Those Against the Mosque at Ground Zero: Now Hear this You're Part of that Great Right Wing Conspiracy According to Nancy Pelosi

Does anybody need proof Nancy Pelosi is a complete @#$h%-ing IDIOT!!!  Well, well, well, the great Speaker (or blabbermouth whiner) of the House wants an investigation as to who is funding opposition to the Islamic Mosque at Ground Zero. First, let this writer speak to this matter personally:

Listen hear you disgusting, idiotic BITCH. Nobody, not one person needs to pay me ANYTHING to be absolutely against radical Islam erecting a shrine to their conquest in the shadows of where over 3000 of my sisters and brothers were brutally murdered on September 11, 2001.  This is something that just being aware that it is going on is enough to make me oppose it. I don't need anybody else to help guide my decision, not the Republican Party, not Rush Limbaugh, not Fox News, not some Christian Church who you'd surely abhor. This is a decision of MY CONSCIENCE. 

Added note: I feel especially compelled to show as much contempt and disrespect for this sick bitch as possible for the extent to which she has brought dishonor to our institution, the House, and our society at large. To infer any respect for the sake of the respect which should be afforded her office simply cannot stand when an enemy to the American People, whether duely elected or not, is engaged in such treachory. The radical community of San Francisco she represents does not speak for the rest of America.

Clearly, this is exactly an attempt to do what Nancy Pelosi is accusing the other side of doing, politicizing the issue for the sake of the ideology of the Radical Left. When one looks at the public sentiments on this issue based on recent polls, this is one more issue where the left-wing of the already left-wing Democratic party is racing further and further away from mainstream American values.

REMEMBER THIS IS THE SAME NANCY PELOSI WHO SAID: "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." TO JUSTIFY PASSING THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE NATION'S MEDICAL CARE.

Read more about Pelosi's idiotic statements here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/pelosi-calls-mosque-debate-zoning-issue-says-new-yorkers-decide/

Didn't we see enough of how political the issue is when in observance of the Islamic Holiday of Ramadan last Friday, Barack Obama stated with absolute certainty that he was behind the Mosque project completely. Then the next morning, smelling the political backlash, the President tried to say something different trying to have it both ways. The public saw that waffling for what it was, political calculation and a lack of conviction.

The bottom line is a Mosque in the shadow of where 3000 people just like us died is unacceptable, period.

The Government Seizure of Health Care: IT IS NOW WAR

MESSAGE TO THE DEMOCRATS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS WHO SUPPORTED THIS: THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY. YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR UNAMERICAN, FILTHY ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND SEIZE CONTROL OF THAT WHICH BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.
x
The House of Representatives passed the Nancy Pelosi sponsored 200o plus page legislation that effectively destroys the right to private health care, nationalizes the industry, and has an initial price tag of $1.2 trillion mindful that major government programs, particularly ones involving human services always far exceed initial estimates by huge margins.
x
The vote was 200-215 with 39 Democrats voting against the measure. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, betrayed his party and the American people and voted for a measure that more than any measure in the history of our Republic pushes the United States of America from a representative democracy based on free enterprise and private ownership to a state controlled, centralized authoritarian socialist system.
x
The dangers to every working American is staggering. Likewise, for senior citizens already forced onto national medical service, the damage could be far worse.
x

We must unite and assure every official in Washington, supporting this measure is political suicide as it transforms the very nature of our country to what generations have fought to keep avoid.
x
The correct approach is to identify specific areas in need of reform and solving the problem with the parties most directly affected involved to correct each issue one by one.
x
Nationalizing one of the most crucial segments of our economy and day-to-day life is unacceptable. We must identify every way possible to cast aside this horrendous scheme and destroy it.
x
We cannot allow these horrible programs ever to go into effect. Any Senator contemplating supporting this measure had better be shaking in his boots because there will be hell to pay for supporting this.

How ironic it is as the Democrats have their group celebration that Nancy Pelosi should be wearing a red dress the same color as the red flags of communism. It is surprising that Charlie Rangel, under investigation for a lengthy list of tax evasion charges and other ethical lapses, would address the crowd as part of the celebration.
x
The big lie is that they contend affordable health "care" for all. We've heard for weeks all the various ways they intend to raise funds that will cost all of us directly and indirectly to pay for it. Meanwhile, the original intent, insurance for all, still leaves a huge number of Americans still outside the system.
x
We mustn't lie about this. It's a huge power grab, an attempt as Barack Obama assured his intention was to transform American society. Our column has cited some of the dangers socialized medicine will do to our society. We will continue to highlight just what a horrible day in American history this is.
x
Finally, we single out Nancy Pelosi as one of the most hateful disgusting figures ever to advance to a high level in American government. She is a ruthless liar, emotionally unbalance ideologue who has played the system to protect her special interests while causing grave harm to the rest of us.
x
Saturday night, November 7, 2009 is a night to be remembered. This scourge to American society was rushed through and enacted before our country could even pour through the pages and pages of stipulations all of which will create a bureaucratic quagmire that perhaps only the Soviet Union in its heyday could imagine.
x
We damn the Democrats and special interests groups who inflicted on this. There will be a huge price to pay. This will be the greatest struggle and division of our country since the civil war and what's at stake is darned close to being just as grave. Medicine is a life and death issue and we choose to live.
x
We will not tolerate the lies and deceptions. We will not tolerate the seizure of our basic rights. We will not have our free enterprise system shutdown with a socialist bureaucracy imposed.
x
This is war. It started late in the evening on Saturday night when most of America was engaged in the good life. It's time to get beyond anger and take to the streets and do what ever it takes to keep our free enterprise system free and our medical system private.There is no other choice. There will be hell to pay.

Reality Check on the So-Called Torture Debate

One on the loose, two others still at "Gitmo" all threats to American safety.

-

As the debate on interrogation degenerates into a highly partisan, mean-spirited witch hunt, the American people must consider the context from which this debate emerged and the issues at stake that required the most forceful interrogation possible. The more the public understands what was at stake, the more the current grandstanding, ranting and raving by members of the Democratic party will not only seem like a vicious attempt to mischaracterize the Bush administration, and by extension, the Republican party, but also attacks the entire intelligence gathering and defense operations undertaken in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.

The procedure which is creating the most uproar is called waterboarding. A subject is restrained with his/her head inclined downward, then water is poured over the subject’s mouth and nasal passages creating the sensation of suffocation and drowning. Because the subject’s head is directed downward and water does not drain into the lungs itself, it causes no physical harm to the subject. The gagging reaction is reflexive almost impossible for the subject to control. The procedure causes no physical damage whatsoever, but it is, unquestionably, extremely horrifying triggering the body’s defenses as if it were on the verge of death.

While the procedure is difficult to endure, news reporters including a representative from Fox news voluntarily underwent the procedure to be able to explain their experience. Further, some of our nation’s most elite special forces undergo the procedure as part of their toughening preparation in their survival training.

The debate as to whether this constitutes torture is certainly legitimate. In the context of a “lasting harm” argument, there’s no way waterboarding could be considered torture. That is creates intense distress is likewise undeniable. Thus the debate first revolves around whether the procedure constitutes torture. The prevailing view among the Democratic party, the news media, and many Republicans considers that it is torture or at least cruel and extreme. The other part of the debate centers on given the terrorist figures on whom these methods were employed, given the intelligence they possessed, how timely it was, and the threat to all Americans they could possibly reveal, how far can our interrogators go to extract such intelligence knowing they might have inside knowledge of future terrorist attacks and their understanding of America’s weaknesses that terrorists can exploit.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the highest level terrorist waterboarded. Mohammed was Osama Bin Ladin’s top strategic operative who was responsible for devising, preparing, staging, and directing the September 11, 2001 attacks. Additionally, he had knowledge of other operations under way which included destroying the Brooklyn Bridge in New York and staging a second phase of the 9/11 style attacks on Los Angeles.

The American people need to consider what was at stake. Of what value was that intelligence? How many more American citizens’ lives were threatened? If that is the case, possibly hundreds or thousands of lives, how much pressure is justified against a person responsible for such potential atrocities who already played a critical roll in over 3,000 deaths in the original attacks?

Terrorist captives Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were also reported to have been waterboarded. Abu Subayda served as a senior Bin Ladin official the United States had been following at least as early as 1999 during the Clinton administration. He played a key role in the east African embassy bombings and had plans in various states of development to attack U.S. and Israeli targets in Jordan. He is also implicated in a plot to blowup the international airport in Los Angeles. Zubayda was shown to be the ultimate Al Qaeda insider with knowledge and involvement of the full reach of the terrorist’s organizations schemes.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is most noted for his role staging the attack on the USS Cole in the port of Yemen. He was involved in the planning and staging of numerous Al Qaeda plots.

As the so called “torture” debate explodes into a mad frenzy in Washington and across the news media specifically aimed at prosecuting the Bush administration for the actions it undertook and the means by which they determined such actions as legal and justified, what is lost in the discussion is any sense of context and urgency.

That the United States was caught unprepared and uniformed about the extent of Bin Ladin’s terrorist campaigns through Al Qaeda resulting in the September 11th attacks after the attack on the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings would be an obvious understatement. Given that such horrific attacks occurred within the United States itself provided the highest sense of urgency of any threat to the United States eclipsing the entire Cold War and only possibly being reviled by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December, 1941, the President was charged with the awesome responsibility to use the full weight of American power to protect the safety of all Americans and their vital interests.

In this context having just been attacked and responsible for ensuring no future attacks, the President, his defense, legal, and intelligence experts had to act with the absolute highest sense of urgency to secure our country’s safety. The prevailing mindset of the administration was stop at nothing to get the job done. President Bush would dedicate his administration to quickly and forcefully getting the job done on all levels.

How can the integrity and judgment of President George W. Bush be so viciously assailed and even criminalized in the eyes of his critics in the media and Democratic party? Can anyone possibly argue that the President did not act in good faith and was not attempting to use his position to lead the nation’s efforts to protect every single one of us?

In hindsight, one can critic the effectiveness and validity of what the Bush administration accomplished; however, the attempts to vilify the President and his top officials for such agenda driven political considerations is simply contemptuous, unpatriotic, wicked, and blind.

Through the prism of hindsight always being 20/20, some aspects of the Bush administration’s response were off target; however, did anyone including some of the Democrats who are the most vocal critics of the President, have any reason to doubt, for instance, the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that served as a major factor for going to war against Iraq? That intelligence was verified as valid from multiple sources from both American and international sources. The necessity of going to war in Iraq is certainly the most off target response the administration launched in the whole scenario, but make no mistake about it. The behavior of Saddam Hussein was extremely provocative and dangerous whether it was attacking US and British planes patrolling the “no fly” zone established by international treaties, the systematic torture and murder of Iraqi citizens, and the vicious brutalization and oppression of Kurdish and Shiite citizens in Iraq. Hussein’s overt and clandestine activities including specific materials procured were all consistent of following the steps toward building nuclear weapons. Hussein had already used chemical weapons against enemy factions within Iraq and against Iranians when the country was at war with Iran. Even if the weapons of mass destruction were not found as presumed, at what point does the world community intervene when a murderous dictator is committing so many vicious acts against humanity?

The interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other murderous Al Qaeda thugs is very different matter. Can anyone possibly deny that the intelligence obtained might very well have saved thousands of American lives? To that end, where does the pursuit of intelligence end for other concerns? What actions are too severe to not be considered with our lives as American citizens in the balance?

As the conduct of the Bush administration is considered with all factors on the table, the “enhanced” interrogation methods were not taken lightly, were not applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and were only carried out with the highest level approval with all methods carefully prescribed, supervised, and monitored including having medical professionals at hand during the process.

Over time, more documentation will become more widely distributed of other methods used to taunt captured terrorists into surrendering their knowledge of their operation. Of what has been published so far, none of the methods rise above bullying and rough housing, most of them are what could best be described as annoying the subjects into submission but torture?

The leftist position of defining torture when applied by a Republican administration appears to be anything from raising one’s voice or greater. In other words, anything those under President Bush’s direction that exceeded, “Hello Mr. Mohammed, sir. Could you please tell us if there is anything we might be interested in knowing about that could involve terrorists’ attacks?” Some might consider even that would be going too far as he should be read his rights first and given the opportunity to “lawyer up.” This of course ignores that matters of domestic law enforcement and the application of the Constitution applies to American citizens living within the United States. War is a totally different scenario as is the urgency of obtaining the best knowledge possible on the situation at hand.

We accept the debate on whether waterboarding is torture is legitimate. We also must make perfectly clear the extent to which the Bush administration involved all appropriate officials including Democrats on Capitol Hill on what methods were under consideration. There was no outcry or open attempts to contest the decisions President Bush pursued in late 2001 and throughout 2002 as these issues were red hot. Even some of the Pentagon’s and intelligence service’s greatest critics accepted the gravity of the situation at hand.

While there are legitimate values consideration at stake, the attempts to vilify President Bush and his administration’s efforts that were successful in keeping the United States and American targets overseas free of attack for the entire duration of his administration after 9/11 must be seen as crass, vicious, dishonest, political opportunism especially when figures like Nancy Pelosi were directly in contact with the most intimate intelligence as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee grandstand with after the fact of measures they consented to when the issue was red hot.

The news media is doing a horrible job of providing context for all issues involved in performing “enhanced interrogation” and establishing what various officials’ stance was then and now. Once again, the media is failing miserably to do its job and is acting in a biased, partisan manner in support of the most extreme and vocal advocates of the political agenda they seek to advance.

One question that has been posed again and again in the so-called torture debate, “If the officials had detained someone who had raped or murdered you’re a member of your family or had knowledge of plans to harm more members of your family, what would you considered justified?” President Bush had to consider the fate of 300 million Americans. What is the moral imperative when he is charged as the elected leader and commander-in-chief to provide for those citizens’ safety and security. President Bush and no one else had the luxury of time to debate all the philosophical and moral values involved in an immediate, urgent situation with lives in the balance. To that end we applaud President Bush and damn his critics in the most powerful terms available.

The conduct of Nancy Pelosi among others is inauthentic, dishonest, self-serving, and dangerous. It borders on treason. These adversaries to our nation’s safety must be held accountable and cannot go unchallenged.

Who's looking out for us? What elected leaders are truly focused on those forces which threatened our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? It's time for a wake up call, NOW!!!

Card Check and the Big Lie: A Huge Threat to American Freedom

The Employee Free Choice Act: What they warned us about how the Communists did business is coming to America if the Democratic leadership isn't stopped NOW!

In one of the most conspicuous applications of the Orwellian “big lie,” the Obama Administration along with strong support from Nancy Pelosi seeks to impose one of the most insidious government sanctioned attacks on American freedom in the nation’s history. What is commonly called the “Card Check” provision changes the methods for workers electing to join a union from voting by way of a secret ballot where the worker makes his choice following his conscious in total confidence to where union organizers will conduct their organizing campaign by canvassing the work force imploring them to check off their approval to form a union. How can a person not feel coercion when a person representing the cause is soliciting that individual’s support? What limitations could be imposed on the manner and place where workers are asked to vote?

The clear threat is obvious. Intimidation and peer pressure can lead workers to give in to something at heart they strongly disagree with. It’s hard to say no when it’s a two on one situation or requests are made in a public forum where those who don’t support the measure can be instantly ridiculed or worse.

Time after time, much to the chagrin of organized labor, Walmart employees have refused vote after vote to unionize. They realize that for them, there is no benefit and some obvious disadvantages to union membership.

While there is no denying in the early stages of industrialization, trade unions played a crucial roll in protecting the factory workers from almost slave like work conditions at the hands of the all powerful industry management structure, after World War Two, industry has become far more progressive as public companies in which many of the share holders themselves are workers and the American middle class has grown largely outside a union background. Meanwhile, during the economic boom from the 1940’s to the 1960’s, unions were able to negotiate fat contracts which provided substantial wages and benefits for their members including legacy costs for pensions and lifelong health insurance that could only be sustained if businesses grew at the pace they were growing at that time.

The baby boom ended, and the population stabilized. The tonic which fueled the economy, unlimited cheap oil, became a more expensive commodity, and the economy became globalized bringing in cheaper, often higher quality goods, than manufactured by American workers.

By 1980, the union movement became a threat not a benefit to the American economy. In the Baltimore-Washington area, grocery store chains were driven out of business as Pantry Pride/Food Fair evacuated the region eventually to go out of business. Acme markets abandoned the territory. In there place, non union shops paying far less proliferated, mostly local stores providing quality and selection every bit as good as the larger chains they replaced. Later, a huge national chain, Food Lion, a non-union grocer would move into the region and become a major player. A&P trading as Super Fresh scaled back substantially as did Safeway leaving only Giant Food the sole survivor of the old union ways who continued to prosper.

The real turning point was when Air Traffic controllers, Federal employees forbidden by law to strike, staged a union walkout in 1984. President Ronald Reagan would have no part of it promptly firing workers who’d not return to work. The public overwhelmingly supported the President’s action.

Meanwhile during the 1980’s the Japanese automakers continued to gain market share as Detroit made cars suffered from inferior quality while having to compete with substantial legacy costs built into the cost of each vehicle.

The scourge of the union’s power is nowhere more apparent than their political influence on public education where many substantial educational reforms from changes in management structure to providing performance based pay to allow teachers who contribute more and get better results to be paid accordingly. Union regulations also inhibit the ability of schools to provide for flexible staffing. As such, public school systems are primarily a seniority based system where transfers and other considerations are based more on seniority than matching the most qualified teacher to a specific job. The hoops administrators have to jump through to address such concerns can be stifling. Meanwhile, the tenure system can make firing inadequate teachers extremely difficult, time consuming, and subject to layers and layers of grievances.

The decline in union membership shows the growth of society to a new constructive relationship between employees and management in many sectors. Outside of public employees and the manufacturing sector largely physical labor intensive jobs simply do not lend themselves to constructive union efforts.

Still, despite declining numbers, the Democratic party receives tremendous support from organized unions. The nation’s two major teachers’ unions, the AFT and NEA represent millions of teachers and their endorsement of Democratic candidates for national office and for state and local office through their state and local affiliates is one of the party’s most reliable cash cows. Sure the union point that they are restricted by law from giving money directly to campaigns but their PAC’s (political action committees) function to execute their wishes with PAC money raised from membership. Though technically, union dues do not pay candidates, substantial manpower from union staff and the access they provide candidates is enormous. In large suburban populations where voters often are indifferent or poorly informed about candidates for local offices and the state legislature, the ability of teachers’ unions to mobilize behind candidates they support and get them elected is enormous. Local candidates identified as hostile to teacher union issues who are actively fought by teachers unions face a tough fight without some major support that can counter the union’s power.

The American people must express their outrage and let their elected leaders know their elected officials will pay a huge political price for this horrible imposition on American freedom. Being able to vote in private without the threat of coercion is one of our most prized freedoms as Americans. Why those freedoms should not be extended at the work place when individuals are deciding on whether they want union representation must not be an exception.

If anything shows the desperation of the union and how the Democratic party feels it is beyond accountability to the real citizens who they represent is absolutely terrifying. This behavior cannot stand unchallenged. To call this horrendous attack at basic freedom “The Employee Freedom Act” demands every citizen with an ounce of common sense to rise up in anger directed directly at Capitol Hill and the White House.

There are no valid arguments on this issue in favor of this issue. Anyone who proposes otherwise is a liar whose motives must be questioned.

Profiles in Left Wing Loonies: Janeane Garofalo, Mindless Twit

Janeane Garofalo is a mindless twit who takes herself way too seriously, but has become a much more outspoken figure than the run-of-the-mill Hollywood activist crowd having served on the ill-fated ultra-left, Air America radio network. The irony is she is a comedienne by trade but never a very effective one having enjoyed a short tenure on Saturday Nite Live where she didn’t last long as a part of the 1994-1995 season, back when the show was still occasionally very funny citing that their material was “weak” and “sexist.” How ironic is it now that she appears on Fox Network’s blockbuster show, “24” which is one of conservative America’s favorite TV shows for its robust anti-terrorist, assertive fight the enemy style. Perhaps for Garofalo, lack of work and lack of talent leads to a minor roll on a show that would seem to be a total sellout to her political beliefs.

Still she’s never shy about her opinions. We hate giving her any more publicity, but her words are so typical of a psychotic self-righteousness that also reveals extreme hatred and bitterness toward their perceived enemies. One has to wonder what her knowledge of neuroscience. Surely, she has zero knowledge of the hard realities of political science.

So here you can read it for yourself. The twit speaks. This is sourced from interview posted on “Ecorazzi” website, “the latest in green gossip, February 12, 2009.


…..since it is clear and has been clear since Reagan that the republicans, the “conservatives” will NEVER play ball…NEVER…fu%$ um.


Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Their policies of deregulation, pre-emptive strikes, unmitigated support for Israel to the detriment of the Israelis, Palestinian’s, Americans, the British. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us. And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flagellation or masochism in some way. We keep going to that portion. They are NEVER going to compromise. The thing is that the more you give in to something like that, the more they take advantage.


The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.


I don’t know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology.

We will not dignify these remarks with any specific response other than to say we hardly revel in our cruelty but what is she doing in speaking in this kind of a harsh voice? I’d be interested in how much money she donates to charities that actually provide help to others. Time and time again, surveys show conservatives are far more generous than liberals who have so often be shown to be absolutely niggardly in their contributions as shown by the IRS data on Joe Biden and Al Gore.

It should be easy to dismiss Garafalo’s comments as just those of a hot-headed extremist, but this is the kind of talk that is posted daily on sites like The Daily KOS, MoveOn.Org, and the Huffington Post. While not stooping to the same kind of language as it would be inappropriate for the Speaker of the House, such sentiments are at very least implied in just about every public presentation Nancy Pelosi provides the news media.

The endemic underlying hatred and resentment of the radical left is hard to ignore. For a movement that attached itself to the “peace, love, and flowers” in the 60’s, the loony left is grounded anger and a complete detachment of what makes the real world work whether on economic policy or what it takes to keep our country free. Their contempt for free enterprise and a strong defense are cornerstones of their warped ideology.

Nancy Pelosi Just Saved The Planet!!!

"I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on why she opposes allowing legislation to come up for a vote to permit more domestic oil production.

-

-

ARE YOU FEELING SAVED OR FEELING SCARED?

As if Nancy Pelosi's idiotic warblings are not ridiculous enough when this millionaire plutocrat is unaffected by the $4.00 plus gas prices her subjects must pay, her Senate cohort, Charles Schumer believes he has the authority to implore the Saudis to increase production by 10 million barrels a day. Let's see, the Saudis don't exactly love Americans particularly ones of Mr. Schumer's ethnicity. They do love our money. They love anybody's money who will pay top dollar for their oil. It's a whore's game with pleasure auctioned to the highest bidder. Depending on Saudi oil, well stand in line with all the other nations of the world and have lots of money. Further, though far from the worst oil producing states, the Saudi government has lots of political issues that could affect their oil supply.

Oil flows from Nigeria, one of the most corrupt and unstable countries in the world where rebels sabotage their pipelines to purposely cause environmental damage. Russia has oil for sale -- no love loss there. Of course closer to home, we can continue to hope that Hugo Chavez continues to love the profits CITGO, his United States petroleum through-put provides him. There's no telling what fancy or fantasy might cause a radical change of heart and no longer sell us oil. Closer to home, we buy lots of oil from Mexico. Mexico is not exactly the most stable business enterprise in the world. Their state run oil empire is inefficient and corrupt.

That leaves us with Canada, the people like earth most like us, our largest oil exporter. Canada, Canada, Canada, can you spare your brothers to the south a few more drops of petrol? Pretty please? We'll even let the NFL play one game a year in Toronto.

The United States has plenty of oil ready to be tapped now. The ANWR reserve isn't even one quarter the size of the Dulles Airport facillity in Northern Viriginia. The way the Democrats and Environmental daisy devotees act, you'd think we were going to bulldoze and pave the entire frozen tundra machine gunning Caribou and Polar Bears in the process. They've shown lovely romantic videos of rich northern wildlife prospering in their northern paradise when in truth the area discussed for drilling is a flat, muddy waste land in summer and just a big sheet of snow in the winter. A few oil rigs would be a nice break in the monotony!

Consider this, in 2005, the Gulf of Mexico was hit hard by violent hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, yet not one drop of oil spilled. Drilling is permitted of Louisiana and Texas. The rest of the Gulf is loaded with oil which the Cubans are going after to market to Communist China. First come, first served. Use it or lose it. Meanwhile, there's plenty of more oil ready to be tapped like a beer keg at a frat party along the Atlantic coast. Harder to retrieve, but loaded, are the Rocky Mountain shale reserves.

However, Hurricane Nancy blows harder with more fury and persistence than any force of nature and the hot air and destruction she generates affects all of America. It's not just a freak storm limited to the looney toons land of her San Francisco district which will probably soon look into the possibility of using marajuana sticks and stems for an alternate fuel. WOO-HOO, check that out!!!

As discussed previously, ALL measures to enlarge and modernize our energy supply must be pursued. All efforts must go full speed ahead to develop alternative fuel sources. There are plenty of technologies ready to go today which would be very appropriate and effective to produce some relief right now. Some day, the world will run out of oil. We need petroleum for lots more than fuel. Every drop we don't use today will be there for us tomorrow. As such, better fuel economy, conservation, and more use of shared and public transportation is also a high priority.

The point is, our energy situation requires action on all levels with every possible source being explored in the least restrictive free market conditions possible with the government serving as a facilitator not inhibitor. The government should be providing incentives for production and not punishing through excessive regulation and taxes.

Hurricane Nancy raises her rating to maximum force by also talking of excise profit taxes on oil companies. Who's going to pay those taxes? We are. The oil companies will have some means to offset those expenses. She also DEMANDED President Bush free up oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve which would be against the law so she would be compelled to initiate impeachment proceedings if he did that wouldn't she? Don't worry if this doesn't make sense, logic does not apply on Planet Nancy.

If we are dependent on Nancy Pelosi to save us, WE'RE DOOMED!!!

-

-

-

The Strategic Oil Reserve: A Matter of National Security

Don’t Mess With the Strategic Oil Reserve

Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats on Capitol Hill are demanding that President Bush should release petroleum from the Federal Strategic Oil reserve so that in theory the extra supply could serve to help drive down prices. The reserve was created in 1975 by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to create an emergency inventory of oil to provide a continuous fuel source with a current capacity of around 700 million barrels of oil in the event of a national emergency, a serious interruption in supply, so the nation’s economy could still function for an extended period of time while hopefully the potential issues causing the shortage are resolved.

One application of releasing fuel from the reserve came in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina shut down oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and caused damage to oil processing infrastructure in the region. By law, the President can only draw from the reserve supplies for true supply emergencies. There is no authority in the law to release oil to influence rising oil prices. In essence, the Speaker of the House is imploring the President to break the law. The only way the use of the Strategic Oil reserve could be changed would be through legislation passing both houses of Congress and the President signing it into law. Has Ms. Pelosi or her colleagues in the Senate introduced such legislation? Of course not.

The real essence is political. In her pleadings to utilize the Oil Reserve, Speaker Pelosi creates an unrealistic (and illegal) expectation. We have oil and we’re not using it creating the impression that the evil Bush administration who she has held responsible for everything that’s wrong with the world as recent remarks to the media would suggest.

If the President had the ability to put oil from the reserve into the domestic oil market, that would be an unwise decision. So many potential disruptions in supply are only one episode away from becoming a reality. Given the behavior of Iran leader, Ahmadinejad, the prospect of the closure of the Straight of Hormuz, a 21 mile wide sea passage dividing Iran from the Oman is a real and ominous fear. Forty percent of the world’s oil supply transports through the Straits. Any disruption could have a catastrophic effect on the world’s economy sending the major economies into a mad scurry to resolve the problem.
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, the unstable crazed dictator, of Venezuela has threatened using his oil as a weapon, our supply from those oil reserves could be one provocation away from being shut down. Additionally, numerous oil exporting countries either have unstable governments or are high-risk terrorist targets. Al Qaeda would not miss an opportunity to wreak havoc in the Saudi oil fields if given the opportunity. Additionally, with August and September approaching, that’s prime hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.

The situations cited above reveal the wisdom of our government creating huge oil reserves as not simply an economic necessity but also a matter of absolute national security. Tapping those reserves could be foolish leaving our country empty handed for options if any of the problems above were to materialize with a diminished oil reserve. the oil shortages in the 1970’s gave America a hint of some of the difficulties supply disruptions could hurl upon us. However, the percentage of imported fuel was much lower then. Now it far exceeds 60%.

The reasoning for maintaining the Strategic Oil Reserve is sound and obvious. Messing with this all important national resource would be at best a ill-advised quick fix with the possibility of catastrophic unintended consequences. Creating false hopes exploiting this valuable resource distracts from the hard realities and tough choices our elected leaders are failing miserably to face. Maximum effort must be devoted at once to produce the maximum amount of domestic oil possible to reduce our dependence on foreign oil often provided by nations that are no friends of the United States. Realizing that regardless, oil is a finite resource that is not good for the environment, massive efforts must be dedicated to developing new fuel sources and technologies and utilizing ones that are not currently being used advantageously such as nuclear power for electricity generation. Every day that goes by without addressing this problem makes the solution that much more difficult, demanding, and expensive.

Sadly, both Democrats and Republicans would rather play politics with the Democrats living in a fantasy world that massive efforts to harvest more oil isn’t absolutely necessary NOW. The goals and policies that guided energy production when gas was $1.50 a gallon addressed a very different reality than we face now. Every thing we do whether it’s the use of oil products in manufacturing or anything that needs to be transported is at stake. The public should take note of which elected officials are the obstructionists and deal with them accordingly in the upcoming election.