Proof that Democrats hate America.

Do Democrats hate America? Look at one YouTube video showing Democrat voters booing the national anthem. Also, some of these Democrats create a Nazi salute to the anthem, which suggests that they think that this nation is as bad as Nazi Germany. What insanity.

In Response to Environmental Extremist Letter Writers to the NY Times

I have long held that those on the left appear to suffer from some sort of derangement that paralyzes their mind. Liberals are unable to debate logically based upon scientific facts, historical experience, or economic reality. Instead, liberals have a tendency to debate using emotion (which is not logical or rational by its nature) or to argue based upon mysticism dressed up in the garb of environmentalism. Once such example of where liberals become quite deranged is on the issue of oil drilling. Liberals act like Superman does to kryptonite when discussions turn on whether America should begin to drill for oil.

I will show various examples from recent letters to the New York Times. For instance, letter writer, Paul R. Epstein, from Harvard Medical School, wrote, "Nature is saying stop, while Oil is saying go. Haven’t we learned? For so many reasons, it’s time to leave oil in the ground!"

Since I consider myself, as a human being, as part of nature, I would say that nature is not saying to leave oil in the ground, but rather, that we need more of it! The fact that so many of us humans, who depend upon oil for our high standard of living, are complaining about the high cost of oil shows that nature is not asking that it be "[left] in the ground." Of course, the letter writer was probably saying nature, that is, the non-human world, has been asking us to leave the oil in the ground. This is where liberals bring out their religious mysticism because they are "channeling" nature, stating what nature believes and feels. But nature itself is quite ambivalent about leaving oil in the Earth. Oil is a natural resource that has been waiting for industrious humans to use for our own consumption. Nature has not asked us to save the oil.

The next letter to the editor to the New York Times writes a very complicated argument against drilling by stating that it a) harms the planet, b) gasoline is going through the roof, and c) oil companies are making high profits, d) we should find alternative sources of energy. Here is the sentence in all of its glory:

"Let’s see: our entire planet is in danger because of the burning of fossil fuels, our economy is in the tank because of the rising cost of gasoline and diesel while the oil companies are announcing the biggest profits in the history of the planet, and we are going to open the oceans, our biggest source of both oxygen and food, to further offshore drilling. What could possibly be wrong with this picture?"

The non-genius who wrote this is a Judith Luber-Narod from Mass. Let's take each argument on its own. (Liberals have a tendency to throw a million arguments into one, with the hope that something will stick.)

To the argument that drilling "harms the planet".

The global warming movement is a propaganda movement whose purpose is to directly tax the industrial economies and to roll back the high standard of living in the West. The argument over man-made global warming is not over--despite the fact that liberals have said otherwise. The only reason liberals state that the debate is over is precisely because they do not want to have a debate. Just recently, 31,000 scientists have written in opposition to the view that humans are responsible for global warming.

Liberals, however, believe man-made global warming as a matter of faith, though. They do not care what the evidence is with regard to warming, but, rather like useful idiots, go along on the bandwagon because it makes them feel special to be part of this religious cult. That is why they drive around in those silly looking Prius cars.

To the argument that we should not drill because "gas prices are going through the roof" and "oil companies are making high profits":

• Oil companies are not making "high profits"--or even above-average profits. The reality is quite different. The oil industry, as a whole, makes about 9 cents profit for every dollar in revenue; in contrast, companies in the S&P (which is composed of 500 companies) average around 13 cents on the dollar in profit. In contrast, McDonald makes 16 cents on every dollar in revenue, Wells Fargo around 18 cents on the dollar, and and Google at 25 cents on the dollar. Yet no one has said that Google's profits are outrageous--even though it is more than double the average profits of the oil industry. (In fact, as a disclaimer, I do not invest in the oil industry precisely because the profits tend to be lower than average and also because of the potential adverse legislation that may be aimed at oil companies.)
• Further, drilling for more oil is precisely the method to lower the gas prices at the pump. It is a hard argument to make that we should not drill for oil precisely because gas prices are going through the roof. How is that logical?

To the argument that we should find alternative sources of energy:

The truth is that American companies are already investing in alternative energy resources. However, in the mean time, this does not preclude continuing to explore for the energy resource of today--which is oil--even while finding alternative energy sources. If there are alternative energy sources, private industry will find it and profit from it. The truth is, though, even many liberals realize that alternative energy is a scam. Billions of dollars have been spent on alternative energy, but nothing has been shown for it. Far better to use the money to explore for the proven energy of today--oil.

The Democrats caused these high gas prices. Contact Congress and urge them to fix this!

Are you tired of high oil prices? This is a classic economic question that can be solved by supply and demand. There is a high demand for oil worldwide, but the supply has been artificially limited in the United States due to the environmental lobby. This can change, though! You have the power to influence Congress and change the law. Here is a model letter that you can copy and paste and send it to your Member of Congress.

"As your constituent, I urge you to allow oil companies to drill in ANWR as well as the continental United States. The high oil prices exists because there is a limited supply of oil. If America stated that we will drill for oil all across our nation, the price of oil would drop, which would help consumers. I urge you to ignore the environmental lobby. There is no environmental harm that will arise from drilling for oil. Modern practices are very different from what they were decades ago, and there is no reason to continue the moratorium on oil drilling. As a result, I urge you to allow for oil drilling all across the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR, off the West and East coasts, as well as on federal land.
Drilling is the only solution that will lower the price of oil, and for that reason, I support drilling. This is a very important issue to me."

The time to drill for oil is now.

Americans looking at the high gas prices should start shifting their blame at the Democrats in power. World oil prices work based upon the classical economic idea of supply and demand. Democrats have chosen over the years to substantially reduce the supply of available oil in America by prohibiting oil exploration in the lower 48 states, as well in Alaska at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In America, there is roughly 50 billion barrels of oil -- just within the continental US! Recently, in North Dakota, over 200 billion barrels of oil has been located!

There is more than enough proof that oil prices do not have to be as high as they are now. The Democrats have allowed the radical environmentalists (who are similar to a religious cult) to dictate our energy policy. The time to drill is now. You do not have to suffer from high gas prices. Ask Congress to abolish these onerous rules on oil drilling.

Sowell on Obama.

"There is no question that Barack Obama is a clever and glib fellow. There is also no question that some of the most foolish, dangerous and horrific things done around the world in the past hundred years have been done by clever and glib fellows." -- Thomas Sowell

California's Lawmakers Know how to Create Jobs: in Nevada.

America's Founders created a federalist, not a national, system of government. By that I mean they created a system in which the states would be autonomous to create and administer their own set of laws and have sovereignty over their own territory. One of the greatest results of such a system is the competition among the many states. Some states don't seem to know how to compete. Take California, for instance. We have many socialistic and outdated laws that make our state unattractive for businesses. Nevada has recognized this and has taken the effort to highlight just how wrongheaded our laws are. Recently the Nevada Development Authority has been running ads in California with a cartoon of a huge bear on top of a businessman, with the label "California taxes." The ad is designed to show that California's government is strangling business development in the state and that Nevada's business climate is much more hospitable. While California's lawmakers are calling for tax increases on everything, Nevada is advertising that it has no income tax on individual income, corporate income, or inventory tax.

California's lawmakers don't seem to realize that California is a high-cost brand, one which is increasingly being deserted for its low-cost rival next door. If a public company refused to lower its cost--and merely criticized its rival--it would probably lose market share and possibly go out of business. California cannot compete by having lawmakers criticize Nevada's efforts to lure businesses out of Nevada. If California is serious about competing with Nevada, then we must actually start passing laws that are far more similar to Nevada--such as eliminating the income and corporate tax systems. That would be a good start at least.

The 14th Amendment should be interpreted to provide more economic liberties.

George F. Will made an interesting point in a recent column. He stated, " The 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law should mean that government may interfere with a citizen's economic liberty only to promote important government interests that cannot be advanced through less restrictive means." (emphasis added). What this means is that economic rights would have about the same level of protection that abortion and sodomy have been provided. (Both of which, we assert, we believe are neither founded in the Constitution or the history or customs of the American people. But we digress). Instead, by providing heightened scrutiny over government regulations related to economic rights, this would make it far more difficult for a potential President Obama or President Clinton to impose their harmful, ill-considered economic regulations. They would have to prove that their economic policies were enacted based upon an "important governmental interest," which would be a standard so high that, thankfully, most economic regulations would not be able to meet.

As George F. Will explains, "under today's weak "rational basis" standard, courts validate virtually any abridgement of economic liberty, no matter how tenuous the connection to even a minor public purpose." In other words, under our present jurisprudence, the government can regulate anything, which has resulted in absurdities such as the CAFE fuel economy standards, a ban on the incandescent light bulbs, the low-flush toilets, confiscatory taxes, endangered species legislation aimed at stopping worthless insects, etc.

A columnist asks whether Obama should be judged by his pastor's words.

“Should Mr. Obama be judged because of the acts of his pastor," asks online columnist Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

His answer? "Yes! Pastor Wright’s worldview and his understanding of race, culture, and religion of the bible will in some measure affect how Barak Obama views the world."

Our view is that considering the number of churches that one may attend, the fact that Obama choose this particular racist church speaks volumes about his bad character and willingness to engage in identity politics.

Internet users feel Obama is a liar.

A random search on "Obama's lies" results in 8,900 hits, compared to 1,470 for "McCain's lies." Obviously people on the internet are much more likely to think that Obama is a liar.

Last week Obama made a few lies. Obama said that wealthy people did "not ask" for the tax cuts and "do not need it." Obama is a liar because Americans of all stripes have been demanding tax cuts for a very long time and it is not up to him to decide who is in "need" of a tax cuts. By speaking of needs in this way, he seems to be emulating his fan Karl Marx, who spoke of "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Are you a communist, Obama? If not, why do you speak in the language of a hard-core communist?

Obama attends an anti-American church for 20 years. Obama's lies are exposed.

Obama is anti-American and a liar. He claims that he did not know that his pastor used inflammatory rhetoric.

This is a clear lie. It is not possible to believe that his pastor woke up one morning and began delivering these anti-American sermons. It is clear that these views are based upon long standing beliefs that did not arise out of thin air. The American people would never vote for a president who, on his own, decided to attend for a period of 20 years this anti-American church. Of all the churches that exist in America, Obama choose this anti-American church. What does that say about Obama?

Obama is afraid of ordinary citizens; he advances communist ideas, and he cannot deliver on his "post-partisanship" campaign theme.

John McCain's greatest asset includes his ability to take tough questions from ordinary audience members and provide robust access to the media. This is an area where Obama fails. On one occasion when Obama was asked tough questions by an audience, "Obama whined, 'Guys, I mean come on. I just answered, like, eight questions!'" Looks like McCain will do quite well on that front.

Obama's economic ideas are essentially Marxist in nature. Perhaps we can even say that Obama is a communist since he advances communist ideas.

And Obama's claim that he can eliminate partisanship is essentiall delusional in nature, reflecting the thoughts of a snake oil salesman.

Young people should vote for John McCain, not Obama.

It is, of course, depressing to see the enthusiasm among the youth for Obama. Why? Well, mainly because Obama is attracting the youth vote without trying hard. How does Obama get the youth vote? With endless speeches using empty words like 'change' and 'hope.' Well, I don't need that. And Obama's policies are actually anti-youth. Who works? The young, of course. But Obama intends to increase the tax rate of the young while he intends to decrease the taxes of the elderly! How is that pro-youth? That is insanity! Yet, 71-year old John McCain is far more pro-youth in that he wants to allow us to place our Social Security earnings in a private account and he does not want to increase our taxes. Thus, the youth in America should vote for McCain, not Obama.

Islam Must Be Stopped

An interesting speech made to the Dutch Parliament regarding why Islam must be stopped.

Obama's tax plan would destroy California.

If Obama's tax plan were to become law, California voters in the highest marginal income tax rate would pay 64.2% of their next dollar of income earned. Ouch. Talk about an incentive to move to Nevada. (Details: Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security wages that are subject to tax. That would mean a 15.3% tax on each dollar of income earned. Obama wants to raise the top income tax rate to 39.6%. As a result, this would mean 39.6% + 15.3% + California's top rate of 9.3% = 64.2%. Ouch.

California Democrats Want to Pick your Pocket

California Democrats have a new way of attracting votes: they are advertising, before a general election in November, that they want significantly higher taxes to cover their increased spending.

Without realizing what a moron he is, Senate Leader Don Perata answered in a question about how he would deal with the California budget deficit in a blunt manner: "Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes."

California voters should remember this when they had to the polls in November.