Price of Oil Hits $140 a Barrel … Politicians Have Done Nothing for 30+ Years

Politicians have done nothing with regards to energy policy in the US for 30+ years and a vote for Obama will continue the pattern. A vote for Obama means no drilling and no immediate help to “We the People”. If politicians do not want to use any responsible form of help to reduce the burden on Americans for energy costs, then they should be voted out of office. The help needs to be immediate, not 30 years down the road.

As the price of a barrel of oil reached $140 for the first time ever and prices at the gas pump are over $4.00 a gallon and increasing, ask yourself why? How is it that our Federal government, Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, all have done nothing for 30+ years except act like absentee landlords to the American public.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com)  Oil reached $140 a barrel for the first time ever Thursday following reports that Libya may cut production and an OPEC official said crude could hit $170 a barrel this summer.

Meanwhile, the dollar’s decline against the euro added further upward price pressure.

Every single option must be explored which includes short term offshore drilling for oil and drilling in ANWR, medium term ideas like increasing nuclear and energy and long term alternative fuel implementation. It is obvious that we must wean ourselves off of foreign oil and in many respects oil in general. However, that will not happen over night. We also must conserve; however, that is not the only answer.

The truth of the matter is that all options must be explored and implemented. The political bickering in Washington, DC must end and end now. The oil crisis is destroying the American economy and individuals. This is now a matter of national concern and national security. Politicians have sat back and made enough excuses, on both sides. There is no reason why a solution cannot be made to solve the problem and it is their job to do it for “We the People”.

However, the political posturing and nonsense goes on. As Republican Presidential candidate John McCain says drill offshore, Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticizes him for it.  Why the criticism? Because in the 2000 campaign McCain favored a moratorium on offshore drilling. Earth to Obama … IT AIN’T 2000 YOU IDIOT!!!  It costs $30 a barrel in 2000.  The year is 2008, gas and oil prices are through the roof and people are suffering. Funny, Obama sat in his church pews for 20 years and listened to anti-American rhetoric from his pastor Reverend Wright and seemed to change his mind in 2008 to finally distance himself. What’s the difference?

What does Obama think is going to happen this winter to the people in New England (that bastion of blue states) when it comes time to heat their homes with oil? The voters in New England best take a good look at what they are about to spend in heating bills under an Obama Administration.

The likely Democratic nominee pledged to keep in place the federal government’s 27-year moratorium on offshore drilling, and criticized McCain on changing his position on the matter.

Said Obama: “The politics may have changed but the facts haven’t.”

In McCain’s 2000 campaign, the Republican said he favored the moratorium. This week, he said he supports lifting it to give states the option to drill, and cited as a reason alleviating the pressure on consumers facing high gas prices.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded that Obama is rejecting measures needed to lower gas prices. “The American people cannot afford Barack Obama’s do-nothing, out-of-touch energy policy,” Bounds said.

This is what energy policy has become in the US. One side trying to adapt to changing global conditions and righting a wrong, while the other side merely criticizes.

Scared Monkeys Radio Daily Commentary – Friday, June 27, 2008 – OJ Simpson Claims He’s Been Singled Out

• Dana comments on remarks made by America’s favorite narciccist.

Download and Comment at ScaredMonkeysRadio.Com

Ralph Nader Accuses Barack Obama of Talking White … The Great White Hype or is it White Guilt?

And now for something completely different. It appears that Nader will be a thorn in the side of Democrats again in Election 2008. Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader is accusing Democratic Barack Obama of talking white.  Ralph Nader never at a loss for words or beating around the bush has come out and basically said what many have privately thought, what change does Obama really represent? It’s only a matter of time before Nader is branded a racist.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, of downplaying poverty issues, trying to “talk white” and appealing to “white guilt” during his run for the White House.

There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

Nader further went on to say that Obama is simply campaigning to “white guilt”. That and the fact that ever since the Trinity Church and Reverend Wright controversy, Obama has had to provide the impression that he is something other than the “black” candidate. One thing is for certain, what Republicans are afraid to say, Nader is not.

Nader said he is not impressed with Obama and that he does not see him campaigning often enough in low-income, predominantly minority communities where there is a “shocking” amount of economic exploitation.

He pointed to issues like predatory lending, shortages of health care and municipal resources, environmental issues and others.

“He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,” Nader said. “He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

Introduction of New Criminal Code for Aruba … Let’s Hope They Actually Use It

 The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba have promised to introduce a revised Criminal Codes before the new constitutional structure. The introduction of a new criminal code is one thing, its implementation in practical use is quite another. Also the use of a revised criminal code without preferential treatment and cronyism is a third.

Introduction of new criminal code final

ORANJESTAD – The Neth.Antilles and Aruba have promised to introduce the revised Criminal Codes before the new constitutional structure in the Kingdom. That appears from the list of decisions taken during the tripartite deliberation between the ministers of Justice of the Netherlands, Antilles, and Aruba last Monday.

The committee that was established especially for this has already submitted the concept of the Aruban Criminal Code last year. But the process was after that idle due to shortage of government legislation jurists that gave preference to other subjects like the National budget. The government has now promised to give the minister council the concept before September 1, so they can forward it to the Advisory Council.

Read more

US Supreme Court Should be Ashamed … 5-4 Vote Child Rapists Can’t be Executed

Think Presidential elections do not matter? Who do you think appoints Supreme Court Justices? You best remember this come November! Take a good look how the two Presidential candidates answered the question. Obama has always tapped danced around the death penalty issue like the true leftist that he is. Obama has said that he disagrees with the SCOTUS ruling, yet he is against the death penalty. Meanwhile John McCain stated the following, “As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children.”

What type of SCOTUS justices do you think each candidate would appoint?

Shame on the US Supreme Court … protecting child rapists as if they are people to. How sick is this that rapist’s rights trump innocent children’s rights? Think Presidential elections do not matter? The liberal judges of the Supreme Court could care less about your children’s rights. Conservative judges like Samuel Alito dissented stating, “The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave.”

The United States Supreme Court voted yesterday, 5–4, that child rapists cannot be executed. Let me first say that they should all hang their head in shame at this heinous ruling. The SCOTUS concluded that capital punishment for crimes against individuals can be applied only to murderers. If the gutless SCOTUS judges want to hide behind the “cruel and unusual punishment” montra, maybe they would like to explain to sexually abused and exploited children everywhere that child rape is not “cruel and unusual” in its own right as a crime. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing “evolving standards of decency” in the United States.

Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime against an individual other than murder.

“We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other,” wrote Kennedy, who is not related to the convicted rapist.

The case in question before the SCOTUS was in regards to 43 year old Patrick Kennedy who was appealing his case where he raped his 8 year old step daughter in her bed.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the first convicted rapist in the United States since 1964 to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed.

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused severe emotional trauma, internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, Louisiana prosecutors said.

The liberal judges of the SCOTUS could obviously care less about children and child rape than they do about criminals.

In the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged “the victim’s fright, the sense of betrayal, and the nature of her injuries caused more prolonged physical and mental suffering than, say, a sudden killing by an unseen assassin.”

But the justice — supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — wrote that when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” must be taken into account.