Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, the Mr. Magoo of American politics, stumbled onto the truth last week. He discovered the law of supply and demand. "We want to put [more oil] on the market to increase supply and lower prices," Reid said. "With oil and gas prices continuing to break record highs every day, much more needs to be done."

Indeed it does. But Reid won't allow it. His understanding of economics only extends to matters in which he might embarrass President Bush. The oil he wants on the market is the oil the administration is buying for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), now nearly full. Reid got his way. The administration now plans to stop oil shipments to the SPR next month.

Beyond that, Reid and his party are committed to suppressing increased oil production in this country, as they wait for that magical day when fossil fuels are no longer needed to supply the nation's energy needs.

That day may come in 50, 60, 70 years--or never. In the meantime, America needs oil, and the good news is we're awash in the stuff. If the oil reserves miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in federally owned lands in the West and Alaska were tapped, our dependence on foreign oil could begin to be reversed. In 10 years, half of America's oil could be produced at home (up from 40 percent), with more coming from increased exports from Canada.

Reid and Democrats, OPEC's best friends, aren't noticeably concerned. Their next step is to remove tax incentives to explore and drill for more oil. And Senator Hillary Clinton is eager to impose a new windfall profits tax on oil revenues. These measures have no purpose other than to punish oil companies. They are counterproductive.

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

If you think Congress' decision-making on energy couldn't get any worse, think again. While Bush was in Riyadh urging the Saudis to pump more oil, congressional Democrats were busy undercutting him, threatening to halt arms sales to our Mideast ally.

It was a politically peevish move with consequences both for U.S. energy security and the balance of power. If we don't sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Russia will. The result would be a loss of American leverage with the Saudis, who, like many, feel threatened by a nuclear Iran and the menace of al-Qaida.

With its failure to tap the vast supplies in ANWR and offshore, its passage of costly global-warming legislation and now its refusal to exploit our massive resources of oil shale, Congress has set us on a path to less energy, higher prices and weakened national security.

Read Full Article

But Obama's Web site says he will negotiate with terrorists. "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions," it states.

In Friday's speech, Obama's proposed weapons against Iran were "deeper isolation and steeper sanctions." Would such tactics have changed Hitler's behavior in the 1930s? Why would it change that of another madman like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Iran may be blowing up U.S. troops in Iraq and sponsoring terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but what Obama worries about is that "Osama bin Laden is still at large sending out videotapes with impunity." Since 9/11, how many al-Qaida videotapes have crashed into crowded buildings on U.S. soil?

However hard Obama fights the label of appeaser, his inability to recognize evil disqualifies him from the presidency in wartime.

Read Full Article

Video shows Jamie Rubin lied Update: Lou Dobbs nails Rubin

When green activists successfully won threatened status for the Northern and Mexican spotted owl populations in 1993, their intent was to stop industry from engaging in activity that threatened the owl’s habitat. That is, they wanted to ban logging. And in February 2008, a federal judge did just that — designating 8.6 million acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl and therefore off limits to logging. The Center for Biological Diversity cheered the ruling, saying: “Having critical habitat will ensure that U.S. Forest Service logging does not limit the bird’s recovery or drive it into extinction.”

If Kempthorne just ruled that global warming is an imminent danger to the polar bear’s habitat, then, how long will it be before greens take the next tactical step and sue to limit industry from producing carbon dioxide?

Inappropriate, you say. Far fetched, you say. But give greens an inch. . . .