In 2004, Senator John Kerry insisted we can't just drill our way out of oil issues; between then and 2008, assorted Democrats have claimed that mantra; now candidates like T. Boone Pickens are saying we can't drill our way out...and Pickens says HE should know, what with being a longtime oil tycoon and all.
 
If Nancy Pelosi and Pickens stood for four years insisting I had two heads on my neck, and enlisted marketers and activists to help parrot such mantra, that still would not put an extra head on my neck...evidence and dynamics do play a part in credibility, which never stands on say-so opinion.
 
The fact is, if Democrats or Al Franken or Pickens et al actually felt there was a true shortage that could bring human life to a standstill imminently in a short while, they wouldn't talk about needing wind and solar and biodiesel and ethanol in the far, far remotest eventuality.
 
The point is, opposition to Bush and ANWR et al seems mostly in the nature of "puke on Bush and the GOP, vote for me and none but me 'cause as long as there's ONE GOP left, pooey, what can we poor Libs and Mods do? Can't they see Mymood Alibabjihad has only GOOD in mind for us?Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, vote for MEEEEEE!!!!!!".
 
The one thing Pickens and Democrats CAN do is not even try to extract whatever oil we've got, which is odd given they don't even think we'll ever have a military or defense use again, and that they want the USA out of all the Mid East including its oil by any means obtained.
 
Worse, they say we should turn over all our contracted and sovereign resources together to foreign nations, so they can sell it back to us (through Pickens' production systems?) at exorbitant rates...q.v., LOST and U.N. "globally nationalized" resources deals which have left Norwegians paying over twice what we do for oil in their own backyard.
 
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that Congress should not adjourn until it lifts its own ban against domestic drilling.
 

We all know Al Gore and Senators like Durbin long called for Hussein's removal on non-Qaeda terrorism concerns inter alia, then once accomplished turned and said gosh, that was just a gambit to let steam off al-Qaeda...believeing Democrats when they said Hussein was a supporter of terrorism or even could be as such a despot; many pols today further try to weave Islamic and Christian liberation theologies into a valid "make amends" for provoking poor Qaeda and Hussein and Iran even if they did do things; today, a new Kucinich email PSA is in my inbox saying he'll have the House clerk call for a vote on referring impeachment hearings to the Judiciary Committee on implication something awesome about our "cut it out, they're good!" liberation theology friends...whom post haste all Federal and State laws should be amended to accomodate.
 
My only other religious interest besides ULC has been Roman Catholicism, on such faith and ineterpretations as expressed through works written or maintained by the Vatican.
 
Before Bush or Obama were on the scene, my knowledge of comparative religious perspectives and of exploring religion was akin to that expressed through "Ways Of Being Religious", a 2000 textbook compiled by Gary E. Kessler of California State University, Bakersfield; many of the therein footnoted reading references are also known to me; said textbook has ISBN # 0-7674-0089-5. Such is the scale by which, outside of Catholic or ULC participation, I consider comparative religious studies.
 
As to credibility of sources upon which I consider comparisons, same include writings of:
 
1. Arvind Sharma, born in India, capacity as Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University, Montreal Canada; wrote "The Hindu Gita" (1986), "A Hindu Perspective On The Philosophy Of Religion" (1990), "Religion And Women" (1993), and "Today's Woman In World Religions" (1993).
 
2. Masao Abe, born in Japan, capacity of Visiting Professor in the Dept. of Philosophy at Purdue University; he was a leading interpreter of Buddhism, and a leading participant in Christian-Buddhist dialgoue; writing include essay "Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata" and book "Zen and Western Thought" (1985); he won the 1985 American Academy of Religion award for outstanding contribution to scholarship in religion.
 
3. Tu Wei-Ming, born in China, capacity teacher of Chinese intellectual history at Princeton University and the University of California at Berkeley prior to being Harvard Professor of Chinese History and Philosophy (1981); lectured on Confucian Humanism at Peking University, Taiwan University, Chinese University in Hong Kong, and University of Paris; a member of the Committee on the Study of Religion at Harvard and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; wrote "Neo-Confucian Thought In Action: Wang Yang-Ming's Youth" (1976), "Centrality and Commonality" (1976), "Humanity and Self-Cultivation" (1979), "Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation" (1985), and "Way, Learning and Politics: Essays on the Confucian Intellectual" (1989).
 
4. Liu Xiaogan, born in China, held PhD in philosophy from Beijing University, capacity Visiting Scholar in Dept. of Religion at Princeton University; most of his works were on Taoism, including "Chung-Tzu's Philosophy and Its Development".
 
5. Jacob Neusner, capacity Distinguished Research Professor of religious Studies, University of South Florida Tampa, and Life Member of Clare Hall, Cambridge University England; wrote 500 books on Judaism and served as President of the American Academy of religion (1968-69).
 
6. Harvey G. Cox, capacity Victor S. Thomas Professor of Divinity at Harvard University and as ordained Baptist minister; wrote "The Secular City" (1965), "The Feast of Fools" (1969), "The Salvation of the Spirit" (1973), and "turning East" (1977).
 
7. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, born in Iran; 1958-79 was Professor of Philosophy at Tehran University, later Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University; his 1981 Gifford lectures published as "Knowledge and the Sacred", also wrote "Ideals and Realities of Islam" (1966) and "Traditional Islam in the Modern World" (1987).
 
Insofar as so-called pagan religions are concerned, I rely on whatever best scholarly treatises may exist; in the case of lifelong pursuit of articulating what religion is, I condiser the works of James Breasted (University of Chicago) re ancient Egyptian culture and that of Ur (now Iraq) as I find same last precedent to modern religions.
 
It is from such resources and analysis of modern facts that I respectfully submit...as a voter and USA national only...that I do not believe President Bush committed bad-faith efforts against Islam "causing" it to reactively build jihadists.
 
First, only about two percent of Muslims are nomadic, thusly 98% are not dirt poor or open to jihad on account of poverty; even the EUP PSE references poverty is only a small facet of Islamic terrorism.
 
Second, jihad is a DUTY of leaders in the Caliphate/Imamate branch of Islam; the purpose of jihad seems to be to cause others to become either Muslims or protected people, then "fortifying the marches" so that any Muslim or protected person isn't harmed by outsiders...among those believing in such "final triumph" of Islam are the Twelver Shiites, members of the official State religion of Iran today (although it's unclear how much government rather than people influence that), and of course al-Qaeda, of course Saddam Hussein as Caliphates given to such belief themselves. Given what even Democrats said about Hussein during Clinton, and on heels of 911, a reduction of such Caliphate/Imamate-based extremists and their ability to operate globally seemed reasonable...and still does re threats from Tehran.
 
Third, Qaedan jihad seems to concern itself with appeal to the 2% of dirt-poor Muslims and on largely "day one" Islamic perspectives; Hussein and Irani-type jihad seems to concern itself with purely nationalistic interests on a geopolitical basis. As example, Qaeda looks at the Islamic Surah 4:34 literally: "Men have authority over women because Allah has made one superior to the other", yet Iran includes women in social functionality...the more likely "civil war" factor.
 
Fourth, surely if European and USA officials thought more than a tiny percentage of the world's Muslims were open to radicalization against ANYONE not an Islamic zealot, such officials would not all at once reduce defenses, invite jihadists to diplomat status as if "new age defense", and continue with cultures otherwise so 180 degrees opposite Islamic fundamentalism...where merely letting women vote is a "PING!". Which bears up that jihadists aren't offering the West or anyone else "protected persons" status against Qaedan terror unless they are exempted from the circumstances and from obeying laws like other immigrants and nationals.
 
Fifth, Christian liberation theology may have sprung up in Latin nations, q.v. CBE's in Brazil, but now exists in every corner of the globe; such theology is based on theory Christ was actually some kind of Socialist ubermensch who wants leaders treated as kings while disciples live in tents eating bread and shake down whoever they can for cash and such yet who isn't their leader; these liberationists apparently claim even the original Apostles "got it wrong", let alone the Vatican; governments tend to treat them as "knowing best" and ala everyday Muslims lumped with jihadists as "ALL are terrorists", anyone anywhere not following the "special catechisms" of liberation folks gets tossed in with the liberation front, getting called "ALL (nationality here) are such people!".
 
Wherefore, I respectfully submit that any attempt to impeach President Bush at this late, late date is wholly partisan, and seeks as tangent to its purpose an implication that all immigrants are here on canard they're all super-tough rogues who'll spare us, and who want to see totalist governments arrange their wills and faiths for them...no matter what anyone says about Bush or who wins the next election.
 

While I understand some in Congress will necessarily be concerned about conserving over-all oil should President Bush add to the strategic reserve, taxing it if domestic and tax breaking it if foreign not only seems flailing for "goodwill" of Chavez and other dictators who NEVER are satisfied with the USA, since dictators et al will cut supplies anyway to constrain USA strategics, but seems to undercut the big commerce and good-paying jobs...the kind of good things Illinois Democrats now promise through "all-at-once" road resurfacings/widenings, promise to not use Neighborhood Stabilzation Act funds for but new immigrants/subprime/foodstamps/higher attendant costs, and building of strip malls smaller than the failed area businesses; these are important considerations, what with H&R Block now saying the stimulus payments are to be repaid from future refunds and are not "special".

It seems normal status quo market producers can cut back release of oil to the public with eye to job-making industry use as part of the strategic reserve effort, and really...unless and until one has income and purpose, what is the pressing need to drive or tool about anyway...I'm hardly "well-off", and enjoy health benefits (mental and physical) of walking, yet I walked from the day I was born through EVERY level of my income.

For these reasons, the here within following balance of text is verbatim as received from Americans For Tax Reform; having read and agreed with same, I endorse it, said text being, to-wit (addressed to U.S. Senators): 

As the economy shows some signs of entering a recession, it is disconcerting to hear Congress continue to talk about raising taxes, especially on domestic energy production.

Congress should be considering proposals that increase our nation's energy security and lower Americans' overall tax burden, not discouraging investment, hindering domestic production and killing jobs. 

It is essential to oppose all legislation that directly interferes with free-market enterprise and the basic fundamentals of a market-driven economy

I urge you to reject any tax increase on energy and instead work to promote a sound and diversified energy policy for the United States that does not punish our existing sources. I ask that you vote AGAINST any tax hike provisions that come to the floor.

Whether standalone, or part of a larger package, our economy cannot afford tax hikes on energy production.

Having the government take over the houses defaulted upon is just expansion of long-existant FHA ownership...how often has THAT been successful per se, and why would expanding its housing stock amount to other of more of the same?

Worse, restructuring debt sounds so sweet in an election, but notice it substitutes a "pill" or "bandaid" for say "improved income or job salaries or education toward same", which if expanding government housing stock and "green" dismantling of jobs, commerce, and agriculture occurs on further "need" of housing say Chavez' "surplus people" as his kind expand hemispheric control becomes permanent, what good would mere restructuring of debt be...when you eventually and predictably MUST hit inability to pay, either you toss out the debtors in the end or you take over their housing too and dictate how they'll "continue to earn through need of societal health".

For these reasons, I respectfully submit my opposition to ANY such measure(s) which through or by their terms would give effect to such conditions or scenarios...such measure(s) only artfully make permanent and expand the very status quo voters seek to minimize or remove from their futures.