Capitol Visitor Center Mangles Constitution, Historical Perspective

CitizenLink's latest Turn Signal video highlights the new U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (the one which will save Senator Harry Reid's delicate nostrils) and some important areas in which the $621 million taxpayer-funded facility is deficient.

For instance, builders got the national motto wrong. They engraved "E Pluribus Unum" in marble, when it should have been "In God We Trust."

The Pledge of Allegiance was also given the cold shoulder (too--gasp!--Christian for some?).

The center also refers to the "delegated powers" in the Constitution as "aspirations." This liberal distortion of the Constitution implies that rather than a document of enumerated powers and limited government, it is one where congress seeks to empower government to the fullest extent possible--limited only by our "aspirations."

Taxpayer-funded historical revisionism at it's liberal best!

The multimillion-dollar center has opened -- with glaring omissions and an interpretation of the Constitution many find troubling.

RINO Piracy

From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Thune Elected to Number 5 Senate Republican Spot

The Rapid City Journal reports Senator John Thune was elected by fellow Republicans to the Senate Republican Conference vice chairman, the #5 Republican spot in the U.S. Senate.

Not bad for a guy in his first term in the Senate.

Congratulations, Senator Thune!

Seeds of Financial Crisis May Have Been Sown by Barney Frank

While apparently common knowledge in Washington for some time, the relationship between Barney Frank and Herb Moses was only brought to national attention last evening by Bill O’Reilly. The conflict of interest that is obvious in this relationship was treated as verboten because of the gay implications and the fact that the scandal involved a Democrat. Had this been Larry Craig who sat on a committee that regulated an organization for which his gay lover worked, well, you know we’d have had investigations and hearings and the MSM salivating over themselves in orgasmic excitement. Exposing homosexual proclivities is only tolerated by the “gay community” when Republicans are involved, otherwise we get an indignant “how dare you” from the Left.

So here, as the presidential campaign heats up, we find that the financial crisis that began with the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may in some part have been due to the activities of Congressman Barney Frank on behalf of his live-in homosexual lover Herb Moses. We can expect the MSM to react in their now predictable fashion: “Yawn.”

From the American Thinker website:

Why Barney Frank resisted additional regulation of Fannie Mae
Ethel C. Fenig
While Bill O'Reilly absolutely exploded at Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on his Fox news show The O'Reilly Factor, screaming at him, "Shouldn't everybody in the country be angry with you right now?" - while asking Frank to remove himself as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, O'Reilly was uncharacteristically reticent about another factor in Frank's personal life which bear upon these institutions.

What a shame.

Bill Sammon of Fox News explains
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie. Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical. And they have every reason to be skeptical; Moses and Frank were lovers who lived together from 1987 until 1998.

Lien and Herseth Sandlin: Time to Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way

As Sibby Online points out, the Chris Lien/Stephanie Herseth Sandlin debate at Dakotafest yesterday saw some agreement...and some important differences.

While both U.S. House of Representatives candidates said we need to do more drilling offshore, drill in ANWR, build more nuclear power plants, and build the proposed Hyperion refinery at Elk Point, the Argus Leader reports they differ on how to best accomplish proactive energy policy in Washington:

The two differed in their take on a House proposal that attempts to limit speculation in oil markets and use oil company royalties to develop wind power and other renewable energy forms.

Lien berated such a comprehensive proposal.

"You put it all in one piece of legislation and nothing gets done," he said.

Herseth Sandlin, who has supported the proposal, said Lien's stance shows a lack of experience.

"Anyone who thinks you can focus on one issue doesn't understand how the process works," she said. "Major pieces of legislation tend to be comprehensive proposals because of the needs across the country."

She's probably right about how the process currently works. But I think that's part of what Lien is getting at: that process isn't working.

The current process involves loading up a bill with a lot of things that often results in several things: (1) conflicting priorities that hinders passage of the most important, (2) unrelated items that makes the primary bill cumbersome and often unattractive, (3) extra items that provide cover or justification for either a "yes" or "no" vote, depending on what the representative needs to placate voters back home, (3) a lot of extra garbage that contributes to the wasteful spending on bloated government projects.

As the heated discussion over earmarks has shown in the past couple of years, "business as usual" in Washington desperately needs to change. Not only is it producing massive amounts of wasted taxpayer dollars on junk that few people outside a congressman's district care about, it is bogging down the whole process (which should have the goal of accomplishing something) and reducing accountability to the people.

We need relatively simple legislation that targets a specific issue, doesn't get sidetracked, and provides a clear opportunity to support or oppose something. This would make the choice more clear for the representative...and more clear for the voters back home who should decide whether to "rehire" the representative based on how well the representative is representing their priorities in Washington.

It would also help remove the veil of secrecy behind which so much wasteful spending (we have a $3 trillion budget) goes unnoticed. And if there isn't time to deal with so much of that because of the need to vote on the specific, targeted legislation that deals with real issues...great!

So I think Herseth Sandlin inadvertently admitted one of the best reasons she should be replaced by Chris Lien: the current process isn't working, and she is obviously invested in that broken process and unwilling to work to fix it.

I knew a squadron back in my Air Force days which had the motto "Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

If Herseth Sandlin is unwilling to take the lead in fixing the mess that is Washington, or follow those who are willing to fight for change, then she needs to get out of the way for those like Chris Lien who will.

Polls Don't Look Good For Dem-Controlled Congress

According to a new Gallup Poll publicized on NewsMax, only about 1/3 of voters say most members of congress deserve re-election.

Could this spell trouble for the Democrat-controlled congress?

In the 1994 and 2006 mid-term elections, just 38 percent of registered voters said they would back incumbents for Congress, which resulted in control of the House switching from one party to the other.

You'd never see such a thing coming in the polls, because the "mainstream" media always massages the polls to make it look like Democrats are going to win everything in sight by a landslide.

But remember, they didn't see the Republican Revolution of 1994 coming. They didn't see Bush coming in 2000 and 2004 either.

Could the Republicans get it back in 2008? If they do, I only hope they've learned not to try to be the Democrat-Lite Party.

To the Gang of 10: Better, But Keep Trying

Fox News and others are reporting that the energy "Gang of 10" which includes Senator John Thune have formulated an energy proposal to lower gas prices.

While I'm not totally happy with their plan, this group of Democrats and Republicans seem to have a slightly better understanding of the problem of high gas prices than Democrat Senator Ken Salazar last week.

From Human Events:

McConnell was asking for unanimous consent, so the bill could pass immediately. Try as he might, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Co) objected no matter how high McConnell raised the ante.

$4 a gallon? Salazar objected. $7.50 a gallon? Again, Salazar objected. Finally, McConnell offers a trigger for offshore drilling permission at $10 a gallon gasoline prices. And guess what? Salazar objected.

The Democrats would rather have us under the burden of $10 a gallon gasoline than give permission for offshore oil drilling.

The Democrats are supposedly the party of the common man? Can you say "out of touch?" Can you say, "elitist?" Can you say, "Let them eat cake?" I knew you could.

Here's what the Gang of 10 has in mind, from Fox News:

The plan also would require automobiles to be more fuel efficient and would provide research money for improved batteries to move away from petroleum-products in cars: the plan calls for 85 percent of vehicles to run on non-petroleum-based fuel in 20 years.

Senators said the bill also would promote more renewable energy sources and nuclear energy, as well as carbon capture techniques to reduce greenhouse gas production through tax and other incentives.

"This bill would do more to lower gas prices at the pump" than any other plan, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "Any change in production would send a powerful signal to markets" that would ease back on speculation that primarily Democrats have blamed as one reason for sky-high oil prices.

Actually, I can think of a a plan that would do more to lower gas prices at the pump: one that incorporates immediate drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), immediate drilling offshore, streamlining the regulatory and permitting process for new refineries, and streamlining approval and building of new nuclear reactors.

As for the carbon capture and other promotion of faerie tales, the only effect that might have would be to raise energy prices.

I also don't put much stock in the call for most cars to run on non-petroleum energy sources in 20 years. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't, but "calling" for it isn't going to conjure it up like a magical spell.

And when you consider that the CAFE standards of times past have "called for" more fuel efficient cars, this increased efficiency has come not so much at the hands of better technology, but cheap, plastic, toy-like cars that are totalled after even a low-speed impact.

And how many people have died from riding around in these plastic death traps? About 46,000 people, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration information published in USA Today.

What will be the unintended consequence of a mandate for "85 percent of vehicles to run on non-petroleum-based fuel in 20 years?" How many lives might it cost if no miracle breakthrough occurs in the next 20 years?

I suppose this plan would be better than the current Democrat plan: do nothing.

Perhaps this is a sign that not enough pressure has been put on our elected representatives yet. Apparently they still don't take $4.00 a gallon gasoline--or our energy needs--seriously.

Let's keep turning up the heat, folks. How many Senate seats lost will it take the Democrats to get the picture: 4? 7? 10?

A Return to Enumerated Powers

The Founders of the United States saw the danger of unrestrained government and worked very hard to limit the power and scope of government.

For instance, they divided the authority and responsibility of different functions of government into three main areas: executive, legislative and judicial. They established the doctrine of separation of powers, which meant that these three branches of government would not only have different scopes of operation, but that they would overlap as little as possible. The founders also established a system of federalism in which the central or federal government would have specific powers, with everything else retained by the individual states.

Perhaps the key thread which wove together this tapestry of limited government was the doctrine of enumerated powers which is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

The enumerated powers of the federal government are a list of things the federal government can do...and no more. In other words, by the Constitution, our federal government can only exercise powers which are explicitly granted to it by the Constitution--the governing document of our government.

For most of our history, these doctrines and constitutional limitations served us well. They kept the federal government small and in check, limiting the amount of control it could have over people and private enterprise, thus maintaining the greatest amount of freedom possible.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, had a vision of central authority for the United States government--and those enumerated powers of the Constitution stood in his way. But during his long tenure as president, during the Great Depression and World War II, he had the opportunity to appoint eight Supreme Court judges--judges who saw things FDR’s way, whether that was the Constitution's way or not.

The result was a massive expansion of federal power. Programs that had no constitutional authority (in fact, many were contrary to the limits of the Constitution) were passed through congress, signed into law by FDR, and when the constitutional challenges came, FDR's court thwarted them.

Since then, to greater and lesser degrees, many presidents promoted and pretty much every congress has passed the laws it saw fit, sometimes without any regard whatsoever to their constitutionality, and complicit judges have continued to hold a boot on the neck of the Constitution.

From the amount of legislation that comes out of congress today, it seems clear that most congressmen don't give the slightest thought as to whether a given bill fits within the enumerated powers.

This reckless doctrine of legislation by whim has produced a bloated government with a $3 trillion budget, an incomprehensible tax code, an impossible regulatory maze, and an egregious loss of economic and personal freedom.

If we are to remain a free people and retain a strong economy for much longer, this contemptuous attitude from Congress must stop.

Fortunately, there are some in Congress who understand their duty under the Constitution, and are working to uphold it.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Representative John Shadegg (R–AZ) has introduced and re-introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) since 1995. He was recently joined in sponsorship of this legislation by Senator Tom Coburn (R–OK) with S 3159.

The Enumerated Powers Act would require all legislation introduced in Congress to "contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority" empowering Congress to enact it.

Knowing some congressmen’s determination to bribe the voters with their own money, it is likely that many would find a way to get around the Enumerated Powers Act. But it would provide certain things which could mitigate the unconstitutional bills introduced and supported by many in congress.

First, it would provide the opportunity for an opponent to raise a point of order if constitutional muster was in question.

It would also resurrect the United States Constitution as a consideration in the legislative process, something that never enters the mind of too many congressmen today. Who knows—maybe actually thinking about the Constitution when considering hundreds of bills each year might actually cause the importance of our governing document to eventually sink in a little.

If they still chose to ignore or override constitutional considerations, this would provide “fodder”—as the Heritage piece calls it—for others to talk about constitutional authority, and perhaps to hold over the heads of elected officials who run roughshod over the Constitution.

Some will certainly try to use one of the most common current abuses of constitutional limitations—the Commerce Clause—but the Enumerated Powers Act could shed light on the process to expose this abuse.

The Founders were pretty clear, not only in the Constitution they created but in their personal writings and statements, that ours was to be a limited government.

One constitutional clause the Founders feared might be abused was the “General Welfare Clause.” But they made it plain that this clause was not to be used as a blank check to introduce what the Constitution otherwise contained no authority for.

For instance:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

Logically, the same caution and intent should apply to the Commerce Clause as applies to the General Welfare Clause.

As things stand right now, there is almost no constitutional light shed on the legislative process in Congress. The Enumerated Powers Act would shine a fresh light on the dirty deeds done in the dark, and would send some of the cockroaches scurrying for political cover. It would reduce the constitutional disdain of our congress, even if it didn’t stop it completely.

The Constitution is the governing document of our government, and it is the highest law of our land; all other laws are measured by it. It helps guard and defends the freedom of our society and us as individuals.

If we care about our freedom and the freedom of our posterity, we will consider it our duty to support Rep. Shadegg and Senator Coburn, and the Enumerated Powers Act.

If we fail to do so, we will have ourselves first to blame as we watch our freedom and prosperity exponentially wither away.

Tell Us What You Really Think, Nancy

Breitbart.com quotes Madame Pelosi today saying about the President,
"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject."

With success upon success in Iraq and the Democrats owning the problems of home foreclosures and rising oil prices, Fancy Nancy, “Dingy” Harry Reid and B. Hussein Obama may find the going a little tougher in November than they’ve imagined. The Speaker’s comments about President Bush don’t sound so much like measured confidence as they do visceral loathing (with a liberal dose of self-deception).

Video here.

Record Low Congressional Approval Rating

Here's one you probably haven't seen from your "objective" "mainstream" media: via Human Events, Rasmussen reports polling data finds the congressional approval rating at a record low: 9%.

One reason for the low result: 72% of voters think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers, while 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

Even if you did manage to hear this interesting tidbit, let me reiterate something the "mainstream" media probably didn't point out in conjunction with the mention of the poll (even though they missed no opportunity to repeatedly point out who was in control of Congress in 2006):

Congress is currently controlled by Democrats; those "mainstream" Democrats, since the "mainstream" media indicates there are no liberal Democrats in Congress.

Now Marriage Protection Acts in Both Senate and House

About a month ago, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced HJR 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment, to the U.S. House to define what people used to understand and take for granted: that marriage is between a man and a woman.

A Federal Marriage Amendment is of paramount importance given the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to throw out that state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the state constitution didn't specifically define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Currently, there is a federal DOMA which ostensibly prevents the concept of homosexual "marriage" from being imposed on other states when one state allows it. However, what happened to California's DOMA can happen to the federal DOMA if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to bank Left and abandon law and reason.

And even though many states have constitutional amendments protecting marriage, those states would be foolish to believe those state constitutions would survive the hammer of a Leftist U.S. Supreme Court that might simply declare their constitution unconstitutional.

OneNewsNow says that yesterday Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) introduced the Marriage Protection Act in the U.S. Senate as a companion to the House bill.

"Rather than giving unelected judges the opportunity to legislate from the bench, this amendment will reaffirm what most Americans believe ... marriage is between a man and a woman," Wicker says.

Pro-family people simply must quit playing defensive; you don't win by playing defensively, and if that's all you do, you usually lose in the end. Pro-family people need to get out in front of this issue and proactively defend against the usurpation of tradition, law and nature itself.

Earmarks: What are they and does South Dakota need some?

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: An earmark, as far as Congress is concerned, is a reserved amount of money for a specific purpose. The Associated Press, in cooperation with the national Managing Editors Association and various newspapers across the country, are participating in examining the latest batch of earmarks coming out of Washington to congressional constituencies. In spite of calls for reform, the study has found very little change in Capitol Hill behavior.

South Dakota, fortunately or unfortunately, has not had the opportunity to get a lot of them, but the ones we have received have been a boon for many of our communities and counties.

FEDERAL MONEY comes to the states, counties and cities in a variety of forms. Consequently, tracing all the routes is difficult. However, earmarks are usually direct grants from members of Congress to whomever or whatever.
Actually, earmarks are nothing more than another shelve in the pork barrel closet.

Are they all bad? Not hardly. But in a state like South Dakota such gifts from one or all three of our congess-persons are looked at with a jaundiced eye. We often think of ourselves as conservatives and too independent to not need help from anyone.

Still, there are numerous new fire stations, for example across the state that came to being through federal grants of one kind or another. The list is too long for this column to published, but it contains everything from hospital remodeling to bicycle paths. And while a lot of us call ourselves conservatives we haven't rejected any of these gifts from Washington that I know of.

TWO CONGRESSMEN come to mind as holding some kind of records for pork barreling, or securing earmarks for their districts. They were Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill of Massachusetts. One cannot drive through West Virginia without seeing a number of buildings, bridges, etc., named in Byrd's honor as a result. O'Neill's quest for funds for his state is nothing short of staggering.

South Dakota hasn't been left out of this loop, but the amount of such funds coming here pale to those of such congressmen. However, it seems our people we send to Congress are a little more conservative in this regard than many South Dakotans want them to be.

I particularly recall from 10 years or so ago the call went out for four-lane highways be constructed from Pierre to I-90, Mitchell to Huron and from Aberdeen to the Summit corner on I-29. The squabble sounded like little kids hollering "Me first."

AT THE TIME, then Cong. John Thune walked into a buzz saw in Aberdeen. Three hundred people wanted to know why he didn't include the cost of turning Highway 12 into four lanes between Aberdeen and I-29 at Summit.

As I recall, it seemed that instead he helped designate the $60 million in the House version of the highway spending bill to building the four-laners between Pierre and I-90 and between Mitchell and Huron. The squabble was so ridiculous they even accused Thune of favoring the Pierre to I-90 four-laner because it was close to his hometown of Murdo, (Some 20 miles west of the I-90 intersection) and his second hometown of Pierre.

Thune reasoned the SD Dept. of Transportation set the priority list for these larger roads and the Aberdeen to Summit proposal was third. The priorities were set in order of cost and the Highway 12 project was the most costly by far. The Aberdeen folks didn¹t like that very well. About that time Senator Daschle stepped into the picture and guess what. More money was found for that project.

ONE COULD CALL that pork barreling or earmarking. To me that doesn't make much difference. It was a classic example of power politics.

There's no question that four-laners are safer than two-laners. And while they are safer, they are at least double the price for construction as well as maintenance. Yes. Maintenance. And how does one squeeze more funding to keep up. Perhaps that is what our Governor Mike Rounds is talking about when he is trying to get more dollars into the state's highway fund through the ethanol tax. Both that and the gasoline tax goes into that fund to help build and maintain our highway system.

While the Legislature said, "No" to his proposal of slicing that tax between the various levels of ethanol (No new taxes!) by slicing the existing ethanol tax he may be able to get a few more bucks into that fund and in my way of thinking that isn't a bad idea either.

I sure would like to be a little mouse in the corner when Rounds and the legislative leaders meet over this ethanol tax thing....

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

New Homosexual Caucus Formed in Congress

You have to hand it to homosexuals and their apologists: they really know how to mobilize and get things done. They really make a lot of pro-family folks look like a bunch of lazy, timid amateurs.

OneNewsNow reports the homosexual agenda has received even more open and bold support in Congress.

Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are the only open homosexuals serving in Congress. They have joined with Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and 50 other Democrats to create the House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says it is a sad day when Congress enshrines official promotion of sexual immorality.

For a constituency who only make up 2.9% of the population, they sure carry a lot of clout. Perhaps unlike Christians, they understand the old adage: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Given the pathetic congress we have and the poor choice of presidential candidates, people who claim to believe the Bible either don't really believe what they claim to, or they're too scared someone might call them names to speak up like the homosexual lobby does.

The article lists the members of the LGBT Caucus: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-VT), Howard Berman (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Robert Brady (D-PA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Phil Hare (D-IL), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Doris Matsui (D-CA), James Moran (D-VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-Washington, D.C.), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), José Serrano (D-NY), Chris Shays (R-CT), Pete Stark (D-CA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Develop Oil Reserves Now

On Dakota Voice and other blogs and news sites, on Fox News and MSNBC I have noticed that when the subject of drilling for American oil comes up the Leftist spokesmen respond that the benefits of drilling at home will be too little too late.

As a recent example, Bill Dennison, responded to a Dakota Voice post “Half of US Oil is Off Limits to Drilling” by claiming the US oil reserves are not enough to make any difference.

"If U.S. oil reserves (Alaska, Bakken, offshore and everywhere on U.S. territory) total an optimistic 150 Billion recoverable barrels that would replace our imports -- only our IMPORTS -- for approximately thirty five years. Then what?"

Thirty-five years!? Only IMPORTS? That, Bill, is exactly what we want to replace. Besides,I don’t believe that is all the oil there is, but if so, I’ll take it! That would give America the time to defeat terrorism, develop yet additional petroleum reserves, build nuclear power plants and advance alternative technologies. If not greater energy independence what is our alternative? Continue to pay the price demanded by our enemies in the Middle East so that they will have the wealth to continue to wage Jihad against the West?

Notice that the Democrats and Leftists do not bring up environmental concerns in their arguments against developing known oil reserves. They know that Americans dealing with 4 and 5 dollar per gallon gasoline and rising prices on groceries and most everything else are a little inpatient with enviro-whackos constantly whining and getting in the way of needed energy and development policies. Americans of all political persuasions are realizing that we cannot be held hostage to unfriendly countries, paying whatever they demand, and maintain our sovereignty and way of life. That is why it is so important for Republicans to seize this issue now and become the party of American strength and independence. (Unfortunately, John McCain is not the man to lead such a movement.)

But we can readily see which party in Congress is on the right side of the issue. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

BY THE ISSUE

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

CORRECTION: This post has been edited to remove a reference to another website that was erroneously mentioned and had nothing to do with persons named in this piece. My apologies to all, especially to loyal readers of Dakota Voice.

Video: U.S. Senate Candidate Joel Dykstra on South Dakota's Voice

South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra speaking at the Pennington County Lincoln Day Dinner speaking about maximizing South Dakota's voice in the U.S. Senate.

Blame Congress for Fuel Costs

In a post last week I pointed out that "Big Oil" has little to do with the high cost of gas at the pump, netting only about 9.4% profit on their investment overall, or approximately 37 cents out of the $4 per gallon many of us are now paying.

The Wall Steet Journal addressed the situation in a piece yesterday that should be required reading as we approach elections this November.

Blame Congress for High Oil Prices

Gasoline prices are through the roof and Americans are angry. Someone must be to blame and the obvious villain is 'Big Oil' with its alleged ability to gouge consumers and achieve unconscionable, 'windfall' profits. Congress is in a vile mood, and has dragged oil industry executives before its committees for show trials, issuing predictable threats of punishment, e.g. a 'windfall profits tax.'

But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.