So much for tolerance. A Radical Michigan Gay Group Attacks Christian Church Service on Sunday. Yup, those gay people that Christians are to be so tolerant of, acted in a very intolerant, disgusting way during a church service.

On Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing's Mount Hope Church.

...Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Don't expect the mainstream media to pick up on this.

Right Michigan reported more details about the attack: (My emphasis)

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did).  And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.  According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties.  We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.

...The church's response?  After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

I am thankful that this group of believers acted in a Christian way. Their actions speak volumes about their beliefs and character.

In case you haven't noticed, Christians are fast becoming the only group where intolerance is allowed. We better wake up.

Side note: Any media bias here? It is interesting that an Obama victory at 52.7% (McCain 46%) is called a landslide or mandate, but California's Proposition 8, which would outlaw gay marriage, passed by 52.4% (No 47.6%) and was called a narrow margin.

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA:  Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban. [Hazmat crew determined it wasn't toxic.]

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Would you like to go to the polls on Nov. 4th and have everyone view your ballot? Not too many people would. The right to a private ballot is important to Americans.

Peer pressure can be a powerful force--especially in unions. There is a bill right now called the Employee Free Choice Act, HR 800. The name would make you think it protected privacy. It doesn't. Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored and voted for it. 

It is such an affront to workers' rights, that even former Senator George McGovern opposes it. He ran an ad during last night's debate describing why he was against this legislation. (It was one of the highlights of the debate!) From Real Clear Politics,

One of labor's top agenda items for at least the last two years has been the Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip employees from the secret ballot in deciding whether to form a union. The measure was defeated earlier, but will doubtlessly get a second hearing with an Obama administration.

You can see the ad on Gateway Pundit, who concludes, "Too radical for George McGovern?...That's Barack Obama!" 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Last week, I was at US Bank; a CD had matured. I asked the banker, does US Bank have money to lend? Could I get a loan if I needed one? He said, Yes, it was no problem. (I have a good credit score.) 

A local car dealer last week said they had money for financing too.

So we see, not every bank is short on available cash. And now this: Wells Fargo acquiring Wachovia for $15.1 billion! (My emphasis)

 In an abrupt change, Wachovia said Friday it agreed to be acquired by San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. in a $15.1 billion all-stock deal that trumps Citigroup's plan to acquire Wachovia's banking operations and avoids government assistance.

The Citigroup deal would have been done with the help of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., but the Wells Fargo deal for Wachovia will be done without it. Shares of Wachovia and Wells rose in morning trading, while Citigroup shares fell.

Today, all eyes are on the House, seeing if the bailout bill passes there. I am hoping it doesn't since it contains too much pork and not enough reform. Loads of Pork, Little Accountability in Senate Bailout Bill: Will the House Balk?

 

The House rejected the original bill on Monday but the revised bill contains a lot of "sweeteners" designed to garner enough votes, including $100 billion in tax relief, a widening of the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 and aid to rural schools.

But the Senate bill is also laden with pork, including:

• $223M for Alaskan fisherman
• $192M for rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
• $128M for auto racing
• $33M for companies operating in American Samoa
• $10M for film & TV production
• $6M for producers of wooden arrows

In the meantime, the private market is working, buying up bargains and expanding their market share. 

UPDATE: New development. Wells and Citi are fighting over who gets to buy Wachovia! Wells Fargo, Citigroup in tug of war over Wachovia 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Remarks Upon Becoming Speaker of the House two years ago? (Emphasis mine) 

I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and I look forward to working...

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Boehner, and the Republicans in the Congress, for the good of the American people.

... and the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

... After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go; no new deficit spending.

... Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

... My colleagues elected me to be speaker of the House. The entire House. Respectful of division of our founders, the expectations of our people and the great challenges that we face, we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all America.

... Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.

Did her performance yesterday live up to her promise? Blaming Bush for all of this? (There is plenty of blame to go around. If our economy is in such danger, and I think it could be, is this the time for finger pointing or "seeking common ground for the common good.")

Pelosi let 16 Democrat Congressmen in tight races off the hook--they could vote NO. Obama campaign co-chair Jessie Jackson Jr., Democrat from Illinois, voted NO.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so sure this bill needed to pass, why did she poison the deal with her rant and not insist her own party support it? Was she hoping it would fail so they could get the ACORN funding back in? Who knows.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you trust this Congress to come up with an acceptable solution?  

About this time 2 years ago, before the majority shifted to the Democrats, the Congress' approval rating was 25%. Last year it was 11%. In July it was 9%: "The overall national approval rating is at 9 percent. The first time in history that the rating has fallen to a single digit. ...So you see, history can be made. All it took was some hard work and bipartisanship."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said, "Now is not the time to fix the blame, it is time to fix the problem."  I pray they will be able to do just that before credit totally freezes up and businesses can't make payroll.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

There is lots of chatter today about how Sen. John McCain squashed the soon-to-pass bail out plan. (So much for the Dems. calling him Bush 3)**

Hmm, the Democrats are in the majority, why don't they just pass it on their own?*

Because they don't have the votes in their own party.

Truth is, the bail out bill the media said was near passing, was NOT anywhere near approval. House Republicans were not consulted on the Paulson bail out bill.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham was on Fox last night and explained that part of the bail out money would go to ACORN! From Hot Air:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

Would you want that to pass? 

Most Americans are not in favor of a bail out. Most Republicans do not favor a bail out. Newt Gingrich has not favored a bail out to save our economy. (Emphasis mine) 

Newt Gingrich:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

The House GOP (Republicans) have presented a plan of their own. It is more of a Work Out than Bail Out. Gingrich also favors a Work Out that would include borrowing at 2% not bailing.

I may just be a Home Economist, but I know we need to do something. If the average American was in better financial shape, not carrying around $8,000 debt on their credit card and not one paycheck away from financial disaster, I might be inclined to just tough it out.  

Gingrich recommended that Republican leaders like Boehner, DeMint, Shelby, and McCain meet to put together a proposal Americans will support. Then the people will put the pressure on the Democrats in Congress to pass it, much like public pressured Congress to drill for domestic oil. But since Harry Reid just stuck a ban on domestic oil shale drilling onto an appropriations bill, while this crisis is going on, so much for listening to the will of the people and doing what this country needs.

Heaven help us. I mean that literally.

Read more: Market Rescue Dos and Don'ts  from the Heritage Foundation

*Observation courtesy of Nick Reed interjecting on the Jay Weber show this morning. 

**Observation by a caller on Rush's show today. (The car radio does make running errands more tolerable!) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yup, it is true. Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Good Morning America this morning and defended John McCain. (Politics makes strange bedfellows!)

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

... 

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton also commented on the Democrat's accusation that this problem came out of nowhere--we had nothing to do with this. He admitted some responsibility in this mess lies with the Democrats in Congress. (About half way through the clip)

Well... ...the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put in some standards and tighten up a little with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [He also blamed the Up Tick rule.]

I really hope the Congress acts in good faith and not in their typical political way, as in the NO Drill Bill. When Sen. Obama originally stated that he would not come, that "If you need me, call me." if he was needed, I wondered how that would have gone over with the Democrats if Pres. Bush had done that with Hurricane Katrina.

GOPUSA's piece, Bailing out the Bailout, talks about Sen. Reid's flip flop on McCain's presence and what some conservatives hope McCain can do, 

...Until McCain's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed inclined to support the $700 billion bailout bill -- provided Democrats could lard it with their own goodies -- but only if McCain (and other Republicans) would support the package and provide the Dems with political cover.

"I got some good news in the last hour or so ... it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this," Reid announced Tuesday evening.

...

Reid's office promptly released a statement that said, "We need leadership; not a campaign photo-op." So the bailout is worth spending $700 billion of other people's money -- but not worth McCain flying to Washington to broker a doable deal? Get the feeling Reid is completely out of touch?

Now, what if McCain could reduce the size of the bailout? (That is a tall order, but hope springs eternal with me.)

If, however, McCain can broker a more fiscally responsible plan -- read one with a price tag about half of the original's size or less, and with a cap on executive pay -- he just might be able to broker a deal that can pass muster.

McCain is taking a huge chance here. Even just going to Washington to vote on this measure is a risk. One has to wonder if Obama hoped he could duck the whole thing by not going to the Senate to vote at all--a variation on voting, "Present."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember the story about the Trojan Horse? The Greeks gave a huge horse statue to Troy. The unsuspecting Trojans brought the gift into their city. During the night, the Greek warriors inside the horse came out and took the city. Hence the saying, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The gift ended up being the undoing of the citizens of Troy.

Well, I am saying, Beware of Dems bearing drilling bills. It is not what it seems, in fact, it is worse than doing nothing.

On the surface, it looks like the House Democrats are concerned with high energy prices in America. In reality, this bill does very little to increase domestic oil production. I think they are only concerned with reelection. 

Considering that 90% of the oil available exists within 50 miles of the shoreline, what will allowing drilling beyond 50 miles do for us? This bill essentially bans access to 100% of the oil on the west coast, including Alaska. It is all show and no go.

This is what happened in the House. From GrasstopsUSA:

On Monday evening at 9:45pm, Pelosi dropped a 245 page bill on Congress (H.R. 6899, the so-called "Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.").

...she effectively stifled substantive debate, by-passed the committee process, prohibited amendments and forced a vote within 24 hours! 

And on Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives passed this "sham bill" on a mostly partisan vote of 239-189! And Pelosi's bill is NOTHING BUT SMOKE AND MIRRORS and will ACTUALLY PROHIBIT DOMESTIC DRILLING, RAISE YOUR TAXES, and has a 'mother-load' of Congressional pork!

OK, right there that should tell you something. Democrats have been against drilling all along and Republicans for it.

If the majority of Democrats voted for H.R. 6899 and the Republicans didn't, doesn't that tell you something? It isn't real! 

What does this worse-than-nothing H.R. 6899 bill include? (My emphasis)

The bill would allow states to “opt-in” to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf 50 to 100 miles off of their coast, as well as explore for oil shale on federal lands. The bill excludes the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as Georges Bank, and does not include any revenue sharing provisions for States. States therefore have little incentive to “opt-in”. It also allows for lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), but does not include any provisions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In addition, it would prohibit 48 companies from competing in future OCS oil and gas lease sales.

H.R. 6899 requires the sale of at least 20 billion barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve within sixty days of enactment. It imposes a new 15 percent renewable energy requirement on private utilities. The bill also includes several green housing initiatives for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and creates a new $2.5 billion Residential Energy Efficient Block Grant Program, as well as a $5 billion Alternative Energy Sources State Loan Fund.

H.R. 6899 extends current and creates new tax credits and other incentives with the stated goal of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Many of the tax credits that are being extended by this bill are set to expire December 31, 2008. The bill includes $17.744 billion in tax increases on oil companies by denying them manufacturing deductions and limiting the ability of U.S. companies to utilize foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction. [Tax increases will be passed onto  us.]  

The bill does not include lawsuit reform, nuclear energy, clean coal, or refinery provisions.

Guess the House Democrats did not listen to Obama's acceptance speech: "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves [that involves drilling], invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

So much for wanting to end America's dependence on foreign oil.

Whatever the case, a similar energy bill faces long odds in the Senate this week - potentially leaving Congress without a major legislative accomplishment on an issue of top concern to voters.

...Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican, accused the Democrats of trying to fool voters about where they stand on drilling: "It's very clear this is written in such a way to make it look like they're in favor of drilling."

The Senate will vote on their own versions. I am not hopeful. All we can do at this point is contact our dynamic duo senators and request that they vote against this drill-nothing version and the President veto this farce.

Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

President Bush  comments@whitehouse.gov.

It is pretty sad that the best we can hope for is that Congress will run out of time before they can each pass a do nothing drilling bill or for a President's veto pen. The Congress' greatest gift would be to do nothing and just let the moratorium expire. 

House Republican quotes regarding this bill:

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner, "It would permanently lock up 80% of our nation's offshore energy resources--holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil."

Congressman Jeb Hensarling called it, "a hoax bill that would permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf for American energy and block energy production in arctic Alaska and the Inter-Mountain West." 

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said, "I'm offended...And the American people should be offended that we're not doing the job for them that really matters." 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Have you noticed that the mood of the country has changed regarding energy?

Last year, THE solution was all about growing our own energy by using ethanol. The emphasis was on reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on foreign oil, regardless of the cost.

But rising food prices and the fact that ethanol was a boondoggle (using as much energy as it supplied) caused ethanol's reign to slip from political popularity.

Then came Newt with his Drill Here.Drill Now.Pay Less. campaign. While I am surprised that he never did get those 3 million petition signers, he certainly started the conversation that we must start producing more oil domestically.

It was a conversation the President and House Republicans were willing to listen to. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, however, were not. In fact, she shut down the House for 5 weeks!

During that 5 weeks off, around 130 House Republicans kept the heat on the discussion in the House. See YouTube

Also during the summer, the polls started showing that 67% of Americans favored domestic drilling.

John McCain responded to that fact by embracing offshore drilling. Certainly his picking Palin indicates he is looking at domestic oil and increasing natural gas. The Republican ticket has an "All of the above" approach. (Oil, clean coal, natural gas, tidal, hydro, hydrogen, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Barack Obama wouldn't go that far, but did promote getting off foreign oil dependence by increasing clean coal, natural gas, and safe nuclear as additions to the usual wind, solar, etc.

But while all this new domestic energy posturing was going on, Pelosi and the House Democrats were not available until this week. On Monday:

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

So finally, she and the House Democrats are willing to allow a vote on drilling!

"Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess.  She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative.  When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

"Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans.  The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation.  It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

"Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy.  Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding? (My emphasis)

This vote would have never happened without public pressure. We tend to forget that fact. But don't jump for joy just yet.

The next hurdle will be, what kind of energy bill gets passed? Will it be a real energy bill that truly increases drilling opportunities and new energy sources? Or will it be just all show and no go? as a token attempt by Democrat Congressmen and Senators up for reelection to appear sympathetic to energy prices?

But House Republicans called the Democrats' proposals "gimmicks," and instead have insisted on a stand-alone vote on oil drilling.

"Speaker Pelosi's so-called 'energy' bill will do nothing to help our energy crisis," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. "It will multiply red tape and make it almost impossible to lower already skyrocketing oil costs." (My emphasis)

Stay tuned! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last May I told you about Randy Melchert, candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly--24th District.  Although that is not my district, his "Melchert Plan" to lower area gasoline prices by 10% is appealing. I don't have to live in the Menomonee Falls/Germantown area to be in favor of that! 

From his website:

...[His] three-part plan would eliminate the Minimum Markup Law, lower the state Gas Tax to the national average, and end the forced use of Reformulated Gas.While gas prices have risen nationwide, gas in Wisconsin has risen more than other states because Wisconsin has one of the ten highest gasoline tax rates in the nation! The Tax Foundation shows how gas taxes in Wisconsin are 3 cents higher than Indiana, 5 cents higher than Ohio, almost 11 cents higher than Minnesota and Iowa, almost 15 cents higher than South Carolina and Kentucky, and 19 cents higher than New Jersey

Now I could understand if the gas tax was used for highway maintenance and road repair, but when Governor Doyle can steal $240 million from the transportation fund to cover the rest of his budget, we're paying too much in gas taxes.

On his website, Melchert includes a series of interesting charts, graphs, and lots of statistics that illustrate how Wisconsin drivers pay more for gasoline than most other states. There is also a savings calculator where you can punch in your numbers to see how the minimum mark up, reformulation, and higher gas taxes affect you. On average, I probably would save $300 a year, but if I would calculate the savings for our entire household, we would be saving somewhere around $900 a year.

Since we just returned from a trip out west, I can confirm we found gas prices elsewhere much cheaper. The added bonus was that we could get non-ethanol gasoline in other states, giving us more miles per gallon.

For example: in a 2 day period on Aug. 16th and 17th, regular gasoline in Sioux Falls, SD was $3.49/gal, Willmar, MN was $3.62/gal, but in Wisconsin, reformulated gas (the only kind available) in Black River Falls was $3.79/gal. 

Check out the information on Melchert's website, and if you would like to save 10% on your gasoline bills, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to implement the Melchert Plan!

If I lived in the 24th District, I would be voting for Randy Melchert come Sept. 9th. But I live in the 14th District, so my vote happily goes to Leah Vukmir.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Traditionally, the days between July and September are called the Dog Days of Summer, not because of the heat and humidity causing you to pant like a dog, but because of the appearance of Sirius, the bright star in the constellation Canis Major.

But this summer, Brookfield's Common Council's Legislative & Licensing Committee* is having their own Dog Days. The Aldermen members are discussing whether or not Brookfield should adopt a dog and cat limit.

According to the JSOnline article yesterday, most people at the meeting did not favor limiting pets, but enforcing current laws,

The city should not limit the number of dogs residents can own, and instead should better enforce existing ordinances to resolve problems with dogs and their owners, animal hobbyists and rescuers say.

...A majority of the approximately 35 residents at the meeting opposed pet limits, saying they were not needed and would cause a domino effect of unintended negative consequences.

They said it was an overreaction to a single case in which neighbors complained about a dog rescue operation being run by Brookfield resident Jean Rhoten. A judge ruled that the rescue was an illegal business in a residential district.

As I stated earlier in How many dogs are too many?, it seems we already have laws on the books to protect neighbors against irresponsible pet owners. Simply making another rule will do little to eliminate the problem if Brookfield does not enforce those ordinances either.

While I do sympathize with residents who have to endure rude pet owners, I guess I don't see how simply limiting the number of pets to 4 would help. Example: We have an area resident who owns 2 large dogs who we suspect of not consistently picking up their dog dirt when on a walk. The new rule wouldn't help that situation. 

Karen Sparapani, Elmbrook Humane Society's Community Outreach Director and fellow blogger stated, "Most complaints are about dogs barking, being out of control or neglected, and that can happen whether there is one dog or 10."

The article suggested (as I did) "Some [communities] issue animal kennel, hobby or fancier permits that allow more dogs, charge higher fees and sometimes require annual inspections."

The Aldermen are obviously more aware of the number of complaints received on the too many pets issue. The L&L Committee will "likely hold another special meeting to take potential action on the issue" in August about this, according to the article in today's Brookfieldnow paper. If a policy change is approved, it then heads to the Common Council.

Legislative & Licensing Committee members (aldermen) are: Steve Ponto, Gary Mahkorn, Rick Owen, Ron Balzer, and Bill Carnell

If you have an opinion on limiting or not limiting pets, do give the committee and your aldermen a call or email.

*Correction--Because the Journal article did not state what meeting this was discussed at, I mistakingly said it was the Common Council in the earlier posting. Thank you Alan Hamari for reporting more specifics in today's Brookfieldnow article. 

Links: 

I just heard this announcement on the news: Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling. (This would be the moratorium his father enacted.) He will be talking about this decision from the Rose Garden at 12:30pm today.

This move will not make offshore drilling possible in itself, but it will put the pressure on the Congress to act,

White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so.

Last week, Nancy Pelosi was still digging in her heels on domestic drilling ban, but Harry Reid and Richard Durbin showed a glimmer of interest.

But that glimmer seems to be dying in the light of Bush's probable ban lifting today,

After hearing of Mr. Bush’s proposal on Tuesday night, Mr. Reid affirmed his opposition, saying, “The Energy Information Administration says that even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won’t have a significant impact on prices.”

This lifting of the executive ban is a step in the right direction, but it's only a step. We aren't there yet by a long shot.

UPDATE: Not only did the President lift the offshore ban, but also lifted the ban in ANWR and "on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming." (From Breitbart.com)

Tuesday, July 15: I heard Sen. Jon Kyl state on a news snippet this morning, that if we would start drilling in the oil shale deposits, we could start producing oil from there in 3 to 7 years. So much for the not for 10 years gloomy outlook. (Didn't we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years?)

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

When I think of oil spills, my mind goes immediately to the Exxon Valdez. Remember that one? In my mind's eye I can still see volunteers trying to wash off animals and rocks with toothbrushes and Dawn detergent. 

1989 Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef off of Alaska, it was a case of drunk driving!

Valdez, Alaska: Today, years after the Oil Spill cleanup, efforts on some heavily oiled beaches have been reinstated, and with the help of Mother Nature, the Sound will recover more each year. Prince William Sound today flourishes with marine life, waterfowl, bottom fish, and salmon runs. Visit Valdez and see gorgeous Prince William Sound for yourself!

Before the Valdez, there was the 1978 Tanker Amoco Cadiz that tanker split in two off coast of France.

These images stick with us and make people wary of increasing offshore drilling.

But if we continue the moratorium on offshore drilling, will we be immune to oil spill disasters?

NO. The Valdez and Cadiz spills were not the result of offshore drilling rigs gone bad, they were the result of oil tanker accidents.

Whether we drill here on land or offshore, we are still importing oil from across the oceans. We are still vulnerable to oil tanker crashes and accidents.

Last month President Bush urged our Congress to Lift the Offshore Drilling Ban. (My emphasis throughout page) The President,

admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

...

The offshore drilling moratoria have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80 percent of the country's Outer Continental Shelf. It was instituted to protect tourism and lessen the chance of oil spills reaching popular beaches.

The good news after hurricanes Katrina and Rita was at least there were no major oil spills due to off shore drilling.

Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal recently stated in a Fox News piece on offshore drilling that, “You know, that’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills.” 

According to a Heritage Foundation piece, June 30, 2008, More Lies From the Center for American Progress, The Center for American Progress tried to paint a picture that it was the offshore drilling that caused oil spills. The CAP linked to a Minerals Management Service study that reported, "113 oil platforms were 'totally destroyed' --a total of 124 offshore spills."

That sounds bad, but read more from the MMS: 

Offshore environmental impacts as a result of hurricane events in the [Gulf of Mexico Regional Office] have typically been minor due to the downhole safety valves at wells and operating practices conducted by the oil and gas industry with respect to platforms and pipelines in advance of approaching hurricanes… While cleanup was required, the volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor.

The Heritage Foundation article then states, "CAP then goes on to blatantly conflate onshore and offshore oils spills. They (CAP) write:

In fact, oil seeped onshore into southeast Louisiana, which saw 44 onshore and offshore oil spills. The EPA called the spills “worse than the worst-case scenario.” Even oil industry representatives admitted: “nature can always topple you.”

If you click the first link, southeast Louisiana, it takes you to a MSNBC article, 44 oils spills found in southeast Louisiana.  In that article you find:

The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana.

And from the last link, nature can always topple you, the Houston Chronicle article states: 

“Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters unleashed 1 million gallons of oil from one of the massive storage tanks at Murphy Oil’s nearby refinery.”

The Heritage Foundation concluded, "These are all onshore oil industry activities. To cite them as evidence of the danger of offshore oil drilling is blatantly dishonest. The Center for American Progress owes Gov. Jindal an apology."

One thing I found in the Houston Chronicle that people rarely verbalize: oil companies don't want spills either! 

"We don't like to spill oil. Oil that spills is of no value," said Larry Wall, a spokesman for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.

Oils spills = $ loss to the oil companies!  It is in their best interest to prevent storm damage and oil spills too.

Continuing to restrict US oil companies from drilling offshore cannot guarantee we have no more oil spills on our shores. We already have our own oil companies drilling offshore, Mexican companies drilling close by, oil tankers approaching our coastlines to deposit their oil, and our own land based refinery and industry storage tanks. Any one of these entities could cause an oil spill disaster...given the right circumstances. Maintaining the drilling moratorium removes just one piece from that list of possible offenders. It alone will not prevent future oil spills.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.24 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

ANSWER: ONE, IF IT IS A BARKER OR MENACE.

(Sorry about yesterday's mispost. Don't know how that happened--I wasn't home at the time it was posted!) 

It is easy to see why Brookfield's JR Pups 'N Stuff would be In the doghouse with the neighbors. I would not want a neighbor with 6 to 17 dogs either--especially on such a small lot. The article also stated:

Neighbors, however, said they were tired of Rhoten’s dogs’ barking, defecating and leaving her half-acre yard despite an electric fence. Brookfield does not allow physical fences, except where residences abut commercial areas.

Neighbors also said Rhoten’s yard in the 4600 block of N. 135th St. has been cluttered with kennels, trailers and a large white tent. About 40 neighbors signed a petition against the rescue business.

Is this problem simply too many dogs? Granted, the high volume of canines does not help the situation, but from the above description of the yard being strewn with kennels, trailers, and big tent, and the dogs escaping and defecating in the neighborhood, it sounds like the problem went beyond just the number of dogs.

There are a lot of dog owners who are not model neighbors. Some let their dogs bark incessantly. Some do not pick up after their dogs when on walks. Some let their dogs run out of their yards. In these cases, even one dog is one dog too many!

When I walk our pooch* pictured here, I frequently encounter 2 of these one is one too many canines. Often I think, I'm glad I don't live next to that! 

One should have been named Diablo. He barks and snarls with fur raised on his back everytime anyone passes by. Heaven help us if his invisible fence battery ever dies.

The other dog on our walking route has no invisible fence. His owner thinks he has trained it to stay in the yard, but it comes charging out at us, snarling, with fur again raised on his back (a sign of aggression.)

Since the problem with the dog rescue household in question has been solved with a court order, do we really need to make another law for everyone?

There may be times the average household would have more dogs than the 2-3 limit that is so common in other communities. A family member once bred their boxer and had 4 puppies. It was a very positive experience for the family. (All the puppies were sold.) 

Sometimes a household must keep a dog or dogs for a short time for someone else who is in the process of moving or building a home. Often if you are looking for someone to temporarily keep your pet, you ask someone who already has a dog. 

Maybe one solution would be to require Dog Rescue households to apply for a special permit or license? They could be required to abide by more stringent rules, with number of dogs proportioned to size of yard? Rescue organizations do perform a valuable service, I would hate to stop them all. (We once adopted a dog from one rescue house in Aurora, Illinois. That home seemed to have its act together.)

The Aldermen will have to sort all this out with the wisdom of Solomon. They know how many resident complaint calls they get about multiple dog menaces. But often the problem isn't simply the number of dogs, it is the owners!

What do you think?

If you are trying to train your dog to behave better, you might wish to watch The Dog Whisperer. It is a show on cable and available through the Waukesha Library system on DVD. Cesar Millan, the Whisperer, really knows his dogs and gently illustrates the problem is not the dog!

*I am not really a dog person, although I love our little 13 pounder!

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: