This is the complete email that has been circulating. And I agree with it 100%. Also in 2006, the new house speaker Nancey Pelosi said she would change the price of gasoline below the then current $2.19 a gallon, so, we now have gasoline at over $3.50 a gallon, change indeed, so how do you like it now?

Part 1

In just 16 months.. Remember the election in 2006?

Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over 16 MONTHS ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;

2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);

5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;

6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama

Part 2:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/...

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.

PART 3:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is

the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find

that to be RIDICULOUS. I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded

over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader

gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification

of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens

each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs

such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscal...

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscal...

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school

education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of

English!

Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the

American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &

social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/2...

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused

by the illegal aliens.

Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's

two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,

their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the

US. Verify at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens

that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens

from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,

heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of

mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average

cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/p...

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to

their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex

Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ." Verify

at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

Are we THAT stupid?

If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the

other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you

forward it to every legal resident in the country including every

representative in Washington , D.C. - five times a week for as long as it

takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and

enforcement thereof.

You might want to check this out.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/di...

Jack, if I take your meaning - and I believe that I do - statistics and convoluted logic can say anything, for instance, I offer the following bit of convoluted logic: "GOD IS LOVE, LOVE IS BLIND, STEVIE WONDER IS BLIND, THEREFORE STEVIE WONDER IS GOD".

When Obama becomes President, as I believe that he will,(absent some catastrophe or Hillary alleging that he practices Voodoo, and for proof, offering a deposition from Obama's former minister), the Democrats will have unified Executive and Legislative branches. We will then see if they accomplish any more than the Republicans have been able to.

LOL, SenathDavid...about the God is love, love is blind, etc. By the way, soon, if not already, our blogger agreement will be online for those interested in potentially being a blogger for the DDD. I will call your attention to it soon, OK?

This article prety well sums up the dems dim energy plans.

"Drilling for an energy plan"

"Charles Reichley

Published: May 15, 2008"

"When President Bush took office in 2001, the price of oil was around $30 a barrel. Six years later the price had doubled. Democrats promised voters they had "a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices." On October 20, 2006, just before the Democrats took over Congress, a barrel of oil was about $57.

So, how is the Democrat's "common sense plan" working? In the six years before they took control, oil increased an average of about $5 a year. But in the 16 months the Democrats have been responsible for the nation's energy policy, the price of oil has risen to $126 -- an increase of almost $70 a barrel or $5 each month.

If I had a choice, I'd take $5 a year over $5 a month. Meanwhile, gas prices on the Democrat's watch went from $2.20 a gallon to $3.67, an increase of almost 10 cents a month. The Democrat's plan isn't working, unless their plan was to decrease our dependence on oil by making it so expensive we can't afford to buy it.

It's clear the Democrats are fumbling our energy policy. Last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged President Bush to get Saudi Arabia to drill more oil so prices would go down. But at the same time, she rejected drilling for domestic oil, claiming that increasing domestic supplies won't lower the price we pay.

So which is it? Do we want more oil or not? How do we decrease our dependence on foreign oil if we reject domestic oil and increase foreign oil?

While claiming oil drilling won't help, the Democrats said we should stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will increase supplies by 70,000 barrels a day. They say this will decrease gas prices by up to 24 cents a gallon. Economists say the effect will be negligible.

Meanwhile, Democrats reject drilling in ANWR because they say adding a million barrels a day would only drop the oil prices about 5 cents a barrel. So 70 thousand barrels saves us 24 cents a gallon, while a million barrels won't do a thing?

Also, Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies. By increasing taxes, they promise the price of gasoline will drop, and the oil companies will increase supply. In reality, taxes decrease incentives to supply oil and raise the price we pay.

Of course, we are collecting a huge amount of taxes from the oil companies. The feds took over $30 billion from Exxon-Mobil last year (that's more than the taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of all individuals).

The Democrats also say drilling in ANWR is useless because we won't get any oil for 10 years. But they take credit for a bill they passed which will force Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Their plan requires cars to get 35 miles per gallon, by 2020 -- 13 years from now. So we shouldn't drill in ANWR because it will take 10 years before it helps us, but increasing gas mileage over 13 years is "smart energy policy."

Meanwhile, my car gets over 45 miles per gallon today -- beating their standard for 13 years from now by 30 percent. Americans could buy these cars now, but haven't. So the Democrats will force us to.

But it won't help as much as they claim -- when cars get more efficient, gas use will increase, because people will be able to afford to drive farther.

The one thing that will make us stop using oil, and switch to alternative fuels, is if gas gets so expensive we get tired of paying the cost. The Democrats claim they want us to stop using gasoline, but they are pushing the administration to force companies to lower gas prices, which will make people use more gas.

So the Democrats want to cut gas use, but are pushing lower prices. They say Bush let prices get too high, but since they took over the price has gone up ten times as fast. They say a million barrels a day won't make a difference, but 70 thousand a day will. They won't drill ANWR because it will take too long, but passed fuel efficiency standards that will take longer.

The energy bill is one of the few real "accomplishments" the Democrats have had since they took office. If $3.70 a gallon gas is an "accomplishment," I hope they fail more. We can't afford too many more "success stories."

Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at critically thinking@msn.com.

http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/opini...

"Crude Mistake

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Energy: With the price of oil spiking above $127 a barrel, the search for scapegoats has begun. Some point to the Saudis, OPEC's No. 1 producer. Others blame the oil companies. We have a better candidate: Congress.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

As President Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia to ask the House of Saud to open the oil spigots a bit wider, Congress showed once again how clueless it is when it comes to energy policy.

Underscoring its failure to grasp the nature of our current problems, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday refused to end its moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado.

"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump," Colorado's senior senator, Republican Wayne Allard, said, "this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives." He's right.

But the shale proposal went down to defeat with Allard and 13 other Republican members in favor and 15 Democrats opposed. Once again, Democrats were on the wrong side, opting to keep oil in the ground and punish you with higher prices as a result.

This was no minor thing. Estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves.

This is the same Congress that refuses to allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which holds up to 20 billion barrels of crude, or offshore, where another 30 billion await.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...

"

The Energy plan of liberals and democrats. (sorry for being redundant)

1. You can't drill for oil anywhere.

2. You can't build a refinery anywhere.

3. You can't build a nuclear power plant anywhere.

4. You can't burn coal for electricity.

5. You can't allow the oil companies to reinvest their profits into exploration.

6. But you can drive up the price of food by subsidizing an ethanol industry that takes land out of food production while using more energy than it creates.

7.You must continue to tax every gallon of gas that we put in our tanks.

8.You must threaten all energy users with additional 'carbon taxes'.

9. And just in case some entrepreneur out there somewhere may have an idea for an alternative energy concept that just might work, you must raise the capital gains tax so that investors have less capital and less incentive to invest in his/her project. count your blessings.

The fallacy of ethanol as fuel.

"For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.

"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

Snip:

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/0...