New York Times Article

But why would Obama change his position when one week ago he was opposed to offshore drilling?  Probably because polls indicate that a majority of Americans want more drilling.  And we all know how Democrats forumulate their positions not based on their core beliefs, but on polling data.

Frauds and liars, each and every one of those Democrats.

Sounds logical, right?  Not to the liberal left.  They’ve argued against trickle down economics for decades and its underpinnings which are the workings of the free market, instead insisting on more wealth redistribution.

I saw this article on Yahoo News about the wealthy crimping spending and investing due to uncertainties in the economy to the detriment of everyone else.  Yes, that’s right, when average Americans are harmed by less spending by the wealthy, trickle down economics is real.  The thesis of the article is that the wealthy are contributing to the economic hardships of everyone by not spending enough of their money.

Yahoo article

The rich are sharing your financial pain — and contributing to it.

It may have taken longer and it may not be as acute, but there are early hints that the economic slump is crimping the lifestyles of the wealthy.

They are investing more conservatively, spending less on luxury goods and are being more thrifty with their credit cards.

That news may produce a shrug from many people who have lost their jobs or homes in this economy. The problem is that when the wealthy get stingy, it trickles down to the rest of us.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes account for nearly a quarter of all spending…

So, is trickle down economics real?  Yes, but only in situations where the wealthy can be vilified and class envy exploited for political gain.  It’s real when it comes to harm being done to average Americans, but not real when there is any benefit.

Another thought: if a bad economy leaves the wealthy either with less money to spend or with less comfort in spending it, wouldn’t higher taxes do the same?  Yes it would.

The people, such as Rush Limbaugh, who said that Latinos would not vote for a black man were wrong. Very wrong.

In the 2006 elections Democrats captured around 70% of the Latino vote; in 2004, Democrats got 60%. Obama is hovering right around that 2006 figure.

In the end, Latinos are going to vote for whoever is going to promise them the most welfare freebies. That’s all there is to it. That is the main reason people vote for Democrats. It’s the “what you going to give me” factor that Republicans cannot match.

CNN Story

None of those are valid reasons to vote for someone to be the leader of the USA and the free world. That’s just pure idiocy from people who can’t think beyond a manufactured public image created by political consultants.

Obama’s speech will be focused on US-Europe relations.  Liberals have been pounding away on the theory that the image of the United States has been damaged in recent years by the actions of President George W. Bush.  For some irrational reason, lefties believe that liberating 25 million Iraqi civilians from that cruel and ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein was unjust.  So that is why Obama decided on this topic for his speech which, undoubtedly, was written by Obama’s hired speech writers.

Several weeks ago Ralph Nader said that Obama was capitalizing on white guilt.  One must wonder if white guilt is the reason Obama is so popular in Germany.  Remember, this is a nation that tried to exterminate the Jewish race.  What other possible reason could there be for Obama’s popularity with a foreign nation that can’t vote for him and likely is largely unaware of his true character and his associations (Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William “Bill” Ayers).

In the end, it doesn’t matter what Germans think, because they can’t vote in American elections.  And that’s a good thing, because this is the nation that put Adolf Hitler into power because of his charisma and public speaking prowess, the same basis as their support for Barack Obama. Germans were wrong once, and they are again.

It is really sickening the way the American media is drawing parallels between Obama and the German visits by JFK and Ronald Reagan. The difference between those two and Obama is that they were presidents at the times of their visits and they actually discussed issues of substance, not pap like Obama is doing.

As you may know, no bank keeps 100% of its deposits on hand.  They take money that is deposited and lend most of it out, keeping only a small fraction as a reserve.  What Chuck Schumer did is unnecessarily spread rumors of the bank’s demise, causing fear among depositors that resulted in a run on the bank.

During a bank run, depositors line up demanding their money, even if they risk no loss because of FDIC deposit insurance.  No bank can survive a bank run since they retain only a small portion of deposits.  IndyMac had no liquidity left, thus they were forced into failure.

If that idiot Chuck Schumer had left his mouth shut the bank probably would not have failed.  Or if it did fail, it would have done so in an orderly fashion.  Now taxpayers will be on the hook for $4 billion to $8 billion because of Schumer’s idiocy.

You don’t need to have a reason for a bank to fail.  All you need is a rumor.  Even healthy banks can fail during a bank run.  Schumer created the rumor.  He is to blame for IndyMac’s failure.

John D. Hawke, former Comptroller of the Currency, (national bank regulator) said the following about Schumer:

If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system.

Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.

A Democrat engaging in “incredibly stupid” conduct?  Everything Democrats do is incredibly stupid.  No surprises there.

Democrats destroy everything they get their hands on.

Doesn’t Obama realize that the accomplishments against terrorists in Iraq would not have been possible without the surge?

Fox News Article

Barack Obama is on the wrong side of every issue, even after the fact.  How can you possibly be opposed to something successful?  It’s mind-boggling idiocy.

Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on investment and income on those who make over $250,000 per year.  Those are the people who create the jobs that Americans need.  How is leaving those people with less money to spend and invest going to create jobs?  It isn’t.  Less money means less spending and investment which means less jobs.  It’s as simple as that.

Barack Obama also opposes lifting bans on oil drilling where there are billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be tapped.  Gas prices are at record levels, leaving all Americans whether they ride the bus or drive vehicles with less money to spend elsewhere (bus fares are increasing all over the country because of higher fuel costs).  How is restricting new supplies of oil going to reduce the price of gasoline?  It isn’t.

High oil prices are also fueling food inflation.  People are spending more to feed themselves than before, leaving less money to spend elsewhere which means that jobs are going to be harmed.

If anything, the economic troubles should be good news for McCain because Barack Obama is on the exact opposite side of every issue that he should be on.

Raising taxes during an economic downturn is never a good thing.  Restricting the supply of oil during record high oil prices is not a good thing, either.  McCain and the Republicans need to do a better job of explaining this to the American people.  The last thing they should do is let the Democrats have control of the economic arguments when they are the ones responsible for the current situation.

McCain should pose the following questions to the American people:

• How does taking money out of the economy by raising taxes sustain current jobs and create new ones since less money means less spending?
• How does raising taxes on investment going to encourage investment and the creation of new jobs?
• How does blocking new oil from making it to market help lower the price of gasoline?

Every dollar that is spent in the economy becomes income for someone else.  Every dollar saved or invested helps create jobs.  Democrats want to do everything possible to take money out of the economy and harm American jobs.  McCain and the Republicans need to speak up about this.  It’s basic economics, and the DFL is on the wrong side of the argument.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington are doing everything they can to continue blocking domestic oil drilling, preventing new supply from coming to market in the next few years.

With 250 million passenger vehicles on American roads we are going to require petroleum for many years to come.  Nothing, not even record oil prices, have made the Democrats see the error of their ways and the need for more supply.

Conservation and technology are the answer, Democrats say.  But there comes a point where people can’t conserve any more than they already are, and there comes a point where that conservation comes as a cost in reduced economic activity.  Technology?  Hydrogen cars are still many years into the future.  A recent news story I saw had an expert in hydrogen cars saying that it will be at least ten years before they are on the roads in any significant numbers.  Ten years!  What will we do in the meantime?  Continue to pay record prices for gasoline because the Democrat fools don’t want to allow more domestic drilling?

The people hardest hit by the high cost of gasoline are the very people the Democratic Party pretends to represent.  The Democrats screw over their constituents every chance they get, and those Democrat voters aren’t smart enough to realize it.

Rumors are circulating that the Rev. Jackson may have called Obama the n-word.  Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly says that there are more harsh words from Rev. Jackson which have not yet been released, and may not be.

Does what the Rev. Jackson said sound like the words of a man of God?  No.  They are the words of a hypocrite and a man filled with hate, not the words of a man of religion or peace.  Jesse Jackson revealed his true character for all the world to see.  He is just another dirty fraud and liar.

Rev. Jackson Youtube Video

Jesse Jackson says the following:

See, Barack been, um, talkin’ down to black people on this faith based… I wanna cut his nuts off.

Barack…he’s talkin’ down to black people.

The Rev. Jackson, after making the statement that he wants to cut Obama’s nuts off, makes a slicing motion with his hand.  Apparently, the reverend didn’t realize he was on a hot mic and didn’t think anyone else would hear what he said.

How sweet, how typically Democrat!

Obama rallied liberals by demanding that troops be pulled out.  When?  As soon as possible–immediately, in fact.  But here is what Obama said last week in an interview with Military Times:

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.  (See Obama’s quote from Sept. 2007 below.) What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run. That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces and that we would continue to train Iraqis both army and police, so long as those who are being trained were not falling back into sectarian patterns. And I have always said that as commander in chief I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our mid-level officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.

So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground.

How is that any different that what President Bush is doing right now?  It is no different.  What Obama basically said is that conditions on the ground will dictate when troops leave and any decision to withdraw troops will be made in consultation with Iraqi leaders.  Not only that, but Obama also plans to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

This is what President Bush said in November, 2006:

I believe it is very important, though, for people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground.

And this is what President Bush said in November, 2005:

As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

As the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight against the terrorists.

Democrats are toning down their surrender rhetoric now that we have actually turned the corner in Iraq.  Why?  Maybe because they realize how wrong they were?  Afterall, it was the Democrats who said that the surge would never work.  Not only has it worked, but it has worked very well.

Barack Obama previously demanded immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  This is what Obama said in September, 2007, just ten months ago:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

Too bad Obama doesn’t realize that almost everything he has said is archived for our effortless retrieval.  Remember this Obama quote from above:

This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.

Bullshit!  Obama himself demanded immediate withdrawal, and now he claims he never said it!

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?  The man is an absolute fraud.  Liberals are dumb enough to believe what he says, no matter what he says, just because he says it.

Looks like Obama has been caught in another lie, doesn’t it?  That’s not just another flip-flop, though Obama is a huge flip-flopper, that is an outright lie.

That’s why we call Democrats “dirty frauds and liars”.

Isn’t Barack Obama from Chicago?  Yes he is.  It’s where he lives.

It is always funny to watch these Democrats talk about the loss of life in Iraq while they never mention the slaughter going on in their own backyards.  About 16,500 people are murdered in the United States every year, give or take a few hundred.  The vast majority of these murders occur in Democrat voting strongholds.

Try challenging a Democrat to name one DFL stronghold that isn’t a hellhole of crime and violence sometime.  They can’t.  The DFL destroys everything it gets its hands on.  It’s an irrefutable fact.

Why isn’t Barack Obama doing anything about this?

Story

Ralph Nader said:

There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson?

He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

No, not all of us whites are eating up Obama’s dreck.

Nader is right about Obama not speaking out about the “plight” of blacks.  But to be fair, Obama hasn’t done much of anything.  He has no track record and no real accomplishments; his resume is as thin as can be.  Obama has produced no significant legislation and has not articulated a single original idea that isn’t a rehash of failed liberal and socialist policies of decades ago.

Do you really think Obama needs to address issues of concern to the black community?  He’s already got their vote for no other reason than the color of his skin.  He doesn’t need to.  What Obama needs is the white vote.  He isn’t going to get it by trying to bring pity on the black community when most of their problems (crime, violence, dismal academic performance, welfare dependence, etc.) are of their own making.

As for Nader’s criticism that Obama is talking white, Obama’s chief speech writer, Jon Favreau, is a white guy.  So what do you expect when a white guy is writing the words and thoughts of a candidate?  He’s going to sound like the speech writer.  Right?

NY Times Article About Obama’s Chief Speech Writer With Picture

Obama replied to Nader’s comments by saying:

First of all, what’s clear is that Ralph Nader hasn’t been paying attention to my speeches.

Maybe Nader has been listening to Obama’s speeches.  See the comments about Obama’s speech writer above.

In a head-to-head matchup Obama leads McCain 49% to 37%.  Factoring Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Independent Ralph Nader into the race, Obama leads McCain 48% to 33%.

Of course, it is still early with over four months left to go and things will change.  Unless McCain gets into gear pointing out Barack Obama’s weaknesses and hypocrisy, he is going to lose.  There is no doubt about it that McCain will not win this race by playing the nice guy.  There is a lot of ammunition McCain could use to point out that Obama is not who he and his liberal journalist backers say he is.  McCain should seize on this now instead of letting Obama gain momentum.

McCain probably thought that his decision to use public financing when Barack Obama went back on his word would give him an advantage.  But it didn’t.  Most people couldn’t care less.  They may say they want a clean race, the truth is they want to know why they should choose one candidate over the other.  Refusing to criticize your candidate because you want to play the nice guy or you are afraid of charges of racism isn’t going to give the voters what they need to vote your way.

John McCain is like a stale fart that just won’t go away.  He should have learned his lesson in 2000.  Instead, he had to get back into this race and muck up Mitt Romney’s chance.  That’s not to say that McCain isn’t qualified to be president, because he surely is.  In fact, McCain is probably one of the most qualified people to ever run for the office.  But people aren’t looking for qualifications.  They are looking for a reason to rally behind someone.  McCain is offering nothing.

In this election I will not be voting for John McCain because I support him.  I will be voting for him because I know how dangerous, inexperienced, and unknown Obama truly is.

That sounds like a great way to weed out idiots to me.  If you are a liberal, your brain doesn’t function properly and we don’t want you.

Every business should do that.  Productivity and profits would soar.  I’m sure employee theft would decline markedly, too.  Who wants a company filled with whining pissants who want to steal every penny you’ve got?

Clinton loaned her own personal money to her campaign to the tune of $12.2 million.  Now she is on her knees begging for others to repay the money she owes to vendors and herself.

How sad.  How pathetic.  How typically Democrat!

Hillary Clinton is rich.  She and her husband have reported assets in excess of $50 million.  They have grossed over $100 million in income since her husband left office.

Why doesn’t she pay off her own debt?  If she truly believed in her cause–which was herself–why wouldn’t she want to use her own money to support it?  Even after paying off this debt, she and her husband would still be multimillionaires.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who criticizes rich people and calls them greedy.  She extols wealth redistribution and economic equality.  But when it comes down to it, she is nothing more than a typical liberal hypocrite who wants to hold on to as much of her own money as possible while taking it away from everyone else.

If the Clintons are worth $50 million, Hillary could pay off this debt and still have $27 million left in the bank.  Awww, what’s the matter?  Can’t a rich liberal hypocrite live on only $27 million?  Not to mention the several hundred thousand they make per year off her senate salary and Bill’s pension?

Hillary Clinton did nothing but attack President Bush for “incompetence”.  But it looks like she can’t even manage her own money.  Who’s incompetent now, Hillary?

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Yes, Obama, you are inexperienced.  You are also a giant hypocrite who engages in everything he claims to be against from earmarks to grant requests for political contributors to crooked real estate deals.

It has nothing to do with you being black, Barack Hussein.  Our opposition to you is because you have no experience, you want to raise taxes and further block domestic oil drilling, you are weak on terrorists, and you have no track record to speak of other than your hypocritical behavior such as granting favors to contributors.  You are an absolute fraud.

Had people known more about Obama prior to his early victories in the primary season he would have never made it as far as he’s gotten.  The office of the presidency is the most important job in the world.  A relative  unknown like Obama with no experience is not suitable.

Barack Obama has character flaws so big you could drive a cement truck through them.  This is John McCain’s race to lose and if he doesn’t get out there and start criticizing Obama, he will lose.  Playing nice is not going to cut it when you’ve got the vast majority of the journalists and news media vigorously hyping your opponent. The news is nothing but a constant stream of pro-Obama propaganda.

At least Obama admitted that he is inexperienced. That’s one of the few truthful things that has ever come out of his mouth.

Don’t forget this crucial fact, Obama:  the Democratic Party is the party of slavery.  It’s true.  It was the Republican party that ended slavery.  The Democratic Party wanted slavery to continue.

Reuters article

Now he has refused to accept public financing as he originally supported.  Watch the video.

ABC News Video Of Barack Obama Speaking In Favor Of Public Financing

You can read more at the ABC News blog entry.

Look how Barack Obama criticizes pork projects.  He himself has requested well over $300 million in earmarks.  He criticizes pork barrel spending and earmarks and he is a huge participant in it.

List Of Barack Obama’s FY 2006 & 2007 Earmarks

List Of Barack Obama’s FY 2008 Earmarks

How can anybody give any credibility to anything Obama says when his behavior contradicts everything he claims to stand for?  We are talking about massive hypocrisy here.  Hypocrisy, lies, and outright fraud.

Republican candidate John McCain’s team says that there were no discussions between them and the Barack Obama camp about accepting public campaign funds.

According to CNN, laywers representing the two candidates met on June 6th to talk about joint townhall appearances, and nothing more, officially.  The McCain team vehemently denies that any negotiations about public financing took place at that meeting.  McCain’s counsel Trevor Potter was quoted as saying:

We then spoke in general terms about the public financing system, with Bob (Bauer, Obama’s counsel) outlining reasons it could be considered ‘broken’ or irrelevant in 2008, and I explaining why Sen. McCain remained committed to it and thought it was good for the country.

I cannot begin to explain how the Obama campaign could twist my reiteration of Sen. McCain’s support of the system, and hope the two candidates would participate in it, into what they said today.

There you have it.  McCain as of today is committed to eliminating private money from presidential campaigns while Barack Obama flip-flopped from his prior position and decided to indulge himself in all that tantalizing money from rich liberals and special interests.

Obama could reverse his position and walk away from private money and accept public financing.  But he won’t.  He says one thing and does the exact opposite. Barack Obama is a total and complete fraud.

If you read the dirty things Obama said about McCain when he announced he was turning down public financing, it also shows that Obama is not committed to running a clean campaign as he originally said he was.  So much for ending dirty politics Obama…

Yes, the Sierra Club did endorse Obama.  The liberal group’s executive director Carl Pope was quoted as saying:

At the end of the day, John McCain just signed up with the Bush policy of giving the oil industry what it wants.

Isn’t that just illustrative of the faulty logic of the liberal mind?  Drilling for oil is not about giving the oil companies what they want, it is about giving the American economy what it needs.

According to the federal government, there are about 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles in the United States.  What fuels those vehicles?  Gasoline derived from petroleum.  What fuels construction machinery and trucks that haul freight across the nation?  Diesel, also derived from petroleum.

These liberal dimwits act as if alternative energy and hydrogen or electric cars are just around the corner.  It’s a no-brainer that alternative energy is the future, but it will be many years before 250 million vehicles in the United States are replaced with vehicles that use alternative energy.  And what will all those currently existing vehicles run on in the meantime?  Fuels that come from oil.  That’s why we need more of it.

Obama originally portrayed himself as a uniter, then it was revealed that his spiritual mentor, friend, and campaign committee member Jeremiah Wright was a seething racist.

Obama said that he supports earmark reform.  Then he released a huge list of earmarks that he requested, including such gifts as $1 million for his wife’s employer right after she got a $200,000 raise in salary and an $8 million request for a company linked to one of his biggest donors.

He spoke out against special interests and the wealthy while he took millions of dollars from rich liberals and corporate executives, not to mention his crooked real estate deal with Tony Rezko which provided him a direct $300,000 financial benefit.

Obama wrote letters urging grants of taxpayer dollars to his financial backers on several occasions in the past all while speaking out against the very activities he was engaging in.

Now Barack Obama is backing out of his pledge to take public financing and the spending limits they entail.

Why?  Because Barack Obama is raising millions from the wealthy and special interests and he doesn’t want to have to forgoe that money.  That’s why.

Barack Obama is the exact opposite of everything he has pretended to be.  What’s worse, look at the reasoning he gave in his announcement.

From the NY Times

The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

Oh, and the Democratic Party isn’t going to do the same?  The DFL is not going to take union member dues and use that money to run ads full of lies and smears?  Absolutely they will.

It’s a shame that Barack Obama reneged on his promise to purse an agreement with his opponent to accept public financing.  It’s a disgrace the way Obama is spinning the true reason for his decision by pinning the blame on Republicans.

I cannot understand how any thinking human being can support such a hypocritical, lying fraud like Barack Hussein Obama.  The man is a total and complete empty suit.  Without his speech writers and teleprompters he cannot even put together a coherent thought.

I would love to hear Obama explain in his own words how raising taxes on income and investment during an economic downturn and taking money out of the economy is going to create jobs.

Unbelievable! These Democrat morons did everything they could to limit new domestic supply of oil for years, and now they want to sue sovereign nations because they aren’t pumping more oil to help lower global prices?

Just when you think the Democratic Party can’t get more idiotic, it does. First off, how do you sue a sovereign nation when they are not obligated to do anything for you at all? Secondly, how can you even think of suing countries when you have refused for years, and still are refusing, to allow more domestic drilling for oil? You want to sue countries for not doing what you yourself refuse to allow? Thirdly, where is the evidence of price fixing? Is there any?

Also, how the hell could anybody in their right mind suggest doing anything to antagonize suppliers of oil–the lifeblood of our economy–by filing lawsuits against them? What if they get mad and refuse to supply us with oil? Then what? We would have massive shortages!

From ABC News:

With the average price of gas in the United States now above $4, Senate Republicans today rejected a plan by Democrats to give the president the authority to declare an “energy emergency” and sue OPEC nations, prosecute price gouging, assess a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies and cut down on speculation in the energy markets.

OK, I can see limiting speculation per the Democrat plan. But here’s the thing that Democrats are too dumb to realize: oil is a globally traded commodity and it is not possible to limit speculation in other countries. Foreign nations are not subject to American law or, fortunately for them, the idiocy of the Democratic Party. If you tried to limit speculation in America, what you would probably end up doing is driving trading of oil outside of America. Then what do you have?

As usual, the Republicans are the voice of reason; they provide the logic to the backdrop of Democrat foolishness.

NY Times Article:

Republican opponents of the oil-tax measure have argued that higher taxes on Big Oil would backfire, driving up gasoline prices and discouraging new domestic oil production and exploration. If the bill were approved, the American people “will get exactly what they don’t want,” said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who predicted higher prices and more reliance on imports.

Yes, that makes logical sense. Higher taxes always retard investment, in this case investment in exploration and development. Regarding the Democrats’ windfall profits tax scheme, which would not do a thing to lower gas prices:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, summed up the argument of most of his party colleagues by asserting that “those who think we can tax our way out of this problem” are wrong.

Yes, that too, makes sense. You will not solve the problem of high oil prices–which are being felt worldwide–by increasing taxes.

The White House said the United States was “paying a price today for decades of Democratic opposition and regulatory obstacles to increasing domestic oil production,” as President Bush’s spokesman Tony Fratto put it. “Instead of populist votes that would do nothing for gas prices, we need to allow domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways,” Mr. Fratto said.

Yes, that too, makes logical sense. Democrats blocked domestic oil drilling for years. Now, all of America is paying the price. Interestingly, I did not see this mentioned on any of the national newscasts I watched tonight. Why is that?

Why are the news networks not talking about how Democrats blocked oil drilling all these years?

As you can clearly see, it is the Republicans who make sense and the Democrats who do not.

Democrats created this mess. Every American is paying the price.

Obama Hammers McCain

“[John McCain] also legitimately tout moments of independence from his party, and on some issues, such as earmark reform and climate change, he and I share goals, even if we may differ on how to get there.

It was Barack Obama who requested a $1 million earmark for his wife’s employer so they could build a new pavilion shortly after she got a raise in salary in excess of $200,000 per year. McCain says he has never requested an earmark, Obama has.

Interesting how Obama lies, isn’t it?

Chicago Tribune Article About Obama’s Earmarks

Among the pork-barrel spending requests Barack Obama has made since arriving in the U.S. Senate is $1 million for the hospital where his wife worked at the time and $8 million for weapons technology made by a big defense contractor with close ties to a major fundraiser.

In among them was a request for $1 million in federal funding in 2006 for a new pavilion at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where his wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president at the time.

Now remember, shortly after Barack Obama got elected to the Senate, his wife was given a $200,000 raise in her annual salary. Does this sound like a payback? How can anyone argue that a pavilion is critical for the operation of a hospital?

Back to Obama’s criticism of McCain and Bush:

“President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush’s policy of ‘too little, too late’ into a policy of ‘even less, even later’. That’s not the change we need right now. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place.”

Um, we aren’t in a housing crisis. We are in a subprime crisis. Subprime means that the people are not credit worthy. What happens when you lend money to people who can’t pay it back? Well, they end up not paying it back and going into foreclosure.

If we look at this graph from the Mortgage Bankers Association, we can see that prime fixed rate foreclosures are lower than they were in the recent past. Prime adjustable rate foreclosures are a little bit higher, but they are still nowhere near as high as subprime foreclosure rates.

Try explaining that to the dimwitted Democrats.

“And while John McCain wants to pick up where George Bush left off by trying again to privatize Social Security, I will never waver in my commitment to protect that basic promise as President. We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

Wealthy people are already paying much more than their fair share. When Social Security started, the retirement age was 65 and the average life expectancy was 67. Now, the average life expectancy is nearing 80. Social Security was never designed to provided sole income for a retired person; rather, it was designed to be part of a three-pronged stool which also includes personal savings and investment.

Social Security and Medicare–programs for the elderly–are bankrupting the nation. Medicare spending now tops $600 billion per year, and rising much faster than economic growth. They are not sustainable. But Democrats don’t care if they spend us into bankruptcy. And they are either not smart enough to see it, or are lying to appeal to their mindless voting base.

“As far as we can tell, John McCain doesn’t have a plan to make college more affordable. And that means he isn’t listening to the struggles facing a new generation of Americans.”

Now that’s just rich. You see, the truth of the matter is that tuition at the most liberal institutions of higher learning is the highest. The more liberal an institution, the higher the tuition. Look at Harvard, Yale, or any other liberal school. You’ll see tuitions in excess of $30,000 per year.

And a liberal like Barack Obama is going to tackle the high cost of education that liberals like him are responsible for?

These Democrats blocked oil drilling, then they blame Republicans for the high cost of gas. They jack up tuition at liberal universities, then they blame Republicans for the high cost of education.

You would have to be an idiot to believe anything these Democrats say.

Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech today hammering Republicans for high gas prices and job losses. Let’s take a look at this for a moment.

It was Democrats who blocked domestic oil drilling every time it came up. Many–if not the majority–of these job losses are directly tied to high gas prices, which would not be as high as they are if American oil companies were allowed to drill back in 2001. The auto industry, airlines, and even smaller employers like taxi companies and restaurants are being severely harmed by high gas prices, which the Democrats are responsible for.

Are the American people dumb enough to believe the lies of the Democratic Party? And why aren’t these Republicans talking about how Democrats did nothing but block oil drilling all these years? Wake up, Republicans! Tell the truth about Democrats blocking oil drilling so the people can hear the honest truth instead of lies and spin from the Democrats. Pull those Democrat voting records and present them to the public.

Democrats are insisting that a “green economy” will generate 5 million jobs. Uh, no it won’t. And you want to know the truth? The truth is that once the “green” infrastructure is built, those jobs will be gone.

Remember the internet economy of the 1990s? Telecommunications companies spent billions laying fiber optic cable all over the country. What happened to those jobs after all the cable was laid in the ground? The jobs were cut.

The fact is Republicans know that high taxes and high energy prices retard economic activity. Less money to spend means less economic activity and less investment. Makes sense, right? Not to Democrats.

From a news story:

The nation’s unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent in May — the biggest monthly rise since 1986 — as nervous employers cut 49,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate soared from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May. That was the biggest one-month jump in the rate since February 1986.

The 5.5 percent rate is relatively moderate judged by historical standards.

The government said the number of unemployed people grew by 861,000 in May — rising to 8.5 million. The over-the-month jump in unemployment reflected more workers losing their jobs as well as an increase in those coming into the job market to look for work, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.

With food and energy prices marching upward, paychecks aren’t stretching as far.

See that last sentence? That’s the key. High oil prices have driven up not only the cost of fuel, but of food as well since food is now being used to create fuel due to the high cost of oil.

The Democratic Party is solely to blame for this.

Democrats in Congress have blocked oil drilling every year since 2001. Each and every time Republicans introduced legislation to open up areas for drilling to increase the supply of oil on the market, Democrats have blocked it.

Let’s think about this for a few seconds. What happens as the population increases and the economy grows both nationally and worldwide and the supply of oil doesn’t keep pace? The answer is obvious: oil prices will rise.

Try explaining that to the Democrat fools or their dimwitted voting base.

Even as recently as this year, Democrats have tried to block oil drilling off the coast of California. Here are a few news stories proving how Democrats have been trying to sabotage the economy for years, and still are.

August, 2, 2001 CNN Article

August 2, 2001 Posted: 12:31 PM EDT (1631 GMT)

After hours of spirited debate, House lawmakers early Thursday approved a broad energy bill that would allow some oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge.

The vote marks a victory for President George W. Bush, who had campaigned on the philosophy that exploration in the refuge is key to the nation’s energy needs.

Democrats sought to rally support from enough moderate Republicans with environmental leanings for an amendment to block the plan to allow drilling in the reserve, but that was defeated in a 223-206 vote.

Supporters said opening the Arctic refuge for oil exploration was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.

2001 CNN Article About Democrats taking control of the Senate

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: Daschle has promised to continue working in a bipartisan fashion but he’ll also advance the Democratic agenda.

He already has pronounced President Bush’s push for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as dead.

President Bush and most Republicans understood that oil is the lifeblood of the American economy, and will be for many years to come. But Democrats blocked oil drilling every time it came up in the Senate. They blocked drilling each and every year. Democrats didn’t block oil drilling in just Alaska, but everywhere they could.

June 29, 2001 NY Times Article

Published: June 29, 2001

In another slap at President Bush’s energy and environment policies, the House of Representatives voted today to prohibit drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes.

The president has not taken a specific stand on exploration in the Great Lakes, but his energy policy is based on increasing domestic oil and gas production.

Last week, the House voted to ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida and on the grounds of national monuments. And Congress has shown little interest in adopting the president’s plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

”The Democrat leadership is constraining our economy,” Mr. DeLay said, in an ”energy straitjacket.”

He accused Democrats of trying to ”choke off every promising source of domestic energy” and added, ”Their actual objective must be to eradicate America’s energy security.”

…Nearly all the Democrats (voted) to block Great Lakes drilling.

Even just this year, Democrats in a House committee voted to block oil drilling off the coast of California. Even during a period of soaring oil prices, Democrats are working hard to sabotage the American economy.

March 12, 2008 Article

Published: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 1:07 p.m.

Bill banning oil drilling wins endorsement

A bill that would permanently bar oil drilling in the waters off Sonoma County could soon face a U.S. House vote after the measure won committee endorsement Wednesday.

Not surprising, is it? The Democratic Party has articulated their opposition to domestic oil drilling many times.

July 30, 2007 SF Gate Article

Monday, July 30, 2007

Democrats, in taking back the House from Republicans, promised to tilt the nation’s energy policy away from oil drilling…

May 13, 2008 CNN Article

Pelosi argued that more drilling is not the answer…

So, if more oil drilling isn’t the answer, would less oil drilling reduce prices? Honestly, how stupid can you get? The reason oil rose to over $130 per barrel is because people are willing to pay that price, or they have no choice and must pay the price.

The fact is that when the world markets were flooded with oil, prices were low. Now that everything has grown, Democrats still insist that limiting domestic supply of oil is the correct course of action. Obviously, they are oblivious to the law of supply and demand.

Make no mistake: job losses are directly attributable to the high cost of oil.

United Airlines Cutting 1,100 Jobs

United Airlines said Wednesday it will discontinue its low-fare airline, called Ted, retire aircraft and cut up to 1,100 more jobs in an effort to lessen the impact of high prices for jet fuel.

Continental Airlines Cutting 3,000 jobs

DALLAS - Continental Airlines Inc. said Thursday it is cutting 3,000 jobs and reducing capacity in the fourth quarter by 11 percent, citing record fuel costs that have pushed the airline industry into a “crisis.”

But Democrats still cannot make the connection between energy prices and the economy. Each and every time the DFL has hauled oil industry executives before Congress in what amounts to nothing more than a public flogging, the oil company executives have given the same answer: allow more domestic drilling. And every time, the Democrats have ignored them, insisting that the proper course of action is to block oil drilling.

To demonstrate the idiocy of Democrats, here is a video of an oil company executive telling them that if they want to reduce prices, they must allow domestic drilling

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lI4OHVTNzlg

Transcript

Oil company exec: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down, and the $5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.

Democrat Maxine Waters: And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing… Uh… Will be about… Basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.

Look how stupid those Democrats are. They are given the answer to the question they asked and they completely ignore it, just like they’ve been ignoring it for years.

Now all of America is paying the price for the idiocy of the Democratic Party. And we will be paying for years to come.

You must keep one critical thing in mind: Democrat voting strongholds have the lowest academic achievement in the modernized world. It’s a fact that cannot be disputed. What’s more, intelligence, not income, is the primary determinate of academic achievement. It makes sense that smart people will do better in school than dumb people, right?

So, if Democrat communities have the lowest academic achievement and academic achievement is largely dependent on intelligence, what conclusion can we draw?

Now we can understand why these Democrats keep getting elected: Democrat voters aren’t very bright. No matter how badly the DFL screws them over, they will continue to vote Democrat.

Recent CNN Article About Gas Prices Causing Job Losses