Wake Up United States: We're Dying a Slow Death Thanks to the Environmentalists

Fellow Twin Cities Conservative, CodLiverOilGuy, forwarded this article to me today: it sounds like our Democratically-controlled Congress, when they're not sidestepping the issue of oil and taking a FIVE-week vacation, are contemplating the passage of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (known as LOST).

Here's the crux of the legislation:

"Can you imagine gifting the United Nations with $50 trill in Arctic oil taxes? This is what the U.S. Senate proposes to do if it ratifies LOST."

"A dangerous scramble for the oil and gas reserves between Russia and the West can be avoided and, more to the point, the U.S. will lose its entire future commercial and energy security by signing onto LOST. Meanwhile, Democrat leaders in both houses of Congress have already rejected President Bush’s July 14 effort to end a 25-year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters."

What the hell are we doing to this country? More specifically, what the HELL are the Democrats doing to this country regarding energy, nevermind the shoving of progressive values down our throat, the pandering and cheerleading to terrorism, etc?

Tyrant of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), at the beginning of the month, despotically adjourned Congress, shutting off the lights and the C-SPAN cameras, in an effort to avoid voting on the issue of off-shore and ANWR drilling. She's saving the planet, she says. What a crock of shit.

Furthermore, I caught this article, courtesy of Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, whereby supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama clamored for $10 a gallon gasoline.

"Ed Frank, vice president of public affairs for Americans for Prosperity, spoke to Obama supporters during an event organized on Capitol Hill by liberally-leaning MoveOn.org. According to an email MoveOn emailed to supporters the event was designed to 'highlight the GOP’s extensive ties to Big Oil.'

There, AFP members handed MoveOn supporters a mock $8 bill and said “this is what Al Gore wants you to pay for gas.”

An older man dressed in an Obama shirt said, 'This is too cheap! This is too cheap!' Waving the eight dollar bill he said, “Let’s get it up to ten! Let’s get it up to ten bucks.'"

Can someone tell me how the hell this country is looking to elect MORE Democrats in the fall, including arguably the most liberal Democratic candidate ever? They want to tax "windfall profits" on big oil, thereby giving a $1000 energy rebate check to everyone; doesn't that almost ensure higher gas prices, for example, across the board? Obama wants to mete economic justice; in other words, he's vying to redistribute the wealth from people, in his estimation, do not deserve it.

On top of that, he's looking, if president, to tax this country out of a potential recession/depression, while endorsing alternative energy, sources of energy not currently viable enough to even support a reduced standard of living in America.

If we ONLY use alternative energy now, we WILL collapse. The development of alternative energy is highly-dependent on a cheap-oil driven economic structure which is in the process of collapsing. $10 gasoline will only make it collapse faster. What the Obama-bots fail to realize is that our food supply is also dependent upon this same cheap-oil economy. By hastening its collapse, they are taking food from our dinner plates.

I guess on the bright side, the greenies will starve with the rest of us.

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.

Growing weary of the Global Warming hoax? A review of the case AGAINST global warming

Anyone else getting tired of global warming politics being shoved down our collective throats? It's the far-Left's modus operandi to force their blithe, abhorrent agenda on us, whether it's the aforementioned global warming garbage, alternative lifestyles, open borders, socialized medicine, etc.

Three aspects of the global warming "phenomenon" drive me crazy:

1. The politics of the global warming hoax have seeped into our very existence, so much that conservative public servants are hoping to ride the wave of its popularity by sponsoring their own legislation to combat climate control.
2. The far-Left idiots in the environmental lobby are willing to murder millions of power, all for the sake of "clean air." They value "Mother Earth" over its children. Because of ethanol, for example, BLOOD IS ON THEIR HANDS.
3. The environmental lobby have so deeply infiltrated the ranks of the Democratic Party that its elected officials dare not lift the moratorium on the off-shore drilling ban or ease government regulations in order to help its traditional voters: working class Democrats.

According to the obnoxiously liberal Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

"Tougher gas mileage standards and a move beyond corn-based ethanol could help Minnesota exceed its goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2025, according to a study by the University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies."

"Transportation accounts for 24 percent of Minnesota's total greenhouse gas emissions, which, by definition, are a key cause of global warming."

Let's establish something right off the bat:

The notion of global warming is an absolute joke. Note the following points from respected author (Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies) and talk show host Gregg Jackson (Boston WRKO). Arm yourself with information when some sanctimonious far-Left buffoon starts to pontificate on, for example, the perils of the polar bears.

1. If carbon dioxide is responsible for increasing temperatures on earth, how do you explain the observed temperature increases on Mars where there are no automobiles, airplanes, or industrial plants emitting CO2?

2. If human induced carbon emissions are responsible for the slight half a degree Fahrenheit rise in the earth's temperature since the 1970s, how do you explain the temperature increases during the Medieval warm Period from 900-1300 prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine?

3. If man is primarily responsible for increased levels of atmospheric CO2, how do you explain the Ordovician Period, about 450 million years ago, when the CO2 level was approximately 16 times higher than it is today? How do you reconcile CO2 levels 95 million years ago which were approximately the same as they are today since man wasn't even on the planet?

4. You claim that there is a Global Warming "consensus" and that the issue of human induced global warming is settled and that immediate action to significantly reduce anthropogenic global carbon emissions is required ( i.e. Kyoto). While the vast majority of climatologists do agree that the earth has warmed about one half a degree during the past century and similarly acknowledge that the earth is always warming or cooling, there is no similar "consensus" view among climatologists that human activity is primarily responsible for it. When you claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists that humans are largely responsible for global climate change, which scientists are you referring to? How many have said that man made carbon emissions are responsible for climate change? Are these "scientists" to which you refer well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate? Finally, over 17,000 American scientists- two thirds with advanced degrees specializing in physics, geo-physics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, environmental science, chemistry, and biochemistry, have signed a petition disputing the "consensus view" that man is responsible for climate change. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm . If there is a scientific "consensus" that human carbon emissions are responsible for "global warming" how would you characterize the scientists who signed this petition? Are they merely heretical "deniers" in the pocket of Big Oil companies?

5. If man made carbon emissions are responsible for global warming, why did the temperature actually increase during the beginning of the 20th century prior to the greatest increase in carbon emissions after 1940? And why did the temperature actually decrease from 1940 to 1970 during the greatest increase in carbon emissions?

6. It is often asserted that human induced global warming is causing glaciers around the world to melt. Isn't it true however, that glaciers usually always melt or recede after cooling periods end? And isn't it also true that glacial retreat is highly selective in that glaciers are advancing globally in certain locations such as the Greenland Ice Sheet and retreating elsewhere (like the Alpine glaciers which have been retreating since the early 19th century)? If global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, isn't global cooling responsible for glaciers advancing?

7. The UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found no statistically significant increase in sea levels corresponding to man's greatest amount of industrial activity and resulting carbon emissions during the last century. What empirical evidence can you cite that substantiates the common claim that "man made global warming" is responsible for rising sea levels?

8. If man made global warming is as "catastrophic" as you predict, then why don't you Democrats who control the Senate, vote to ratify the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty which was signed on November 11, 1998? Why are Democrats not holding a vote to ratify such an urgent global treaty? And if Kyoto is supposed to reduce global carbon emissions why are "Green" Europe's emissions rising at twice the rate of the US- a non-Kyoto member?

9. Only 2% of "greenhouse gasses" result from combustion emissions from SUVs and power plants. Since 98% of all greenhouse gasses - which make the earth habitable - are naturally occurring, how will reducing man-made carbon emissions have any meaningful impact on the earth's temperature? Can you cite one piece of empirical scientific evidence that restricting man made carbon emissions would reduce the earth's temperature? What would be the cost?

10. There are thousands of scientists who have concluded that there is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide can have beneficial effects on natural plant and animal environments of the earth. It is a well known fact that in similar "warming periods" such as the Medieval Warm Period that residents of Greenland prospered and that this period of even greater "warmth" that we are experiencing today could lead to unprecedented economic prosperity, overall well being, and reduced mortality. What evidence do you have that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are "catastrophic?"

Obama's problem

So Barry Hussein Obama FINALLY visited Iraq; the streak of 900 plus days since the Democratic presidential candidate, who is absolutely unequivocal in his belief that United States military forces should be withdrawn from the country, is over.

The man, the agent of change, has presumably conversed with American military commanders and seen the progress of the surge on a microscopic level. So will the hard deadline of 16 months to remove all aforementioned troops stand?

On the whole we've seen Obama covertly, almost sneakingly, gravitate towards the political middle. According to the Baltimore Sun:

"He has softened or abandoned his earlier positions on a parade of issues, including wiretaps, abortion, trade with Mexico and Canada, gun control and public funding of his own campaign."

Of course, the morons on the far-Left are sulking that Obama abandoned the ideals that attracted them to his campaign in the first place. But, as I think most of us on the Right have established, 1.) despite efforts by the far-Left minority to establish the United States as Europe-lite, we are a CENTER-RIGHT country; 2.) Obama KNOWS that the key to his winning the presidency lies with working-class, sensible Democrats; those who "cling" to their guns and God, who have friends and family serving in the United States Armed Forces, and whose incomes are affected by obnoxious, far-Left induced, gas prices.

Barry may be understanding that the beliefs of the far-Left do not even remotely embody those of the rest of the country. I work with a gal whose views closely parallel the vile, odious far-Left: 1.) she is elitist; 2.) loathes those of us who adhere to a Judeo-Christian moral standard; 3.) lives in a fantasy world where terrorists are viewed as romantic freedom fighters waging a just war against marauding American imperialistic crusaders; 4.) mistakenly believes that George Bush and his neoconservative cronies created terrorism.

To whom does Barry wish to cavort and identify? Is it the far-Left? Or is it the working-class Democrat to whom rival Hillary Clinton empathized?