How would things change if the Democrats reigned?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 5/13/06 | Henry Lamb

[wagglebee]

Nancy Pelosi is euphoric in her anticipation of moving into the speaker's office after the November elections. So sure is she of a future Democrat majority that important legislative business may have to wait until the next Congress for action. Between now and November, nothing is as important to Democrats as bashing Bush and the Republican Congress.

Republicans can lose control of the House with the loss of only 15 seats; there are at least 30 Republican seats widely seen to be in jeopardy. Should the Democrats regain control of the House, the stage will be set for retaking the White House in 2008.

John Conyers would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has already announced the creation of a special committee to investigate the Bush White House, looking for justification for impeachment proceedings. Yes, this is the same John Conyers whose staff say they have been forced to baby-sit, tutor Conyer's children, run personal errands for the congressman, and work in Conyers' wife's political campaign.

With the likes of Pelosi and Conyers at the helm in the House, the next two years will be pay back for Clinton's impeachment and for the 2000 Supreme Court decision that gave the presidency to Bush. Beyond the political retribution lies a Democrat agenda that could be far worse than even the Clinton-Gore era of idiocy.

Pelosi says that Democrats will end dependency on foreign oil by 2010 ? not by opening known oil reserves in the U.S., but by looking to the heartland for biofuels. This is "sound-good feel-good" pre-election rhetoric that cannot possibly succeed.

Do the math: The U.S. consumes 394 million gallons of gasoline each day. Because ethanol produces only about 76 percent of the mileage produced by regular unleaded gasoline, the "heartland" would have to produce 518 million gallons of ethanol fuel for each day's consumption. Even blended with 15 percent gasoline for E85 fuel, the "heartland" would still have to produce 440 million gallons of ethanol each day.

To meet this production requirement, an area more than twice the size of Texas ? 358 million additional acres ? would have to be planted in corn. Currently, all land planted in all crops totals only 442 million acres.

This simply is not going to happen. Even if there were another 358 million acres suitable for growing corn, the environmental lobby would never let it happen. They have successfully blocked the disturbance of a mere 2,000 acres of Alaska for nearly two decades. They have been on the warpath to prevent the use of genetically modified seeds and the use of industrial chemicals and fertilizers for years, to say nothing of the anti-irrigation campaigns going on around the country. A four-fold increase in corn production would mean a four-fold increase in all these practices that the environmental lobby has deemed to be "unsustainable." Nancy Pelosi's rhetoric is unrealistic pre-election pandering.

This so-called Democratic energy policy is just silly; the rest of the Democrat's agenda is dangerous. On the domestic side, Democrats seem eager to follow the European model of the socialist superstate, which provides "free" everything to everyone. Never mind that this model requires up to 70 percent of total national production to sustain and is responsible for the continuing decay of the European economy.

On the judicial front, Democrats are desperate to regain the White House before another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. One more less-than-liberal justice will tilt the scale for another generation. This possibility gives Democrats nightmares.

It is the Democrats' view of foreign policy that is most troublesome. Under Democrat rule, the Kyoto Protocol would be immediately reinstated and sent to the Senate for ratification, as would be the International Criminal Court. The war on terrorism would be turned over to the U.N., and the U.N. would be turned over to corrupt bureaucrats to continue doing ? or not doing ? whatever they wish, accountable to no one.

Republicans must bear the responsibility for the current state of political affairs. They have had much help, of course, from the media and from a large disloyal segment of the opposition. Nevertheless, should the Democrats succeed in taking the House in 2006 and the White House in 2008, it will not be because the Democrats have a better idea; it will be because the Republicans failed to deliver on the conservative principles they were elected to implement.

[chesley]

I don't like careerists, either. Not just politicians, either. And I believe in getting them in there.

But in the final analysis, in the general election, we've got to go with what we've got. The winner will be a Republican or a Democrat. Not a Green, Worker's Party, or Communist on the Left. Not a Libertarian or a Constituionalist on the Right. (I'm not sure how far right the Libertarians are right now, either. Personally, I think they've gone nuts. Too bad, I used to like them).

R or D. Anything else is a wasted vote in the current circumstances. Not that I don't agree with the way you feel. I also think the Rs would be a disappointment, except that I really didn't expect any better. They have a few true conservatives, and a bunch of careerists that could just as easily be Democrats, it they had thought their advantage had led in that direction when they had to make a choice. As a matter of fact, I think W has turned out to be a pleasant surprise. I was expecting much worse when I held my nose and voted for him the first time.

[William Terrell]

R or D. Anything else is a wasted vote in the current circumstances.

You duty as a citizen is to vote your conscience. Elections are not a football game, where you root for the winner. The "winner" just may get you a socialist nightmare compounded by a Balkanized state.

I do not care if another party can "win", I can't in good conscience vote for any of the prevailing parties because I see what they have done.

If, after seeing what they have done, I positively vote for them, I bear direct responsibility for the damage. I will be damned if I will put my imprimatur on policies that will destroy my nation.

[chesley]

This is, as you said, a decision of conscience. I let my conscience be guided by my brain, though. I'm not saying that you don't; I'm just saying that obviously you and I have some different criteria that we judge by, that we weight the various factors that we consider differently.

I would never tell anyone not to vote his conscience. We all have to make moral decisions and accept the consequences of them.

[William Terrell]

While my conscience is guided by my brain, it is also guided by my eyes.

[Dave Olson]

Voting for other than established evil will show evil we mean business.

So what? Evil doesn't give a flying gnat's ass that you "mean business". It only wants to win, and if that can be accomplished by chumps either voting 3rd party or not voting at all, to evil that's not a problem.

[William Terrell]

Main parties give a rat's ass when third parties show healthy numbers. Professional politicians have careers to protect and parties have a monopoly to protect.

I we just tumble back into the pot at a threat, why should they care what we think? Ideologues with money then become guaranteers of their career.

[MarkL]

A great deal of the freepers think it would be a good thing to teach Republicans a lesson. I need a real break from this Republican/Bush/Conservative bashing.

It reminds me of the scene in the movie "Constantine," when the ArcAngel Gabriel is about to bring the Antichrist into the world, in order to let humanity suffer horrendously in order to "deserve" the love of G-d.

Mark