YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. Senate takes up ANWR debate

As oil prices continue to soar the debate over opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration intensifies.

Lawmakers debated the American Energy Production Act on the U.S. Senate floor Monday.

The legislation would allow exploration on the coastal plain of the refuge.   

It also encourages nuclear energy, oil shale exploration and coal-to-liquids technology.   

Democrats continue to oppose the ANWR measure but Sen. Lisa Murkowski told her fellow senators it would help the country transition to alternative energy.

"If we don't take these steps we'll continue to be in this exact same position, being held hostage by the world's oil cartel for decades until we have new alternative technologies," she said.

Still, at least one lawmaker thinks opening ANWR is not the answer.

"Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would result, when it's fully implemented 10 or 20 years from now, in one penny per gallon savings," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington.

Democrats are also pushing a measure that would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies that have seen profits soar with high oil prices.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Senate is set to consider competing energy packages on Monday or Tuesday, including a Republican proposal that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Republican and Democratic leaders recently unveiled separate energy packages designed to show voters Congress is serious about tackling high gasoline prices at the pump. Analysts, however, have given both proposals the thumbs down for containing little that's actually likely to be signed into law.

Republicans – including Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski – are pushing a plan to boost domestic production off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in Alaska.

Murkowski, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said she believes oil companies should be allowed to drill for oil along the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and that it can be done in an environmentally sound way.

Republicans claim opening new areas to drilling offshore and in Alaska would produce an additional 24 billion barrels of oil, or enough to satisfy U.S. consumption for five years, which could help knock as much as $63 off the price of a barrel of oil.

The price of West Texas Intermediate light sweet crude oil closed Friday at a record $125.96 a barrel.

"Opening ANWR would allow us produce more here at home, help wean us off foreign oil and provide capital and tax revenue to invest in alternative energy projects" said Aaron Saunders, spokesman for Stevens.

The GOP package includes a number of measures that have failed to pass muster in the past – even some Republicans acknowledge the package is not likely to get out of the starting gate.

The ANWR proposal faces stiff opposition from Democrats and their environmental allies, but Stevens and Murkowski insist it will provide a shot in the arm to the sluggish economy and provide additional domestic oil supplies in the future.

"Opening ANWR is part of a long-term approach to dealing with an energy crisis that is apparent every time consumers fill up their gas tanks or pay their home heating bills," Saunders said. "Americans are simply tired of paying astronomical energy prices because Congress would rather import oil than produce it domestically. It just doesn't make sense."

Allowing oil companies to tap ANWR would eventually add 1 million barrels of oil a day to the nation's supply, but environmentalists argue that new oil is at least 10 years away from reaching the market and will do little to ease energy prices in the near term.

"At some point Congress must change course and do what is best for America," Saunders said. "Yet attempt after attempt is blocked by one party. At some point, this opposition, which is based primarily on misinformation, has to end."

Democrats, meanwhile, introduced their own energy package last week to combat soaring gasoline prices. It focuses on reducing market speculation and reducing drilling incentives for major oil and gas companies.

Big Oil's loss would be renewable energy's gain as Democrats are proposing using revenue from repealing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry to invest in alternative forms of energy.

Members of both parties are expected to support a measure calling for a temporary halt to squirreling away crude oil in the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve while prices remain at record levels.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is expected to offer an amendment to flood insurance legislation that would suspend filling the reserve if the 90-day average price of crude oil remains above $75 a barrel.

Republicans have already offered a similar measure to stop placing oil in the reserve, however it's expected to face opposition from Democrats because it includes language opening ANWR. The flood insurance bill is expected to come up on the Senate floor as early as Monday night.

Both parties say taking oil off the market tightens supply and exacerbates already high gasoline prices.

The U.S. Department of Energy is putting about 70,000 barrels of oil a day in the reserve as a hedge against future supply disruptions. President George W. Bush has rebuffed calls to halt the program, saying the amount of oil being taken off the market is not enough to affect prices.

Democrats are also unlikely to win support for their broader energy package because of measures that Republicans and the Bush administration see as targeted to punish the oil and gas industry.

The Democrats' plan includes a repeal of $17 billion in tax incentives for oil and gas companies and smacks the biggest oil companies with a tax on windfall profits.

Democrats are not expected to have the votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster threat or a potential White House veto.

Lawmakers have two weeks to finish work before the start of the Memorial Day recess when they have to go home to face voters frustrated over skyrocketing prices at the pump.

Regular unleaded reached $3.92 a gallon at some stations around Fairbanks over the weekend.

The motorist advocacy group AAA expects the average price in the Lower 48 to reach the $4 a gallon as the summer driving season heats up, which only means higher prices around Fairbanks.

[Soldier4Christ]

Shielding Official Leakers     

There is something unique about what has come to be called the War on Terror. In this conflict, as the U.S. government struggles to defeat the enemy and keep our people safe, it is up against not only those who overtly and unambiguously seek to destroy us. It also confronts those prepared to reveal classified information and programs, even when that makes it harder to vanquish our foes and protect this country.

The latter fall into four principal categories:

• Some call themselves "journalists" who work for traditional news organizations, notably the New York Times. On occasion, they win Pulitzer Prizes for compromising the nation's secrets.

• Some are members of what has come to be called the "new media" or "alternative media." Most traditional journalists detest the idea their trade is practiced by people who find in outlets like online publications, the blogosphere, YouTube and FaceBook vehicles to disseminate information worldwide and instantaneously. But the reach of the Worldwide Web is, well, worldwide and so is the impact of its "journalists."

• Among those making use of these "New Age" tools are some who use the guise of journalism as a cover for our enemy's disinformation and propaganda. In fact, some of the most capable users of the Internet routinely engage in information warfare on behalf of Islamofascist terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and their state sponsors.

• Then there are the individuals who hold positions of trust in the federal government itself. They have been given access to secret data and capabilities on the promise not to reveal such knowledge without authorization. Yet, some choose to violate their oaths in the furtherance of divergent policy agendas. Of course, folks in this category are not journalists. They are called "sources."

It is imperative to consider these four categories as the U.S. Senate prepares to consider legislation with the unobjectionable-sounding name of the "Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA) of 2007." The bill, S. 2035, is better known as the "media shield" law. It would be more accurate to call it the "Leaker and Other Enemies Shield Act."

Freedom of the press is, of course, one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded. And those who dare criticize the media and its efforts to expand privileges it enjoys under the rubric of press freedoms — notably, officials responsible for prosecuting journalists' "confidential government sources" for illegally revealing classified information — generally are subjected to very bad notices.

It is a terrible idea — particularly in time of war — to provide "media shields" to anyone who can claim to be a journalist and to their lawbreaking government sources. Yet S.2035 would do precisely that.

The FFIA creates a highly problematic journalist's privilege. It would effectively prevent the federal government from compelling anyone "engaging in journalism" to give testimony or produce any document revealing that journalist's source, if the source gave the information under cover of confidentiality.

Were S.2035 to become law, investigators and prosecutors charged with bringing to justice sources who have engaged in criminal leaks would have to prove all of the following to the satisfaction of a federal judge:

(1) The government has first exhausted all other avenues besides the journalist to obtain a source's identity.

(2) There are reasonable grounds to believe a crime has taken place.

(3) The source's identity is "essential" to the investigation.

(4) The information disclosed was "properly classified" to begin with.

(5) The person who leaked the information had authorized access to it.

(6) The source's unauthorized disclosure "has caused or will cause significant, clear, and articulable harm to the national security."

(7) And nondisclosure of the source's identity would be contrary to the public interest when weighed against the other public interest in "gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information."

As a practical matter, as an array of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers responsible for keeping us safe and enforcing the law have warned the Senate, no source is going to be held accountable under this law. For example, Attorney General Michael Mukase and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell advised the Senate's leadership they would be hobbled by myriad Catch-22s inherent in the FFIA.

Consider two of these cited by the AG and DNI: How can a prosecutor show that a person who leaked information had authorized access to it (Requirement 5), without first knowing the identity of the source? How can a prosecutor show a leak "has caused or will cause significant, clear, and articulable harm to the national security" (Requirement 6), without first having to offer evidence to a judge that will reveal even more classified information?

By assuring "journalists" — the bill's definition is broad enough to cover all of the first three categories described above — they need not fear having to divulge the source of a leak, sources will feel even less compunction than they do today to break their promises and leak with impunity.

In short, the Free Flow of Information Act is not about freedom of the press. It is about freeing government officials of their legal responsibilities and enabling those who would do us all harm — whether intentionally or in the name of "the people's right to know."

The president's senior advisers have rightly indicated they will recommend his veto should this bill make it to his desk. Senators should ensure that the Leakers and Other Enemies Protection Act never gets there.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Cause-and-effect' behind high gas prices

Senator John Kyl says ethanol mandates as well as bad tax and regulatory policies are to blame for the exorbitant fuel prices hammering American families.

The American Automobile Association reports the price of gasoline has hit a nationwide record high and that many Americans are wondering what Congress is doing to bring the cost of energy down. On Friday, Senate Republicans held an energy forum that featured panelists from Shell Oil, the National Mining Association, and the Nuclear Energy Institute.
 
Speaking at the forum, Arizona Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona) said Congress has failed to appreciate the cause-and-effect relationship between too many actions.
 
"There is a cause-and-effect relationship between the ethanol mandates and the rising cost of food and fuel," stated the conservative lawmaker. "There is a definite cause-and-effect relationship between our tax policies, our regulatory policies, and our failure to control runaway litigation when it comes to the businesses that need to be present and able in the United States to supply what we need to supply to a nuclear-generation industry."
 
And according to the senator, another factor not usually associated with rising fuel costs has "a dramatic impact" on the cost of gasoline at the pump.
 
"

• ur U.S. dollar isn't worth very much these days compared to what it used to be and compared to other countries' currencies," Kyl said, "[and] as a result ... we have to use a lot more dollars to buy the same thing."

Last week the Senate passed a seven-month suspension of placing oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, yet defeated a Republican package that would have increased oil production by opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

[Soldier4Christ]

Naked truth: Court flays state strip-search of children
Social worker enters Christian school without cause, tells kids to remove clothing

Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.

In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.

Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, represented the parents of 8-year-old Ian and 9-year-old Alexis when they sued the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare and the caseworker.

"We are obviously pleased with the result, but candidly, we wish they had been more harsh on this renegade department that has ruined the lives of so many well-intentioned families already," he told WND.

Crampton said this type of overstep is common among social workers, and they often do not give it a second thought.

"The social worker performed these strip searches as a matter of routine, estimating that in perhaps one-half of the 300 or so cases she handled every year she subjected kids to a partial disrobing," he said. "In fact, she testified that she considered it so routine that she did not bother to discuss her intentions with her supervisor, even though she spoke to her on her way to the school."

The state had several social workers file affidavits saying they would have followed the same procedure. Crampton said, "That is an alarming admission, and we suspect you would find a similar pattern in social service offices all over America."

When Gresbach entered the school, she handed her business card to Principal Cheryl Reetz and told her she needed to see Ian and Alexis. Reetz asked the social worker if she could call the children's parents, but Gresbach refused to allow it, saying she would contact them at a later time. The principal then asked if she could remain in the room to observe the interview, but she was denied permission to do so.

According to court documents, state officials claimed they made efforts to speak with the parents and stepparents of the children, but the visits never occurred.

Crampton said the mindset of most social workers is that parents are the problem.

"They go to great lengths to lock parents out of the process, treating them as the enemy, and ultimately doing more harm than good by driving something of a wedge between the children and their parents," he said.

The social worker spent nearly 15 minutes alone in the room with each child. She searched Ian's wrists for bruising and asked him to pull up his shirt. He complied, and she examined his back for suspicious marks. Gresbach then privately inspected Alexis, asking her to pull down her tights and lift up her dress. The worker was unable to find any sign of injury on the children's bodies.

Gresbach's behavior is not a one-time incident uncommon among social workers. In Doe v. Carla Heck, the court addressed an eerily similar child abuse investigation where children's rights to freedom from unreasonable search were violated by the same state agency on the premises of another private educational facility.

"The problem almost always arises only in private schools," Crampton said. "Public schools, as agents of the government, routinely roll over and give social workers access to any student they wish to see, provide a room for them, and in short serve up our children on a platter, without bothering to contact parents," he said.

Gresbach claimed she was entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court disagreed.

"We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances – to do so would be imprudent," the court stated. "… we do not believe that requiring a child welfare caseworker to act in accordance with basic Fourth Amendment principles is an undue burden on the child welfare system, particularly when it is necessary to conduct an examination of a child's body, which is undoubtedly 'frightening, humiliating and intrusive' to the child."

Crampton said Christian families have the freedom to follow scriptures in administering corporal punishment and should not have their rights violated by power-hungry government officials.

"That social workers and bureaucrats don't like it is no reason to allow the trampling of the constitutional rights of parents and their children," he said. "It is the high privilege and high responsibility of parents to oversee the care, custody and education of their children, not the state."

[Soldier4Christ]

Court strikes down partial-birth abortion ban
Even though similar federal law has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

A federal appeals court has ruled that Virginia's ban on late-term abortions, approved by the General Assembly in 2003 over objections from then governor Mark R. Warner (D), is unconstitutional.

In a ruling issued this afternoon, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the procedures covered under Virginia's ban "imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion."

The ruling will likely reignite the abortion debate in Virginia.

Supporters of Virginia's ban say it would stop the practice of killing infants moments after they are prematurely delivered. But the 2003 Virginia law did not include a health exception. Warner objected, but the legislature overrode him.

The 4th Circuit, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation, initially struck down the Virginia law in 2005 because it lacked an exception to safeguard a woman's health.

But in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on some types of late-term abortions. The Supreme Court then sent the Virginia case back to the 4th Circuit for further reconsideration. Arguments were heard in November.

In today's 2 to 1 ruling, the appellate court noted there are differences between the federal ban and Virginia's law as it relates to the types of procedures that are prohibited.

The Richmond-based Family Foundation, which fought for the Virginia ban, said in a statement it hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will now reverse today's 4th Circuit ruling.

[Soldier4Christ]

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.

The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation.

"This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who sponsored the legislation.

The lawmaker said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline, which this week hit a record average of $3.79 a gallon.

The White House opposes the bill, saying that targeting OPEC investment in the United States as a source for damage awards "would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners."

The administration said less oil going to refineries would limit available gasoline supplies and raise fuel prices.

Foreign investment in U.S. oil infrastructure has declined in the last decade. But the state-owned oil companies of several OPEC nations are owners of U.S. refineries, and those investments could be affected if the legislation becomes law, said Arlington, Virginia-based FBR Capital Markets Corp.

The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to carryout a study on the effects of prior oil company mergers on energy prices.

The Senate would still have to approve the House measure.

The Senate previously approved similar legislation as part of a broad energy bill. However, the OPEC-suing provision was removed after White House opposition in order to get the underlying energy legislation signed into law.

[Soldier4Christ]

OMB chief says Congress awaiting 'President Obama'
'It appears they believe they might have a better deal then'

The chief of the president's Office of Management and Budget says Congress appears to be awaiting "President Obama" for some budgeting decisions, hoping for a better result than they would get from President Bush.

Jim Nussle, head of the OMB, today was discussing the farm bill and a war supplemental appropriations plan at a White House press briefing.

Nussle was critical of Congress' performance, saying, "There are those who are suggesting we do need domestic spending – instead of accelerating the appropriations process for this coming year, instead it appears that Senate leaders, in particular, and even some in the House, are making the strategic decision to punt all of those appropriation bills until next year."

He continued, "So if the need is so urgent for spending, domestic spending, why not get your work done? Why not work on the appropriation bills instead of basically punting that until the middle of next year – which factually or technically they will be doing by waiting for what they believe is a Democrat president to make a better deal with?"

He said that suggests the issue is not about domestic spending, but is about "trying to hold the troops hostage in order to get a few pet projects."

Then he responded to the question: "What makes you think that they're punting until next year on the appropriation?"

"First of all, no appropriations bills are making it through the process. It appears through all of their announcements that they have made that – or many of the announcements that they have made that they believe that they might have a better deal with the next president. I assume they mean a President Obama. That being the case, they've decided instead to go for a continuing resolution strategy and wait for a better deal," he said.

He didn't correct the reference to "President Obama" or elaborate, so Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, then asked, "I believe I heard you mention the words 'President Obama.' Does this mean the Bush administration is contending there is no chance for a President Hillary?"

"You know, as soon as that word came out of my mouth I thought, I should have made sure I attributed that to Sen. [Harry] Reid. I believe Sen. Reid was suggesting that. I have no prediction on the Democratic primary," Nussle then clarified.

In two other questions, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino dodged answering about measures to address the energy situation in America.

Kinsolving first asked: "Scott Stanzel, during Monday's briefing, spoke of the need to expand oil exploration in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, which columnist Cal Thomas notes has an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But President Clinton vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And my question: Does the president believe that this veto compares to those claims of environmentalists that the Alaska pipeline would destroy the caribou?"

"I don't know – I'd have to consult Scott Stanzel on that," Perino said.

"Beg your pardon?"

"I was kidding. There's no room for humor," Perino said.

"There is room for humor. I'd be delighted to have humor," Kinsolving said.

"Not in this room. Look, our position on why we need to increase domestic exploration and production here in our own country is well known. It is critical if we are going to send a signal to the world market that we are serious about becoming more self-sufficient in our own country. And concerns about the caribou I believe have been taken into consideration, and that we have demonstrated that we have the technologies to be able to drill in a way that would protect the environment – not only the natural resources there, but also the caribou," Perino said.

Kinsolving also asked: "Reuters reports the House of Representatives voted 324-84 to have the Justice Department sue OPEC …"

"That's seems like a really large Congress," Perino said.

"…for limiting oil supplies and colluding on prices. And my question: Does the president believe the Senate will not follow the House in a similar veto-proof vote? And if not, why not?" Kinsolving finished.

"I don't know," Perino said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Federal court rules against military's 'gay' policy
Some believe decision could mean end of 'don't ask, don't tell'

The U.S. military cannot automatically discharge people because they are gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

Military policy
When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.

Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

The appeals court judges disagreed.

"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

End of 'don't ask, don't tell'
Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.

Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."

"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"

An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."

Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

[Soldier4Christ]

Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry
Maxine Waters warns Shell president in House committee hearing

In a grilling of oil executives by a House panel yesterday, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., threatened to nationalize the industry if it didn't do something about the rising prices at the pump.

A report by Fox News, captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com, showed Waters challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee the prices consumers pay will go down if the oil companies are allowed to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores.

Hofmeister replied: "I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down. And the $5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies."

Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …"

The congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts.

"Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …"

The oil executives responded, according to Fox News, by saying they've seen this before, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

__________________

It looks like the liberals are just exposing their objective of socialism instead of doing their part in solving the problem.

[Soldier4Christ]

Names of those opposing oil plan 'interesting'
'Certain United States senators from Illinois and New York' on list

The White House says it certainly is "interesting" to see the names of U.S. senators who opposed a plan to allow oil exploration and production in a tiny fragment of the massive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including the names of "certain" senators from Illinois and New York.

The comment came in response to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House. He asked:

"Senate Minority Leader [Mitch] McConnell, [R-Ky.] and 28 other Republican senators introduced the Domestic Energy Production Act to allow oil production in only eight percent of the entire ANWR area. And my question: Does the White House believe that the nation needs to know that among those senators who voted to defeat this bill, which could have cut the now huge cost of gasoline, were certain United States senators from Illinois and New York?"

"No; it's very interesting, though. Thanks for pointing it out," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today.

"The president realizes this, doesn't he?" continued Kinsolving.

"I don't know if he did a whip count," Perino said.

With gasoline costs for consumers skyrocketing in recent months to a level of around $4 a gallon now, McConnell's plan, the American Energy Production Act, S.2958, was added this week to the Flood Insurance Bill "as a solution to combat increases in oil prices and their effects on energy and commercial products," according to a report on the ANWR website. Opposing it were Democrat presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

McConnell said a previous highly touted "commonsense" plan from Democrats to lower gasoline prices had failed.

McConnell, instead of releasing oil from reserves, is calling for the opening of the outer continental shelf as well as the 10-02 Area of ANWR in Alaska, both of which are known to hold vast amounts of oil and gas reserves that right now are locked up by Congressional bans on exploration and production.

The ANWR report said, "decreasing supply when demand is going through the roof, McConnell argues, is a sure way to raise the price not lower it."

Theh report continued that McConnell noted that had then-President Clinton not vetoed successful ANWR legislation in 1995 the U.S. would be getting more than a million barrels of oil a day from the 10-02 area alone.

Also recommending action regarding the ANWR oil reserves are Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

The ANWR report said oil from that location "is predicted to increase American production by over one million barrels per day which at $100-plus per barrel prices is a tremendous savings to our national debt and boost to our economy."

The report continued, "This will be compounded by the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be created nationwide from production in the 10-02 and also the up to $280 billion in tax royalties the federal government would gain from production."

In another question, Kinsolving asked about the status of U.S. currency.

"After six years of legal effort, the American Council for the Blind has finally won a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that since all paper money, from $1s to $100s, are the same size, this discriminates against the blind. And my question: Since a federal judge noted that more than 100 other countries vary the size of their bills, does the White House believe we should as well?"

"That is something that the Treasury Department has been handling. They are named in the lawsuit, and they are taking it very seriously. And they'll be talking with the Justice Department, I'm sure, to determine their next steps, because I don't think – the litigation is not completed yet," said Perino.

That ruling affirmed a 2006 decision from a lower court, and observers speculate it could be the trigger to a redesign of U.S. currency.

The government had argued that even though the bills all are the same size, there are alternatives, such as using credit cards for using store clerks for help.

But the court opinion said the government failed to explain why changing the money would be an undue burden, noting the currency already has undergone changes in recent years, and adding raised marks or something to accommodate the blind would cost little.

[nChrist]

With gasoline costs for consumers skyrocketing in recent months to a level of around $4 a gallon now, McConnell's plan, the American Energy Production Act, S.2958, was added this week to the Flood Insurance Bill "as a solution to combat increases in oil prices and their effects on energy and commercial products," according to a report on the ANWR website. Opposing it were Democrat presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Things like this really don't surprise me any more. It's hard to imagine but true that many of our politicians are Anti-American and don't even pay good lip-service to our biggest problems. Instead, they simply want to create new problems with massive government programs that will most certainly fail and break the bank. Besides, we're anxious for our taxes to go up!

[HisDaughter]

Things like this really don't surprise me any more. It's hard to imagine but true that many of our politicians are Anti-American and don't even pay good lip-service to our biggest problems. Instead, they simply want to create new problems with massive government programs that will most certainly fail and break the bank. Besides, we're anxious for our taxes to go up!

I don't think there is a single one that really cares about anything unless it lines their pockets.  They're proving that they could give a plugged nickle about the people.

[nChrist]

I don't think there is a single one that really cares about anything unless it lines their pockets.  They're proving that they could give a plugged nickle about the people.

   Sister,

If they find out that you have a plugged nickel, they'll find a way to take it. Hide it, and we'll keep this a secret.

[Soldier4Christ]

FCC considers stealthy 'Fairness Doctrine'

An English-language advocate is encouraging citizens to sign a petition expressing opposition to proposed new regulations by the FCC that would amount to a backdoor Fairness Doctrine.     

In a 2007 report, an ultra-liberal think tank known as The Center for American Progress issued a report called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." Jim Boulet of English First says its agenda was to cleverly recast the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" by using the term "localism."
 
"In 2007, they issued a report in which they bragged that if they could get more women and minorities to own stations, there'd be fewer stations carrying programs like Rush Limbaugh. What the regulations also do is we create a board of censors, really, who the radio station would have to meet with four times a year to listen to all their complaints -- and if they weren't satisfied, the radio station could lose its license," Boulet points out.
 
Unfortunately, he says, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has bought into the agenda with its "Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaker."
 
"Because the American people know how diabolical the Fairness Doctrine is, those who want to re-impose it on the airwaves and shut down programs have found a backdoor way to do it with the so-called 'localism' doctrine," Boulet contends.
 
One of the proposed regulations would require racial and sexual quotas for station ownership, and another would require that all "licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards." Boulet says he knows what that will mean.
 
"These boards are going to be made up of people like the [Council on] American-Islamic Relations, The National Council of La Raza – all a bunch of professional grievance mongers who will never be satisfied until programs like Rush Limbaugh are no longer on the air," Boulet explains.
 
According to Boulet, the review process is expected to end on June 11, at which time the FCC will decide what to do. Should the proposals go into effect, he says Congress would need to pass a Resolution of Disapproval in both the House and the Senate to void the regulations. The website keeprushontheair.com carries a petition allowing individuals to let the FCC and elected officials know of their opposition to the localism doctrine.