Regarding off shore and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling, I say: Go ahead. The area of ANWR the companies want to drill has been compared to the size of a postage stamp on a football field or a single character on a full-page newspaper, relative to the wilderness preserve.

At the same time, we need to loosen restrictions and build more domestic refineries. When was the last time we had a catastrophic spill at one of them? Oil in transit, via ship and barge, is a greater risk for tragedy than those listed above. But that is not what the left wants us to hear or read.

I think an agreement could be worked out that fixes the price of oil from ANWR at, for example, $100/barrel for a determined number of years, while prohibiting oil companies from increasing exports from other domestic sources.

In 2006, people in our country were looking for solutions to high energy prices. Nancy Pelosi took over as House majority leader and stated that the Democratic Party had a "common-sense plan" of reducing energy costs by cracking dawn on price gouging, cutting tax deductions for Big Oil and providing taxpayer funding of alternative energy. So far, Congress has proposed that trial attorneys get the right to sue the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies and conducted public interrogations of U.S. oil executives.

For alternative fuels, Congress has mandated the use of ethanol. This has resulted in the quadrupling of corn prices and food shortages for the world's poor. Ethanol production has created an inordinate use of water, fertilizer and taxpayer funds. Congress also has decided taxpayer-subsidized wind power is an acceptable alternative energy source as long as it does not block people's ocean views.

Within our reach in the U.S., an estimated 112 billion barrels of oil and 656 trillion cubic feet of gas have been declared off limits. By keeping this energy off limits, one wonders if Congress is pro-OPEC and wants to maintain a high trade deficit.

With higher energy costs upon us, we are now getting the "common-sense plan" good and hard.

Reform is difficult

The one issue on which I come closest to agreeing with Sen. John McCain is immigration reform. It's a very complex issue. The way to keep Latino immigrants from wanting to cross our border in huge numbers would be if they had an economy that provided a living income for them. But since we alone can't create that, there are things we can do to bring some order to the problem. One of them is to permit them to cross legally to work, with rules that also spell out a way to become U.S. citizens.

But a June 29 article quoted McCain as saying immigration reform "will be my top priority" ("Obama, McCain reach out to Hispanic voters"). I realize he was speaking to a Hispanic audience and might have gotten carried away, but to make this his top priority speaks volumes about the kind of president he would be.

While immigration reform is an important matter, there are a few others most Americans would rank as more vital to the citizens of this country. One is making health care available to everyone, another is redeploying our troops now in Iraq and another is bringing some sanity to our economic policies. A man who sees immigration reform as his "top priority" is not the man we want as our president.

I couldn't sit by and not respond to the misguided musings of editorial columnist Patrick McIlheran about Democrats wanting America to lose the war in Iraq in his Oct. 10 Quick Hit.

One overriding truth that McIlheran and other pro-war people seem to not understand is that the Iraq war was lost the minute that the United States dropped the first bombs in Iraq March 19, 2003. It is a war based on the lies of a power- and oil-hungry administration. Iraq with a U.S. puppet government is not victory. Iraq with a permanent U.S. military presence is not victory.

The path of death and destruction is never victorious. McIlheran seems to forget that the insurgents and al-Qaida are not the only ones blowing up Iraq. What does he think is the outcome of countless U.S. bombing raids over four-plus years? It is thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded and homes and infrastructure destroyed.

A foreign policy based on the primacy of military force, of bombing a country to submission and calling it spreading democracy and freedom is true insanity. There is no victory in death, destruction,The american people need to stop this madness!

Until next time time, happy writings!

Hey Bloggers! this weeks rant!!!

It is unfortunate those who are so outspoken about the theory of global warming have little idea about what that theory demands. Such was the case with the Oct. 23 letter writers taking issue with the spot-on criticisms from columnist Cal Thomas.

The theory requires we believe humans are the cause of the current warming. What we fail to see is the scientific proof that human influences come anywhere close to eclipsing the Earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling. Nor do we see the scientific proof that humans are overwhelming the current increased output fluctuation of our sun, the likely cause of warming on three other planets and numerous planets' moons.

Rather than accept a theoretical belief system, a good place to start would be recognition of the so-called Little Ice Age that started in the 1300s and ended around 1800. We've been warming due to a cyclical change. Second, we should not succumb to projections based on comparisons to a peak in cooling that occurred a mere 30 years ago.

Third, we should not squelch opposition scientists. Finally, we should scrutinize the questionable methods, negotiated conclusions and politics of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is at stake is a potentially huge misallocation of resources

Don't just accept global warming theories, Accept the inevitable!

Until next time time, happy writing!

Hey Fellow Bloggers!! I'm Back, so for the long Hiatus! Lets get back to ranting!

U.S. needs to face pricing questions

While I appreciate the $2.68 per gallon cost of gas, it doesn't make sense. A barrel of crude oil went over $85, yet our price per gallon dropped ("Prices for oil hit $86 mark," Oct. 16). It wasn't long ago that I paid $3.39 per gallon and the price for a barrel of oil was around $60 to $65. In 1999, we paid a $1 per gallon, and the nation went nuts buying gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has been laughing ever since.

Why hasn't the price at the pump risen to record levels? Refineries, so they say, are at maximum capacity. We, as a nation, still consume billions of gas per day. SUVs are outselling hybrids 20 to 1. Winter is soon to arrive, and we will be consuming huge amounts of home heating oil.

Are we borrowing money from the countries that supply us with oil? Is that a good thing to keep gas prices down? There are a lot of questions that need answers.

Five years after 9-11, the al-Qaida network seems stronger, not weaker: On the heels of horrifying London attacks of last year, the organization has been able to conceive, plan and nearly execute a monumental attack intended to murder thousands of civilian travelers.

If the current strategy is working, as we are told, why has it not worked? Why is Osama bin Laden still at large, al-Qaida still so capable, Afghanistan spiraling out of control, Iraq descending into civil war and our country more divided at home and more hated and isolated abroad than ever before?

The apologists for the current policy say we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. This is another lie in the endless string.

In reality, the Iraq war has opened up another attractive target range and practice ground for al-Qaida, greatly enhancing its ability to recruit and train. Terrorists-in-training no longer have to travel very far for the opportunity to kill Americans. They need only slip into Iraq.

As a result of the criminal incompetence of the current administration, we now fight them both there and here. And under this administration, our chances look worse and worse.

That's my opinion but I'm sticking to it"

Daily, we read and hear about the unthinkable deeds of groups of "terrorists." We are finding it difficult to know exactly who these terrorists represent. Do all terrorists have the same goals, backgrounds and financial support? Do we know the underlying reasons these groups form?

We speak of our war on terrorism, but do we really know exactly whom to war against, the exact reasons for our going to war and where best to fight our war?

It would be important to know who supports, finances and joins the respective groups. We also should examine what motivates these people to grow to hate and kill innocent people as well as themselves.

Presently, our country is using our military to attempt to deal with the terrorist problem. Historically, this approach has seldom completely resolved world problems. It has always resulted in many deaths and great expenditures of money.

If we knew more about the complex reasons surrounding these acts of terrorism, we may be better able to address and solve some of the circumstances that have led to the creation of terrorist movements. This approach may be more effective and, more important, less costly in lives, suffering and money.

Just my thought  but i'm sticking to it"

I've been listening to the president's rehashing of the marriage amendment with some skepticism. He keeps insisting that marriage should be legally defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Historically, marriage was economic and familial, designed to create alliances and maintain family wealth. It was condoned by the church purely to reinforce existing societal concepts of familial power. Linguistically, the idea of a definition remaining static over time is ridiculous. The word "marriage" has already changed from a political concept to a religious one. Nothing says we cannot broaden the definition to include gay men and women.

By making this a religious issue, doesn't that make it a First Amendment issue? If our government is going to sanction a religious ceremony, don't we have a duty to rage against that as well? If we are really trying to avoid hypocrisy, shouldn't all marriages be redefined as civil unions, leaving it to churches to sanction unions as they choose?

The government has no business involving itself in religion. Conversely, if it backs away from the religious angle, this becomes purely a discrimination issue. And to write discrimination into the Constitution, after so many battles to have it removed - slavery, civil rights, woman's suffrage - strikes me as patently un-American.

It seems to me everyone has the right to happiness!

That is my opinion but ,I;m sticking to it!

On June 15, the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq officially hit 2,500. When asked for his take on it that day, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "It's a number."

Let's think about that for a minute and ask ourselves if this administration truly has any concept of what "war" really means in human terms. Remember President Bush telling the enemy to "bring it on" three years ago? I think we have our answer.

I'm reminded of something Lt. General Gregory Newbold stated in Time magazine recently: "The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

When will this administration be held accountable for what it has done?

That is my opinion! but I'm sticking to it!

Maybe officials should create gun buying list

Perhaps now is an appropriate time for Democrats and those concerned with gun violence to revisit the idea of establishing a registry for gun purchases.

If the government and Republicans can justify a database of phone numbers in their attempt to protect us from terrorists, certainly people collecting arsenals of weapons should be monitored as well. Does the possibility not exist that they, too, are terrorists?

It would be interesting to see the reaction of congressional candidates seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association during this election cycle on such a gun registry being legislated. It could be just the litmus test for those who are cynical about this administration's scaling back of civil liberties in the wake of the "war on terror."

I equally have my concerns and doubts with this administration's ability to coordinate phone records to reveal patterns that might point to terrorism. They held a memo in their hands that clearly read, "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States," and they had no idea what to do with that information. Following up on such memos seems to be a more productive, less intrusive way of keeping us safe.

That's just my rant" but I'm sticking to it"

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed the retired generals who are speaking out about the invented war in Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction that never materialized and the initial and ongoing gross miscalculation of the number of troops truly needed to have a real "mission accomplished." In turn, President Bush supports this political dinosaur, once again standing fast.

Perhaps it's time for the American people to dismiss this administration.

That's my opinion" But I'm sticking to it" 

Where was George W. Bush's mind when he placed a hand on the Bible during his inauguration and swore to protect and defend the Constitution? It makes one wonder if he didn't hear "protect and defend only those parts I believe in."

Case in point: this whole leak scandal ("Bush admits allowing release of report," April 11). While it's true the president can declassify such documents as he sees fit, this was nothing more than propaganda, the same words of mass distraction he tried on the rest of the world as an excuse for his Iraq war.

What concerns me most is leaking a covert CIA operative's identity to the press just to get back at her husband. Maybe Dubya needs to go back to Yale so he can get a clue. This isn't grade school. You don't violate national security and risk the lives of our field agents just to get even.

And now folks rip on Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) for demanding that we the people hold the president accountable for his actions. How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in the war on terror?

A better question is the same one Clint Eastwood once asked: Do you feel lucky? Because if the administration has its way, there may not be much left to protect or defend.

That's my opinion" But I'm sticking to it"

Gregory Stanford's assertion in his March 19 column that "Al Gore, or just about any other president of either party, would likely have dealt al-Qaida a fatal blow and captured Osama bin Laden dead or alive with the help of America's friends around the world. . . . Likely, too, such an administration would have better heeded prior warnings about the attack" was patently absurd.

Gore served as the vice president for eight years in an administration that essentially and carelessly ignored repeated red flags signaling the upcoming terrorist storm - i.e., the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the Riyadh barracks bombing, an attack on a harbored U.S. warship, etc.

The failure of President Bush's foreign policy circus in Iraq is self-indicting. It is, however, more than a little disconcerting to have allegedly responsible journalists such as Stanford, and countless others like him, selectively recall and distort facts to support their viewpoints.

If Stanford dropped his vendetta and picked up one of the many international affairs journals, such as Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs or The Economist, his columns would refreshingly include a component they noticeably lack: credibility

That is my opinion" But I"m sticking to it"

DEATH PENALTY

How do we respond in today's violent world?

Why the big debate over a non-binding referendum to let the voters' opinion be heard regarding a reinstitution of the death penalty? This should be a simple issue to approve rather than be used as a platform to initiate political posturing.

In reviewing the debate, I wonder if politicians think voters are all non-thinking, uneducated, oblivious dolts, unaware of the sad state of affairs the world is in.

I find it suspicious that James Rowen went into remarkable detail regarding the process of execution, indicating that we are all involved in administration of the death penalty This would seem to be an attempt to sway people to vote no on a referendum.

The large majority of people are never exposed to often extremely violent and horrific details of the crimes for which the death penalty should be applied. The media, utilizing self-censorship, have for the most part insulated us from the so-called gory details.

We all have become much more aware of how humans apply violence to other humans in the post-9-11 world. Certainly one must agree that there are crimes committed that absolutely demand the death penalty.

The increases in violent crime and senseless deaths due to crime demand that, at the least, the law-abiding public render an opinion.

That is my thought" but I'm sticking to it"

Nothing could be more disappointing than the cowering response of so many Democrats to Sen. Russ Feingold's proposed resolution of censure against President Bush. When the Wisconsin senator said the president should be censured for overriding the authority of the American people by illegal internal spying, he was making a reasonable point. Americans should be awakened to this usurpation of presidential power.

It's part of the role of Congress to provide those checks and balances so necessary to our republic. Feingold's action is a conservative action in that it is aimed at protecting our Constitution.

Shame on my fellow Democrats, including Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), for running for cover. Shame, too, on so many Republican senators who deep in their hearts must know that their president too often is acting as if he is governed by the divine right of kings.

Perhaps the Democrats fear that Bush adviser Karl Rove will unleash his mean-machine on them in the November elections, but there are times when senators should rise above politics to take a reasonable look at threats to our democracy.

That's my view and I'm sticking to it