Senator Schumer’s Response to Bush Energy Proposal is Typical Washington Response

Calling the oil issue a matter of national security, President George Bush outlined a plan Tuesday to cut gasoline costs and temporarily stopped deposits to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.


“So by deferring deposits until the fall, we’ll leave a little more oil on the market,” Bush said during a speech in Washington at the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group for the ethanol industry. “Every little bit helps.”


“Our addiction to oil is a matter of national security concern,” Bush said.


In the Democratic response to Bush’s Rose Garden news conference, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York accused Bush of failing to get tough on powerful oil companies.  Schumer said Bush “has closed his eyes and put his hands over his ears as these crises have grown. 

He said the economy is in its current state because President ignored repeated warnings.


“Now all of a sudden he’s realizing the problems,” Schumer said, later adding, “He has lost control of what is going on in the American economy and lost the faith of the American people.”


Schumer also said Bush is “plain wrong” about how to address the situation. In particular, he said, opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration will do nothing to alleviate high gasoline prices, noting it will take 10 years before new oil could be produced and then it would reduce the price of gas by only a penny a gallon.  (President Clinton said much the same when he vetoed legislation that would have permitted drilling in ANWR’s coastal plain fourteen years ago!  Had the bill been signed then, we’d have started producing oil from that area already!)


Schumer said the president cannot be both a friend to Big Oil and back lower prices and accused Bush of failing to get tough on powerful oil companies.


“The president today just spoke about high gas prices. And to listen to the president, you’d think that it’s the local gas station that’s the problem,” Schumer said. “We all know it’s the big oil companies who are causing these massive price increases that go way beyond what supply and demand would merit.”


Schumer said the president cannot be both a friend to Big Oil and back lower prices.


In my April 8th article in this blog entitled “We The People,” I wrote, “…our elected officials work harder to gain more personal power and to undermine their political opposition than they do to solve America’s problems.”  Senator Schumer has shown exactly what I was referring to.  I’ve searched (without any success) to find anything in the Senator’s comments suggesting an alternative that would make additional energy available to the American consumer.  It’s sad, but it is a common practice in Washington today.  You can be a successful elected official for many years without producing anything good for our county.  All you need to do, is to be critical of everyone else’s ideas.


Senator Schumer should be ashamed of himself. 



A Response to Felipe Calderon’s Position on Our Immigration Laws

In an address to the Mexican nation last fall, President Felipe Calderon established what I will call the Calderon Doctrine: “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.”

President Calderon has said the flow of illegal workers to the United States would not stop, saying the two countries needed to work together to solve the problem.

Let me see how this whole working together thing works out…


Mexicans living in the United States send home $23 billion annually.  (That, by the way, is the second largest industry in Mexico behind oil!)  Okay, that’s what they get, in addition to the fact that they don’t have to worry about providing jobs, health care, education or housing for these people.


Americans get longer lines at hospital emergency rooms (those that haven’t been forced to close due to the costs of care for uninsured illegals), demands that schools be tolerant of the needs of students whose first language is not English, fewer jobs, higher crime.   Sure, that sounds like a good deal, right?  Not so much.


I would suggest that the U.S. government, in the spirit of the cooperation that President Calderon wants us to share, compile a list of the increased costs of the immigrants on the already strained budgets of the federal government and the states…and send President Calderon a detailed bill for services rendered!


I realize our government won’t do such an outlandish thing and, if they did, there is not a snowballs chance in Mexico City that we would collect. 

What I think, however, is that the American people would simply love the idea.  They would know it would be a futile gesture, but it would make us feel better knowing that we aren’t just being verbally abused all the time while being raped by our joint border policies.

The Threat of Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)

Last fall, the Senate came close to ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world’s oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  The rush to ratify LOST appears to have slowed—for now at least.


President Ronald Reagan first rejected LOST in 1982 on grounds that the U.S. would surrender sovereignty to the UN and its international courts.


President Clinton, anxious to appease One World Government advocates in his own party, favored the treaty but withheld submission to the Senate due to lack of support.


LOST provides the legal framework within which all activities on, over and under the oceans and the seas must be carried out. In other words, the LOST treaty would give the UN jurisdiction over everything concerning the oceans and seas of the earth. 


The treaty creates three new international institutions—the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority, and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. U.S. companies would pay taxes or “fees” for access to oil, gas and minerals. But such access would be determined by the treaty organizations, not the weakened U.S.  We would not have veto power protection in these organizations like we do in the Security Council. We’d have one vote among a membership of over 150 nations.


LOST has gathered dust on the shelves of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee until last fall.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved it, and our Senate has schemed to keep the public unaware, while it is believed they could ratify it at any time. The secrecy involved in this treaty that would incredibly affect our nation speaks of its very controversial nature. Then it, once again, came to life.  President Bush has given every indication that he would sign it if it is sent to his desk.  This type of legislating behind the backs of Americans and President Bush’s willingness to go along with it reminds me of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill.  The Senate tried to sneak that into law in the dark of night as well. 


John McCain has voiced both opposition and support for the LOST treaty, but most of his statements seem to be in favor of it!  Barack Obama has already voted in favor of the treaty once as a member of the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee when it voted to send it to the Senate floor.  Hillary Clinton supported ratification when it was being addressed during the Clinton White House years.  What that means to all of us is that whenever there are enough votes in the Senate in favor of the treaty, whoever happens to be in the Oval Office for the next four-to-eight years will likely sign it!


Our personal freedom and security depend on preserving American sovereignty and security by remaining vigilant in this fight against LOST! The Law of the Sea Treaty could come up on the Senate floor anytime! Be sure to contact your Senators today and tell them to oppose ratification of the treaty.


Call Your Senators Today!
Capitol Switchboard: (202)-224-3121

Giving Parents a Method to Get Involved in Their Children’s Education

When I hear people say that the answer to many of the problems with our education system is to have the parents get more involved, I always want to ask them how they suggest parents to that.  Some parents have to work during the day, so they cannot volunteer their time at school and for some it is difficult to attend PTA meetings and/or parent-teacher meetings due to scheduling problems.  There is also no guaranteed method of getting information concerning assigned schoolwork to parents which would allow them to help their kids at home.


While I admit it is not the complete answer to the problem of our schools, I propose a plan to help parents get involved in the everyday schoolwork of their children.  The idea is to add a link to each school’s web site that would allow parents to find what assignments were given for the day.  Any handouts that have been used in class or have been given to students to work on at home could be included for quick downloading.


By having access to this information on line, a parent would be able to ensure that homework is being done and have the added benefit of allowing the parent to help keep their child from falling behind in the event they miss school due to illness or any other reason.


In this plan, there would be very little additional cost to maintain the web site, because students doing office work to earn community service points for graduation or parent volunteers could update and maintain the site with the current assignments.  I would suggest that the local community college could take on the project of either modifying existing sites or building sites for schools in their area as part of a hands-on project for their curriculum.


The attendance of a student could also be a good tool for parents to have available on this site.  If a child’s grades are slipping and the parent finds they are not attending classes, they can deal better with that problem.  They, otherwise, might not be aware of it.  To make this possible, a simple password could be provided to the parent at the beginning of the school year and help protect the privacy of other students.  I realize the programming could cost a little more to add this feature, but would probably be worth it in the end if it helps get the parent more involved in the child’s schoolwork.


Obviously, this plan cannot be all-inclusive because everyone does not have access to the internet in their homes.  For those who do not have access and cannot access accounts any other way, there is the public library.  Any parent can access the internet at the library and perhaps the library staff could be persuaded to have a special computer dedicated for this purpose and make special arrangements with parents, grand-parents and guardians to allow computer time and initial instruction of how to access the information.


While this plan is not the answer, it is a step.  Let’s take this step now.


Dems Should Be Aware of Senator McCain

The North Carolina Republican Party is planning to run an ad showing a picture of Barack Obama superimposed over a clip of Rev. Jeremiah Wright giving one of the “sermons” that have been so much in the news and so controversial.  The ad then names two Democratic candidates for governor in North Carolina who have endorsed the Senator from Illinois and states that they are too radical for the North Carolina.

This add has caused a minor uproar in the media and in the Presidential campaign.  Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee has publicly stated that he does not want the add broadcast, but the North Carolina Republican Party continues to say that it is an advertisement for people running at the state level and has nothing to do with McCain or his campaign. 

“They’re not listening to me because they’re out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable,” said McCain.  He claims that he has pledged to not run negative advertising and that he doesn’t believe it is helpful to the American voter to do so.

Regardless of how you feel about Rev. Wright’s rantings or Senator Obama’s connection to his former pastor, I suggest that, whoever is the Democratic nominee happens to be, he or she should beware of Senator McCain.  I seem to recall that, during the Republican primary in Florida, Senator McCain stated over and over that Mitt Romney had called for timetables for pulling American troops out of Iraq.  Gov. Romney stated that the claim was untrue, but Senator McCain persisted at every event, in front of every microphone he could find, in robo-calls and in advertising.  Even when confronted with the complete interview that he was using as a source, and advised that he was incorrect by members of the press, Senator McCain continued on the theme.  He had clearly pulled Gov Romney off of his message, which was the economy at the time (not exactly John McCain’s strong suit) and forced him to continue to deny the charge.  The damage was done because there was not enough time to prove that the Arizona Senator had been making the story up before election day. 

So, Barack or Hillary (whichever happens to get the nomination) should watch out for that knife in the back from Senator McCain if he claims he’s on that Straight Talk Express and wanting only a clean campaign from both sides.  He’ll strike just before election day!!

Thoughts On Education

Our education system is in dire need of a comprehensive overhaul. Since the mid-1960s to mid-1970s we have tried a number of changes to our education system. Some have worked well and should be continued. On the other hand, some things have failed miserably.

Students are graduating from high school without the ability to read a book or do basic math. While many of the new-age ideas have benefited the student’s ability to compete in the world today, it seems a shame that they cannot read the application they are trying to fill out and cannot balance a checkbook. They know virtually nothing about why and how our country was formed and how it evolved.

We need to get the best teachers teaching and let them teach.  If you let these motivated educators instruct in a manner that makes the subjects interesting, students are more apt to want to succeed.  We need to get those who cannot or do not want to be a part of the new education of American youth, to move on to other fields. Tenure is not nearly as important as the education of our young, for they are our future. 

We should begin this overhaul with the stipulation that English is the language in which students will be taught. Students are going to need the background in English to succeed in life in this country.  If they have a second language already, that is great.  I would encourage those whose first language is English to take another language while in school.  Having a second or third language would only increase the chance of success in any future career, but English is a must!

We should abandon attempts to teach multi-culturalism in schools.  This country was built on immigrants and they have molded their culture into ours.  It is an American culture and is both unique and beautiful.  We shouldn’t try to force other cultures on people.  They should make the effort to merge into American society and contribute their background to the melting pot.  At the same time, we should be teaching a course on Americanism.  This would include the Constitution and the words of our founding fathers.  It should include all that America has done for the world.

 Currently, students are being taught all that is wrong with America or they aren’t being taught anything about it at all.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be honest about some of the low points in our history, but we shouldn’t give the impression that this country is bad.  The United States has a great history that we all can be proud of.  I believe that this nation has not yet reached the peak of its greatness.

We should take steps to encourage students in all areas of math and science.  This is needed if we are to remain the great nation that we are.


Pennsylvania Primary Spurns Questions

Tuesday was primary day in Pennsylvania and I congratulate Senator Clinton on her victory there.  By winning Pennsylvania, the primary season moves to North Carolina and Indiana (I presume neither candidate will take time to travel to Guam, whose primary is before the other two). 

I have a few questions about the candidates that I’ll never get answers for:

1.  Why do we continuously hear that Senator Clinton has won all of the “big, battleground states” except Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois and that this proves that he cannot win in the fall?  Unless I missed something, the candidates were all running in Democratic primaries against Democratic opponents getting primarily Democratic voters to select the winner of those contests.  You would have to presume that a certain percentage (probably a high percentage!) will vote for the eventual nominee in the fall regardless of who they voted for in their primary.  Therefore the claims are pretty much meaningless.

2.  If there is a need for a national health care program (I believe that each and every one of the Democratic candidates favored one), why can I not find any legislation having been introduced to get it rolling regardless of who wins.  Is there only a need for everyone to be insured if one of these people are elected to the Presidency? 

3.  Can anybody tell me why someone who has given enough thought into whether they want to put up with all the slime and hard work of a Presidential campaign, they couldn’t have taken an extra week or two before announcing their candidacy and select who they would choose as a running mate?  It would make a huge difference to the voters in the primaries.  It would give another person to put on the campaign trail.  It would be good for the country and would save many elected officials from the embarassment of looking like they are sucking up just to be considered for the Vice-Presidency.  It would save us from having to hear the political analysts try to predict who the selection might be during the convention.  Those are just a sampling of the plusses.  You can’t tell me that they haven’t considered it until the convention.

As I said, I won’t get my answers, but at least they are out in the public now.  Thanks for letting me vent.