Oil is Slippery Subject for Democrats
Jul 9, 2008 Political
The Democrats in this country have gotten us in a pickle with regard to energy, specifically oil. In the 70s they asked us to conserve and over time all drilling in this country ceased. Sure, oil companies have leases but they are in places where it will be hard to find oil. We know of the places where the oil is but the Democrats still refuse to let us go after it. Obambi wants us to conserve but our oil consumption is lower now than it was back then.
Democrats have told us that it would take 10 years to get oil (which they said 10 years ago) and that we need alternative energy. Affordable alternative energy does not yet exist but oil does. We should be drilling for our own oil while developing new energies for the future. We cannot sit on our hands while the price of oil goes up and while we continue to compete with other nations for whatever OPEC decides to pump out. Now that we are winning the war it is no longer front page news and the Democrats know they will not win an election based on it. They also know that gasoline prices are on people’s minds and they also know that the people see the Democrats as the ones obstructing access and keeping prices high.
The Democrats very badly want the price of gas to go down until the election because that will be a winner for them but they also do not want to lose the environmental whack jobs who have helped to create the problem. Democrats are turning to president Bush to help them out. Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to the president asking him to release the strategic reserves so that the price of oil will go down and lower the price of gasoline. There is enough oil in our reserves to supply our country for two months without any imports. Using our own oil for two months and not importing any would certainly help the prices go down but it would be short term and end up costing more when we needed to import again.
The Democrats are desperate because they do not want to lose an election over the price of gas, especially since they caused the problem. Now they are changing positions, not because people want them to but because they want to win. If it were not an election year they would care very little about the price of gas because high prices make people drive less and Al Gore smile. Dick Durbin stated that he would be willing to open new places to drill and said that Harry “oil makes us sick” Reid might buy off on it as well. It is funny that they went from “we can’t drill our way out of the problem” to we need to drill our way out of the problem. The point that is missed is that Pelosi has admitted that increasing OUR own supply will lower prices. She admitted it when she asked that OUR oil in the reserve be released. Democrats sometimes miss the irony of their positions. They favor increased taxes and say tax cuts don’t help and then send back our money in a stimulus check because if you have more of your money you will spend it and help the economy.
In the case of oil, Pelosi has made the argument that we need to drill for our own. We need to be hitting the shale and ANWR as well as the coastal regions. States are still able to say no but if they do they can’t have any of the oil we get. It is as simple as that. They can buy from the Saudis while the rest of us enjoy our own.
In any event, this is a great opportunity for the president. He should strike a deal with the Democrats that he will release the strategic reserves but only after Congress passes a bill that allows drilling in ANWR and all the other places where we have oil. He needs to ensure the language of the bill is airtight so that they cannot change anything and he needs to make sure that ALL areas are open to drilling. As soon as that bill is signed into law he can release the reserves. If he were smart he would let John McCain broker the deal so that he would get the credit. Then the GOP needs to take ALL the credit and make films and other ads showing the Democrats saying we can’t drill out and all their other opposition. Best of all, it would put Obambi in a position where he would have to vote for drilling or against it. He has already expressed his opposition so if he voted yes the left would BBQ him and if he voted no he would be seen as someone who opposed the lower prices who wanted to screw people. It would put him in a very bad position.
If the president plays this right it would show the Democrats for the obstructionists they are and it would allow the president to loosen the death grip the Democrats have on our economy. More oil means lower prices and that means a better economy. If the GOP does it right they can get the corn ethanol requirements removed and allow us to import sugar beet ethanol from Brazil. The cost of food would go down because there would be more corn for human (and feed animal) consumption and the cost of transport would be lower as well.
I am willing to bet they could get this done very quickly if they wanted to and the cost of oil would be going down real soon (even if we won’t get it for 5 or 10 years it will go down on speculation). As an aside, I have heard they could get oil flowing in two years if they got the go ahead to drill.
Perhaps the best part is all the speculators who drove up the price would get screwed to a wall on the price of a barrel of oil. Watching them jump from tall buildings would be reward enough. OK, Obama being put in a bad place and cheaper oil are the best parts but the speculators getting screwed ranks right up there.
Drill here, drill now, pay less.
My G-d people, if we can’t sustain ourselves with our own oil we should be ashamed to call ourselves a superpower.
Obama Addresses Issue of Gays in the Military
Jul 9, 2008 Military, Political
When Bill Clinton was running for president he promised the gay community that he would change the service rules so that openly gay people could serve in the military. When he was elected he ran into a great deal of opposition and he struck a deal that is now termed “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, a policy that says the military may not ask if a person is gay and a person is not to tell. If caught engaging in homosexual behavior people would be discharged. This did not make the gay community happy because they felt betrayed by Clinton. I have no doubt many gay people have served honorably under this rule and this post is not to debate the pros or cons of gays openly serving.
Barack Obama was interviewed by the Military Times and he stated that he would allow openly gay people to serve in the military. He stated it was a matter of fairness. The military is not fair and there are many exclusions from service like failing a physical fitness test, poor vision, poor hearing, or being overweight. In any event, Obama is making a promise that he, like Bill Clinton, might not be able to keep. It is not a matter of just saying it and making it so, as Clinton found out. Perhaps the gay community should consider this before casting their votes. Obama is saying he will do it but history shows us that he probably will not be able to, at least not easily and with so many pressing issues he might not want to expend the effort. Here is what Obama said about the issue:
Obama also spoke of rocking the boat. In what seems certain to be one of his more controversial proposals for the military, Obama said he wants to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Equity and fairness are part of the reason for lifting the ban on acknowledged homosexuals serving in the military, Obama said, but there are practical reasons, too — like getting “all hands on deck” when the nation needs people in uniform. “If we can’t field enough Arab linguists, we shouldn’t be preventing an Arab linguist from serving his or her country because of what they do in private,” he said, referring to the 2006 discharge of about 60 linguists for violating the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on service by homosexuals.
“I want to make sure that we are doing it in a thoughtful and principled way. But I do believe that at a time when we are short-handed, that everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States and can do so effectively, can perform critical functions, should have the opportunity to do so.” Military Times
A majority of people in the military oppose gays serving but it appears as if the number has been decreasing over the years. Still, if he wants to gain the trust of the troops he should not be using the military for social engineering. I am not sure the “all hands on deck” comment was the right one to use…
I wonder if all those interpreters who were discharged were male. The lesbian interpreters are better at hiding their homosexuality and ensuring they do not get caught.
The lesbian interpreters are cunning linguists.
Tags: dadt, homosexuality, Military, Obama, openly serve, policy
Obama Wants the Military’s Trust
Jul 8, 2008 Military, Political
Senator Barack Obama did an interview with the Army Times and in it he said he had to earn the trust of the military especially since he has not served. Obama is accurate in this statement but to develop the trust of the military the men and women who serve in it need to know the Commander in Chief is ready to stand behind them and ensure they complete the job that the elected leaders sent them to do. Obama and the Democrats want to pull the troops out of Iraq and give victory to the enemy. Obama talks a good game but the truth is he has stated he has a 16 month withdraw plan and while he will listen to the commanders, the decision is his.
America’s military does not decide when and where to go to war. Those decisions are made by the people elected to office and though everyone likes to call this “Bush’s war” the fact is, Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted to send the military into combat. The troops went willingly and did what they were told. They do not have the luxury of changing their minds for the sake of political expedience because they are obligated to serve when and where they are told. A member of the military who refuses to fight in the war has committed a crime and can be severely punished but no such punishment exists for members of Congress who vote to send them to war and then change their minds based on a poll.
Obama certainly has a long way to go. Here is a tip Barry, learn what you are talking about:
Earning trust, he said, means listening to advice from military people, including top uniformed leaders, combatant commanders and senior noncommissioned officers and petty officers. It also means standing up for the military on critical issues and keeping promises, Obama said.
Petty Officers ARE noncommissioned officers.
It is interesting to note that Obama, despite his admitted lack of service, feels he is better qualified to lead the military than John McCain who was serving in the military when little Barry was living with his typical white grandmother and experimenting with drugs. Barry cites his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his extensive travel as a youth as qualifications. I believe that McCain has quite a bit more experience in travel around the world and he has it as an adult, not a hazy eyed child. Additionally, Obama has been in the Senate about 4 years and has been campaigning for about 2 of them. How much did he learn from the position on that Committee when he has not been there very much?
Obama also talked about accountability:
During the interview, Obama discussed the issue of accountability for military leaders, including times when, he said, he believes the Bush administration has blamed senior officers for things that were not their fault. He contrasted his own personal standards of accountability that he said would apply if he becomes president.
His own personal standards of accountability? He has not taken responsibility for anything. Anyone who does something wrong is labeled as “not the person I knew” and is summarily thrown under the bus. Obama took no responsibility for spending 20 years in a racist, hate filled church. Obama has taken no responsibility for the controversial statements made by his surrogates and his “present” votes while a state senator certainly lack any hint of responsibility.
Barack Obama will not get the military vote. He can take credit for programs or bills that he had little or nothing to do with and he can make pie in the sky promises about what he will do for the members of the armed forces but they are not like the mind numbed drones who follow his every move. They know what he is about and since an overwhelming number of them are conservative, they do not like his liberal policies. Members of the military want to win and come home, in that order. They do not want to come home with a loss because their leaders lacked the testicular fortitude to follow through on their actions like they did during Vietnam.
In General Patton’s most famous speech he said:
When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.” The Famous Patton Speech
The idea of losing is not hateful to liberals because they want America to lose. Patton understood the American psyche and he knew that we all admire winners and that the thought of losing is hateful to any true American. When Patton made this speech he said that this is why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war but that was because he did not know the breed of Democrat that would soon infest this nation. Patton is still spinning in his grave because of Vietnam.
Barry Obama has a prescription for losing and the members of the military do not want to be losers. They joined to serve this nation in peace and war and they are dedicated to ensuring VICTORY. The only exit plan they understand is the plan that Patton and all true patriots espouse:
WIN.
Tags: accountability, commander, McCain, military times, Obama, patton, war
Kerry Was for McCain Before He Was Against Him
Jul 7, 2008 Political
It is always interesting to see how people act in politics. No matter how principled they claim to be, politicians always seem to sell themselves out for political expediency. Look at the way Hillary and Obambi came together after all the mud slinging and name calling. John Kerry (he was in Vietnam) is no different and we have seen it a number of times. His latest is an assertion that John McCain lacks the judgment to be president.
This is the same John Kerry who wanted McCain to be his running mate in 2004. The vice president needs to be ready to take over for the president in the event the president becomes incapacitated. John Kerry certainly felt that John McCain had the judgment to do just that in 2004.
Kerry claims that McCain has changed in the last four years. While I agree that some of McCain’s positions have changed they do not preclude him from having the judgment to serve as president. John McCain has not changed his positions nearly as much as Kerry or as Obama and yet Kerry felt he had the judgment to be president and he would have us believe that Obama has better judgment than McCain.
John Kerry will say or do anything to ensure Obama wins in November. That is all well and good but perhaps he should look up the meaning of the word integrity and see if he can muster up a little of it. Kerry lacks any ethical principles and demonstrates this by turning on McCain for political gain.
John Kerry was for McCain before he was against him…
Obama Withdraws from Withdraw
Jul 3, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has changed his position on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Now, before I continue with this, I know I will get comments from the Obamabots saying this has been his position all along. I would counter by stating that Obama has had about a half a dozen positions (maybe more) on the war depending on what contest he was in and to whom he was speaking. As a matter of fact, one of Obama’s positions included having troops in Iraq until 2013 which is exactly what John McCain said. Of course, McCain was blasted from the left and Obambi never got heat for it. Let’s see how well he does after his latest flip.
Today, in contrast to his earlier positions, Barack Obama stated that he would wait until his trip to Iraq before he defines his position on it (since he never intended to go to Iraq until he was embarrassed in to it, he cannot have always held this position). Obama stated that he wanted to speak to the commanders before making an assessment and he assured us that this has been his position all along. Except that in a debate he said he would immediately withdraw troops and that included a yes, even if the commanders oppose it, statement. Obambi said he would take their advice under consideration but as Commander in Chief the buck stops with him (as if he has more experience than the commanders). He and Hillary were both pandering to the anti war nuts at the time and they had to be tough. They were playing a game to see who could get the troops out faster.
Obama has changed from immediately, to 16 months, to by the end of 2009, to 2013 to any number of answers. This cannot make the nutroots very happy because they supported him and his “I was opposed to the war from the beginning” meaningless statement and they loved his promises to leave Iraq immediately.
For a list of the different positions Obama has taken go here. The list at the bottom are his quotes on the war and what he will do and includes his 2013 position.
The Obama campaign and the candidate himself have a lot of testicular fortitude when it comes to obvious lies. Obama contends that he has always held this position or that one, when the reality is that he did not. David Axelrod stated that Obama said he would always listen to the advice of commanders and that would factor into his thinking. This is a lie. Obama has repeatedly stated that he would listen to commanders but that he was going to withdraw the troops regardless of what they told him. He even had a second news conference today to address the GOP pointing out his flips and Obama stated that he would listen to the commanders but what they say would not affect his 16 month withdraw plan. Obviously, the commanders will not hold sway with Obama if they think we need to be there longer than 16 months.
Obama is playing a game here and he thinks he can get away with it and to be honest he will with part of the country. He and his campaign believe that if they continue to say things and keep repeating them people will hold them as true. They do this regardless of what Obama has said in the past. Obama has ALWAYS been in favor of gun control and he stated that he felt that guns should be taken away from people. He keeps saying he has always been in favor of it so that people will believe it is true but his record and his statements say something entirely different.
Obama also has another problem with regard to the war thing. He is running against a war hero and a man with a wealth of military experience. Obama has none, nada, zero, nil, experience in this arena. His rise to the top was all predicated on a meaningless opposition to the war and the left’s disgust at Hillary’s vote to authorize it. The left made her pay for voting for war and they love Obambi because he says he will end it and bring our troops home immediately. But that was then. He was running against a Democrat in a Democratic primary. He needed to persuade Democrats to vote for him and the best way to do that was to talk tough about bringing the troops home right away. The left ate that up and they loved him for it.
Now though, Obama will have to appeal to the other half of the country. He will have to appeal to those who do not believe in surrender and who understand that experience matters. Obama is moving toward the center to try and appeal to the moderate Republicans. He knows that most will not appreciate a strategy that means defeat because they remember all too well what happened in Vietnam. Obama also knows that he cannot look naive on this issue because national security is a very important one. By now saying that he might need to refine his plan he is trying to demonstrate that he has experience and good judgment. The problem is, he has made his positions clear a number of times and no matter how many times he says he has ALWAYS believed in his current plan, the fact is, he did not. This is a lie and he knows it is a lie he just hopes that YOU will not know it is a lie.
Consider this, if a candidate has always had the same position on an issue he would not have to keep saying that he has always had that position because people would know it. The very fact that people are pointing out the differences and the fact that he is defending against them shows that he has changed positions. If it was always the same there would be no validity to the attacks (if they would even occur) because people would know. Notice that he never has to say that he has always supported abortion. That is because he has and people know it. There are no other positions on which to compare and there are no other statements to the contrary. People know it, as opposed to his stances on gun control and the war in Iraq on which Obama has had more positions than the Kama Sutra.
Over the next few days Obama will claim he has always been consistent so that his code pinko friends on the left will be led to believe he has not abandoned them. He will also claim that the GOP is distorting his record. Regardless of what this guy says, he is lying.
And if anyone in the MSM had any integrity they would call him on it. Unfortunately, they go along with him. Keith Olberman (definitely not the MSM) is so in love with Obama that if Barry said tomorrow that the war in Iraq is righteous and that we need to go into Iran and have war for 100 years Keith would say how brave Obama is for saying things no one else will. Olberman blasted Bush and all his criminals for wanting to grant immunity to communications companies but when Barry voted for it Olberman said he was showing courage and fawned all over him.
Unfortunately, Olberman is not the only moron in the media that would stand in line to give Obama a Lewinsky. Chris Matthews would get in line several times with a tingle in his legs and there are others who will ignore everything just to help put a Democrat back in the White House.
It is obvious that Obama is trying to swing to the middle and will say anything in order to get elected. Muslims believe that it is perfectly OK to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam. Barry is deliberately lying and deceiving people in order to get elected (as did every Democrat who pretended to be conservative in the last election in order to get into office).
Wonder if it is a coincidence that both entities believe in the same things…
Related items:
US News and World Report
CNN
Stop the ACLU
Tags: deceit, experience, flip flop, lies, McCain, Obama, war plan
Loading ...
Loading... 
