Seriously, Mr. President – put down the crack pipe. We are better off now than we were four years ago? For real? I’m with Speaker Boehner on this when I ask, “are you kidding me?” Boehner continued:

“Why don’t you go ask the 14 million Americans who are out of work whether they’re better off today than they were four years ago?”

Excellent idea, Speaker Boehner. I think we all know what they might say.

But again, don’t take my word for it. Here are just a few of the ways in which we are NOT better off under Obama’s policies than four years ago (H/t to Republican Security Council):

I think that pretty much sums it up, don’t you? I don’t know what President Obama has been smoking, but he needs to stop if he truly believes our nation is better off now than we were four years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So, what’s on your mind today? The House voting to subpoena the White House in relation to Solyndra? The Inspector General investigating over 100 loans made by the Energy Department? The media’s obsession with anonymous allegations against Cain, along with his actually getting snippy with reporters? The convoluted way the media presents “support” for the OWS, like this headline from CNN, “More Americans Supporting Occupy Wall Street**“? (Hint – they put the higher number of people who have HEARD of it at the top, and the much lower number of those who support it further down. How could people NOT have heard of it with the incessant coverage of it??) Up to you – let’s hear it!

**Update: Oops, the new Quinnipiac Poll shows more people have an unfavorable opinion of the OWS folks, so maybe not such a great idea for the Democrats to support it, according to this National Journal piece.

That is pretty dramatic, isn’t it? That it costs us twice as much to fill up our cars in just two short years since Obama got into the White House? Yikes. Not that his followers have said much about it, nosirree. They have been mysteriously silent on that point. Huh. I wonder what they would have said had this happened under, say, Bush? Oh, wait – they are STILL blaming Bush for the prices:

Now y’all know I was not a huge fan of George W. Bush’s, not by a long shot, but comparing 8 years to 2 is just a bit of “fuzzy math.” And forgetting that there was/is tremendous upheaval still in Iraq and Afghanistan is a tad disingenuous. Yes, things are going nuts in the Middle East, but really, that is not new to this president. That is all to say, what a stretch. The most recent turmoil has been going on the past 3 – 4 months – how about the increases from last year, huh? Good grief. Are there any hoops these folks will not jump through in their attempts to exonerate Obama of any wrong-doing, any inaction, any missteps? Apparently not, at least not in Cenk’s case(and feel free to list as many examples of this as you would like).

Though at least Bob Beckel can acknowledge that, if nothing else, maybe Obama shouldn’t be laughing about how much gas now costs Americans:

At least Beckel has a sense of humor about his support for Obama and his budget policies, but yeah, laughing at how much it is costing people to fill up their cars, not getting the impact these gas prices are having on Americans all across the board, is telling, telling, telling about Obama.

But get this – these current gas prices are going to look like a walk in the park compared to what we can expect this summer. Yes, the experts are now saying we can expect a 40%, yes, that is FORTY percent,increase by this summer:

[snip] According to AAA’s daily fuel-gauge report, the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline is about $3.79, up about 33% from $2.86 a year earlier.

The average U.S. household’s vehicle fueling costs will rise about $825 from last year’s level, hitting $3,360 in 2011, the EIA said.

The government also expects refiner acquisition costs of crude oil to average $112.50 a barrel this summer, up about 50% from the prior year.

Meanwhile, wholesale gasoline margins — the difference between the wholesale price of gas and the refiner acquisition cost of crude — are forecast to average 53 cents a gallon this summer, up 47% from last year. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy shit. This is a cascade effect kind of thing, as many of us already know. It affects how often we drive, how much our food and clothes cost, how much we have left over at the end of the month.

Reuters/Ipsos just came out with a poll this morning highlighting this very issue:

[snip] More than six of every 10 Americans have cut back on other expenses and reduced their driving as a result of the rising gas prices caused by tumult in North Africa and the Middle East.

The increase in energy costs also hurt Obama’s approval rating, which dipped for the second consecutive month to 46 percent — his lowest Ipsos poll rating since early December 2010.

“That’s all a function of gas prices. People are feeling the pinch at the pump,” said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young.

“Increased gas prices have a direct impact on the pocketbook, and there is very little lag time between rising gas prices and its effect on presidential approval and confidence,” he said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, this is having a major impact on Americans all across the country. And it looks like it will only be getting worse.

Bottom line, this is NOT a laughing matter, Mr. Obama, not even close.

I hasten to add, the stories of the six victims in Tucson, Judge John Roll, Christina Taylor Green, Giffords Aide Gabe Zimmerman, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwin Stoddard, and Dorothy Morris, need to be held in the fore, our prayers going out to their families. The continued updates regarding Rep. Giffords miraculous improvements, as well as the condition of the other 13 injured, is also important to keep in the fore.

But here are some of the things you may have missed. Amy Siskind of The New Agenda had a very interesting post about Obama, and the number of women in his cabinet/inner circle. Bottom line, it is low, as her post, “After Arizona, Will Obama Learn to Include Women?” indicates:

[snip] Yes, just as I was snapping to, Air Force One would be landing back in D.C. Senator Gillibrand and Congresswomen Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi would deplane and return to their 17% minority. President Obama would be head back to the White House — or should I say, the “fraternity house”: his inner-circle is composed almost exclusively of men.

Yes, to the president’s credit, he did appoint two women to the Supreme Court. That’s the end of the good news for women. Here’s the bad news:

* Obama’s cabinet picks are just 25% women.

* Obama’s czars are only 12% women.

* No women have leadership roles in running our country’s economy.

* Obama has only one woman in his inner-circle: Valerie Jarrett.

[...]

Paradoxically, Speaker Boehner in his opening days seems quite comfortable with women. One of his first symbolic gestures: to build a women’s restroom near the House floor. Next, Boehner shocked even me: he officially endorsed a woman for RNC chair (Maria Cino). And here’s a prediction: Boehner’s ability to cry in public will make it easier for women candidates to do the same in the future. Hey — I gotta admit — although I agree with Speaker Boehner on very few issues, I like the guy! He walks the walk for women on the right.

[...]

So I say this to our president: yes, let’s live up to the dreams of Christina Green, the nine-year-old who was tragically and senselessly killed in the Arizona shooting. The girl who was interested in politics and therefore came to see Congresswoman Giffords, Arizona’s only female representative in the U.S. House or Senate. Why don’t we have more women in leadership for girls like Christina to see and model after? And President Obama, what will YOU do to live up to her expectations? (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Yes, I can see why so many “feminists” wanted to support Obama over Hillary Clinton. He is SO good on the women’s equality issue – not.

But wait, there is more. Once again, LGBT groups are unhappy with Obama. Yes, yes, I know he signed the bill to repeal DADT, but he did blessed little to get that to come about, and did exactly what I thought he would do – have it in the Lame Duck session so he could blame the Republicans in case it didn’t pass.

Well, that is exactly what he did in terms of DOMA, but not before his Justice Department did this:

Supporting DOMA: Gay rights advocates are criticizing the Obama Justice Department after its attorneys filed a court motion Thursday in support of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the president’s view that the law should be repealed.

[...]

The Justice Department says it’s obligated to defend U.S. policy regardless of the president’s personal beliefs. The department made the same case after it had to, awkwardly, fight a judge’s ruling against “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the months before it was repealed by Congress.

But that’s no salve to the gay rights community, which has called on the administration to show more resolve against laws like DOMA. [snip]

And it is not true, either. Other Administrations have stood up to laws they thought were un-Constitutional, not continuing to defend them, as the Obama Administration has done repeatedly with DOMA. Indeed, it continues in that same vein in this filing:

[snip] “All families deserve the recognition and respect of their government. We know the president supports us. It’s time for him to help lead the American public toward full equality for all Americans,” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement. The gay rights group said the Justice Department should at least “acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional.”

It does not. In its filing, Justice Department attorneys said the law was “not unconstitutional under this court’s binding precedent.” The Justice Department argued that the law “reflects Congress’s reasonable response to this still-evolving debate among the states regarding same-sex marriage.”

Why Solmonese, that Hillary Clinton backstabber, continues to act all insulted is beyond me, but I will spare you my diatribe on him this time around.

But here’s what I knew would happen with Obama:

[snip] “The Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here,” the brief said.

“Indeed, the president supports repeal of DOMA and has taken the position that Congress should extend federal benefits to individuals in same-sex marriages. But a consensus behind that approach has not yet developed, and Congress could properly take notice of the divergent views regarding same-sex marriage across the states,” it said.

[...]

He told a gay-and-lesbian magazine last month that while a repeal of DOMA may not be possible, particularly with Republicans in control of the House, “that’s something that I think we have to strategize on over the next several months.” (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Yep, like I expected, Obama will blame the Republicans if it doesn’t get changed now. The Democrats were in control of the entire Congress for FOUR years, and now it is all the Republicans fault…(Civility? Oh, that is only for Conservatives, not Democrats.)

Here is a whopper of what came out this week. It was foretold by none other than Sarah Palin back in November when the government was looking to buy more bonds:

“All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar — a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market — is pushing oil prices upward.”

I intentionally withheld the title of that article: “What Sarah Palin Gets Wrong About Inflation.” And that would be what, exactly? Haven’t all of those things, along with foreclosures setting another record high in 2010, and an increase in unemployment claims, come to pass? Yes.

In that same article, though, there was this (condescending) response:

[snip] Sudeep Reddy of The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Palin didn’t seem to be quite up on what’s been going on with inflation. In fact, he noted, grocery prices haven’t risen that much. “The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since the Labor Department started keeping this measure in 1968).” [snip]

Hey, Reedy – guess which one of you is wrong here? I’ll give you a hint – it is not Palin. No need to take my word for it. Here is Stuart Varney discussing this issue:

These are just a few of the issues that have been going on this week (I know, Daley came onboard on Friday, but the massacre on Saturday pretty much knocked that way down, as it should have). Women still are underrepresented, Obama’s Justice Department is still targeting gay people, and we are increasingly in an economic world of hurt.

We cannot forget the victims of last week’s shooting, but nor can we allow ourselves to allow the political smoke and mirrors to distract us from what else is going on in our country.

What else happened this week that was low on the media totem pole? Consider this an Open Thread.

The Washington Examiner had an editorial on this very issue, “Obama’s $5 A Gallon Gas Just Ahead.” The editorial reminded readers of one of Obama’s statements ignored by his supporters, though not by those of us who had our eyes wide open, and our ears, too. And that was this:

Most politicians play word games to cast themselves in the most favorable light, so perhaps it’s understandable that few people took it seriously when President Obama unaccountably said during his 2008 presidential campaign that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket” under his program.

With gas steadily approaching $4 per gallon and projected by federal Energy Information Administration experts to hit $5 in 2012, it’s time to accept Obama at his word. The costs of heating and cooling our homes and offices, keeping gas in the cars and trucks that get us to work and the grocery store, and generating the electricity that keeps our laptops humming are heading skyward because Obama thinks that’s what is best for us. It’s a classic illustration of liberals using government to do to us what we would never do to ourselves. [snip]

Remember that pithy little statement by Obama? It should have cost him a few states, including Pennsylvania, but for reasons beyond me, it didn’t. Anyway, this is what Obama said about “Cap And Trade” back in the day:

Again, don’t know about where you live, but I can tell you, our electric costs have been on the rise since Obama took office, and I fear it will only get worse.

When prices escalate for products like gas, it necessarily changes how people live, what they can do, and where they drive. We are comfortable financially, but when prices were high not that long ago, it did change where we drove, how often I went to see my horse, Jordan (which is one of the highlights of my week), or up into Charleston, or any number of places. I just spent $38 filling up my tank on Thursday, and I still had between 1/4 – 1/2 of a tank left (I drive a Sienna, which gets decent gas mileage). When gas goes up like this, it means, for some people, the difference between being able to drive to work or not.

So what has Obama done to affect gas prices? This:

[snip] Here are just some of the ways Obama has constricted U.S. energy exploration and development, thereby forcing prices upward and making America more dependent on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other costly, unreliable foreign oil sources who bear this country ill will:

»?Reimposed bans on oil and natural gas drilling in America’s outer continental shelf that were previously reversed by a Democratic-led Congress and a Republican president. Experts estimate there are at least 130 billion barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas to be harvested from these areas, but Obama won’t allow it.

»?Even before the cause of the Deepwater Horizon disaster was known, Obama imposed a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that cost thousands of jobs and effectively ended drilling in both deep and shallow waters there. Although officially lifted, slow-walking federal bureaucrats have yet to approve new permits and are busily issuing costly new requirements that are certain to stifle most, if not all, drilling in the Gulf for years to come. A third of America’s oil production comes from wells in the Gulf.

»?Reversed a Bush administration decision that opened millions of acres of public lands in the western parts of the nation to careful oil and natural gas exploration and development, then invented an entirely new classification that puts those and millions more acres not previously covered off limits.

»?Appointed an energy secretary — Steven Chu — who said in December 2008 that Americans should pay the same prices as Europeans for gas. Gas in Europe then averaged around $8 per gallon.

Maybe now people will believe that Obama meant exactly what he said in 2008 about making us pay much more for energy. If they don’t, they surely will in coming months. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Maybe. One can only hope, though the blinders and earplugs seem to be in plenty for too many.

So, what are things like where you are? Are gas or other energy prices affecting your daily lives? Feel free to talk about this, or anything else going on (reading the Constitution in the House? Repealing Obamacare? Pelosi claiming that NOW House Democrats will focus on jobs though they did blessed little to address that issue while controlling all three houses? Obama calling the Eagles owner to thank him for giving Michael Vick, the dog torturer, a second chance?).

And TGIF…

is upset over Democratic plans to take up immigration legislation this year – he accuses Democratic leaders of pushing forward immigration “haphazardly” and calls it an election-year political gambit.

John Kerry said in a statement on Saturday:

“We all believe that this year is our best and perhaps last chance for Congress to pass a comprehensive approach. We believe that we had reached such an agreement and were excited to announce it on Monday, but regrettably external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily,”

Kerry also commented that:

“I remain deeply committed to this effort which I have worked on for more than twenty years. We have no choice but to act this year. The American people deserve better than for the Senate to defer this debate or settle for an energy-only bill that won’t get the job done.”

Reading between the lines, I assume he thinks the Dems have “no choice” but to act this year because after the November elections, they will no longer have the numbers to ram this through. Understandably, voters who are still reeling from the passage of confusing health care legislation are deeply concerned about more sudden change and its effects on our troubled economy.

Ben Gemen of The Hill also reported earlier this week on Graham’s specific cause for concern regarding the Dems rush to ram through immigration policy:

Graham has been working with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on an immigration plan, but reacted critically to reports that Democratic leaders may try to move on the issue.

“If immigration comes up then that’s the ultimate CYA politics,” Graham said. He warned against bringing up a bill in a “haphazard way.”

“This comes out of left field,” he said. “We haven’t done anything to prepare the body or the country for immigration.” Graham said the measure he has discussed with Schumer is not ready, and wondered aloud what could be brought to the floor.

“It would be news to me if we’ve got one done [an immigration bill],” he said. “I have been working with Chuck, we have been making progress, but business and labor are not together on a temporary worker bill.”

Graham noted that the climate change and energy bill that he’s crafting with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is supposed to be unveiled Monday.

“What am I supposed to do, write an immigration bill between now and Monday with Chuck?” Graham said.

We will see what transpires. As of now, Graham is no longer on board with cap and trade.

Look, the Dems won in 2008 and all things being equal, I can understand all the horses wanting to race at the same time as they attempt to pass all manner of legislation that has been whirling around in their hot little brains for many years. However, we are still in such a difficult place with the economy. If this administration doesn’t wake up and focus on jobs, jobs, jobs right now, they may find that voter outrage grows beyond anything that can imagine or manage.

While it is certainly possible to multi-task and push on more than one front at a time, what we have seen thus far does not inspire confidence. The health care legislation that just passed is “historic.” It is also a historic mess that requires a lot of fixing. If there is more careless and hasty legislation on the horizon re reform for Wall St., immigration and cap and trade — likewise pushed through with the same lack of care in the crafting — there may be more mutlitasking required in the repairs department than our legislative bodies have any idea how to handle.

Do it once. Do it right.

I’m waiting for some of the adults in the room to emerge and think something through before putting more junk on the books. It is much easier to make a mistake than it is to repair one.

Was our “green” bandwagon solely driven by concerns over global warming?

What happened to our almost universal demand for energy independence and energy security? Did it leave the bath in a cleansing scrub of reduced gas prices? Are we blindly hoping that energy prices will never rise again? And have we forgotten from whom we are buying the fossil fuels?

And what about our commitment to clean air, land and water? Did it circle the drain with the leaked emails of climategate?  (also known as scientists behaving badly or the confirmation of bad science, depending on which side of the global warming/climate change debate you favor.)  A fairly reasonable recap of climategate can be found here.)

Because I have to say  – those emails peppered with bluster and paranoid rants strike me as extremely disappointing and quite possibly career ending, but they are far from the earth shattering revelations of disinformation and misinformation of the Bush era.  Nor the unending revelations of corruption in the political sphere.

Let’s face it, after the last few years we are all a bit jaded and skeptical about what trusted people in positions of power say and do.

So why are we letting these emails become an excuse to do nothing? Do we honestly think we can continue to consume and dispose of our resources at our current rate without taking responsibility for the consequences to future generations?   Or are we merely shrugging it off as not our problem “now”?

Wouldn’t we be better served by agreeing to put aside the global warming/climate change debate for the moment and focus on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and strengthening our energy security with a clean, renewable energy foundation that will pave the way for new technologies and a renewed production based economy? And shouldn’t we agree to take the necessary steps to clean up our environment so we can create and promote strong healthy communities and productive lives?

And while we are in an agreeable mood, let us agree that the Waxman-Markey legislation on cap-and-trade is a an obscene indulgence  given to Wall Street and the energy industry (as I wrote about here).  And it will be enacted at the expense of the American people. And it needs to be stopped as Annie Leonard points out in her excellent video explaining - The Story of Cap & Trade: Why You Can’t Solve A Problem With The Thinking That Created it.

And then let us gird our loin and bite the Carbon Fees with Rebate bullet.

As recognized by the February 2008 U.S. Congressional Budget Office report, carbon fees are the most efficient means to achieve meaningful emissions reductions in the necessary time-frame….Escalating carbon fees will have a more predictable impact on energy prices and will immediately create incentives for conservation and investments in alternative non-polluting energy technologies. …Carbon fees can be enacted and phased in much more quickly … more transparent and understandable

Carbon fees imposed on all fossil fuels will spread the incentive for conservation and non-polluting innovation quickly throughout the economy…

Carbon fee revenues [in the form of rebates] can help protect individuals from the impact of higher energy costs … in the form of reduced payroll tax or periodic payments to every person...

EPA lawyers Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel (each with nearly two decades of public-sector experience in environmental enforcement) discuss their opposition to the proposed legislative cap and trade tax program and explain the basics of Carbon Fees with Rebates in the video below.

____

Personally, I think we would be wise to have our Clean Renewable Energy babies strong and healthy and able to swim.  Just in case all our tubs start to overflow.

____

An related new item in The New York Times – C.I.A. Is Sharing Data With Climate Scientists

The nation’s top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government’s intelligence assets — including spy satellites and other classified sensors — to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change. They seek insights from natural phenomena like clouds and glaciers, deserts and tropical forests.

Check out Memeorandum for additional related articles.

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Palin points that “American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy”…

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

As with everything the Obama Administration is doing, cap and trade also employs the ram-rod technique of shoving legislation down the gullet before anyone has had a chance to give it a second thought. Palin then makes a point I’m sure Obama would rather she gloss over:

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Governor Palin urges us to move in a new direction and states we can achieve energy independence if we:

…responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

Whether one agrees with her or not, one thing Governor Palin can speak to with authority is energy, given her service at the Oil & Gas Commission:

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

Loved the “Yes, we can” reference. What is your reaction to her position? I do not pretend to know that right answer here, but certainly she raises issues worth discussing.

Everyone else out there is having quite a big reaction. In a few hours, her op-ed in WaPo has attracted over 3,000 comments. All over the blogosphere and on news sites, people are reacting and as usual, Governor Palin is a lightning rod for both love and hate. HuffPo, typically, cannot kill the message, because she does have a point, so they shoot the messenger, claiming she is “too stupid” to have possibly written this piece. I thought the piece was pretty coherent myself, and yeah, I’m sure she wrote it. By the way, did I mention that I despise elitists. You can her article it in its entirety here.

Further, since the surprise announcement of her resignation on July 3rd, Palin has raised over $200,000 for her PAC, in addition to over $700,000 raised in the five months since its formation. CBS just put out a poll saying 65% of those asked think Palin would not make a good president and most pundits left and right are harping about the fact that her political career is effectively over. Wishful thinking, perhaps. I have no idea what Palin’s actions will be or what her political career will look like going forward, but one thing is assured — as long as these ridiculous attacks continue, her following will grow and she will get plenty of free press that she may use to her advantage.

As for the “chattering class,” as Palin calls them, I can only say, gee fellas, that’s an awful lot of copy to devote to someone with nothing to say, no platform to say it, no following and no hope of making a dent. Evah.

Somebody seems awfully scared of this lady.

Just sayin’.

All the conjecture and today’s meeting reminded me of Truthteller’s excellent piece on March 22, “Chávez Calls Obama an ‘Ignoramus’,” which we’re reprinting for your amusement:

No Quarter is a loose but raucous chorus of discordant voices. Some of us are centrists, others are hawkish Democrats, some view themselves as reformers, a few are resolutely independent and others are unabashed Leftists. Consider me one of the latter. In this essay I will not criticize Chávez, and I will not repeat all the threadbare rhetorical bludgeons such as socialist, communist, totalitarian or dictatorial many use to dismiss Chávez and his democratically elected government. If that is what you are seeking, I recommend you take your dossier and go somewhere else.

But at least consider this before you rush for the exit: the candidate who claimed “negotiations without preconditions” would yield amicable and cooperative relations with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has literally had his Ferragamo shoe shoved squarely in his programmed mouth by Hugo Chávez. I quote Reuters:

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Negotiations with Chávez and the Leftist Latin American coalition are now foreclosed as a result of Obama’s garrulity and glibness. How else would one expect a country to react if one claims its largest export is terrorism? Here is one effect:

Chavez said Obama’s comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

Obama really is the Democratic incarnation of Bush: so much for change, and so much for meaningful negotiations. Not only are our relations with our neighbors Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador and Brazil strained; the Mexican government has raised tariffs on our exports, and we are the subject of much ridicule in the British press.

Venezuela, many of you may recall, is an ally of Iran, and Chávez will visit that and other countries in the Middle East in a few days for a summit of leaders from South American and Arab countries. Iran just rebuffed Obama’s recent attempt at negotiations with television and teleprompter, dismissing the staged spectacle as so many “slogans.” Democrats in the US may be duped by Obama’s empty rhetoric, media simulations and other mass ornaments, but true Leftists are always ones to lift the hood and investigate the true operations of the apparatus power utilizes against them. Unlike Andrew Sullivan, they are not mesmerized by brands and “faces;” they need a bit more than just images and surfaces. No wonder why Chávez calls Obama an “ignoramus.” I imagine he thinks that term also applies to all of Obama’s easily duped supporters.

What can one expect now that Obama has alienated Iran, Venezuela and all their allies in the Middle East and South and Central America? Oil prices will rise, trade agreements will become increasingly strained, tariffs on exports will probably increase, the price of imports will increase, and all the populist movements in countries wherein impoverished citizens are demanding something that resembles a suitable standard of living will be hostile instead of receptive to the United States’s particular version of democracy and global unity. With our economy spiraling into bankruptcy this can only engender more problems abroad, especially if our European allies feel we are exacerbating the distrust many countries have for what can broadly be defined as the West. Here is Russia admonishing the US in the wake of Obama’s failed attempt to engage Iran:

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was no proof that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and urged the West to respect and reach out to the Islamic republic.

While I opposed Obama during the primaries for his lack of an ideological compass and his lack of a bold domestic agenda that would expand social services and thereby provide more Americans with equal access to power and resources, I thought his foreign policy, however vaguely defined, however utterly naïve, however hopelessly optimistic, would enable the United States to marshall the energy generated by all the New Social Movements, populist upheavals and new articulations of ethnic identity occurring throughout the world and funnel it toward a global understanding wherein difference and empathy would be celebrated and cultivated. Instead, we have more of the strained relations that were aggravated under Bush. Chávez, who is the face of some Leftist and New Social Movements, views us as antagonists to be shunned, as colonizers to be ousted, as representatives of a late capitalist hegemony that for him and his followers is the latest iteration of enslavement to the West. Obama promised to change this perception with his “negotiations without preconditions,” but instead all he did was reinvigorate it.

That Obama and his staff are reproducing the errors of Bush does not surprise me. Hopefully Hillary will help Obama out of this latest problem he has created for us. After all, it takes a Clinton to clean the mess created by a Bush. And Obama, to be sure, is nothing more than the Democratic Party’s version of George W. Bush. Indeed, he is nothing more than an ignoramus.

NEW YORK (AP) — Oil prices plunged over $10 a barrel Monday as a U.S. financial bailout plan failed to win legislative approval, increasing fears tat a prolonged economic downturn that could sharply curtail energy demand.

Light, sweet crude for November delivery sank $10.52 to settle at $96.36 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier dropping as low as $95.04. It was crude’s lowest trading level since prices edged back below $100 earlier this month; crude previously hadn’t traded that low since February.

Crude has fallen almost $25, or 20 percent, in the past week amid intense bi-partisan talks to to work out the $700 billion bank rescue plan.

From my blog, Uppity Woman.

It became evident, as I watched the video, that Governor Sarah Palin can more than “hold her own” in a debate.

York wrote the following about Palin’s performance:

And all I have to say is that Palin was good — really good. It wasn’t a debate in which the candidates were in each other’s faces or throwing out zingers, but Palin clearly outshone her rivals — especially Murkowski, the longtime senator who played the role of the experienced statesman.

This debate was not lightweight like the recent Saddleback Forum but one that, according to York, was substantive and “heavy”:

As far as substance was concerned, the debate was heavy — I mean heavy — on oil, natural gas, and the money that comes therefrom. To my ears, Palin knew a great deal about the subject and spoke with real authority about it — again outshining her rivals.

You can watch the video of the GOP primary debate at C-Span’s Web site.

As I watched the video, I was more than impressed. She is truly smart and knows her subjects well. The debate also dispels a rumor about Palin and her personally-held stringent beliefs about contraception. Here is the question that Palin was asked:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

Here’s Palin’s answer:

No, I don’t think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I’m not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something that I would support also.

I once attended sex education classes for my son when he was in 6th grade. His education began with the birds and bees, which bothered me some. The remainder of the course subject was benign, no more explicit than the books my mother gave me to read when I was young. I was satisfied that the class wasn’t too explicit. The more explicit items are best left to parenting at home.

York learned in his research that Alaska didn’t have a death penalty, something I was not aware of either. I did find out that Palin and I differ on the death penalty. She supports the death penalty when it involves children. My belief is much more broad than hers. Here are her thoughts on the death penalty:

If our lawmakers were to consider such a thing, I think that support should be given for heinous crimes. A murder of a child? I say, my goodness, hang ‘em up. Yeah. A murder of a child, anything to such a degree, I don’t think that there can be anything worse. And if lawmakers were to consider it, that should be the consideration.

In short, this is a debate worth watching. It is my opinion that Biden is going to have a lot on his hands when he debates Governor Sarah Palin. She will certainly do her homework and be well-informed on all questions. Biden has much to worry about in Palin.

OF NOTE: At C-Span, you can also watch the 2006 general election debate between Sarah Palin, the Democratic candidate, former governor Tony Knowles, and the Independent candidate, Andrew Halcro.

What a difference a month makes. Right on the heels of Obama’s dead fish flop on drilling off the coast of FL (even Jeb didn’t want to do this) comes an Obama proposal to sell 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile.

The WaPo reported Tuesday that during a speech in MI:

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race.

——————————

The Obama campaign did not predict how much releasing reserves would lower gas prices. But it said prices at the pump went down more than 19 percent within two weeks when President Bill Clinton made such a move in 2000.

His proposal comes a month after Obama said he would consider using oil from the reserves only in a “genuine emergency,” such as “terrorist acts.” Aides said the plan is not a reversal because he would replace light crude oil in the reserves with less-expensive heavy crude. They also noted that the senator from Illinois last week described the country’s economic conditions as an “emergency.”

On July 24th, USAToday reported that democrats wanted to open the reserves for just this reason.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.
———————–

Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.

Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed the sale because Democrats opposed offshore drilling.

Also curious is another story from USAToday on July 23rd about the airline industry supporting selling reserves.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. government should tap the national petroleum reserve to relieve ailing airlines that have been stung by soaring oil prices, the industry’s leading trade group told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“History shows us that even a temporary increase in supply will immediately lower oil prices,” James May, president and chief executive of the Air Transport Association, told the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Three major U.S. airlines reported second-quarter losses on Tuesday of more than $3.3 billion, blaming skyrocketing fuel costs.

May testified as the House is expected to vote Thursday on legislation to release millions of barrels of light sweet crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and swap it with heavy sour crude in an effort to calm the market.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserves has a website with information on current inventory here.

About the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Wikipedia)

Access to the reserve is determined by the conditions written into the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The maximum removal rate, by physical constraints, is 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m³/d). Oil could begin entering the marketplace 13 days after a Presidential order. The Dept. of Energy says that it has about 59 days of import protection in the SPR. This, combined with private sector inventory protection, is estimated to equal 115 days of imports.

The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis. The EPCA of December 22, 1975, made it policy for the U.S. to establish a reserve up to one billion barrels (159 million m³) of petroleum. A number of existing storage sites were acquired in 1977. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977. On July 21, 1977, the first oil—approximately 412,000 barrels (66,000 m³) of Saudi Arabian light crude—was delivered to the SPR. Fill was suspended in FY 1995 to devote budget resources to refurbishing the SPR equipment and extending the life of the complex. The current SPR sites are expected to be usable until around 2025. Fill was resumed in 1999.
—————–

On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (111,000,000 m³), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (1.156E+8 m³) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is “royalty-in-kind” oil—royalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties “in kind” – or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the Federal treasury.

So, what are the threads here? Democrats and Republicans have been at loggerheads for some time over how to deal with climbing gas prices, with Republicans wanting to drill more and Democrats wanting to use the “oil piggy bank.” Now, it looks as if someone has achieved a “meeting of the minds” with Obama suddenly supporting drilling. Will Republicans suddenly support selling reserves?

We’ll have to see. Right now John McCain does not.

In addition, whether or not 70 million barrels will make a huge difference to the average consumer is a matter of debate. Although any savings is appreciated, such a sale isn’t likely to lower price all that much. Selling oil to make gas prices go down is a little like selling apple trees to lower the price of pie.

So, who benefits the most? Well, consumers who use LOTS of gas. Airlines come to mind. It might help that industry – but that’s not why the idea is being sold. It’s for the driving consumer, stupid.

Lastly, the sale would be of stockpiled “sweet crude.” Reports say this “sweet crude” would then be replaced by the “sour type” (are there crude tasters??). So, that’s not a one-for-one swap. Also, haven’t we been hearing for some time that refinery capacity is a problem and that adds to the price? Just because we could sell it, would we be able to quickly refine it?

We’d be selling the apple trees, putting twigs back in the ground, waiting on a backlogged pastry chef and hoping the pie gets cheaper.

And Obama was against it before he was for it.

So, what’s the calculation, Barack? What changed your mind? And while you talked about this in MI on the 4th, it doesn’t show up in the transcript of your speech in Ohio on the 5th.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Yesterday, the St. Petersburg Times reported that Sen. Obama has "softened" his stance on offshore drilling:

"Long an opponent of offshore drilling, Sen. Barack Obama offered
encouraging words for a bipartisan energy plan that would permit oil
drilling within 50 miles of Florida’s west coast.

"In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9′s Political Connections this morning, Obama commended the self-styled "Gang of 10" senators who earlier in the day introduced a broad energy bill that also would funnel billions into developing renewable sources.

"’My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise,’ Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. ‘If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem.’" (St. Pete Times)

There’s that word again: compromise.  It’s a reasonable-sounding word, but compromise can have pretty deleterious effects. Is offshore drilling an issue about which we should compromise?

Many of us Americans eat food from the sea: fish and shrimp and lobster (well, I don’t eat lobster, because I really dislike the taste, but I adore scallops).  And hundreds of miles of our coastlines serve as tourist destinations — which pump money into many state and local economies precisely because of the quality of their beaches.

All it would take are a few accidents (like oil spills) to taint the food and scenery, which certainly could cause a drag on multiple industries.  Given that we wouldn’t see any results from drilling for 10 years (according to Sen. Obama’s statement in June), are the risks to our nation’s coastlines worth the meager and long-delayed results of offshore drilling?

I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a fair question.

Interestingly enough, the St. Pete Times implied that Sen. Obama has not formally embraced the offshore-drilling plan. It seems safe to say that he does support it — given that he said "I am not going to be rigid" about it.

You can’t get a little bit pregnant: either Sen. Obama is willing to allow offshore drilling or he isn’t. Subtle phrasing can cause voters to misunderstand where he really stands on issues.

I can’t help remembering Obama’s stated opposition back in January and March to retroactive immunity for telecom companies (Telecom Amnesty) that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.  In June, Obama’s stance morphed into qualified support for a House bill that included Telecom Amnesty, which Obama ended up voting for when it came to the Senate.

Similarly, I can’t help remembering Obama’s clear statements opposing NAFTA in March, stating that he would use the treaty’s opt-out clause as a "hammer" to force re-negotiation of the treaty so as to benefit American workers who’d lost their jobs.  In May, after Obama won the primaries, he made a clear statement that he really doesn’t want to force re-negotiation of NAFTA.

Incidentally, if the drilling plan is passed, Florida would not have a choice: the drilling would happen, according to the St. Pete Times, because the Gulf of Mexico is thought to be oil rich. 

Other coastal states would have a choice about whether or not drilling occurred off their shores (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia). 

I’m laughing so hard I am practically crying here. What on earth is wrong with Barack Obama? Is he a simpleton? Is he unable to grasp complex problems? Or is it just that he shouldn’t be allowed to speak without a teleprompter?

As you might recall, Manchild Barack Obama has already told us that as President he will expect us to follow his order: “Don’t Drive. Don’t Eat. Freeze Your Butt ala Jimmy Carter Malaise.

Now, according to this turkey, we actually won’t need to drill for oil if only all of us would just inflate our tires.

That’s right folks. You inflate your tires and it will solve our oil problem. We won’t need to drill, because our properly inflated tires will save us the same amount of oil we would garner if we drilled.

I think Powerline says it best:

Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant. Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.” Seriously:

The stunned silence with which the crowd greets this howler suggests that most Americans have a more practical understanding of energy consumption than Obama.

And here’s the “Howler”:

Warning: Do not drink anything while you are watching this. I wouldn’t want your coffee to come out of your nose or ruin your keyboard or anything:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Powerline also did the math, which brings us to the conclusion that without a teleprompter and a pre-written script composed by somebody with an IQ,  Barack Obama is truly a stunningly stupid dimwad. While he prances around the country claiming that people will try to make us afraid of him because he doesn’t look like the guys on our currency, it is becoming glaringly apparent that there is good reason to be afraid of him and it has little to do with his tan:

Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let’s be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that’s a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.

Americans drive approximately 2,880 miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.

How does this stack up against “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling?”

ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels

So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the US Senate is actually in session!! I bet you didn’t realize that since Obama is on his World Tour! But Obama not being in the Senate does not stop him from claiming credit, falsely, for one of the big committees in the Senate, the Banking Committee. He flat out said – with hand on his chest to make the point – that the Banking Committee is HIS committee! Here’s the kicker – he ISN’T EVEN ON IT!!! Wowie zowie – with all of the lies this man has told about his experience, especially his legislative experience, it is sure a good thing that his supporters have finally woken up and realized what a lying, conniving, scheming, Chicago-style politician he is!!! Oh, wait – that hasn’t happened yet. But we can hope that SOMEDAY they will realize they have been had. Of course, it would help if the media actually did their job to facilitate that awakening. This is me NOT holding my breath.

So, yes, the US Senate is in session, and there is someone who has been knocking herself out for her constituents, and all Americans. Oh, shoot – I have already given a clue by the use of the pronoun. I can assure you, it is not Claire McCaskill, one of Obama’s sycophantic “my children convinced me” supporters. No, of course not – you know who it is. Hillary Clinton.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton is currently fighting in the US Senate to get us relief from these exorbitant gas prices. Oh, and to argue against offshore drilling. What a silly little woman – worrying about the little people! Yet, she spoke about this on the Senate floor:

Senator Clinton urged her colleagues to support The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act to provide short term relief to Americans feeling the pain of rising fuel prices and also called for bold new steps to break the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and achieve long term energy independence based on clean, renewable alternative energy.

Say WHAT? Gee willikers – it seems that all of her talk during her campaigning wasn’t just TALK! She CARES about these issues because she cares about us, energy independence, and the environment. Well, I’ll be darned! She went on to say:

“I believe we can lower gas prices in the very near term by taking smart, practical, sensible steps to address rampant oil speculation,” Senator Clinton said. “And let’s lead our nation to embrace the great next American endeavor, a national effort to change the way we produce and use energy. It’ll serve our economy. It will strengthen our security. It will bring us together as a nation.”

Oh, she just needs to stop – energy independence AND economic recovery? It’s madness, I tell you!!! Maybe that’s what Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money” responded EMPHATICALLY when asked by Ellen Degeneres which candidate would be best for the economy: “That’s actually, hands down, Hillary Clinton.” HERE is the link for the interview on YouTube.com. It’s short, but powerful.

But Senator Clinton doesn’t stop there, oh no. She goes on to tackle the issue of offshore drilling:

“Drilling is the wrong answer. It will do nothing right now. It is literally a Shell game, or an Exxon Mobile game. It’s designed to serve the political interests of vulnerable Republicans and the financial interests of profit-rich oil companies. Average Americans will not see a dime,” Senator Clinton said. “The oil companies say, ‘Drill,’ and the President and the Vice President say, ‘How deep?’ I don’t think that’s the smartest, most effective answer.”

Crazy talk, I tell ya! WHAT is she thinking?? Energy independence? Get the economy on track?? NO offshore drilling?!?!? She is out of control!!!

It seems there is some precedent for these wild ideas of hers:

Senator Clinton has previously cosponsored the Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act and the Close the Enron Loophole Act, which would protect consumers from unscrupulous energy profiteers and increase transparency in the retail and wholesale markets.

What has gotten INTO this woman?? Concerned about price gouging at the pump? While ExxonMobil continues to rake in record-breaking profits?? What is WRONG with her?! I swannee, as we say down here in the South, she just seems hell-bent on HELPING people! Not in self-promotion! Or being Master of the Universe and pretending to be former American heroes! Good grief.

So, Senator Clinton was on the floor, talking away, pushing this:

Senator Clinton outlined her proposal to create a Strategic Energy Fund to jump start research and investment in clean energy technologies to promote job growth, energy independence and a cleaner environment. She also underscored her support for providing energy relief to low-income families in New York and across the country. Senator Clinton has long been an advocate of fully funding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

How dare she? She wants a program that will help the people of New York and all Americans? Including low-income people?! She has just gone too far. Apparently, she did not get the memo that her REAL job was to engage in narcissistic, selfish, egotistical, arrogant, CYA actions, not to actually do things that would HELP people, the economy, and the environment! Well, no wonder Kerry, Reid, Dodd, et al, in the Senate didn’t want her!! It has all become clear to me now!

Grrrr. So, to recap: Obama is off on his European vacation on TAXPAYER’S dime, pretending to be JFK but missing the mark by a universe, and Clinton is in the Senate fighting for US.

Once again, Automatic Super Duper Delegates: PICK THE PERSON WHO IS FIGHTING FOR US, who has the intelligence, the passion, the COMMITMENT, to restoring this country to economic health, and to take us to energy independence. HILLARY CLINTON is the only one who will do that. Grow a spine, stop worrying about getting more money for your pet projects, and DO THE RIGHT THING already. Have some integrity. Have some GUTS. Do not foist yet another Pretender on us. Seriously.

For an added bonus, here is the LINK to her speech on YouTube.com. Get a cup of coffee, tea, whatever your beverage of choice is, and watch a REAL leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So these must be the “Green Jobs” Barack Obama is thinking about. A couple of hundred thousand consultants. Wonderful. It’s a great way to hire and boost the income of friends and family though. That doesn’t include You, suckers. Just so you know.

While most Americans find that what once was their disposable income is now used to barely feed their families with whatever is on “special” this week at the supermarket (healthy or not), the Democratic Party “of The People” is defining other priorities for them. What will the DNC do for the American people at the convention? Why they are going to make sure that Prissy Barack Obama has his arugula, I am sure. But they won’t stop there. No sir.

They have hired a Director Of Greening. No kidding. That’s the title. You can’t make this shit up.

What’s environmental activist Andrea Robinson’s job as Director of Greening, you ask?

Robinson will work to find ways to make the preparation and conducting of the convention as environmentally friendly as possible, said Leah Daughtry, the Democratic National Convention Committee chief executive, speaking at the committee’s third “Convention Conversations” forum in Boulder.

Does anybody here, after having just returned from an actual day’s work, understand what this….um…means?

Whatever it means, Andrea can’t do this job all by herself. No sir. She has hired a firm to serve as Official Carbon Advisor to:

“measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.”

No offense, DNC, but no wonder you can’t keep any money in your coffers.

I wonder if this woman was involved in the legislation that phases out all incandescent lighting by 2012, thus facilitating as many migraines and epileptic seizures as possible. You know about those fluorescent lighting replacements don’t you? They aren’t quite finished yet folks, as in “back to the drawing board, please”. They contain mercury which can cause brain, kidney and liver damage. Then there are those folks who prefer not to burn their homes down with halogens, but ah, screw them too. Just so you know: if you break a fluorescent curly bulb you are supposed to evacuate the entire room for 15 minutes and close off any ventilation. Bet you didn’t know that huh? I threw one out before I found this out. How the hell did I know that the environmentalists are encouraging me to use something that’s hazardous to my and everyone else’s health? I thought they were supposed to be protecting me. Anyways, you should know that if you live in an apartment, you must call down to maintenance to turn off the air conditioning if you break one of those bulbs. Good luck with that. *The EPA has a whole warning page about these bulbs folks. You would think that all of these environmental “consultants” would first insist that these replacement bulbs we will be REQUIRED to use would at least be safe to humans. But nahhhhhhh. It seems like a fair tradeoff for these nutballs, right? And they will look great in the family heirloon chandeliers! Why I just BET Michelle Obama will be sticking those ugly yellow-lighting little bastards in HER chandelier over at the Hyde Park homestead, don’t you? I wonder what the Director Of Greening thinks about all of this?

Ok I digressed. I can do that. It’s my blog.

Back to the Greening of the Convention, I know that this makes you all feel a lot better economically. I know it makes you feel much more secure knowing that the Democratic Party is in tune with your most pressing needs at this time. They want you to know they Care. I know that having a Green Convention will help you to fill up the tank, catch up on last month’s bills and make you feel included along with the left-cliff radical whackjobs who are sponsoring The Incandescent One. (We will have to change that to the Flourescent One in 2012).

It’s good to know that the Democratic Party is thinking of us at all times, don’t you agree? A Green Convention. Whoa, Thanks guys! So what if you have shoved a duplicitous pandering sack of crap down our throats as our “nominee”? We are going to let that pass because your convention will be Green!

I suppose we should at least be grateful that they haven’t assigned Ministers of Plenty and Truth. Yet.

As a side note, I also suspect that if the food is going to be doled out according to Ms. Anderson’s specifications, Donna Brazile is going to be showing up with a HUGE tote bag full of fried stuff she can scarf down in the ladies’ room. Considering her…ah…. constitution, I hardly envision her going for the ratatouille.

* EPA on CFLs

CFLs More Dangerous Than First Thought