MoveOn.org Wants $10 Per Gallon Gasoline

I couldn’t quite believe it when I had a friend of mine tell me that he really believed that $10 per gallon gasoline would be a good thing.  He actually wanted the U.S. to face a recession similar to the one that Japan faced in the 1990’s.  Apparently my friend’s sentiments weren’t all that unusual.

In this video, Barack Obama supporters at a MoveOn.org rally readily admit that they want gasoline to cost $10, $20, even $30 per gallon.  When asked how this would affect a single mom with a minivan, their response was, “she shouldn’t be driving a minivan”.

These are the types of people that will be in an Obama administration.  For those of you on the fence, keep this in mind!  Don’t think that the “progressive” agenda won’t amount to outrageous energy costs.

They just want you to sit there and sweat in your hot, dark house all in the name of global warming.

Advertisements

Offshore Drilling Ban to Expire October 1st

That’s right folks….if the Democrat led Congress doesn’t renew the ban. Think about it…we have $4 per gallon gasoline, billions of dollars per year going to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, a Democrat presidential candidate telling you to save gas by filling up your tires, and a Democrat congress that will actually renew a ban on drilling for our own resources. All I have to say is I better not hear a word from a liberal anywhere about us being dependent on foreign oil if they actually go through with this.

The saving light for this looming issue may be the Republicans. Republicans are actually threatening to shut down Capitol Hill to ensure that this ban does expire on October 1st. It may get hairy though…in order to do this Republicans would have to vote against a resolution to fund the federal government for the 2009 fiscal year. A similar tactic was done in 1995 when a Newt Gingrich led congress tried the same thing and it blew up in the Republican’s face. The public blamed Republicans for late Social Security checks and lost Medicare checks.

However, this time public opinion is in the Republican’s corner. The overwhelming majority of Americans support drilling for our own resources, so what is necessary is informing them of the Democrat led effort to renew the ban on offshore drilling. The Republicans have five weeks until Congress is back in session. Can they do it? It’s a tall task when the media is doing everything they can to elect Barack Obama along with every other Democrat in the country.

Spread the word and call your congressman to oppose this ban on drilling!

RINO Warner Proposes 55-mph Speed Limit

As a recent Virginia resident, I spent a year and a half thoroughly unimpressed with my elected Senators to the U.S. Senate. I became a Virginia resident just in time to vote for George Allen, who promptly lost to Jim Webb in the fall of 2006. One of my main disappointments with Senators Webb and Warner was that both were on board with the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill (aka Amnesty Bill).

However, my disappointment with the overall government and commonwealth of Virginia didn’t stop there. We had high state taxes and ridiculous speeding fines. While I was a resident, Virginia instituted a minimum $1500 fine (as much as $3500) for speeding 15 mph over the state instituted speed limit. You were only smacked with this fine if you were a Virginia resident. Out of state commuters speeding in Virginia didn’t face this same penalty.

Warner

Going along with the theme of an overreaching government, Senator John Warner is proposing a nationalized 55 mph speed limit for the nation’s interstates, the same speed limit that was in place from 1974 through 1995. Apparently Senator Warner thinks that the American people are too dumb to drive and pay for gas themselves.

This from the Associated Press:

An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year

“Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America’s highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater,” Warner wrote Bodman.

Gas prices in this country are a made-to-order issue for the Republican party. If the Republicans, including John McCain, ran a campaign based on a platform of domestic drilling and exploration, they might stop a looming Democratic onslaught. All the polls show that a dramatic majority of American voters support more domestic drilling and exploration, including in areas such as ANWR and the outer-continental shelf.

The energy department responded to Senator Warner with the following:

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner’s letter but added, “If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production.”

BINGO! Forcibly decreasing usage of oil and gasoline will not cause the price of oil to drop. This same thing happened in the 1970’s and the price of gasoline went up. There were fuel shortages during the Arab oil embargo.

Democrats want to attempt to drop prices by curving demand. The only you curve demand is by ultimately stopping growth. If you stop growth in this country, you stagnate the economy. If we have a slowed economy, we have higher unemployment, more poverty, and more people depending on government for their welfare. Perhaps that is what the far left in this country wants.

We hear the phrase, “We can’t drill our way out of this.” Well, I’d like to throw out my own phrase: “We can’t conserve our way out of this.” Solar panels, mandated fluorescent light bulbs, and wind turbines aren’t going to drop the drop the price of a barrel of oil one penny. Only the principles of supply and demand will. Demand is already falling with $4 per gallon gas. The only way you get the price lower is increasing supply.

The most effective way to lower the price of oil is by flooding the market with more oil. This may take several years, but at least we’ll be on track to become less dependent on foreign oil. As of right now, we don’t have ANY tenable solution to this crisis from either Republicans or Democrats in congress. But as long as the Republicans have a guy like John Warner leading the charge for more government regulation as a solution to our problems, you can count on the Democrats having a strong majority in congress. Republicans don’t win by embracing liberal policies.

More Ammo Against Biofuels

The BBC today reported that the increased use of biofuels has dragged more than 30 million worldwide into poverty. Certain types of biofuels are responsible for decreased fuel efficiency, increased carbon emissions, higher food prices, and increased poverty. Wow, that sounds like a great deal! Where do I fill up?

From the BBC NEWS Europe:

Biofuel Use ‘Increasing Poverty’

The replacement of traditional fuels with biofuels has dragged more than 30 million people worldwide into poverty, an aid agency report says.

Oxfam says so-called green policies in developed countries are contributing to the world’s soaring food prices, which hit the poor hardest.

The group also says biofuels will do nothing to combat climate change.

Its report urges the EU to scrap a target of making 10% of all transport run on renewable resources by 2020.

Oxfam estimates the EU’s target could multiply carbon emissions 70-fold by 2020 by changing the use of land.

The report’s author, Oxfam’s biofuel policy adviser Rob Bailey, criticised rich countries for using subsidies and tax breaks to encourage the use of food crops for alternative sources of energy like ethanol.

“If the fuel value for a crop exceeds its food value, then it will be used for fuel instead,” he said.

“Rich countries… are making climate change worse, not better, they are stealing crops and land away from food production, and they are destroying millions of livelihoods in the process.”

Opportunity – or crime?

Biofuels are a divisive issue with strong arguments on both sides.

Leaders such as Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have suggested the biofuel boom provides developing nations with a great opportunity.

He says it creates a profitable export for energy crop producers in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean that could enable them to claw their way out of poverty.

But several aid agencies and analysts have warned of the possible downside of biofuel crop cultivation.

One UN adviser went as far as describing biofuels as a “crime against humanity”.

South Dakota To Build First New Oil Refinery in 32 years

South Dakota residents should be proud of themselves. In a time when Washington, D.C. offers no solutions and double-talking politicians complain about gas prices while blocking any effort to drill domestically, South Dakota comes through with a solution. Build a big new refinery and force more domestic drilling!

Drill

Now, nothing has happened yet and the enviro-wackos have yet to swoop in and conveniently find some endangered field mouse in Union County, but 3,292 acres have been rezoned to build the nation’s first new oil refinery since 1976. That’s right. The environmental movement has been successful in blocking any new domestic refineries for that long.

Can anyone say high gas prices?

The same people that complain that we need to wean this country off foreign oil are the same ones that block any effort to drill. Just where are we supposed to get our oil from? NOWHERE! That is the million dollar answer. We aren’t supposed to get oil….we’re supposed to slink back to the days of cart and buggy and the wild west. People who oppose domestic drilling (i.e Democrats) aren’t interested in real solutions and block any effort to fix our problems.

What would drilling for domestic oil do? It would have an immediate impact in that it would send a message to OPEC nations that we are tired of the prices and we can get our own oil. Right now, we’re completely at the mercy of them. If we start drilling, those same nations aren’t going to want to lose our business. Prices will fall, while great companies like General Motors and Ford will continue to develop technologies that will utilize gas better than it is now. However, these things take time and there is clear public support for new types of energy.

So, congratulations to South Dakota for coming up with a solution to high gas prices, rather than playing politics and just complaining about the problem.

If you’re interested in sending a message to Washington to start drilling now, Newt Gingrich has championed an effort to get them to start. Click here if you’re interested.

Obama Seeks to Enact Carter-Style Taxes

Windfall profit taxes on oil companies have been tried before and they failed miserably. What makes anyone think they’ll work now? Hope? Are we just supposed to hope that Carter’s failed policies will now work just because Barack Obama is the one enacting them? Welcome to the era of Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years later.

Video Script: VO: As American families face higher prices at the pump, Barack Obama opposes immediate relief and lower taxes on fuel.

VO: What Obama has proposed are new tax increases that reduce oil production, increase dependence on foreign oil and hurt consumers.

VIDEO: Obama Video: “I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profit tax on our oil companies.”

VO: Obama’s proposals have been tried before…

VIDEO: Carter Video: “Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay.”

VO: Sound familiar?

VO: The last time this was tried, domestic oil production dropped by 5% and US reliance on foreign oil increased by 10%.

Text (displayed during VO): “The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil.” (WSJ, 11/30/05)

VO: Is this the kind of change America needs?

VO: Barack Obama… Out of touch…. And not ready to be President.

Bush Administration Falls for Polar Bear Gimmick

As originally reported on TownHall.com, the Bush administration took a page from Al Gore’s playbook and named the polar bear to the “threatened species” list because of anticipated losses of the polar bear due to global warming. Computer models show that loss of polar ice caps may degrade the polar bear population down to endangered species levels in approximately 45 years. So by adding the polar bear to the threatened species list, it might slow a population decline if global warming is true.

Of course, these computer models probably aren’t aware that all of the allegedly lost polar ice has now frozen back. Or maybe they didn’t hear any of the latest research that continues to debunk the entire man-made global warming myth. Perhaps the computer just forgot to take into account that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently reports that polar bear populations are on the rise. There are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears, which is up from the low of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Now of course, we should expect the environmental lobby and the EPA to accept any computer model that furthers their agenda of man-made global warming. However, we should not accept the Bush administration recognizing the same kind of computer generated models without asking the hard questions and challenging the “facts” laid out by the environmental lobby. For this, the Bush administration should be ashamed. They have largely given the opponents of legitimate domestic energy production (i.e. Progressives and Democrats) another reason not to explore for any oil or natural gas in the entire state of Alaska. Can’t you just hear Chuck Schumer arguing that drilling in Alaska will threaten the population of polar bears 45 years from now?

Maybe if conservatives and Republicans are lucky, domestic energy production will be at the forefront of the Presidential campaign this year. It’s funny that the main people you hear railing against the U.S. purchasing oil from the Middle East are Democrats, yet Democrats are the main opponents of domestic energy production.

As reported by Gateway Pundit:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?– Democrat

We are in very grave danger of being completely dependent on foreign oil because of the Democrats in Washington, and yet the general public blames the Republicans for America’s dependence on foreign oil. Despite the fact that oil is at $127 a barrel, Democrats continue to demonize American oil companies and impede their ability to search for new oil reserves or tap the known reserves that would bring down the global price of oil.

But now, thanks to the pandering by the Bush administration and liberal “environmental friendly” Republicans like John McCain, we might very well see Alaska added to the “No Drilling” zone as well. And all because a computer owned by someone in the environmental lobby told us that there might be fewer polar bears in 2053. Unless this pandering by some on the right stops, the Republicans are heading for a monumental and embarrassing defeat in November.