Yes, inevitably we’d see the Dems getting mad about rising oil prices but not for the same reasons as you, I, and rational people everywhere. While people like Obama are fine with rising gas costs (remember, he’s not mad gas it’s at $4.00 a gallon, he’s just upset that it wasn’t “gradual”), and the Democrats lunatic fear of carbon dioxide in general, this should be a good thing for them that demand and use are down a little. But of course, Dems are concerned with the one thing Dems are always concerned about. Tax and fine revenues.
Two cases in point. Buried a ways down in this story from CNN about Americans driving a little bit less is this gem:
Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.
Therein lays the real problem for Liberals everywhere. They’re not getting enough TAXES. Not to worry though, keep in mind that John Conyers (D…..of course) has already greased the wheels for 50 CENT PER GALLON TAX HIKE, on undoubtedly the Dems will push should they take Congress and the White House in the Fall. Not be outdone is point #2. Local and state governments are now slapping “fuel surcharges” on traffic fines and tickets, even as they use those insidious cameras to track down the real criminals in society, the people who go 5 mph over the speed limit or go through a yellow light. It’s all about that tax money for Democrats, never about cutting the budget or pork or unnecessary programs. They can’t even fathom the notion. They can’t even fathom the notion that it’s the citizens who are paying for these revenues.
-Caomhin
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
19 June 2008
Green Really Is the New Reds. Democratic More Asinine With Every Passing Day
It’s clear just how far to the left Congress truly is. Now we have a second Democrat calling for the nationalization of the oil industry, this time it’s Maurice Hinchey of NY (you’ll recall of course Maxine Walters’ own call for nationalization in the past). So what gives with the Democrats oil policy? Well for starters they hide behind a global warming hoax in order to divert investments into their pet investment projects in order to make a quick buck while demonizing the competition (something they have an extremely long history of doing) as an attempt to monopolize their favored industries.
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
10 June 2008
GOP Stops Democratic Bill to Committ Economic Suicide
We dodged a huge bullet today, but I really wonder for how long we'll be able to hold this idiotic, already tried and failed, "windfall" tax on oil profits. There's a multitude of issues that are at stake here and the Dems are playing this out as only the socialists can. Only one Dem voted against proceeding with the bill, Mary Landrieu of LA, and only because she's up for re-election in Louisiana, and she's a big target for the GOP this fall. Here are just a few problems with this bill:
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
-Caomhin
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
-Caomhin
28 February 2008
House Democrats Attack Oil Industry; Threaten to Raise Price of Gasoline and Heating Oil
Nearly unbelievable, but then, this is the Democratic Party after all, basically the American equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party. I know a good number of the people who are on the Left side of the political spectrum will consider that an unfair argument, but let's take a look at just how socialist of an antic this destined to be vetoed bill is:
1. Levy's a tax on single industry by $18 billion dollars.
2. Is a transfer tax to inefficient sector of the energy industry ("alternative sources") which are more than capable of making advances on their own within the free market. Consider this article to from IBDeditorials.com, the first few sentences sum up the bio-diesel industry extremely well:
In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.
Stick around for the part about how much higher in carbon emissions it is in comparison to oil.
3. Completely irresponsible, especially when the reason that the Democrats give for their need to raise taxes on oil is due to "record oil prices and gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles." So raising taxes on oil companies and effectively further increasing the price of gas and heating oil as well as plastics, etc will somehow be good for the economy? It will be good during an economically mild environment to punish a successful industry and punish consumers by artificially raising prices even further? Astonishing. Please reference the previous post about the Democrats' need for economic woes for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the American citizens.
4. Further expansion on my point about the negative impact it will have on consumers and investors is that a raise in taxes on the oil industry, in which many, many workers, from the bottom on up, have investments in their 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. This will negatively impact the bottom line on everyone from workers to the industry itself.
5. Jim McDermott (D-WA) calls the tax bracket that the oil companies are in a "subsidy". Interesting where he and the other Democrats fail to leave out the part where the world-wide effective tax rate on oil companies was 37% in 2006 compared to 35% in 2001, which is above the top US corporate tax bracket of 35% as it is (statistics from Energy Information Administration's Annual Financial Reporting System). Tax rates above even the tax rate can in no way be qualified as a "subsidy."
6. The House Democrats are essentially attacking the Oil industry in order to give a kick back to their friends who have undoubtedly invested heavily in alternative energy sources, while attempting to villainize a sector of our economy vital to our economic health and national security in an attempt to further their class warfare rhetoric.
I'm not basing alternative energy as a means to bring more stability to the energy market, but the Democrats are transparent in the effort to produce energy at home, they simply do not want that either. Refinery capacity remains a serious issue for our nation. The Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to build new refineries to help provide the energy needs of our nation. In fact, as energy demand has grown over time, their interference with the free market in this area is leading directly to higher costs. Indeed, technology has greatly improved since the last time we actually built a refinery and should a new one be built, then these the new plants would be much more efficient and safer than existing facilities.
Opposing the exploration and drilling of areas close to home is another example of the Democrats are lying about their desire to have our national security protected by providing for the production of our energy needs within our soil. Natural gas and coal are plentiful in this country and one of the most promising technologies that results in, ahem, "cleaner" energy is liquefied coal, something they will not fully support either. Ethanol has proven to be inefficient as an energy source, and even if the Democrats were serious about that, then where is the drum beating to eliminate the tariffs from ethanol imported from Brazil? Even now, as the price of wheat and corn rises to record highs, we are not hearing the Democrats decry the evils of farm subsidies as this is one of the large organizations that help control the Democratic Party.
Nuclear is another area where the Democrats show their true colors on the energy policy. We have not built a reactor in quite a long time, despite the fact that the technological advances are far greater since the 1970s and the technology can be rolled out rapidly and would further help the economy in utilizing plutonium sources within our shores. They constantly use fear tactics with regard to nuclear energy to discourage its usage.
With regard to wind and solar these are only regional fixes, not national. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow it would benefit Alaska (of which some parts do not have sunlight for very long periods of time) to use solar as opposed to oil and natural gas, of which it is bountiful. Over time these technologies will be improved and become an integral part of our economy and infrastructure, however, to lie to the American people about the speed of the roll out and the progress of the technologies at the current time is simple reckless.
Alternative energy sources can and will be developed in the future with the same thing that has been successful for American since our inception. Ingenuity, hard work, and within the framework of the free market. Democrats have long since claimed that they want to help the average American and decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their callous interference into the auto industry has cost the jobs they now claim were somehow "stolen" by other nations. They caused this to happen by interfering with the free market. Americans will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars as the price of gas naturally rises. To force this process to occur faster than it normally would occur retards the system and causes damages.
While I in no way mean to disparage the burgeoning and promising technologies of tomorrow and I encourage their growth, to apply a socialist style of tax on the oil companies and cause an artificial rise in prices for every single American is indefensible. While the economy is growing at a clip slightly above 0% (no, it's not a recession) it is incredulous that the Democrats would pursue a tax raise and cause record high prices of gas to go even higher. To help rectify the situation providing some more oil and natural gas licenses in domestic territories as well as allowing refineries to be constructed would be most beneficial. Additional tax breaks should be given to the developers of cleaner, more efficient technologies if the Democrats truly wish to allow for greater growth in these new technologies, not inefficient subsides in the form of taking from the oil companies according to their ability and giving it to Al Gore's investment portfolio according to their needs, ala Karl Marx. However, low tax rates, not playing class warfare, and being pro-growth are not the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. I would like to ask you to keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg should the Democrats win the election. At that point, any entity, business, or private, making any sort of profit and having any extra money in their pockets will be fair game for the Democrats to attempt to pick clean. Remember this well come November.
-Caomhin
1. Levy's a tax on single industry by $18 billion dollars.
2. Is a transfer tax to inefficient sector of the energy industry ("alternative sources") which are more than capable of making advances on their own within the free market. Consider this article to from IBDeditorials.com, the first few sentences sum up the bio-diesel industry extremely well:
In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.
Stick around for the part about how much higher in carbon emissions it is in comparison to oil.
3. Completely irresponsible, especially when the reason that the Democrats give for their need to raise taxes on oil is due to "record oil prices and gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles." So raising taxes on oil companies and effectively further increasing the price of gas and heating oil as well as plastics, etc will somehow be good for the economy? It will be good during an economically mild environment to punish a successful industry and punish consumers by artificially raising prices even further? Astonishing. Please reference the previous post about the Democrats' need for economic woes for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the American citizens.
4. Further expansion on my point about the negative impact it will have on consumers and investors is that a raise in taxes on the oil industry, in which many, many workers, from the bottom on up, have investments in their 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. This will negatively impact the bottom line on everyone from workers to the industry itself.
5. Jim McDermott (D-WA) calls the tax bracket that the oil companies are in a "subsidy". Interesting where he and the other Democrats fail to leave out the part where the world-wide effective tax rate on oil companies was 37% in 2006 compared to 35% in 2001, which is above the top US corporate tax bracket of 35% as it is (statistics from Energy Information Administration's Annual Financial Reporting System). Tax rates above even the tax rate can in no way be qualified as a "subsidy."
6. The House Democrats are essentially attacking the Oil industry in order to give a kick back to their friends who have undoubtedly invested heavily in alternative energy sources, while attempting to villainize a sector of our economy vital to our economic health and national security in an attempt to further their class warfare rhetoric.
I'm not basing alternative energy as a means to bring more stability to the energy market, but the Democrats are transparent in the effort to produce energy at home, they simply do not want that either. Refinery capacity remains a serious issue for our nation. The Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to build new refineries to help provide the energy needs of our nation. In fact, as energy demand has grown over time, their interference with the free market in this area is leading directly to higher costs. Indeed, technology has greatly improved since the last time we actually built a refinery and should a new one be built, then these the new plants would be much more efficient and safer than existing facilities.
Opposing the exploration and drilling of areas close to home is another example of the Democrats are lying about their desire to have our national security protected by providing for the production of our energy needs within our soil. Natural gas and coal are plentiful in this country and one of the most promising technologies that results in, ahem, "cleaner" energy is liquefied coal, something they will not fully support either. Ethanol has proven to be inefficient as an energy source, and even if the Democrats were serious about that, then where is the drum beating to eliminate the tariffs from ethanol imported from Brazil? Even now, as the price of wheat and corn rises to record highs, we are not hearing the Democrats decry the evils of farm subsidies as this is one of the large organizations that help control the Democratic Party.
Nuclear is another area where the Democrats show their true colors on the energy policy. We have not built a reactor in quite a long time, despite the fact that the technological advances are far greater since the 1970s and the technology can be rolled out rapidly and would further help the economy in utilizing plutonium sources within our shores. They constantly use fear tactics with regard to nuclear energy to discourage its usage.
With regard to wind and solar these are only regional fixes, not national. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow it would benefit Alaska (of which some parts do not have sunlight for very long periods of time) to use solar as opposed to oil and natural gas, of which it is bountiful. Over time these technologies will be improved and become an integral part of our economy and infrastructure, however, to lie to the American people about the speed of the roll out and the progress of the technologies at the current time is simple reckless.
Alternative energy sources can and will be developed in the future with the same thing that has been successful for American since our inception. Ingenuity, hard work, and within the framework of the free market. Democrats have long since claimed that they want to help the average American and decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their callous interference into the auto industry has cost the jobs they now claim were somehow "stolen" by other nations. They caused this to happen by interfering with the free market. Americans will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars as the price of gas naturally rises. To force this process to occur faster than it normally would occur retards the system and causes damages.
While I in no way mean to disparage the burgeoning and promising technologies of tomorrow and I encourage their growth, to apply a socialist style of tax on the oil companies and cause an artificial rise in prices for every single American is indefensible. While the economy is growing at a clip slightly above 0% (no, it's not a recession) it is incredulous that the Democrats would pursue a tax raise and cause record high prices of gas to go even higher. To help rectify the situation providing some more oil and natural gas licenses in domestic territories as well as allowing refineries to be constructed would be most beneficial. Additional tax breaks should be given to the developers of cleaner, more efficient technologies if the Democrats truly wish to allow for greater growth in these new technologies, not inefficient subsides in the form of taking from the oil companies according to their ability and giving it to Al Gore's investment portfolio according to their needs, ala Karl Marx. However, low tax rates, not playing class warfare, and being pro-growth are not the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. I would like to ask you to keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg should the Democrats win the election. At that point, any entity, business, or private, making any sort of profit and having any extra money in their pockets will be fair game for the Democrats to attempt to pick clean. Remember this well come November.
-Caomhin
12 February 2008
Venezuela Cuts off Oil to Exxon
That's right folks. Exxon had the audacity to try to protect its assets in Venezuela in the face of the socialist scourge, a move completely in line with the free market, and the socialist hoard in Venezuela just stopped selling fuel to Exxon. Part of the reason that Chavez's people made this move was that Exxon recently had won a court order to freeze assets that belonged to their company after the socialists attempted to seize them. Exxon was essentially the last oil company to actively put up a fight against Chavez's goons and had proven in court that they were on the right side of international law, only to see Venezuela now stop the flow of oil to Exxon. Expect this to have a pretty large impact on the price per gallon of gas in the States very soon. Exxon was completely within their right to protect their assets. What the socialists claim is thus:
State-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, said in a statement that
it "has paralyzed sales of crude to Exxon Mobil." It said the decision
was made "as an act of reciprocity" for the company's
"judicial-economic harassment."
Reciprocity for Exxon's proving their case in various courts across the world that what Venezuela had done by attempting to hijack Exxon assets? The law is on Exxon's side here. The "judicial-economic harassment" that PDVSA speaks of is the international courts and rule of law among free nations. It's a typical left wing tactic of ignoring existing laws and doing what you feel like doing in order to shore up your personal bottom line while claiming it's a move "for the people." As if losing a major purchaser of your main export will actually help the people of Venezuela. The only person profiting off of this is Chavez and his inner circle. Since various reforms from the thug Chavez went into effect the economy in Venezuela has decreased, and this move will only add to their woes, and most likely ding us a bit too as the price per gallon of gas will impact us. Chavez has essentially engaged in an economic form of terrorism and acted in open defiance against courts of law, which had already handed them defeats, so Chavez's folks are simply making a play for as much cash as humanly possible in the short the run while doing serious damage to themselves in the long run.
-Caomhin
State-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, said in a statement that
it "has paralyzed sales of crude to Exxon Mobil." It said the decision
was made "as an act of reciprocity" for the company's
"judicial-economic harassment."
Reciprocity for Exxon's proving their case in various courts across the world that what Venezuela had done by attempting to hijack Exxon assets? The law is on Exxon's side here. The "judicial-economic harassment" that PDVSA speaks of is the international courts and rule of law among free nations. It's a typical left wing tactic of ignoring existing laws and doing what you feel like doing in order to shore up your personal bottom line while claiming it's a move "for the people." As if losing a major purchaser of your main export will actually help the people of Venezuela. The only person profiting off of this is Chavez and his inner circle. Since various reforms from the thug Chavez went into effect the economy in Venezuela has decreased, and this move will only add to their woes, and most likely ding us a bit too as the price per gallon of gas will impact us. Chavez has essentially engaged in an economic form of terrorism and acted in open defiance against courts of law, which had already handed them defeats, so Chavez's folks are simply making a play for as much cash as humanly possible in the short the run while doing serious damage to themselves in the long run.
-Caomhin
Powered by ScribeFire.
03 January 2008
Start Drilling in Alaska
Environmentalists and hippies simply do not care about the average man, woman, and child in America. How else can you explain the majority of their actions? They try to block anything that can help solve the energy in the short term while we gear up for the long term solutions. Long term, of course, we need to have a completely domestic solution to our energy needs. Nuclear is a long term solution and an environmentally friendly one at that, but they oppose that measure. Hydrogen is off the table for them as well, as evidenced by the Liberal Energy bill that specifically excluded the two technologies that could immediately take flight, perhaps because Global Warming Hoax spokesman Al Gore doesn't have those types of stocks in his portfolio. Solar is promising as well, but it takes time to cut off an immense portion of oil, that much is irrefutable. Rationally speaking, in terms of economics and in national defense, domestic production should be increased. However, Liberals refuse to drill anywhere in Alaska, as once again, the Libtards have blocked drilling in an area that has immense oil reserves that will help to drive down short term prices and help the average human being living in America by saving us a great deal of money an increasing our standard of living. Here's a snippet:
It would be the first federal OCS oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea since 1991. The agency estimates it contains 15 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of conventionally recoverable natural gas.
...
-Caomhin
It would be the first federal OCS oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea since 1991. The agency estimates it contains 15 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of conventionally recoverable natural gas.
...
The sale is backed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and community and tribal leaders, he said.
"We believe our decision is a good balance, and will allow companies to explore this intriguing frontier area while still protecting the resources important to the coastal residents," Luthi said.
Miller and Brendan Cummings of the Center for Biological Diversity said the MMS ignored dangers to animals and birds if an oil spill were to occur.
"No one yet has figured out how to clean up a spill in broken ice, so they just stick their head in the sand and pretend it won't happen," Cummings said.
He also said the agency's environmental assessment ignored changes brought by global warming.
Comprehend those numbers? That's a substantial amount of domestic oil production we are ignoring. ANWR has vast reserves as well. That's just a fraction of what is available domestically. Under the envirofascists logic, nothing should be done because it's possible something could go wrong. Under that same logic, I should cease to work or walk down stairs as something could go wrong doing that as well. If we are going to get serious about solving our energy needs domestically and stop spending such a large portion of our GDP on energy, we must develop more sources of oil and liquefied coal domestically while working feverishly to implement a combination of other sources. Again, for economic and national defense purposes chiefly. The so called global warming alarmists are using their hoax as some sort of sick pseudo-religion that is a disgusting political and self service trick as the major proponents are profiteering off of this effort even as more scientists step up efforts to tell the world community to stop drinking the Kool Aid. That's the only reason they have that reference to the hoax in that article, as a way to justify their irrationality and complete lack of logic. As a practical road map to economic security, lowering energy prices would greatly help the American family. If gas was even still at $2.00 a gallon right now instead of $3.00, how much would that help the American commuter? The only way that will happen is with a larger supply, one not controlled by OPEC. We need to do this short term and it must start ASAP while we develop the new technologies needed to fully supply our own energy needs, and the first step is to utilize what will work now.-Caomhin
08 November 2007
Global Warming Cult Take Heed, We're on To You
Wow, the news does come hard and fast, I'll tell you that much. It's amazing the cult that the Global Warming Enviro-Fascists have built up so quickly. Down right scary actually. I'm sure Charles Manson is sitting in jail right now, thinking, "wow, that Al Gore is something else."
First up on the agenda for this post is news that this is somehow a Generational Test for Republicans. Really? The premise of this article is that young people are entirely indoctrinated by the Global Warming rhetoric to the point where a Republican travels to Greenland on the advice of his children to see "first hand" how global warming is "decimating" the area. The children, you see, are already infected with the cult persona of the global warming moonbats. It's a very, very well documented fact how left wing colleges have been and have moved even further to the left. There is another take on how "global warming" is effecting Greenland, however, and that take is that...it's ACTUALLY A GOOD THING FOR GREENLAND. Sure the BBC throws in some of their global warming diatribe, but read the article, see what the people of Greenland think about the cyclical change of the ice levels.
Second, let's return to my point about indoctrinating young people (I hate using that term, but I'm 29, I'm getting old). The cult mentality is something the left wing Global Warming Hoax perpetrators have been doing for quite some time and have been quite effective at doing. Leonardo DiCaprio's now-infamous quote that "we need to get kids young," is exactly what they are doing. The Marin Independent Journal has an article on just how young they need to "get" and its quite scary:
On Friday, Rancho students will be given bilingual "Cancel-a-Car" coupon books filled with ways they can fight global warming.
1. Carbon is evil and gas should not be used.
2. Carbon should be taxed and the average citizen should pay more for using anything with carbon.
3. Nuclear Energy is evil and should not be used.
4. Wind Energy is a great talking point, but God forbid an elitist should be in view of it, therefore it should not be used.
5. Rising gas costs are a problem, and should not be addressed by increasing supply, but rather taxed even more.
6. Houses are evil if not made of balsa wood and/or Saran Wrap (wait, that's not bio-degradeable), if not made of imaginary structures that spew out carbon eating penguins.
Gee, you really have to wonder if they want any energy being used at all. In fact, the patron saint of Global Warming, Al Gore, makes a shit load of money off of promoting this crap and then having you invest in his Carbon Offset scam. It was also reported recently by the UN that urbanization is horrible and that the population essentially needs to be thinned out, because they are just too many humans. So, here you have a situation where they don't want you to have a car, gas, nor live in an urban setting. So basically they just want you to live amongst the trees keeping yourself warm by the campfire. Oh, that's right, wood contains carbon that goes into the air when burned. So basically, their premise is that they want you to freeze to death in a rural area while unemployed. I mean, if you lived in a rural area and had a job, you'd have to drive to get to work right? Meanwhile the Liberal elitists, buoyed by the new enslaved masses through their enormous carbon taxes burdened upon the citizenry continue to fly all around the world to scold other people on their consumption habits. The fiefdom makes a comeback.
Meanwhile, not everyone is fooled by this nonsense. The founder of the Weather Channel exposes the scam for what is, just that, a scam. If nothing else READ THIS WHOLE ARTICLE. It's a political, economic scam of unmatched proportions. Personally, I find this to be Y2K on crack, a great marketing scheme but nothing else, but the joke here is on the average man, woman, and child, and lets the Liberals make a strong run at your pockets while taxing you back to the Stone Age, quite literally, justified by a the scam they perpetrate and using children, and false science as a cornerstone.
Finally, I leave you with this gem from Glenn Beck:
First up on the agenda for this post is news that this is somehow a Generational Test for Republicans. Really? The premise of this article is that young people are entirely indoctrinated by the Global Warming rhetoric to the point where a Republican travels to Greenland on the advice of his children to see "first hand" how global warming is "decimating" the area. The children, you see, are already infected with the cult persona of the global warming moonbats. It's a very, very well documented fact how left wing colleges have been and have moved even further to the left. There is another take on how "global warming" is effecting Greenland, however, and that take is that...it's ACTUALLY A GOOD THING FOR GREENLAND. Sure the BBC throws in some of their global warming diatribe, but read the article, see what the people of Greenland think about the cyclical change of the ice levels.
Second, let's return to my point about indoctrinating young people (I hate using that term, but I'm 29, I'm getting old). The cult mentality is something the left wing Global Warming Hoax perpetrators have been doing for quite some time and have been quite effective at doing. Leonardo DiCaprio's now-infamous quote that "we need to get kids young," is exactly what they are doing. The Marin Independent Journal has an article on just how young they need to "get" and its quite scary:
On Friday, Rancho students will be given bilingual "Cancel-a-Car" coupon books filled with ways they can fight global warming.
Once the coupons are returned to school, teachers will track what conservation efforts are made and the date. Teachers will help monitor the progress. As the carbon reduction increases, images of cars will be crossed out on a giant poster kept at school.
So got that? Cars are bad. Children should be brainwashed as young as possible. Another all important, "get them young so that they will not resist while old" and encourage them to go after their parents on the issue like the Children of the Corn. After all, it's a classic Liberal tactic to hide behind and then have children do their dirty work. It's gotten so bad that Portland, OR, a strong bed of classic hippie activity, is set to impose a "carbon tax" that will enforce taxes on home builders, which, as you know, will undoubtedly be passes on to consumers. So homes are bad if they don't invest in the carbon offset program, got that?
Let's also note how opposed the Dems are to Nuclear Energy, the actual and only short and long term solution to our energy woes that are decimating the dollar. It's not exactly a secret that the dollar is getting crushed due to extremely high commodity prices. We have not built a Nuclear Energy plant since the 70s. Nuclear Energy is also the one source of clean burning, extremely energy efficient fuel that will have the largest single impact on reducing our dependence on oil. It's a technology that has improved immensely since the 70s and would be that much more effective for our nation if we moved towards it, but the Liberals are opposed to this because they are, basically, scared by technology, "Unga bunga, me live in cave, new techology frightens me, where is my club," sayeth the Liberal Neanderthal.
Wind sounds good too, right? Well not so much for the Liberals, after all, Democrat Ted Kennedy, was outraged, outraged I say, by the proposition of a wind farm near Cape Cod because, "That's where I sail, and I don't want to see them." Now that's what I call taking a stand. I'm sure Mary Jo Kopechne didn't want to see water rushing into the car that Teddy left her to drown in either.
Liberals are also vehemently opposed to increased drilling in Alaska and off the coast of Florida in order to increase the output in crude as temporary fix to the energy crunch. So let's re-cap:1. Carbon is evil and gas should not be used.
2. Carbon should be taxed and the average citizen should pay more for using anything with carbon.
3. Nuclear Energy is evil and should not be used.
4. Wind Energy is a great talking point, but God forbid an elitist should be in view of it, therefore it should not be used.
5. Rising gas costs are a problem, and should not be addressed by increasing supply, but rather taxed even more.
6. Houses are evil if not made of balsa wood and/or Saran Wrap (wait, that's not bio-degradeable), if not made of imaginary structures that spew out carbon eating penguins.
Gee, you really have to wonder if they want any energy being used at all. In fact, the patron saint of Global Warming, Al Gore, makes a shit load of money off of promoting this crap and then having you invest in his Carbon Offset scam. It was also reported recently by the UN that urbanization is horrible and that the population essentially needs to be thinned out, because they are just too many humans. So, here you have a situation where they don't want you to have a car, gas, nor live in an urban setting. So basically they just want you to live amongst the trees keeping yourself warm by the campfire. Oh, that's right, wood contains carbon that goes into the air when burned. So basically, their premise is that they want you to freeze to death in a rural area while unemployed. I mean, if you lived in a rural area and had a job, you'd have to drive to get to work right? Meanwhile the Liberal elitists, buoyed by the new enslaved masses through their enormous carbon taxes burdened upon the citizenry continue to fly all around the world to scold other people on their consumption habits. The fiefdom makes a comeback.
Meanwhile, not everyone is fooled by this nonsense. The founder of the Weather Channel exposes the scam for what is, just that, a scam. If nothing else READ THIS WHOLE ARTICLE. It's a political, economic scam of unmatched proportions. Personally, I find this to be Y2K on crack, a great marketing scheme but nothing else, but the joke here is on the average man, woman, and child, and lets the Liberals make a strong run at your pockets while taxing you back to the Stone Age, quite literally, justified by a the scam they perpetrate and using children, and false science as a cornerstone.
Finally, I leave you with this gem from Glenn Beck:
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
