¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


HANOI JANE... Never Forgive A Traitor


For those of you too young to remember, Hanoi Jane is a bad person and did some terrible things during the Vietnam war. Things that can not be forgiven!!!! a nd now OBAMA wants to honor her......!!!!

In Memory of LT. C.Thomsen Wieland  who spent 100 days at the Hanoi Hilton




She really is a traitor .




This is for all the kids born in the 70’s and after who do not remember, and didn’t have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear..


Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the ‘100 Women of the Century.’



Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam .


The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot’s name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.


In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the ‘ Hanoi Hilton.’


Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ’s, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American ‘Peace Activist’ the ‘lenient and humane treatment’ he’d received.


He spat at Ms.Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward on to the camp Commandant ‘s feet, which sent that officer berserk.


In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant’s frenzied application of a wooden baton.


From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E’s). He spent 6 years in the ‘Hanoi Hilton’,,, the first three of which his family only knew he was ‘missing in action’.His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a ‘peace delegation’ visit.


They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it , in the palm of his hand.


When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man’s hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: ‘Aren’t you sorry you bombed babies?’ and ‘Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?’ Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat.. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the pieces of paper..

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam , and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.


I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in Cambodia ; and one year in a ‘black box’ in Hanoi My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot , South Vietnam , whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs)


We were Jane Fonda’s ‘war criminals....’


When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi , I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her..

I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received... and how different it was from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as ‘humane and lenient.’

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane.


I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did answer me.

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of ‘100 Years of Great Women.’ Lest we forget....’100 Years of Great Women’ should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.


There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane’s participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can.. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget.


716 Maintenance Squadron,

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


OBAMA-Made Energy Crisis 


Our Man-Made Energy Crisis
WSJ  3/9/2011

    The unfolding turmoil in Libya has amplified concerns about the reliability of global energy supplies in an era of political uncertainty. Is oil at $200 per barrel inescapable? Is this the beginning of the end so vigorously underscored by peak oil enthusiasts for the last several decades? The short answer is clearly "No."

    Yet the question remains: What will happen to the price of crude? This, in turn, necessitates an appreciation of the "anxiety" component in current and future prices.    The anxiety premium may range from $10 to $30 given current events in Libya and their spillover effects.

    The good news is that such a premium is not sustainable in the long run. Prices will eventually come down due to global excess capacity—estimated at three million to five million barrels of oil per day—and even more so due to migration of demand from oil to natural gas by electric utilities and industrial markets. Natural gas holds more than a 3-to-1 price advantage over oil on an equivalent unit energy basis in the U.S. So $200 crude is unlikely given market fundamentals.

    In the context of global liquids production, the civil strife in Libya represents a minor disruption (less than 2% of the total, approximately 85 million barrels of oil per day). Nor is there any evidence to suggest that even a protracted scenario of instability will result in a sustained reduction of crude supplies. Iraqi oil production dropped by 30% at the start of the second Iraq war in 2003, and then it quickly bounced back to the prewar level of two million barrels of oil per day. Currently, Iraqi oil production stands at 2.6 million barrels of oil per day, with much higher levels projected during this decade.

    Fossil fuels make up about 85% of total U.S. energy demand, which is estimated at about 45 million to 50 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Energy imports, mainly crude oil, account for 20% of the total U.S. energy requirements. This level of imports is a huge burden on the balance of payments, hence the U.S. dollar.

     What is less widely recognized is the overall inefficiency of energy utilization. According to a 2007 study by National Petroleum Council, at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 61% of energy produced is lost due to factors such as poor insulation, gas-guzzling vehicles or suboptimal power plants. On average, only one out of three reservoir barrels is recovered, which translates to an overall efficiency of only 13% for oil that is converted to a usable form. Improving energy efficiency should be a top priority, not just in our surface usage but also at the point of extraction.


Technology is reshaping every facet of our lives. The energy world is no different. This includes the resurgence of U.S. liquid production in recent years (5.5 million barrels of oil per day and trending upward), as well as conventional gas production's six-fold increase over the last two decades (to approximately 32 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day in 2010, nearly equaling U.S. liquid production). Both are attributable to recent innovations, such as highly sophisticated wells that can reach thousands of feet underground with GPS precision.

    The planet is endowed with plentiful sources of natural gas and oil, conventional and unconventional. Some estimates place global unconventional gas resources at about 33,000 trillion cubic feet, or about five times the amount of proven reserves at the end of 2009. The outlook for liquids is no less promising. At current rates of global consumption, there are sufficient oil and gas supplies to last well into the next century.

    What's missing is a coherent U.S. energy policy. At best, the Obama administration's approach to U.S. domestic oil and gas production can be characterized as a strategy of ambivalence, an uneasy equilibrium between desire to lessen the role of fossil fuels and the reality of their necessity in a functioning U.S. economy. Last year's Deepwater Horizon tragedy in the Gulf tilted the current administration's policies to an even more punitive posture vis-a-vis domestic energy production.

    As the French philosopher Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wisely observed, "A goal without a plan is just a wish." Unfortunately for the U.S., there is not even a wish. The time to rethink and redesign our entire energy strategy is now.

    The Obama administration must seriously ponder the following questions, because they relate directly to what the president likes to call "winning the future." What will be the make-up of the energy-supply pie, and how can we dramatically increase, even double, our energy efficiency? What exactly are our carbon emission goals? And how do we go from where we are today—importing about 20% of our daily energy supply—to where we want to be in 2026, perhaps even an energy exporter?

   We've already entered a new energy era that is dramatically more competitive, diverse and high-tech than the past. The global consumer is king. The future energy picture for the U.S. or the planet is not constrained by the availability of supplies, either fossil or non-fossil, but by efficiency gains in generation and consumption.

    This will require real leadership and the clear articulation of energy goals, costs and priorities. Ambiguity will not serve the best interests of future generations. The U.S. does not have an energy problem. It has an energy strategy problem.

    Mr. Saleri, president and CEO of Quantum Reservoir Impact in Houston, was formerly head of reservoir management for Saudi Aramco.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



By David Solway

June 21, 2010  In FrontPage

  For this is certainly the most surreal presidency since Jimmy Carter’s, or even Andrew Jackson’s—or, more likely, the most implausible and Absurd administration in the entirety of American history.

    It is raining debt and joblessness on the United States, but Obama and his crew are protected by an umbrella so vast it resembles Muammar Gaddafi’s tent. Obama enjoys the top job in the country and avails himself lavishly of all its perks, posting as well an annual income in the millions of dollars [2], over five million [3] in 2009 alone.

  His cohorts and backers are doing quite proudly too, not to mention Democratic godfather George Soros, one of the world’s richest men. Home foreclosures and job terminations are not an issue for these people, who are good at theoretical empathy and not much else, apart from making the situation even worse than it already is. As for the sewing-machine, it is busy at work stitching a fabric of lies and subterfuges, from global warming to Green energy to cap-and-trade to socialized medicine. And on the dissection table an entire nation is being cut to shreds to the jubilant disbelief of America’s dedicated enemies.

    The borders are porous, military spending is being reduced, terrorists are Mirandized, geopolitical adversaries are regarded as aggrieved friends-in-waiting and real friends are given the cold shoulder. On the domestic front, genuine popular movements seeking beneficial change are slandered as an army of thugs and seditionists. All this is Surrealism with a vengeance.

 Carter and Jackson serve as theatrical analogies. Jimmy Carter, as we all know, was (and is) the archetypal wimp who never met a theocrat he didn’t like and gave us the Iran we know today while eventually selling out to the Saudis, the principal funders of his misnamed Peace Center. Carter was conceivably the worst president in POTUS history until the present incumbent appeared to bring the highest office in the land into turmoil and disrepute.

   Andrew Jackson, according to his biographer James Parton [4], was a bundle of contradictions: “A democratic aristocrat. An urbane savage. An atrocious saint.” Founder of the Democratic Party, Jackson was one of the most interesting and selectively dynamic in the almanac of presidential characters, but also one of the most problematic, especially with respect to the institution of slavery. Both Carter and Jackson, each in his own unique way, were spectacles that almost defied credence. Both were made for the Theatre of the Absurd, one a grovelling clown without an iota of reason to his credit and the other a blustering commander who dominated the political proscenium with his personal eccentricities.

   They have now been pre-empted by Barack Obama, aided and abetted by an apostolic media that refused to examine his tainted past [5] and divinized him as someone rather more than merely human. One remembers that old joke about the media’s relation to George W. Bush. If he had walked on water, the headlines would have read: “Bush can’t swim.” But with Obama it’s exactly the other way round. If he went for a swim, the headlines would read: “Obama too modest to reveal messianic powers.”

   What many have failed to recognize until recently is that Obama is no wonder-worker, no farsighted statesman, no honest broker, no competent chief executive, no bipartisan healer—and in point of fact, he is simply not presidential material at all. Obama has absolutely no idea of how to go about running a country. But it would be a mistake to assume that he is nothing more than an untalented bungler, for he is blessed with thespian aptitudes that none of his predecessors could have mustered. Obama is a man with a résumé so thin it would look sideways head-on, but he is unexcelled as a performer.

   Obama is essentially an actor in a kind of Brechtian drama promoting a neo-Marxist ideology, say, The Caucasian Chalk Circle [6], mixed with robust elements of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot [7]. As with Brecht, Obama believes in the redistribution of income as the central program of the welfare statealthough Brecht, who wrote in the service of the East German regime, deposited [8] his substantial profits in West German banks, a rather salient item in the current context.

    At the same time, there is a sense in which Obama resembles Beckett’s elusive Godot who is eagerly awaited but never actually arrives. He intends to show up later in the day, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, but the promise is never realized. Similarly, Obama doesn’t “show up” in any meaningful acceptation of the phrase, as his tardy response to the BP oil spill makes pretty obvious. But it’s more than that: he just doesn’t seem “there” to meet the major challenges of the time with insight, knowledge, intelligence and courage. Obama also mirrors the character Estragon whose trousers fall to his ankles without him noticing it, a fitting end to the play in which the character’s naked ineffectualness and perpetual dithering is finally exposed.

    America is now living under the simulated presidency of an impressive actor for whom all the world’s a stage and all the people in it merely suckers. Displaying the quirkiness and ostentation of the inveterate ham, he soliloquizes in Cairo, postures in Copenhagen, preens in Oslo, orates in Washington, warbles “Hey Jude” [9] with a merry singalong gang in the White House, awarding Paul McCartney the Library of Congress Gershwin Award for Popular Song “on behalf of a grateful nation” while the real, neglected nation groans, looks fetchingly troubled when examining oil slick on the Gulf coast, relishes photo-ops and relies on a teleprompter the way actors depend on the souffleur beneath the planks.

   As president, he manifests on the one hand the futility and ineptitude of Jimmy Carter taken to the nth degree, in particular with regard to the Iranian threat, and on the other the idiosyncratic behavior of Andrew Jackson—though it must be acknowledged, without Jackson’s native gumption and profoundly held convictions.

    Indeed, Obama is a weird bird. To be fair, he does bring a parcel of convictions with him, albeit of a distinctly socialist stamp, which he seems determined to impose on a once-largely unsuspecting public. These convictions, however, seem like a kind of ideological stuffing without which he would fold, buckle and collapse on himself. It is as if he needs to have something controversial, something startling to say in order to convince himself, as well as others, that he exists, and requires a platform on which to exercise his repertoire of roles.

     An utter prima donna, he is so consumed with his own histrionic self, and his ability to adopt whatever pose the situation demands, that he seems nothing so much as an absence made concrete, a flamboyant nullity inadequate to the problems he confronts, adept only at speeches, monologues and striking gestures. As a result, the time inevitably comes when he begins to look inauthentic and faintly ridiculous, and ultimately as unreal as a typical character in an Absurdist play who faces alarmingly incomprehensible predicaments before which he remains helpless and unbuttoned. Such, of course, is the nature of the genre, as it is of this presidency.

     The long and the short of it is that Obama’s tenure in the White House will be remembered as a national aberration, a piece of avant-garde theatre and a surreal installment in the far more serious drama of unforgiving realpolitik. Meanwhile, the umbrella is open wide, the sewing machine keeps humming away and a country is laid out flat on the dissection table.



Obama Asks America to Commit Suicide


6/16/2010 – Alan Caruba 
     President Obama knows how to deliver an address. What he doesn’t know or doesn’t care about is the difference between the truth and a lie. His fifteen-minute address was the piling on of one lie after another regarding America’s use of energy and its needs for the future. [...]

        We are no more addicted to oil than we are addicted to oxygen. This extraordinary mineral is a part of every aspect of our lives; used to create plastic, used in pharmaceuticals, used for the asphalt that pave our highways, and used as the fuel for our cars, trucks, and for countless other applications.

        Oil is not “finite” as the president suggested. There is no end of oil.

    There are, however, tremendous challenges and costs to find it, drill for it, transport it, and refine it. It is an industry that requires huge amounts of money to discover new reservoirs of oil and even more to acquire it. It involves tremendous risk as well. Oil companies that hit too many dry wells are no longer in business.

          The president cited China as a nation pursuing “clean energy”, but the president said nothing of the new coal-fired plants to generate electricity that China has been opening every week in recent years and will continue to do in the years ahead.

        The president did not mention that China is literally drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Cuba. (a 60 millas de las costas de Florida) Like every modern nation, China needs oil.

The president is lying. There is no “clean energy future” when he talks of solar and wind energy

      America needs oil, but the policies of previous administrations from the 1970s onward have stymied production, shut down existing wells, driven oil companies to seek it anywhere but here!

        Instead, he devoted the thrust of his address to tell Americans they must “embrace a clean energy future”, must “transition away” from so-called fossil fuels, and that the nation must, in fact, “accelerate” that effort.

      The president is lying. There is no “clean energy future” when he talks of solar and wind energy.

      Neither solar or wind can begin to compete with oil, coal and natural gas. If they were viable, the government would not have to plunder the national treasury to provide them with subsidies, requiring that they be included as a source by utilities.

     Together, after many years of propaganda, they only provide about three percent of the nation’s energy requirements. They will never provide enough because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. Every wind and solar farm must be backed up by a traditional plant, be it coal-fired, nuclear, natural gas or hydroelectric.

        Instead, this administration has declared war on the most abundant source of energy we have in America, coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

        Coal provides fifty percent of our electricity and it could provide even more; a source that could last for centuries, except that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to thwart the building of new coal-fired plants, to shut down coal mining operations.

     If Americans continue to believe this president’s lies, if we continue to believe decades of lies by environmental organizations, many of whom have been the happy recipients of oil industry largess and support, and if we abandon the very sources of energy on which our entire economy and way of life depends, this president will have led America off the cliff.

     President Obama is asking America to commit suicide.

HT: CanadaFreePress

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



By: David Horowitz

One man, more than any other, is shoving America down a slippery slope toward European-sstyle socialism.

That man is not Barack Obama. He is the man behind Barack Obama. The man who, more than any other, elected Obama and has used the billion dollar campaign machine he has built to try to insert his insidious agenda into the halls of Congress, as well as the Oval Office, and deep into the machinery of our state politics. That man is George Soros.

Driven by ego-mania and a desire to destroy American capitalism and global preeminence, Soros has created a shadow government of powerful leftwing organizations working for the radical transformation of our country. Now you can understand why and how it's happening. I have just completed a detailed report on George Soros that I want you and every concerned American to have. From Shadow Party to Shadow Government - George Soros and Barack Obama's Effort to Fundamentally Change America, carefully follows the money and the ideology of the two key players in the radical left's massive assault on our freedom, democracy, and way of life.

I urgently need your help to raise $175,300 to publish and distribute 500,000 copies of this pamphlet to concerned Americans like yourself. That's why I'll rush you a free copy of From Shadow Party to Shadow Government today with your immediate contribution of $35 or more. So can I count on you to follow this link right away to make a $35 or more contribution to the Freed...

Reports of the death of Barack Obama's agenda have been greatly exaggerated, and that's dangerous thinking. Across the nation, unsettling reports from conservative groups are coming in. It appears that many Americans think that the 2010 elections killed the radical left's dreams of supercharging government, redistributing the wealth and "transforming America" into a second-tier socialist country.

Unfortunately, Obama, Soros, and other protagonists of the radical left still hold tremendous power! They continue to pursue their agenda in defiance of the will of the people, regardless of what the people said in last November's elections. From Shadow Party to Shadow Government underscores how well-financed the movement is and how George Soros has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade to make it happen. It also shows how Soros handpicked Barack Obama, elected him and inserted his own people into the White House to make sure that his objectives were met.

That's why it's essential to publish and distribute 500,000 copies of From Shadow Party to Shadow Government right away. Will you help the Freedom Center raise the $175,300 we need to do so by making a generous contributi... Don't forget that we'll rush you a copy of this important pamphlet with your donation.

By exposing George Soros, his takeover of the Democratic Party, and the sinister influence his network of radical institutions has in the current administration we help stop Barack Obama's radical transformation of our country. The only way we can disinfect the situation in Washington is by shining a fearlessly critical light on the shadows where people like George Soros cut the deals that cripple our country and shrivel its future.

This is our Paul Revere moment. If we don't warn our countrymen who will? Thank you for caring about America.






Much of Barack Obama’s socialist agenda and ideas for the United States comes directly from Soros and in turn through his network of leftist funded organizations.


    This includes the funding of organizations that advocate abortion, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, a cap and trade tax, to prevent man-made global warming, huge cuts in defense spending, increasing the minimum wage and the world poverty tax just to name a few.

      Soros likes to be considered a “stateless stateman”.

In fact he is more accurately described as the Godfather of World Socialism.


Obama’s Boss Sees Silver Lining In BP Spill


June 13, 2010
Joy Tiz


George Soros is one of Barack Obama’s primary financial backers and agenda puppeter.


The Man Behind the Curtain and his Drones.

      Reuters is reporting that Brazil stands to benefit from the BP oil spill disaster as the US moratorium makes more rigs available for other countries.

     Even as an ecological catastrophe makes the future of U.S.

offshore drilling less certain, Brazil is plowing ahead with a

$220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than

BP’s (BP.L) ill-fated Gulf well, which is still leaking crude.



        It’s estimated that thirty five rigs are now sitting idle in the Gulf of Mexico. Brazil is already getting inquiries from companies wanting to move their rigs there. Brazil’s state oil company, Petrobras already produces about a fourth of the world’s deep water oil.



     Analysts say oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico— most notably BP and Chevron (CVX.N) — may have to decide between paying standby fees while the rigs are idle, moving them to other projects, or canceling the contracts. The U.S. moratorium may last longer than six months becauseof U.S. sentiment against offshore drilling and plans for anoverhaul of safety standards.The shortage of rigs could help Brazil become a major oil exporter.


      What an amazing stroke of good fortune for Obama’s boss, unrepentant Nazi collaborator, George Soros!

      Soros is also invested in offshore oil drilling in Brazil, assisted by the American taxpayers.




     The Wall Street Journal reports: ‘The United States, through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, has issued a ‘preliminary commitment’ of $2 billion and more if needed’ to Petroleo Brasileiro SA, a Brazilian government-owned oil exploration and development corporation known as ‘Petrobras.’


     Soros Fund Management, LLC holds a stake in Petrobras of approximately $900 million as of December 31, 2009.


Soros.jpg Soros image by ostracon321



Gas Prices 101

Posted by cmndr45 (Profile)

Tuesday, March 8th 2011

     There is no magic to the price of gas. At $3.89 a gallon, about where prices are today (or soon will be) the components break down approximately as follows:

$2.64 - Cost of Crude Oil

$0.48 - Taxes (and up to $0.68 in some states like Hawaii)

$0.33 – Refining

$0.30 - Distribution/Marketing/Retail Cost of operation

$0.09 - Profit to Refiner (EXXON, BP, etc.)

$0.05 - Profit to gasoline retailer (BP, Shell, EXXON, S/A, Holiday, Kwik-Trip, etc.)

     Obviously, the oil necessary to produce gasoline is the biggest cost item. But where does the oil come from? Most people would immediately think of large, multinational corporations like EXXON/MOBIL, BP, Shell, and others. But they would be only partially correct. The reality is that less than a third of the world’s oil comes from so-called “Big Oil” - the vast majority comes from hundreds of small, independent outfits with fewer than 100 employees.

     Adding to the confusion is that the term “oil company” can mean some very different things. Most people think of EXXON, Shell, BP and others - names they see on the gas stations in their own neighborhoods.  But while they do indeed “drill for oil” many of these companies are also major gasoline retailers, and are therefore huge CONSUMERS of oil.

     Meanwhile, many major producers of oil are not private, for-profit companies, but are in fact government owned entities like Venezuela’s “Petroleos de Venezuela” (PDVSA) or ARAMCO of Saudi Arabia. These organizations SELL crude oil to gasoline refiners/retailers (like EXXON and BP), as well as to tire companies, plastics producers, and other manufacturers of petroleum-based products. (Note: these oil-consuming manufacturers are many of the same companies that are unjustly demonized as “speculators” for simply attempting to lock in their costs in advance of potentially rising prices. But that’s a story for another day).

      Thus, contrary to popular perception, when oil prices are high, it does not benefit the refiners/retailers (like EXXON, BP, etc.) - in fact, high oil prices result in SMALLER profit margins. Why? Because oil prices are to a gasoline refiner/marketer what wheat or corn prices are to a cereal producer/marketer like General Mills.

     When the cost of the “raw material” used to make ANY product goes up, retail prices may rise but margins shrink. For example, in 2007, when gasoline averaged less than $3.00 a gallon, EXXON made a net profit of 10.8%, but when gas was $4.00 a gallon in 2008, their net profits DROPPED to 10.6%. Note that this is EXXON’s profit on ALL operations - gasoline is one of the least profitable products, generating less than 9 cents a gallon.

       Now, naturally, the mainstream press touted the “huge increase in oil company profits” in 2008. But what they failed to point out is that while EXXON made LESS on each gallon of gasoline they sold (around 8 cents), they sold MORE TOTAL GALLONS (due to huge increases in demand worldwide - Americans alone burn 10,000 gallons of gasoline EVERY SECOND). So of course the total profits in dollars went up, but the net profit percentage fell.

     And for those who advocate “the government” controlling gasoline prices, a lesson in basic economics might be useful. Just ask yourself this question: If you were a gasoline refiner/distributor, and it cost you approximately $3.75 to refine and distribute a gallon of gas, and the U.S. government were to set the maximum pump price at, say, $2.50, how much gasoline would you produce for use in the United States?

Answer: Zero.

    Because the cold harsh reality is that gasoline (just like oil) is a WORLD commodity - and no matter where it comes from, the price will be set by the world market. And NO commodity will go where the cost exceeds the price - it will go elsewhere, or cease being produced altogether.

    It took decades of destructive and misguided liberal policies to get us where we are today: no new gasoline refineries in 30 years, no new nuclear generators since the 1970s, blocking the use of our huge reserves of coal, the incredibly disastrous burning of our corn for fuel (Ethanol) which not only reduces your car’s mileage, it has pushed food prices through the roof. Then there are the mountain of silly “green” initiatives to combat a mythical threat (global warming). All of these policies should be reversed.

     But the bottom line is that in the short term it is simply insane for America NOT to drill everywhere we can, as fast as we can. Especially since the rest of the world is already doing exactly that - some of them right in our own back yard.

John Caile

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Blitz! Wisconsin Taxpayers – 1, Truant Democrats – 0

 By Walter Hudson On March 10, 2011  In Email,Feature,News

    This is not supposed to happen. Republicans are docile, accommodating creatures. They’re supposed to kowtow to their opponent’s sense of “civility.” They’re supposed to let their opponents win. They’re supposed to do anything to avoid being called names. They’re supposed to get elected, then shift to the so-called “middle.”

    Republican state senators in Wisconsin didn’t get that memo. Wednesday night, they took bold and decisive action to end weeks of juvenile political theater.
   In a quick turn of events, Republican state senators in Wisconsin have successfully pushed through a provision stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights by separating it from Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial budget bill.

   The stand-alone measure passed Wednesday evening by a vote of 18-1. No Democrats were present.

   In effect, the vote renders Democrats attempts to withhold the provision from the budget bill moot.

     And the crowd goes wild.

The provision still needs to pass the Assembly before heading to the governor’s desk. But there is little reason to doubt that it will.

     Democrats, union protesters, and the Shadow Party apparatus have responded with predictable tantrums. The audacity of their claims, while not surprising, is nonetheless awe-inspiring.

     Before the sudden votes, Democratic Sens. Bob Jauch said if Republicans “chose to ram this bill through in this fashion, it will be to their political peril. They’re changing the rules. They will inflame a very frustrated public.”

    Senate Democrats have been absent from the state for three weeks. Sen. Matt Miller, leader of the Senate Democrats, quickly issued the following statement after the vote:

    In thirty minutes, 18 State Senators undid fifty years of civil rights in Wisconsin. Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten. Tonight, 18 Senate Republicans conspired to take government away from the people. Tomorrow we will join the people of Wisconsin in taking back their government.

Yeah, I know. I read it too.

     A party which has deliberately subverted the people’s business for weeks has the audacity to accuse those tending to that business of disrespecting the people. A party which fled the state to avoid discharging their legal duty has the audacity to accuse those who remained of “changing the rules.”

Senate GOP leader [Scott] Fitzgerald issued his own statement:

    “Enough is enough.” “The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job. They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can’t act on our agenda. [...]

    “We have confirmed with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Reference Bureau that every item in tonight’s bill follows the letter of the law.

    “The people of Wisconsin elected us to come to Madison and do a job. Just because the Senate Democrats won’t do theirs, doesn‘t mean we won’t do ours.”

    I love it.

Lest we think the battle is over, realize the Left is fully intent on exacting revenge. They want the message sent to other states that challenging their monopolistic stranglehold will bring pain. In an email to supporters, MoveOn.org cried havoc.

    …Wisconsin Republicans made a shocking power grab—ramming through their partisan attack on workers’ rights without a single Democrat present.

    It’s shameful, unprecedented, and probably illegal. We can’t let them get away with this.

    We have to recall the Republican state senators who did this.

Progressives in Wisconsin have already gathered thousands of signatures to do just that, but they need our help to get the job done. Let’s send a clear message that trying to destroy the American Dream is a surefire way to get booted from office.

    Can you help raise $500,000 tonight for the recall efforts, to make sure these senators lose their seats over their outrageous actions?(…)
… After modestly changing the Governor’s budget bill, they “declared” that it was a different kind of bill that they could pass without the Democrats and passed it… Thousands of Wisconsinites have already flooded the capitol and will occupy it overnight…
    Unsurprisingly, MoveOn’s rant is replete with misrepresentation. I didn’t know “the American Dream” involved coercing political contributions to help elect your own boss so you can bribe him into giving you a raise. How can you complain about Republicans passing a bill “without a single Democrat present” when those same Democrats opt not to show up? It’s not as though the Dems were kept from participating. Yet that is the flavor MoveOn adds.

Stranger still is the attempt to represent the stripping of fiscal components from a bill as some kind of arbitrary “declaration.” This coming from a political apparatus which was fully on board the Slaughter rule, ready to “deem and pass” Obamacare.

    The absurdity of their arguments aside, it is important to brace for the next phase of battle. Don’t think for a second MoveOn won’t raise that money.    Dispensing with “the new civility,” they will not only flood and “occupy” capitols. They’ll scratch, spit, bite, and pull hair. Wisconsin Republicans seem at last to understand. Wresting government back from a privileged few masquerading as a plebeian mass will take more than gentlemanly sparing. We’re in for a pit fight.



Wisconsin GOP senators receive death threat.


New Tone in Wisconsin: "You will be killed and your familes will also be killed."

John McCormack

March 10, 2011


Via Charlie Sykes, someone has sent the following email to Wisconsin senate Republicans threatening to kill them:

To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen
Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

     Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

    WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

Let's see if the media get as worked up about this death threat. 

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Democratic Socialism - Political Consequence of the Looming Debt Bomb Shockwave
Patriot Post ^ | 03/10/2011 | Mark Alexander

    "I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared." --Thomas Jefferson


     Socialist Evolution.

Paraphrasing the noted economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek, Future Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger wrote, "There is no difference in principle, between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and regulated economy."

     Not only is there no economic distinction between socialist systems in different political wrappers, ultimately there is no consequential societal distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism, or the most recent incarnation of this beast, Democratic Socialism. The conclusion of socialism by any name, once it has replaced Rule of Law with the rule of men, is tyranny.

    Noted Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, no stranger to the consequences of statism, wrote, "Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit."

    Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production by way of regulation and income redistribution. The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty -- the rights "endowed by our Creator" -- primarily by refuting such endowment.

    So what do these observations have to do with the current state of economic and political affairs in our great nation? Unfortunately, more than most Americans currently realize.

    However discomforting this fact might be, there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadre are endeavoring to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" by planting a debt bomb, the future shockwave of which, they surmise, will break the back of free enterprise. From the ashes of that cataclysm, Obama and his ilk envision restructuring our nation as the USSA.

    If you think such assertions are just rhetorical hyperbole, think harder.

    As the direct result of Obama's "economic recovery plan," the central government budget forecast for the current fiscal year includes a historic $1.65 trillion deficit. Given the economic consequences of continued growth in unfunded government spending (including ObamaCare), the potential inflation on our immediate horizon (prompted primarily by increasing energy costs), and diminished confidence in the U.S. dollar, the deficit proportion of fiscal-year 2012's $3.73 trillion budget will set yet another appalling record.

      More perilous for consumers is the potential for "stagflation," a remnant from the Carter era that combines static or decreasing wages (stagnant economic growth) with increasing commodity prices (inflation).

     In February alone, Obama's central government accrued a record $223 billion deficit for one month. To put this in perspective, that single-month deficit exceeds the entire 2007 budget deficit under George W. Bush -- you know, the one that was Demo-gogued during the 2008 campaign cycle.

     Republicans scraped together a few more cuts for their feeble $61 billion in proposed 2011 budget reductions, but Obama and his Senate Democrats declared they would approve only $4.7 billion in additional cuts. "Do we want jobs?" asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "If we do, then we simply cannot pass the plan the Tea Party has already pushed through the House."

       Indeed, the Senate voted down the House budget, which was to be expected. Reid went so far as to declare it "mean-spirited." Obama's Senate protagonist, John Kerry, defined the meager Republican cuts as an "ideological, extremist, reckless statement" that "would contribute to the reversal of our recovery. It might even destroy our recovery."

   Since Democrats have lambasted and voted against any cuts proposed by Republicans, the Republican "leadership" should stand true to last fall's elections and propose those deep cuts promised on the campaign trail.

     What is needed, if we're to have jobs in five years, is $4.7 billion in additional cuts for every day of this year's budget, and those that follow. There are budget solutions, but these require political courage and resolve, a rare commodity in our nation's Capital.

      "Deficit spending," concluded Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (1987-2006), "is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth." And that is precisely the prescription necessary to establish Democratic Socialism.

      If the future shock of this debt bomb set by Obama and his Useful Idi..ots does not yet cause you considerable heartburn, consider the implication of these statistics: Of total U.S. wages and employee benefits paid in 2010, 35 percent were paid by the central government as wages, or in fulfillment of entitlement programs. Read that again and let it sink in.

    In 1960, wages and entitlement program distributions by the central government were 10 percent of total U.S wages and benefits. Over the next 40 years, that figure doubled to 20 percent. In just one decade since, that figure has increased to 35 percent, with the baby boomer wave yet to fully draw on government income and social services. This explains, in part, why federal spending has increased from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to $3.82 this year. Social welfare spending alone has increased by $514 billion since Obama took office.

     Some 8 percent of the total work force is government employed, which is to say that the remaining 27 percent of government wages and benefits doled out by the welfare state is the foundation for Democratic Socialism.

     Both political parties are resorting to tired old political formulas when asked about the challenge of balancing the national budget. Both suggest that it will take more than a decade -- a pathetic excuse that we have heard for decades. (As for those claims of surpluses in the Clinton years resulting from the economic growth set in motion during the Reagan years: not so when one takes into account the Social Security "lock box IOUs.")

      House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) concludes, "It is very difficult to balance the budget within 10 years without cutting seniors' benefits now, and as I said before, our vision of entitlement reform will protect today's seniors and those nearing retirement."

     House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) insists, "We're not going to [have a balanced budget] in 10 years, but we have to be on a very considered path to get there, certainly, within the next decade and a half or two decades."

     Any pretense that Obama has any intention of balancing the budget is spurious, as the smallest estimated annual deficit that his budget will run during the next decade is $615 billion.

    Meanwhile, he continues to recycle these prevarications: "Not only were we able to yank this economy out of the recession, not only were we able to get this economy going again, but in the last 15 months we've seen the economy add jobs. We didn't just rescue the economy; we put it on the strongest footing for the future."

     As it stands now, Congress is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends and our national debt is now at $14 trillion, which is about 97 percent of our nation's gross domestic product (economic production) in 2010.

    So what are the political consequences when the money runs out, when the lenders withdraw, when the smoke clears and the mirrors shatter from the debt bomb shockwave?

     Some will settle for the institution of Democratic Socialism.

However none should underestimate the potential groundswell of protest across our nation, composed primarily of legions of Patriots fully capable of intervening on behalf of the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution.

     If those elected to national office, regardless of political affiliation, fail to abide by their oaths to Support and Defend our Constitution, particularly its limitations on the central government which have been disregarded for much of the last century, then we, the people, will restore the integrity of our Constitution, as is our right and obligation. Rest assured, there will come a time for choosing as outlined by Ronald Reagan, and that time must come.

       One might recall that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were the product of civil disobedience and revolution against a lesser form of tyranny than that imposed today. In the words of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

     For those whom such notions offend, I offer these words of parting from Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

     Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander Publisher, The Patriot Post

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Collective Bargaining Has a Fiscal Impact
Capitol Confidential ^ | 3/11/2011 | Gov. Scott Walker

     Madison— Today Governor Walker’s office released specific examples and new details to show how collective bargaining fiscally impacts government and how reforming collective bargaining can improve government.

     A Year’s Worth of Pay for 30 Days of Work

     Under the Green Bay School District’s collectively bargained Emeritus Program, teaches can retire and receive a year’s worth of salary for working only 30 days over a three year period. This is paid in addition to their already guaranteed pension and health care payouts.

     At the average annual salary for a Green Bay teacher of $51,355, this amounts to a daily rate of pay of $1,711.83, or an hourly rate of $213.98. Since most retiring teachers receive higher than average salary, these amounts are, in practice, much higher.

Source: WLUK-TV, 3/3/11

     Teachers Receiving Two Pensions

Due to a 1982 provision of their collective bargaining agreement, Milwaukee Public School teachers actually receive two pensions upon retirement instead of one. The contribution to the second pension is equal to 4.2% of a teacher’s salary, with the school district making 100% of the contribution, just like they do for the first pension. This extra benefit costs taxpayers more than $16 million per year.

   Source: February 17, 2010 Press Release, Process of developing FY11 budget begins Milwaukee Public Schools

      Almost $10,000 Per Year for Doing Nothing

While the Green Bay Emeritus Program actually requires teachers to at least show up for work, the Madison Emeritus Program doesn’t even require that. In addition to their pension payouts, retired Madison public school teachers receive annual payments of at least $9,884.18 per year for enrolling in the Emeritus Program, which requires ZERO days of work.

    When this program began, 20 days of work per year were required. Through collective bargaining, the union successfully negotiated this down to zero days.

Source: Madison Teachers Inc. Website

        No Volunteer Crossing Guards Allowed

A Wausau public employee union filed a grievance to prohibit a local volunteer from serving as a school crossing guard. The 86-year-old lives just two blocks away and serves everyday free of charge.

    Principal Steve Miller says, "He said, you know, this gives me a reason to get up in the morning to come and help these kids in the neighborhood."

    But for a local union that represents crossing guards, it isn't that simple. Representatives didn't want to go on camera but say if a crossing guard is needed, then one should be officially hired by the city.

Source: WAOW-TV, 1/27/10

       $6,000 Extra for Carrying a Pager

Some state employees, due to the nature of their positions, are required to carry pagers during off-duty hours in order to respond to emergency situations. Due to the collective bargaining agreements, these employees are compensated an extra five hours of pay each week, whether they are paged or not.

      For an employee earning an average salary of $50,000 per year, this requirement can cost more than $6,000 in additional compensation.

Source: 2008-09 Agreement between the State of Wisconsin and AFSCME Council 24

       Arbitrator Reinstates PO.RN-Watching Teacher

A Cedarburg school teacher was reinstated by an arbitrator after being fired for viewing pornography on a school computer. The school district ultimately succeeded in terminating the teacher only after taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayers.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/23/08

      ‘Outstanding First Year Teacher’ Laid Off

Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit.

     Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, “Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/14/10

      Union Opposes Cost-Saving Lawn Mowing Program

As a cost cutting measure, Racine County began using county inmates to cut the grass in medians and right-of-ways at no cost to the taxpayers. A county employee union filed a grievance indicating it was the right of government workers to cut the grass, even though it would cost the taxpayers dramatically more.

Source: Racine Journal Times, 5/12/10

      The $150,000 Bus Driver

In 2009, the City of Madison’s highest paid employee was a bus driver who earned $159,258, including $109,892 in overtime, guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement. In total, seven City of Madison bus drivers made more than $100,000 per year in 2009.

"That's the (drivers') contract," said Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson.

Source: Wisconsin State Journal, 2/7/10

       $150,000 Correctional Officers

Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as “sick leave stacking.” Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

    In part because of these practices, 13 correctional officers made more than $100,000 in 2009, despite earning base wages of less than $60,000 per year. The officers received an average of $66,000 in overtime pay for an average annual salary of more than $123,000 with the highest paid receiving $151,181.

Source: Department of Corrections

    Previously the Governor’s office released these examples of the fiscal impact of collective bargaining:

    Paid-Time off for Union Activities In Milwaukee County alone, because the union collectively bargained for paid time off, fourteen employees receive salary and benefits for doing union business. Of the fourteen, three are on full-time release for union business. Milwaukee County spent over $170,000 in salary alone for these employees to only participate in union activities such as collective bargaining.

         Surrender of Management Rights

Because of collecting bargaining, unions have included provisions in employee contracts that have a direct fiscal impact such as not allowing management to schedule workers based on operational needs and requiring notice and approval by the union prior to scheduling changes. As County  Executive Walker attempted to reduce work hours based on budget pressures and workload requirements by instituting a 35 hour work week to avoid layoffs, which the union opposed. Additionally, government cannot explore privatization of functions that could save taxpayers money.

      WEA Trust

Currently many school districts participate in WEA trust because WEAC collectively bargains to get as many school districts across the state to participate in this union run health insurance plan as possible. Union leadership benefits from members participating in this plan. If school districts enrolled in the state employee health plan, it would save school districts up to $68 million per year. Beyond that if school districts had the flexibility to look for health insurance coverage outside of WEA trust or the state plan, additional savings would likely be realized.

      Viagra for Teachers

The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association (MTEA) tried to use a policy established by collective bargaining to obtain health insurance coverage that specifically paid for Viagra. Cost to taxpayers is $786,000 a year.

Reference: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/milwaukee-schools-ban -viagra-teachers-union-sues-discrimination/story?...

       Unrealistic Overtime Provisions

On a state level, the Department of Corrections allows correctional workers who call in sick to collect overtime if they work a shift on the exact same day. The specific provision that allows this to happen was collectively bargained for in their contract. Cost to taxpayers $4.8 million.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama as Hamlet


By  >Victor Davis Hanson

  March 11, 2011 9:34 AM

   I have been as critical as anyone of the administration’s finger-in-the-wind, “Mubarak is a dictator, Mubarak is not a dictator” policy during the last two months. In the case of Libya, Obama has seemed almost Shakespearean in his public musings about whether to be or not to be. In general, from the very beginning of the unrest in Tunisia, the United States has appeared erratic, inconsistent, and contradictory, often pontificating and talking loudly while carrying a tiny stick. It also apparently has no clue that Iran, Libya, and Syria are different sorts of autocracies from a dictatorial Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, or the Gulf states.

    That said, however, we should not take too seriously the sudden European chest-thumping about jumping in to support Libya. The British government has a tawdry record of cynicism in its money-making diplomacy with Qaddafi the last few years. The Italians cozied up to him for gas and oil, and the French and Germans will sell anything to anyone at any time. No European government will back up any of their ongoing humanitarian rhetoric with force; they will launchh no Euro air sorties from Spain, southern France, Malta, Italy, or Crete to stop Qaddafi’s use of airspace to put down the rebels. 

     After all, the present U.S. policy of non-interference is exactly the sort of soft-power contemplation that the Europeans for the last decade have clamored for in an American administration.  

    Secretary Clinton’s and President Obama’s emphases on the primacy of the U.N., multilateral consensus, U.S. deference to the Arab League, the EU, NATO, etc., is European to the core.

      All this is not to deny that Sarkozy et al. are shrewd. They hope to get out in front of the U.S. (and have) in terms of humanitarian concern for the Libyan rebels, without any concern for themselves: If we do nothing, they, not us, appear the custodians of Western values; if we do act, even better for them — France and Britain finally shamed the U.S. into action. Or, to put it another way, we take the risks, incur the costs and ill-will, and yet appear to be reacting to a more moral Europe’s far earlier and stronger hectoring.

      Somehow this administration is slouching toward the worst of both worlds: moral ambiguity and an open-ended, messy sorta-involvement.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


[ Editado ]

Time for War Against Democrats' Fiscal Sabotage

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Oil Industry Says Obama Didn't Tell the Truth

AP File

By Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

     Last week, at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Congress that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico "remained at an all-time high." Salazar claimed: "In 2009 there were 116 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 in February, 120, in February 2011, 126."

He was lying.

Energy Tomorrow blog reported:

     Salazar's numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:

* Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
* On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.
* Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.





Obama’s Curious Claims on Oil Production


 March 11, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
The President took to the bully pulpit for a presser covering a wide range of topics including the Japanese earthquake and the situation in Libya. He also took time out to make a rather curious claim about US oil supplies.

“We’re adapting. We’re producing more oil, and we’re importing less,” he remarked.

“Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we’ll always be subject to price spikes,” he noted.

He indicated that “our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high,” adding that “for the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed.”

That’s an interesting claim, particularly given Hot Air’s coverage of the subject just prior to the press event. But record setting production would certainly be good news, wouldn’t it? Sadly, it seems that the President was basing his claims on some recent comments by Ken Salazar. While they sound great on paper, Ken was talking about the total number of oil rigs in the gulf, not the total amount of oil being produced. Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute attempts to straighten out the math for the Oil Analyst in Chief.

Salazar’s numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:

  • Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.
  • Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

So the fact that there is an “all-time high” number of rigs in the Gulf ignores the fact that most of those rigs are not working. Claiming an increase in idle rigs in the Gulf as a success story is like claiming the job market is great because a lot of people are unemployed and available to work.

With all due respect to API, a better analagy would be to have a poultry farmer claiming that egg production was at an all time high based on the number of chickens he has, regardless of the fact that more than half the hens have stopped laying. But in fairness to America’s poultry farmers, your average chicken doesn’t have to wait for a permit from the federal government before dropping more eggs in the nest.

The president needs to go back and do a bit more work on his math. Or possibly pardon a few chickens. Perhaps the new media meme for 2011 could be the one put forward by a good friend of Hot Air on Twitter. So… “Obama lied, Gulf oil workers cried”?

Update (Ed): Over at American Solutions, Steve Everley debunks a few more claims from Obama:

  • “We can’t escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world’s oil.” This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it’s repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it’s 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America’s proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil is clearly false.
  • “Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren’t producing a thing.” President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to “encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold.” While this sounds like a common sense fix, it’s actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government’s refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
  • “Last year…our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years.” This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama’s policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama’s drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.

Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?