Agree with your first and last paragraphs, but the middle one is off the mark.

You think gas-powered engines are our problem. What would you use instead? Bicycles? How about transporting goods without diesel-powered locomotives? What about using fuel oil to heat homes up North? How about the plastic used to make the keyboard you're typing on? Or the food you eat (fertilizers use petroleum products)? Rubber? The list is almost endless. The key to a thriving, civilized country is the availability of cheap energy. Wind and solar don't meet the criteria (read some of Trzupek's articles for insight).

No, to lessen the Saudi's power, we could make all of the energy that's readily available within our own borders available without huge governmental costs (taxes and regulation), or prohibitions.

Nope, doesn't distort the picture. The issue is "clean" fuel. The amount of energy taken to produce the corn must be taken into account.

Ethanol is inefficient. Your gas mileage will decrease 3% using 10% ethanol vs. straight petroleum, 15% will be that much worse. Not to mention old cars, ones from way-back-when before emissions controls that will suffer from the corrosive effects of ethanol.

As to the market taking care of it, that would require your last two sentences to come true.

Damn that's great stuff! Bless our troops and the U.S. of A

In remembrance of my Dad, USAF (and Army Air Corps) pilot, 1943-1975

Jim C., you are completely misguided. Republicans had a slim majority during GWB's tenure, but there were few, if any, conservatives. No conservative would have voted for "no child left behind" or a prescription drug program for seniors.

But let's dissect your comments further. What happened to the economy? The CRA happened to the economy. That's the Community Reinvestment Act, started under Carter and his liberal Democrat henchmen in the 70's and strengthened by our good buddy Clinton and his enforcer Reno. That gave us Fannie and Freddie which in 2003 Fudgecicle Frank said were not in any danger. The housing bubble burst, and viola!

How about spending? Look at the budgets, and notice how truly bad things got when your "progressive" buddies took over congress after 2006. And you have the audacity to talk about how bad spending was during Bush's terms when your friends who now control the executive and both houses of congress have quadrupled the worst deficit under Bush (and don't forget that was for 2008 when the Dems controlled the purse strings). And once again, not conservatives, Republicans.

As to what the Republicans might have called themselves, who cares? They certainly weren't conservative. I mean, look at what your idiots call themselves: at the turn of the 20th century it was changed from communist to progressive. When people realized what progressives were, they started calling themselves liberals. Now that that's become a negative, they're switching back to progressive. All those names are synonyms for socialist, or Marxist. Remember, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it a toothpick, but it's still a duck.

And the last point is that we'll vote for those who truly take the idea of protecting the Constitution to heart. We'll settle for just getting the Marxists out of there for now, but if the replacements don't abide by the principles of our great country, we'll replace them, too.

And I almost forgot, Obama is naive. He's also an idiot community organizer who is way out of his depth.

What makes you think we don't know what we're protesting against, you idiot?

860 billion for the "stimulus" that stimulated nothing but government jobs and payments to cronies.

A "health care" law that does nothing for health care except provide more government and union jobs, costs 960 billion (if you believe that I'll sell you some beach front property in Kansas), taxes us to death, and will inevitably incur rationing.

64 billion given to the car companies to pay off UAW cronies, and GM still goes under, only now it's owned by Uncle Sam.

How about the good old "Cash for Clunkers" program? Boy, it really helped out the government-owned car companies, didn't it?

Government workers make an average of $71K a year, while the average salary of the people who pay their salaries is about $50K.

Politicians who make a career our of public service. Get great pensions, salaries, and that all-important power that they crave.

Bail out of Wall St. for another 700 billion. Now government controls the banks.

I'm just getting started, but I'm out of time. I'll reiterate: you're an idiot who obviously doesn't have a clue.

I don't disagree with what you stated. I wonder, though, how often the CBO has been correct? The initial projections for Medicare cost in 1990 were off by a factor of 11. That's pretty poor in any book. So what makes anyone think that their projections for this monstrosity will be anywhere near correct? Or maybe they'll be wrong in our favor... What do you think?

I don't know which one of you is correct about El Nino, but there's a simple solution to this bullshift green energy stuff. Let the FREE market determine what's best. If wind or solar can compete without using my money to subsidize it, I'm perfectly willing to use it. Darwin's principles work well in the FREE market. Think about it.

Just re-read it a few weeks ago because of all the crap that's going on with Obama Bin Laden. (Funny how only one letter differentiates Osama and Obama.) You're absolutely correct about Chrichton. I especially love all of the graphs illustrating the fact that temps are actually falling... Oh well, our statist politicians crammed one down our throats this week, and it will only embolden them to accelerate their agenda.

Tristan, anyone hit by a car here is covered by law. He would have to pay for his care, either by insurance, or from his pocket, written off by the hospital and doctors, or by our "unfair" government. As far as insurance coverage goes, read the contract to figure out what is covered by a policy, and if you don't like that one get a different one. Then let's talk about your NHS. I'm sure the majority gets adequate care, but there are those who don't, which has been well-documented. And what about the cost? With the great confiscation of your incomes in Britain it is still insolvent. One last thing: last year I spoke with one of our fellow British citizens who is unwilling to depend solely on your NHS and therefore provides for his own medical care (I don't remember if he has additional insurance or pays cash) and is disgusted by the fact he still has to pay 6% (according to him) of his salary to the government. I could go on, but that's enough for me...

And you know, William, you can stop contributions to the dangerous CO2 levels by stopping breathing....