281,171 signatures so far!
Posted on 05/30/2008 6:22:46 AM PDT by kellynla
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s petition to Congress demanding the removal of government obstacles to increasing our energy supplies is gathering momentum by the minute, while the Democrats’ do-nothing Congress wants to raise fuel prices.
Actually, labeling Congress a bunch of “do-nothings” is almost right, but not quite. They’re doing their best to create more obstacles to growing our energy supply. And while the price of energy is already unreasonably high, they’re working hard on a liberal agenda that will raise the prices consumers pay for gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and home heating oil.
With the summer upon us (and the November election fast approaching) the price of gasoline should be on the mind of every member who wants to keep his job after November. There is a conservative approach to the problem: relieve government burdens on the energy market. But Congress isn’t controlled by conservatives: the Democrats rule both houses of Congress and – even with gasoline prices reaching all-time highs almost daily -- the Dems are doing their best to raise the burden on the voters.
As Speaker Gingrich told me in a Wednesday interview, “Every time I turn around I see Congress and bureaucracy making it harder to produce energy, increasing the price you and I are paying, reducing the amount that’s available, and then trying to find someone else to blame.”
That’s right: while many Americans are paying more than $4/gallon for gasoline (add another 75¢ for a gallon of diesel fuel), Congress is coming back on Monday to try to pass legislation such as the Warner-Lieberman “cap and trade” anti-global warming bill which -- by itself, and without the costs added by other Democratic initiatives -- would boost the price of a gallon of gas to levels paid in Europe. (Yesterday, the price of a gallon of gas in England was about $6.23.)
Gingrich told me:
At a time when the Congress should be finding ways to lower the amount of cost to put gas in your wife’s car, they are actually proposing to increase the cost of gasoline, increase the cost of diesel fuel, increase the cost of aviation fuel, increase the cost natural gas, and increase the cost of coal. This is at a time when truckers are at a danger of being put out of business. Airlines are in danger of being put out of business. It’s just absolutely amazing.
It is amazing, because there are so many government obstacles to energy development that Congress could eliminate, if it chose to. Gingrich explained:
[I]t’s currently illegal to explore the Atlantic. It is illegal to explore the Pacific. It is illegal to explore the Eastern Gulf Of Mexico. It is illegal to explore Alaska and it is currently illegal to look for shale oil. Now, if you basically…and this is what makes the recent decision by the House to vote to sue OPEC an act of absolute childishness. If you’re not prepared to allow Americans in America to look for oil and gas in America, how can you have the arrogance to say to some foreign country they have to pump more of the stuff we’re not willing to pump?
The vote to sue OPEC only produced another “Kucinich moment” for Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats. The little fact that no court would have the power to penalize OPEC didn’t deter the Pelosicrats from this frivolity.
Gingrich’s petition starts with the commonsensical proposition that instead of creating more burdens on the energy market, Congress should go about taking down the old barriers. In Gingrich’s characteristically plain English the petition says:
We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.
As of about 8:30 pm Thursday, the petition had about 150,700 signatures. Gingrich aims to get 200,000 signatures by this coming Monday. Every conservative -- and every voter who wants to see energy prices go down and not up -- should sign the petition. (You can sign the petition by clicking on this link).
And after Monday?
Gingrich said:
“We’re going to print out the petition, take it up and give it to the US Senate. Then, we are going to continue to gather names. When we get to 500 thousand we’re going to take it up and give it to the US House, and then we’re going to try to gather an excess of a million signatures before the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.
He proposed that we have a “straight-up” argument in this country on energy and on the Dems’ elitist view that we’re not paying enough. The Dems apparently believe that the answer to economic pain is more pain. As conservatives, we should view this debate to be equal in importance to the illegal immigration debate we forced last year.
It is, like the illegal immigration debate, a question of our nation’s economic survival, our national security. Last year, conservatives prevented passage of the “comprehensive immigration reform” -- i.e., amnesty -- bill. This year, we can -- at least -- prevent passage of legislation that will make our energy supplies more expensive.
And next year?
HUMAN EVENTS is researching and will soon publish a conservative energy agenda, one designed to remove government barriers to exploration, development and distribution of energy in the United States. We believe this is exactly the kind of mess that Ronald Reagan had in mind when he said, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
We currently have 191,604 signatures.
If only Congress were a bunch of “do-nothings” because we’d probably better off if they did nothing.
Thanks. Signed it.
mine said thanks for signing. (about 3 mins. ago
Yah! Tried again, it worked.
Thanks!
“As of about 8:30 pm Thursday, the petition had about 150,700 signatures. Gingrich aims to get 200,000 signatures by this coming Monday.”
Well, they’ve already hit their Monday mark:
“We currently have 210,275 signatures”
Speaker of the House is not a king and hold him responsible for things he tried to do but couldn’t accomplish due to reasons beyond his control - ranging from Presidential vetoes to outright sabotage by jealous House colleagues who wanted personal power more than accomplishing agenda they were elected to do, or to required super-majority in the Senate, or to some Republicans (OK, Bob Dole) who saw Newt as potential competitor for President and sabotaged him by making a deal with Clinton during 2005 budget shutdown, or to the malignant press coverage, or due to the shortage of time left to craft and push other urgently needed legislations (unless one is just a one-issue proponent) like the tax reforms and welfare reform which has been vetoed twice before and finally signed by Clinton before 2006 election because it was very popular with American people, etc. etc. - is either politically immature or driven by desire to discredit one man who was truly a leader of conservative movement and thought, if unfortunately not the Republican Party, for the good part of the last 20 years, through Republican and Democratic Presidents and administrations.
Newt is not a perfect man (nobody is) or a perfect leader (nobody is) but knocking off imperfect men and leaders is what gave us McCain as presidential candidate - think about that next time you chose a leader of splinter “Conservative Party” and whether he/she will accomplish more than what Newt is trying to achieve or at least move forward with his party-unaffiliated organization American Solutions for Winning the Future...
/End of long run-on sentences rant.
Thanks, nutmeg!
I done did it. ;o)
all you wrote is true. Thanks for a thoughtful reply.
I do not agree with supporting Newt but I do agree with
Drill more pay less.
Lets work for conservative leaders who will not betray us after getting to DC.
The anxiety I refer to is with the oil speculators who are largely responsible for pushing up the price. The drilling I refer to is new drilling in new fields. Part of the problem is that the companies are drilling at maximum in the existing fields. We need to tap new fields to alleviate some of the supply problems while also agressively pursuing new technologies and ventures that will move us away from oil in the future. No one energy source will suffice or last us in the long run and the more opportunities we pursue simultaneously the better off we are going to be.
Of course. They are drilling at maximum. No question of that. As they pointed out in the School of Mines, one should place one’s mine where the minerals are, so drilling in existing fields seems appropriate.
281,171 signatures so far!
560,738 Signatures - it's growing in leaps and bounds!
560,738 Signatures - it's growing in leaps and bounds!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.