Democrats believe that America needs - and Americans deserve - a New Direction that provides security, prosperity, and opportunity for all.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. I love to hear my representatives declare that they work for us, the American people. Not for the special interests. Not only for the people of San Francisco who want to project their eco-religion on the rest of us, but for America as a whole.

Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy…

(I should note, of course, that this was written back when the Democrats were about to take control of Congress in ‘06. Since then, gas prices rose from $2.19 to $4.11, an increase of an incredible 87.7%! Congressional Approval is at an all-time low, the national debt has increased over 14%, and the Dems themselves will tell you that we’re in the middle of a recession. They’re wrong, but they’ll still admit to it. Which is astounding.)

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.

Apparently they will not use commonsense principles, which would include dropping the Federal moratorium on oil exploration. Nor will they be civil about it.

Check out page 24 of the manifesto:

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

And yet, despite the GOP’s demands for the energy bill to come to a vote, Pelosi won’t allow it. What makes it all the more astounding is that she won’t allow a vote to be taken on a bill that the Dems would almost undoubtably crush! Why? Because of the misguided notion that carbon is a poison. If global warming is man-made and carbon dioxide is the primary cause, then we must get rid of it! And burning fossil fuels releases loads of carbon dioxide! So we must stop!

This is “fact”, decided upon by the dirt people of San Francisco and their expatriates, and forced down the throat of the American people by Pelosi and her wildly out-of-touch Congress.

This whole eco-religion is centered around the preposterous idea that us humans are fully capable of throwing the Earth’s equilibrium off kilter, putting Earth’s ecological and climatological state outside the bounds of its own recovery. It’s the peak of arrogance, to say the least. It violates Occam’s razor by making the assumption that the Earth could not possibly have a naturally fluctuating climate of as much as 1 or 2 degrees in either direction, and it flies in the face of actual science, from the likes of scientists who haven’t been coerced or threatened and whose work hasn’t been manipulated:

CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.

Whoops. In much the same way that proving a Jesus that was never raised from the dead would rock Christianity to its core, the absence of “carbon as a pollutant” really puts the whole man-made global warming ideology into serious question. Calm, clear-headed scientists are beginning to come forward with long-standing evidence that disproves man-made global warming. So close your eyes and ears, and chant to yourself as loud as you want Gorites. It doesn’t make truth go away.

If real Democrats are represented by Pelosi and her Congress’s track record, then Democrats are not reasonable. They are not commonsensical. They are not logical. They are neither fair, open-minded, nor realistic. And I am not a Democrat.

As Senator Kerry and many others have pointed out, it would be nearly 10 years before any oil at all would be realized from new offshore leases. So your adorable 7- or 8-year-old would be just about 17 and clamoring for a license when this new oil started coming online.

Ok. Well, first off, they’re wrong. Drilling technology has come a long way since the 70’s, and it may take as little as 3 or 4 years to see some actual oil. But so what if it does take 10 years? If the Clinton Administration hadn’t blocked us from drilling 10 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this problem now. The shortsightedness is really quite astonishing. Not only would it drop prices sooner than 10 years from now, it would also provide for the Americans of 10 years in the future. Which will be us. So let’s think ahead, people.

Maximum capacity from these new leases wouldn’t be reached until 2030, when that 7- or 8-year-old is approaching 30, finished with college and graduate school, and very likely married with children.

And even then — after more than two decades and who knows how many graduations, weddings, funerals and family cars — even then, the amount of oil expected to come from these leases would have little or no effect on the price of gasoline at the pump.

Again, even if it takes that long, that alternative you’re offering is… what? Just wait it out? To have cars that run on Obama’s hopes and dreams by then? Please…

And to say that it will only have very little effect on gas prices ignores even our current situation with the deafest of ears. Like I’ve said, the only change in the last month has been the lifting of the Executive Order against offshore drilling. No new oil. Not even the lifting of the Congressional ban. Just a symbolic lifting of the Executive order. And oil barrels have dropped an incredible 23% from $147.27 to roughly $113.40. The average price at the pump dropped from $4.114 to $3.787. Almost $0.33!! To ignore this is engaging in a buffoonery of the highest order.

He then quotes the Energy Information Administration, a statistical agency that provides official data for the federal government. Given their dubious association, it’s not hard to believe they’re wrong:

“Because oil prices are determined on the international market … any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

Wrong. See above.

I wonder how [the chanting bikers at the McCain rally] would have responded if they had been told that lifting the offshore restrictions would risk serious environmental damage to the U.S. coastline over the next several decades while having no significant effect on the price of gasoline at the pump.

They’d know the second part was a lie given the prices they’ve seen with their own eyes at the pump lately, which would make them laugh all the more heartily at the first part. Seriously, how oblivious is Herbert? Has he not swiped the card himself at the pump lately?

Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, was on the case when it came to energy. He saw the challenge as “the moral equivalent of war,” and dared to ask the public to make sacrifices as part of a coordinated national effort.

Ah, yes, I’ve heard many stories about his daringness. I believe it only exacerbated the energy crisis, if I’m not mistaken. Obama’s energy policy seems eerily reminiscent of Carter’s plan. And as such, the Obama machine is hard at work trying to get people to rewrite the history of both the Carter and Reagan Administrations.

Former Vice President Al Gore has tried, more than any other public figure in recent years, to raise the consciousness of Americans by dramatically illustrating, not just the enormity of the energy challenge, but creative and practical ways of dealing with it.

I suppose no one has ever accused Gore of being a pragmatist. In his devising of creative ways he does seem to ignore the largest contributors to energy. Oil and coal. And nuclear. This new wave of radical environmentalism, backed by junk science, greatly exaggerates the current effectiveness of alternative forms of energy. Wind and solar are great, but even Captain McGreenie Al Gore can’t power his house using only alternative forms of energy. That’s why we need a multi-facted energy policy that encourages new technologies without first abandoning the only sources that currently produce abundant energy. That’s why McCain’s plan makes more sense. And why Obama is quickly headed in the same direction.

So despite what Pelosi and her out of touch party members think, it appears that it won’t take 10 years for the 2 cent reduction at the pump to come.

When I heard my pastor mention that one of the goals of City Church of East Nashville was to reconcile the diversity of East Nashville to each other and to Jesus Christ, my anti-affirmative action, knee-jerk response was, “Why is that so important?”

We were talking about it before the sermon because the church is searching for both an assistant pastor and a worship leader. Our church leadership feels strongly that the assistant pastor should probably be black, and it might not hurt if the worship leader was bringing a different cultural experience as well.

As I sat listening, the reasoning sunk in. First of all, I reminded myself, there’s nothing unbiblical about the desire to reconcile and break down barriers. In fact, the message of the Gospel levels the playing field, breaking down all barriers.

Then I read the article on segregation in the church. I never used to think of it as a problem. You know, they enjoy their services, we’ll just do ours a differently over here. But that is precisely why it’s a problem. The “us” and “them” mindset. If it’s that pervasive in the Church, how do we expect it won’t invade our lives elsewhere? It will.

The article does a great job of showing the breakdown of fellowship between Christians from all angles, speaking to the detriments from a religious standpoint. It was the end of the article that really got me, though. And keep in mind that this was on the front page of a major news outlet:

When Pryor sees his friend on Sunday, he says he no longer sees a “they” or a “them” trying to invade his world.

He sees his brother in Christ.

“We come to love each other,” he says. “When I look into his eyes, I can see the love of Jesus Christ. He and I have become friends.”

Shouldn’t that be a strong enough reason for racial healing to take place beginning in the Church? Remember, once the truth of the Gospel reaches a person’s heart and they really understand the Fall and their depravity, is it not true that we begin to realize just how much this whole thing isn’t about us and our preferences?

I’m not saying it’s totally awesome how much we’re spending in Iraq, but studies like this do help put it into perspective. When the average person hears, “We’re spending over $720 $341.4 million a day in Iraq!” we’re shocked, but that’s because most of us think $500 is a lot. (And for a person, it is, but not for a government the size of the United States.) So $720 $341.4 sounds huge. This study really helps put war costs into perspective.

In terms of Gross Domestic Product, the Iraqi war is clearly not breaking us. It comes in at a quaint 1%, whereas WWII weighed in at 35.8%. In fact, there were only two major wars the US has been involved in that consumed less of a percentage of our GDP: the Persian Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan, both at 0.3% GDP.

Take a look, it’s interactive!

UPDATE: According to the National Priorities Project, the daily cost of the Iraqi war is $341.4 million, not $720 million. Heh, I guess that’s what quickly Googling something will get you.

“…I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Acts 9:16