How about we prosecute Leftist politicians for failing to protect American lives?

Only in the current political climate could jackass liberal Congressman, see Pat Leahy, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., ponder bringing criminal charges against former Bush administration officials on trumped torture charges.

Only now, with a near unsurmountable liberal majority in Congress, enabled by the most liberal President in the history of the United States, could we actually return to a pre-9/11, Clinton-like mindset.

According to Mackubin Owens of the National Review:

What makes the Leahy-Whitehouse show trials most appalling -- and hypocritical -- is that Congress was briefed on the enhanced interrogation methods in September 2002. At the time, according to the Washington Post, members of Congress from both parties -- including current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- wanted to ensure that the interrogations were tough enough to get the necessary intelligence from the captured terrorists. As the Post reported, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing," and according to a U.S. official present during the briefings, "the attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" But of course, according to a source looking back on that period, "the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic."

What's further disgusting is that so many of these jackass Congressman, as Owens states in the article, KNEW AND APPROVED of these tactics, as long as it prevented further American deaths. Now, as the specter of 9/11 slowly fades away, we've come full-circle; we're returned to a pre-9/11 mentality.

In this writer's opinion, with the aforementioned return, and nauseating naivety our president and the Left has displayed, it's not a question of IF, but WHEN we'll be attacked by terrorists, er, "man-made disaster" causers, as another Leftist Obama-appointed flunkie, in this case Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, is wont to refer.

I propose that instead of prosecuting the Bush administration for war-crimes (how is that possible when an enemy 1.) doesn't fight for a country that signed the Geneva Convention, 2.) attacks civilians.?), when we're attacked by Al Qaeda again, we prosecute these jackass Congressman for not doing all they could to protect American citizens, but instead, were more willing to pander to jackass far-Left anti-war groups?

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.

The ingrates on the Left

Travelling home from work on Leftist invention MASS TRANSIT, I peered out my window and spied an idiot sitting in his rusted out Chevy Blazer (if you live in Minnesota, you understand the concept of "rust"); said Blazer was absolutely covered with bumper stickers of varying liberal wisdom.

I believe the phrase, "liberal wisdom" is paradoxical in meaning.

The bumper stickers consisted of typical statements discussing the intelligence of President George Bush, the "war on the environment," "coexisting" with patrons of other religions, etc. One in particular caught my eye:

"Civil Rights: Don't Leave Home Without It."

A couple of thoughts come to mind at such "brilliance."

First, as Terrence Jeffrey so aptly states in his article, "This has been President Bush's primary aim ever since Sept. 11, 2001. And no matter what else Bush's critics say about him, there is one thing they cannot say: He allowed Islamic terrorists to hit our homeland again. In the almost seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have failed to carry out a single attack inside our country."

Juxtapose that with the terrorist acts that occurred under the watch of President Bill Clinton: the 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 1998 dual embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Tower bombings, etc. After each attack, our response was weak and ineffectual at best. Furthermore, when opportunity existed to either kill or capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno waffled, too concerned with 1.) how the world would view us; and 2.) the legal ramifications of either killing or capturing the terrorist leader.

Global opinion...we're hearing some of that familiar rhetoric now as Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama returns to the United States after his "tour" (think "rock star" which is how the public and the American press treated him) of Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Barry wants to correct our image in the world after eight years of a Bush Administration not giving a damn, and rightfully so, of world opinion.

As stated in a recent BBC article, "'In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common,' he continued. 'In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future.'"

Look what world opinion did for us in the 1990's: between Clinton's philandering, and his emasculated responses to Islamic terror, terrorists reviled us for our immorality; moreover, they knew that any military retaliation to bombings, killings, etc, would be met with tepidness at best, further emboldening the terrorists.

So look where that has led us: to bitching and moaning from the Left that President Bush, in his efforts to prevent any further terrorist attacks in this country, has usurped the United States Constitution. The Leftist intelligensia has decried him for stealing their first amendment rights., for eavesdropping on all of our phone calls, for "spying" on us.

It's almost laughable...but it isn't when you see how liberals and their Democratic enablers are looking to restrict free speech through their reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. As the Heritage Foundation notes, "Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the 'fairness doctrine.'"

Note the following regarding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine:

"The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine 'inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate' (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress."

And now Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic cronies in Congress, rather than address real issues like opening up off-shore areas for drilling, wish to suppress our First Amendment Rights. As "Current FCC Chairman James Quello, has stated that, 'The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.'"

The article makes the following points in its treatise:

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Once again, and doesn't history demonstrate this repeatedly, Liberals have displayed their hypocrisy and complete utter denial of the truth. God help us if Barry Hussein wins the presidency.

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.