The 'virtual fence' that was approved by Congress to extend across hundreds of miles of the border between the United States and Mexico has been been put on hold indefinitely.

Why?  Well, it seems that the Interior Department has not signed off on the use of its lands.  These officials have refused to accept an environmental assessment that the towers, cameras, etc. would have no appreciable effect on the lands.

Even though the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to waive environmental laws for border security projects, it apparently does not extend to the virtual fence projects.  Sounds like the typical governmental bull!

An employee of a Florida hospital testified recently about the costs of treating illegal immigrants in one hospital.  You can watch the testimony by clicking here.

The citizens of this country finally prevailed on border controls, and yet the government continues to thwart this solution.  It seems like someone is a bit confused on just how this country works.  The people in these various departments are employed because we pay taxes to support their employment.  I am tiring of those within the system who pervert it to their own will.

Oregon has had government involved in health care for quite a few years.  The state electorate also approved the concept of state sanctioned suicide several years ago.

Recently, the board that reviews the medications that are approved for state residents made a determination that was controversial...in my mind if no where else.  The board, in essence, said that, given the cost of a certain medication, it would approve suicide for this patient but would not approve use of the medicine given its relative newness and the lack of convincing data as to the outcome.  It had essentially set a price on the human life involved.

Today I read the story concerning Denver Children's Hospital and heart transplants in infants that use the heart from another infant that died a 'cardiac-related death'.  This differs from a heart harvested from a brain-dead infant in which that heart is beating until removed from the donor body.  A decision has been made that the donor that has been pronounced dead and has been in that state for only 75 seconds, is a valid heart donor for purposes of this new program.  The earlier line that had existed required death be determined only after some five minutes during which time the heart did not re-start itself.  In this instance, the length of time a person had been deemed 'dead' had been reduced to assure that the harvested heart had a decent chance of functioning in the new body.  The three cases in which this approach has been employed resulted in three infants alive today.  The decisions to withdraw life support were made by the parents in all three instances.

We know so much more today than we did a decade ago.  We can do things from a medical perspective that were impossible then, and these procedures have become commonplace now.  We are, in this area, pushing the envelope as it has never before been pushed.

I know there are at least two sides to these issues.  I have good friends whose daughter lives today because of transplanted organs that were available on a timely basis.  I can't even begin to comprehend being placed in the middle of such decisions, and I earnestly hope that never befalls me.

And this leads to my general question:  Is there a line we dare not cross?  If so, where is or was that line?  Am I comfortable with an appointed board making life and death decisions about me?  Who among us can claim the right to make such a decision?  How do medical ethicists deal with these kinds of issues?

I don't profess to have the answers to these questions.  If you do, and you're willing to share, I'd appreciate your comments.

As we watch the Summer Olympics, we see the pageantry and the heroics of the athletes from around the world. 

We don't see the oppression that has persisted for centuries in China and that continues to persist under the very noses of those who are walking the streets of Beijing.

TV cameras and microphones have been installed in all the taxi cabs and are remote controlled by the authorities to be sure that no one says or does something threatening to the regime.  130,000 police and soldiers are present ostensibly to protect the attendees.  They also help assure that the opposition will be suppressed during the games.

300,000 Chinese citizens augment the 130,000 people mentioned above as additional eyes and ears.  Reporters are subject to censorship.  Passports are summarily pulled from some reporters who have sought to broadcast by telephone back to their home countries.  That is a subtle form of reminder that the regime is in complete control and that one shouldn't forget it.

Against this backdrop, the President stood aligned with Chinese protestants this morning to deliver a few words of support.  We don't know what kind of persecution will follow when the reporters and TV crews leave, but we can remember the Tienanmen Square episode of a few years ago and draw upon those scenes of brutality to get some idea.

China is China.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It owns a big chunk of America.  It spies on us every day.  It works to find weaponry that can be used against us.  It still wishes to defeat us; if not on an actual battlefield, then in commerce.  We seem to forget these things, but they are critical.

Is 'perversion' too strong a term?  I don't think so.

The EPA has turned down attempts by the State of Wisconsin to relax the ill-conceived S.E. Wisconsin requirement for 'reformulated' gasoline even as we are virtually in full attainment.  That was probably dwarfed by comparison to the decision it announced that it was denying the State of Texas' request for a cutback on the amount of ethanol required to be blended with gasoline.

There is a radio commercial playing in our market that is sponsored by the ethanol lobby that makes the case, in essence, that we, who question the use of corn to make ethanol, are over-reacting and need to check our facts.  I am angered every time I hear that commercial, including this morning as it played while I was shaving...with a blade.  That could've hurt!

The simple facts are being ignored by the EPA, Congress and the President.  And, these aren't stupid people.  This is intentional ignorance.  Our food prices are going up, and it is caused in part by the insistence that ethanol be blended with gasoline even as us taxpayers pay the price for the ethanol support being paid on every gallon.  The other part of the increase is obviously that caused by the fact that Democrats have so far refused to relax their stance against oil drilling here and now.

Back to ethanol.  It is causing many cattle ranchers to reduce their herd size because they can't afford the feed to grow them for market.  The prices for chicken and beef are rising at a rapid pace.  I looked at flank steak a few days ago since it always used to be a relatively lower priced cut of meat.  That is a thing of the past.  I bought chicken breasts a few days ago and was astounded at the prices I saw on the packages.

I know that my mileage with reformulated gas is less than it was before that edict; about 10% worse.  I know that ethanol is much less efficient in terms of the energy it generates than is gasoline.  So, I am burning more and getting less.  A double-whammy in our part of Wisconsin.

The EPA stated that there was "no compelling evidence" that the mandate for ethanol is causing "severe economic harm".  That had to have been spoken by a federal employee who is reimbursed for his or her mileage...from our tax dollars  These people simply have no contact with reality, or manage to suppress the lessons they really learn in order to be a "dutiful servant of the people".

As if all this isn't enough to put me into a deep funk, I am confronted with the idiocy that is called political campaigning where people talk about wind power, sun power, and bio-fuels while not mentioning oil or coal or nuclear power.  How in the world are we supposed to leap forward a decade or more when technology is not yet even available to soften our landing?

We are in real danger of becoming a third world nation if the current policies are not changed and changed quickly!  Our economy simply cannot withstand the political assault it is under.  And this is not a political assault from another country...it comes from within.

So, I don't think calling the EPA the Environmental Perversion Agency is much of a reach. 

And I, for one, am very, very tired of the elected people we all put into office forgetting who it is they represent, and what it is we want.

If you were prescient and stocked up on the Forever Stamp while it was still available at $0.41, you may be able to say "Gotcha!"

A small news item caught my eye this morning.  The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) posted a loss of $1,100,000,000 for the quarter ended June 30th.  Yes, that is $1.1 Billion that was lost by the USPS, now a private organization.

The reasons cited were reduced mail volume (blamed on the slowing economy) and rapidly rising transport costs.

We can all understand that the cost of fuels that go into delivery have gone through the roof.  Everything delivered costs more, or soon will.  And, the economy has slowed.  Given the apparent political stalemate on drilling for oil here and now, fuel costs will likely do nothing but continue to increase.  Your Forever Stamps may prove to have been a really good investment since postage costs will almost certainly have to rise for us consumers.

I wonder, however, if there may be something more at work here.  Is it possible that we are watching the initial death throes of snail mail as we have known it for our lifetimes?  We know that more of us are computer literate today than ten years ago.  I think we would agree that use of computers and other communications devices will continue to accelerate.

Between telephones and other electronic communication media, and with delivery services available that have already taken most of the parcel post market, are we in the process of ending the use of delivered items that we walk to a mailbox to retrieve?  Simply look at the state of newspapers in our country today to get some idea of the potential impact.

Will there continue to be a USPS ten years from now?   Twenty?

If so, what will it look like and what will it do?  What will happen to all the brick and mortar that carries the USPS logo?  What happens to the tens of thousands of employees?

Could this really happen?   Did anyone ever ask that about horses and buggies?  Did anyone ever foresee air travel in the 1850s?  Did anyone ever foresee space travel in the 1930s?

A new approach to how auto insurance would be priced is beginning to catch hold and could spread quickly if it proves to be something people like.

The concept is called "pay as you drive" and it factors miles driven and driving behavior into premium rate development.  So far, Progressive, an auto insurer whose ads you've probably seen on television, has begun to sell this product in Alabama (in July) and will launch the product in New Jersey next week.

California officials are apparently considering legislation that would allow the concept to be marketed there.  The California Assembly passed the bill (A.B. 2800) by a vote of 72-2, so it was popular on that side of their legislature.

Here's how it works:

Policyholders receive a small wireless device that ties into the vehicle's computer diagnostic system.  The device gathers data from various functions on-board the vehicle.  This data reports how much the vehicle is being driven, when the vehicle is being driven, the number of miles driven and mileage by time of day, the speed per second and all sudden acceleration, deceleration and braking.

The data is transmitted automatically to Progressive, and policyholders can check their data on-line.

The whole point apparently is to cause those who drive more to pay more while those who drove less would pay less.  A recent study from the Brookings Institution found that today, drivers similar in age, gender, location and driving record pay nearly the same rates.  If all drivers were to pay per mile, driving would decline by 8% nationwide thus saving $50 to $60 billion per year from reduced congestion and fewer accidents.  It would also supposedly reduce carbon emissions by 2% and oil consumption by 4%.  (By the way, in the first five months of 2008, miles driven by drivers in the U.S. have dropped 2.4% or nearly 30 billion miles given the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel.)

Progressive is also introducing this program in Minnesota and Oregon.  If the program appears popular in Minnesota, I'll wager that it won't be long before it is is being touted in Wisconsin.

Not stated in the study, but inherent in the supposition, is anything concerning the premium rate impact.  It stands to reason that the safer driver would be charged less for his or her premium.  This will strike some as a way to single out a group for higher rates.  If that group is incurring the bigger costs, would that be all bad?

Beyond all this is the privacy invasion issue that will certainly be part of the debate and acceptance patterns.

Barack Obama has now decided that he needs to promise another round of stimulus checks that are discussed as being in the range of $1,000 for every family and $500 for individuals.  Now, of course, even in the federal government, money does not grow on trees.  This 'reward' for electing Obama and the Democrats has to be paid for.  After all, they apparently hold to the approach that all things done within the government must be "revenue neutral".  So, if money is going to be given to one person, it must be taken from somewhere else.

The 'somewhere else' in this instance is destined today to be a take-away from "big oil" through what is artfully called a "windfall profit tax".  A Wall Street Journal editorial today takes an intriguing look at the concept of such taxes including some individuals that seem to have benefited from windfall profits.. 

There is a certain arbitrariness to all this posturing. 

First, from whom or what will such money be taken?  Well, why not target those nasty "big oil" companies.  They are, after all, socking money away at record levels.

Second, what is it that constitutes a "windfall" profit?  Well, this one seems to differ with the magnitude of "big oil's" profit, so it really becomes whatever the Congress thinks it is...and it can be different when applied to different entities and/or at different times.

Third, doesn't this become very much a form of nationalizing parts of companies?  How does this differ from Hugo Chavez' approach in Venezuela other than in degrees?  Chavez decrees that the company will be 'nationalized' and seizes whatever assets exist for which he doesn't feel obligated to pay stockholders.  So if, for example, "big oil" earns a combined $10 billion, and if government decrees that it should've only earned $5 billion, the windfall profit tax levied is essentially consuming half the industry.  

Fourth, from whom is this "windfall profit" being taken?  Why, from the stockholders of the companies...and those stockholders are individuals, mutual funds, pension funds and so on.  Too many people are seemingly unable to work through this.  This money comes from them, goes to Congress and is re-distributed to other 'thems' after, of course, a few dollars are siphoned off to go to this or that pet project that gets tacked on to the legislation as it wends it way through the voting process.

Fifth, the oil companies simply pass the lost profit on to their customers in the form of increased prices to cover this unanticipated 'cost' that was levied against them.  You and me pay this at the pumps, and when we turn on our lights and heat our homes and buy food and other necessities since virtually everything is dependent upon oil at one or another stage in the process.

Could it be that there really is nothing to which we can refer as a federal give-away?  The federal government doesn't earn dollar one; it only takes from you and me.  If it doesn't have any money of its own, then it really is only re-distributing our money like an inefficient Robin Hood.  Robin didn't have the need for large sums from his takings such as Congress seems to have.

This sure sounds very much like socialism doesn't it?

Back on July 21st, I Blogged about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that would compel radio stations to mount the same number of hours daily for 'liberal' talkers as they do for 'conservative' talkers.  This would, in the minds of the liberals in Congress, equalize the message of the two differing points of view. 

On the heels of that, we saw the 'celebration' of Rush Limbaugh's twentieth anniversary as a conservative 'talker' this past Friday.  There is not, to my knowledge, a liberal radio personality anywhere with anything near the run that Limbaugh has had and will continue to have according to the new $38 million contract signed that takes his nationally-syndicated program into 2016.

This drives the liberals nuts but it has nothing to do with 'unfairness', and everything to do with the difference in messages.  We Americans, thankfully, are able to listen to anything we prefer.  If we preferred the Air America message, it wouldn't be struggling and on its third owner in nearly the same number of years.  We prefer the conservative message.  Liberals fight battles using class warfare actually pitting one group against another group to create animosity that the left believes will result in votes for its candidates.

If you follow any of the national debates, you'll see this clearly.  Conservatives understand the free market forces and seek more oil being drilled recognizing that this will drive prices down.  Liberals still cannot tolerate the concept of the free market since they find it threatening, and, therefore see everything through the prism of taxation forcing certain behaviors.  They believe that taxes on the 'egregious' profits of oil companies will result in lowered prices in the marketplace.  They simply do not want to understand that oil companies don't pay taxes; the customers of oil companies pay taxes...and that is us.

That starkly displays the difference in message, and it explains why there is a Rush Limbaugh and why his popularity is probably the equal or better of all the liberal 'talkers' in combination.  And it explains the extreme dislike, even hatred, with which the likes of Limbaugh are perceived by their enemies.  It also explains why liberals think that legislation will cure this problem as well as all other problems.

This 'freedom of thought-freedom of speech' thing is a real problem...for those whose thoughts are not swallowed by the listening masses.

A week ago, I Blogged about Chrysler ending its leasing operations, and suggested that GM and Ford were close to the same decision.  All this due in major part to the declining residual value of the trucks on lease.

GM announced a major hit in the last quarter with the loss of over $15 billion.  It is very near the precipice, in my opinion, where it will need to actively consider bankruptcy.  It has a market value today that is a mere shadow of what it was just a year or two ago.

And now, foreign auto makers are facing similar pressures although certainly not yet to the degree that U.S. auto manufacturers are confronting.  BMW announced that it will raise prices and reduce production to stave off the problems faced by others.  Nissan has begun to show signs of problems.

Our worldwide vehicle companies are in the throes of a major set of problems that could very likely result in fire sales or outright closures of some old-line companies.

A significant part of these problems can be traced back to fuel prices that have impacted our economy and those of other countries around the world.  The costs of fuel have driven down auto and truck sales.  This drain on spendable dollars has also taken a huge toll on the rest of our economy.

And, against that backdrop, what has Congress done about these problems?  Through the stalling tactics employed by the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, NOTHING has been accomplished.  They continue to say NO to oil, NO to nuclear, NO to coal.  They feel that we need to suffer to the point that we'll roll over and let them take us where they have intended to take us for years.

We are facing some of the most serious economic issues of several generations and our government thinks this is the 'medicine' we need to get our heads more properly attuned to their 'vision' of what the U.S. and the world needs to look like in the coming half-century.

If there is any 'good news' coming from Washington, it is the fact that the law-makers have gone on their August 'vacation'.  The bad news is that our government will remain paralyzed until after the new government is sworn in in 2009.

We cannot afford to simply sit back and watch this mess play out.  We need to drill here and drill now!  That signal will further depress the price of crude oil on the world market and begin the process of our economic recovery in a big, big way!  As a pundit said in the last day or two, it is really hard to install a wind generator on your personal vehicle.  It is really hard to wean our country from its primary source of vehicle fuel overnight...and it is absolutely a crime to force us into the coming series of bankruptcies to try to prove some point that is unsupported by science.

I cannot fathom what goes on in the minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  I cannot believe that normal human beings have the kind of disregard for their brothers and sisters that these two seem to evidence.  I know that politics is referred to as a "blood sport", and I don't necessarily mind them spilling their own...

But I really have to draw the line when they metaphorically spill yours and mine and never even blink in the process.

The July 25th edition of the Small Business Times includes a great article featuring an interview with Michael Grebe, President & CEO of the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation based in Milwaukee.  The Foundation has spent something in the range of $250,000 to develop the project referred to in the title.

If you are a conservative, you know all about the Foundation and probably think it does great work.  If you aren't a conservative, you may not wish to read the rest of this Blog.

The Foundation commissioned a survey of 2,421 American citizens and concluded that there is an American "identity crisis".  84% of those surveyed believe there is a unique American identity and yet 63% of those surveyed felt that America's shared national identity is becoming weaker.

The Foundation has set forth on an ambitious project that centers on the teaching of American history by teachers who have a major in history.  They seek classes that expose students at all levels of school to the period of America's founding and that would explore the leaders of the time including their warts.

I would encourage you to check this full report if you're interested.  This comes at a time when we hear about "citizens of the world" while we seem embarrassed to have instructors concentrate on our founding, our heritage and our achievements.  Those of us under the age of 25 likely have limited knowledge of American history, may never have seen the great documents upon which the country is based, and have little idea of what it really means to be an American unless they've majored in the subject.

There has been what I see as a concerted effort to downplay our founding, to talk about the things of which we're all embarrassed while paying no attention at all to the things of which we should be proud.  We have been a nation seeking political correctness to a fault...and the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation has set about curing that problem.

Have I lost my mind?  I hope not.

My concern is this:  With gas prices dropping and now at the mid $3.80s per gallon, will we lose our impetus to keep the pressure on our elected officials to get more drilling going and to relax the myriad rules on new refineries?

We are a strange group, we humans.  We got used to paying $4.20 per gallon for regular for a week or two and now we're "saving" nearly $.40 a gallon.  We forget very quickly that only a year or so ago we were paying a dollar or more less for our gas.

We seem to forget that we were upset over ethanol and its impact on our mileage and on our food prices.

We seem to forget that reformulated gas is costing us more and causing lower miles per gallon.

Are we going to meekly go about our daily business now until prices go back up?  Are we going to give our politicians a 'free pass'? 

Are we going to let the presidential candidates avoid dealing with this issue...even though they'll make promises that'll probably be forgotten in a week or two?

Are we going to demand that our state representatives push hard to get the ethanol lobby off our backs?

Chrysler announced that it is getting out of the leasing business.  It cannot, apparently, find lenders that will continue to supply money to this part of its business.  Similarly, Ford and GM continue to burn through capital and will or are facing similar realities.

Leases of automobiles and trucks account for something on the order of 20% of the U.S. market.  The lease holders permit the monthly rental (lease) of the vehicle and expect to be able to recover the vehicle and resell it for more than they have invested in it.  This carries risk, and it is that risk that seems now to be threatening at least this portion of sales activities.  The risk is that the vehicles owned by the leasing company will lose value faster than the leasing company expected and that the leasing companies will be "upside down" when the time comes to sell off the vehicles that come off lease.

"Upside down" is a phrase that has become familiar to many consumers of autos and trucks.  That happens when the vehicle purchased devalues more rapidly than the loan repayments reduce the amount owed.  The term has typically been applied to the individuals who purchased a vehicle and learn, at the time they hope to purchase a new vehicle, that they are the owners of a vehicle for which they owe more than the vehicle is worth.  The SUV marketplace is full of "upside down" deals given the cost of fuel and the effect that has had on resale prices.

Where will this lead?  Well, it will certainly have a lingering effect on individuals who find themselves in an "upside down" situation.  They'll either suck it up, buy a new vehicle and take extended payment terms, or they'll drive what they have for another year or two or three.  The magic for the auto industry has been the short-sightedness of the typical consumer.  If we can afford the monthly payment, we do the deal.  We do not look out to the end of the term with any thoughts about where we'll be financially.  We just want new wheels and we're gonna' get 'em.

If consumers continue to be pinched with rising costs on virtually all fronts, something more will have to give.  If it is the purchase or lease of a new vehicle, that will continue to exacerbate the condition of the auto industry in general.  How much more resiliency is left in the auto industry?  What more will it take to actually cause a GM or a Ford or a Chrysler to go out of business?  

Barack Obama has succeeded in making the November Presidential election an international event.  This world tour that "isn't a campaign trip" certainly seems like a campaign trip.  The mainstream press is falling all over itself providing wall-to-wall coverage, television time, and chatter.  Obama is welcomed with open arms where ever he happens to be.  Apparently countries around the world have been craving "change", and they see Obama as the purveyor of change.  He has been delivering his typically eloquent speeches and he seems to have captivated his audiences.

He seems to have caused the 'victory' in Iraq and has determined exactly what needs to happen to have the same results in Afghanistan.

He has been whatever his particular audience at the time has wanted him to be.  He seemed to be hawkish while in Israel and conciliatory in Germany.  He has apologized, in so many words, for the mean old America and promised a new, open and understanding America that will be easier with which to negotiate, that can be expected to try much harder to be the friend that Europe wishes it to be.

A first-term U.S. Senator, with virtually no foreign policy experience and only limited credentials based upon his actual experience, has met with, and likely made certain commitments or inferences of commitments to, heads of state and high ranking dignitaries across the globe.  While I understand that this kind of thing has no doubt occurred in the past, it is unseemly at best and dangerous at worst. 

There is a reason for the excitement about the Obama candidacy overseas.  The people there believe they will fare much better at the bargaining table with this American and his administration than they may have with the current administration.

Their glee is palpable.  They only wish this was already November because they'd be that much closer to the swearing in ceremony.

We would be wise to step back and take a deep breath before this deal goes down. 

This discourse from a CNN interview of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - California) by Wolf Blitzer on July 17th, concerning offshore oil drilling legislation, appeared in the Notable & Quotable block on the WSJ Opinion page a couple of days ago:

Blitzer:  John Boehner, who's the Republican leader in the House, he says you have to let this come up for a vote.  He says that you're walking your blue dogs, who are moderate and conservative Democrats, and other vulnerable Democrats off a cliff by not allowing this to come up for a vote, the offshore oil drilling legislation.

Pelosi:  Is that right?  Well, you know, just because John Boehner, who is my friend and whom I respect, says it, doesn't make it so...

Blitzer:  Are you afraid if this comes up for a vote in the House you will lose, given support for offshore oil drilling among these so-called blue dogs, or moderate Democrats, who will join with the Republicans?

Pelosi:  Afraid is not a word that is in my vocabulary...

Blitzer:  So let me get - will you allow this issue, offshore drilling, to come up for a vote on the floor of the House?

Pelosi:  We're going to exhaust our other remedies in terms of increasing supply in America by...

Blitzer:  So the answer is no?

Pelosi:  I have no plans to do so.

Here we see that there is a single reason for no vote on offshore drilling to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and to force oil prices down.  That reason is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - California).  Sen. Harry Reid (D - Nevada) who is the Senate Leader need not risk his skin so long as she is willing to carry the water for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups paying the bills for many liberals in Congress.  She is simply not going to permit the vote to occur.  That's democracy from a liberal perspective, I guess.  Play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go home.

We really need to remember these kinds of attitudes and the obstructionist moves when we go to vote in both September and November, but especially in November.

We really need to get in front of the Democrats in both the House and Senate and let them know in no uncertain terms that we want an up or down vote on offshore drilling.  And we don't want some political gamesmanship that makes it seem as though there is such a vote; this must be a single item bill before both chambers that has no waffle language and no add-ons that can be blamed for a "no" vote by one of our elected Representatives or Senators.

They're either with us or they're against us!  It really is that simple.  This isn't a Democrat or a Republican issue; this is impacting everyone of us no matter our political persuasion.  It is costing thousands of jobs.  It is draining millions of bank accounts.  It threatens our economy far more seriously than did the trumped up mortgage 'crisis'.  That it would be blocked by the Democrats places the blame squarely on their shoulders, however!

Barack Obama is the presumptive Democrat nominee for President of the United States.  He and his campaign staffers, and much of the press, appear to also have concluded that he is the presumptive President of the United States. 

The audacity of Obama is yet again on center stage for all to see.  He has kowtowed what passes for the 'free' press and the big three networks have trailed along in awe of the new President.  His campaign staffers refer to him as President when they say things such as, "When the President speaks..." which they did in the last day or so.  His campaign staffers refer to him as President when they create the phony 'Seal' that appeared on the podium behind which he was speaking.  Nothing about this campaign is an accident except for when Obama speaks extemporaneously without benefit of scripting.

Obama gets a 'free pass' on all this because the press is in his back pocket.  Thank goodness there is a Fox News Network.  Were that not the case, Obama would already be living in the White House so far as public opinion was concerned.  The election is a foregone conclusion.  He will undoubtedly deliver his 'inaugural speech' in Denver at the Democrat Convention; why wait for January 2009 and the Inauguration?

The 'World Tour' has taken him to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and on to Europe.  He has become an expert on foreign affairs.  He is telling General Petreaus when and where to position troops.  He has already convinced most that he, alone, can resolve the domestic issues.  He is the 'whole package'.

Hard to believe that this is a person who got a law degree, served as an Illinois state senator and has been in the U.S. Senate for 143 days of actual Senate sessions (as Jay Weber pointed out this morning on WISN 1130AM).  He is obviously the gift of a lifetime to us citizens who apparently have been stumbling about in the darkened wilderness all this time.  How in the world have we managed to even feed ourselves without Obama's guidance?  And we thought that JFK was something!

He may become our President, but he isn't there yet.  I, for one, am sickened by the sycophant press.  I am angered by the lack of criticism for Obama's actions.  This man has changed more positions than most people hold to begin with.  Politicians are chameleons, but he is the master chameleon.  He has built one of the most effective campaign organizations ever seen in our country or the world, for that matter.  It puts the 'Clinton Machine' to shame.

It seems that we now elect our leaders based on their charisma alone without regard to their experience.  That will demonstrate the shallowness of us as a people if he prevails.  As always, we will get the government we deserve. 

Discussion by liberal Democrats about the so-called 'fairness doctrine' is once again in vogue.  They seem to reason that if there were more radio airtime devoted to liberal viewpoints, there would be more people buying into their premise.  This concept was shoved into a dark, dank closet some time back but we probably should've known that it wouldn't stay there.

This is the supposed antidote for Limbaugh-itis and Hannity-itis, that disease that afflicts liberals because it seems to nourish conservatives.  There is a significant imbalance if one looks at the airtime devoted to conservative talkers as contrasted with that devoted to liberal talkers.  Those of the liberal persuasion believe that, since they are the bright side of this equation, there can be only one possibility; somehow the broadcasters are intentionally skewing the time made available.

The liberals are correct.  The broadcasters are skewing the time devoted because advertisers, who pay for the airtime, like larger audiences to hear their messages.  And that means that most advertisers will buy conservative talk show ad blocks long before they'll waste their money on liberal talk show ad blocks. 

Darned if that silly old idea of supply and demand didn't come around again.  Liberals can't believe it works in the world of oil futures and they apparently can't believe it works in advertising, either.

This doctrine is really all about limiting conservative airtime; it has nothing to do with increasing liberal airtime.  It is not about fairness at all.

This is our glimpse into the future if we elect Barack Obama and a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.  Fairness will be whatever they define it as being.  We, the loyal opposition, will grouse and complain but they will control the strings and us puppets will dance to their tune; it will be the only tune available.

Let us all think very seriously before we decide to vote for the neat feeling 'change' thing.  Change isn't always what it is cracked up to be. 

While reading a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, I was reminded of the insidious manner in which Washington causes change in America.  This editorial was titled "The Lawnmower Men" and dealt with the latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) epistle, a 588 page document.  In this latest EPA document released on Friday, the EPA lays out its vision for America's future.  The upshot of the document is that the EPA shows us exactly the degree of its "power grab" notions.

The document's future will rest with the next Administration and the next Congress.  It could be largely emasculated or it could be given the force of law and cause massive change in our land and in our economy.  It doesn't take too much 'vision' to see into the future so far as this is concerned.  If we have a President Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress, these ideas and postulations will stand a very good chance of finding their way into your life and mine...into your wallet and mine.

A Supreme Court decision in Mass. v. PA in 2007 found that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under current environmental law, and the EPA was ordered to regulate if it determined that carbon emissions are a public danger.  This was a 5-4 decision with the liberal court members comprising the majority position.  How important elections are, huh?

The EPA has now shown just how it would like this court decision to look when put into practice.  It finds that cow flatulence is such a threat that herds of greater than 25 head would exceed EPA-proposed carbon limits.  The same goes for farms with more than 500 acres of crops.  It would regulate farm tractors and lawn and garden equipment.  Fuel efficiency standards would be increased even before the current set of standards is due to be met in our automobile and truck fleet.  EPA would develop regulations to standardize how airplanes can taxi on the ground.  Boat design would fall under EPA regulations.  Buildings, even those in existence, would be regulated by EPA. 

The rules are so broad and sweeping that the EPA was quoted as saying, "We expect that the entire country would be in nonattainment."

The fact that Congress has not found it within itself to accomplish various regulations in this arena notwithstanding, the EPA believes it has the power to impose carbon fees and that it might be able to establish the "cap and trade" program that would control every aspect of our modern lives.  This has to have excited those who believe the bunk fed to us by the global warming crowd as fact when there is virtually no science to support its theories.  The EPA's final ruling will come in the the era of the next Administration.

What about this "Hidden Government" I mentioned earlier?  The reality of all this is that there is a solid cadre of career bureaucrats in every agency in Washington.  We see that in the FBI where infighting can cripple the Attorney General of the moment.  We see it in the State department where the same happens to the current Secretary of State.  Ditto for the Pentagon, and so on.  In almost every instance, the career people have decidedly left-leaning principles and simply hunker down, and obstruct as best they're able during some administrations while waiting for the opportunities to surface during other administrations.  This is where many of the 'leaks' come from that keep the Capitol Hill press and talking heads in business.  These leaks are often prevented by law, but seldom do we see any punishment levied for the leakers...if we ever determine who those people are.

We have a "hidden government" and it is very powerful though virtually invisible to us 'fly-over' people who actually keep this country perking along.

Nancy Pelosi continues to amaze though I shouldn't be amazed by her any longer.  She is really a proven quantity by this time.  She has made up her mind that we'll simply not have any more oil because it is not good for us and she knows best what is and isn't good for you and me.  She maintains that more drilling will do nothing to lower the price of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, but she derides President Bush for not having already agreed to release some of our strategic oil reserves that would be a mere tiny blip on the radar scope of fuel prices and would do nothing to cause a decrease in futures prices.

She has led, and continues to lead, the effort in the House of Representatives to castigate the greedy oil companies, to threaten to take away their leases on the 68 million acres that have already been searched and determined to hold little that could be drilled economically, and to apply tax surcharges just to teach them a lesson.

Every action such as these does nothing but exacerbate the real problem and cost us money; it costs us more and more tax dollars and it costs us more and more as companies push their tax bills down to the consumer where all tax bills go to be paid.

More than two-thirds of the people in the United States (across all racial and political and economic strata) have told Congress to open up drilling and reduce taxes, but they won't do it because they know better.  We miserable Neanderthals called voters just need to pay whenever and whatever asked (told in reality) and trust that Congress will take care of us.

* * * * * * * * * *

Al Gore delivered yet another pronouncement to the politicos, the press and the masses yesterday, as well.  Jay Weber made, I thought, an excellent point on today's show on WISN 1130AM when he said that so much of Gore's emphasis on reducing our need for oil seems to hinge on electric power...none of which is generated by the use of oil.  Some is generated using gas to fire the gas turbine generators, some is generated by solar and some by wind power.  But, the vast majority is generated using coal-fired plants.

The idea that we should spend $3 trillion dollars in the next decade, scrap all the electric generating facilities we have now, string the power transmission lines necessary to get solar and wind-generated power to the point of use from the middle of nowhere, etc. simply defies imagination.  He maintains that we need to 'green' the world through our efforts and through our example.  China told us again within the past few days that it is not going to play that game.  China is going to continue its economic development as is India.  Yet the United States is expected to go 'green' at the expense of its own economic well-being when that will have no significant lasting impact on the global environment.  The $3 trillion doesn't begin to address the debt-service we're still going to be paying on all the facilities that we've ceased to use.

So, we are being told that we need to bankrupt our economy while we're abdicating our position of power in the world community...and we're to take Al Gore's word for it that this is the way of the future.  Reminds me of the old tune with the lines: Don't Worry, Be Happy.

Out of touch & out of control!

A pizza-crust maker in Green Bay is coughing up $188,000 to be paid to 500 Hispanic applicants.  This employer, TNT Crust, is accused of having received 500 applications and of not hiring anyone as the result.

The U.S. Labor Department brought this action based on occurrences in 2001 according to news reports.  The action stated that the employer went to the extent of having Spanish language application forms prepared for the use of the Hispanics applying for jobs.  It apparently discriminated by also requiring that the applicants take an English test to assure that each would be able to communicate with the other employees and management.  It used the results of that testing to make its hiring decisions.

When did it become law in our country that we had to accommodate those who only spoke or read and wrote languages other than English?  If I seek an employee and the best-qualified applicant speaks Farsi but not English, am I to be compelled to hire that person even though there are no other Farsi-capable people in my organization or my customer base?

The motto of the United States is E pluribus unum.  That stands for "out of many, one" or words to that effect depending upon the translation from Latin.  We are great because we assimilated many diverse peoples into one.  And a significant part, if not the most significant part, of the reason for our success with that assimilation as a country is that we speak a single language across our country.  Radio talkers have hammered this theme over the past few days and are on point, in my estimation, although their commentary was aimed at a presidential candidate that thinks it a shame I can't speak more than my native language.  I embarrass him, but he embarrasses me as well so we're apparently even on that score.

If I am hiring people, I need to know that they are able to understand my direction and that I am able to understand their needs.  I cannot run a business if I am expected to provide translation services, or if I cannot communicate with my associates.  The idea that I have no control over the language capabilities of those I would hire is simply mind boggling.

The incrementalism of our socialistic government agencies takes yet another victim.  A pizza crust company in Green Bay found itself in the politically correct cross hairs of the Feds.

Only in America...unfortunately!

The people have spoken; loudly and clearly.  There is now a roughly two-thirds majority across all political lines that want oil drilling and refining capacity increases to commence immediately.  That two-thirds majority has had enough of the 'fluff' that passes for 'bipartisanship' in politics today.  That two-thirds majority fills its tanks every week and is very cognizant of the sacrifices it has been forced to make while its elected representatives in Congress dither.

Demagoguery has run rampant...even more so than has come to be the usual level of demagoguery in Washington, D.C.  We witness the daily back and forth of polite name-calling that passes for bipartisanship.  I have yet to be able to understand why it is that conservatives almost always end up on the wrong end of the 'bipartisanship stick'.  Why is it that a conservative-driven effort is demagogued by the liberals but a liberal-driven effort is almost always labeled a 'bipartisanship' effort?

Now we see an almost amazing display of partisan chutzpah with Nancy Pelosi's pronouncement yesterday that the Republican efforts to increase drilling are "a hoax" designed to take the peoples' minds off other Republican problems.  Even the poorly-equipped Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has softened his rhetoric in the face of public sentiment.  But not the erstwhile Nancy Pelosi who is re-elected by her ultra-liberal San Francisco district by super majorities in the 70%+ range.

Nancy Pelosi will continue to be a member of Congress for so long as she wishes, and needn't give a whit about the will of the people...other than for the ultra-liberals in her home district.  How are these 'reigns of terror' to be dealt with under our constitution?  By the sacking of Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House by the Democrats who elected her to that position.  Even Steny Hoyer would seem good by comparison!

The House Dems are frightened to death by the power of Nancy Pelosi.  So much so, in fact, that they willfully ignore their own constituents who are part of that two-thirds majority.  Unless and until the other Democrat members of the House of Representatives feel the real passion of their constituents on the subject of oil drilling and refining capacity, nothing will happen to improve prices at the pump on a long-term basis.  We have five of those people in Wisconsin.  We also have two Democrat Senators who might just seek a meeting with Nancy Pelosi to express their concern...if they have any real concern about what you and I pay for our gasoline.

The all too short and simple explanation is this:  they don't care about you and me except when we cast our votes.  And, they have come to understand that they'd have to commit some horrific act in order to be defeated after serving two terms in office.  They couldn't care less about you and me because they are beholden to Nancy Pelosi for their committee appointments and they know that she can influence their campaign funding situation come election time.

That is another thing that is problematic.  Our Members of the House of Representatives are in constant campaign mode.  They are campaigning for re-election even before being sworn in for the next term to which they've just been elected or re-elected.  The reverse problem exists with our Senators; they know that we have short memories so they can easily vote against our will for four years and then 'straighten up and fly right' for two years to get re-elected.  It has happened so regularly that we could nearly do away with re-election and simply wait for retirement to open a seat.

Now, we are looking at the very real possibility that the President and both houses of Congress will be under Democrat control.  We are looking at the very real possibility that both houses of Congress will also be 'veto proof' if the Democrats sweep as they suspect they will.

This seems to me to be too great a price to pay for the reminder that we shouldn't ever be so silly as to permit this to occur.  But...it seems we never learn.  It seems we love to be taught the same lesson over and over again.  It must be akin to our need to push on a sore spot or bite down on the tooth that aches.