Democrats: "party of the people" my rear (regarding energy, especially)

I came across this article, courtesy of SignonSanDiego.com which essentially epitomizes how out-of-touch Liberals and Democrats really are with the American people. The article offers two different takes, conveniently from each side of the political spectrum, on the energy crisis.

First, "The 'No More Excuses Energy Act' would have encouraged new refinery construction, extended the wind-production tax credit, sparked investment in new nuclear power plants, lifted a congressional moratorium on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 'environmentally responsible' drilling. Shelf drilling, the GOP claimed, could provide the nation with 17 billion barrels of oil, while refuge drilling could produce a million barrels a day for several decades."

"Democrats argue that the nation can't drill its way out of the problem. They note that 80 percent of the oil available on the shelf already is open for leasing, but that oil companies have concluded it's not yet worth their money to drill. And they contend that no oil would come from drilling in the refuge for at least a decade."

Naturally, the Democrats INFORM us that oil companies pretty much can do whatever they want; they're not being prohibited from drilling. Do they think we're that stupid? Sadly, the Democrats do, thus their endless insistence that they control every facet of our lives.

The Democrats love to pin the blame for high gas prices on the oil companies: "look at the profits," they cry...if it was only that simple. Rather, the oil profits are driven by supply and demand: Economics 101; as China and India continue to develop, as more people there start driving, as more manufacturing consumes more energy, they will GLADLY subsidize oil, thus providing cheap energy to their citizens.

No amount of price controls will ever control oil profits. "Big Oil" does not have to sell their supply to us. China and India will gladly buy whatever "Big Oil" is selling at whatever prices, hence the subsidies.

Furthermore, the oil companies cannot just drill at will offshore or in Alaska, thanks to obscene amounts of government regulations, taxes, and environmental obstacles, the notion of drilling is a pipe-dream. It won't happen, not while environmental groups have their way.

The second point that requires analysis comes from the mouth of Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer; note the following:

"Saying oil companies have quadrupled their profits in the past six years, Boxer portrayed them and the GOP as conniving co-conspirators in the robbery of typical Americans, and Democrats as champions of 'the average family.'

“'If anyone ever says to you there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, there is an enormous difference,' she said. 'And it has to do with whose side you are on. In the case today, it was: Are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil, or are you on the side of the American people?'"

Are you kidding ME, Barbara Boxer? I found these statements absolutely ridiculous. We can think the elitist, pie-in-the-sky liberals who represent a sizeable portion of the Democratic party. For a group (the Democrats) that supposedly represent the working class, it would appear they would rather entertain the wishes of the "money-portion" of the party. As mentioned above, we can thank environmental hurdles for the high prices.

Message to goofy liberals; your day is coming...there will come a point where we WILL develop our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil or coal, despite your inane ramblings about global warming. Enjoy your time-imposed existence. It won't last much longer. The good people of this country who you do not represent will see to it.

Here's the complete article:

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON | DANA WILKIE

Hot air on gas

UNION-TRIBUNE

June 16, 2008

Now that gas prices threaten to wipe out more than a few summer road trips, we really need someone to blame.

But there's no need to go to such trouble, because the folks out here in Congress are doing that for us. As with just about any issue that makes Americans grumpy – the rising cost of food, salmonella poisoning, hot August days – lawmakers here are bound to turn the topic into an opportunity to brand their political foes as bottom-dwelling, self-serving scoundrels who don't deserve the public's trust.

That's especially the case less than five months from a presidential election.

Two lawmakers' offices last week demonstrated the point nicely.

The first was the office of Rep. Darrell Issa, which blasted House Democratic leaders for refusing to allow a vote on legislation designed to address the sad fact that filling the tank of my minivan now costs 40 percent more than my monthly water bill.

The “No More Excuses Energy Act” would have encouraged new refinery construction, extended the wind-production tax credit, sparked investment in new nuclear power plants, lifted a congressional moratorium on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to “environmentally responsible” drilling. Shelf drilling, the GOP claimed, could provide the nation with 17 billion barrels of oil, while refuge drilling could produce a million barrels a day for several decades.

“It is outrageous that with gas approaching $5 a gallon, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi has not acted to unlock America's domestic energy reserves,” said Issa, a Vista Republican. “We are paying a high price at the pump today for decades of bad policy decisions that have placed our own oil and gas resources off-limits.”

Democrats argue that the nation can't drill its way out of the problem. They note that 80 percent of the oil available on the shelf already is open for leasing, but that oil companies have concluded it's not yet worth their money to drill. And they contend that no oil would come from drilling in the refuge for at least a decade.

Issa was among those who signed a “discharge petition” designed to force the bill to the House floor, where Democratic leaders had prevented it from coming to a vote. The GOP needn't have bothered. It was clear that Republicans lacked the clout to strong-arm a vote, but the exercise did give them a chance to remind voters just what bottom-dwelling, self-serving scoundrels those Democrats really are.

BOTTOM-DWELLERS, TAKE 2

Then there was Sen. Barbara Boxer, who went to the floor last week to blast the GOP for blocking a vote on legislation that would have imposed a windfall-profits tax of 25 percent on oil companies that don't invest in renewable-energy sources and would have ended $17 billion in tax breaks that oil companies now enjoy.

“Today at gas stations across the nation, the American people are suffering,” the California Democrat said. “They are facing sticker shock. They are having to choose – choose between something they might buy at the store for dinner and filling up the tank.”

The GOP, Boxer suggested, needs to get with the 21st century and stop blocking incentives that might boost investment in renewable-energy sources such as solar, wind, biofuels, biomass and geothermal heat.

Saying oil companies have quadrupled their profits in the past six years, Boxer portrayed them and the GOP as conniving co-conspirators in the robbery of typical Americans, and Democrats as champions of “the average family.”

“If anyone ever says to you there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, there is an enormous difference,” she said. “And it has to do with whose side you are on. In the case today, it was: Are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil, or are you on the side of the American people?”

For its part, the GOP said the nation can't tax its way out of the problem.

The Democrats' “Consumer-First Energy Bill” never had a chance of passing the Senate, but it did give them a chance to remind voters just what a passel of bottom-dwelling, self-serving scoundrels those Republicans really are.

Message to Democrats: We Can See You

As the Twin Cities Conservative, I am wont to profile liberal politics and how it impacts Minnesota. An important topic that is prevalent is the current U.S Senate between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Stuart Smalley, er Al Franken.

I came across the article below, courtesy of the St. Cloud State University Chronicle. A couple of points Franken makes in a recent speech epitomize a microcosm of the lying filth liberals and their Democratic enablers utter every day; in this, it's the Iraq War.

Sorry to break it to you, liberals but...THE SURGE WORKED. Violence is down in hot beds such as Basra, Sadr City, Fallujah, etc. Fewer American soldiers are dying to preserve the vision of a Middle East democracy. A fledging Iraqi government is taking shape.

"He instead focused on his plans for the future of Minnesota, which include universal healthcare, rebuilding the middle class, a commitment to developing sources of renewable energy and fighting global warming, and bringing U.S. Troops home from Iraq."

"Franken's Web site calls out Coleman for his continued refusal to authorize the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as well as his failure as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into contracting in Iraq by Halliburton and other corporations."

What good would a withdrawal do at this point? Nothing; if anything, a complete troop withdrawal would proffer catastrophe ramifications: refugee crisis, resurgence in sectarian violence, rebirth of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist murderers, etc.

Of course pie-in-the-sky liberals would have us believe that our exit from Iraq would undoubtedly cause Islamic terrorists to recant their oaths of murders towards all things American and thus engage in peace "dialogues." Give me a break...only in a liberal dream will that EVER occur.

The Democrats, in this case Al Franken, have offered us the stars, the moon, etc. In their world, universal health care works, our country can operate unabated with open borders, and no wars occur. Unfortunately for those of us on the Right, a significant portion of this country is listening to their message.

Here's the complete article:

Al Franken recieves DFL nomination

By: Andy Baker

Posted: 6/16/08

Comedian-turned-U.S. Senatorial candidate Al Franken secured the official endorsement from Minnesota's Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) on June 7 in Rochester.

Fellow DFL hopeful Jack Pallmeyer withdrew from the race immediately after the results from the first ballot came in.

Franken received the support of 61.8 percent of the delegates, compared with 35.3 percent for Nelson-Pallmeyer.

After Nelson-Pallmeyer's withdrawal however, delegates unanimously endorsed Franken.

Despite recent controversy over the political correctness of some of Franken's past work as a comedian as well as a writer and cast member on Saturday Night Live, the St. Louis Park-raised Democrat appeared unfazed at a campaign rally Thursday at the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 7200 Hall in Minneapolis.

Franken made no mention of the recent, much-publicized criticism he has received with regards to his career in comedy.

He instead focused on his plans for the future of Minnesota, which include universal healthcare, rebuilding the middle class, a commitment to developing sources of renewable energy and fighting global warming, and bringing U.S. Troops home from Iraq.

"The people of this state want a change," Franken told an energized crowd at the CWA Hall on Lake Street."It's time we had a senator who took this job seriously."

Prior to and throughout his campaign, Franken has been highly critical of the Bush Administration and of his opponent, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, particularly with regards to the Iraq War.

"Coleman seems like more of a windsock figure," Franken supporter Jacob Wascalus said after the rally in Minneapolis.

"He doesn't necessarily vote based on his conscience, but rather on whatever the popular thing is at the time."

Franken's Web site calls out Coleman for his continued refusal to authorize the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as well as his failure as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into contracting in Iraq by Halliburton and other corporations.

The Coleman campaign in turn, has accused Franken of being dishonest about Coleman's voting record since taking office and of being unprepared for the job of U.S. Senator.

At Thursday's rally, Franken addressed the need to faithfully represent his college-aged voters, who have grown up during the Bush presidency. "They don't know that government is supposed to work," Franken said.

Franken has been traveling all over Minnesota during his campaign to talk to voters about issues that affect them.

Franken has made several stops in Central Minnesota, including a "roundtable discussion" at a home in Sauk Rapids during which he addressed several issues affecting working families in Minnesota, including the sharp spike in Minnesota college tuition costs.

At Thursday's rally, Franken invoked the words of deceased U.S. Senator and champion of the DFL party, Paul Wellstone.

"The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard," Franken said to wild applause.

As Minnesota's senate race heats up with the Democratic primary out of the way, both Franken and Coleman will have to work hard and passionately as they fight for their respective visions of the state's future.

Obama: The Communist Connection

I read a very fascinating article, courtesy of Townhall.com, whereby Democratic presidential nominee Barry Obama's communist/socialist ties are examined.

The bottom line is this: does it really surprise anyone that Obama has ties to communism? After all, it's been shown that Obama has ties to a hate-mongering man of th cloth (Reverend Jeremiah Wright) and a terrorist (Weather Underground's Bill Ayers). Yet, it doesn't really matters. Our supposedly-objective press has given this neophyte politician a free pass on his background.

What a joke...

Here are some highlights from the article:

First, "In Hawaii, he was mentored by a member of the Communist Party by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. In Chicago, his career was launched and he was close friends with a number of communists and socialists."

Second, "It really begins even before Obama gets to Chicago because according to his book, when he goes to college -- first Occidental College and later Columbia University -- he picks among his friends Marxist professors. Obama himself admits this. He also admits attending socialist conferences. That would suggest the influence that Davis had on Obama extended into his college and university years.

Now when he gets to Chicago, we find that once again he gravitates and comes into the company of the most extreme anti-American elements, including socialists and communists. Keep in mind that the Weather Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, were communist terrorists. They were not just '60s radicals. These were people who openly supported the communist enemy killing Americans in Vietnam. Some of the members in this group, including Dohrn, had traveled to Havana, Cuba, to get instructions from the communists about how to wage their campaign in the United States."

If, in the event that these associations truly come to light, will the Mainstream Media continue to treat Obama with kid gloves?

Obama: to ruin this country

I saw that headline, courtesy of Google Alerts, and nearly lost my breakfast. The media's love affair with Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama continues as well as its portrayal of him as modern day American messiah.

Think of the taxes, think of the regulation, think of the burden this man will attempt to "bestow" upon us. Imagine a country where traditional values are admonished.

Here's the likely agenda of a President Obama:

Appointments of activist judges whom, rather than applying a strict interpretation of the Constitution, will do their damnedest to implement their progressive agendas

A "green" agenda that further buries our economy. What our economy needs now is cheap energy more than anything. Look at what restricting our driving will do to tourism, restaurants, entertainment, etc. As the environmentalists despise all things "Big Oil," it's the citizenry that suffer.

Sullying the office of the President of the United States by welcoming our ideological enemies with welcome arms. As a liberal is wont to do, Obama believes that we can TALK to people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il, despite overtures from the latter two that would contradict any sort of notion.

A few notes from this article:

"No, it doesn't necessarily mean he will be a good President, or even that he will make a decisive break with the disastrous foreign policies that have turned half the world against the US. However, he remains a potent metaphor for all that is best in the American constitution - the stuff about it being self-evident that all men are created equal."

Oh yes, the aforementioned view that it is OUR fault (that being the Bush Administration) is almost laughable. People forget that Saddam was violating double-digit United Nations sanctions and that Al Qaeda was hitting American interests at will prior to George Bush taking office. But when our government decides to be proactive, we truly become the Great Satan, malevolent and imperialistic.

"Yup, I know that women are not quite as equal as men. And for the black American underclass, it is equality of misery. But he has lived that contradiction. Barack Obama's own life experience is his best recommendation. He made a conscious decision to align himself with the black American dispossessed as a community activist in Chicago. His wife, Michelle, knows about being part of an underclass. His election would represent atonement for America's wars and for its capitulation to the politics of the super-rich. If the US can't come to its senses under Obama, it can't do it at all."

Another absolute joke here; Barry Obama doesn't represent poor Black American anymore than $400 haircut John Edwards represents the poor South. Obama has enjoyed the fruits of his riches from the cradle. He comes from money; he knows money. Furthermore, as a community activist, Barry Obama can share some of the blame for the subprime housing mess; it was "activists" like him who bullied lenders into handing out loans to poor people with bad credit on the premise that if they did not distribute said loans, they would be branded as racist.

You don't hear the mainstream media discussing that, do you?

A foreigner's naive take on Barry Obama

So is Barry Obama a Christian or a Muslim?

I've heard reports from admittedly unreliable sources proclaiming the presumptive Democratic nominee to be a practicing. Subsequently, the liberal thought police have responded en masse with statements that Obama is a practicing Christian.

So I'm confused...if the liberals are attempting to destroy the Christian institution in this country, why would they rally around Obama's alleged Christianity? Why does it matter?

To be honest, I'm not sure Obama is a Christian. From all indications, he's not a traditional Christian like the majority of the citizens of this country. Rather, he's a new-age Christian, adhering to a similar brand of Christianity as Oprah. Furthermore, as Obama has been a member of the Church of Hate, led by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, how can we believe him when he says he's a Christian?

What kind of Christian rails against its brother for inventing diseases and causing terrorism? How can a Christian lie and fabricate stories? I came across this piece courtesy of the Today's Zaman, a publication out of Turkey. It's fascinating to read such skewed thoughts regarding our country from the pens of foreigners.

Some points:

"It is no accident that Obama, who is a new-generation black politician, is apparently immune from anti-white sentiments and that young whites represent an indispensable portion of his enthusiastic constituency."

That's called white guilt. A significant portion of Obama's followers are either so charmed by the man's words or believe by voting for a black president, it somehow demonstrates how open-minded one is; i.e. "I'm on your side."

"One can assume anti-American violence would diminish and US credibility in spreading freedoms would be improved."

The author proposes that if Obama were president, the world would suddenly hate us less, because after all, George Bush has created terrorism. It wasn't concocted by radicals in the madressahs of Saudi Arabia decades ago, or fomented on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

"Anti-Obama bigots feel freer to raise the issue of his father's religion and Muslim name. Obama vehemently denies he is a Muslim, given emerging Islamophobia in American society, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If it weren't for the political climate, Obama would most probably speak proudly about his father and Muslim-convert brother's cultural values as well."

A couple of things here: if you're anti-Obama, you're bigotted. The author assumes that if you dislike Obama it's a result of one's latent racism. No, I'm sorry to say that I dislike Obama (besides being a liberal and espousing values to which I cannot adhere) because I find him disengenous and phony. Second, the author assumes that a "emerging Islamophobia" is fabricated in the minds of ignorant Americans. It couldn't be because we're inundated with reports of grotesque violence committed by a sect of people in the name of Allah, or that these crimes occur daily all over the world? Or because radicals have stated their beliefs, unequivocally, their desire to rid the world of infidels and create a pan-global Islamic caliphate.

Thank you Republicans

As many can attest, the environmentalists have done their best to hoodwink American citizens into believing that humankind is responsible for creating global warming. Despite significant opposition from scientists, the notion of global warming and climatology have absolutely gripped this country, prevalent in all walks of life.

According to the Associated Press, "Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president."

What the Democrats will not necessarily admit is that the burden of fighting alleged global warming will fall squarely on the taxpayer.

Chief sponsor, liberal, and all-around bonehead, Barbara Boxer D-CA stated, "'There is no tax increase'...She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices."

Is she kidding? Hardly...this sort of rhetoric is typical of Democrats; they mistakenly believe that enacting price controls on oil companies, raising taxes, and punishing trade partners like Colombia is somehow good for this country.

Furthermore, scientists and other noted experts dispute the established dogma that global warming is nothing more than part of a cyclical pattern in the Earth's weather history.

Thank you Republican for being the voice of reason. It's time to stop this global warming nonsense.

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: New TV ad scolds Coleman for taking oil industry funds

Giggling with delight; that's how I'd describe the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's blurb about incumbent Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman for taking campaign contributions from oil companies.

According to the Star-Tribune, "A Democratic-leaning organization on Thursday unveiled a television advertisement criticizing Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman for campaign contributions he has received from oil industry interests."

The perception I see is that because "Big Oil" is evil, as vehemently portrayed by the Mainstream Media, this will negatively affect the Coleman campaign against Democratic challenger Al Franken, among others.

The Star-Tribune states, "It challenges Coleman for voting to grant oil and gas companies billions of dollars in tax breaks and says he has accepted $210,000 in campaign contributions from oil company interests.

"Minnesotans are paying more for gas than ever while big oil companies are making billions," the ad charges."

Hardly true...big oil is already the most heavily taxed and regulated industry in the country. You've probably heard your liberal co-workers, colleagues, and friends clamor about either levying price controls against oil companies or taxing them further. Sorry to say, that in a free market society, those sorts of measures do not work.

The reason why "Big Oil" is reporting such profits is that in a free market society, supply/demand sets prices. Oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, for example cannot pump more oil, or face political crises that often impact production. Furthermore, if our Democratically-controlled legislature would ever enact price control measures, oil companies would more than likely laugh in our face and sell their wares to China and India, where demand is astronomical.

Regardless, Coleman has to decide where he stands here; this country is not configured at this point, and with the current state of the economy, to implement alternative energy sources. Cheap fuel could potentially be a shot in the arm for our economy. Unfortunately, big oil is portrayed as an evil, thanks to the liberal mainstream media and the environmentalist movement. Yet, he talks about supporting the Lieberman/Warner cap and trade legislation.

But at some point, especially in the face of a potential economic catastrophe in this country, the good people of this country are going to DEMAND cheap fuel. At some point, it's time to drill in Alaska and offshore, while building additional oil refineries.

I don't see this ad as a detriment; Coleman needs to embrace the idea of expanding our drilling and building aforementioned refineries. Moreover, it's time to hit back against the global warming proponents.