Why Hillary Stays

A lot has been written as to why Hillary Clinton is staying the race. Opponents of the Clinton nomination, ie. Senator Leahy (an early Obama support), keep calling for her to withdraw. But Hillary stays the course.

I think that the Hillary camp firmly believes that there is a chance to win this. I think they believe that the Obama/Wright controversy has had some effect on the "magic" that was seen early on. Further, Hillary has shown that she can carry the big states that have primaries as opposed to Obama taking small states with somewhat left-wing-biased caucuses. Additionally, Hillary's people probably think that Obama will implode as revelations about his past keep coming forward.

If Hillary does sweepingly well in Pennsylvania, she might have a change to close the gap on both delegates and in the popular vote. Further, anything could happen between now and the Democratic Convention. I believe Obama's people and supporters would like to see Hillary leave the contest as an insurance policy against the possible implosion factor for Obama.

One problem that is sure to exist with Hillary staying in is the damaging effect of all the body blows. The longer that the two candidates fight it out, the more both become damaged goods that could sink their chances in the fall election cycle over John McCain. While the hardcore Democrats will almost always vote for their party's candidate, the moderate Democrats and Independents could be influenced to vote against a Democrat and for McCain because of all the bomb throwing between Hillary and Barack.

Hillary's chances looked a helluva lot better before her Bosnia-buffoonery. She was doing well in the polls against Obama following the Reverend Wright expose. Now, in terms of the Democratic nomination, the polls are showing Obama up and Hillary back down; so, its hard to tell how much damage Hillary's shoot-herself-in-the-foot Bosnia lie has had on her chances.

For sure, Obama's Wright-wrongs and Hillary's Bosnia-fiction has given McCain a leg up in the general election. For once, the saying "it ain't over till it's over" is as true as it will ever be!

The Cooling Realities of Global Warming

If we put the sensationalism and hyperbole of Al Gore aside and look at some facts, it just might be that the hysteria of Global Warming may have been the result of a lot distortions, and maybe, not realities.

When Al Gore assembled his thesis on Global Warming, his movie titled The Inconvenient Truth, he used the hurricanes of Rita and Katrina as evidence of Global Warming. To Al, those hurricanes were an ominous warning of things to come. In the lead into that movie, Gore claimed that the "frenquency and intensity of hurricanes" would result from Global Warming. The only problem with Al's "inconvenient lie" is that we have had some of the quietest hurricane seasons on record since Rita and Katrina. In fact, some of the southern states, which are normally inundated with rain from hurricane activity, are in the midst of a severe drought.

It seems like a lot of evidence is being released lately, to indicate that Global Warming isn't all that Al Gore seems to think. In fact, we just might be entering a period of Global Cooling. Maybe, even, the beginning of an ice age!

One such evidence is the fact that the massive ice sheet has returned to Disko Bay in Greenland (See Full Story). In the past, the waning ice in Disko Bay has been used by the warming alarmists as a significant indicator as to the health of this world. It has been used as a disastrous indication that the world ice is melting and the coastal areas of the world are doomed to permanent flooding.

Another strange fact is that January saw some of the coldest temperatures in the world over the last hundred years (See Full Story). It snowed in the Middle East for the first time in a century. Japan and China had rare snowfalls this Winter. Places in North America have also had record snows. For example, Madison, Wisc. had over 100 inches of snowfall and could see even more before this Spring is over. February continued the non-warming trend of January with temperatures that were about average for the last 100 years. Temps were not, as would be expected in a Global Warming environment, warmer than normal.

Another fact that has recently come out is that the world-wide warming trend may have actually plateaued since 1998 (See Full Story); a fact that was actually acknowledge by the United Nations organization on Global Warming, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). With no surprise, the national media,,and alarmists like Al Gore conveniently don't talk about that. Of course, if Global Warming is a result of man-made carbon emissions, and those emissions have risen at a higher rate over the last 10 years, it makes sense, scientifically or logically, that warming should have risen (not leveled off or fallen) over the last ten years. Doesn't it?

If you had read this excellent Washington Times commentary by H. Sterling Burnett, (See Full Article) you would see that the whole statistical justification of Global Warming is in question. The whole "hockey stick" graph of earth's warming comes into question. And, this commentary echoes a lot opinions by world scientists who believe that Global Warming and its strict relationship to man's activities might be "a lot of hooey" (a technical term that I like to use for man-made Global Warming).

The latest question mark comes as a result of the findings by 3000 undersea robots that have measured deep sea temps around the world. Those robots found no warming since they had last conducted any measurements. (See Full Story). This head-scratcher, too, is inconsistent with the belief that we are in the midst of a disastrous warming of the Earth.

One problem that has always existed for the Global Warming Chicken Little's is the fact that our whole Solar system is in a warming trend (See Full Story). Places, without humans, like Mars, are seeing warming that is consistent with the warming here on Earth. Many scientist believe that the current warming trend of the earth is a result of the sun's cyclical sun-spot activity. In fact, the Russian Academy of Scientists believes that we may actually be entering an Ice Age as a result of a slowed solar activity (See Full Story).

Recently, Al Gore told 60 Minutes that skeptics of man-made Global Warming are the modern equivalent to those who believed that the earth was flat (See Full Story). Gore has also always claimed that those scientists who deny man-made global warming are being paid by those corporations whose self-interest is served by not curbing their polluting habits. Al Gore seems to think that the nearly 22,000 scientists who have signed on to the Petition Project in Opposition to The Hysteria over Global Warming must all be in the "tank" for money. Of course, Al, himself, isn't. Just because he's making millions in speaking engagements, doesn't mean that "he" might have a profit motive in keeping Global Warming alive. Now, does it?

The initiatives to combat Global Warming will have the harshest effects on the poor around the world. I would hope that people like Gore get it right by being truthful with the facts before we punish those who have the least to give in this world. It just seems that what I have outlined (above) is being ignored for what might be purely political and left-wing ideological reasons. Further, our actual ability to control global warming or any global weather condition may well be beyond our true capabilities as mere humans. Global Warming might just turn out to be another one of those "fears" that the left-wing politician, with the help of the news media, wants to hoist onto the public so "their" ideological beliefs of "greening" the planet can be fulfilled.

Please Impeach Me or Something!

It's been almost a week since David Patterson, the new Governor of New York, has publicly confessed another indiscretion. Since taking office, he has confessed, first, to having an affair. Then, it was multiple affairs; followed by an affair with a staffer. In another confession, his wife cheated on him, too. Campaign funds were acknowledged to have been used in one or more of his little soirées. As of last week, he actually admitted to cocaine and marijuana use.

What's next. He's gay? That he's not really legally blind? Or, worse yet, he's really a closet Republican?

Doesn't it seem like this guy is crying out for death (figuratively) by impeachment or recall? I just can't wait for the next installment of his "Moments of Truth"!

Jeremiah Wright and CEO Pay

If you listen to some of Barack Obama speeches, you will hear him condemn CEO's who get tax breaks and who make more money in 10 minutes than the average worker makes all year. (Listen to a YouTube video of one of those condemnations)

I guess it doesn't matter to Barack Obama that his former pastor will retire in an all-expense-paid, tax-free, $10 million dollar home that his Church is building for him. (See Full Story)

Isn't that taking the "religious tax exempt status" a little too far? How many average workers are living in $10 million dollar retirement homes?

Yeah, Yeah...That's it!

Years ago, the comedian Jon Lovitz would appear on Saturday Night Live in his totally laughable role as Tommy Flanagan, the President of the Pathological Liars Club. He would end each new lie with "Yeah, Yeah...That's it!"

I thought is was a great routine. A classic.

However, when Hillary Clinton does the same thing, I'm not laughing. I just wish that "when" she was into one of her patented lies, she would take a cue from Jon Lovitz and finish it with that very Tommy Flanagan-esque "Yeah, yeah.. That's It!" For example, when talking about Chelsea on 9/11, she could have said something like "I am not just a Senator from New York. ..and.. and...a... I'm a mother whose daughter was in danger on 9/11... and.... yeah...yeah...that's it...and...yeah...Chelsea was roller skating around the World Trade Center and...yeah..yeah... that's it... and..and..a....she stopped in a cafe to have some coffee...and...a...yeah, that's it..and....she heard the first plane hit...yeah...that's it..."

Of course, we all know, today, that Chelsea was well far and away and safe from the events of 9/11 on that fateful day.

My problem with Hillary's lying is that we are trying to elect a President and not trying to reprise Tommy Flanagan. Let's leave the lies home. As a matter of fact, let's just send Hillary home with them!

Like Carl Sagan

The late Carl Sagan used to use the term "billions and billions" of stars and planetary systems when talking about the cosmos. In a similar fashion, when talking about spending "your" tax money, Barack Obama talks of "billions and billions" of dollars when he speaks of fixing any of social, educational, or financial ills that befall this country. There is no limit to how much of "your" money this man plans to spend.

In today's economic speech in New York, Obama laid out a $30 billion dollar give-away of $1,000 in a tax rebate to every average working family in America. Barack believes that this "buying of votes" should be a permanent stimulus package for America. Of course, what Barack won't tell you is that a similar amount of "stimulus" that is already embedded in the tax cuts of George Bush from 2003 and 2004. However, Obama will let those tax cuts just expire. This way he looks as if he is doing something entirely new and different. A "change" from the past; and, Obama is all about "change"...ya, know!

In addition to the money, Barack says that the next President (Like him!) should do the following: (1) Expand oversight and regulation of any institution or corporation that borrows from the government, (2) toughen capital requirements for an mortgage-backed securities, and (3) eliminate regulatory overlap. While that all sounds nice, much of that is already being worked on. And, by the way, why should we wait until the "next President" to get these things done? Isn't fixing the economy and the credit situation in this country an immediate priority? Isn't Barack Obama an active U.S. Senator? Couldn't he bring a bill to the Senate floor which mandates all those nice things that he has outlined in his speech of today? Of course, that would be too much work for the the half-one-term, Junior Senator from Illinois!

For sure, Barack Obama has deep spending pockets. He's a regular Santa Claus when it comes to your money. And its amazing how the $100 billion that would be eliminated in spending for the Iraq War and the possible $75 billion that would be eliminated in tax cuts for the rich can be "stretched" into so many "billions and billions" of dollars "more" that Barack Obama needs for all his give-away plans! It's as if each dollar of spending in Iraq and in tax cuts for the rich is able to replicate itself, over and over, again! It's pure magic! And, don't forget, Obama plans to reduce spending and the deficit while he's at it!

You can read the Associated Press account of Barack's New York speech at this link: (Click to See Full Story).

Hillary and Obama Go M.A.D.

During the cold war, there was a well known military strategy called: Mutually Assured Destruction or M.A.D. Through the proliferation of nuclear weapons, both the Soviets and the United States were kept at bay from an all-out nuclear war because there was so much overkill in both arsenals that neither country would have any strategic advantage. As a consequence, if either country "pulled" the nuclear war button, both countries (and the world) would be destroyed; a fate neither country would really commit to.

Now, in the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are on the precipice all-out nuclear war. The have essentially ignored the strategy of M.A.D. Within the last two days, Barack Obama has almost completely assured the destruction of Hillary vis a vis the Bosnia video and the subsequent comments coming out of Camp Obama. Realizing how damaging that video is to her, Hillary has countered with her comments on the Pastor Wright which she had stayed away from over the last two weeks. The political equivalent of the Doomsday Clock is ticking, been moved forward, and is closing in on Midnight.

My guess is that this war might completely erase the chance for either of these two to win in the General Election. The damage to both may just be too great! Oh, all the humanity!

Lying Is So Old Hillary

A lot of people on the Right always knew that the Clinton's have perfected the "art" of revisionist history telling. I think it has something to do in the water down in Arkansas. So, now that the Hill-Billy's are on the campaign trail and are recounting their many "years" in the public eye, it is no wonder that we are getting several pages being torn-out, re-written, and re-inserted into our history books. Fortunately, for us, there are enough videos and written records sitting in the media vaults and out there in cyberspace so that the words and deeds of the Clinton's can be actually verified. Something that, apparently, didn't exists when they were the top dogs in Arkansas.

The latest Clintonian edit-job comes from Hillary's trip to Bosnia. Sounding something like the start of Schwarzenegger movie, you have Hillary flying into the Bosnian airport of Tuzla with severe sniper fire. To avoid the dangerous ground fire, Hillary's C-17 had to use a variety of evasive maneuvers before landing. Hillary, heading up her band of "Seals" and with a Bowie knife between her teeth, then exited the airplane (which was probably riddled with bullet holes and barely flyable) and "she" managed to get to all her personnel to safe cover. Our Hero! How "potentially" Presidential! Of course, now, I'm exaggerating; but, not that much!

Now, Hillary's account of the "Perils of Hillary" have been literally shot down by CBS news and their video of that day; and, it appears that this video is the most dangerous "shooting" that actually took place on her trip. Instead of looking like a landing on the shores of Normandy during the WWII invasion of Europe, Hillary's trip looks more like a trip to Hawaii --- sans a lei over everyone's head. Hillary even greeted a little girl on that Bosnian airport tarmac. (See a YouTube video of Hillary's trip and her comments of today). As an aside: Does anyone really think our State Department would have really seen fit to send the First Lady of the United States into a war zone where her life would be endangered? Bill might have; but, our State Department wouldn't!

A former supporter and a former close friend of the Clinton's, Hollywood-mogul David Geffen, once said this about the Clinton's: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

I have to laugh because the formerly always-friendly-to-the-Clinton's national press is "finally" exposing all the half-truths and lies that these Hill-Billy's "had been" shoving down the throats of America for years. But, why, now, all of a sudden? It all has to do with the national media's brand new love affair with Barack Obama; and, they will do almost anything to protect this guy and to insure he gets the nomination and he gets elected. That's what people do when they are totally in love. When the press was in love with the Bill and Hillary, they could do no wrong! All their faults were overlooked. And, like a police attack-dog, they viciously protected their love. Now, their new love, Barack, needs to be viciously protected from Bill and Hillary. Spring is surely in the air! At least for Barack Obama!

Update as of 3/26: Dick Morris put a compendium of Hillary lies together. (See Full Story)

In the Fall --- The Unholy Wars

Right now -- or, should I say Wright now -- the focus is all on Obama and his unholiest of Pastor's, Jeremiah Wright. But, in the Fall, as we slog on through the November elections, the unholy war will explode into a full blown assault.

While I don't expect the McCain campaign to directly address the Wright-wrongs during the fall campaign, I do expect surrogates like the RNC (National Republican Committee) and/or some Swiftboat-like Republican 527 group to address it. When the first Wright-torpedo is launched against Obama, you can expect a quick salvo from the Left (a counter Wright move) that will attempt similarly paint McCain as the bigot by bringing up John Hagee's endorsement (which McCain has quickly and loudly denounced) and the speech that McCain gave at Bob Jones University.

Unfortunately, the Left will be out-gunned. Their use of the Hagee/Jones analogy in the defense of Wright will be like pitting a pea-shooter against a Howitzer. The Left will have one puny shot -- hoping it sticks - while the Right will have shell after shell to use with the Wright-wrongs. It won't be pretty

Never Spit Into the Wind

On Thursday, when the State Department Passport scandal broke, the Barack Obama campaign was screaming. Barack Obama, himself, called for a congressional investigation. At the the core of the scandal was that the State Department passport files for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain were accessed by contract employees. They were caught when an "electronic flag" signaled an unauthorized access.

Of three candidates, Barack Obama and his campaign were screaming the loudest. Bill Burton from Obama's campaign stated the following (See Full Associated Press Story):

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years...Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

From that statement, he squarely put blame on the Bush Administration as if it was commonplace for this to happen.

Well, now, it appears that the Obama campaign is somewhat connected to the break in of those passport files. One of those contract employees, who snooped into the passport files of Barack Obama and John McCain, worked for The Analysis Corp (TAC) which is headed by a security adviser to and campaign donor for Barack Obama, John O. Brennan. Talk about spitting into the wind!

It took awhile for me to find this story this morning. (See the Full CNN Story). I heard it on the TV morning news but you would be hard pressed to find it on the Associated Press or Reuters headline list. It just shows how the liberal media loves to "aid and abet" the Obama campaign. Could you imagine all the high level headlines this story would have gotten if the contractor had been affiliated with Halliburton or one of its companies that were formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Of course, the Obama campaign disparately needed to highlight this story on Thursday in order to take the attention away from the Reverend Wright problem. The liberal press obliged the Obama campaign by "blanketing" the national TV, radio, paper, and internet news with the story. Now, with a possible Obama connection, the media is nearly silent!

Mr. Bill

Democrats had always referred lovingly to Bill Clinton in the same fashion that Republicans still fawn over Ronald Reagan. Barbara Streisand once sang the ballad "Memories" on his behalf. Clinton, after all, was the first Black President, ya know! There wasn't a Democratic strategist, alive, who wouldn't use Bill Clinton as the shining example when trashing George Bush over the economy, the deficit, and the world standing of the United States.

Once this election cycle started, Bill Clinton has been literally turned into "Mr. Dirt." He's been called a racist. He and the Mrs. have been referred to as political dirty-tricksters and, negatively, as a powerful political machine. Onetime and supposed-friends like Ted Kennedy and others, and, now, Bill Richardson have abandoned the Clinton's faster than a speeding bullet. Now, the Obama campaign has labeled Bill Clinton as the Joseph McCarthy of our times. (See Full Story).

Several political pundits have said that the longer this campaign goes on between Hillary and Barack, the more it will seem like the Democrats are "eating their own." From my vantage point, Bill Clinton appears to be the appetizer, main course, and the dessert at this table. And, what is really amazing, all attacks on Bill Clinton are all coming from Democrats.

A famous quote has always been: "You can judge a man by the way his peers judge him." We'll, if you take that literally, Bill Clinton's legacy is in bigger trouble, now, than his scandal and impeachment process while in he was in the White House. Given all the "cannibalism" that has taken place on Bill Clinton's body, it is hard to believe he will ever regain the glowing idolatry that the Democrats had once held for him.

Reverand Wright Wants Obama to Lose?

While it might be highly presumptive of me, I think that Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's spiritual adviser, might actually be happy if Barack Obama loses his bid for the Presidency. After all, this is a man whose hate-filled tantrums from the pulpit are all about division and not the unity of race in America. Think about it. If Barack Obama is elected President in this predominately White country, Rev. Wright would be proven wrong on a number of counts. His belief system of Whites attacking and using Blacks would be torn into shreds. What, then, could he preach about after that?

For some civil rights leaders, keeping the thought alive that there is still a "massive" racial divide in this county is a form of job security. They would rather ignore the fact the Black middle class in America is one of the fastest growing economic classes in this country. They ignore the accomplishments of people like Condi Rice and Colin Powell. This is primarily because they are aligned so closely with the Democratic Party. They would prefer to refer to them as "Uncle Toms" and "Black servants" of those White masters, the Republicans. They seem to be blind to how prevalent mixed marriages have become in America; a significant "sign" that we are well into the societal acceptance of Blacks in America as true equals. Finally, Wright seems to blame this White-run government for the AIDS epidemic in Africa and among Blacks in this country while completely ignoring the billions of dollars that this current government has contributed to combating the AIDS virus in Africa. He also seems to ignore the history of AIDS in this country and how it actually infected the American homosexual community, first.

This is not to say that there aren't any racial problems that still exist in America. But, everyday, the races are increasingly coming together. Racial unity is a function of time and togetherness. When segregation was abolished by the enactment of civil rights legislation in America, the healing clock started. And, as had been said quite often: "time heals all wounds!" People, like Wright, would prefer to dwell on and promote the evils of the past as a means of keeping the distrust and anger and racial separation alive. That's why his Church is called a "Black Separatist" and "Afro-centrist" type of Church. His is not the message Martin Luther King. His is hardly the message that was contained in the most monumental speech on Race in America. That speech was Martin Luther King's speech of "I have a Dream!" It is important for us all to remember the following words from that speech:

"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

In that speech, Dr. King recognized that "freedom" was the first step. He, then, said it would "speed up that day when all God's children -- black me and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics -- will be able to join hands..." Dr. King recognized the concept of "time" when he said the words "speed up". He did not say that racial equality and unity would happen the very day civil rights were given in this country. There is no message of hate in those words. It is a message of coming together. It is a message of hope. And, for sure, it is a message of going forward and not looking backwards. It is a message that Reverend Wright and others in the Black leadership seem to -- and, maybe, want to -- forget.

As a closing note: Some liberal broadcasters had said that Barack Obama's speech on race was the most significant speech on race since Abraham Lincoln. In saying that, they completely ignored the words, actions, and contributions of Martin Luther King. Instead, they took Obama's speech, which was really intended to be a "political patch-up job" and a weak justification for the hateful rants of his spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright, and tried to make it into some Messianic message of racial healing in America. To that, I can only say: "How sad!"

Obama's Grandmother, Again

Please take note. Everyday, I say to myself that I am not going to do another Obama-post on my blog. But, everyday, this guy keeps giving me a something that I really need to address.

This time it is the comments he made to a Philly radio station when asked about the reference he made about his Grandmother in Tuesday's speech about race. The transcribed text of the that comment is as follows:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity...But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know...there's a reaction that's been bred into her experiences that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

There has been a lot of uproar about this statement. It seems to be focused on his comment of "typical white person" that is contained within that statement. Usually, it centers around the fact that if a white person had said "a typical black person", all hell would have broken lose. The assumption is that Jesse and Al would be getting on the first and fastest plane flight so that they could be in-the-face of any white person that would have made a similar comment about Blacks. Well, for me, it isn't those words so much as another set of words that are even more offensive in Obama's statement. For me, it is his comment of "bred into" that that I find even more offensive. "Bred into" implies that racism is a genetic thing. It is like having no choice because it was deemed that way by nature. Is this what Obama really thinks? This might be another insight into his belief system. It certainly is somewhat consistent with the rantings of his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Also, embedded in both the word "typical" and the phrase "bred into" is the concept of "totality"; as if, "all" white people are like this from birth. It is painting one race of people with a broad brush of racism. And, we all know how black people would react if a white person had made similar statement.

It just seems like the more Obama talks, the higher he hoists himself up on his own petard. And, those who speak for Obama and try to defend him, ultimately wind up hoisting him up even farther on that petard. That's because, in an effort to defend both Obama and the "words' of his pastor, you get statements from those supporters that Jeremiah Wright and his beliefs are no different for any other Black Pastor or any other Black Church across America. Now, this kind of talk takes the debate beyond Obama/Wright and extends the issue to all Black churches in America. Nice going!

To me, the damage to Obama has been done. His speech of Tuesday just opened more doors than to close the "one door" he needed to close on the Wright issue. Going forward, there is bound to be more questions. There will be a lot more investigations. This is not over by any stretch of the imagination. I really think it was Barack Obama's Waterloo.

One last comment. Barack Obama has yet to really address, I think, a core issue of Wright's anti-American, anti-Jewish, and anti-White comments. He continues to try an skirt around issues by making this whole thing a White against Black, issue. He says nothing about the reverse discrimination exposed in Wright's hate speech. He is simply using a political tactic to divert attention to real problem with Wright.

If Only They Had the Money!

If you listen to Barack Obama, you would think that the only thing that stands between high school students and their entrance into college and their ultimate graduation is money. To overcome this, he proposes a $4000 tax credit to the parents of students who attend college (a fully refundable amount to low income families who can't afford it). He promises to make college affordable so that "we" can compete in the world. He believes if K through 12 teachers are paid more in America, we will have better education in this country. Let's reduce those class sizes, too! Finally, Obama says eliminate testing of students so they can focus on education; rather than focus on studying for the test. (See Obama's Full program).

However, this is naive position by Barack Obama; at best. This comes from a person who has served for years in both Chicago and the State of Illinois governments and whose own public school systems in the State of Illinois can barely graduate half of it's students. (click to see statistics). A recent study showed that only 6 out of 100 Chicago High School Freshman will graduate and actually go on to college. (click to see study). Of those who do actually go on to College, entering Freshman who had less than a 3.0 grade point average in high school were high unlikely to even graduate from College within a 6 year time frame; lacking the study skills to do so. Further, only 22 percent of those minorities who entered a college and were from the Chicago School System were able to graduate. One Illinois University, Northeastern, has the unenviable record of only being able to graduate 11 percent of the students that come out of the Chicago School System. A private, Catholic University, Loyola, can boast a 66 percent Graduation rate for students coming out of the City which, I think, says a lot about state-supported college education, at least, in the State of Illinois.

I think that it is interesting that Barack Obama wants to "preach" to this country that he has the solutions for education in the broader United States when he and the other elected officials in Illinois have such an abysmal record of boosting education in their own state. While the graduation rate in Illinois has improve from 49.8 percent in 1993 to the current 52 percent, it is still well behind the national average of 66% (Another horrible statistic on its own!). The problem with College education in America has less to do with money and more to do with our pre-College education system in this country. Barack, like a lot of Democrats, erroneously believes that if you keep throwing Federal money at a problem it will be fixed. Do you really think that a mere $4000 per year in a tax deduction will overcome the 22% minority graduation rate in Obama's home State of Illinois?

Sure, higher education costs are high in America. But, as I have said before, the consistently higher and higher costs for a college education in this country -- tuition rates running twice the rate of average inflation --- has a lot to do with the "law of supply and demand". We just don't have enough colleges and universities in this country. As long as our schools of higher education in this country can maintain full classes while turning away a high percentage of applying Freshman, these schools can continue to raise tuition rates without consequence. Believe me, if colleges and universities were having trouble filling all the seats for the Freshman class, they wouldn't be raising rates like they have.

Our education system in this country needs a top-to-bottom rework. What we teach needs to be seriously addressed. We need to address the high rate of drop-outs in high school. And, we seriously need to address why we have such low graduation rates in this country. While the teacher's unions wouldn't agree, we need to stratify the salaries of teacher's in this country so that Math and Science teacher's get higher pay than, say, a gym instructor. Finally, there are a lot of social ills that are a major component as to whether or not people complete higher and lower education.

Does anyone really think that reducing class sizes by 4 or 5 students will help a 50% graduation rate. Does anyone think that giving bad teachers a raise will suddenly enlighten them? Do you really think "eliminating" testing in order to identify bad teachers and bad curricula is the answer to better education? I think not, Mr. Obama! I think your more interested in helping the welfare of the Teacher's Unions in this country and "not" the general welfare of the students!

Will a Democrat Really Pull Us Out of Iraq?

Yesterday, with all of the political candidates for President making their 5th Anniversary of the War in Iraq speeches and commentary, it was no wonder that the cable news stations were filling their airtime with discussions about that war. Most networks used the point-counterpoint tactic by having both Democratic and Republican surrogates on at the same time so they could slug it out over their respective candidate's positions of either get-out (for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) and stay-in (for John McCain).

There is really no fun in listening to John McCain on the war because he's been a consistent hawk. But, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are a stitch. Since the campaign started, it is as if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater and the both of them are scrambling over each other, like two of the three stooges, to see who can get out the Iraq door the fastest. It is somewhat like that old game show, "Name that Tune", where the two contestants try to top each other by alternately declaring that they can name that tune in fewer and fewer notes. Except, in the case of Iraq, it is who can start pulling troops the earliest in their new Administration and who can get them out in the shortest amount of time. Of course, if things go awry, both Hillary and Barack reserved the right to put troops back in.

I was listening to one round table discussion on the topic, yesterday. Two of the panelists, both left but both moderates, thought that "neither" Hillary or Barack will actually pull troops out as fast as they have declared. Their consensus thought was that both Clinton and Obama would "not" go through with their campaign rhetoric on pulling the troops because of the grave consequences. Both thought that the two candidates have enough wiggle-room in their campaign promises that they can actually renege on those promises without looking badly. For example, they can start pulling troops from the day they take office and this will make the anti-War Democrats happy. However, they could slow the overall process to a snails pace so we, as a country, could continue to take advantage of the stability afforded by the surge while maintaining our commitment to the Iraqis and, while assuring our allies that we won't just dump them once we have made a commitment. Of course, that kind of logical thought won't sit well with the far-left anti-war Democrats who contribute a lot of money to the Democratic Party.

One of the panelists thought that the "polls" will ultimately drive what a Democrat as President will do. If we start pulling troops and things start to go badly, with public support waning, the troops will stay in Iraq. Knowing how poll-driven Democrats can be, he is probably right in this regard. However, my take on whether or not a Democrat, as President, will "actually" pull the troops out of Iraq is completely different. I think that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will "have to" because they will be "forced to do so" by the far-left-driven Congress that exists today. The only reason that the current Congress has not been able to do so, thus far, is because of the existing "balance of power" that gives President Bush the power veto their attempts. And, because this Congress doesn't have enough non-Democrat votes to override it. But, if a Democrat becomes President, the balance will probably shift because, more than likely, both Houses of Congress will remain Democratic. In that scenario, I hardly think a Democrat, as President, will override the wishes of his or her Democratic Congress; and, the Republicans will be in the minority and totally unable to launch any effective veto-override. My guess is that the a Democrat-controlled Congress will either de-fund the war or mandate a withdrawl and a Democrat, as the President, will be forced to comply with his Party's wishes. It's just that simple.

Let's not forget that the Democrats are being "steered" by a vast amount of campaign funding from the likes of George Soros (through his well funded, far-left political organizations), by other groups like MoveOn.org, and by the members of organizations like Code Pink and the Daily KOS. "Not" to get out of Iraq and "not" to do it quickly may jeopardize the flow of all that money; and, as had been said many times throughout history, money talks.

Whitewashing the Fence: Obama Style

I am sure that many of you have read the "Adventures of Tom Sawyer". In that novel, Tom Sawyer is the orphan who uses his persuasive skills to avoid whitewashing a nine foot high and 30 yard long fence. He uses his skillful tongue to convince his friends to do all the work for him as he completely backs out of the picture.

In many ways, Senator Barack Obama did this same thing, yesterday. In his speech on race, he basically threw the ball in our laps. He left it up to us to discuss the issue of race as he backed out of the picture. He did nothing to address the problem of Jeremiah Wright - the controversial pastor who actually sparked the speech. The fact is, he never "truly" admonished Wright during his speech. Instead he, as he has done before, he just explained him away. He equated Wright to his White Grandmother. He justified Pastor Wright through historical reference. Not once did he actually say that he ever confronted Wright on his views. Not once did he actually try to convince anyone that he found Pastor Wright's words to be false and/or extremely offensive. That was Obama's whitewash.

In football, this tactic is called mis-direction. In magic, it is slight-of-hand or the illusion. On the other side of the law, it would be called the "con". Take your pick!

Words and Deeds

I am sure that we've all heard the words of Barack Obama. Many say he is eloquent. Others, like me, say his words are hollow. Now, you might have to question the truth of this man and whether or not his deed will, and have, actually match his words.

In the last month, we have actually learned a lot about Barack Obama and his words. Last week, Barack Obama had to declare that he had received more campaign funding from Tony Rezko than Obama had originally disclosed. In the heat of his campaign in Ohio, we hear from Mr. Obama that he, when he takes office, would abandon NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). Then, days later, we hear that one of his surrogates, Austan Goolsbee, had told the Canadian government not worry about NAFTA and that any talk of abandoning it was just politics. Right after that, a foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, tells a foreign press that Obama would not immediately begin pulling troops from Iraq and that he would take into account what was happening on the ground. Of course, this was in complete contradiction to Obama stance that he would immediately pull troops from Iraq after he took office. Finally, yesterday, Senator Obama admitted that he had been in Church and heard his pastor make divisive and politically controversial statements. This, again, contradicted a statement that he had made only five days earlier in an interview with Major Garrett at Fox News. In that interview, he said he had never been in "the pews" when Pastor Wright made any of those comments.

I know that the "believers" in Obama will try and explain all this away or, sadly, just ignore it. However, there is a pattern developing around Obama. You got to wonder how many other "words" of Obama haven't or won't match the "deeds" that he has said and, or, promise. Surely, his voting record in the United States Senate with regard to Iraq hasn't always been consistent with his claim that he was against the war from the start. Finally, you get an inconsistent statement like this when Obama was asked about Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” - Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04

Obama Lied

Just five days ago, Barack Obama said that he hadn't "ever" heard the divisive words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He said that if he had had heard those words, he would have confronted Wright.

However, in today's speech on race, Obama now admits that he "did" hear those words of Wright. He admits to have had "always" known that Wright held extremely divisive views. So, it appears, through own admission of today, that he was "lying" just five days ago. Isn't it convenient that he decided to come clean now. Now, after the fact that at least one national journalist had already found out that he "was" present during one of those speeches?

Now, Obama wants us to see, as he sees, the bigger picture of Wright. The good, Christian man who is doing so much good for Blacks in his community. I guess Obama wants us to believe that Wright is the Black equivalent of Mother Theresa! But, what Obama doesn't seem to understand is that this version of Mother Theresa only works amongst his race! At the same time he doing all his good, Wright is working overtime to turn his Black community against White America! To turn his Black community against our Government! To turn his Black community against Jews! And, to make sure his message goes beyond his community, he sells his DVDs and Webcasts his speeches to all the world! But, in Obama's mind, all the hate-speech of Wright is offset by the good of Jeremiah Wright. And, for this, Obama won't denounce Wright.

Well, I'm sorry. I just don't buy it and I think a lot of fair-mind, White Americans and, maybe, some Blacks, too, won't accept it either. Everyday, we are getting a clearer picture of the Obama that America doesn't really know. Clearly, it's not the Barack Obama that Barack Obama wants us to know!

Note: On racism in America, Barack Obama said there needs to be "deeper" discussion about race in this country. I would suggest that Obama "start" that discussion with his racist pastor. Something that, apparently, hasn't done in the last 20 years and which he seemingly refuses to do to this day.

Will the Real "Gallup" Poll Please Stand UP?

I know that a lot of people believe in polls. They live and die by them. Well, if you look at this screen shot from todays Real Clear Politics Head-to-Head polling data, you might be left scratching your head.

(Note: Click on Chart to see enlarged view)

In a just release of a National USA Today/Gallup poll, Barack Obama has a 2 percentage point lead over John McCain. In a national daily tracking poll, also released as of today and also conducted by Gallup (sans USA Today), John McCain has an identical percentage point lead over Barack Obama. Go figure!

Please note that both the Gallup tracking poll and the USA Today/Gallup poll have 3-4% margin of error. So, technically, they are both saying the same thing: a virtual tie. I just like to point out that, sometimes, it "looks like" the right hand doesn't really know what the left hand is doing!

No Message Of Hope!

If you listen to the so-called preachings of Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Barrack Obama's spiritual adviser and mentor, you have got to seriously wonder what the purpose of this man's rantings are. In his sermons he blames Jews, all Whites, especially rich Whites, and the United States government for "all" the ills that have befallen the Blacks in this country and in Aftrica and, I guess, the whole World. He also blames the United States and Jews for all the ills that have befallen the rest of the World; especially the Muslims.

Is this a message of hope? Is this a message of inspiration? Is this a message that Christ would have taught? Is this a message whereby his parishioners can walk out of his Church feeling good about their own lives? Is this a message intended to bring the races together?

Maybe it's just me, but, I think his message is a message of hate that is being "drilled" into his parishioners on a weekly basis. It is a message that is designed to keep the races apart. It is designed to spawn suspicions of all Whites and our Federal Government. There is no "Christ" in this message. Clearly, there is no "hope" in this message!

It is a disservice to the nearly half million Union deaths in this country that occurred during the Civil War in an effort to abolish slavery. It is a disservice to all those Whites across this county who, in the 1960's and since, have worked to give and insure all Blacks their civil rights. It is a disservice to all the foreign aid that this country provides to other countries; more than any other single country in the World. It is a disservice to the AIDS research being done in this country and the billions of dollars that have been committed by President Bush and others to African counties to fight their fight against AIDS. It is a disservice to the billions of dollars that Americans give in charitable giving for the poor and needy of the World; of which, much goes to the Black races.

Make no mistake about it, Jeremiah Wright's message is designed to fuel hatred and distrust of all Whites in America. He provides no solutions but, instead, fuels racism. And, what is worse, I heard a lot of Black commentary this weekend that has said that Wright's preachings are no different from what is being said in many Black church's across this country. And, if that is true, there will never be any real racial healing in America. There is no hope!

Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and Barack Obama

I am sure by now, anyone reading this blog has heard the black-separatist, anti-white, anti-American, anti-Jewish and pro-Muslim rantings of Barack Obama's spiritual adviser, Jeremiah A. Wright. Given the total number of these "speeches" by Wright that are now playable on the Web, it is hard to believe that Barack Obama could have missed any or all of his "anti-" sermons during his near-twenty years of attending Wright's Church and listening to his weekly rantings.

Those defending Obama against his pastor say that Obama can't be responsible for the political beliefs of his Pastor. Obama, himself, jokingly compares Wright to "an uncle" who may say things that he doesn't always agree with. However, the fact is that Wright does say these things. And, he says them all the time! He says them on purchasable DVD's that are being peddled directly by Obama's so-called "uncle" and his Church.

I just know that I, and I think, most people of any faith would walk out of aChurch where the Pastor, Minister, Rabbi, or Priest started preaching any form of hatred towards our fellow man. That is because it is so unbelievably anti-Christian by its very nature. And, I am sure, any true believer in Christ would never come back to such a Church, ever again.

Obama has listened to Wright and he has elected to stay in that Church. And, most telling, he has stayed with Wright and that Church for 20 years. He and Michele were married by Wright. His kids were baptized by him. Wright was such an influence on Obama that he borrowed the title of his book," The Audacity of Hope", from his preachings. When Michele Obama said she had never "been proud to be American in all her adult life", it was no wonder! Listening to Wright, there is nothing to be proud of as an American. And, that, too, tells the world how influential Minister Wright has been in the lives of Barack and Michele Obama.

Even if Obama denounces Wright at this juncture, it is too late. It will be seen as a purely political and hollow gesture. But, that is the game that Obama has played and his followers have bought in on every time he has been caught giving double-speak and every time he has been caught giving one of his "wink-wink" comments; such as in the case of NAFTA and the Canadian Consulate, and such as in the case of the accelerated pullout of Iraq and the contrary comments by his adviser, Samantha Power. I just don't believe that Obama can be trusted with OUR country when he, his wife, and Pastor don't see it as THEIR country. Obama's removal of the American flag from his lapel and his failure to place his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem has a more significant meaning than ever before. And, those actions, coupled with his association with known anti-American, 1960's radicals and his wife's "never proud to be an American" comment can be summed up in the very ugly words of Jeremiah Wright: "God Damn America!"

A Senator as President?

It has been a long time since this country has elected its President from the ranks of the United States Senate. The last one was John F. Kennedy in 1960; nearly a half century, ago. And, any Senator becoming President has only happened 15 times (out of 43 Presidents) in all U.S. history. Only two Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Warren Harding, were elected to the Presidency while still actively serving in the United States Senate. And, of those two, only Warren Harding had any previous experience in serving in the Executive Branch of any State or Federal Government.

Typically, a Senator has been elevated to the Office of President after having left the Senate to serve in some other capacity such as Vice President, Secretary of State, or a State Governor. 8 of those 15 Senators who were elected to the high office, had previously served in an executive capacity as a Governor of some State. One other, William Harding, had at least served as a Lieutenant Governor. Four of those 15 previous Senators (John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson) were serving as Vice President while the then-current President died in office. Only 3 of all those 15 Senators, who became President, actually served for more than one term as President. And, of those 3 that served two terms, only one, Harry S. Truman, had no previous executive experience as a Governor of a State.

In 2009, it is almost an absolute surety that a U.S. Senator will, again, be elected President. It will be either Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or John McCain. And, this time, unlike any other time in our history, none of them will have had any previous "executive experience" as a State Governor; or, as Vice President; or, has served in any cabinet capacity such as the Secretary of State. And, the least senior of them, Barack Obama, will not have even served a full term as the Junior Senator from Illinois. Nor, did he have any previous experience in Washington such as a House Representative. And, Hillary Clinton is barely into her second term as the junior Senator from New York. Prior to that she was the First Lady to President Clinton and the same position to Bill Clinton as the Governor of Arkansas. At least John McCain has served as a Senator since 1987; and, before that, served a single term in the United States Congress.

As pointed out in the first paragraph of his post, "statistical history" has a lot going "against" these three candidates. At the very least, historical fact says that the odds are almost "nil" that any of them will be able to go beyond a second term. And, it all comes down to administrative experience.

Most all two-term Presidents have had prior experience as a military leader or as a Governor. Obviously, that gave them the experience in managing people, tasks, disasters, and budgets. Senators just don't carry those credentials. They typically try to spend money without "any" regard as to where the funding will come from. It's part of their "inborn" and "pork barrel" genetic structure. And, the same it true with regard to managing people. There is a total disconnect between adding people and what those new jobs will actually do to the Federal budget. Often, if they can add some big government program, with lots of people, they view it as a political feather in their cap. When it comes to the day-to-day operations of government or to any disaster recovery, Senators, like all members of Congress, are great at hindsight; especially when things have gone seriously wrong. They are always on the outside; looking in. Rarely, do any of them even know how to implement all the programs and laws they enact. They are certainly clueless as to the everyday operations within government.

So, here we are. In the fall, we will be faced with two Senators vying for the Office of President. While I can't predict whether or not either of them will be good President, history has spoken and it says, more than likely, neither one will be good enough to be elected for a second term. My concern is that we will probably elect the "most junior" of them to lead this country: Barack Obama. If so, we will have someone in office who, just three years ago, was shown the locations of the restrooms in the Senate Office Building. He has never managed an operating budget. He has never served in the military and has no understanding of its organization and operational concerns. He has never manage people in a broad organization. While it is true that John McCain is also a Senator without people or budget experience, he did get military leadership experience as being a Navy Officer. Further, he has spent a lot more years in Washington and has a better understanding of the operation of Government.

Barack Obama says he will "change" Washington. To change something, you must have a good, working knowledge of that something. Barack Obama doesn't have that experience. I liken this to Bill Clinton's stumbling attempt to mandate that gays could serve "openly" as members of our military. It was one of his first executive orders after taking office. It was a political payoff for the "gay" support he received during his campaign for the Presidency. It was a total disaster because Bill Clinton never served in the military and never understood the close quarters that military personnel must live in. His "backtrack" from his original "gay order" resulted in the "Don't ask...Don't Tell policy"; a policy which received nothing but criticisms from both sides of the political aisle, then, and still continues to receive criticism, today.

I guess we prepare ourselves for the potential of having the "least" qualified President, Barack Obama, in the history of United States.

Stubbornness: Bush or the Democrats

A lot of people say Bush is stubborn and refuses to change his mind on the war in Iraq. Maybe? Maybe not?

However, is Bush any more stubborn than the Democrats who "continue" to see Iraq as the "war that is lost"? Another Vietnam? A country that is mired civil war? Who continue to see absolutely "no political gains"? Who continue to ignore the near 80 percent drop in violence? Who fail to recognize that journalists and visitors can "now" walk the streets without any body armor or helmets in areas that were previously the most violent in Iraq? Who ignore the current revenue sharing of oil profits as step in unifying the country? Who ignore the importance of bring Baathists back into the government and into their former jobs as means of stabilizing the country?

Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is a separate issue from "what should be done" in Iraq, today. We went into it because nearly 80 percent of the Senate said we could. And, of those Senators who voted "yea" to the war, nearly 60% of all the Senate Democrats agreed to the effort. On that basis, it was a bipartisan decision. To ignore the stability that is forming in this country is pure stubbornness. It is a lie to the people of this country and it is being downright deceitful. To place political gain above the reality on the ground in Iraq, verges on "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the Democrats; even treason. Truly an impeachable offense if only "they" were as constitutionally bound as the President of the United States!

In January of 2007, Senator Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released a joint letter that they had just sent to President Bush. (Click to see press release.). In that letter, they declared that the "surge" wouldn't work because Iraq was in the midst of a civil war. Of course, this was "before" the surge had even started. On April 19, 2007, before we had added "even" a fourth of the additional troops needed for the surge, Harry Reid declared that surge isn't working and "the war is lost". (Click to see the full Story) When it was obvious, that the surge was working, the Democrats then said their was no political gains in Iraq; despite the surge. Now, with the political gains starting to show fruit, the Democrats are now using "spending" as the "latest" rationale for leaving Iraq.

This has been a "game" that has seen the Democrats moving the goal posts back, constantly out of reach, a total of four times. It is a "game" of politics to appeal to the Democrat's left-most base such as Moveon.Org. It is a game that must be played to insure that steady stream of campaign funding continues for that base. And, unlike Bush, their stubbornness is for pure political gain. Certainly, Bush's stubbornness has resulted in nothing but political losses: ie. the House and the Senate and, maybe, the Presidency in 2009. So, unlike the Democrats, you can either say his stubbornness is because of self-pride and foolishness or, just maybe, because he actually believes he is doing the right thing.

My guess is that the effectiveness of the surge will allow troops to be removed at some point in 2009 and will result in reduced spending for the War. So, as time marches on and the war costs start coming down, it will be interesting to see what excuse the Democrats come up with at the point where "spending" no longer becomes an issue. I am sure that their stubbornness will prevail and we'll see a SIXTH reason why we should be in Iraq. Of course, if Barack Obama is elected, they won't need an excuse. We'll get out because "he" didn't vote for the war and "not" what would be good for the long-term benefit of this country.

Climbing the Slippery Slope of Oil

In a year, crude oil prices have nearly doubled. Today's price is 5 times higher than the $20 a barrel at the beginning of 2002. With this morning's record price of $109+ a barrel, you would have expected to see disrupted supplies and resulting long lines of people and their cars waiting to buy gasoline. But there are no shortages.

Oil is in a speculative spiral. It is the classic case of money chasing money. Every time there any tensions in the Middle East, or a hurricane approaching our Gulf Coast, or a refinery fire or other problem, the price of oil jumps. But, when that last reason for the oil jump is abated, the price stays up and merely waits for another reason to go up. And, like piling dominoes in a single stack, the price just keeps going up. But, like that stack of dominoes, the stack, at some point, will come crashing down. It happened to the dot-com boom in the 1990's and to the housing boom in the last year; and, it will, at some point, happen to oil.

By all rights, oil should be collapsing under the fear of a recession in the United States. If our country has an economic slow down, then India and China, our biggest trading partners, should also see slow downs. And, the energy used to make all the "stuff" that Americans love to buy should see a slow down. But, it hasn't as of yet. Now, you hear the argument (the excuse) that oil is rising because the U.S. dollar is falling. If that was really true, oil should not have risen over 3 percent in the last two days on a meager fall of two-tenths of a percent in the value of the dollar. That makes no sense on a correlated basis. A 3+ percent rise in oil is well out of balance with a 0.2 percent drop in the U.S. dollar. It is, and I repeat, pure speculation. And, the only way that it will stop is when oil inventories start rising as a result of less usage or because of increased supply.

Right now, there is no place other than oil and other commodities to put money to work and make a quick profit. Our stock market and the other world stock markets are falling precipitously because of the potential threat of a U.S. recession. Real Estate is a bust. So, there is no profit potential in either residential or commercial real estate. Commodities, like oil an gold, are they only game where short-term profit potentials still exists. And, until there is a tipping-point where oil supplies have peaked because usage has fallen or supplies have increased, oil will continue to rise; maybe to even $200 a barrel. And, if so, expect to pay $6 for a gallon of gasoline at the pumps!

I once heard Hillary Clinton claim that oil would fall the day she took office because the oil companies would see a new direction in energy policies in this country. That may sound good on the campaign trail but it is pure bunk. Somebody should tell Hillary that oil is a "world" product and is only minimally being influenced by what happens in this country. Even if we could reduce the oil usage by 10% in the country, oil would only be influenced by 2-1/2 percent on a worldwide basis. And, 2-1/2 percent is less than one year's growth in demand. The major influence on oil prices is being brought about because of the economic explosion that is taking place in China, India, Indonesia, and South America.

If what we "did" in this country had a major influence on oil, the price of crude should have fallen rather than risen another 25% since last November when the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid Congress passed their so-called "Energy and Security Act of 2007". That law was laughable and the oil industry knows it. It, in no way, mandate any new exploration. Instead, it fulfilled the foolish belief by Democrats that we can conserve our way out of our oil problems. To say we would increase fuel economy by 50 percent by 2020 is just a bunch of political mumbo jumbo. At the very best, it will "merely" keeps pace with our future oil needs. More than likely, however, it will fall well-short of our future fuel demands. That is because it will take another 18 years past 2020 "before" the mandated average 35 per-mile-per-gallon fuel economy standard will have its full effect. That is because the average car on the road is 9 years old and it will take twice that average in years before all the cars on the road are replaced with the 35 mpg fuel standard. Also, it should also be pointed out that, as cars age, they significantly lose their fuel economy So, practically speaking, it will probably take more than 18 years to achieve and average of 35 miles-per-gallon in America.

The best thing that can happen to high oil prices is high oil prices. High and higher oil prices is the only way to force conservation. People will drive less if, and when, it hurts them in the pocket book. They will be forced to car pool. And, they will buy more economical vehicles. High oil price will drive more exploration which will spawn increase supplies. However, America will be left behind in exploration because our Congress has exclude new exploration and drilling in places like ANWR (Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge) and off our coastlines. As a result, we will increasingly become more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas.

Finally, high oil prices, and not Congress, will actually drive alternatives to oil. Expensive technologies like hydrogen will become a possibility, if not a reality, because economics will make it so. But, alway remember, there are nearly 250 million vehicles on the road in America. It will take many years to replace them all with any new technology as a viable alternative to oil.

The Ugliness of Going Green on Energy

If you talk to the environmentally active, those tree-huggers, they will point to the ugliness of burning fossil fuels to create energy for the world we all live in. They look at the ugliness of strip-mining for coal. They point to the toxic and carbon dioxide (CO2) spewing power plants that use coal, natural gas, or oil. They point to oil spills. Then, there are those ugly oil rigs on both the land and offshore. And, all those cars, trucks, and, especially, those SUV's.

But, what most of the novice "greenies" don't seem to understand is how ugly the alternatives are to fossil fuels. That is because the actual creation of the renewable fuel has to be moved from god-created and below-ground sources to the "above-ground" man-made sources that will infringe on the landscape of America. Right now, whether it is oil, natural gas, or coal, these forms of energy resources are well "out-of-sight" and far below ground. Billions of acres of these fuels are "hidden" below the surface of the earth.

Believe me, the true greenies don't really want renewable resources like wind, solar, and biofuels. That is why, for example, they, along with RFK, Jr. and Ted Kennedy, fought the establishment of a wind turbine farm off the coast of Hyannis Port, Mass. Wind turbines, in order to be effective, stand about 100 feet or more in height and are almost as equally wide. Hundreds of them must be "peppered" over hundreds acres of land in order to have any substantial dent in the offsetting of power generated by fossil fuel power sources. They are ugly. They are loud and noisy. And, they endanger birds and other wild life. So, that is why, when someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton says they want to create "green collar" jobs to install green technologies like wind, solar, and biofuels, they just aren't dealing with reality. You can seriously count on Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club to fight tooth-and-nail (in court) to stop the advancement of "green" technologies. And, don't forget the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) effect. Everyone wants clean and renewable sources of fuel; but, not near their house or neighborhood or community!

And, it isn't just wind turbines. Solar panels are just as ugly. And, like turbines, they will need to be "plastered" all over the landscape of America to make any significant dent in fossil fuel usage. Can you imagine a third of this country totally covered with black panels to retrieve the power from the sun.

The same is true with biofuels. Right now, we produce ethanol from corn. It takes millions of acres of land to produce the mere 6 billion gallons of ethanol that we produce today. And, those acres of corn are only "harvested" but once a year. Americans require nearly 156 billion gallons of fuel per year to run their autos, buses, and trucks; mostly in the form of gasoline. Best case, you can get about 250 gallons of ethanol from each acre of corn. In order to supply our current demands, you would need 624 million acres of farm land to produce enough ethanol to satisfy our current needs. Unfortunately, this country only has about 350 million acres of land for farming and only half of that is "quality" farm land. We lose 100,000 acres of land each year to soil erosion and human expansion. So, to satisfy our gasoline needs, we would need "at least" twice as much land for corn as we have now for all of our farming activity. (click for farm land statistics). For sure, it takes a lot of "above ground" land area to create biofuels. Do you think the "greens" are going to let America expand into Federally reserved lands and National Park lands in order to get enough land to satisfy our energy needs? I don't think so!

Even hydrogen, the fuel of the future, needs to be "derived" from something. With the current technologies, the only real way to "economically" produce hydrogen is to produce if from fossil fuels. So, hear we are again, stuck with coal, oil and natural gas. It is almost unavoidable to ignore the these natural commodities as the source for our energy.

Like it or not, we are "not" going to "green" ourselves out of the energy quagmire that we now find ourselves in. The ugliness of doing so and the lack of land for all these "green" technologies makes that impossible. Despite all the "elect-me" rhetoric of the Democrats running for office, the reality of a non-oil dependent and fossil-fuel-free America is almost impossible; given our current technologies. We had better find ways to drill for more oil in this country. We need to expand a cleaner use of coal power. And, we need to seriously invest in atomic energy or the money we need for food will be used up in buy foreign oil.

Obama: The FlimFlam Man

A tried and true legal tactic is to "impeach" a witness. Under cross examination, a lawyer will attempt to catch a witness in a single lie. And, if done successfully, that witnesses' entire testimony comes into question.

Such is the case with Barack Obama over NAFTA. At the last Democratic debate in Ohio, Barack Obama pretty much said he would, best case, renegotiate NAFTA and, worst case, dump this entire free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Of course, this campaign committment plays well to the labor unions who believe they have lost union membership jobs to NAFTA. (Forget about the fact that NAFTA has created jobs and trade that have greatly benefited this entire country!)

Now, comes the impeachment!

Apparently, Barack's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had met with key personnel at the Canadian Consulate in Chicago to assure them that NAFTA wasn't in jeopardy and "anything" that might be said about NAFTA is really just the politics of campaigning. Oh, really? Just politics!

At first, both the Obama camp and the Canadian government denied such a meeting. Then, a Canadian government memo was leaked to the press and the reality of that meeting became all too true. Then, the Canadian government apologized for the "leak" of the memo. And, no longer were they denying that the meeting didn't occur; just sorry about the leak. And, since the release of the memo, Obama and his team have been dancing around this story like the ghoul-scene from Michael Jackson's "Thriller".

So, this begs the question of how much "more" of Obama-speak is real or just Politics. What's the real story on his relationship with his Church, his pastor, and the connection to Louis Farrakhan with respect to the Jews versus the Arabs? Why does Obama have at least two advisers, Samantha Power and Robert Malley, who have, at the very minimum, controversial opinions about Israel? (Note: In 2002, Samantha Power said that our U.S. military power should be used to "force" Israel to accept a Palestinian state). What is the story on "his" connection to the 1960's radicals such as William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn? What about the Tony Rezko? And, what about all those promises of getting out of Iraq and the near trillion dollars in "goodies" for things like "green-collar" workers, permanent $1000 tax rebates to all the middle class, etc? Are they just "politics" in words, only?

If you look up the word "flimflam" in the Dictionary, you get this definition: "a trick or deception, esp. a swindle or confidence game involving skillful persuasion or clever manipulation ..." A lot of people have, for months now, said that Barack Obama is "hollow" in what he says. Others flatout say his public opinions are in complete contrast to his beliefs. I say he does both. He is truly the political version of the FlimFlam Man. And, the national press corps now senses that it might be the case. There is the taste and smell of blood in the water with the NAFTA incident. Don't expect the national media to give Obama anymore "milk and cookies" and a comfy pillow to sleep on. The honeymoon is over. Expect the national media to act more like sharks as as their eyes roll back and they come in for the kill. Obama probably never saw that kind of press coverage in the "comfort-zone" of Democratic-controlled Chicago!.