Ahhhh...summer camp...

Remember back to the good old days of summer camp? For me, I remember it as a week of independence from my parents. I spent it swimming, horseback riding, meeting new people, making new friends, sleeping in dorms and eating meals in the mess hall.

I even remember making those dorky art-n-crafts, too. Remember painting those chalky ceramic molds and figurines? However, I don't remember making THESE arts-n-crafts...

A Palestinian girl holds a homemade model of a rocket that reads 'Israel' in Hebrew and Arabic on it during an Islamic Jihad rally in Gaza City, Wednesday, July 30, 2008. The rally was held for children who are part of summer camps run by Islamic Jihad funded organizations. Israel and Hamas are observing a cease-fire in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip since June 19, 2008.

While they may be observing a cease-fire, it doesn't mean they have stopped preparing their next generation of terrorists.

Economic Justice?

"Economic Justice" is a catch-phrase very much prevalent in the Barack Hussein Obama presidential campaign. He used it at least four times during a recent NAACP speech. Although he hasn't defined exactly what that term means, he has vowed as president to make sure "economic justice" is served.

Economic justice...what could this term possibly mean? I read this to mean he wants to make sure everybody has an equal share of the economic pie. It means taking from the "haves" and giving it to the "have nots." It means punishing people's success by redistributing their wealth to those not quite so successful. Doesn't this sound a lot like socialism?

Now, fresh on the heels of yesterday's Congressional vote to issue a formal apology to Black Americans for slavery and segregation, Obama is talking about reparations.

Sen. Barack Obama told a meeting in Chicago the U.S. should review how it can make amends for "offenses" committed during its history. […]

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds," he said.

Don't get me wrong. I think what this country did to black Americans was absolutely horrible. The evils of slavery and segregation were a tragic mistake that has and will forever haunt our country. However, issuing a formal apology for something that happened so long ago doesn't really accomplish anything, other than starting us on a very slippery slope.

Is it any surprise that the first black candidate with a decent shot at the presidency wasted no time at all in opening Pandora's Box? It shouldn't be. Remember, he spent 20 years as a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he sat and listened to Reverend Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright spew absolute hatred towards the "European white people."

Now we come full circle. Obama vows (during a speech to the NAACP) that he will make sure economic justice is served. Now he's talking about the government making reparations for slavery and segregation. How do you think these reparations will be funded? Economic justice.

If this isn't playing the race card, I don't know what is...

Old Blackwater, keep on rollin'

Perhaps he's had a change of heart, now that he's needed their help. In March 2008, according to Jeremy Scahill from The Nation, Obama heavily criticized the role of private armed security contractors in Iraq.

On Monday, Obama struck back. "Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don't believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators.

Ok. That was back in March. I'll give the guy a break here. Perhaps his comments were just to save face against some harsh criticism from Hillary during a close primary season? After all, he is a politician. I'm sure he didn't really mean it. Or did he?

July 2, 2008
"When it comes to private contractors, there is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past. I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements. I think it puts our troops in harm's way. I think it creates some difficult morale issues when you've got private contractors getting paid 10 times what an Army private's getting paid for work that carries similar risks."

Enter Irony...Guess who provided the security during the Obama World Tour '08 last week? Yup. You guessed it...the same Blackwater operatives he thinks should only work in the mess hall.

What ARE we waiting for?

Borrowed from a Reader's Comment to an OP-Ed posting by A.W.R Hawkins on HumanEvents.com

Very well put op-ed piece, James A. Nollet from Poland. Very well put, indeed. (Also read the original post from A.W.R. It's a good one, too.)

Saying that America can't drill its way out of its energy crisis is like saying you can't dig a well to find water to alleviate thirst, or you can't plow a field to raise crops in order not to be hungry.

It is ABSURD on its face.

Then there's the John Kerry argument against ANWR (lamentably supported by John McCain), that it's pointless to drill in ANWR since by itself, it cannot lift America's energy crisis. By THAT illogic, America should never again look for ANY new sources of energy, since NONE, by themselves, can relieve America's energy shortage.

All steps to find new energy take America so much closer to the goal of being once again energy INdependent.

Pelosi and Reid do not like America's involvement in wars in the Middle East. I understand their opposition -- but then, why do they not see that America's current dependence on foreign oil is precisely what helps drag America into Middle Eastern wars?

So in 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invades Kuwait and threatens Saudi Arabia and even Iran; should Saddam get his hands on those oil sources, he's got over half of the world's oil under his thumb.

OBVIOUSLY the world had to stand up against Saddam and push him out of Kuwait. And please spare me the arguments that the Coalition was fighting for "oil." OF COURSE IT WAS FIGHTING FOR OIL! Oil is LIFE! Economies collapse, and real, ordinary human beings go jobless, hungry, cold, and even die when there's no oil. People shoot each other fighting for what oil's left.

But suppose the USA had been energy INdependent when Iraq invaded Kuwait? America then could have said to the world: "Dear World, we are AUFULLY sorry that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait ahd threatens all of your economies. And if you wish to go to war to remove him from Kuwait, we totally understand. We might even help you logistically.

"But what we will NOT do is send armed forces over there. Because we don't NEED to. Because we've already seen to our own energy independence. Because we now have no dog in this fight."

Woiuldn't Pelosi and Reid and Kerry LOVE such a position of non-involvement?

Every single American president since LBJ has let America down with regard to energy independence. I most of all blame Ronald Reagan the so-called "Great Communicator" for not calling upon America to do for energy independence what JFK did for landing a man on the moon -- by calling for a crash program of energy independence, mission to be accomplished within 10 years.

Not sure I agree totally with singling out Ronald Reagan here. But Jim's point is on-target...they have ALL let us down with regards to energy independence.

But maybe THAT'S a way to sell energy independence and drilling to the Dhimmicrats -- if they don't want any more future Iraq wars, then let them NOW support drilling (and other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, nuclear, coal gasification, sugar-from-Caribbean-islands-to-ethanol, etc.) and maybe America can indeed afford to sit out the next Middle Eastern war.

Let's think grandly here -- maybe, when the next Middle Eastern war happens and America actually produces SURPLUSES of energy, maybe AMERICA could actually SELL energy to the rest of the world. Wouldn't THAT do wonders for the balance-of-trade deficit?

James A. Nollet; Milkowice, POLAND

Drilling alone certainly isn't the answer, while finding and developing other renewable sources of energy certainly is. However, it won't happen overnight. While alternative sources of energy are being researched and developed (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc), America must find it's own sources of oil, rather than becoming more and more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Once we do become energy independent, the rest of the Middle East can return to the 7th century...what they all seem to long for anyway.

The Buffalo Theory

Amen!

This is my all-time favorite Cliff-ism. In one episode of Cheers, Cliff is seated at the bar describing the Buffalo Theory to his buddy, Norm. I don't think I've ever heard the concept explained any better than this.

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this . . . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the lowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

Truer words have never been spoken.

Perhaps a very close second favorite Cliff-ism was spoken on the Jeopardy episode of Cheers. Cliff Clavin, being the know-it-all of useless trivia, is on Jeopardy. Presented with the Final Jeopardy question "Who is Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur?" Cliff bets all his money, $22,000, on his response.

Alex Trebek: Let's go to Cliff and get his Final Jeopardy answer. "Who are people who have never been in my kitchen?" I'm sorry, that is wrong.

Cliff: Wait a minute, Alex. I can offer conclusive proof that those three people have never been in my kitchen.

OK, maybe you just had to be there.

Here's an extensive list of some other extremely funny lines from various Cheers episodes.

Gosh, I miss that show...

Cheers!

...with a little help from my friends

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 49% of voters believe the media is trying to help Obama win.

Monday, July 21, 2008

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

What is this new controversy? In case you've been out of town lately, the New York Times Op-Ed page published an editorial on July 14 by Barak Obama entitled "My Plan for Iraq". It's a good read. Senator Obama explains his position on Iraq and what he plans to about the war. We'll leave out the fact that at the time he wrote this piece, he hadn't even been to Iraq in nearly 3 years.

Anyway, just one week after this piece was published, the NYT Op-Ed refused to publish a rebuttal from Senator John McCain, claiming his piece didn't offer any "new" information like Obama's piece did.

Know what? They are right. I guess when you're a junior U.S. senator, elected only two years ago, of which you have spent the last year and a half running for president, much of what you say IS actually "new". And I guess when you've been a U.S. senator for 26 years, much of what you say ISN'T "new."

However, publishing Obama's piece on Iraq while refusing to publish McCain's piece certainly does nothing to promote fair journalism. It's no wonder almost 50% of polled voters think that the media is favoring Obama over McCain.

Oh, and this shouldn't surprise you too much. The NYT Op-Ed editor, David Shipley, used to be the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Speechwriter in the Clinton Administration. Think he has a bit of a bias?

Here's a snippet of McCain's rebuttal that speaks volumes.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.

If you'd like to read John McCain's rebuttal that the NYT refused to publish, here it is in its entirety, courtesy of the Drudge Report.

Read them both, Obama's and McCain's.

You decide.

Urine for a big treat, Dems

Cheers to KCJT News out of Denver...

DNC concerns: Did protesters plan to throw urine?

DENVER (KJCT) -- A new kind of warning has come up about protesters gearing up for the Democratic National Convention.

Denver firefighters have learned of a house full of urine being stored to throw at police. An internal memo is warning first responders that disgusting acts are a significant concern.

A house FULL of urine? Ew!

Protesters in other cities have used urine and feces filled balloons to throw at police and there are concerns that could happen during the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Even more Ew!

Denver City Councilman Doug Linkhart has proposed an ordinance to keep protesters from carrying the so called urine bombs or other liquids in the protest areas.

Now, Freedom of Assembly is a protected human right to come together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The First Amendment also provides the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. However, law enforcement also has a duty to protect the general public and keep the peace.

When we resort to using our own feces and urine in an attempt to prevent law enforcement from keeping said peace, we have sadly crossed yet another threshold as a society.

Plus it is totally gross!!! Grow up, people. Really.

People in glass houses...

"Nine-percent Nancy" throws a few stones, again...

WASHINGTON — President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill.

Pelosi shot back in unusually personal terms.

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

However, according to a Rasmussen poll, Congress themselves isn't doing very well either. Democrats give Congress just a 9% approval rating, Republicans give Congress an 8% approval rating, and non-partisans give Congress a 3% approval rating.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

Okay, Okay, I get it. Congress doesn't like President Bush. Many people don't. I, for, one, am not exactly thrilled with some of his policies, either. However, with their own approval ratings in the crapper, members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle ought to be a little more worried about their own job performance, rather than throwing stones at a man who will be out of office in six more months. With approval ratings this low, they may not be far behind.

Commonsense we can live without

Flashback to the spring of 2006. With a Congressional election looming in the fall, the Democratic Party teased and taunted us with promises of a "commonsense plan" to reign in the then-skyrocketing gas prices.

Taken from her own press release in April 2006

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

I'll give her credit here, she's correct. Consulting the Energy Information Administration, the average price of U.S. regular gasoline on April 24, 2006 was indeed $2.91. It was also up 33 cents from a month prior. This figure did double the average price of $1.31 in January 2000, when President Bush first took office.


Flash forward a bit to January 2007. The Democratic Party, having received the majority in both the Senate and the House, take over the reigns of the Congress. They now control what bills are brought to the floor for vote, and what bills are not. The average price of U.S. gasoline had dipped a bit, now at $2.16 a gallon - even before any aspect of the promised "commonsense plan" could be enacted.

OK. Flash forward yet again, back to the present. On July 14, 2008, the average price of U.S. gasoline sits at $4.11 a gallon.

Using these figures, and a little commonsense math, we do see a 100% increase in gasoline prices between January 2000 and April 2007. We also see a 92% increase in the price of gasoline between January 2007 and July 2008.

So, while it took almost seven years for a gallon of gasoline to double in price under President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress's watch, the new "commonsense plan" of the Democratic-controlled Congress was able to accomplish almost the same thing in just 18 months.

Applying some more commonsense math, at this new commonsense rate, we'll be paying well over $60 for a gallon of gas in seven years.

So, just what IS their commonsense plan anyway? While we're all still waiting to find out, I can tell you what it is NOT.

PELOSI: “The United States cannot drill its way to energy independence.”( Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Today, Congress Took Action On Real Solution To Lower Price At Pump,” Press Release, 5/13/08)

SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: “The President should reverse his 'drill and veto' policies and return from his Middle East trip with firm guarantees from OPEC for increased production levels …” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “President Should Push OPEC for Increased Production, Abandon His 'Drill and Veto' Policies,” Press Release, 5/13/08)

Did you catch that???? Nancy Pelosi challenged President Bush to pressure OPEC to drill and produce more oil, but still states that we cannot drill our way to energy independence. So, she'd rather the U.S. become even MORE dependent on foreign oil.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked President Bush on Tuesday to draw down a portion of the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to reduce crude prices and help motorists who are suffering from the rising cost of gasoline.

Did you catch THAT one??? While increasing our dependence of foreign oil, she's requesting we draw from the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Hmm...not a very smart idea, when we already import over 60% of our oil from the Middle East, and with Iran threatening to close off the Strait of Hermuz and all...


Borrowed from Ben Pershing of the Washington Post

Building on last month's bipartisan legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House requiring the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to use its emergency powers to curb excessive speculation distorting the energy markets, the House Agriculture Committee this week will hold three days of hearings on oil market speculation. The goal is to present the House with strong legislation this month to bring transparency to the markets and to end speculators' ability to artificially inflate the price at the pump.

So, here it is folks...their magic bullet, "commonsense" plan to combat high gasoline prices and reduce our dependency on foreign oil..Don't drill anywhere but the Middle East, siphon from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and go after the market speculators with committee hearings.

Sounds a lot like the previous administration's response to the first WTC terrorist attack. Rather than combating the true source of the problem, they sent in their lawyers and indicted Osama bin Laden.

Yeaaahhh, I think he missed his court date.

Canterbury Tales

Cheers to Steve Daughty from the Daily Mail UK

So, the Christian docrtine is offensive to Muslims, so says the Archbishop of Cantebury. Who knew??? But perhaps more importantly, who cares???

"Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday. Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles. His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'."

Exactly who is this moron? He's only the chief bishop and principal leader of the Church of England. What does he know? Right?

"The Archbishop's letter is a reply to feelers to Christians put out by Islamic leaders from 43 countries last autumn. In it, Dr Williams said violence is incompatible with the beliefs of either faith and that, once that principle is accepted, both can work together against poverty and prejudice and to help the environment. He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'. Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God.

Oh, right! I remember him now. He's the buffoon who believes Islamic Sharia in Britain is unavoidable and should have a place in the British legal system.

So, if our fine friends in Britain follow this guy's advice, the Church of England will be replaced by the Religion of Peace, and the barbaric Sharia law will become the rule of the land. Think this is a good idea? Why not ask these two ladies how they like it? Oh wait. You can't. They were murdered, execution-style, for allegedly fraternizing with Westerners...which is apparently forbidden under Sharia law.

Still think it's the Religion of Peace? Sure it is...as long as you aren't a second-class or third-class woman.

God save the queen, mates...

Nice Earrings, Lady.

Cheers to FirstRead:MSNBC

From NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann
PONTIAC, Mich -- In response to a question about the economic stimulus checks administered by the U.S. government earlier this year, Michelle Obama said her husband believes that short-term fixes don't solve economic problems.

"You're getting $600," she told an audience of mostly African-American women here. "What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month."

"Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good," she continued. "And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings," she joked.

With gasoline over $4 a gallon, and people finding it harder and harder to make ends meet and pay their mortgages, who in the world is buying $600 earrings? Perhaps, if our significant-other was Mr. Obama we'd all be able to spend $600 on something as meaningless as a pair of earrings. But, alas, we are not. We live in fly-over country...we are the bitter, gun-clinging, religious folk who scrimp and save every penny we get to put food on our table for our children.

First we get insulted by Mr. Hopey McChangy...then we get insulted by Mrs. Hopey McChangy. Nice....

Can you be any MORE condescending, Mr. and Mrs. Obama?

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

A picture is worth a thousand words...


Cheers to Michele Malkin from National Review Online...

July 16, 2008

In all the brouhaha over the New Yorker’s satirical cover cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama, a truly “tasteless and offensive” passage in the magazine’s feature article got lost. The magazine piece quotes Obama’s recommendations for how to stop jihad, which he had previously published in a local Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11:

"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

Is this man for real? Osama bin Laden’s murderous legions are plenty able to “imagine” the “suffering of others.” Go watch an al-Qaeda beheading snuff video. Just Google it or surf YouTube. Imagining the suffering of infidels is covered amply in basic Jihadi Training 101.

You’ll note, too, that Obama’s fresh instinct in the week after the 9/11 attack was to diagnose it as a “tragedy” stemming from lack of “empathy” and “understanding” — instead of as the deliberate, carefully planned evil act of the long-waged Islamic war on the West that it was.

Just eight days after 9/11, while Ground Zero was still smoldering and our nation was still in shock and mourning, he blames the terrorist attack on a lack of understanding.

That's it...blame America first. It's not too difficult to see how he can think this way...While he may be a converted Christian now, its still a fact that he was raised as a Muslim for a good part of his childhood.

And this man wants to be Commander-In-Chief...in control of the most powerful nation, both politically, economically, and militarily, in the history of the mankind.

Scary. Scary, indeed.

Drill Here. Drill Now.

I've been saying this for months...

Cheers to Larry Kudlow from National Review Online...

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.

Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.

As soon as "the market" sees that the US is serious about finding more oil and supplementing the supply, the prices will go down. Traders and speculators ultimately set the market price of oil, not the oil companies. And they buy and sell oil as futures...meaning they speculate about the supply and demand of oil in the future. Currently they see more worldwide demand and less supply, so they buy oil contracts (x amount of barrels) now, expecting to be able to sell them at a higher cost in the future. One problem with this is they are only required to put up 7% of the price to buy these oil futures. Not much of a risk on their part, as they speculate the supply will not meet the demand in the future, so their 7% upfront cost is relatively safe. One way to reign this in is to require oil futures traders have to put up more than just 7%...say 50%. This way they have much more of their cash invested, and will be less likely to buy as many futures, which will keep the prices down. However, this would require Congress, and other countries, to make this happen.

If the US is seen as serious about doing more to meet the demand, the prices adjust accordingly. For crying out loud, I learned this simple supply and demand principle in my Associates degree program. It amazes me how many supposedly smart people don't grasp this concept. It's much simpler and more politically-correct to "blame Bush" rather than comprehend what is actually fueling the fire. They are so consumed by their hatred of the man that he gets blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong.

Granted he has had his share of missteps and screwups. However, there are 535 members of Congress, and he's only one man. Which group do you think has the most power to make regulations and policies to help stimulate and sustain our economy? Answer: the Democratically-controlled Congress, who, at this moment, hold an approval rating in the single digits...the lowest in American history.

Hmmmm....let's put all the blame on the Oilman in the Oval Office...this is obviously all his fault.




...OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now...