I have wondered for weeks why Nancy Pelosi seems willing almost to ruin her own party by continuing to oppose the will of the American people, who want more drilling to lower the price of gasoline.

Of course, she will not ever lose her seat for this; she is from the People's Republic of San Francisco.  But aside from the fact that her seat is safe, what is her motive for risking the reelection potential of so many in her own party? 

Michelle Malkin has potential answers, and much is to be learned here. 

I was suspicious from day one of the ole' T Bone.  Mr. Pickens leads off his advertisements with the Democrat talking point, "we can't drill our way out of this problem".

As soon as I heard it, I thought "this man is deceiving people".  It remained only to find out how.

Because the fact is, we CAN drill our way out of high gasoline prices.  Oil prices have plummeted very recently, and it is almost entirely due to the fact that the world has begun to believe that America will soon add its supply to the world market, and this reduces future demand and thus present buying pressure on those future deliveries.  Pelosi herself added to this belief recently, when she speculated that she might allow a vote on drilling under certain circumstances.

America has more oil supply than several other nations COMBINED.  And we don't even really know how much we have, since much of the offshore deposits have not been mapped for more than thirty years and thus have missed out on the newest geophysical technology, which is much more capable of identifying oil deposits than the stuff from back in the days of the vacuum tube.  Any area that is surveyed reveals more oil than did the surveys of thirty years ago.  It is certain that we have considerably more than the books currently show. 

But the offshore areas have not been surveyed because it is ILLEGAL.

Or it was.  We'll know come September if it will remain so, because the offshore drilling ban expires in September and Congress will have to pass it again to prevent such activities.

The bombshell is in the article, as is the foundation of many future questions.  Because you see, Pelosi has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the initial public offering of stock in a company owned by Mr. Pickens, one that plans to earn government subsidies providing alternative power for electricity.

Anyone who understands the circumstances will understand that, if gasoline and oil remains expensive, then it will be easier to make the public and Congress go along with a government subsidized project to get electric power from alternative sources, like the hundreds of windmills Pickens has already built, at a cost to him of billions.

But if we drill and add substantively to the supply, and the price goes down, Pickens and Pelosi and all the other investors will not make a cent, and might lose money.  Because if one can confidently say that oil prices will stay low for a good long time, the public will vigorously oppose any taxpayer subsidies for electricity that costs more than the bills they are paying NOW.

So Pickens is betting the windmill farm on a future of steady and permanent government subsidies.  So is Pelosi.

My follow-up question is, WHO ELSE IS INVESTED IN THESE DEALS?

Who stands to profit hugely from government subsidies for alternative electric power?  We might never know, because only politicians have to do public disclosure of their financial condition.  But I will bet MY farm that there are LOTS of investors in these schemes who are able, for whatever reason, to steer and cajole and FORCE the Democrats to go along with the plan and start the subsidies flowing.

And it won't happen if gasoline prices get low again.

The corn growers have got their share, and that money is rushing like Niagara Falls toward Nebraska and Iowa.  Ethanol pollutes more and gives off less energy than gasoline, and is a huge net negative for the 'climate crisis', but never mind; once the money is flowing, everyone just stops talking about it.  They're afraid to disrupt the flow.  It becomes a genuine black hole, swallowing up all light and sound, and many billions of taxpayer dollars too.

Now the windmill guy, T Bone, and his conspirators in Democrat politics who own stock in his ventures (Al Gore, anyone?) are working feverishly to stifle the voice and break the will of the American people, and in that process to soften them up so their wallets can be lightened without causing a revolution.

For future reference--  if the problem is high gasoline and oil prices because the demand is outstripping the supply, then the answer to the problem is more supply.  Lots more.  America has it.  We could realistically double the supply on the market within a few years.  What do you suppose that would do to prices?

WE CAN MOST CERTAINLY DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF THIS PROBLEM.

And anyone who says we can't is LYING.  T. Boone Pickens is a  LIAR.  

Nancy Pelosi is a LIAR.  But I repeat myself.

Does it make you mad that democrats and rich kooks like Pickens have devised this plan to hose the taxpayer by artificially ramping up the price of a tank of gas so their stupid windmills will seem sensible?

Me too.

UPDATE--  It's slowly coming out.  Here is a new article explaining in detail the plans he's making and the liberties he's taking with your money so that he will make more billions to go with the billions he's already got.  What is he, 80 years old?  Why is he still trying to get richer?  And after reading this article I'm asking myself, is there ANYTHING this man WON'T do to make money?

He is out to sell off the southwest's premiere aquifer, to sell water by the billions of gallons and deplete a natural resource whose presence is vital for all kinds of reasons, and he's out to abuse law and trample property rights so he can get public dollars to pay for the electric cables to transmit the power he will sell us from his windmills.

It's all in how much public dollars he can get to facilitate his plan.  Your money will go to make his profits. 

His ads begin with the idea that his 'Pickens Plan' can be done with PRIVATE investments.  HE IS LYING.

Pickens actually IS the evil oilman liberals have always held up, the lead character in "There will be blood", or the corrupt character of Michael Caine in that silly Steven Seagal movie about the refinery, or the J. R. Ewing character in Dallas.  Pickens is grasping and deceitful, and appears primed to get away with all of it.   He is the manifestation of the 'I'm rich, who's gonna stop me?' stereotype, like George Soros trying to buy our elections for Gore and Kerry. 

Pickens aims to sell us our own water at a premium, and to use imminent domain laws to seize private property so he can build his power towers.  He is buying legislators so that he will be able to do that imminent domain trick.  Read the article, and prepare to puke.

When John Edwards admitted that recently he had become enamored with himself, begun to believe he was special, that he could do what he wanted, he was indeed telling the truth. 

Just not the whole truth.

If he were an honest man, he would admit that he still feels this way today, and has for a very long time.

Otherwise why would he have an affair while campaigning on the premise of being 'in love with the same woman for 31 years'?

And when asked about it, he gave the Clinton response, 'tabloid trash, gotta get back to the business of the people'.  And why not?  It worked for Clinton.

And when he was forced by events to admit the affair, he specifically denied fatherhood, saying he'd be willing to do a paternity test while undoubtedly knowing at that moment that SHE would not do it.  As if the public, in his view, would forgive an affair but not a love child.  He remembers the Clinton lesson well, and the lessons of those who have had children out of wedlock and are no longer in office.  He plays this as if he is literally scanning the headlines in old newspapers and saying exactly what other people have gotten away with, and avoiding saying the things over which others have lost their careers in politics.  As if there is a template to follow that offers a high chance of success.  Thanks, Bill Clinton, for making this an option in today's politics.  It's a special legacy you leave us.

Rielle Hunter is at heart a silly person, a new ager, desperate for some sense of personal validity and inventing same out of whole cloth.  But she is attractive, and was drawn to him.  She has told many people she loves him, gave him the nickname "love lips".  And under those circumstances, what is the likelihood that she was having sex with other men at the same time?  She acted dreamily in love in front of those who knew her best, told them her new love was a married man with complications, that he had kids and that his wife was sick.

Her sister now says it's preposterous that she would have a baby by another man during this time.  The unspoken message was this-- that if she got pregnant by accident on a one night stand, she would simply have an abortion and be done with it. 

And this makes sense, given her liberal predilections and her constant search for the perfect GURU.  (Hint- they're all female, these gurus.  If she fould a male guru who made her feel good about herself, she'd probably jump his bones.)

So why did she have what is likely to be Edwards' baby on purpose?  The key is that it's on PURPOSE.  I seriously doubt he believed she could get pregnant, otherwise he would not have taken that chance.  And if you're John Edwards, you DO ask questions to assure yourself of this, because you KNOW it would destroy your political career.

But Rielle Hunter (born Lisa Druck, by the way, and I don't know if she's even legally changed her name) had this baby.  Could it be because she wanted an extra hook, a permanent attachment to the money pipe?  After all, these guys have kept her in luxury since the beginning.  According to her sister, she was hired by the campaign AFTER the affair began, no doubt to keep her around for the relief of John's stress on the campaign trail or what have you.  And during that time his campaign paid her well over $100,000 for her 'film making'.

He'd better HOPE she didn't make any extracurricular films. 

But SINCE then, they've paid her even more.  Fred Baron, a Dallas lawyer and an Edwards finance guy, has paid for her move to California and has paid her hotel bills and a personal stipend of $15,000 a month, for many months.  She is living in the LAP OF LUXURY, and does essentially nothing.  Oh, there's ONE thing she does, and that's avoid the media.  I suppose it could be called work, especially these days.  :-)

Why would Fred Baron, an Edwards finance committee CHAIRPERSON, pay this woman a monthly income that adds up to $180,000 a year if the father of the baby is Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign guy with a wife and kids?  What does Mr. Baron owe to Mr. Young?

Nothing, of course.  But he DOES have a lot invested in Mr. Edwards, who is himself a trial lawyer and doubtless would advance that cause as president, to the detriment of normal people everywhere.

If John Edwards was an honest man, he would have said "I admit to the affair, I am the baby's father, I am ashamed of myself and sorry to have humiliated my family, I have let down the public who has put their trust in me, and today I announce my withdrawal from all future public life.  I will try to recompense those I have hurt, and you won't be hearing my name in the news again.  I am not a good enough man to have leadership responsibility."

That is the answer of an honest man caught in an affair during an endless political campaign.  He owns up to it.

But Edwards owned up to half of it, and that under relentless pressure from new media while getting all sorts of help from the old.  It was after the story had been essentially PROVEN that the MSM decided to climb on board the train, as their own credibility was under serious threat.

So Edwards admitted to an affair, over a short period of weeks, two years ago, in 2006, as he emphasized over and over on Nightline.  Which immediately made me believe, by the way, that it was much longer and much more recent in scope.  He insisted it was yesterday's news, after having said yesterday that it was tabloid trash.  And he specifically denied paternity, knowing as he did at that moment that it will never be proven one way or the other, because Hunter had already promised her resistance to the idea. 

After all, why would she turn off the money spigot?  Her odds of becoming a paid celeb at her age are a bit long.  She could sell her story, but that would be a one time deal, and raising this child connects her to the money tree for LIFE, or at least for 18 years.

Do you doubt she had a plan?  She knew Elizabeth was unlikely to survive for too many more years.  She had probably been assured by the weasel Edwards that she was the next Mrs. Edwards, and she was not unimaginative (find her blog, but not on a full stomach) and could certainly envision herself as first lady. 

Don't blow corn flakes out your nose.  :-)  From her end, with her brain, this was a real possibility.

And if she already had his child, she was already permanently connected to him.  This meant she just had to wait, and at a certain time she could reveal to the world that the child was his all along.  Probably on the eve of the inauguration of the next president. 

And they lived happily ever after.  With Secret Service protection and a retirement income in the mid six figures, not counting what Edwards himself already has.  Imagine the SPEAKING TOURS.