U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.

U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.. This headline is chilling and ominous. And if you combine that article with this one- Kuwaiti Daily Reveals: Iran Building Secret Nuclear Reactor - and it should be obvious that Iran has no intentions to curtail Nuclear Activities.

The big question about this mess is WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

Supply and Demand - Not Speculation

There is a great amount of frustration and anger about the current price of gas. Everybody is looking for someone to blame. Currently the blame is being placed on Speculators. But Speculators are not the problem. Our CONGRESS is the problem. They deserve our ire and anger for our gas woes. It is Congress who is keeping supply low. Low supply and high demand equals high prices.

John Stossel accurately describes the roll of Speculators in his article, Bless the Speculators.

In fact, the hated speculator is a good guy because his buying and selling reduce volatility and uncertainty in an unpredictable world. He may only be out for his own profit, but that doesn't matter. As Adam Smith wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest".

We all speculate to some degree. For instance, if you fill your tank today, even though it is only half empty, because you expect the price to be higher when your tank is empty, YOU are Speculating. When the farmer decides what to plant in the Spring, he relies on the Speculator to give him an indication of what the harvest price will be. He does not have to wait until he harvests the crop to find out what his income will be from the crops he produces.

The prices of commodities often change unexpectedly, making business risky. The speculator brings a degree of certainty to otherwise risky ventures. When supplies of a commodity are plentiful and prices low -- but speculators expect the price to rise later -- they buy -- cushioning the collapse of prices. When supplies become scarcer and prices rise, they sell -- easing the shortage and lowering the price. Also, speculators may agree to buy a commodity in the future for a price locked in today. This reduces the risk for an oil producer or farmer who fears investing because he doesn't know what price his product will sell for next year.

Airlines are a good example for the benefits of Speculation. They know because of the Speculators, what their fuel prices will be 6 months or more in the future. Therefore, your ticket price can be set, and remain stable, in the future. If not for Speculators future Contracts for Fuel, Ticket prices would become very unstable. Fluctuations in fuel costs for the Airlines, would be passed on to passengers. That could mean DAILY changes.

As a result of these activities, volatile supplies and prices are evened out over time. Occasionally, speculators increase volatility. Markets are never perfect. (Although they are better than government regulation.) But in general, speculators increase liquidity and keep the market on a more even keel. This makes long-term planning easier for everyone.

Unfortunately neither John McCain or Barack Obama have shown any grasp of basic economics. The fact remains that if supply were higher, prices would be lower. Basic economics 101 states that when Demand out paces Supply, Price increases. Our Congress is contributing to the low supply by not allowing Domestic Production in Coastal Waters, Alaska and the Rockies. Some of the Proven Domestic Reserves could be producing by next year, some not for 5-10 years. But the announcement of these Domestic Reserves would cause the Speculators to bid the Crude price down, because the Future Supply is Going UP.

Why Go To War In IRAQ?

Should we have gone to War in Iraq is a question for the historians to decide. Despite that fact, almost all of us have strong opinions about whether President George W. Bush was correct in doing so. It is a question on which the next Presidential Election may be decided.

To help separate the emotion from the fact, Today's Edition of "The Wall Street Journal" contains a First person account of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Why We Went to War in Iraq By DOUGLAS J. FEITH opens with this paragraph.

A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary. [Italics & Quotation Marks in original; Emphasis mine]

The phraseology of this quote (bold portion) is important and clarifies the President's position. President Bush chose to take an action as President and Commander In Chief which was a necessity.

President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

This is one of the few articles which includes the first Bush as part of the problem. Considering this statement comes from someone who was a party to the discussions, it is very revealing. Mr. Feith makes it clear that he believes that As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq that if President Bush had had another choice, he would have made it.

Mr. Feith also details the views of the other Presidential advisors who participated in these confidential meetings.

In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.

It is clear from this "behind the scenes" view that many options including the risks and their consequences of the actions were considered. In other words, this was not a reckless quickly made decision. Rather it was a very deliberate, reasoned, responsible action only taken after much input form many sources.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?

This debate started before 9-11. In fact on July 27, 2001, more than a month before the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent the following memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:

"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.

"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .

"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."

It was however, the events of 9-11 which solidified the President's decision. Again it is pointed out that more evaluation and review took place before a course of action was undertaken. The President was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

Note to the Left: There is no claim that Saddam or Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks. A point often mis-stated by the left.

2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction. [Emphasis mine]

Again there is no claim of operational activity by Saddam or Iraq concerning 9/11, although Saddam did support terrorism and applauded the 9/11 terrorists.

3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.

The preceding paragraph clearly summarizes what attempts had been made to contain Saddam. After a dozen years, it was clear the attempts were not working.

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

The preceding paragraph makes clear that conditions were becoming worse. And more importantly, there was no indication that without intervention, conditions would improve.

5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.

Together these five reasons make clear that President Bush is a leader willing to take a risk for the benefit of the US as well as the rest of the world. Mr. Feith's makes this observation.

Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea. [Emphasis mine]

There will be those who debate the actions of President Bush, but based on the information available at the time, President Bush made the correct decision to invade Iraq and remove a danger to all in the form of Saddam.

Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.

President Bush and his actions will be interpreted by Historians. They will use 20/20 hind site to make judgments and analyze the decisions of our current President Bush. One good place to start this process is Mr. Feith's first hand accounts of events. Don't be surprised if the decisions, judgments and analysis of President Bush's Iraq policy are favorably judged by the future.

Change

Senator Barack Obama has claimed the word "Change" for his Campaign. But that's not the "Change" I had in mind.

Change as in Change of Mind, Change of Attitude or Change of Strategy are more along the lines of my thinking. Change can be a good thing. Change is an indication of maturity and sound judgment. Change shows a willingness to adapt and adjust to the situation. In this sense of change is a positive value.

Whereas lack of the ability to change is inflexibility, rigidity, stubbornness and foolish. Failure to adjust, adapt and overcome (change) is an indication of weakness, lack of vision and therefore a negative value.

But change can also be negative if it is done too often. Too often is just as bad as never for a leader. Changing positions too frequently is called Flip-Flopping. Flip-Flopping is another sign of weakness, vacillation and is not one the characteristics desirable in a leader.

Therefore it is unwise to label any Politician a Flip-Flopper because of a change in position, attitude or strategy. If something isn't working, it makes sense to change to make it work. With any change the analysis must include the answer to the Question "WHY?", before an accurate assessment of the reasonableness for the change is determined.

John Kerry changed his position on almost every issue so often he was correctly tagged with the label of Flip-Flopper. Barack Obama has changed his position on his Church Matters, Presidential negotiations without preconditions and the Iraq situation at present that he is very close to fitting the Flip-Flopper definition.

George Bush (43^rd) has on rare occasions made changes as conditions warranted. The Surge in Iraq, and now he and John McCain have both changed their attitudes toward allowing Oil and Gas Exploration/Production in Coastal US waters. While the Democrats have bellowed "Flip-Flop" loudly, these changes do not a Flip-Flop make.

Cuba is allowing China to drill only 60 miles from our shores. Personally, I would rather have US safeguards and regulations control of the activity this close to our land. After Katrina, Wilma and Rita we lost about 1,000 Gulf Rigs without an oil spill. Will the Chinese Standards be this good?

Leadership is recognizing an opportunity and taking action. The opportunity is to become more petroleum independent. The action is removing the restrictions. The restrictions may have made sense when oil was $35 a barrel, but at over $120 a barrel, the possible negatives are far outweighed by the positive benefits.

In real estate the catch phrase is Location, Location & Location. The World situation catch phrase is Drill, Drill & Drill. Thank you John McCain and George Bush for taking the lead and speaking out in favor of an idea whose time has come.

John Murtha's Apology - AWOL

In November 2005 an incident took place in Haditha, Iraq. 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children allegedly were killed by US Marines as a deliberate act of revenge. Time Magazine reported the incident but it was Representative John Murtha (D-PA) who pronounced them GUILTY OF MURDER while the case was still under investigation. On May 17, 2006 the following story was posted on msnbc: Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’.

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." [Emphasis mine]

There were also 8 "bad guys" and one Marine killed at Haditha. Charges were brought against 8 Marines as a result of the investigation which followed.

Today, according to this article Haditha charges dropped against top Marine officer, a Judge dismissed the charges against the highest ranking officer, who while not present at Haditha, was charged with Violating a Lawful Order and Dereliction of Duty.

Military Judge Col. Steven Folsom dropped all charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who was accused of violating a lawful order and dereliction of duty, at a hearing at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in Southern California.

This action means that of the 8 Marines charged 6 have had the charges dropped and one was acquitted at his court marshall. None of the Marines has been found guilty of any charges, although One Marine still remains accused of wrong doing as Haditha.

The accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still faces court martial. The proceedings against him, however, have been put on hold pending the appeal of a pretrial ruling.

John Murtha, a former Marine himself, not only violated one of the most sacred Democratic Guarantees, (presumption of innocence), but has failed to apologize for his disgraceful pronouncement.

It is for the bad example of Democratic Principles as shown by John Murtha that he is hereby presented the Scales of Injustice. I am sure that as one of the unindited Abscam defendants he will appreciate the award.

OBAMA WILL CUT TAXES OF MIDDLE CLASS and MORE

That sounds like good news for most of us. This AP article, Obama says he would cut taxes for middle class, reports that Senator Obama maintains he can accomplish a middle class tax cut and more by exercising a more hands-on approach than John McCain.

Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into "green energy" and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.

He outlines for us the benefits of his proposals.

Speaking to about 200 people in Wayne, a Philadelphia suburb, Obama made no new proposals but emphasized earlier ones in light of rising gas prices, inflation and job losses. They include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.

And this is how Obama will pay for these benefits.

Obama said he could pay for his programs by eliminating the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, winding down the Iraq war and spending more on alternative energy programs that eventually will save money.

If you have watched any infomercials you have heard the next sentence. "BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE". And true to the to this tradition of selling a bill of goods, Senator Obama add this.

He said employers should be required to set up retirement saving plans for workers even if they contribute no money to them. Workers would automatically be enrolled unless they choose to opt out, he said. That way, he said, "most people will save more."

BUT DON'T CALL YET.

He also vowed to spend $150 billion over 10 years to establish a "green energy sector." It would require greater fuel efficiency in cars and devote more money to solar, wind, and biodiesel energy.

Not mentioned in this report, but part of the Official Obama Blueprint for change is the doubling of Foreign Aid to $50 Billion a year.

Time for a Reality Check. Separating taxpayers into 3 classes (lower, middle and upper) by per cent of total number of returns with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) greater than Zero, defines the Middle Class. The IRS latest released figures are for 2005. These figures separate the positive AGI taxpayers into 2 main groups - Top half and bottom half. The top 50% are further broken into sub groups.

These figures reveal that the Top Half paid 96.93% of Individual Income Taxes, and the top 25% paid 85.99%.

Stated another way THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHOSE AGI IS IN THE BOTTOM HALF OF TAXPAYERS PAID JUST OVER 3% OF ALL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES. And 75% OF ALL INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS PAID JUST OVER 14% OF ALL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES.

Note that those 75% of all positive AGI Taxpayers WHO PAID 14.01% OF ALL INCOME TAX INCLUDES ALL OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. This group also includes 8% of the Upper Class.

Other interesting figures disclose that the highest 10% paid better than 70% of all individual income taxes; the top 5% paid almost 60%; and the TOP 1% PAID BETTER THAN 39% OF ALL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES. We already have a highly graduated income tax system. Can we really expect the Upper Third of Individuals, who already pay about 90% of all individual income taxes to pay more, without increasing the tax rate for all? What's fair? is the question. While you consider your answer, remember that 90% already comes from the upper class.

For comparison, in 1980 the Bottom 50% of Individual Income Taxpayers with a positive AGI paid just over 7% of all individual income taxes. In the most recent 25 years of the IRS figures, the bottom half share of individual income taxes has fallen almost 60%. At the same time the highest 25% of positive AGI returns have seen their increasing share of Individual Income Taxes rise form 73% to 86% of all Federal Individual Income Taxes. The top 25% have seen their share increase more than 3 time the decrease of the lowest 50% of Individual Income Taxpayers.

Now look at corporate Income Tax rates. Currently the US rate is 39.3%. That is the second highest rate in the developed countries of the world. Only Japan is higher and then only 0.2%. Germany, UK, Australia, Spain, Mexico, Canada and Ireland are all lower in the Industrial Countries of the World. In fact Ireland's rate is 12.5% - less than one-third of the US rate. (Source: Corporate Income Tax Rates Around the World)

Added to the cost to Corporate America, Obama's desire to increase the minimum wage to $9.50/hr, mandatory Corporate employee retirement plans, re-doing our NAFTA Treaty and mandated higher fuel costs due to bio-fuels, Energy Restrictions and oil company "Windfall Profits" taxes is it any wonder jobs go overseas? (Ah, maybe that's what Obama means by reducing middle class income taxes - if you eliminate their jobs, there's no income to tax.)

While that may seem like a snide remark, the reality is that's what will happen. The oil company record profits are not "windfall profits". Industry wide the oil companies have an eight per cent (8.3% to be exact) profit margin. That's below the profit margin for all manufacturing. The gross profit figures are so high because the oil companies are so large, and remember these oil companies already pay 2 to 4 times as much in income taxes as they keep in profits. "Windfall Profits" go to the owners of the Reserves. These are currently Foreign Countries NOT subject to US Income Taxation.

Saving money by withdrawing from Iraq sounds good too. But a withdrawal of Troops before a diplomatic and peaceful end of the underlying causes will only result in our having to return at much greater expense and loss of American Lives. The cost now is nothing compared to defending our shores if we pull out before a victory.

Taxes represent Our Money. Taxes represent the greatest source of Government Dollars. Considering the way Senator Obama wants to spend OUR MONEY, can we really afford him?

Global Warming - A Fraud & A Scam

John Coleman makes this claim. More on that in a moment.

First Who is John Coleman? A Google search for John Coleman turned up this:

John Coleman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

John Coleman may be:

* John Coleman (Australian footballer)
* John Coleman (author), British spy and author
* John Coleman (British footballer)
* John Coleman (Medal of Honor), Medal of Honor recipient
* John Coleman (news weathercaster), founder of The Weather Channel
* John Coleman (VC), Victoria Cross recipient
* John Coleman (British author and psychologist)

In baseball

* John Coleman (outfielder/pitcher) (1863-1922)
* John Coleman (1890 pitcher) (1860-1915)
* John Coleman (1895 pitcher) (1873-1925)

Disambiguation Notice This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same personal name. If an article link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman"
Categories: Lists of ambiguous human names

Certainly an interesting group of people all named John Coleman. The John Coleman we are interested in is John Coleman (news weathercaster), founder of The Weather Channel.

This John Coleman is very experienced and very knowledgeable about all things Weather Related - including Global Warming. He has spent a lifetime studying and reporting weather, climate and related issues. As one who has had a distinguished career, the founder of the Weather Channel, has come to the conclusion that Global Warming is not a settled issue. His credibility dictates we should listen.

With this background information about John Coleman, we are back to the Fraud and Scam issue. Mr. Coleman currently works at KUSI-TV in San Diego, CA. He contributes to a blog of sorts (Coleman's Corner) on the stations web site. Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas is where Mr. Coleman makes his case.

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The data supports Mr. Coleman, and he makes that Clear. In this article, Mr. Coleman gives us a great description of Who, What, When and How this Fraud/Scam has been promulgated.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2[sic] to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

That's a powerful group of advocates, but it is not settled yet according to climate researchers.

On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.

It is time to end this myth. Global Warming is more of a Natural Cycle of Earth. It is NOT a Man-Made catastrophe.

If you are concerned about the Global Warming issue, read John Coleman's comments and Statements. The links above will take you there. We are being hood-winked and it is a serious issue.

Ye Shall Be Known By The Company Ye Keep

Are we judged by the company we keep? Most of us would say yes. Another Way of saying Birds of a feather flock together. Ex-Friends of Barack in "The Wall Street Journal" on-line seems to make the same point.

It turns out that Jim Johnson was not the man Barack Obama thought he knew.

Seems we've heard this line before.

Mr. Johnson now joins an intriguing and growing list of Mr. Obama's ex-associates that includes the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and former terrorist bomber William Ayers. We might call this list eclectic, except that there is a consistent pattern of bad judgment followed by an initial defense, then followed by rapid disassociation and regret that none of them were the men Mr. Obama "knew."

Could there be another in the near future?

We can only wonder if Eric Holder, who is also among Mr. Obama's veep vetters, will be the next to join this club. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, he played a role in the Marc Rich pardon that also deserves to be fully vetted – all the more so if Mr. Holder is on the short list to be Mr. Obama's Attorney General.

Senator Obama emphasizes "Change" as something needed in Politics. Is this the kind of "Change" we deserve?

Are We Nuts, Or Just Insane?

The title is not a rhetorical question. It is a serious question about our Domestic Energy Policy. $4 Gasbags published in the Review and Outlook section of the on-line edition of "The Wall Street Journal" contains the following: hence the title.

Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank. [Italics in original; Emphasis mine]

Our elected officials are elected to REPRESENT our best interests. Currently national polling data indicates almost 3 of every 5 voters considers the Exploration, Development and Production our DOMESTIC OIL and GAS Reserves our BEST INTEREST. But ...

Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.

So the Chinese think we are NUTS and the Saudis cry for us all the way to the bank.

We deserve a better Representation from Congress and this includes both Senator Obama and Senator McCain. The amount of Reserves are staggering. We have enormous Domestic Reserves, but 97% is either off limits or undeveloped.

While energy "independence" is an impossible dream, there's no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.

The other nations of the world are watching us self-destruct while shaking their heads in disbelief. On this issue we are the crazy Uncle in the Attic.

Before the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2006, it was the Republicans who controlled the Domestic Energy Reserves. The issue was in favor of the Environmentalists up to the Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed era. Now the pendulum has swung the other way because in 2006 the price of gas was around $2 a gallon. Since the Democrats have become the majority, the price has doubled and the Average Joe and Jane have decided it is no longer OK to restrict Domestic Energy Production.

Unfortunately the most of the Democrats, (and a few Republicans) have not seen the writing on the wall. "It's the Energy Policy, and the High Cost of Gas, Stupid." We need to start now, because it will take 5-10 years to bring our Domestic Reserves to Market.

Yes, we know, increased drilling is no energy cure-all; new projects take about a decade to come on line. Then again, more than a few experts say that new production could affect price as the market perceives a new U.S. seriousness to increase supplies. Part of today's futures speculation is based on the assumption that supplies will remain tight for years to come, even as Chinese and Indian demand surges. [Italics in original]

In other words, just announcing a change in the Domestic Energy Policy would have a stabilizing effect on the price of energy. It is simple Economics 101 "The Law of Supply and Demand". Changing our Energy Policy is one step to greater Independence. The additional necessary step of increasing Refinery Capacity is the next step in this process.

Nor would merely repealing the exploration bans be enough. Between 2000 and 2007, the drilling of exploratory oil wells climbed 138%, but over the same period domestic crude oil production decreased 12.4% and fell to the lowest levels since 1947. Refineries for gasoline are stretched to the limit, but multiple regulatory barriers impede new construction or even expansions at existing facilities. Then there is the inevitable lawsuit downpour from the environmental lobby.

The public (voters) generally blame the Party in power for economic troubles. In this case that means the Republicans. And it can be fairly said that until 2006 the Republican Party was the problem, now it is the Democrats and the Congress they control who are the problem. Blaming the Republicans for the mess now is like blaming the motorist who ran the red light for the accident while the victim is bleeding in the street. It is time for the Democrats to call 911.

Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won't be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.

So far the Democratic Party is refusing to recognizing they are the problem. They hold Committee hearings for Oil Executives to point fingers of blame instead of accepting responsibility. Jimmy Carter tried this some time ago - it didn't work.


Alas, John McCain has failed to capitalized on the opportunity. Hopefully the Republican Minority in Congress will.

Political Pandering?

This Reuters article, Obama says he would impose oil windfall profits tax, has an interesting lead paragraph.

RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies as he sought political gain from Americans' pain over high gasoline prices. [Emphasis mine]

As this blog and many others have pointed out, there are no Oil Company windfall profits. It is the Oil Producing Countries which are reaping the Windfall Profits. See here, here and here.

Surely Senator Obama realizes this fact, but he is playing to emotion, not reason - For Votes. Right now gas is at an all-time high, so it is politically expedient to appeal to our pain at the pump.

The Democrats have publicly stated that they will implement the same type of measures that Jimmy Carter did when he became President. By imposing a "Windfall Profits Tax", the Oil Companies have less money to solve the price problem. And as during the Carter Administration, prices will continue higher, production will decrease and out dependence on FOREIGN OIL will increase. None of these are good things for the pocketbook.

On top of this, the Democrats want to raise the Corporate Tax Rate. At 35% it is already the SECOND highest rate among industrial nations of the world. Democrats in Congress have put 85% of our DOMESTIC Oil and Gas Reserves off limits. Add to this the increase in Minimum Wage, and the rapidly accelerating rate of demand for petroleum products by China and other rapidly developing Countries is it any wonder the price of Gas is forecast to increase?

Senator Obama is a very intelligent person, possibly the most intelligent Presidential Candidate we have had since Woodrow Wilson. He chooses his words very carefully and ALWAYS leaves wiggle room with weasel terms. Notice he does not say the Oil Companies have Windfall Profits, but IF they do he will tax them. He is a master at making statements which sound great, but have no meat.

His ideas and pronouncements make us feel good, but he has no plan to implement. We should be asking How and at what Cost.