Monday, 12 May 2008
RON PAUL: THE REPUBLICAN CINDY SHEEHAN
Remember cindy sheehan? She was the lefist lunatic who exploited
her son's death to become a celebrated Bush-hating icon --- until she decided
to run against Nancy Pelosi for Ms. Pelosi's congressional seat, at which time
the left dumped her like a load of 3 week old tomatoes. cindy sheehan is a
genuine, first-rate nutcake.
Well, on the right we have her
counterpart, ron paul. paul is has political views that rival sheehan's for
lunacy. Among them, he voted against reauthorizing the voting rights
act and voted against a resolution supporting Israel against the terrorist group
hezbollah. He is avidly supported by a White supremacists and
nazis. ron paul is a genuine, first-rate nutcake.
When paul ran for the Presidency, he generated something of a loyal following
within the Republican party, though nothing remotely near what it would take
to be competitive in the primaries. He lost, then lost by more and more as
the primaries went on. John McCain is the presumptive Republican
paul has no intention of supporting Mr. McCain for the presidency.
That's fair enough, it is his call. But, unfortunately for his party, paul
does have the intention of putting the Republican convention into as much chaos as
possible, presumably to inflict damage on Mr. McCain's chances in
November. That is another story.
I can't imagine Republicans as a party allowing paul and his rule-or-ruin
pals to accomplish this. But, then again, who knows? Read the
following excerpts from the Los Angeles Times and see what you think (read
the entire article by clicking here):
Virtually all the nation's political attention
in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential
nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for
party-splitting strife over there.
But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people,
the forces of Rep. Ron
Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an
embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their
national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.
Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly
dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded
as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New
But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's
candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the
Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated a month ago in
The Ticket, that situation
could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's
presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.
According to a recent Boston Globe
tally, Paul has a grand total
of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's
The last three months Paul's forces, who donated
$34.5 million to his White House effort and upwards of one million total
votes, have, as The Ticket has
noted, been fighting a series
of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state
conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal:
to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence
Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced
federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq
war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.
They hope to demonstrate their disagreements
with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt
to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his
home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war
funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a
single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican
McCain, for his part, really can't do much more about ron paul. He's
won the nomination and voters have given paul virtually no delegate
support. That's about all you can expect.
Now it is up to the party itelf to prevent this clever, calculating,
festering little boil from doing the damage he intends to do.
It will be more than just anecdotally interesting to see if they can figure
out how. It may well affect John McCain's chances in the general
THE LEBANON LESSON: WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?
As the bullets fly in Beirut, Lebanon is learning a lesson that some people
in the United States seem incapable of learning, no matter how clear it
To understand why I say this, please read the excerpts I've supplied from
today's Associated Press article (which you can read in its entirety by clicking
The bold print is mine:
Heavy fighting breaks out in north Lebanon
By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press
WriterMon May 12, 11:04 AM ET
Heavy fighting broke out Monday between
government supporters and opponents in Lebanon's second-largest city, where
the two sides battled with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and
mortars, security officials and residents said.
Residents said they heard strong explosions
reverberating through Tripoli. At least six people were wounded, security
The fighting had stopped Sunday morning
after Lebanese troops deployed between the two sides, then flared again Monday
after soldiers pulled back when the situation calmed.
The fresh clashes erupted when pro-government
forces thought opponents gathering for a funeral in a nearby neighborhood were
preparing a new attack, the security officials said on condition of anonymity
because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
The fighting in the town of Chouweifat calmed
late Sunday after Druse leader Walid Jumblatt called on his Druse opponents,
who are allied with Hezbollah, to mediate a cease-fire and hand over the
region to Lebanese troops.
Iran's state-run Press TV reported on its Web
site that 17 opposition fighters were killed in the mountain clashes. It did
not elaborate, and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia refused to
After the civil war ended in 1990, all of
Lebanon's various militias surrendered their weapons and transformed into
political parties, keeping only small arms. Only Hezbollah was allowed to keep
its arms because it was considered a resistance movement battling
But over the years, the groups have accumulated
more weapons and reasserted control in different areas.
Major roads in Beirut, including the main
airport highway, were still blocked Monday with huge sand barriers. The road
closures are part of what the Hezbollah-led opposition has called a "civil
disobedience" campaign, which it has vowed to continue until the government
reconsiders the two decisions that sparked the violence.
The Hezbollah-led opposition quit the Cabinet 18
months ago, demanding larger representation that would give them veto power
over government decisions. The deadlock has kept parliament from electing a
new president since November.
Army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman is the
consensus candidate for president and the army's success in calming Beirut
over the weekend could enhance his chances of being elected.
But Hezbollah's show of force in Beirut served a
blow to Washington. The U.S. has long considered Hezbollah a terrorist
group and condemned its ties to Syria and Iran. The Bush
administration has been a strong supporter of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's
government and its army for the last three
Ok, let's see what we have here:
A civil war raged in Beirut, the capital city of Lebanon (a real one, not the
media's wish-list civil war that never materialized in Iraq).
The Lebanese army's presence put a stop to the war -- until it pulled
back. And when that happened the civil war resumed. This is a
blueprint for what happens when an army leaves before peace has a realistic
chance to take hold. It is a clear object lesson for those of us who want
US troops to just pick up an leave Iraq (I hope some of the folks who support
that idea have taken notice).
Hezbollah is backed by Iran. This is another lesson for the people who
are outraged that we might consider doing something about ahmadinejad and his
increasingly violent attempts to create war wherever he can. If he does
this before he has nuclear weapons, what do you think he'll do when he
does have them?
-The US "considers" Hezbollah a terrorist group? As if there is an
issue here? Incredible. Hezbollah's sole purpose for existing
is to violently end Israel by any means it can utilize and kill as many
Jews as possible, civilians no less than military. What the hell does
the Associated Press think the US should call them? A social club?
Pete Seeger, the pacifist singer/songwriter who was 89 just last week, probably wouldn't
agree with me on this. But his lament from "Where Have All The
Flowers Gone" seems to be especially germane here: "Oh when will they ever
learn? When will they ever learn?
MORE STATES WANT VOTER ID: THE NEW YORK TIMES IS HORRIFIED
Now that the United States Supreme Court has ruled it is ok for states
to require that prospective voters prove that they are who they say they are, more
states are moving towards demanding they do just that.
Oh my God! The humanity!
The New York Times (among other similarly disposed media) is horrified.
That is why it ran a lead editorial denouncing the Supreme Court's decision and
that is why voter identification is front page news for the paper
Here are excerpts from the article, which discusses Missouri's efforts to
require proof. You can read the entire article by clicking here:
May 12, 2008
Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship
The battle over voting rights will expand this
week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed
constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of
citizenship from anyone registering to vote.
The measure would allow far more rigorous
demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in
which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued
Sponsors of the amendment which requires the
approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum say
it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the
political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the
disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it
difficult to prove their citizenship.
Voting experts say the Missouri amendment
represents the next logical step for those who have supported stronger voter
ID requirements and the next battleground in how elections are conducted.
Similar measures requiring proof of citizenship are being considered in at
least 19 state legislatures. Bills in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and
South Carolina have
strong support. But only in Missouri does the requirement have a chance of
taking effect before the presidential election.
In Arizona, the only
state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, more than 38,000
voter registration applications have been thrown out since the state adopted
its measure in 2004. That number was included in election data obtained
through a lawsuit filed by voting rights advocates and provided to The New
York Times. More than 70 percent of those registrations came from people who
stated under oath that they were born in the United States, the data showed.
Already, 25 states, including Missouri, require
some form of identification at the polls. Seven of those states require or can
request photo ID. More states may soon decide to require photo ID now that the
Supreme Court has upheld the practice. Democrats have already criticized these
requirements as implicitly intended to keep lower-income voters from the
polls, and are likely to fight even more fiercely now that the requirements
are expanding to include immigration status.
In most of the states that require
identification, voters can use utility bills, paychecks, drivers licenses or
student or military ID cards to prove their identity. In the Democratic
primary election last week in Indiana, several
nuns were denied ballots because they lacked the required photo IDs.
Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise
the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most
cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate,
naturalization papers or a passport. Many residents of Arizona and Missouri
already have citizenship information associated with their drivers licenses,
and within a few years all states will be required by the federal government
to restrict licenses to legal residents.
Critics say that when this level of
documentation is applied to voting, it becomes more difficult for the poor,
disabled, elderly and minorities to participate in the political process.
Can you imagine?!! Voters have to show they are
legal to vote!! What an outrage!!
Ok, now let's get real. Why would it be any problem at all for a legal
voter to show that he/she is a legal voter? Why would it be any more or
less of a problem for someone who is disabled or someone who is a minority?
Try taking a book from the library by just telling them your name as you walk
towards the door. See how fast they stop you.
Try paying for a supermarket order with a personal check by just assuring
them you're you. See how fast they demand ID.
If ID is second-naturedly required for things as simple
as getting a book out of the library or buying groceries or 100 other everyday
activities, why is it a hardship at the voting booth?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only people who have a
problem with this are people who have no legal right to vote. And if
it is a problem to them, then GOOD. It SHOULD be.
And the only people demanding that voters not be required to show
identification, in my opinion, are people who want illegals to
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ON HILLARY'S FOLLY
It seems like an eternity ago that Hillary Clinton was the near-certain
Democratic nominee for President who was also near-certain to be our
next President. Dick Morris put her chances at 80%. Few disputed
So what happened?
Charles Krauthammer, the superb Washington Post columnist, has written an
analysis of how Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from jaws of victory. It
is so good that I don't want to excerpt it at all. Here is Mr.
Krauthammer's complete column, from the Washington Post:
Too much, too late, Hillary
WASHINGTON By the time Hillary Clinton figured
out how to beat Barack Obama, it was too late. When she began the race in 2007
thinking she was in for a coronation, she claimed the center in order to
position herself for the real fight, the general election. She simply assumed
the party activists and loony left would fall in behind her.
However, as Obama began to rise, powered by the
party's Net-roots activists, she scurried left, particularly with her
progressively more explicit renunciation of the Iraq war. It was a fool's
errand. She would never be able to erase the stain of her original war vote and
she remained unwilling to do an abject John Edwards self-flagellating
recantation. It took her weeks even to approximate the apology the left was
looking for, and by then it was far too late. The party's activist wing was by
then unbreak-ably betrothed to Obama.
But going left proved disastrous for Clinton. It
abolished all significant policy differences between her and Obama, the National
Journal's 2007 most liberal senator. On health care, for example, her attempts
to turn a minor difference in the definition of universality into a major
assault on Obama fell flat. With no important policy differences separating
them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this
elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of
winning that contest.
She tried everything. Her charges that he was a
man of nothing but words came off as a petulant, envious attack on eloquence.
The power to inspire may not be sufficient to qualify for the presidency, but it
is hardly a liability.
She tried a silly plagiarism charge, then settled
for the experience card. In a change election, this was not a brilliant
strategy. It forced her to dwell on the 1990s, playing candidate of the past to
Obama's candidate of the future. Her studied attempts to embellish her
experience led her into a thicket of confabulated Bosnian sniper
It wasn't until late in the fourth quarter that
she figured out the seam in Obama's defense. In fact, Obama handed her the
playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama's comments about
never having been proud of America and Obama's own guns-and-God condescension
toward small-town whites.
The line of attack is clear: not that Obama is
himself radical or unpatriotic, just that, as a man of the academic left, he is
so out of touch with everyday America that he could move so easily and
untroubled in such extreme company and among such alien and elitist
Clinton finally understood the way to run against
Obama: back to the center not ideologically but culturally, not on policy but
on attitude. She changed none of her positions on Iraq or Iran or health care or
taxes. Instead, she transformed herself into working-class Sally-get-her-gun,
off duck hunting with dad.
The gas-tax holiday was never an economic or
policy issue. It was meant to position her culturally. It heightened her
identification with her white, working-class constituency. Obama played his part
by citing economists in opposing it. That completed her narrative: He had the
pointy-headed professors on his side; she had the single moms seeking relief at
It was an overreach. It not only deflected
attention away from the amazing Rev. Wright at the height of his spectacular
return. It also never played as the elitist-versus-working-folk issue she had
hoped, because it isn't just economists who know the gas-tax holiday is nothing
but a cheap gimmick. Ordinary folks do too. And the gas-tax idea had the
unfortunate side effect of reinforcing Hillary's main character liability
vis-a-vis Obama: cynical Washington pol willing to do or say anything to win
votes versus the idealistic straight-shooter refusing to pander even if it costs
The lightness in Hillary's step in the days before
Indiana and North Carolina reflected the relief of the veteran politician who,
after months of treading water, finally finds the right campaign strategy. But
it was far too late. And the gas-tax overkill, one final error of modulation,
sealed the deal for Obama.
There's only one remaining chapter in this
fascinating spectacle. Negotiating the terms of Hillary's surrender. After which
we will have six months of watching her enthusiastically stumping the country
for Obama, denying with utter conviction Republican charges that he is the
out-of-touch, latte-sipping elitist she warned Democrats against so urgently in
the last, late leg of her doomed campaign.
Terrific analysis. Krauthammer almost
completely nails it
The only area I'm shaky on is that Ms. Clinton is going to
"enthusiastically" help Mr. Obama out in the general election. Yes, she'll
outwardly support and campaign for him. But I am certain she will be
rooting for him to lose, so that she can run in 2012. If so, it will
obviously inform the quality of her "help".
In any case, there are a number of object lessons to be learned from Hillary's Folly.
Here are two of them:
-When you run Democratic you can never let someone out-left you during the
primaries - not with moveon.org and the dailykos/crooksandliars/huffingtonpost
crowd in charge;
-When you keep reinventing yourself over and over again, even your media
suckups are going to have to talk about it.
THE RECRUITMENT "180"
Let's take a quick trip back a couple of years. We were deeply involved
in a war in Iraq at that time. And for a period of time the armed forces
were not meeting their recruitment goals.
Media attention to this shortfall was intense. Every day we were
treated to articles, analyses, panel discussions on the cable news shows, etc.
about how dire the situation was, how the war in Iraq was causing it and - to
some - how clearly it meant President Bush would be reinstating the draft.
Ok, now let's go to the present.
Here is a tiny little piece from the Associated Press (usually I excerpt AP
articles but this is one is so short that it would be impractical to do
so). Please read it and then we'll chat a bit about what it says:
Marine Corps meets 142 percent of
|5/12/2008, 12:52 p.m.
By PAULINE JELINEK The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) The Marine Corps far surpassed
its recruiting goal last month and could eventually be more than a year ahead of
schedule in its plan to grow the force to 202,000 members.
All military services met or exceeded their
monthly recruiting goals in April, with the Marine Corps signing 142 percent of
the number it was looking for, the Pentagon said.
The Army signed 101 percent of its goal,
recruiting 5,681 against a goal of 5,650. The Navy and Air Force met their goals
2,905 sailors and 2,435 Airmen.
The Marine Corps enlisted 2,233 recruits against a
goal of 1,577.
"The Marine Corps, if they continue to achieve the
kind of success they have had, could meet their growth figures more than a year
early," Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman told Pentagon reporters. That
would mean by around the end of 2009.
Stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the Pentagon last year recommended that the Army be increased by
about 65,000 soldiers to a total of 547,000, and the Marines be increased by
27,000 to 202,000.
Recruiting is easier in a slow economy, which
limits other job possibilities that are available. But officials also noted that
the Army and Marines have added recruiters as well as bonuses and other special
benefits to attract more recruits in the midst of the unpopular war in
So what happened? Did the war end without you or me noticing?
Nope. Not only did it not end, but we implemented a troop surge. And the
armed forces are having no problem at all in meeting and exceeding their
Think back once more to when recruiting goals were not being met and the
predominant reason was the war in Iraq. How many articles did you read and
how many TV news reports did you see that told you it was because of full
employment? How many did you see or read that blamed it on inadequate
What you read and saw was that recruitment was down because of the war in
But now that recruitment goals are being met without a problem
(and have been for some time, by the way)? Hey, what does the war in Iraq have
to do with anything?
A classic media "180".
You might want to remember this the next time you get a doomsday-scenario
analysis from one of these self-impressed talking heads.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
HUGO CHAVEZ: INTERNATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT
Venezuela's head of state is hugo chavez (or Yugo chavez as I call him,
because of the similarity in performance between him and the car). He may
or may not have legitimately won the presidency, but either way he's in
As head of state, chavez has shown himself to be a pathetic buffoon, with
a nasty streak to boot. An international embarrassment.
He has insulted President Bush, insulted President Zapatero of Spain
as well as his predecessor, Aznar (which caused King Juan Carlos to, famously,
tell him to "shut up: at an international forum) and a succession of other heads
of state who run rings around him capability-wise. And now he is at it
Read about Venezuela's latest embarrassment at the hands of chavez below,
courtesy of the German magazine Der Spiegel (www.spiegel.de):
Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of
The German government has
shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela's
President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler
and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might
meet at an upcoming summit in Peru.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has joined a long list of government leaders to
receive a verbal savaging from Venezuela's outspoken President Hugo Chavez,
but she appears to be intent on ignoring the abuse.
Chavez, speaking on Sunday in his weekly TV and
radio program, said of Merkel: "She is from the German right, the same that
supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that's the Chancellor of Germany
"Ms. Chancellor, you can go to ..." said Chavez,
before pausing. Then he added: "Because you are a lady, I won't say any more."
German deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg
responded on Monday by saying that Merkel was looking forward to the upcoming
summit of heads of state from Europe and Latin America in Peru on Friday.
Regarding Chavez's comments, Steg said Merkel had "made her position clear"
It was that position, voiced in an interview
with the German news agency DPA, that appears to have provoked Chavez's
Merkel had told DPA: "President Chavez does not
speak for Latin America. Every country has its own voice with which it pursues
its own interests." She had also noted that Venezuelan voters had rejected (more...) his push for wider powers in a referendum last December.
Chavez said he could confront Merkel about the
statements if he attends the summit. Merkel will set off on Tuesday on her
first trip to Latin America.
"Maybe I'll say something to her and she'll get
mad and say 'why don't you shut up?'" he said, referencing Spanish King Juan
Carlos' 2007 admonition of Chavez that touched off a bilateral dispute with
Chavez on Sunday also called Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe a "liar" who "shouldn't even run a corner store."
Chavez once called United States President
George W. Bush "the devil" at the United Nations General Assembly. He has also
railed against other leaders including former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair and former Mexican President Vicente Fox.
What a jerk. What a joke. What a crude, embarrassing fool.
Maybe if chavez ever allows a legitimate election (i.e. an election he could
lose) he'll get a job more suitable to his talents. Ringling Bros. and
Barnum & Bailey are always looking for new apprentice
DEMOCRATS AND ENERGY DEPENDENCY
You've seen this commentary from me already. Numbers
of times. But Investors Business Daily said it so well in today's editorial that I
thought I would like you to see it again. My contribution is bold-printing
the last several paragraphs:
Who Is Really Responsible For The High Prices You Pay
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS
DAILY | Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT
For the last 28 years, Democrats
in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our
drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR area when we knew it contained at least
10 billion barrels of oil we could be using now.
For the past 31 years, Congress repeatedly
prevented us from building any new oil refineries that we now badly
More recently, congressional Democrats
defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea
100 miles out. However, it's somehow OK for China to drill
As a further indictment of our Congress,
since the 1980s it has continually stopped all building of nuclear power
plants while France, Germany and, yes, Japan, plus 12 other major nations,
did build plants and now get 20% to 80% of their energy from their wise
and safe nuclear plant investments.
From 1990 to 2000, U.S. crude oil demand
rapidly accelerated by 7.41 quadrillion BTUs, according to Department of
Energy data. And our rate of foreign oil dependency dramatically increased
while our domestic oil production steadily declined.
Under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S.
oil production declined 1,349,000 barrels per day, or 19%, while our
foreign imports increased 3,574,000 barrels per day, or 45%.
During this time, President Clinton vetoed
ANWR drilling bills that would have clearly made Alaska our No. 1 state in
the production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for all
Americans but also for national defense emergencies.
So were Democrats and members of Congress
together merely short-sighted, with only a few having any real business
Or were they just ignorant about economics
the fact that the law of supply and demand determines the price of all
commodities such as oil, steel, copper and lumber?
Or were they simply and utterly
irresponsible and incompetent in their actions that led us to become
dangerously dependent on increasing oil imports from foreign
We think it was "all of the
The unintended consequence of the Congress
members' poor judgment and meddling micromanagement of U.S. energy policy
is that they actually hurt most the very people they always profess to be
able to help the average American consumer, lower-income workers and
those in the inner city who can't afford an extra $100 a month to drive to
and from their jobs.
Democrats kowtowed to the wishes of their
environmental supporters over the basic needs of 300 million American
It is a national disgrace that all they now
know how to do is relentlessly criticize, complain and condemn. They
always attempt to blame, investigate and scapegoat someone else, in this
case U.S. oil companies, when Congress is the true villain of ineptness
for constantly blocking and obstructing every effort for us to become more
productive and less dependent on foreign oil.
Do those now in Congress really
think Middle America's voters are so gullible that they will believe that
its latest best and brightest answer to increasing our supply of oil and
gas is to slap a 25% windfall penalty tax on oil companies and remove all
other incentives for oil companies to drill and explore for
The right time to release oil from,
or stop adding to, our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not now. That will
do nothing to increase our ongoing oil supply needs and will have limited
affect on oil prices while increasing our national security
Only after we first announce to the
world a bold new change in our policy by proclaiming that we intend to
begin drilling in ANWR and selected outer sea areas, plus adopt new
conservation programs, will the release of oil from our reserves have a
major impact on breaking the price of oil.
If our congressional leadership
can't muster the courage to begin reversing past mistakes now and allow
our companies to drill in ANWR and off-limits offshore areas, and build
essential refineries and safe nuclear power plants, what will an
even-more-discredited Congress do in 2009, 2010 and 2011, when millions of
new city dwellers in China and India will be driving the cars their
countries are now producing, thereby materially increasing their already
huge demand for oil and gas?
It's wake-up time for America. Maybe
we should investigate the blame-throwing investigators in
If the American public re-elects people who perpetuate
this idiocy, then we deserve what we get.
I hope that, this time, we'll finally wise up. I can't
say I'm optimistic.