out of this energy mess, but alternative sources of energy will.

As a side note, here's an example of liberal "logic:" drilling won't help for at least 10 years, so we need to invest in alternative sources so that in 10 years it can help us. Huh?

Anyway, our U.S. Government, after pressure from environmentalist groups, is delaying -- for up to 2 years -- the installation of solar panels in places like Colorado and Arizona that could power up to 20 million homes. As Investor's Business Daily reports:

The Bureau of Land Management quietly decided in May that the development of solar plants in 119 million sun-soaked, federally owned acres in the western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah would have to wait at least two years while bureaucrats sorted out their environmental impact.

For decades environmental groups have been pushing the government and private sector to develop more alternative sources of energy. But that campaign is beginning to look like a sham to cover the groups' BANANA — Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything — activism.

So we can't drill, can't build solar power, can't build nuclear power plants, can't really do anything can we? As long as the left is in control -- and it seems there are -- then our situation will continue to get worse.

  • Fuel prices will continue to go up, and there will be shortages.


  • Food prices will continue to go up, and there will be riots in some places on the planet, sooner rather than later.


  • Economic slowdowns, recessions, depressions will happen, not only to the U.S. but in other nations as well.


  • Our standard of living will decrease significantly. We'll be back to the standard of the late 1800s, at least.


  • Our national security will become a thing of the past. As more and more petrol dollars flow into terrorism-sponsoring states, our chances of an attack -- making 9/11 look like child's play -- will go up dramatically.


I hate to be pessimistic, but unless we take back our country from the mentally deranged left in this country, the United States of America will no longer exist as it has for 200-plus years.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

New No-Energy Energy Bills

In case you missed it, last week Congress brought to the House floor two more "energy" bills in an attempt, as Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) put it, "to push through poorly-drafted and politically-motivated legislation before the 4th of July..."

I repeat the part of his e-mail update that I received from him on June 27:

This week the price of oil reached a record high of over $140 a barrel. Instead of providing real energy solutions to our nation’s very real energy crisis, this week Congress brought to the House floor two more “no-energy” bills in an attempt to push through poorly-drafted and politically-motivated legislation before the 4th of July District Work Period.

Unfortunately, both bills fail to address the real problem: a lack of supply. Instead, the Democrat Majority has chosen a two-prong approach: blame the free-market system and punish the companies that want to develop more American energy resources.

The first bill scapegoats the futures market, blaming it for higher gas prices. The Energy Markets Emergency Act attempts to over-regulate energy futures – an important price-discovery and risk management tool for businesses. This bill is a sham because it simply restates current law. The “speculators” the Majority attempts to blame for the run-up in oil prices are actually traders who buy and sell contracts to lock in goods at a future price and allow commodity consumers to hedge against possible market volatility.

The futures market is critical to our economy because it stabilizes prices and adds liquidity to the market – but it has nothing to do with the availability of oil in the marketplace. Punishing businesses and investors will not add one additional barrel of crude or BTUs of natural gas to our supply – but increasing our production of American energy certainly will.

The second bill – the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, also known as the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” bill – provides a good sound-bite for the Majority as they rail against oil companies on the House floor, but it actually discourages domestic production by increasing federal regulation on energy-producing companies. Oil and gas producers are already required to surrender their leases if they do not produce after resources are discovered. This bill would add additional timelines that ignore the complexity of the discovery process.

The Majority in Congress would also like American consumers to believe that oil companies lease land so that they can sit on it idly without producing to keep supply low and prices high. This is simply not the case. It is extremely costly and time consuming to lease land, get permits, and conduct geological exploration and discovery exercises. It makes no sense that these companies would jump through all these hurdles just so they could sit on the land and not produce – especially with prices at all-time highs.

Again, the Majority has fallen back on its worn-out strategy of blaming “Big Oil” for the high cost of gas, but they fail to acknowledge who owns “Big Oil”—mostly middle class Americans who have invested in mutual funds, stocks, and pensions. The Majority’s answer to the problem is simple: increase regulation and increase government interference in private sector business operations.

I strongly oppose these no-energy political games that bring meaningless legislation to the House floor but do nothing to lower the price of energy for American consumers. Real Americans are suffering, and the time for games is over—we need to increase the production of American energy now.