What do oil companies want? 

Let’s assume they would like major control of any future energy plan, just as they have now with oil and gas. 

These oil companies realize that Americans are finally ready to accept that things must change, that new energy sources must be found.  In 20 years, I’m betting oil will no longer be the major energy source in America and across the world, that’s just plain logical.

So, what do the oil companies want?  They want to be a big part of anything ‘new’, of course.  They, like any other company, want to stay in business.

What would happen if Congress and a President were to write up a bill offering exclusive rights to the new ‘process’, that can provide a new energy source, to anyone that can save Americans 20% across the board, within 5 years, for their energy needs?

Let’s say for example, Mobile comes up with a car that can run on grass for the same price of a gas eating car today.  Mobile would be given exclusive rights to all grass making industries.

That is just an example folks; but hopefully you get my drift.  Give these oil companies and any others a huge incentive for finding a new energy source, within a certain amount of time (like Pres Kennedy’s plan for going to the moon) and they must make it cheap enough for the average guy/gal on the street to buy.

This new energy source doesn’t have to cover every oil/gas eating device.  Say for example, somebody finds something that semi’s can use instead of diesel fuel.  Or someone finds a way to convert all homes from gas to electric in a relatively cheap way.  Just imagine the drop in the use of oil/gas that would happen if someone could invent just one of those items.

At the same time this bill is written to offer special incentives, Congress should also create a special oversight committee, such as the FEC or U.S. Postal Service’s Board of Governors, that oil companies must appear before, to ask for any rate increases. 

It’s time to have oil become a necessity in life that must be regulated, just as our water, electricity, electronic communications and postal services are.  It's no longer just a luxury.

Perhaps the next President should be really bold and say that there will be a certain percentage of cuts, across the board in spending, and that the money instead, will be put into a fund for researching new energy sources only.

We need bold new ideas.  Just as we need universal health care, we need a new energy sources as well.  Other than our two Wars, these two issues are the most pressing needs of our nation.  They must be solved and solved immediately.

BREAKING NEWS:

Pelosi says House Judiciary may hold hearings on Kucinich impeachment resolution

According to Politico.com today Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Kucinich is expected to offer a "privileged resolution" this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Pelosi has  said previously that impeachment "was off the table," so her comments this morning were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush…..

This is very interesting news.  Either Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have finally decided to get it on record that they actually ‘considered’ impeaching President George W. Bush or they just want to make it ‘appear’ that they are ‘considering it’ for political reasons.

Millions of Americans feel this administration crossed the line in many ways.  To get their support in this fall’s election, the Democrats must at least ‘appear’ to think the same way.

It would be a complete ‘shock’ to everyone’s system, to actually hear that the committee decided to take up the articles of impeachment against President Bush and send them to the floor for a vote; but I’m also betting there would be thousands in the streets of downtown America (if not across the world) celebrating such a move.

Just a quick message to Senator Barack Obama. 

Sir, you need to come visit your home State soon or risk losing it just like Gore lost his home state in 2000.

Governor Blagojevich isn't very well liked in Illinois these days so he's not going to be much help to you here.

I suggest you take at least one day and travel by train or bus from Chicago down thru the state.  Folks need to know you are PROUD of your home State and care about their opinions too.

Today's poll by Rasmussen showing only a 11pt difference between you and Senator McCain is NOT good sir!

As ET would say it, OB PHONE HOME!

Perhaps visiting the main Universities across the state would help?

I’m curious as to what voters might think about Senator Barack Obama selecting Senator Russ Feingold as his Vice Presidential nominee?

I’ve done a little research on the man and there are some rather interesting points to point out about him.

Yes, he’s a liberal for the most part; but he has conservative views too, like the budget, pork barrel spending, campaign reform, wanting English to be the official langauge and he fights for our Constitutional rights every day.

Russ is considered the ‘maverick’ of the Democratic Party, just as Senator McCain is considered to be in the Republican Party.

He’s from Wisconsin, he’s Jewish and his grandparents are immigrants from Russia.  He’s a Rhodes Scholar.

During Feingold’s last election, 2004, he won counties in Wisconsin that supported George W. Bush for President.

Did you know he was awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award?  He also cosponsored the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Take Note: He cosponsored with Senator John McCain on the “McCain-Feingold Act).  He was also the only Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act.

On August 17, 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. senator of either party to suggest a firm date for American withdrawal from the Iraq war.

Feingold looked into running for President but in the end decided against it, partly because of his divorce.  In his parting comments however, he warned his supporters against supporting anyone for the presidency who voted for the Iraq War, whether they later regretted it or not, saying his first choice for president in 2008 was someone who voted against the war, and his second choice is someone who wasn't in Congress but spoke out against the war at the time. 

On February 22nd 2008, he stated that he voted for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election.

Feingold's primary legislative focus has been on campaign finance reform, fair trade, policies, health care reform, conservation and environmental protection, a multilateral foreign policy, Social Security, civil liberties and wasteful spending.

Feingold was the only Democratic senator to vote against a motion to dismiss Congress's 1998–1999 impeachment case of President Bill Clinton.

Feingold is also a well-known advocate for reductions in pork barrel spending and corporate welfare.  Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord Coalition, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, three nonpartisan organizations dedicated to those causes, have repeatedly commended him.

In 2006, Feingold introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure President Bush. This was a result of allegations of illegal wiretapping.  Just today, Feingold tried his best to stop the FISA bill from being passed.  Feingold again called for Bush's censure in July 2007 for his management of the Iraq war.

Feingold has been supportive of a universal health care plan since he first ran for Senator of Wisconsin.

For more information please google his name.

Senator Feingold, like John McCain once was, is known for not always standing with his Party on every issue.  He’s a good speaker and debater.

If Senator Obama were to introduce Feingold as his VP nominee, it would ‘shock’ the political pundits and even the Republican Party.  If, as the media claims, Senator Obama is moving to the center politically, by having Senator Feingold at his side, he’s keeping the Democratic base very happy.

Opinions?

Please go watch this video of McCain talking about Surrendering and White Flags.

It just occurred to me what Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq, President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain and the Republican Party may be up to with al-Maliki’s sudden demand for a withdraw date of American troops from his country.

Yesterday, Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, ‘suggested’ that it was time to start setting time-lines.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates.

This sudden demand comes before Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and may be a political strategy for the Prime Minister’s campaign to be reelected.  It also comes during Senator John McCain and the Republican Party’s fight to keep control of the White House in November.

Both parties benefit having their voters ‘thinking’ that the war in Iraq is about to come to an end.  Having the news media reporting that there are negotiations going on, discussing a ‘possible’ withdraw date from Iraq just before Election Day, can only benefit those currently in power or are hoping to be.

The Iraqi people will think that the Americans will finally be leaving soon.  Americans will think that our troops will be coming home soon. 

The Republican Party and Senator John McCain will say, “The Surge worked – we have a Victory in Iraq.”

A word of warning to my fellow Americans.  These negotiations do not have to be solved by Election Day in November.  The two governments have until the end of the year to settle.  In other words, don’t get your hopes up too soon.  This arguing back and forth about a ‘possible’ withdraw date -- could just be a political ploy. 

We’ve been ‘lied’ to before, remember.

I have a word of warning for the Democratic Party and Senator Barack Obama.  The Republican Party most likely has big plans for a large troop withdraw announcement right after the Republican Convention in early September.

What better way is there to get the Iraq war off the table politically, but to promise troops are coming home before Thanksgiving or Christmas?

What better way is there to bring Senator John McCain’s support for a troop surge in 2007, that to all appearances, seems to have worked, to the forefront of the news, ignoring of course, the fact that the real reason for the surge has ‘yet’ to be solved.

I have a suggestion for Barack Obama.  He should begin immediately the day after the Republican Convention demanding to know why our ‘surge’ troops are still in Iraq.

He should point out that if the President, Senator McCain and the Republican Party are correct in their assumption that the surge worked and if the Pentagon reports are correct that violence is down by 90% and if the Iraqi government is demanding a withdraw date from our government -- why are American troops still there?

Barack Obama should get 'his' foot in that door before it's too late.

In a rebuff to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Pentagon said Monday that any timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground there.

Maliki told Arab ambassadors on Monday he was pressing for such a timetable in negotiations with Washington on an agreement on the status of US forces in Iraq beyond 2008…

Maliki's comments to Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates marked the first time he has specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as saying.

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.

Remember President George W. Bush’s answer to a question by the media in May of 2007, about Iraq asking us to leave, whether or not we would abide by their request? 

Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Q -- catastrophic, as you've said over and over again?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope that they would recognize that the results would be catastrophic. This is a sovereign nation, Martha. We are there at their request. And hopefully the Iraqi government would be wise enough to recognize that without coalition troops, the U.S. troops, that they would endanger their very existence. And it's why we work very closely with them, to make sure that the realities are such that they wouldn't make that request -- but if they were to make the request, we wouldn't be there.

Will the media and political pundits go after Senator John McCain and demand to know what ‘he’ will do as President if the Iraqi’s ask us to leave?  Will he accept a timeline for withdraw (which he calls “raising a white flag of surrender”) from the Iraqi government?  Or will he make threats if they insist on us leaving? 

This is not a minor problem for John McCain - it's a major one.  He calls withdrawing the same thing as surrender.  How will he convince the Iraqi's to allow us to stay?  Or will he play his negotiation cards, "You WILL let us stay or else......"?
 

Baghdad car bomb kills six, wounds 14

Seven killed in Iraq bombing

Militants shot dead two off-duty policemen

Iraqi special forces kill one militant, detained eight others

37 armed militants arrested, 24 bombs defused in Baghdad

Gunmen assassinate Shiite official in Iraq

Roadside bomb wounds Iraqi Islamic Party official

Two bodies found in Baghdad, one found in Mahaweel on Friday

Roadside bomb wounds policeman in central Baghdad

In April there were 52 American’s killed
In May there were 19 American’s killed
In June there were 29 American’s killed
A total of 4114 American’s have been killed since the war in Iraq began.

Could somebody please tell me exactly what it means when we hear the media and our government saying that violence is down in Iraq?

While I’ll agree that the amount of American’s killed has dropped since April; It’s also increased since May.

In 2007 we had 117 American’s killed in Afghanistan.  So far this year, in less than 5 months, we’ve had 67 American’s killed.  There have been 542 killed since the war there began.

I’m afraid we didn’t learn from other’s history there in the Middle East.

A refresher course:

The Iran-Iraq War was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988.

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 Sept 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran's Islamic revolution.

Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years Iran was on the offensive. Despite several calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.

 
Here’s a bit of history for you on the Soviet and Afghanistan war.
 

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted 9 years.  Initially Soviet deployment of the Army in Afghanistan began on August 7, 1978. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the interminable and inconclusive nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviet equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.

Do you get the picture I’m sending you?

Either we decide to 'stay' in Iraq and Afghanistan 'forever' or we consider our successes as a victory and pull out while we can.

We've killed or captured thousands of terrorists and al qaeda.  We put them into a situation where they must completely rebuild to continue.
 
We've given Iraq time to rebuild their nation and government, along with a fighting machine of their own.  Same goes for Afghanistan.

It's time to pull out now, while we can still consider our mission accomplished.