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.

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.

McCain Finally Makes Some Sense

I am utterly disappointed with John McCain and the way he is running his campaign. My displeasure with Senator McCain has been going on for about twelve years now, so I can’t say that I am all that surprised by the fact that I don’t agree with him on most things now. Republicans that voted for McCain solely for his “electability” may not even get what they ask for if he keeps up this class warfare and global warming nonsense. If he doesn’t change his tune and take a conservative stance on the majority of issues, he risks completely isolating the conservative base of the Republican party. And no matter what anyone tells you, there isn’t a politician in the history of America that ever won the Presidency while isolating the base of his own party.

With all that said, McCain finally made a little sense today as he called for the suspension of the federal gasoline tax. Thank God! All we ever hear about is how GREEDY the big bad oil companies are and how they are soaking all of us. Very few people realize that the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do. The oil companies search, drill, refine, ship, research more types of energy and better ways to maximize the use of oil and gas and make about 9-12% profit. On the other hand, the government sits around and talks about how big and bad and evil these companies are, and the government taxes an average of $.47 per gallon of tax nationally (state and federal combined), or between 12-15%. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon on gas and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel. So government bureaucrats don’t do anything for the process other than criticize the oil companies and pass laws making it harder to do their job, but the government actually soaks the American people more than the oil companies do.

Eliminating the gas tax would have a tremendous effect on the economy, much more than any nonsense stimulus package that gives each of us between a few hundred to a little over a thousand dollars this spring. Eliminating the gas tax would not only help us out a little at the pump, but it would stimulate the economy by decreasing transportation costs (planes, trains, automobiles). Decreased transportation costs would ultimately help drop the price of good in the stores (because they don’t cost as much to ship to the store). Now, just eliminating the gas tax wouldn’t turn a failing economy around, but it would at least help ours and I think much more than anything else the government is offering right now.

McCain’s problem is that he doesn’t go far enough. He should call for a permanent repeal of the federal gas tax and not just a summer vacation from it. He should call on states to repeal their gasoline taxes as well. He should adopt some new ideas like the FairTax plan to overhaul the federal tax system. If McCain ran on a true platform of tax reform and decreased government spending, he might just have a real shot at winning this thing. The problem is, I don’t think McCain really believes in real tax reform. It’s pretty hard to believe that he’s sincere when he spends half his time spouting Democratic talking points about class warfare.

SHOCKER: Eliot Spitzer’s Party Affiliation Ignored

Yesterday morning, the governor of New York and former Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, confessed to inappropriate behavior relating to a prostitution ring. Of course, one can only imagine what kind of behavior we are referring to. The irony drips heavily from this story as Spitzer is known for his arrogant demeanor and overly aggressive tactics at prosecuting all sorts of moral crimes on Wall Street. Spitzer had prosecuted prostitution rings/organized crime in the past and was elected as Governor on a platform of integrity and bringing morality to the Governor’s office. Oh, the irony!

But I’m not here to catalog this ongoing scandal. If you’re interested, you can always watch the news. What I am here to do is point out how Eliot Spitzer’s party affiliation is rarely mentioned in the news. When the Larry Craig bathroom sex scandal broke, you heard “Republican” just as often as you heard Craig’s own name. It’s amazing to note how Spitzer’s close ties to Hillary Clinton haven’t made news yet or the fact that Spitzer is New York’s most prominent state Democrat.

USA Today’s print edition report of the story this morning started like this:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was the brash Wall Street corruption buster who made ethics his trademark. He was on many lists of future presidential contenders. On Monday, he apologized after he was accused of meeting a high-priced prostitute in a Washington, D.C., hotel last month.

What’s the big deal right? There’s no mention that he’s a Democrat. Later in the story, this is how it refers to the Republicans involved in scandals.

Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, is serving out his term despite being arrested on an accusation of soliciting gay sex in an airport men’s room. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. In a more direct parallel, Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, was identified last year as a client of a D.C. madam. He is still in office. “It’s hard for Republicans to argue that Spitzer should go when Vitter is still in,” Sabato says.

On top of that, on the TODAY show this morning, somehow the “amazing journalist” Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira managed to go an entire FOUR HOURS without mentioning that Spitzer was a Democrat. During that four hours there were eleven segments on Spitzer! Shocking? Maybe, but if you’ve followed the media bias in this country you can’t actually be shocked by this.

If you don’t think there is distinct media bias in this country for the Democratic party then you’re either not watching the news or you’re not watching the news closely enough. Conservatives should take heed not to rely on headlines for our news…there is always more to a story than what news sources such as USA Today and the TODAY Show tell you.

Good for them: NY Republicans Threaten to Impeach Spitzer

The Year of the Underdog

It is really an interesting phenomenon that I’ve been observing for a while now. It started last fall with the most unusual of college football seasons because of all the upsets. Then it extended to the NFL where the New York Giants pulled one of the biggest upsets of Super Bowl history. How big was that upset? Vegas lost $40 million on that game alone.

It didn’t stop at football though–it extended into politics. Six months ago both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were the inevitable candidates for the parties. We all know what happened to Rudy—he won a whole zero delegates before dropping out. Just las summer, John McCain was seen getting on a Southwest flight to a campaign rally by himself with no staff, no rally, and no supporters. He was out of money and his campaign was written off by the media, the other candidates, and just about anyone except McCain himself. Now of course, he’s going to be the Republican nominee. The Democratic primaries were supposed to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton, but now she’s in the battle for her political life.

Underdog

It seems that whenever a candidate is considered unbeatable, it is just at that precise moment that the candidate is quickly knocked back to earth. Just this week we noticed the same phenomenon happened to Barack Obama. Obamamania has been dominating the left. I haven’t seen this kind of bandwagon fanaticism since the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. But right when Obama won twelve straight contests, Hillary comes back and wins three of four in one day! This underdog phenomenon continues to go on and is hard to explain.

Whoever the Democratic nominee is will be considered inevitable by most to win the election in November. I also think that this presidential election is likely a win for the Democrats, but if there is anything that this year has taught us about the inevitable winners, nothing is a lock. As soon as anyone is considered inevitable is just the time when they are the most vulnerable.

McCain is likely going to fly under the radar for the next few months and will have the luxury of sitting back and enjoying watching Hillary and Obama lob political grenades at each other. The country is obsessed with the Democratic race and both candidates will be receiving intense media scrutiny for at least the next three months. McCain will largely be ignored until convention time when the attacks will expeditiously increase. This may lead to a certain amount of public sympathy for him as the underdog against an inevitable opponent, and there is a good chance we’re going to observe another colossal upset that has become so commonplace in the “Year of the Underdog”.

McCain’s Constitutional Eligibility (Part Two)

The debate over this eligibility question for John McCain rages among some for now, but if it were a cut and dry answer regarding the “natural born” citizen issue, no one would be discussing it. Just simply because of the fact that it is being discussed means that some ruling body, either Congress itself or the Supreme Court, needs at some point to clarify this.

 

Matthew J. Franck who writes for National Review Online did some excellent research and analysis on this. In the case of determining naturalization status, this responsibility falls on Congress and therefore may fall on them to clarify their own laws of naturalization. It is rather hard to believe that children born to military members while serving overseas would not be eligible for the office of the presidency.

 

However, some of the initial confusion on this topic arises from a Supreme Court decision in 1898. Justice Horace Gray wrote that the Constitution:

 

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

 

Gray’s error is stating that only location of birth is relevant and effectively ruling out that parentage is relevant. This question seems to be the only one that Justice Gray failed to address in his decision in US vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

 

In my last analysis of this, I suggested that MoveOn.org or the Democratic party may bring a Constitutional argument/suit against McCain’s run for the Presidency on these grounds, but there may not be any group that has any sort of legal standing to raise this kind of question.

 

Franck finished his analysis by stating:

 

The Times article contains a fair amount of handwringing over the fact that there has been no authoritative Supreme Court ruling on this presidential eligibility issue—though near the end it recognizes the difficulty of determining who might have “legal standing” to raise the issue in a court of law. This is the simplest question of all. No one has standing. This is a quintessentially political question, to be settled outside the judiciary by the constitutional authorities responsible for choosing presidents. If, next January, the joint session of Congress, presided over by Vice President Cheney, determines that John McCain is to be president by virtue of a victory in the electoral college, and either assumes silently or addresses openly (in case of a member’s objection) the question of McCain’s U.S. citizenship eligibility and holds in his favor, that will be an authoritative settlement of the matter—at least as far as McCain is concerned. No court of law could possibly have authority to gainsay such a decision. It never ceases to amaze me, though, how many otherwise sharp legal analysts consider constitutional questions to be unsettled until the Supreme Court has something to say on them.

 

While I have no doubt that McCain would emerge victorious should this question go before Congress or the Supreme Court, just the mere question among the public of having a Constitutionally illegitimate president could severely degrade the morale in the McCain campaign and cause irreparable damage.

 

Read all of Matthew J. Franck’s analysis here and here.