In Light of Democratic Win, a Ray of Hope

Ugh...we stand on the verge of, as Townhall.com's Dennis Prager stated today, a radical transformation to this country. As a white, conservative, Christian, I brace for an apoplectic seizure from the Left, as they look to enact a pound of flesh from those of us who supported the "Bush Tax Cuts for the rich" and other Bush-measures over the past eight years.

I am, as many conservatives are, disheartened by the prospects of the most liberal President coupled with smashing Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Yet, do not despair, my friends.

I hereby predict that Obama will destroy every facet of this country that the pendulum will start to swing BACK to the center-right in time for the 2010 elections.

Unfortunately, I am despondent primarily because the American voting segment was utterly duped by 1.) the corrupt, liberal mainstream media; 2.) and the non-efforts from John McCain to educate the aforementioned populace on Obama's record.

It was a half-hearted effort a best to target Obama's absurd tax policies, his radical associations, his over-the-top liberal outlooks on abortion, gay marriage, energy, terrorism, etc. On top of that, Obama managed to indoctrinate a large swatch of young people, disenfranchised independents and Republicans, and Democratic basists with his "hope and change" rhetoric.

Nevermind that the only hope and change is going to occur to the Leftist wing nuts that would love to see this country become an extension of Western Europe.

Most of the country does NOT want to see the radical transformations Obama has in store for us, whether it's social-justice taught in our schools, the shoving of progressive values down our collective throats, the mass illegal immigration that will occur south of our borders (including OTM's), increased terror attacks, loss of jobs to due to inane cap-and-trade laws (based on complete scientific fabrications), etc.

And when the collective psyche of the American public takes a nose-dive, by all means, you can tell those snarky liberal bastards, "I told you so."

Liberal Lies: the Bush Tax Cuts

It's a daily occurrence to open up the newspapers, turn on the news, watch a campaign ad and hear some bonehead Democrat uttering inane references to "big oil" and "disastrous Bush tax cuts." Subsequently, said bonehead Democrat impugns either Republican colleague or opponent in a political office with the above mentioned issues.

The Democrats have excelled at propagating lies and turning them against the Republicans. Whether it's the subprime housing market (Republican Wall Street vs. Democrats/liberals forcing banks to make bank loans) or high gas prices (billions of dollars in oil company profits vs. Economics 101: SUPPLY and DEMAND and high taxes against the oil companies), the Democrats have issued inane fabrication after fabrication.

What's further maddening is that Republicans have rarely uttered a rebuttal, or attempted to truly educate the public on these hot buttons. Moreover, the corrupt liberal mainstream media has not fact-checked any of these Democrat-issued lies; instead they've enabled the mistruths through the various mediums.

Yesterday, I discussed the lies of "big oil," primarily, propagated by idiots like Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken against incumbent Minnesota Senator, Republican Norm Coleman. In a recent TV campaign ad, Franken smugly reminds the viewing public that Coleman took campaign contributions from "big oil" lobbyists. Nevermind that his colleagues, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and "The One" Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to avert their eyes to the then-portending housing crisis, or that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from various alternative energy providers (saving the planet, my ass).

The point here, people, is that mistruths and outright lies are being uttered ad nauseum by the Left. Today, I want to focus on the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." We've heard "The One," Obama, in his hope and change rhetoric, gain support by lying about the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." Personally in Minnesota, I've seen/heard a handful of ads from Smalley, er, Franken, indicting Coleman for supporting the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts."

Furthermore, we're seen/heard the same Democrats proclaim that these tax cuts have benefited the rich while handicapping the poor. Note the following from columnist David Limbaugh:

(I)t is an objective fact that Bush gave greater percentage cuts to lower-income earners than to the wealthy.

How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?

The more the wealthy pay the more actual dollars they will retain when there are marginal rate cuts, even when the rates of lower-income earners are cut more.

Let's be candid here people; the economy isn't in the shape it's in because of the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." True, the Bush Administration increased spending significantly, borrowing money from overseas investors; the dollar is weak, and we're engaged in two wars. The problem is NOT the tax cuts, instead it's the spending. Note the following from John Hawkins:

Liberals regularly claim that revenue from tax cuts must be "made up" somehow, which ignores the fact that government revenue usually goes up after tax cuts.

That was certainly the case after the Bush, Kennedy, and Reagan tax cuts, which makes perfect sense if you understand the Laffer Curve.

There are lots of intelligent arguments that you can make about taxes. You can argue that tax raises may also increase revenue, that tax cuts may reduce the size of the future increase in revenue the government will receive, or that we could eventually cut taxes so dramatically that they would no longer yield revenue increases, but clearly the last few major tax cuts we've had have produced increases in federal revenue, not decreases.

We've also heard "The One" Obama promise to cut taxes for 95% of American people; nevermind that 30-40% of Americans do NOT pay taxes. What that means is that he's going to be giving refund checks to people who do not pay taxes. How's he going to do that? By taxing the rich, and "spreading the wealth."

That's called socialism.

You don't do that in a sinking economy unless you want the economy to sink even further. Theoretically, you CUT taxes, especially capital gains taxes and those on businesses. I'm sorry you have to hear this, liberal boneheads, but the upper class invest; they're entreprenurial opportunities end up increasing jobs and OPPORTUNITIES for Americans. You raise taxes on the rich, they cut back on investment and job creation.

Moreover, per the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, the economy actually grows and accumulates more revenue.

In his latest column, Charles Wheeler explains why cutting taxes absolutely, positively, cannot lead to more revenue flowing into the treasury as a result of the economy being stimulated:

"Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

...Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.

Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.

That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

Read the following; this article sums up the BENEFITS of lowering taxes; isn't it amazing how STUPID liberals actually are?

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

Message to Republicans; Refute Democratic Lies

Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

The video below epitomizes the untruths spread by Democrats.

Liberal Lies: Barry Obama's work as a community activist

I came across an email forward, while slamming Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a hick and trophy wife, touted Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's record as a community activist.

Yuck, I think I just threw up in my mouth. Here's an excerpt from the email, highlighting Obama's "work:"

• If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
• If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

Typical Leftist dreck...wouldn't you say? Need we mention the many shortcomings of Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama? Whether it's his "work" as a community activist and the pressure he placed on mortgage lenders to give money to at-risk potential home-buyers, or his ties to ACORN. Furthermore, how long did Obama work as a "community organizer?" A day? Two? (veiled sarcasm).

Noted author Michelle Malkin states, "Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Barack Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan non-profits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in."

Furthermore, she goes on to say, "What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies of a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people and shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon."

What about Obama's extensive ties to ACORN? According to SperoNews:

Obama has had extensive experience as a community organizer. In the 80s, he was the lead organizer of the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by Chicago’s south-side Catholic churches and formed on the organizing principles of Saul Alinsky. He spent another four years building an organization in Roseland and the nearby Altgeld Gardens public housing complex.

ACORN is another community-organizing network with Alinskyian roots. Before going off to law school in the early 90s, Obama directed ACORN’s partner organization, Project Vote. Meeting with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of this, saying, “I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
ACORN, an acronym for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, considers itself the nation’s largest community organization. Its Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced its endorsement of Senator Obama’s run for the US presidency in February 2008.

Is that something to be proud of? Check this out, courtesy of Malkin:

ACORN Watch: 1,100 suspicious voter cards in NM

By Michelle Malkin • September 17, 2008 06:19 PM

The friends of Barack Obama.

ACORN Watch: The community organizing fraud continues

By Michelle Malkin • September 15, 2008 11:21 AM

Stealing elections.

ACORN Watch, Pt II: Obama hid $800,000 payment to ACORN through “Citizen Services, Inc.”

By Michelle Malkin • August 22, 2008 11:46 AM

Follow the money. Connect the dots.

ACORN Watch, Pt I of the day: More voter fraudsters in Milwaukee

By Michelle Malkin • August 22, 2008 10:49 AM

Fraud-a-palooza.

ACORN Watch: Voter fraud and mortgage scams on your dime

By Michelle Malkin • August 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Obama’s old friends.

ACORN Watch: New whistleblower affidavits

By Michelle Malkin • July 31, 2008 04:20 PM

Your tax dollars at work.

And what about his role in the subprime mortgage mess? Author Jerry Bowyer reports that "(Obama)" went to work for the New York branch of the Public Interest Research Group. PIRG is one of those left of center activist groups who, among other things, uses the legitimate concept of 'fair housing' to force banks into making bad loans. PIRG has actively lobbied for a stronger (yes, you guessed it) Community Reinvestment Act."

What's the Community Reinvestment Act? Bowyer responds that it is "a law which compels banks to make home loans in minority neighborhoods to people who were poor credit risks."

Yes, brilliant work as a "Community Organizer."

How much of this do you know? Answer: you don't. The corrupt liberal Mainstream Media has done its damnedest to cover up Obama's indiscretions, whether it's his, ahem, "work" as a community activist, or his ties to dirtbags like Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers.

They don't want you to know this. Instead, in thinly disguised attempts to reshape and distort the news, they want you to believe that this "community organizer" who while purporting to be a Washington Outsider and self-proclaimed change agent, is the "Chosen One" sent by the Almighty Himself to save this country (or "change" this country if keeping to the "Obamasiah" theme).

Liberal lies: Recently passed oil bill

Michelle Malkin calls the new oil drilling bill a hoax; personally, I call it a "faux oil" bill, because it does NOTHING. Furthermore, it places an increased tax burden on the American populace, all for the sake of the goddamn environment.

Back in the day, pre-1968, the Democrats actually stood for working class American men and women. Those days have long since disappeared. Instead, Democrats, while mocking Republicans for supposedly serving their Special Interests, routinely bow to the money-launderers in the environmentalist, anti-war, and abortion movements.

Here's the details of the bill that should interest Americans who are stuggling to fill up their gas tanks; that most's Americans. Note that this does NOT include the latte liberal sect (see: San Francisco and Chicago Democrats):

The bill prohibits drilling within a 50 mile area of your coasts.

Note to anyone that has brain: that is where most of the known oil is.

Furthermore, the bill will not allow any of the following:

• Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.
• Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
• Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska’s coastal waters out to 50 miles.
• Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.

Nor does the bill state ANYTHING regarding increased refining capacity. Instead, those moves are blocked by the environmentalist lobby, who coincidentally, are sleeping with the enemy: The Democrats.

Despicable isn't even the right word for what happened today; instead, I find the words "traitorous," "repugnant," "seditious," etc more apt.

Furthermore, this is nothing more than an election year STUNT undertaken by the Democrats to show the American people that they "support" oil drilling.

Bullshit. They do nothing of the sort.

Liberal Lies: Windfall Profits and Big Oil

In this week's installment of "Liberal Lies," I discuss Obama's windfall profits tax on big oil.

Thanks to XM radio, I was able to listen to my favorite conservative talk show hosts on "America Right," channel 166: Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Rusty Humphries, etc, who discussed Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama's recent "energy/economic plan" to take the windfall profits of "Big Oil" (boy the libs love that term) and use them to provide needy families with $1000 worth of energy rebates (gasoline, heating oil in the winter, electricity, etc.).

According to CBS News, "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday called for a $1,000 'emergency' rebate to consumers to offset soaring energy costs amid fresh signs of a struggling economy with the nation's unemployment rate climbing to a four-year high.

Obama told a town-hall meeting the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry."

Now really...how much sense does that make? In mathematical terms, a 62.5% tax increase on oil companies is necessary to come up with the money to provide this energy rebate, or about $75 billion. As the Politically Drunk blog points out, "Do we impose a 62.5% tax on Oil company profits, in which Institutional and individual investors dump the stocks; relegate them to penny status; bankrupt the industry; and cause an insta-depression? Or... Does the government pick up the tab, causing a record budget deficit to balloon further and destroying the promises of government investments in alternative energy?"

You see, everyone likes to blame "Big Oil." They're an easy target; and the Democrats know how to push our buttons. The corrupt mainstream media provides endless reports on oil companies record profits, and instinctively we assume that they're colluding to keep the price of oil up.

Leftist groups like Consumer Watchdog perpetuate this lie that Big Oils has collectively bent over the American public: "'The 'drill now, drill everywhere' campaign is a hoax on Americans,' said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog, based in Santa Monica. 'Oil companies are able to sit back and make more money by selling less.'"

What the IDIOTS, to quote conservative talk show host Mark Levin, won't tell you is that prices are driven by DEMAND. Hmmm...where is the demand coming from? How about China or India for example, as their countries become more modernized? To match increased demand while keeping prices down, industry needs to interject more SUPPLY into the stream, supply in the case being MORE OIL. That's economics 101.

Furthermore, where are the "obscene" big oil profits going? The Left would have you believe that the tens of billions of dollars in oil profits are being shared among a few rich oil tycoons, like Al Gore at Occidental. But in fact, these oil profits are being shared among many. The Left and their benefactors in the mainstream media won't tell you this, but is that despite the low profit margin (i.e. $.08 profit for every dollar spent, compared to $.20-.30 for the computer industry), not only is Big Oil paying an astonishing amount in taxes, but those “record profits” are actually going to people’s 401k’s for one thing…that wealth isn’t just going to ONE “oil despot,” it’s being shared ACROSS the board. But we’ve been so indoctrinated by the MSNBC’s, CBS’, and New York Times of the world to think that Big Oil is “bending us over,” we as a people automatically believe the lies.

Note the following from one of my favorite authors, John Hawkins:

"Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers."

One would think that with these facts, it would be pretty to combat mindless leftist and liberal lies...

But it isn't...we'll keeping trying, though.

Al Franken and other Democrats: Denying the Truth on Energy

Message to Stuart Smalley: it's called "reality on the ground."

According to a story in KAALtv.com, Franken states, "(A)s far as a solution to combat high gas prices… 'We need electric hybrid cars. We need rail. We need to have a rail that comes down to the Twin Cities to Rochester. We need to rethink our whole energy system,' said Franken.

Al Franken agrees with offshore drilling but says it won’t solve all our problems."

It won't?

The boneheads on the Left urge us to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil; furthermore, they advocate fairly unreliable energy solutions, such as wind and solar power. The bottom line is this: oil is a vital cog to the health of our economy. You eliminate oil/gas, the economy suffers. Cheap energy helps our businesses and keeps more money in our pockets.

According to Foxnews.com, "

The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, the U.S. Geological Survey announced Wednesday.

The USGS said technically recoverable resources are those produced using currently available industry practices and technology.

The Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas, the USGS reported."

That's a start...

Instead, we have a laughable, completely emasculated Democratic congress, led by the worst Speaker of the House in the history of the institution, Nancy Pelosi, has refused to allow any votes that would allow a vote on offshore drilling or ANWAR. Furthermore, she knows that's what the people wants, but the seditious, enemy-of-the-people, environmental lobby is more concerned with the "view from the coast" rather than the health and wealth of the American populace.

Here's a message to the Defeatist party: at one time you purported to represent the working class citizen. Instead, your part has become so such saturated with radical fringe groups that you've now become a shell of our former self. Every day you stall on the energy issue (e.g. refusing to allow votes to come to the Floor; or refusing to lift the off-shore drilling ban) is more nail in your coffin.

This country is in serious trouble, economically; cheap energy could be a boost.

Yellowcake Uranium found in Iraq: Vindication, but no thanks to the MSM

It's really quite sad how biased our media has become. I was browsing the web yesterday, looking for topics upon to pontificate, when I came across an op-ed piece written by Christopher Merola on Townhall.com. This column, entitled "Have Your Yellowcake and Eat it too," discusses a recent Associated Press report about how the our military recently shipped approximately 550 tons of yellowcake, FOUND IN IRAQ, back to the United States for safe keeping.

Yet, we've heard virtually nothing in the mainstream media, which, in case you've been living in a cave for the past 20 years, is OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. In fact, reading liberal media, the consensus is either that the Bush Administration PLANTED this uranium in Iraq or his father's administration (H.W.) clandestinely allowed Saddam to keep 550 tons of yellowcake uranium so his son (Dubya) could have impetus to invade Iraq 12/13 years later.

It's almost laughable, but it isn't. For three, four, five years we've been told that George Bush lied to us, that he waged war against Iraq illegally. We were told that Saddam NEVER possessed WMD; in fact, neo-cons and their Republican benefactors recklessly cost us blood and treasure for oil, to retaliate against a regime and a man that attempted to assassinate H.W. Bush, or merely for the fun of it.

We've been told that Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent on a fact-finding mission to Niger with the hope of investigating claims that Iraqi agents attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium (to aid in the nuclear process), found no evidence of any transactions or even attempts to purchase said yellowcake uranium, despite intelligence to the contrary not just from the CIA but from British and Russian intelligence.

What you won't hear from the supposedly impartial mainstream media is that in fact the Butler Report from the British Parliamentary found CREDIBLE intelligence that Iraq attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellowcase from Niger in 1999. According to Gregg Jackson's "Conservative Lies to Liberal Comebacks," the Butler Report stated that in order to disparage the Bush Administration and the war effort, someone forged documents and openly distributed them, saying that Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium. They SO badly forged the documents, they had to make the yellowcake claim to be a lie. MOST, including the mainstream media, elitist liberals, and the rest of the sheeple on the Left, believed it.

We've also been told that in response to Wilson's "claims," Vice President Dick Cheney revealed to columnist Robert Novak, that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a COVERT CIA agent. Furthermore, we've been told that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney. Finally, we've been implored to believe that Plame was an active CIA agent. But despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, the FOLLOWING is actually true: first, the revelation that Plame had worked for the CIA came from Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War; second, the request for Wilson to investigate the yellowcake claim came at the behest of Plame herself; finally, Plame had not worked "undercover" (considered a covert agent) for over six years...in fact, she was assigned to a desk job.

I write this because I was having a conversation with my fiance about another lie perpetuated by liberals and their enablers in the media: global warming. She had expressed a desire to know what the TRUTH is about rising gas prices, carbon dioxide, melting icebergs, etc. She subsequently stated that it would be nice if one could navigate to a website that actually stated the facts.

Ironically, this conversation occurred after reading the recent report about the recent shipment of Saddam's yellowcake uranium. It's time for us in the conservative blogosphere to spread the message: we refuse to tolerate the lies and vitriol spread from the left.