FINALLY! John McCain Speaks FOR Oil Drilling!
By Mark Riehle

Presidential candidate John McCain has FINALLY issued a statement in support of additional oil drilling WITHIN the borders of the United States. Phew.

Republican McCain this week offered support to offshore oil drilling - an energy option supported by a reported 67%!!! of the voting public. His bravery however, is commendable, in view of the rabid opposition to offshore (and any other) oil drilling in the U.S. by our radical, professional environmental activists who often seem to control the Democrat Party.

Okay, he hasn't yet breathed support for exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (ANWR) but he now says the current ban on offshore drilling should be eliminated.

 

I am hopeful he will be victorious with this nudge against the breathless and vacuous professional environmental activists.

A quick read of the far left's issuance of 'outrage' statements following McCain's speech suggest their (Democrat) stance against McCain is mostly - 'he's just like Bush and remember we all hate Bush so let's vote against McCain, too'- regardless of what the man says about any issue.

Well, the war in Iraq - despite the occasional setback - is now going surprisingly well and the Democrat Party along with it's subsidiaries amongst the national news media certainly don't wish to discuss any sort of success in Iraq with the election looming large. So, the new big issue must be ....fuel costs. And, they seem to blame Bush for much of that problem.

I disagree. Congressional policies over the last several decades have contributed far more to the current 'dilemma' regarding our fuel supplies than virtually anything President Bush has done. Prohibiting offshore drilling and drilling in many other promising areas has actually resulted in the reduction of oil/gas production in the United States and our current reliance on foreign oil. Amazing how that works. Thank you Congress. Our agony apparently, is your gift to the American public as you have attempted to convert the evil capitalist U.S. into a mirror image of the Soviet Union. In other words, economic disaster.

Our nation is designed to operate well on cheap fuel. The current fuel crisis likely would have been greatly lessened for us if Congress had mostly left the petroleum markets alone in the first place. Let them drill where they might find oil or gas, as the oil industry does in other countries. The U.S. industry is the most highly regulated of its type in the world and those regulations are ample to keep us all pretty darned safe from helter-skelter oil spills. But, we likely could get along just fine without a good deal of those artery-clogging regulatory efforts as presented by Congress over the last 30-40 years.

 

 

Without going on a complete rampage, I want to explain my thoughts on Country Music.

By Scott Sexton

It used to be you could turn on the radio and know right off hand who you were listening to.  There were clear distinctions between Hank Williams and Ray Price.  You couldn't mistake Jeannie Seely for Dottie West.  When something happened to a star, the executives may try to find "the next such and such," but that was meant more towards the level of success, not a replica.  Now it seems every single artist is disposable.  If you don't want to do something, fine, you're fired.  There are always a hundred struggling artists waiting to take the place of today's stars.  Also, back when Country Music was truly "Country," you didn't have to be perfect.  Sometimes the best sound came from someone who looked rough, or their voice was scratchy.  Kris Kristofferson is a perfect example.  He will never go down as looking like James Dean or sounding perfect, but he will go down as one of the greatest songwriters in history and one of the most respected entertainers of all time.  Everyone needs to get together and support their local talent.  It all starts from somewhere and most of the time right at our own back door.  Local fairs, bars and honky-tonks are prime places to see and hear some of the best entertainers.  If they have a CD available, get it.  You're supporting some of the hardest working people in America.  These folks work during the day and play at night, just to live their dream.  Throw some money in the tip jar.  You are hearing them for free, right? 

 

If you're sick of hearing the same old stuff on the radio, pick up the phone and call the station.  Let them know there are other people on the radio besides Toby Keith, Taylor Swift and Carrie Underwood.  Request the older artists who sacrificed everything to make the music we take for granted.  The legends are a dying breed.  Very few of today's stars give them the time of day.  How hard would it be to show these people some respect.  You know your voice really does mean something.  If you think someone should be in the Country Music Hall Of Fame, you can write the Country Music Association and express your feelings.  Perhaps maybe Jean Shepard, Ferlin Husky, Jan Howard, Stonewall Jackson, Oh wait, they won't even play him on the Grand Ole Opry, are on your list of favorites.  Well, these legends do not get the time of day on today's market, but they deserve more than anyone to be a member of the Hall of Fame.  There are dozens of people who deserve it.  Football, Baseball and even the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame elect multiple people every year. 

Wouldn't it be nice if Country Music stepped out of its "comfort zone" and awarded a few more people?  Now, don't for one second think that I don't love Country Music.  I live and breathe it, but this new way of doing things has got to stop, or in ten years, we will be listening to Carrie Underwood right after Jennifer Lopez.  Oh wait, we already are!

This is just my opinion, what's yours?

My Liberal Buddy in New York

By Steve Brooks

 

I was on the phone with a veteran music industry guy on Friday afternoon; a fellow I’ve known for years who’s worked out of the New York City area for all of that time.  Usually we talk about business…but today the race for the presidency of the USA came up…and it all went downhill from there.  It seems that my colleague truly believes that Barack Obama is another Franklin Roosevelt…and that he will magically save this faltering nation from the oblivion brought about by the Republican party.  Balderdash said I.

Obama is just another politician …and one with a minimum of experience and more chutzpah than most. The man speaks well…and like most politicians, doesn’t really say very much. But that’s okay…because the average American doesn’t know the difference anyway.

 

Barack keeps speaking about change…but does he seriously think he’ll be able to change the way Washington does business? I've spent too many years in the nation’s capital to believe the pap that’s written by the speech writers and recited from the TelePrompters® by the candidates. It’s always business as usual.

 

Personally I’d like to see one politician that will:

• Stop rewarding welfare mothers for having illegitimate children.

 

• Stop providing government-sponsored housing to able-bodied young men and women that choose not to work.

 

 

• Stop paying social security monies to people that are capable of contributing to their own upkeep.

 

• Stop giving free medical care to illegal aliens.

 

 

• Stop the nation’s penitentiaries from being run by the inmates. Make the prisoners work for their food. Make jail so damned difficult that the “residents” won’t want to return.

 

 

• Get rid of 85% of the political appointees in the federal government. They suck up large salaries, usually burrow in after their presidential candidate is long gone and block serious career employees from progressing and getting the job done.

 

• Allow drilling for oil off the coast of Florida, California and anywhere else that will give us enough time to seriously develop sources of alternative energy.

 

• Keep the clergy out of politics…unless they’re willing to give up their church’s tax-exempt status.

 

• Do I think that John McCain is the answer to our nation’s ills?  No. Do I think that McCain will continue in the path of George W. Bush. No.  He’s been closer to the center that W ever would or could be. I do believe that McCain will do far less damage than the democrats under Obama who will most likely raise our taxes,  try to get friendly with Iran, raise our taxes,  put their liberal stamp on everything, raise our taxes….

 

*****

On Obama

by Mark Riehle

A friend recently asked me why I so stridently oppose Barack Obama. He was thinking in terms of race and while he didn't actually come out and call me a racist, his comments suggested so.

 

I tried explaining that race literally, had nothing to do with how I feel about Obama. Obama's actions and statements have clinched my opposition.

 

For example, Obama seeks to eliminate health care cost problems for the poor and everyone else thereby shoving aside what arguably is the or one of the best health care systems in the entire world. Yes, health care costs a lot of money but if we put the government in charge those costs will skyrocket and the product(s) will plummet in value and quality. Name a government program that is done well. How about ...Congress itself? Obama wants to charge the already overburdened taxpayer billions of dollars per year MORE than they now pay for whatever health care they make use of at the moment.  In order to fund ...health care.  Okay, some folks who currently don't pay anything will continue to pay nothing. If you pay taxes and many of us still do, you will pay a LOT more to help force the decline of the U.S. health care system. Ask a Canadian what they would prefer ...theirs or ours? Ask a Brit what they would prefer...theirs or ours? Want to stand in line while paying through the proverbial nose for the privilege of receiving diminished health care?

 

I suspect the high cost of health care today has more to do with Congressional meddling (laws passed that force costs up) and the health insurance industry. Adjustments in those areas could likely do more to reduce costs than allowing the federal government to control it all.  And, we would still maintain the system of generally excellent health care that we now enjoy.

 

Obama seeks to eliminate poverty in the nation and the world and he wants to use MY WALLET to do that. It won't work. One doesn't eliminate poverty by GIVING the poverty-stricken stuff, including money. A boost now and then, yes. A better education, yes. Some food when they're starving, yes. Water when they are dying of thirst, yes. Help in qualifying for a job, yes. A stream of money so they will never worry about trying to get a job, NO.  How many billions have already been spent to 'cure' poverty?  So, Obama...where's the change?

 

This nation has given hundreds of billions of dollars over the years since World War II to eliminate hunger or poverty, etc. I suspect the only time it really works is when the funding is given to build infrastructure and assist in developing the building blocks of a successful family or nation. NOT by pouring U.S. taxpayer dollars into a degraded, corrupt neighborhood or third world country. Pouring billions into a situation rife with corrupt politicians or military junta-operated 'governments' and millions of people who have little or no education and NO political clout will simply provide vast stores of stolen taxpayer dollars to be used by the corrupt local leaders or rulers. It will be diverted to those who have the ability to steal it. So, Obama...where's the change?

 

We have all listened and heard Obama's 'mentor', the Reverend Jeremiah Wright rant about how bad white America is - condemning America. Judging from Obama's statements and promises, the Reverend Wright's opinions and comments pretty well match Obama's. He initially claimed he had no idea that Wright was so radical in thought ...until the national news media figured out we already realized that he had attended Wright's church for more than 20 years. Had he slept through all the Fire and Brimstone? Well, no, Obama later recanted. He did know some of what Wright had said. Well, Shazaam! Caught in a lie but amazingly, the national news media didn't call him a liar, as they surely would if he was a Republican. They sort of chuckled a time or two and ignored the facts in the case. [Obama resigned from the Rev Wright’s church this weekend-editor]

 

Obama seeks to eliminate nuclear weaponry in order to shift the funding to peaceful purposes - I assume that includes stopping research and development of nuclear, which likely would also include peaceful uses like energy production. At a time when perhaps ten nations - including a couple of our most strident enemies (Iran and Syria, North Korea, etc) are apparently fully involved in development programs geared toward weaponry - he wants us to stop working on nuclear anything. Nice idea but suicidal. I hope I'm just being practical but I fear the decline in nuclear activity by this nation. I fear we have already allowed to fade, our once-vast knowledge of nuclear research. If someday we are forced to re-develop that once-vast knowledge - either to ensure our safety or our defense - we may no longer have the experienced people capable of necessary research/development/production etc. How many universities even offer classes in nuclear research? Will there! be t he day when we no longer have battalions of researchers dealing with nuclear energy? We might WISH to stop but it's not in the cards if we pay any attention to the situation in the world today. Obama apparently operates with blinders over his eyes.

 

Obama seeks to 'slow' (his word) the development of military combat systems that are currently under development. That, so the funds can be shifted to other, peaceful purposes. Another suicidal concept. Does this guy have a clue? Or is his purpose simply to convert the U.S. into a second-rate country full of fat people watching soap operas and 'reality' TV? The world situation demands that we be prepared for aggressive action on the part of some other population centers. If he doesn't recognize the situation, I don't want him in control of anything. He's dangerous.

 

Let's briefly divert to a mind-game: Let's say Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and a couple of other nations decide they don't like us anymore and don't care about trade. A quick smile from Barack and the threat would all go away because we no longer have a capable military? I don't think so.

 

We have spent billions helping ...Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, etc and I would bet it wouldn't matter a hoot if they saw our military begin to crumble as it did during the Carter years. Oil wealth and trade with the U.S. and others has made China, Iran and Russia vastly more capable of quickly building their militaries (oh, right...they ARE doing so already) at a time when Obama wants us to stop maintaining and building OUR military. Stupid idea. I smell George Soros in all this. Along with Ted Kennedy.

 

And, that brings another issue to the fore: private ownership of firearms. Judging from the type of Democrat candidates over the past couple of decades, I suspect a general design prompted by the socialist Kennedy. What's the difference between Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, the other Clinton or Obama? There really isn't any difference. Sure the Clintons are political chameleons but it seems to me the Clinton(s), Gore, Kerry and Obama are mirror images of Carter/Kennedy. Absolute socialists.

 

Well, the one thing they seem to fear above all else is the private ownership of firearms. Hence, the steady attack on our Second Amendment. Obama is no different from the others in that regard. He is strongly supportive of the standard prattle oozing from the sneering lips of all the rest of the Democrat Presidential candidates of the last 50 years. Tax the ammo, ban the guns, register here, prohibit this and stop that. What's the point? After-all, all those candidates parade around with guards bristling with firearms. So, whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Not so in their world. Just ask the brilliant, Hollywood political analyst Rosie O'Donnell (she hates guns but employs private, ARMED bodyguards).

 

Well, I can't afford to hire an armed bodyguard and the police, as good as they are ...aren't sitting in my living room all night and they don't ride alongside me in my car and don't walk beside me at the local mall. Yes, they ARE just a phone call away.  But if a bad guy prompts me to call them I would bet he could act before they would get to where I need them.  Besides, I enjoy the occasional, relaxing afternoon at the rifle or pistol range popping a few rounds at paper targets. Sometimes I can even hit the target.

 

Obama would try to change that. I would have NO right to self defense and if that right was to be left fairly intact, he would try to charge me so much for the privilege that I wouldn't be able to afford it. Along the lines of the price of fuel. 

 

Under Obama, the nay sayers would continue to operate with candor in Congress, blocking oil exploration in locations around the country where vast oil supplies are likely - Alaska, Florida, California, the Gulf of Mexico, etc, and allowing the nation to continue its downward trend in providing for it's own energy needs.  Thank you Congress.  Thank you Barack Obama.

And, this column is already too lengthy so I can't even get into what's REALLY bothering me about Obama's candidacy.

 

No, my opposition to an Obama presidency, has nothing to do with his race or mine. It has to do with the freedoms I will surely lose if he's elected. I'm not pleased with that option.

 

 

 

 

 

Political Correctness Should Work Both Ways

 

By Stephen Brooks

 

In the great political race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it wasn’t surprising to hear some of the very liberal news media folk strongly point out that the State of West Virginia was a majority white state, and that the folks there wouldn’t vote for a black candidate.  Knowing West Virginia the way I do, it was probably hard for them to vote for a woman as well.

 

These same alleged news people failed to point out that Obama had almost all of the black vote in states with a large black population, like North Carolina.

 

If the media is going to make a note that race is taking a role in the democrat race for nomination…it should point out that racial preference works both ways. When 97% of a state’s black voters vote for Obama… that’s just as racially biased as when 64% of the folks in West Virginia vote for the white candidate.

 

Political correctness is useless…when it isn't applied equally.

*****

Is Congress Made Up of Just Totally

Dumb Members? Or do they HATE us?

Fuel prices around the world have risen dramatically in recent months. We all mostly recognize that statement as a fact.

 

Fuel prices have been pushed up because those who SELL oil from beneath their own ground have been pushing or demanding higher prices. I think most would agree to that as a generally correct statement.

 

Crude oil prices have risen mostly because world-wide demand has risen dramatically, in large part because China and India have joined the rest of the world in BUYING UP large quantities of the oil now being produced. I believe that most would also agree to that statement as fact.

 

Typically, when demand for a product rises and the ability to provide the product is somewhat limited, the price will rise. I believe that, too is a statement most would agree is fairly accurate.

 

Providing a greater quantity of a product in high demand will often bring the price of the product down. That is a statement even offered in textbooks, when I was in school. I suppose one could say that is a generally accurate statement.

 

The diamond industry recognized many years ago the price for the product could be propped up as long as the availability of the product was restricted. I suspect the oil industry recognized the same truism - also many years ago. Every few years there exists a hue and cry over the pending world-wide shortage of crude oil and the price at the pump rises to an all-time high, then drifts back to a price about double what it had been before the so-called crisis began. The buyers breath a sigh of relief and go on with their now-more expensive lives. Until the next increase.

 

The latest 'crisis at the pump' is only partly similar to the previous ones. This time around the big change is the entry into the available world-wide oil puddle by China, Russia, India as well as the expansion world-wide of economic well-being of millions of people, such as those in eastern Europe. Demand is way up and while production is much higher than before, it's not totally capable yet of providing for the increase yet to come.

 

Here in the U.S. the biggest problem appears to be more a matter of Congressional decisions  than anything else. Congress has shown for example, a consistent unwillingness to allow exploration and drilling in an area of Alaska that WAS SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS in the 1970s (under the auspices of President Carter) FOR OIL EXPLORATION!! I'm speaking of the controversy over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve - ANWR. The Carter-fed environmental wacko side has easily managed to quell any efforts since then to gain final Congressional approval for drilling in ANWR. I believe the purpose of such blocking tactics by the Far Left is to contribute to the destruction of the U.S. economy, rather than saving the tundra for herds of caribou who actually seem to appreciate man-made roads and such at Prudhoe Bay (the animals use the non-tundra space provided by the oil industry to flee from the masses of mosquitoes that feed on them while they walk on the tundra).

 

I recall a couple of incidents sitting in a vehicle at Prudhoe Bay while a number of caribou meandered about on a two-lane blacktop road. Drilling requirements there prohibit disturbing the animals so one can NOT drive around a caribou which stops on a road. A driver must simply sit there until the animal eventually decides to move on. Hopefully, the driver is not in a hurry and the caribou is. By the way, surveys suggest about 75% of Alaska's population supports drilling in ANWR. I recall an estimate once several years ago that suggested something around 300,000 new jobs would be created if exploration was to begin there. That's nationwide -- affecting almost every state in the union.

With that last bit in mind, is it possible that allowing drilling in ANWR would lift our ailing economy OUT of recession? As I also recall, when the huge Alaska pipeline opened up at the end of the 1970s, the statement was made that the new supply of oil was responsible for a TWENTY FIVE PERCENT DECREASE in the PRICE OF GAS on the WEST COAST. My car thirsts for Premium grade fuel so that could save me about a buck per gallon. Egads.

If our domestic oil industry was actually allowed to drill in all those restricted areas ...ANWR, off the Florida coast, California, etc....wow.

 

I suspect the prospect of opening up another oil field(s) productive enough to reduce the price of gas around the nation and provide good jobs for 300 thousand Americans would be a frightening thing for a Democrat Congressman. Prosperity. There wouldn't be anything they could promise and besides, a healthy percentage of those new jobs would be union jobs. No disaster to pretend they could stop. Lower cost fuel supplies would certainly provide for a stronger economy and that's something the Democrats really do fear (look at how they reacted to the prosperity provided by the HATED Bush tax cuts). Think of it: vast new oil supplies AND tax cuts. Egads again ...our economy would be ON FIRE. And, if it occurred during a time (like now) when around the globe more and more nations are kicking out the liberal leadership and inserting more conservative leadership...well, shoot. Republicans might find themselves back in ownership of the Congressional bathrooms.

And if it all worked well? ...Ah oh!