Myths

People believe in many things that are not true not because they really think they are true, but because they want to think they are true. Belief, and faith, is what separates religions from science. Religions can not be challenged, they require no proof and are unprovable. Science is a different matter.  Science should expect to be challenged. It requires challenge. It doesn't demand acceptance, threaten critics to silence them, declare the case closed. If I were to dispute gravity, a logical person would respond not by calling me a gravity denier, not by trying to silence me or get me fired, but by the simple proof of dropping an apple on my head. If I dispute global warming, it would be reasonable to expect the same response, facts to prove it's existence, ie to show that it is in fact hotter and that only man and not the sun or natural variations in climate can be responsible. Of course, this is hard to impossible to achieve.So instead we hear of rising sea levels, or a glacier melting somewhere. Claims are made that hurricanes are more powerful now than ever before, a ridiculous claim since the ability to measure hurricane strength is a recent achievement and little data exists. So now NASA and the High Priest of AGW, Dr. Hansen, have been caught faking data to prove their case. They claim it was just a mistake of course, an accident that just happened to be offered to the world as more proof of global warming. The hottest October on record, achieved by using temperatures from September. They should have used August, that would have been even better for their case. But it's good enough for Obama, who is intent on destroying American industry and our economy by driving the cost of energy out of sight. Based on a theory. Without proof.

Mao, Hoover, and Obama

It is ironic that the Communist Chinese are more pro growth and pro business than the Democrats. This is nothing new for the Communists, Mao himself reduced taxes from 33% to 25% to increase production on small farms. China just announced plans to reduce taxes on businesses to stimulate their economy. In the UK, the Labour party announced plans to seek tax cuts to stimulate their economy. Around the world, governments are recognizing that lower taxes increase growth.  Meanwhile, Obama wants the 2001 tax rates to expire, resulting in increases in income taxes, cap gains, and dividend taxes. In addition, he wants to increase those taxes even more, but only on 'the rich'. The last President that increased taxes on 'the rich' during a severe economic slowdown was Hoover. That worked out well. Obama seems intent on following in his footsteps.

Obama's Animal Farm

I started to write a scathing attack on Obama's America Serves plan to require 50 hours of community service for all middle and high school students, and 100 hours per year for all college students. I read the details on this plan directly on Obama's official web site, but when I when back to cut and paste the most offensive part of it into my article, I was surprised to see it was gone. There is no requirement! It's just a goal for middle and high school students, and for college students, now it's optional. If they perform the service they will get a $4000 credit. Did I just imagine that he had initially said everyone was REQUIRED to perform this service? So I did a little searching on the web, and found that others had seen the original version. Here is a link to one of them:
http://www.villagesoup.com/Forums/letters.cfm?TopicID=11969
So I didn't imagine it, Lord Obama did initially decree that all students must do as he commands, but then his minions re-wrote the script when he got flack for it. This is not the first time Obamabots have scrubbed web pages in an attempt to edit history. As they say "Four legs good, Two legs bad", or is it "Four legs good, two legs better" ? I can't remember.

Bottom up or top down?

Obama has declared his intention to pursue a 'bottom up' approach to the economy. It is his theory that by giving gov't checks to people you will spur consumption and invigorate the economy. Of course that money you are giving away was extracted from the economy (or borrowed from a future economy), so there is no net gain. This is the same approach tried repeatedly with the various 'stimulus packages', which spend huge sums of borrowed money for a temporary increase in demand. In actuality, much of the money goes to pay of existing debt and does not increase demand at all. The Republican approach is to cut taxes, specifically capital gains and corporate income taxes. The ideal way to spur the economy would be to set those tax rates to zero, permanently. Of course Democrats will scream and oppose this plan, so I propose an experiment. Let's set those taxes to zero in Texas, and set them to Obama's preferred level of 41% in New York. What do you suppose will happen? Let me tell you. The real estate market in Texas will explode. Tens of millions of high net worth investors will suddenly become Longhorn or Aggie fans. Every business in America will try to relocate to Texas. The extra 35% of their profit that they keep will help them to lower prices and expand production, driving their higher taxed competition out of business. Meanwhile, New York will be a very quiet, lonely place. So tell me, why are we surprised that companies are moving overseas under our current rules? And why can't Obama understand this?

The high cost of free health care

  There are a lot of people out there dreaming of an Obama victory to provide all Americans with 'free' health care. Accordingto Obama, there are 47 million people in this country without health insurance. That's about 15% of the population. Put another way, over 85% of the population has insurance coverage now. With that coverage they get access to the best health care offered anywhere in the world. When the rich and powerful get sick, they come to America for treatment. The world's leaders, the rich and the royal, come here. That's the system that 85% of this country has access to. Now, that 47 million uninsured includes many illegal aliens, and when we have universal coverage we will have many more. The 85% enjoying top care now will have to become used to a lesser level of care so we can provide for the 15% not covered. Care will be rationed. Expensive 'gold standard' treatment and tests will be replaced with a cheaper substitute. Xrays will replace MRI's, teeth will be pulled instead of fillings and crowns. The wait time for treatment will increase. In the UK, a 6 month wait for angioplasty is not uncommon, here it is 24 hours. In addition, people over a certain age will be denied treatments deemed not cost effective, ie 'you are too old for it to be worthwhile' will become a common reply for the elderly seeking organ transplants or joint replacements. This is the case in other countries where gov'ts must decide how to spend their finite resources. This is what we can expect if we follow this path. 85% of the country will suffer with a reduced level of care so that the homeless and the illegal can have a higher level of care. If that makes sense to you, you must be a democrat.

No way he could lose, but...

John McCain must be the worst campaigner since the beginning of politics. His opponent has direct ties to 2 terrorist organizations (weather underground and the PLO). His opponent has a close personal friend and 'spiritual mentor' who is on tape saying 'God Damn America' and calling this country the 'USofKKKA', in addition to blaming us for creating AIDS. His opponent was on record demanding we surrender in Iraq, claiming the surge would be a failure and that the war was lost. His opponent has close ties to ACORN (in fact he first ran for office as an ACORN candidate), a group now being investigated nationwide for voter fraud. His opponent has ties to the former heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he is the biggest receiver of donations from Fannie Mae, and he supported the legislation (backed by ACORN) that directly caused the sub prime meltdown and destroyed the world financial markets. In short he is running against the most liberal candidate since McGovern,  a man with no experience and radical views, and he is losing. Amazing!

More Lies from Obama Exposed!

As reported in National Review Online in this link:
 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY=

Obama attended a tribute dinner for his 'frequent dinner companion and close friend' Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the PLO and former babysitter for the Obama children. Also attending and making testimonials were Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who were described as 'best friends' of the terrorist supporter and Obama babysitter. The party  was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an anti-Israel lobby group founded by Khalidi and his wife. The AAAN received a $75,000 donation from the Woods fund while both Ayers and Obama served on it's board. So, of this group of friends, 80% are supporters of terrorism and are opposed to the existence of Israel. All except Obama. He doesn't share their views. Trust him.

Obama vs Joe the Plumber

Within hours of an American citizen daring to ask the Messiah a question the press sprang into action. We learned that this man was not in fact a licensed plumber, he simply worked for one. We learned his real name was not Joe. No, Joe was his MIDDLE NAME!!! We also learned that he owed back taxes!  Of course, none of this should have mattered to anyone, as Joe is not running for office. What should matter is that in 24 hours, the press investigated this man's past more thoroughly than they have Obama's in 2 plus years! Obama is allowed to say he had no connection to ACORN, other than representing them in a lawsuit. The press ignores his association with/membership in the New Party, an ACORN aligned political party. Here is a link that details some of Obama's New Party connections:  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021747.php

In addition, Obama claims he had no connections to Bill Ayers, the America hating terrorist. Obama says they simply served on a board together. Well, two boards. And he lived in the neighborhood. And held a fund raiser/meet the candidate event at this house for him. And they shared office space for years, working side by side. And he authorized $2million in funds to Ayers 'Peace School' and other pet projects. And they exchanged phone calls and emails until 2005. Other than that they were total strangers.

Too bad the press can't show the same enthusiasm investigating Obama's lies that they put into investigating plumbers.

What McCain should say in the debate.

McCain needs to play hardball if he wants to win this election. He has to stop listening to the media when they tell him to tone down his attacks. He needs to put all the issues on the table for the people to see in this debate. He needs to have Gianna Jensen present in the audience. She is a woman who as a 24 week fetus survived an attempt to abort her, despite the efforts of the doctor intent on killing her. She and others pressed for a bill to require medical treatment for babies that are delivered alive after attempted abortions. A bill which Obama voted against and defeated. McCain needs to ask her to stand up in the audience and then ask Obama to explain to her why he thinks she should be dead. Ask why did Obama vote against this bill even after several nurses testified that they witnessed 'fetuses' crying on the floor, untreated, for nearly an hour before they finally died. That's a question he deserves to be asked on national television. He needs to be asked about his claims to support the second amendment, despite voting for every gun ban, ammo ban, gun restriction, ever proposed. Why did he simply reply 'YES' when asked "Should handguns be banned?" if he supports gun rights. Ask him if he will then and there pledge to never support further restrictions on currently legal firearms. Talk about his mentor Rev Wright, a man that screams "God Damn America" from the pulpit and blames the "USofKKKA" for creating AIDS. Ask why it took him 20 years to realize this man is a racist loon. Ask why he spent years working with terrorist Bill Ayers, a man who tried to kill soldiers and their wives. A man who bombed the pentagon. A man photographed in 2001 (years after Obama began working with him and years before he would stop) standing on an American flag with the quote "Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird". Ask when he claimed he thought the man was 'rehabilitated' did he see his friend on that magazine cover? Ask him what rehabilitation is required for a man responsible for multiple bombings and multiple deaths. Is saying 'sorry' good enough? He needs also to attack Obama's tax plan as just another welfare program. Point out that the McCain plan to cut corporate taxes will benefit everyone. Point out that business taxes are be paid by the customers, the employees, and the shareholders. Tell people that higher taxes on businesses are forcing their jobs overseas, forcing the cost of the goods they buy to climb, and hurting the value of their 401'ks. If McCain wants to win, he better stop playing softball. 

Spreading the Wealth

Obama told a plumber who complained to him about his plan to raise taxes that he wasn't trying to punish the man for being successful. On the contrary, he was simply trying to 'spread the wealth'. Of course, the wealth he was spreading was the plumber's. This is why liberals love Obama's tax cut, which is a tax cut in the sense that is raises taxes on people who pay them to give money to those that do not, and why they hate McCain's tax cut because it actually cuts taxes. Obama actually said in a debate that he supported raising the capital gains tax even if it ended up costing the government revenue, because it would be more 'fair'. Being 'fair' is very important to liberals. They define fair as taking more money from the people that earn it to give it to those that did not. Punish the productive to reward the idle. This is how a liberal views the world. He is compassionate because he wants to give your money to the less fortunate. You are selfish and greedy because you want to keep your money. So, if that sounds fair to you, you might be a liberal.

Unlucky Obama

Poor Obama. This guy is really unlucky. His spiritual mentor, a man he spent 20 years listening to, is unbeknownst to him, a racist America hating loon. The man who helped him get started in politics, a man who held the first fund raiser for him, turns out to be a murdering, America hating, terrorist. His own wife admitted that up to this point in her life she had never been proud of this country. Poor Obama! Everyone he hangs out with turns out to hate America. I'm sure that's not an example of bad judgment, or a reflection of his true feelings. Probably just a case of really bad luck!

The Truth About Ayres and Obama

Obama claims he was not 'close' to terrorist Bill Ayres. He repeatedly denied they ever had more than a passing association, living in the same neighborhood and serving on the board of the Annenberg Challenge together. The truth is a little different than what Obama would like known. Bill Ayres pushed for and got Obama, then a relatively unknown south side lawyer, selected to this board. From this position, Obama had the authority to distribute $150 million, giving him instant political influence and clout and making Obama an instant power player in Chicago politics. From this position, Obama was able to build his reputation and prepare for his political career. It was Bill Ayres that held the first fund raiser for Obama, at his home, when Obama ran for the State Senate. Ayres made Obama a force in Chicago politics, and the two have been in contact as recently as 2007. They exchange phone calls and emails. So Obama is lying when he claims he has no connection to this terrorist. This man who tried to bomb a dance held for young soldiers and their wives. This man who bombed the Capitol, bombed the Pentagon, and orchestrated armed robberies (and was responsible for several deaths). This man who in 2001 said he regretted only that he didn't do more, and was photographed stomping an American flag. This is the man who made Obama, despite what he claims.

For Obama, the Truth is a Smear Campaign!

Obama is upset that Republicans are finally pointing out that he is unfit to be president. He thought he could intimidate them from talking about his character by making accusations of racism. He hoped people would never learn that his political mentor, the man who helped him get his start, was a terrorist. Yes, a man he worked with, attended parties with and who held fundraisers for him, tried to kill American soldiers and their families. That's right, he specifically targeted young soldiers and their wives. Obama hoped people would also forget about his America hating, racist spiritual mentor, Rev.Wright. No wonder Obama doesn't want the truth known. His political mentor is a terrorist, and his spiritual mentor is a racist. They say you judge a man by the company he keeps. That's why Obama thinks the truth is a smear campaign!

Obama: Outraged Over the Truth!

Obama's campaign reacted with horror and outrage at the recent attacks by Sarah Palin where she talked about Obama's 'paling around' with terrorists. They were horrified because they know the attacks are true and outraged because they were sure they had intimidated McCain into not bringing up Obama's past. But the truth is the truth, regardless of how much Obama wants to hide it. Bill Ayres co founded an American terrorist organization. He planned the attacks, and people were injured and killed as a result of his actions. He planned to bomb a dance for young soldiers and their wives, he bombed police headquarters, in short he was (and is) a ruthless leftwing scumbag. And a friend of Obama. He helped Obama get started as a community activist. He held a fundraiser for Obama when he ran for the state senate. They live in the same neighborhood, travel in the same social circles, and serve on various boards together. Think their relationship is not close, like the NY Times asserts? Call up Obama and ask him about it. Oh, you don't have his number? Then ask Ayres for it, because it was revealed that Ayres and Obama have called each other on the phone over the years, just not since 2005.  Which shows he is closer to Ayres than he is to you, and closer than he wants to admit.

Pelosi Blows it!

Nancy Pelosi demonstrates she is not qualified to be speaker once again. For a bill she calls critical to save the economy, a bill she says she needs republican support to pass, she fails to invite the republicans to a final meeting, then goes to the microphone to denounce them as unpatriotic for not attending. Then just before the vote, she stands up to again denounce the republicans whose votes she needs, costing her at least 12 republican votes according to the minority whip. To top it off, she can't convince 40% of her own party to support her, and the bill goes down in flames. Here's an idea Nancy, when you need someone's support, don't spit in their face before you get it.

Foreign Policy for Dummies

Obama needs to read that book. So far his foreign policy consists of attacking countries that are our allies, and meeting with countries that are our enemies. He announced he would bomb Pakistan, and said he would meet with Ammadinjad and Chavez without preconditions. Truly brilliant! Maybe we should also invade Canada and open relations with Cuba. This is what we should expect from a naive socialist barely out of school.

A Room full of Idiots!

Watching the hearings on the bailout one could only think that the lunatics are finally running the asylum. Sen Dodd said they were not going to be rushed, others said that maybe if they wait it will take less money than the 700 billion proposed. It's a lot like a fire department saying they are not rushing to put out the fire, and anyway, if they wait awhile it might take less water. Good thinking guys. Let's wait until the entire system collapses, and we are in the midst of the second great depression. Banks are already refusing to make loans to each other, and now some are stopping car loans. Soon they will not be loaning any money to anyone. That means your credit cards will not work, you won't be able to buy a car or major appliance (unless you have cash), and forget about a mortgage. People think this is a bailout of 'wall street'. It is not. It is a bailout of the American economy. It's time politicians stop playing for votes criticizing CEO's who were forced to make risky sub prime loans by congressional pressure. It was Congress that changed the rules to allow hedge funds to sell credit default swaps without having the assets to back them up. Congress threatened lawsuits over red lining if banks didn't make more sub prime loans. Congress pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy more sub prime loans and Congress that rebuffed attempts at oversight of them. Warren Buffet said this is the right thing to do. Bernanke said the time is now. So stop the game playing, stop the blame game, and pass this bill, without your stupid additions. Now.

Fix the problem, not the blame

OK, it's time to stop playing the blame game for the financial mess, as there is plenty to go around. Republicans and Democrats both voted for legislation that loosened regulations on selling of credit default swaps, Democrats pushed legislation that pressured banks to make more sub prime loans and blocked legislation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from running amok. Dodd, Frank, and Gramm all played roles in the creation of this problem. The important point now is how to fix it before the entire financial system collapses. Paulson's plan to buy up bad debt, to clean up the balance sheets of banks is a good start. The democrats are wrong to insist on getting stock in the banks that get help. If banks are forced to give up stock equal to the assets they sell, they are in effect being asked to give away the assets, and are unlikely to participate in such a scheme. No help be given to hedge funds, who are far more guilty of causing the mess than being victims. In addition to cleaning up the balance sheets of the banks, Congress should lower the capital gains tax to zero to spur an influx of capital. The time to act is now.

Team Obama caught in 'astroturf' smear campaign

Here is a link to an investigation into campaign smears and possible FEC violations by persons connected to the Obama campaign. It documents an attempt to produce 'viral' videos that smear Palin, videos done by a professional PR firm with connections to the Obama campaign. I guess this is the politics of change!

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php

Blame Main Street, not Wall Street!

Wall Street did not cause this financial mess, it was caused by millions of Americans who bought houses they couldn't afford, lied about their income to get loans they couldn't pay back, bought houses and condos just to flip them because they always go up in value. When the market stopped climbing, they began bailing, walking away from loans that they agreed to, sticking the banks with the loss. That is the cause. No one wants to put the blame where it belongs. It's not the evil bankers, or greedy stock holders, it's the borrowers who are to blame. Oh, if you want someone else to blame,  blame the Democrats for pushing laws that forced banks to make these loans, and authorized Fannie and Freddie to buy more sub prime loans. The goal was to increase home ownership, but some people just can't afford a home and pretending otherwise results in this type of mess.

Timeline for Defeat

Obama thinks he has been proven correct in insisting on a timeline to withdraw US troops from Iraq, since now the Iraqi gov't is apparently supporting his position. There is a fundamental difference however. Obama advocated setting a timeline while victory was very much in doubt, the Iraqi's are now seeking a timeline because victory is at hand. It is obvious that once any war has been won, that the troops will begin withdrawing and returning home. It is certain that Eisenhower developed a timeline to withdraw from Europe after the fall of Berlin. It is equally certain that he did not and would not have developed such a schedule 2 years prior to that. Imagine the response from the Third Reich if they were told in 1943 that US forces will withdraw completely in 1945. They would have celebrated this news and modified their strategy to stalemate the war until that time. The result would be that NAZI Germany would rule Europe today. Knowing that they need only hold out for a couple more years would have totally changed the course of the war and of world history. This is what would have happened in Iraq had we listened to Obama. This is what Obama advocated when he insisted on a timeline for withdrawal (a timeline for defeat) before the war had been won, proving he has neither the experience nor the judgment to be a commander in chief.

The Morality of Biden

On Meet the Press, Obama's VP pick Sen. Biden explained his views on abortion. As a Catholic, he confirmed he believes that life begins at conception, yet he supports abortion because he doesn't want to impose his moral views on others. Of course, society often imposes the moral views of the majority on all it's citizens. Slavery was a moral issue that was finally decided by force of arms.  Would Biden  want individuals to decide for themselves if slavery was right or wrong? Prostitution and Drug use are also moral issues that we do not let individuals decide for themselves, and they affect only the person making the choice, unlike slavery or abortion. For people that support abortion and believe that life does not begin at conception, there is no moral conflict. But Biden's position is that abortion is killing a human child, and he supports it. Now this position is not just logically inconsistent, but is simply immoral. He openly supports what he believes to be infanticide because it helps him get elected. That's not a courageous position, just a coldly calculated evil one.

Biden: Out of touch !

OK media, here's your chance to demonstrate fairness. Biden on 'Meet the Press' today stated that 'We need to get Syria and Iran to stop arming the Shia'. Now, when McCain stated that Iran was arming Sunni insurgents, the media went into a frenzy, labeling him 'out of touch', since everyone knows that Iran is a Shiite government and that they are arming the Shia militias and that the Sunnis are their enemies. So where is the shock at Biden's statement, since the Syrian gov't is a Sunni gov't, they are a Baath party gov't like Sadaam's, and they support the Sunni insurgents. I expect that there will soon be a media frenzy questioning Biden's knowledge, his ability, even his mental health, like they did to McCain for essentially the exact same statement. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Vote for a Hero or Vote for a Zero!

That's the choice in this election. John McCain is a proven quantity, a hero who has put his life on the line for his country. He has served in the military for 22 years, in the Senate for 26. He has worked with both sides to craft legislation, and worked against both sides to fight waste. His opponent? The 'community activist' who spent only 3 years in the Senate, devoting most of his time there to running for President. A man with no military experience, no business experience, no executive experience. His biggest accomplishments are writing books about himself and running for office. To call him an empty suit is to insult empty suits worldwide. Change can be in either direction, and Hope is not a plan. In this election, the choice is simple.

'The One' can't measure up by his own standards!

Obama has declared that he is more qualified than Palin, based on his campign staff having 2500 personnel and a 36 million dollar monthly budget,  as compared to Palin's experience as mayor where she had, as Obama claimed,  "50 employees and a 10 million dollar annual budget." This of course ignores her current job, which she has held for as long as Obama has headed his campaign.
As a governor she oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a 10 billion dollar budget. Once again Obama comes up short, using the criteria he himself specified. And let's not forget, she is running for the number 2 spot, unlike the woefully unprepared junior senator.

Truth: the first casualty of war and also politics

Truth is just one option for the Obama camp. If a lie works for their purpose, then they clearly have no problem using one. In a continuing, pathetic attempt to discredit Sarah Palin, the Obamabots have questioned her party affiliation, claiming she was a member of the Independence Party and also a supporter of Pat Buchanan. The Miami Herald this week quoted an e-mail from Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski that stated: "Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer." So, what is the truth?  Voter registration records and past news reports show Palin never registered as a member of the Independence Party, and backed Steve Forbes' presidential campaign in 2000, not Buchanan. In fact, the Associated Press reported that Palin served as a co-chair of Forbes' campaign. Now, this is all documented, and the Obama campaign knows it, but they made the decision to lie to boost Obama's support among Florida's Jewish community. That's change we can believe in! 

Two peas in a pod

Q: What's the difference between Hillary and Obama?
A: One has a set of balls, the other is black!

I am my brother's keeper. My half brother, now that's another story!

In 'The Speech', Obama chided us all to be our brother's keeper, but as usual with liberals it's do as I say not as I do. Obama happens to have a half brother, struggling to survive in Kenya on less than $1 per month. For the price of a pair of shoes, Obama could provide his brother with several lifetimes of income. Yet Obama, 'The One', the great compassionate liberal who made over $5 million on his book deals and tells us we need to do more to help others, can't spare a few dollars to significantly improve the quality of life for his own relative. No, that is a job for someone else. Obama is too busy making speeches and telling the rest of us what to do, and after all, he never said he was his half brother's keeper!

Suddenly Experience Matters!

Now that Palin is the VP choice, liberals suddenly have decided that experience matters, just not for the top pick on the ticket. Of course they ignore the fact that as mayor and governor, Palin is the only person with executive level experience, which means the McCain/Palin ticket has military, legislative, and executive experience. She also brings the experience of coming from a blue collar union household that can relate to the issues that affect many families. She has actually been running a family and a state, while Obama has spent his time in the senate writing books and running for president. Obama is clearly the lightweight of the 4 candidates, he exceeds the others only in ego.

Fire Gates, Save Georgia!

From the AP:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Washington he saw no need to invoke American military force in the war between Russia and Georgia but warned that U.S.-Russian relations could suffer lasting damage if Moscow doesn't retreat.

"The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a
military confrontation with Russia," said Gates. "I see no reason to
change that approach today."

So this piece of trash sees no reason to stop Russia from destroying it's neighbors and our allies? He can't see that Poland and Ukraine are next? If we continue to do nothing, what influence will we have in the world? Who will trust us? Who will ever help us? He needs to be fired TODAY!

Obama shows his true colors - Russian Red!

As Russian tanks and planes try to obliterate a former republic and pro western democracy in Georgia, the Obama camp has placed their alliance strongly with the Russians, focusing on criticizing the McCain camp for having close ties to Georgia, as taken from AFP off Yahoo news:

"John McCain's top foreign policy adviser lobbied for and has a vested interest in the Republic of Georgia, and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said Saturday.

There was outrage from the McCain campaign, which said the attacks on Scheunemann were "disgraceful" and showed Obama to be a stooge of Moscow indulging in "cheap and petty political attacks."

"Mr Scheunemann proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement late Saturday.

"The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Senator Obama's judgment -- it answers them."

Pretty well sums it up, Obama once again is on the side of the enemies of democracy. Stooge of Moscow, supporter of Che, friend of Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Obama has shown his true colors, and they are Russian Red.

Life is Beautiful!

Yes, life is beautiful, when you are a Democrat. Mostly because the rules that apply to other people just don't apply to you. John Edwards has been caught in a hotel with his mistress and love child, yet all the MSM outlets have totally censored any reporting of the story. The LA Times went so far as to tell their bloggers not to blog about the story, and offered to help them with other stories that would be acceptable to report on (presumably involving Republicans). Apparently John Edwards, former Democratic candidate for President and front runner for possible VP nomination, being caught with his pants down, is not a story worth mentioning, despite the fact that Edwards himself said that character and fidelity were important issues that candidates should be judged on. Of course this preferential treatment for Democrats is nothing new.  John Murtha was caught on FBI video negotiating the details of how to pay him a bribe. He's still in Congress more than two decades later. Jefferson in La. was caught with a hundred grand of FBI money in his freezer, he's still in Congress. Teddy Kennedy drowned a girl, that didn't affect his career with the Democrats. When the former Governor of Missouri died a few years ago, he was still allowed to run for office and win, with the seat going to his wife. This despite the fact that the election rules clearly require a candidate to be a resident to be eligible, and being dead he clearly was not residing anywhere. Frank Lautenberg was allowed to have his name replace a fellow Democrat who was projected to lose his Senate seat, even thought the deadline for changes had passed. No, as a Democrat the rules don't apply, and the media doesn't care. Do the Republicans get the same treatment? Hardly. The slightest hint of a scandal sends the media into a feeding frenzy. The Republican party will immediately drop all support and try to push out of office the tainted candidate as quickly as possible. Tom Delay was pushed out of office when a political hack DA brought forth trumped up charges against him (as he did against other Republicans in the past), charges that have still not resulted in prosecution, and will eventually be dropped like the other bogus charges that DA filed in the past.  Mark Foley dropped out of the race when accused of sending inappropriate emails to a (over 21) former page, and Republicans were prohibited from replacing his name on the ballot, in a direct contrast to Lautenberg. Of course, Barney Frank has done far more than send emails, and he is still in Congress. The lesson is quite clear, if you want to go into politics, and are anything but squeaky clean in every aspect of your life, you'd better be a Democrat. Then it's let the good times roll!

Obama the Grinch

In a recent appearance Obama told a 7 year old girl that "America is no longer what it could be, what it once was". We can expect  Obama to announce the death of Santa Claus to the children at his next event if he can figure out a way to blame it on GWB. Maybe Obama, the man who insists he loves this country (despite his dinner parties with terrorists, despite his mentor's obvious hatred of this country,  despite his wife admitting she was never proud of this country),  should explain exactly WHEN this country WAS what it could be in his opinion. Was it prior to 1865, when Blacks were slaves, and officially regarded as property by the Supreme Court? Was it back before the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote? Was it under FDR's presidency, when we interned our Japanese American citizens? Or did the sun rise and set on the American empire during the Clinton years? Obama needs to study history and realize that there are both good and bad things from every age. To focus only on the bad distorts the true picture, which is an America with some shortcomings that are outnumbered by it's achievements. It is now and always was a country to be proud of, regardless of what he and his wife think.

Vote for Paris!

Paris Hilton is an energy policy expert, I know this because I saw her ad rebutting McCain's use of her in his campaign ad. I know that previously we all thought she was just a vapid little airhead, but no longer! She is clear, concise, and expresses a commonsense approach to solving our country's energy problems in a bipartisan way. I'm ready to vote for her for President. It doesn't matter that she has no experience in government, or in business, or in the military. She can read from the teleprompter in a very convincing way. She employs excellent speech writers. She is young and attractive. Who cares that she has no track record, that she can only be judged by her words not her deeds. She represents change! Or maybe not, come to think of it. She seems to be a lot like the other candidate for change.

Our Newest Superhero!

Move over Superman, step aside Hulk, there is a new superhero on the scene, Super Witch! (well, it rhymes with that anyway!). Yes Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the planet from peril. I know this because she said in an interview "I'm trying to save the planet".  Obviously she has some hidden superpowers that we are not yet aware of (the ability to raise taxes with a single vote?, the ability to block domestic oil production faster than a speeding bullet?), for such a statement coming from a mere mortal would have to be considered the most arrogant thing a politician ever said, and that is REALLY saying something! Not only is the planet in need of saving, not only does Nancy possess the wisdom to know this,  but she has the power to save it!  Truly amazing for someone who appears to be just  a leftwing political hack from the Bay area. But that's how it is with superheroes, you can never see through their clever disguise.

Big Brother for President!

I don't call Barrack Obama a flip-flopper. It is fashionable now to attack a candidate as a flip-flopper if it can be shown that he has changed his position over time. It is however entirely reasonable to change one's opinion as time passes and situations change. What is not reasonable or acceptable is to lie about one's positions, to pretend that they were right when it is documented that they were wrong. Here is a quote from Obama, made at the start of the surge:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Very clearly he was opposed to the surge, he voted against it, he predicted it would make matters worse. Now here is a more recent quote:

  "Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

Notice he now claims to have known all along the surge would reduce violence, yet he voted against it. Was he opposed to reducing the violence? Why did he then predict publicly that it would make things worse if he knew it would work? He claims to have said at the time that it would improve the security situation there, yet publicly he said the opposite. This is not a case of flip-flopping, it is a case of lying. As evidence mounts that the situation has improved dramatically, Obama wants to rewrite history, to unsay the things he said. This is why his team is scrubbing his web site to correct the past. Unfortunately for them this is not Oceania, Obama is not big brother, and we know the truth.

Media Fairness Demonstrated Again!

As if the network news anchor's pilgrimage to Iraq following Obama was not proof enough of the media's bias in his favor (McCain's last trip to Iraq was barely mentioned on the news), the New York Times has removed any pretense of fairness by publishing an editorial by Obama but refusing to provide equal treatment to McCain. This type of blatant bias is not something new for the Times, or a new trend for the media in general.

According to The Project for Excellence in Journalism, for the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. Not only is Obama given more coverage, the coverage is more positive, while McCain's coverage is often slanted to promote the theme that he is too old or out of touch, like today's AP article pointing out his lack of internet experience.  Of course, since the NY Time's op-ed editor David Shipley (the man who rejected the McCain article) worked in the Clinton White House, his bias should surprise no one.

 Since the Times doesn't want people to read McCain's response, I have posted it here:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Obama for Class President!

Other than hatred for George Bush, what is the reason for supporting Obama? How has he proven himself qualified to be President? Hillary Clinton pointed out that while McCain offered a lifetime of experience, all Obama had to bring to the office was a speech he gave a few years ago. Where is the landmark legislation he proposed? Where are the Senate bills bearing his name, the bills he worked with the opposing party to craft, like McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman? What great business experience does he have? What executive experience? What military experience? What can anyone point to that would show that this man is uniquely qualified to be the leader of the free world? Obama's like a teenager who knows just how to fix the world, without ever having left his parent's home, he should spend some time learning before he tells everyone else how things should be done.

Pelosi says "Drill Me Now!!"

AP Headline: "Democrats Try To Spur More Oil Exploration"

Now, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story, extracted from the body of the article:

Democrats are:

"Seeking to blunt GOP efforts to permit oil exploration off Atlantic and Pacific coasts ..."

"scrambling to appear pro-drilling — even as their leaders appear dead set against reversing the long-standing drilling bans along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts."

Their proposal is:

"an effort by Democrats to counter a push by congressional Republicans to lift a long-standing drilling ban on most offshore U.S. waters."

So there you have it. Once again the Democrats resort to lying to the American people, trying to trick them into thinking that they care about the rising cost of gas and are going to do something about it. The idea of increasing domestic oil production is a no-brainer for anyone with a brain, but Democrats can't grasp it. They instead try to block all efforts to do so while pretending otherwise, hoping that the American people are foolish enough not to see the truth, that the Democrats are just the lap dogs of the environmentalist extremist lobby who will oppose any effort to keep this country from turning into a third world nation.

SEC: Short on Brains!

In July of 2007, the SEC changed a rule that had been in effect since 1929. Known as the uptick rule, it was designed to prevent short sellers from shorting a stock that was dropping in price, forcing them to wait for a price uptick before they could short. Since that ill conceived  change, the market has dropped nearly 4,000 points. It's time the SEC admits it made a mistake, and acts to prevent short sellers from destroying the markets. Reimposing this rule would be a good start, prohibiting naked shorting also needs to be done immediately. In fact, all shorting should be eliminated, it is a relic of the past when markets were manipulated to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Numerous companies have been destroyed and countless jobs lost by allowing this practice, Bear Stearns was just the latest victim. It's time for the SEC to wake up and restore order to the markets.

Witch on a Witch Hunt

When Bill Clinton was being investigated for various crimes, he responded by firing all 93 Federal prosecutors and replacing them with people more to his liking, since obviously firing and replacing just those investigating him would look like he was trying to obstruct justice. Democrats at the time went on the news talk show circuit to explain that there was nothing wrong in this, that the President has absolute authority to fire prosecutors for any reason or no reason at all. Now that the President is a Republican, and a few prosecutors (8 of them) were fired (because they were refusing to investigate corrupt Democrat officials), we have a major scandal. Obviously I feel for the prosecutors, since they were understandably confused. Having seen the precedent that they should not investigate a corrupt Democrat or lose their job, they didn't understand that this administration expected them to actually enforce the law, even when it was being broken by Democrats. So now Pelosi has organized an official Congressional witch hunt (I'd suggest she try looking in a mirror) and is targeting Carl Rove, demanding he testify. As he is a Presidential adviser, the President will assert Executive Privilege and refuse, and the courts will  concur he cannot be forced to testify. Not that this matters to Pelosi, as it is just political theater for her to prove to her leftwing supporters what a good job she is doing, hoping that they are unaware of the soaring food prices and skyrocketing gas prices since she took power 2 years ago.

Obama's Plan to Destroy the Economy

Senator Obama loves the working poor, so much so that he wants all of us to be in that category, and his economic plan will go a long way to seeing that dream become a reality. He plans to raise capital gains and dividend taxes by 100%, even though he admits it will generate less revenue and therefore increase the deficit even more. This should keep the markets down, and with them your 401k's. He wants to raise corporate taxes, which he apparently doesn't know are not paid by corporations, but by employees, shareholders, and customers. This will reduce the number of jobs and keep the salaries of those working nice and low, which is good since when the Bush tax cuts expire that lowest bracket will go from 10% back to 15% so they can enjoy a further reduction in pay.  In addition he wants to remove the Social Security tax cap, so companies will be hit with the another 6.2% for higher paid workers. Of course, the company isn't going to just eat that extra cost, so that added expense will get passed on to the consumers as well. Those higher paid workers are looking at more than a 10% cut, and they are going to demand higher pay to make up for it. Too bad the companies will be already struggling to pass off the costs of the higher taxes, so they will have to have some more layoffs. In addition, Obama wants to bring back the windfall profits tax, the disaster from the 70's that caused domestic oil production to plummet. This will further drive up the cost of gasoline and make us even more dependent on the volatile middle east. If you want to know where it will all end, look to the 70's (the last time we elected an ultra liberal president). Skyhigh interest rates, soaring unemployment, and inflation out of control.

Divided States of America

At what point did the divide between Republican and Democrat transform into a version of the split between Sunni and Shia? When did we become Red States and Blue States, instead of the United States? It didn't happen overnight, but the divide is growing, and unless checked, violence is the certain outcome. The country used to come together after an election, but the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a watershed moment. Republicans remembered how Nixon was forced to leave office over official misconduct and murky allegations of corruption, and they expected when Clinton was caught committing perjury and obstructing justice, as well as being implicated in at least 3 cases of sexual assault, he would face the same fate. Democrats however rallied around Clinton, after earlier assuring that if guilty he would have to go. Republicans felt a double standard was in effect, Democrats felt Clinton was being persecuted for a minor offense, and tensions grew. Then came the election of 2000, where the Gore campaign refused to accept defeat, leading supporters of both sides to face off in street demonstrations. The split has intensified with each passing year. Our right to express our views or even express our support for a candidate is being met with intimidation. A recent search on 'Bush/Cheney campaign signs' resulted in numerous stories about yard signs being stolen or destroyed, and cars and homes vandalized. Now it is common for someone to be verbally attacked (as opposed to debated) if they express a different view on an issue. In some cases the attacks are becoming physical. Where will it end? Is it possible for either Obama or McCain to put an end to this? I don't know, but if it continues the eventual outcome is certain and grim. As Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand", or as the philosopher Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

Stop the population explosion, vote Democratic!

Not content with their previous efforts to eradicate humanity through abortion and preventing the combat of tropical diseases by banning DDT, together responsible for well over 100 million deaths, Democrats have a new plan to end our species. By irresponsibly supporting a dramatic increase in biofuel production, they have pushed a significant portion of the world to the brink of starvation. The latest report from the World Bank points the blame for skyrocketing food prices on the push for biofuels. Pelosi pushed a 600% increase in ethanol production through Congress in December, and as a result, people world wide are starving.

Patriot Games

Obama and McCain have both written pieces today on the meaning of patiotism. Both are well written, but while words are important, actions are more so. McCain volunteered to serve his country in a very unpopular war. He was held as a prisoner for 5 years, but when released continued to serve in the Navy for many more years before entering politics. He fits the classic definition of a patriot, one who has sacrificed, put his life at risk, not for personal gain but for his sense of obligation to his country. Obama chose a different path. There were no wars calling out for his service, and though he could have joined the military and served in peace time, he chose not to. That may make him less qualified to be president, but it does not define him as unpatriotic. Many very patriotic people never serve in the military. There are other ways to serve ones country, and working in ones community to ensure public safety, justice and opportunity is just as valid as serving in the military. Police, Fire, EMS personnel all serve their country, as do social workers and health care workers (though at less personal risk). No, patiotism is not defined only by military service, or community service, but rather by a belief that this country is worthy of service, by pride in the recognition that this country has played a unique role in history, and by a respect for it's traditions, values, and fellow countrymen. A patriot is not someone like Bill Ayres who sets off bombs to kill his fellow citizens and decades later only regrets not bombing more, or Rev. Wright who blames this country for all the world's evils and calls from the pulpit for God's damnation of it. Obama claims to have been raised in Indonesia by his Marxist mother to love this country, but he certainly makes a habit of hanging out with those who clearly do not. That might not be a reason to question his patriotism, but it is reason to question his judgment, and coupled with his lack of experience, more than reason enough for me to not vote for him.

They can't really be this stupid.

I don't believe that the Democrats can possibly believe what they say publicly about oil exploration. They say that drilling for more oil will only increase our 'addiction' to oil. We are addicted to oil in the same way we are addicted to food and air, we need it to survive. They prefer to view energy as something we must learn to live without, something that we can give up as easily as that morning latte from Starbucks. They can't be this stupid, so the only other possibility is they are simply corrupt. Someone must be paying them to keep America's oil reserves off the market. All of their policies are designed to make us more dependent on foreign oil, from a windfall profits tax redux that was demonstrated to reduce domestic production to blocking offshore drilling, blocking ANWR drilling, and blocking development of our huge oil shale reserves. Coupled with their campaign against our nuclear industry (which totally crippled it), and their crusade against coal, it is obvious that their goal is to leave America completely devoid of domestic energy sources. They support wind and solar energy of course, because they can't provide anywhere near the amount of energy we need and are totally cost ineffective.  This is simply to give the illusion that they are not working to destroy our country for the benefit of their Middle Eastern friends, that they have a plan. They do of course have a plan, which is to transform America into a third world country. Either that, or they are just the most inept, ignorant, collection of morons the world has ever known.

68 million lies

Democrats are justifying their moronic obstruction of domestic oil and gas exploration by claiming that there are 68 million acres of leases that are currently idle, implying that the oil industry is intentionally not producing oil to keep prices up. As usual, they are either totally misinformed or simply lying to divert the blame that they deserve for America's energy crisis. To imply that a lease that is not producing is idle ignores the many permits and mountains of red-tape required to begin production, in addition to the lengthy exploration and verification process to determine if oil is actually present. Often after much effort and more than $100 million in expense they end up with a dry hole. Just because there is a lease does not imply there is oil, a lease is just the right to look for oil that may or may not be there. After a lease is obtained, the following permits are required: Geophysical and Geological Exploration Permits, EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits, Army Corps of Engineers permit, marine mammal/endangered species permits, in addition to the permits to drill. Then they must develop a deep water operations plan, an oil spill response plan, a hydrogen sulfide plan, and a development plan. It is more involved than just poking a hole in the ground and pumping oil, which is why it is important to open up more areas to explore NOW, and to streamline the process to keep America from running out of oil. Or we can blame the oil companies and keep sending our money overseas to pay those that want to kill us. Sadly, the democrats think the latter is the best option.

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut!

   The Supreme Court finally got one right, though it was way too close for comfort! Scalia, (the brain of the court), wrote the majority opinion affirming that the 2nd amendment  means  'the right of the people' when it says 'the right of the people'.  This is something that has baffled liberal minds for decades.  Justice Stevens, (the lower intestine of the court) wrote in his dissent that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons", adding that such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Unless of course you actually look for it, in say the Federalist papers, or the constitutional debates, or the writings of Jefferson or Mason. Then you would see that the Framers were revolutionaries, who feared a strong government and believed that it must be kept in check by dividing powers among the branches and giving the people the ultimate power, the ability to overthrow that government if it became tyrannical. In the Declaration of Independence they specified this not only as a right but as a duty.
  Justice Stephen Breyer, (the terminal point of the digestive tract of the court) in a separate dissent said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." No, when they were writing the amendments, they were going to list that, along with every other conceivable variation of loaded/unloaded, handgun/rifle/shotgun, home/apartment/condo, crime-ridden/crime-free, urban/rural etc., but decided to save parchment and just say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Thankfully today, though by the slimmest possible margin, the court proved that they could actually read what was written.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Dr. James Hansen is the Torquemada for the new religion of Global Waring, threatening all who would dare commit the heresy of not accepting his theories as gospel. This lunatic masquerading as a scientist has proposed arresting people for exercising their constitutional right to free speech if that speech involves questioning his pronouncements of impending global warming doom. His idea of the scientific method is to propose a theory, then arrest all who disagree. It is much easier to just jail skeptics than provide them with proof, especially when there is no proof! No, this idiot with a PhD and your tax dollars in his pocket prances about the country declaring that the world will end if we fail to reduce CO2 to 1988 levels, ignoring of course that in 1988 he declared global warming as a dire menace. Yes, humanity will be imperiled if atmospheric CO2 levels are not reduced by .003%! Natural sources for CO2 dwarf man's contributions by a factor of 40, making us responsible for just 2.5% of the CO2 emitted yearly. In addition, it is important to note that all the CO2 trapped in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere, removed by plants millions of years ago, so releasing it all would simply restore CO2 to it's former levels. It is worth noting that the good doctor ignores completely the inconvenient fact that sunspot activity and the resulting increased solar output completely accounts for any observed global warming, and in fact now that sunspot activity has declined since 1998, the Earth has actually been cooling. I should be careful pointing out facts to this high priest of the cult of Global Warming, lest I be sent to prison for heresy.

(a)Liars (b) morons (c) all of the above

I guess in a country where more people vote for American Idol than American President this is what I should expect. We are governed at all levels by the corrupt, the idiotic, and the not so rare combo deal of the corrupt idiot. Our Governor, Charlie Crist, is not corrupt. He is just an idiot. His latest idea is to fine truckers if they let their engines idle for more than 15 minutes. This is to help stop global warming, the non-existent menace that idiots believe responsible for every disaster, from droughts to floods, from record lows to record highs, from more hurricanes to fewer hurricanes. Charlie apparently hasn't heard of refrigerated trucks that need to keep running to keep things cold, or considered the case of truckers sleeping in their rigs in the winter, where they need to run the engine to keep themselves warm and to ensure that the truck will start in the morning. No, no point in thinking. Let's pass some laws, that's what we idiots do best! Our congressman Tim Mahoney, not to be outdone, has proposed requiring oil companies to drill in all the areas they have leased, immediately. He and the democrats believe that the oil companies are deliberately not producing oil. This is how they think big oil makes it's money, by not producing and not selling oil. He thinks that if they were allowed to drill in ANWR and offshore, they would deliberately not produce oil there either, which is why it is so important to prohibit them from drilling there to save the environment from the drilling that they wont do. Understand? If so, you may have a career in Congress!

There is nothing like a Dem !

Proving that no creature, not even the armadillo, is as clueless as a democrat, this week Reid and Obama both stated that "we can't drill our way out of an oil shortage". Think about that for a moment, truly a statement of profound stupidity. Of course you can drill you way out of a shortage! Drilling for more oil is required to increase the supply, increasing the supply by definition decreases the shortage. It's like saying "you can't eat your way out of being hungry".  These are the people we have elected to run the government! Pelosi, another rocket scientist, opined that since 68 million acres of leases are not being drilled now, there is no point allowing exploration in other areas. She is (suprise) ignorant of the fact that leased areas are not being drilled because it was determined that there was not enough oil there or the cost to extract it was too high. No, she insists the oil companies must look for oil in all the places where oil is not before she will let them look for it where it is. When it comes to clueless, there is nothing like a dem! (with apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein!)

Obama: Just Plain Stupid

In Obama's latest rant in support of the Supreme Court's decision to confer citizenship on all foreign terrorists he has highlighted exactly why the court was wrong. Of course, being Obama he thinks he was proving them correct! He cites the example of the Nurembourg trials of former NAZI officials as repudiation of the Bush administration's plans to hold military trials for foreign terrorists at Gitmo. Maybe Obambi hasn't figured it out yet, but the Nurembourg trials were military trials, held in a foreign country, with no jury just a panel of judges. In short, they were almost exactly like what Bush proposed for the terrorists. FDR held similar trials for captured NAZI spies, again not in civilian courts. It is also worth pointing out to the uninformed Senator that after the Civil War, the commandant of Andersonville prison was tried before a military tribunal, was denied nearly all rights afforded under the constitution, and was convicted and executed. Oh, and the war was over and he was a US citizen. Maybe Obama should study a little bit before he makes another stupid mistake. Then again, so should the Supreme Court.

Bye Bye American Pie

Barack Obama has little understanding of economics. He believes, like most Marxists, that the economy is like a pie, and if I get a bigger piece, then you will get a smaller one. This is the reason he is so disdainful of the wealthy and successful: he believes they are taking more than their 'fair' share of the pie, consigning countless others to poverty. This is why he wants to raise taxes even if it results in a weaker economy and less revenue, because he thinks it is more fair. He doesn't understand that it is not a zero sum game, that wealth is not to be divided but created. If taxes on investments were eliminated, along with taxes on corporations, the economy would boom, the markets would soar, and millions would prosper. Those at the top as well as those on the bottom would benefit from a growing pie. It is this same misguided view that shapes Obama's energy policy. He has been quoted as saying that 'Americans can no longer set their thermostats at 72 and expect the world to say that's ok, use however much energy you want'. He thinks we are using more than our share of energy and are depriving the rest of the world. He wants us to do with less so others can have more, being too ignorant to realize that we can produce more energy so everyone has enough. If we build more nuclear plants, and utilize our vast coal and oil reserves (and stop worrying about non-issues like global warming), there will be more than enough energy for all of us. Or we can follow Obama's plan and get used to a lot smaller piece of the pie.

Supremely Stupid

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the US constitution applies to terrorists who have never set foot in the US. Yes, terrorists who do their best to kill US soldiers in foreign lands now have all the same rights as taxpaying American citizens (and more rights than US soldiers). U.S. soldiers will still be subject to military jurisprudence, but terrorists get civilian courts. I can see Khalid Sheik Mohamed  in court now, arguing that the Marines did not have probable cause to search his cave, they didn't have a warrant, he wasn't read his Miranda rights, his civil rights were violated. Thanks liberals. This will certainly result in more acts of terrorism and more American deaths, raising the question once again, "which side are you on?" Of course, we know the answer to that question, and so do the terrorists, who are surely smiling today.

Jimmy Carter with a Tan

Obama has decided to kick off his campaign by re-introducing the wildly successful economic policies of Jimmy Carter. You remember the 21% interest rates, 14% inflation, 12% unemployment that Jimbo brought us, the man who invented stagflation. So naturally he is a role model for Obama, who wants to try again with the windfall profits tax, the tax that lead to declining oil production, gas shortages, and rising prices. To Obama, it just seems logical that the way to reduce gas prices is to raise taxes on oil companies and increase the cost of producing gasoline. The idea of increasing the supply of oil by drilling in areas that the democrats have put off limits (that would be any area where oil can actually be found!) is just plain silly. No, raise taxes. That should fix things. If Obama wants to bring back stupid ideas from the 70's, he should stick to disco.

No more room in the tent!

The Governor of California, Arnold the Terminator, has called on the Republican party to move to the center, to be a 'big tent' party that welcomes those with diverse beliefs. This is a wonderful idea if you think of a political party as a social club, a nice place to have drinks and pick up chicks. It is however an idiotic idea if your goal is to have your party stand for something. People in this country are too busy voting for who they think can dance or who is the next American Idol to be bothered researching where candidates for office stand on issues. So they vote for a specific party, assuming that the representative for that party will hold certain beliefs. Like that the Democrat will be in favor of higher taxes, bigger government, and running away from terrorists. This is usually true, but the big tent approach lets some of these people run as Republicans. People like Senators Spector, Chafee, Colins, Snowe, Warner, Jeffords, and Hagel. This means that even when the Republicans controlled the Senate, there were enough 'stealth' Democrats in the party to block any legislation not approved by the DNC. Yet every election, the Republican party would foolishly support these traitors over 'real' Republican candidates, arguing that we needed to have diverse opinions, to be the party of the big tent. A big tent full of people working to destroy everything you believe in. It's time to vote some of these traitors off the island, there is no more room in the tent!

Disaster du Jour

Global warming is just the latest disaster hoax that the liberals have pulled on the world. Remember the hole in the ozone? Before that there was acid rain, and before that there was the coming ice age that would freeze us all to death. Of course, after forcing billions and even trillions to be wasted fighting these phantoms there is never any admission that they were wrong. They just move on to the next pending disaster, which will of course be caused by (1) western society, (2) the use of fossil fuels, and (3) big business. The solution will of course be found in (1) new taxes on fossil fuels, (2) new taxes on business, (3) new taxes on western civilization. Each time it's the same. The world is going to be destroyed, they are sure, and if they are wrong, what is the harm? What did it hurt spending 4.5 trillion to protect the ozone layer ? (The cost of replacing freon with the less effective pureon.) No one ever asks what might have been accomplished had that money been spent on something productive. What advances in medical science might that investment have produced? To cure global warming, estimates now run as high as $45 trillion, a ten fold increase from the last imaginary disaster and a sum that is truly staggering. What could we as a society achieve if we spent that money on science, energy, or medicine ? The true cost of this environmental stupidity is mind boggling. Remember that the next time they ask 'what is the harm if we are wrong?'

Thanks Nancy!!

As oil passes $130 per barrel and gasoline $4 per gallon, it's time to give thanks to Nancy Pelosi and the democrats. When they took control of congress, they promised to reduce the cost of gasoline, then selling for a little over $2 per gallon. They promised energy independence. But what did they deliver? They have steadfastly refused to allow drilling in ANWR, off the east coast, off the west coast, or in most of the gulf. They have also blocked the recovery of oil from our vast oil shale deposits in the west. How much oil are we talking about? The total proven oil reserves of the ENTIRE WORLD amount to 1.3 trillion barrels, and the oil that Pelosi is keeping in the ground amounts to 2.6 trillion barrels. That's right, 2.6 TRILLION barrels, $338,000,000,000,000 worth, or about 50 times the entire US national debt. To put it another way, that's enough to give every man, woman, and child in America $1 million, and still have more than $30 billion left over to spend on medical research or alternative energy. Imagine the impact on oil prices of tripling the world's supply. Imagine the impact of the US not needing to import oil from the middle east ever again. Imagine that amount of money to pay off the debt and finance all sorts of things. Well, thanks to Nancy, that's all you can do, imagine, because as long as the democrats stay in power it will never become reality. The oil will stay in the ground, our money will flow to the countries that try to destroy us, our economy will suffer, and jobs will continue to be lost. Thanks Nancy, you're doing a heck of job!

Obama, I knew Dan Quayle, and you're no Dan Quayle

Dan Quayle served two terms in the House, and was in his second term in the Senate when he was nominated to be Vice President. The press immediately declared he was too young and inexperienced for such an important job (a job that even Al Gore was able to handle!) The press had a field day every time Quayle made the smallest mistake, like when he said he had visited 57 of the 60 states, or the time when he acknowledged the fallen heroes that he saw in the audience for his memorial day speech. Oh, wait! No, it was Obama who made those gaffes. Obama, the man who has a grand total of three years of experience yet is declared by the media to be a 'rock star' of politics. Quayle was ridiculed for not correcting a spelling mistake made by someone else. There is no indication that he didn't know how many states are in the union or that a fallen hero is a dead one, but he was made a laughing stock while Obama is lauded as an eloquent speaker and a 'brilliant' politician. This would be yet another example of the bias of the media that liberals constantly refuse to admit exists.

Who's in charge, who's to blame?

Before blaming Republicans for all the problems in the country, answer this question. Which party has been in control of Congress for all of Bush's presidency ? The answer is the Democrats. Yes, Pelosi and Reid took formal control in 2006, but the Democrats have been in charge far longer than that. If Republicans really were in control, then Bush's plan to add private accounts to Social Security would be in effect now. We would all have an account in our name with our money in it that we could invest as we saw fit. The DOW would be at 16K or higher due to all the new money flowing in, and people would be far wealthier than they are now. America would be free from the environmental wacko's strangle hold on the Democratic party. Oil from ANWR would be reaching the market now, along with that from the outer shelf and the Gulf, and production would be under way in the western tar sands, ending our dependence on middle eastern oil. New refineries would be nearly complete, and the cost of gasoline would be a fraction of what it is today. Coal and nuclear plants would be coming online soon to further reduce our energy costs. Food prices would not be skyrocketing due to ill conceived ethanol policies enacted by Pelosi. The democrats may not have held formal control, but due to their dogmatic solidarity and willingness to filibuster everything, they have been setting the agenda for some time. So if things aren't going the way you would like, remember who should really get the blame.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Sadly, the answer for the FBI seems to be a resounding NO. Yes, the agency J Edgar built into the finest police force in the world, is now in a steel cage match with the CIA to win the coveted title of most incompetent government agency. Seven years after the anthrax attacks and they still have no leads, but are focused on government employees at Fort Dix. Let's look at the facts in this 'mystery'. The letters began appearing shortly after 9/11. Atta was reported by Czech intel as meeting with an Iraqi intel officer in Prague. Iraq was the country most involved with anthrax as a weapon. The first victim was the landlord of 9/11 leader Mohammed Atta. Atta and a fellow hijacker were recognized by a pharmacist as buying salve for their hands burned by exposure to bleach (bleach used in an attempt to sterilize something?), and one had a pronounced hacking (anthrax caused?) cough. After the initial set of letters, there was never another attack, or any attempt at communication by the attacker. Why? To believe the FBI theory, you have to accept that there were disgruntled governmental employees who had access to weaponized anthrax, and decided immediately after 9/11 to mail out contaminated letters and make it appear to be the work of Islamic extremists. Or you could believe the more probable theory that it was the work of Islamic extremists, as the letters themselves indicated. No, the government chooses to blame scientists here, and as a result just had to pay a $5.8 million settlement for smearing the name of one of those scientists.

In Defense of the President

The democrats and the media (redundancy defined!) constantly tell us that Bush's popularity is at historic lows, and then launch into yet another attack on him, while gutless so-called republicans sit by silently and allow these attacks to go unchallenged. Democrats blame Bush for 'taking his eyes off the ball' by invading Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan, hoping that we all forget that they were dead set against attacking the Taliban at that time. Now, since that war proved popular, they rewrite history to claim they supported it all along, that they only opposed the war in Iraq (despite voting to authorize it). So, the simple question is this: Is the war in Iraq, which toppled a cruel and ruthless dictator, a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, who killed hundreds of thousands more in wars against his neighbors, a man who supported terror groups worldwide, is that war an unjust war? Does fighting to bring democracy and freedom to 25 million people tarnish the image of the United States? When Bill Clinton sat by and watched over a million people get slaughtered in Rwanda, did our indifference boost our image worldwide? The United States should stand for freedom. We should oppose tyranny. We were right to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, we should have stopped it in Rwanda, and we were right to depose a brutal dictator like Sadaam. We should use our power diplomatically, economically, and militarily, to topple other thugs like Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, Ammadinijhad, Assad, and others. People will ask 'are we the world's policeman?' My answer is, would you rather live in a world without one?

Annie Oakley Rides Again!

Someone should tell Hillary that talking about another candidate being assassinated is not a way to win yourself a spot as that candidate's running mate. If anything it should convince Obama why he should keep Hillary as far away as possible. The idea of willingly putting yourself one heartbeat between Hillary and the Presidency is far crazier than talking one on one with Amadinijhad. I mean, on the one hand you would be putting yourself close to a ruthless psycho that is bent on world domination, and on the other you would be meeting with the president of Iran.

Give Piece a Chance!

Democrats, as lead by Obama, are in a furor over the suggestion that talking to Amadinijhad (note that Obama didn't originally say 'talk with' but 'negotiate with') is equivalent to Chamberlain talking to Hitler in 1939, the difference as they see it being that Hitler was unique, expressed brilliantly by a liberal pundit as "Hitler was Hitler". But Hitler was not unique, he was not different from any other tyrant before or since who dreamed of conquering the world and avenging percieved past wrongs. The nut case in Iran, like Hitler (a man he openly admires), wants to become the dominate player in his region. He wants to destroy the Jews, who he blames all his peoples troubles on, and he is willing to destroy his country and the majority of his people to accomplish his goals. Oh, and he has openly written about his plans. No, he is nothing like Hitler! What would talking to this man, or any lunatic, accomplish? You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable. Any dialog will revolve around placating him in some way, giving in to some demand or another, in exchange for some empty promise to not develop nuclear weapons or wage war on Israel or to stop sponsoring terror. At the end of such negotiations, only one side (the non-lunatic side) will intend to keep their promises. So he will emerge with enhanced prestige, some concession from us giving him something he is not entitled to (like the piece of Checkoslovakia that Chamberlain gave up, in this case likely a piece of Iraq), and he will continue on with his lunatic agenda, just like Hitler, surprising only the liberals who thought for sure this time would be different.

Energy Surplus, Intelligence Shortage

The greatest scam ever perpetrated against the American taxpayer (bigger even than the global warming hoax) is the idea that there is an energy shortage in this country. We have enough coal to meet our demands for at least a thousand years, enough uranium to meet all of our electrical needs for even longer, and enough oil in the gulf, offshore, in ANWR, and in oil shale to eliminate any need for middle eastern oil imports for many decades. We have abundant supplies of energy. Unfortunately, we also have an abundant supply of idiots, and many of them are in Congress. The Democratic party (where most of the idiots congregate) is completely subservient to the environmental extremist lobby. So, they prevent us from drilling for oil. They block the construction of refineries. They prohibit the use of coal, and oppose building nuclear plants. They even oppose hydroelectric power, the cleanest energy source possible. The only sources of energy they support are those that don't exist, aren't cost effective, and can't meet out needs. Which is really the point, they don't want to meet our needs. They want us to do with less, to live like the third world. There is no shortage of energy in this country, just a shortage of intelligence.

Social Insecurity

Thank you Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, and the other left wingers of the Democratic party for blocking President Bush's attempt to add private accounts to Social Security. At the time Bush first made his proposal, the DOW was at 8K. After winning the 2004 election and deciding to make this proposal a centerpiece of his second term, the DOW was at 10K. Now the DOW is at 13K. So had Bush's plan been implemented, each of us would have a private account that contained OUR retirement money, an account we would own and could bequeath to our heirs, and we would be up around 40% or so. That's not counting the dramatic effect on the market of pouring in hundreds of billions of new money into it. Had the Democrats not stupidly blocked this idea, the DOW would likely be at 16k or higher. Yes, we would all be wealthier and the economy healthier, but no, the Democrats couldn't tolerate that. They are willfully ignorant of economics, preferring a state controlled plan that loses money for you but gains power for them. It's no accident that the Jackass is the symbol of their party, it is a fitting identifier for their supporters.

Chairman Obama

Chairman Mao, the man who brought communism to the world's most populous country, needed to invigorate the Chinese economy. So he lowered the tax rate on the peasant farmers to 25% from the previous rate of 33%. Yes, the main man of communism believed in supply side Reaganomics, that lowering taxes wold provide incentives and increase production and revenue, and he was proven correct. Mao would be considered a right winger by Obama and Hillary, who would both like to raise tax rates significantly higher than those set by the communist icon. So, if a communist isn't left enough for you, what is ?

Obama, King of the World

Here is an actual Obama quote from his rally in Oregon. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK" So there you have it. Under an Obama presidency, other countries will decide how much food we can have and how much energy we can use. Don't expand our supplies, don't drill for more oil here, just learn to do with less. Sit at home, in the dark, with no food, and no AC. Live like a third world peasant and learn to like it. The whole 'world government' idea is back, and Obama wants to be the leader, and he is willing to sacrifice the needs of Americans to appease his foreign constituents.

Diplomacy for Dummies

Apparently Obama doesn't grasp what the problem is with the President of the United States sitting down for a personal meeting with a two bit thug. Iran's Amadinejad has openly stated his hatred of the US and his desire to destroy Israel. He is defying the world and pursuing nuclear weapons, he supports terrorism around the world, and is responsible for supplying the weapons and training that have killed hundreds of US troops in Iraq, yet Obama would meet with him one on one with no preconditions (for example, stop killing our troops, maybe? stop supporting terror perhaps?) and elevate him in the eyes of the Arab world to the status of Saladin, an equal to the US. What a brilliant plan to ensure Iranian dominance of the Arab world. Just as brilliant as his plan to meet with the dictator Chavez while snubbing our only South American friend, Uribe in Columbia. Just part of the change we can believe in. Strengthen our enemies and punish our friends. Just what I would expect from a Harvard man.

Obama's twisted logic

Two things came out of the recent Obama press conference. One, Obama thinks it is wrong for us to support democracy around the world, unless we know that the person who will win the election will be favorable to us. Secondly, that he wants to negotiate with terror states like Iran, with no preconditions, because the Bush policy of requiring that they give up nuclear ambitions, acknowledge Israel, and end support for terror groups, is a failure. Oh, but also that he would require the same preconditions before he would talk with them, because he supports tough diplomacy. The first point shows that he is just plain stupid. If you only support democracy when you like the outcome, you don't really support democracy at all. The second point shows that he is beyond stupid and approaching insane, as he argues both for and against the same position in the same response. He condemns Bush for a policy that he advocates, while then explaining that he would do something different that he clarifies is exactly the same. I can't explain where he stands on the issue, and apparently he can't either.

Outrageous outrage!

President Bush has outraged Democrats by stating that “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along". The first thought that should occur to one reading what Bush said, is that it is an undeniably true statement. There are people who believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals. The second thought that should occur is that Nancy Pelosi (recently returned from groveling before the dictator of Syria) is certainly one, as is Jimmy Carter (recently returned from a tea party wth Hamas). Since Obama has stated he would hold talks with Amadinejad (who has repeatedly said he would like to wipe Israel off the map) with no preconditions, he clearly seems to share their views, making it difficult to see how he could be upset if Bush mentioned him by name. Bush didn't do that of course, he simply citicized 'some' who believe that. 'Some' that could have easily been Carter or Pelosi. It is obvious by his reaction that Obama knows he should be included. He doth protest too much.

President McCain

Get used to hearing that, because barring some Satanic interference to help out Hillary, it looks like it's impossible for the Democrats to win the White House in November. More than half of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama. He has failed to win in any state lacking a significant African American population, and has lost all the biggest states. He was absolutely trounced in West Virginia, a state that the dems must win. So, if he is the nominee, they lose. If Hillary gets the super delegates to go her way, it will alienate the black vote and the college vote that supports Obama, and she will lose. If the ticket combines the two, putting two people with high negatives together, they lose the anti-Hillary vote and the anti-Obama vote, and lose. So, welcome to the White House John McCain.

Meet the new democrat, same as the old democrat

The Democrats have perfected their new strategy to win elections: pretend to be Republicans. In other words, lie. So far this has produced fantastic results for them, as voters are duped into supporting 'conservative' democrats who then go on to pledge allegiance to Nancy Pelosi and the San Francisco wing of the party. None of the Democratic victories that they are so proud of involve a candidate who openly supports the ideals of the Democratic party. They are all fiscally conservative, pro military, supporters of traditional family values. In other words, Republicans. Sooner or later it has to dawn on the voters that they have been tricked, that their conservative congressman is conservative only when talking to the folks back home, not when actually voting on legislation. After all, you can't fool all the people all the time. Then again, maybe you can.

Greed is good, Jealousy is just stupid

OK, I understand why Republicans back reducing dividend and capital gains taxes. First, it has been shown to increase tax revenue and invigorate the economy. Second, and perhaps somewhat less altruistically, it benefits them financially. But why do democrats so oppose it, and in fact want these taxes raised? It won't benefit them personally, and it will damage the economy and decrease revenue. Obama acknowledged that raising the tax would likely decrease federal revenue (and therefore require other taxes to be raised as well), but he still supported the idea. So the Democratic plan requires people to act against their own best interests. Why? Fairness. Yes, he believes it to be unfair that investors pay only 15% tax on their dividends (profits returned to shareholders on which the company has all ready paid a corporate tax of 35% ). True fairness would dictate that they not be taxed TWICE, but that's not how Democrats define fairness. They want to punish those who are successful, even if it harms them as well. That's just plain stupid.

Al Gore - Oscar winner, Nobel prize, still an idiot

So the Goreacle has emerged from under his rock and declared that the recent typhoon in Burma is a result of global warming. After Katrina, Gore made similar claims, but since the next couple years produced no serious storms, it made that claim (which was debunked by Hurricane experts) seem suspect. But now global warming is back, after a 2 year hiatus! Just in time to save Al from being lynched by a starving third world mob upset with him burning all their food to gas up his private jet. Since daily temperatures fluctuate by 20 to 30 degrees, and this year produced the coldest temperatures recorded in decades (including snow in Baghdad for the first time in memory) and the heaviest and latest snowfalls ever recorded in many areas, it's comforting to know that Al can divine the presence of a less than .1 degree increase. Soon I predict all of us will see the wisdom of Al, as the temperature will begin to climb dramatically. After all, it is almost summer!

Hillary Loses Mind

Coming after her promise to 'obliterate' Iran if they attack Israel, macho Hillary has now decided to take on OPEC. Outraged at climbing oil prices, she has decided to blame the oil companies and OPEC, ignoring the significant role her party plays in restricting exploration and development of domestic supplies. Threatening OPEC with WTO sanctions will provoke only laughter from them. They are well aware of our policies that make all of America's vast oil deposits off limits. If we don't want to buy their oil, what option do we have? Unless the Democratic party breaks it's subservience to the environmental lobby, none. That's not going to happen, and they know it. Hillary, if you really want to scare OPEC, and want to lower oil prices significantly, save your tough talk for the environmentalist lobby that would sacrifice our economy and our national security simply to demonstrate their political clout.