Public Law 112-95 - The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011

This bill should really be called "The Bleed The Taxpayer Dry Act of 2011", inasmuch as it has authorized funding for the FAA of approximately $3.35B per year for the period 2011-2014. The costs for this one government project are $100.69 per person (and increases their $49,752.84 share of the national debt to $49,853.53 [source: Congressional Budget Office] ). Just what we don't need - another $13B+ of debt.

 

According to WashingtonWatch.com, this "law" - as is true with most legislation - was basically sold to the highest bidder! In the House, whichever side provided the greatest monetary incentive - Yea or Nay - got the nod (with a handful of exceptions who apparently voted for the people). All of Utah's representatives voted for H.R. 658 - now PL 112-95 - and in the Senate, Orrin Hatch chose not to vote at all.

 

Have our lawmakers not heard that we are not only BROKE, as a nation, we are in debt (primarily to China) to the tune of $15.6 TRILLION DOLLARS! Since September 27th, 2007, our national debt has increased at the rate of $4.02B per day! And there is no end in sight!! Has everybody in Washington D.C. gone totally INSANE? How will we ever pay off such indebtedness? Increase taxes levied upon the citizens, of course. Perhaps not directly as "taxes" per se, but by insinuating "fees" and "charges" into everyday activities. An example is the 1% transaction "fee" on each and every banking transaction, as proposed by the Obama administration. Make a deposit - personally or by Direct Deposit - of $1,000 and your account is debited $10 for the privilege of making that deposit. Write a check for $500 and your account will reflect a $5 "fee" for that transaction... a business transaction in which the government itself has no investment of time, labor or money! What is the difference between this activity and "protection money" paid by small business owners to street thugs? Such a governmental action is nothing more than legalized (by imperial fiat) extortion of the taxpayers!

 

Can we stop this financial bloodletting by our elected representatives? Maybe... but ONLY if we let them know that we are onto them, and that we will do everything we can to insure they are not re-elected if they continue along this path.

 

As I said in my opening paragraph, this is only ONE of the hundreds of pieces of cost-ignorant legislation passed by Congress each year. If we allow it to continue, perhaps we are as stupid and indifferent as they seem to think we are. If so, we deserve whatever they choose do to us!

Who Will Be America's Next "One-Eyed Man"?

The evidence from the 2008 election clearly shows that the USA is truly the land of the blind... for "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King." Our current one-eyed man sees himself as King, but he is in the now underwhelming minority (no pun intended). Understand that - at best - the one-eyed man has no depth perception, and this one is in WAY over his head yet he continues to dig. But that's not really the main thrust of this blog post... it's really intended for those who practice or endorse 'religionism'.

For my entire life (well, up until 9/11/2001) I supported everyone's right to believe as they may choose, so long as their beliefs caused no indentifiable difficulties for anyone else. We KNOW who the Democrats will run for the office of POTUS, but who will oppose their one-eyed socialist-progressive? The only viable opposition is whoever the Republican Party nominates. There is no "third party" strong enough yet to overcome the political machines of either of the two established parties, much less the two combined. There is no single "write-in" candidate, with the national name recognition or personal popularity (with the possible exception of Justin Bieber - who doesn't meet the age requirement) to oust the incumbent. That leaves us with the Republican nominee - whosoever he or she may be - as our only hope to restore our Constitution and save our Republic!

I am politically non-aligned. Why? Because I don't believe either of our two predominant political parties have the best interests of our country in their collective minds! As of this writing the Republican field of potential nominees has been reduced to a single handful. Of these five, it appears that - at this time - Mitt Romney will prevail as the Republican nominee for POTUS. I'm not WILD about any of the offerings of either party, but I shall vote for any viable candidate who runs against NObama. What does Mitt have that is working against him as the successor to NObama? His personal arrogance (which is quite common among politicians), RomneyCare (which is only about a nickels difference from NObamaCare), and his religious belief system. The first two items are easily understood by most people. However, his religious belief system is not well-regarded by most mainstream Christians, simply because they don't understand it. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which many mainstreamers consider to be a cult.

I happen to live in Utah (aka: the Land of Zion), and I am not an active member of any religion - which allows me to be a bit more objective than many folks. Although I am not an "expert" on any religion, I have been exposed to many religious belief systems during my lifetime, and find that the LDS/Mormon Church differs from the Christian mainstream in only minor ways. (The following is anecdotal in nature, and is not the result of intense study or exhaustive statistial analysis...)
The Mormons are believers in Jesus the Christ, they are not Satan worshippers.
The LDS doctrine is Bible based, however, their "Bible" is a bit different from that of the mainstream Protestants and Catholics (which, btw, also differ from one another), as is their manner of worship. Although written by man (as are all books), they believe (as do all "Christians") that their bible - and the "Book of Mormon" - are "the inspired word of God" (nobody's "holy book" has ever been carved in stone by a lightning bolt).
They do not perform sacrifices of any kind - human, animal, vegetable, or mineral.
Neither the Mormon congregates nor their leadership have horns - which some people actually believe.
An LDS house of worship and "altar" is quite minimalistic compared to that of the Catholic Church, and impresses me as similar to those of the Baptists, Methodists and Evangelicals. There are no unnecessary decorations; no stained glass, no banners and no representation of the crucifixion of Christ on display. There are no frills or gee-gaws in a LDS Church.
IMHO, the Mormon Church - as an organized body - does a much better than "average job" of shepherding/guiding and caring for their own... and - frequently - assisting those who are not members of their church.
John F. Kennedy, a member of the Catholic Church, was elected President even though there were those who believed that - as a practicing Catholic - he could not win the election because his first allegiance was to the Pope.
On the whole, I see where the "gentiles" (those who are not of the LDS faith) really have nothing to fear from the LDS Church membership or leadership. They are generally responsible, good and caring neighbors who will lend a hand when needed.

We all have our personal faith-based belief systems, even if we put our faith in non-belief, and that's why these beliefs are referred to as our "faith". Mitt Romney may not be a "saint" in the generally accepted sense of the word, but then, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". We tend to fear that which we do not understand, and accept as fact those propositions which feed into those fears.
RomneyCare is virtually identical to NObamaCare, so there's no real point in discussing it. It's expensive on both ends, and - in violation of the Constitution - the government is telling us how we must spend our money. Where do we get the qualified medical personnel to effectively care for 50,000,000 (fifty million) additional patients in a timely manner... as in, before many of them die from lack of, or insufficient treatment?
That takes care of the few negatives surrounding Romney's campaign. What positives are there?
Romney is a successful businessman, he is an experienced state executive and he claims that he would seek to reduce the size of our government. The people of Massachusetts seem satisfied with his job performance, but that doesn't mean that the entire country would be equally satisfied with him at the helm of our "ship of state". And all politicians claim to want whatever it may be that their audience of the moment desires. Sadly, we are more-or-less forced to vote for the one whose lies are most in agreement with our own desires for our country. We will never find a candidate whose position is completely in agreement with ours... unless we run for the office ourselves!

My personal mantra for November of 2012 is:

ANYBODY BUT NOBAMA!

If NObama is re-elected, the United States of America LOSES!!

The preceding is just one man's opinion, and most of us know what opinions are like... if that's true, we have an "opinion" sitting in the Oval Office!

WELCOME COMRADES... WE ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU!

On Wednesday, May 24th, 2010 my blog headline proclaimed,

"RIOT SHOTGUNS ORDERED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!"

At that time, I posed the question "WHY does the Department of Education need combat-ready riot shotguns? Well, today the answer was provided to me by the NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights) in an email. I quote from that email...

______________________________________

"Have you ever had student loans?

Did you ever think that the Department of Education would send their SWAT teams in to collect on them, if you did?

If you’re anything like me, you were probably surprised to find out that the Department of Education even has a SWAT team.

What on earth for?

In this day and age of ever-increasing government intervention and militarization, even seemingly-benign agencies are training and using heavily armed agents against citizens.

In Stockton, California this week, one such unit of “operators” -- a term almost exclusively used to refer to military special operations personnel like Navy SEALs and Delta Force -- was used to assault the home of a person who owed money on their student loans.

The man of the house and his children were drug out into the street in their underwear by ski-masked thugs working for the federal government.

“They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids,” the man said.

And it wasn’t even him that the police were after.

A lot of people mocked some of the statements about the so-called Patriot Act, but this story is a perfect example of how police state action can get wildly out of hand quicker than most realize."

________________________________________________

One would think that defaulting on a student loan would be like failure to repay any loan, and it would be incumbent upon the lender to initiate litigation against you in order to get a court judgment for the total amount (or the outstanding balance thereof). What's next? A visit from the Bank of America Goon Squad, instead of just repossessing that 1988 Yugo that you were two weeks late making that last payment on?

It sounds like something the Russian Government would do, using the KGB or FSB...

But then, we ARE dealing with a liberal-progressive, socialist-Marxist-style government now, aren't we? It also occurred to me that the government itself has defaulted on repaying the money the Congress embezzled from the Social Security Fund... and THAT'S why Social Security is in the dumper! Should we send a battalion of old people to D.C. to arrest Congress?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

VIOLENCE AND SEDITION - What Will The Left Think Of Next?

Interestingly, the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats in government have labeled those of us who attend TEA Parties as "inciting violence" and "seditionists". Obama finds us "amusing"... your President finds concerned Americans who disagree with the direction in which he is sailing our "ship of state" to be "amusing"!

I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.

Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.

The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.

Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.

Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.

I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...

Obama's Lack of Cojones Shows As He Hides to Sign Omnibus Spending Bill

Your left-wing President was so embarrassed by the pork laden Omnibus Spending Bill, submitted for his approval today, that he chose to sign it in private! No media, no photographers, no anything that would record him in his moment of shame. He did NOT have to sign the bill. He chose to do so, in spite of his campaign promise to "eliminate earmarks" (earmarks is politspeak for PORK). He could have simply said, "No. I'm not signing this as it is. I promised the citizens of this country to eliminate earmarks, and this has almost 9,000 of them." Fini - end of discussion.

Instead, he now vacillates, and restructures his campaign promise as "I will eliminate unnecessary earmarks." Pork is pork! All good Muslims know that. It therefore follows that ANY pork is too much pork. How do we define political pork? If there is little or no return for the citizenry of that region or state against the cost of the project itself, it is PORK! A study of the Entertainment Preferences of the Toe-Sucking Swamp Rat of California is pork ... a verifiable improvement of a state- or county-run hospital is not pork. Bridges to nowhere are pork, as are $120,000 per week fuel expenditures to fly Nazi Pelosi round-trip to California - and that doesn't include the salaries of the flight crew, or wear-and-tear on the Boeing 757 we are paying for!

I was sent an original idea today, for which, unfortunately, I cannot claim credit. It goes like this: on April the first send a tea bag in an envelope to "Current Occupant", 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C. 20500, as a subtle reminder that the government is the servant of the people, not the master, and that they serve at our pleasure even though we may be somewhat less than pleased. Displease us too much, and we have a Constitutional right and obligation to remove and replace that government ... assuming "we the people" have more cojones than your President has shown. A few million tea bags may just get somebody's attention ... assuming anybody is paying attention to what the people want.

I could be wrong about this ... (and Barack Obama could act like a leader instead of the puppet of Nazi Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al) but I'm NOT!

Political Plums Being Harvested Already - Leon Panetta To Head CIA ... Was Sean Penn Unavailable?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to lead the CIA, which has been widely criticized for harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects..."

I don't know who to feel the most sorry for - Obama for his stupid choice for CIA Director; Panetta for being so far out of his element; or the American people ... for having to suffer a fool in either office! Kiefer Sutherland, based on his "experience" as Agent Jack Bauer in the TV show 24, probably knows more about the internal operations of the CIA than does Leon Panetta. Panetta is best known as President Bill "Zipper" Clinton's Chief of Staff, and as a budget expert who tamed deficits in the Clinton White House. I'm confused ... how do either of these positions - or anything else in Panetta's résumé - qualify him him to oversee the largest single intelligence function of the United States Government?

So far, it appears that not only do we get a President with no proven qualifications, now he has shown himself to be foolish enough to surround himself with equally unqualified cabinet members. Or, does his Cabinet provide a buffer zone of deniability, selected by careful design to insulate Obama from policy failures? Is there more treachery afoot than meets the eye?

Obama's first really big mistake will be to turn his back on Israel. I could be wrong ... but I'm NOT!

Monsanto Chemical: Buys Government, Scares Press, and Sells Out Public!

Where is the hue and cry from all the government agencies that "protect" us, or from the so-called independent press, that supposedly is "looking out" for us.  Monsanto (previously Monsanto Chemical) - the folks that brought us the unforgettable Agent Orange, among others - like the relatively innocuous Roundup weed killer.  However, what happens when you start manipulating the market to eliminate the competition?  How do they do that?

First you start by genetically modifying produce - like corn, soybeans, or wheat - to make them resistant to Roundup and similar products.  Next you back-engineer one of your other products - like fertilizer - to include Roundup in it.  Something like Monsanto's "Asgrow Roundup Ready" or "Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  From the Monsanto website: "This is a new proprietary seed treatment from Monsanto which will be commercialized in conjunction with the launch of Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  Monsanto offers "Simple, flexible and dependable weed control you expect from the Roundup Ready system.", and "Powerful genetic trait combinations created through our advanced breeding process deliver higher yield potential than other brands."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what we're talking about is Frankenfood!  And it's not just soybeans ... Monsanto has genetically modified corn, wheat, and God only knows what else to resist Roundup.  Can you see where this is going?  Modify the seeds to resist a weed poison, then include the poison in either the pod or the fertilizer, to kill those pesky weeds.  So far, so good!

But, there's an unanswered question here too - How does the Roundup not get absorbed into the produce it's protecting from weeds?  It doesn't!  We are unknowingly and trustingly ingesting toxic materials with almost every item we are being sold as food!  Have you eaten a nice steak, or enjoyed a good hamburger recently?  If so, then you should familiarize yourself with the acronym BGH - Bovine Growth Hormone.  Have you wondered why your 10 year old daughter is sprouting breasts already?  There's your answer - BGH!  Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.  BST can be produced synthetically, using recombinant DNA technology. The resulting product is called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. It is administered to the cow by injection and used to increase milk production. Currently Monsanto is the only company that markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the trade name Posilac.  According to Monsanto, approximately one-third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with Posilac; approximately 8,000 dairy producers use the product. It is now the top-selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S.  Use of the recombinant supplement has been controversial. While it is used in the United States (though not without reaction), it is banned in Canada, parts of the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.  Is there a reason for this ban?  Are they perhaps more concerned with the welfare of their citizens, than our government is for OUR personal well-being?

Monsanto's lawyers scared Fox television affiliate, WTVT/Fox-13 in Tampa, Florida so badly, the station manager fired two staff members who had done an investigative reporting piece after they refused to modify the story to appease Monsanto.

Monsanto is running roughshod over our citizenry in their (thus-far successful) attempt to bribe, intimidate, threaten and otherwise leverage those who would question the negative human health factors of Monsanto-produced  Frankenfoods.  Our complacency as a nation will be our undoing.  I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

OPEC Tries Leveraging Non-OPEC Oil Producing Countries!

The following was extracted from a Reuters News Service article dated November 15, 2008 -

"TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran's OPEC governor said on Saturday talks were underway on cooperation between OPEC and producers outside the cartel to reduce oil output, following tumbling crude prices in recent months.

"Now there are negotiations that non-OPEC countries cooperate with OPEC to lower output to some extent because if they don't ... or if they increase output, they have neutralized OPEC's action," Mohammad Ali Khatibi said in an interview broadcast live on Iranian state television."

OPEC's obvious intention is to attempt to further damage a struggling world economy, while OPEC members continue to bathe in money. The question then becomes: How can the United States protect itself from energy banditry by OPEC? OPEC is made up of people who would have no petroleum industry had it not been for western exploration, organization and technology.

Here's a brief history of the development of the petroleum industry as it exists today:

1. Oil drilling began in the U.S.A. in 1859, and wasn't taken to the middle east until 1901 when the first oil concessions were contracted with Persia (now Iran).

2. 1917 - The U.S. produced two-thirds of the world's oil!

3. 1932 - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was created as a sovereign nation, and in 1933 the first oil concessions in Saudi Arabia were granted to Standard Oil of California.

4. 1937 - Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia and, in 1945 U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and King Abdul Aziz of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, make an agreement whereby military protection of the Kingdom would be provided in exchange for oil supplies.

5. 1948 - Ghawar, the world's largest oil field, discovered in eastern Saudi Arabia.

6. 1950 - Completion of the 1,056 mile long Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPline). The Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company, a joint venture by Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso), Standard Oil of California (Chevron), The Texas Company (Texaco) and Socony-Vacuum Oil Company (Mobil), was a major factor in economic development of Lebanon after independence and especially in the emergence of the south. TAPline was an important industrial adventure in global trade, the petroleum industry and American-Middle East politics.

7. 1953 - United States and Britain staged a coup d'etat against the democratically elected government of Iran's President Mohammed Mossadeq after he nationalized oil resources.

8. 1956 - Renowned Geophysicist, Dr. M. King Hubbert gave a speech outlining "the science of peak oil," in which he predicts US peak in 1970 and world peak in mid-1990s (the latter might have happened if the 1973 oil embargo had not reduced consumption).

9. 1960 - Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) formed.

10. 1961 - Iraq makes effort to seize Kuwait, stopped by British military.

11. 1964 - World oil discovery peaks.

12. 1965 - Middle East oil production exceeds that of the United States.

13. 1968 - Oil is discovered on the Alaska North Slope by British Petroleum Corp (BP).

14. 1969 - Oil is discovered in the North Sea.

15. 1971 - US petroleum production peaks.

16. 1973 - The Saudi oil embargo results in gas lines in the United States. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger secretly contemplate seizing oil fields. The Alaska Pipeline is approved by Congressional vote, thereby exempting it from Federal law.

17. 1974 - Arab oil embargo ends.

18. 1975 - Oil drilling begins in North Sea.

19. 1977 - The Alaska pipeline opens ... President Carter gives a televised speech declaring that the energy crisis is the "moral equivalent of war."

20. 1979 - Gas lines return. On July 15th, 1979 President Jimmy Carter gave the following impassioned speech to America (emphasis added) - "What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.
...In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God's help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail. Thank you and good night." (Point one didn't exactly come to pass, and now we're paying the price for it - again.)

21. 1988 - Alaskan pipeline production peaks - hits maximum output at three quarter billion barrels a year

22. 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait. The United States Central Command is engaged in a war game exercise called "Internal Look" at this time that simulated Iraq invading Kuwait. In mid-August the United States starts sending troops to Saudi Arabia, Operation "Desert Shield" beings.

23. 1991 - Operation Desert Storm - US drives Iraq out of Kuwait, decimates Iraqi infrastructure.

24. 1993 - NAFTA Treaty established, which gives the United States some powers over water and fossil energy resources in Canada and Mexico.

25. 1994 - In March of 1994 Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, stated the following:
“The United States and the entire industrialized world have an enormous stake in the security of the Persian Gulf, not primarily in order to save a few dollars per gallon of gasoline but rather because a hostile regime in control of those resources could wreak untold damage on the world’s economy, and could apply that wealth to purposes that would endanger peace globally.” Wolfowitz concludes, “Given this permanent stake in the security of the Persian Gulf, the Gulf War provided an opportunity to base security on a foundation of credible commitment by the United States and its coalition partners.”

26. 2008 - The world sees oil prices top $140 per barrel, and watches as gas pump prices skyrocket.

Okay - I did say a brief history (covering 150 years in 26 points isn't excessive), and that pretty much brings us up to date. Prices have dropped significantly in October-November, but that will change if/when OPEC gets its way. What we need to do in order to protect our interests is to DRILL NOW! However, with the radical left taking control of our government in January of 2009, we undoubtedly will not do anything we need to do to insure our Nation's security - physical-, military-, economic -, or energy-security.

I could be wrong .............. and I HOPE I AM!

(but, I seriously doubt that I am ... )

Standard Liberal Voting Position

A GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T PROTECT ITS OWN PEOPLE ~
Has President Bush lost what little mind he had? First it was allowing US Border Patrol Agents Compeon and Ramos to be incarcerated for doing the job the government hired them to do - protect our southern border. Then he goes begging OPEC for increased oil production, instead of increasing our own refinery production capabilities. Now he wants to prosecute an American soldier for target practice on some paper! Okay, so it was the Q'uran the soldier shot holes in ... so what? Call it "freedom of expression", which is constitutionally protected. It's still basically just a book with paper pages! It's not like he killed an Iraqi, cut off his head, set fire to his body, and dragged his smoldering remains through the streets of Baghdad!

What should be done? A Presidential Pardon for Compean and Ramos would be a good start. Follow that with an embargo against OPEC oil for about 2 weeks, which should get their attention. As for the soldier ... he was "punished" by being sent out of Iraq, and now Bush wants him prosecuted! Okay - give him an Article 32, a reduction in rank, deduct the cost of the ammunition - and for the replacement Koran we gave the Iraqi government - from his pay, and give him a Bad Conduct Discharge. When will our government officials stop puckering up every time some illegal alien or Muslim bends over? And when will they begin supporting Americans, instead of providing them as sacrificial lambs for some international barbecue?

I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!