OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA SUPPORTERS

To those of you who think Obama is an anti-war zealot like you. I would like to submit a wake up call!
In Afghanistan today, Obama had this to say about bringing our troops home as you have demonstrated and insisted since the beginning of the primary campaign.

"Obama is a good person," said Abdul Basir, 40, a former army officer. "During his campaign I heard he was saying that if I become president I will withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq and bring them to Afghanistan and I will attack on the terror center on other side of border (in Pakistan). It is very important and I appreciated that."

Surprise, the empty suit either betrayed you now that he has your primary vote, to capture the average American who believes we should finish the job before we leave Iraq, I remind you we are still in South Korea after over 50 years to honor a commitment!

In the presidential campaign against Republican rival John McCain, Obama has argued that the war in Afghanistan deserves more attention as well as troops. McCain has criticized Obama for his lack of time in the region. Obama is expected to stop in Iraq at some point during his tour.He then said this:
"I look forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is," Obama told a pair of reporters who accompanied him to his departure from Andrews Air Force Base on Thursday. "I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what the most, their biggest concerns are, and I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing."

You would think that he would apologize to the troops for his lack of support until now when he needs to change his image for the "normal" American who doesn't live on either Coast or is a left wing zealot!

Tell me how you can equate obama with a "peacenik" when he says this kind of gobbly-gook! Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two combat brigades a month. But he supports increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been resurgent and Osama bin laden is believed to be hiding."This is a war that we have to win," he said. "I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions — with fewer restrictions — from NATO allies.

"I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions."


It would appear his purpose in the previous statement was to deprecate President Bush and his opponent John McCain, but at the same time he reveals his duplicitous nature on the WAR issue.His opposition to the war in Iraq,and his call for an end to the U.S. combat role, helped him overcome his rivals in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now he is singing a different tune!

A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO AL GORE!

To Mr.Al Gore,the Carbon Credit meister, you have been on a world tour speaking about the threat of Global Warming, while collecting exorbitant fess. Your spin is that we don't realize the evils of fossil fuels as they relate to Global Warming,But at the same time you are investing heavily in the Carbon Credit market.
The big surprise for all who have bought into Your slick distortion of scientific
evidence is based upon your claim that crude oil is a fossil. Please take the time to read what real scientists have to say about the origins and supply of crude oil.

If per chance you are interested in facts, keep reading, if not , then stop reading now! If you would like to learn about real research in the field of oil exploration and it's derivation, keep reading.

Russian scientists concluded that oil is a product of a hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, in distinctly non-equilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced, hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential, most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently.

The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly-reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve.

The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, has regrettably been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses,( aka You Mr. Gore) typically connected with the rococo hypothesis that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly-oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found, nor of microorganisms observed in crude oil.


Modern petroleum science, - or what is called often the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, - is an extensive body of knowledge which has been recorded in thousands of articles published in the mainstream, Russian-language scientific journals, and in many books and monographs. However, effectively nothing of modern petroleum science has been published in the U.S.A., and this body of knowledge remains largely unknown in the English-speaking world.


The hypothesis that petroleum might somehow originate from biological detritus in sediments near the surface of the Earth is utterly wrong. It deserves note that Lomonosov himself never meant for that hypothesis to be taken as more than a reasonable suggestion, to be tested against further observation and laboratory experiment. The “biological hypothesis” of petroleum origins has been rejected in this century by scientific petroleum geologists because it is formidably inconsistent with the existing geological records “on the ground.” That hypothesis has been rejected also by physicists, chemists, and engineers because it violates fundamental physical law.

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. The claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many “look-like/come-from” claims have been put forth for those compounds

If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the undesirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored. Alas, such is not to be.
The merciless laws of thermodynamics do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter.source M.S. Studier and R.Hayatsu

Although the modern Russian theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon origins is mostly unknown in the U.S.A., there is not space in this short blog to describe it. Thus it must suffice to state simply that the modern theory of hydrocarbon origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth.


Because the modern theory of hydrocarbon origins recognizes hydrocarbons as primordial material erupted from great depth, the exploration process began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin.

The exploration and drilling project(in Russia) which followed, resulted in the discovery and development of 12 fields with oil reserves equal to 219 million metric tons of oil equivalent,the major part of which is produced from the Precambrian crystalline basement. These petroleum fields have been discovered in a narrow strip approximately 30-35 km wide and 400 km long near the Northern Marginal Deep Fault where the oil and gas bearing rocks are Middle and Lower Carboniferous period sandstones and Precambrian granites, amphibolites, and schists of the crystalline basement complex. These results, taken either individually or together, confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found both in the Precambrian crystalline basement and the sedimentary cover of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin.


In 1951, the Russian geologist Nikolai Kudryavtsev enunciated what has become the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, a fundamental tenet of which is that natural petroleum is a primordial, abiotic material, erupted from great depth. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by many prominent Russian geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers who together developed the extensive body of knowledge which now forms modern petroleum science.

All chemical and analytical results favor an abiogenic origin for the concerned hydrocarbon in the upper mantle and/or along the rift and fractures in the plateau basalt in southern Syria.

Carbon and hydrogen, necessary for the formation of hydrocarbons, originated from the reactions Of CO2, CO, and H2O with catalysts, especially ferrous oxide and magnetite in mafic silicates (olivine and pyroxenes), at 230-500 C.

In conclusion Mr. Gore, you should consider this: With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.

Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute “evidence” that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. These claims when subjected to scientific scrutiny, are demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.

The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.

The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such arguments that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, as absurd as asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There has never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment.
The scientific results reported here fall into two categories: (1), the discoveries of large deposits of commercially producible petroleum in geological environments which would be considered extraordinary (at least in the U.S.A.); and (2), the analyses of the chemical, bacteriology and paleontology investigations of that oil for determination of its origin.

In conclusion, team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a ‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth – the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time. The high pressure, as well as centrifugal acceleration from the earth’s rotation, causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth’s crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great abundance, and is a sustainable resource – by the same definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable resource. All we have to do is develop better geotechnical science to predict where it is and learn how to drill down deep enough to get to it. So far, the Russians have drilled to more than 13 km and found oil. In contrast, the deepest any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5 km.

So, Mr. Gore why do you continue to spread your lies about oil being one of the fossil fuels causing Global warming, except maybe because you have discovered that if you tell a lie often enough, many people will believe it! My suggestion is YOU STUDY THE AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES THAT PROVE YOUR ATTACK ON OIL IS A CANARD SO HEINOUS AS BE UNPATIOTIC AND SELF SERVING!

Perhaps, Mr. Gore you have spent some time reading the following: "Considering that oil prices are likely to remain above $100 a barrel, the time for shock is over. Investors are now faced with an unprecedented opportunity to play the U.S. and Canada's new hottest oil stocks... several of which are poised to make 300% gains during 2008. Thanks to Pelosi and Reid's stonewalling, there is no drilling in our known oil rich areas!
SOURCE:GAS RESOURCES lINK

PELOSI SPEAKS ECONONSENSE

The question of whether to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been a political football for every sitting American president since Jimmy Carter. Today it has become an issue of major importance to the stability of our economy and way of life.
With gasoline approaching the five dollar per gallon rate, Americans are beginning to experience decisions they never believed in their wildest dreams that they would have to make.Pay for gas to get to work, or buy quality food for themselves and their families.
In every grocery store around the world the price of food products, particularly grains like corn and rice have sky rocketed in price. Famine is raising it's deadly head in some parts of the world. This is criminal and sinful!

The causes of the rapid rise of oil in the past year are many,but one is because America has chosen to plow under millions of acres of wheat and other grains to plant corn for use in the production of bio-fuel.Ethanol has become at least 10% of each gallon that you pump into your car or truck tank when you buy the pricey gasoline.
The other main reason for the dependency and costly gasoline and diesel is the demand has far outpaced the supply. China, and India have growing economies and rapid growth in industry that demands crude oil products. The Chinese have captured leases fro Cuba, and many African Countries to drill or buy millions of gallons of crude oil to met their demand.
Meanwhile we here in America have experienced a population explosion. Some of it legal but at least 12 million are illegal. Thus ,instead of a country with 350 million people, we now have 300 million and growing daily.
The demand for food products and energy has grown each year while Congress has sat by doing absolutely nothing to help this once great country to become independent of OPEC1

There has been no oil refinery constructed for 36 years, and Congress has blocked drilling for oil in places which could have made us independent of OPEC. ANWAR and off shore oil deposits, plus the oil shale in the mountain states and Dakotas could make us oil independent, but our Congress has bought into Global Warming and other Ecology scares, and has refused to allow any drilling!

To put the argument for or against drilling I offer the following information courtesy of Wikapedia

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just east of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's "North Slope," which is North America's largest oil field. Currently, the Prudhoe Bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.[1] In 1987, and again in 1998, studies released by the United States Geological Survey have estimated that significant deposits of crude oil exist within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR.[2][3]
Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether to drill for oil has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Most Alaskan residents, trade unions, Republicans, and several business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while many ecologists, environmental groups, and Democrats have opposed it.


The last off shore oil spill occurred in 1969 off Santa Barbara, Ca., and the steady push to tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures like Pelosi.

She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries off the state's coast near her San Francisco district and, after joining the Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the coastal drilling ban through spending restrictions each year.

Now, with gas prices soaring, those drilling restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as calls intensify to more aggressively pursue domestic oil. Yet despite increasing pressure from President George W. Bush, a full-bore assault by congressional Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file Democrats, Pelosi is not budging.

The self anointed "queen" of the U.S. House of Representatives has joined the Ecology zealots against the average American's call to Drill and Drill now!
A person who has a family fortune of over 25 million dollars an afford to thumb her nose at "Joe six-pack" as do most of the mega-millionaire Democrats in th Senate. Buying gasoline for their limousines is no problem financially for them. Nor is the rising cost of food real concern to them or their cooks!

She had the guts to say, "The President of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away it".

Somebody should try to bring this woman back from the other planet she lives on, and tell her that it is the main reason we are oil step-children to OPEC---NO DRILLING FOR OIL in places we know oil is in the USA! It is just that simple, start drilling and before the first spurt of oil comes out of the ground the oil sheiks will pump as fast as they can to take advantage of the high prices before they fall due to our output!

Representative John Boehner of Ohio,put it in plain English that any non-closed min d can understand,when he said; "the Democratic approach was woefully insufficient. He said Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was putting Democrats in the cross hairs of voters furious about gas prices.
"I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats off a cliff and they know it," said Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats representing more conservative districts.
Boehner the Republican Congressional leader,is escorting a fact finding delegation to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this weekend,

I encourage everyone who feels the squeeze on his income because of the high cost of fuel. To write, call, or email their Congressional representative and say just two words, "DRILL NOW"! And a few million bumper stickers withe "DRILL NOW" would help.

IF ANYONE DOUBTED MEDIA BIAS, IT SHOULD BE GONE NOW

“You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer... This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead... this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best—turn adversity into strength.” —the late TONY SNOW

This truly is the time of severe testing of the principles upon which this Country was founded. The secular-humanists have e all but denied evil as a force to be reckoned with, and banished God from all public places. Our own government has issued a NEW COIN WITHOUT THE WORDS, "IN GOD WE TRUST", FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY!

Another historic event is the selection by the Democrat party of a man with the most liberal record in the U.S. Senate to be their candidate for president.A man with only two years experience in Washington, a great deal of that time spent campaigning for the Oval Office.
This empty suit has captured the main stream media's devotion for liberal causes. Their coverage of him has been almost savior like. Now in an overt demonstration of their loyalty to Barack Obama, all three major networks will be sending anchor persons to accompany Obama on his first trip to Iraq and Europe. You can expect wall to wall coverage of this desperate attempt to show that Senator Obama has a grasp of International politics. Brian Williams of NBC, Katie Couric of CBS and Charles Gibson of ABC will be in the entourage of political reporters from Newspapers and magazines.

The Tyndall Report has stated that the three major networks covered Obama 114 minutes to McCain's stingy 48 minutes in June of this year! Source: Tyndall Report

In Europe he will be welcomed by the people of countries that have already embraced the socialist type governments that Obamna proposes to take the USA.
But it is Iraq where the news will have to be carefully managed. The troops have read and heard of his disparaging remarks about their mission. These are not draftees, but volunteers who are in many cases on their second or third tours, because they believe in the mission they are executing.

The Generals have already been warned that Obama will not take their advice. He will listen, but has said repeatedly that he will begin withdrawing their troops once he inhabits the Oval Office. Even Matt Lauer had his liberal mind confused by Obama's switch, and asked:"throughout the primaries you did talk about this, this idea of getting U.S. troops out within 16 months of being elected and now you say, ‘Look I’ll talk to commanders and generals on the ground and my, my ideas are being refined.’ People do get nervous about that senator, you understand that"?

This from a man who wants to be president but apparently doesn't know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Armed Services does not control the war in Iraq, as this statement displays. “I’m going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out.”

Not all Iraqi's want to be free of U.S. troops. The New York Times published an interview with an Iraqi official Saad Sultan, an man in the Iraqi government. He said during his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. "I have no problem to have a camp here," he said. "I find it in Germany and that's a strong country".

As for Obama's plan for withdrawal, "It's just propaganda for an election"!
"Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw," said
Falah al-Alousy ,the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. "Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area of his school".

THE IRONY OF EUROPEAN ELITE AND OBAMA

Henryk Broder, German Jewish author and provocateur who wrote"Hurray We Are Capitulating", said so eloquently three years ago in the newspaper Die Welt.

"Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program."
... "We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat (Tony) Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy." ...
"In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China."
"On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance" ... Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass."
Arrogance. And ignorance.

"Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France? Sounds to me as though he is a speech writer for Barack Obama's Campaign!


Where have we seen that attitude before? How about among our very own history with the reticence of President Bill Clinton to act(in 1996) when he was notified that the Sudanese were willing to capture and turn over to the Americans, Osama bin Laden!

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed. And yet Clinton and his "chums" choose to pass on the deal that would have saved many thousands of lives in my opinion!


Despite , and probably because of, this concept of appeasement that has swept over too many Americans. Barack Obama has been applauded and lauded, by the Left,for his detailed plan of "not listening to the generals in Iraq" even before he has made his first "campaign" stop in Country!

Obama made that statement before his entourage has left for Iraq. In his statement, He reaffirmed his commitment to an arbitrary 16 month time-table for withdrawing combat troops. Yet in typical chameleon style, he also claims he will listen to the generals.

The two positions are not congruent if the generals tell him that such a time-table is a mistake. Once again the Change artist reappears.
And as if that were not enough to make people realize that the megalomaniac in the empty suit thinks he can talk US out of harms way, I submit this quote from Glenn Johnson's article of July 16th.
"Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France?


Perhaps this type statement from the presumptive next President will give credence to the previous attitude.
Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

"Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said" source: Breitbart.com.


It has to be either pure arrogance or stupidity to believe he or any president could rely on an agreement with either the Communists in China and North Korea, or with Islamic terrorists to disarm the nuclear weapons the all hope will some day destroy the bastion of freedom in the World!

This man is more dangerous than a loose cannon on the decks of a rolling ship!

SENATOR REID IS NO "CHICKEN", HE IS A JUDAS

When next you fill your car, an it costs from 60 to 70 dollars, just remember that you are being betrayed by the Democrat Congress led by the modern day eqivalent of Judas, Senator Harry Reid.

You don't have to be an economist to understand the impact of supply and demand to understand the affect that passing a bill in Congress that would allow drilling off shore and in ANWAR, would have on the psyche of the Arab oil cartel.

Currently they have a grip on our collective necks that is sucking the breath of our economy out of America. Because of the dependence on a diminishing supply of crude oil in the Arab countries, and an increasing demand occurring in so called "developing" countries like China, India and Brazil the speculators and hedge funds have been able to bid up the price of oil to it's present punitive levels.

This makes the Arabs happy, because they are reaping a harvest of wealth from the high price, and the neo-communist Ecology zealots are happy because their dream of destroying our economy is working!
Doubt me, and check the cost of food products, and everything else from your utilities bill to the cost of propane gas to use in your back yard barbecue.

The Arabs, would be given a startling wake-up call, if Congress passed a bill allowing unlimited exploration and drilling for oil here at home. They would anticipate that in five years the flow of oil from our own oil wells would reduce their strangle hold on us to zero, and would begin pumping more oil to take advantage of the high prices while they last.
Venezuela would soon follow suit, as would all other oil producing countries, and the price would plummet! Speculation would dry up and the arbitragers would have to find another commodity to exploit!

Manu Raju,of The Hill wrote the following story for The New Media Journal that explains why I call Senator Reid a "Judas". He is selling out Americans for his "thirty pieces of silver"from the Ecology zealots!

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Monday that he would not allow a vote on an amendment giving states new authority to seek oil off their coasts when he brings a Democratic energy bill to the floor later this month.

In a sign of escalating tensions, one senior GOP senator called Reid a “chicken” for deciding not to allow amendments on energy production, prompting a Reid spokesman to say that “name calling won't lower the price of oil and gasoline.” Reid criticized President Bush’s announcement earlier in the day to rescind a longstanding executive order banning offshore oil drilling, saying it was a gift to the oil companies that are not exploring for oil in 68 millions of acres available to them.

Republicans are now pressuring Democrats to rescind a congressional moratorium prohibiting the practices and give states the option to decide whether to allow drilling off their coasts. However, Senate Democrats rejected those calls on Monday. “We want oil and gas companies to drill on the leases they’ve been given,” Reid said. He added that oil companies should report to Congress their activities on their leased land and said Congress will invest in renewable energy by pushing through a stalled package of expiring tax incentives".

Democrats blame market speculators on oil industry futures for playing a role in propping up energy prices, and are drafting a bill targeting the practice, which will be unveiled Wednesday. But if they just passed a bill authorizing drilling in ANWAR and OFF Shore, they speculators would be out of business in very short order.

"When the Senate votes on that bill, as soon as this month, Reid said he would not allow amendments dealing with oil drilling, which the Republicans will almost certainly seek...Republicans support targeting speculators as well, but have called for a broader energy package that would also boost domestic production"...Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)

Obama is a Ward Politician Masked as Presidential Caliber

Today's media-driven politics has eclipsed machine-driven politics, such as were prevalent in Chicago, Boston and New York in the 60's. This was obvious because It became increasingly difficult to get into homes and apartments to talk about candidates. High-rises were tough if not impossible to campaign, and other parts of cities had become too dangerous to walk around in for hours at a time.
Because people didn’t want to answer their doors, political candidate became increasing dependent on TV, radio, direct mail, phone-banking,and robocalls.

These new campaign methods cost a lot more money than patronage workers, who were themselves in decline,because of anti-patronage court rulings. Instead of a large army of ward heelers dragging people to the polls, candidates need a small army of donors to pay for commercials. Money replaced bodies as the currency of big city politics. This new system became known as “pinstripe patronage,” because the key to winning was not rewarding voters with jobs but rewarding donors with government contracts.All the more reason why this Country needs term limits for all elected positions. If it is good for the President. Why not for Senators and Congress persons?


E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about Obama's Change(aka), transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reelected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reelection. “They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,” Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

In a perfect example of the "Change" Obama's willing to make in his own positions to satisfy his thirst for power. During his U.S.Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a “Walk for Israel” rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel’s building of a security fence.
But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that “none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.” Mr.Ali Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront.”

Abunimah emphasizes that no partition is ever going to be acceptable to a majority of Israelis and Palestinians (e.g., few Palestinians in the occupied territories would accept Israeli annexation of even the largest Israeli settlement villages
The Obama camp has denied Mr. Abunimah’s account. Mr. Khalidi, who is now the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.”


In another example of Obama tepid patriotism, was his reaction to the dastardly attack 9/11/01. It was luke warm at best. He conclude with words that betray his internationalist philosophy as apposed to a true patriot like McCain.
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores".source: The New Yorker

You will notice that there is not one word about religious zealotry or fanaticism in his explanation of why this attack happened!

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the Right!

Another sign of Obama's deceptiveness is the way he has had a unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals in Illinois, ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reelection. Do people want this man to be our president?

Musings on Leftist Writers And Bloggers

Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.

I can't help but notice that Right(CONSERVATIVE) bloggers are defending the legacy of Tony Snow, but Left bloggers are trying to call him another loser "flack". I'm also noticing how some have blamed Fox for the legs on Jackson's ridiculous gaffe about Obama.
One lefty blogger has repeated the litany of Righties guilt all the way up to the president of FOX, Roger E. Ailes. I've always noticed that dozens of folks who don't bother to lookup Hayek still can't figure out what a semi-intelligent writer( I do have a doctorate) such as myself does following the marching orders of Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. The fact is that I don't, but that doesn't stop the guilt by association.And the incumbent personal attacks!
For those who are not familiar with Hayek;

Friedrich August von Hayek, May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. He also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century back towards liberalism after the 1980's. source:Wikapedia

What I've figured out, "is that the Left associates dissent from its rose colored glasses policy of social experimentation, as stupidity". The least educated people seem to have the most diverse group of political discussion mates, whereas people with graduate degrees, Phd's, are the least likely to talk politics with people who disagree with them. I can testify to how easy it is for conversation among academics, the most educated group of people, to turn into a one-position echo chamber. Liberalism is taken to be an IQ test, and the rare conservative is encouraged to be quiet or go elsewhere!
And sorry to say, but my Alma mater Northwestern University has morphed into a left wing think tank that allowed Arthur Butz to remain a professor in good standing after he lauded Iran's president for his Holocaust denial.


BUT THEN AGAIN, NU's position is no more bizarre than that of the left wing writer's candidate for president, Obama. Last week: He pledged to revitalize the Clinton Doctrine for dealing with terrorists—treat. "Treat terrorism as a criminal matter".
In regard to Obama’s plan for overall military preparedness, it just gets worse.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

This year, both our sea-based SM-3 and ground-based midcourse defense system missiles proved to be successful. The U.S. Bureau of Arms Control concluded in May, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.”
Obama also, in addition to his pledge to abolish missile defense, said "I will not weaponize space.” Memo to Senator Obama: Our current policy is not to weaponize space, but I would not trust Russia not to do it if they can!