Recently our elected representatives in Congress interrogated the heads of the major oil companies (those evil corporations) and wanted to know why these companies are making a profit for their stockholders. Of course, many of us are stockholders either through our IRA's, our 401K's, or the stock market. But, never mind that. "Big Oil" is the evil-doer and the cause for high gas prices. Oh, really?

Did they forget that drilling in ANWR is off limits, and drilling off the coast of Florida and California is also off limits, except for China, Venezuela and Cuba who have signed 100-year leases on the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Coal-to-oil technology, which has been around since the 1930s, is prohibited, no dams can be built for hydro-electric power, and don't even think about copying France which gets 80% of its energy needs from nuclear power. And no windmills which only clutter the view of Senator Kennedy from his summer cottage in New England. Meanwhile, there has not been a new refinery built in over 30 years and the number of operational refineries has been cut in half since 1982. The refineries that are in existence have to make different blends of gasoline, allowing states like California to dictate what unique gasoline blends must be made for them, further driving up the cost to produce gasoline. To add insult to injury, several states (again, like California) and the federal government have imposed gasoline taxes amounting to more than 15% of the price of gasoline, while only 4% represents oil company profits. Of course, Congress will not consider a reduction of the federal gasoline tax, even for the summer months.   

Instead, our genius representatives have passed legislation that would allow us sue OPEC - like that will accomplish something!  Let's produce more ethanol which costs $1.23 to make a dollar's worth of energy while driving the cost of food through the roof. Great idea! Oh, and don't forget the recent action to protect the polar bears and their habitat which makes the location of future oil development off limits to drilling.  Finally, because the oil companies are making "too much money", our government is looking at seizing any money that the legislators consider "windfall profits". Hillary Clinton said she wants to "take that money" and do something productive with it. (I guess that's how she intends to pay for her government health care program).

Did Congress ever hear of the law of "supply and demand"? World-wide demand for crude oil has increased in recent years due to the rapid industrial growth of China, India, and other developing countries. Meanwhile, supply has been limited by OPEC and foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum reserves and benefit financially from limiting the availability of crude oil. Many of these oil-producing countries are less than friendly to the US (Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and other Middle East states). We have enough domestic natural energy resources to allow the US to be energy independent for centuries. According to most energy experts, oil and gas reserves on federal lands hold an estimated 100-plus billion barrels of recoverable oil. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. Anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of oil are available from oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. According to Mackubin Thomas Owens, Professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, "If Congress really cared about the economic well-being of American citizens, it would stop fulminating against IOCs (investor-owned oil companies) and reverse current policies that discourage, indeed prohibit, the production of domestic oil and natural gas. Even the announcement that Congress was opening the way for domestic production would lead to downward pressure on oil prices". Until Congress takes these steps we will be held hostage to countries who want to cripple our economy.

Today is Ronald Reagan's birthday. I believe he would be taken aback if he were alive to witness what is taking place within the Republican party today. Assuming Senator John McCain wins the GOP nomination, it will show how the party has been ideologically transformed since President Reagan so adroitly communicated the conservative core values which defined the Republican party in the 1980's. Reagan united all Americans with his charisma and his ability to communicate the necessity of fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and strong social values for the betterment of the country. He was an optimist who believed in the strength of the American people and united his GOP base along with "Reagan Democrats" to win landslide elections in 1980 and 1984. The catchphrase of this election seems to be “change,” communicated as often by Republicans as Democrat candidates. According to Democrats, everything is bad, everything is going wrong, and massive changes must be made to "save" the country. Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton promises huge, expensive government welfare programs if elected. Barack Obama, the Democrat senator with the most liberal voting record - more liberal than Clinton or Ted Kennedy - would also favor huge government intervention into the lives of all Americans yet gives no details on any of his policy recommendations for "change". He compares himself to former president John Kennedy, yet his identity seems to be based solely on rhetoric rather than substance. Is the country ready for 21st-century-style socialism? Or is there an alternative which will inspire Americans as Ronald Reagan's policies once did?

It is surprising that a candidate has emerged as the frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination despite the fact that he is opposed by a majority of his party and has taken many positions in the past which are contradictory to the views of fiscal conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. John McCain's views on illegal aliens, Bush's tax cuts, oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, climate change regulation, drug re-importation from Canada, and campaign-finance legislation have infuriated most conservatives, yet he has emerged, nevertheless, as the candidate who will most likely carry the banner for the Republican party in this year's presidential election. How can this be?

The GOP seems to have lost its way during the current primary season. Republicans seem to have lost the optimism of Ronald Reagan and echo the Democrats in their belief that the policies of the country must be drastically altered. Possible conservative candidates such as George Allen, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter either never got started or never picked up support from conservatives. Another candidate, Mitt Romney, is distrusted because of his recent conversion to many conservative beliefs and another former Arkansas governor and Christian minister, Mike Huckabee, is a bit too slick for his own good and has too many social liberal policies which he implemented while in office. Thus, McCain has emerged as the probable GOP candidate despite his crabby, over-the-hill, liberal persona and the fact that he has been able to garner barely one-third of the Republican vote in the primaries.

Many conservatives worry that McCain might permanently change the "soul" of the Republican party and cause it to abandon its traditional conservative values. Is there much of a difference between John McCain and the Democrat candidates for president? One has to wonder when McCain declares that he is well-suited to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. He has repeatedly demonstrated this with his record for tag-team legislation, working with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, and other liberal lawmakers. "Reaching across the political aisle" always entails selling out conservative values. McCain, himself, seems not to understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats and makes dumb, self-defeating statements such as, "I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president." That sounds a lot like an endorsement to me. The so-called "mainstream media" is rooting for McCain right now because, if he is nominated, liberals will be in a win, win, win position. If Clinton wins the presidency, good for liberals. If Obama wins, that's good, too. McCain, ditto. Of course, once McCain gets the Republican nomination all the knives will come out and he will be brutally attacked by most of today's media "supporters".

So, what does all this augur for the GOP? I see little chance that Republicans will defeat Democrats in November. The country will fall under the control of big-government politicians controlling the executive branch and both houses of congress. The Supreme Court will probably see two or three more liberal judges appointed to the court. How many years will this last? Only history will tell. But until another conservative standard bearer comes along, the Republican party will most probably be stranded in the political wilderness. Then, again, events in history can change everything. Did not the defeat of Barry Goldwater set the stage for the election of Ronald Reagan?