Pelosi and Her Lies, Once Again

Will this woman never quit?

Now, with the passage of the House's new energy bill -- which looks like it provides some new drilling, but really doesn't inspire any -- she is not only taking credit, but saying the Republicans have had it wrong.

This is the same person who closed Congress to go on a book tour, while her subjects where suffering from $4-a-gallon gasoline. Now that the markets have lowered that somewhat, she allows a vote. I guess it was now convenient for her. How condescending to us Middle Americans. Plus it's now closer to the elections, so if timed right, will be a boost at the polls, I'm sure she's thinking.

Again, politics before country.

The bill has problems, but all compromises are that way, and I guess it's better to have something, than nothing. However, what really galls me is her comments:

She contrasted her party's plan with "the status quo, which is preferred by Big Oil" and the Bush administration, "or change for the future to take our country in a new direction."

What? She's the one who was trying to block any legislation at all. Remember, she was trying to save the planet.

She insisted that Republicans "must set aside their drill-only mentality."

The Republicans never had a drill-only mentality. Their proposed bill went much further than even the current Democrat version.

Also, in her usual dictatorial ways, the bill was introduced to the House, but no admendments, no committe hearings, no substitutes: it was take it or leave it.

Nancy "my-way-or-the-highway" Pelosi is now fully in charge of the U.S. government. This is how democrats rule. Ask yourself one question: Is this what I want for my country?

Politics first, America last

Thanks to three U.S. Senators (from the Democrat party), China will be developing Iraqi oil instead of U.S. or Western oil companies. The same senators and party that keep saying we shouldn't be messing with other nation's internal affairs have been doing just that: meddling in a big way, and all because of politics.

Reported by Frederick Kagan in Weekly Standard, as well as the New York Observer, among others, is the fact that John Kerry, Chuck Shumer, and Claire McCaskill, through their involvement with Iraqi politics, caused the Iraqi government to reject any bids by U.S. oil companies. Hence, Iraq went with China, which turned out to be less politicalized.

Here's what our three nitwits in the Senate said:

“It’s bad enough that we have no-bid contracts being awarded for work in Iraq. It’s bad enough that the big oil companies continue to receive government handouts while they post record breaking profits. But now the most profitable companies in the universe – America’s biggest oil companies – stand to reap the rewards of this no-bid contract on top of it all,” McCaskill said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect these dots – big oil is running Washington and now they’re running Baghdad. There is no reason under the sun not to halt these agreements until we get revenue sharing in place,” McCaskill said.

However, the Observer put it in perspective:

It is uncommon for oil companies to receive no-bid contracts of this type. It is especially unusual in this case since more than 40 companies were seeking the servicing deal that Iraq is prepared to give to the four companies. Iraq’s central government has defended the award process, saying Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP have provided free advice and support over the past two years, enabling the companies and the government to build a close relationship.

Now, instead of Iraqi oil profits flowing to American and western companies, they go to Chinese. Instead of us getting back some of the $500 billion plus we've spent rebuilding Iraq, we, the American taxpayer, get stuck with the bill. As usual.

The Democrats. Is this the party you want in power? The party that has essentially taxed us to death over the last 70 years? And again, intefering when they should not.

Another point I want to make is the term "government handout" used by our three senators. It seems the Dems, anytime you can save money on taxes (which is what they are talking about, because the oil companies get tax savings for development) it's a handout. But in reality, it's that the oil companies get to keep more of their profits.

WAKE UP, AMERICANS. For the 49 percent of you out there currently thinking of Obama and his party, you will get what you wish for. More government. More inteference in your lives. More taxes. More of the same ol shit that has been handed out from Washington since FDR took power.

Time for a real change, I say.

Are Gas Stations Gouging Us?

Back on June 27, I reported that when oil was at $142 per barrel, a 118 percent increase over the last year, that gas prices over the same period went up $1.09 a gallon, an increase of 36 percent, from $2.98 to $4.07. Here in North Texas, the most we paid was $4.00.

Now, with oil hitting just over $101 a barrel, we are paying $3.50 a gallon. The price of oil has droped about $45 dollars from its high of $147, or 31 percent. Gas, however is only down 12.5 percent.

Where's the love, Exxon? Are they trying to make up lost ground?

Once you get used to paying more for a commodity, it's hard to get prices down.

Sheer Lunancy From the Left

Again, Robert Sheer, who once worked for the leftist LA Times, provides us with insight into the liberal mind. I commented on his 4th of July editorial, and he continues with his rants against sane, conservative polices with his usual irrational understanding of reality.

In his latest op-ed of Aug 20th, he spews forth more of his liberal talking points. His premiss for arguments are not based on facts. Let's look at some:

There you have it — in a capsule, the McCain campaign for president, an irrational melange of patriotic swagger and blindness to reality that is proving disturbingly successful with uninformed voters. How else to explain the many millions of Americans who tell pollsters they prefer a continuation of Republican rule when so many of them are losing their homes to foreclosure and the nation is bankrupted by out-of-control military spending.

The economy is in a downward spiral, the national debt is at an all-time high, the dollar is an international disgrace, and inflation in July had the steepest rise in 27 years, driven by oil prices fivefold higher than when President Bush invaded the nation with the world's second-largest petroleum reserves.

First of all, Sheer hates anything doing with patriotism, so he uses this quite frequently in his criticism of Republicans, and Americans in general, in this case "patriotic swagger and blindness." On July 4th, it was "patriotic bluster and beer swilling."

To us "uninformed voters," of course, being a liberal elitist, he doesn't believe we can choose for ourselves. That's one of the problems with America today -- we don't let the liberal elite run everything, you know?

He then leads you to believe that "so many" Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure, because you know, those damned neocons are cheating them out of their homes, you know. He doesn't say that, but you know that's what he means. But the fact is that these people are losing their homes because they made bad decisions. The government, many years ago, allowed lenders to lend to just about anybody -- didn't matter if they could repay -- so here we are with the consequences.

Then our national debt is due to out-of-control military spending. Oh? Really? Is it out of control? Or is it at the level we need to protect ourselves, unlike the attacks we suffered in the 1990s and on Sept 11, 2001? What's out of control is social spending, which has gone up much faster than military spending. But welfare programs, income redistribution, in fact, socialism is O.K.

Of course, the price of oil is Bush's fault. And since this is Bush's fault, our economy, inflation, etc is also Bush's fault. This is something I'm really tired of hearing. I just don't understand this Bush hatred, when any honest thinking human knows that all of our problems aren't the fault of one man.

Later in his editorial, while admitting to the victory in Iraq, Sheer has to disqualify it by bringing up our experience in Vietnam and that "victory is not all it's cracked up to be." Really? I guess victories, like World War II aren't important either. Or any of the other "victories" our military has managed to accomplish.

He reminds us of how Nixon rejected the neoconservative addiction to the cold war by his policy of detente with the Soviets and Chinese. Yet, Nixon really accomplished very little. The threat from these two communist regimes remained just a real as ever, and even more so to smaller countries, such as Afghanistan. Only when Reagan used neoconservative policies in the 1980s did he finally end the cold war.

And of course, our efforts against Islamic fundamentalists is "absurdly misdirected." We shouldn't spend more for national defense, oh no. This won't make us stronger. "Vote for McCain, and forget about funding to solve the Social Security, Medicare and subprime mortgage disasters or anything else that truly would make America stronger," he concludes.

Certainly, Mr. Sheer. Medicare, subprime mortgages and Social Security will certainly beat back the terrorists and other assorted bad guys from attacking our citizens, our properties and our freedoms.

This is dangerous thinking. Americans need to wake up and fight for the freedoms we have, because there are too many people willing -- like Mr. Sheer -- to give them away, or others who want to take them away.

Ethanol Hurts Worse Than It Helps

I recently noticed a drop in my gas mileage. I'm always very aware of what my gas mileage is all the time, and having an on-board computer to monitor it helps. A drop in gas mileage can indicate a problem with your vehicle before anything else, in some cases.

I drive Buick LeSabre, just for reference here. Last summer on a road trip to Michigan, I averaged 34 mpg. In March, on a trip down to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, I got 35 mpg, probably because I wasn't using the air conditioner.

Recently, however, I've noticed my gas mileage dropping. I took it in for an oil change, air filter, tire pressures, etc, but not much changed. Only then did I realize that for the past several weeks I've been using gasoline that contains 10 percent ethanol. My mileage on the highway is down about 4 mpg. So I then examined my wife's truck, a Dodge RAM 1500 with a big hemi V8, and her mileage is down too, from about 15.8 to 14.5 mpg average.

So an 8 to 11 percent drop in gas mileage is not helping, is it? I guess inflating our tires for a 3 percent gain is a moot point now.

For those of you who support ethanol use as a replacement for gasoline, consider what the Houston Chronicle says about it, and then do your own independent research. I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

As for lessening dependence on foreign oil and cleaning the air, ethanol does little for either. It takes almost as much energy from power plants, diesel fuel and fertilizer to grow the corn, refine it and distribute it to gasoline blenders as ethanol gives out when it is burned. The fertilizer runoff creates a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. If the electricity used to refine the corn comes from a coal-fired plant, ethanol hikes pollution and carbon emissions.

Why is ethanol so popular with politicians, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama? (Sen. John McCain opposes ethanol subsidies.) Presidential candidates want to win the Iowa caucuses. In Congress, like-minded farm-state legislators represent a significant voting block.

Perhaps one day the United States will have a rational policy on energy and environmental protection. But not before it ends the destructive and disruptive rules designed to please farmers and corn refiners regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world.

The forced-use of ethanol has been one of the worst edicts from our government in recent memory, and is just another example of how government meddling hurts us.

Pelosi to Back Down? Don't Bet On It

The Hill, and other media outlets, reported this morning that Pelosi may just back down from her no-drilling, no-where, no-how policy.

Republicans, reacting to high gas prices, have demanded a vote on additional oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, where drilling is currently blocked by a moratorium. Until now, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted the idea as a “hoax.” But in an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, she indicated that she was open to a vote.

“They have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas,” Pelosi said. “We can do that. We can have a vote on that.”

She indicated such a vote would have to be part of a larger package that included other policies, like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she said could bring down prices in a matter of days.

“But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and is not just a hoax on them,” Pelosi continued.

She even indicated that she might support a package that includes drilling. She said her decision on whether to support such legislation would depend on how the policies are packaged.

“It’s not excluded, let’s put it that way,” Pelosi said.

But don't get too excited, partner. While Pelosi is on Larry King (does anyone watch Larry King anymore?) her staff is hard at work to prevent her from flip-flopping.

The last sentence in the story:

"But her aides later released a statement saying she was not announcing a change in her stance on a drilling vote."

So it's a wait and see, I guess.

In the meantime, Rep. Steny Hoyer and some other liberals are making a meaningless stink about this statement that House Minority Leader John Boehner made in an interview with Politico:

"She's gonna bring us back and not deal with it? The American people are gonna hang her," Boehner said. When pressed further, Boehner said it would "be fine, as long as we get a vote on our bill."

Hoyer objected to the implied violence.

There was no violence implied. He meant in his interview that "the voters will make her pay in November."

It's funny when a liberal or Democrat says something or does something (like Edwards), the media play it down, make it seem ok (this is called cultural relativism). But if a conservative or Republican says something...then OMG, the sky is falling. How dare those evil conservatives say something like that. Double standard? You bet. Are liberals all about freedom of speech? You bet. But only if you agree with them. Otherwise, shut up.

What I find immensely interesting in the whole affair is how one person, in a republic such as ours, can hold up a policy vote on an important issue such as energy. These are the same folks who used to filibuster Bush's court nominations.

It's kind of like children who don't get their own way. They stomp out of the room.

And some people call George Bush a tryant. Most likely those folks are admiring Pelosi. That is truly deranged.

For a couple of other interesting posts on this whole energy mess, see Combatting Myths About Offshore Drilling and Top 10 Energy Questions For Speaker Pelosi.

Stop Harrassing Big Oil, Bill

I'm tired of hearing Bill O'Reilly accuse the oil companies of screwing Americans. While I generally like the Factor, I don't watch it as much as I used to, because most of his guests are idiots. But I did catch a recent report where he called on the oil companies to contribute 2 percent of their profits into a general fund to help the poor heat and/or cool their homes.

Karl Rove was his guest to analyze. First of all, Rove is correct in saying that government should not impose penalties. And he also stated that oil companies generally only make 8 cents on the dollar in net profit. Also fairly accurate. Rove finally agree that oil companies contributing to charity isn't a bad idea -- just don't make it mandatory. Rove wins the debate with Bill, at least by my account.

Over the last 10 years, ExxonMobil has averaged 9.7 percent. Still low compared to other industries, but higher than some. The 8 cents on the dollar may be true for all oil companies -- I didn't do the math on that yet. But I like to be precise. When we're talking billions of dollars, a few percentage points is a lot of money.

However, the Christian Science Monitor reported today:

In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.

Bill keeps bringing up the fact that Exxon made 80 billion dollars (or is that the top five; it's hard to keep it straight). He fails to mention the dividends returned to shareholders ($43 billion for the top five), and the taxes these companies already pay.

Should the oil companies contribute 2 percent of the net profits to the poor for heating and cooling? I don't want government to impose that, but donating money to the poor is always a good idea, and could be good P.R.

Bill, why don't you set up a non-profit? Put your money where your mouth is. I'll contribute. Let everyone, including getting the oil companies to make tax-deductible contributions.

Better yet. I think I'll do it myself. And Bill, you better contribute, with money and publicity. Then maybe you can quit trashing Big Oil.

Windfall Profits and Pelosi's Myths

Obama has proposed a windfall profits tax. This is not the first time we've heard this. Hillary Clinton also said once she wanted to go after the oil companies. Let's penalize free market capaitalism. It's been tried before, and while it might make some folks feel good, it didn't work then, and wouldn't work now.

This is what the Economist had to say recently:

Mr Obama says that he would tax oil firms for “windfall profits”, and give motorists a rebate ($1,000 for families, $500 for individuals). Such a populist gesture might go down well with voters, but imposing a windfall tax would cause uncertainty in the oil industry and divert funds from investment in production of more oil, thus contributing to higher prices. Another suggestion, to release some oil from the strategic reserve, would bring a temporary benefit at best.

Of course, Obama and the rest of his ilk really do believe in income restribution, so that's no surprise. Take ExxonMobil. It's sales are staggering, some $116 billion last quarter. Its profit margin was about 9.7%. Over the last 10 years, Exxon has averaged 7.7% profit, from a low of about 4% to a high of 10.4%.

Everyone is yelling about huge profits, and they may be historic, but then again so is the price of oil, due to the shrinking spread between supply and demand and the speculation it causes in the markets. But the dividends these compaines are paying are equally outstanding. Exxon, Chevron, BP, Total and Royal Dutch and ConocoPhillips paid nearly $43 billion in dividends last year. And they've been buying back shares, which increases stockholder value (if you pay $1 billion in dividends, but there are fewer shares, each shareholder gets more of the dividend pie).

Regular people, like you and me, own these companies, either directly as stockholders, or through our retirement accounts, 401Ks, insurance programs, state retirement funds, etc.

So this is not such a bad deal. If it's so horrible that Exxon make 9 percent profit, why is no one yelling about other companies, like Microsoft, which makes nearly 30 percent profit. Where's the outcry?

So Obama and Pelosi have a no-drill policy. No debate allowed on the house floor. Turn off the lights, and let's go home.

Then during the weekend, she was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. She continues with her ignorant myths. Anyone with the ability to read, investigate and think clearly can see that developing more of ALL of our resources is the answer short-term and long-term.

But Obama and Pelosi are elitists and don't care about you. Let's save the planet, while destroying America. That will solve all of our problems.

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.

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?

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.

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: 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Is Big Oil Really Gouging Us?

While driving home for lunch today, I was thinking about the Price Gouging bill that I think is still stuck in committee. Are the oil companies gouging us at the pump? The Democrats want you to think that. Those evil Big Oil companies, Bush and Cheney cronies.

Here's the facts: Oil has more than doubled in price, from $65 to today's $142 per barrel (118 percent increase) in the last year. Yet, gas prices over the same period have gone up $1.09 a gallon, an increase of 36 percent, from $2.98 to $4.07. My source is the Energy Information Agency.

If the Oil companies were charging based strictly on the price of oil, then we'd be paying over $6 a gallon.

Look, I know there are a lot of variables that goes into the pricing of the gasoline that we finally pump, but I think you get my point. We are not getting gouged. If anything, market pressures are keeping the price down further than it would without competition.

Are we tired of talking about oil and gas yet? Just go get some more. It's there for the taking.

BTW, for you liberals out there: What am I doing driving home for lunch? Well, I live in a small town, my commute is less than 10 minutes, and I drive a 2004 Buick LeSabre, which gets 28 mpg in town, and 35 mpg on the highway.

Playing the Blame Game

Yesterday, by some fluke, I got a letter from Sen. Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. It was addressed to "My fellow democrat."

This is funny because I've never been a registered democrat. He probably should hire a new marketing company. But what was more troubling was the fact that he wants the American voter to "throw out all the Republicans" from the U.S. Senate. They are to blame for all of our problems. (Now there is a scary thought: One party rule in the United States.)

One such problem is gas prices. It is the fault of the Republicans pandering to "Big Oil." If only Sen. Biden would look in the mirror.

Back in 1979, during our last energy "crisis," the call went out for energy independence. At the time, Jimmy Carter was in office. His plan: turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater. What we really needed was more domestic supply, as well as conservation. While conservation of our resources is always important at every level, it only goes so far.

So what has our government done in the last 30 years? Let me think. Hmmm. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Now, the Democrats response to this "crisis" in the oil market is to investigate. Let's have a bunch of hearings on Capitol Hill. Go after the big oil companies. Tax them. Tax something, by God. Go after the speculators. Point fingers. Blame someone.

That's the plan of the Democrat-controlled Congress. Even in the short-term, it won't solve anything, except make some liberals feel good.

In the meantime, we are providing hostile regimes with billions of dollars each day. Every time you fill your gas tank, you're supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and other leaders openly hostile to the United States. Some of these oil-producing nations support terrorism. That's where your money is going.

What we need is a multi-faceted approach: Drill more, build more nuclear power plants, build more refineries, as well as finding ways to use alternative sources and reduce consumption.

Holding hearings or taxing oil companies, like back in the late 1970s, just won't work.