[TheRealVille]

I wish them good luck, RV, but until the plant is operating profitably and with no government subsidy, I would be holding my breath. There is no reason that a plant such as this cannot do very well in the current market and the federal government should be facilitating the construction of many more such plants, as they make it easier to obtain new permits to mine the coal that these plants will require.

Montana's governor, Brian Schweitzer, has been advocating this technology for years. He has been frustrated with the failure of the federal government to get behind his efforts. I disagree with Scweitzer on many issues, but he makes the case for coal liquefaction better than anybody that I have heard.

TransGas are saying they want to build one in Pike county also, after they complete this one.

[MustangSally]

This is all well and good but you've got the current administration that wants to kill the coal industry and thus kill this as well

[TheRealVille]

This is all well and good but you've got the current administration that wants to kill the coal industry and thus kill this as well

Not even close to true. :eyeroll:

[nky]

This is all well and good but you've got the current administration that wants to kill the coal industry and thus kill this as well

Not even close to true. :eyeroll:

I don't think The President is killing coal to liquid fuel programs but he's not going out of his way to help either. He spends so much time on "green" fuel that's limited at best instead of helping/expanding a reliable alternative

[TheRealThing]

I beg to differ on this point... my company has found away to get 1000 gallons of fuel in an acre of land... working on it right now with the Department of Energy in Frankfort...

Well, if you're talking about 1000 gallons of fuel out of an acre of land that doesn't sound much like a renewable energy source to me. The basis for the argument against fossil fuels on which, the totality of civilization now depends for life as we know it, is in fact that fossil fuels will some day be depleted and, that we are polluting the environment. With the exception of wind mills and the faultering technology that characterizes solar panels, both of which are novelties at best, we are 100% dependent on fossil fuels. Cars, trucks, most shipping and planes use gas. We use electricity in our homes and businesses. My argument has always been to go ahead and develope alternative energy sources while accepting the reality that is our modern world. Emissions can be controlled more cheaply than going 25 miles at a time on a single (expensive) recharge. And the 25 mile range wouldn't allow for heat or airconditioning. It's easy to talk this stuff all the time until it gets to actually giving up one's way of life.

The liberals are trying to expedite the coming of the green energy sources by creating a situation bordering on desperation, hoping to drive humanity onward at an accelerated rate to develope said new sources. The problem in my mind, it's impractical to reach out with legislation that is ahead of the technological advances of our time. We can't just hope these things come sooner or legislate them into existence with harsh regulations on the fossil fuel industries.

We may well get past our dependance on fossil fuels but, we will need to wait until we can do so at a price and a state of practicality to which the middle class and below can have the same access.

This is where the ideology of the liberal, like Obama, clashes with reality. Universal health care sounds good. The great society sounded good. I believe the world is working as good as it can for the moment. When things get better it's called progress but, to hope our way forward or legislate our way forward can't happen. And I will never be on board with the mindless machinations that have denied us the Canadian pipeline.

[TheRealThing]

If you will notice, at Catlettsburg, KY., heading east toward WV on I-64 at the Marathon plant, everything to your left while traveling between the plant is one of those coal to gas plants. It was finished in the early 80's. It was a government funded project, and after they fired it up and knew that it worked, the government shut it down. I don't know if it was a Reagan shut down or not, but it was during his Presidency, and has never ran after the initial fire up.

I helped build that one. It was brought about intially by the Carter administration. Remember the onset of long lines of cars waiting to by gas in the 70s? Those days marked the first time gas went above a dollar a gallon. That's why the Carter administration decided to improve on an idea first implimented in Germany during the 2nd World War.

At some point after the initial gas scare subsided, but following the plans and allocation of government funding for construction and fire-up, the plant was moth-balled and canabalized for various reasons in the days since. It worked, albeit not so economically, though I've heard they learned enough from the experience to build a facillity which would be much more efficient.

[TheRealVille]

I helped build that one. It was brought about intially by the Carter administration. Remember the onset of long lines of cars waiting to by gas in the 70s? Those days marked the first time gas went above a dollar a gallon. That's why the Carter administration decided to improve on an idea first implimented in Germany during the 2nd World War.

At some point after the initial gas scare subsided, but following the plans and allocation of government funding for construction and fire-up, the plant was moth-balled and canabalized for various reasons in the days since. It worked, albeit not so economically, though I've heard they learned enough from the experience to build a facillity which would be much more efficient.

No doubt you depended the union for your wage, and retirement. Now that you have their retirement, you choose to go against the very thing that made you your living. We see your kind all the time. Take the money and run.

[TheRealThing]

No doubt you depended the union for your wage, and retirement. Now that you have their retirement, you choose to go against the very thing that made you your living. We see your kind all the time. Take the money and run.

The union negotiated my wages and benefits for me. I learned my trade and became a very good mechanic, by all accounts. I considered it my privilege to represent my local and myself with integrity on the job. Soon after my apprenticeship ended I started running work and spent most of my career in supervision. Most of the hands I worked with over the years were good democrats, as was I. When the democrats began to upbraid their republican counterparts and cast aspersions on their character to gain an advantage we began to part ways. Unlike you, I don't see anything inherantly noble about today's democrat. I have seen them do and say whatever they thought would help them to gain an edge, and I mean anything.

Again, unlike you, I was there when wages and conditions were making great strides in negotiations. I know what unions really are, they're labor organizations not political organizations. And certainly not another arm of the democratic party. I've seen people like you all my life too. Yet another Johnny come lately, who thinks he knows it all. Unions guarantee employers amply trained journeymen ready and capable to fullfill the calling of their craft. Professional people like bankers, lawyers, doctors and the uber educated, are the daddy's of the idea that America's craftsmen are somehow inferior to them, not republicans. But, I know in your case it's more gratifing to buy into the age old lie that "Democrats are for the working man." We who make the refineries, schools, hospitals, bridges and you name it, come up out of the ground know we are in every way their equal and in my mind, and on many occasions, their better. If you really do have a degree you know how arrogant the university level academia are, unless you went to a very small school. The liberal prof is the progenitor of the today's liberal democrat, not Roosevelt or Truman.

To borrow your words, "let me go real slow for you", I don't have to be a democrat to be a good American or a good union man. And, I will never vote for any candidate who is openly supportive of principles which are in direct conflict with God's written Word such as abortion and gay rights. Much less the merchandisers of slander ala the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I won't be in violation of any union precepts because of my politics. From where I stand you would vote for Satan himself if he declared for the democratic ticket. You cite graphs and tables generated from liberal think tanks and choose to ignore any evidence that exposes the hypocracy of the left. Some treehugger tells you it wouldn't be good to run a pipeline across Nebraska. A state that is already criss crossed with hundreds of pipelines. And predictably you jump right on board. They oppose the use of fossil fuels, not the pipelines that carry the fossil fuels. It's all about the global warming ruse. When you think about it, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the story line of how Godzilla, born of nuclear waste came into being, and global warming. There isn't any evidence to support either story but, the subplot potential is endless.

I earned my wage and my retirement and, I've left a wake of on schedule/on budget buildings and structures to prove it. You're blowing up the wrong pant leg with that weak stuff.

[TheRealVille]

The union negotiated my wages and benefits for me. I learned my trade and became a very good mechanic, by all accounts. I considered it my privilege to represent my local and myself with integrity on the job. Soon after my apprenticeship ended I started running work and spent most of my career in supervision. Most of the hands I worked with over the years were good democrats, as was I. When the democrats began to upbraid their republican counterparts and cast aspersions on their character to gain an advantage we began to part ways. Unlike you, I don't see anything inherantly noble about today's democrat. I have seen them do and say whatever they thought would help them to gain an edge, and I mean anything.

Again, unlike you, I was there when wages and conditions were making great strides in negotiations. I know what unions really are, they're labor organizations not political organizations. And certainly not another arm of the democratic party. I've seen people like you all my life too. Yet another Johnny come lately, who thinks he knows it all. Unions guarantee employers amply trained journeymen ready and capable to fullfill the calling of their craft. Professional people like bankers, lawyers, doctors and the uber educated, are the daddy's of the idea that America's craftsmen are somehow inferior to them, not republicans. But, I know in your case it's more gratifing to buy into the age old lie that "Democrats are for the working man." We who make the refineries, schools, hospitals, bridges and you name it, come up out of the ground know we are in every way their equal and in my mind, and on many occasions, their better. If you really do have a degree you know how arrogant the university level academia are, unless you went to a very small school. The liberal prof is the progenitor of the today's liberal democrat, not Roosevelt or Truman.

To borrow your words, "let me go real slow for you", I don't have to be a democrat to be a good American or a good union man. And, I will never vote for any candidate who is openly supportive of principles which are in direct conflict with God's written Word such as abortion and gay rights. Much less the merchandisers of slander ala the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I won't be in violation of any union precepts because of my politics. From where I stand you would vote for Satan himself if he declared for the democratic ticket. You cite graphs and tables generated from liberal think tanks and choose to ignore any evidence that exposes the hypocracy of the left. Some treehugger tells you it wouldn't be good to run a pipeline across Nebraska. A state that is already criss crossed with hundreds of pipelines. And predictably you jump right on board. They oppose the use of fossil fuels, not the pipelines that carry the fossil fuels. It's all about the global warming ruse. When you think about it, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the story line of how Godzilla, born of nuclear waste came into being, and global warming. There isn't any evidence to support either story but, the subplot potential is endless.

I earned my wage and my retirement and, I've left a wake of on schedule/on budget buildings and structures to prove it. You're blowing up the wrong pant leg with that weak stuff.

First bold: Just curious as to your trade? For no other reason than to be curious to what another union construction guy did on the job.

2nd bold: I'm a "johnny come lately", if you think 22 years in the trade isn't much.

3rd bold: But, you do realize that Washington republicans, and republican governors of states, do try everything in their power to union bust, right? Just look at Ohio, WI. and our very own Ernie Fletcher, just to name a few.

Last bold: What's in the Bible never comes into play in my voting, but I totally agree with your right to take it into consideration. But, I will always vote against people that try to take away American citizens equal rights.

[charlie22]

First bold: Just curious as to your trade? For no other reason than to be curious to what another union construction guy did on the job.

2nd bold: I'm a "johnny come lately", if you think 22 years in the trade isn't much.

3rd bold: But, you do realize that Washington republicans, and republican governors of states, do try everything in their power to union bust, right? Just look at Ohio, WI. and our very own Ernie Fletcher, just to name a few.

Last bold: What's in the Bible never comes into play in my voting, but I totally agree with your right to take it into consideration. But, I will always vote against people that try to take away American citizens equal rights.

You do realize that if I want to work at certain companies, I have to join the union. I have no right to decide whether I want to join the union or not. If I want the job, I must join the union. And furthermore, a part of my union dues will be spent on political donations whether I want them to or not. I have no right to have my union dues reduced because I don't want to partially fund political donations.

[TheRealVille]

You do realize that if I want to work at certain companies, I have to join the union. I have no right to decide whether I want to join the union or not. If I want the job, I must join the union. And furthermore, a part of my union dues will be spent on political donations whether I want them to or not. I have no right to have my union dues reduced because I don't want to partially fund political donations.

Union companies make up a very small percentage of American companies. There are tons more to choose from, if you don't want to pay union dues. Why would you want to work for a union company, and enjoy our benefits, without paying dues for them?

[TheRealThing]

First bold: Just curious as to your trade? For no other reason than to be curious to what another union construction guy did on the job.

2nd bold: I'm a "johnny come lately", if you think 22 years in the trade isn't much.

3rd bold: But, you do realize that Washington republicans, and republican governors of states, do try everything in their power to union bust, right? Just look at Ohio, WI. and our very own Ernie Fletcher, just to name a few.

Last bold: What's in the Bible never comes into play in my voting, but I totally agree with your right to take it into consideration. But, I will always vote against people that try to take away American citizens equal rights.

1st Carpenter, in my experience most construction supers are carpenters. From Morris, Illinois (Dresden Power Station) to Baytown, Texas, most of my time though was spent in our little valley.


2nd I've seen things come to logger heads more than a few times. Believe me, I know the ropes and literally paid my dues. I really hate that we got away from selling the true value the union tradesman has to offer, that of skilled labor. Featuring a four year apprenticeship and on the job training, unions turn out board certified craftsman. I worked with guys that can, and have, built the infrastructure of this land. From nuclear power facilities of the midwest to the petro-chemical and refining plants of the gulf coast. Call these guys out to work and one gets a journeyman that can do anything his trade calls for. When all the non-union companies like Brown & Root and Daniel-Fluor emerged, unions touted our level of skill to make a favorable comparison. We're trained, the non union workman can be green as a gourd or a decent mechanic, you never know. That's our strength, not politics. On a side note, I believe America's crumbling infrastructure will create the need which will cause the pendulum to swing back in favor of the highly trained union craftsman once we begin to rebuild. But to your point, you've been at it 22 years? Good for you, I'm convinced you know how to do it. We as union brothers still have an obligation to be honest and ethical both on the jobsite and as citizens. I got 40 in (excluding my time in the Air Force) before I backed off. If need were to arise, I can get a few more in, how many would it take to get you to agree that it's okay for me to retire?


3rd I really do see your point. I believe the rub in our case has been exacerbated by the continual confrontations from the likes of folks like Richard Trumka, and high level politicians calling each other out publicly. The dems have used these perceived differences to their advantage by offering the hand of mutually assured success to organized labor leaders. Left out of the deal, republicans find themselves in a position of being 'odd man out' as a result. Chicagoland politics, for example, are rife with this cooperation in which union leaders and politicians sort of use each other to make things happen. Same thing in Houston, Texas, the union bosses rally their troops come election time and the politicians give them a helping hand when it comes to work. A LOT of money is involved, going in both directions. It is my conviction that union members have become too involved. Hence the two sides trade salvos on the national scene, such as the ones you have pointed out. Further, I believe we are trading away the capital we spent all those years earning by building America with union labor, with all these ill advised aliances with other unions. Our involvement in politics has led us down some blind alleys. For instance, government employees and teacher unions to me are absurd, they don't represent any kind of labor, these people are professional types. Why give them credibility they have not earned out of our warchest? I don't get it. We had our boat afloat and in calm waters, why overload it to the point of sinking with hitchikers that likely don't agree with much we stand for? Let them duke it out with the powers that be on their own terms and earn their way to respect the way we did. Unions are trade organizations representing their membership by collectively barganing for wages and conditions. Unionism must be the belief that everybody should be allowed to hook their trolley to our coat tails without the discipline we had to endure and should be a requisite condition for them as well. Maybe some would say unions are just doing what they have to do to get by. I say when it's time to build something employers will come calling because we are the standard of comparison on the world stage.


4th You do realized how rediculous it is for two men to get married, right? They could always live together if they wanted in this country, nobody was trying to stop them. It isn't about rights. In my mind it's about them usng the US and State legislatures to pass laws giving them credibility that the society in which they live, will not. Again, one of my pet peeves. The process a lot of people have bought into in which, folks living outside long established social parameters take their case to court and bleeding heart liberals grant them the dignity they crave by law. Thusly, legislating conservative folks of this land into submission by law. In this way US courts are trumping God's rule of law. It's an argument that will never be settled by men like us in any kind of a debate. This kind of argument will be settled by the Lord in that Day. As I have said before, people don't have an argument with me on matters like this, thay have an argument with God Himself. I'm just not going to betray Him by bowing to any stratagem of man designed to win a debate or, by voting for any candidate of any party, that openly vows to defy God's law by bringing the full force of government against Him.

[charlie22]

Union companies make up a very small percentage of American companies. There are tons more to choose from, if you don't want to pay union dues. Why would you want to work for a union company, and enjoy our benefits, without paying dues for them?

First of all, not all the union dues go to paying for the benefits. A part of it goes to fund the union's political contributions to politicians that the employee may be steadfastly opposed to based on religious or other reasons. But the bottom line in my prior post is that the union is taking those rights away from the employee, correct? The right to not join the union and the right to not have a portion of your dues go to politicians are rights that you may not agree with. But I think they are rights that an employee should have. There is no way on green earth that the federal govt would allow an employer to withhold part of an employee's wages to be used by the employer to fund political contributions to the politician of the employer's choosing. Spin it any way you want to, but that's exactly what the union does. It negotiates wages for its members and then takes, in the form of union dues, part of those wages to fund political campaigns of the union's choosing.

You don't want to vote for politicians that "try to take away American citizens equal rights" (your words) but it sounds like you'd support a politician that would take away the rights I mentioned.

Wouldn't your logic of: if you don't like paying union dues, work somewhere else, apply to those public employees in Wisconsin and Ohio? If they don't like the deal offered in Wisconsin and Ohio, they go work somewhere else or choose a new line of work to get into.

For the record, I'm not a union basher. Far from it. My wife's family has owned a union construction business for 4 generations and over a 100 years. I worked there for a while and had a great relationship with the union. My brother is in a union. I just think there is some hypocrisy in the union positions, some of which I've pointed out. Nothing makes me shake my head more than when my super pro union brother goes on and on about me needing to buy union made products, and he uses non-union contractors to work on his house (to save money of course). If you're going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk.

[TheRealVille]

First of all, not all the union dues go to paying for the benefits. A part of it goes to fund the union's political contributions to politicians that the employee may be steadfastly opposed to based on religious or other reasons. But the bottom line in my prior post is that the union is taking those rights away from the employee, correct? The right to not join the union and the right to not have a portion of your dues go to politicians are rights that you may not agree with. But I think they are rights that an employee should have. There is no way on green earth that the federal govt would allow an employer to withhold part of an employee's wages to be used by the employer to fund political contributions to the politician of the employer's choosing. Spin it any way you want to, but that's exactly what the union does. It negotiates wages for its members and then takes, in the form of union dues, part of those wages to fund political campaigns of the union's choosing.

You don't want to vote for politicians that "try to take away American citizens equal rights" (your words) but it sounds like you'd support a politician that would take away the rights I mentioned.

Wouldn't your logic of: if you don't like paying union dues, work somewhere else, apply to those public employees in Wisconsin and Ohio? If they don't like the deal offered in Wisconsin and Ohio, they go work somewhere else or choose a new line of work to get into.

For the record, I'm not a union basher. Far from it. My wife's family has owned a union construction business for 4 generations and over a 100 years. I worked there for a while and had a great relationship with the union. My brother is in a union. I just think there is some hypocrisy in the union positions, some of which I've pointed out. Nothing makes me shake my head more than when my super pro union brother goes on and on about me needing to buy union made products, and he uses non-union contractors to work on his house (to save money of course). If you're going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk.

You have every right in the world to not work union and not have some of your dues money go to candidates you don't support. Unions support candidates that are friendly to unions. I, 100% support your right to not work union. I 100% support your right to work for a nonunion contractor and keep all your wages. I also support my right to have union negotiated wages and benefits. Stay away from union jobs, and you won't have to worry where your money goes. What makes you think you have a right to come on union negotiated jobs, and not pay union dues?

[TheRealVille]

1st Carpenter, in my experience most construction supers are carpenters. From Morris, Illinois (Dresden Power Station) to Baytown, Texas, most of my time though was spent in our little valley.

Mostly in my sector, pipefitters and boilermakers are our superintendents. I did have one carpenter super once, at Ashland Oil. Good guy. Not the best at laying out pipe work, but he did a good job, overall.

[TheRealVille]

Wouldn't your logic of: if you don't like paying union dues, work somewhere else, apply to those public employees in Wisconsin and Ohio? If they don't like the deal offered in Wisconsin and Ohio, they go work somewhere else or choose a new line of work to get into.

You won't see me take up for public unions. If I talk union, it is always from a private sector viewpoint. You do notice that the voters are overturning those rulings by their vote though, right?

[TheRealThing]

Mostly in my sector, pipefitters and boilermakers are our superintendents. I did have one carpenter super once, at Ashland Oil. Good guy. Not the best at laying out pipe work, but he did a good job, overall.

Yeah, I will totally buy that one. I always picked out somebody to layout and make decisions related to his own craft, especially the mechanical stuff. A super has got everything he can handle without trying to do it all. I did work with these guys on occasion to help work out the kinks though.

[charlie22]

You have every right in the world to not work union and not have some of your dues money go to candidates you don't support. Unions support candidates that are friendly to unions. I, 100% support your right to not work union. I 100% support your right to work for a nonunion contractor and keep all your wages. I also support my right to have union negotiated wages and benefits. Stay away from union jobs, and you won't have to worry where your money goes. What makes you think you have a right to come on union negotiated jobs, and not pay union dues?

We'll agree to disagree. That's okay. I respect your pro union stance. As I mentioned I know a lot of folks that belong to unions, particularly the pipefitters union. Most of them are good hardworking folks. I'm not alone when I say that a union member should not have to pay that part of their dues that goes to fund the union's political contributions. I know many a pipefitter that feels the way I do. Particularly when the politician receiving the union campaign contributions also supports abortion, is anti-2nd Amendment, has anti-hunting positions, and is anti-military. Perhaps not in Ky, but on the national level a lot of the strong pro-union politicians have beliefs that don't stack up at all with a lot of the positions and beliefs of the average American union member. At least that's my understanding.

[TheRealVille]

We'll agree to disagree. That's okay. I respect your pro union stance. As I mentioned I know a lot of folks that belong to unions, particularly the pipefitters union. Most of them are good hardworking folks. I'm not alone when I say that a union member should not have to pay that part of their dues that goes to fund the union's political contributions. I know many a pipefitter that feels the way I do. Particularly when the politician receiving the union campaign contributions also supports abortion, is anti-2nd Amendment, has anti-hunting positions, and is anti-military. Perhaps not in Ky, but on the national level a lot of the strong pro-union politicians have beliefs that don't stack up at all with a lot of the positions and beliefs of the average American union member. At least that's my understanding.

You know many union pipefitters that would rather not pay union dues? Why are they then? There are tons of nonunion piping work out there. Nonunion piping has a much bigger slice of the pie in construction. Why aren't they working for those contractors? All that aside, I really would like to know what makes it ok for you to think you should be able to work on a union negotiated job, and not have to belong to the union? Because, proponents of "right to work" laws think just like you. How do you all get your thinking that you have a right to work nonunion on union jobs?

[Hoot Gibson]

You know many union pipefitters that would rather not pay union dues? Why are they then? There is tons of nonunion piping work out there. All that aside, I really would like to know what makes it ok for you to think you should be able to work on a union negotiated job, and not have to belong to the union? Because, proponents of "right to work" laws think just like you. How do you all get your thinking that you have a right to work nonunion on union jobs?

You misread Charlie's post. He did not say that he knows any union pipefitters that would prefer not to pay any union dues - only that part of the dues that goes to political candidates. Union members should not be coerced into supporting political causes that they oppose and union bosses often have entirely different political agendas than the rank and file.

[TheRealVille]

You misread Charlie's post. He did not say that he knows any union pipefitters that would prefer not to pay any union dues - only that part of the dues that goes to political candidates.

The PAC fund amounts to about 5 cents an hour, and you aren't required to pay that. You sign a paper that allows it to be taken out of your check. If you don't want it taken, you don't sign the paper.

[Hoot Gibson]

The PAC fund amounts to about 5 cents an hour, and you aren't required to pay that. You sign a paper that allows it to be taken out of your check. If you don't want it taken, you don't sign the paper.

Is that true for all unions or only your's? Does the union make any other political expenditures separate from their PAC?

[TheRealVille]

Is that true for all unions or only your's? Does the union make any other political expenditures separate from their PAC?

I can only speak for mine. I do know, by hiring in with other crafts at the same time, that they have to sign the same PAC fund paper. On the local level, no. On the Washington level, I can't say.

[Hoot Gibson]

On my way home from the doctor's office, I noticed that gasoline has risen to $3.75/gal. in this area. Does anybody think that Obama will be reelected if gas rises and remains above $4.00/gal. for an extended period and unemployment remains above 8 percent? I think that there is a good chance that gasoline will top $5.00/gal. this summer.

Meanwhile, Canada is signing deals with Chinese oil companies for the crude oil that should already be earmarked for a new US pipeline.

[charlie22]

On my way home from the doctor's office, I noticed that gasoline has risen to $3.75/gal. in this area. Does anybody think that Obama will be reelected if gas rises and remains above $4.00/gal. for an extended period and unemployment remains above 8 percent? I think that there is a good chance that gasoline will top $5.00/gal. this summer.

Meanwhile, Canada is signing deals with Chinese oil companies for the crude oil that should already be earmarked for a new US pipeline.

I wonder if the pipeliners union is going to be sending political campaign donations to President Obama?

[TheRealThing]

On my way home from the doctor's office, I noticed that gasoline has risen to $3.75/gal. in this area. Does anybody think that Obama will be reelected if gas rises and remains above $4.00/gal. for an extended period and unemployment remains above 8 percent? I think that there is a good chance that gasoline will top $5.00/gal. this summer.

Meanwhile, Canada is signing deals with Chinese oil companies for the crude oil that should already be earmarked for a new US pipeline.

Sadly, unleaded regular was $3.79/gal this morning in our area. This in part is due to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. In no way are they backing down, holding military manuvers there as we speak. All this will result in much higher prices at the pump which means higher prices at the grocery store etc. Today a loaf of bread was $3.00 and a gallon of skim milk was over $4.00. I've been hearing this whole week that gas could well pass the $5.00/gal mark this summer.

Maybe some of Mr. Obama's defenders would like to step up and tell us all about this being Bush's fault again. And while they're at it, they might want to hire out their services as economic consultants to the news media because those folks are hitting the panic button about all this. Not Fox News media, we're talking CNN and MSNBC. It just serves to point out the rediculous attempts to justify this administrations veto of the canadian pipeline, not to mention the moratorium on domestic oil drilling. We need that oil, especially now that crude has shot back up to $106.00/bbl. In all the attempts to create the perfect smoke screen one critical fact has been looked over. If crude shoots up to $200.00/bbl we still have our own supply of cheap oil. So, if America refuses to buy the expensive arab oil, what would happen to the price? It would go down. We're fairly crippled as things stand, our own one time adequate oil industry has been laid waste. We recently produced around 40% of the crude we consume but that figure is down somewhat now. And let me ask one questiion further, what would be so wrong with the US being in the same position as the OPEC countries? Would it be awful if we exported more oil if it served our purpose?

A nightmare is in the making for sure, but here is the scary part to me. Obama as much as announced his plans to cause escalating, no, SKYROCKETING, energy costs while still on the campaign trail. Pushing our nation to the brink of the abyss is a justifiable and neccessary evil in the mind of the committed liberal. I will never forget his own thoughts on the matter, as they related to the percent of usage of world energy consumption we Americans use. Sixty five percent, leaving off the decimal point. His conclusion, "we simply cannot continue to use that much of the world's energy, it isn't right". Here's the leader of our land pledging to allow everybody else to catch up with us by creating a slowdown in our economy. I'll have to say, if ever a guy lived up to his word, he did.