Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Can't Drill, No Nuclear, and now NO SOLAR either!
The New York Times
US
Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
By DAN FROSCH
Published: June 27, 2008
The freeze has caused widespread concern in the industry, forcing fledgling solar companies to wait just as demand for alternative energy is accelerating.
DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.
The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.
But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry.”
Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.
Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies’ desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.
According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.
Full Article
I shouldn't say that I am shocked in any way. This is the government that we are talking about here. Any chance they have to regulate the hell out of something they will.
Here we are as a nation, striving to find better sources of energy as one of our Presidential Candidates decided that we need to immediately reduce our consumption of oil and gas and should focus on "Green Technology" and "New Technology" and here we have the answer to that response and our government needs to stick its hands in everything and muck it all up.
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
James Dobson Terrified by President Obama
James Dobson Terrified by President Obama
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:57 PM
© 2008 Newsmax
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:57 PM
© 2008 Newsmax
In a one-two punch, Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson ripped into Barack Obama, saying that Obama terrifies him, while on Tuesday night’s "Hannity & Colmes" show, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned that the Illinois senator’s views on such issues as partial birth abortion takes away the equality of unborn children, and that Obama makes him uncomfortable.Sphere: Related Content
Dobson appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show Tuesday.
During the show, Hannity commented that he found Obama to be dishonest overall, noting that “I think he was dishonest to the American people” when speaking of his former pastor and spiritual adviser the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama said that Wright had never expressed his vitriol to Obama stating "this is not the man I knew" though he had sat in a pew and listened to him for 20 years.
Said Hannity, “I think he’s fundamentally dishonest and has been on a variety of issues, the most recent is his flipping and flopping on public financing, etc. I think he’s got some character issues as relates to honesty.”
Dobson then unleashed this broadside against Obama: “What terrifies me is the thought that he might be our president . . . might be in the Oval Office . . . might be the leader of the free world . . . might be the commander in chief — because as I said a minute ago, the man is dangerous, especially in regard to this issue of morality. I can’t tell you how strongly I feel about this.
“He’s saying that my morality has to conform to his because we all have to agree or else it’s not democratic. Do you remember the position that he’s taken on the Born Alive Protection Act that was passed in Congress in 2002? It kept medical people who were unsuccessful in killing an unborn baby — they took their best shot at [the baby] and [the baby] managed to limp into the world — and so Congress said if he comes out alive you can’t murder him.
“That came to the fore of the state of Illinois legislature, and the only person to oppose it was Barack Obama and he was chairman of the committee, and got up and spoke in opposition to it. [He said] ‘We’re saying that a person is entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child — a 9-month old child delivered to term — it would essentially bar abortions because the Equal Protection clause [that he was opposed to] does not allow somebody to kill a child.’
“This is what this man believes; [that it’s acceptable] to kill children that you don’t want or need . . .”
Dobson asked, “Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what’s right in regard to tiny babies?”
During Tuesday night’s "Hannity & Colmes" show on Fox Cable, after Alan Colmes asked if “the rest of us” are required to conform to Dr. Dobson’s view about tiny babies, Huckabee said, “ It’s about the collective view of Americans who believe that all people are created equal, and that every human life has intrinsic value and worth. And when Barack Obama believes that we can have partial birth abortion, then we’ve taken away the equality of that unborn child and we’ve said that he’s expendable — that he’s not as valuable as he would be if he were born five minutes later.
“That defies something beyond anybody’s politics. That goes to the heart of what we are as a civilization . . . we have elevated and celebrated life. That’s why we don’t leave our soldiers on the battlefield when they are wounded. We say to leave no man behind, because we don’t view their worth and value as their soldiering, we view it as their personhood.
“And when you rob a human life of its personhood, as you do with the kind of abortion policies that Barack Obama supports, that’s a serious issue, I think, for many of us who don’t see this as a religious issue but see it as something even deeper.”
Responding to Hannity’s complaint that Obama lacks core values guiding him, Huckabee said, “it is a concern; and I think it’s a legitimate one, when you have a person who says I want to change the politics of Washington but then becomes one that’s even being criticized by the leftist media because he’s decided he is going to bypass all the very public financing that he so embraced until he could get more money into his coffers by not doing it.
“That’s exactly the kind of thing that just makes people say, There he is — another politician.”
Asked if he agreed with Dobson’s statement that the idea of Barack Obama as president terrorizes him, Huckabee said: “There are many things about Barack Obama that make me very uncomfortable. There are potholes and there are sinkholes and what Barack Obama has done is to drive his campaign into a sinkhole by saying some things regarding religion that I think will make people who are religious very uncomfortable.
“Am I concerned? Yes. We don’t need to make up things about Barack Obama, because I think that the record is going to be the best weapon to defeat him.
"We need to ask what is it that he believes. What he believes is that the Sermon on the Mount is outdated.”
Huckabee added, “I always found it interesting that liberals want it both ways — they don’t want to bring religion into the public square unless they bring it and get to reinterpret it.”
Congress Looks for a Culprit for Rising Oil Prices
Congress in their elevated intelligence is holding their 40th hearing this year - THAT IS OVER 6 HEARING A MONTH SINCE JANUARY - Oh how they LOVE to spend our money... We should just flush it down the toilet it would be much more efficient - but that wouldn't be the American Way - or so it seems!
They had been focusing on Oil Companies, OPEC and now are focusing on the evil Investors and Speculators... What will it take for them to realize that all they need to do is, um, LOOK IN THE MIRROR! Will it be hearing # 73972 to figure it out?
Mr Yergin says that it would be easier if there was one reason that it was going up... How about just finding a solution that will lower prices? Drill for more. Increase the supply the price will go down. How about we try to solve our own problems by *gasp* using our historically impressive American Ingenuity to drill for more oil. What is wrong with opening up every kind of energy, not just waiting for all the green technologies to become more main stream and begging OPEC to produce more.
If we want to remain the strongest/best/most advanced country in the world, we need to get off our butts and do what we need to do to become energy independent - whether it means drilling anywhere and everywhere, using wind, solar, coal, shale...We have the options...We have the resources - WE SHOULD USE THEM! Congress needs to get out of the way and let us progress!
They had been focusing on Oil Companies, OPEC and now are focusing on the evil Investors and Speculators... What will it take for them to realize that all they need to do is, um, LOOK IN THE MIRROR! Will it be hearing # 73972 to figure it out?
Mr Yergin says that it would be easier if there was one reason that it was going up... How about just finding a solution that will lower prices? Drill for more. Increase the supply the price will go down. How about we try to solve our own problems by *gasp* using our historically impressive American Ingenuity to drill for more oil. What is wrong with opening up every kind of energy, not just waiting for all the green technologies to become more main stream and begging OPEC to produce more.
If we want to remain the strongest/best/most advanced country in the world, we need to get off our butts and do what we need to do to become energy independent - whether it means drilling anywhere and everywhere, using wind, solar, coal, shale...We have the options...We have the resources - WE SHOULD USE THEM! Congress needs to get out of the way and let us progress!
Congress Looks for a Culprit for Rising Oil PricesSphere: Related Content
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: June 25, 2008
A pre-eminent energy expert is to testify on Wednesday before lawmakers that the suspicion that investors are a large cause for skyrocketing oil prices is misguided.
On Wednesday lawmakers will hold their 40th hearing so far this year on the cause of high oil prices. Filing bills on Capitol Hill to combat the problem is becoming a cottage industry, with clever names like the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act, or PUMP Act, and the No Excuses Energy Act.
Until recently, lawmakers had focused on the traditional suspects: oil companies and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. But increasingly, they are casting a suspicious eye on the role of investors, including speculators, in driving up prices.
As the ninth hearing of the month gets under way on Wednesday, one of the nation’s best-known energy experts, Daniel Yergin, is expected to tell Congress that the focus on speculation is largely misguided.
Mr. Yergin will join numerous other energy experts who have declared that the rise in oil prices can be explained by basic economic factors, such as the limited growth in supplies in recent years, a weakening dollar, a global surge in energy demand and a string of production disruptions in countries like Nigeria.
“When an issue is this hot, it would be so much easier if there was a single reason to blame,” Mr. Yergin said in an interview on Tuesday, previewing his testimony before Congress.
“The oil shock is real and is about the hottest political issue right now,” he said. “So Congress feels the pressure to do something but there is not much it can do to promote peace in Nigeria or to get the value of the dollar to go up.” Full Article(emphasis mine)
Obama Ridicules McCain's Energy Plans
John McCain is "flip flopping" on energy and wanting to go in the direction that the AMERICAN PEOPLE want to go - How is that a bad thing? He is running for President of the USA and wow it much be such an insane thought to listen to what the AMERICAN PEOPLE want - the same PEOPLE who VOTE you into Office...Oh wait, I forget, Obama isn't used to having to win votes, he is used to taking out the other candidates with lawsuits.
Obama won't do anything that will HELP the American People other than making them feel good, until they go to leave the Obama-Rally in their GAS powered cars and have to stop at the Gas station and pay well over $4.00 a gallon.
Just wait till November when the American People are not only paying of $5.00 a Gallon and paying sky high Home Heating Costs - Do you think they are going to vote with their wallets RATHER than the "good feelings" that Obama's last speech left?
I think not.
Obama Ridicules McCain's Energy PlansSphere: Related Content
By Shailagh Murray
LAS VEGAS, Nev. - Sen. Barack Obama criticized Sen. John McCain for extolling the "psychological" benefits of offshore drilling and mocked his $300 million prize for a new electric car battery as a "bounty" for "some rocket science."
The Illinois senator dismantled his GOP opponent's energy policies one by one, yet another sign that issues like oil independence, conservation, and alternative power are forming one of the dominant domestic policy battlegrounds of the general election.
Obama described high gas prices as the product of "false promises" and irresponsible policies" that have prevented new technologies and energy sources from replacing dirty fossil fuels. "For decades, John McCain has been part of this failure in Washington," Obama told a town hall meeting at nature preserve located near the Las Vegas strip.
He pointed to McCain's remark yesterday in Fresno that while his proposal to expand offshore drilling would have little short-term impact, "the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial," McCain said.
"Psychological impact," Obama rhetorted. " In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, 'It polls well.' It's an example of how Washington politicians try to convince you that they did something to make your life better when they really didn't."
Speaking today in Santa Barbara, McCain outlined a series of conservation proposals, telling the audience, "We're in the middle of a great debate in this presidential campaign about the energy security of the United States."
The Arizona senator took his own swipe at Obama. "Practical ideas are worth a lot more than uplifting lectures," McCain said. "It's not always a matter of making due with less energy. It's a matter of using energy in smarter ways."
Obama commended McCain's willingness to address climate change, unlike many of his Republican colleagues, "but time and time again, he has opposed investing in the alternative sources of energy that have helped fuel some of the very same projects and businesses he's highlighting in this campaign. He's voted against biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power."
He did give McCain credit for proposing a contest to produce a better car battery. "But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough," Obama said. "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project."
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds fired back, calling Obama "Dr. No" for rejecting offshore drilling and other energy production-boosting measures.
"John McCain has proposed an energy plan that calls for gas tax relief in the short term, increased exploration and energy development in the near term, and innovation and alternatives for long term energy independence. While John McCain is putting the country first with the best ideas from both parties, Barack Obama has become the 'Dr. No' of energy, refusing to accept any idea that will contribute to solving America's energy crisis."
Obama Asks Donors to Help Pay Clinton Debt - Much of which she OWES HERSELF
Obama Asks Donors to Help Pay Clinton Debt
By Shailagh Murray
LOS ANGELES -- Two days ahead of his meeting in Washington with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's top donors, Sen. Barack Obama has urged his own biggest givers to help retire her $10 million vendor debt.
Obama used the occasion of a conference call this afternoon to ask members of his national finance team to contribute to the Clinton cause, "if they had the means to do so," a campaign aide said tonight. ABC News first reported on the call.
Clinton ended May more than $22.5 million in debt, with the majority of that money owed to herself. According to campaign finance filings, the vendors the campaign used most heavily including a number of firms run by longtime Clinton loyalists: Denver-based Media Strategies & Research, which bought advertising time; the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland; the voter-database firm Catalist; and Grunwald Communications, a media consultant.
She dropped out of the Democratic race in early June, and Obama donors have been seeking cues from his campaign ever since.
Clinton will have a chance to return Obama's favor Thursday night, when she introduces Obama to her most generous supporters at the Mayflower Hotel.
Are you kidding me?? First off I am not a Clinton or Obama supporter (duh - as if there was any question at this point).
So if I understand this correctly, Obama wants HIS supporters to pay for Clintons Campaign Debts much of which her campaign owes HERSELF. It's not like she is hurting for money. The only reason that I can see this happening or making sense is that she is going to be his VP.Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Petition To Defend Conservative Free Speech Over The Airwaves
Democrats in Congress have threatened to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would stifle the free-speech rights of conservatives by requiring stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints. Dr. James Dobson has called the Fairness Doctrine a “miserable failure” that “stifled speech which is guaranteed in the Constitution.”
Broadcaster Freedom Act Can Stop the Un-Fairness Doctrine!
Congressman Mike Pence, R-Ind., has introduced legislation -- the “Broadcaster Freedom Act” (H.R. 2905) -- that would prohibit the Un-Fairness Doctrine. The bill is stalled in committee and will die in the Democrat-controlled Congress unless a majority of members sign a “discharge petition” to bring the bill to a vote.
At this time, 195 House members have signed the discharge petition but we need 23 more signatures or the bill will die - and conservative free speech will continue to be threatened. Focus Action is launching this Citizen Petition calling on Congress to bring this bill to a vote and pass it immediately. Please sign below and tell your member of Congress to support the Broadcaster Freedom Act by signing the discharge petition.
I just signed a petition calling on Congress to protect the
free-speech rights of conservatives over the airwaves.
Dr. Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and all conservative and Christian
broadcasters could be stifled unless we take action.
We have just a few days left to tell Congress to take action.
Please go here to sign:
http://www.focuspetitions.com/155/petition.asp?PID=17037073&NID=1Sphere: Related Content
Obama camp closely linked with Lobbyists (aka: ethanol)
Well no wonder he wants us to reduce consumption and doesn't want to drill! He's in bed with the Corn Ethanol (dare I say) Lobbyists? Oh wait is that a smear? Reporting on a fact? I can't decided if I want to get on his smear list or not, just because it would be good for my blog!
But give me a break - Unless this man plans on either moving my husbands RETAIL job closer to home, GIVING us an Hybrid Mini-Van I doubt that our consumption is going to go down at all.
And what about the rest of the world? How does he plan to limit their consumption? Oh wait I forgot - they have a grasp on reality and are DRILLING FOR OIL to solve the problem...
But give me a break - Unless this man plans on either moving my husbands RETAIL job closer to home, GIVING us an Hybrid Mini-Van I doubt that our consumption is going to go down at all.
And what about the rest of the world? How does he plan to limit their consumption? Oh wait I forgot - they have a grasp on reality and are DRILLING FOR OIL to solve the problem...
Obama camp closely linked with ethanolSphere: Related Content
Industry endorsed by candidate has provided some of his top advisers
By LARRY ROHTER
updated 9:19 a.m. ET, Mon., June. 23, 2008
When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama .
Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “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.”
Links to Tom Daschle
Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle , the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now 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.”
Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole , the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland .Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.
Jason Furman , the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.
Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, “He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.”
Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.
Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, “He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things.”
Obama, McCain differ on subsidies
Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.
“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, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”
Mr. 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. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization ’s rules but which his advisers say is not.
Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.
“If you want to take some of the pressure off this market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in,” said C. Ford Runge, an economist specializing in commodities and trade policy at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota . “But one of the fundamental reasons biofuels policy is so out of whack with markets and reality is that interest group politics have been so dominant in the construction of the subsidies that support it.”Sugar cane more efficient
Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source.
Mr. Furman said the campaign continued to examine the issue. “We want to evaluate all our energy subsidies to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth,” he said.
He added that Mr. Obama favored “a range of initiatives” that were aimed at “diversification across countries and sources of energy,” including cellulosic ethanol, and which, unlike Mr. McCain’s proposals, were specifically meant to “reduce overall demand through conservation, new technology and improved efficiency.”
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has not explained his opposition to imported sugar cane ethanol. But in remarks last year, made as President Bush was about to sign an ethanol cooperation agreement with his Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Obama argued that “our country’s drive toward energy independence” could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.
“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.
Mr. Obama does talk regularly about developing switchgrass, which flourishes in the Midwest and Great Plains, as a source for ethanol. While the energy ratio for switchgrass and other types of cellulosic ethanol is much greater than corn, economists say that time-consuming investments in infrastructure would be required to make it viable, and with corn nearing $8 a bushel, farmers have little incentive to shift.
Ethanol industry executives and advocates have not made large donations to either candidate for president, an examination of campaign contribution records shows. But they have noted the difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.
Brian Jennings, a vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, said he hoped that Mr. McCain, as a presidential candidate, “would take a broader view of energy security and recognize the important role that ethanol plays.”
The candidates’ views were tested recently in the Farm Bill approved by Congress that extended the subsidies for corn ethanol, though reducing them slightly, and the tariffs on imported sugar cane ethanol. Because Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were campaigning, neither voted. But Mr. McCain said that as president he would veto the bill, while Mr. Obama praised it.
This story, After Attacks, Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol, originally appeared in The New York Times.
Gas at $4.00 a gallon. Who's to blame?
Gas at $4.00 a gallon. Who's to blame?
Thanks to the enivironmentalist lobby and its influence on Democratic legislators in Congress, the U.S. has, for decades, been prohibited from drilling for oil in places that we know contain billions of barrells of proven reserves.
Check out this map:
All of the 'NO' zones are places where the U.S., thanks to the Democratic Party, is prohibited from drilling for oil.
But wait . it gets better.
***China, Cuba, Canada and others continue to drill off our shores where US companies are not allowed to drill because of Democratic policies!
Yes, that's right . China and Cuba are actively exploring oil fields 50 miles from Key West, Florida while U.S. companies are barred from working in this area because of U.S. policy . So, instead of allowing the most environmentally responsible companies to operate there and increase our domestic supply, China, who has a dismal environmental record, is preparing to suck our close, lucrative oil reserves dry.
Unbelievable.
Investor's Business Daily recently explained how irresponsible the Democrats have been on the energy crisis. They lay into what they consider to be the worst Congress ever for ...
~ Failing to allow drilling in ANWR.We have, as President Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay through the nose at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash.
~ Refusing to build new refineries.The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet the EPA requires at least 15 unique 'boutique' fuel blends that can be sold in different areas around the nation. This means that U.S. refinery capacity is stretched so tight that even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
~ Turning its back on nuclear power.It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants -- the same as a decade ago -- producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive -- about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas.
~ Raising taxes on energy producers.This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing 'windfall' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress only makes our energy situation worse.
These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission -- all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East are adding more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
If you agree with the need to let the American people know who's REALLY responsible for the sky-high gasoline prices we're seeing today, please forward this blog post to everyone you know.
If we elect a liberal Democrat as president in the Fall and keep the same Democrat-controlled Congress, nothing will change .. except gasoline prices, which will keep going up.Sphere: Related Content
Thanks to the enivironmentalist lobby and its influence on Democratic legislators in Congress, the U.S. has, for decades, been prohibited from drilling for oil in places that we know contain billions of barrells of proven reserves.
Check out this map:
All of the 'NO' zones are places where the U.S., thanks to the Democratic Party, is prohibited from drilling for oil.
But wait . it gets better.
***China, Cuba, Canada and others continue to drill off our shores where US companies are not allowed to drill because of Democratic policies!
Yes, that's right . China and Cuba are actively exploring oil fields 50 miles from Key West, Florida while U.S. companies are barred from working in this area because of U.S. policy . So, instead of allowing the most environmentally responsible companies to operate there and increase our domestic supply, China, who has a dismal environmental record, is preparing to suck our close, lucrative oil reserves dry.
Unbelievable.
Investor's Business Daily recently explained how irresponsible the Democrats have been on the energy crisis. They lay into what they consider to be the worst Congress ever for ...
~ Failing to allow drilling in ANWR.We have, as President Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay through the nose at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash.
~ Refusing to build new refineries.The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet the EPA requires at least 15 unique 'boutique' fuel blends that can be sold in different areas around the nation. This means that U.S. refinery capacity is stretched so tight that even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
~ Turning its back on nuclear power.It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants -- the same as a decade ago -- producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive -- about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas.
~ Raising taxes on energy producers.This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing 'windfall' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress only makes our energy situation worse.
These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission -- all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East are adding more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
If you agree with the need to let the American people know who's REALLY responsible for the sky-high gasoline prices we're seeing today, please forward this blog post to everyone you know.
If we elect a liberal Democrat as president in the Fall and keep the same Democrat-controlled Congress, nothing will change .. except gasoline prices, which will keep going up.Sphere: Related Content
Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.Read More...Sphere: Related Content
The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.
The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Two Obamas
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 20, 2008
Read More...
The Caucus: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
By John M. Broder
Published: June 20, 2008
Read More....
An awfully presidential logo
Obama Making Christian Push
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Saturday, June 21, 2008; Page B09
WASHINGTON -- With the Democratic presidential nomination in his grasp, Sen. Barack Obama is making a full-throttle push for centrist evangelicals and Catholics.
It's a move that's caught some conservative evangelicals off guard. They say they are surprised and dismayed to see a liberal-minded politician attempting to conscript their troops. At the same time, they say that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has done little to court their affections.
"I've never seen anything quite like it before," said evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote "The Faith of George W. Bush" and has a forthcoming book about Obama.
"To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is -- understanding their terms and their values -- is just remarkable."
Read More...Sphere: Related Content
The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 20, 2008
Barack Obama is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe him.
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
Read More...
The Caucus: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
By John M. Broder
Published: June 20, 2008
Barack Obama gave a preview of the campaign he thinks the Republicans are preparing to run against him.
Barack Obama is one of the most controlled and disciplined politicians around, but he occasionally shows a glimpse of what he’s really thinking.
Friday evening, before a fired-up crowd of about 600 donors at a civic center in Jacksonville, Mr. Obama gave a preview of the campaign he thinks the Republicans are preparing to run against him.
He said the choice in the election will be between hope, which he said he is offering, and fear, which is all the Republicans have, in his view.
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” Mr. Obama said. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Read More....
An awfully presidential logo
Barack Obama isn't president, at least not quite yet.Read More...
But the campaign logo that debuted today bears an uncanny resemblance to the presidential seal.
It is a circle of a distinguished blue hue. It features an American eagle, also clutching an olive branch in one talon and spears in the other -- with the campaign's well-known "O" on its breast instead of the presidential seal's shield. And instead of "E Pluribus Unum" between the eagle's wings, there's the rough Latin translation of his "Yes We Can" slogan: "Vero Possumus."
Obama Making Christian Push
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Saturday, June 21, 2008; Page B09
WASHINGTON -- With the Democratic presidential nomination in his grasp, Sen. Barack Obama is making a full-throttle push for centrist evangelicals and Catholics.
It's a move that's caught some conservative evangelicals off guard. They say they are surprised and dismayed to see a liberal-minded politician attempting to conscript their troops. At the same time, they say that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has done little to court their affections.
"I've never seen anything quite like it before," said evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote "The Faith of George W. Bush" and has a forthcoming book about Obama.
"To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is -- understanding their terms and their values -- is just remarkable."
Read More...Sphere: Related Content
Friday, June 20, 2008
Energy: Oil, Coal, Solar, Electric, Wind, Water....
The big news this week is President Bush asking Congress to open up the OCS for drilling and the Presidential Candidate's response to that request... As usual I will add my 5 cents.
Let's look at some little known facts:
So we have had the technology for an Electric Car for 100 years - Yet it has barely been developed beyond the original issues? And the EPA essentially killed the Electric Car in 1976 - Remind me to write a Thank You note to them on the back of my next $4 a gallon gas receipt.
While we have the world's largest wind farm in Texas, we still rank third in the world for wind power. At least this hasn't been killed by the government yet... But Give it time.
Again, we have had access to the technology for over 100 years, and yet haven't really developed it. I am beginning to notice a pattern
Here we are at gas over $4 a gallon, well over in some areas - Many Americans are calling for more drilling, opening up Shale, Coal to Oil etc. Over 1 MILLION Americans signed the Drill Here, Drill Now Petition and New Poll: 81% of Americans Support Greater Use of Domestic Energy Resources While I see the importance of developing so called new technologies, but if we have had access to these technologies for over 100 years, do we think that we are going to wake up tomorrow morning to a brand new electric car in our driveways? I think not. Not only are these going to take a few years to develop, and then even more years to get them affordable to the average American family - as most families can't go out and buy a brand new electric car or two - never mind 2 cars as most families use.
While it makes sense to develop these technologies, we can't stop producing or block increased production of oil and natural gas here in the US in the mean time - yes it make take up to 10 years for that oil to hit the gas pump, it will also take that long to get the other technologies up to par as well. And if some miracle happens and we are able to get these "new" technologies online and distributed main stream then we have all this oil to sell to other countries and then we are able to once again secure our place as a super power.Sphere: Related Content
Let's look at some little known facts:
Life And Death of the Electric Car
1891: William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa builds the first successful electric automobile in the United States.
1966: Congress introduces the earliest bills recommending use of electric vehicles as a means of reducing air pollution. A Gallup poll indicates that 33 million Americans are interested in electric vehicles.
1972: Victor Wouk, the "Godfather of the Hybrid," builds the first full-powered, full-size hybrid vehicle out of a 1972 Buick Skylark provided by General Motors (G.M.) for the 1970 Federal Clean Car Incentive Program. The Environmental Protection Association later kills the program in 1976.
2006: A few pure electric cars and plug-in hybrids are in limited production and new ones are on the horizon. Experts differ on how soon rising oil prices, peak oil forecasts, changing fortunes at car companies, and public demand for cars that run without gasoline will resurrect the mass market for electric car in the twenty-first century. The success of the gasoline hybrid Toyota Prius is a promising sign.
So we have had the technology for an Electric Car for 100 years - Yet it has barely been developed beyond the original issues? And the EPA essentially killed the Electric Car in 1976 - Remind me to write a Thank You note to them on the back of my next $4 a gallon gas receipt.
Wind Power
1888: The first windmill for electricity production was built in Cleveland, Ohio by Charles F Brush
1995: One of the first offshore wind parks was built in Tunoe Knob off the coast of Denmark
While we have the world's largest wind farm in Texas, we still rank third in the world for wind power. At least this hasn't been killed by the government yet... But Give it time.
Water PowerThe main concern with Hydropower that I could find was the effect on Fish going up river to spawn - a problem that has already been solved with "ladders" that the fish successfully use to climb the damn.
It is one of the oldest sources of energy and was used thousands of years ago to turn a paddle wheel for purposes such as grinding grain. Our nation’s first industrial use of hydropower to generate electricity occurred in 1880, when 16 brush-arc lamps were powered using a water turbine at the Wolverine Chair Factory in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The first U.S. hydroelectric power plant opened on the Fox River near Appleton, Wisconsin, on September 30, 1882
Hydropower does not experience rising or unstable fuel costs. From 1985 to 1990 the cost of operating a hydropower plant grew at less than the rate of inflation.
Only 2,400 of the nation's 80,000 existing dams are used to generate power. Installing turbines in existing dams presents a promising and cost-effective power source. However, in the last 10 years the Department of Energy has spent $1.2 billion on research and development for other renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal, but only $10 million on hydropower
Solar Power
1883: The first solar cell was constructed by Charles Fritts
The 1973 oil crisis stimulated a rapid rise in the production of PV during the 1970s and early 1980s. Economies of scale which resulted from increasing production along with improvements in system performance brought the price of PV down from 100 USD/watt in 1971 to 7 USD/watt in 1985. Steadily falling oil prices during the early 1980s led to a reduction in funding for photovoltaic R&D and a discontinuation of the tax credits associated with the Energy Tax Act of 1978. These factors moderated growth to approximately 15% per year from 1984 through 1996.
Again, we have had access to the technology for over 100 years, and yet haven't really developed it. I am beginning to notice a pattern
Here we are at gas over $4 a gallon, well over in some areas - Many Americans are calling for more drilling, opening up Shale, Coal to Oil etc. Over 1 MILLION Americans signed the Drill Here, Drill Now Petition and New Poll: 81% of Americans Support Greater Use of Domestic Energy Resources While I see the importance of developing so called new technologies, but if we have had access to these technologies for over 100 years, do we think that we are going to wake up tomorrow morning to a brand new electric car in our driveways? I think not. Not only are these going to take a few years to develop, and then even more years to get them affordable to the average American family - as most families can't go out and buy a brand new electric car or two - never mind 2 cars as most families use.
While it makes sense to develop these technologies, we can't stop producing or block increased production of oil and natural gas here in the US in the mean time - yes it make take up to 10 years for that oil to hit the gas pump, it will also take that long to get the other technologies up to par as well. And if some miracle happens and we are able to get these "new" technologies online and distributed main stream then we have all this oil to sell to other countries and then we are able to once again secure our place as a super power.Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Pretty please Congress get off you butts and do something!
The President has the power. Instead of just asking and pleading with Congress to do the right thing, shouldn't he of used his power as President and used an executive order today to demand that we start to drill and open up our resources before someone else gets there before we do?
The President is asking Congress to work together with him - They haven't worked "together" with him in over a YEAR! I clearly remember him asking them/pleading with them to pass a budget.
Congress can't get all pissy and want to take their ball home and not play anymore, because you don't want to play their game.
While this countries government has a system of checks and balances to make sure that one branch doesn't begin to gain too much power.... And that is a good thing - but when branch decides that they are going to do everything on their power to block ANYTHING from happening - That is too much power.
I have said this before and I will continue to say so until I am heard - until WE are heard.
We need to remind Congress and the President that they WORK FOR US! We hired them, sadly we are stuck with them for between 2 - 6 years before we can fire them...If only it was like a "normal" job - If an employee spent billions of dollars doing nothing, putting off votes, not showing up for votes and not listening to what the boss was saying - They'd be fired in a week!
Sadly Washington DC has become the Never Never Land of our country. The Congress and Senate is Captain Hook - pissing everyone off and the American people are the Alligator - tick tick tick Capt'n your time is running out...
Sphere: Related Content
The President is asking Congress to work together with him - They haven't worked "together" with him in over a YEAR! I clearly remember him asking them/pleading with them to pass a budget.
Congress can't get all pissy and want to take their ball home and not play anymore, because you don't want to play their game.
While this countries government has a system of checks and balances to make sure that one branch doesn't begin to gain too much power.... And that is a good thing - but when branch decides that they are going to do everything on their power to block ANYTHING from happening - That is too much power.
I have said this before and I will continue to say so until I am heard - until WE are heard.
We need to remind Congress and the President that they WORK FOR US! We hired them, sadly we are stuck with them for between 2 - 6 years before we can fire them...If only it was like a "normal" job - If an employee spent billions of dollars doing nothing, putting off votes, not showing up for votes and not listening to what the boss was saying - They'd be fired in a week!
Sadly Washington DC has become the Never Never Land of our country. The Congress and Senate is Captain Hook - pissing everyone off and the American people are the Alligator - tick tick tick Capt'n your time is running out...
Sphere: Related Content
Bush asking Congress to Drill for Oil....
Today President Bush is going to urge Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling.
Now, if Bush really wanted Congress to push through offshore drilling, shouldn't he of told them not to? He is up against a Congress that has done NOTHING, they only thing they have done, is the opposite of what the President didn't want them to do.
They are acting like a 2 year old, doing the opposite of whatever you ask of them. Essentially they are sitting in the corner holding their breath till their faces turn blue.
Well, I wouldn't take what he has to say for more than a grain of salt. Wow no effect in 5 years, well in 5 years if we keep on the path that we are on, you are looking at gas prices over $10 a gallon...I am sure that we will happily accept any price changes at that point. Are high gas prices going to disappear in the next 5 years? Probably not.
If Bush would of done this, I am sure that his approval numbers would of skyrocketed faster than the price of crude oil in the past week, but heaven forbid he does something positive in the last few months of his presidentcy.
Well why don't we open it up and just see what happens?Sphere: Related Content
"The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time," White House press secretary Dana Perino told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
"He will explicitly call on Congress to ... pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling," Perino said. "He wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur."
Now, if Bush really wanted Congress to push through offshore drilling, shouldn't he of told them not to? He is up against a Congress that has done NOTHING, they only thing they have done, is the opposite of what the President didn't want them to do.
They are acting like a 2 year old, doing the opposite of whatever you ask of them. Essentially they are sitting in the corner holding their breath till their faces turn blue.
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.
Well, I wouldn't take what he has to say for more than a grain of salt. Wow no effect in 5 years, well in 5 years if we keep on the path that we are on, you are looking at gas prices over $10 a gallon...I am sure that we will happily accept any price changes at that point. Are high gas prices going to disappear in the next 5 years? Probably not.
Bush has been considering lifting the executive ban as a symbolic move to get Congress to take action, but he decided against doing so for the time being, said an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because internal deliberations were involved.
If Bush would of done this, I am sure that his approval numbers would of skyrocketed faster than the price of crude oil in the past week, but heaven forbid he does something positive in the last few months of his presidentcy.
Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, responded by calling the vice president “Oil Man Cheney,” saying: “So all that Cheney can talk about, the Oil Man Cheney can talk about, is drilling, drilling drilling. But there is not enough oil in America to make that the salvation to our problems.” After hearing of Mr. Bush’s proposal on Tuesday night, Mr. Reid affirmed his opposition, saying, “The Energy Information Administration says that even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won’t have a significant impact on prices.”
Well why don't we open it up and just see what happens?Sphere: Related Content
A Letter To Congress: Vote YES for OffShore Drilling
Dear Congressmen,
I want to thank you for your years of service. However, I want to remind you who you work for.
You work for the average American, who more than likely lives paycheck to paycheck, has a tight budget and has seen their budget squeezed tighter and tighter as Oil, Gas and Natural Gas prices sky rocket.
I can not begin to understand how you could block a movement to drill for oil off our coast while other countries are signing leases to begin exploration and drilling in the Florida Straight.
You do not work for the Environmentalist. I don't care which party you work for, I am an Independent voter - You work for me and the other Americans.
Just because the Oil Companies already have spaces leased doesn't mean that they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to explore and drill in areas that we know hold TRILLIONS of barrels of Oil and Natural Gas.
OPEN UP THE OCS TO THE USA FOR DRILLING BEFORE OTHER COUNTRIES BEGIN TO ROB US OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
While you are at it, push through Shale, Coal to Oil, and ANWAR - Even in it will take 18 months to 10 Years for the first drop to hit a pump - WE NEED TO START NOW.
Sincerely,
Sarah Morris SmithSphere: Related Content
I want to thank you for your years of service. However, I want to remind you who you work for.
You work for the average American, who more than likely lives paycheck to paycheck, has a tight budget and has seen their budget squeezed tighter and tighter as Oil, Gas and Natural Gas prices sky rocket.
I can not begin to understand how you could block a movement to drill for oil off our coast while other countries are signing leases to begin exploration and drilling in the Florida Straight.
You do not work for the Environmentalist. I don't care which party you work for, I am an Independent voter - You work for me and the other Americans.
Just because the Oil Companies already have spaces leased doesn't mean that they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to explore and drill in areas that we know hold TRILLIONS of barrels of Oil and Natural Gas.
OPEN UP THE OCS TO THE USA FOR DRILLING BEFORE OTHER COUNTRIES BEGIN TO ROB US OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
While you are at it, push through Shale, Coal to Oil, and ANWAR - Even in it will take 18 months to 10 Years for the first drop to hit a pump - WE NEED TO START NOW.
Sincerely,
Sarah Morris SmithSphere: Related Content
Open Mouth Insert Foot Mr Obama
I have gotten to the point where I think that we should just let him, his wife, his pastor keep talking, soon enough the American People are going to started really thinking and processing what this man is saying and the people associated with this man, his top advisors are saying. And run for the hills.
My husband of 3.5 years listens to what I say, he shares my opinions - So how can Obama say that things that his wife says, her opinions aren't the same as his?
I grew up in a going to a church, I am 29. If for 20 of those years the Pastor of that Church was spewing hate, racism and lord knows what else, I think that I would leave as soon as I realized that, that isn't the message that is supposed to come from the pulpit.
In the last 3 years, we have been church shopping, and in the last 6 months we were attending a church were within 2 weeks of hearing opinions that we didn't agree with, that didn't line up with our beliefs - we left - It took two weeks, and those two weeks we didn't even attend due to sickness. Two weeks...20 Years...If it takes Obama 20 years to make a decision that is so important to your family, who your spiritual advisor, your leader, your guide is - This person who is going to form you as a person, your opinions - 20 Years is more time that I am going to have to form and raise my daughter, to instill in her the beliefs, the ideals, values that she should be taught.
20 Years Mr Obama? Give me a break.
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
All Bold and italics are mine.
In case you don't know what you just read, it was the Declaration of Independence. What the founders of this country sent to the King Of England, when they had had enough. They listed the things that the King did, imposed on them and noted how those things were injust.
As I look at our Government in Washington today, and I think about the birth of this nation, well, we have regressed - Drastically.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
When a Government gets too powerful, and ceases to allow every person to to per sue their rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness then it is the PEOPLE of that Country that need to institute a new Government.
I am not saying that we scrap the Government - I am saying they need to listen to us, It is their job. They are representing the people in their home states. It is their job to represent OUR best interests.If you look down the list of injustices that the King implemented, one was "Imposing Taxes without Our Consent". When was the last time that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT or CONGRESS even CONSIDERED OUR CONSENT? Or how it would effect US - The people in their home states?
Last I checked, the Sierra Club or Environmentalists don't vote in a person to Congress or the Senate - WE DO. So why are THEY the ones that are pushing and making decisions for US?
How is this any different that what was going on in 1776?Sphere: Related Content
Monday, June 16, 2008
Screw Global Warming, I am worried about WARMING my house!
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but is AMERICA the ONLY country in the world that cares about GLOBAL WARMING? If France is 80% Nuclear, and Germany is building Coal Power plants, as is China...And here we are in the USA crying over melting ice and polar bears, while our gas and energy costs are SKY ROCKETING.
If we were to push through drilling, and shale and coal don't you think that oil prices would drop over night?
Even though some of these products take 12 months to 10 years to get active - and I am sure that it could be faster if Washington pulled it head out of the sand and pushed in through.
Washington need to take High School Economics and learn about supply and demand because what they are doing now is just plain stupid. And the opposite of productive.Sphere: Related Content
If we were to push through drilling, and shale and coal don't you think that oil prices would drop over night?
Even though some of these products take 12 months to 10 years to get active - and I am sure that it could be faster if Washington pulled it head out of the sand and pushed in through.
Washington need to take High School Economics and learn about supply and demand because what they are doing now is just plain stupid. And the opposite of productive.Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, June 14, 2008
One Step Closer to Drilling For Oil
As I was reading up on the latest news and what not today I came across this article, and nearly fell out of my seat.
Yippie! Now before we get all excited, lets here what the Polar Bear Huggers say:
Cry me a river.
I am thinking that if a Polar Bear sees a big ship in the water, it will go around it. I haven't heard of any reports of Polar Bears running in to ships, or Oil Platforms....
This article was definitely written by a Polar Bear lover or a tree hugger.
Oh my, wow, 5 boats, 1 or 2 ice breakers, a barge a tug boat and a helicopter (which explain how a Helicopter will bother the bears...Unless bears fly now and no one told me) Ice roads, trails...Oh no...I guess they will need some Polar Bear Crossing signs to go along with all that.
So, now in addition to the Sexual Haresment Training, Driving an Ice Breaker 101 they will need to take Polar Bear 101.
Here is a sample of what that might look like:
Just incase you are still worried about the precious Polar Bear, Oil Companies were allowed to explore the same area from 1991 through 1996, and the Beaufort Sea since 1993 with NO effect on the polar bear populations - except that there are more of them. Oh and of the 25,000 Polar Bears only 2,000 live in that area. ONLY 2,000 of them!
There is also no evidence of a polar bear being killed by oil and gas since 1993, and if that doesn't five you enough comfort...
This is the LAST SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE.
I am sure this won't be the last we hear from the Environmentalist....Sphere: Related Content
WASHINGTON — Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas.
Yippie! Now before we get all excited, lets here what the Polar Bear Huggers say:
Environmentalists said the new regulations give oil companies a blank check to harass the polar bear.
Cry me a river.
I am thinking that if a Polar Bear sees a big ship in the water, it will go around it. I haven't heard of any reports of Polar Bears running in to ships, or Oil Platforms....
This article was definitely written by a Polar Bear lover or a tree hugger.
"Now, three weeks later, Interior issues a rule under the act that we view as a blank check to harass the polar bear in the Chukchi Sea," said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. He added that his group believes the new regulations are illegal.
Exploring in the Chukchi Sea's 29.7 million acres will require as many as five drill ships, one or two icebreakers, a barge, a tug and two helicopter flights per day, according to the government. Oil companies will also be making hundred of miles of ice roads and trails along the coastline.
Oh my, wow, 5 boats, 1 or 2 ice breakers, a barge a tug boat and a helicopter (which explain how a Helicopter will bother the bears...Unless bears fly now and no one told me) Ice roads, trails...Oh no...I guess they will need some Polar Bear Crossing signs to go along with all that.
"We are poorly equipped to address those risks and challenges," said Steven Amstrup, one of the foremost experts on polar bears and a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center. "To assess what the impacts are going to be, we should know more about the bears."
Last year, the Marine Mammal Oversight Commission, an independent government oversight agency, told the Fish and Wildlife Service it lacked the information to conclude that exploration will not affect the bear population.
The seven companies will be required to map out the locations of polar bear dens, train their employees about the bears' habits and take other measures to minimize clashes with them. In exchange, the companies are legally protected if their operations unintentionally harm the bears. Any bear deaths would still warrant an investigation and could result in penalty under the law.
So, now in addition to the Sexual Haresment Training, Driving an Ice Breaker 101 they will need to take Polar Bear 101.
Here is a sample of what that might look like:
Polar Bear:
Big White Bear, with Big Paw and Teeth
It can kill you
And eat you
Avoid them
Just incase you are still worried about the precious Polar Bear, Oil Companies were allowed to explore the same area from 1991 through 1996, and the Beaufort Sea since 1993 with NO effect on the polar bear populations - except that there are more of them. Oh and of the 25,000 Polar Bears only 2,000 live in that area. ONLY 2,000 of them!
There is also no evidence of a polar bear being killed by oil and gas since 1993, and if that doesn't five you enough comfort...
Since 1960, when the hunt for oil and gas began in Alaska, only two fatalities of polar bears have been linked to oil and gas activities in the state, the service said.
This is the LAST SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE.
I am sure this won't be the last we hear from the Environmentalist....Sphere: Related Content
Can we Drill now? Please?
I am not one to usually copy and paste a WHOLE interview, but on this one I GOTTA, this one is too good. Any emphasis is mine. My Notes and Opinions will be clear.
GLENN: Let's go to Congressman Peterson. Congressman John Peterson is the guy who brought this bill in front of the subcommittee and, jeez, why do you hate the polar bears so much, John?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: This has nothing to do with polar bears, but it's --
GLENN: I'm sorry, you're right. Why do you hate the manatee so much?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, where we produce energy offshore, and that's not just Florida. It's the whole East Coast, it's the whole West Coast, and it's another part of the gulf. Less than half the Gulf's actually been producing the oil. All the energy we've gotten from the gulf has been from (inaudible). So we're the only country in the world, only country, you know, countries like Canada and Great Britain and Norway and Sweden and Ireland and New Zealand and Australia all produce offshore. In fact, everybody gives Brazil high marks for being energy independent, and they are. 15% of that's ethanol. 85% of it is they went offshore and found huge amounts of energy and they are self-sufficient. They don't import anymore. It would take us a while to get there, but we are currently importing 2/3 of our oil, 1/3 from friends, Canada, Mexico and other friendly countries and 1/3 from OPEC. Every year we're increasing our dependence by about 2% and, of course, we know what we've done to price. There's a shortage in the world. Historically we've had about 8 million barrels of oil available in the world and if Country A couldn't produce today or they had a problem, Country B can produce it. Today we have about a million barrels of oil surplus and so if any major country suddenly can't produce, we don't have energy available.
Ok, so let me understand this, We are the only country that doesn't drill off shore...And WE the greatest country in the world (in our own opinion ofcourse) imports 2/3's of our own oil because WE won't drill offshore of our own country and use our own resources, we would rather get 1/3 of our oil from OPEC, well at least we get 1/3 from our friends. I guess we can just hope that we don't tick anyone off.
GLENN: Imagine what happens to the world if, God forbid something happens with Iran, God forbid Israel strikes Iran. The price of oil just on the fear of that thing breaking out and spreading, the price of oil will go through the roof. So tell me, Congressman Peterson, what the heck is going on?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, you know, I've been working this issue for almost a decade. I can debate it with anybody. I know the issue upside down. And I really had high hopes that with today's prices and the pressure, and we're about 88 to 90% of Republicans historically vote for production. We have 20 or 20 something that won't in the aggregate. But in our last bill we had 40 something Democrats help us. In '06 we passed a good offshore bill but the Senate wouldn't do anything with it, they wouldn't deal with it. But we lost it. We're trying to do it again but I thought we would not have a partisan -- there are members on the interior committee -- we're marginal there as far as votes for it, but I thought we would win. But we didn't have one Democrat. We've always had some. So it appears, it appears -- we'll know next Wednesday when we do it again in full committee. Now, that will be probably 80 something members of congress instead of a small -- in the teens. We had 15 members of congress, but it will be a much larger group. If they lock up again, then we'll know that this is a Pelosi plan to stop offshore production of energy.
In case you didn't know he is talking about the the Subcommittee that decided that any more drilling was unnecessary.
GLENN: Okay. So here's what I want to do. Could I have you back for a good chunk of time to explain this issue both on radio and television, maybe Monday or Tuesday. I would also encourage you, we have a newsletter that goes out daily and it reaches hundreds of thousands of people. I would encourage you to write, you know, a piece for that explaining how this works, why it's important, et cetera, et cetera, let me mail it out next week and if people want to call for or against their congressmen and say, look, vote for or against it, will you do that?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Absolutely. I can't do it Monday night but I'll be in --
GLENN: Well, Tuesday would probably be better because it will come up on Tuesday, right?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: No, it's Wednesday.
GLENN: It will come up on Tuesday. So Tuesday night would be better.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I'd like to make one more point if I can because this is the most misunderstood. Even worse than oil prices in America, the threat to our economy is natural gas. See, natural gas is not a world price. Unfortunately a lot of members of congress still don't understand that. We are approaching $13 for gas. Just a few years ago it was $2. Last year at this time, which is the time of year we don't use much gas because we're not heating and cooling much, we were between $6.50 and $7.50. But right now we're approaching -- we were $12.80 something yesterday. I haven't seen the market this morning but it was $12.80 and rising all day yesterday pennies per hour. Those natural gas prices will drive every major corporation that uses natural gas, the petrochemical industry, the polymers, plastics, fertilizer, people who make glass. I predict if we don't deal with the natural gas issue that all our bricks and glass, bulk commodities that are usually made in our neighborhoods because you can't haul them very far, they will be made in Trinidad, South America where gas is $1 something. They are building plants. Dow Chemical's energy bill for gas in '02 was $8 billion annually. It's now $8 billion quarterly. In '02 they were 60% onshore production. They wanted to stay onshore. They are now 30% onshore here. They had to move to all the countries where there's cheap gas because that's the only way they can sell their products in the world market.
Natural gas this year at home heating season which, you know, the people that are paying their high driving bills now will get a -- last year those who were on propane and home heating oil paid enormous prices. Those will be up another 50% or more this year. And last year they couldn't afford them. But this year the majority of Americans heat their homes with natural gas. They will have somewhere between a 50 and 100% increase on natural gas prices.
GLENN: Holy cow.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: And that's when the economy's going to stop. Now, there are a lot of companies that I don't think can afford $130 oil, a lot of businesses could absorb that. And I know these natural gas prices. I mean, we for eight years have had the highest natural gas price in the productive world.
GLENN: Don't we have more natural gas than --
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: We have more natural gas, we could be self-sufficient for the next 70 to 80 years. It's everywhere. Now, we're producing more onshore but again, offshore is the best. It's close to our markets, it's close to the cities where we use it. Every time we have zero weather in the wintertime, the New York City gate -- that's what people in New York pay, if they use more than normal, will run up to $20 to $30 a thousand in a few days' time because there's not enough capacity to get it into New York.
So, we are looking at higher gas prices for the car, higher heating oil prices, higher natural gas prices...Yippie. And we don't want to drill for oil, because it's unnecessary. I am looking at my family budget, and it's pretty flippin' necessary. Even if it takes 10 years. In 10 years, my daughter will be 13, and in 15 years she will be 18 and ready for college. If you talk to a parent, 10 years passes in a blink of an eye. You talk to Congress, and its a life time.
GLENN: So tell me, Congressman, again why is this happening? I just had a guy call me a little while ago and said, Glenn, you can figure it out, I can figure it out, all my neighbors can figure it out; we need to do these things. Congress is working against it. His exact quote was, "If my house is on fire and my neighbors are starting to bring gasoline, they've got an ulterior motive."
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: That's correct.
GLENN: And that's exactly what we're starting to look at congress as, what is the ulterior motive. What is going on?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, the members on the Republican side that don't vote with us on production are usually very close to Greenpeace and Sierra Club and those groups and enjoy a rating from them. In my view, not all, there were 40 something people that I find in the Democratic party. But the majority of the Democratic party is in lockstep. Everybody's talking about the same things now. They are saying it takes 10 years to get; there's no point in doing it, 10 years to get it. There are saying there's 68 million acres leased; that's enough, we don't have the right land leased, we have old tired fields that no longer produce or they never became productive, so they are not being. And they have all these same talking points, there are so many thousand leases, they don't need more. The Democrat members are all using the same talking points and those all come from the environmental community. I've seen them for years. They are the same talking points that have been out there for years. And they are claiming that 82% of available energy in the world is already leased. That's just a lie. That's just not a fact. But they have been using that for years, too. So their talking points, everybody's using them. Norm Dicks used them in the meeting. A young Democrat from Ohio used them on one of the television network shows last night. They use the exact same talking points and they're not factual, but it appears that they have chosen that they are not going to be pro energy, production.
Ok, so let me get this straight. The Environmentalist gave a number that they pulled out of their... Okay, So they are using a *gasp* made up number to keep us from... From what? Not having to rely on others for oil? Not having to go to war over oil? Not having to pay $10 a gallon? Whoopee, we'd have to wait 10 years? Is that really a valid concern?
GLENN: But see, this doesn't make sense.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I'm for all renewables.
GLENN: Look, we all are. You want to put up windmills and solar panels and clean energy, let's do that. But you can't shut down the economy. And these people, are they just this stupid that they don't understand? I mean, I get the 10-year thing, but do we all have an appointment? Are we all supposed to be some place in 10 years that I don't know about?
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, the thing we don't know -- now, I heard a talking person last night say that the volatility in the market's 50%. I don't believe that. I think there may be a 20 to 25% volatility in the market that I asked two top oil people what they thought would happen at a House hearing, I just walked up, two CEOs. I don't even know them, I never met them. I said, if we would open up the outer continental shelf, what would it do to the market? They said it would take the fear out of the market, that we knew that's going to be soon available, some areas quicker than others, but the process could start. He said it could take 20 to 25% off the price. That was their opinion. So I think if we open up some major areas, if we would say, all right, we're going to do shale oil in the west instead of trying to block it. We have legislation constantly trying to block it. If we're going to do ANWR and offshore and we're going to have a major initiative for coal-to-liquids and coal-to-gas and -- you know, what America needs to have is a plan to be OPEC-free, and we need to tell OPEC that. And we're going to buddy up with Canada, we're going to work closely with Mexico who has lots of energy but don't have the ability to produce it and have a North American agreement where we work together and push the renewables, push coal-to-liquids, push coal-to-gas, hydrogen if it will work, anything that will work. You know, biofuels is what everybody's talking about, but they're minor. And they hit the wall with corn over $7 yesterday.
GLENN: Yeah, let me ask you this. Why isn't anybody, with corn prices climbing as much as it did yesterday, why isn't congress calling for an investigation there? Why didn't the corn companies build more for capacity? Why didn't they invest the record profits in producing more corn? I mean, don't blame the floods or the increased demand. Big corn is to blame, isn't it? I mean, if we're going to blame big oil --
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Let me say this. There's a lot of people in congress who started as a county sheriff or some political office locally, have never run a business, don't understand the economic systems, must have flubbed through economics class in college because they don't understand economics. But wouldn't talk that way. You know, when you tax something, you get less of it. When you make regulations tougher, you are going to get less of it. If you want to, you are for all the renewables, but they have not renewed. So how do people invest in wind and solar and geothermal and all these renewables if we don't have a five- to ten-year opportunity to recoup their investment. So they are not adequately funding the renewable side, let alone being pro production. You're 86% fossil fuel dependent, 8% nuclear and that's declining because, you know, until we get some new plants out there, we're soon going to be a smaller percentage nuclear.
Well at least someone in Washington gets it. If you tax something you get less of it. DUH.
GLENN: Right.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: And, you know, 50 to 60 coal plants have been turned down by states because of the fear of the carbon tax. I hear the number one issue in the Senate is the carbon tax. The carbon tax, carbon credits or carbon is going to raise energy prices another 20 to 30%. But then there are those who are scared.
I had a member ask me the other day if we opened up to Australia, would energy get cheap and I said no. He said, why would you ask that? He said, we can't afford to have it get cheap again.
GLENN: Oh, that's Barack Obama. Barack Obama said the same thing. I mean, Barack --
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Because now you and I are forced to change. We are forced to change. The American public better be tightening up their houses, they better be fixing their windows and doors and insulating their ceilings. They better be doing everything they can do to not use energy this year because I'm going to tell you it's coming, higher prices.
GLENN: Norm Dicks said, his office said to one of our callers that called in, he said -- his office said that energy companies, he's done some -- he's seen some research from a government study that shows that the oil companies, you know, they don't really want this anyway. They don't want the offshore drilling because it won't really -- they won't really benefit from it, either.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I don't know what he means by that. Big energy, big oil companies, the top five big ones basically were pushed out of this country because we locked up. You know, George Bush I looked up our continental shelf along with legislators from Florida and California 28 years ago. That's been in place for that length of time. But we've also locked up, you know, the part of ANWR we haven't been able to produce was actually set aside by previous administrations for energy and, of course, everything that looks productive in the West, there's a bill moving to lock it up, lock it up. So if you are an energy company, you are going to go where it's easy to produce energy.
Now, they've also had the problem where they are being -- I see right now another one of the oil companies is being pushed out of Nigeria but what's happening in the world with no surplus in the system, more and more of these countries are now, they have all nationalized them, they are all running them by government and, you know, how well does the government run a business. And they are stealing the money personally and they are -- you know, Mexico is not producing oil anywhere near where they used to but they have great fields but it's because they were running it, they won't let big oil of any country in. And so, you know, almost -- and the high 70% of the oil today is actually owned by governments. And over half of those are governments that are not Democratic. And they are not -- you know, if either one of them topple -- you know, what really is scary is we have these prices of both gas. Natural gas is more vital than oil even. It's more harmful. We have these prices without having had a storm in the Gulf for two years that always disrupts supply, we've not had a terroristic attack on the energy system, and that could happen tomorrow, could happen today, and we haven't had a major country where the Government have a coup and the government top he would, and when that happens, you are going to have war within for a while, you are not going to to produce as much energy. With no surplus, we could be at $200 oil in a week or so.
GLENN: Congressman John Peterson, we will have you back on the program next week. We'll put you on television as well. The vote comes back up again next Wednesday. We'll have you write something for our newsletter so you can lay out what America's facing, what the choices are and we'll get the word out. Thank you very much, congressman.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, thank you for giving us the opportunity.
GLENN: You bet.
CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: God bless.
So ANWAR was originally set aside by a previous Administration for Energy? For Drilling? Because we know that there is oil there? Wow. This country just likes to shoot itself in the foot don't we.Sphere: Related Content
Friday, June 13, 2008
Oil. I have done the research.
Ok, Here goes. I spent this morning doing my research, reading and editing, and wanting to put a gun in my mouth at the way the government spends our money - But I won't. I will stand up on my soap box and shout in the rain if I have to, maybe someone will listen to me and realize that what I am saying does make sense.
I will try to make this as organized as I can, and hope that it flows, I apologize in advance for the tirade.
Yesterday I mentioned that a Subcommittee decided that drilling and opening additional lands to oil and gas leasing was unnecessary. They decided that shortly after deciding that the National Mall (America’s Front Lawn) did however, deserve $175 MILLION DOLLAR overhaul. They want to make it pretty. Really, how much does a lawn mower and some flowers cost? How do they plan to run that lawn mower with NO GAS? Just a thought. Or the 7.8 BILLION dollars for the EPA, $689 MILLION over the budget requested...Oh ok, that’s how it works. I tell you what I need. and you multiply that by $689 Million. No, I have to write those number out, because looking at $175 and $7.8, and $689 heck it looks like hundreds of dollars not billions.
I could go on and on, reading those numbers, while talking to my huband about how we are going to make the $94.00 left from this weeks paycheck, after tithe, gas and the little bit of rent we pay had been taken out. And they are spending $175,000,000 on a lawn! No wonder they could care less about the rising gas prices.
I could go into waste full goverment spending, maybe they need to take a budgeting course....But this is not todays topic. Here is the link to that lovely document: Chairman Dicks Statement.
I will say that another joyous statement reads as follows:
"I believe the Interior & Environment Subcommittee has been a model of bi-partisanship. While not suggesting hat Mr. Tiahrt supports every single recommendation, I believe it is fair to characterize this bill, as well as the process through which it was developed, as fully bi-partisan.”
That is a direct quote, the second paragragh of the document. Fully bi-partisan. Now, I could be wrong, but I think that means that both sides readily agree on the whole thing. Both sides being the Democrats and the Republicans. But then I look at the way the vote went:
And, ya know just for fun, you can click their names and see thier goverment homepages, and contact them and tell them what a wonderful job they are doing...
OK, back on topic...
“By the way, the Government estimates that the outer continental shelf, the one they said no to yesterday, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable and that's with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into yesterday.” Glenn Beck:So Why is Gas So Expensive? June 12, 2008
(Just so you don't think that I am one-sided, I looked for a clip of McCain and couldn't find one, if you have on, email me)
Obama has decided that the price of gas isn't the problem. $4 a gallon isn't the problem. It just happened to quickly for us lowly middle americans to handle, we should of given them a warning he says, help them out....Oh don't get me started. Well he is giving us warning, as he supports the Cap and Trade bill, so here's your warning, go ahead and add a minimum of $1.50 a gallon to the $4.00 you are already paying!
We have been warned. Oh and don't run out and get your McCain bumper sticker yet, He supports the bill too.
Ok, moving on.
I came across an article on Comcast.net Today's High Oil Prices Could Be here To Stay and shocker of all shocks, the price of oil is high around the world, and *gasp* more and more people are using oil, causing the need to go up.
So, Barak Obama's energy plan is to reduce use. "Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030." I went to John McCain's site in hopes of finding his energy plan was different. It wasn't. Also, supporting Cap and Trade, he says nothing about oil otherwise. Bob Barr is a more in line with what the American is saying "Congress “must stop preventing Americans from developing their own energy resources,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. Oil and gasoline prices continue to rise, yet the Senate has been debating legislation to hike energy prices even further." OMG there is a Candidate who gets it.
Ya, think high prices will lessen our appetite for oil?
I have more but I will put it in another post...Sphere: Related Content
I will try to make this as organized as I can, and hope that it flows, I apologize in advance for the tirade.
Yesterday I mentioned that a Subcommittee decided that drilling and opening additional lands to oil and gas leasing was unnecessary. They decided that shortly after deciding that the National Mall (America’s Front Lawn) did however, deserve $175 MILLION DOLLAR overhaul. They want to make it pretty. Really, how much does a lawn mower and some flowers cost? How do they plan to run that lawn mower with NO GAS? Just a thought. Or the 7.8 BILLION dollars for the EPA, $689 MILLION over the budget requested...Oh ok, that’s how it works. I tell you what I need. and you multiply that by $689 Million. No, I have to write those number out, because looking at $175 and $7.8, and $689 heck it looks like hundreds of dollars not billions.
$175,000,000 for America’s Front Lawn
$7,800,000,000 for the EPA
$689,000,000 Above what was requested
I could go on and on, reading those numbers, while talking to my huband about how we are going to make the $94.00 left from this weeks paycheck, after tithe, gas and the little bit of rent we pay had been taken out. And they are spending $175,000,000 on a lawn! No wonder they could care less about the rising gas prices.
I could go into waste full goverment spending, maybe they need to take a budgeting course....But this is not todays topic. Here is the link to that lovely document: Chairman Dicks Statement.
I will say that another joyous statement reads as follows:
"I believe the Interior & Environment Subcommittee has been a model of bi-partisanship. While not suggesting hat Mr. Tiahrt supports every single recommendation, I believe it is fair to characterize this bill, as well as the process through which it was developed, as fully bi-partisan.”
That is a direct quote, the second paragragh of the document. Fully bi-partisan. Now, I could be wrong, but I think that means that both sides readily agree on the whole thing. Both sides being the Democrats and the Republicans. But then I look at the way the vote went:
Voted for these changes:
Norman D Dicks (D-WA)
James P Moran (D-VA)
Maurice B Hinchey (D-NY)
John W Olver (D-MA)
Alan B Mollohan (D-WV)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Ben Chandler (D-KY)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Dave Obey (D-WI)
Voted Against these Changes:
Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
John E Peterson (R-PA)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Virgil H Goode Jr (R-VA)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
And, ya know just for fun, you can click their names and see thier goverment homepages, and contact them and tell them what a wonderful job they are doing...
OK, back on topic...
“By the way, the Government estimates that the outer continental shelf, the one they said no to yesterday, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable and that's with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into yesterday.” Glenn Beck:So Why is Gas So Expensive? June 12, 2008
(Just so you don't think that I am one-sided, I looked for a clip of McCain and couldn't find one, if you have on, email me)
Obama has decided that the price of gas isn't the problem. $4 a gallon isn't the problem. It just happened to quickly for us lowly middle americans to handle, we should of given them a warning he says, help them out....Oh don't get me started. Well he is giving us warning, as he supports the Cap and Trade bill, so here's your warning, go ahead and add a minimum of $1.50 a gallon to the $4.00 you are already paying!
We have been warned. Oh and don't run out and get your McCain bumper sticker yet, He supports the bill too.
Ok, moving on.
I came across an article on Comcast.net Today's High Oil Prices Could Be here To Stay and shocker of all shocks, the price of oil is high around the world, and *gasp* more and more people are using oil, causing the need to go up.
"Whatever cuts are made today by the major players of 30 years ago are all going to be eaten up by nations that weren't even on the radar screen then," said Global Insight analyst Mary Novak. "There is no more supply. There is only demand."
So, Barak Obama's energy plan is to reduce use. "Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030." I went to John McCain's site in hopes of finding his energy plan was different. It wasn't. Also, supporting Cap and Trade, he says nothing about oil otherwise. Bob Barr is a more in line with what the American is saying "Congress “must stop preventing Americans from developing their own energy resources,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. Oil and gasoline prices continue to rise, yet the Senate has been debating legislation to hike energy prices even further." OMG there is a Candidate who gets it.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has urged his EU partners to suspend part of the value-added taxes, but his proposals have found few takers in other European capitals. Nor has Italy been successful with its proposal for a "Robin Hood" tax on oil profits.From the same article. Ok, so Italy has tried the whole, tax the Big Bad Oil Companies on their profits... It's like I just heard this plan from someone....
"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.While Obama wants to tax them, McCain says: “I’m very angry at the oil companies, not only because of the obscene profits they make, but for the failure to invest in alternative forms of energy,” McCain said. “It’s an abrogation of their responsibility as citizens.”
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and the most influential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, believes the sustained high prices will eventually slacken the world's appetite for oil.
OPEC has been reluctant to increase production, arguing that prices are being set by speculators, not oil availability.
Ya, think high prices will lessen our appetite for oil?
I have more but I will put it in another post...Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
