Whenever I want the clearest picture of the Democrats’ non-energy energy bills, I head straight to the Institute for Energy Research. Wanting to put forward the best explanation on why the bill pushed through by Pelosi’s Democrats, I visited this webpage. I’m glad I found it. Here’s what I found:

The bill permanently bans and development within 50 miles of shore. [Sec. 102]

The vast majority of undiscovered oil and gas reserves are projected to be between the coast and 50 miles offshore.

Here’s another noteworthy point made:

Fails to open new, energy rich areas for exploration and development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. These areas in the Gulf could start producing oil and gas very quickly because they are close to existing infrastructure.

If the Democrats were serious about providing instant price relief, lifting the ban on drilling here should’ve been their highest priority. This proves that providing quick price relief isn’t the Democrats’ highest priority. That begs this question:

If prices at the pump are crippling families’ budgets and high heating bills only 2 months, if that, off, and with high prices at the pump crippling the economy, shouldn’t providing price relief be the Democratic majority’s top priority? Apparently, this legislation is proof that it’s barely a blip on the Democrats’ radar. (continue reading post »)

I’m a proud contributor to the NRCC. I’m a proud contributor to the NRCC because the House Republicans have fought the good fight against the dictatorial anti-drilling rule of Speaker Pelosi. Despite the Democrats’ latest anti-drilling legislation, John Boehner and the House GOP Caucus aren’t leaving the battlefield. Here’s Leader Boehner’s latest press release on the subject:

Prior to today’s debate on the No Child Left Inside Act (H.R. 3036), House Republicans will move to force a debate and vote on legislation to keep the number issue on the minds of the American people, high energy costs, on the radar of this Democratic Congress. The measure, sponsored by House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), would put Democrats on notice that Congress should not adjourn until a real, comprehensive energy reform bill is enacted into law.

Two days ago, the Democratic Majority passed a sham bill they claim would increase American energy production and lower gas prices, but in reality, it was designed to provide political cover for vulnerable Democrats who have promised their constituents they would support pro-energy legislation. An editorial in this morning’s Charleston Daily Mail slammed the bogus “no energy” bill: (continue reading post »)

I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t said something that he’s later reversed course on. Often, people are called hypocrites for doing that. That’s actually misusing the word. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of hypocrite:

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

The reason I mention this is to preface this McCain video about Sen. Obama’s hypocrisy:

Here’s the transcript of the video:

ANNCR: What Obama says…
BARACK OBAMA: It would be unacceptable for executives of these institutions to earn a windfall.
ANNCR: …Is not what he does.
Meet Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO. Fannie cooked the books and Johnson made millions.
Then Obama asked him to pick his VP. And raise thousands for his campaign.
Barack Obama. More empty words.

Perhaps a close parsing of Sen. Obama’s words is needed. After all, Sen. Obama only said it would be “unacceptable for executives of these institutions to earn a windfall.” He didn’t say it would “unacceptable for executives of these institutions to help him pick his vice president.”

The most important point of this sarcastic bit is that Sen. Obama isn’t about whether he’s a hypocrite. It’s that he isn’t who he says he is. It’s thar he fits the true definition of hypocrite.

Technorati Tags: Hypocrite, Jim Johnson, Fannie Mae, Washington Insider, Obama, John McCAin, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Today, Minority Leader John Boehner’s office issued this scalding statement on the Democrats’ hypocritical energy strategy. The statement highlights Democratic co-sponsors of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill that John Peterson and Neil Abercrombie wrote. Here’s part of Leader Boehner’s statement:

House Democrats say they want to “stimulate” the economy, but last night nearly every single one of them voted against the bipartisan energy bill authored by Reps. John Peterson (R-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to lower gas prices on behalf of working families and small businesses, including 24 Democrats who are cosponsors of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill. That’s correct, 24 Democrats flip-flopped, repudiated their past statements of support and cosponsorship for the bipartisan Peterson-Abercrombie bill by voting against it. And by rejecting the Peterson-Abercrombie bipartisan plan, Democrats proved once and for all that yesterday’s debate was about nothing more than providing political cover for vulnerable Democrats on the eve of an election, and not about passing “all of the above” energy reforms to make a real difference in lowering gas prices.

When it was ‘rubber-meets-the-road’ time, this group of Democrats showed where their allegiances lied. Here’s the list of deserting co-sponsors:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL), Rep. Henry Cueller (D-TX), Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI), Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)

It’s worth noting that many of these deserting co-sponsors are BDD’s. Still, the most stunning part of this is that Neil Abercrombie deserted his own plan. That’s unthinkable. It’s unthinkable because it’s extremely hypocritical. I can’t think of another time when a co-author of a bill abandoned the bill. It’s one thing to abandon it if a bunch of amendments had dramatically changed the bill. Thats defensible. This bill wasn’t dramatically altered. It was barely changed. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner asked whether Blue Dog Democrats would vote for H R 6899, Speaker Pelosi’s latest non-energy energy bill. The results are in and they tell quite the tale. Here are all of the Blue Dog Democrats voting for this non-energy energy bill:

Arcuri, Baca, Bean, Bishop (GA), Boren, Boswell, Boyd (FL), Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Davis, Lincoln, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gordon, Harman, Herseth Sandlin, Hill, Holden, Mahoney (FL), Matheson, Melancon, McIntyre, Patrick Murphy, Michaud, Moore (KS), Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Linda Sánchez, Loretta Sanchez, Scott (GA), Space, Thompson (MS), Tanner and Wilson (OH)

Of the 53 BDD’s, 42 voted for H.R. 6899. Only John Barrow and Jim Marshall voted against it. That means that 80 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats voted the same way as such environmental extremists as Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, George Miller and Jim McDermott.

What’s really gotta hurt the BDD’s is this quote from their intrepid leader:

“We’re not trying to give incentives to drill, we’re giving incentives to invest in renewables and natural gas that will take us where we need to go,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters before the vote.

I hope that the NRCC is paying attention. They should be making videos as we speak highlighting that quote. Anytime one of these representatives says that they voted to increase drilling, the video should run with Ms. Pelosi’s quote plastered on the screen for at least 5 seconds, followed by the representative saying that he/she voted for more drilling.

Personally, I’d love hearing Ms. Pelosi explain how that quote fits with this part of her official statement: (continue reading post »)

Tuesday evening, Democrats passed another non-energy bill masquerading as an energy bill. Immediately afterwards, Nancy Pelosi was spinning what had happened:

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill “represents a new direction in energy policy” and a “bold step forward that will end our dependence on foreign oil” by using billions of dollars collected in taxes on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency.

I’d like hearing Ms. Pelosi explain how opening a tiny sliver of the OCS while increasing taxes on oil companies will give the oil companies an incentive to increase production.

Speaker Pelosi says that this bill “represents a new direction in energy policy.” Perhaps Ms. Pelosi can explain why House Democrats had to pass a second energy bill after passing one about this time last year.

Republicans called the drilling measure a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gas prices.

“How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It’s zero. Just zero,” declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. “It’s a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason…so the Democrats can say we voted on energy.”

Boehner is right. This bill isn’t about setting us on the path to independence from foreign oil. (continue reading post »)

Today at noon CT, I will be participating in a discussion on the limits of using military force on the BBC’s World Have Your Say.

Specifically, the subject is scheduled to be about when collateral damage is so high that military force isn’t morally justifiable.

Let’s use Haditha as a specific example. On November 19, 2005, 24 Iraqis were killed. Eight of those killed were identified as known insurgents. While it’s truly tragic that 16 innocent civilians were killed, the 3/1 Marines killed alot of insurgents. Eventually, Haditha, a city with a population of approximately 100,000, was rid of insurgents. As much as I don’t want to sound coldhearted, can’t a respectable argument be made that, from a big picture perspective, the people of Haditha are better off because of that firefight?

Which is more justified? Letting insurgents force 100,000 people live in fear while opting not to kill the 16 innocent civilians that the insurgents used as human shields? Or accepting 16 innocent victims in order to bring tranquility to a city of 100,000 people?

From my pespective, I’ll pick the latter rather than the former. It would be a difficult, heartwrenching decision emotionally. It would be a straightforward decision intellectually.

Technorati Tags: Haditha, Collateral Damage, Military, World Have Your Say, BBC, Talk Radio, Insurgents

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Last week, Speaker Pelosi sent Steny Hoyer out to wave the white flag of defeat on energy. Or so we thought. This is what Hoyer said then:

“[Republicans] will have the opportunity to offer their alternative, yes,” Hoyer said in response to a question about how the energy bill will be introduced. “We understand that their motion to recommit will be their Republican alternative.”

Rep. Hoyer’s words no longer apply. Ms. Pelosi has reverted back to her tyrannical behavior. The Democrats’ new ‘Drilling Bill’ is being brought up under a closed rule again:

Late last night, the Democrat Rules Committee decided to allow debate on ZERO amendments to the Democrats’ new energy gimmick bill. It is a closed bill, so no amendments can be offered, and no compromise can be reached. They made this decision over Republican objections, in the dead of night, and less than 12 hours before the House would begin consideration of the bill.

That’s a complete turnaround from their original promise. Democrats have just just told America that their word is worthless. Their credibility, which was already circling the drain, just dropped lower. It’s almost vanished.

Here are 3 definitions of corruption:

• perversion of integrity.
• corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
• debasement or alteration, as of language or a text

I’d say each definition fits what the House Democratic leadership promised a week earlier. Minority Leader John Boehner isn’t taking this lightly: (continue reading post »)

Based on this press release, thinking people wonder if Charlie Rangel and Al Franken are birds of a feather. Charlie Rangel and Al Franken have had tax troubles. Now there’s another connection:

Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey today called on DFL U.S. Senate Al Franken to immediately return the $10,000 in campaign contributions he has accepted from fellow New York tax cheat Charlie Rangel after it was revealed that Rangel never declared $75,000 in taxes on rental property.

Why would Charlie Rangel’s PAC contribute to Al Franken’s floundering campaign? Here’s more details of Rangel’s contribution:

Al Franken Has Taken $10,000 From New York Congressman Charlie Rangel’s PAC. On June 27, 2008, Al Franken took $10,000 from New York Congressman Charlie Rangel’s National Leadership PAC. (Itemized Receipts, Al Franken For Senate, July 2008 FEC Quarterly Report, June 27, 2008)

That money connection is likely why Mr. Franken hasn’t called for Chairman Rangel’s resignation from the House Ways and Means Committee until the investigation is completed. (continue reading post »)

I just got this email outlining the presidential debate schedule and format:

Debate Schedule Is Set
Sept 16, 2008

The campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain announced they have formally accepted the lineup of presidential debates this fall.

“The campaigns have come to the earliest agreement on presidential debates reached in any general election in recent history,” the joint statement said.

The campaigns said they also accepted the Commission on Presidential Debates’ rules on third-party candidates, guidelines that make it unlikely that either Libertarian Bob Barr or independent Ralph Nader will be included unless they get a large and unexpected rise in the polls. The rules require a candidate to reach at least 15 percent in an average of five national public opinion polls.

The debates are all scheduled to air at 9 p.m. Eastern and will last 90 minutes: (continue reading post »)