Here was a great point from Mark Steyn at NRO on the Democrats’ complicity in limiting the supply of energy for Americans:

“It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act,” declared the House of Representatives, “to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product… or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.”

Er, okay. But, before we start suing distant sheikhs in exotic lands for violating the NOPEC act, why don’t we start by suing Congress? After all, who “limits the production or distribution of oil” right here in the United States by declaring that there’ll be no drilling in the Gulf of Florida or the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge? …

Yep, the Democrats in Congress are in effect joining in with the OPEC oil cartel to drive up the price we pay for gasoline, by purposely limiting domestic energy production. But it’s the Republicans who are down in the polls because the economy isn’t quite as strong as it once was. Crazy. Unfortunately, John McCain takes this issue off the table because he also opposes drilling in the desolate, bug-infested ANWR.

The blog post from Politico containing this video of Father Michael Pfleger “preaching” at Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is titled “Mocking Hillary at Trinity”, but the mockery of Hillary is hardly the worst part of the clip.

The diatribe about “white privilege” (as if all white people have trust funds) and the notion of collective guilt based on skin color is much worse than anything he said about Hillary Clinton. The cheering in response was disturbing as well, though not surprising at this point, after all the Rev. Wright business. And Mr. Pfleger seemed to be doing some sort of impersonation of Wright, with his voice and mannerisms. It’s a wonder the people in the pews didn’t find his weird, lunatic mimicry of a black preacher offensive.

And the pattern of Senator Obama’s radical associations gains yet another data point. But Obama had no idea. Right.

More on Pfleger from Michelle Malkin here.

Via Politico.com, yet another example of Barack Obama talking one way and acting another:

MIAMI – Democrat Barack Obama pledged Friday to renew the country’s alliance with Latin America after what he called eight years of neglect under President Bush.

But this is unmitigated BS. The Bush administration has reached out to Latin America and has good relations with the democracies of Latin America. The exceptions are the thug regimes of Cuba and Venezuela. President Bush has even been criticized from some on the right for his close ties with Mexico.

It also contrasts with Obama’s own actions toward Latin America, specifically toward Columbia. Obama opposes the free trade agreement with Columbia, negotiated by the Bush administration that has supposedly “neglected” Latin America.

Once again, Senator Obama is trying to fool people with empty rhetoric that conflicts with his actions.

Obama said he would pursue “aggressive, principled and sustained diplomacy in the Americas from day one,” reinstating a special envoy for the region, opening more consulates and expanding the Peace Corps. He would create a regional energy initiative and boost foreign assistance.

….

…Obama said. “That’s the way to bring about real change in Cuba – through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.”

Obama thinks throwing together a lot of nice-sounding adjectives is the solution to all problems, apparently. Or, he thinks a majority of voters are easily duped, take your pick.

Obama disputed McCain’s assertion that he would meet with Raul Castro, “as if I’m looking for a social gathering, I’m going to invite him over and have some tea.” He said he would engage in “careful” preparations before direct diplomacy.

“We will set a clear agenda,” Obama said. “And as president, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.”

But Obama said in a debate a few months ago that he would meet “without preconditions” with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. Raul Castro is the leader of Cuba. As on so many occasions, Obama’s dispute is not with John McCain, it’s with Barack Obama. His talk doesn’t match his actions, and his talk doesn’t even match itself on different days.

… now on to the pro-marriage initiative battle in November.

Liberals/Democrats often compare the fight over the definition of marriage to the fight over inter-racial marriage. The analogy is ridiculous, and practically no one truly believes there’s really an analogy there; nevertheless, the California Supreme Court even made the analogy in their absurd ruling yesterday.

Barack Obama came out with one of his typically weaselly comments in response to the ruling, but it’s clear he supports the ruling. It’s pretty obvious the Democrats would come out fully in favor of re-defining marriage if the polls were on their side. Obama said:

“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

Reporters should ask Obama if he would have favored leaving it up to the states whether to allow or prohibit inter-racial marriage. If the issues are the same, then why should voters be allowed to decide the issue in any state?

Update: California Chief Justice Ronald George repeated his absurd reasoning in an interview with the Los Angeles Times –

He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.

Again, there’s no analogy between race and sexual behavior. Certainly there is no comparison between the significance of gender versus race in marriage. Sex is at the core of what marriage is, while race plays no role at all. Ronald George knows this. His decision is based on emotional reaction, not reasoning, legal or otherwise.

It’s quite funny to watch the Democrats sputtering in phony outrage over the president’s comments to the Israeli Knesset about the dangers of trying to appease our jihadist enemies.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Upon hearing this passage, which you’ll note does not refer to anyone by name, several Democrats immediately assumed the president must be talking about them, especially the ever self-referential Barack Obama:

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. “It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel….”

“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel,” Obama’s statement said.

Wow, touchy, touchy. Imagine if the president had actually mentioned Obama. But of course Obama did say he would sit down without conditions with the Iranian regime, which supports terrorism and has called for the elimination of Israel. Ultimately though, if the Democrats don’t want to be attacked for being weak on matters of national security, then they ought to stop being weak on matters of national security.

And incidentally, they might have a shred of credibility left if they had exhibited the slightest outrage when their own Dick “Pol Pot” Durbin compared U.S. servicemen to Nazis, for example.

A real criticism of the president might be to say it’s a foolish delusion to keep trying to carve a state from the terror havens of Gaza and the West Bank, even as rockets continue to rain down on innocent civilians in Israel. But the Democrats aren’t going to make that case.

In yet another show of the “balanced” reporting we can expect from the DeMSM this election cycle, the Washington Post describes the Republicans prospects in Congressional elections this way:

Since losing 30 seats and their 12-year stranglehold on power in 2006, House Republicans have kept asking themselves the same question: Can it get any worse?

“12-year stranglehold on power”? Note this is not an op-ed. Of course it’s no surprise to see this sort of loaded wording in a “news” item from the mainstream press. We’re just making a note. We expect them to work very hard to get their candidates elected in the coming months.

The Washington Post had an article implying some sort of ethical lapse by Senator John McCain because he was involved in negotiating legislation related to a land transaction in Arizona, which also involved practically every other high level politician in that state. This is a pretty high bar for ethical conduct – Congress passed legislation, a constituent benefited = scandal? The Post is really reaching there.

Senator Barack Obama on the other hand openly supports all sorts of new programs and spending that will directly benefit his supporters, and to paraphrase racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, no one bats an eye.

The AP reports, “…the American Federation of Government Employees announced its support for Obama. The union claims about 600,000 members who work in the federal and Washington, D.C., governments.”

The SEIU union has also endorsed Obama. These are folks who will work to get Obama elected, and then he will turn around and increase their budgets, and payrolls. Not quite a quid pro quo, but certainly a direct benefit. These are “special interests” in a way no energy or pharmaceutical company could ever be. But Obama claims to be “against Washington lobbyists and special interests” and the MSM doesn’t question it. If any group ought to be restricted in their political activity, government employee unions should be, on the grounds of a conflict of interest. But this is routine – government employee unions work very hard to get liberal advocates of bigger government elected every cycle. Of course Obama has every right to advocate for a more bloated federal budget, but he should end the sanctimony about changing “the old politics” in Washington.

Ok, so the actual AP headline is “Democratic senator calls for GOP to alter energy policy”. But if Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow really believes increasing taxes and regulations on energy producers will lower energy prices to the consumer, then she is either a fool or she thinks voters are fools. Given the polls that suggest a majority of voters may be falling for this nonsense, she may have a point.

Senator Stabenow said, “Republicans want more drilling, more consumption and more tax giveaways for the big oil companies … Democrats say that those are exactly the policies that got us into this mess to begin with.”

This raises several questions –

Which Republican is promoting more energy consumption? Can Stabenow provide an example?

How does drilling for more oil – increasing supply – increases prices? Doesn’t her assertion contradict the basic rule of supply and demand?

How does raising costs for energy companies, by raising their taxes and piling on regulations and mandates, lower the consumer price of energy?

But of course her fellow Democrats in the press aren’t going to ask any questions.

This is a pretty obtuse column by Peggy Noonan today, in which she expresses some amazement that the Democrats are engaging in their usual race and gender obsessions, and for some reason wants them to be saved from their own campaign tactics.

Noonan quotes Donna Brazile, from a recent exchange with Clinton flack Paul Begala, on CNN:

“…stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know … how Democrats win…”

This is the same Donna Brazile who, as a campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 said, “we’re not going to let the white boys win.” Apparently, sowing division among Democrats is wrong, but sowing division among Americans is OK.

Noonan continues:

To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical “the black guy can’t win but the white girl can” is — well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

True enough, but that’s what the Democrats do, and have done for years. This is like being shocked to see consumption of beer at a college fraternity house.

Remember Al Gore, in a black church just before the 2000 election, “…when my opponent talks about strict-constructionists for the Supreme Court, I often think of the strictly constructed meaning that was applied when the Constitution was written, how some people were considered three-fifths of a human being…”

Remember Congressman Charles Rangel, in response to the Republican Contract with America in 1994, “It’s not [anti-Hispanic epithet that rhymes with flick] or [anti-black epithet that rhymes with bigger] any more, they say ‘let’s cut taxes’.”

Remember the anti-Bush ad from 2000, courtesy of the NAACP, featuring the daughter of murder victim James Byrd saying, “…when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”

Or the ad from the Democratic Party in Missouri, “When you don’t vote, you let another church explode. When you don’t vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don’t vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister … Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate.”

But now it’s suddenly beyond the pale (no pun intended) for Hillary Clinton to say out loud that she can attract more white voters than Obama can? Please.

What Noonan doesn’t explain is why she wants the party of Jim Crow to be saved.