"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" A Power Grab?

Both Presidential candidates favor "Comprehensive Immigration", which most of us know is an euphenism for "Amnesty", the legalizing of illegal aliens. Arguments against such "reform" not heard so far is how such legalization will effect political and economic power in the U.S.; namely that allowing 20 million or more Catholics into this country will "stack the deck" in favor of the Vatican. No wonder the Catholic clergy are so vocal in favor of amnesty. Would they be so vocal if the majority of illegal aliens were Buddists or Muslims? I don't think so.
Allowing that many new residents in will further contribute to Labor's problems, by lowering wages and losing jobs, which benefits Corporations but erodes the Middle Class. The most immediate and serious of impacts a "hit" Social Security will sustain with that many new enrollees being added to the rolls. It will bankrupt Medicare as well.
If only there were as zealous and powerful advocates for the average American as there is for illegal aliens.
So far our Presidential candidates have run away from the issue; McCain notably shying away from questions posed to him during his Town Hall meetings. They can run but not hide.

A McCain Presidency Mean War?

Will a McCain Presidency mean war? It follows logically that if McCain is elected that he will follow President Bush's foreign policies, which means that a missile shield will be installed in Poland and elsewhere. That means a serious confrontation with Russia. I am not standing up for Russia but I have to wonder why the U.S. is putting up a missile shield to protect Europe when Europe itself is not pushing for it. Why does Europe need to be protected from North Korea and Iran? There have been no threats against Europe by these countries and there are no apparent logical reasons for any threats to be made by these particular countries against Europe.
The lack of reasons or logic is bound to make Russia suspicious of U.S. intentions and the rhetoric spouted by the neo-cons is far from assuring to anybody, Russian or American. McCain's intentions in this area needs to be scrutinized closely. So far no one has asked McCain what his intentions are in this area. With the World's future at stake it would seem that someone would ask McCain about missiles defense in Europe wouldn't you think?

Where Has McCain Been For 72 Years?

John McCain is just not with it. In his recent session with Pastor Rick Warren he stated that the "Cold War" was won without a shot being fired? Oh yeah? What about the Korean and VietNam wars? I know he missed most of the war being shut in in the Hanoi Hilton but for a time he was actively engaged in firing something in that war. How could he overlook that?
Then there was all that time he spent talking with Generals, Staff, and other experts in Iraq during all those trips to Iraq; yet he didn't know the difference between Iraqi Insurgents and Al-Qaeda! Slip of the tongue? It took Lieberman some time to apprise him of his mistake.
Then there was his statement that General Patraeus was the greatest General in the 21st Century--we are only 8 years into the 21st century so that is maybe an easy one: of course if he meant the 20th century, what about Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, etc. who had some real antagonists to outwit? Could Patraeus be compared to their challenges? What great plans and tactics has Patraeus personally implimented?
Where has McCain been all his life and where is all that military and political wisdom he is supposed to have? He may have been "right" about the surge but on the larger issue of invading Iraq he was and still is wrong. How wrong only time will tell. The U.S. is still not out of the woods.

Drilling Is Our Salvation?

Drilling in parks; drilling in ANWAR; drilling far out to sea: doing all of these things will drive down the cost of oil they say; it will cut our imports they say; drilling will lead to energy independence they say--the facts say otherwise. What all this drilling will do is make money for the oil industry and line the coffers of those supposed to be representing the average American.
By the time new oil hits the market demand will zero out any gains in new oil, for demand on average goes up at least as quickly as population grows. They way the oil industry tells it (as well as Texas Congressmen and women) we can achieve oil independence if we drill domestically in all of those places mentioned above; but can we? Some facts: the U.S. uses up 7 billion barrels of oil a year and we import about 60% of that 7 billion barrels. That means we would have to find 60% of that 7 billion barrels, or 4.2 billion barrels. That would mean 4.2 billion each year plus increased demand needed to keep up with population growth. It is impossible to find that much oil anywhere. The coastal areas and ANWAR are one time deals and would only provide us with a few years worth of oil at best.
Our major providers of oil--Mexico, Venezuela, Africa are unpredictable and sometime down the line will either no longer be able to provide us with oil or will decline to for political reasons. So where is our independence? Drilling for it or depending on outsiders for it will not do it?
What about solar, wind, tide etc.? Try pouring electricity into a gas tank! Politicians and environmental advocates keep mixing apples and oranges. Electricity does not directly link to gasoline or diesel fuel. Electricity may replace gasoline in small automobiles and that could make some impact since 60% of our oil is used in transportation. But so far batteries are still limiting electric car development. Trucks are unlikely to be powered by electricity. Biodiesel and syngas made from coal is most likely to take the place of petroleum based energy.
The public therefore needs to be educated about energy. Solar and wind will not reduce gasoline prices or do anything about becoming energy independent. We could provide electricity to the ultimate capacity and it would not reduce oil imports or reduce gasoline or diesel prices one wit. The Kennedys could talk themselves hoarse and it would not change reality about electricity and oil. Global warming may be a serious threat but it is nothing compared to what would happen if we dilly dallied regarding oil depletion and developing oil alternatives.
T. Boone Pickens was right about oil depletion and his plan to make natural gas an alternative transportation fuel makes some sense but natural gas is a gas and therefore presents some problems: it is hard to transport, it takes special handling, storage is a problem, fuel tanks are large and the list goes on. Naturally T. Boone being an oil man looks to making money from natural gas, it comes out along with petroleum. His logic about wind replacing natural gas in electricity generation is hard to follow and assumes that the energy corporations running the natural gas generators will give up millions of dollars worth of equipment in order to switch to wind generators. That is not likely to happen and besides who is going to place thousands of power towers to run lines from the country to metropolitan areas and what about all the energy loss, up to 95% losses? Solar panels on roofs are much more efficient in some ways.