Democrats fake whining about "big oil" and gas price gouging share one thing....they are ridiculous. Particularly troubling is the fact that the government makes more money on gas than the oil companies, but yet the government and democrats wants people to think that "Big Oil" is ripping all of us off. Does anyone beside me ever get upset when the government rips us off and then politicians lie about who is doing it? I think that if people would dig a little and do some investigation they might not support the Democrats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_co/house_rollcall_gasoline_prices_1;_ylt=AgLcFK5xj8ZkZsnXGDAogfAF1vAI
We should call it brain gouging. Because the government is gouging your brain. They take the good sense that you are born with and fill it with this kind of crap. Most people would be surprised at how far the govt's hands are in everyone's business. You think gas companies are gouging? In Oregon a gas station owner gets 9-12 cents for every gallon. The state gets 43 cents for every gallon. That is almost 300% more than the people that actually do the work. So I ask again who is gouging the public? In Washington the government gets 51 cents for every gallon. Nationally it is 46 cents. According to the logic of the idiots pushing this gas price gouging bill we should thank the gas station owners and sue the government.
Do you want cheaper gas? Then get off you but, go make about $60 and buy yourself a barrel on the commodities market. Get a book on how to refine it, pay uncle Sam some more money so he won't arrest you for illegally refining oil, then pay the environmentalists so they won't picket you, or try to burn you down (see eco-terrorists), then you can transport it from wherever the government tells you that you can refine it, to where you actually need the gas. Sounds easy doesn't it? No wonder gas is not so cheap.
If you really want cheaper gas, de-regulate, and lower your fees, licenses and market regulations. Open ANWAR and start drilling and refining again in the US. If you aren't willing to do those things... Democrats in congress.... then shut the hell up about high gas prices. Congress, you don't have the right to complain when you are the source of most of the problem.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Global Warming fury cools
Well, you know I posted an article saying this same thing about a month or more ago. (see list of Global Warming Debunkers). Now there are even more and more former scientists that were part of the consensus, but are now taking that all back...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I have added these names to the "List of Global Warming Debunkers", as always check back frequently, I am sure there will be more updates.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I have added these names to the "List of Global Warming Debunkers", as always check back frequently, I am sure there will be more updates.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Newt for Pres!
Yesterday morning Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, leader and author of the Contract with America, focal point of the Republican Revolution and historian told Diane Sawyer that there is a great possibility that he will run for President.
Good, we need it. I have long been touting Newt as my early favorite. At least my early political favorite. Sure he is getting started late, but he already has a huge political network, massive name recognition, and fundraising ability. Newt is the only one of the current big name candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain) that can argue a consistent conservative message. Plus Newt is brilliant. We need a candidate that can educate the american voter. That is what Newt is best at, he does it for a living, and as a historian, knows how to explain the past, combined with future policy to make a better America.
Thus, right now I rank the primary Republicans as follows:
1. Newt
2. F. Thompson
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. T. Thompson
6. T. Tancredo
Good, we need it. I have long been touting Newt as my early favorite. At least my early political favorite. Sure he is getting started late, but he already has a huge political network, massive name recognition, and fundraising ability. Newt is the only one of the current big name candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain) that can argue a consistent conservative message. Plus Newt is brilliant. We need a candidate that can educate the american voter. That is what Newt is best at, he does it for a living, and as a historian, knows how to explain the past, combined with future policy to make a better America.
Thus, right now I rank the primary Republicans as follows:
1. Newt
2. F. Thompson
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. T. Thompson
6. T. Tancredo
Monday, May 14, 2007
Gas Prices Hit All-Time High After Post Katrina Peak
The U.S. gas prices have hit an all-time high earlier this week at $3.10 per gallon. This tops the previous record set after hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 of $3.07 per gallon. I've read so many comments on this topic that I'm driven to write a blog on this site in response.
The comments that I have read and hear people say refer to the high gas prices as being totally controlled by our government and big U.S. oil companies. I have to believe that people have not taken the time to fully educate themselves about the current situation, but rather take the easy road and blame the government, specifically the president. Where is Congress in all of this? We now have a Democratic controlled Congress, yet no one wants to ask these same tough questions of the Democrats. That would probably because our current Congress is also blaming the president rather than trying to help solve the issue at hand.
While I don't love the $3.33 I just paid at the pump here in Oregon, I do understand part or most of what is driving these high gas prices. I think people either don't know or have completely forgotten that refineries have shut down in the past limiting supply of gas. This especially rings true on the West Coast where California, Oregon and Washington are reporting the highest gas prices in the nation. In addition, we are now approaching the summer demand for gas which goes up significantly versus other times throughout the year. Refineries are just starting to increase their production which should ease things a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices are going to go down.
In addition, while SUV and truck sales have been down over the past few years, people are still buying them. For whatever their reason is, I still see new trucks and SUVs on the road, so the gas prices must not be too painful yet. That might partly be because incomes are on the rise. If incomes are on the uptick, then people are likely to spend more. Just a comment....why isn't the president getting kudos for incomes rising? Probably because the liberal media doesn't want the public to know this information. Otherwise, the president's approval rating might go up a little and they don't want that as we move into an election year. They want people to have their focus on 2 things and only 2 things right now...Iraq and gas.
The comments that I have read and hear people say refer to the high gas prices as being totally controlled by our government and big U.S. oil companies. I have to believe that people have not taken the time to fully educate themselves about the current situation, but rather take the easy road and blame the government, specifically the president. Where is Congress in all of this? We now have a Democratic controlled Congress, yet no one wants to ask these same tough questions of the Democrats. That would probably because our current Congress is also blaming the president rather than trying to help solve the issue at hand.
While I don't love the $3.33 I just paid at the pump here in Oregon, I do understand part or most of what is driving these high gas prices. I think people either don't know or have completely forgotten that refineries have shut down in the past limiting supply of gas. This especially rings true on the West Coast where California, Oregon and Washington are reporting the highest gas prices in the nation. In addition, we are now approaching the summer demand for gas which goes up significantly versus other times throughout the year. Refineries are just starting to increase their production which should ease things a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices are going to go down.
In addition, while SUV and truck sales have been down over the past few years, people are still buying them. For whatever their reason is, I still see new trucks and SUVs on the road, so the gas prices must not be too painful yet. That might partly be because incomes are on the rise. If incomes are on the uptick, then people are likely to spend more. Just a comment....why isn't the president getting kudos for incomes rising? Probably because the liberal media doesn't want the public to know this information. Otherwise, the president's approval rating might go up a little and they don't want that as we move into an election year. They want people to have their focus on 2 things and only 2 things right now...Iraq and gas.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
God Bless Mac Sumner
May God bless Representative Mac Sumner, and his wife Sandy. Mac was a warrior and a gentle soul. I knew Mac fairly well and know that he will be taken to heaven, missed and remembered here.
He fought for Oregon, for Marion County and for Molalla for many years. God relieved him of his duty to fight Monday night and probably gave him the riches he deserves in heaven. Now, lets pray for and take care of his wonderful wife Sandy.
He fought for Oregon, for Marion County and for Molalla for many years. God relieved him of his duty to fight Monday night and probably gave him the riches he deserves in heaven. Now, lets pray for and take care of his wonderful wife Sandy.
Excommunication
Once again the Pope states the obvious. Or at least what seems obvious. But thank God for the Pope!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0956318820070509?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.
It's about time that all politicians that claim to be christian start explaining their non-christian beliefs. If they believe something different than the Catholic Church, different than the Baptist Church, or whichever church that's fine, then go be a part of some other denomination that matches what you do believe in.
Just stop knowingly violating major tenents of the religion you claim to be a part of and pretending that its ok because "Jesus taught us to forgive". Sure he did, but he did not want us to sin whenever we want, or approve of others sinning whenever they want. Sure I know some of you liberals are having a spasm right now reading this, let's hear your bashing of me, but after all, you always say that you support the first amendment. Both Kulongoski and Gregoire claim to be Catholic, and believe in the Catholic Church and its teachings. So lets see them start acting according to their faith in their policy, or else disclaim the faith and pick up Budism, Methodist or some other religion that lets you pick the rules.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0956318820070509?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.
It's about time that all politicians that claim to be christian start explaining their non-christian beliefs. If they believe something different than the Catholic Church, different than the Baptist Church, or whichever church that's fine, then go be a part of some other denomination that matches what you do believe in.
Just stop knowingly violating major tenents of the religion you claim to be a part of and pretending that its ok because "Jesus taught us to forgive". Sure he did, but he did not want us to sin whenever we want, or approve of others sinning whenever they want. Sure I know some of you liberals are having a spasm right now reading this, let's hear your bashing of me, but after all, you always say that you support the first amendment. Both Kulongoski and Gregoire claim to be Catholic, and believe in the Catholic Church and its teachings. So lets see them start acting according to their faith in their policy, or else disclaim the faith and pick up Budism, Methodist or some other religion that lets you pick the rules.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Solution to the Abortion Debate
As science advances you will see that this will be the argument/policy that ultimately ends abortion.
A baby, fetus, node, whatever you want to call it, is alive after conception. All of science in every other field defines life and alive that way. Thus if it is alive, then what is it? Is it a plant, a dog, a an alien? No, it is a human, and can only grow to become a human, nothing else. Eventually as science and medicine can allow the human baby to survive earlier and earlier- probably up to the point of conception- then we will all agree that "life" begins at conception. However until then, congress could define life. So how does that solve the abortion debate?
First, right now of course the legal debate is mostly about whether a mother has a fundamental right to choose to kill the thing growing inside her. That is what Roe vs Wade was about and then PP v. Casey said that based on the allocation of burden on the mother, at some point during the pregnancy (when there is no undue burden on the mother) abortion can be prohibited. Ok, for the sake of this argument, lets say that that always stays the same, Casey and Roe are never overturned. So we assume there is a fundamental right at stake for the mother.
Next, and this is the cornerstone, if we legislatively define life as beginning at conception, then the courts cannot change that. The courts can only interpret the law, they do not make changes to clear law. Thus if there is a life at stake, then the due process clause is implicated. Under the 5th amendment the federal government, nor the states (via incorporation) can deprive a person of life without due process of law. Of course the due process clause only applies to government action, however this would mean that before any government deprivation of the babies life it would be entitled to a due process hearng. Thus any legislation that approves of, funds or provides for abortions would equally have to provide such a pre-deprivation hearing. Furthermore, any laws that seek to protect that life would have the additional weight of protecting the same sort of fundamental right that abortionists seek to protect. This would effectivly rebalance the test used in Roe v. Wade.
For instance, in such a hearing, we would have two competing fundamental rights at stake, the mothers fundamental right to abortion, and the babies fundamental (5th amendment due process) right to life. The process, procedure and rules for that hearing would have to be provided for by law so the government would be hard pressed to pass the strict scrutiny test in providing abortions, yet they would pass the strict scrutiny test for prohibiting them.
How? Under substantive due process and Roe v. Wade jurisprudence, the deprivation of a fundamental right by legislation must pass the strict scrutiny test. This means in essence that the legislation must serve a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and have no less burdensome alternatives available to serve that compelling interest. Well, protecting another fundamental right of another human being would be a compelling interest. Abortion rights activists could argue the same about the abortion right. However is the law narrowly tailored? Well if the law is designed to preserve the babies life (in the absence of the mothers life being at risk) - then the law could certainly be narrowly tailored. However is a law providing for the protection of the mothers right to make her "medical decision"? Well that's arguable but we'll say it parallels the reverse argument. And last, are there any less burdensome ways to prevent the mother from paying someone to kill the baby than forbidding it to happen? I don't know of any. However, there certainly less burdonsome ways to protect the mothers interest in her medical decision etc. than to kill the baby. So the last element would kill any legislation that allowed for or provided abortions.
So laws that prohibit abortion at all ages of the baby would be valid under the US Constitution And laws that allow or fund abortions would not be valid under the US Constitution. If and when we simply acknowledge and define life like science does in other fields.
Any comments? Any loopholes you see?
A baby, fetus, node, whatever you want to call it, is alive after conception. All of science in every other field defines life and alive that way. Thus if it is alive, then what is it? Is it a plant, a dog, a an alien? No, it is a human, and can only grow to become a human, nothing else. Eventually as science and medicine can allow the human baby to survive earlier and earlier- probably up to the point of conception- then we will all agree that "life" begins at conception. However until then, congress could define life. So how does that solve the abortion debate?
First, right now of course the legal debate is mostly about whether a mother has a fundamental right to choose to kill the thing growing inside her. That is what Roe vs Wade was about and then PP v. Casey said that based on the allocation of burden on the mother, at some point during the pregnancy (when there is no undue burden on the mother) abortion can be prohibited. Ok, for the sake of this argument, lets say that that always stays the same, Casey and Roe are never overturned. So we assume there is a fundamental right at stake for the mother.
Next, and this is the cornerstone, if we legislatively define life as beginning at conception, then the courts cannot change that. The courts can only interpret the law, they do not make changes to clear law. Thus if there is a life at stake, then the due process clause is implicated. Under the 5th amendment the federal government, nor the states (via incorporation) can deprive a person of life without due process of law. Of course the due process clause only applies to government action, however this would mean that before any government deprivation of the babies life it would be entitled to a due process hearng. Thus any legislation that approves of, funds or provides for abortions would equally have to provide such a pre-deprivation hearing. Furthermore, any laws that seek to protect that life would have the additional weight of protecting the same sort of fundamental right that abortionists seek to protect. This would effectivly rebalance the test used in Roe v. Wade.
For instance, in such a hearing, we would have two competing fundamental rights at stake, the mothers fundamental right to abortion, and the babies fundamental (5th amendment due process) right to life. The process, procedure and rules for that hearing would have to be provided for by law so the government would be hard pressed to pass the strict scrutiny test in providing abortions, yet they would pass the strict scrutiny test for prohibiting them.
How? Under substantive due process and Roe v. Wade jurisprudence, the deprivation of a fundamental right by legislation must pass the strict scrutiny test. This means in essence that the legislation must serve a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and have no less burdensome alternatives available to serve that compelling interest. Well, protecting another fundamental right of another human being would be a compelling interest. Abortion rights activists could argue the same about the abortion right. However is the law narrowly tailored? Well if the law is designed to preserve the babies life (in the absence of the mothers life being at risk) - then the law could certainly be narrowly tailored. However is a law providing for the protection of the mothers right to make her "medical decision"? Well that's arguable but we'll say it parallels the reverse argument. And last, are there any less burdensome ways to prevent the mother from paying someone to kill the baby than forbidding it to happen? I don't know of any. However, there certainly less burdonsome ways to protect the mothers interest in her medical decision etc. than to kill the baby. So the last element would kill any legislation that allowed for or provided abortions.
So laws that prohibit abortion at all ages of the baby would be valid under the US Constitution And laws that allow or fund abortions would not be valid under the US Constitution. If and when we simply acknowledge and define life like science does in other fields.
Any comments? Any loopholes you see?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)