The word is that Barack Obama will be announcing his Vice-Presidential nomination very soon. Many people say it is to blunt the scuttlebutt that he did very poorly in the “debate” at the Saddleback Church. Well, he did do very poorly in the “debate” because he does not really want the American public to know where he stands on those issues.

Abortion is one issue that Obama probably wishes would not be brought up this campaign season. When the issue came up to ban partial-birth abortions, he was the only State Senator in Illinois that voted against the measure. In fact, he was even in favor of a bill that would have allowed doctors to kill babies born alive after an abortion. That is a position that even NARAL would not take. NARAL would like abortion available for the 9 months of pregnancy, but even they would not advocate killing a baby born alive. If abortion becomes a hot topic in the discussions, Obama’s position on abortion in Illinois will come out and many people will walk over broken glass to vote against him.

During the “debate” Barack was asked when a baby obtains rights. This is another way of saying, when does life begin. Obama said that it “was above my pay grade” to make that decision. That is hiding from the question. Everyone who has ever been pregnant or known someone who has been pregnant has asked that question. Everyone who has asked the question has come up with their own answer. The fact that he will not tell us what his answer is, is very telling.

With Obama now ready to announce his choice as his nominee for Vice-President, we get a glimpse of what he sees as his weakness. The three people mentioned as his selections are: Evan Bayh of Indiana, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Evan Bayh of Indiana would put Indiana in play for the Democrats. Indiana is normally a Republican state and has been since the dawn of creation. Selecting Evan Bayh would give the Democrats a chance to capture the electoral votes from Indiana. Evan Bayh would also give the ticket some foreign policy experience. Senator Bayh has been on the foreign relations committee for years. His big drawback is that he is extremely boring. He does not add much to the ticket except for foreign policy experience and a chance to pick up Indiana.

John Kerry from Massachusetts is the former Presidential nominee of the Democrat party. As such, he has been vetted. Everything that could be thrown against the wall against John Kerry has been thrown against the wall and so there would be no surprises. John Kerry would also give the ticket some foreign policy credibility. The problem with John Kerry is that he would not add any additional states like the other two candidates. He did get the most votes ever for a losing Presidential candidate. There was a lot of energy for his campaign and that may help this ticket.

Tim Kaine of Virginia is the Governor of Virginia. He has only been Governor of Virginia for a short time, but that gives him some executive experience which all of the other choices lack. He does not bring any foreign policy experience. He would put Virginia in play for the Democrats. It is a more valuable prize than Indiana. Selecting Tim Kaine would indicate that Obama thinks that executive experience is more important than foreign policy experience to help the ticket. It would also be an indication that he thinks Virginia is more important than Indiana.

Who would be the best one for him to pick? That is a good question and one there are numerous possibilities to look at. Selecting John Kerry would allow the Swift Boat Veterans to come out and hammer on him for his lies about his military service. John Kerry and the Democrats still think that Swiftboating means that someone lies about your record. Swiftboating means that someone is telling the truth about your record.

Selecting Evan Bayh would indicate that Obama thinks that foreign policy is the most important issue. It would also mean that two Senators would run on the same ticket. That pairing has never won the Presidency in the entire period of selecting Presidents.

Selecting Tim Kaine would indicate that Obama thinks executive experience is the most important. The ticket could be hammered as incompetents when it comes to foreign policy.

It really does not matter who Obama picks as his running mate. Nobody adds enough to the ticket to get rid of his negatives. That is his real problem. The only person that might be able to balance out Obama’s negatives would be Newt Gingrich and that ain’t gonna happen.

Over the weekend, both John McCain and Barack Obama met with Rick Warren, Minister of the Saddleback Church in California. The two candidates talked to Rick Warren for an hour then came on stage and waved to the crowd. The contrast between the two could not have been greater.

Barack Obama was his typical self, trying to hide what he really was. When asked when he worked across the aisle and against his party, Barack answered that he contacted John McCain about a bill reducing the perks available to lobbyists. This occurred when Barack was first elected to the Senate. According to Barack Obama in this interview, he followed through with his commitment. The truth is that the Democrat leadership got to Barack and told him that there was no way they were going to work with a Republican before the 2006 election. As a result, Barack did not follow through with his commitment. John McCain sent him a letter stating something to the effect that he now knows what good Barack’s word is. 

Barack Obama tried to hide his position on the California ballot proposition on marriage. He opposes the ballot proposition, yet during the interview it appeared that he did not oppose the ballot proposition. Though, he did add the provision that he did support civil unions. That is not the same as supporting gay marriages and he knows it.

John McCain on the other hand came across as genuine and human. When asked a question, he would give a direct answer or tell a story that would give the answer. An example of this is when he was asked about adoption. John McCain said that Teddy Roosevelt talked about adoption and that inspired him. Then he told about Cindy going to Bangladesh and meeting Mother Teresa. While there, she was shown two children that would not survive. When Cindy got home, she told John, “Meet your new daughter”. That daughter is now 17 years old.

Every time John McCain and Barack Obama have a chance to meet at the same time and place, the same thing happens. John McCain looks like a real person. Barack Obama looks like someone that is trying to hide something. That is going to make people question why they would want to vote for someone who is trying to hide something. I want the person I vote for to be open and honest. If they are less than honest, it really makes me question why I would want to vote for that person. Does that mean that if my candidate tells even one lie that I would not vote for them, no. It would have to be a pattern of deception, not a single case or even two. Everyone has a faulty memory at times and everyone makes mistakes. You cannot shoot yourself in the foot because someone makes a mistake. If the person has a pattern of deception, then that is a problem. Then it is time to start looking for someone else to vote for.

There are also some revelations that have come out about Obama in the past couple of days that are interesting. One is that there is a registration page when he was registered for elementary school in Indonesia. It lists his citizenship as Indonesian and his religion as Muslim. Barack was about 6 or 7 when this registration page was filled out. Does it make him unqualified to be President? No, but there are questions that need to be answered.

The second is that Barack was the Chairman of a foundation started by his good friend Ayers. Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground and participated in bombings and maybe even killings in the 1970’s. The investigator that discovered this bit of information was to go and look at more information on the foundation. Just before he was to arrive in Chicago to look at the information on this foundation, the University of Illinois told him that he could not look at the records. There are some real questions involved in this association as Ayers has never renounced his terrorist past and still advocates terrorism today. Obama tries to make Bill Ayers look like your neighborhood banker or college professor. Bill Ayers is a radical leftist and still is today. He promotes radical leftist ideas in his classes at the University of Chicago. This relationship may be one that really sinks the Obama candidacy when it all gets out in the sunlight.

The Russians are trying to have it both ways in Georgia. They agreed to the cease fire agreement that was also agreed to by Georgia. In the agreement, they were supposed to pull their troops out of any territory that was part of Georgia.

Since they agreed to the cease fire, the Russian troops have continued to move toward the capitol of Georgia and cut the country in half. This would stop the supplies that Tbilisi needs to survive from arriving. To paraphrase a Russian, what can they do to us? That is exactly the problem. What can be done to stop the Russians from throwing their weight around in places that are not Russia but are close to Russia?

We made a missile agreement with Poland on Thursday. This agreement was basically on hold for months until the Russians moved into Georgia. Then, the Bush administration decided that we better put some teeth into American words. We will be putting anti-missile missiles into Poland. We will probably also put anti-aircraft missiles there as well to protect these missile sites from destruction by Russian planes. This is a shot across the bow of the Russians. We are telling them that this is not the Soviet years. We will defend those free countries that were former prisoners of the Soviet boot.

This does not mean anything for Georgia right now. We are sending humanitarian relief into Georgia. That will help them recover from the attacks by the Russians, but it will only be good if the Russians are not there. If the Russians are still shooting people, the humanitarian aid is worthless. There is no-one to distribute it if the Russians are shooting people.

There are a number of ideas floating around on what to do to the Russians for their attack on the Georgians. Charles Krauthammer has an article that details them rather well. I will briefly discuss the main points.

The Russians need to sell their products to the world. Being a member of the World Trade Organization would be a big boost for them to sell their products. We should block their application to the World Trade Organization. This will make it more difficult for them to sell their products on the world market. That will make it more difficult for them to get foreign capital.

They are part of the G-8. This is a group of the most advanced economies in the world. The Russians were invited to join to make them feel like they are important. They should lose their place in this group. Either the group should be dissolved and reformed as the G-7 or the Russians should be expelled from the G-8. The best option would be to dissolve the G-8 altogether as it was formed to solve a problem in the 1970’s and is no longer serving that need.

The winter Olympics in 2014 is to be held in Russia. Charles Krauthammer says that we should boycott the games. That would punish the athletes. The better option, suggested by Hugh Hewitt, would be to move the 2014 games to a country that was formerly a Soviet satellite. That would embarrass them a lot more than having teams boycott the games in 2014. It also would not punish the athletes that train for years to participate in those games. Our boycott of the 1980 games punished our athletes and did not punish the Soviet Union. They still had their place in the sun to show the world the Soviet system. The Soviets boycotted the 1984 games in Los Angeles. That only hurt the Soviet athletes. The 1984 games were some of the more successful games ever held.

All of these ideas are to punish Russia in the future. What can be done for Georgia right now? There is not much that can be done. We cannot send troops as we just do not have troops available to send. NATO will not send any troops from European nations as they only have token forces. If they send any troops, their countries will not have any troops left to defend their homelands. You would have to have at least 50,000 soldiers on the ground in Georgia to make a difference. There just are not enough soldiers available right now to send. Also we could not send enough heavy units to make a difference with the Russian tanks that are leading the Russian attack. It would take a couple of weeks to build up a force necessary to fend off the Russians. The Russians are already where we would be sending the soldiers to start their defense of Russia. That means that militarily we are just out of options right now.

The other interesting thing that has come out of this is we got to look at the soul of the people that lead this country and those that want to lead this country. John McCain was the first to respond to the Russian attack. He has been to Georgia and knows what is going on there. He immediately attacked Russia and demanded that the Russians withdraw. George Bush was a little slower on the response, but his response was almost the same as McCain’s. Obama on the other hand had a first response of blaming both sides for the war and wanting the UN to come in. There are two things wrong with this statement. First, the war is being fought inside Georgia. That means that one side is attacking the other. One side is therefore at fault. Second, Russia has a veto on what the UN will or will not do. Russia would not let the UN stop the war until they had finished what they wanted to do. Anyone with an 8^th grade education should have known that Russia has a veto on the Security Council of the UN. It shows us that McCain and Bush understand the world and how it is dangerous. Obama does not understand how the world works. He only wishes it to work a certain way. When it does not work the way he wishes, he does not know what to do about it. Experience counts and it shows in these responses to this emergency.

There is word that the revolt by the House Republicans and the American people is getting to the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. She is seriously considering bringing a “comprehensive” energy bill to the floor for a vote. This bill should be called “Democrat Cover” energy bill.

Whenever you see the word “comprehensive” as part of a bill, you have to be concerned. When it was used in relation to immigration, it meant that amnesty was part of the equation. As I understand the bill at this time, the comprehensive energy bill will allow drilling off the coast of only 4 states, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. It would allow drilling only 50 miles or more off the coast. It would include a tax on the oil companies and other Democrat pet projects. It would still leave out of bounds all of the areas that have known oil reserves in the US. But, because it would allow any drilling at all, it would give the Democrats cover for the fall elections. That is all they really care about anyway.

If the Democrats put a billon the floor that allowed drilling in the places where oil is really available, they would not receive any funding from their main source of campaign funds, the environmental lobby. They have to put a bill like this out there to allow the Democrats up for re-election cover. They can say that they were taking action to relieve the gas price crunch. The fact that the bill would do nothing to reduce the price of gasoline is immaterial. They would have taken action on a bill and the people that do not follow politics regularly will think that the Democrats have taken action to solve the crisis. They will be surprised after the election to find out that the bill did nothing to solve the energy crisis. It just made the energy crisis worse.

The Republicans in Congress will just stomp their feet and say that this is not what they meant when they say that they wanted a vote on an energy bill. The Republicans want a vote on a real energy bill that would allow drilling where there is oil and also encourage other sources of energy. The Democrat bill will only allow drilling where there is little chance of finding oil and embarrass the oil companies on the leases they currently have. The current leases do have oil on them in spots. There is just not enough oil there to justify drilling for oil at this time. Some time in the future when oil prices get high enough there might be justification, but not right now. That is why Nancy Pelosi keeps bringing up the 68 million acres of leases that the oil companies currently have. The Democrat bill would force the oil companies to drill there or forever lose the right to drill anywhere.

The Democrats want to play like they are solving our energy problems. They have no intention of ever being part of the solution. They always want to sound like they are part of the solution, but never actually be part of the solution. They want the Republicans to be painted as the problem. Never mind that the Republicans have come up with numerous ways of solving the energy problems in this country. The Democrats always want to point to the Republicans and say they are the problem.

The Democrats are famous for pointing at Republicans and saying that the Republicans are doing something bad. When you look at the facts, the people really doing those acts are the Democrats themselves. This is another case where the Democrats want to be perceived as part of the solution while not solving anything. The best example of this is Social Security. Social Security will be broke within the next few years. How long it will take depends on who you talk to. The agreement is that it will be broke within the lifetime of many that are just now starting to receive it. But, if you talk of ways to reform Social Security to make it solvent, the Democrats howl like they have just been shot. They do not want the problem solved. If the problem gets solved, they cannot keep using it as a campaign issue. Every election the Democrats scare old people by saying that the evil Republicans are going to take their Social Security away. When the Republicans come up with ways to solve the crisis and make Social Security solvent, the Democrats point to the solution and say “look, there the Republicans go taking away your Social Security.”They want problems to be there as campaign issues. They do not want to actually solve any problems.

The problem is that people actually think that Democrats want to solve problems. If people ever figure out that the Democrats only talk about solving problems and never actually solve them, there would never be another Democrat elected. Whenever a Democrat puts forth a solution, it becomes just more of the problem. It never solves anything.

This energy bill that the Democrats put forth will be more of the same. It will be touted as the bill to solve all our energy problems. It will not solve any energy problem. It will just make our current energy problems worse.

The Republican members of the House are still there in the House Chambers every day letting Nancy Pelosi know that she is shirking her responsibility. There is some indication that Nancy Pelosi is starting to feel the pressure. She is letting Democrat House members say that they will approve drilling for oil if there is a vote. Of course, she knows that she will never let a vote be held, so the Democrat House members are safe from ever making good on their pledge.

There is another item that has to do with energy and global warming that is on the table, proposition 10 in California. Proposition 10 would make wind power important in creating electrical energy. The early polls show that it has a good chance to pass. The proposition is also backed by T. Boone Pickens. The main company that would benefit from this proposition is: Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE). T. Boone Pickens started CLNE and is the main stockholder.

Michelle Malkin did some checking and discovered that Nancy Pelosi purchased some stock in CLNE when it was first offered to the public. She owns about 22,000 shares of stock. She purchased the stock for $14 per share. The stock is currently trading at $10 per share. If this proposition passes, the stock price would escalate dramatically.

Wind power is unreliable as a source of power. The wind does not blow all of the time in any single location. That means that you have to have a backup regular power plant to cover for the times when there is no wind. That minimizes any reduction in greenhouse gasses that would result from using wind power.

The other problem with wind power is the towers needed to generate the power. The propellers used, no matter which type, are a hazard to birds. Birds cannot see the propellers when they are moving and will run into them on a regular basis. That means a drastic reduction in the amount of birds in the areas near wind power plants. If the wind towers are not being used and the propellers are not moving, the towers are not a hazard to the birds. In fact, the birds will land on them and use them as perches.

Proposition 10 in California would give about $10 billion to CLNE to create wind power generating plants in California. CLNE already is receiving $12 billion to produce wind generated electricity in the panhandle of Texas. The wind power plants in Colorado have had to be shut down because of equipment problems. These wind power plants are being used by the Democrat National Committee as an offset for the carbon footprint of the Democrat National Convention in Denver. How can wind power plants that are not in operation be used as a carbon offset for the Convention? That is a question that only a liberal environmentalist could answer. (A liberal environmentalist is one who thinks they know everything about what goes on in the environment, without any training in what goes on in the environment)

This entire operation sounds to me like Nancy Pelosi wants to line her own pockets before she worries about solving the energy crisis in the country. If we drill for oil, her stock in CLNE will become almost worthless. If we do not drill for oil and try to use wind power to make up for the oil, she stands to make tons of money. As Rush Limbaugh says, “follow the money”. In this case, we follow the money right into Nancy Pelosi’s pocket. That is one of the main reasons she does not want a vote to allow drilling. She stands to lose over $100,000 if drilling is approved. If it is not approved, she stands to make millions. You do the math and see if you connect the dots like I have.

Russia has invaded Georgia. The Russians are claiming that the Russian population in South Ossetia is being mistreated by the government in Georgia. To stop this outrage, they decided to invade South Ossetia and reclaim this territory for Russia. They have pushed out the Georgia military and are now bombing in the capitol of Georgia. They crossed a recognized international boundary with no provocation. The population of South Ossetia was trying to rebel from their government. The Georgian military was there to put down rioting by the people that were rioting.

John McCain and George W. Bush came out strong for our ally in Georgia. They severely criticized the Russians for invading Georgia and called on NATO and the world to stop this aggression. They put the blame right where it belongs, at the feet of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The Enlightened one, Barack Obama, first came out and blamed both countries for the fighting then he decided that the Russians were at fault and called on the UN to stop the fighting. The UN has not stopped any fighting in its entire history, what makes him think that the UN would stop Russia now. Also, Russia is on the Security Council and would veto any resolution that made it to that level for approval. The UN would do nothing, if they would do even that much.

This action by Russia is very similar to action by Germany and its actions against the Czechs that helped start World War II. At that time, they claimed that they were entering Czech territory to help ethnic Germans who were being mistreated. A short time later, WWII broke out and millions of people died because nobody stood up to Germany entering Czech territory. Everybody allowed Germany to take the Czech territory and make it part of Germany. They did that to help avert the war that Hitler wanted. If the world had stood up to Germany at that time, WWII may have been averted or delayed until the other powers could have built up their militaries. That would have stopped Germany when it actually decided to go to war. By giving in to Germany and thinking they had peace in their time, they were mistaken and unprepared for the war to follow.

Let us hope we learned from the mistakes made in the late 1930’s with Germany. Russia is now ready to enlarge its boundaries to at least the size it was when it was the Soviet Union. There are many free countries that are going to be made puppets of the Russian Bear if we do nothing. We need to be prepared to stand up to the Russian Bear and keep him in his current boundaries. That means standing up to Russia now and making them stop their aggression. It also means being prepared for the next time that they decide to enlarge the boundaries of Russia. McCain will be ready. Obama will be emulating Neville Chamberlain and looking for the good in Vladimir Putin that is not there. With Obama, Russia will be back to the boundaries of the old Soviet state. This time they have the oil money that enables them to spend enough to keep up with the US. We cannot outspend the Russians this time. This time they will be able to keep up because of the oil money they receive.

That is another reason why we need to drill for oil everywhere we find it in American territories. We need to become as energy independent as possible. We need to reduce the amount of money we send to those who want to do harm to the US. We send a lot of money to the Middle East where they turn around and give it to the terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they can.

One stupid idea that Obama had was to sell sweet crude oil from the US oil reserve. Sweet crude is the easiest to make into gasoline and other petroleum products. He wants to replace it with cheaper high sulfur crude oil that is much more difficult to refine into gas and other products. In other words, he wants to make the US oil reserve less able to meet our needs when an emergency occurs. That is really poor planning. If we release sweet crude, we should replace it with sweet crude. If we release high sulfur crude, we can replace it with any type of crude we want. Any improvement in the reserve would be a net plus.

We need people in leadership that understand the dangerous world we find ourselves in. Barack Obama is living in a fantasy world. He has no concept of the danger that lurks outside of the US. Electing Obama as President is asking for the US to be attacked sometime within the next four years. Anyone with a brain can see that one coming, except for the supporters of Barack Obama.

Last week, Barack Obama faced a tough questioner. This questioner was relentless. The questioner tried to trick him with generalities, and then hit him with the hard hitting question while he was not looking. The questioner was only 7 years old. The question was, “Why did you run for President?”

Barack was unable to answer the question for a while. He stammered and used his usual “uh…uh…uh”, while trying to figure out what to say. He finally came up with that he felt America was not what it once was. America was not what it could be. He did not want that future for his children.

What kind of answer is that to a 7 year old child? To a child, you say that America is the greatest place on earth, which is undeniable. Then you say that America has some problems that you want to help fix. Or maybe you say that America is great, but you see her heading in the wrong direction. You never tell a child that America is less than great. You want to develop a sense of America’s greatness in children. Then, when they become adults they can have the love of country that will allow them to sacrifice to keep this country great and free.

I am very surprised that Barack Obama did not have a stock answer right in his back pocket that he could pull out. He had to make one up on the spot. That was the reason for using uh so many times. That is a question he should have been asked many times by many reporters. He should have been prepared for that question. It was a softball question delivered by a child. It was not the sneak attack type of question that destroyed Michael Dukakis in his debate with George Bush. Michael Dukakis was asked what he would do if his wife was attacked. Dukakis said he would have to think about it. When Dukakis said that he would have to think about it, his lead in the polls evaporated almost overnight.

This may not be enough to derail the Obama machine. But, there are chinks in the armor that is Barack Obama and they are becoming more visible all of the time. Sooner or later, there will be the campaign moment that will define the Obama campaign where he will have to fish or cut bait. Up to now, every time Obama is put on the spot, he is found wanting. Somewhere there must be a backbone in Obama. As a mammal he has to have one. But, as a Presidential candidate, he is not showing that he has one.

Obama’s other big problem is that he cannot think on his feet. If he is given a question that he does not know the answer, he fumbles the answer every time. That will really be a problem when the debates come in the fall if the questioners ever ask a question that Obama’s handlers have not anticipated, like; why did you run for President. If Obama has cue cards he can do well. He reads well and can deliver those words that he reads better than most people. He just cannot think and talk at the same time. People want a President that can think and talk at the same time.

The last big problem that Obama has is his past. He has tried to sanitize his past in the campaign. People that were important to him in his books are not important to him in his campaign. A couple of examples are: Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright. There are others that gave the fledgling Obama a boost to find that he does not know who they are now. The financial dealings with Tony Rezko may jump up to bite Obama. I read a blurb that his home purchase may have tax implications that were not satisfied. That would be a real black mark if it came out after the Democrat convention in Denver. There are questions on whether Obama was born in the US. People have tried to get the Obama campaign to release a copy of his birth certificate. The campaign released a copy of his sister’s birth certificate with the name and date changed. That has raised additional questions about whether he was born in the US or if outside the US, did his mother qualify as a US citizen. McCain’s questions were asked and answered quickly. Obama’s questions are not being answered in a timely manner. The last question from his past is whether he was ever a Muslim. There are people that say that he was a good Muslim when he lived in Indonesia. Obama says that he never was a Muslim. Obama will not let anyone release any records in Indonesia in relation to this question. Again, this raises more questions than it answers. If you want people to believe you were a Muslim, this is the way to do it.

Obama’s entire campaign team seems to think that they do not have to answer any questions. They seem to think that they are above being questioned. They believe that if they say it everyone must believe it and there are no questions allowed. The campaign has to know that everything said in a campaign is subject to question. I do realize that with most of the media doing the bidding of the Obama campaign, they do not get many questions. There are a couple of journalists with integrity that will ask questions. These are the ones that are being stonewalled.

This morning on the way to work, I heard an interview that Michelle Bachmann did with Bill Bennett. She was talking about the need to drill in Alaska in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She visited there recently and can speak about what is actually there. 

A few weeks ago, Michelle Bachmann started showing up in Townhall.com and I did not know who she was. I started reading some of her posts because they had interesting titles and got hooked. She is very intense and will not take no for an answer. When people started talking about ANWR, she wanted to know what it actually was like there. Not what people said was there, but what was actually on the ground. So, she got a few colleagues in the House and went to ANWR.

What she found in ANWR was a treeless plain. There are mountains visible a long way off in the distance. The mountains are part of the refuge, but are not part of ANWR that is being considered for the leases. She only visited the areas being considered for leasing for oil. She went in the summertime, so the area was mostly wet with some pieces of land interspaced between the marsh areas.

In talking with Bill Bennett, Michelle mentioned the Alaska pipeline. When it first opened, it carried 2.1 million barrels of oil a day through the pipeline. Now, we are down to 700,000 barrels of oil a day that is flowing through the pipeline. When the pipeline gets to 300,000 barrels, the pipeline will be forced to close down as uneconomical to use. If the pipeline were to close down, it would cost upwards of $15 billion to rebuild the pipeline. That is, if we could get the Democrats to agree with rebuilding the pipeline. Democrats think the pipeline is destroying the wildlife. The wildlife is thriving in the areas near the pipeline because of the shelter and warmth provided by the pipeline. We need to use the pipeline or we will lose it and probably never get it back.

Drilling for oil on ANWR will only be on about 4,000 acres of the vast refuge. All transportation in and out will be during the winter. During the winter the ground is frozen and the trucks and other equipment can come in and not harm the environment. When it thaws, there is no evidence that anything ever went across the ground. The only evidence that oil will be removed will be the oil drilling pads. These will be built on the solid ground portions of the wildlife refuge. The marshy areas would be a poor area to build an oil drilling pad. It would be too unstable to hold the heavy rig and would be prone to fail.

I am not sure how they plan to get the oil out of the refuge area after they pump it out of the ground. It would seem logical that they would link all the drill sites together with pipelines and then pipe all the oil out from the one collection point.

Michelle Bachmann estimated that if Congress passed legislation today, it would be three years before we would actually see oil appear from ANWR. Gas prices would go down almost immediately after the Congress passed the authorization for drilling. That is because the speculators would know that the price of oil in the future will be lower than it is today. Therefore, they will bid the price of oil down. Speculators get the blame when the price of oil goes up because they see that we do not want to bring the price of oil down. When they see that we do want to bring the price of oil down, the price of oil will come down. That would mean lower gas prices for all of us at the gas pump. As I mentioned yesterday, all economists know this. It is so much common knowledge that you cannot get an article printed in an economics magazine that says the price of oil will go down when we start drilling in ANWR. The rejection letter the authors have said that everyone knows this except for economists working for Democrats.

That rejection letter is so funny because it is so true. The Democrats seem to live in their own fantasy world. There is one world where all of us live and another where Democrats live. In the Democrats world, everything is like in, “Alice, Through the Looking Glass”. If you want to go up, you go down. If you want to go right, you go left. Those of us in the real world know that the Democrats live in their own fantasy world. The Democrats think that they live in the real world and that it translates to everything. That is why they can tell you something you know is false and do so with a straight face. That is also why; almost everything the Democrats say is completely false.

The long anticipated energy plan from that guru of energy ideas has finally been released. Paris Hilton released her energy plan last night. Other than some minor differences, it is basically the same as that of those Republicans of the House that are still in Washington demanding that Nancy Pelosi bring the House back into session and John McCain. Barack Obama also released some more ideas from his energy plan and they are no more realistic than the first ones.

Paris Hilton is for developing alternative energies. She thinks that we should spend time and effort developing wind, solar and nuclear power. To tide us over the hump, until those are viable, she advocates drilling in American sources to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. The order is different, but the same themes are put out by the Republicans and John McCain.

Barack Obama said in a speech yesterday that we should develop an electrical car that will get over 150 miles per charge and we should eliminate all foreign sources of oil within 6 years. Those sound great in a speech, but are impossible to produce on the ground. I would love to eliminate all foreign sources of oil within 6 years. I know that cannot happen. We will never be able to eliminate all foreign sources of oil until we eliminate our use of oil entirely. That will not happen for a very long time. The electric car idea is one that will happen, in time. We are developing better batteries for use in electric cars all of the time. Some time in the future, we will have one that will go 150 miles between charges. Right now, we can only go about 40 miles before we have to recharge the battery. That makes the electric car impractical for use in most situations right now.

It is pretty sad when a celebrity, that has absolutely no history of using the brain she was given, comes out with a better energy plan than a Presidential candidate who has millions of dollars and lots of experts. But that reminds me of another story I heard on Hugh Hewitt yesterday about what would happen if we drill for oil in the US. Some authors wrote an article that stated that if we drill for oil in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) that the price of oil would dramatically be slashed around the world. Their article was not printed because it was so widely known by economists except for those hired by the Democrat party. The last sentence is a paraphrase of a sentence from the rejection letter they received on why their article would not be printed. It was telling to me that they would have specified that everyone knows that the price of oil would be slashed except for those in the Democrat party. I was driving or I would have written the quote down.

What we have here is an impasse. We have one party that believes that action should be taken now. That party believes that we are in a national emergency and as such action is necessary now. The other party is trying to say that it does not matter what goes on, they know more than anyone else. Since they do not believe there is a problem, there is no problem. Since they say that drilling for oil will not bring the price of oil down, the price of oil will not come down.

One party is responding to their constituents and saying, “do something now”. The others are responding to their money donors and are saying that we should not do anything. They are privately saying to their individual members that if they need to advocate drilling to save their seat, they should advocate drilling. That is a no win situation. Their party members will be asking for us to drill and the leadership will not bring the issue on whether to drill now, up for a vote. The Democrat leadership has already demonstrated that they do not care how high gas prices go, they will not allow the issue of drilling for oil in the US to come up for a vote.

Any vote for a Democrat is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House or Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the Senate. Both of them have demonstrated that they do not care about the American people. They only care about the campaign contributions that come in from the environmental groups. We need leaders who will respond to what we as voters want, not what a few environmental whackos want.  

In response to one of my posts yesterday, a person said that we need to allow the Democrat to win so that we can then have a “true” conservative win in four years. On the surface I agree with that statement. After four years of the disaster of Barack Obama, the US will be begging for a conservative to lead. My only problem is with the type of country we would be left with.

Barack Obama believes that when it comes to fighting, running is the best option. Therefore, all that our brave men and women in the military have won in the last few years will be lost in a few months under Barack Obama. We will just be defending the homeland. They will have everywhere else. We will start seeing people die on our streets from terrorist attacks. The typical response from Obama will be to let the local law enforcement office investigate and prosecute these “crimes”. There will be no coordination to stop the attacks as Obama does not believe that they would dare attack the US.

We would no longer live in a free country. We would live in a socialist country. Once you live in a socialist country, it takes a few generations to get rid of the socialism. It only takes a few years to get into socialism, but more than a lifetime to get out. Our healthcare would become like England and Canada. We would have doctor shortages as doctors would retire rather than accept the low wages that are part of socialized medicine. That would mean long lines at the doctor’s office. Urgent surgeries would be scheduled by bureaucrats instead of doctors. That will mean that some people will not get the surgeries that they need to live, this happens regularly in England and in Canada. Once the quota for births has been reached all additional births are on their own, like happened in Canada last year.

Taxes will go up. Unemployment will go up. Recently the national minimum wage went up and the unemployment rate went up. Newspapers did not make the connection, but they happened at exactly the same time. This will happen regularly in an Obama Presidency.

How can I say all of this? I look to the model of Michigan. It has been run by Democrats for almost 10 years and it is almost deserted. Their unemployment rate is the highest in the country. They cannot attract new businesses. All major politicians go there and say how much they are going to do to bring back Michigan’s economy, but they will not say what brought Michigan to this point. What brought them to this point is that Michigan taxes everything and taxes it at a high rate. No wonder that businesses leave and find other places to do business.

Put this on a national level and you will see what will happen. Any corporation that can leave will leave the country and set up shop somewhere else where taxes are better. This will reduce our tax pool driving up the deficit and making taxes rise even more.

What I see from an Obama Presidency is such a disaster that I cannot in good conscience allow it to happen. The only good thing would be that people would be begging for a conservative to lead the country by the time 2012 came around. The problem is that there might not be a country left to run in 2012 if Obama is elected President. He runs from every threat. He will allow Iran to go nuclear. That will allow terrorists to get nuclear bombs. Once terrorists have nuclear bombs, cities will start to disappear in a burst of light and a mushroom cloud. We will be forced to surrender to the terrorists because Obama will not allow us to fight the terrorists. We just might not have a country to hold a vote in 2012. That is why I have to support McCain. He, at least, will insure that there will be a vote for President in 2012. I am not so sure if Obama gets elected.

Something interesting is going on in Washington. The Democrats voted to go on 5 weeks of vacation and left Washington last Friday. The Republicans did not vote to go on vacation and are still there trying to bring the will of the people to a vote. What is the will of the people that the Republicans are so worked up about that they will not leave Washington for a 5 week vacation? It is high gas prices and the solution to those high gas prices.

The Republicans in Congress and the President all agree that the best way out of this high gas price mess is to allow drilling on the outer continental shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Democrats in Congress also know that the best way out of this high gas price mess is to allow drilling on the outer continental shelf and in ANWR. The problem is that if the Democrats allow a vote on this issue, they will have to vote with the people that give them their money, not with the people of the United States. That means they will vote against drilling for oil where we know there are untold billions of barrels of oil. We know that there is at least 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. There is probably 10-20 times that in the outer continental shelf by any conservative estimate. There is more oil under United States Control than in any single country in the world, yet the Democrats do not want us to get any of it. In fact, there is more oil in oil shale than there is oil in Saudi Arabia alone.

Why won’t the Democrats vote on drilling for oil? They know that if they vote with their money people, they will not be elected to Congress in the November. If they vote with the people, so they can get re-elected, they will not have any money to run on for re-election. This is a real dilemma. Nancy Pelosi has the answer, run away. That is her answer to every crisis, run away from it and it will go away.

San Fran Nan as Nancy Pelosi is frequently referred to, came into office as the Speaker of the House and said she had a plan to reduce high gas prices. Since then, gas prices have almost doubled. It is time for her to trot out her plan to reduce the gas prices. She had a plan when she was put in as Speaker; I assume that she still has a plan. The plan seems to be, ignore it and it will go away.

In the Senate, Mitch McConnell had an altercation with Senator Salazar of Colorado over drilling and gas prices. Senator McConnell first started out with an immediate start to drilling. Then he put a trigger on at $5, then $6, then $7.50, finally he stopped at $10.00 per gallon for the trigger. At each level, Senator Salazar objected to allowing drilling. That seems to be the Democrat plan, no drilling no matter how high the gas prices get. They do not care about the average working people or the poor working people. They only care about those large contributions they get from the environmental groups that fund their re-election campaigns where they lie and say they care about the “working people” and hate the “evil” rich. That is a crock. They hate the average person probably more than they hate the rich person. The rich person gives them a campaign contribution, the poor person has to be fooled. The problem is that there are more poor people than rich people. Therefore, they tear down the rich person because they make an easy target.

Nancy Pelosi has to worry about this revolution the Republicans are pulling off. The longer the Republicans carry on, the more likely they are to get publicity from the press. When the press picks up on it the more likely the average person will see the Republican position and say that it sounds reasonable. It is reasonable, especially since just saying we want to drill lowered gas prices about 6%. Imagine how much actually drilling for oil will lower gas prices. That is the message that will get out the longer the Democrats ignore the Republicans and their revolt.

The other offshoot is that if Republicans get credit for bringing the Democrats back from vacation to vote on this issue, the Republicans will get all the good press when it passes. Again, that is not what Nancy Pelosi wants. She wants Democrats to get any good press. If a Democrat was in the White House and this same situation were happening, she would be glad to have a vote and bring down the price of gas by drilling. That would mean huge amounts of votes for Democrats. With a Republican in the White House and the Republicans making a big stink, she is in a pickle. She cannot allow a vote on the issue before the November elections to allow the Republicans a victory. Yet, she cannot allow the Republicans to continue to hammer the Democrats on this issue. She has to find some way to get this issue off of the table without giving the Republicans any victories. She also cannot put any Democrats up for re-election in jeopardy of losing their jobs, either. How she will pull this off will be a sight to behold. I do not see an out for her.

If Nancy Pelosi puts this issue up for a vote, any person up for re-election has to vote to allow drilling or face defeat. That option is definitely off the table. She also cannot allow the Republicans to continue to hammer her on this issue. It is giving the Republicans life in the November elections and she does not want that. She has to find some way to diffuse this issue without voting on it and putting Democrats on record as opposing or favoring drilling.

I can hardly wait to see what she does. No matter how she jumps, she is screwed. At least that is the view from where I sit her in my chair on South Mountain.

It seems to me that John McCain has finally found the way to fight the Obama sensation is with humor. He first hit him with the comparison between Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears and Barack Obama as being just a celebrity. That created a tornado of a response from the liberals. You would think that McCain had compared Obama to Hitler or something the way they carried on so. But, the commercial made the point that Obama is a celebrity and nothing more. He has done nothing worthy of being made a celebrity, he just is one.

The second commercial just came out. It pokes fun at the way the press has been treating Obama. The press treats Obama as if he is the second coming of Jesus Christ. They only show him in pictures that project a religious image. He has a halo around the head and the like. Many people have been calling him the Obama Messiah. The commercial plays on this fever of adoration. It builds on the comments from Obama himself that he can do things that only a Messiah could do. One of these things is to make the oceans recede and also some other similar things like that. Then, near the end of the commercial, it cuts to Charlton Heston in “The Ten Commandments”. That is the point at which you just roll on the floor laughing.

Since liberals in general and Obama followers in particular do not have a sense of humor, they did not take the commercials very well. Their response is more of a, “How dare you”, than anything worth commenting on. That is what makes this even funnier. If they had laughed at the commercials and gone on, the commercials would have been worthless. Because they hit a sore spot, they are priceless. Humor is always better than any other way to tell your story. People respond well to humor. They do not respond well when people are mean spirited.

McCain needs to keep up with the humor and needs to keep poking Obama in the spots where he knows it hurts. Obama thinks of himself as the one person that can solve all the world’s problems. That means that he takes himself very seriously. He will not react well to humor. He thinks that he is too serious for humor. That is why humor works so well on him. He thinks he is above humor and will be offended when it is used. That means keep on using it until things are no longer funny. Remember that Obama believes everything that he says on the campaign trail. That also makes him vulnerable to pokes in the ribs about what he says.

McCain is invulnerable to humor. McCain uses humor on himself all the time. Obama cannot use it with any real effectiveness against him. What humor can Obama use that McCain does not already use? There are few open spots where McCain takes himself so seriously that humor would disarm him. That is precisely why it works so well on Obama. He does take himself that seriously.

Now, McCain cannot hope to win the Presidency with just humor, but it can be a wonderful tool in his arsenal. If he keeps poking fun at himself, he keeps that tool away from Obama. Any time you can keep ammunition away from your opponent in a political situation you should do it. Any time your opponent hands you ammunition to use against him, you should use it. That is just the way politics is played in the United States. If you are not willing to play by those rules, you should not be in American politics. You will not be in American politics for long, because you will lose every race you run in.

Last night, I was thinking about the danger of putting Barack Obama into the White House. It led me to an analogy. The analogy came about because of an article I was reading about baseball.

The situation is this: You are the manager of a baseball team. It is the World Series and it is the seventh game. You can choose between two pitchers to start the game. One of them is a rookie that was called up from class ‘A’ ball (a lower minor league) only yesterday. The other is a grizzled veteran who has been through the season with the team and has played for many years. Which one do you choose? You can go with the promise of youth or the known quantity of experience. If you choose wrong, you could lose the game and the series. If you choose right, the World Series Championship is yours.

Choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain is much like my analogy. Obama is the unproven rookie from class ‘A’ ball. Obama has only been a state senator for a few years and almost no experience as a US Senator. McCain is the grizzled veteran. He has been around for awhile. You know what to expect from him. The choice is one you have to make. The game is the war against Islamo-Fascism. If you choose wrong, the war will be lost and we will have to become Muslim or die. If you choose right, the war will be won and all will be well. We will keep the US and the world will be a much better place to live in.

What do we know about Obama and his positions on the war against Islamo-Fascism? First, we know that he does not believe that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. I am not sure who he thinks we are fighting there, but it is not terrorists. He does believe we are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. He would concentrate his efforts there. His efforts against other Islamo-Fascists like Iran will be strictly talk, no action.

What do we know about John McCain and his positions on the war against Islamo-Fascism? First, we know that he does believe in killing terrorists wherever he finds them. He will be tough on Iran and will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. That may mean going to war against Iran, but it would prevent a terrorist from getting a nuclear bomb that could destroy New York in one bright explosion.

In looking at the two choices, it is obvious that if you believe we are fighting against terrorists you would have to vote for John McCain. If you do not believe that we are fighting terrorists, you would vote for Barack Obama. I do have one question for those who do not believe we are fighting terrorists, who are we fighting? If you do not believe we are fighting terrorists, you should open your eyes and do some research. Then you will discover that the people we are fighting want us either to become Muslim or die. That would be enough for me to want to fight against those people. John McCain will be our best choice for Commander in Chief, not Commander of Chief as Barack Obama likes to put it.

The super bloated housing bill was signed by President Bush yesterday. He signed the bill in secret. That tells me that he really did not like the bill. If he likes a bill and thinks that it is a good idea, he will sign it in public with a ceremony. If he thinks that the bill is not a good idea, but will sign it anyway, he signs it in secret.

This housing bill will do nothing for me as a homeowner. It will not make any money easier for me to get as I already have a loan and am happily paying it off. Even if it did something for me, I would still think that the bill was a bad idea. It is a bad idea because it transfers the risk to the future. That means that my children and grandchildren will have to pay for the short term relief that this bill will give to the housing market. And the relief will only be felt at the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac level anyway. The individual homeowner will not really see any difference in how things are done.

The news media is saying that the bill loosens restrictions on FHA loans. That remains to be seen. It most likely will allow more people that cannot pay loans back to get loans. That will just aggravate the problem in the long-term. In case you cannot tell, I do not have much faith in this bloated bill.

The worst thing the bill does is inject the government into the housing market more than it has been in the past. I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where it says that the federal government should be involved in housing markets. Of course, I also cannot find where the federal government should be involved in most of what the federal government is involved with. I have a copy of the Constitution on every classroom wall in the building I work in. The Constitution also includes all of the amendments that have been approved. Even looking through the amendments, I cannot find any reference to housing assistance. It must have been an oversight by the founders. They saw everything else needed for our country, they must have missed housing assistance.

Every Senator and Representative that voted for this bill should be voted out of office when they come up for re-election. That means all the Representatives in 2008 and 1/3 of the Senators each year for the next 6 years. We will most likely forget about this bill by the time November rolls around, but we should not forget. It is one of those events that should be remembered for all time as a stupid event and the people that pushed it should be reviled as doing something stupid.

It is easy to sell the bill as for the “poor”. Selling it as for the “poor” and it being an election year make it something that no elected Representative can ignore. They have to do “something”. The problem occurred because of actions by the federal government being involved in the housing market. The elected representatives are trying to solve the problem of the federal government being involved in the housing markets by involving the federal government even more in the housing markets. Tell me if I am wrong, but there is something wrong with that statement. You do not solve a problem of too much government by getting the government more involved. You solve the problem of too much government by removing at least some of the government from the problem. That would solve the problem, but no elected Representative will vote to lose power. They will only vote to gain power, unless the public demands that they vote to lose power. Then they will be forced to vote to lose power, kicking and screaming all the way that it is the wrong thing to do.

We need elected Representatives who are in the mold of Adams, Jefferson, Washington and the entire founding fathers. Unfortunately, we have weasels that are only on the lookout for themselves, not the country. This bill is a perfect example of how weasels react when they see the problem of too much government. They say there is too much government, the solution is more government. Too many people do not see that the problem is too much government. They are not told that the problem was caused by government. That way when government is proposed as the solution, the elected Representatives can get away with not telling the truth to the public.

Last night on the way home from work I listened to Mark Levin. I only heard the first half hour of the show where he was talking about the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His opinion is that this is a disaster for our children and our grandchildren. I agree with him. We are increasing our national debt to bail out people who should not have been loaned money for a house in the first place.

During most of my lifetime when looking for a home loan, I have had to prove that I was credit worthy. I can remember trying to get my first loan on a house in Arvada, Colorado. We had always paid cash for things and had never used credit cards. We had no car loans at that point. We had been renting only a short time. We had a difficult time proving to the bank that we would be credit worthy and would pay back the loan. They took a chance on us because we had always paid cash for things. The loan officer told us to get some credit cards and establish credit. In some ways that was an excellent piece of advice and in some ways it was terrible. At times we abused the system and got ourselves in trouble. We got ourselves out of those problems and are now doing just fine, thank you.

Democrats noticed that there were parts of cities where it was difficult to get a home loan. They called this practice, “Red Lining”. They accused the banks of deliberately choosing not to loan money to blacks and other people of color. The reason the areas were a difficult area to get a loan is that people in that area had a poor record of paying back those loans.

The Democrats in Congress took up the charge and got weak kneed Republicans to go along with forcing banks to loan money to people who had poor credit ratings. This made money available to people everywhere and allowed home loans in areas where they previously were not available. Housing prices rose dramatically because of the demand. People would rather own than rent. Then the age old problem arose. Those with a poor credit history started missing payments and defaulting on their loans. The problem increased as the poor credit history people accumulated. They still only amounted to 1% of the total home loans.

This put the home loan purchasers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a difficult position. They were not making much money. Since they were semi-federal agencies, they went to the federal government and asked for a bailout. The Congress saw an opportunity to purchase votes. They jumped on this and made sweeping changes to the law to help those with poor credit histories. The problem was solved! No, the problem was just put off for a few years. The problem was now put off for our children and grandchildren to take care of. They will now have a much higher bill to pay because of the bailout. If the market was allowed to do its job, it would have corrected itself in short order. People would have lost money and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might have lost money in the short term. BUT, the government would not have had to put out money to shore up people who would be defaulting anyway.

We now have more government involvement in the housing market. What we need is less government involvement in the housing market. Government intrusion in the housing market has caused lots of problems and solved nothing. There will be some government involvement due to the GI bill, but that should be it. The government should let banks and other lending institutions do their job and loan money to people who will pay them back. If the government would get out of the way and be only involved with the GI bill and licensing of lenders and loan officers, the market would work and most people would win. Some would lose, but that is part of what makes a market work.

The problem in this country is that we have the federal government doing things it is not supposed to do. The Constitution does not say anything about the federal government being involved with housing or medicine. Since it does not say the federal government should be involved, the federal government should get out of the way. If state governments want to be involved, that is the responsibility of each state government. It is not the responsibility of the federal government.

We need less government, not more government. That should be the message that all people running for office should have. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said, “The government is not the solution to the problem, it IS the problem”. (Emphasis mine)