Fuck them, too.

At least there's something our government can do reliably over a long period of time: dork us in our squeekhole, whether we want it or not.

"Like a rock."

I hope McCain has the stones to bring up the Democrats' obstructionism when he starts talking about why oil prices are so high and why we are forced to pay them.

If what Hatch says is true, we should be able to be 100% independent from foreign oil. Doesn't make the problem go away entirely (our trading partners will still be affected) but it stops it from killing our economy.

Bush's fault (TM).

I just sent an email to Salazar telling him I didn't want to ever hear how the democrats were for the poor or downtrodden. It's obvious democrats don't give a hoot about the busboy earning $5.00 an hour having to spend $5.00 a gallon for gas.

What a bunch of sick bastards.

generically speaking

jvon comments:

I hope McCain has the stones to bring up the Democrats' obstructionism when he starts talking about why oil prices are so high and why we are forced to pay them.

A visit to www.johnmccain.com didn't reassure me. Quite the opposite. Others' perceptions may differ, of course.

Unfortunately it makes no difference to the Washington establishment's lifestyle whether a gallon of gas costs twenty cents or twenty dollars.

I just double checked the Constitution. I don't see anything in it that says the federal government is given the power to regulate the development of resources inside any given state. Since any power not specifically given to the feds is reserved to the States or the People, I'd say the feds are clearly violating the Constitution. Too bad there isn't a state government with the balls to tell the Feds to bugger off.

IMNAL.

Ogre,

It is my understanding that most of the oil shale is on federal land, not private or state property, hence the ability of Congress to meddle.

Typically, when something like oil is in interstate commerce, the fed gets to regulate it even before it crosses the border. That isn't how I read my constitution, but it is how the Supreme Court, when under pressure from FDR's court packing plan, ruled.

No Blood For Oil or No Drilling For Oil?

I think there are choices to be made: secure the supply lines from the Middle East or use our own oil.

My guess? Salazar just got a promise from the Saudis.

As a Coloradan -- there are no words, none, to describe the vileness that is Ken Salazar or Bill Ritter.

Unfortunately, having been californicated, we have to endure these asses.

P.

Could set up a billboard on the major freeways in Colorado saying " When gas reached $4:00 a gallon which Senator said, "I just want to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay"?
KEN SALAZAR - Saudi Arabia's man in Washington.

I generally agree that if you don't confront the bastards, then they will feel free to do whatever they suppose best serves their interests. I also sent a message to Sen. Salazar. If we don't speak up, then we will be ignored.

I don't agree that "federal land" is owned by the federal government. It belongs to the people, and it's time for us to take it back, even if that means kicking most of the beltway politicians out of office. Any notion that some guys in Washington have priority concerning the disposition of federal land is obscene on the face of it. This is no time for nitpicking ideologies.

The discussion had to do with establishing state vs. Federal jurisdiction only--not with implying that any legislator has ownership over same.

If you want to get mad, consider the fact that drilling in ANWR has for the most part been prevented by legislators from the Northeast, most of whom have never even been to Alaska. (And if they have, they haven't been up to the area in question--in case you haven't noticed, Alaska is on the large size; not Texas-large. LARGE.)

I'm not surprized politicians want to go slow on new oil development, they are willing to wait decades for an alternative fuel. Where is Guy Fawkes when you need him?

the dems are not for the downtrodden and poor. they are for the radical environmentalists -- they would all have us drive rock cars from the flintstones. thats another reason we have this energy crisis.

joy terrific post.

The concept is very simple. Liberals vote large public expenditures for environmental projects. These monies are transfered to groups that then contribute large amounts and spend larger amounts to elect lefties. It's sort of like public financing, but only for one side and without any accountability.

Joy, great companion piece to the post I just put up. When the dhimmis start getting 1,000's of emails and faxes and the phone lines melt, maybe they'll get the mesage. Unfortunately, as long as Nancy Lugosi and Maxine (this liberal will socialize..er...um..take over the oil companies) Waters are in charge, don't expect any major changes.
BTW You're linked back to UCV. Good on ya, Lady!!!

Forget Guy Fawkes, where is Charlotte Corday (more specifically, Marie-Anne Charlotte Corday d'Armont)??? Pity more people don't know who she was. Pity more women don't honor one of their greatest heroes. Pity women let the Left to continually crap on her, ala Gore Vidal's comparison with Monica Lewinsky. Even when her head was separated from her body, she was able to show these louts the might of her righteous indignation.

No blood for oil. How about no more oil for food?

I think it's okay as long as it's olive oil--monosaturated fats are actually quite healthy.

How can you discuss massive oil shale development without once considering the carbon footprint of the new industry nor the impact on Colorado River Basin water that is already in long term deficit? The oil shale resource may be massive but is incredibilely dilute - much more so than the tar sands in Alberta and look at the environmental havoc their utilization is causing. Salazar is right!