Putting ANWR In Perspective

Perhaps the centerpiece of the oil drilling debate is that little patch of ground in ANWR that has a bundle of oil under it. I've received the information below a couple different times from different people, and I wanted to pass it along to you. It should put the whole ANWR thing in perspective for you. Check it out:

ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

And some perspective:

Note where the proposed oil development area is (it's in the "ANWR Coastal Plain" shown here):

This is what deceptive people show you when they talk about ANWR.
Although these ARE photographs of ANWR...



Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?

Well that's not exactly the truth...

Do you remember the map?

The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain!!!

Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? NO they don't because they are NOT coastal plain!!

What's going on here?

The answer is simple.

That is not where the oil is in ANWR!

This is what the tiny proposed oil area in the coastal plain actually looks like in the winter:

And this is what it actually looks like in the summer:



Here are a couple screen shots from Google Earth:


As you can see, the area where the oil is is pretty much a barren plain!!

Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife.

Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the "depleted wildlife" situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay*. Don't you think that the caribou have been decimated by that oil drilling and transport?

Here's that same spot during the winter.

Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay*.

*The Prudhoe Bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production

Now, why do you think some people want to fight about this? Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee has stated on the record, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market." And Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif,) also is on the record, stating, "This... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of [the oil] companies."

Patrick Leahy asked in a recent Congressional hearing where the oil company executives were summoned just exactly how much money the oil company executives earned last year. J. Stephen Simon, executive vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp answered that he received about $12.5 million in his total compensation "package." last year. Congress wants to go after these "fat cats" and take away their compensation and give it to the poor people who are hit hardest by the oil prices. Let's see, Americans use 385 million gallons of gasoline a day (according to U.S. Govt. DOE.) 1.25 billion pennies are in 12.5 million dollars. Divide1.25 billion pennies by 385 million gallons shows that Congress robbing J.Stephen Simon of 100% of his earnings for one year would lower gasoline prices by one penny per gallon for just over three days for Americans!! Wow!! Sounds like a smart plan, huh? Can't wait!! (and that's if you allow zero dollars for bureaucratic administrative costs and could every actually get the money from the IRS to the people for free.)

This is great information, and these pictures really deliver the message that drilling in ANWR is no sweat off the environment. If you're reluctant to support drilling in ANWR, this post should make you re-think your position.

There's my two cents.

Audio File Update

I've just set up new links to some new online storage for the audio files that I've used on some posts in the past. After changing ISPs a few weeks ago, I lost my previous online storage, but I believe I've now found a way to offer you the same audio files for free. It's not quite as convenient as before, but I'm hoping it still works. The posts that I've updated are:

All Things Oil
Reagan's Visionary Leadership
Rush On A Roll
Oil and Global Warming
The Role of Government in a Free Society
Federal Vs. State Government

Please feel free to take another spin through those posts and check out the audio if you haven't had a chance to hear it yet. And, of course, please let me know if you have trouble accessing any of these audio files.

Hopefully this will be a good long-term solution!

Some Advice On Key Issues

I wanted to share a couple of stories that provide some advice on a couple of the key issues that face the nation right now.  First, we have a direct message to John McCain from Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics.com:

I suggest the McCain campaign take this first paragraph from Gail Russell Chaddock in today's CS Monitor and nail it to the wall:

The Democratic-controlled Congress and the Bush administration have presided over a surge in new federal spending obligations that may be the most enduring legacy of the 110th Congress.

McCain regularly touts his bona fides as a deficit hawk on the stump - always to hearty applause, by the way - but too often he does so almost in passing and by rote, using the catchy but now tired phrase that he will "make the authors of pork barrel projects famous."

If I were advising McCain, however, I would tell him to devote much more time and put much more emphasis on the issue of spending, because it's an issue that:

1) credibly reinforces his image as an independent and a maverick

2) allows him break sharply with Bush in a way that will appeal to Independents and energize conservatives

3) gives him the opportunity to rail at a Democratic-led Congress with job approval ratings in the low teens/high single digits.

Perhaps most importantly, McCain can tie in the critique of Obama as a big-spending liberal and use it to paint the fearful scenario for voters that Bill Kristol outlined last week, which is: if you think pork barrel spending is profligate now, imagine what it will be like after four years of President Obama working with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.

This is some extremely good advice.  The economy is clearly the driving issue on American minds right now, and McCain has a definite edge there.  He needs to keep control of it.  I think that these Washington politicians are so clueless -- as evidenced by their historically abysmal approval ratings -- that they collectively don't really understand the depth of resentment the American people have for them right now.  This is a chronic pain that we have to deal with in our elected leaders, but things have spun way out of control over the past few years.  This is one of the few areas in which McCain is right to contrast with Bush; in pledging to be a 'deficit hawk' he can help rally votes.

Second is an issue that cannot be avoided: Iran.  Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton offers a stern warning against political negotiations dragging on.  Excerpts:

This weekend, yet another "deadline" passed for Iran to indicate it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Like so many other deadlines during these five years of European-led negotiations, this one died quietly, with Brussels diplomats saying that no one seriously expected any real work on a Saturday.

The fact that the Europeans are right -- this latest deadline is not fundamentally big news -- is precisely the problem with their negotiations, and the Bush administration's acquiescence in that effort.

The rationality of continued Western negotiations with Iran depends critically on two assumptions: that Iran is far enough away from having deliverable nuclear weapons that we don't incur excessive risks by talking; and that by talking we don't materially impede the option to use military force. Implicit in the latter case is the further assumption that the military option is static -- that it remains equally viable a year from now as it is today.

Neither assumption is correct.

First, while the European-led negotiations proceed, Iran continues both to convert uranium from a solid (uranium oxide, U3O8, also called yellowcake) to a gas.

As Isfahan's continuing operations increase both Iran's UF6 inventory and its technical expertise, however, the impact of destroying the facility diminishes. Iran is building a stockpile of UF6 that it can subsequently enrich even while it reconstructs Isfahan after an attack, or builds a new conversion facility elsewhere.

Second, delay permits Iran to increase its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) -- that is, UF6 gas in which the U235 isotope concentration (the form of uranium critical to nuclear reactions either in reactors or weapons) is raised from its natural level of 0.7% to between 3% and 5%.

As its LEU stockpile increases, so too does Tehran's capacity to take the next step, and enrich it to weapons-grade concentrations of over 90% U235 (highly-enriched uranium, or HEU).

destroying Iran's enrichment facility at Natanz does not eliminate its existing enriched uranium (LEU), which the IAEA estimated in May 2008 to be approximately half what is needed for one nuclear weapon. Iran is thus more than two-thirds of the way to weapons-grade uranium with each kilogram of uranium it enriches to LEU levels.

Third, although we cannot know for sure, every indication is that Iran is dispersing its nuclear facilities to unknown locations, "hardening" against air strikes the ones we already know about, and preparing more deeply buried facilities in known locations for future operations. That means that the prospects for success against, say, the enrichment facilities at Natanz are being reduced.

Fourth, Iran is clearly increasing its defensive capabilities by purchasing Russian S-300 antiaircraft systems (also known as the SA-20) directly or through Belarus.

Fifth, Iran continues to increase the offensive capabilities of surrogates like Syria and Hezbollah, both of which now have missile capabilities that can reach across Israel, as well as threaten U.S. troops and other U.S. friends and allies in the region. It may well be Syria and Hezbollah that retaliate initially after an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, thus making further strikes against Iran more problematic, at least in the short run.

Iran is pursuing two goals simultaneously, both of which it is comfortably close to achieving. The first -- to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically. Thus, Iran's second objective becomes critical: to make the risks of a military strike against its program too high, and to make the likelihood of success in fracturing the program too low. Time favors Iran in achieving these goals. U.S. and European diplomats should consider this while waiting by the telephone for Iran to call.

We are allowing ourselves to be boxed into a corner in regard to Iran by relying too much on negotiation.  While we have repeatedly pledged to defend Israel if it were to be attacked, the ramifications of retaliation may be more complex than a pre-emptive strike.  When you consider that Israel is rarely afraid to take unpopular action in the face of existential threats (and they are once again saying they are prepared to attack Iran if necessary), we may be dragged into a conflict we don't want under very unfavorable circumstances.  By playing defense rather than offense, we risk much greater damage in the long run - after all, political damage isn't nearly as devastating as an actual nuke or two going off in your backyard.  The question in this game of nuclear chicken is: how crazy is the Iranian leadership?  Israel's arsenal alone would be enough to devastate Iran, much less a combined effort with the U.S. and/or other world nuclear powers.

Personally, I don't find that logic comforting.  From all I've seen of the radical Islamic mindset, they care nothing for deterrents or suicidal situations; to the contrary, they crave them.  To them, dying in a blaze of glorious martyrdom while annihilating millions of infidels is the highest calling of Islam.  In that context, can we really expect even a unanimous global nuclear response (which you know won't happen) to realistically deter them?

No.

If we want to avoid a nuclear Iran, the only realistic option is to destroy their nuclear capabilities.  The most direct way would be an attack on their facilities, which would be militarily very feasible, but mustering the political will to do so will be incredibly difficult.  Another option would be to completely cut off Iran from the world - put up a naval and land blockade, preventing all trade with the country until its nuclear program is torn down completely.  Though the crazies are in charge there, the people of Iran are not necessarily happy about what they're doing.  A little internal rebellion could go a long way toward bringing Iran to its knees pretty quickly (I've seen stories here and there that the youth of Iran, in particular, are actually quite pro-American).  Yes, I do realize that cutting off Iran in such a fashion would probably spike the price of oil, but we appear to be running out of options.  It's too bad we haven't been acquiring our own national resources for the past 30 years, isn't it?  If we were still importing only 30% of our oil like we used to rather than 70% like we do now, we'd be in a much better position to actually accomplish something like this.  Thank you, liberalism, for your contribution to this effort.

Still, I'm sure that people much smarter than me can come up with more options to reign in Iran without bringing nuclear war upon the world.  The fact is that negotiation hasn't ever worked, and won't work in the future.  If we don't come up with something else fast, it looks increasingly likely that Iran is going to answer the nuclear question for us.

There's my two cents.

Caving In...?

Are we seeing the first sign of the Democrats caving on oil drilling?  It's no secret that the proposals of Obama, Pelosi, and the other Democrat leaders would toss us backward to the disastrous economics of the 1970's, but they've been extremely reluctant to even address the issue, much less take action on it.  Now that the GOP is going for the jugular on the issue -- rightly believing they've got a mandate from the American people -- it appears that some cracks may be surfacing on the facade of Democrat unity and resolve.  For example, Charles Krauthammer recently blasted Pelosi's statement that she was blocking a vote on the Republican bill because she was trying to 'save the planet'.  That's ridiculous:

A lovely sentiment. But has Pelosi actually thought through the moratorium's actual effects on the planet?

Consider: 25 years ago, nearly 60 percent of U.S. petroleum was produced domestically. Today it's 25 percent. From its peak in 1970, U.S. production has declined a staggering 47 percent. The world consumes 86 million barrels a day; the United States, roughly 20 million. We need the stuff to run our cars and planes and economy. Where does it come from?

Places like Nigeria where chronic corruption, environmental neglect and resulting unrest and instability lead to pipeline explosions, oil spills and illegal siphoning by the poverty-stricken population -- which leads to more spills and explosions. Just this week, two Royal Dutch Shell pipelines had to be shut down because bombings by local militants were causing leaks into the ground.

Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill.

The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down, then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large. Additionally, the U.S. has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?

The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

Pelosi doesn't get (or simply refuses to acknowledge) that her own energy policy stance actually creates more destruction to the environment.  She's trying to have her cake and eat it, too.

Lawrence Kudlow, too, says that the GOP message is working:

While Republicans on the House floor shouted "vote, vote, vote" and "lower gas prices," the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras, and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they'd overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied "no." When he raised the price to $5, $7, and $10, they cried "no," "no," and "no."

Polls suggest that two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation wants to drill.

There is a voter revolt going on, and it reminds me of the anti-tax rebellion that lifted Ronald Reagan into office twenty-eight years ago. Is the conventional wisdom about to be swept away?

Excuse me??  Democrats wouldn't allow off-shore drilling if prices reached $10/gallon at the pump!  Do you see the problem in the Democrat party now??  Kudlow warns Democrats that their political fortunes may be dwindling because they've taken the wrong side on this issue.

Perhaps hitting most closely to home, Michelle Malkin posts the startling fact that 51% of California residents favor increased drilling for the first time in almost 30 years.  As one of the trend-setters in liberal policies, California is rife with environmental lunacy, so you know that if Californians want more drilling, it's a pervasive feeling across the country!  It also happens to be Pelosi's home state, so she's going to pay attention.

All of these things put together, along with lower consumption by Americans, has generated an unmistakable buzz about energy production.  The general feeling is that America will begin to explore new options and energy development in the near future.  The result?  You've seen it yourself at the pump already: lower prices.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them fall at least another dollar per gallon, but I'll take any relief we can get in the meantime!

Newt Gingrich, one of the architects of the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less movement says the following:

Think about this: In order to block a vote on energy for America, Nancy Pelosi tried to cut off power to the House of Representatives. But Boehner and pro-energy representatives remembered where power really comes from.

Rep. John Boehner and many other pro-energy representatives have refused to allow Nancy Pelosi to duck the energy issue. They know that Congress derives its power from the American people. Speaker Pelosi can't order that power supply shut off.

They're still in Washington this week, making speeches on the House floor to visitors and press, and live-blogging their efforts.

Here's a flavor of the House Republicans historic uprising:

    "We are the light of the world, we are the leaders of the free world. But when we depend on foreign energy we cannot be as strong of a leader as we should and can be." - Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

    "You need to let your congressman know that he or she works for you, not the Speaker of the House." - Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL)

    "Here's a letter from the Gardner family in Texas. They can't afford to both go on vacation and send their son to Boy Scout camp. They can't afford it. If the Gardners can't, then neither should Pelosi and the Congress!" - Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

    "Common sense is not very common in Washington, D.C... Why aren't we using all the resources that we Americans can bring to the table?... We need to use our American ingenuity to solve these problems...We will get it done if there's a vote on this floor." - Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA):

And perhaps most importantly, House Minority Leader John Boehner yesterday promised to keep up this pressure throughout the month of August:

    "The only way we're ever going to bring her to heel and allow a vote is for us to continue to put pressure on her. And so it's 25 Members we had in Congress today, led by Tom Price and Mike Pence. It's Members all over the country doing their townhall meetings, doing their rotary clubs, they're all talking about it. And we're going to keep talking about it until we get our vote." - John Boehner, OH

Gingrich also points out that the Democrats' anti-energy plan doesn't pass Einstein's insanity test:

Someone should remind [Pelosi and MoveOn.org] that Einstein's definition of insanity was "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Not only does MoveOn.org still think that the Left's same, misguided energy scarcity policies are good for America, despite the obvious; they also think that the American people are going to continue to buy their arguments.

That's just crazy, and you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winning physicist to know it.

One other little fact that could be at play here: Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO posts the following from a Gallup poll:

In a year when approval of Congress has reached a new low, just 36% of U.S. registered voters say most members of Congress deserve re-election…Gallup has found ratings in the neighborhood of the current 36% in three other election years — 1992, 1994, and 2006. All of these years brought about significant change in the membership of Congress.

This would be a shock of epidemic proportions to the Democrat party.  They've been assuming a landslide victory in 2008 for the past two and a half years, so a McCain win and pickups by the GOP are as unthinkable as complementing President Bush.

The real point is that such immense public pressure is having an effect on even the most steadfast Democrats, like Pelosi.  The outrage being showered upon her after man-handling the House into vacation -- and Reid, doing the same in the Senate -- rather than deal with the energy crisis has apparently prompted her to privately notify Democrats that they can now support increased drilling.  This doesn't mean she'll give in on the vote, of course...she represents one of the most virulently hardcore environmentalist wacko districts in the country (San Francisco), so her seat is almost certainly safe.  She may be playing a game in allowing her minions to support drilling while she continues blocking any and all votes on the matter.  Still, the cloud is darkening, and if enough people hammer away hard enough, the rain may burst forth, showering us all with some welcome relief.

Keep calling and e-mailing, supporting your GOPers who are fighting the battle, and nagging Pelosi and the other Dems to allow a vote.  It's your money at stake, and you should be willing to fight for it.

There's my two cents.

Kline Picks Up National Endorsement

For those of you in Johnson County, KS, I thought you might want to know about a major conservative endorsement for District Attorney candidate Phil Kline:

Phill Kline is the kind of guy you want serving in public office. I've seen a little bit of him over the last year or so and am always impressed. He's known for being pro-life but much of what he's done anyone with a respect for the law and protecting the innocent would do. He's a good public servant and am confident we'll be seeing more of him, whatever happens today. Good luck today, Phil. If you live in Kansas, especially, check out his NRO interview.

This is from Kathryn Jean Lopez, a regular writer at National Review Online.

Just an FYI...

Obamessiah Update

The rock star candidate is still all over the place, so let's take a look at what he's been up to.  Unfortunately for him, he's still slipping.  In several recent polls (Massachusetts, Florida, overall), McCain continues to gain ground.  Part of this slide is because Obama has serious problems with women.  Obviously, this is a huge voting bloc, and if they ditch him, he's toast.  Obama is also hopelessly outmatched by McCain on foreign policy (despite boasting over 300 advisers...apparently, none of them are any good), which is a critical issue to many people.  Between parroting the party line for years and spouting gaffe after gaffe, Obama is daily proving himself unready for the White House, and Americans are starting to see it.  A major blow to Obama was his recent world tour, which included a speech in Berlin where he essentially touted himself as a citizen of the world rather than a candidate for President of the United States.  As Rich Lowry points out, Americans don't want a trans-national President.  We want an American first, someone who is proud of America.  Obama is neither.

There are also a number of questions about Obama's background and true beliefs which are slowly seeping into the public consciousness.  His position on abortion offends many, and here's another cautionary story about it.  His sheer slipperiness makes many people uneasy, and rightfully so.  When he isn't taking both sides of an issue, he has a tendency to inflate his own importance or take credit for the work of other people.  He tries to be all things to all people at all times, and that is simply not possible.  Despite the massive shielding effort by his shills in the MSM, people are starting to see his standard mode of operations, and they're becoming increasingly nervous about him.  They have seen that he is not a new kind of politician at all, but rather the typical silver-tongued double-speaker they've come to distrust and despise.  Some on the right are actually thankful for him, because he illustrates beautifully how bankrupt and disastrous liberal policies are.  His elitism and stealth socialism is becoming more and more widely known, and it's eroding his support from normal Americans of all stripes.  You know it's bad when the New York Times questions why Obama is only neck and neck in a race that should have been a landslide.

It also doesn't help that he has consistently ducked McCain's challenges for debates.  People are starting to wonder why he is afraid to take on McCain.  He's going to have to man up if he wants to recover some of his image; the problem, though, is that McCain will chew him up and spit him out.  Obama appears to be calculating that he'll take less political damage from being a chicken than from getting pummeled.  If he can't handle a debate or two with McCain, how is he going to handle the tough negotiations he keeps promising against Iran and the like?

He is also revealing himself to be a politician of expedience rather than ideals, despite what he says in his speeches.  His latest position change is on oil drilling.  First he said we couldn't drill our way out of this problem.  Then he suggested we simply inflate our tires properly.  Now he supports some limited drilling.  Okay, so what?  McCain changed his position on that, too, right?  What's the difference?  McCain changed once, before the whole drilling movement had stirred in the American people.  By switching only now, when poll after poll shows the vast majority of Americans support drilling, Obama appears to be changing his position purely based on political expediency.  This is not leadership, it is following by popularity, and many Americans don't respect this sort of weakness.

The bottom line is that Obama is a tremendously weak candidate, and is becoming weaker by the day as America better understands who he is and what he wants to do.  That's bad for the Obamessiah, but very, very good for the American people.

With about three full months still to go before the general election, McCain's chances look better than ever.

There's my two cents.

For The Locals...

Tomorrow is the Missouri state primary. I have not mentioned it much before this because I've been trying to get some clarification from the Republican candidates for Governor, but neither has been forthcoming. I'm not really very surprised, but I am disappointed.

This is one of my biggest frustrations when it comes to politics. Most of the federal level races have national coverage, which means there are plenty of 'unbiased' sources to identify the real candidate behind the campaign slogans. No such luck with state or local races. Sadly, the newspapers usually fall flat when it comes to actually reporting news and positions (the Kansas City Star, in particular, gave up on actual reporting years ago, and now is quite blatant about who they endorse; it is never the true conservative, so opposing whoever they like is actually not a bad way to decide). Absent the same exposure of national eyes, I have found it very hard to get reliable information about state and local races.

As such, I don't really have any recommendations for the primary election tomorrow. I have come to believe that an uninformed vote is a bad vote, so I may not go to the polls at all.

From what little I have learned, here are just a couple observations on a couple important races. Take 'em for what they're worth...not much.

1. Sam Graves rocks! He's a tried and true conservative who has long stood for core conservative principles. He may not be a flashy rock star leader, but he is as straight as it gets. A guaranteed winner.

2. Sarah Steelman vs. Kenny Hulshof --> this is a toss-up. Much of the Missouri GOP is endorsing Hulshof, but in my opinion (given how awful government has become) that's a bad thing. He's being portrayed as a Washington-connected big spender, but that's no different than anyone else, really. But, because of these things, my inclination would be to go with Steelman...except that I have a friend -- whose opinion I trust implicitly -- who actually works for a Congressman in southern Missouri who said that Steelman is known for being a dirty player. Maybe Hulshof isn't so bad...

3. Tim Flook is a good man. He's worked hard on behalf of the people of this area, and I've talked with him personally several times. He's one of the good ones.

Sorry I don't have more specific information. You can choose your own methodology. The enemy of my enemy is my friend works well (as in the case of the Star) at times, as does simply voting against all incumbents on the theory of cleaning house. Just use your best judgment. If you don't know enough to vote intelligently, please consider skipping the vote. You'll have another chance in the general, and I'll have much better information for you to consider.

Like I said, for what it's worth...

There's my two cents.


PS - this is one of those rare -- EXTREMELY RARE -- posts where I'm not sure my opinion is worth even that much...! ;)

Patriots Or Not?

Larrey Anderson writes an interesting perspective piece at the American Thinker today. Whether you agree or disagree, it's worth thinking about for a few moments:

Most conservative political commentators tiptoe around the unpatriotic positions maintained by many liberals in America. We hear prominent conservatives say things like this, "I am not challenging Mr. Liberal's patriotism. I am challenging his point of view."

The fact is that much of the new left is unpatriotic. And that is okay. The Founding Fathers knew that not all Americans would be patriots; in fact, they counted on it. In this article I will show why the culture of the left is not patriotic. My basic contention is that patriotism is now the responsibility of the right -- abandoned by the left.

He uses the Oregon County Fair as his test environment. The short version is that the two-day event was filled with left-wing anti-American garbage, environmental tripe, and precious little of redeeming value, but go check out the article for all the details.

He then finishes with the following:

My initial reaction to the fair was bemused outrage at the hypocrisy and self-deception. It was unsettling to witness thousands of my fellow citizens denigrate the country that I love and respect. It was frightening to listen to their descriptions of the society that they would have take America's place.

But I thought about it again. Our most cherished freedom is the one that allows us, any of us, to try and make the country the way that we think it should be. It follows that part of the greatness of America is the freedom of its citizens to believe and to advance bad ideas -- even to promote ideas that would (and are) ending America as we know it.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the nearly paradoxical freedom that was being granted to the citizens of our new republic. Their solution was to balance the various political factions against each other, to make the proponents of these rival ideologies compete for control of a limited central government. The founders realized that some people wanted a much more powerful federal government -- and that some people favored little or no central control.

In a free representative republic like America "the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."[iv]

The Founders left the job of preserving this delicate balance of opposing factions to the sincere friends of the republic -- to the patriots.

I realized, after my trip to the Oregon Country Fair, that it is our job, as conservatives, to preserve this system that allows the various political factions to compete for power. I now understand that this is a two-fold burden for conservatives. First, it is our obligation, as conservatives and as the champions of individual freedom, to allow the left to pursue its utopian socialist vision. Second, it is our duty, as patriotic Americans, to stop them from achieving their goal.

America is a market place of ideas. All Americans are free to enter almost any idea into this market.[vi] As conservatives, we must defend the right to the free and open expression of ideas in order to protect our own freedom of expression and we must protect the freedom of expression of those with whom we disagree. Because the far left no longer supports a limited federal republic (as we have seen, some are opposed to the very idea of a nation-state), this task has fallen to those of us on the right.

The right must protect and defend our representative republic because the left will not. Conservatives are "the sincere and considerate friends of republican government." We are the patriots. It is time we started acting like it -- and saying it.

This strikes me as a very good piece of analysis. While they will deny it to their dying breath, Lefty liberals have clearly redefined 'patriotism' as simply disagreeing with Bush and conservatives. They clearly seek the benefit of those outside America over the benefit of Americans. They clearly see America as being to blame for just about all evil in the world.

My entire blog is full of examples of these statements, so I will not go into any more right now. The truth is the truth, however, and an objective observer cannot come to any other conclusion than this. While Anderson's evidence is anecdotal at best, I believe he is accurate on a much larger scale, too. I also agree with his assertion that it is time for conservatives to start calling out our liberal friends on their actions and words. Anderson is right that this is a tough balancing job - defending the freedom for liberals to say all the vile and anti-American things they want to say while preventing them from actually achieving their goals. It's not easy, and that's why conservatives face an uphill battle. Still, it's a battle that MUST be fought.

When anti-patriotism rears its ugly head, we should call it what it is. By dancing around the topic, we as conservatives not only show a distressing lack of courage, but we also allow the Left to redefine words into something unrecognizable. Once we allow that redefinition to occur, we lose the ability to debate intelligently. When we can't even agree on the definition of 'is', or when we consider statements like 'this war is lost' to be 'patriotic', there is a problem.

That problem is liberalism, and the Left needs to be held to account. It starts with us conservatives.

There's my two cents.

Oil Headlines

Just a couple quick headlines:

Oil prices drop about $4 after storm threat eases

House Republicans go back on the floor Monday to talk gas prices

GOP: Lift drilling ban or risk shutdown

So, if prices are dropping simply because a storm misses, how do you think they'd be affected by actual increased production? If this continues (mainly, if the House GOP continues playing hardball), you can continue to expect prices to continue dropping. How low they go will depend largely on how much the American people will allow the Democrats to get away with.

See? These things make a difference...

There's my two cents.

House Update - There Is A Spine!

Just wanted to post an update to last week's battle on the floor of the House of Representatives.

To recap, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat leadership forced a vote on adjournment for a 5-week vacation (it won by a single vote) rather than take up the Republicans' proposed bill to deal with America's energy crisis. The bill would have an immediate effect on gas prices by opening up more oil drilling, nuclear power, and other effective energy measures. Pelosi knows that if a vote occurs, the bill will pass because it enjoys broad bipartisan support.

In reponse to Pelosi's shutdown of the House, several dozen Republicans (all who were still in Washington) staged their own discussion with several hundred tourists who happened to be in the viewing gallery of the House. Pelosi ordered the lights turned out, but the GOPers and tourists were not deterred, so the lights were eventually turned back on. Not surprisingly, the tourists went wild, and a wildfire of support has swept through the grass roots.

Their goal is to get either President Bush or Pelosi to call a special session of the House for a vote on this energy bill.

Today, the battle continues. Michelle Malkin posts:

“Hit hard, hit fast, hit often.”

That was the advice Marine hero Chesty Puller gave his men.

That’s the advice congressional Republicans should follow.

On Friday, GOP members led a revolt on the floor that rocked the House, energized the conservative base, humiliated the feckless Democrat majority, and brought visiting tourists to their feet cheering in the gallery. (Oh, and not coincidentally on Friday afternoon, Barack Obama followed John McCain and flip-flopped on offshore drilling. If you lead, conservatives, the flip-floppers will follow.)

While Do-Nothing Nancy Pelosi jetted off on her pathetically-performing “Know Your Power” book tour and Democrats adjourned for a five-week recess, scores of Republican congressional representatives stayed on Capitol Hill–or rushed back in shorts with suitcases still in hand — to press for votes on energy independence and drilling. Though Pelosi turned the lights out on the House floor, Republicans got their message out–via Twitter, Qik, the blogosphere, talk radio, and grumbly MSM types who derided the upstart effort as “bizarre.”

Leave it to Beltway snob journalists to call House Republicans who refuse to take vacations while the public’s business goes unfinished “bizarre.”

So, where does that leave us now? The House GOP appears to finally be displaying some full measure of spine, so it's up to American people to rally behind them. Three things:

1. call your Rep; if he or she is a Dem, demand they contact Pelosi and bring the House back to address energy; if he or she is a Rep, encourage them to participate in the rebellion if they are not already; also, if they are participating already, express your gratitude for finally standing up for the American people
2. call Pelosi's office; demand that she bring the House back in session to vote on this energy bill
3. call the White House; ask the President to call the House back for a vote on the energy bill

This is one of those times when politics meets the real world. This bill would have a real impact on the price of gas, as well as laying the foundations for energy independence in the future. We need it, and we need it now. Make these calls. I'll post updates as I find them.

There's my two cents.

Fun & Frivolity: Mars, Rambo Lambo, And Wipeout

Escorting you into your weekend playtime are a trio of fun things. First, we have some incredible pictures from Mars. Here's one:


Is it any wonder that the majesty and mystery of space has captured humanity's imagination for centuries?

Next, we move on to more...earthly...pleasures. The one and only Lamborghini has created some serious eye candy for the off-roader:



This beast -- dubbed the 'Rambo Lambo' -- is a rough analog for the Humvee, but can scream along at 130mph (110 on sand)! I'm sure it has more cupholders, too. Sweet!

Finally, I had to share another of my new indulgences with you. ABC recently launched a show called 'Wipeout', in which people navigate a series of obstacle courses in the hopes of winning $50,000. I'm reluctant to admit it, but I find it hilarious to watch these people make total fools of themselves on these courses! Check it out for yourself (but don't drink anything while you watch):

Even this video doesn't do justice to the true ineptitude from these would-be athletes! You gotta' check out the show! :)

Have a great weekend!

Huge (And Excellent) War Updates!

Several major, major pieces of news to pass along to you about the War on Terror.

First, Right Truth posts some links to a story from WorldNetDaily that indicate Iraq shipped WMDs to Syria before the U.S.-led invasion back in 2003:

A former American overseer of Iraqi prisons says several dozen inmates who were members of Saddam Hussein's military and intelligence forces boasted of helping transport weapons of mass destruction to Syria and Lebanon in the three months prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria."

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."

The prisoners were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military, often stationed at munitions facilities, according to Bordenkircher. He said he was told the WMDs were shipped by truck into Syria, and some ended up in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

This is not the first time we've seen this information (I blogged about it here over a year ago), but it does serve as yet another confirmation from independent sources.  With repeated confirmations, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the story is accurate?  And yet, we still hear the mantra of how Bush lied about WMDs from the Left.  It's pitiful, really.  This report also busts another Lefty myth, confirming the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war and active assistance in training and support from Saddam Hussein's regime.  Darn those pesky facts!

Next, Little Green Footballs reports on a Washington Post story that indicates the leader of 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' needs to get new business cards printed up:

The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization.

Excellent work, men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces!

Next we have a report that Al Qaeda's #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri may have been killed in a recent U.S. missile strike in Waziristan.  Zawahiri's death has been reported a couple times before, so we'll have to wait for the confirmation before celebrating too much, but if they actually got him this time, it would be a monster blow to what's left of Al Qaeda.  I'll let you know when the confirmation comes in.

Finally, UPI.com posts a story that U.S. combat-related deaths are at an all-time low since the Iraq war began:

Iraq combat in July claimed five U.S. military lives, by far the lowest monthly U.S. death toll of the 5-year-old war, U.S. government reports say.

The report represents a dramatic drop from a year ago, when more than 100 troops a month were killed for several consecutive months.

U.S. President George Bush suggested the decreasing violence in Iraq would allow him to withdraw additional troops before leaving office in January, the Post said.

Bush has also now gone on the record:

"[T]here now appears to be a degree of durability to the gains that we have made.  We are now in our third consecutive month with reduced violence levels holding steady.  We have now brought home all five of the combat brigades and the three Marine units that were sent to Iraq as part of the surge. The last of these surge brigades returned home this month."

Troop withdrawals because of victory - that's what Americans wanted!  Not surrender, not premature withdrawal, but an orderly drawdown as the result of victory.

So there you have it.  The war is all good news.  That's why you're not hearing much -- if anything -- about it in the MSM.

There's my two cents.

Obama's Energy Plan

Barack the Obamessiah has released his [cue the big, deep, echoing announcer voice] Official Energy Plan.  It consists of two steps:
1. properly inflate the tires on your car
2. rob oil companies to fund another stimulus check

No, this is not a joke.  Take a look:

Speaking Wednesday at a Springfield, MO campaign event, Obama explained the folly of opening restricted offshore waters to oil and gas drilling: [Video]

"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You'd actually save just as much."

Marc Sheppard comments on the idea:

Beyond the obvious question of where he pulled this clearly arbitrary equivalence from -- there's that awkward one of relevance.  Even if extensive research of expert opinion somehow supported this impetuous declaration -- just what type of argument would it make against drilling? 

In other words, even if properly inflating one's tires made a rat's patootie worth of difference to the price of gasoline, how does that negate the assistance that more drilling would make?  If we have two things that would help, why would we use only one?  Part two of his [cue the big, deep, echoing announcer voice] Official Energy Plan can be found here:

"That's why today I'm announcing a two-part emergency plan to help struggling families make ends meet and get our economy back on track. The first part of my plan is a $1,000 emergency energy rebate that could go out to families as soon as this fall. This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next 4 months. [snip]

"The second part of my plan is a $50 billion stimulus to help jump-start job creation and help local communities that are struggling due to our economic downturn. Half of this stimulus will go to state governments that are facing big budget shortfalls. The other half of this stimulus will be used to invest in our national infrastructure, replenish the Highway Trust Fund, rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges, and repair our crumbling schools."

Aides later provided more detail on how this stimulus would be paid for:

"He is proposing to pay for these rebate checks with a windfall profits tax that would apply to some of the excess profits that oil companies have made -- not because of their investments, not because of their ingenuity and skill, but simply because of the high oil prices that we're facing today."

So, rather than implement tax cuts -- which have been proven to light a fire under the economy -- and rather than increase domestic energy production -- which is also proven to lower prices -- the Obamessiah's plan relies on imaginary assertions, brainless stupidity, and stealing money from private companies.

Remember my recent post about the reason why liberals make no sense sometimes?  This is another great example - he has to lie about what he wants to do (i.e. help families, and that his plan will actually provide relief) because he simply can't afford to be honest about it.  For example, while many Americans may receive the $1,000 checks, those who pay the most in taxes (i.e. the 'rich') won't receive them.  This is purely another election year stunt to buy votes from the 'poor', who don't pay any taxes but are happy to receive these stimulus checks.

He also seems to think that ripping off money from private companies won't come back around to hurt consumers.  Uh...what does he think those private companies are going to do when they get robbed by the government?  They're going to pass along the amount of the robbery in the form of higher prices, which will come squarely back to consumers.  At best, the $1,000 will be a wash with the higher prices that we'll end up paying, but it's a safe guess that it will fall short in the long run.  Another unintended consequence of liberal ideas.

Could there be any better indication that he is unprepared to lead this country?

There's my two cents.

Rush Celebrates 20!

Talk radio king Rush Limbaugh celebrated his 20-year anniversary on the radio today.  His program was chock full of fun reminiscences from the past, as well as calls and messages from notable friends and supporters.

As the man who blew open the doors to conservative talk radio (which eventually led to the entire new media) and almost single-handedly broke the MSM's monopolistic liberal stranglehold on the publication of information in this country, Limbaugh is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to politics, as was evidenced by a call from President Bush, former Pres. Bush (41st), and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, all wishing to congratulate him.

Congratulations, Rush!  Well done, and keep it up!

The GOP House Is Going For It

From Michelle Malkin:

Just got this heads up from a Hill staffer. The Democrats may have gone on vacation, but House Republicans are on the floor today, working on behalf of taxpayers to push energy proposals forward. Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, is busy hawking her miserably performing book–currently 1,726 on Amazon.com:

From: Stipicevic, John
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: WHIP FLOOR UPDATE

Although, this Democrat Majority just Adjourned for the Democrat 5-Week Vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House Floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN camera's have been turned off, House Republicans are on the Floor speaking to the taxpayers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican Energy proposals.

All Republicans who are in town are encouraged to come to the House Floor.

***

Update: From the Republican Study Committee, a call for President Bush to convene a special session on gas prices.

Just do it!

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC), and Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), former Chairman of RSC, today urged President Bush to call for a special session of Congress after the House adjourned without allowing a vote on comprehensive legislation to develop more American energy and help the millions of Americans currently feeling pain at the gas pump.

The text of their letter is below:

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The House of Representatives has not taken a vote since January 2007 that would expand domestic energy production. All the while, Americans are hurting. Every time they go to fill up their cars, trucks or tractors they feel the pain at the pump. High gas prices are harming the vitality of our families, the elderly, small businesses, and family farms. Each and every American is affected.

Today the Democrat controlled Congress adjourned for a five-week vacation without taking a vote on bipartisan measures that would lessen our dependence on foreign oil by allowing more domestic drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, they adjourned without even allowing time for debate on the subject of drilling.

On July 14, 2008, you took the strong action of lifting the executive order that had banned offshore drilling. In so doing, you said that allowing offshore oil drilling is "one of the most important steps we can take" to reduce the burden of high gas prices. Now, all it would take is an act of Congress for that drilling to begin.

Since Speaker Pelosi has decided not to keep the House in session to allow this vote to take place, we urge you to use the power vested in you by the Constitution to convene an immediate energy special session of Congress. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, you have the power 'on extraordinary occasions' to convene the Congress.

We believe that the energy emergency that has increased the pain felt by Americans when they purchase $4 per gallon gasoline is an extraordinary occasion. We urge you to immediately bring the Congress back into session to do its job and give the bipartisan, pro-drilling majority a vote.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

This is outstanding for two reasons.  First, the GOP in the House is showing an amazing amount of spine in hammering relentlessly away at this energy issue.  This is what the American people want, and it's a breath of fresh air to see some members of Congress actually representing the American people for a change!

Second, this is a beautiful illustration of the Democrat leadership.  Pelosi ignored a legitimate financial crisis, refusing to even allow a vote on legislation that would help the American people.  She knew that a number of her own party would happily vote with Republicans to open up more oil drilling and energy production, and that she would almost certainly lose such a vote, so she squashed it and forced the House into its August recess.  Then, when a number of GOPers remained on the floor of the House, she ordered that the cameras, microphones, and lights be turned out!

Can we say Stalin, anyone?  This is how the Democrats run things!

It seems like the tide is changing, and it's because of this precise issue.  I would love nothing more than to see President Bush call a special session of Congress to address this energy legislation (I've seen the suggestion in more than one place).  I would guess it'll give him a significant bump in the ratings, it would empower the Republicans fighting for the American people, and it could -- assuming a vote would finally be held -- finally provide some welcome real progress on energy production.

Mr. President: call the special session!

There's my two cents.

The Obamessiah's Knots

Barack the Obamessiah has been twisting himself in knots lately.  In addition to the ever-increasing list of things on which he has changed his position at least once, he also can't seem to keep straight his campaign talking points.

One of McCain's latest (which can be found at www.johnmccain.com) is called 'Celeb'.  It calls Barack Obama the world's biggest celebrity and compares him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, questioning his ability to actually lead.  It then points out that Obama wants to raise taxes and rely on foreign oil.  While the implication that Obama is a rock star is debatable (personlly, I would consider him more of a pseudo-religious figure), the factual statements made in the ad are true.

In response, Obama made the following statement:

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"

The response to this statement has been a tidal wave of skepticism.  The obvious implication of this statement is race, right?  Well, not according to the Obama campaign, which quickly tried to clarify by saying he meant that he hadn't gotten to where he was by spending decades in Washington.  Riiiiiight...

Rich Lowry (and one of his readers) blows that argument out of the water.  First off, what does a non-Washington politician 'look like'?  Second:

Washington didn't even serve as president in Washington. And Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant weren't Washington time-servers. In fact, they are better as examples for Obama of how you don't need Washington experience (if you put aside, of course, the genius political and moral leadership of Lincoln prior to getting elected and the inspired generalship of Jackson and—especially—Grant).

Another attempt at explaining Obama's statement was:

"Obama himself didn't make clear what distinctions he thinks McCain is likely to raise regarding the presidents on U.S. currency – white men who for the most part were much older than Obama when elected."

Lowry kills that one, too:

I suppose Andrew Jackson ($20, 61) could fairly be described as much older than the Senator, and we could argue about George Washington ($1, 56) (and Thomas Jefferson (57), though I can't remember the last time I saw a $2 bill) – I'm 36 myself, and I wouldn't say that Senator Obama is "much older" than I – but Abraham Lincoln ($5, 51)? And Ulysses Grant ($50) was…46.

Peter Kirsanow throws in this perspective:

I suppose that last week when Obama — in terms similar to the Dollar Bill quote— told the crowd in Berlin, "I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city," he was referring to the fact that JFK wasn't as tall.

Not content with mere insinuations of racism, the Obama campaign publically signals their belief that we're galactically stupid.

Jason Lee Steorts has a different but equally damaging take:

I propose we take a second or two to feel disgusted by the sheer arrogance of that first sentence. Nobody thinks . . . Well, no; lots of people think Bush and McCain have some "real" answers to some challenges, and lots of people think Barack Obama's answers to the same challenges are mistaken. There are millions of such people, in fact. And I'll bet most of them wouldn't have the chutzpah to pretend that there aren't millions of other people who disagree with them. That's sort of the way it goes in politics, you know?  But I guess there are certain advantages to being the Blessed One Who Doth End All Strife. Among them, the right to use bullying and intellectually dishonest rhetoric. Ah, unity.

But it's not just conservatives - ABC's Jake Tapper, for instance, calls it 'pretty inflammatory'.  Even Chris 'Shivering Leg' Matthews agrees Obama played the race card.  The point is that McCain's charge that Obama played the race card is valid.  Anyone with a quarter of a brain reading or listening to that statement understands what Obama is really getting at - he's black, and that makes him different.  Michelle Malkin points out that Obama himself has often pointed out his own name and race as campaign issues.  Does this make him a racist toward himself?  Hey, for the Obamessiah, anything is possible, right?  I'm sure it's all Bush's fault, though.

Victor Davis Hanson wonders why he keeps invoking race at all:

Obama's problems with race have nothing to do with his half -African ancestry or his own experience with racism and unfairness, but boil down to his deftly wanting it both ways: reminding the Germans he is a different sort of American from what they're used to (false, they knew Rice and Powell well enough), while preempting by suggesting others will evoke race, but in a negative context. But his polls, I wager, will begin to slip from all this, because all this sophisticated triangulation is about to blow up in the public mind.

1) The voter is starting to hear serially from Obama about race; they were promised a racially transcendent candidate, but so far Obama seems obsessed with identity, either accusing others of racism, or using heritage himself for political advantage. This is a tragic blunder.

2) He has the same want-it-both-ways with odious racists: Rev. Wright is a former spiritual advisor, and "brilliant" scholar who nevertheless serially slurs America, whites, Italians, Jews, etc. Ludacris is "a great talent" and "talented" to such an extent Obama wants him in his I-pod menu, and has met with him—but also a racist to be shunned. Ditto Pfleger. A pattern is emerging: Obama associates with or tolerates racists when such quasi-intimacy cements street-cred as an authentic minority or someone cool in the anti-Bush mode; but then when they inevitably revert to form, he not merely casts them off, but is "shocked" at their usual expression, and so like speed bumps they litter the roadway as he barrels ahead.

3). The "typical white person", grandma under the bus riff, Pennsylvania "clingers" rant etc. , 'no more disown Rev, Wright/ but now leaving Trinity Church', etc. themselves are immaterial, but in toto provide a thin margin of tolerance when something like Ludacris or Obama's latest accusation of racism surfaces.

4) Right now Obama does not need to solidify his 90% African-American base or the Moveon.org white liberal adherents; but instead he must remember why he lost all those primaries to Hillary and to what degree his campaign since then has addressed those concerns that lost him those electorates. When a West Virginian hears that Obama is accusing others of racism, or hears him promise that racial reparations will now be a matter of government deeds not words, or a rapper brags he is a favorite of Obama and then slurs Clinton, McCain, Bush in thinly disguised racist terms, it starts to create an image of someone who is not bringing people together, but precisely the opposite.

Why all this? Inexperience and hubris—the same overconfidence that makes him say we need a Pentagon-sized new civilian aid department, to inflate our tires to avoid drilling, and must stop merely talking about reparations and starting doing something about them. His handlers need to return to the teleprompter, since all these incidents have in common the impromptu moment.

These are some outstanding points.  These things are starting to permeate the public consciousness despite the MSM's best efforts to shield him.  Three months remain until the general election; can he maintain his facade that long, or is McCain going to end up thumping Obama because we finally understand who he is?

It could be fun to see what other knots the Obamessiah will get himself into before November.

There's my two cents.

What Do You Think About Link Roundups?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of my Link Roundup posts (the most recent one here)? I've posted a poll to the right, and would appreciate your feedback. Remember, this is an anonymous poll, so please be honest. Love 'em or hate 'em, I want to know what you really think!

After all, this blog is a service to you, the readers, so it's your opinion that counts!

Thanks!