At least it is to the left. Liberals don’t often ask, and never answer, WHY? And it is their biggest weakness.

Now, in the summer of 2008, much of America is lamenting $4.00 gasoline. There’s no reason to ask why everyone is so distraught over higher gas prices – that’s pretty easy to figure – it can be a family budget buster. But, when the dems continue their tired old rants, “we can’t drill our way out of this mess,” “it’ll take ten years to bring to market,” and “speculators are driving up the price,” we should be asking “WHY?” to each of those statements. Let’s see their “logic.”

WHY can’t “we drill out way out of this mess”? Please explain the reasoning that supports that statement. The truth is: we can. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics must conclude that increasing the supply to a static demand will reduce the price. To exaggerate for effect, if the U.S. was to increase our production by 7 million barrels/day, we would equal the crude that we import from our top five suppliers (Canada, Saudi, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela). Even my dog would agree that prices would drop. So, now that we’ve established that increased production could reduce prices, we only need to estimate how much prices would fall if we increased production by, let’s say, one million barrels/day - a not unreasonable number.

As far as the ten-year pessimism goes, I’ve heard experts that hold to a five or six-year time-span as being more realistic, not ten. Regardless, the journey begins with a single step, and the step must be taken NOW. Instead of proposing a “windfall profits tax,” why not propose a “windfall production bonus”? Find and get the oil to market sooner and earn a bonus – that works everywhere else in the marketplace.

Very little that government does takes place in much less than ten years – should we not call for a higher CAFÉ standard because the target MPG will take manufacturers ten years to achieve? Should we not fund space exploration or develop new military hardware because it will take ten years to complete? That’s hogwash. WHY shouldn’t we start now?

WHY do speculators “drive up the price”? Once again, simple economics. They’re betting that our 21 million barrel daily consumption will continue to rise and exceed our static production by at least 12 million barrels/day (CIA 2005 estimated figures). Demand rises, domestic production remains static, and we must import more crude. When demand outpaces supply, the price goes up. Is that too difficult to understand? The speculators are merely gambling on the price continuing to rise. What would happen if (magically) the world’s production doubled tomorrow? Wouldn’t the price a speculator would expect to pay drop drastically? WHY can’t the dems in Congress understand that?

WHY are the statements coming from the dems so out of touch with reality? The answer is pure and simple – politics. Congressional democrats are pandering to environmental “wackos” and don’t want anything constructive to happen on George Bush’s watch. When new drilling must occur to satisfy their constituents, dems will want to take credit for it.

Is it any wonder that congressional approval ratings have continued to drop? RealClearPolitics reports an average approval rating for congress at 18% [update: RCP average of 4 July polls is now down to 17.3%] - it was 34% when the democrats took control in 2006. As Einstein defined insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What congress has been doing hasn’t worked – isn’t it time to do something different?

 How asinine is that? The democrats (led by the environmental wackos) have prevented any drilling in the name of “protecting” these sensitive natural areas from being despoiled, and now they’re trying to blame republicans for the problem? Those preventing us from drilling are putting the U.S. economy in peril. If if weren't so dangerous, it'd be ludicrous.  

Here’s a fact that everyone should know: the area proposed for drilling in ANWR is 31 sq. miles, only slightly larger than the area of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport (DFW), (29 sq. miles). For this, we put our country’s security at risk? For this, we allow ourselves to be held hostage to rising prices?

• Suppose Iran sinks a ship in the Gulf of Harmouz, blocking the passage of oil tankers? What will happen here? And when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve runs out an estimated 33 days later?
• If the supply is cut and we must ration, you won’t be able to get an unlimited supply even if you can afford higher prices.

Right now we’re complaining about $4.00/gal. for an unlimited supply of gas. If gasoline is rationed, we will welcome the opportunity to pay $8.00/gal. for “black-market” gas if we could get it. Gasoline rationing could become a reality if something happens in the Gulf of Harmouz to halt the flow of crude. When rationing comes, even the affluent will be affected; it doesn’t matter that you can afford it if there’s none to be had.

Rationing is not a “doomsday” scenario – it’s already happened. If you’re younger than mid 50's, you probably don’t remember any personal discomfort, you were too young. But coming from one who experienced it, a colonoscopy is more fun.

But in 1973, OPEC instituted an oil embargo. Because suppliers were limited in their stocks, gas stations were also limited in the amount of gas they could sell. They either limited individuals to 10 gallons at a time or let everyone fill up and just closed the station when the day’s supply ran out. And you didn’t just stop at a station and pump your gas – chances are that you had to get in line. And the queues were long waiting to get your gas – waiting an hour to pump 10 gallons wasn’t unusual. Seeing a sign at a station indicating that they were “Out of Gas” was a frequent sight.

And this just in: VIENNA:Published: July 10, 2008, The head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries warned Thursday that oil prices would see an "unlimited" increase in the case of a military conflict involving Iran, because the group's members would be unable to make up the lost production. "We really cannot replace Iran's production - it's not feasible to replace it," Abdalla Salem El-Badri, the OPEC secretary general, said during an interview.

Further price increases and/or shortages are one incident away. Every time that loon Ahmadinejad frowns, prices go up. We are at his mercy. It could happen again.

I’m not aware of this term being used before, but it certainly seems appropriate. It is the racial quivalent of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). BDS, first coined by Charles Krauthammer, is defined as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush". In other words, hatred of Bush supposedly leads to reflexive opposition to any position advocated by Bush.

It doesn’t take a leap of logic to see the parallels between BDS and WDS. Some black “leaders,” like Revs. Wright, Moss, Cone, Jackson, Sharpton, et al, use the “us against them” rant to justify blaming any problem in the black community on whites.

Educating black children from an early age that there is no racial equality – that whitey is at the root of all of their troubles, is just the beginning. Some “black leaders” tell them “through slavery and segregation whitey held us down before and they’re still holding us down.” To them, race-baiting is a cottage industry; it’s their profession.

It’s as if black-on-black crime is whitey’s fault. Teen drug use – whitey’s fault, out-of-wedlock births – whitey again, single moms raising children without a father – blame it on the white man.

Race-baiting just raised its ugly head again last Monday when a black Dallas County commissioner (John Wiley Price) chose to interpret a statement made by a white commissioner as a racial slur and loudly “corrected” him. And, if that wasn’t enough, a (black) judge chimed in with a demand for an apology. Both are suffering from WDS. Here’s an excerpt from the Dallas City Hall blog of the Dallas Morning News describing the incident:

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.

Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."

That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.

Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term. A black hole, according to Webster's, is perhaps "the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape."

It is obvious that Mr. Price was wayyyy off base in making that remark. Mr. Mayfield used the term in a perfectly logical context; one that any fifth-grader would have recognized and understood. Both Mr. Price and Mr. Jones had a knee jerk reaction to an innocent use of the word “black” and immediately responded with real racist comments.

This is just another incident confirming the notion that there is (at least) as much racism in the black community as among whites. The black racists use racism as a tool – one which with they are proficient.

I see few African-American leaders refuting these racial provocateurs; certainly Bill Cosby has, and he ought to be hailed for exposing the truth to the light of day. True, some have praised him but others (like those named above) simply tune him out. Accepting any of the blame for the ills of the urban black community is not in the vocabulary of those suffering from WDS. After all, it’s their profession, pitting black against white. Where would they be without racial animosity?

And what about admitting the truth? The truth is that at twelve percent of the population and with few blacks in positions of authority, blacks simply didn’t have the political power to move integration forward without the help of their white brothers and sisters. If all whites had truly wanted to keep the black population down, it would not have been difficult.

Two things need to happen in order for there to be real racial respect, blacks need to admit that they are to blame for many of their own problems because they’ve accepted drugs, crime, and irresponsible parenthood as normal life, and stop using “blame whitey” as the solution the problems in the “hood.”

Blacks will get a lot more help (and respect) from whites if they stop blaming everything on us. Together, it is possible to eradicate WDS, but it is first necessary to recognize that it exists.

• Gun Free Home
• Have Gun, Will Use It

Want to take bets on which homes will suffer the most burglaries and home invasions?

Not exactly monumental achievements, were they? And he’s going to “transform” the nation?

Who knows, one day Obama may have the “chops” to be considered for the job of POTUS, but so far, he’s barely mastered “chopsticks.”

Barack Obama is supposed to be half black and half white, yet blacks see him as a black man. Why don’t they see him as a white man? Isn’t he just as much white as black?

Put simply - because of his skin color. Why else would black America identify with him? Except for his skin pigmentation, he barely qualifies as black. His life experiences could hardly be more different from those of black America, for example:

“He is not descended from slaves, nor was his childhood marked by poverty, segregated schooling or social deprivation. His father was not African-American but entirely African and his mother, as we all know, was white. He did not grow up in the midst of the ugly hatreds and divisions of the American South, or even with the more subtle, disguised discrimination of the North” (from the Telegraph (UK) 3/24/2008).

Yet black America claims him as one of them.

Barack’s education includes a BA from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard. That hardly qualifies as typical black education.

And contrast his personal economic condition with that of black America. The Obama family’s adjusted gross income was $983,826 in 2006 (down from $1,655,106 in 2005) while the median family income for all black families that year was $31,969.

Obama hasn’t exactly “walked a mile” in the shoes of his black brothers and sisters. He hasn’t had the same life experiences. In fact, on paper, Obama’s statistics looks more like an “affluent, white yuppie liberal” than an average black person.

So, why are African Americans voting for him in droves?

They’re voting based on his skin color.

Isn’t that the definition of a racist?

Truth could be the ultimate answer to practically every problem facing everyone.

We learn, through life experiences, that we can’t simply take what people say as gospel truth – most people lie some, and some people lie a lot.

But, what if there was a way to identify, with 100% (or even 99.99%) accuracy, a statement to be true or false. Think about the ramifications of real truth on the way we live.

Truth could solve problems ranging from knowing whether the Prius will really get 50 MPG to deciding who should be the next President.

Did your spouse cheat on you? Was your employee really sick last Friday? Is the check really in the mail? Did you cheat on your taxes? [OK, maybe we need a tax-cheating loophole, but you get the point.]

A jury’s responsibility would shift from determining guilt to assessing a sentence – based on the truth of the case. Most attorneys would be reeducated until they could master “want fries with that?” Institutional racism could no longer exist, nor could the anti-white activities of Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, or Wright.

We could begin to trust our associates, our friends, our spouses, our churches, and our elected representatives. Our spy networks would no longer be necessary and if we could accurately differentiate between our real friends and those who mean us harm, we could better defend ourselves, both individually and as a country. No President could “lie us into a war” or play “hide the cigar” in the oval office.

It would no longer be possible for fraud to exist, identity theft would be gone, only guilty people would be sent to prison – and we’d never execute an innocent person. Never again could someone be cheated or swindled in any kind of transaction.

Private sector companies would be competing based on merit and service rather than marketing hype and half-truths. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could believe commercials?

Social Security and Medicare could be dealt with without partisan politics. Eliminating fraud in these programs would likely mean that the benefits could be increased and the programs could be put on fiscally firm ground.

The IRS would be reduced to perhaps a few thousand “truth evaluators” and pork-barrel patronage couldn’t be hidden away in a “Food for the Hungry Children” bill. This alone would save billions that could be spent in more beneficial ways. Let’s put the environmentalists and oil company reps in a small room and find out how much truth there is in each position – there’s probably some truth and some lie in each position.

We could accurately evaluate our elected representatives (this probably would mean that current incumbents would be forced to find “gainful” employment) like replacing the illegals working the crops. Many (including Congress) would fight tooth and nail to bury such a device. But if someone were seen as opposing the truth, isn’t that an indictment on its face? Most of our “public servants” would quietly retire and not seek reelection if a “truth assessment” became part of qualifying for public office.

Education would be vastly improved with no political shadings – just the facts. There would be no more revisionist history – what happened – happened. Quality educators could be identified and paid accordingly, others could find work as Wal-Mart greeters.

Imagine how free and happy we could be if we could drop the defensive shield we’re forced to maintain and be truly trusting of our fellow humans.

All we need is a way to parse statements through a truth filter.

Nobody said it would be easy but the development of a truth detector would truly be a world-changing event. With so many “wrongs” that could be “righted” by such a device, why aren’t we funding scientific research to the level of a space program? The ROI would be mind-boggling in the truest context of the term.

The left is hell-bent on regaining power. That’s the reason they do everything possible to make the current administration appear feckless. They believe that the negative perception of current policies will translate to tipping the elections in their favor. It’s in their selfish interest to ignore anything positive, or worse to repaint the truth with a dirty brush.

The actions taken by the far left, including most democrat members of congress and the mass media, are not only irresponsible, they are unpatriotic. I know that they hate that word – it draws immediate hostile fire – but when conscious actions result in aiding an enemy, what else can those actions be called?

This is all about George Bush. They’re convinced that if they portray President Bush as an ignorant gunslinger without either a plan or a clue, they’ll regain power. And, unfortunately they may be right. Too many Americans simply accept what appears in the mass media as factual.

Democrats say “We’ve got a better plan”. Sure, they’ve got a plan for stopping the war, for universal health care, for reducing gas prices, improving the economy, balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, and on and on. They have a “plan” for solving any problem ranging from yeast infections to galactic exploration. Simply "having a plan" doesn't automatically mean that "the plan" will work.

Why should we believe them? After all, their plans to retake the White House in 2004 were unsuccessful. The promises made before retaking congress in 2006 have turned out to be "hot air". The democrats haven’t proven themselves capable of carrying out a predefined plan at all – why should anyone be expected to think that these new “plans” work any better. Better to gauge the dem's results than to accept their rhetoric.

Take John Kerry for example. He and his campaign team worked for several years to formulate one master “plan” with a single purpose, to win the presidency. During the campaign, they made adjustments to the original plan as weaknesses surfaced. The final result was that his plan didn’t do what it was designed to do. Why didn’t it work? His plan failed because Kerry failed to convince a large enough percentage of independents to vote for him and failed to get an appreciable crossover from republicans. He had a plan - it just didn't work.

If John Kerry (and the Democrats in general) can’t “negotiate” enough American voters into accepting Democrat leadership, how can they expect to convince radical Islam to do an about face, become respectful of Jews and Christians, and live peacefully in the world community?