Your Democrat Leadership @ Work

Last time elections rolled around, there was the overall feeling by the voters that they needed to cast off the Republican party. They didn't do it because things were bad, but instead because the media and the DNC told the American public they were bad. In the two years since the Democrats have taken the reins of Congress, precious little has been done in the way of creating progress. Pelosi is bottling up legislation that could make domestic drilling possible which in turn would eventually lower some of the cost of living. Instead, they are promoting only alternative sources for power. Never mind that the social elite, like the Kennedys, don't want their scenic horizons marred by wind generators. Instead they want them invisible, which of course means, out west. I am not sure how they are going to reconcile PETA's designation of wind turbines as detrimental to bird life. Likewise, we cannot use nuclear because of a move twenty years ago. We can't use hydroelectric power generation because of environmental PAC's that don't like it. Instead we are supposed to use the fluctuation nuances of wind power-which dies in the afternoon during peak usage, and solar, which isn't potent enough to generate power for more than an incremental amount of what we use. As for those electric cars, still limited by battery capacity and the hybrids still use gasoline. Here's what the Democrats have done for you. They have forced corn based ethanol, using bad science from Brazil's sugarcane based ethanol. They have bought votes from key farm states via subsidies. The results are that animal feed is higher, meaning all animal products from meat to dairy are also higher. Don't kid yourself, this isn't accidental. Part of the world wide green intiative is to cut meat consumption. I have even heard lectures on the news about how we are supposed to consider how much water it takes to produce food before we buy it.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I AM PRETTY SICK OF RICH, SELF-CENTERED IDEOLOGUES

TRYING TO RUN MY LIFE!!!!!

"...The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008....:

Full Article Here

Obama: Follow the Money

Supposedly, Barak Obama decided to forego public campaign funding due to a deficit and an unwillingness to be pressured by the evil forces of PAC's. So how do you explain this?

"...Obama said he now eschews public financing because the devil (McCain and the GOP) made him do it; Obama supposedly is at a disadvantage because they are "fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special-interest PACs." To which FactCheck.org replied: "We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the [Republican National Committee's] receipts." Here's a final word from FactCheck: "[T]he Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC's total. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party's nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations...."

Sharing the Blame: Both Sides of Congress Creating the Fuel Crisis

For a long time it's been the norm to blame Big Oil for rising gas prices. But Congress has created much of the problem with their incessant pandering to special interest groups. The Democrats have the Environmental Lobby, that blocks nuclear use, coal use and off shoring or ANWR drilling for domestic crude. The Republicans aren't willing to set meaningful limits on fuel consumption or to subsidize individual access to alternative power. So here's why I think they all need to go!

Story here

Excerpt:

"...The Democrats have an obvious motive for their denial of Econ 101 reality: They are so beholden to the environmental lobby that they can't advocate increased domestic oil and natural gas production.

To save the planet from global warming, the greens want to end mankind's use of fossil fuels, so they oppose drilling for natural gas offshore, for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and exploiting America's vast coal reserves. And Democrats obey, as do some Republicans, recently including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

The greens for years have also blocked new nuclear plants, although some have changed their tune because nuclear is carbon-free. Most Democrats remain opposed, while Obama is wishy-washy on the subject. McCain, to his credit, favors nuclear and always has...."

Shutting Down the Opposition

One of our basic freedoms is that of free speech. While I may not like what you say, and you may not like what I say, we are entitled to state our relative opinions publicly. So imagine this, it seems that Google has decided to weigh in by allowing an organized effort to shut down websites that oppose Barak Obama. Now granted, I don't think websites that slander or spread spam should be allowed to function, but there are people out here, like ME, who don't think this man is ready for the White House and I will continue to bring up the various doubts about his qualifications along with some of the other questionable candidates we are offered this year. People, you should be VERY ALARMED about this because this means that you are getting filtered news. And filtered news could be arranged to make sure you only see one point of view.
Anti-Obama Blogsites Shut Down

The Argument FOR Drilling

When I was younger, I was debating getting my Master's degree. With three small kids and a house, I was concerned about my age in comparison to other students. I was also concerned that it would take too long and I would be ridiculously old when I finished.

When I posed this to an advisor, he asked, "So how long do you think it will take you to complete the degree"
I answered, "Five, maybe six years."
"And how old will you be then?" He asked. I stated my age in five years.
"And how old will you be in five years if you don't get the degree?" he replied.

I post this for a reason. I watched for several years as the Thunderhorse drilling platform was being constructed at Port Aransas. It's not a quick, nor an easy process. You are basically construction a building to float at sea. Daunting to say the least. So here we have two sides.
On one side, they say, "oh if we start now, we won't see results for five, ten, maybe fifteen years." So my question is-when will we see results if we DON'T START NOW?

The other side is demurring on the side of avoiding drilling oil where it exists. Any oil man will tell you that for every strike, there are ten to twenty dry holes. Oil is not a migratory beast you can hunt, it forms and exists where it is. Which means that you can have leases from here to Kingdom Come and that doesn't insure there is oil on ANY OF IT.

We need to drill. The polling of the American public concurs with that opinion. The only people that do not are the politicians and that is strictly due to their income sources for campaigns. If you believe that the sooner we start drilling, the better, then let you representatives know.

This is not to say we shouldn't develop alternative fuel sources. Nuclear power plants are safer and more efficient than the old Three Mile Island model. Gassification of coal, natural gas and biofuels are all something we need to develop. This isn't a one answer solution, our energy needs are multi-faceted. But for those tunnel visioned true believers that think wind farms and solar arrays are going to supply all of our energy needs, think again. Right now, the pure electric cars have a storage capacity of about 40 miles. That may work for commuting to school or going to work, but it's not going to haul goods or provide the services needed in our community. For now, and for the foreseeable future, we will still need oil. And the sooner we start the process, the further down that road to energy independence we will be.

Dancing Around The Issue

Once upon a time, a few months ago, Barak Obama claimed he would not take private funds for his candidacy. He thought it was bad in that it allowed big rollers a chance to sway a candidate's idea via bankroll. So what is up with this? Now Mr. Obama is saying he WON'T use public funds. Could that be because more than 55% of his donations are from "big spenders"
Story here

Spreading It Around

Politicians, along with used car salesmen and snake oil purveryors, are known for spreading "it" around. Evidently, Countrywide is doing the same thing. I could list all the recipients of Countrywide's largesse here, but the list is long-and very bipartisan. Shame on them for taking this money. And folks, there is a reason nobody publicly wants to address how deep so many of these candidates are in this economic muck.
The whole list is here.
I also highly recommend that you visit OpenSecrets.com. It's a very eye-opening website.