Let’s pretend that the federal government decides that “punishing” the oil companies with a windfall profits tax is not enough. Instead, they will take over the industry completely and nationalize it, much like the way that countries like Venezuela have done.

Let’s also assume for this purpose, that gas is $4.00/gallon. Instead of using the average oil industry’s net profit margin of 8%, we’ll inflate it and say that oil companies are making a 10% profit on the price being charged for gasoline. In a nationalized industry, we’ll assume that the government-run oil industry gives away all of the profits to the poor American consumer. In this scenario, the American public would save a whopping 40¢ per gallon on their gas. Holy smokes, that would take the price of gasoline almost halfway down to the price that it was before the Democrat majority Congress took office two years ago with promises of lowering the price of fuel. I can’t help but wonder if properly inflating our tires, would save that much!

The scenario is, of course, absurd because we all know that the federal government would never give back the entire 40¢; they would have to take a piece of it for a pet project or ten. The Political Republican hopes this shows that, no matter what size the windfall profit tax would be, that it would hardly make a major impact on the ever-straining pocketbooks of Americans.

So what are the reasons that we are seeing this incredible jump in gasoline prices? The answer is really quite simple. The United States is at the mercy of the rest of the world for our oil. The OPEC cartel in the Middle  East is practicing a new brand of economic terrorism by refusing to pump more oil out of the ground. Because demand is higher than their artificially created lower supply, they can ask whatever they want for oil and get it.

To further compound the problem, because the United States is pumping so much money into foreign markets, we are continually increasing our trade deficit and weakening the American dollar. The world economy is based upon the U.S. dollar so, the weaker the dollar gets, the more dollars it takes to buy things abroad … things like oil!

The answer is so clear, that even the majority of Democratic voters are saying they want to open up further exploration and drilling for oil in The United States and off the country’s coastlines. This would increase the supply of oil in the world market and decrease the amount of dollars that America is sending to foreign markets. We would control supply and the value of our own dollar.

Environmentalists scream that the answer is to rid ourselves of oil dependence entirely. This is a pipe dream that will never happen. There will never be an electric airplane; we will never be able to replace plastics (imagine how heavy a car would be and how poor the gas mileage would be if there was no plastic in a car); women will not decide to go without makeup; we will always need lubricants for our machinery (including cars); the list goes on …

We are always going to be just one incident, just one Middle East conflict away from a worldwide oil crisis. The fact that oil prices rose $5.00 per barrel yesterday just because of speculation involving U.S. – Russia tensions should give reasonable people cause for alarm.

The Political Republican is all for a revived effort to provide new energy sources such as wind power, solar power, electric cars and nuclear power. The less oil we use, the further the price will go down and the higher the American dollar will climb. Energy independence will keep us immune from the spikes that could arise from wars and terrorist incidents, as well. The answer is simple … drill more of our own oil and decrease our dependence on it at the same time.

Big Oil Bad? … Bad Government Worse! Tell The Political Republican what you think!

Political Republican Opinion Quote of the Day: “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” – Calvin Coolidge

No, he didn’t say that children needed to learn to speak French or German, places visited far more frequently than Spain by Americans who travel to Europe; he specifically stated “Spanish.” Could Barack Obama be more blatant in his pandering for the Hispanic American vote? Unfortunately, he used the expression that pisses English speaking Americans off more than any other when they try to converse with Hispanic Americans who refuse to learn English – “Choo need to learn to espeak espanish!.” While Obama may gain a few Latino votes, he very well may have lost far more votes of English speaking Americans that live in areas where they are beginning to feel like foreigners in their own country.

No, I don’t need to learn to speak your language. The fact that I have learned to speak enough Spanish to converse Tarzan-like to those that are too lazy to learn the language spoken in this country was my choice, just as it was the choice of Spanish-only speaking citizens(?) to severely limit their employment and social opportunities by segregating themselves from the American public at large.

The Political Republican has a question … Does Barack Obama speak Spanish? Of course not! The only language besides English that he speaks is Bahasa, the official national language of Indonesia, a country also known for having one of the highest concentration of Muslims in the world. Interesting, too, that Indonesia has a national language but Obama does not advocate the United States having one, isn’t it?

Apparently Barack Obama is already delivering on his promise of CHANGE. Since being chosen as the Democratic Party’s nominee, Obama has CHANGED his position on gun control, welfare reform, NAFTA, the war in Iraq and now, apparently, drilling for oil off the coast of the United States. I probably shouldn’t get too rattled by Obama’s latest proclamation about our need to learn Spanish, however. When his handlers process the polling data and see that they actually lost votes, I’m sure his position on this, too will CHANGE. The Political Republican can hardly wait to see how he spins out of this one!

Political Republican Opinion Quote of the Day: “My father was the son of immigrants, and he grew up bilingual, but English is what my father taught me and what he spoke to me. America’s strength is not our diversity; it is our ability to unite around common principles even when we come from different backgrounds.” – Ernest Istook

According to politico.com, Representative Loretta Sanchez says she’s “happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Clinton,” adding that she believes that as many as half of the Democrats in the house could join her. Rep. Sanchez went on to say, “I felt [Hillary Clinton] was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way.” According to the same article, former delegate counter Matt Seyfang sees potential drawbacks to the roll call, stating, “putting her name in the nomination, you’re putting people on the spot,” adding that it also chews up a significant amount of broadcast time.

Any Political Republican has got to be thinking that John McCain may be the luckiest man to ever run for President. No matter how this thing goes, it’s a lose-lose situation. Too much support for Hillary weakens Barack Obama; too little support throws salt in the already open wounds of Senator Clinton’s loyal supporters. It’s almost as if the Republicans have an insider in the Democratic Party that is sabotaging the party every step of the way. Let’s review:

The “Party of the People” decided to “punish” Florida and Michigan, two very large delegate states, for holding their primaries early – a move that angered voters in both states so much, that many have pledged their votes to John McCain in the General Election. Being a Florida resident myself, I couldn’t even count the number of registered Democratic voters that I heard, who asked for a Republican ballot in the voting room during the Primaries. John McCain clearly received his first cross-over votes, which may have had a huge impact on his Florida win. Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani dropped out soon thereafter. I have yet, to meet a Florida Political Republican who says that they voted for McCain.

To compound their Democratic Primary problems, the Democratic Party decided to get cute and play with the electoral system. Rather than do the sensible thing, which would have been to have a winner take all system like the Republicans have, they decided to be “different” and have delegates assigned as a percentage of each state’s popular vote. This dragged on the primary process for so long, that their main opponent, John McCain, was afforded the opportunity to concentrate his efforts on raising money and visiting the smaller towns that politicians frequently never make it to. Furthermore, it created a rift in the Democratic Party that may not be soon mended. If they would have counted delegates the way that Republicans do, and the way that they will be counted in the General Election, the race wouldn’t have been close. Hillary would have won easily (and that’s without counting either Florida or Michigan – states where she won!).

Finally, they created the absolutely absurd concept of the “Super Delegate” – a way of rewarding Democratic Party loyalists and dignitaries with special votes that could, in this case, overturn the popular vote. The Political Republican can only wonder when the Democrats will learn that the Presidential Election is not won by popular vote. Didn’t Al Gore’s loss teach them anything? I would suggest that they re-read the section of the U.S. Constitution that outlines the Electoral College process. They might even learn a thing or two like the right to bear arms and freedom of religion in the process!

The Political Republican has to wonder if the Democratic Party can possibly do anything else to try to throw the Presidential election? Apparently the answer is “yes.”

Political Republican Opinion Quote of the Day: “CNN found that Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in America. Women admire her because she’s strong and successful. Men admire her because she allows her husband to cheat and get away with it.” – Jay Leno

After The Political Republican has waded through all of the hope and change rhetoric, Senator Obama’s positions are really no different than the rest of the Democratic Party. One only has to look at his voting record to see this. When he has bothered to vote (he has missed more than 38% of the votes during the current congressional session), Barack Obama has voted with the rest of the Democratic Party nearly 97% of the time. For a candidate promoting change from the “politics of the old,” and “new hope” for the citizens of this country, Senator Obama has done little but to toe the party line.

Barack Obama has differed from his party’s positions on just one significant vote. In that one, he voted against a bill that provided funding to the troops for the war in Iraq, increased funding for hurricane relief to Gulf Coast residents, provided funding for increased port and mass transit security as well as increased funding for children’s health care, mine safety research and youth violence protection activities. This vote, to be sure, is in direct contrast to the views of the Democratic Party. Ironically, the majority of the programs that were to receive funding are ones that he purports to support.

One of the significant votes that Barack Obama skipped was a bill that implemented recommendations by the 9/11 commission for changes to the Homeland Security Act. Specifically, this bill included provisions for the inspection of all cargo traveling on passenger aircraft as well as grants to improve the ability of first responders to react to and prevent terrorist attacks. One can only wonder why Senator Obama did not feel the need to vote on these issues, considered crucial in the country’s efforts to thwart terrorism.

The Political Republican believes that, like a monster from a mass murderer movie, Hillary Clinton will never really be “dead” until she is put in the ground after the new President’s inauguration. There is very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in terms of their voting records. Like Senator Obama, Hillary also has voted along Democratic Party lines 97% of the time. She was one of only nine other Democrats to vote “no” to the same bill that Obama did. In addition, she also opposed the Democratic majority position when she voted against providing tax breaks to oil and gas companies for providing innovative ways of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The main difference is, that Hillary isn’t pretending to be anything other than a Democrat. She has made no false proclamations of being part of a new political order.

John McCain, on the other hand, appears to be the candidate most capable of bipartisanism. He deviated from the Republican Party’s position on bills 12% of the time. On bills of significance, he made waves in the Republican Party by voting for embryonic stem cell research and for voting for tighter border security with a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He has, in fact, been labeled by many political republicans as a “maverick” for his unwillingness to toe the party line on several key issues.

Clearly, Barack Obama’s track record differs from his message of new hope and new politics. According to the “National Journal,” Senator Obama was the most liberal member of Congress in 2007. This is hardly in line with his rhetoric and shows that he is just another Democrat with a nice smile and a lot of empty words. If the country is truly seeking the candidate that is most likely to get things done; if we really want a President that can get Congress to work together, it seems clear to The Political Republican that the Republican candidate is offering the only hope in that direction. John McCain … who knew?

Political Republican Opinion Quote of the Day: “It’s nice to say let’s be bipartisan. But we’re a partisan nation. We were raised as a partisan nation.” – Colin Powell

According to ABC News, the Obama family has “used the promise of a pet as a bargaining chip in asking their daughters, Malia, 9 and Sasha, 7, for their support during the long campaign season. Really? Obama’s own daughters won’t support him unless he gets them a dog? Thank goodness his girls are not of voting age or Senator Obama could be charged with attempting to buy votes!

During a May appearance on “Good Morning America,” the Obamas were asked whether their two daughters had yet to receive the dog they were promised. Barack replied that Malia and Sasha have “a year to test whether they are sufficiently responsible,” but was cut off by his wife who insisted, “They are … we’re getting a dog!.” When Barack Obama expressed concern over who would be in charge of walking the dog, Michelle Obama snapped, you will!“

Hmmm, it appears that Michelle Obama may be following in Hillary Clinton’s footsteps, planning to be the real decision maker in the White House (The Political Republican Opinion just hopes Barack is better at keeping his pants on than Bill was). Let’s also look at Barack Obama’s actual statement to the morning television program. Like he has done on all of the important political issues, the senator has used qualifiers in his “promise” that would enable him to wriggle out of the bargain. Will the little girls really be getting a dog?

To further complicate matters, the Obama girls have allergies and a dog may not be in their best interests. The American Kennel Club is trying to help out with this and have offered the following suggestion on hypoallergenic breeds: the Bichon Frise, the Chinese Crested, the Poodle, the Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier and the Miniature Schnauzer.

If Obama’s recent comments in Berlin that America has “made [its] share of mistakes and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions” are any indication, he may sidle up further to the Germans and go for the schnauzer – a good German dog that’s all bark and no bite. If he’s lucky, he might be able to pick up an abused schnauzer that seems so apologetic, that it pees itself whenever the slightest disapproval is shown. A German Sheppard would be too strong. A poodle might make the French happy, though.

Maybe Barack Obama will risk the hell from Michelle and decide that his daughters have not passed the test, offering to provide them with another pet, instead. Will he be sensitive to the girls’ allergies and get a hairless cat or will he make a futile attempt at showing the Middle East that he is on their side and ride up to the White House on a camel?

The Political Republican thinks that Barack Obama will simply withdraw to his shell and hide when it comes time to make the decision. Wait a minute … that’s it, he’ll give them a turtle!

Political Republican Opinion Quote of the Day: “Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this – no dog exchanges bones with another.” – Adam Smith