The New York Times, of all places, ran a headline a while ago – "THE COUNTRY SAFE AT LAST.; FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS"; I think the grey lady unwittingly expressed the sentiments of all conservatives.
Congress in session, whether dominated by Democrats or Republicans (as now constituted), are unable to restrain themselves. Whether they engage in outrageous spending or excessive regulation, the result is the same; freedom and our country suffer.
The latest fiasco we have escaped from (but probably only temporarily) has to do with congress’ intention to indirectly reduce healthcare for millions of Americans, especially those depending on Medicare for survival. In this case it’s not clear if congress alone is the culprit or whether they have help from the Bush administration.
The problem I am referring to is the plan to further reduce payments to doctors for services rendered to Medicare patients. The payments cuts to doctors are part of a 1997 balanced budget deal during the Clinton administration that cuts money going to Medicare.
Because congress left town, a reprieve was given to thousands of doctors expecting to get hit with an additional 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments (payments to doctors have been reduced several times in the past). The Department of Health and Human Services will essentially freeze the current pricing system because of the absence of congress for a midsummer break without approving a price change, according to Secretary Mike Leavitt. Congressional aides said the freeze could last 10 days so there is time for those on Medicare to complain to their Senators and congressmen and congresswomen but it must be done right away. Leave plenty of messages for them about this when they return.
The Department is already paying doctors less for services but the Department says that if the legislation is delayed further, retroactive payments to doctors will be made.
In the last session of the senate, Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning led a delay by calling for action delayed by the senate while waiting for Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to return to the chambers. Senator Robert Byrd already distinguished for senile performances, shouted in anger at the delay "Who are you?" and mockingly called Bunning a "great baseball man."
The only source of opposition has been the American Medical Association, and AARP; they have argued that reduced payments would prompt many doctors to drop out of the Medicare system. Even private insurance companies are affected and make a similar argument for Medicare Advantage plans which are a form of private fee-for-service plans. These programs, and HMOs, have been also targeted in the Democrats' bill.
Democrats’ general argument is that reductions in spending in some programs are needed to "pay for" others; in this case they seek reduced funding for Medicare as their means of "paying" for largesse they want to give to others. The legislation could result in $14 billion less for insurers over five years, though an estimate by a House Republican caucus put the reduction at $47.5 billion over 11 years. All this would come from income to doctors.
Democrats are childishly gleeful at their prospects; it has been reported that "At one point during Thursday's debate, (Democrat senate majority leader) Senator Reid literally hopped around the chamber, predicting Democrats would hold "at least" 59 Senate seats next year because Republicans toed Bush's line."
"I don't know how many people are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty closely," Reid said, staring at the GOP side of the chamber. "I say to all those people who are up for reelection: If you think you can go home and say, 'I voted no because this weak president, the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto' -- come on."
Some Republicans have tried to forestall cuts in Medicare payments but sentiment for reduced payments to doctors is so strong on the part of Democrats that it is likely all that can be done is to delay the cuts, especially since the House passed the bill by a veto-proof margin. However, after the senate reconvenes July 7 it will have only three days to pass a fix before the HHS freeze on payments to doctors is lifted; so to preserve your ability to continue to use doctors you have, it is imperative to contact your senators now.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Is American law now determined by one man as in a science fiction drama?
Thanks to the flappable Justice Anthony Kennedy the Second Amendment remains in the constitution but it is outrageous that four members of the court wanted to throw it out.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a precisely clear opinion upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. But the ink wasn’t dry before leftists of all stripe "found" language in the opinion that will allow other judges to confirm all manner of restrictions on gun owners’ rights. Unfortunately Scalia probably had to include some of these loop holes in the opinion to placate Justice Kennedy so he would join the majority of five.
But how perilous is our freedom when a population of 300 million Americans is at the mercy of nine unelected people in black robes? This is reminiscent of some "sci fy" dramas where one or a small group governs a planet of sheep-like beings.
Recent history is replete with judicial action overturning the will of a majority of voters and citizens in our country. When the judiciary has the power to impose their social views on the public regarding how people should act and think, then the constitutional prescription of three equal branches of government is meaningless. The most tragic part of the story is that the brave men who created the United States of America gave everything to design a brilliant unique government with checks and balances so that no one branch could dominate the others and the country. Yet now we have judges around the country that put themselves above the law by making law on their terms.
Sadly the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter of what does and does not conform to the constitution, is a part of this coup d‘e tat. Justices who don’t respect the constitution as worded are determined to change our government by fiat and it only takes five of them to do that.
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have now returned to a 5 to 4 divided court outcome with the unpredictable Anthony Kennedy holding the decisive vote between four liberal justices who regard the constitution merely as a "guide" rather than the law of the land by which legislated law is to be measured for constitutional compliance, and five justices who have read the constitution and believe it says what it says.
This nation’s founding document is not a "living" law, meaning its interpretation should change with the times; it is a carefully worded construction of fundamental rights designed for the ages limiting authority of a federal government while guaranteeing rights to its citizens. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy reserved for citizens in the event something goes horribly wrong with the execution of the constitutional grand design and the governed have to take action to correct a recalcitrant government. Fortunately in the Second Amendment case decided recently, Kennedy was persuaded to join the group of colleagues who actually understand and respect the constitution.
However, to demonstrate his meager understanding of the constitution, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision that said it was unconstitutional to apply the death penalty to a crime in which no one was killed. The crime was the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl and a court in the state of Louisiana sentenced the criminal to death in accordance with state law. Kennedy and the four liberal judges said the death penalty in this case was "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment; however what Kennedy and his gang of four failed to consider is that to be unconstitutional the punishment must be "cruel AND unusual" to be prohibited.
The death penalty for crimes involving no death has been applied for centuries; for example; in the old west cattle rustling was a capital offense and hanging was the penalty de jour. The death penalty is hardly unusual and though some may consider it cruel, putting someone to death for a crime not involving the death of another was considered an appropriate penalty. To say now that the heinous rape of a child, more serious to the victim than is loss of cows to their owner, is not worthy of a death penalty under the constitution when the citizens of a state think otherwise is making a mockery of the constitution. Justice Kennedy and the four liberals would rather consider the law of other countries rather than the clear wording of the constitution.
The subject of this constitutional failure of interpretation is the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343 is an appeal by one of the two Louisiana inmates, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence.
In the majority decision Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there was "a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons," even such "devastating" crimes as the rape of a child on the other. The court went beyond the question in the case and ruled out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to "offenses against the state," such as treason or espionage — "where the victim’s life was not taken."
Since this was the third high court decision in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment; (In 2002, the court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. In 2005, it ruled that the Constitution bars the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18), the possibility exists that the four liberal judges are seeking to move the court toward the abolition of capital punishment, which Justice John Paul Stevens called for in an opinion two months ago.
Kennedy decision relied heavily on the question whether the death penalty was so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Note that according to Kennedy clear language of the constitution must be reinterpreted "according to evolving standards" of society’s views of "decency."
So rather than using its actual words to govern the high courts decision making, according to Justice Kennedy and friends the constitution may be judicially rewritten by as few as five people in black robes who are supposed to be its guardian.
Justice Kennedy said there was a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime (for which no statistical basis was cited); as if the matter of constitutionality was to be judged according to national polls – how ridiculous it is to use assumed, or even real, public opinion polls as a basis for applying constitutional law to a matter before the court. If public opinion is for a change, the constitution provides the ground rules for its amendment and it does not say the U.S. Supreme Court is the remedy.
It is not for the court to, in Justice Kennedy’s own words, reach a judicial conclusion based on "our own independent judgment about the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape as well as on the fact that the great majority of states have declined to do so."
The Louisiana law extending the death penalty to the rape of children under the age of 12 in Louisiana was enacted in 1995. States that followed the Louisiana law are Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Because unlike Louisiana; those states all require that a defendant must have a previous rape conviction or some other aggravating factor in order to be subject to the death penalty, Justice Kennedy said there was thus a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sharply disputed this conclusion. He said that because many judges and lawyers had interpreted a prior case (the 1977 Coker decision) as barring capital punishment for any rape, state legislatures "have operated under the ominous shadow" of that decision "and thus have not been free to express their own understanding of our society’s standards of decency."
The fact that six states in modern times have nonetheless enacted such laws, Justice Alito said, "might represent the beginning of a new evolutionary line" that "would not be out of step with changes in our society’s thinking since Coker was decided." He said there were abundant indications that society had become more aware of and concerned about sex crimes against children.
Those who voted with Justice Kennedy in the majority were Justice Stevens and Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the dissent, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Addressing the separate question of the court’s "own judgment," Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.
"In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment," Justice Kennedy said, "we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be freakish."
He continued: "We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim."
Justice Kennedy also said capital punishment for child rape presented specific problems, including the "special risks of unreliable testimony" by children and the fact that the crime often occurs within families. Families might be inclined to "shield the perpetrator from discovery" when the penalty is death, he said, leading to an increase in the problem of under-reporting of these crimes.
Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said these concerns were "policy arguments" that were "simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment." He said the Eighth Amendment "does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society."
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a precisely clear opinion upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. But the ink wasn’t dry before leftists of all stripe "found" language in the opinion that will allow other judges to confirm all manner of restrictions on gun owners’ rights. Unfortunately Scalia probably had to include some of these loop holes in the opinion to placate Justice Kennedy so he would join the majority of five.
But how perilous is our freedom when a population of 300 million Americans is at the mercy of nine unelected people in black robes? This is reminiscent of some "sci fy" dramas where one or a small group governs a planet of sheep-like beings.
Recent history is replete with judicial action overturning the will of a majority of voters and citizens in our country. When the judiciary has the power to impose their social views on the public regarding how people should act and think, then the constitutional prescription of three equal branches of government is meaningless. The most tragic part of the story is that the brave men who created the United States of America gave everything to design a brilliant unique government with checks and balances so that no one branch could dominate the others and the country. Yet now we have judges around the country that put themselves above the law by making law on their terms.
Sadly the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter of what does and does not conform to the constitution, is a part of this coup d‘e tat. Justices who don’t respect the constitution as worded are determined to change our government by fiat and it only takes five of them to do that.
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have now returned to a 5 to 4 divided court outcome with the unpredictable Anthony Kennedy holding the decisive vote between four liberal justices who regard the constitution merely as a "guide" rather than the law of the land by which legislated law is to be measured for constitutional compliance, and five justices who have read the constitution and believe it says what it says.
This nation’s founding document is not a "living" law, meaning its interpretation should change with the times; it is a carefully worded construction of fundamental rights designed for the ages limiting authority of a federal government while guaranteeing rights to its citizens. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy reserved for citizens in the event something goes horribly wrong with the execution of the constitutional grand design and the governed have to take action to correct a recalcitrant government. Fortunately in the Second Amendment case decided recently, Kennedy was persuaded to join the group of colleagues who actually understand and respect the constitution.
However, to demonstrate his meager understanding of the constitution, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision that said it was unconstitutional to apply the death penalty to a crime in which no one was killed. The crime was the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl and a court in the state of Louisiana sentenced the criminal to death in accordance with state law. Kennedy and the four liberal judges said the death penalty in this case was "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment; however what Kennedy and his gang of four failed to consider is that to be unconstitutional the punishment must be "cruel AND unusual" to be prohibited.
The death penalty for crimes involving no death has been applied for centuries; for example; in the old west cattle rustling was a capital offense and hanging was the penalty de jour. The death penalty is hardly unusual and though some may consider it cruel, putting someone to death for a crime not involving the death of another was considered an appropriate penalty. To say now that the heinous rape of a child, more serious to the victim than is loss of cows to their owner, is not worthy of a death penalty under the constitution when the citizens of a state think otherwise is making a mockery of the constitution. Justice Kennedy and the four liberals would rather consider the law of other countries rather than the clear wording of the constitution.
The subject of this constitutional failure of interpretation is the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343 is an appeal by one of the two Louisiana inmates, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence.
In the majority decision Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there was "a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons," even such "devastating" crimes as the rape of a child on the other. The court went beyond the question in the case and ruled out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to "offenses against the state," such as treason or espionage — "where the victim’s life was not taken."
Since this was the third high court decision in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment; (In 2002, the court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. In 2005, it ruled that the Constitution bars the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18), the possibility exists that the four liberal judges are seeking to move the court toward the abolition of capital punishment, which Justice John Paul Stevens called for in an opinion two months ago.
Kennedy decision relied heavily on the question whether the death penalty was so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Note that according to Kennedy clear language of the constitution must be reinterpreted "according to evolving standards" of society’s views of "decency."
So rather than using its actual words to govern the high courts decision making, according to Justice Kennedy and friends the constitution may be judicially rewritten by as few as five people in black robes who are supposed to be its guardian.
Justice Kennedy said there was a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime (for which no statistical basis was cited); as if the matter of constitutionality was to be judged according to national polls – how ridiculous it is to use assumed, or even real, public opinion polls as a basis for applying constitutional law to a matter before the court. If public opinion is for a change, the constitution provides the ground rules for its amendment and it does not say the U.S. Supreme Court is the remedy.
It is not for the court to, in Justice Kennedy’s own words, reach a judicial conclusion based on "our own independent judgment about the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape as well as on the fact that the great majority of states have declined to do so."
The Louisiana law extending the death penalty to the rape of children under the age of 12 in Louisiana was enacted in 1995. States that followed the Louisiana law are Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Because unlike Louisiana; those states all require that a defendant must have a previous rape conviction or some other aggravating factor in order to be subject to the death penalty, Justice Kennedy said there was thus a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sharply disputed this conclusion. He said that because many judges and lawyers had interpreted a prior case (the 1977 Coker decision) as barring capital punishment for any rape, state legislatures "have operated under the ominous shadow" of that decision "and thus have not been free to express their own understanding of our society’s standards of decency."
The fact that six states in modern times have nonetheless enacted such laws, Justice Alito said, "might represent the beginning of a new evolutionary line" that "would not be out of step with changes in our society’s thinking since Coker was decided." He said there were abundant indications that society had become more aware of and concerned about sex crimes against children.
Those who voted with Justice Kennedy in the majority were Justice Stevens and Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the dissent, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Addressing the separate question of the court’s "own judgment," Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.
"In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment," Justice Kennedy said, "we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be freakish."
He continued: "We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim."
Justice Kennedy also said capital punishment for child rape presented specific problems, including the "special risks of unreliable testimony" by children and the fact that the crime often occurs within families. Families might be inclined to "shield the perpetrator from discovery" when the penalty is death, he said, leading to an increase in the problem of under-reporting of these crimes.
Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said these concerns were "policy arguments" that were "simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment." He said the Eighth Amendment "does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Look behind the man behind the teleprompter and learn what Obama stands for
The possible and by some accounts likely, next president of the United States, Barack Obama, in the words of his excellent speech writers, will solve all the county’s problems with "CHANGE". Yes indeed, whatever problem you are concerned about Obama has a solution and that solution is change.
For example, are you worried about global warming; well here is the Obama response:
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate [during his 123 days of actually being present at senate deliberations] to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil."
Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007
Do you understand? Obama will address "the greatest moral challenges of our generation" by helping automakers retool their factories to make cars that use less oil. Therefore, immediately after getting congress to give automakers a lot of money, we will have the climate change problem solved. I wonder how many in his Detroit audience and others reading his remarks cried out "halleluiah we is saved from global warming".
Having solved climate change, Obama stands ready with a plan to take on the energy crisis; from his web site we learn this will be done this way, and I quote:
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Obama critics say he has not explained how he would actually implement his plans; viewing the Obama solutions from his web site show the reason for this criticism, nothing but platitudes. The only sure thing is that more taxes will be required to fulfill this wish list.
Although Obama is sometimes criticized for not being specific regarding his programs, he actually has informed the country what he proposes to do. Unfortunately few get past the messianic tone of his speeches and the generalities to actually try to understand what Obama is all about. If voters actually understood what Obama wants to do, he would lose the November election in a landslide, even to John McCain.
The United States receives about 1.6 million barrels of Canadian oil per day but Obama wants to enact "low-carbon fuel legislation". Such a law would place steep penalties on refiners who use tar sand crude oil which of course applies to almost everything we get from Canada. If Obama has his way, we would be denied 1.6 million barrels a day from a politically reliable source. Canada would have no problem selling this oil to other countries and we would be the loser.
Canada, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are our major suppliers of oil. There is currently an effort to obtain approval for a refinery in South Dakota to process Canadian oil. But Obama and his green allies consider Canadian oil to be "dirty"; meaning that it requires more processing in refineries than the light, sweet crude of the Middle East. Obama’s policies would heavily penalize the use of Canadian oil and increase our dependency on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Global demand is rising exponentially, so if we would need to replace 1.6 million barrels of "dirty" oil we would have to rely on our existing suppliers. However, none of our suppliers have the extra supplies or the willingness to replace the oil deficit. What this means in practical terms is that by excluding Canadian oil to the US we will have a shortage of oil and there will be higher prices at the pump and consumer goods will cost more.
In addition to depriving the US of a safe reliable source of oil, Obama is also opposed to offshore drilling and he wants to have a "windfall profits tax . . . to ease the burden of higher energy costs on working families."
"Instead of giving oil executives another way to boost their record profits, I believe we should put in place a windfall-profits tax that will . . . ease the burden of higher energy costs on working families," he said. Of course, omitted from Obama’s equation is that any additional costs tacked on oil companies for delivering gas to the pumps will simply be reflected in the price and we would be paying still higher prices for gasoline.
Those advising Obama want him to portray himself as "reformer"’ but is this true? As someone who says he wants to change the way government works by reducing the influence of special interests; he nonetheless has some powerful political allies from special interest groups. For example, when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the agricultural industry. Recently when campaigning in the Corn Belt, Obama embraced ethanol as a substitute for gasoline because it "ultimately helps our national security, because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth."
America's oil dependence, he added, "makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term." When Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend and surrogate, former Democrat Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Daschle serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, "he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy."
Another one of Obama's advisers on energy and environmental issues is Jason Grumet who came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a big ethanol backer. Grumet has personal close ties to the agri-business giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Obama himself twice flew at subsidized rates on corporate planes of ADM. Archer Daniels Midland is the nation's largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.
Obama is against "windfall profits" by oil companies. However, Obama favors ethanol subsidies (54 cents per gallon) that the US imposes on imported ethanol. At least some of the subsidy ends up in the hands of the corn growers and ethanol-producing companies like ADM. While Obama says he supports helping the United States become "energy independent," he also supports the ethanol tariffs that benefit his political supporters.
The candidate of "change" wants change for others but not for himself as he reaps the benefits from special interest groups he decries in others.
"We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market" and contribute to inflation, McCain said in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo (Brazil is a major source of ethanol produced from sugar cane). "Besides, it is wrong," he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugarcane ethanol, "which is much more efficient than corn ethanol."
Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax and also benefit his agri-business supporters. In the name of helping the United States build "energy independence," he also supports the tariff.
Obama says we need change, but change for others, not for himself, he continues to do political business as usual.
Jimmy Carter’s energy policies devastated our country forty years ago. Obama will do the same thing. Under Carter we had decreased domestic production and greater reliance upon foreign oil. The Obama energy policy is Carter all over again and will repeat Carter’s 1970’s failures. We are in an oil crisis and have a weakening dollar. Considering Canada alone, oil producers there have plans in place to double their exportation of crude oil to our country by 2020; but these plans will be reversed if Obama is elected president.
The proverbial "last straw" may very well be enacting laws to deal with the bogus global warming scare, refusing to drill off shore and in ANWR and failure to utilize our natural resources to make the United States truly energy independent. We can’t be sure we will recognize our country after Obama and a Democrat congress accomplish all they intend to do.
For example, are you worried about global warming; well here is the Obama response:
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate [during his 123 days of actually being present at senate deliberations] to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil."
Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007
Do you understand? Obama will address "the greatest moral challenges of our generation" by helping automakers retool their factories to make cars that use less oil. Therefore, immediately after getting congress to give automakers a lot of money, we will have the climate change problem solved. I wonder how many in his Detroit audience and others reading his remarks cried out "halleluiah we is saved from global warming".
Having solved climate change, Obama stands ready with a plan to take on the energy crisis; from his web site we learn this will be done this way, and I quote:
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Obama critics say he has not explained how he would actually implement his plans; viewing the Obama solutions from his web site show the reason for this criticism, nothing but platitudes. The only sure thing is that more taxes will be required to fulfill this wish list.
Although Obama is sometimes criticized for not being specific regarding his programs, he actually has informed the country what he proposes to do. Unfortunately few get past the messianic tone of his speeches and the generalities to actually try to understand what Obama is all about. If voters actually understood what Obama wants to do, he would lose the November election in a landslide, even to John McCain.
The United States receives about 1.6 million barrels of Canadian oil per day but Obama wants to enact "low-carbon fuel legislation". Such a law would place steep penalties on refiners who use tar sand crude oil which of course applies to almost everything we get from Canada. If Obama has his way, we would be denied 1.6 million barrels a day from a politically reliable source. Canada would have no problem selling this oil to other countries and we would be the loser.
Canada, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are our major suppliers of oil. There is currently an effort to obtain approval for a refinery in South Dakota to process Canadian oil. But Obama and his green allies consider Canadian oil to be "dirty"; meaning that it requires more processing in refineries than the light, sweet crude of the Middle East. Obama’s policies would heavily penalize the use of Canadian oil and increase our dependency on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Global demand is rising exponentially, so if we would need to replace 1.6 million barrels of "dirty" oil we would have to rely on our existing suppliers. However, none of our suppliers have the extra supplies or the willingness to replace the oil deficit. What this means in practical terms is that by excluding Canadian oil to the US we will have a shortage of oil and there will be higher prices at the pump and consumer goods will cost more.
In addition to depriving the US of a safe reliable source of oil, Obama is also opposed to offshore drilling and he wants to have a "windfall profits tax . . . to ease the burden of higher energy costs on working families."
"Instead of giving oil executives another way to boost their record profits, I believe we should put in place a windfall-profits tax that will . . . ease the burden of higher energy costs on working families," he said. Of course, omitted from Obama’s equation is that any additional costs tacked on oil companies for delivering gas to the pumps will simply be reflected in the price and we would be paying still higher prices for gasoline.
Those advising Obama want him to portray himself as "reformer"’ but is this true? As someone who says he wants to change the way government works by reducing the influence of special interests; he nonetheless has some powerful political allies from special interest groups. For example, when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the agricultural industry. Recently when campaigning in the Corn Belt, Obama embraced ethanol as a substitute for gasoline because it "ultimately helps our national security, because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth."
America's oil dependence, he added, "makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term." When Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend and surrogate, former Democrat Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Daschle serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, "he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy."
Another one of Obama's advisers on energy and environmental issues is Jason Grumet who came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a big ethanol backer. Grumet has personal close ties to the agri-business giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Obama himself twice flew at subsidized rates on corporate planes of ADM. Archer Daniels Midland is the nation's largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.
Obama is against "windfall profits" by oil companies. However, Obama favors ethanol subsidies (54 cents per gallon) that the US imposes on imported ethanol. At least some of the subsidy ends up in the hands of the corn growers and ethanol-producing companies like ADM. While Obama says he supports helping the United States become "energy independent," he also supports the ethanol tariffs that benefit his political supporters.
The candidate of "change" wants change for others but not for himself as he reaps the benefits from special interest groups he decries in others.
"We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market" and contribute to inflation, McCain said in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo (Brazil is a major source of ethanol produced from sugar cane). "Besides, it is wrong," he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugarcane ethanol, "which is much more efficient than corn ethanol."
Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax and also benefit his agri-business supporters. In the name of helping the United States build "energy independence," he also supports the tariff.
Obama says we need change, but change for others, not for himself, he continues to do political business as usual.
Jimmy Carter’s energy policies devastated our country forty years ago. Obama will do the same thing. Under Carter we had decreased domestic production and greater reliance upon foreign oil. The Obama energy policy is Carter all over again and will repeat Carter’s 1970’s failures. We are in an oil crisis and have a weakening dollar. Considering Canada alone, oil producers there have plans in place to double their exportation of crude oil to our country by 2020; but these plans will be reversed if Obama is elected president.
The proverbial "last straw" may very well be enacting laws to deal with the bogus global warming scare, refusing to drill off shore and in ANWR and failure to utilize our natural resources to make the United States truly energy independent. We can’t be sure we will recognize our country after Obama and a Democrat congress accomplish all they intend to do.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Global warming deniers; get ready for the coming inquisition
I wondered how long it would take to come to this. We have had calls for the firing of scientists and other disbelievers of the religion of the day; can the inquisition and McCarthy-style hearings be far behind? I can hear it now - "Are you now or ever have been a denier of global warming caused by mankind?"
The first shot across the bow, so to speak, has been fired in England. Here is a report appearing in the British paper, The Guardian:
"Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists · 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008. James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
Hansen heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Imagine, global warming deniers are being accused of "crimes against humanity"; isn't that what Nazi perpetrators were charged with at the Nuremberg trials over the holocaust when six million Jews and others were killed?
To members of the cult-like religion spawned by Al Gore, failing to agree with their dogma is akin to committing one of the worst crimes in human history. Not only is disagreement sufficient to lose your job and be ostracized in your professional community, you should go to jail, or perhaps a gulag, for it.
So-called climate expert, Hansen, was "among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable." For reasons only the majority of Democrats in congress can explain, Hansen has been invited to the House to speak and "to accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as Exxon Mobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading."
The "climate expert" told the Guardian, a newspaper in England, "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
To show how serious Hanson is, he is also talking about making personal charges before the November elections against selected members of Congress who he thinks have a poor track record on climate change. In fact, Hansen offered to campaign against them so they will be defeated at the polls. When most scientists were still hesitant to speak out in support of his dogma, Hansen said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".
Hansen will share his views on Capitol Hill. He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level. According to him, the CO2 concentration currently at 385 parts per million is rising by 2 ppm a year. The NASA head of a special project on global warming will tell Congress 2009 will be a crucial year and the new US president should follow the Kyoto agreement; with our choice for the job being limited to two global warming worshipers, it is more than likely we all will be expected to accept the inevitable greatest intrusion on the rights of Americans in history.
As part of his plan to place global warming ahead of common sense, Hansen will tell congress a moratorium should be put on new coal-fired power plants and creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines should be buried under ground and spread across America, "in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing." "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."
His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will; it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
To increase pressure on international leaders, a new organization, called "350.org" is starting a campaign with full-page advertisements in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350 ppm. In 2009 which they say will be a crucial year. Anticipating a less hostile president coming into office, the ad will feature how to follow the Kyoto agreement. To emphasize "wide support" for this position, the ad will include 150 signatories, including Hansen. No mention will be made in the advertisement and by the news media coverage about the 19,000 scientists (among them 9,000 PhD's signing on to labeling Kyoto and its offspring's a hoax).
Hansen and others blindly supporting the global warming scam put the blame for this heresy of public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat on "special interests". "The problem is not political will; it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
This accusation is especially amazing because recent polls in England report over 60% of the British public believe global warming is total "balderdash" (my word, not theirs, I use it to be politically correct by British standards). But in any language global warming caused by man is utter nonsense.
The first shot across the bow, so to speak, has been fired in England. Here is a report appearing in the British paper, The Guardian:
"Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists · 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008. James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
Hansen heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Imagine, global warming deniers are being accused of "crimes against humanity"; isn't that what Nazi perpetrators were charged with at the Nuremberg trials over the holocaust when six million Jews and others were killed?
To members of the cult-like religion spawned by Al Gore, failing to agree with their dogma is akin to committing one of the worst crimes in human history. Not only is disagreement sufficient to lose your job and be ostracized in your professional community, you should go to jail, or perhaps a gulag, for it.
So-called climate expert, Hansen, was "among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable." For reasons only the majority of Democrats in congress can explain, Hansen has been invited to the House to speak and "to accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as Exxon Mobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading."
The "climate expert" told the Guardian, a newspaper in England, "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
To show how serious Hanson is, he is also talking about making personal charges before the November elections against selected members of Congress who he thinks have a poor track record on climate change. In fact, Hansen offered to campaign against them so they will be defeated at the polls. When most scientists were still hesitant to speak out in support of his dogma, Hansen said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".
Hansen will share his views on Capitol Hill. He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level. According to him, the CO2 concentration currently at 385 parts per million is rising by 2 ppm a year. The NASA head of a special project on global warming will tell Congress 2009 will be a crucial year and the new US president should follow the Kyoto agreement; with our choice for the job being limited to two global warming worshipers, it is more than likely we all will be expected to accept the inevitable greatest intrusion on the rights of Americans in history.
As part of his plan to place global warming ahead of common sense, Hansen will tell congress a moratorium should be put on new coal-fired power plants and creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines should be buried under ground and spread across America, "in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing." "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."
His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will; it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
To increase pressure on international leaders, a new organization, called "350.org" is starting a campaign with full-page advertisements in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350 ppm. In 2009 which they say will be a crucial year. Anticipating a less hostile president coming into office, the ad will feature how to follow the Kyoto agreement. To emphasize "wide support" for this position, the ad will include 150 signatories, including Hansen. No mention will be made in the advertisement and by the news media coverage about the 19,000 scientists (among them 9,000 PhD's signing on to labeling Kyoto and its offspring's a hoax).
Hansen and others blindly supporting the global warming scam put the blame for this heresy of public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat on "special interests". "The problem is not political will; it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
This accusation is especially amazing because recent polls in England report over 60% of the British public believe global warming is total "balderdash" (my word, not theirs, I use it to be politically correct by British standards). But in any language global warming caused by man is utter nonsense.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Why we should NOT be drilling for oil - according to leftists
First, to show that opposition to drilling is "bipartisan", opponents cite California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has come out strongly against any plan to drill off shore. The problem here is that most people, and all in the state, realize Schwarzenegger is not your typical Republican; whether being married to Maria Shriver or simply because he is a closet liberal on most issues, having the governor on board is hardly an example of bipartisanship.
Liberal news reports, such as recently appeared on ABC network TV stations, are found of scrounging for "experts" who are willing to get their 15 minutes of fame proclaiming the politically correct version according to the message the news source wishes to inflict upon their audience.
For example, to prove the point ABC had Severin Borenstein of the University of California say:
"Even if we approved oil drilling off the coast today, it would have no effect on the price of oil and no effect on the price we're paying for gasoline for five or ten years." This is the crux of the non arguments made in opposition to the "drill now" public clamor as gasoline prices soar at the pumps.
Only a small minority of TV time is given to proponents of drill now however the support for the idea is compelling:
Betsy Stark citing opponents’ estimate of how the offshore oil represents "about two and a half years worth of U.S. consumption at current rates", paraphrased the opinion of the experts she consulted: "Just the expectation of increasing domestic production at a time of tight supplies could drive down prices."
Of course, no where is the reality that access to off shore oil and other oil deposits have a far longer potential to supply America with oil than the few years cited by opponents.
NBC gave a somewhat more even-handed analysis; it ran a sound bite from energy analyst Daniel Yergin who predicted allowing offshore drilling "would send a psychological message to the world oil market which would affect prices before any of that new oil actually started to arrive."
Contrast the ABC and NBC approach with reports on CBS which included in their biased report the following [This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org and referred to in the Media Research Center’s Cyberalert; this is a transcript of the story on the Wednesday, June 18 CBS Evening News anchored by Russ Mitchell]:
"RUSS MITCHELL: Now to a major political battle that is brewing over oil. There are billions of barrels of crude off the U.S. coast, but drilling for new wells has been banned for a quarter century. Today President Bush said America needs that oil, and called on Congress to take action so the oil companies can get it. Here's Bill Whitaker.
BILL WHITAKER: With gas prices topping $4 a gallon, President Bush says relief is at hand by lifting federal bans on offshore drilling, bans imposed in the 1980s by Congress and strengthened by the first President Bush. Today the current President Bush took aim at Congress, pressing Democrats to act first.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Americans will rightly ask how high oil, how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.
WHITAKER: Democrats fired right back.
REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA): If this was a good plan, then they would have adopted it over the six years they controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency.
WHITAKER: Democrats are lining up behind Barack Obama to oppose offshore drilling. Republicans are pushing to open the taps. In the midst of the hot debate, John McCain and one of his possible VP choices, the Governor of Florida, reversed course and now support drilling.
GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST (R-FL): So long as it's done safely and protects our beautiful beaches and protects our state.
WHITAKER: But in California, which suffered a devastating oil spill from a rig off Santa Barbara in 1969, opposition to offshore drilling is bipartisan.
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA): I myself want to do everything that I can to make sure that California is protected.
WHITAKER: From Republican Governor Schwarzenegger to local environmentalists, California is largely green.
MARK GOLD, HEAL THE BAY: You get a much bigger improvement in a much shorter period of time by really aggressively going after conservation than you ever would with offshore oil drilling.
WHITAKER: Drilling opponents say reserves off California wouldn't last long. In fact, at current consumption rates, 21 million barrels a day, Americans would use up the estimated 18 billion barrels off the coasts all around the country in less than two and a half years.
SEVERIN BORENSTEIN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY INSTITUTE: Even if we approved oil drilling off the coast today, it would have no effect on the price of oil and no effect on the price we're paying for gasoline for five or ten years.
WHITAKER: Democrats say oil companies haven't yet drilled on some 68 million acres offshore and on that they've already leased. It seems this beautiful coastline will be fueling some ugly politics in this election year. Russ?
MITCHELL: Bill Whitaker on a gorgeous beach in Santa Monica, California, thank you so much."
Most Americans are aware of the liberal major media bias in news reporting and their support of all Democrat political positions, but with such an important topic for all American households, games should not be played with our ability to more economically drive to work, drive to schools and drive to buy food for the table.
Liberal news reports, such as recently appeared on ABC network TV stations, are found of scrounging for "experts" who are willing to get their 15 minutes of fame proclaiming the politically correct version according to the message the news source wishes to inflict upon their audience.
For example, to prove the point ABC had Severin Borenstein of the University of California say:
"Even if we approved oil drilling off the coast today, it would have no effect on the price of oil and no effect on the price we're paying for gasoline for five or ten years." This is the crux of the non arguments made in opposition to the "drill now" public clamor as gasoline prices soar at the pumps.
Only a small minority of TV time is given to proponents of drill now however the support for the idea is compelling:
Betsy Stark citing opponents’ estimate of how the offshore oil represents "about two and a half years worth of U.S. consumption at current rates", paraphrased the opinion of the experts she consulted: "Just the expectation of increasing domestic production at a time of tight supplies could drive down prices."
Of course, no where is the reality that access to off shore oil and other oil deposits have a far longer potential to supply America with oil than the few years cited by opponents.
NBC gave a somewhat more even-handed analysis; it ran a sound bite from energy analyst Daniel Yergin who predicted allowing offshore drilling "would send a psychological message to the world oil market which would affect prices before any of that new oil actually started to arrive."
Contrast the ABC and NBC approach with reports on CBS which included in their biased report the following [This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org and referred to in the Media Research Center’s Cyberalert; this is a transcript of the story on the Wednesday, June 18 CBS Evening News anchored by Russ Mitchell]:
"RUSS MITCHELL: Now to a major political battle that is brewing over oil. There are billions of barrels of crude off the U.S. coast, but drilling for new wells has been banned for a quarter century. Today President Bush said America needs that oil, and called on Congress to take action so the oil companies can get it. Here's Bill Whitaker.
BILL WHITAKER: With gas prices topping $4 a gallon, President Bush says relief is at hand by lifting federal bans on offshore drilling, bans imposed in the 1980s by Congress and strengthened by the first President Bush. Today the current President Bush took aim at Congress, pressing Democrats to act first.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Americans will rightly ask how high oil, how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.
WHITAKER: Democrats fired right back.
REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA): If this was a good plan, then they would have adopted it over the six years they controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency.
WHITAKER: Democrats are lining up behind Barack Obama to oppose offshore drilling. Republicans are pushing to open the taps. In the midst of the hot debate, John McCain and one of his possible VP choices, the Governor of Florida, reversed course and now support drilling.
GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST (R-FL): So long as it's done safely and protects our beautiful beaches and protects our state.
WHITAKER: But in California, which suffered a devastating oil spill from a rig off Santa Barbara in 1969, opposition to offshore drilling is bipartisan.
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA): I myself want to do everything that I can to make sure that California is protected.
WHITAKER: From Republican Governor Schwarzenegger to local environmentalists, California is largely green.
MARK GOLD, HEAL THE BAY: You get a much bigger improvement in a much shorter period of time by really aggressively going after conservation than you ever would with offshore oil drilling.
WHITAKER: Drilling opponents say reserves off California wouldn't last long. In fact, at current consumption rates, 21 million barrels a day, Americans would use up the estimated 18 billion barrels off the coasts all around the country in less than two and a half years.
SEVERIN BORENSTEIN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY INSTITUTE: Even if we approved oil drilling off the coast today, it would have no effect on the price of oil and no effect on the price we're paying for gasoline for five or ten years.
WHITAKER: Democrats say oil companies haven't yet drilled on some 68 million acres offshore and on that they've already leased. It seems this beautiful coastline will be fueling some ugly politics in this election year. Russ?
MITCHELL: Bill Whitaker on a gorgeous beach in Santa Monica, California, thank you so much."
Most Americans are aware of the liberal major media bias in news reporting and their support of all Democrat political positions, but with such an important topic for all American households, games should not be played with our ability to more economically drive to work, drive to schools and drive to buy food for the table.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Unshackle American enterprise to increase oil supplies
Try as I might, I can’t come up with one thing the government has done that couldn’t have been done better, less expensively and more successfully by a non government business. Sure, the government has succeeded with special projects that required a lot of money like the atomic bomb, going to the moon and tax collecting, but does anyone want to entrust the government with more mundane things like nuclear power plants, telecommunication, oil production and oil refining, and health care?
Even when a separately run enterprise is created, it would fail without prohibiting competition; take the U.S. Postal Service for example. If left to private enterprise mail would be delivered more efficiently and at less cost.
There are industries in other countries taken over by governments and the results are pretty predictable. Mexico has a national oil company but, like the country as a whole, it is riddled with corruption. Without investing money in oil infrastructure, Mexico’s oil production is decreasing and new oil exploration and development is non existent. Venezuela sits on a lot of oil but instead of improving oil producing equipment, it’s violent version of Shrek is buying up arms in anticipation of an American invasion and fomenting trouble around the world and in its neighborhood.
Middle Eastern camel herders nationalized their oil industries and then took years, and purchased western know-how, to keep the desert pumping oil. Under communism some factories in USSR boasted of beating production quotas, the result – more left shoes than right shoes.
With gasoline prices in the United States at record levels the public finally complained to their representatives in congress. What was congress' response; oil companies responsible for keeping our cars running were hauled before congressional committees and held up as the villains.
Not until recently has anyone of public stature recognized that a law not of legislative making is responsible for the situation – the law of supply and demand. Even John McCain and George Bush have finally read a book on economics and recognized the need to increase oil supplies by "drill now, drill here" and get more American oil to increase oil supplies. Unfortunately Democrats and other leftists seem incapable of learning simple economic facts and continue to resist and oppose all efforts to make America oil self sufficient and independent of foreign sources controlled by our enemies. The argument is that if we started to exploit new reserves now, oil would not be flowing for years to come; this is so absurd it would be comical but for the seriousness of the matter. I suppose the idea is to inflict a continuing oil shortage on the next generation by not taking any action now. Imagine if this nonsense was recognized for what it is and new oil development had been undertaken twenty years ago when first suggested; this generation would be able to deal with the camel herders on terms that would be in America’s best interests rather than groveling before them to beg for more oil.
That brilliant congressional economics expert, Maxine Waters, called for congress to nationalize the oil companies (foreign companies like Shell and British Petroleum too Maxine?), and was joined in this clarion call by other experts in congress as well. No mind that government has not the foggiest of notions of what to do if bureaucrats were called upon to fill our gas tanks.
No matter that huge oil company profits criticized by leftists don’t come from gasoline production and sale; somehow the government will be able to take care of the high price of fuel by taking over oil companies.
No matter that rising oil prices have sharply cut profit margins for refining of the major oil companies -- which both pump oil (or buy it on the open market) and refine it for use as gasoline.
No matter that refining and marketing profits for the first quarter were down 39% for oil giants like Exxon Mobil from a year ago and that smaller refiners did even worse. Sunoco's refining and supply business were hurt by lower margins and lost $123 million in the first quarter and higher crude costs also have squeezed profits at the refining divisions of companies such as Conoco Phillips which don’t produce enough crude themselves to refine at full capacity without buying more oil from other producers. Refiner Tesoro lost $82 million for the same period.
The CEO of Conoco Phillips, Jim Mulva, said his company, the second-largest U.S. refiner behind Valero Energy, buys about 2 million barrels of crude a day at market prices to refine into gasoline and other products.
"If oil costs us $30 a barrel or $40 a barrel or $120 a barrel, that's why the cost of gasoline is what it is (gasoline costs are high) … because of the cost of oil."
The cost of refining added 27 cents to a gallon in the first quarter of this year, a nickel less than what it added in 2004, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Major oil companies own fewer than 5% of gas stations. Most are owned by small retailers, and many of them say they are having difficulty making a profit on gasoline sales. That's because wholesale gasoline prices have risen in parallel with oil prices. Most gasoline stations don’t make money from gasoline sales; they rely on gas sales to get customers to them and they hope auto repairs or food and drink sales will help them turn a profit.
Republicans have been despairing of any show of spine by their leaders on the energy issue but finally President Bush got behind the public call to do something about fuel prices. He urged congress to lift a 27-year-old ban on oil exploration off U.S. shores and put the blame for the problem where it should be; on Democrats.
"For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers, small-business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food or ships a product has felt the effect, and families across the country are looking to Washington for a response."
"My administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction."
"Congress must face a hard reality: Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil and we must start now."
Bush put forth a four-point plan, the main point being to open up the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil exploration. He proposed: "… to give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected."
The other three options presented by the president are: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration; a commitment to development of oil shale; and renewing development of coal-to-oil strategies.
Even Senator John McCain got on board, though less enthusiastically and in terms that do not wholly reassure Republican supporters, but nonetheless he appeared to also call for removing the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development and said that states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts while getting some revenue through royalties.
Barack Obama opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling. He repeated the foolish reason that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years. "There is no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, potential Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, also called it "another bad idea."
"It's going to take 10 years to fully get that oil out of the ocean. It's a fragile ecosystem," he said on CBS's "The Early Show."
"You know this president; all he wants to do is drill, drill, drill. A one track mind — drill, drill, drill — that's not going to work."
There are 574 million acres of federal coastal water that are off-limits to U.S. companies but are being accessed by Cuba, China and Canada; they are believed to hold nearly 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Interior Department. Other estimates put the totals even higher.
Even when a separately run enterprise is created, it would fail without prohibiting competition; take the U.S. Postal Service for example. If left to private enterprise mail would be delivered more efficiently and at less cost.
There are industries in other countries taken over by governments and the results are pretty predictable. Mexico has a national oil company but, like the country as a whole, it is riddled with corruption. Without investing money in oil infrastructure, Mexico’s oil production is decreasing and new oil exploration and development is non existent. Venezuela sits on a lot of oil but instead of improving oil producing equipment, it’s violent version of Shrek is buying up arms in anticipation of an American invasion and fomenting trouble around the world and in its neighborhood.
Middle Eastern camel herders nationalized their oil industries and then took years, and purchased western know-how, to keep the desert pumping oil. Under communism some factories in USSR boasted of beating production quotas, the result – more left shoes than right shoes.
With gasoline prices in the United States at record levels the public finally complained to their representatives in congress. What was congress' response; oil companies responsible for keeping our cars running were hauled before congressional committees and held up as the villains.
Not until recently has anyone of public stature recognized that a law not of legislative making is responsible for the situation – the law of supply and demand. Even John McCain and George Bush have finally read a book on economics and recognized the need to increase oil supplies by "drill now, drill here" and get more American oil to increase oil supplies. Unfortunately Democrats and other leftists seem incapable of learning simple economic facts and continue to resist and oppose all efforts to make America oil self sufficient and independent of foreign sources controlled by our enemies. The argument is that if we started to exploit new reserves now, oil would not be flowing for years to come; this is so absurd it would be comical but for the seriousness of the matter. I suppose the idea is to inflict a continuing oil shortage on the next generation by not taking any action now. Imagine if this nonsense was recognized for what it is and new oil development had been undertaken twenty years ago when first suggested; this generation would be able to deal with the camel herders on terms that would be in America’s best interests rather than groveling before them to beg for more oil.
That brilliant congressional economics expert, Maxine Waters, called for congress to nationalize the oil companies (foreign companies like Shell and British Petroleum too Maxine?), and was joined in this clarion call by other experts in congress as well. No mind that government has not the foggiest of notions of what to do if bureaucrats were called upon to fill our gas tanks.
No matter that huge oil company profits criticized by leftists don’t come from gasoline production and sale; somehow the government will be able to take care of the high price of fuel by taking over oil companies.
No matter that rising oil prices have sharply cut profit margins for refining of the major oil companies -- which both pump oil (or buy it on the open market) and refine it for use as gasoline.
No matter that refining and marketing profits for the first quarter were down 39% for oil giants like Exxon Mobil from a year ago and that smaller refiners did even worse. Sunoco's refining and supply business were hurt by lower margins and lost $123 million in the first quarter and higher crude costs also have squeezed profits at the refining divisions of companies such as Conoco Phillips which don’t produce enough crude themselves to refine at full capacity without buying more oil from other producers. Refiner Tesoro lost $82 million for the same period.
The CEO of Conoco Phillips, Jim Mulva, said his company, the second-largest U.S. refiner behind Valero Energy, buys about 2 million barrels of crude a day at market prices to refine into gasoline and other products.
"If oil costs us $30 a barrel or $40 a barrel or $120 a barrel, that's why the cost of gasoline is what it is (gasoline costs are high) … because of the cost of oil."
The cost of refining added 27 cents to a gallon in the first quarter of this year, a nickel less than what it added in 2004, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Major oil companies own fewer than 5% of gas stations. Most are owned by small retailers, and many of them say they are having difficulty making a profit on gasoline sales. That's because wholesale gasoline prices have risen in parallel with oil prices. Most gasoline stations don’t make money from gasoline sales; they rely on gas sales to get customers to them and they hope auto repairs or food and drink sales will help them turn a profit.
Republicans have been despairing of any show of spine by their leaders on the energy issue but finally President Bush got behind the public call to do something about fuel prices. He urged congress to lift a 27-year-old ban on oil exploration off U.S. shores and put the blame for the problem where it should be; on Democrats.
"For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers, small-business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food or ships a product has felt the effect, and families across the country are looking to Washington for a response."
"My administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction."
"Congress must face a hard reality: Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil and we must start now."
Bush put forth a four-point plan, the main point being to open up the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil exploration. He proposed: "… to give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected."
The other three options presented by the president are: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration; a commitment to development of oil shale; and renewing development of coal-to-oil strategies.
Even Senator John McCain got on board, though less enthusiastically and in terms that do not wholly reassure Republican supporters, but nonetheless he appeared to also call for removing the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development and said that states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts while getting some revenue through royalties.
Barack Obama opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling. He repeated the foolish reason that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years. "There is no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, potential Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, also called it "another bad idea."
"It's going to take 10 years to fully get that oil out of the ocean. It's a fragile ecosystem," he said on CBS's "The Early Show."
"You know this president; all he wants to do is drill, drill, drill. A one track mind — drill, drill, drill — that's not going to work."
There are 574 million acres of federal coastal water that are off-limits to U.S. companies but are being accessed by Cuba, China and Canada; they are believed to hold nearly 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Interior Department. Other estimates put the totals even higher.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Is there a grand conspiracy at work to move the world toward global government?
It started in 1952.
Nearly every person elected as president of the United States since then – and nearly every opponent – has belonged to one of three secretive, globalism-oriented organizations known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission, or all three.
If they didn’t belong to one of these groups, presidents, their running mates and their challengers more often than not have at least had ties to these clubs of internationalists.
That the groups exert enormous influence on public policy is indisputable. What is disputed is whether such groups are, as adherents and members argue, just discussion forums for movers and shakers, or, as critics have long alleged, secret societies shaping a new world order from behind the scenes. On that last point at least, no one could challenge the critics: all these groups operate in considerable secrecy, away from the scrutiny of the American public.
Regardless of how one characterizes them, the fact that virtually all presidents belonged to the same secret clubs prompts the author of a new book to expect the 2008 election will also be a contest between globalist insiders. In fact, it has been reported that "according to a variety of sources"; Barack Obama and John McCain are members of one or the other of such groups.
Many have wondered what is behind Barack Obama’s rise to fame and, prospectively, the presidency; the answer may be, in part, these three elitists’ organizations. In the list of the Bilderberg attendees at their last meeting, the name of James A. Johnson was included. He is the lead person Obama appointed to the group vetting possible Obama running mates. Johnson was recently fired by Obama from the vetting group when his ties to unsavory characters were revealed. There is speculation by many in the blogosphere that a recent meeting with Obama was arranged to discuss who would be Obama’s running mate and whether Hillary Clinton should be considered for Obama's vice-presidential candidate.
This is but one example of the power organizations largely unknown to the public have. Although it is likely Obama has other "angels" responsible for his rocket-like rise, it is reasonable to assume George Soros is in the mix somewhere. Obama may have started out as a Chicago Mayor Daley protégé for his own purposes, but after attaining the job of Illinois senator, it is highly likely that groups such as discussed here played a major role in the successful Obama run for the Democrat Party presidential nomination and will play a mighty role in events leading up to the elections in November.
However, as has been historically the case, these private, secret organizations win regardless which candidate succeeds in November.
What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?
"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."
Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation should recall one of the founder’s organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Daniel Estulin cited two presidential elections as of particular interest in revealing the role these organizations play in high politics.
"In the spring of 1972, a high-profile group of men gathered for dinner with W. Averell Harriman, the grand old man of the Democratic Party, a Bilderberger and a member of the CFR. Also present were Milton Katz, a CFR member and director of international studies at Harvard, Robert Bowie, who would later become deputy director of the CIA, George Franklin, David Rockefeller's coordinator for the Trilateral Commission, and Gerald Smith, U.S. ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation matters. The focus of their discussion was the not-too-distant 1976 presidential elections. Harriman suggested that if the Democrats wanted to recapture the White House, "we had better get off our high horses and look at some of those southern governors." Several names cropped up. Among them were Ruben Askew, governor of Florida, and Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina and, at the time, president of Duke University."
"Katz reportedly informed David Rockefeller of the viability of Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia. According to the author, he could be sold politically to the American people. At a dinner in London, recorded by the London Times, Rockefeller got acquainted with Carter and became convinced he could become the next U.S. president. Carter was invited to join the Trilateral Commission and quickly accepted."
The U.S. News and World Report commented about the Carter administration:
"The Trilateralists have taken charge of foreign policy-making in the Carter administration, and already the immense power they wield is sparking some controversy. Active or former members of the Trilateral Commission now head every key agency involved in mapping U.S. strategy for dealing with the rest of the world."
Ted Flynn wrote a book entitled "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World". In it he explores the convergence on a global basis of multinational corporations, foundations and the political and sociological instruments of a one-world government to bring about a New World Order. His book is 550 pages with 82 photographs and 1,200 footnotes; showing a strong historical basis that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations, to place all under the United Nations.
There is a history of presidential candidates of both parties being in races for the presidency and vice presidency; this way regardless, who wins, the global elite also win.
"In 1976, it was CFR Republican Gerald Ford losing to CFR Democrat Jimmy Carter.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was not a member, but his running mate, George H.W. Bush, was. So were both of his opponents – Carter and independent John Anderson. Once in office, however, Reagan named 313 CFR members to his team.
In 1984, another CFR member, Walter Mondale, was nominated by the Democratic Party to challenge Reagan.
In 1988, CFR member Bush took on CFR member Michael Dukakis.
In 1992, Bush was challenged by a then obscure governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who was a member of all three: CFR, Trlateral Commission and Bilderberg Group.
In 1996, Clinton was challenged by CFR member Bob Dole.
In 2000, CFR member Al Gore ran against non-member George W. Bush, but his running mate, Dick Cheney, was a member.
In 2004, Bush was challenged by CFR member John Kerry."
Do you see a pattern beginning to emerge?
These are the people also behind the construction of the North American Union.
Daniel Estulin writes in his book the next giant step toward world government will be integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in European Union-style merger in the next few years. "I would say [it's just] a couple of years away."
He says the original plans for a North American Union involved the U.S. and Canada as the prime participants. It was motivated primarily by the desire to harvest Canada's abundant natural resources.
According to Estulin: (in an interview with WorldNet Daily) "Actually, the North American Union, or rather a Canada-U.S. merger, was initially discussed shortly after the Reagan-Bush candidacy won the White House. Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan called in the presidents of the key trans-national companies and asked them for the real picture. The money people told them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It was bankrupt.
"The solution proposed at that time, according to Estulin, was merger between the U.S. and Canada." Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc.," he explains.
"They decided that it was going to take 14 or 15 years to put the whole project together. In the interval, the economies, social programs and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible."
"Actually, when all is said and done, it all comes down to money," Estulin says. "Money makes its own rules. If your goal is to make the most money possible using Canada's natural resources, what would you ask for? Number one; give me control over the sun. Number two; give me control over the air. Number three, give me control over water. Now, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. Water, after all, is the most important element that can be controlled." (He might have added – "oil.")
But the plot for a North American Union, as exposed in detail in Jerome Corsi's bestselling book, "The Late Great USA," is but a prelude, Estulin says, to the ultimate merger – one-world government."
"Everything is in place," he says. "Europe is now one country, one currency and one constitution. North America is about to become one. The African Union has had its working model going for over a decade. Asia is openly discussing the near-future Asian Union, being sold as an economic inevitability beneficial to all its citizens."
Estulin sees the current focus in the U.S. on the presidential election of 2008 as something of a farce in light of this trend.
"Does it really matter who wins?" he asks. "As I make very clear in 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' every politician of note and promise belongs to the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or the Trilateral Commission. Unless you are one of them, you can hardly hope to win the presidency. If we vote for the lesser evil, forced upon us by the secret oligarchies and the powerful men behind the curtain, we end up playing the game imposed upon us by them. Democracy, I guess what I really want to say, is a fallacy, an unattainable dream, a useless label trotted out and dusted off by the rulers every four years for the benefit of the great unwashed – us. There are two sides in this equation – the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity."
Estulin's book was first written in 2005 in Spain. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years.
He explains why he has devoted so much time exposing their activities.
"They cannot survive the light, and they know it," he says. "This is why the powerful people have long insulated themselves from that possibility. You see, the greatest form of control is when you think you are free while you are being manipulated and dictated to. People have been disarmed through the greatest hypnotist the world has ever known – the oblong box almost everyone has in the corner of their living rooms known as the television. By persuading ordinary people that what they can see with their eyes is what is there to see, the men behind the curtain have ensured their own survival, because people will laugh in your face when you explain to them that there is a bigger picture they are not seeing."
What can we as individuals do to fight back?
Estulin offers a five-point program:
"1. Understanding that governments do not represent the people nor have their best interests at heart.
2. Understanding that corporate media's main job is to hide the transgressions of the most powerful people in the world not shine the light of truth on it.
3. Understanding that the corporate media forms part of the world's elite societies such as the Bilderbergers, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.
4. Understanding how money works and how through intelligent use of money we can destroy the Bilderbergers of this world.
5. Getting out of debt now."
When you vote in November you may believe you have a "choice" of between worse and "less bad", but in reality you will be just selecting one of two candidates already approved by the secret cabal of one-world government missionaries.
Nearly every person elected as president of the United States since then – and nearly every opponent – has belonged to one of three secretive, globalism-oriented organizations known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission, or all three.
If they didn’t belong to one of these groups, presidents, their running mates and their challengers more often than not have at least had ties to these clubs of internationalists.
That the groups exert enormous influence on public policy is indisputable. What is disputed is whether such groups are, as adherents and members argue, just discussion forums for movers and shakers, or, as critics have long alleged, secret societies shaping a new world order from behind the scenes. On that last point at least, no one could challenge the critics: all these groups operate in considerable secrecy, away from the scrutiny of the American public.
Regardless of how one characterizes them, the fact that virtually all presidents belonged to the same secret clubs prompts the author of a new book to expect the 2008 election will also be a contest between globalist insiders. In fact, it has been reported that "according to a variety of sources"; Barack Obama and John McCain are members of one or the other of such groups.
Many have wondered what is behind Barack Obama’s rise to fame and, prospectively, the presidency; the answer may be, in part, these three elitists’ organizations. In the list of the Bilderberg attendees at their last meeting, the name of James A. Johnson was included. He is the lead person Obama appointed to the group vetting possible Obama running mates. Johnson was recently fired by Obama from the vetting group when his ties to unsavory characters were revealed. There is speculation by many in the blogosphere that a recent meeting with Obama was arranged to discuss who would be Obama’s running mate and whether Hillary Clinton should be considered for Obama's vice-presidential candidate.
This is but one example of the power organizations largely unknown to the public have. Although it is likely Obama has other "angels" responsible for his rocket-like rise, it is reasonable to assume George Soros is in the mix somewhere. Obama may have started out as a Chicago Mayor Daley protégé for his own purposes, but after attaining the job of Illinois senator, it is highly likely that groups such as discussed here played a major role in the successful Obama run for the Democrat Party presidential nomination and will play a mighty role in events leading up to the elections in November.
However, as has been historically the case, these private, secret organizations win regardless which candidate succeeds in November.
What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?
"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."
Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation should recall one of the founder’s organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Daniel Estulin cited two presidential elections as of particular interest in revealing the role these organizations play in high politics.
"In the spring of 1972, a high-profile group of men gathered for dinner with W. Averell Harriman, the grand old man of the Democratic Party, a Bilderberger and a member of the CFR. Also present were Milton Katz, a CFR member and director of international studies at Harvard, Robert Bowie, who would later become deputy director of the CIA, George Franklin, David Rockefeller's coordinator for the Trilateral Commission, and Gerald Smith, U.S. ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation matters. The focus of their discussion was the not-too-distant 1976 presidential elections. Harriman suggested that if the Democrats wanted to recapture the White House, "we had better get off our high horses and look at some of those southern governors." Several names cropped up. Among them were Ruben Askew, governor of Florida, and Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina and, at the time, president of Duke University."
"Katz reportedly informed David Rockefeller of the viability of Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia. According to the author, he could be sold politically to the American people. At a dinner in London, recorded by the London Times, Rockefeller got acquainted with Carter and became convinced he could become the next U.S. president. Carter was invited to join the Trilateral Commission and quickly accepted."
The U.S. News and World Report commented about the Carter administration:
"The Trilateralists have taken charge of foreign policy-making in the Carter administration, and already the immense power they wield is sparking some controversy. Active or former members of the Trilateral Commission now head every key agency involved in mapping U.S. strategy for dealing with the rest of the world."
Ted Flynn wrote a book entitled "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World". In it he explores the convergence on a global basis of multinational corporations, foundations and the political and sociological instruments of a one-world government to bring about a New World Order. His book is 550 pages with 82 photographs and 1,200 footnotes; showing a strong historical basis that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations, to place all under the United Nations.
There is a history of presidential candidates of both parties being in races for the presidency and vice presidency; this way regardless, who wins, the global elite also win.
"In 1976, it was CFR Republican Gerald Ford losing to CFR Democrat Jimmy Carter.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was not a member, but his running mate, George H.W. Bush, was. So were both of his opponents – Carter and independent John Anderson. Once in office, however, Reagan named 313 CFR members to his team.
In 1984, another CFR member, Walter Mondale, was nominated by the Democratic Party to challenge Reagan.
In 1988, CFR member Bush took on CFR member Michael Dukakis.
In 1992, Bush was challenged by a then obscure governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who was a member of all three: CFR, Trlateral Commission and Bilderberg Group.
In 1996, Clinton was challenged by CFR member Bob Dole.
In 2000, CFR member Al Gore ran against non-member George W. Bush, but his running mate, Dick Cheney, was a member.
In 2004, Bush was challenged by CFR member John Kerry."
Do you see a pattern beginning to emerge?
These are the people also behind the construction of the North American Union.
Daniel Estulin writes in his book the next giant step toward world government will be integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in European Union-style merger in the next few years. "I would say [it's just] a couple of years away."
He says the original plans for a North American Union involved the U.S. and Canada as the prime participants. It was motivated primarily by the desire to harvest Canada's abundant natural resources.
According to Estulin: (in an interview with WorldNet Daily) "Actually, the North American Union, or rather a Canada-U.S. merger, was initially discussed shortly after the Reagan-Bush candidacy won the White House. Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan called in the presidents of the key trans-national companies and asked them for the real picture. The money people told them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It was bankrupt.
"The solution proposed at that time, according to Estulin, was merger between the U.S. and Canada." Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc.," he explains.
"They decided that it was going to take 14 or 15 years to put the whole project together. In the interval, the economies, social programs and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible."
"Actually, when all is said and done, it all comes down to money," Estulin says. "Money makes its own rules. If your goal is to make the most money possible using Canada's natural resources, what would you ask for? Number one; give me control over the sun. Number two; give me control over the air. Number three, give me control over water. Now, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. Water, after all, is the most important element that can be controlled." (He might have added – "oil.")
But the plot for a North American Union, as exposed in detail in Jerome Corsi's bestselling book, "The Late Great USA," is but a prelude, Estulin says, to the ultimate merger – one-world government."
"Everything is in place," he says. "Europe is now one country, one currency and one constitution. North America is about to become one. The African Union has had its working model going for over a decade. Asia is openly discussing the near-future Asian Union, being sold as an economic inevitability beneficial to all its citizens."
Estulin sees the current focus in the U.S. on the presidential election of 2008 as something of a farce in light of this trend.
"Does it really matter who wins?" he asks. "As I make very clear in 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' every politician of note and promise belongs to the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or the Trilateral Commission. Unless you are one of them, you can hardly hope to win the presidency. If we vote for the lesser evil, forced upon us by the secret oligarchies and the powerful men behind the curtain, we end up playing the game imposed upon us by them. Democracy, I guess what I really want to say, is a fallacy, an unattainable dream, a useless label trotted out and dusted off by the rulers every four years for the benefit of the great unwashed – us. There are two sides in this equation – the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity."
Estulin's book was first written in 2005 in Spain. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years.
He explains why he has devoted so much time exposing their activities.
"They cannot survive the light, and they know it," he says. "This is why the powerful people have long insulated themselves from that possibility. You see, the greatest form of control is when you think you are free while you are being manipulated and dictated to. People have been disarmed through the greatest hypnotist the world has ever known – the oblong box almost everyone has in the corner of their living rooms known as the television. By persuading ordinary people that what they can see with their eyes is what is there to see, the men behind the curtain have ensured their own survival, because people will laugh in your face when you explain to them that there is a bigger picture they are not seeing."
What can we as individuals do to fight back?
Estulin offers a five-point program:
"1. Understanding that governments do not represent the people nor have their best interests at heart.
2. Understanding that corporate media's main job is to hide the transgressions of the most powerful people in the world not shine the light of truth on it.
3. Understanding that the corporate media forms part of the world's elite societies such as the Bilderbergers, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.
4. Understanding how money works and how through intelligent use of money we can destroy the Bilderbergers of this world.
5. Getting out of debt now."
When you vote in November you may believe you have a "choice" of between worse and "less bad", but in reality you will be just selecting one of two candidates already approved by the secret cabal of one-world government missionaries.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Advice for John McCain
John McCain’s attempt to become president of the United States is a sadly woeful exercise. Although simply not being Obama is a strong incentive for voters to elect him, there is much, much more McCain can do to assure victory in November. Here is one suggestion for the erstwhile Republican candidate.
High gasoline prices have replaced almost all issues in the minds of most voters. Every time people have to visit the gas pump they are reminded about how angry they are that the price of gas goes up virtually daily. Of course Democrats would blame the oil companies for this but increasingly many drivers are recognizing that “windfall oil company profits” are not the reason. Exxon Mobil recently announced it was getting out of the gasoline station business because it wasn’t profitable anymore. Anyone with half of a brain will realize that at least this oil company recognizes selling gasoline to hapless drivers is not the way to add to their “exorbitant” earnings. If profits from gasoline sales were worthwhile, Exxon Mobil would surely stay in that business.
Even the simplest minded of the electorate will finally understand there are other reasons why buying gasoline is making their budgets out of whack. The high price of oil which leads to the high price of gasoline is clearly the culprit in this non mystery. Therefore our glorious Republican candidate can reach the entire public with a single message: we need to drill for more oil.
Democrats and environmental socialists bent on destroying the American economy, willfully or by sheer ignorance, have blocked all efforts to increase domestic oil supplies and this puts us at the mercy of oil producing countries who, to put it mildly, are our damn enemies.
There are many traditional ways to add to our oil supplies and some untraditional ones too. But at the very least drilling for oil now is one way nearly everyone can understand. While we deprive ourselves of access to oil in our continental shelf, Cuba and China, not being handicapped like the anti-Americans in our midst, are already undertaking efforts to tap this oil resource, and there is reason to believe by using slant drilling techniques they will also access oil rightfully ours.
In every campaign speech John McCain should be reminding people that it is the Democrats that are causing them to reach deeper and deeper into their pockets every time they fill up their gas tanks. McCain should say he has a plan to bring oil and gasoline prices down by demanding change in the law to permit oil exploration and drilling wherever possible. He should also remind voters that Republicans have been trying to allow oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) since the 1990’s and it was the Democrats who prevented us from getting an additional one million barrels of oil a day. But for the Democrat unreasonable objections, that oil would be on stream now and giving us some relief from the need to pay the oil sheiks in Arabia and the idiot in Venezuela.
Senator McCain, take a break from shooting your campaign in the foot; there is no need to try to outdo Democrats by telling folks how hard you will come down on oil companies; just tell them you are committed to lowering gasoline prices so they can continue to commute to work, take their kids to school and do their shopping without breaking the bank.
High gasoline prices have replaced almost all issues in the minds of most voters. Every time people have to visit the gas pump they are reminded about how angry they are that the price of gas goes up virtually daily. Of course Democrats would blame the oil companies for this but increasingly many drivers are recognizing that “windfall oil company profits” are not the reason. Exxon Mobil recently announced it was getting out of the gasoline station business because it wasn’t profitable anymore. Anyone with half of a brain will realize that at least this oil company recognizes selling gasoline to hapless drivers is not the way to add to their “exorbitant” earnings. If profits from gasoline sales were worthwhile, Exxon Mobil would surely stay in that business.
Even the simplest minded of the electorate will finally understand there are other reasons why buying gasoline is making their budgets out of whack. The high price of oil which leads to the high price of gasoline is clearly the culprit in this non mystery. Therefore our glorious Republican candidate can reach the entire public with a single message: we need to drill for more oil.
Democrats and environmental socialists bent on destroying the American economy, willfully or by sheer ignorance, have blocked all efforts to increase domestic oil supplies and this puts us at the mercy of oil producing countries who, to put it mildly, are our damn enemies.
There are many traditional ways to add to our oil supplies and some untraditional ones too. But at the very least drilling for oil now is one way nearly everyone can understand. While we deprive ourselves of access to oil in our continental shelf, Cuba and China, not being handicapped like the anti-Americans in our midst, are already undertaking efforts to tap this oil resource, and there is reason to believe by using slant drilling techniques they will also access oil rightfully ours.
In every campaign speech John McCain should be reminding people that it is the Democrats that are causing them to reach deeper and deeper into their pockets every time they fill up their gas tanks. McCain should say he has a plan to bring oil and gasoline prices down by demanding change in the law to permit oil exploration and drilling wherever possible. He should also remind voters that Republicans have been trying to allow oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) since the 1990’s and it was the Democrats who prevented us from getting an additional one million barrels of oil a day. But for the Democrat unreasonable objections, that oil would be on stream now and giving us some relief from the need to pay the oil sheiks in Arabia and the idiot in Venezuela.
Senator McCain, take a break from shooting your campaign in the foot; there is no need to try to outdo Democrats by telling folks how hard you will come down on oil companies; just tell them you are committed to lowering gasoline prices so they can continue to commute to work, take their kids to school and do their shopping without breaking the bank.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The sooner we accept who are enemy is, the sooner and better we will be able to defend ourselves
Three Ohio men were convicted very recently of plotting to recruit and train terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq. The case was put together with help from a former soldier who posed as someone who wanted to help.
It’s very likely you did not know about the plot to kill American soldiers, let alone the conviction of three men in Cleveland, Ohio, because our news media doesn’t want to expose the mission of Muslims to kill Americans. A two-inch article of this “news” was at the bottom of page 14 in my local newspaper; was in yours at all?
There are many instances of Muslims perpetrating murder against civilians, not just soldiers. Why are Muslims so fanatic in the drive to kill; the answer is Islam?
It may seem trite to say, but the many problems Muslims have and their fanatic bent on killing can be traced to one thing, Islam. Any student of history knows that Islam is the reason why the Arab world has so consistently failed to advance at a pace comparable to Europe, the New World, and even Asia; and still retains the notion that all non Muslims are infidels who must submit to Islam or be killed.
Islam pollutes the mind with its absolutism, its assumption of moral superiority to all other religions, and its lack of tolerance. Even seeing the obvious superiority of other nations’ forms of governments and their ability to provide a quality of education, a modern military, economic power and life style; Muslims in Islamic countries are unable to accept or understand that Islam has stunted their ability to compete and enjoy the same level of freedom as in non Muslim countries. They are trapped in nations where a handful of hereditary monarchs or dictators keep the majority of their populations in relative poverty, weakness and ignorance of what goes on in the world and how other people live.
Yet its one thing to acknowledge that Muslims in Islamic countries are unaware of the truth; it’s quite another to keep information about Muslim behavior in the western world substantially out of reach from its citizens. The obscure report of Muslims' convictions in Ohio is just a recent example; there are many others. Everyone in the non Muslim world should be informed of the basic tenets of Islam in the Qur’an; if you doubt this, here are a few passages in the book that governs the lives of Muslims, not just their religion, but their lives in totality.
From the Qur’an with citations:
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)
"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)
"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)
"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
The reason some among us have trouble when told the truth about Islam is many of us think everyone is like us but they are not. We are not driven to attain paradise at the price of other people's lives and we believe in treating others as we would want them to treat us.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work in the case of followers of Islam; the sooner we learn that, the sooner and better we will be able to defend ourselves.
It’s very likely you did not know about the plot to kill American soldiers, let alone the conviction of three men in Cleveland, Ohio, because our news media doesn’t want to expose the mission of Muslims to kill Americans. A two-inch article of this “news” was at the bottom of page 14 in my local newspaper; was in yours at all?
There are many instances of Muslims perpetrating murder against civilians, not just soldiers. Why are Muslims so fanatic in the drive to kill; the answer is Islam?
It may seem trite to say, but the many problems Muslims have and their fanatic bent on killing can be traced to one thing, Islam. Any student of history knows that Islam is the reason why the Arab world has so consistently failed to advance at a pace comparable to Europe, the New World, and even Asia; and still retains the notion that all non Muslims are infidels who must submit to Islam or be killed.
Islam pollutes the mind with its absolutism, its assumption of moral superiority to all other religions, and its lack of tolerance. Even seeing the obvious superiority of other nations’ forms of governments and their ability to provide a quality of education, a modern military, economic power and life style; Muslims in Islamic countries are unable to accept or understand that Islam has stunted their ability to compete and enjoy the same level of freedom as in non Muslim countries. They are trapped in nations where a handful of hereditary monarchs or dictators keep the majority of their populations in relative poverty, weakness and ignorance of what goes on in the world and how other people live.
Yet its one thing to acknowledge that Muslims in Islamic countries are unaware of the truth; it’s quite another to keep information about Muslim behavior in the western world substantially out of reach from its citizens. The obscure report of Muslims' convictions in Ohio is just a recent example; there are many others. Everyone in the non Muslim world should be informed of the basic tenets of Islam in the Qur’an; if you doubt this, here are a few passages in the book that governs the lives of Muslims, not just their religion, but their lives in totality.
From the Qur’an with citations:
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)
"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)
"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)
"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
The reason some among us have trouble when told the truth about Islam is many of us think everyone is like us but they are not. We are not driven to attain paradise at the price of other people's lives and we believe in treating others as we would want them to treat us.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work in the case of followers of Islam; the sooner we learn that, the sooner and better we will be able to defend ourselves.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Like the weather, everybody talks about oil but no one does anything about it
Everyone but those in congress know we need more oil and that we have sufficient resources in our country to satisfy our oil needs for the foreseeable future. By meeting oil requirements of the United States we would become energy independent, add to our security and allow us to deal with foreign oil suppliers in ways that are in the country’s best interests rather than having to cow tow to Islamic enemies.
As oil and gas prices reach record highs, Republican members of Congress have sought to open up areas for oil drilling in ANWAR and off shore but have been blocked by Democrats and environmental anti-Americans. Ironically, though our government prohibits American interests from recovering oil off shore, Cuba and China are taking advantage of huge oil reservoirs in the gulf.
Pennsylvania Republican Representative John Peterson has been pushing an amendment to a spending bill that would allow exploration and drilling in U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. To overcome state objections, the first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
Peterson said "For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves. With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."
Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.
Congressman Peters also said the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
The proposal to open up off shore oil exploration and drilling is of course opposed by environmentalists and their allies in congress. In what is a typical ridiculous statement attempting to support the indefensible, Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
Binns said "It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply."
Imagine, efforts to increase oil supplies should not be undertaken because it would take "seven to 10 years" to impact oil supplies? If we had started over 15 years ago when it was first proposed, we would be receiving one million barrels of oil today from ANWAR alone. If we had started to recover oil from shale as was proposed in the 1970’s we would likely be energy independent today. How ridiculous to oppose developing oil supplies because it takes time to bring the oil to market.
To further demonstrate how out of touch with reality they are, Democrats are having their own series of events to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but oil drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party." Obama himself, the Democrat political messiah, also jumped on board with Hoyer to support remedies for global warming in lieu of reaching out for oil in areas under U.S. control.
The only voice of reason in the senate was Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who criticized Senator Barack Obama over recent comments made regarding gas prices. The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC where Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing", but he nonetheless did not reject the Steny Hoyer approach that addressing global warming is more important than lowering gasoline prices.
McConnell took on the Obama "gradual" price increases approach, "Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem." (Sic) The problem, he (Obama) suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."
"Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids (oil), Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."
In what is surely to be dismissed as oil company propaganda, though nonetheless true, Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, "Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices. With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS (off shore oil) should be developed."
In my opinion just announcements that America is actually taking action to develop additional oil supplies will cause oil prices to go down because speculators don't want to be caught in the position of having to cover lower priced oil contracts with higher price priced oil, even though such oil won't be available for some time.
It is indeed a "no-brainer" that America should do all it can to become energy independent, reduce oil and gasoline prices for Americans and improve the nation’s security. Unfortunately we are led by leaders unable to recognize a "no-brainer" path for our country; what does that say about their intelligence?
As oil and gas prices reach record highs, Republican members of Congress have sought to open up areas for oil drilling in ANWAR and off shore but have been blocked by Democrats and environmental anti-Americans. Ironically, though our government prohibits American interests from recovering oil off shore, Cuba and China are taking advantage of huge oil reservoirs in the gulf.
Pennsylvania Republican Representative John Peterson has been pushing an amendment to a spending bill that would allow exploration and drilling in U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. To overcome state objections, the first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
Peterson said "For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves. With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."
Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.
Congressman Peters also said the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
The proposal to open up off shore oil exploration and drilling is of course opposed by environmentalists and their allies in congress. In what is a typical ridiculous statement attempting to support the indefensible, Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
Binns said "It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply."
Imagine, efforts to increase oil supplies should not be undertaken because it would take "seven to 10 years" to impact oil supplies? If we had started over 15 years ago when it was first proposed, we would be receiving one million barrels of oil today from ANWAR alone. If we had started to recover oil from shale as was proposed in the 1970’s we would likely be energy independent today. How ridiculous to oppose developing oil supplies because it takes time to bring the oil to market.
To further demonstrate how out of touch with reality they are, Democrats are having their own series of events to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but oil drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party." Obama himself, the Democrat political messiah, also jumped on board with Hoyer to support remedies for global warming in lieu of reaching out for oil in areas under U.S. control.
The only voice of reason in the senate was Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who criticized Senator Barack Obama over recent comments made regarding gas prices. The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC where Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing", but he nonetheless did not reject the Steny Hoyer approach that addressing global warming is more important than lowering gasoline prices.
McConnell took on the Obama "gradual" price increases approach, "Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem." (Sic) The problem, he (Obama) suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."
"Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids (oil), Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."
In what is surely to be dismissed as oil company propaganda, though nonetheless true, Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, "Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices. With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS (off shore oil) should be developed."
In my opinion just announcements that America is actually taking action to develop additional oil supplies will cause oil prices to go down because speculators don't want to be caught in the position of having to cover lower priced oil contracts with higher price priced oil, even though such oil won't be available for some time.
It is indeed a "no-brainer" that America should do all it can to become energy independent, reduce oil and gasoline prices for Americans and improve the nation’s security. Unfortunately we are led by leaders unable to recognize a "no-brainer" path for our country; what does that say about their intelligence?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Will political correctness destroy America?
Many nations have been destroyed by foreign invaders ands some empires have self destructed from within. Rome is an example of both and the Soviet Union and Russia are examples of the latter. But no nation in history has yet self destructed because its citizens invited enemies to do the destruction; no nation that is until now when "political correctness" has planted the seeds of self annihilation.
What is political correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is acceptance of the notion that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, previously legal and acceptable, should be forbidden, first by the public at large and then by law. PC requires that people who transgress what is politically correct should be punished in some way and/or have their rights curtailed. PC started slowly by a few but grew in popularity until it became unwritten law within the country; eventually being confirmed as law by the judicial system. Those who are publicly declared as being not politically correct become the object of persecution by the news media, if not prosecution by the state.
The rationale of the tyranny of political correctness is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the less smart, the fat or the ugly, and lately, Muslims. The values held by the previous generation (e.g. those who fought in WWII), have become taboo, similar to rejection by children of their parents’ sense of right and wrong and akin to an act of infantile rebellion. However, what is a childish rejection of their parents’ ideas has become revered by the new generation. One can say that political correctness is merely the resentment of spoiled children directed against their parents’ values, but with horrible long lasting affect. Sadly, today political correctness may be a source of destruction of western civilization by Islam whose acolytes have seized upon it as a weapon to destroy freedom and democracy.
Political correctness is causing government action and inaction that detrimentally affects American security and freedom. Recently I had the good fortune to hear Brigitte Gabriel, founder of Action for America www.actforamerica.org). Brigitte wrote a New York Times best seller, "Because They Hate", which chronicles the way Muslims use political correctness in host countries, including the United States, to subvert freedom, liberty and ultimately security of western civilization in the name of Islam. The goal of followers of Islam is to have all people of the world under Sharia law and Islamic theocracies.
Brigitte Gabriel believes, and I hope she is right, that patriotic Americans are tired of journalists and leftists "putting our country down, standing up for our enemy, and all the while sabotaging our government who has been doing everything in its power to protect us and disrespecting our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line."
"The disdain, ridicule, and extreme posturing from the far left and some Congressional committee members toward General Petraeus during his Iraq report to Congress in September 2007 were typical of the uninformed position of the blind left. The whole performance was disgraceful to our country and helpful to our enemy."
The idea that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" would be merely comical but for the stakes involved in underestimating the evil power of Islam. Incredibly, despite mounting evidence to the contrary around the world, there are Americans who are unable or unwilling to recognize the threat Islam presents, not just so-called "radical Islam", but Islam in its entirety.
Many, whether merely naïve or rigid followers of political correctness, continue to claim Islam is moderate, tolerant and peaceful, and that the religion "has been hijacked by extremists". These people ignore the repeated calls for "jihad" and holy war coming from mosques around the world and the Imams who preach the mantra to kill enemies of Islam. As Brigitte Gabriel says, "They refuse to accept that in the Muslim world, extreme is mainstream."
Followers of political correctness accept the special preferences given to Muslims "to practice their religion" in schools and other public places. Do you think that if Christians or Jews said they needed footbaths in airports, time off work and school to pray five times a day, pressured businesses to eliminate ‘piggy banks, insisted on taking pork off menus, insisted on abolishing any written parody of Mohammad, or criticism of Islam in print in books, etc, that the country would submit to these absurd demands?
Around the world freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, is threatened in the name of political correctness for fear of offending Muslims. Of course, there is a practical side to caving in to Muslim demands; the real threat of violence and worse is ever present if Muslims don’t get what they want. It is incomprehensible that legitimate authorities are reluctant to take all necessary action to suppress Muslim mob behavior. Why, for example, does France put up with nightly burnings of vehicles and areas of Paris where police will not enter for fear of injury? Why are we in the United States unwilling to quell the hate speech coming out of the thousands of Saudi-financed mosques in our country and deport or jail all who preach such venom?
Political correctness has ceased to be merely the butt of jokes; it is a serious weapon in the hands of Muslims and they must be disarmed.
What is political correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is acceptance of the notion that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, previously legal and acceptable, should be forbidden, first by the public at large and then by law. PC requires that people who transgress what is politically correct should be punished in some way and/or have their rights curtailed. PC started slowly by a few but grew in popularity until it became unwritten law within the country; eventually being confirmed as law by the judicial system. Those who are publicly declared as being not politically correct become the object of persecution by the news media, if not prosecution by the state.
The rationale of the tyranny of political correctness is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the less smart, the fat or the ugly, and lately, Muslims. The values held by the previous generation (e.g. those who fought in WWII), have become taboo, similar to rejection by children of their parents’ sense of right and wrong and akin to an act of infantile rebellion. However, what is a childish rejection of their parents’ ideas has become revered by the new generation. One can say that political correctness is merely the resentment of spoiled children directed against their parents’ values, but with horrible long lasting affect. Sadly, today political correctness may be a source of destruction of western civilization by Islam whose acolytes have seized upon it as a weapon to destroy freedom and democracy.
Political correctness is causing government action and inaction that detrimentally affects American security and freedom. Recently I had the good fortune to hear Brigitte Gabriel, founder of Action for America www.actforamerica.org). Brigitte wrote a New York Times best seller, "Because They Hate", which chronicles the way Muslims use political correctness in host countries, including the United States, to subvert freedom, liberty and ultimately security of western civilization in the name of Islam. The goal of followers of Islam is to have all people of the world under Sharia law and Islamic theocracies.
Brigitte Gabriel believes, and I hope she is right, that patriotic Americans are tired of journalists and leftists "putting our country down, standing up for our enemy, and all the while sabotaging our government who has been doing everything in its power to protect us and disrespecting our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line."
"The disdain, ridicule, and extreme posturing from the far left and some Congressional committee members toward General Petraeus during his Iraq report to Congress in September 2007 were typical of the uninformed position of the blind left. The whole performance was disgraceful to our country and helpful to our enemy."
The idea that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" would be merely comical but for the stakes involved in underestimating the evil power of Islam. Incredibly, despite mounting evidence to the contrary around the world, there are Americans who are unable or unwilling to recognize the threat Islam presents, not just so-called "radical Islam", but Islam in its entirety.
Many, whether merely naïve or rigid followers of political correctness, continue to claim Islam is moderate, tolerant and peaceful, and that the religion "has been hijacked by extremists". These people ignore the repeated calls for "jihad" and holy war coming from mosques around the world and the Imams who preach the mantra to kill enemies of Islam. As Brigitte Gabriel says, "They refuse to accept that in the Muslim world, extreme is mainstream."
Followers of political correctness accept the special preferences given to Muslims "to practice their religion" in schools and other public places. Do you think that if Christians or Jews said they needed footbaths in airports, time off work and school to pray five times a day, pressured businesses to eliminate ‘piggy banks, insisted on taking pork off menus, insisted on abolishing any written parody of Mohammad, or criticism of Islam in print in books, etc, that the country would submit to these absurd demands?
Around the world freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, is threatened in the name of political correctness for fear of offending Muslims. Of course, there is a practical side to caving in to Muslim demands; the real threat of violence and worse is ever present if Muslims don’t get what they want. It is incomprehensible that legitimate authorities are reluctant to take all necessary action to suppress Muslim mob behavior. Why, for example, does France put up with nightly burnings of vehicles and areas of Paris where police will not enter for fear of injury? Why are we in the United States unwilling to quell the hate speech coming out of the thousands of Saudi-financed mosques in our country and deport or jail all who preach such venom?
Political correctness has ceased to be merely the butt of jokes; it is a serious weapon in the hands of Muslims and they must be disarmed.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Why is it so difficult to understand that by increasing costs prices rise?
According to Investor Dictionary (investordictionary.com), "windfall profits" are "An unexpected profit arising from causes not controlled by the recipient." Does this definition apply to oil companies? More likely, the definition is appropriate to describe the federal government, and most state governments.
Democrats in congress and their allies in the news media have been clamoring for imposing "windfall profit" taxes on oil companies. In this instance Republicans in congress acted like the way people who elected them to office expect of them and rejected a bill to tax oil companies for receiving what socialists would deem to be excessive profits.
The tax provisions were included in a broader $50 billion tax measure blocked by a GOP filibuster threat and a vote to take up the measure failed to get the 60 votes needed.
The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The obvious question is what will be deemed to be "reasonable" profits. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks amounting to $17 billion over the next 10 years.
In addition to imposing additional taxes not required of other businesses, Democrats would also require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms.
Another ill defined but onerous provision would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during an emergency declared by the president. No doubt "price gouging" is subject to a definition by the same people that know what a "reasonable" profit is.
Recently a private citizen decided to sue OPEC under the RICO law. Democrats thought this was a good idea and included a provision authorizing the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel. Naturally there is no evidence of price fixing and U.S Government agencies cleared the oil companies of such charges, but perhaps this was written into legislation in the hopes that a judge appointed by Bill Clinton would be on the International Court of Justice.
It has been Republican proposals to increase oil supplies but Democrats have continually opposed all plans presented. Democrats last month rejected a Republican energy plan calling for opening a very small coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters. Nonetheless Democrats and their presumptive presidential candidate get lots of press blaming Republicans for the high price of gasoline.
The public is not well informed about the Democrat responsibility for our "energy crisis" and one doesn’t even see much in the news about what Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said about the Democrat proposal. He acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem." "Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production."
As ridiculous as is the claim of windfall profits earned by the currently very profitable oil companies, what is even more ridiculous is the inability of Democrats to comprehend the consequences of increasing taxes on business in general and the oil companies in particular.
Businesses exist to earn profits for owners and investors. To do this they must receive more income than their costs and expenses. Commerce is not a zero sum game; it is not composed of a single pie that may be divided in a way to give more to some and less to others. Private enterprise succeeds and is the best system in the world because it rewards effort, initiative and risk taking. Human nature defeated communism because greater effort is entitled to greater reward and society as a whole benefits.
Taxes of any sort imposed on business are just other expenses that must be included when determining prices to charge in order to be profitable. Businesses that are not profitable fail and with it all jobs generated by the business. So when a government increases taxes, such as taxes on "windfall profits", oil companies will increase their prices accordingly. The end result is that the only ones penalized are those who buy their products. It doesn’t require genius to figure out that gasoline prices will rise further in response to additional taxes on oil companies.
The only things that bring profits down are greater supply than demand and competition. When Democrats prevent oil supplies from increasing, they make it impossible for gasoline prices to decline. When Democrats prevent America from generating oil from coal and nuclear reactors for electric power generation, they increase the cost of living for all of us.
Why is all this so difficult to understand?
Democrats in congress and their allies in the news media have been clamoring for imposing "windfall profit" taxes on oil companies. In this instance Republicans in congress acted like the way people who elected them to office expect of them and rejected a bill to tax oil companies for receiving what socialists would deem to be excessive profits.
The tax provisions were included in a broader $50 billion tax measure blocked by a GOP filibuster threat and a vote to take up the measure failed to get the 60 votes needed.
The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The obvious question is what will be deemed to be "reasonable" profits. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks amounting to $17 billion over the next 10 years.
In addition to imposing additional taxes not required of other businesses, Democrats would also require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms.
Another ill defined but onerous provision would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during an emergency declared by the president. No doubt "price gouging" is subject to a definition by the same people that know what a "reasonable" profit is.
Recently a private citizen decided to sue OPEC under the RICO law. Democrats thought this was a good idea and included a provision authorizing the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel. Naturally there is no evidence of price fixing and U.S Government agencies cleared the oil companies of such charges, but perhaps this was written into legislation in the hopes that a judge appointed by Bill Clinton would be on the International Court of Justice.
It has been Republican proposals to increase oil supplies but Democrats have continually opposed all plans presented. Democrats last month rejected a Republican energy plan calling for opening a very small coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters. Nonetheless Democrats and their presumptive presidential candidate get lots of press blaming Republicans for the high price of gasoline.
The public is not well informed about the Democrat responsibility for our "energy crisis" and one doesn’t even see much in the news about what Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said about the Democrat proposal. He acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem." "Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production."
As ridiculous as is the claim of windfall profits earned by the currently very profitable oil companies, what is even more ridiculous is the inability of Democrats to comprehend the consequences of increasing taxes on business in general and the oil companies in particular.
Businesses exist to earn profits for owners and investors. To do this they must receive more income than their costs and expenses. Commerce is not a zero sum game; it is not composed of a single pie that may be divided in a way to give more to some and less to others. Private enterprise succeeds and is the best system in the world because it rewards effort, initiative and risk taking. Human nature defeated communism because greater effort is entitled to greater reward and society as a whole benefits.
Taxes of any sort imposed on business are just other expenses that must be included when determining prices to charge in order to be profitable. Businesses that are not profitable fail and with it all jobs generated by the business. So when a government increases taxes, such as taxes on "windfall profits", oil companies will increase their prices accordingly. The end result is that the only ones penalized are those who buy their products. It doesn’t require genius to figure out that gasoline prices will rise further in response to additional taxes on oil companies.
The only things that bring profits down are greater supply than demand and competition. When Democrats prevent oil supplies from increasing, they make it impossible for gasoline prices to decline. When Democrats prevent America from generating oil from coal and nuclear reactors for electric power generation, they increase the cost of living for all of us.
Why is all this so difficult to understand?
Monday, June 9, 2008
Is your time up; or rather, when should it be up?
Is your time up; or rather, when should your time be up? That’s the question environmental socialists are asking as they advance the communism substitute; a global warming agenda.
Recently WND writer Bob Unruh called attention to a website created by the Australian Broadcasting Network that will tell you when you should die based upon the amount of damage you are causing to our planet and how much of the world’s resources you use. If you are not thrifty enough with what Mother Nature offers, your time on earth should be less than those more frugal than you.
The web site is named “The PlanetSlayer” site. The Australian version of ABC calls it the "first irreverent environmental website." According to "Professor Schpinkee's greenhouse calculator," a user can determine when he or she should die, based on their lifestyle and consumption of resources.
To accommodate the child-like mind of users of the site, and the site’s creators, the "calculator" is made to be like a children's video game using cartoon characters who ask "How big a greenhouse pig are you?"
To answer the question a “green” conscious user goes through a series of questions: how much driving you do, is your car fuel efficient, how many miles you have flown, and all this is divided by pleasure travel and business travel. This distinction is made presumably because one form of travel is considered more Earth-friendly than the other, but the site does not say which is or is not.
Inquiry is also made as to the size of your home, how many live in it, the size of utility bills and if you are using any renewable resource.
All responses are added together and then you are told how long you can live your lifestyle before you use up your allotment of resources, and at which point you should die. Unfortunately there is no indication of your allotted resources; it only says when you have used them up.
After you learn of your death expectation to save the planet, there is a button to click on, appropriately defined by a skull-and-crossbones, to find out the number of years from then that you should leave the earth so others may continue, (this life span of course depends on your answers). For example, you may be entitled to 10, 20 or 30 years but not in round numbers, the time is specifically given in years, months and days (we must be exact you know so plans may be made).
So you don’t miss the point, according to Mr. Unruh, “With the click on the skull-and-crossbones button, a pig representing the survey-taker, positioned between a fat pig for energy usage and a lean, "green" pig, explodes”.
The web site of course promotes the Kyoto international climate agreement under which greenhouse gases are to be regulated and reduced. Rumor has it that Barack Obama and John McCain have subscribed to the web site service and may include the life-death calculation protocol in a global warming bill to be introduced in the next administration.
Australian ABC is nothing if not thorough and shows us how we may be entitled to a relatively longer life. They remind us "For each hour of heat, you'll produce about 0.7 kg CO2 (gas heater), 2 kg CO2 (2 bar electric radiator), 3.3 kg CO2 (open fire)."
"Gas is more efficient because you just burn it where you are – about a quarter of the heat gets lost up the flue, but the rest heats up the room. Electricity on the other hand is pretty hopeless efficiency-wise – 2/3 of the coal's energy is lost at the power station," the report said. "Open fires vary on a scale from pretty inefficient to hellishly inefficient. And as well as their greenhouse excesses, they produce a heap of other pollutants and [sic] the odd irate asthmatic neighbor." [This doesn't make sense to me either.]
The web site suggests there is a way to mitigate usage "excesses" - "planting trees"; to quote the web site (remember it is Australian) the web site advises that to counter the usage of an ordinary family, members would have to plant "a helluva lot" of trees.
"Your average Aussie belts out about 24.5 tons of CO2 each year (that covers everything from housing and transport to your share of government and industry). Your average Aussie native tree can soak up about 270 kg CO2 in that time. And your average Aussie science journalist with a calculator reckons that's about 91 trees you'd need to plant every year," the website advises.
"On a national scale, we'd be talking about planting 1729 million trees … EVERY YEAR."
In view of the likelihood of a life entitlement calculator being included in the next global warming bill, you might want to delay making vacation plans too far into the future; the money you save may be important to the government.
Recently WND writer Bob Unruh called attention to a website created by the Australian Broadcasting Network that will tell you when you should die based upon the amount of damage you are causing to our planet and how much of the world’s resources you use. If you are not thrifty enough with what Mother Nature offers, your time on earth should be less than those more frugal than you.
The web site is named “The PlanetSlayer” site. The Australian version of ABC calls it the "first irreverent environmental website." According to "Professor Schpinkee's greenhouse calculator," a user can determine when he or she should die, based on their lifestyle and consumption of resources.
To accommodate the child-like mind of users of the site, and the site’s creators, the "calculator" is made to be like a children's video game using cartoon characters who ask "How big a greenhouse pig are you?"
To answer the question a “green” conscious user goes through a series of questions: how much driving you do, is your car fuel efficient, how many miles you have flown, and all this is divided by pleasure travel and business travel. This distinction is made presumably because one form of travel is considered more Earth-friendly than the other, but the site does not say which is or is not.
Inquiry is also made as to the size of your home, how many live in it, the size of utility bills and if you are using any renewable resource.
All responses are added together and then you are told how long you can live your lifestyle before you use up your allotment of resources, and at which point you should die. Unfortunately there is no indication of your allotted resources; it only says when you have used them up.
After you learn of your death expectation to save the planet, there is a button to click on, appropriately defined by a skull-and-crossbones, to find out the number of years from then that you should leave the earth so others may continue, (this life span of course depends on your answers). For example, you may be entitled to 10, 20 or 30 years but not in round numbers, the time is specifically given in years, months and days (we must be exact you know so plans may be made).
So you don’t miss the point, according to Mr. Unruh, “With the click on the skull-and-crossbones button, a pig representing the survey-taker, positioned between a fat pig for energy usage and a lean, "green" pig, explodes”.
The web site of course promotes the Kyoto international climate agreement under which greenhouse gases are to be regulated and reduced. Rumor has it that Barack Obama and John McCain have subscribed to the web site service and may include the life-death calculation protocol in a global warming bill to be introduced in the next administration.
Australian ABC is nothing if not thorough and shows us how we may be entitled to a relatively longer life. They remind us "For each hour of heat, you'll produce about 0.7 kg CO2 (gas heater), 2 kg CO2 (2 bar electric radiator), 3.3 kg CO2 (open fire)."
"Gas is more efficient because you just burn it where you are – about a quarter of the heat gets lost up the flue, but the rest heats up the room. Electricity on the other hand is pretty hopeless efficiency-wise – 2/3 of the coal's energy is lost at the power station," the report said. "Open fires vary on a scale from pretty inefficient to hellishly inefficient. And as well as their greenhouse excesses, they produce a heap of other pollutants and [sic] the odd irate asthmatic neighbor." [This doesn't make sense to me either.]
The web site suggests there is a way to mitigate usage "excesses" - "planting trees"; to quote the web site (remember it is Australian) the web site advises that to counter the usage of an ordinary family, members would have to plant "a helluva lot" of trees.
"Your average Aussie belts out about 24.5 tons of CO2 each year (that covers everything from housing and transport to your share of government and industry). Your average Aussie native tree can soak up about 270 kg CO2 in that time. And your average Aussie science journalist with a calculator reckons that's about 91 trees you'd need to plant every year," the website advises.
"On a national scale, we'd be talking about planting 1729 million trees … EVERY YEAR."
In view of the likelihood of a life entitlement calculator being included in the next global warming bill, you might want to delay making vacation plans too far into the future; the money you save may be important to the government.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Muslims are worse than Martians as a threat to the world
When Orson Wells broadcast on the radio that we were under attack by Martians many people believed him and a near panic erupted. Switchboards in the 1930's were swamped with calls from worried citizens seeking help. Despite scant evidence of an extraterrestrial invasion Americans accepted the possibility with little question. Why then do so many Americans fail to understand the present day real world threat Islam poses on the world when there is so much evidence of this? Why is it easier to believe Martians are attacking us than Muslims?
Are Americans simply exhausted with the idea of war after WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, they forget that the last three were caused by Muslims attacking others. Or is it a matter that Americans don’t understand Islam and its quest for a world with Islam as the only religion and political system?
It is wrong to think of Islam as a cult. Islam is a comprehensive system where worship and law (Sharia) are merged. The distinction between the secular and religious or spiritual realms is not new to Christianity but it is alien to Islam and Muslims. For Muslims it is essential to accept the concept of duality in life. Muslims believe that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the World. One who "…takes account of every single thing (Qur'an 72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. Muslims believe Allah revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited. Allah commanded people to observe His injunctions and to act according to them. If they do not do so, then they have committed disobedience and transgression, and risk death.
To Muslims Islam is a unique way of life (religion) where the life of this world is not all important because paradise awaits them if they follow Islam perfectly. The relative importance of this world is described in the Qur’an, "O our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire" (Qur’an, 2:201). Allah says "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (way of life)" (Qur’an 5:3). Islam as a complete code of life and Muslims believe it is the only hope in the pathetic state of affairs that mankind finds itself today.
The Islamic Sharia is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order where nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking. Therefore there is no separation between state and church. This is an artificial separation from an Islamic perspective, though totally foreign to the western world and antithetical to freedom as we know it.
Problems develop in western countries because Islam allows Muslims to live anywhere in the world provided they fulfill their fundamental religious duties but too often this is contrary to the laws of the countries into which they immigrate. Western civilizations welcome them, not realizing what's in store for them.
Here is how Islam intrusion works as summarized from the CIA in the World Fact Book:
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country, they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. Countries currently in this category include: United States - Muslim 1.0%; Australia - Muslim 1.5%; Canada -Muslim 1.9%; Italy - Muslim 1.5%, and Norway - Muslim 1.8%.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from jails and street gangs: Denmark - Muslim 2%; Germany - Muslim 4%; United Kingdom - Muslim 3%; and Spain - Muslim 4%.
From 5% on they exercise an influence out of proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of Halal (Clean By Islamic Standards) food and in supermarkets to feature it on shelves, accompanied by threats for non compliance: France - Muslim 10%; Philippines - Muslim 5%; Sweden - Muslim 5%; Switzerland - Muslim 4.3%; and The Netherlands - Muslim 5 to 7%. At this point Muslims will try to get the government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia Law.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness to complain about their conditions (which are due to themselves), e.g. Paris car burnings. Any action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats, e.g. Danish Mohammed Cartoons, and even in Russia - Muslim 10 to 15% (the school take-over by Chechen Muslims).
After Reaching 20% the host country can expect rioting, jihad actions, sporadic killings and church and Synagogue burning as in Ethiopia - Muslim 33%.
At 40% there will be wide spread massacres, chronic terror attacks and on going Muslim militia warfare: Chad - Muslim 53%; Lebanon - Muslim 60%.
Over 60% there will be persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and "Jizya", the tax placed on Infidels: Albania - Muslim 70%; Malaysia - Muslim 60%; and Sudan - Muslim 70%.
Beyond 80% there is state run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Egypt - Muslim 90% (remember the Coptic?); Gaza - Muslim 99%; Indonesia - Muslim 86% Iran - Muslim 98% Iraq - Muslim 97%; Jordan - Muslim 92%; Palestine - Muslim 99%; and Syria - Muslim 90%.
The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia Law over the entire World.
When a country is 100% Muslim, there is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim as in Afghanistan - Muslim 100%; Saudi Arabia - Muslim 100%; and Somalia - Muslim 100% (is Somalia peaceful?). Of Course, that's not the case because Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. As Leon Uris wrote in ‘The Haj’: "…before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life; it was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel."
Muslims do not integrate into the community at large therefore they have more power than their numbers would otherwise indicate. Nonetheless, the world continues to cater to and negotiate with Muslims not realizing that the Muslim goal is to destroy our freedom in a politically correct way; whether it is freedom of speech or freedom of religion. We accept this so as not to offend our Muslim "brothers" whose goal is to replace our freedom with universal Islam. If we allow this, we will have no one else to blame but ourselves.
It’s time to wake up America! Muslims are worse than Martians; it's not Orson Wells spoofing, it's the real thing.
Are Americans simply exhausted with the idea of war after WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, they forget that the last three were caused by Muslims attacking others. Or is it a matter that Americans don’t understand Islam and its quest for a world with Islam as the only religion and political system?
It is wrong to think of Islam as a cult. Islam is a comprehensive system where worship and law (Sharia) are merged. The distinction between the secular and religious or spiritual realms is not new to Christianity but it is alien to Islam and Muslims. For Muslims it is essential to accept the concept of duality in life. Muslims believe that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the World. One who "…takes account of every single thing (Qur'an 72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. Muslims believe Allah revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited. Allah commanded people to observe His injunctions and to act according to them. If they do not do so, then they have committed disobedience and transgression, and risk death.
To Muslims Islam is a unique way of life (religion) where the life of this world is not all important because paradise awaits them if they follow Islam perfectly. The relative importance of this world is described in the Qur’an, "O our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire" (Qur’an, 2:201). Allah says "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (way of life)" (Qur’an 5:3). Islam as a complete code of life and Muslims believe it is the only hope in the pathetic state of affairs that mankind finds itself today.
The Islamic Sharia is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order where nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking. Therefore there is no separation between state and church. This is an artificial separation from an Islamic perspective, though totally foreign to the western world and antithetical to freedom as we know it.
Problems develop in western countries because Islam allows Muslims to live anywhere in the world provided they fulfill their fundamental religious duties but too often this is contrary to the laws of the countries into which they immigrate. Western civilizations welcome them, not realizing what's in store for them.
Here is how Islam intrusion works as summarized from the CIA in the World Fact Book:
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country, they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. Countries currently in this category include: United States - Muslim 1.0%; Australia - Muslim 1.5%; Canada -Muslim 1.9%; Italy - Muslim 1.5%, and Norway - Muslim 1.8%.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from jails and street gangs: Denmark - Muslim 2%; Germany - Muslim 4%; United Kingdom - Muslim 3%; and Spain - Muslim 4%.
From 5% on they exercise an influence out of proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of Halal (Clean By Islamic Standards) food and in supermarkets to feature it on shelves, accompanied by threats for non compliance: France - Muslim 10%; Philippines - Muslim 5%; Sweden - Muslim 5%; Switzerland - Muslim 4.3%; and The Netherlands - Muslim 5 to 7%. At this point Muslims will try to get the government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia Law.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness to complain about their conditions (which are due to themselves), e.g. Paris car burnings. Any action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats, e.g. Danish Mohammed Cartoons, and even in Russia - Muslim 10 to 15% (the school take-over by Chechen Muslims).
After Reaching 20% the host country can expect rioting, jihad actions, sporadic killings and church and Synagogue burning as in Ethiopia - Muslim 33%.
At 40% there will be wide spread massacres, chronic terror attacks and on going Muslim militia warfare: Chad - Muslim 53%; Lebanon - Muslim 60%.
Over 60% there will be persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and "Jizya", the tax placed on Infidels: Albania - Muslim 70%; Malaysia - Muslim 60%; and Sudan - Muslim 70%.
Beyond 80% there is state run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Egypt - Muslim 90% (remember the Coptic?); Gaza - Muslim 99%; Indonesia - Muslim 86% Iran - Muslim 98% Iraq - Muslim 97%; Jordan - Muslim 92%; Palestine - Muslim 99%; and Syria - Muslim 90%.
The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia Law over the entire World.
When a country is 100% Muslim, there is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim as in Afghanistan - Muslim 100%; Saudi Arabia - Muslim 100%; and Somalia - Muslim 100% (is Somalia peaceful?). Of Course, that's not the case because Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. As Leon Uris wrote in ‘The Haj’: "…before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life; it was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel."
Muslims do not integrate into the community at large therefore they have more power than their numbers would otherwise indicate. Nonetheless, the world continues to cater to and negotiate with Muslims not realizing that the Muslim goal is to destroy our freedom in a politically correct way; whether it is freedom of speech or freedom of religion. We accept this so as not to offend our Muslim "brothers" whose goal is to replace our freedom with universal Islam. If we allow this, we will have no one else to blame but ourselves.
It’s time to wake up America! Muslims are worse than Martians; it's not Orson Wells spoofing, it's the real thing.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The truth about oil prices
The price of oil is given by the cost of one barrel of oil. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. At an oil price of $138 a barrel, the price of oil is $3.29 a gallon. Yet we wonder why gasoline costs $4 a gallon.
With gasoline prices in the range of $4 a gallon, this leaves about $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon for oil to be processed into gasoline and other derivative products and for gasoline to be delivered and sold at the local gasoline station. Costs that must come out of the $0.70 include transportation to oil refineries, actual oil processing in accordance with environmental regulations, delivery to the gas station and ultimately to the pump.
Taxes also are part of the price of gasoline at the pump. To begin the tax calculation, the federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon (18.4 cents). State taxes vary from state-to-state, from a low of $0.08 a gallon in Alaska to a high of $0.32 per gallon in Wisconsin. Gasoline taxes in most states are in the 18 to 25 cents a gallon range but New York state gasoline tax is 32 cents a gallon and in Pennsylvania the gasoline tax is 31 cents a gallon.
Now recall that we started with $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon over the oil price for processing, etc. the oil and for bringing gasoline to the pump at the gas station, and all together the gasoline price of $4.00 a gallon includes state and federal taxes for a total of $0.27 per gallon in Alaska to $0.51 in Wisconsin. This leaves a potential "profit" maximum of $0.33 (33 cents a gallon) in Alaska and $0.19 (19 cents a gallon) in Wisconsin.
The profit for the oil company and the gas station must come out of the 33 cents or 19 cents. However both the oil company and gas station have costs that must be added to costs they incur before setting the gasoline price to you at the pump. These costs vary but there isn’t a lot of room for oil company stockholders and gas station owners to reap the benefit of their investments.
The obvious question then is how come oil companies are reporting such large profits if the numbers show the profit potential per gallon of oil to be so relatively low. The answer is volume.
Huge amounts of oil are needed to fuel the economic engines of all countries and the demand for oil continually grows. The latest forecast from the International Energy Agency calls for global oil demand of 87.2 million barrels a day this year. That would be an increase in consumption of 1.3 million barrels a day from 2007 despite a U.S. economic slowdown and soaring oil prices.
Just when oil is getting more expensive to produce, the oil industries in three key countries, Mexico, Russia and Nigeria, lack the money or will to maintain or increase levels of oil production and global oil production in general is headed into a decline.
The Russian oil industry, for example, announced that production had fallen 1% in the first quarter of 2008. According to the Russian energy ministry, oil production for the full year could be lower than in 2007. Any decline would mark a huge reversal. Russian production has grown steadily over the past 10 years, and in its supply-and-demand projections the International Energy Agency has been counting on growth in Russian production of 5% by 2012 to offset big declines in older fields in the North Sea and Mexico.
The International Energy Agency now estimates that worldwide production from older existing fields is now falling each year by about 4.5 million barrels a day. To stay even, let alone to meet rising demand from the new automobile drivers of Russia, China and other countries, the world has to increase annual production by 4.5 million barrels a day.
While all this is happening Democrats in government and environmentalists are standing in the way of the United States' ability to increase the supply of oil. Left-leaning politicians and, unfortunately too many Republicans, are more concerned with erroneous beliefs in man-made global warming to focus on the real needs of our country. As we switch light bulbs, create a huge additional bureaucracy for cap-and-trade "carbon credits, and make inferior additions to dilute the gasoline fuel, our economy will undergo an enormous destructive effect and our way of life will be irreversibly altered for the worse.
The United States is blessed with an almost limitless capability to produce oil but we are prevented from recovering and producing it. Proven technology can be harnessed to extract oil from abundant coal reserves and large amounts of oil in place remain untapped. Americans have proven to be able to rise to national emergencies and overcome all obstacles by unleashing a market economy on any problem but American success is artificially thwarted by socialists masquerading as environmentalists.
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to waken to the threats we face and take all possible action to change the direction our leaders are taking us; God help us all if we don’t.
With gasoline prices in the range of $4 a gallon, this leaves about $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon for oil to be processed into gasoline and other derivative products and for gasoline to be delivered and sold at the local gasoline station. Costs that must come out of the $0.70 include transportation to oil refineries, actual oil processing in accordance with environmental regulations, delivery to the gas station and ultimately to the pump.
Taxes also are part of the price of gasoline at the pump. To begin the tax calculation, the federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon (18.4 cents). State taxes vary from state-to-state, from a low of $0.08 a gallon in Alaska to a high of $0.32 per gallon in Wisconsin. Gasoline taxes in most states are in the 18 to 25 cents a gallon range but New York state gasoline tax is 32 cents a gallon and in Pennsylvania the gasoline tax is 31 cents a gallon.
Now recall that we started with $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon over the oil price for processing, etc. the oil and for bringing gasoline to the pump at the gas station, and all together the gasoline price of $4.00 a gallon includes state and federal taxes for a total of $0.27 per gallon in Alaska to $0.51 in Wisconsin. This leaves a potential "profit" maximum of $0.33 (33 cents a gallon) in Alaska and $0.19 (19 cents a gallon) in Wisconsin.
The profit for the oil company and the gas station must come out of the 33 cents or 19 cents. However both the oil company and gas station have costs that must be added to costs they incur before setting the gasoline price to you at the pump. These costs vary but there isn’t a lot of room for oil company stockholders and gas station owners to reap the benefit of their investments.
The obvious question then is how come oil companies are reporting such large profits if the numbers show the profit potential per gallon of oil to be so relatively low. The answer is volume.
Huge amounts of oil are needed to fuel the economic engines of all countries and the demand for oil continually grows. The latest forecast from the International Energy Agency calls for global oil demand of 87.2 million barrels a day this year. That would be an increase in consumption of 1.3 million barrels a day from 2007 despite a U.S. economic slowdown and soaring oil prices.
Just when oil is getting more expensive to produce, the oil industries in three key countries, Mexico, Russia and Nigeria, lack the money or will to maintain or increase levels of oil production and global oil production in general is headed into a decline.
The Russian oil industry, for example, announced that production had fallen 1% in the first quarter of 2008. According to the Russian energy ministry, oil production for the full year could be lower than in 2007. Any decline would mark a huge reversal. Russian production has grown steadily over the past 10 years, and in its supply-and-demand projections the International Energy Agency has been counting on growth in Russian production of 5% by 2012 to offset big declines in older fields in the North Sea and Mexico.
The International Energy Agency now estimates that worldwide production from older existing fields is now falling each year by about 4.5 million barrels a day. To stay even, let alone to meet rising demand from the new automobile drivers of Russia, China and other countries, the world has to increase annual production by 4.5 million barrels a day.
While all this is happening Democrats in government and environmentalists are standing in the way of the United States' ability to increase the supply of oil. Left-leaning politicians and, unfortunately too many Republicans, are more concerned with erroneous beliefs in man-made global warming to focus on the real needs of our country. As we switch light bulbs, create a huge additional bureaucracy for cap-and-trade "carbon credits, and make inferior additions to dilute the gasoline fuel, our economy will undergo an enormous destructive effect and our way of life will be irreversibly altered for the worse.
The United States is blessed with an almost limitless capability to produce oil but we are prevented from recovering and producing it. Proven technology can be harnessed to extract oil from abundant coal reserves and large amounts of oil in place remain untapped. Americans have proven to be able to rise to national emergencies and overcome all obstacles by unleashing a market economy on any problem but American success is artificially thwarted by socialists masquerading as environmentalists.
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to waken to the threats we face and take all possible action to change the direction our leaders are taking us; God help us all if we don’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
