Speaker Pelosi would 'save the planet' with higher gas prices - Nancy Pelosi has changed her mind. She'll allow a vote on drilling for America's offshore oil potential after all—sort of.

To paraphrase the old saying, however, "A woman convinced against her will is of the same opinion still." Pelosi's first reaction to the public's drilling demands was, "We've got a planet to save. Nothing less is at stake other than civilization as we know it."

Mrs. Pelosi represents the most liberal city in America, and she wants the U.S. to cut its greenhouse emissions in half by 2050. She's backing cap-and-trade legislation that would literally make gas, oil and coal too expensive to burn.

Don't worry about the oil companies actually doing more offshore drilling under her new bill. The U.S. Geological Survey thinks most of the economically recoverable offshore oil is within 50 miles of the coast. Pelosi's bill would open some Outer shelf areas beyond 50 miles, but it would permanently ban drilling in all areas within 50 miles without the state's approval—and she's offering the states no cut of the oil money to encourage their OK. This bill is just a lie to the American people about encouraging more U.S. oil; it's election-year cover for the House Democrats.

Also remember that the final line of eco-defense is always the courts. In February, the Feds leased 487 parcels for oil exploration in the coastal regions of Alaska's Chuckchi Sea—and the Green movement has already ensnarled all 487 leases in lawsuits. In 1973, faced with the OPEC oil embargo, Congress had to waive the environmental laws to permit the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Dennis T. Avery, ESR)

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

That's right, the Democrat choice for commander in chief wants to not only slash military spending but dismantle our nuclear arsenal — all so he can pay for his massive new welfare programs.

Didn't hear that in his acceptance speech in Denver? That's because he knows better than to make such an anti-military plan widely known. But he made the little-noticed pledge just before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.

We need to assign blame for this financial crisis so we can fix it and prevent it from repeating. The cause, is Democrats messing with the market. They forced lenders to give houses to people who couldn't afford them.

"The idea that we're about to accept with this bailout is that the government can run things better. The government can take care of you, the government can insure you, the government can protect you, the government can provide for you. This is an idea which has been shown to fail around the world."

Kevin Hassett at Bloomberg: How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

CNS: Financial Meltdown: Where Does the Buck Stop?

IDB: ...And The Wrong

Survey USA: Obama by six in Virginia, up four points in two weeks; Update: Women indifferent to Palin’s abortion position?

How to make a bad situation worse

Who’s to blame for the financial crisis — and why does that matter?

What happened?  Despite moves from Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Elizabeth Dole, and John McCain to get more regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress took no action.  Why?  Fannie and Freddie had already co-opted Chris Dodd with over $130,000 in campaign contributions over 20 years, and over $120,000 to Barack Obama over less than four years.  Hillary Clinton  took tens of thousands in eight years, and Chuck Schumer also opposed any new regulation on markets that Congress had forced open.

We can play blame games for the next several months and years, but what would be the point?  In this case, there is a point, and it couldn’t be more clear or important.  We have two candidates running for President who would bring much different styles to executive authority over regulatory responsibility.  Barack Obama and his allies took the money and stayed on the sidelines rather than take proactive action to resolve the credit crisis.  McCain and his co-sponsors of this bill had the right idea and instincts, but could not get any cooperation from Clinton, Schumer, or Obama.

McCain honcho Steve Schmidt: The New York Times is a “pro-Obama advocacy organization”; Update: Audio added

Top McCain campaign officials have just finished a conference call to unveil a new ad, called "Chicago Machine," which highlights ties between Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, William Daley, Emil Jones, and Rod Blagojevich.  The ad, the officials say, will air nationally and "across the depth and breadth of the battleground states." Among other topics covered in the call, campaign officials Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt were asked about a story in the New York Times concerning Davis' role in an advocacy group that included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Davis defended himself, while Schmidt discussed the Times:

Let me first say we are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign.  The press and anybody who wishes to cover this race from a blogosphere perspective or from a media perspective is of course constitutionally protected with regard to writing whatever they want to write.

But let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization.  It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama.  There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama's record, his background, his past statements.  There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.  Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.

Exit question: By what Orwellian definition of the term is the guy who co-wrote the McCain-Feingold bill a “First Amendment absolutist”?

Time for another “McCain’s using racist code words” piece

Does Obama really get a six-point burden for being black?