Who Needs OPEC?

If this is even half true, it's going to completely change US relations with the Middle East.

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.
Whatcha wanna bet the Party of the Donkey will try to block drilling, preferring to cozy up to people like Bashar al-Assad and Ahmadinnerjacket?


The Sound of Lefty Heads Exploding

Gotta love it!

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS to us political junkies) handed the Bush administration, and the President himself, a resounding defeat today.

BDS sufferers, rejoice! Bushitler got smacked down by the Courts!

But, wait... the case dealt with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), long the darling of the left. And the SCOTUS ruling was that Bush could not, I say again, could not order the state of Texas to obey an ICJ order.

So a defeat of Bush is also a defeat for the legality of ICJ orders within the US.

In other words, to say that SCOTUS was wrong is to say that President Bush was right.

I can hear BDS sufferers crying into their pillows now.


Happy Easter!

He Is Risen
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,[a] and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
The Women Worship the Risen Lord

9 And as they went to tell His disciples,[b] behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
(Matthew 28:1-10, NKJV)


VDH on Obama

Mr. Victor Davis Hanson, whose use of language and intellectual capacity remind me strongly of the late great William F. Buckley, explains Obama's larger problem:

The problem is instead the environment that he heretofore has navigated in — prep school, the Ivy League, the regional identity politics of Chicago, or Illinois liberalism — is hardly representative of his own country. So what he can say among sympathizers and friends will not be excused or contextualized by average others who don't know him and won't give him the latitude he is accustomed to and apparently has counted on.
The problem is similar to one that plagued the elder Bush's re-election campaign, when he was apparently fascinated by a supermarket bar-code scanner, something which the public was by that time very familiar with. The problem is that Bush, and now Obama, are shown to be largely out of touch with everyday Americans.

Obama probably thought that his pretty little speech, which would have--and indeed did--impress his friends in the media and rank-and-file lefties would also impress Joe Average, who didn't go to Harvard, has never lived overseas, and drives a pick-up to work... drives it himself, of course, because he doesn't have a chauffeur.

Obama thought wrong. And therein lies his problem.

Obama Blew It

That's the summary from an LA Times author:

In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.
I am sure that lots of folks expect these to be the words of some white conservative, but no. The article was penned by Michael Meyers, who identifies himself as black in the article, and who is listed at the bottom of the article as "executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP."

I think Obama better not give up his Senate seat.

Mainstreaming the Fringe

Sorry I haven't been around for a while, an injury to my hand (which even required a late-night trip to the ER) has made typing problematic.

However, it's given me time to ruminate on Obama, Wright, and the future of the Party of the Donkey. And what I decided is, it ain't good.

The Democrats have always had their fringe elements--think Michael Moore, MoveOn, Cindy Sheehan, and Cynthia McKinney--just as the Republicans have--such as the John Birch Society. However, the Democrats have always done a fair-to-good job of keeping these elements more or less at arm's length; close enough to gain support from them and their supporters, but far enough away that the Party itself isn't truly "identified" with these fringes, at least not in the minds of the swing voter (political junkies like myself are a different matter).

However, with the revelations (no pun intended) about Wright, the Party of the Donkey is in a real bind. If they do end up nominating Obama, they will be drawing the fringe elements so close to the "mainstream" of the party that in the minds of many of the all-important swing voters, they will become the Party that represents the most odious and obnoxious of Wright's views. That label will then drive a large number of swing voters away.

On the other hand, if they choose to nominate Hillary--which is still numerically possible--they'll anger the very fringe elements that Wright stands for, possibly even causing them to leave the party. While that would keep the Democrats from being labeled as embracing the fringe elements, that would doom the Democrats' chances in the general election.

A party of principle would repudiate the fringe, as the GOP did years ago under the prodding of the late great WFB, pushing away the support of the John Birch Society. However, the amount of ink, both physical and electronic, spilled in defending Obama and Wright leads me to believe that such principle does not exist in today's Democratic party. The pursuit of power is all, principle is unimportant, it seems.

Unfortunately for the Donkeys, the pursuit of power will, in this case, likely lead to a bad end for the Party.


Democratic Congress Leads Foreign Diplomat to Conclude"America Is An Unreliable Ally"

So much for the Party of the Donkey making everyone love America:

Cyclical slowdowns are one thing. What depresses politicians in both countries is their biggest trading partner's protectionist mood. A Mexican minister who is a strong supporter of NAFTA and who has been dealing with Washington for the past two decades says that on a recent visit to the United States' Congress he found an “almost xenophobic” mood of a kind that he had never before encountered.

That chimes with the frustrations of Colombia's government, which having negotiated a free-trade agreement with the United States has found it blocked by the Democrats in Congress. The message from the Democratic campaign is that “America is an unreliable ally”, says a veteran Latin American diplomat who spent many years working closely with the United States' government.

I don't think much more needs to be added to that (except the colored emphasis which I already added).

The Audacity of Hope: A Second-Generational Query (An open letter to Senator Obama)

Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, has been one of the great defenders of the sanctity of life and traditional marriage in our time. One of his students, Sherif Gergis, a 2008 Princeton Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, has written a powerful letter to U.S. Senator Barack Obama on the subject of the protection of unborn human life. Professor George has asked that the following letter be read carefully and distributed widely.

Dear Senator Obama:

As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”

But do you mean it?

As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.

As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”

You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

(Crosspost at Liberal Implosion)


South American Terrorists May Have Uranium

Just what we need, terrorists in our own hemisphere, supported by totalitarian dictator Hugo Chavez, with the makings of a nuclear device.

(CNN) -- Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.

Speaking at a news conference, Gen. Oscar Naranjo also said evidence in the computers suggests FARC had given Chavez 100 million pesos when he was a jailed rebel leader.

FARC has fought to overthrow the Colombian government for 40 years.

Chavez had no immediate response to the allegations involving him.

Naranjo said other evidence in the computers suggests FARC purchased 50 kilograms of uranium this month.

But we can rest easy... President Obama plans to bomb Pakistan.


General Wes Clark Endorses Laura Bush for President

Okay, that's not exactly what Wes Clark said, but it still works:

If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.
By that reasoning, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan should have been elected Commander-In-Chief.

In short, it's full of holes, and I expect McCain's campaign to rip it to shreds very soon.

Cross-posted at Liberal Implosion.