Category: Guest Authors

Ed Rendell Media Mogul Has Problem

Ed Rendell Media Mogul Has Problem

By Chris Freind

Famed political strategist James Carville once referred to Pennsylvania as two major cities with Alabama in between. What an insult to Alabama.

The folks in the nation’s fifth-largest state – all of them – are the backwards ones, the sad result of refusing to hold their leaders accountable for broken campaign promises and abject failures. All the while, their neighboring states – AKA “the competition” – continue to make gains at Pennsylvania’s expense.

Ohio and West Virginia are successfully courting natural
gas and oil companies, which are beginning to exit Pennsylvania.
Indiana is thriving after enacting comprehensive statewide school choice
and becoming a Right To Work state, where compulsory unionism is no
required as a condition of employment.

New Jersey (yes, Jersey!)
can woo companies across the river because of faith that a real leader,
Chris Christie, is righting the ship. Everyone else on the planet can
buy liquor easier and cheaper than Pennsylvanians. And corruption, both
criminal and institutionalized, remains rampant, killing optimism and
trampling the hope that you can beat City Hall.

From Ed Rendell
to Tom Corbett (is there a difference?), a lack of leadership has left
Pennsylvania on the precipice, its citizens staring into the abyss of
permanent mediocrity, paralyzed by fear to take the risks necessary to
forge ahead. Such a malaise is anathema to employers looking for
economic stability, a less hostile atmosphere and a better educational
system.

While that lack of leadership is inexcusable, there is
another, even more important factor as to why the state finds itself in
such a precarious situation: a media that has sold its soul, forsaking
its most basic mission of holding everyone accountable, with a “no
sacred cows” approach. For far too long, stories that needed to be told
were relegated to the dustbin. And unsavory politicians and business
leaders counted on that. Without an aggressive press, it was, and
remains, the Wild West where bad guys operate with impunity.

There is no better example of the media’s fall from grace than that of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Once a paper of national significance that took a bulldog approach to
its reporting, it has since become a shell of its former self, an
also-ran full of AP feeds and local fluff stories of virtually no
interest.

The Inky really jumped the tracks  when it was “led”
by Brian Tierney, who, along with investors, paid over half a billion
for the paper (and the Daily News) in 2006.

Mired in debt,
Tierney did the unthinkable – he approached then-Gov. Rendell for a
taxpayer-funded bailout to keep the papers afloat in 2009, a story that
Freindly Fire broke ( http://freindlyfirezone.com/home/item/43-possible-inquirer-bailout-draws-ire
) and was picked up by the Wall Street Journal in its harshly-worded
editorial “Bad News In Philadelphia – The Worst Bailout Idea So Far:
Newspapers.”

WSJ Link

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353263226537457.html

Predictably,
Rendell was ready and willing to lend that helping hand. But as
negative fallout for the bailout plan grew, the deal fell apart and the
papers filed for bankruptcy.

Despite what common sense
unquestionably tells us – that a taxpayer-funded newspaper would in fact
be an “adjunct of the state,” as the WSJ so adroitly described it – the
players in that ill-fated bailout attempt saw nothing wrong with their
actions.

Thankfully, Tierney is out of the picture, having lost
the papers to an investor group who held much of the original debt. But
incomprehensibly, the situation has come full circle. Now the current
owners want out, and it has been reported that none other than Ed
Rendell has been approached to put together an investor group to
possibly buy the papers.

Really? Ed Rendell? How is that even remotely possible?

Where
is the journalistic integrity in working with the very man who stood
cocked, ready to unleash millions in taxpayer funds to bail out an
“independent” media entity? It’s no secret that it has become
increasingly difficult for papers to make a profit in the age of The New
Media, but having Rendell as your “Go-To” man underscores just how
desperate the situation has become.

Taking marching orders from elected officials destroys the very essence of being a journalist and jeopardizes the unique constitutional protections afforded to media members. Sure, Ed Rendell is a private citizen now, but his mentality – how he sees the role of the government working hand-in-hand with the media – has undoubtedly not changed.

The last thing the region
needs is an investor group led by political insiders and
ideologically-supercharged individuals with aggressive personal agendas.
As painful as it would be for the thousands of hard-working folks at
the those newspapers, it would be better for the entire entity to close
its doors than be associated with folks who may, at any given time, make
a pitch for public financing.

And while past performance is not indicative of future results, it’s a damn good bet.

Better
to have no paper at all than one that prostrates itself at the feet of
the very people it purports to objectively cover. And since the
Philadelphia newspapers have been anything but a watchdog over the last
six years, churning out less than a handful of quality investigations,
the bad guys would see virtually no difference, since they’re not
exactly sweating investigative reporters knocking on their doors.

But the behavior of the Inquirer’s
ownership should come as no surprise, given that it recently accepted a
$2.9 million loan from the City of Philadelphia to assist the company
move to a new headquarters. Yes, the same city, the same Mayor and the
same City Council that the newspapers are supposed to be objectively
covering. Is nothing scared anymore?

Where The Media Went Wrong

The
sad reality is that The Fourth Estate has abdicated its sacred
responsibility of keeping American institutions honest and true. No
longer respected as the entity which holds feet to the fire and follows
investigations wherever they may lead, the American media has instead
become part and parcel of the Establishment. Too many journalists play
the “go-along, get-along” game – some because it’s easy, others because
they want to be liked, still others who are afraid they will lose
“access” if they ask the tough questions.

These people have
forgotten that their profession does not lend itself to having
“friends,” since nothing and no one should ever be off the table. The
result of these close alliances is blatant conflicts of interest, both
personal and professional. Once that line is crossed, it is nearly
impossible to return.

No medium is immune from this malady. Those
in television, radio, newspaper and internet are all complicit. As an
entity, the media has fallen down on its most basic journalistic
responsibilities, losing its integrity, and ultimately its credibility,
along the way.

Consequently, the public’s view of the media is at
an historic low. And while complaints abound that the media is biased,
which to a certain extent it is, this is but a symptom of a much greater
illness. A slant towards liberalism or conservatism is wrong, to be
sure, but inherent laziness and, by extension, incompetence, are the
first problems that must be rectified. Competence and vision will trump
bias every time.

Resurrecting the media’s image is a Herculean
task. And when the free press reaches the point where it is no longer
believed, it stands on the edge of becoming completely irrelevant.

Whether
it is nauseating nonstop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral
procession or feel-good fluff stories in our nation’s pre-eminent
newspapers, the lack of hard-hitting investigative reporting and
aggressive interviews with top national and international leaders is
appalling. Producers and editors are constantly looking over their
shoulders at the competition, choosing to push out content to be like
“every other station,” passing on golden opportunities to be different,
to be journalists – to be leaders.

These people spend more time trying to keep their jobs than actually doing them.

There
is a certain irony here. If media executives produced the quality work
that the American people expect, their ratings would skyrocket, and
advertisers would pay a premium. The biggest myth being propagated about
the bankruptcy of media companies is that they are victims of the
economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They are victims of their own ineptitude.

Americans
still have an unquenchable thirst for the news, but they are
increasingly tuning out the mainstream media because the content is
utterly lacking of substance.

The solution is simple – it’s just
not easy. Nothing and no one should be off the table. Not politicians,
government officials, businessmen, media personalities, sports stars,
nor celebrities. With no agenda except the truth, the media should
pursue stories with no boundaries and no restrictions.

Americans
don’t gravitate to question marks, but exclamation points. It’s time to
put the exclamation point back in the American press, not through new
technologies and gimmicks, but by pursuing the only thing that matters:
the truth.

As the voice in the classic baseball movie Field Of
Dreams commanded, “Build it and they will come.” In the same way, if the
media gets off its duff and starts producing content worthy of the
world’s best press, readers and viewers will come – in unprecedented
numbers.

Unfortunately, if Ed Rendell takes over Philadelphia’s newspapers, the ballpark will be empty before the new game even begins.

 

Ed Rendell Media Mogul Has Problem

Seeing is Believing

The Roar

Seeing is Believing

I sadly mentioned, “never say never” and “seeing is believing” in my last submission.  These cautious phrases, from an article that was a bit presupposing, became regrettably pertinent to the ruling in the recent Obama ballot hearing in Georgia.

With this stunning decision, we all should take a step back and consider its magnitude.  Just how, in light of the evidence submitted, did Judge Mahili arrive at such a unprecedented conclusion.  His finding placed a recent State court decision over a Supreme Court ruling which has stood for well over 135 years.  This conclusion was so distant from the rule of law that it appears to be more of a case of judicial banditry rather than judicial deliberation based upon the defense of our nation’s Constitutional law.

Who can ignore the arrogance and Obama’s intent to deceive when entering a political contest in which he had to realize that he could not pass its constitutional requirements?  How does one gain the support from a major political party when it must be assumed that along with the aspiring candidate, others too were fully aware of the candidate’s shortcomings?  How to proceed? Why would this endeavor take place, when in fact that same political party had a popular and experienced alternative with immeasurable voter appeal?

That was approximately four years ago.  Now, the “whys” not only continue but take on a completely different shade of meanings.  We are compounding this obvious violation as if this monumental slip never took place.  Instead of saying, “oops, we made a mistake which we will rectify,” pro Obama forces seem arrogant with their continuation of such a basic and easily verified Constitutional violation.  Their position conveys a “so what” stance.

Combating our pre Civil War history, by proving that we are indeed free of such lingering sentiments, the democrat party wedged this appeal into our public subconscious and rode the ensuing emotional wave to victory.  Obama’s appeal seemed both personal and historical.

Only one problem.  Their creation became a hungry tiger which they tried to hold by its tail.   While the stratagem bore the expected election results, the subject threw off his reins for a head turning fevered pace.  This impatience out distanced the gradualist policies of his promoters.  Looking back to day one, this seems to be the probable case.

Today, after years of virtually never ending claims of an illegal Presidency, the requirement of being a “natural born citizen” has finally overtaken the bluster and fury from the birth certificate debate.  Comparing the two, it becomes evident that the birth issue was a stalling tactic which diverted much attention and weakened the public zeal for any conclusion with Obama’s birth qualifications.  Now, seemingly out of the blue, comes the issue of meeting the Constitutional requirements of being a “natural born citizen.”  Aside from its validity, the public now has a notion that it also will fail.  Also, the puzzling absence of Trump stirs futility.

Now consider just how patently easy the answer is to this question.  Even the absurd admission from Obama himself, that his father was not a citizen, is now ignored by this latest judicial injustice.  In its place, Judge Mahili cites a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals ruling which incorrectly redefined the term “natural born citizen” to be children born within in the U.S.  This is insane since the Constitution explicitly differentiates between citizen and “natural born citizen” through its stipulation of “natural born.”

Judge Mahili is just the latest to emerge into the light of day while supporting this illegal Presidency.  At this late stage, it seems that the decision to support and defend Obama’s re-election bid has been made.  As such, any and all measures are now on the table.  This is not necessarily the manner in which this ongoing American transition was meant to take place but once this stallion was foolishly unbridled, the party had no other choice than to ride it to the end

Faced with an impatient President who very well may have America’s decline on his “things to do” list, what stands between his conquest and our freedom’s future may well rest upon those who place country over self, truth over promises.  The truth is that the constitution requires that presidential candidates must be “natural born citizens.”  This has been upheld and defined by our Supreme Court in 1875.  It is unbelievable that Obama first entered into this charade but more so, now that this issue has come out of the shadows, his audacity is something more than just a normal ambition.   It reflects upon  lawless actions!

One Presidential ballot in the sovereign State of Georgia may lead the charge for Constitutional integrity.  And its banner is truth and peace through a lawful remedy.  Sign me up.

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours

Don’t Rule Out Chris Christie Just Yet

Don’t Rule Out Chris Christie Just Yet

By Chris Freind

About the only job better than weatherman –
where you can get it wrong half the time and still remain employed – is
political pundit. These guys make an art out of looking dumb, and doing
so with authority.

In the last few years alone, we have been told
that Obama had zero chance of beating Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney was
sure to be the GOP nominee in 2008, and now, the President can’t win
re-election because Romney will beat him. That last prediction, of
course, is predicated upon Romney winning the Republican nomination,
which the pundit brain trust is now telling us is a done deal after
Mitt’s victory in Florida.

But just as it wasn’t over when the
Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, as Blutarsky taught us in ‘Animal House,’
this race is far from over.

And the most comedic part is that the
“experts” don’t even know it. If they just took a walk outside their
ivory towers, they would discover that there are still many elections –
not coronations – yet to come, and that Newt Gingrich hasn’t been
vanquished.

This is not to say that Romney won’t end up the
winner. In fact, that’s a good bet since he has money and organization
advantages over Gingrich. But to say it’s all but over is simply
foolish.

Cutting through the pundits’ white noise, it is worth
looking at where the race really stands. Never before have there been
three different winners in the first three contests, so that alone
should be a caution sign for traditional predictions. Mitt Romney has
won two of the four contests, including the winner-take-all state of
Florida, and yet the total number of delegates awarded so far amounts to
just 5 percent.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, for various reasons,
cannot win the nomination, but they can and will garner delegates, as
many states award delegates on a proportional basis based on popular
vote.

Without question, Gingrich will be in the hunt for the long
haul. Following a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire,
after which the “experts” wrote him off for good, he roared back to a
thundering victory in South Carolina. In all likelihood, he will win a
number of states on Super Tuesday, and in the contests that he doesn’t,
will post strong second-place finishes.

(There is another reason
for Gingrich to stay in the race: the possibility that Romney will say
or do something that would catastrophically implode his candidacy. Mitt
came close this week when he said “I’m not concerned about the very poor
…You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus.” Such blunders
run in the family, as his father, former Michigan Gov. George, crushed
his quite viable presidential aspirations by stating he was
“brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War. The game was over the
very instant he uttered that word.)

Short of a Romney implosion,
Gingrich won’t win the nomination outright, but the impact of his
candidacy could be substantially greater: he may deny Romney the prize.
If the three “challengers” to Romney can keep Mitt from attaining that
“50 percent plus one” number, it’s a whole new ballgame.

And while such a scenario was unthinkable to many pundits just a few weeks ago, it is becoming increasingly plausible.

An
often overlooked but extremely important factor in determining the
nominee is that many of the states have different legal rules concerning
their delegates. A handful of states, including delegate-rich
Pennsylvania, do NOT require their delegates to commit for the candidate
who won the state. Put in layman’s terms, come convention time,
delegates from the Keystone State can cast votes for any person they
wish, whether or not the candidate won the state or even participated in
the primary process.

Obviously, in normal election years, party
unity is assured because the nominee is determined early in the process.
But this year is anything but normal. And there is precedent for
delegates breaking ranks.

In 1980, George H.W. Bush handily won
the primary election in Pennsylvania over Ronald Reagan. The Reagan
folks knew they weren’t going to win, so they pulled a coup by ensuring
that the delegates elected were loyal to The Gipper. So despite Bush
winning by 100,000 votes, Reagan emerged with roughly 70 percent of the
state’s delegates morally committed to him.

Given that situation,
a major concern for Romney is getting the right delegates to achieve
the right majority. But since Mitt has been running for president for
five years, spent hundreds of millions in that endeavor, and still can’t
come close to getting 50 percent of GOP primary voters, that might be a
daunting task.

While still a “long shot” scenario, don’t be
surprised that, after all the states have voted, no one emerges a
winner. If neither Romney nor Gingrich can successfully make a deal with
Paul or Santorum to acquire their delegates, the country may see two
men who despise each other hold a joint press conference announcing
that, for the good of the Party, they are withdrawing from the campaign
and releasing their delegates.

And then it would become the Wild
West. Backroom conventioneering would take on a life of its own, with
countless deals being struck to choose the most unifying Republican
ticket to take on Obama.

And who might top that list? Well, put
it this way. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would do well to start using
a treadmill. More than anyone else, Christie’s ability to tell it like
it is, take no prisoners, and bulldog his way to success – despite major
Democratic majorities in the state assembly – make him a party
favorite. He is one of a very few who commands respect by the
Establishment, rank-and-file grassroots activists, and Tea Parties
alike.

Republicans, Democrats and Independents may not always
agree with Christie, but they always know where he stands, and his
speak-from-the-heart style is a breath of fresh air in a world of sound
bites, talking points and focus groups.

Christie may have
foreseen this scenario, possibly explaining why he declined to run in
the brutal primaries. And for those who predict Christie as a Romney VP,
forget it. He is nobody’s Number Two, and almost certainly would not
sign on to a meaningless ceremonial post when he could have, quite
possibly, captured the top prize for himself had he wanted to do so.

Should Christie decline an offer
made at a brokered convention, the list of frontline candidates grows
relatively thin, but undoubtedly Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Virginia
Gov. Bob McDonnell and, dare we say it – Jeb Bush! – would certainly be
in play.

This scarcity of good candidates is testament to what
happens when a political party refuses to build its bench with folks who
actually believe in things, instead promoting those whose “turn it is.”
Look no further than Bob Dole and John McCain. It’s pretty sad that in
the election many Republicans are calling the most important in American
history, the GOP can muster so few viable contenders.

No matter
how it eventually plays out, the battle for the Republican nomination
will go on for at least the next four months, and that’s a good thing.
Despite the conventional wisdom as postulated by pundits that divisive
primaries only serve to weaken the party’s candidates and needlessly
give an advantage to the opponent, the opposite is true. Combative and
lengthy primaries make candidates stronger, sharper and better prepared
for the rigors of a general election presidential campaign. Barack Obama
proved that in his protracted battle with Hillary.

And given
that Obama is in the driver’s seat to emerge victorious in November, a
long primary season – and even a brokered convention – could be just
what the doctor ordered to energize the Republican Party and unify what
is now a very discontented base.

President Christie, anyone?

Presidential Accountability


The Roar

Presidential Accountability

How many of us are aware of what is currently taking place in the State of Georgia?  I have a fair idea since our media has remained mum on the entire affair.  Accounts from a NBC affiliate, WLTZ 38 News, located in Columbus Georgia report that a hearing concluded on January 26th which aimed at establishing whether President Obama can be on the 2012 Georgia Presidential ballot.

Seems that a complaint challenged the President’s citizenship; not based upon his birth certificate but rather questioning whether he meets the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” qualification.  It seems that his father was never an American citizen and as such, disqualifies Obama from that State’s Presidential ballot in 2012.  As a matter of fact, this should disqualify Obama period!

Immediately, questions arise from all quarters.  Why now?  Who or what authorized his 2008 candidacy?  Where were the media snoop dogs?  Considering that they found their way to far off Alaska, why was a sitting Senator’s resume so difficult to ascertain?  And of course, with all this never ending furor over his birth certs, how did these “no stone left unturned” sleuths miss such a fundamental question?  And of course today’s query; where is the media?

This lack of coverage or should I say this total blackout, smacks of government control and media pandering.  While all agencies are busy with this Romney “landslide,” the November election might be faced with a huge overhaul from a democratic perspective.  I came  across this news on Friday, the 27th and I felt compelled to share it with the American people.

On the heels of that news shocker, the shock being that this issue of “natural born” actually made it into a courtroom, how about the follow up headline, OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES?  Folks, this is not an inconsequential news bit.  This should be blasting off the airwaves and it isn’t!  This is indisputable proof that our media shares with the public what subject matter it deems proper for public consumption.  From an information standpoint, we are being led to the slaughter because of our ignorance.

Consider this; the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision from its 1875 Minor v Happersett defined a “natural born citizen” as being born from parents who were both American citizens at the time of the birth.  Our own U.S. State Dept. confirms that Obama himself has admitted that his father was not an American citizen.  Case closed.

In addition to Georgia, this issue is gaining attention in Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire and of all places, Illinois.

If in fact Obama is not permitted on the Georgia ballot, I would think that would pose serious questions as to his current legitimacy, let alone his re-election bid.  It may also present a very serious challenge to all his major policies since his Presidency would come under legal scrutiny.

In closing, I still am amazed at the audacity of Obama’s circus.  He, above all others, knew from the start that he was not qualified yet he bamboozled and schmoozed his way through the campaign and three years in office.  Talk about a sting!  Now, I for one can understand the grandiose vacations and elaborate festivities.  It appears now as nothing more than an extravagant roller coaster ride which came close to fundamentally changing America.

One note of caution.  I hope I am not putting the cart in front of the horse.  Its been said, “never say never” but the facts in this case seem irrefutable.  There can only be one conclusion.  Still, I hope since “seeing is believing!”

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours

Enough Already

The Roar

Enough Already

My time for being spoon fed has long since passed.  After yesterday’s Florida Primary, the first restricted to registered Republicans, our free press media once again proclaimed that Romney’s victory signaled that this primary season should be concluded.  Since when did our information industry transform into arbitrator status?  Just report the news and leave the final outcome to the voters!

Way back when Iowa was in the news, the air waves were filled with Romney’s win.  Then, after New Hampshire’s fiasco, media experts all agreed that Romney would  and should be the champion representing the Republican Party.  However, along the way, there was an “oops” which occurred.  Instead of winning Iowa by a mere eight votes, Romney lost to Santorum by thirty-four.  Where was the coverage?

I think more than anything else, this primary season has reaffirmed what was brought out by the Tea Party’s emergence in the 2010 mid terms.  There exists a previously hidden or unknown influence within the Republican ranks, a sort of mindset or system, which resembles more of an establishment of a shadowy control.  This became most visible through the 2010 attacks against Christine O’Donnell by various authoritative Republicans of supposedly respected speak.

While this seems distant from what is taking place today, with the obvious media swoon over Romney, it all works in unison.  Believe it or not, the enemy of the Republican establishment is not Obama but rather this brash assortment of throw backs to our Constitutional Founding.  It is to these upstart targets which the most intense conniving is directed.

Case in point, Rep. Allen West.  The outcome of redistricting from the recent census has centered its cross hairs upon this “tell it like it is” former Army officer.  His leadership represents all that went awry from those 2010  elections.  As a result, his 22nd Congressional District is undergoing a change which for all intent and purposes will make his re-election extremely difficult if not impossible.  This from a Republican controlled  State legislature along with its Republican Governor.

It seems that since the “chads” episode, Florida has become central to any national campaign.  It has also gained two additional seats in the House.  However, this West travesty reflects upon an undercurrent which if need be, works with its arch Democratic enemies.  Control is the name of the game and the media is its conductor.

This next Presidential election will culminate in choosing the direction of our beloved Country.  Will its prescription of a Constitutional Republic remain or will we be shifted further down the socialist highway.  I’d say this is “game, set, match.”  I’d also say that this is the Super Bowl of control!

So with this in mind, expect our media to continue its attempt with channeling our votes in a particular direction.  And along the way, we can get our fill of personal mud slinging by two contenders who place personal ego over issues,  while our media happily diverts through its  redundant reporting.

I for one, look to a candidate who remains true to form.  Who places God and Country above politics.  After all, God began this experiment in freedom with His gift of inalienable rights.  For those who would beg to differ, our Declaration from Britain itemizes and assigns Him as our Creator.  From the words of our Forefathers, this land we call America was carefully crafted and nurtured by His Divine Intervention during our contest for freedom.  And it is a contest which will forever be waged, with or without the media’s foolish political fodder.

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours

Newt Gingrich Right To Shoot For The Moon

 By Chris Freind

In May 1963, the astronaut sitting atop the Mercury-Atlas rocket
“went higher, farther, and faster than any other American … for a brief
moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen.” So
were the ending words of The Right Stuff, an incredibly
inspirational film that followed the brave exploits of America’s space
pioneers, as chronicled in Tom Wolfe’s famous book of the same title.

Heroes they were: Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Neil
Armstrong and all the others who volunteered to charge into the unknown,
routinely working on projects that more often resembled suicide
missions than scientific research. While they garnered glory and
headlines, these men were deeply driven by something far more important:
the opportunity to put America on top in the space race, and in doing
so, become part of arguably the most exciting time in all of
civilization. These explorers opened the door to the final frontier, an
astounding achievement that taught the whole of humankind that no dreams
were too big, and that men and women could aspire to do things greater
than themselves. They literally made true the can-do spirit that “the
sky is the limit.”

But their road was paved with ridicule and doubt. Just years before
these men—and the countless unsung heroes at NASA—achieved the
impossible, their ambitions were considered folly. Putting a man in
space? Pure science fiction. Landing on the moon? Unthinkable,
unattainable, unwise. Reaching for the stars? Grow up.

Yet a mere 58 years after the Wright brothers first took flight,
America put those cynics out to pasture as Shepard blasted into the
record books, with Armstrong later taking the greatest “step” in human
history.

In addition to the lofty goals of exploring worlds beyond our own,
the space race fostered something else: a fierce sense of nationalism
that unleashed America’s competitive spirit as never before. And for
good reason. The Reds beat us into orbit, hell-bent on dominating outer
space. From that point, it was “game on.” And you know what? We won.
Repeated trips to the moon, deep-space probes, interplanetary missions,
permanently manned space stations, and newly discovered technologies
that later benefitted Americans in every aspect of their lives.

That undisputed American leadership was as bold as it was
purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study mathematics
and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no
one else had ever done—to be on the cutting edge not just of technology,
but of humanity.

The United States still had its problems, of course, but there was
never the slightest doubt that it would continue to achieve unparalleled
greatness as the most benevolent nation the world had ever known. From
attaining civil rights for all its citizens to being the beacon of hope
for oppressed peoples the world over—and yes, to push the envelope in
space—America embodied the spirit that it would always be on an upward
trajectory. Mediocrity, timidness—and fear itself—were not part of the
American vocabulary, and dreams were simply visions soon to be realized.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that spirit. And oh how things have changed.

Now we find ourselves in the midst of The Great Decline—a situation
we have brought upon ourselves—slogging through a tragedy that only
seems to be accelerating.

We haven’t been back to the moon to unlock its vast secrets in nearly
four decades. We have all but abandoned plans for a manned mission to
Mars. And most telling, we no longer possess any means of transporting
Americans into space, instead relying on the Russians to get us to the
(misnamed) International Space Station—you remember, the one America
engineered, constructed, financed and put into orbit. Yes, the same one
that the Ruskies have decided to eventually abandon, allowing it to fall
back to Earth as a crumbling fireball, a once-proud testament to
American ingenuity vaporizing right before our very eyes. The symbolism
of America’s fate is sickening in its reality.

And now we have a new adversary rising, challenging America at every
turn. In addition to owning much of our debt, China now possesses the
fastest trains, the biggest dams, the most dynamic growth and an
aggressive space program. That’s not an endorsement of the Chinese, but
an angry lament that they have taken a page right out of America’s
playbook, and worst of all, that this nation is paralyzed to counter it.
Instead of rising to the occasion, as we always did before, the United
States seems impotent, content to just watch the events unfold without
so much as a last gasp.

The best example? Mitt Romney, campaigning for the most important job
in the world—leader of the free world and sentry to American
dreams—lambasting Newt Gingrich’s plans to erect a permanent base on the
moon, cut NASA bureaucracies, and incentivize the private sector to
reinvigorate America’s space program. Romney went so far as to say he
would “fire” anyone who dared propose something so bold.

Is that the kind of leadership America needs to get back on track? Think big, and you’re out the door?

But it wasn’t just Romney who attempted to kill Newt’s admirable
vision. So many of the Republican establishment who have been part and
parcel to the deterioration of the American Dream weighed in, none more
noteworthy than the Grand Poobah of Incoherent, Spineless and Worthless
Political Hacks, John McCain, as he skewered Newt’s space vision by
saying that “we ought to send Gingrich to the moon.”

How pathetic have America’s “leaders” become when they can’t separate
partisan politics for even one minute to agree on that which should be a
no-brainer: a rejuvenated space program is so eminently important that
it should be a centerpiece of any administration?

Of course, the cost factor arises, as it should. But that is an issue
that should be settled in budgetary debates. Instead of thinking big,
as our leaders once did, the Romneys and McCains openly delight in
mocking the dreams that still inspire so many Americans. And for what?
Miniscule partisan advantage? Shame on them.

How can we afford to fund such a grand endeavor? The bigger question
is, “How can we afford NOT to?” But it is a legitimate question, so
here’s the answer:

First, it is imperative to use the presidential election platform as a
bully pulpit, explaining to the American people how their money—and by
direct extension, their dreams—have been wasted to fund ridiculous
projects of absolutely no value, including so many entitlement programs
that are simply unaffordable. It is necessary to identify the
mistakes—by both parties—so that they aren’t repeated.

Second, find concrete ways to save money. Ending the pointless
quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan—which have cost Americans trillions of
dollars—would free up huge amounts of capital. Reorganizing the
military so that it isn’t guarding Western Europe from a Soviet land
attack would also be a good idea, since that threat evaporated 21 years
ago. And of course, common sense entitlement reform would free up
trillions more.

Third, grow the American economy to increase tax revenue. We cannot
tax our way out of recession and into prosperity, nor can we simply cut
our way out, as that only places more people on the welfare rolls. But
responsibly utilizing our vast (and unused) domestic energy resources to
become energy independent will allow America to compete with foreign
labor costs. Having the cheapest energy on the planet would be more than
enough to resurrect American manufacturing and permanently jumpstart
the economy.

A thriving economy means bold space exploration would once again be
taken for granted. And if and when that happens, something else far more
important would occur: The indomitable American spirit would once again
nurture the achievable dreams of young children who fall asleep while
looking out their bedrooms windows, gazing upon the moon and stars
overhead with but one thought: Someday, I’ll be up there.

 

Newt Gingrich Right To Shoot For The Moon

GOP Bosses Back Candidate Who Voted For Obama, Sestak

GOP Bosses Back Candidate Who Voted For Obama, Sestak

By Chris Freind

To say the Republican presidential primary has become interesting
would be a gross understatement. With three different winners in the
first three contests—an unprecedented situation—everyone is asking why
the frontrunners keep falling and why the GOP base cannot unite behind a
leader.

Well, hold on to your seat, because here’s a big question: Would you
believe that both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich voted for Barack Obama
in the 2008 primary? And after they became disenfranchised by the
Republican Party for moving too far Left, they decided to do the only
logical thing: become Democrats? And in addition, does it blow your mind
that besides voting for the Big O, they took out their frustrations
over a too-liberal GOP by financially supporting the most far-left
Democrats in the entire Congress?

Seem far-fetched? Well, it is—and it isn’t.

No, of course, Romney and Gingrich didn’t switch parties, vote for
Obama or support liberal Democrats. If either had, it would, without
question, be lunacy for any element of the Republican Party to endorse
them. To many in the GOP, Obama is not just a political adversary but
the Devil Incarnate who must be defeated at all costs. So running
someone against Obama who had previously supported him would be a
surefire recipe for disaster.

In some respects, Jon Huntsman fell victim to this exact situation.
Many Republicans refused to trust him after he served as President
Obama’s ambassador to China, and his candidacy tanked. Likewise, one of
Romney’s biggest obstacles to winning over Republicans stems from his
implementation of an Obamacare-type health-care system in Massachusetts,
since many feel that he would be unable to effectively run against
Obama on that critical issue.

Enter the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.

There are seven candidates vying for the opportunity to take on
incumbent Bob Casey. The election is in April, but it’s this Saturday,
January 28th, that may well determine the nominee. That’s when the
Republican State Committee convenes to decide whom it will endorse—if
anyone.

Incomprehensibly, but not surprisingly, certain factions within the
GOP leadership are pushing to endorse Montgomery County’s Steve Welch, a
candidate who:

A.  Became a Democrat because the GOP wasn’t conservative enough.

B. Financially supported (former) Congressman Joe Sestak, one of the most liberal members of Congress.

C. Voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

For those who may think this is also a fairy tale to illustrate a point, think again.

Steve Welch voted for Barack Obama and supported Joe Sestak. So why
on earth would the state committee want to endorse Welch, and in doing
so become the laughingstock of the nation?

Good question. And since committee members are elected officials, perhaps they should be asked that before Saturday’s vote.

This is just another example of brain-dead GOP leadership choosing
laziness over hard work. Since Welch is a millionaire who could
self-fund, GOP leaders wouldn’t have to engage in fundraising activities
(AKA “doing their job”) nearly as much as they would for other plebian
candidates—no matter how much more qualified they may be.

Many GOP faithful want to believe that the majority of the state
committee sees a Welch endorsement for what it would be: a political and
public relations disaster, one that would seriously erode what
credibility Pennsylvania’s Republican Party has left. Such an
endorsement would also cement the growing perception—not incorrect, by
the way—that the only thing of importance to the GOP hierarchy in
choosing a candidate is the size of his wallet. Qualifications? A lot of
money. Period. Republican values? Irrelevant.

Brilliant.

******

Given his recent support of leftist Democrats, would Steve Welch make
a good Republican senator? Tough to tell, but Pennsylvania’s Republican
voters should be the ones making that determination, not party leaders
in a smoke-filled backroom who only see dollar signs from a candidate.

Republicans deserve straight answers from Steve, and to this day,
they really haven’t received them. Did he vote for Obama to spite his
“true” party. Did he truly support him? Or did he do it to stop
“Hillarycare,” as was reported? We don’t know. With those significant
questions unanswered, and by extension, character and judgment issues
swirling around Welch, an endorsement would only serve to muddy the
waters and foster an anger among Republicans that hasn’t been seen in
Pennsylvania in decades.

Amazing as it now seems, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl,
supporting Barry in his presidential election. It took years for her to
evolve into the more liberal Hillary that we know today. So perhaps most
disconcerting is the speed in which Steve Welch evolved with his party
loyalties—and then back again.

If one was disgruntled with the Republicans not being conservative
enough, fine. Many felt the same way. But that’s why God made the
Independent Party.

If one is truly seeking more conservative values, where is the wisdom
and good judgment in switching to a party that, for years, has
unabashedly moved further to the Left? And regarding Obama and Sestak,
give them credit where it’s due: Both were crystal clear about where
they stood on issues. Nationalized health care? Absolutely.
Redistribution of wealth through higher taxes? Yep. More government
spending is the answer, as a paternalistic government knows best?
Without question.

So someone abandoning the Republicans to join the Democrats, and
march behind people such as Obama and Sestak, may well indicate that
person’s true political leanings. All the more reason for such a
candidate to be vetted by ALL Republicans, not just the state committee.

There are some on the right who seem opposed to the endorsement
process every time it rolls around. Yet in many instances, it has its
rightful place, a key instrument in a political party advancing its
vision through whom it deems the best candidate. When candidates are
vetted correctly, with the best interest of the party in mind and not
the selfish agendas of individual leaders, endorsements can be
critically important in winning elections.

But when unprecedented situations arise that scream for an open
primary, endorsements should never be forced, as they will virtually
always backfire.

Given this situation, it absolutely boggles the mind that Tom
Corbett—the Republican governor of Pennsylvania—would not only get
involved in a primary, but would choose to endorse someone with Welch’s
background, as he did last week.

For the good of its party, the Republican State Committee should do
the right thing this weekend by voting for an open primary. If it
chooses to self-destruct by endorsing Steve Welch, that laughing you’ll
hear will be Bob Casey as he wraps up another six-year term 10 months
before the election.

 

GOP Bosses Back Candidate Who Voted For Obama, Sestak

Primary System Unfair To Other States

Primary System Unfair To Other States

By Chris Freind

Pennsylvania and the nation have zero say —yet again

Another election year is upon us, and there’s good news and bad news. On the
upside, Americans will again peacefully choose their next leader in
November, a continuing miracle which we too often take for granted.

The
not-so-great part is that the 98 percent of citizens who don’t live in
Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina will — yet again — have
virtually no say in their Party’s nominee for President.

In other
words, the leader of the Free World will largely be determined by
Hawkeye State hicks whose claims to fame are making full-size butter
cows (sounds like a made-to-order Paula Deen special) and hysterically
crying whenever their other sacred cow is criticized: ethanol mandates.

Likewise,
an equal say is incomprehensibly bestowed upon folks in New Hampshire
— which is mindboggling since these people still don’t know there’s an
“r” in the alphabet. Guess it’s just pa’ fa’ tha’ coua’se. Pass the
lobsta’.

And now we have Uncle Cletus in the state that started
The War of Northern Aggression putting the finishing touches on the
coronation.

Only in America.

Where does that leave the
rest of the country? Voting for dogcatcher, coroner and several other
less flattering offices, such as U.S. Senate.

So why does the
nation put up with such an inequitable system, will it ever change, and
is there a better way? Lack of political courage, probably not, and
resoundingly yes.

Jokes aside, all three early-voting states are
wonderful in their own right, rich in history and filled with
salt-of-the-earth folks trying to make their lives and country better.

But having the first and last word
in the election process is insane. No state should hold that much
power, and possessing it manages to accomplish three things, all
negative:

-The rest of the country grows angrier every four years.

-That
resentfulness leads to significant voter apathy because of the
not-incorrect mentality that “my vote doesn’t count since the winner has
already been chosen.” As a result, other critical state and local
races, many of which affect people infinitely more than a national
contest, go unnoticed and voter turnout nosedives.

– The eventual nominee leaves a lot to be desired.

With
the exception of the Obama/Hillary Clinton race going the distance,
which in truth was over well before many late-in-the-game states voted,
nominees have been chosen by these states for decades. And the nation
suffers.

What does an oil driller in Alaska, a manufacturer in
Pennsylvania, or border patrol agent in Arizona have in common with an
Iowa farmer? How does a small business owner in Oklahoma relate to a New
Hampshire lobsterman’s fishery issues? And how much is a Montana
rancher in tune with a South Carolina textile worker?

The present
rigged system results in candidates who, instead of being more in touch
with Americans’ varied interests — and being forced to take positions
on those issues —are increasingly responsive only to voters in those
three states. Win them, and it’s over, and the rest of the nation be
damned.

The system is the way it is because the Establishments of
both Parties like it that way. To them, it is easy, clean and
(relatively) quick, and avoids what is anathema: a long, drawn out
primary election that ultimately would wrest control from Party leaders
and give it to —God forbid — the people. And the more quickly a
nominee can be picked, the less money has to be spent during primary
season, with more time to raise cash for November.

But since the
interests of the people are not high on Party leaders’ lists (they
prefer power for the sake of power), they will move Heaven and Earth to
retain the status quo.

It could be changed, but that would require political courage. And that is in short supply.

Frontrunners are almost always part
of the Establishment, so count them out. And long-shot challengers
either suck up to Party leaders trying to get into the Club, or end up
spending an entire year in one state pandering to a particular
constituency —such as Rick Santorum selling his soul by courting the
ethanol corn vote in Iowa.

Admittedly, it is an extremely
difficult system to break, but thus far the efforts to do so have been
misguided. Take Jon Huntsman, who skipped Iowa to focus on New
Hampshire. He was an extreme long shot anyway, so all the more reason to
spend some of his personal fortune to tell the nation — and the Party
hierarchy — why he was boycotting Iowa, and why the system was so
flawed. In doing so, he could have gained significant traction, not
enough to win, perhaps, but enough to call the system into question.
And in some respects, that would have been more important than winning
the nomination. But he didn’t.

And in 2008, Rudy Giuliani
skipped all three states to first compete in Florida. Had he actually
had a competent campaign and resonating message — including strongly
advocating why the system was unfair — the outcome might have been
different (especially since eventual nominee John McCain’s campaign was
in significant debt). But he didn’t.

So can it change? Tough to
say, but if the electorate has taught us anything recently, it’s that it
is volatile, angry and unpredictable.

To make it fair for all Americans, one of two options should be considered:

1)
Divide the nation regionally into three groupings of roughly 17 states,
and rotate each subset so that every four years, a different one starts
the voting. That would offer enough of a variation that local or even
regional issues would not dominate the campaigning.

2) Perhaps
better, the groupings of states should be picked randomly, so that the
diversity of Americans’ issues would be better reflected. With only
three primary election dates on the calendar, every state would have a
significant say in which Party nominee wins. The downside is that
nationwide campaigning for each of the primaries would drive campaign
costs up, thus increasing the need for more fundraising. But campaign
costs will go up anyway, and with so many more voters having a stake in
the election, small dollar donations via the internet may well offset
the increased costs of running a larger campaign.

Switching to a
new system is no guarantee that better candidates will be chosen. It
would, however, undoubtedly increase the slate of folks willing to throw
their hat into the ring — given that many now stay out because they
feel they can’t compete. It would also engage millions more Americans in
the presidential election process, finally giving them a say that has
been denied to them for far too long.

Given the state of America,
due in large part to electing pandering politicians with a scarcity of
courage and conviction, it’s time to try something new and return power
to the people, instead of relying on butter cows and lobsterman to
choose our leader.

We could do no worse.

Our Reason for Being


The Roar

Our Reason for Being

Our Constitution was written to eliminate all the squabbling and bickering which The Articles of Confederation induced.  In doing so, our Founding Fathers based their creation upon one written word, “unalienable,” which  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence acknowledged.  In doing so, our Founders created our “unalienable” basis for American government which no other government in the history of man even contemplated.

To further support the term unalienable, which meant “that may not be transferred,” Jefferson prefaced it with its elevation ,”that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  This one stipulation was and continues to be one giant step for mankind. No where and never before had a government recognized, much less based the freedom of its people upon a higher authority than the government being created or formed.

And it is to this distinction that we proudly call ourselves “American.”  People all around the world, when hearing that identity stand in awe since they realize, and in some cases realize more than the average American, what a special privilege the claim of American insures.

Returning to the Constitution, it was evident that government had to be refined since under the Articles, States were in a constant struggle for competition and were jealously guarding while greedily intruding where ever possible on the other.  Under that structure open warfare would eventually take place.

So those assembled in Philadelphia were assigned the task to finely tweak the Articles.  However, instead of minor adjustments, our Founders constructed a completely new system for governing.   This I might add is the danger from what modern revisionists assert with their renewed call for another Constitutional Convention.  They see, better than the average layman, the wide breathe of possibilities presented by the criteria of “past practice.”  Simply put, our Constitution would no longer exist.   But, that is another topic.

Along with uniting our struggling, jealous and ofter accusing States, this creation presented a united front to foreigners with designs.  It also provided a federal maintenance service through its stated  Constitutional duties.  Present and future States would be “united” and “protected” under the government.  I might add that the duty to “protect” has fallen by the wayside under the present administration.

What I am leading up to is just how far our current government has stretched its Constitutional authority.  When understanding that our Constitution demanded that ours was to be a “limited” government, we must re-evaluate our public leniency.  Today’s version is out of compliance to the extent that it now dares any attempt at reform.  Like it or not, our debt soars for the simple reason that government is into everything.

I am reminded about a Congressional event in which the spending of the people’s money was in question.  To paraphrase from The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884), it seems that the House of Representatives pondered the question of whether to appropriate a monetary reward to a widow of a deceased military officer.  All present were in favor when Congressman Crockett arose to speak.  The end result was that all reversed their original positions and agreed with Crockett.

In essence, the future hero of the Alamo thought it appropriate to individually donate as a charity but Congress did not have the right to divert public funds, no matter how well intentioned the reason might be.  Also, it was not their money!  Crockett believed that government pays off debts for services rendered and that payment wasn’t due to the deceased at the time of his demise since he was serving, and thus paid, till the day of his demise.

I wonder what those former Congressmen from Crockett days would say not only about this unlimited spending, which now exceeds over fifteen trillion, but also to this obvious assault against the “law of the land.”  In recent years, the course of government has been direct and unending and our debt validates its lawlessness.  For us, it’s all about whether the future will be bleak or bright.  And the sad thing is that it’s a decision which never needed to be faced.

Jim Bowman, Author of
This Roar of Ours

Don’t Blame Sunoco, ConocoPhillips, Or Unions For Refinery Shutdowns

 

“Thank you for trying to get those who
should understand the urgency of energy independence, jobs, and our
future…to do so. (We are) loading up the SUV almost every day to give
away household items to Neighborhood Services and friends…and preparing
to relocate if necessary. You are right… finding middle class wages here
in Pennsylvania is challenging if not impossible. The blood, sweat and
tears of years planning and building our dream home only to sell it in a
bad housing market is like adding salt to the wound….”

This
heartbreaking message was sent by a distraught wife of a 19-year Sunoco
refinery worker, as that company’s two refineries (Philadelphia and
Marcus Hook) are slated for closing, as is the ConocoPhillips refinery
in Trainer, Delaware County, if no buyers are found. Making the sin
mortal, there are reports that the ConocoPhillips plant might be
dismantled, shipped overseas, and resurrected in a foreign- potentially
adversarial – country. But this is nothing new, as America’s abandonment
of its manufacturing base has often included shipping entire facilities
overseas for the benefit of our competitors.

Can it be reversed?
Is it possible not only to save these refinery jobs but at the same
time create a rebirth of American manufacturing – mandatory for the
nation’s future since no country has ever survived without an industrial
base? Many “experts” will arrogantly claim “no,” that America can’t
compete with Chinese labor costs, and smugly proclaim that manufacturing
is passé anyway – unnecessary in a modern 21st century economy.

Unfortunately,
the wrong people here are losing their jobs. The backbone of America
shouldn’t be facing the unemployment lines. The so-called experts,
including the politicians from both Parties who got us into this mess,
should be the ones getting canned. See Freindly Fire’s Sunoco Refinery Part One.

But
if we are to save jobs by retooling the refineries to process God’s
gift to Pennsylvania (and the nation) – Marcellus Shale natural gas – it
is imperative to stop the blame game and halt the tendency, while
natural in a time of such high emotion, to conveniently point fingers at
whatever “boogeyman of the day” caused this unfortunate situation.
Likewise, the fly-by-night ideas proposed by some shortsighted
politicians must be seen for what they are: either clueless suggestions
or a naked pandering for votes.

Who Didn’t Cause The Problem

Sunoco

A
million dollars is a lot of money – who hasn’t thought about having
that much cash? You could do a lot with a mil per year, even more if you
made that per week, and would be king of the world if you raked in
seven figures per day, especially if that that was the case for three
straight years. Life would be sweet – unless, of course, you happened to
be in the sweet crude oil refining business in a deteriorating market.

So
let’s be consistent. If making a million a day is desirable, losing
that amount on a daily basis would be, in professional financial
nomenclature, very, very bad. Common sense tells us that anyone losing a
million a day for three years would do everything possible to stop the
hemorrhaging. Welcome to Sunoco’s plight.

Ask any student unschooled in
economics what the primary objective of business is, and he will
invariably answer, “to make money.” Wrong. Making money is easy. Earning
a profit by taking in more than you spend – the correct answer – is the
hard part.

Despite the misguided “Occupy” mentality that profits
are nothing more than gluttonous greed, the truth is quite different.
They are necessary to expand operations, hire more personnel, pay
salaries and benefits, and contribute to the overall health of a company
– and the entire economy. (Not that Wall Street greed doesn’t exist in
numerous other forms, much of which should be regulated/outlawed, but
that is another column).

Sunoco and ConocoPhillips are not in the
“business” of losing money, and their past profits and payouts to
shareholders are completely irrelevant to the fact that the outlook for
the refining business is bleak. They are under no moral, ethical or
financial obligation to keep the doors open. Keeping people employed
inefficiently – READ: subsidized – in a business with no possibility of
profit is anathema to the Free Market and would eventually collapse the
entire entity. This is not speculation but economic certainty.

And
if you want to see what happens when this course is recklessly pursued,
pull up a chair because you’re in luck. You have a ringside seat
watching such an implosion in action: the unsustainable economic
policies of the United States Government.

It is also important to
note that in 2009, Sunoco announced a significant worker layoff in an
attempt to improve company competitiveness –  and all were white collar,
with no unionized personnel getting pink slips. Closing the refineries
is anything but anti-labor.

Unions

The
refinery shutdowns have nothing to do with “greedy unions sucking too
much money” from the companies’ bottom lines, as some critics of
organized labor incorrectly state. Many of those in refinery operations
are highly skilled union workers who have made a solid living over the
last several decades. But a look at the market conditions shows such a
minefield ahead for the companies that no amount of concessions would
come close to solving the problem. In the big picture, the significant
obstacles facing Sunoco and ConocoPhillips are infinitely greater than
any “high” labor costs associated with operating the refineries.

Just
like “evil empire” rich oil company executives make inviting targets
for blame, so do “pillaging” unions who “want more for doing less.” Is
either side perfect? Of course not, since there is no such thing. But
while both make good scapegoats, it is simply counterproductive to
continually throw darts at them. Insults don’t solve problems. Strategic
vision and genuine partnerships do. The only thing that matters is
solving the problem – and quickly.

Obama

Some
find it convenient to blame the President for everything from high gas
prices to their children getting a bad test grade. While he certainly
has his faults, he extended his hand to the Republicans on the single
most important issue of our time – moving America towards energy
independence. If some of his suggestions had been enacted (which, in
reality, are part of the Republican platform), they would have quite
possibly made the refining outlook much brighter for Sunoco and Conoco,
and the shutdowns may not have occurred.



And the GOP response? No bills were
introduced, and they absolutely refused to work with the President,
with many stating that “he didn’t really believe what he was saying.”
What a brilliant, mature response.

For the disbelievers who need
proof, just watch the President’s 2010 State of the Union speech, when,
in front of the entire nation, he urged Congress to expand our offshore
drilling ventures, and freed up millions of acres of coastal water for
exploration and development. In addition, he called for an increase in
nuclear power plants across America and pursued loan guarantees for new
facilities (even one year later in light of the Japanese disaster).

Which
was interesting, not only because he went against one of his strongest
constituencies (the environmental lobby), but also because Obama’s move
threw a wrench in the conspiracy that he was a closet Muslim who wanted
to weaken America. Pushing for energy independence would be the polar
opposite way to achieve that goal.

Granted, Obama has not been
stellar in following up on his domestic drilling initiatives after the
BP spill, and has yet to authorize the critical Keystone XL Pipeline
project, but those shortcomings pale in comparison to the other Party’s
inaction.

What did oilman George W. Bush or his Halliburton-affiliated sidekick Dick Cheney do to increase domestic production? Zero.

Or
the patriarch of the Bush family, George Herbert Walker Bush? Well, it
was the elder Bush who signed the moratorium on offshore drilling. His
son W. left it in place for seven years, despite having sizable
majorities in both Houses of Congress. Only after fuel costs skyrocketed
to over $4.50 per gallon in 2008 did he call for the lifting of the
moratorium. But it was too little, too late. And it never happened.

What
could have prevented those crippling spikes at the pump? Offshore
drilling – both off the continental shelves and in ANWR (the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge) – and the construction of new refineries,
given that the last one was built in 1976.

And what better time
to have pushed it through than right after the Sept. 11 attacks. In
addition to having a Republican congress and nearly 100 percent of the
nation behind him, Bush had the world’s goodwill in his corner.

Instead,
this nation’s reliance on foreign oil — which is a nice way of saying
we are pumping billions of petro dollars into the coffers of some who
are hell bent on destroying us — has only increased.

And this week, gas hit another all-time high for this time of year.



Both Parties are guilty of
forsaking America’s security and economic well-being. It is only right
that they atone by eliminating the red tape, bureaucracy and onerous
regulations placed upon the energy industry, as well as rescind the
economy-killing taxes on fuel. Those steps would make it infinitely more
palatable for entrepreneurs to convert the refineries, keeping those
strategic assets and jobs exactly where they belong: in America.