Dear Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board,

Is it not time to put the good of Florida and the good of the United States above politics? Do we not all want "change"? Floridians and Americans are suffering under the extreme burden of high energy and gasoline costs. Isn't it time we look for solutions together regardless of party or ideology?

In your editorial, "On oil, the political vs. the practical" you restate what we Americans have been doing for the past 30 plus years. We have not drilled for our own oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though China and Cuba can. We have not built new refineries or nuclear power plants in over 30 and 40 years respectively. We have created environmental regulations and an EPA bureaucracy that is stopping the building of solar power plants in the deserts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. Congress has made it illegal to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and ANWR in Alaska. Congress and the 50 states are requiring over 45 different mixtures of gasoline to be produced to meet state and federal mandates on pollution. Finally, we are conserving our hearts out.

All of these self-imposed restrictions have gotten us in large measure to where we are. Is it not time for a change?

Is it not time for us to think outside the box? Let's not be afraid of "change". Here are some innovative ideas that local citizens and others have proposed to move Florida and America toward energy independence. Our state legislators and Congress need to consider each of them.

1. Select one environmentally friendly emission standard and mixture of gasoline, rather than the current hundreds of emission standards that require the production of 45 plus gasoline and diesel mixtures, and produce only that. This will have an immediate impact at the pump.

2. Cut federal and state taxes on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. A tax cut has immediate short term and long term impacts on the economy and American's pocket books. Off set tax cuts with spending cuts. That is what Americans are doing.

3. Release one-third of our strategic petroleum reserves. That would have a short term impact on gasoline and oil prices.

4. Remove regulatory restrictions on the building of new petroleum refineries, solar power plants, clean coal plants, natural gas plants and nuclear power plants.

5. Challenge scientists and entrepreneurs to find immediate and long term solutions by using American innovation and developing new technologies. The $300 million challenge to create a new battery to power our cars is a just a start.

6. Look at the massive environmental damage and human suffering caused by biofuels like corn based ethanol and move to other biomass alternative fuels and technologies such as sugarcane based ethanol/alcohol, nitrogen power, and algae based fuels.

7. Provide regulatory and tax incentives to begin pumping oil from currently abandoned wells. These may become productive in the short term given current drilling technologies.

8. Stop placing blame and move to finding solutions. More hearings and talk do nothing. Action is needed. Attacking those who have spent their lives, time and treasure exploring for and drilling or mining for our natural resources is counter productive and drives up the price of gasoline. This would be a big "change" in attitude.

9. Drill in ANWR now. The plan for drilling in ANWR involves 2,000 acres of land in Alaska's far North Eastern border. Is that any more environmentally harmful than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres)?

10. Explore and drill in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf. It has been illegal to do so for 30 years. This would especially benefit Florida. According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil.

11. Recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves. The current high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

12. Require oil speculators to put up 50% of the dollar amount they bid in cash rather than working off lines of credit.

13. Instead of burying our trash let's burn it.

14. Let every American pledge to buy a car over the next 3 years that is more fuel efficient by 10 miles per gallon, whether new or used.

We would do all these things and continue to develop wind, solar and biofuels. We would all, of course, continue to conserve. However, we must recognize the limitations of wind and solar. For example to power New York city using wind power would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres) with turbines. To gain the maximum from solar we need to build plants in the America's deserts.

Let's work together to find solutions. Let's both agree that nothing is off the table. Let's demand that both Presidential Candidates on this 4th of July set a goal that America will be become energy independent in the next 10 years. Let's vow to keep the over $650 billion we send overseas to buy oil. Let's use that money to build new technologies, explore, drill and mine our own resources and best of all create jobs.

Let's join together and ask our readers to come up with more ideas on how we can become independent of foreign oil. No idea is to be rejected. All ideas will be submitted with forethought by the person making the suggestion. Let's pass these ideas on to our Florida Governor and legislature, our President and Congress.

Anyone with an idea on how to become energy independent please e-mail me at rswier@comcast.net.

Warm Regards,

Rich
Publisher, FromTheDuke Blog

We have heard calls for change but the Sarasota Herald-Tribune calls for America to do the same things we have been doing for over 30 years that do not work.

In their editorial, "Offshore pandering" they argue against drilling off-shore because it is a vote getter. That is putting pure politics against the best interests of the nation. That is the height of partisanship and not change. We must put the good of the Country above political party.

As I explained in detail in my column yesterday, we have been doing exactly what the Democrats, liberal left, environmentalists and media have wanted. As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune points out there has been a 27 year moratorium on off-shore drilling. They state, "So, instead of supporting realistic solutions -- such as more conservation; better fuel efficiency in cars, industry and buildings; and incentives for developing alternative energy sources -- these elected officials are pandering to voters' fears."

But we have been doing all of these things for over 30 years.

Since 1980 we Americans: Haven't drilled for our own oil. We haven't built new refineries. We have significantly increased regulatory requirements on the production of gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. We have taken lead out of gasoline to reduce pollution and added ethanol to our gasoline. Via market pressures we have increased the efficiency of our cars. We have forced the production of 45 different grades of gasoline to meet EPA and state laws on pollution levels. We have heavily subsidized solar and wind power and ethanol production at both the national and state levels. We do build more energy efficient homes and buildings. And finally of course - we have conserved.

What has this gotten us? Higher prices for gasoline, oil, and natural gas. What does this mean for Gulf states like Florida? It means a direct hit on our economy. An economy that is already reeling from the shocks of a mortgage meltdown.

According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil. Florida power is the 13th highest in the U.S. We could become one of the lowest with our own resources lying a few miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

For every one cent increase per KwH of electrical power that is $2 billion out of our economy.

Let's look at the arguments put forth by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which match those of Democrats and some Republicans:

Argument #1 - "Even if new offshore areas were leased for drilling today, it would take 10 years to bring their oil or gas to market." If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. The "not bring relief immediately" mantra is simply designed to reject today's reality of high gas prices in favor of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

Argument #2 - "The United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves." According to Investor's Business Daily, "In this country alone there is at least 118 billion barrels of recoverable but untapped oil, a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves. The latest forecast indicates that there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable from the Bakken Formation [located in the Williston Basin that stretches through Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan]. However, there is much more liquid crude there. The speculation begins at 500 billion barrels and goes as high as 2 trillion barrels."

Argument #3 - "...the damaging effects drilling could have on the state's economy and environment," Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled. Actually, studies by Louisiana State University have found that abandoned oil rigs in the gulf become artificial reefs and cause marine life to explode.

Argument #4 - "Energy companies already hold leases for 90 million offshore acres, but only about 20 million -- less than 25 percent -- are being tapped for oil." Like anything else you go for the oil that is easiest and cheapest first based upon market demand. By opening up ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico we can get to bigger deposits, cheaper and faster. This means it gets to the market faster. More supply to meet the demand and you have lower prices. If ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico were opened to exploration and drilling by Congress tomorrow, futures traders would suddenly bail and the oil bubble would burst sending prices tumbling.

The rights to the oil and natural gas off the shores of Florida belongs to Floridians. There are in fact billions of barrels of oil and billions, perhaps trillions, of cubic feet of natural gas just 50 miles off of our shores. We Floridians have the right to this off-shore property and the right to exploit those resources contained there in. We all understand that we must extract this precious resource in an environmentally sensitive way but we must extract it.

Finally, China and Cuba can explore and drill for Florida's oil right now. Why can't we?

Congress, and our state legislators need to get it like Governor Crist and we Floridians get it. This is a pocket book issue and impacts our ability to put food on our tables, get our kids to school, keep our homes, and run our businesses.

What is that saying, doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. We can no longer afford this insanity.

The editorial, "How to cut foreign oil imports" by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is a masterful piece of propaganda straight from Barack Obama's talking points.

There are key questions that the editorial board doesn't ask like: How did we get to this point? How did we become so dependent on foreign oil? How is it that we are annually sending over $650 billion overseas to buy oil from those who want to kill us? How is it that Cuba and China can drill in the Gulf of Mexico and we can't. Why does gasoline cost so much?

The answer: We have been doing exactly what the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their environmentalist friends have wanted!

Since the late 1970s we Americans: Don't drill for our own oil. Don't build new refineries. We have increased regulatory requirements on the production of gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. We have taken lead out of gasoline to reduce pollution and added ethanol to our gasoline. We have increased the efficiency of our cars. Forced the production of 45 different grades of gasoline to meet EPA and state laws on pollution. And finally of course - we have conserved as pointed out in the editorial.

All of these liberal strategies have made us energy independent, right? Wrong.

We have done exactly what the environmentalists, their Democratic allies in Congress and the media have wanted and here we are with gasoline at $4.10 for unleaded regular. Do you know why? Because that is what they have wanted all along.

Environmentalists, the liberal left and the media want our gas prices high! Stop using gasoline, that is their goal. For you see fossil fuels are evil. Oil companies are evil. Moms driving SUVs are evil. We are evil because America "consumes 25 percent of the world's supply [of oil]".

Maybe it is time for a slightly different strategy?

How about we continue to do what the environmentalists want, even though it hurts us economically, but also do the following: What if we lift the ban on drilling for oil in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico? What if we explore and drill for our own oil at a greater pace? What if we begin mining the trillions of gallons of liquid oil contained in the shale in the Bakken Formation? What if we build new refineries to produce more gasoline?

If we did these things we would increase supply! When you increase supply the price comes down.

We would stop sending our money overseas and create jobs and wealth here in America rather than in Saudi Arabia and Iran. We would stop being held hostage to the whims of OPEC. We would stop supporting Communist regimes like that of Hugo Chavez. We would begin to tap our oil in the Gulf of Mexico, which Cuba and China have already agreed to do. We would buy ourselves time while we stop using oil to fuel our power plants and move toward nuclear, clean coal, solar and wind power. We would buy ourselves time as we look at alternative fuels for our transportation industry like biofuels that do not pollute more than oil.

I say we do it all. Clearly the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their allies only want half of the pie. I say we take the whole pie because we have already paid for it. What do you think?

I sent the following e-mail to Governor Crist, the Florida Cabinet and Sarasota County Legislative delegation. Perhaps you will consider doing the same. It is worth your time to ensure our economic future.

Dear Governor Crist,

As a Floridian I commend you for your support of off-shore drilling. As you prepare for your environmental summit I ask you to consider the following:

As you know Florida, like the United States, imports its oil, natural gas, and gasoline. Additionally we currently have a significant electrical power deficit and buy power from other states. Floridians pay dearly for our energy. Florida has the 13th highest energy costs in the U.S. With the rising price of oil and natural gas and 54.9% of Florida's power plants dependent on these two fuels our energy costs will only rise, and rise dramatically.

I ask that you continue your efforts to allow off-shore drilling because it is best for Florida economically. Florida needs to become energy independent. We can do this in an environmentally friendly way. We must look at all forms of energy production, with nothing being off the table. Wind, solar, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and biomass are all worthy of study. Those that make the most sense for Florida should be allowed to develop in a free market system and compete in that market to provide Floridians with cheap and reliable power.

Florida and America depend on cheap and reliable power and gasoline. That is what makes our economy run. Without it our economy will collapse.

As for gas prices, Florida needs to take advantage of our own resources and stop importing refined petroleum products from other states. We must drill and build refineries now for the economic future of our children and grandchildren.

I was most shocked when Senator Dennis Jones was recently quoted as saying there were "a hell of a lot" of oil spills. There has been one major oil spill in Florida in 1976. This spill was not from an oil rig but rather from a tanker. Tankers carrying oil into the Gulf are a greater threat to our beaches and environment than are off-shore oil rigs of which there are over 3,700 in the Gulf already.

Some in the Florida legislature have raised concerns about our military having to fly around oil rigs in the Gulf. In terms of the military flying around oil rigs off -shore, they can do that. The Gulf is big with lots of air space. Its much better from a national security perspective to drill for our own oil than to send billions of our dollars off-shore to fund radical Islamist terrorists and rogue nations.

I have provided below three of my articles [articles are here, here and here] on drilling off-shore and the negative impact of recent "green" policies on our electrical power industry.

I hope you will take the time to read these three articles and think about the future of Florida and America and fight against the "green" lobby.

I will do all that I can to support you. I look forward to your reply to my e-mail.

Warm Regards,

Rich

The editorial in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T), a New York Times Company, titled, "Drilling for votes" is stereotypical liberal lies. The editorial boards environmentalist roots are showing and they just can't help themselves.

Environmentalists (read the SH-T) always put the "environment" above the good of the humans who have domain over it. In fact environmentalist policies have killed millions and done more harm to the environment than any other political movement in America. Iain Murray in his book "The Really Inconvenient Truths" points out, "American values like property [rights], enterprise, and freedom work well to protect the environment; and that the environment suffers when these values are replaced by contrary values like nationalization, central planning, and control."

A Federal ban on off shore drilling is nationalization, centralized planning, and control to the highest degree.

The rights to the oil and natural gas off the shores of Florida belongs to Floridians. There are in fact billions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas just 50 miles off of our shores. We Floridians have the right to this off shore property and the right to exploit the resources contained there in. We all understand that we must extract this precious resource in an environmentally sensitive way but we must extract it.

China and Cuba can explore and drill for Florida's oil right now. Why can't we?

Now for the lies.

SH-T Lie #1 - "the United States can't drill its way out of its dependence on foreign oil."

Truth - Yes we can! America may hold more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Venezuela - but it is closed off to exploration by our own government. According to Senator Jim Inhofe, "Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia."

SH-T Lie #2 - "The simple fact is that even if the ban were lifted, the United States has just 3 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves."

Truth - According to Investor's Business Daily, "In this country alone there is at least 118 billion barrels of recoverable but untapped oil, a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves. The latest forecast indicates that there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable from the Bakken Formation [located in the Williston Basin that stretches through Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan]. However, there is much more liquid crude there. The speculation begins at 500 billion barrels and goes as high as 2 trillion barrels."

SH-T Lie #3 - "Florida's waters and coastal areas are both environmentally fragile and economically vital. They would be threatened by new drilling not only off Florida but in the waters of neighboring states."

Truth - Florida's waters and coastal areas would not be "threatened by new drilling". Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled.

Also, according to Humberto Fontova of Human Events, "Oil companies have left in place in the Gulf of Mexico platforms from played out wells at the request of fishermen. Marine life had EXPLODED around these huge artificial reefs. Louisiana produces one third of America's seafood. In fact a study by Louisiana State University shows that 85% of Louisiana offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures and that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding Gulf bottoms. Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries -- because of, not in spite of, these platforms."

SH-T Lie #4 - "Lifting the moratorium would not bring relief from today's high gas prices. It would take seven to 10 years to bring any new sources to market."

Truth - If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. The "not bring relief immediately" mantra is simply designed to reject today's reality of high gas prices in favor of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

SH-T Lie #5 - "The mirage of drilling our way to energy independence only distracts us from pursuing more promising efforts, such as conservation, energy efficiency and alternative sources."

Truth - No it doesn't. Nothing should be off the table. Nothing. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, conservation, energy efficiency and alternative fuels all must be on the table. What is true is that energy efficiency historically leads to more energy use. According to the Manhattan Institute, "The history of the twentieth century is one of gigantic increases in efficiency—and even larger increases in consumption. The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume."

SH-T Lie #6 - "McCain seeks political advantage in offering false hope."

Truth - According to Investor's Business Daily, "The biggest obstacle to putting more domestic oil in the pipeline is not economics or technology hurdles...It is the pro-OPEC, Democratic-majority, maddeningly irrational U.S. Congress."

Here is the bottom line. Florida is an energy importer, like the United States. We import our gasoline and electricity from other states. If we had our own oil and natural gas supply and our own refineries we would become energy independent and help America do the same. We would gain financially with royalties paid by oil companies, as does Louisiana. We would protect our beautiful beaches from tanker oil spills by piping in our oil and natural gas on shore. Fish would thrive in artificial reefs provided by tapped out oil rigs.

Off shore drilling is a win, win, win for Florida and America.

Tell your Congressmen, Senators and Florida legislators so. Tell them to drill off shore now and make Florida and America more energy independent. We must for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

This article is from Freedom's Watch.

Rising oil prices are playing havoc with our economy. Continental Airlines just announced it's laying off 3,000 workers; Ford is considering slashing about 2,000 jobs. And now what you pay for electricity is going up as much as 29 percent. If you've had enough, please sign our petition and email your representative.

Since the new majority took control of Congress in January 2007 on a pledge to bring down gas prices, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have not sent a single bill that would lower fuel costs to the President. Just the opposite. Reid tried to get the Senate to pass a "cap and trade" bill that could have actually raised the cost of gasoline by as much as $1.10/gal.

Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Schumer's solution to skyrocketing gas prices is to bully Saudi Arabia into increasing production and lowering their price of oil.

It doesn't have to be this way. Believe it or not, America may hold more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Venezuela - but it is closed off to exploration by our own government. So why bully Saudi Arabia when, in terms of oil production, we could become Saudi Arabia?

The good news is that Congressman Mac Thornberry has introduced the No More Excuses Energy Act (H.R. 3089), which would allow for more oil drilling here at home, increase wind energy, encourage the construction of new refineries, and expand clean nuclear power. If 218 House members sign the discharge petition on the bill, it will be brought to the floor for a vote.

I read the article in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune by Jeremy Wallace titled, "Tax liens against Buchanan Explained". Jeremy did a good job pointing out that what all the hubbub is about is a IRS clerical error.

I began thinking about writing an article about gotcha politics and journalists that spend their entire careers digging up the dirt on politicians. Suddenly I realized that everyone was missing the whole point of this story about one of Congressman Buchanan's many successful businesses.

The whole point is taxes!

Nationally syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams compares paying taxes to "slavery". Walter states, "The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what's taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person."

I was thinking what if we didn't pay any federal income taxes? What if VB Investments could keep the $556,000 it sent to the government?

Let's see, that money could be used to hire 10 employees for $55,600 a year. It could be reinvested in the company to build a new office building, which would help our slumping construction industry. It could be invested in stocks to give other businesses capital to work with and grow. It could be used to fund a new startup company, which employs even more people. It could be deposited in a bank and loaned to individuals that are having a hard time getting a mortgage. It could be given to charity to help great causes.

Congressman Buchanan and thousands of wealthy individuals like him do this every day, pay outrageous amounts in taxes. What if they had all that money to reinvest in their businesses to create jobs, pay their employees a higher salary or improve health care benefits? What if they just spent it on themselves to buy new cars, boats, homes, condos and luxury items, fueling each of these industries that employ tens of thousands of people across America?

As Claude Frederic Bastiat, French economist, legislator and writer who championed private property, free markets, and limited government, said, "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else".

Do you endeavor to live at the expense of everybody else? Vern and Sandy Buchanan don't. We should thank them.

What a difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a massive global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with few GOP members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly oppose it.

Fast forward to June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly 30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year.

Republicans were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments. But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death.

The Wall Street Journal aptly noted that environmentalists are “stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse.” The paper added, “The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.” The paper quoted a political analyst, noting that “this issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

Despite claims that we must “act now” to prevent a climate “crisis,” the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain.

And Americans are suspicious of the need for “solutions” to global warming. A Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 revealed that the American public’s concern about man-made global warming has remained unchanged since 1989. According to Gallup, “Despite the enormous attention paid to global warming over the past several years, the average American is in some ways no more worried about it than in years past.”

Just a few days after the embarrassing defeat of the climate bill, the Democrats were at it again. As the price of gas at the pump continued to climb, Democrats were proposing yet another energy tax as part of their “solution” to our energy challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy bill would increase taxes by $17 billion for America’s oil and gas producers and increase government bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing to increase access to America’s extensive oil and natural gas reserves, does nothing for the promotion of nuclear energy, does nothing to increase refinery capacity, does nothing for electricity generation or transmission, and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal. They are attempting to ignore the basic concepts of supply and demand.

A major component of the Democrats’ “no” energy bill would reinstate the Windfall Profits Tax. Democrats want to impose the tax despite the fact that we tried this almost 30 years ago, with disastrous results. In 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter’s Windfalls Profits Tax “made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.” If the Democrats are successful in enacting their “no” energy bill, they will decrease domestic production and increase America’s oil imports -- the exact opposite of what we need to do

Until we explore and develop domestic energy resources and increase domestic refining capacity, the cost of gas at the pump will increase. As America faces mounting energy challenges, now is not the time for politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions.

Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

The climate tax debate and the Democrats’ “no” energy bill provide a stark contrast between those who believe the answer to solving our nation’s energy crisis is to raise taxes, regulate more, and drastically increase the size of the federal bureaucracy, and those of us who believe the path forward should develop and expand America’s domestic resources. Congress must reject the Democrats’ attempts to increase taxes and implement back door price controls.

As my home state of Oklahoma shows, tomorrow's energy mix must include more natural gas, wind, geothermal and renewable energy, but oil, coal, and nuclear energy -- the world's largest source of emission-free energy -- must also be included. Developing and expanding domestic energy will translate into energy security and will ensure stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

High energy costs were a big reason why liberal efforts to institute a carbon tax failed earlier this month in the Senate. Now emboldened conservatives are moving to further help American consumers by pushing for the lifting of government bans on energy development. In April 2007 only 41% of Americans favored drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Today, 57% of Americans favor drilling in coastal and wilderness areas currently off limits.

The typical liberal response to calls for more domestic oil production is that drilling will not help lower prices significantly. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “Even by their own standards, drilling in ANWR by the year 2030 would save 1 penny off the price per gallon.” While the estimated 10 to 13 billion barrels of oil currently off limits in ANWR may not drive down the price of oil by itself, liberals are vastly underselling the potential domestic energy possibilities currently off limits thanks to federal bans. Just last week liberals in Congress rejected a proposal to allow drilling for oil 50 miles of the U.S. coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf.

And there is also plenty of energy currently banned from production onshore, too. The Department of Interior estimates onshore energy in the West and Alaska contains 31 billion carrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That 31 billion barrels of oil represents U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia for 50 years and the 231 trillion cubc feet of natural gas is enoug to supply all of America’s households for 46 years.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all: the oil shale in Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. According to a RAND Corp. study , there are 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels worth of oil shale in the Green River Formation. That is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. At $95 a barrel, it was not economically viable to develop these resources, but at $130 it definitely is. Furthermore, Shell Oil scientists have already conducted small-scale field tests that if replicated on a large scale would make developing the oil shale profitable at $20 a barrel. Are liberals in Congress anxious to see this oil help American consumers? No. Just last week they voted to extend their ban on oil shale development.

Want to know who is for Americans and who is against Americans. Just look at the numbers. Any questions?

Hot Air blog points out, "When Barack Obama needed to win Pennsylvania, what villain did he use in his populist rhetoric? In the below video he chose Countrywide Finance. Countrywide, Obama said, paid off its executives while leaving homeowners with foreclosure notices." He particularly criticized the company's CEO for his excessive compensation and more generally "infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis," which he linked not only to the 2 million who lost their houses but to school districts that couldn't purchase supplies and pay teachers.



When it came time to selecting his VP, what hero did Obama choose? Jim Johnson, who got millions in loans from Countrywide. According to John Dickerson at Slate.com, "Now the man Obama has entrusted with what he has called the most important decision of his campaign is wrapped up in Countrywide and tied to the CEO. There are lots of unanswered questions about the Johnson deal, though no evidence as yet that he did anything wrong. But the Obama standard isn't wrongdoing. It's mere connection to the company. By that standard, this is bad news."

This week Obama was forced, due to media and public pressure, to throw Jim Johnson under the train. How many more people will Obama throw under the train? The list is long and growing.

Now we learn about two other prominent Democrats who are on the Countrywide take. According to Bloomburg.com, "[Democrat] Senator Kent Conrad said he was given preferential treatment on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. and will write a $10,500 check to charity. "It appears Countrywide waived one point on my mortgage,'' Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said in a statement today in Washington."

"Conrad and [Democrat] Senator Christopher Dodd, who [since 2006 and before the current housing crisis] oversees the U.S. mortgage industry as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were among those who received loans through Countrywide's "V.I.P.'' program, which waived points, fees and borrowing rules for prominent people, Portfolio magazine reported June 12. Dodd has denied receiving preferential treatment." according to Bloomberg.com.

So much for Obama's rhetoric and promise of change. Obama, his party's leadership and his closest advisers are part of the old guard liberal Democratic machine.

What is that old saying, "Do as I say not as I do?"

Recently Senator John McCain at a town hall meeting talked about the need to put the "Country before Party". This phrase has drawn scorn from both the left and the right.

The left calls this statement a shallow and meaningless "mantra". The right sees it as further proof that Senator McCain does not care about conservatives. As a conservative I look at it differently. I believe that the country is tired of partisan bickering and wants the "needs" of the country to take center stage. Politics is about compromise.

I believe that putting "Country before Party" is the essence of John McCain.

As Senator Joe Lieberman said in a letter to McCain supporters, "Time and time again John McCain has put his country first. He refused early release when he was held captive in Vietnam. He continued to put his country first as a national leader in the U.S. Senate. He put country before party when he fought to pass campaign finance reform, sought a bi-partisan solution to the immigration problem, and consistently supported pro-environment policies. His courage to stand up to the failed Iraq war plan of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and lead the fight for a new strategy in Iraq will go down in history, and it saved American lives. These were not always the easy things to do. In fact, they were usually very difficult, and often threatened his political career. But John McCain did what was right."

While I disagree with Senator McCain on several issues, I believe it is time for America to have a leader that truly has stood for our country before party in actions and deeds, not just words.

Well, I told you so. In a 1989 trade journal article that not many thought was important I pointed out that global oil supply and demand were getting closer to balanced , and projected that prices would firm late in the 20th Century.

What I didn't know then was that the price of oil would be determined by others than the companies and countries producing the oil. Privately-owned oil companies no longer control the price of oil, despite the rhetoric in letters to the editor in local and national newspapers and cries of anguish from the halls of Congress.

Voters could cause the price to decline for the time being if they wished. That's because the price of oil and gas is not fully controlled by how much resource is left to drill. Political and social agendas have significant influence on the price of your gasoline.

Why has oil, and thus, gasoline, become so pricey? Part of it is supply and demand, part is increased costs and capital requirements to find more oil, but much of it is due to speculation by traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the lack of access to the resource itself, owing to actions by groups claiming to be "environmentally sensitive."

Supply and demand are easy to diagnose. Global consumption is about 90 million barrels a day, nearly matching global production. Any interruption in the production process could shrink production to less than demand. Ergo, the price goes up. But oil is in trans-shipment across the ocean, so that the price should not be immediately reflected at the pump, but lags by a few days to a week or two. Consumer demand is easily manipulated among sellers by pricing. At one time, the global price was determined by the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude at Cushing, Oklahoma, set by purchasers who bought oil for refineries. At that time the major producing companies were also the major refining companies. Now, the price of oil is set by traders in New York, who never actually touch the oil. They set prices by bidding on lots of oil in the pipeline or yet to be produced, and bid based on their assessments of production security (wars, insurgencies, political unrest, fires, etc.) and on new discoveries, announcements of production fall-offs, or recalculated reserve forecasts. Or, perhaps, on whether they have a hangover from the night before.

Media commonly hype that there are sufficient reserves of oil already discovered to solve any supply crisis, implying that the reserves could be tapped to meet any shortage. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a new well is successfully put on line, the maximum daily production of that well is established. Thereafter, every month it will produce at a lower rate. That is called its "decline." The total amount that the well will eventually produce is its reserve. Reserves can be produced only at the decline rate, so that there is no excess capacity to supply the world with additional oil unless production is purposely kept off the market. As far as I know, there is little surplus capacity left in OPEC, so we are looking at a constant decline in global production, barring any new discoveries and extension of existing fields. And demand is ratcheting up in India and China.

Reserves do not equal increases in production. Wells produce ever decreasing quantities of oil until they reach their economic limit, then are plugged.

Exploring for oil is risky. Many more wells are dry than produce. The capital costs of drilling are staggering and increasing, as the areas to which companies must go to find new oil are ever deeper, darker, colder, and violent. In the continental United States, wells that cost a million dollars a few years ago might cost three million now. If they are horizontal, then they might cost eight million. Wells that are drilled in water or in remote locations cost proportionately more. The requirement for high risk capital is huge. That's why there has been so much merger in the oil industry, and why names like Amoco, Arco and Texaco are gone. The profits of the large companies fund new drilling. Without new drilling, global oil production will fall. The profits also go to reward stockholders, including large pension funds, who have put up a lot of capital to own the stocks, and who get relatively small dividends in return for their risk.

New drilling is crucial to maintaining oil supply. But the drillers have to have places to drill where oil is likely to be found. And that's where you voters come in. The United States daily production has been falling for years, and not necessarily because we don't have the oil resources to drill, but rather drillers can't get access to resources. In a National Petroleum Council study a few years ago, it was demonstrated that trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil are locked up from use in the Rocky Mountains, Alaska, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and offshore east and west coasts of the United States. Some Congress members argue that we need to become energy self sufficient, but they continue the constraints placed on access to the resource base.

Why the constraint on access? Because some organizations litigate and politic to keep development of the resources from occurring because they believe that it is environmentally harmful. For instance, the recent litigation successfully sought to declare polar bears endangered because in the future they might be harmed by global warming caused by use of fossil fuels. In reality, the polar bear population is the largest it has ever been in history, they have survived several major warmer episodes in the past, including the Medieval Warm Event, and there is absolutely no published data showing that fossil fuel consumption actually has affected climate. The effect, and we assume, the intent, of the litigation was to stop oil drilling in northern Alaska. The rationale for not drilling offshore east and west coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is that some don't wish to see the development from their ocean-side homes, but the development is likely to be more than 17 miles offshore and thus not visible. The 1002 area in Alaska could supply 5% of the nation's oil supply for twenty years, from an area the relative size of a Kansas University basketball poster in a Kansas wheat field.

The question voters must eventually consider is whether the development of resources will cause irreparable harm to the environment or whether lack of development will cause irreparable economic harm to all, especially the poor and the middle income people of the United States. You are seeing the first effects now. The petroleum exploration and production industry cannot supply you with the transportation and other energy you need without your concurrence.

Your choice. Make it wisely.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus and retired Director of the Kansas Geological Survey, lectures widely about environmental impacts of natural resource development. He is an honorary member of several professional organizations, and a member of the Kansas Oil & Gas Hall of Fame. He can be contacted at leeg@sunflower.com.

The liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board is fawning over the primary victory of Senator Barack Obama in their article, "Unforgettable milestone: Primary success for Obama and America".

The editorial board makes a startling statement in its editorial when they say, "This is a nation, after all, that once enslaved blacks. The country has been bent, molded and tempered by that fact and the quest to atone for it."

There you have the sole reason why the Democratic Party and the liberal media are fawning over Senator Obama. The primary victory of Senator Obama is due to the "quest to atone for it". And what is it? That this nation "once enslaved blacks".

The depth and breath of this statement is amazing but indicative of the belief system of liberal Democrats and those in the media. This nomination is in fact the "atonement" for all liberals.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune then points out that, "It is not the same government that once routinely denied people of color the right to vote." They are right. For you see it was Democrats who passed Jim Crow laws creating the status of "separate but equal" for blacks. It was Democrats that fought against giving blacks the right to vote and treating them equally. It was Democrats that overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

How have Democrats atoned for their past evils? They created affirmative action. Promotion based on race not merit. A totally un-American concept.

The "selection" of Senator Obama by the Democratic party is based on their bedrock belief in and commitment to affirmative action. Affirmative action is the Democrats way of atoning for slavery. For Democrats and the liberal media the primary victory of Senator Obama is the "crown jewel" of affirmative action.

Americans when they apply for a job expect that their character, education, personal accomplishments and experience will get them hired, not their race or ethnicity. America was built upon the foundation of equal rights and equal opportunity. America has always been the haven for many fleeing from oppression because of religious beliefs, race or ethnicity.

My family came from Europe as have many other Americans. My family fled Communism. We never owned slaves and feel no need to atone for anything, let alone the slavery that took place in America 200 years ago. We certainly do not believe in giving any one race or ethnicity an advantage over another. Affirmative action is counter to the values and beliefs of America and Americans.

The Democratic Party in the end selected Senator Obama over Senator Clinton because they felt the need to "atone". The people who voted in the Democratic primaries did not elect Senator Obama. The Democratic Party via the Rules Committee and un-elected super delegates selected him over a highly qualified woman to be their nominee for President.

The Democrat Party has now nominated an unqualified, inexperienced but eloquent black man. As former President Bill Clinton pointed out this is the first time in history that a newly elected Senator with essentially "one year of experience in Congress" will be the Democratic Party nominee.

What we now see is the combination of achieving the "crown jewel" of affirmative action and the quest for "atonement" by the Democratic Party for their racist past. These two forces came together in the persona of Barack Obama.

But will American voters want to atone or not?

Will you vote for the next President of the United States because you feel the need to atone? Will you vote for Senator Obama because you believe in affirmative action? Will you vote for him even though he is not qualified for the position but because he must be given the Presidency to atone for past evils?

If you were picking your doctor, lawyer, financial planner or mechanic what would you base that decision on? If you were hiring someone to work in your company what would you base that decision on? When you fly and if you could pick your pilot what qualities do you want him or her to have? Would you make these decision based on the need to atone? We think not.

Most Americans do not feel a need to atone for slavery or anything else.

We believe the job of President must go to that person who has the experience, is best qualified and most accomplished. That person is John McCain.

What do you think?

Do you remember the Florida recount 2000? Do you remember the close vote in the 2006 Florida Congressional District 13 race. Well those are nothing compared to what the Democratic Party is doing to its own primary voters.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in their editorial, "Delegate mess continued" do a great job of pointing out the "Democrat Disaster in Denver" scenario that is unfolding.

Democrats are the first ones to scream voter disenfranchisement. They always blame Republicans for this sin of sins. We finally see the ugly face of the true culprits who are guilty of this secular evil - the Democrat Party itself.

As the Herald-Tribune points out, "Florida and Michigan, which held their January primaries earlier than the party designated, were stripped of their delegates by the Democratic National Committee. That left a trail of hard feelings in these two important swing states."

Hard feelings aren't the half of it. What has happened is the Democratic party has a totally dysfunctional primary election process. This process is so flawed that when you add the disenfranchisement of two key swing states into the mix you turn the entire process into a disaster.

As the Herald-Tribune explains, "The voters want to be counted; Florida and Michigan want a voice in the August national convention."

The Democrats do not have, like the smarter Republicans, a winner take all primary. The simple idea that, like in the general election, if you win the majority of votes you win all the delegates from a state. If they had such a process Hillary Clinton would now be the nominee.

If Democrats had a process where if you win the overall popular vote, as they screamed and yelled about in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, you would win the primary that would be fair. If you count all of Michigan and Florida primary voters Hillary Clinton wins again.

If you decide that to win in November you need to take those states that have the most Electoral College votes against Senator John McCain then Hillary Clinton wins a third time. But you must win Michigan and Florida.

We know the Democrats will sort this out because their favorite constituency is now involved - lawyers. Shades of Bush vs. Gore and Election 2000. The Herald-Tribune states, "DNC lawyers say the only option under the rules is to cut the Florida and Michigan pledged delegations by half. The Clinton camp's attorney, by contrast, argues that the rules and bylaws committee has the authority to seat all the delegates, with full votes." Even their own lawyers can't agree.

The editorial gets it way right when they state the Democratic primary process, "may have raised doubts as to whether a party that blunders into such a pickle can be trusted to lead the country." This may be the understatement of the year.

We fully agree with the Herald-Tribune, "When in a hole, stop digging." But you see Democrats are so invested in the shovel industry, because they have been shoveling you know what for so long, they don't know how to stop digging.

We believe the Democratic primary will finally be determined by "Super Delegates" in Denver. Those unelected party bosses will decide on the winner. Not Democratic primary voters.

We are looking forward to the "Democrat Disaster in Denver".

President Bush said that America is "addicted to foreign oil". He is right.

President Bush wants us to dramatically cut our dependence on foreign oil. So do we. However, the Democrats in Congress have been and are passing legislation and implementing policies that force us to remain addicted to foreign oil and prevent us from using those natural resources we have been blessed with.

America depends on cheap and reliable power to fuel our growth. Fossil fuels are the life blood of a strong and growing American economy. High cost and unreliable power will bring down our economy. Wind and solar are currently high cost and unreliable sources of power.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago the price of gasoline, energy and food have dramatically risen. Gasoline alone has gone from $2.19 a gallon in 2006 to $4.00 a gallon today. Is there a relationship, or cause and effect, between the policies of Democrats and the rise in price of gas since they took control? We believe so.

Are Democrats by design forcing us to remain "addicted" to foreign oil? We believe the answer is a resounding yes.

So how does America break the addiction to foreign oil? This question is the basis of the current debate in Congress and among Americans as they fill up their cars and trucks every day.

The two sides are in the debate are: 1. drill for our own oil now and 2. conserve fuel and use alternative energy sources - wind and solar.

This past week there was an impressive group of oil company CEOs testifing before Congress. Here are some excerpts from that testimony:

One theme that emerged from the [U.S. Senate] hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market.

John Lowe, Executive Vice President of Conoco Phillips, pointed out: "I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.