While the usual suspects in the liberal media are falling all over themselves to declare Obama's "sermon" in Germany as something close to a message from on high, it doesn't seem to be playing all that well in Poughkeepsie and Podunk. 

The intention by his eminence to focus a bright spotlight on himself may have done just that.  If folks didn't know who or what Barack Obama is, by virtue of a gaggle of some 300 reporters and advisors, they do now. 

What has been revealed may not quite go down the way "The One" believed it would. 

You already know what your choice is, you need to speak with a real person and for the past several minutes, you have been ushered through a half dozen voice menus. You have pressed one, three, five and pound.  You have entered document numbers, loan numbers, trailing digits of your social security number and still no human voice.  You are about to give in to your frustrations when at last, the words you have been waiting for, “if you need to speak to a representative press 1 now.” 

There is call screening and call screaming.  The first is a way to minimize the requirement to employ a cadre of receptionists to do nothing more than direct your call.  The latter however, is the result of the final gasp of tolerance, from the person desperately trying to acquire specific information relative to their own issue or account.  Yes, you know the point of breaking, when you scream into the mouthpiece of your telephone, “expletive a bunch of numbers, just put a person on the line!”  And the earpiece responds, “please press 1 now.”  

Voice menu telephone systems assume that callers will be able to satisfy their inquiry from the myriad of options and sub-menus.  Callers meanwhile, have to play mental gymnastics to decide just which of the sixty-seven items they heard most closely approximates the issue they called about.  Yes, you guessed it, the option you picked wasn’t the one that addressed your issue and you have been re-directed to the main menu to choose again.  AARRrraaaaagghhhhhh!

For large institutions, there is value added in providing a voice menu to guide callers to their most frequently asked questions.  Those who use computers would recognize this as the acronym “FAQS.”  For courtesy’s sake however, one of the first options in the menu should be to choose to talk to a human.  This is especially true, after you have succumbed to the drudgery of sifting through the labyrinth of nested menus, entered all digits as prompted and are rejected anyway because you weren’t calling from the phone you originally listed. 

Productivity has its point but people are the key to successfully resolving people issues that cannot and never will be a subset of telephone messaging.  Businesses have an obligation to operate as efficiently as possible, to maximize their profitability to their business and their investors.  They have an even greater obligation to their customers however, to ensure their needs are met with dignity and not the indignity of an automated response system.   

Imagine the frantic person who just received an erroneous statement, declaring them in egregious default of until that point, an impeccable account. Consider the range of emotions from frustration and bewilderment to exasperation and anger, as they furiously pound on the number pad of their telephones in response to a digitized voice.  Worse, the distraught caller reaches an East Coast business at 4:00 PM Pacific Coast time.  “We’re sorry, all of our offices are closed.  To leave a voice mail on our automated voice response system, please press 1 now.”  

Nothing will ever surpass the quality of doing business in person, whether over the phone or face to face.  Only people have the ability to understand and respond to the personal circumstances that affect our daily lives. 

If you believe you have received this message in error or you wish to leave a message, please press 1 now. 

It is said of Republicans this year, and especially the conservative base, that there is no enthusiasm, no excitement in the party as the November elections approach.  Nowhere is this condition touted more than by the liberal media.  There is a word to explain this present state of languishing lethargy -- leadership. 

Liberals are willing followers; they enthusiastically embrace the phrase du jour of liberal enlightenment, as long as it allows them to believe that they care.  As long as they can assuage their guilt for their largess, as opposed to the needy, they can feast on the finest and feel no shame, because, they care.  It is why Barack Obama is so perfect for the left; he epitomizes every cliché, every cause, and every banner they wave.  With Obama at the helm, it is set it and forget it.  Obama will do their caring for them to say nothing of demonstrating their racial harmony. 

Republicans, as opposed to their Lemming counterparts, are not looking for someone who will act as a substitute for the personal responsibility in their lives.  They seek someone with the strength of character, high moral standards and conviction to conservative principles to whom they can delegate the management duties of this country. Simply stated, they demand leadership, not stewardship. 

In the run up to the elections in 2000, Republicans were enthusiastic about George W Bush.  He spoke of reducing taxes, the size of government and restoring dignity to the office of the President of the United States.  Most importantly, he said he would lead.  While he has honestly tried not to engage in petty partisan squabbles, by his reluctance, he has appeared weak and the Democratic Party has exploited that weakness.  Republicans expect the leader of both the nation and their party to drive the agenda, not the opposition. 

As we now approach the elections of 2008, Republicans once again are faced with a nominee that not only falls short of conservative ideals; he is allowing his opposition to dictate the rules of engagement.  John McCain has shown the ability to respond immediately and forcefully to those who disparage his positions on the issues.  Unfortunately, it is the members of his loyal staff that incur his wrath for criticizing his opponent.  Such hostility to your base of support and timidity in the face of your opposition hardly instills confidence. 

In truth, there is enormous energy building among Republicans and especially conservative Republicans to return the platform of the Republican Party to its conservative foundation.  This segment no longer looks to the presidency as its focus for change however; it understands that it will take leaders in both houses of congress as their starting point.  They understand that there will always be “Republicans in name only” in congress but they also have every intention of forcing these RINOs to behave as Elephants. 

Those who do not fall for the false liberal promise of having every aspect of their lives administered for them now fully realize that we are a nation of the people no more.  When those we elect to serve as our representative voices in congress use that office to further the whims of government and ignore that which is in the best interest of the people, truly, it is time for a change.  Change however, is not more government, change is not more entitlement spending, change is not holding the budgets of the people hostage to the high cost of energy for partisan benefit. 

The lack of an outward display of enthusiasm and excitement among Republicans is not a function of disinterest or despair.  It is sadness from witnessing so many being manipulated by a political party underwritten by a partisan media.  It will take a true leader to effectively challenge this liberal, socialistic threat, someone driven by principles and conviction, not political power and a personal agenda.  True Republicans and conservatives stand ready to fight but there is no one to lead. 

When the Democratic primaries began, no one knew who Barack Obama was.  Now that he is the presumptive nominee for his party, we still do not have an answer to that question.  Is he the staunch liberal his record says he is?  Is he the centrist that he is now trying to portray himself?  Can he act stand-alone with conviction and purpose in the midst of world leaders or flounder, searching for the words to answer their questions?  Most important is the quality of his character.  Will he be guided by sound principles, solid judgment and determination or does his moral compass have a broken bubble?

We are either sitting on or are surrounded by enough oil to meet domestic demand for the foreseeable future.  When you add the potential of shale oil to the mix, we become the world's largest oil cartel. 

As the per barrel price of oil increases on a daily basis and as we completely rearrange our lives as the price of gas destroys our budgets, our congress tells us, "we can't drill our way out of the problem." 

Saudi Arabia says it doesn't see any need to increase supply, our supply from Mexico is endangered because of outdated equipment and drug wars, and Hugo Chavez, a complete hostile to the United States, just nationalized his oil reserves. 

Islamic fundamentalists are sabotaging the Nigerian supply, Israel is gearing up to take out Iran's nuclear program and Iran has threatened to choke off the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic should they try. 

And what does our congress propose to meet this very real threat to our economy and national security?  Lower the speed limit to 55.  by doing so, we save some 180,000 barrels of oil per day they claim.  When you compare that to a 23 million per day usage you get less than one percent relief and that is if you trust their numbers. 

As for ANWR, the area designated for exploration is 2000 acres out of 19.6 million acres.  Do the math.  That is less than one ten thousandth of one percent of the total area.  Please present the charts that clearly show that 99.999% of the Polar Bears and Caribou live on that spot.  Better yet, please provide the annual tourist data for that location.   

The danger to our national security outweighs environmental extremism.  The instability of the oil supply by those nations on which we most depend, demands we become self sufficient.  We face the very real potential for the collapse of our entire energy and economic infrastructure and all congress can do is come up with slogans and investigate the oil companies. 

We need an investigation allright, an investigation into just why in the hell congress is the key impediment to the solution of the problem.   

Hillary Clinton's slide down the slippery slope toward losing the nomination to Barack Obama got its first shove during the debates.  When asked what her position was on then New York Governor Spitzer's plan for driver's licenses for illegal aliens, she came out on every side of the question.  Barack Obama made hay with her "in-artful" pandering.  Sen. Obama's latest apparent reversal of his Iraq policy may license the beginning of Obama's fall from grace. 

At least Obama doesn't give different answers in a two minute time span, he takes between four to twenty-four hours to backtrack, waffle and deny his remarks.  Even the New York Times is commenting on Obama's "changing" positions on the issues.  Of coarse they want the old Obama back, the anti-war, no guns, just say no to oil Obama. 

What remains however, is that Obama has now pulled a Hillary and come out on every side of every issue.  If it was the banana peel for Hillary, should it not trip up Obama as well?  Obama must take a consistent stand on the issues.  He must not be allowed to amend his statements after the fact depending on who is criticizing him. It is unconscionable that Obama gets a pass on his inconsistencies by declaring that his position has always been consistent when side by side statements are clearly in complete opposition to each other.   

Such pandering cooked Hillary's goose.  It is time for Obama to start feeling the heat.   

What do I know?  After all, I live in one of those “rural towns;” you know, the kind that you think of as “quaint, rustic, charming,” as you quickly drive through on your way back to civilization.  Yeah, we have a lot of those pickup trucks too, not too many with gun racks though; folks here are fairly protective of the critters anymore.  Nevertheless, it is home; breathtaking Sierra mountain trails, streams still teeming with native trout and hidden lakes just made for camping getaways. 

It is a new era however, I can’t “cling” to the serenity and peace of this unprogressive community, it is time for change!  Change I tell you!  At least I hope it is. 

The first thing I have to do is get rid of that “gas guzzling” SUV.  Pity though, I just paid it off but I won’t let a simple thing like financial independence stand in the way of change.  That shiny new hybrid shouldn’t cost that much and I am sure that the increase in my power bill when I plug it in will be offset by its impressive MPG rating.  Being sequestered in my house on those days when the latest storm just dumped 12 to 14 inches of new snow will be a problem but a growing dependence on government services shouldn’t be all that hard to adjust to. 

There will be that unfortunate change in both my mental and physical health.  Since I can no longer get to those remote trailheads, so perfect for cardiovascular health and mental tranquility, both will suffer adversely.  No worries though, I can take solace in my forced health care plan to cover the cost of the degradation in my physical well-being.  Further, I can wallow in Schadenfreude, knowing those evil rich are paying more in taxes.  I feel better already.         

Those “Big Oil” types will get theirs as well.  Certainly, there must be a modicum of comfort that can be derived from the fact that all those windfall profits taxes are going to pay for new roads and bridges.  Right?  We will get new roads and bridges won’t we?  A moot point really, when I realize that my shiny new hybrid doesn’t get enough miles per Amp to get to them.  When you think about it though, “Big Brother” can’t be half as bad as “Big Oil.” 

This growing dependence on government for what is acceptable speech, personal diet considerations, transportation, regulated television and radio content and income confiscation is for the best isn’t it?  I used to think I was doing a fairly good job of managing those choices but as I said, what do I know.  After all, “people by the government” is working so well in all the places it is being tried. 

As we prepare to celebrate this 4^th of July, we should reflect on the principles upon which this nation was founded:  Freedom from outrageous taxation, no legislation without representation nor an oppressive government limiting our personal freedoms.  Funny, isn’t it, that government today is bent on turning the clock back some 232 years.

Today, this is just a satirical rant, an attempt at making a point with sarcastic humor.  The growing influence our government is exercising over our daily lives however, is no laughing matter.

One specific example that is glowing testimony to the fact that “the government,” to be differentiated from “our government,” has an agenda over and above the wishes of the people would be illegal immigration.  By overwhelming numbers, the people said, close the borders and under no circumstances grant amnesty to illegals.  Congress acquiesced but on at least two occasions has attempted backdoor legislation and still insists that it will enact that which the people insist they must not.  To whom do they answer?   

Witnessing the frightening spectacle of what was once considered an objective media herding the masses with relative ease, gives cause for considerable alarm.  To use a sports analogy, there is every reason to believe that the people are about to promote a rookie to head coach.  Should it in fact become the case, the people have just granted the media the power to tell them how to think.  Said differently, it appears that the people have lost the ability to think for themselves.

When you consider that a first term senator with absolutely no experience at the executive level, no experience in business or industry, no record of accomplishment in driving any significant project in any capacity stands at the threshold of becoming the next President of the United States, something, as they say, would seem amiss.  Considering it in those terms, with the addition that this illusion, manifesting itself as a political deity, successfully defeated the hardball Clinton political machine, that tingly feeling should be from the hair standing up on the back of your neck. 

What we do know about the omnipotent one who would be our leader, is that before he got the leading role in the George Soros production of “The Man Who Would be President,” Sen. Obama’s role models were of less than sterling character.  Obama’s sponsors into the world of politics were one Tony Rezko, a political activist and fund raiser, now a convicted felon found guilty of corruption and William Ayers, a former and as yet unrepentant, domestic terrorist. 

A person’s religious choice is a good indicator of their personal perceptions and a window into their view of society.  Factoring in Obama’s association for two decades with religious figure Jeremiah Wright, who by his own words believes that America be condemned to Hades, indicates caution.  Then, there is Father Michael Phlegar, another long time Obama associate, who gives high praise to Louis Farrakhan, a devout Muslim and extreme anti-Semite. 

At issue is the character and values of those with whom Obama has associated and their influence on his character and values, his thinking, judgment, and their effect on the quality of the decisions he would make.  Taken together, his total lack of experience coupled with misfit mentors should automatically disqualify him for the office of president. 

Space does not allow for an in depth discussion of Obama on energy but suffice it to say that every proposal, to include those with an excellent margin for success, are rejected out of hand by his eminence.  As a substitute, he offers another stimulus package and a plan, literally, to tax the rich to give to the poor.  Robin Hood was a mythical character and so too evidently, is Barack Obama. 

By decree, all will have “universal health care.”  The USB port on your computer is universal; it dictates that all who access it must adhere to one standard with no deviation.  A standard over which you have no input, say or control.  Now if that doesn’t give you a warm fuzzy! 

Who then or maybe more appropriate what, is a Barack Obama?  The odds of this man securing the nomination of his party, given his limited experience, his questionable personal associations and obvious floundering for a coherent thought when off script, defy calculation.  His ability to completely contradict himself or say something absolutely insulting to a wide range of voters and then simply dismiss it by saying, “what I said isn’t what I meant,” is breathtaking. 

When President Bush recently urged Congress to lift the moratorium on both domestic and offshore drilling for oil, the response from the Democrats was swift and predictable.  “We can’t drill our way out of this problem,” they cried in unison.  This mantra from the Dems seems to have a twisted bit of reality however, if you think about it in a more literal sense; what they are actually saying is there is no way out of the problem because “We Can’t Drill.”

It was sickening in a nauseating way to watch Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, looking oh-so-serious, stand before the microphone and threaten the oil industry, “use it or lose it.”  According to Rep. Emanuel and most of his colleagues, oil companies already have leases to drill on 68 million acres domestically.  Sounds good right?  What they don’t tell you is that these are unexplored areas.  There are at this point, no known reserves on any of this acreage and that it will take years to decades to complete the exploration phase alone. 

For years, the Democrats have been telling us that: “we are addicted to oil,” we need to develop alternate sources of energy and wean ourselves off fossil fuels.  Wind and solar power are the answer they insist, except they fail to explain just where these windmills and photovoltaic generators would be constructed, the cost of implementation, the infrastructure requirements to connect them to the energy grid and the expected output vs. demand from these “green power houses.”  When you ask them to explain how megawatt generators will meet gigawatt demand, they either change the subject or dismiss it as a temporary technical limitation. 

When you examine the actual results of all the utopian, environmental friendly solutions put forth to date, you realize a net negative impact to the problem.  At best, the amount of fossil fuel required to create an equal part of ethanol fuel is about one to one.  It is not rocket science to understand that there is no reduction in oil demand as a function of using ethanol to power our automobiles. 

When you add the tremendous rise in the price of corn to produce ethanol, the ripple effect that it has had on the price of food and other corn products and especially the serious effect it has had on nations that import corn, you quickly realize that “food for fuel” is not the answer.  While many nations and a growing number here in the United States are calling for a suspension of corn as a base for ethanol, reality is wasted on the Democrats.  It will take more than the dizzying whir of common sense and reality to “drill” common sense into these socialist icons. 

Word is beginning to emerge from geologists who explore for oil, that the combined resources, from crude oil, to shale oil, could equal or exceed the combined reserves of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait.  When you consider that potential, coupled with the dirge and mantra from the left of “end our dependence on foreign oil,” followed by a refusal to tap our abundance, one can only speculate as to that which serves as their logic.     

Lastly, there is the annoying matter of doing what is in the best interest of this nation and its people.  None of that seems to resonate with Democratic members of Congress, for them it is a calculation of power, control and politics. 

With prices at the pump approaching $ 4.25/gal for regular unleaded gas, and the cost of goods, services and food rising in unison as a function of transportation costs and higher energy prices for manufacturers, the Democrats demagogue, lay blame and propose asinine solutions to the problem.   Raising taxes, punishing oil companies, suing OPEC and pushing fuel costs even higher, while simultaneously slamming the door on the only realistic solution in the now time frame, would seem to indicate that the best interest of this nation is secondary to our liberal towers of intellect. 

As tempers rise along with the price of gas, the majority of the people now want to see our domestic oil reserves tapped.  This sentiment is even true of those who identify themselves as Democrats.  It would appear that the Dems have waddled squarely into the middle of a minefield with regard to their position on drilling for domestic oil.  If they step right, they step in it with their base.  If they step left, they will be stepped on by the American majority.  If they don’t get a clue, cut their losses and their ties with the radical far left and end the moratorium on domestic drilling, come November, this problem may well blow up in their faces. 

If the left is good at anything, they excel at propaganda and obfuscation.  They succeed in this area because they have a powerful tool we call the mainstream media.  In combination with their grassroots operatives, websites, blogs and their media echo chamber, the right will in fact find it has limited volume in the din and roar of the liberal noise machine. 

With the launching of their latest website, “fightthesmears.com,” the left has begun a full out program to label every criticism of Barack Obama as a smear, a racial slur, hate speech, baseless rumors or fear mongering.  By so doing, they hope to deflect charges of any kind that negatively impact Sen. Obama and paint the organization or persons making the charge as having no credibility and guilty of gutter politics. 

There also appears to be an effort by the left to monitor conservative blogs and websites and create as much agitation and angst as possible among conservatives who post comments to articles favoring the conservative perspective or message.  What is clear is that there is an intentional effort to drown out or discredit any information coming from the right that can harm their chances in the November elections.  

The campaign by the left to essentially shut down the voice of the right is compounded by the fact that the conservative members of the Republican Party are less than enamored with their candidate.  Not only are conservatives dissatisfied with John McCain, they also happen to represent the party base.  What is left are disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, so-called moderates and self-proclaimed independents.  All of which, are quite susceptible to the liberal spin juggernaut. 

The elections in November may prove historic in a number of ways.  Not only will there be the first “Black” nominee ever for the office of president, the balance of power may not only shift left, it may gather a majority that can override the only effective tool Republicans now hold and that is the filibuster.  Should that become the case, the Democrats would have control of four key issues: Success in Iraq, taxes, domestic oil exploration and most importantly the Supreme Court. 

On Iraq, Barack Obama has already stated with clarity that he will begin a “phased” withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and plans to begin implementation as soon as he takes office.  Such a move to establish a timeline for which al Queda, al Sadr and Iranian special groups could depend, would guarantee a strategy that could essentially be considered the “3 Rs.”   Regroup, rearm and wreak havoc.

The Democrats also intend, at a minimum, to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010.  Consider a shrinking paycheck, coupled with the ever-increasing price of gas, underscored by a policy that refuses to tap domestic sources of oil.  Change?  Believe it! A change in the very way we live from the price to heat our homes, our ability to travel, increases in the price of food, not to mention the negative impact to our quality of life.

Most important of all however, will be the pending makeup of the Supreme Court.  The court’s most recent decision to essentially grant terrorist detainees access to the U.S. Court system is a key example.  By the narrow decision of the liberal members of the court, they not only ignored precedent, they in essence overruled themselves in their previous ruling regarding military tribunals and thumbed their noses at the Constitution.  Should the Democrats hold the power to not only nominate Supreme Court Justices but also hold a filibuster proof majority, judicial activism of this extreme could become the rule and not the exception. 

This is what is at stake and the consequences that could result, should the Democrats be successful in silencing the voice of the right.  That campaign is in full swing from demonizing talk radio, agitating conservative publications and websites, to media manipulation and attempts to make non-conforming outlets such as FOX News the focus of ridicule.  Lest we find ourselves not only without a voice but a lid on our exercise of free speech, it is a time to lift up our voices, and loudly.  As a footnote, we don’t necessarily have to be polite about it either.  

The United States Senate is said to be “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”  What is obvious from watching this “great body” propose every alternative under the sun to address skyrocketing gas prices, while avoiding the real solution, is that one word in that statement requires change.  The word deliberative must be changed to debilitated. 

The reason for high prices for gas and oil products is simple.  A highly productive nation with a very strong economy requires a lot of energy to keep it going.  That energy comes from oil, a product for which we now “outsource” the greatest percentage of our requirement. In short, we have no control of the supply for our growing demand

The solution for this problem is equally simple; exploit the vast quantities of our domestic resources.  What does the great-debilitated body propose?  Rebates, treat oil companies as monopolies, tax the hand that energizes them, reduce their incentive to provide that energy and chastise them for not pursuing alternatives that would put them out of business. 

Two factors must be satisfied to move our energy infrastructure away from being predominately fueled by oil.  The obvious first is the development of an alternative.  Secondly, we must accept that oil will be the main source of energy until that alternative is commercially available.  The only obstacle between energy independence in the short term, until we can successfully develop energy alternatives, is a handful of environmental extremists.

While Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and now even China encroach on rich oil deposits that are well within the waters available to the United States, we are prevented from tapping these reserves because of the environmental lobby.  With the questionable exception of Mexico, the other three nations are openly hostile to the U.S. and are significantly less capable of ensuring environmental protections. 

Not a peep however, out of the rabid enviros as these hostile nations move into the very areas off limits to domestic exploration.  Nor any peep from the great “debilitaters” to put reason above politics and provide leadership in the face of a looming energy calamity.  Oh, I forgot, their inability to do anything other than point fingers, obfuscate and lay blame is all Bush’s fault.   

There are guffaws aplenty over the latest calls from the White House, for investigations into price-fixing or price gouging by oil companies or their subsidiaries.  While there is a degree of justification for snickering at this spectacle, there is also another side of the issue that must be examined. 

It is the politicians, environmental extremists and an agenda driven media that are exploiting the “Big Oil” component of the problem.  By so doing, they have put the focus for solving the problem on the oil companies and away from themselves.  This is political op