Editorial

The Oil Shale Shell Game 

Have you heard anyone complain about paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas?  Likely it’s everybody you know.  The Democrats are quick to claim it is George Bush’s fault – conveniently forgetting Nancy Pelosi’s promise to “do something” about energy prices if given a Congressional Majority.  Unfortunately something did happen since she was elected Speaker – gas prices doubled.  All the Democrats have done about it is to propose more regulation and more taxation that would drive up the price of gas even more. 

The Democrats’ paradox of denouncing rising energy prices while limiting the development and production of domestic resources is taking the political skill of “talking out of both sides of their mouth” to a whole new level. 

Take for example the oil shale reserves in northwestern Colorado estimated to be well in excess of a trillion barrels.  For perspective, that is at least 4X the reserves of Saudi Arabia and far greater than the entire Middle East. Can you say “energy independence”?

Colorado has been through periods of fits and starts regarding oil shale development; most recently with the Exxon debacle of the 1980s.  Existing consensus is that we’re far better off that effort stalled because of flawed technology.  But, today is an entirely new era.

Shell Oil and others have invested years and millions of dollars in refining the in situ process – an underground heating technique.  Important questions remain to be answered, for sure, including possible ground water contamination and energy requirements for production.  Conclusive decisions on commercial viability are at best several years away.   Nonetheless, efforts to date have been very encouraging.  What the energy companies need are some assurances that if they can solve remaining problems, then leases and permits would be available for commercial production capabilities to recover the hundreds of millions spent in years of R&D. 

Instead, the Democrat Congress imposed a moratorium on even promulgating the regulations for leasing.  Colorado’s Senior Senator Wayne Allard recently offered an amendment to a Senate Appropriation bill to lift the moratorium.  "If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued in his typical common-sense style. 

For all the Democrats’ chest pounding that they want to do something about rising gas prices, they sure have a curious way of delivering.  Allard’s amendment was defeated on a straight party line vote 15-14.  The next time you pull in to fill up the tank, remember which party is really trying to do something to increase the domestic supply of energy, and which party is getting in the way.

Most incriminating about the real Democrat energy agenda was the vote of Mary Landrieu from Louisiana.  She admitted that she thought the moratorium made no sensehttp://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/panel-defeats-attempt-end-oil-shale-moratorium/, but since the other Senator from Colorado – Ken Salazar - asked her to vote against the Allard amendment, that’s exactly what she did.   Politics trumps principle!

And, just for the record, the same day the Democrats defeated Allard’s common-sense amendment; Gov. Bill Ritter was pleading with a different Senate committee to please slow down energy development in Colorado.  Instead of rolling up his sleeves and saying “how can I help?” he sends a message of uncertainty and ambiguity to the companies that America will depend upon to deliver. 

So years from now, when you fill up your tank just remember – several of those dollars per gallon could have at least benefited Colorado workers and American investors instead of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez or some Saudi sheik – thanks to the Democrats.

Minority Rules

Like a lot of public boards, commissions, and committees the Grand Junction City Council has a long standing tradition of opening each meeting with a prayer.  That prayer is lead by a rotating group of clergy from the local Ministerial Alliance.  The local atheists aren’t happy.

They have filed a complaint – and unfortunately it looks like city officials are scrambling to accommodate their complaint. 

The first amendment provides every American with the freedom to worship if and how they please.  It provides freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.  Religious conviction and expression has been part of America since our founding.  Of course, it was a primary motivation for the first Pilgrims to land on our shores and been a critical part of our Freedom ever since. 

So far as we know, no one is forced to participate in the prayer or to affiliate with a particular religious denomination in Grand Junction.  Participation is voluntary.  Anyone can sit through the prayer in silence, or step outside the chamber.  The majority of citizens and apparently council members are comfortable with the tradition. 

As legend has it, during particularly tense debate within the first Continental Congress, Ben Franklin observed that the delegates could surely benefit by imploring the blessings of the Almighty.  A prayer was offered, and according to tradition, has been offered every day Congress convenes since that time. 

The atheists, of course, argue that somehow opening a public meeting with a prayer violates the First Amendment by comingling government with religion.  We think it does just the opposite – it affirms the right of every individual to express their religious convictions where and how they please.  We’ll remain a free people only so long as we don’t forfeit our freedoms.

Speaking of Freedom

News flash: Court decisions can be harmful to your health!  Two recent decisions by separate courts surely fit in the category of increasing our stress levels. 

The United States Supreme Court’s misguided 5-4 decision to grant foreign enemy combatants held as prisoners the same constitutional rights to access to our civilian courts, just like American citizens, is beyond the pale.  Barack Obama agreed with the decision.  But John McCain said, "The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

If you needed one more reason to vote for McCain, now you have it.

Offer all the “can’t we all just get along” platitudes you want.  Talk about a one-world society, and how we (Americans) shouldn’t think we are so much better than anyone else in the world.  But, then answer this: “Why should the confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have the same Constitutional protections as you and me?” 

It makes a difference who nominates judges to the highest court in the land, and who is in the Senate to confirm those nominations.  This November we will have opportunity to vote on those critical choices.  McCain v. Obama?  Schaffer v. Udall?  It couldn’t be a more obvious choice. 

The second court decision is much closer to home, but similarly egregious.  Our own Colorado Supreme Court decided in favor of the City of Telluride in a private land use case.  Telluride has adopted the “we-know-best” attitude that prevails in other Colorado towns like Boulder and Aspen.  In this case, the town fathers had a problem with development plans by a landowner on the outskirts of town and preferred the almost 600 acres remain as permanent open space.   Unable to convince the landowner to forego development of his property to its full potential, the city exercised condemnation powers of eminent domain to seize his land. 

In case you missed it the first time, the most critical part of this saga is that the land was not part of the jurisdiction of the city of Telluride.  The city just decided that the “greater good” would be served if that land was left undeveloped – so they condemned it – and the liberal, Democrat dominated Colorado Supreme Court went along with them. 

For anyone who owns property – or would like to – this is a most dangerous and freedom threatening decision.  With legal precedence established, no property owner’s rights are sacred from an all-knowing, all-powerful government entity.  The Court ruled that for the purpose of feeding the “open-space” sacred cow, eminent domain condemnations were acceptable even outside municipal boundaries. 

When both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News editorial pages harshly criticized the decision, you know the judges got it wrong.  We hope for the cause of freedom that this case gets appealed to a higher court and reversed. 

Iran Rebuffs the World

It comes as no surprise at all that Iran’s tyrant leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is charging straight ahead in his quest to develop nukes – purely for energy production purposes, of course.  And, if you buy that, I’ve got some Ocean front property in Arizona to show you, too.

The man Barack Obama believes he can negotiate with is defying the UN, the EU, even Russia, and naturally the United States.  On three separate occasions since 2006, the United Nations has imposed sanctions related to nuclear development against Iran. 

Maybe Ahmadinejad thinks he gets at least 17 UN resolutions before anything gets real serious.  Where would he ever get that idea? 

Finally – Can 31,000 Scientists be Wrong?

More than 31,000 scientists across American (1373 from Colorado) have signed a petition taking serious exception to the global warming concerns and declared hazardous effects of greenhouse gas emissions.  According to The Global Warming Petition Project’s website these scientists come from a wide range of disciplines and include more than 9000 Ph.D.s.

Apparently Al Gore hasn’t been successful in converting everyone to his new religion – even after disclosing his Inconvenient Truth.  Following is the petition in its entirety, reprinted from the group’s website: