South Dakota Among Lowest Gas Prices in Nation

According to Black Hills Fox and GasBuddy.com, South Dakota has some of the lowest gas prices in the nation.

I know! It's hard to fathom, isn't it? South Dakota gas prices are normally among the highest you'll see in the middle of the country, with Rapid City higher than almost any in the state.

The article says only Casper, Cheyenne and Gillette in Wyoming have lower prices than Rapid City.

Well, when I went GasBuddy this morning, I didn't quite as good a picture as Black Hills Fox did, but South Dakota was still in the better half for the nation. And Pennington County was indeed the lowest in the state of South Dakota. That alone is amazing.

Now, if our leaders would quit pandering to environmental extremists and get serious about a healthy energy policy for the United States, we could be assured of continued reasonable energy prices!

Rome is Burning – And We’re Having a National Fiddling Convention

BY PAUL E. SCATES

While politicians of both parties are fiddling away, mostly in squabbles about who has the most power, the issues that affect the daily lives of all Americans are being ignored. And if politicians aren’t yammering on endlessly about them, then to the distinguished members of the Fourth Estate don’t recognize those issues as newsworthy.

In my life I’ve heard people ask about how the ordinary German people could have simply stood by quietly while Hitler ascended to power, how the Russians allowed the Bolsheviks to seize control of the government, or how the Jews in Europe meekly acquiesced to the horrors of the Nazi-imposed holocaust, et al. In fifty years or so, people will be asking the same question about the demise of the United States as a world power, or even as a nation. So we need not ask ‘Why?’ or ‘How?’ others succumbed to their fates so meekly; all we have to do is examine what’s happening today in our own nation.

For example, how about our dependency on foreign oil? Oh, sure, the gasoline prices are down right now, so that issue is no longer important, even though we were paying over $4 a gallon just weeks ago. Even though OPEC has and plans to again cut production to bolster oil prices. The Iraqi oil minister just proclaimed that $80 a barrel (which equates to around $3 a gallon for gasoline) is a “reasonable” price. (No good deed goes unpunished.)

Our own politicians – you know, those who so unctuously pledge to “serve” their constituents’ interests – have steadfastly refused to harvest the oil we have in our own country in order to give us time to develop practical and affordable alternatives to the oil that gives our enemies such power over us. No, it’s not a long-term solution, but neither is paying over $700 billion a year to those who hate us, while leaving our own oil – estimated to be several times more than Saudi reserves – untouched. If you think oil-per-barrel prices won’t again skyrocket, sending gasoline to $4 or $5 dollars a gallon (or more), you’re hopelessly ignorant of world politics. Our politicians are not supposed to be that ignorant, yet they insist on maintaining our status as helpless prey to socialist wackos (Chavez in Venezuela) and filthy rich oil sheiks who support Islamic terrorists with the money we pay them.

How about debt? If any one of us owed money in the proportion that our nation owes, we would have long-since been bankrupt, penniless and homeless. The second-most powerful nation in history (the USSR) no longer exists, yet it wasn’t defeated militarily. It collapsed economically (in no small part due to the arms race with the U.S.). We owe more money to China that any of us could calculate, and more to Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing nations, yet our politicians tell us that the “crisis” of the financial industry (and the auto industry, and whoever else decides they ‘need’ a bailout) requires us to allocate them money that we have to borrow! Try that in your own finances and see how long you keep the wolves from the door…yet our nation can do it indefinitely?

Now we have a president who is much a socialist as Hugo Chavez, who apparently hates this country that provided him such amazing opportunities, and who will oversee a Democrat-controlled administration for at least four years. Do you think we’ll begin drilling our own oil (which, by the way, would provide a huge economic benefit in equipment sales, thousands of jobs, etc.)? When the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans increased our debt, do you think Obama and the Democrats, who are known for tax-and-spend and never met a government program that costs billions they didn’t like, will reduce it? No, even though we’re at a critical point in our history, facing the real threat of economic collapse and dependence on nations that hate us, it won’t happen. Why?

Because you and I allow our politicians to so cavalierly ignore these and other critical issues, while they busy themselves with who gets what party post, or who gets the most pork for their district.

I feel like I’m watching one of those nature shows on Discovery channel, where the slowest wildebeast in the herd is systematically cut off and surrounded by lions, then brought down and eaten, even while it’s still alive and aware of what’s happening. Our politicians are the cameramen; they see what’s happening, but they have other priorities, so the animal is savagely killed and eaten. Do you honestly think that the Saudis and other Middle Eastern nations care about what fate befalls us? Or China? Come to think of it, do you think any of our politicians, of either party, honestly care? Their arrogance and persistent non-action prove otherwise.

But then…so does our own unwillingness to demand that our representatives support our Constitution and act in the best interests of this nation. Don’t ask how Hitler or the Bolsheviks took power, or how the Jews so meekly succumbed to their fate. We’re showing exactly how it happened. Fiddle music, anyone?

Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.

Not Just Audio but Video of Obama: Your Electricity Rate Would Skyrocket

Over the weekend we heard an audio recording of Barack Obama talking about bankrupting the coal industry--that powers about half of our electricity needs--and casually admitting that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his radical plan.

Now we have him on video (below) saying it.

"Free" healthcare and skyrocketing electricity rates. Good deal for you socialist-minded folks, huh? (Hint: "free" healthcare isn't free--you pay for it with your taxes).

Barack Obama: Same Old Socialist Snake Oil

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Description of the video:

In January, 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle: "When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

Obama Would Bankrupt Coal Industry, but Palin Not Buying It

Barack Obama may be ready and willing to bankrupt our coal industry based on some fantasy of "clean" power systems that don't exist and won't exist for decades, but Sarah Palin is apparently still living in the land of reality (see video below).

The incredible arrogance of these liberals like Obama is stunning! And all for some idiotic fantasy of man-made global catastrophe that isn't rooted in science, obviously is more likely a natural phenomenon, and doesn't even pass the smell test.

Here is what Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Obama Declares War on Coal, Electricity

Barack Obama says he wants to see the coal industry go bankrupt. I'm sure our friends at the coal mines in Wyoming, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Indiana all welcome this news.

In fact, most Americans should be thrilled about getting back to the quieter life, since about half of our energy comes from coal.

Think of it, without electricity, we get to bed earlier at night so we get more sleep. Also, without TV we'll have fewer distractions and might actually read a good book--who knows...folks might read an American history book and actually discover that we were never intended to be a big-government socialist country. They'll probably have to read it by candle light, but hey: at least we got rid of the coal.

A lot of good could actually come from Obama's socialist, radical environmental extremist government.

Common Sense Energy Thinking

Let's have some common sense energy solutions. One thing is guaranteed: you're not going to get any from the Democrats.

Elli Schwiesow on South Dakota Energy

As the election draws near, Dakota Voice is featuring a series of articles from an interview with Independent South Dakota Legislative District 32 Senate candidate Elli Schwiesow.

Schwiesow, a life-long Republican, is running as an Independent against Republican Stan Adelstein and Democrat incumbent senator Tom Katus.

Schwiesow ran against incumbent senator Stan Adelstein in the primary in 2006 and defeated him. Rather than support his party's nominee, Adelstein then spent considerable money and energy helping Democrat Katus elected.

This year, when Adelstein announced he would be running against the man he supported in 2006, Schwiesow chose to wait until the general election to run as an Independent rather than spend large amount of money it would require to defeat the wealthy Adelstein.

With Schwiesow running as an Independent, her views on the issues are worth investigating. So far, we have examined her views on taxes, Second Amendment rights, and universal preschool. This week we look at energy policy.

"The Elk Point refinery proposal is a gift to South Dakota," Schwiesow told me. "One of the reasons we often hear for the high cost of fuel in South Dakota is transportation costs."

Schwiesow said she doesn't believe environmental concerns will prove a major obstacle for the proposed refinery at Elk Point, South Dakota. Hyperion, she says, has stated they want to build a "green" refinery that is as clean as possible, and she believes any ground water concerns will be thoroughly investigated and addressed before any development begins.

Schwiesow believes in an "all the above" approach to solving the country's and South Dakota's energy needs. She believes we should pursue all feasible sources of energy.

"Wind farms are a great idea and I understand that there are investors willing to foot the expense to establish these farms," said Schwiesow. "But I think those investors would want to be assured that the infrastructure, the power grid, can handle the capacity generated."

She acknowledges that there will likely be a role for the South Dakota legislature to play in making wind farms in South Dakota a reality. Schwiesow said South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Gary Hanson has stated the state's power grid needs to be improved before we can make the most of wind energy in South Dakota.

"To get wind farms off the ground, the legislature may need to look at some subsidies to get things off the ground, said Schwiesow. "But there is a lot of support for wind energy in the state. Some homes being built now are actually being constructed with windmills to help offset normal electrical usage. A recent poll found that 51% of people believed the government should support wind energy, which was the highest support for any alternative energy source."

Next time, Schwiesow talks about Native American issues.

Dykstra Talks About His Energy Plans for U.S. Senate

Folks, we need this kind of proactive vision for America's energy needs. We don't need more of the passive, deal-with-it-tomorrow approach we've seen from too many in congress. And we definitely don't need more pandering to environmental extremists.

South Dakota needs to send Joel Dykstra to Washington to work with Senator John Thune--and not against him as Senator Tim Johnson often does--to secure America's energy needs.

New Wind Farm Dedicated in McPherson County

This is from KXMB CBS out of Bismark on a wind farm dedication. The farm borders North and South Dakota, in McPherson County, South Dakota. There are 120 turbines. Transmission capability kept the farm from being bigger

Dems Concede, Will Allow Offshore Drilling Ban to Expire

Fox News reports the Democrats are giving up and allowing a ban on offshore drilling to expire.

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

It's not a done-deal yet, but it looks pretty good.

If Republicans would grow and maintain a spine, and fight like this more often, we might have some success at turning back some of the liberal rot that's held this great nation captive for more than 50 years.

Maybe Republicans will learn something from this...

Obama Biden: For Coal Except When Against It

Good question asked at the end of the video here: Ready to pander? Ready to lead?

Dykstra, Lien to Attend Elk Point GOP Event

The Sioux City Journal says Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra and Republican U.S. House candidate Chris Lien will participate in a Union County Republican Party Meet the Candidate event tomorrow night.

Since Union County is the location of the proposed Hyperion refinery, this could be interesting.

Both Dykstra and Lien support the proposed refinery which, if built, would be the first new refinery in the United States in 30 years.

Our refining capacity has remained relatively stagnant over the past three decades. Permitting hurdles and environmental lawsuits have discouraged new development and stymied those who have tried. While refining efficiency has increased, we have built no new refineries and have closed about 170. Meanwhile, demand has gone way up

For too long U.S. energy policy has been held captive by politicians beholden to environmental extremists. Democrats in the South Dakota congressional delegation have a mixed record of voting for new energy infrastructure sometimes and voting against it at other, providing what they believe is political cover for their lack of leadership on this issue.

South Dakota voters can give the United States what it needs: two new leaders in congress who understand America's energy needs and are bold enough to address the need head-on.

South Dakota Republicans should challenge national GOP ethanol plank

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: Lately, the ethanol industry has been more targeted than treasured. It pretty well weathered the storm about how it was the cause of just about everything bad, that is until the national Republican convention in St. Paul. That is when the GOP platform included the plank eliminating the ethanol mandates. That was a very serious strategic error on the part of the national GOP. South Dakota's Republican leadership has so far been timorous in defending these mandates that have helped develop one of our state's major industries.

IS FLIP­FLOP THE NAME of the game for the national GOP when it comes to supporting the development of one of South Dakota's major industries, the manufacture of ethanol? It was just four years ago when the Republicans met at their national convention to nominate a president and to list the various planks in its campaign platform. The one plank called for "efforts to expand the use of biodiesel and ethanol, which can reduce America's dependence on foreign oil while increasing revenues to farmers."

The apparent flip-flop came a couple of weeks ago when the Republicans met again, this time in St. Paul. Of course, the big news was the nominations for John McCain for president and Sarah Palin as vice president, but hidden down deep in their platform was the plank putting to an end the ethanol mandates. This includes the federal subsidies it has been receiving as well as the 2007 mandate to require the production of biofuels to a total of 36 billion gallons to be blended into gasoline by 2022.

IN READING ABOUT the obvious change in attitude by the national Republican caucus one could feel that Texas Governor Rick Perry may be getting his way after all with the ethanol industry. Last April he wrote the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking it to suspend the nation's renewable fuel standard which was expanded by Congress.

Thank goodness, the EPA last month denied Perry's request. It responded, the mandate "remains an important tool in our ongoing efforts to reduce America's green house gas emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil."

Now, with the latest plank in the national Republican platform, one cannot be sure what the stand is or will be in the Washington politick. But, at the present time, it looks like the national Republicans have done a flip-flop in their support of the ethanol industry.

While I said the South Dakota leadership appears to have been weak in its attempts to remove the plank, our Senator John Thune did say his party, "got it wrong on this issue..." and he didn't see how this year's ethanol plank of cutting the mandate fits with reducing the country's dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

ACCORDING TO THE Associated Press, Thune said, "That is a huge mistake. If we keep doing what we're doing, we¹re going to keep getting what we're getting, and right now we're 70 percent dependent on foreign oil."

We certainly can't argue his point, but we do wonder who was listening?

Obviously it wasn't too many people at the convention or they wouldn't have shied away from the plank of four years ago when they praised the importance of biofuels and ethanol development.

Of course, on the national scene, the GOP is listening to others. Ethanol has been the scapegoat for consumer outrage about the increased food prices.

But in reality, the real causes, as we have mentioned before, have been the world drought, a weak dollar, oil prices and, perhaps the worst culprit of all, commodity market speculation. These have affected food prices many times more than has ethanol and biofuel production.

HOWEVER, THESE reasons haven't always cooked with the coalitions. For example, earlier this year the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America joined several groups in a public relations plan to oppose ethanol for what it said was the increasing food costs. These groups included various cattlemen's associations, hunger prevention organizations and environmentalists. While they were wrong, they were still successful.

If there is any countering to the attack on ethanol, a Harvard professor recently said that platforms in many cases reflect the party's interests, but the documents are not followed or paid attention to by party regulars.

We are not sure this is a cure all for one of South Dakota¹s greatest industries. South Dakota Republicans, especially its leadership, should send a much stronger objection to their national organization because the future of ethanol could be put into question by what has taken place in St. Paul.....


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.

Dykstra Hits Senator Johnson on Energy Policy

Most of us are tired of paying about $4.00 a gallon for gasoline--especially since our government has sat on it's collective hands for 30 years or more and done nothing to move energy policy forward.

We haven't built a new refinery in over 30 years, and huge areas of promising geography remains off-limits to drilling. Environmental extremists have been coddled at the expense of the average American--and our nation's energy security.

Energy policy was a key area where Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dkystra hit Democrat Senator Tim Johnson at a Business and Professional Women's Meet the Candidates forum in Sioux Falls. Johnson was not present, but sent his finance director Melanie Hunhoff.

From the Argus Leader:

Dykstra says since the 1970s, Congress has refused to come to grips with the nation's need for more domestically produced energy.

"It's fine to get in action when we have a crisis. But real leadership is to look ahead and avoid the crisis," he said.

In the short term, Dykstra said the U.S. should develop oil reserves in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve and off the continental coasts as well as oil shale reserves in Colorado and Wyoming. Johnson, he says, has voted against those measures "as late as this May."

Too many politicians in Washington try to put themselves on both sides of an issue, not fixing problems but at the same time trying to insulate themselves from accountability to the voters back home.

We need to put out to pasture politicians who like to play games. In their stead, we need leaders who will aggressively address America's problems--including our energy needs--and show some leadership in the right direction.

Republicans Continue Energy Push

Republicans are continuing to push to bring America's energy policy into the 21st Century.

You may recall that a month ago when U.S. House Democrats left town--and left Americans with $4.00 a gallon gas--House Republican stayed around in Washington and rallied on the House floor, demanding action on America's pathetic energy policy.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned off the CSPAN cameras and tried to turn off the lights, but the Republican revolt has continued. House Republicans continue to put pressure on the Democrat leadership for action.

Connie Hair's Human Events piece today pulls back the curtain on the Democrats and their allies in the environmental extremist movement. Everyone knows the Dems are beholden to the wackos in the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and other environmental extremist groups. Dems don't listen to you when you complain about $4.00 a gallon gas, but they listen to the Sierra Club:

In the 2006 March/April issue of Sierra Magazine, Executive Director Carl
Pope is quoted as saying, “We’re better off without cheap gas.”

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) also points out the hypocrisy of the Sierra Club lobbyists:

"...when the Sierra Club members come to lobby me they are driving a car that got oil from the ground somewhere. Now if we live on the fragile island planet that Nancy Pelosi and the Sierra Club are trying to say we live on, what’s the difference between drilling here and drilling in Saudi Arabia? America has the highest environmental standards in the world… wouldn’t they want to fuel their cars with American EPA standardized gas?”

Indeed. If environmental extremists were really concerned about our fragile, product-of-random-chance planet, they'd want more drilling in the U.S. than in countries where environmental standards are much more lax.



Rep. Steve King (R-IA) exposes the deception behind the "Oh, it'll take 10 years to get oil out of ANWR) smokescreen:

"From the time that Congress cleared the litigation, in 35 months they had oil running from the pipeline ready to load on tankers at Valdez. And that’s after having drilled the wells, set up the collection tubes, built the terminal at Dead Horse, mile post zero at the head of the Alaska pipeline on that end, built 854 miles of pipeline down to Valdez where they built another terminal where they could load tankers and 600 miles of right of way [roads] that I was signed up on to build. All of that happened in 35 months.”

Hair also points out that ANWR is about 70 miles from the existing pipeline.

It's time to let the environmental extremists know we're not going to pander to them anymore.

It's also time to let Democrats (and weak-kneed Republicans) know we're not going to indulge their dereliction anymore, either.

A good time to let them know would be November 4, 2008.

Now Environmentalists Stop Border Control

Environmental extremism is standing in the way of more than just America's energy needs.

From CNS News:

Interior officials have not accepted a proposed finding in an environmental assessment produced for the U.S. Border Patrol that putting towers with radar, cameras and communications equipment on Interior Department lands would have no significant impact, said Mike Friel, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

It seems the environmental extremist-ridden Interior Department is worried over the impact the fence will have on the "fragile desert lands." (Reminds me of the tears shed over the barren wasteland otherwise known as ANWR)

It's high time we woke up to the fact that we can't afford to coddle and appease environmental extremists anymore. No energy source is ever good enough and no product of modern life is ever safe enough.

While there are probably a few sincere rank-and-file environmentalists, the modern environmentalist movement has turned into nothing more than an anti-American opponent of law, order, prosperity and progress.

Off Limits

Let's do it now!

Argus: Johnson Absence at Debates Coming to Forefront

The "mainstream" media is starting to acknowledge that Senator Tim Johnson's decision not to attend any debates against Republican challenger Joel Dykstra this campaign season is becoming a very important issue with the voters.

Today the Argus Leader ran an article titled "No debating: Issue Comes to campaign's forefront" which said

"The bottom line is politics is a persuasive business. The demonstration of one's ability to be persuasive is right at the core of effective politics," said John Pohlman, vice president of creative services for the Sioux Falls advertising firm Lawrence & Schiller.

Ads and endorsements are not the sole currency of a campaign. That's why it's important for Johnson to personally connect with voters and dispel doubts about whether he can continue to serve, Pohlman said.

And

Rod Woodruff, founder of the Buffalo Chip Campground in Sturgis and a Belle Fourche lawyer, said it's a tough topic among people he talks with West River.

"The truth of the matter is, everybody sympathizes with Senator Johnson and with his physical condition. Everybody wants to tiptoe around that condition, and they don't want to seem callous and insensitive to it," he said. "But the bottom line is people have got to wonder."

Johnson's decision not to debate may have actually helped Dykstra's exposure:

In doing so, the Johnson campaign attempted to limit his opponent's ability to draw public attention, Dykstra said.

"But I think we've gotten that anyway," he said. "A lot more people have talked to me. They are looking at our Web site. They are researching my positions. There are more editorials, more appearances of my name in print over the last week, and I don't see any evidence of it going away. It clearly has become the issue of the campaign."

The Argus had this video on their website featuring Dykstra and Johnson sharing their ideas on energy.

Unhealthy Wind Farms

According to this piece from Newhouse News Service, wind power may not be the harmless source of power we had hoped it would be.

The piece says "wind turbine syndrome," a term coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, NY, can result in all sorts of problems for people who live too near wind farms.

Pierpont's findings suggest that low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines can have an effect on the inner ear, triggering headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems.

Concerns also are coming out of Europe about low-frequency noise from newly built wind turbines. For example, British physician Amanda Harry, in a February 2007 article titled "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health," wrote of 39 people, including residents of New Zealand and Australia, who suffered from the sounds emitted by wind turbines.

Remember, too, that Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy, a very "green" senator, opposes one of these icky wind farms popping up near the scenic Nantucket Sound. Clean energy is great...but not when it messes up the pristine horizon near a powerful liberal senator's home.

It looks like there's nothing we can do to create power without some kind of tradeoff, except maybe kill off all human beings and leave the earth in the "pristine" conditions some environmental extremists claim would be for the best.

The funny thing is, they're never around when the call goes out for suicide volunteers.

Maybe the wise thing to do would be to recognize that God gave us dominion over the earth to use responsibly, not to put on a shelf and keep in pristine condition. Perhaps this would result in a policy of effective but responsible energy development.

Poll: 67 Percent of South Dakotans Support Drilling

Harris Interactive recently conducted a poll of 500 registered and likely South Dakota voters on whether they support increased access to oil and natural gas.

According to the poll, 67% supported greater access while only 17% opposed.

The poll also found that 99% of South Dakotans were concerned about the price of gas, with 82% very concerned.

It's time congress quit playing games--and playing footsie with environmental extremists--and set about the business of crafting an energy policy for the Unites States fit for the 21st Century.

We need to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, drill more offshore, build more nuclear power plants, and build more refineries like the one proposed by Hyperion at Elk Point, South Dakota.

Liberals love to protest that it would take several years to exploit any or all of these options, and that is true.

But if we had started 10 or more years ago when conservatives were pushing and liberals began whining that it would take years, we'd already have that energy now. We can't waste any more time listening to people who like to snivel but have no solutions.

Perhaps Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can afford to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, but it hurts people like me.

*Note the healthy, happy wildlife around existing oil operations in Alaska featured in this video.