.

Enough Benefit of the Doubt – Russia’s Intentions are Clear

Earlier this week, I posted back-to-back blogs regarding the situation in Georgia. Initially I wrote about Russia’s Soviet style authoritarian tendencies percolating back up to the surface in their handling of the Georgian conflict, but then revisited the article with an attempt to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. Based on the assumptions I made in that article, Russia may have had good intentions in protecting civilian life in South Ossetia.

Unfortunately, the time for Russian action and the tone of their leaders have shown their true colors, and my initial instincts were proven correct.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated earlier this week that Georgia had been “punished enough”, indicating that it was not their intention to cease hostilities against Russian peacekeepers, but destroy Georgia’s ability to defend herself entirely.

Now Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a bold statement clearly showing the intentions of Russia – stating that the world can forget about Georgia's territorial integrity.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I
believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with
the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told
reporters.

If Russia intents to absorb these provinces, there may be a greater issue. If Russia intends to liberate these provinces to a free and independent state, we may be looking at a different story. Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to Russia's intention of absorbing Georgian territory, beyond the disputed regions.

It is clear that we may be fastly approaching a new war with Russia – Cold or otherwise. What would that war look like?

Russia was defeated in the Cold War by a United States who was strong, resolute, and had growing influence around the world.

Russia is now facing off against a United States whose people are pacifists, materialists, “Capitalist Pigs”… actually, scratch that. We are no more capitalist pigs than Karl Marx – especially when 45% of Americans are supporting a Socialist candidate promising to use force to take earned profit from an industry to distribute cash to the masses. The United States is going the way of weak and socialized Europe, and Russia smells the fear. Russia used the early days of the Georgia conflict to test the resolve of the United States and the European Union (as well as the United Nations). When it was clear that the EU was at the whims of Russia’s energy supply, the UN Security Council was little more than a group of spineless talking heads, it left the United States on the podium alone.

The United State’s first response was to send 2000 Georgian troops home, by way of US aircraft, to defend the Georgian capitol. Russian Prime Minister Putin showed his outrage by stating that the US was interfering with the resolution of this conflict (which to Putin means crushing Georgia and rolling it back into Russian territory).

Then the United States began delivering humanitarian aid to the Georgian capitol, ensuring that the people have the food and medical supplies to survive the invasion, while at the same time demanding that Russia adhere to the agreed upon cease fire.

Russia has broken the cease fire, and now threatens that they will stay in Georgia proper indefinately. The time to act is now. Lest we concede that the US has become worse than Europe, we need to use a show of force in Georgia.

The United States has over 100,000 troops, who are battle hardened, in the region. An immediate troop movement of 5,000 US servicemen from Iraq to T’bilisi, with anti-tank helicopter support, Air-force fighter jet sorties over the country to ensure air superiority, and a definitive line in the sand needs to be enacted. The United States needs to show the Russians that we are willing to defend our allies. We may not need to fire on the Russians, just assert ourselves by way of our presence - then let Russia decide which path we go down.

It is not just a show of force to the Russians, but to our allies in other countries who are under increasing pressure from Moscow (such as the Ukraine). We need to become the America of the 80’s… not the Post Cold-War wienies we have become. The United States fought back authoritarian Russia once before… We can do it again.

I have seen Rocky IV – I know how it ends… Let’s just hope the Millennials (Generation Y) paid attention in their history class and understand the reason behind the cold war. The situation may slightly different, but the foe is the same.

CO - CD6: Where were the votes?

With 100% of precincts reporting in Douglas County, the results of CD-6 are clear - voters did not turn out! Douglas County is home to about 61,000 registered Republican voters - all of whom should have been well informed that August 12th was an election day (else we in the county party are not doing our job). Yet the results of Douglas County, shown on the County Clerk and Recorder's website, indicates that the actual voter turnout was closer to 25,000 Republicans. That is an embarrassing 40% voter turnout by Republicans in my county.


It would not be so embarrassing, considering that usual voter turnout county wide is no more than 22,000 (R and D), if voters better understood that in this area Republican Primary races are the general election. What is even worse is that 53,000 mail-in ballots were sent out, and total voter turnout in the county was under 35,000. Assuming all votes were mail-in, there is a 20,000 vote gap in Douglas County. I voted in a booth yesterday morning, so we can most likely assume that a majority of mail-in ballots (paid for by taxpayer dollars) ended up untouched on the kitchen counter, or worse, in the trash.

What is the source of complacency in American Voting? Now that Americans have the right to vote, why do 60-70% of us choose not to vote? Is there a sense of non-urgency that surrounds primary elections?

This also begs a few more questions:

1. Do we want everyone voting?
2. What is the deal with the Assembly Candidates?

To answer the first question, I simply state thusly: Ideals do not win elections, votes do. This means that he who gets the votes gets the victory. So it is up to the candidates to inspire voters to the polls - be it by leadership, vision, or even promises of handing out money from the treasury of private individuals and corporations (via windfall profit taxes). It is the responsibility of the voter to educate themselves, so they are making educated decisions at the voting booth (or on the absentee ballot). So though everyone should be voting, perhaps it is better that those uninformed are not taking part in these freedoms. However, this brings me back to the complacency argument - what drives 60-70% of the US to not care enough to arm themselves with education and use their knowledge to vote?

Secondly, I had discussed this in July - whether or not the Colorado Assembly process was worth the investment. In CD-6, two candidates petitioned onto the primary ballot, while three went through the assembly process (one did not make the 10% required to petition on to the Primary ballot from the Assembly). The two assembly candidates, Ted Harvey and Steve Ward, put in a large amount of effort with the delegates, whipping up a lot of support during the assembly time frame - but neither inspired beyond the assembly - leaving the CD6 seat, yet again, taken by a petition candidate (Tancredo was also a petition candidate). The county party invests a large amount of money into the assembly process to nominate a candidate that the party leadership (including delegates and district/precinct captains) should rally behind... however, there is a trend that the CD6 assembly is not in tune with the CD6 voters.

Should the county partys consider refusing to fund the assembly, in favor of an all petition primary for higher level offices? Absolutely - especially if this is a trend that is going to continue.

I digress. The point at hand is that the primary election has come and gone, our party nominees have been selected, and it is now our goal to turn out the Republican vote on November 4th... and turn out the Democratic vote on November 5th :)

Nuclear Saudi Arabia?

The IAEA and Saudi Arabia are moving forward with approving civilian nuclear power plants in the Kingdom. This plan outlines Saudi Arabia's plans for oil needs in the future, suggesting that they will be nuclear for all internal energy needs, and use oil strictly as an export.

The increased needs for power around the world are showing a resurgence of pro-nuclear supporters worldwide - often without consideration of waste or weaponizing.

Iran, for instance, is building their first nuclear power plant, but are researching nuclear weapons in parallel, with the voiced purpose of annihilating Israel.

Can Saudi Arabia, a country whose population vehemently hates Western influence (a majority of the attackers on 9/11 were from the Kingdom), move forward with a peaceful nuclear program - or are we left to wonder if a weapons program will also be in the future for the Arab peninsula?

What is more disturbing is that the United States supports the nuclearization of the Arabian Kingdom. On one hand we pressure Iran to cease nuclear ambitions for fear that it would drive further nuclear development in the greater middle east, while on the other hand we are supporting (and most likely sharing technology) the Saudi nuclear ambition. The following map shows the status of all countries around the world regarding their nuclear ambitions:

The problem that the United States is failing to recognize is that the spread of nuclear technology is the forbidden fruit. Once you get the taste, it is natural progression to push the limits - with weapons. Don't believe me? Consider India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.

Can the world move forward in a nuclear future of peace? Or does this latest spread of nuclear technology suggest another wrong turn for safety worldwide?

Cold War Bias Towards Russia?

After writing my previous blog, I began reading more about the conflict in Georgia. I refreshed my history of the region, the Soviet rule of the area, the wars in the region after the Soviet collapse, and the rise of the current government.

Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.

1. Is Russia's response adequate?

2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?

3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?

Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.

3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.

By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.

Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.

2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.

3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.

It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.

However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.

Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, the USSR Russians are the the sleeping bear. Intervention in these conflicts could, as I hinted in the last post, lead to another conflict between the two world super powers.

It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.

Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.

So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?

Old Habits Die Hard – Russian Empire in Georgia

Michael Phelps wins his second gold medal, the US and China continue to lead the medal count… and in page A14 news Russia invades some country.

In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.

Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…

Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.

Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:

Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.

Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.

What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?

If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.

If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.

The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?

If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?

=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.

You heard it here first! I predicted Clinton Tactic.

On June 2nd, I wrote an article describing the tactic I believe Clinton was going to use - forcing a brokered convention, and taking the nomination from Obama. FoxNews, yesterday, began showing a video from Hillary where she is now stating to her supporters that she is pushing for an innocent role-call count of supporters in order to show her need to be on the ticket. (Perhaps Obama informed her that she was not his VP pick)

If Clinton gets an actual vote and the first round is undecided (because of unelectability, Super delegates may still decide to switch leaving a contest), the second round frees the delegates to vote however they so choose. If Clinton has enough delegates personally pledged, she can take the convention, and the nomination from Obama.

"The former first lady did not rule out the possibility of having her name
placed into nomination at the convention, being held Aug. 25-28 in Denver. But
she also said no decisions had been made." reports the AP.

Clinton is moving forward with her supporters as a tactic of unity, but the truth is that she is taking advantage of Obama's falling numbers and series of gaffes in recent weeks on the campaign trail. She states that she is organizing the protest to make the vote go smoothly, but you and I both know that she is really hoping for that vote to go in her favor - she denies it, but this tactic was foreseen.

Obama's campaign is beginning to bend under the pressure of the political machine. His overall poll numbers are up, but the most recent polls indicated that an overwhelming majority do not believe that Obama is ready to lead in areas of national security, and there is a virtual tie on areas of economy (a democratic stronghold). These poor numbers this early in the season are Obama's soft underbelly - and it is something he cannot "Hope" his way out of.

Let us suppose that Clinton takes the nomination. The Republican Party has a battle plan to Tackle the Cackle. They are going to hit her hard on her experience, on her health plan, etc. The problem is that Obama was so far left, and has been moving to adopt all of Hillary's positions in the center, that voters may say that Hillary is the acceptable alternative to Obama, instead of McCain who is increasingly being tied to Bush's Third Term. If Clinton does steal the nomination, however, the Obamanites will likely rally around a Green Party candidate as a protest to the Clinton Empire tactic.

How can McCain steady the GOP ship in the case of a Democratic shake-up? Here are my suggestions:
1. Pick a running mate now. Choose Sarah Palin as "the future of the party". She is a young, attractive, energy wise woman with McCain's gusto for anti-corruption in the party. Choosing her now states that the GOP is solid and ready to take on whomever the Dems throw their way. This is a strong move... waiting until our convention is reactionary and a weakness.
2. Adopt Palin's position of drilling in ANWR. McCain needs to let it be known that it is the GOP willing to work on gas prices, while Obama's tactic of Flopping is empty political words with no intention of action (with Pelosi as his leader)
3. Play up the Picken's Plan future of energy - natural gas, and the fact that Palin just succeeded in passing the Trans-Canadian pipeline for natural gas to be delivered to the lower 48 states from Alaska - a key to the future of America's energy!
4. Release a series of TV ads showing that McCain and Palin have been working toward a plan to re-energize the US economy, have won a battle to bring more supplies of energy to the lower US states, and are committed to moving forward on alternative energy not to reach a Utopian oil-free future, but to ensure an America-first energy independence plan.

The key to victory is Energy... that means Palin.

OBAMA a FLOP: Say Anything to Get Elected

In yet another dramatic flip-flop on his original policy, Barack Hussein Obama now says he is in favor of fully funding the space program – a program which was to be on the chopping block for his proposed budget so as to support his socialized federal education plan.

This is another prime example of why Obama is unfit to lead this country – he is so unsure as to his own beliefs and his own direction, that he is constantly changing policy at the whims of the masses. This is a guy willing to say anything to get an applause… which further begs the Question: Who the Hell is this guy, anyway?

This is another story that is not going to get picked up by the MSM… another flop that will be ignored… and ultimately Obama’s plan for space will be heralded by the MSM as innovative and forward thinking… Never mind that his core belief is that the US does not need a space program as much as it needs federalized education! In fact, as we speak the records of Obama’s plans for space and education are being scrubbed from all websites and news reports… typical of Orwellian tyrants – changing history to always appear on the right.

Unfortunately for the power hungry elites, such as Obama, the masses have the resolve to educate and communicate. We will work at our level to ensure the truth is never erased.

Let’s take a closer look at Obama’s notable flops:

The Washington Post reported on Feb 25th, 2008 their top 5 flops from Obama –
1. Special Interests – regarding donations accepted from Unions (a point he used to tople John Edwards’ campaign)
2. Public Financing – which he has now completely flopped on, taking millions in untracked small donations (less than $20 does not need to be tracked – a loophole that can allow a single entity to untrack multiple $20 donations to the sums of millions – which technically is very illegal)
3. The Cuba embargo – in 2004 he declared that it was a failed policy, but in 2007 talking to voters in Miami he declared that it was an effective tool – to the cheers of the masses.
4. Illegal immigration – he was first opposed to going after employers, then in a 2008 debate he was for going after employers, a complete reversal
5. Decriminalization of Marijuana – while speaking to college students he opposed laws making pot illegal, but flopped during his presidential bid stating that he supported laws making pot illegal.

Since that article, Obama has begun flip-flopping on so many issues it is hard to keep track of. Three major flops that represent a sprint to the middle:

Offshore Drilling – since Pelosi turned out the lights on Republicans, and polls began to show that the GOP was in the right to get the vote on exploratory drilling, Obama has now changed his position to line up with the polls, supporting the Republican mantra of “Drill here, drill now”.

Iraq/Afghanistan – vehemently opposed to the war, Obama now is stating that he will take the advice of the generals on the ground to ensure victory in Iraq, and he is calling for a massive troop build-up in Afghanistan to end the violence in that country (so much for being the anti-war candidate)

Space Exploration – while addressing voters in the space state, Florida, Obama made his most recent flop stating that he will now fully fund NASA, and will not push to mothball the Constellation Moon program of Bush.

The Associated Press adds to the list:

On Iraq, Obama said Thursday that his upcoming trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops from the war.

He now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, after opposing a similar bill last year.

After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, the handgun-control proponent said he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership.

Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.

He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush's program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.

He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment.

Obama also said "mental distress" should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying "it has to be a serious physical issue," addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists.

Campaign promises that are in direct conflict with his core beliefs… Obama is on a series stumps where he is going on the record, publicly flip-flopping… where John Kerry was labelled a flip-flop for the smallest changes, Obama takes the game to a whole new level.

The carelessness and ease in these policy changes should be a warning flag to anyone considering voting in the 2008 presidential election. A candidate with no strong core beliefs, with no values, with nothing more than popular polls guiding his every decision is a candidate who will do nothing to bring change to the nation.

Barack Obama is a sham candidate – completely unprepared to take an executive post – completely unprepared to take a stand and defend it on principle. He has no principles, he stands for nothing.

Democrats Angry Over McCain Tactic - Exposing Obama

In talking with Democrats and Independents who are starting to take notice of the presidential campaign, there is a general sense of unease regarding "the same old political moves" - which is how Obama is countering McCain's attacks.

But is McCain attacking, or using satire to finally get people talking about Barack? Obama has been given a free pass by the MSM News Corps who have been unwilling and unwanting to question Obama's ability to lead, his political gaffes, his personal acquaintances, the things he says, the things his wife says, etc etc. There has been no debate of substance... only a pre-anointing.

Also, whereas Obama refuses to meet McCain one-on-one to discuss the issues in a town-hall style debate, McCain is forced to bring the debate to Obama. And this tactic is working. Obama has lost a major lead in the national polls (see daily tracking graph), and Rasmussen's daily poll is showing McCain leading Obama 47% to 46% (including those "leaners" who are yet undecided).

McCain is attempting to show how bizarre the love relationship is with Obama and the media, and Obama with himself. Watching this McCain ad, titled "The One", shows a series of Obama speeches in which he declares himself the savior of the nation and the savior of the world. Someone who believes that he does no wrong, and can do no wrong is someone we should all fear as a leader of this nation.

Specifically, Obama and his supporters are outraged that McCain would release an ad suggesting that Obama is responsible for inflated fuel prices. The ad asks who is responsible, then a chanting crowd yelling "Obama... Obama" with Barack's picture comes up... The question is not if Obama is directly responsible... it is the politics of him and his party... the very party willing to let gas prices reach $10 a gallon without any action to allow the free market to provide supply in an attempt to stabilize speculation. Obamanites don't see that Obama is wrong on energy - taxing "windfall profits" for distribution to the people. This plan will increase fuel prices - taking money away from oil companies who need profit to expand production, and distribute the money in the form of a rebate - ultimately making it impossible for the oil companies to increase production in the US.

Look - I have not been a huge fan of George W. Bush recently, setting a precedent for "rebate entitlements"... giving money where no money is earned... and doing nothing to curb spending in DC or to minimize the growth of government. He has dropped the flag of the Republican Party, and forgotten the marching orders of limited government and lower taxes. But where Bush stops, Obama is going to continue... using big government ideas (and the battle-cry of entitlements) to solve the problems in this nation. Never have I witnessed the government solving a problem better than the innovative free market... It is impossible... Unless that task is to tax and regulate thought and action through taxation.

So if McCain is forced to bring Obama out of the media shadows and into the light by using satire and controversial methods... so be it. The tactic is working. Americans are starting to educate themselves, and they are noticing that the textbook of Obama is clearly lacking content!

(Take a look at some of the other McCain ads currently being released)



and finally, my favorite:

Salazar, Obama, Pelosi, and Democrats - WRONG for America!

The Democrats have a vision for America... an America that is free from oil, free from carbon emissions, free from pollution of any kind. As I tend to agree that it should be our goal to explore alternative means of producing energy in the United States, there is no way that it can be done entirely before 15-20 years.

Attempting to force a change in the source of energy by purposefully limiting the supply of oil, by restricting access to oil exploration - shale or offshore reserves - is directly responsible for high gas prices, high oil prices, and increased speculation in the oil market.

Based on a recent study, the US will empty all currently tapped wells in the next 40-60 years... Imagine the sound of the last well sucking up the last drop of oil - like a kid sucking at a straw in an empty cup... slurp - and the oil era is over.

But what the democrats fail to realize is that the average citizen cannot continue to be self sufficient, cannot support their family or their way of life, cannot live freely without allowing the market to explore and provide a need. The Democrat plan is to cause an economic tragedy in America in order to move their Green agenda forward - progress at all costs! But while standing at the edge of a cliff, a step forward is NOT progress! It is suicide.

And suicide is exactly what the "citizens of the word" party are hoping that America commits. They believe it is our destiny... and only the worthy Prius-ites and wealthy elites deserve to come out on the other side.

The United States holds more oil in Shale Oil than the entire Saudi Oil Reserve... We have untold masses of the black gold in offshore reserves... We can have a dual agenda - sustain our economy while planning for the future... however, democrats are unwilling to save our economy.

How unwilling? Watch this short clip between Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar. Republican Senator McConnell is attempting to add a trigger to an offshore exploration bill - attempting to define an Economic Emergency.

He states $4.50 a gallon is an economic emergency... Salazar objects...
He states $5.00 is therefore an economic emergency... Salazar objects, suggesting that drilling for oil supply is a phantom solution to oil shortage...
He states $7.50 must, then, be considered an economic emergency... Salazar objects...
He states $10.00 HAS to be considered an economic emergency, allowing drilling exploration to occur in order to provide supply to the citizens of the United States in need of relief... Salazar objects...


Salazar, representing the unity voice of the Democratic Party, their ideals and beliefs going into the 2008 election, states clearly that drilling for oil is a phantom solution to meeting demand for oil. They believe that increasing supply is not the means to meet demand...

The democrats would rather see Americans poor and penniless, unable to even drive to work, than add any longevity to the oil era in the US.

Democratic Senator Ken Salazar suggests that the best option for Americans is to suffer through $10 a gallon gasoline in order to realize his vision. No duality. No parallel development... only obscene poverty and economic destruction.

Watch this video two or three times. Listen to the words used by Salazar and the "We know better than you" elitist Democrats... Do nothing, even at $10 a gallon. This is the party that we MUST defeat in 2008.

Mark Udall is MORE LIBERAL than Salazar. Udall would have possibly suggested objections at $20 or $25 a gallon gasoline. Mark Udall must lose to Bob Schaffer.

Barack Obama is MORE LIBERAL than Mark Udall. Barack Obama would suggest checking the air pressure in your tires as a solution - stating that it would save as much oil as these oil exploration plans are suggesting they would bring in (watch this video) - ignorant and false - but not discussed by the MSM swooners.


The win in 2008 is going to come to the GOP if they can clearly get the message out. Stick the oil prices where they rightly belong - on the shoulders of the Democrats. Democrats are obstructing the ability for the free market to increase supply, homeland supply, and are directly responsible for two things:

1. $4.00 a gallon (or higher if they get their way) gasoline
2. Trillions of dollars being shipped to the middle east, where they are not afraid to supply - or to fund radical ideology aimed at the destruction of the US.

This final video is the message that needs to be seen in every household, shown at every polling place, seen by every voter... The GOP attempting to make it stick - the Pelosi Premium.


The three videos here are enough to clearly show the intent and will of the Democratic party. They clearly intend to do irreparable damage to the US economy in order to push their agenda. There is never compromise... there is never good will towards the citizens. It is simply there way or the highway... er... bike-lane?