So what is Fox's problem with domestic oil?

It started with Lou Dobbs on Bill O'Reilly's show. Dobbs came on one night and said that the USA now has plenty of oil, and the reason the price of gasoline is going up is due to US oil companies selling to buyers overseas. So, his story goes, even if we drill more oil domestically, the price of gasoline will continue to rise.

I don't quite understand the logic. They say -- including Liz Claman from Fox Business -- that the oil market doesn't respond to supply-and-demand because "it's a global market."

That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

I mean, are Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, and Liz Claman inferring that supply-and-demand only works in the USA? (And it hasn't been working here so well since the Comrade was inaugurated.) I'd love to hear a detailed and rational explanation about this, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

You just get Bill O'Reilly acting like an 8th grader caught by the nuns while smoking corn silk behind the rectory. Nervously waving his arms around, shouting like he's high on something, Lou Dobbs grinning like a fool and offering no more information. And Liz Claman saying, "Unfortunately, it's a global market." Liz, I repeat, what the hell does that have to do with it?

Let me get this straight -- if you enlarge the supply, the price won't go down? Why? If the US contributes to the global oil supply, if we produce more, why won't that contribute to the global oil supply? This is not computing.

She also claims that the problem with drilling in the coastal regions of the USA -- that is, offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific -- will never happen because the states don't want it.

However, I think it's been pretty clear that -- the BP oil spill notwithstanding -- people in the Gulf states would be very happy to resume offshore drilling. And then we wouldn't have to buy it from Brazil -- or fund the Brazilian industry.

And I'm not so sure people on the coasts would much rather pay $8.00 a gallon than drill here. I really suspect that kind of lunacy is still pretty much confined to California. And I'm not convinced even Californians will continue to object. After all, only a tiny percentage of California's population is in Sacramento. Everyone else out there drives 50 to 100 miles to work and back every day.

Right now it is possible that US oil producers are selling more overseas. Overseas buyers seem to be willing to pay more for it, and overall, we've had a mild winter here. But with an expanded supply -- the price will go down. Not tonight, but if we'd begun drilling more extensively 10 years ago, I doubt there'd be a problem now.

So what's the answer, Lou, Bill, and Liz? Just sit here like a bunch of democrats and whine? That is to say, hop on the Comrade's bandwagon, adopt his tactics and attitudes? "Poor me. There's nothing we can do. And it isn't my fault."

Or I suppose we could kiss Iran's butt and/or convert to Islam? (I'm sure the White House would go for that in a heartbeat.) Appoint that gremlin in Venezuela to head the Dept. of Energy?

Or shall we continue to invesf in silly crap like Solyndra? Is that what you're suggesting? Sure sounds like it. GM's next project: creating solar panels and wind turbines that fit on top of a Chevy Volt. Is that it?

Or is this just Fox's latest strategy to clear Mitt Romney's path to the White House? Fox has always wanted Romney. Or Mitch Daniels. Romney if they can't have Daniels.

Fox has this statement -- or at least Brett Baier does -- about being "unafraid." But it looks like they'll be waving the Comrade's banner pretty soon. They're already starting.

What? The FCC threaten to pull their license? Or are they just trying to dump Newt Gingrich -- who's been touting his own energy policy and promoting drill-baby-drill? This whole argument also knocks Santorum's chances, since he's been talking about even the oil supplies from Alaska pooping out in a few years -- not enough will be drilled to keep it flowing across the arctic.

So here's my challenge to Fox -- they need to come up with a solid explanation for all their negativity about oil and the rising price of gas. I mean something documented and detailed. I'm still willing to listen if they've got anything intelligent to say. Or maybe they're just getting so much money from Romney's super pac in advertising that they've decided to help him by running their own kind of negative editorializing.

In any case, I will miss being able to regard Fox as a credible source for news.

Save the Republic -- and looks like we can't expect much help from any of the big media.

Muslims excused from being civilized?

OK, I've had about enough.

Apparently a week or so ago in Afghanistan, some Muslim prisoners -- being held as criminals or terrorists of some kind -- were found to be passing notes by scribbling messages to each other in a couple copies of the Koran that were available to them.

According to a NATO statement, it's a violation of Muslim ethics to write in a Koran, not to mention that the authorities didn't want the prisoners communicating with each other.

Also according to NATO, the proper way to destroy a copy of the Koran is to burn it. So the Korans were burned. 

So Afghanis have gone nuts. They're running through the streets of Kabul like the bulls at Pamplona, uvulating about "the Great Satan," burning US flags -- you know, all the usual. One Afghani soldier working with US forces shot and killed two US soldiers. And, to date, 18 of their own people have been killed in the violence.

The Comrade has apologized twice for the burnt Korans. To no visible effect.

So here's an idea. The Afghanis, and radical Muslims in general, seem to have a US flag on the spit somewhere at all times, waiting for CNN or the BBC to turn a camera upon it.

So why don't we take to the steets? Surround and throw rocks at a few Mosques? Kill a few hapless Muslims as they make their way to the supermarket?

Why? Because we're civilized people. We value human life.

It's extremely clear that Muslims do NOT value human life.

In other words, there's no "moral equivalency" here. It's NOT like, "They have the same rights we do. They're just different"

No, they show themselves over and over again to be a pack of murdering thugs. Not as civilized nor as respectful even of each other as wolves in the wild. We -- and I mean the West generally, and most areas of Asia, even -- are much superior morally than they are. We respect and protect human life. They don't. They're barking lunatics and actually dangerous. Can't be trusted in civilization. They haven't figured out the Golden Rule yet.

Why do we allow them to control our behavior by bowing to their insane and impossible whims?

So what are we doing in Afghanistan? We should pull out and let them slaughter each other. In fact, that would be a real relief. We can let Iran and Abracadabrajab scorch their sorry butts with their atomic weapons.

They see US soldiers -- or any NATO personnel, for that matter -- and they perceive them clad in armor, hoisted on a draught horse, carrying a lance, and flying some Crusader flag. I've said before -- and it's true -- they're not much more than shamans and goatherds.

Things haven't changed or evolved in Afghanistan since maybe the 10th Century. They don't deserve a seat at the international table until they learn some basic human decency -- and the impulse control that any Western child has mastered by the age of seven.

And Save OUR Republic.

Left has lost its mind

Seems to me that the left is losing its grip on reality. Well, they never did have a very good hold on the facts, but as that realization becomes more and more apparent via the complete and abject failure of their policies, they seem to be undergoing some kind of a meltdown.

Take MediaMatters.com (please). This is a Web site run by a guy named David Brock, who's had quite an interesting career. I love American Spectator magazine, and Brock used to write for American Spectator. I believe he was the guy -- or one of them -- who broke the story on Bill Clinton's irrational fondness for cocktail waitresses.

Soon after, Brock split with American Spectator and took a very sharp left turn. Or maybe he always was a looney leftist, and only went with the American Spectator because he believed they'd reject him and he'd have something to whine about. Like I knew someone a long time ago -- like the 1970s -- who lived in a very expensive, very white Northshore neighborhood. A black family moved in, lived there for about eight months, and moved out again. Many of the folks in the neighborhood believed the black family had been sent there by someone like Jesse Jackson, believing the mortgage would be denied, or maybe someone would burn a cross on their lawn or something. No trouble, though. Nobody cared. I mean, if you could afford to live there, that kind of gives you an automatic credibility.

Anyway, so maybe that's why David Brock applied to American Spectator in the first place. Since leaving and establishing MediaMatters, Brock has apparently found a supporter in George Soros, who's currently funding Brock's stated efforts to destroy Fox News. And according to a story in some Washington DC newspaper (I want to say the Post, but it's more compatible with the Times), Brock now carries a gun and has bodyguards. He's so terrified some crazy gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' conservative is going to jump him. Or so he hopes?

At any rate, for purpose of this blog, David Brock is Lunatic #1.

Lunatic #2 is Congressperson Maxine Waters, who represents the Watts area of L.A. She delivered a speech a couple days ago where she identified John Boehner and Eric Cantor as "demons."

Waters' schizophrenic inclinations are coming out. Either she's desperate for support and attention or needs to have her medications adjusted.

I find it interesting how she rags on the rich, while her husband is a banker who managed to somehow finagle about $500 million from the Feds under auspices of TARP. So the Waters family are 1%-ers, parading as OWies of a sort. With such an identify conflict, no wonder she's raving, huh?

Then Pazzo Pelosi, Perennial Lunatic, apparently sick of being in the House minority, complained that only church people and religious scholars are upset about the Comrade's efforts to destroy the 1st Amendment and religious freedom in the USA. She would prefer to hear from women.

Well, Pazzo, I'm a woman, and I would much rather have the 1st Amendment than the promise of free contraceptives. I mean, you can get contraceptives anywhere -- or just keep your legs crossed. However, religious freedom and freedom of the press are extremely rare and precious things -- can't put a price tag on those.

And by the way, those in favor of the Comrade's crushing the 1st Amendment also are displaying a sort of uniform psychosis in their talking points. Take the Deb-Bot Wasserman Schultz, AKA Lunatic #3, for example. (Wind her up and she recites White House talking points.) Anyway, she said that birth control pills cost women about $700.00 a year. Yet somehow these same pills are free for insurance companies. Go figure. Just like business owners have secret stores of gold bullion and/or renewable money trees in their yards.

These folks aren't even two-faced, which "schizoid" would imply. Try multiple-personalitied, and with no anchor in reality, since they've rejected anything that resembles logic and rational thought.

No wonder nothing -- and no one -- works anymore.

Save the Republic.

Another utopian budget... but why?

Well, I haven't read the Comrade's budget proposal, which was revealed today, and I don't really plan to. By all accounts, it's just a waste of paper. A rehash of the last three years. Karl Rove even noted that some of the supposed "budget cuts" the Comrade lists were cuts made long ago, or are cuts like, "Well, in 2018, we won't be spending money on the war in Afghanistan."

Good grief, let's hope not.

So what's the point? I supposed the Comrade is bound by tradition if nothing else, to propose a budget. I suppose he'd rather be golfing.

But more seriously, even Brain-dead Harry Reid, democrat leader of the Senate majority, says he won't bring the Comrade's budget to the floor to be discussded and voted on. That is to say, even ol' Brain-dead understands the budget proposal is useless, stupid, and a total waste of time.

So why propose it?

You might recall that the Comrade's 2008 presidential campaign involved a lot of fantasy, like "Hope and change." All for the positive. With him in office, he claimed, we'd all be living in a land of milk and honey, with endless opportunities and limitless wealth.

Yeah, sure. But apparently enough naive voters were -- and perhaps still are -- so willing to indulge in such brainless wishful thinking that it won the Comrade the White House.

I'm betting the Comrade thinks this will work again. Sort of like the old Arpege commercial: "Promise them anything, but give them.... " What? Marxism?

I'm sure the Comrade sincerely believes in his little marxist utopia. That's why he's so dedicated to selling it. And I'm sure he thinks all these empty, stupid promises can win him another term.

His strategy is simple. He says, "Look, I'm promising you people the world. Free. Just vote for me and you will have everything you ever dreamed of."

Which is ridiculous and impossible on the face of it.

And when all this cotton-candy fantasy fails to materialize, he blames the Republicans. "Oh, we could have such a perfect world except for John Bohner and Mitch McConnell."

Yeah -- well, the truth is, the last budget the Comrade proposed did get voted on, and it was voted DOWN 97 - 0 in the democratic Senate.

This time, Brain-dead Harry Reid apparently wants to spare the Comrade the embarrassment of being so resoundingly rejected (and probably snickered about) a second time.

And the Republicans don't have anything to say about it. The democrats have the senate majority. They could pass it in a heartbeat. But even the democrats understand it's pointless, detached from reality, and just another empty campaign promise. Enough broken promises already -- many of them also have to run for re-election next year. They don't want have to defend their support for this kind of garbage.

But you can put money on the fact that the Comrade will be parading around during his next campaign, talking about how those mean devils in congress just keep standing in his way.

And thank God for that.

Save the Republic.

The Loo at the White House

This may end up being a rather international blog.

Start with a guy name Richard or Robert Loo, who replaced Bill Daley at the White House. He was on "Fox Sunday" with Chris Wallace this morning. Anyone know what a "loo" is in England? Same as a "W.C.," which stands for "water closet," perhaps the ultimate Victorian euphemism for "toilet."

So, anyway, Mr. Loo now is speaking on behalf of the Comrade. How appropriate.

Chris Wallace asked him where the "right" to birth control pills comes from, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. No doubt a careless oversight on Madison's part. They were all men anyway, right?

Mr. Loo said this "right" comes from the socialized medicine bill.

We've covered this before. No government can invent a human right. Rights come from the Creator, not from the Comrade, Marx, Lenin, or any of his other heroes. So that's a stupid and useless comment, isn't it? Figures it comes from the White House Loo. It's probably written on the wall there, along with the phone numbers for a few congressional whores, like Nelson or Landrieu.

(In fact, not even the government has "rights." No, the government has "powers." Granted to it by citizens with "rights." Get it?)

So then Chris Wallace asked Mr. Loo, since under the Comrade's silly fix, his back-step in trying to claim authority over the Catholic God, the Catholic church will not have to be dispensing birth control and "morning after" pills to its employees. But it's insurance carrier is compelled to.

Isn't this just cost-shifting? Wallace asked. That is to say, won't the Catholic church still be paying for the pills through its insurance premiums?

Mr. Loo says no, because birth control pills are free.

(OK, about this time I'm rolling on the floor laughing, with coffee shooting out my nose. This is like an interview with Foster Brooks, remember, the comic who acted drunk all the time?)

No, really, Mr. Loo insists, if you figure in the cost of birth control pills into the cost of women's overall health care, they don't cost anything.

At this point, even Chris Wallace had coffee shooting out his nose, though the camera panned away from him, no doubt to preseve some of Mr. Loo's floundering dignity.

So in addition to the English "loo" thing, here's the other international part:

I was in Italy many moons ago. At the time, Italy had hyper inflation. The money was so worthless, when you bought something small, like a newspaper, they wouldn't give you change in lire. They'd give you a piece of candy, which was actually worth more and, let's face it, tasted better.

So here's a solution the Comrade might consider, since birth control pills really are "free." Get the drug stores to dispense them. Like, if you go to a drug store for, say, a bottle of fish oil tablets, and you give the clerk, say, a $10.00 bill, with maybe $1.50 change due back... Why not just have the drug store give you your change in birth control pills? Since they're "free," the drug stores won't be losing any money, right? And neither the Catholic church nor the insurance companies will have to deal with the issue at all.

This even works for men. If they buy condoms or viagra or something, they can get their change in birth control pills that they can pass along to their partners. Knda like the way junkies swap food stamps around. See how well that all works? Even for the black market. Everyone wins! And no one has to take any responsibility for anything.

And boy, those birth control farmers sure better step up production. I think demand is going to go through the roof. We may not be able to find enough of them growing "free" in the wild anymore. And put up big nets, so next time it rains birth control pills, we won't lose too many.

Save the Republic.

Can you marry marxism with Christianity?

No.

Every time time the Comrade claims to be a "Christian," I sort of snort. Before he believes in any kind of God or spirituality, everything he says and does, and apparently even thinks, is right out of the marxist handbook.

Marx did not believe in any kind of spirituality. According to Marx, we evolved from dirt through continuous and irresolvable fights over the ownership of material things.

Marxism is so grim, unimaginative, and pointless, it makes human life just sort of useless and pathetic all together. You get up and go to work for the sole purpose of making enough money to get up and go to work tomorrow. The only purpose any Marxist has is to be a slave to the state. The peons are supposed to hold that as a "virtue."

And maybe someday, you can run for President of the USA, and drive around in a big jet and be surrounded by the Secret Service.

Marx was all about materialism -- and not the Madonna kind of materialism, but the kind that says, to quote from Reap the Wild Wind, -- "Laying in the mud, man looked up and saw the stars. And thought they were something to eat."

That's Marx.

Has that got anything to do with Christianity?

Well, they're both faith-based and neither has been absolutely proved.

But Christianity exalts aspiration, joyousness, family, civility, and if you're Jesuit, even intellectuality. Christiantiy applauds achievement and personal development, and above all, a personal conscience and self-directed, responsible, ethical behavior. Judaism the same. (For me, the jury's still out on Islam.)

Marxism does not. Marxism insists we're exactly the same, interchangeable cogs in the big wheel of a univerisal and absolutely authoritarian government. You do what you are told by someone else, whoever's in power. To do, own, want more than anyone else marks you as socially undesirable, especially if you exercise your own capacity for rational thought and insist on making personal judgments. In marxist cultures this gets you killed.

Marxism and Christiantiy cannot occupy the same space -- hence the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union and most ofther marxist nations. And I think that's what the Comrade and the rest of the nation is beginning to figure out. He's trying very hard to suppress religion here. It competes against his own beliefs, and cannot be allowed to exist in his marxist utopia.

The Comrade, of course, is all for the superiority of the state. That's his "fundamental transformation" of America. Take away personal liberty, personal property, freedom and happiness in trade for socialized medicine.

Sound good to you? Think about it and exercise your own judgment about it -- while you still can.

Save the Republic.

Obama claiming authority over God

Very interesting conflict over HHS claiming that the Catholic church has to provide its employees health insurance that pays for birth control pills and the like. Given that the Catholic church is totally against birth control, abortion, etc etc. on moral grounds.

Let's go back to the central idea behind the establishment of the United States of America. The main idea was that this nation is based on individual rights, most notably the capability of the individual to "live by your own lights."

It's because of this principle that we have democratic elections and the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, which claims "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof."

So, apparently that's no longer true if your view of morality and your decisions based on those views conflict with the dictates of socialized medicine.

That is to say, the authority of the government now supercedes the authority of the church?

The government makes all of our moral and all other decisions now. And the church is just some place to socialize on Sundays?

The leftists say women have a "right" to birth control, abortions, etc. And we all have a "right" to health care.

I can't agree with a "right" that enslaves the providers of such services. How does that work? If you become a doctor, you're opting to be a slave to the state -- or to anyone who claims to need your services? Hosptials are what? They fall from the sky to house and administer to the sick?

Where, exactly, does this "right" come from?

It's not a right. It's a privilege, and a quite dear one -- in terms of being the  product of a highly evolved science and technology. We aren't born with this. This doesn't occur in nature. This is manufactured by human beings, just like cars or shoes or Ferris wheels. How can you have a "right" to this?

And how can the stupid socialist in the White House compel the Catholic church to go along with his stupid program?

Is the Comrade now a moral authority over God? The Comrade knows better than the Pope what's right and wrong?

Please....

Look, I'm not even religious and this makes me just enraged. Just who the hell does this asshole think he is?

Save the Republic.