Well - it is official - Sarah Palin will be McCain's VP. Interesting choice.
The Dems right away went out to attack her lack of experience. Now, I will grant you, she is not as seasoned as many on the national stage. But, let's cut to the chase.
- She has more executive experience that BHO and Biden combined. The biggest thing that BHO has 'run' is his campaign. Joe has been in the senate forever - and I guess runs his Senate Office. They are bitching about the experience of McCain's #2 - hell - she has more experience the the #1 on BHO's ticket.
- She lacks foreign policy experience? Well, BHO has none to speak of. Sitting on a committee and being wrong on every foreign policy which you comment is not experience. Joe has a lot to SAY about foreign policy - but he got the whole Iraq thing 100% wrong.
- She cuts programs and taxes in Alaska - then put the money in a State savings account. Think about the contrast - cut programs AND taxes AND saved the money. That will drive the Liberals totally nuts.
- Lifetime member of the NRA - loves guns!
- Decided to have, and not exercise her 'right to choose' even though she knew she was going to have a Down's syndrome baby. Contrast that to BHO - who said that, if his daughters 'made a 'mistake' he would not want them 'punished' with a baby.
- She has hunted Moose. How cool is that!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Bill's $24MM speech - Plus a prediction
Apparently (I say that cuz I have had more than enough of Bubba), Bill gave a great speech last night at the DNC Convention. If he is motivated, I would have expected no less - he does have the gift. Hillary? Well, I thought her speech was... tepid. I think she tried, but she just does not have the ability to give an impassioned speech when she is truly faking it.
I am interested in the 'why' of him doing this. It is well known that he is no fan of BHO. But, BHO has something that the Clintons need - money. BHO has been with-holding his help in repaying Hillary's campaign debt. There was wisdom in that decision.
It was basically political blackmail. BHO used the promise of the money to assure good behavior out of Bill and Hill.
Now - one has to presume that the debt will now be paid in short order.
After that??
It is clear that Hillary still wants to be POTUS. BHO is an obstacle. Look for her to try to derail him prior to the election. It will be subtle if she does it herself. But her surrogates - not subtle at all. Look for things to hit the MSM. (One that comes to mind - the forged birth certificate the BHO is peddling to establish his citizenship. The MSM has not touched it yet.)
But, my prediction - this (or something similar) will be Hill's October surprise.
Then, if BHO can be derailed - she will be free to position herself for the top spot in 2012...... Never, ever, underestimate the cunning of the Clinton machine.
I am interested in the 'why' of him doing this. It is well known that he is no fan of BHO. But, BHO has something that the Clintons need - money. BHO has been with-holding his help in repaying Hillary's campaign debt. There was wisdom in that decision.
It was basically political blackmail. BHO used the promise of the money to assure good behavior out of Bill and Hill.
Now - one has to presume that the debt will now be paid in short order.
After that??
It is clear that Hillary still wants to be POTUS. BHO is an obstacle. Look for her to try to derail him prior to the election. It will be subtle if she does it herself. But her surrogates - not subtle at all. Look for things to hit the MSM. (One that comes to mind - the forged birth certificate the BHO is peddling to establish his citizenship. The MSM has not touched it yet.)
But, my prediction - this (or something similar) will be Hill's October surprise.
Then, if BHO can be derailed - she will be free to position herself for the top spot in 2012...... Never, ever, underestimate the cunning of the Clinton machine.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Ted Kennedy - Undying Hope
You have to hand it to Ted Kennedy - the man is nothing if not optimistic, and very patient. Well he is also a philanderer, drunk, and a very bad driver too (but apparently an ok swimmer). But, I digress. In his speech at the DNC fool again Convention he said:
Now, to me, this is scary stuff. Because 'just and fair' means - The government, under guise of 'fairness' is going come and take your money, which you worked hard for, and give it to someone else who did not earn it.
But, what really struck me is how patient it shows Ted to be. In 1980, at the DNC Convention, Ted said this:
Now this is very instructive. He has had this socialist vision, verily a mission, for lo these TWENTY EIGHT years. These ideas are like the Wicked Witch of the East (no, not Hillary). Unless you see the house fall on it - and the socks roll up, you won't know that it is dead. Well, come to think of it - sort of like Hillary.
Of course, these ideas descend from Marx - fine. But, in the American experience, to see this idea refuse to die, despite all of the failed attempts, is quite instructive.
And, of course, no Teddy appearance would be complete without:
I went back and re-read the Constitution. Nope - no mention of health care as a fundamental right. And the 'affordable' part? That means that the Government is going come and take your money, which you worked hard for, and give it to someone else who did not earn it - to pay for their health care. (In the interest of full disclosure, I copied and pasted that from earlier in this post -- it just fit so well). Also absent in the Constitution is ANY Right that imposes a burden on someone else. (You can read more about my view on THAT in my first ever post on this blog).
So, the lesson to Conservatives is this: the battle over tyranny, through expanded government, attempting to take your liberty is NEVER won - it is NEVER over. We may win a battle, but the war continues unabated.
| For me, this is a season of hope. New hope for a just and fair prosperity for the many and not just the few. |
Now, to me, this is scary stuff. Because 'just and fair' means - The government, under guise of 'fairness' is going come and take your money, which you worked hard for, and give it to someone else who did not earn it.
But, what really struck me is how patient it shows Ted to be. In 1980, at the DNC Convention, Ted said this:
| A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp... |
Now this is very instructive. He has had this socialist vision, verily a mission, for lo these TWENTY EIGHT years. These ideas are like the Wicked Witch of the East (no, not Hillary). Unless you see the house fall on it - and the socks roll up, you won't know that it is dead. Well, come to think of it - sort of like Hillary.
Of course, these ideas descend from Marx - fine. But, in the American experience, to see this idea refuse to die, despite all of the failed attempts, is quite instructive.
And, of course, no Teddy appearance would be complete without:
| New hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American north, south, east and west, young and old, will have decent, quality, affordable health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege. |
I went back and re-read the Constitution. Nope - no mention of health care as a fundamental right. And the 'affordable' part? That means that the Government is going come and take your money, which you worked hard for, and give it to someone else who did not earn it - to pay for their health care. (In the interest of full disclosure, I copied and pasted that from earlier in this post -- it just fit so well). Also absent in the Constitution is ANY Right that imposes a burden on someone else. (You can read more about my view on THAT in my first ever post on this blog).
So, the lesson to Conservatives is this: the battle over tyranny, through expanded government, attempting to take your liberty is NEVER won - it is NEVER over. We may win a battle, but the war continues unabated.
Have you seen this? Global Poverty Act
Barack Hussein Obama (aka BHO) and Joe Biden are the co-sponsors of something called the Global Poverty Act. I have long believed BHO to be a Socialist (hence the only bumper sticker on my car 'NoBama, No Socialism'. A quick review of this bill reveals his global socialist intentions. The key provision of the bill: it would compel the US to 'donate' 0.7% of our GDP to help end 'global poverty'. Of the bill, Obama said this:
Really? It MUST be a priority for us to eliminate GLOBAL poverty? We have spend trillions in the US to eliminate poverty here. And...we still have some poverty (As Jesus said, 'the poor you shall always have with you'. The plan the BHO is pushing would cost us $65 Billion MORE than we are already paying. And, of course, we can assume that would only be the tip of the iceberg. As an aside - Doesn't his 1/2 brother in Kenya live on 'dollars a day'? (Actually, it is less than that). So, BHO does not see fit to help his brother out of his own pocket - but he is more that willing to send him YOUR money...typical. In addition (as if this were not bad enough) - the bill would affirm a UN declaration that would
Oh yipee. Not only do we commit to a global tax, we now are supposed to subordinate our Bills of Rights to the Tin Horn Dictators of the UN? All in the name of what? Being better citizens of the world? When you look at the rest of the world, why the hell would an American want to be more like them? This bill(and BHO himself)is a dangerous threat not only to our economy, but now, it appears, to our exceptionalism..... MUST STOP THIS BILL NOW!!! MUST STOP HIM NOW!! |
Monday, August 25, 2008
Joe Biden on the root cause of educational failure - African Americans
Joe Biden did an interview with The Washington Post in 2007. I want to focus on one question in particualar for this posting.
The context was that Iowa spends less money per capita on education than Washington, DC yet outperforms the District. Biden was asked why, in his learned opinion, this was the case. His answer:
"There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with.
When you have children coming from dysfunctional homes, when you have children coming from homes where there's no books, where the mother from the time they're born doesn't talk to them — as opposed to the mother in Iowa who's sitting out there and talks to them, the kid starts out with a 300 word larger vocabulary at age three. Half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom," "
Now, his staff quickly published a ‘clarification’ to say that he meant that socio-economically disadvantage, instead of African Americans, were the problem.
What is one to make of all of this?
- Joe said, in fact, what he really meant. When you have your staff ‘clarify’ a remark, there are only 2 reasons:
1. You misstated a fact or a number (one Billion vs One Million)
2. You know you stepped in it by saying what you really meant. You now realize it. And you want people to forget what you REALLY meant, and instead focus on what you SHOULD have said.
This is that case of #2. He realized that he stepped it and then tryed to clean it up
- One might make an excuse – but I cannot thing of a good one – as to why he said this. Delaware is 21% African-American vs 13% for the rest of the country. So, he obviously should be tuned into this kind of statement. Maybe he was tired? My experience is that people are truer when tired and worn down – they don’t have the energy to parse their words.
- I can only IMAGINE if a conservative or Republican had said this!! He/she would STILL be apologizing for dissing on an entire race…. But, when you are a Democrat, of course, it is different.
Why do I bring this up? Because Biden has a long history of saying really stupid things. He talks SO much…and goes on for SO long…that the theory of very large numbers (of words)almost guarantees this kind of gaffe.
Stayed tuned to Right of Center Ramblings as we try to pick up this gaffes from the Campaign trail – it should be fun.
Barak Hussein Obama (or as he is known here – BHO) makes it hard to do gaffe-alert. Why? Well, in his speeches, he is oh SO good. And of the cuff, he is oh SO bad. So bad, in fact, that one can hardly tell what the hell he said. You need a crisp sound bite to flag something as a gaffe. When someone rambles, stutters, ummms, wells, ya-knows, etc – it takes the fun out of gaffe collecting.
So, we will focus on Biden. It will not be big on substance - but it should be fun.
The context was that Iowa spends less money per capita on education than Washington, DC yet outperforms the District. Biden was asked why, in his learned opinion, this was the case. His answer:
"There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with.
When you have children coming from dysfunctional homes, when you have children coming from homes where there's no books, where the mother from the time they're born doesn't talk to them — as opposed to the mother in Iowa who's sitting out there and talks to them, the kid starts out with a 300 word larger vocabulary at age three. Half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom," "
Now, his staff quickly published a ‘clarification’ to say that he meant that socio-economically disadvantage, instead of African Americans, were the problem.
What is one to make of all of this?
- Joe said, in fact, what he really meant. When you have your staff ‘clarify’ a remark, there are only 2 reasons:
1. You misstated a fact or a number (one Billion vs One Million)
2. You know you stepped in it by saying what you really meant. You now realize it. And you want people to forget what you REALLY meant, and instead focus on what you SHOULD have said.
This is that case of #2. He realized that he stepped it and then tryed to clean it up
- One might make an excuse – but I cannot thing of a good one – as to why he said this. Delaware is 21% African-American vs 13% for the rest of the country. So, he obviously should be tuned into this kind of statement. Maybe he was tired? My experience is that people are truer when tired and worn down – they don’t have the energy to parse their words.
- I can only IMAGINE if a conservative or Republican had said this!! He/she would STILL be apologizing for dissing on an entire race…. But, when you are a Democrat, of course, it is different.
Why do I bring this up? Because Biden has a long history of saying really stupid things. He talks SO much…and goes on for SO long…that the theory of very large numbers (of words)almost guarantees this kind of gaffe.
Stayed tuned to Right of Center Ramblings as we try to pick up this gaffes from the Campaign trail – it should be fun.
Barak Hussein Obama (or as he is known here – BHO) makes it hard to do gaffe-alert. Why? Well, in his speeches, he is oh SO good. And of the cuff, he is oh SO bad. So bad, in fact, that one can hardly tell what the hell he said. You need a crisp sound bite to flag something as a gaffe. When someone rambles, stutters, ummms, wells, ya-knows, etc – it takes the fun out of gaffe collecting.
So, we will focus on Biden. It will not be big on substance - but it should be fun.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Very cool video - Moose calves in a sprinkler
Ok - I am not often impressed by stuff people send me - but my mom sent this - and I found it truly amazing on a couple of levels
1) Check out the size of momma!! Wow.
2) The calves (I prefer the term moosling - but I googled for the right answer) - look just like babies of any brand...
3) So close to inhabited space --- Don't seem to mind the vanishing eco-system
http://www.maniacworld.com/twin-baby-moose-in-sprinkler.html
1) Check out the size of momma!! Wow.
2) The calves (I prefer the term moosling - but I googled for the right answer) - look just like babies of any brand...
3) So close to inhabited space --- Don't seem to mind the vanishing eco-system
http://www.maniacworld.com/twin-baby-moose-in-sprinkler.html
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Barack - Kind of like 'Lost'
Watching Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. -BHO) kind of reminds me of the TV show LOST. My wife and daughter got hooked on it. It was very exciting for the first few episodes. Lots of buzz and speculation on what would come next. It was a big hit.
Then… it seems, the writers were stumped. They apparently did not map out the whole story line in advance. After the show got traction, they were left asking themselves ‘What the hell do we do now?’.
BHO - started with great splash and dash. Lots of excitement. (Now granted, BHO did not have the scary black cloud, the mutant polar bear on the tropical island, or the mysterious underground bunker with the annoying-repeating countdown clock)
But, now, it is obvious that the creators of BHO, like LOST, have no idea where to go next. He lacks substance. Like a firecracker - once the flash and boom fade - there is nothing left but smoke. There is no ‘there’ there to the man. Get him off the teleprompter and he is in search of a cogent thought.
Sadly - he still may have a chance to be President. God save the Republic.
Then… it seems, the writers were stumped. They apparently did not map out the whole story line in advance. After the show got traction, they were left asking themselves ‘What the hell do we do now?’.
BHO - started with great splash and dash. Lots of excitement. (Now granted, BHO did not have the scary black cloud, the mutant polar bear on the tropical island, or the mysterious underground bunker with the annoying-repeating countdown clock)
But, now, it is obvious that the creators of BHO, like LOST, have no idea where to go next. He lacks substance. Like a firecracker - once the flash and boom fade - there is nothing left but smoke. There is no ‘there’ there to the man. Get him off the teleprompter and he is in search of a cogent thought.
Sadly - he still may have a chance to be President. God save the Republic.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Faith Forum at Saddleback Church
For those that missed it - this past Saturday, there was a kind of 'Faith Debate/Forum' hosted by Saddleback Chuch. The pastor is Rick Warren, author of 'A Purpose Driven Life.
It had an interesting format. Warren was set to have one hour with both Barak Hussein Obama (aka BHO) and John McCain. He asked the same questions of each. BHO first (by coin toss) followed by McCain. Neither knew the questions to be asked, and McCain could not hear the responses of BHO.
I have selected questions - one related to faith - one not, to highlight what I believe are key, critical distinctions between the two. It is left to you, gentle reader, to view the entire transcript if you are so inclined (http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/).
Question one ' AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?'
My comment - He is asking an 'in your view question'. This is designed to elicit an OPINION- not a fiat, not an absolute answer - and opinion. And this question of human rights is, I believe, central to the abortion debate. Our policy makers have avoided it - but it is central.
This was BHO's response: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientfic perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my paygrade.
This was McCain's response: At the moment of conception.
My commentary: First, he is asking an 'in your view question'. This is designed to elicit an OPINION- not a fiat, not an absolute answer - and opinion. And this question of human rights is, I believe, central to the abortion debate. Our policy makers have avoided it - but it is central.
My comments
First to BHO.
Really? BHO, you do not have an opinion as to when a fetus deserves Human Rights? You were not asked a scientic question like - 'when is a fetus viable'. Nor a theological one 'when does life begin'. Simply a legal one (you ARE a lawyer, right?) - when should the unborn have Human Rights. So, you avoided the whole question. We know nothing more about your thinking before than after - other than you are kind of slick is avoiding an issue about which you know people disagree!!!
As for McCain
You can agree with him or not - but you KNOW where he stands. I find this positively refreshing.
Score - McCain 1, BHO - 0.
Next question: WHAT'S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU'VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND WHAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT YOU USED TO MAKE IT?
BHO's Response: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was a tough decision that I've had to make not only becasue there were political consequences but also becasue Saddam Hussien was a bad person and there was no doubt that he met America ill .....
McCain's Response: It was long ago and far away in a prison camp in North Vietnam, My father was a high ranking Admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend who was from California by the name of Ed Alvarez who had been shot down and captured a couple years before me ..... So, I said no.
My comments.
First about BHO
The big trouble with his 'wrenching' experience - he was in the Illinois State Senate at the time the decision about going to Iraq was made. He was not even a position to vote on the resolution (McCain, on the other hand, was). There were no 'political consequences' for him. He was on the outside looking in. He was TOTALLY irrelevant, mearly a member of the chattering class.
Next about McCain.
You really need to read his description of the torture they received to fully appreciate what the decision to stay behind meant. It is inhuman how he was treated. But, despite that, 1) He followed a code of conduct 2) He had hopes that his friend would be released before he was.
Now, I ask you - who has the most compelling definition of 'gut wrenching'? 1) A guy who voiced a meaningless opinion about an issue he could have no impact on, or 2) A guy who willingly chose to accept more torture of unknown duration (It would up being 3 MORE years) so he could be true to his code of conduct and his friend?
If you picked (1) (BHO) - you are hopeless, hapless, and witless.
Score - McCain -2 , BHO - 0
My conclusion - these two questions give you great insight into these two men. One is afraid of voicing and opinion he knows will be disagreed with in some circles. The other just says what he thinks. One lacks any history of life or leadership to really have had to make a true 'gut wrenching' decision. The other had to make such a choice - and showed his honor, character, and selflessness in the process.
And how do BHO supporters react? Well, to their credit - they are admitting McCain did better. But, they explained it by suggesting (with ZERO evidence) that McCain MUST have cheated. Because, in the words of Andrea Mitchell - he seemed so well prepared. Could it be that McCain was just speaking from the heart? That would eliminate the need to give the answers a lot of thought, lawyer-speak, or Clinton era parsing.....
Game, Set, Match ---- McCain.
It had an interesting format. Warren was set to have one hour with both Barak Hussein Obama (aka BHO) and John McCain. He asked the same questions of each. BHO first (by coin toss) followed by McCain. Neither knew the questions to be asked, and McCain could not hear the responses of BHO.
I have selected questions - one related to faith - one not, to highlight what I believe are key, critical distinctions between the two. It is left to you, gentle reader, to view the entire transcript if you are so inclined (http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/).
Question one ' AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?'
My comment - He is asking an 'in your view question'. This is designed to elicit an OPINION- not a fiat, not an absolute answer - and opinion. And this question of human rights is, I believe, central to the abortion debate. Our policy makers have avoided it - but it is central.
This was BHO's response: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientfic perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my paygrade.
This was McCain's response: At the moment of conception.
My commentary: First, he is asking an 'in your view question'. This is designed to elicit an OPINION- not a fiat, not an absolute answer - and opinion. And this question of human rights is, I believe, central to the abortion debate. Our policy makers have avoided it - but it is central.
My comments
First to BHO.
Really? BHO, you do not have an opinion as to when a fetus deserves Human Rights? You were not asked a scientic question like - 'when is a fetus viable'. Nor a theological one 'when does life begin'. Simply a legal one (you ARE a lawyer, right?) - when should the unborn have Human Rights. So, you avoided the whole question. We know nothing more about your thinking before than after - other than you are kind of slick is avoiding an issue about which you know people disagree!!!
As for McCain
You can agree with him or not - but you KNOW where he stands. I find this positively refreshing.
Score - McCain 1, BHO - 0.
Next question: WHAT'S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU'VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND WHAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT YOU USED TO MAKE IT?
BHO's Response: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was a tough decision that I've had to make not only becasue there were political consequences but also becasue Saddam Hussien was a bad person and there was no doubt that he met America ill .....
McCain's Response: It was long ago and far away in a prison camp in North Vietnam, My father was a high ranking Admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend who was from California by the name of Ed Alvarez who had been shot down and captured a couple years before me ..... So, I said no.
My comments.
First about BHO
The big trouble with his 'wrenching' experience - he was in the Illinois State Senate at the time the decision about going to Iraq was made. He was not even a position to vote on the resolution (McCain, on the other hand, was). There were no 'political consequences' for him. He was on the outside looking in. He was TOTALLY irrelevant, mearly a member of the chattering class.
Next about McCain.
You really need to read his description of the torture they received to fully appreciate what the decision to stay behind meant. It is inhuman how he was treated. But, despite that, 1) He followed a code of conduct 2) He had hopes that his friend would be released before he was.
Now, I ask you - who has the most compelling definition of 'gut wrenching'? 1) A guy who voiced a meaningless opinion about an issue he could have no impact on, or 2) A guy who willingly chose to accept more torture of unknown duration (It would up being 3 MORE years) so he could be true to his code of conduct and his friend?
If you picked (1) (BHO) - you are hopeless, hapless, and witless.
Score - McCain -2 , BHO - 0
My conclusion - these two questions give you great insight into these two men. One is afraid of voicing and opinion he knows will be disagreed with in some circles. The other just says what he thinks. One lacks any history of life or leadership to really have had to make a true 'gut wrenching' decision. The other had to make such a choice - and showed his honor, character, and selflessness in the process.
And how do BHO supporters react? Well, to their credit - they are admitting McCain did better. But, they explained it by suggesting (with ZERO evidence) that McCain MUST have cheated. Because, in the words of Andrea Mitchell - he seemed so well prepared. Could it be that McCain was just speaking from the heart? That would eliminate the need to give the answers a lot of thought, lawyer-speak, or Clinton era parsing.....
Game, Set, Match ---- McCain.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Energy Debate - Are you serious?
In a previous post (June 9) I asked the question: How high will gas prices have to go before we get serious about drilling our own oil? I lamented that $4.00 did not seem high enough for concern. I was a bit premature - it seems that, in fact, $4.00 was in fact the tipping point.
The Democrats in congress, bowing to pressure from 'so-called' environmental groups still refuse to acknowledge that authorizing drilling now would have any immediate impact on prices. I say 'so-called' because IMHO these groups are mearly socialist groups that have found that using environment blather is/was effective. Their real goals are: more control over the economy; a huge wealth transfer out of the US (since they are embarrassed at our prosperity); and knocking the US down a notch on the world stage (same reason).
I want to examine one of Obama's (known here as BHO) 'lines of reasoning'. He recently came out for 'very limited' offshore drilling - with enough conditions to assure it would never happen without essentially being under complete governement control (can you say Socialist?). But this is not the most interesting mental contortion he has done. Now, granted, the contortions are legion, but I had to pick one.
His starting premise is that we cannot 'drill our way' out of high prices. That even if we drill, it would be 10 years before we saw any impact. Really? Since the President lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling (which had no real world impact - drilling is still blocked by Congress) - oil prices have dropped 20%. Gas in my area is down from %4.05 to $3.65.
BHO wants to tap the Strategic Petroleum reserve. Interesting. A month ago, he said he was against this (gas was at $4.00) and said it should be kept for a 'true emergency'. As one commetator pointed out, apparently BHO's crashing poll numbers is, in fact, that emergency.
But let's examine this. He wants to tap the Strategic Petroleum resevere. Now, how did the oil get into the Reserve? It was not put there by the Petroleum Fairy. It got there as a result of DRILLING. So, it appears drilling WILL help the situation.
Now - you need to understand that the price of oil is ruled by the market. All oil goes into the world market. People bid on it based on their prediction about the FUTURE supply and demand of oil. Why did prices fall recently after POTUS lifted the executive ban? Because, as a whole, the market took this as a sign that, in the future, supply might be going UP. So, they bid the price DOWN. Yes, the market still works.
As an aside, I wish BHO would articulate what his plan actually is. I am all for energy alternatives. But, they are truly many years away. If cost effective sources existed now, people would be marketing them. People are not marketing, ergo, they do not yet exist. BHO also wants to tax BIG OIL. Again - this will not produce a single drop of oil. In fact, it will have the opposite impact. Any more money you tax the oil companies (they already pay 1/2 of their profits in Income Tax) will be unavailable for the Capital investment needed to explore and produce more oil. His tire gauge idea - MAY save about 1% in demand - but again NO new oil. He is silent on nuclear. This is the ultimate 'alternative' energy source, but much to scary for the enviro-weenies. So, net result, his plan produce no new energy. Not much of a plan - at least in this observer's opinion.
It is easy to criticize. You may ask, what is a better idea. I think you can guess. Do it all. Drill everywhere NOW (there are rigs ready to go that could be in production in 12 months). Do oil shale and tar sands. Build nukes. Build refineries. Continue research in to alternatives.
Yes, Elizabeth - do it all - do it now.
The Democrats in congress, bowing to pressure from 'so-called' environmental groups still refuse to acknowledge that authorizing drilling now would have any immediate impact on prices. I say 'so-called' because IMHO these groups are mearly socialist groups that have found that using environment blather is/was effective. Their real goals are: more control over the economy; a huge wealth transfer out of the US (since they are embarrassed at our prosperity); and knocking the US down a notch on the world stage (same reason).
I want to examine one of Obama's (known here as BHO) 'lines of reasoning'. He recently came out for 'very limited' offshore drilling - with enough conditions to assure it would never happen without essentially being under complete governement control (can you say Socialist?). But this is not the most interesting mental contortion he has done. Now, granted, the contortions are legion, but I had to pick one.
His starting premise is that we cannot 'drill our way' out of high prices. That even if we drill, it would be 10 years before we saw any impact. Really? Since the President lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling (which had no real world impact - drilling is still blocked by Congress) - oil prices have dropped 20%. Gas in my area is down from %4.05 to $3.65.
BHO wants to tap the Strategic Petroleum reserve. Interesting. A month ago, he said he was against this (gas was at $4.00) and said it should be kept for a 'true emergency'. As one commetator pointed out, apparently BHO's crashing poll numbers is, in fact, that emergency.
But let's examine this. He wants to tap the Strategic Petroleum resevere. Now, how did the oil get into the Reserve? It was not put there by the Petroleum Fairy. It got there as a result of DRILLING. So, it appears drilling WILL help the situation.
Now - you need to understand that the price of oil is ruled by the market. All oil goes into the world market. People bid on it based on their prediction about the FUTURE supply and demand of oil. Why did prices fall recently after POTUS lifted the executive ban? Because, as a whole, the market took this as a sign that, in the future, supply might be going UP. So, they bid the price DOWN. Yes, the market still works.
As an aside, I wish BHO would articulate what his plan actually is. I am all for energy alternatives. But, they are truly many years away. If cost effective sources existed now, people would be marketing them. People are not marketing, ergo, they do not yet exist. BHO also wants to tax BIG OIL. Again - this will not produce a single drop of oil. In fact, it will have the opposite impact. Any more money you tax the oil companies (they already pay 1/2 of their profits in Income Tax) will be unavailable for the Capital investment needed to explore and produce more oil. His tire gauge idea - MAY save about 1% in demand - but again NO new oil. He is silent on nuclear. This is the ultimate 'alternative' energy source, but much to scary for the enviro-weenies. So, net result, his plan produce no new energy. Not much of a plan - at least in this observer's opinion.
It is easy to criticize. You may ask, what is a better idea. I think you can guess. Do it all. Drill everywhere NOW (there are rigs ready to go that could be in production in 12 months). Do oil shale and tar sands. Build nukes. Build refineries. Continue research in to alternatives.
Yes, Elizabeth - do it all - do it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
