Common sense dictates that some of the more important keys to American energy independence are: more oil exploration and drilling; more natural gas exploration and drilling; more nuclear plants; more wind farms and solar panels---but not more bio fuels because diversion of corn and other plant life to the fuel market increases food prices more than is reasonable.
T Boone Pickens---with the concurrence of Aubrey K McClendon---both bigwigs in the Oil and Natural Gas industries---has created a plan for our energy independence. I checked it out on both their websites. Steven Milloy of Junk Science.com has covered the subject of Picken's Plan in detail on Townhall about the Iran claims and several other misrepresentations. I'll take a different tack here.
Pickens states that Compressed Natural Gas [CNG] is the answer to our skyrocketing fuel prices. While it may be part of a solution, it's certainly not the only answer. There are far more compelling choices noted above.
In the words of Pickens:
"Converting just 10% of America’s vehicles to CNG will lower U.S. oil consumption enough to save nearly 50 billion dollars each year. That’s $50 billion less spent on foreign oil. Let Washington put those billions to work as incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.
This can be accomplished in less than 10 years if you have the right leadership.”
Pickens goes on to give us the mathematical reasoning behind his plan.
"According to the Energy Information Agency [EIA], the amount of 'Finished Motor Gasoline' used in 2007 was 9,286 thousand barrels per day.
9,286 thousand barrels/day = 9.286 million barrels/day. This is roughly 10 million barrels/day and 10% of this would be one million barrels/day. (The 9,286 number also appears on the EIA's 'Petroleum Basic Statistics' page.)
1 million barrels/day x $130/barrel* x 365 days/year =
$47.57 billion ("nearly $50 billion")
*$130/barrel as of July 2008."
On the McClendon site is offered:
"America uses a lot of oil. Every day, 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.
That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.
Can't we just produce more oil?
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.
The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone."
And:
"Cheaper: Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon...
"Incentives For Consumers To Drive CNG Vehicles: "A modest federal incentive is now in place for American consumers to buy CNG-fueled vehicles, and some states and cities add to that amount. It applies to the purchase of the Honda Civic GX, the only CNG vehicle currently made in the U.S.
But additional incentives are needed to help consumers convert their current vehicles from gasoline to CNG.
An additional federal incentive is available on the purchase of a home refueling appliance. It’s basically a compressor unit that is installed to draw on the natural gas pipeline in your home."
Now, let's consider this plan for a moment. My data and calculations just don't jive with those of Pickens in many places. Firstly, he claims how clean and efficient a CNG fueled vehicle would be. We should build or convert enough vehicles to equal 10% of the cars on the road. Fine and dandy, but he doesn't tell you that a CNG vehicle costs about 40% more than a standard car of the same make. Expect conversions of on-the-road cars to be pricey as well. Since supply and demand will regulate the CNG prices, they'll end up to where the gas prices are now. There's no economic reason for making the change to CNG. You'll never get your money back.
And the price of CNG? CNG per gallon [actually shouldn't this be cubic feet?] costs range from [one station at 70 cents] from about $2 to over $4 in California alone. The rest of the Country [impossible to find CNG in the middle states] ranges from about $2.50 to $3.90 per gallon. I saw prices less than $2 in the Tulsa area, but still above $1. And we can't all go to Oklahoma to fill up, can we? But the prices on Pickens' price maps don't have an explanation. Are they for gallons or cubic feet? And what can a car see as miles per gallon [cubic foot.]
Pickens' Plan conveniently leaves out any discussion of miles per gallon in converted vehicles. According to recent data, a CNG fueled car has only half the range of a gasoline vehicle. Of course, Pickens doesn't say that either.
Besides, if 10% of the vehicles around are CNG fueled, do you think the per gallon price will stay the same?
I'd look for these two gentlemen leading the charge towards higher prices as 'fair' in light of the cleanliness. And, they also want you to buy a government-subsidized appliance to tap into your home natural gas supply to fuel your car. Do you really want to play around with your home gas supply? And---wait a minute! What he's really getting at is to increase not only automobiles but the number of homes that use natural gas as well. There it is. This whole plan is a clever ruse to increase his income through increased natural gas sales. And I bet he'll be selling those tapping appliances as well.
But back to the ideas. Pickens' idea that oil production peaked in 2005 is seriously flawed. For one thing, the Eastern potentates have partially closed the valves to keep the prices high. They need to open them up again. And, coincidentally, the powers-that-be seem to be delaying delivery of oil to keep the prices high.
If we can get the Democrats in Congress to let us drill offshore [where the oil is and not 50 miles away] and in that tiny portion of the landscape called ANWR, World oil production will be substantially increased, mostly in the US. And we can wave goodbye as the Middle East oil money begins to dry up and the Emirs have to reduce the number of wives and sizes of their palaces. Now those would be great reasons for rejoicing here in the US. Maybe the Saudis will have to delay importing sand for their palace moats.
The Pickens Plan features are based on incorrect calculations because they have faulty assumptions. According to Elmhurst College: "Although all fractions of petroleum find uses, the greatest demand is for gasoline. One barrel of crude petroleum contains only 25-35% gasoline. Transportation demands require that over 50% of the crude oil be converted into gasoline. To meet this demand some petroleum fractions must be converted to gasoline. This may be done by "cracking" - breaking down large molecules of heavy heating oil; "reforming" - changing molecular structures of low quality gasoline molecules; or "polymerization" - forming longer molecules from smaller ones."
Thus Picken's use of the current per barrel oil price is wrong. It should only be half as much. Thus with the corrected calculation below includes exact figures instead of gratuitous 'roundings.'
928,600 barrels/day x $106.89/barrel* x 50% x 365 days/year =
$18.1 billion
*$106.89/barrel as of Sep 26, 2008.
Quite a difference isn't it?
But, while we might save $18.1 billion in gas costs, how much does he expect us to pay for CNG? There won't be any savings no matter how he presents it.
For argument's sake, the Pickens' savings figure presented is not $50 billion but only $18.1 billion. But why does Pickens think that money we supposedly save is going to be used by the government? Pickens says: 'Let Washington put those billions to work as incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.' So, who pays for our CNG fuel?
Is he proposing a tax equal to his proposed pitiful savings? Where else would the money come from?
No, I think the Pickens Plan is a dud, and we should stay away from it. Thank you Mr Pickens and Mr McLendon, but please be honest in your advertising and stay away from environmental issues that you can only solve with flawed data and conclusions and self serving expectations.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Shoring up the Falling Building with Balsa Planks
Is anyone surprised at the current contentiousness about the proposed federal bailout? And is anyone surprised that some of the people trying to solve it are the same ones who screwed things up in the first place? It's no news that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Presidents Carter and Clinton and their cronies are largely responsible for the failures. Frank and Dodd, right up to the blowup, kept claiming everything was fine [as they accepted large donations from F & F], and they led the efforts to rebuke Republican attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie. And all of them, going back to 1977 [Biden was in office; McCain hadn't run yet], have been pushing and prodding the F & F twins to put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. They made these loans to illegal immigrants! They made large loans to people who had no income except food stamps and welfare! They lent 100% or more of the value of the home in some cases! And when those homes couldn't be sold quickly at a profit, the owners defaulted. Surprise!
During the Clinton years we had the same thing. In 2005, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to create oversite and reform for F & F, but were stopped by Democrat/Clinton pressure and votes. And that was only one of the many tries from the Republicans, though they weren't as noisy or insistent as they should have been.
Step back a moment. We must recognize that our economy is based on capitalism, and such a system, by definition---just like morality and the World---requires both successes and failures, good and evil, wealth and bankruptcy. Now, I'm not saying that this current huge failure---which everyone but the main stream media seems to know how was created---should continue without some government aid. I'm just not sure how much aid should be proffered [if any] or how it should be considered.
The 'nanny state' concerns me very much.
Currently, I don't trust Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Clinton, Obama et al to propose or structure relief in this crisis. They haven't solved anything of importance yet. So, I have no problem with the Republican efforts to change the bail out.
And if you think this is bad, wait until the eleventh hour when Social Security is about to collapse, and the Democrats cry 'woe is us!' when they've been the ones who have fought tooth and nail to keep saner minds from doing anything to fix it. It was the Democrat Congress that perpetuated taking the social security payments into the general fund providing the Social Security Administration with 'paper' to cover it. And the Congress has never, and doesn't appear to ever want, to pay the funds back.
The quick fixes of tax increases, later retirement ages, and other band aids won't work in the long run. Republican suggestions including partial privatization [just a tad folks, just a tad] keep being rejected. [Listen, nobody's going to be investing his paltry sums in risky home mortgages. Get a life!]
Maybe now, the Democrats will sit down to serious discussions concerning Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Maybe. But I doubt it. There's still too much posturing and blaming the other side around us now. So, we who are still here to see the actual demise of the Social Security system can thank the Democrat Congresses from over the years for another debacle. Oh, but oh, if the Congresses had simply left the system alone with it's collections, the SSA would be solvent for many years to come.
Besides, Congress likes to wait until the last minute when their children are about to collapse before suggesting socialism to save it.
And I'd like to remind you, my friends, of all the debacles---especially in the economy [via socialism] defense [via weakness], war on terror [via weakness], and foreign policy [via wishy-washy words without force]---you'll be seeing if Obama wins the White House.
During the Clinton years we had the same thing. In 2005, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to create oversite and reform for F & F, but were stopped by Democrat/Clinton pressure and votes. And that was only one of the many tries from the Republicans, though they weren't as noisy or insistent as they should have been.
Step back a moment. We must recognize that our economy is based on capitalism, and such a system, by definition---just like morality and the World---requires both successes and failures, good and evil, wealth and bankruptcy. Now, I'm not saying that this current huge failure---which everyone but the main stream media seems to know how was created---should continue without some government aid. I'm just not sure how much aid should be proffered [if any] or how it should be considered.
The 'nanny state' concerns me very much.
Currently, I don't trust Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Clinton, Obama et al to propose or structure relief in this crisis. They haven't solved anything of importance yet. So, I have no problem with the Republican efforts to change the bail out.
And if you think this is bad, wait until the eleventh hour when Social Security is about to collapse, and the Democrats cry 'woe is us!' when they've been the ones who have fought tooth and nail to keep saner minds from doing anything to fix it. It was the Democrat Congress that perpetuated taking the social security payments into the general fund providing the Social Security Administration with 'paper' to cover it. And the Congress has never, and doesn't appear to ever want, to pay the funds back.
The quick fixes of tax increases, later retirement ages, and other band aids won't work in the long run. Republican suggestions including partial privatization [just a tad folks, just a tad] keep being rejected. [Listen, nobody's going to be investing his paltry sums in risky home mortgages. Get a life!]
Maybe now, the Democrats will sit down to serious discussions concerning Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Maybe. But I doubt it. There's still too much posturing and blaming the other side around us now. So, we who are still here to see the actual demise of the Social Security system can thank the Democrat Congresses from over the years for another debacle. Oh, but oh, if the Congresses had simply left the system alone with it's collections, the SSA would be solvent for many years to come.
Besides, Congress likes to wait until the last minute when their children are about to collapse before suggesting socialism to save it.
And I'd like to remind you, my friends, of all the debacles---especially in the economy [via socialism] defense [via weakness], war on terror [via weakness], and foreign policy [via wishy-washy words without force]---you'll be seeing if Obama wins the White House.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Snake Oil and Vinegar?
It's a shame how the Democrats want to punish Joe Lieberman for speaking at the Republican convention. It's a shame that the party of 'tolerance' can't accept the free choice and speech of a US Senator. It's a shame that the Democrats want to 'punish' a Senator who is no longer a Democrat. But, as usual, the Democrats are shameless and self-serving. They are the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Clintons.
What's next for the Democrats? Oh, I know. They're trying to punish the Governor of Alaska for wanting to protect infant life; for exercise her second amendment rights in owning and using a gun; for wanting to protect and raise her family in private with her husband; for having much more executive and decision making experience than their ideal, Barack Obama---say, that makes her better qualified than the entire Democrat ticket, doesn't it?
It seems the only people Senator Obama doesn't want to punish are his daughters if they ever make the 'sex' mistake that befalls so many teens. He doesn't want them 'punished' with a live baby. What a sad way to talk about the miracle of birth.
And the Democrat vultures have descended on Alaska to dig [or manufacture] dirt about Sarah Palin. And in the same spirit, the 'independent' investigator of the 'non-event' 'troopergate' has ceded subpoena power to the Democrats. Even though the fired official in question says that he was never asked to fire anybody, nor was he pressured to do anything, the waste of time goes on. And as usual, the Democrats don't want any facts to get in the way of their march to personal destruction.
Well, that's okay, because Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. And she doesn't really care that the Democrats want to punish her for being pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-family, a woman not a Liberal.
And you know what? The Democrats will never succeed. Sarah Palin is now on the national scene, she's a strong executive and will make an excellent Vice President. The Democrats can look to nothing but failure and continued irrelevance in the future.
American Voters! Don't let yourselves and your neighbors down by falling prey to the snake oil salesman of the Democrat Party!
What's next for the Democrats? Oh, I know. They're trying to punish the Governor of Alaska for wanting to protect infant life; for exercise her second amendment rights in owning and using a gun; for wanting to protect and raise her family in private with her husband; for having much more executive and decision making experience than their ideal, Barack Obama---say, that makes her better qualified than the entire Democrat ticket, doesn't it?
It seems the only people Senator Obama doesn't want to punish are his daughters if they ever make the 'sex' mistake that befalls so many teens. He doesn't want them 'punished' with a live baby. What a sad way to talk about the miracle of birth.
And the Democrat vultures have descended on Alaska to dig [or manufacture] dirt about Sarah Palin. And in the same spirit, the 'independent' investigator of the 'non-event' 'troopergate' has ceded subpoena power to the Democrats. Even though the fired official in question says that he was never asked to fire anybody, nor was he pressured to do anything, the waste of time goes on. And as usual, the Democrats don't want any facts to get in the way of their march to personal destruction.
Well, that's okay, because Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. And she doesn't really care that the Democrats want to punish her for being pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-family, a woman not a Liberal.
And you know what? The Democrats will never succeed. Sarah Palin is now on the national scene, she's a strong executive and will make an excellent Vice President. The Democrats can look to nothing but failure and continued irrelevance in the future.
American Voters! Don't let yourselves and your neighbors down by falling prey to the snake oil salesman of the Democrat Party!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Palin, Obama and the Future
Well, of course the left has gone ballistic over the selection of Sarah Palin. She stands for everything they want to destroy: life, 2nd ammendment, glass ceiling, etc. etc. and so forth [sorry King!]
Sarah Palin is pro-life in all cases and willing to raise a 'special needs' baby instead of aborting it; the left [the mainstream media is to be included within the term 'left'] is pro-abortion, or murdering the unborn baby---or partially born baby---if the woman [or the leftist pundits] want it. Talk about playing God.
Sarah Palin is pro-second ammendment, and a lifelong member of the NRA. She owns guns and uses them in hunting to keep meat on the table. The left wants guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but have no answer for the criminals---or those on the left who surrepticiously own them. They don't care that homeowners and others can't defend themselves. They also, logically, are attacking the US military, probably in part because they have guns and use them. 'Can't we all live together?
Sarah Palin has been an effective and laudable Governor of Alaska for the past two years [while Obama was in the midst of his multi-year run for the Presidency] with many listable accomplishments [I'm not going to repeat them here; they're available on the net to anyone who wants to read them again]; the left questions her abilities and experience to 'be a heart beat away from the Presidency' while never questioning Obama's complete lack of experience and proven ability to be a Governor, let alone President.
Obama, himself, has said that he was a poor 'community organizer' [and the meaning of that 'job' is yet to be understood], yet the left chooses that mundane [but locally important?] job to be good experience to be a President of the US.
Sarah Palin's family is off limits, and the radical media and bloggers need their butts tanned for the smears, innuendos, lies, and irrational contempt.
The list goes on, but it should be noted that it's quite obvious to any thinking person that Sarah Palin is more qualifed in temperament and experience to be President than Obama or Biden is.
So, is it any wonder at the attacks from the left? They'll continue, because no matter what Sarah Palin and John McCain do, the radical left will always berate them, smear them, and lie about them.
And oh, by the way. A McCain election could mean the thrusting of Sarah Palin on the National stage with such force that she'll automatically be the front runner for the Presidency after McCain. And the Democrats can't survive that. And that may account for the panic and anger.
Sarah Palin is pro-life in all cases and willing to raise a 'special needs' baby instead of aborting it; the left [the mainstream media is to be included within the term 'left'] is pro-abortion, or murdering the unborn baby---or partially born baby---if the woman [or the leftist pundits] want it. Talk about playing God.
Sarah Palin is pro-second ammendment, and a lifelong member of the NRA. She owns guns and uses them in hunting to keep meat on the table. The left wants guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but have no answer for the criminals---or those on the left who surrepticiously own them. They don't care that homeowners and others can't defend themselves. They also, logically, are attacking the US military, probably in part because they have guns and use them. 'Can't we all live together?
Sarah Palin has been an effective and laudable Governor of Alaska for the past two years [while Obama was in the midst of his multi-year run for the Presidency] with many listable accomplishments [I'm not going to repeat them here; they're available on the net to anyone who wants to read them again]; the left questions her abilities and experience to 'be a heart beat away from the Presidency' while never questioning Obama's complete lack of experience and proven ability to be a Governor, let alone President.
Obama, himself, has said that he was a poor 'community organizer' [and the meaning of that 'job' is yet to be understood], yet the left chooses that mundane [but locally important?] job to be good experience to be a President of the US.
Sarah Palin's family is off limits, and the radical media and bloggers need their butts tanned for the smears, innuendos, lies, and irrational contempt.
The list goes on, but it should be noted that it's quite obvious to any thinking person that Sarah Palin is more qualifed in temperament and experience to be President than Obama or Biden is.
So, is it any wonder at the attacks from the left? They'll continue, because no matter what Sarah Palin and John McCain do, the radical left will always berate them, smear them, and lie about them.
And oh, by the way. A McCain election could mean the thrusting of Sarah Palin on the National stage with such force that she'll automatically be the front runner for the Presidency after McCain. And the Democrats can't survive that. And that may account for the panic and anger.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Presidential Politics
It seems the rats and vicious insects of the leftist Democrats and Liberals have been released to do their dirtiest now that John McCain has selected a Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. From Daily Kos and the other Liberal blogs to the 'in-bed' media of most of the networks' anchors [notably MSNBC] sing the naysayers, dirtsayers, and general nabobs of negativism.
For a varied list of Presidential factoids, I offer the following.
'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.' - Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman.
What he fails to note is that his candidate for the TOP post [with the actual beating heart] has much less experience, judgment, and executive ability than has the Republican woman running for the second post.
'...What has Sen. Obama ever run? What business, city, or state has he ever been in charge of? What employees and advisors has he ever had to get the most out of? What cabinet meetings has he ever orchestrated? What corporate agreements has he ever negotiated? What National Guard units has he ever been commander of?' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
Even I, Topaz, with no political history, have more general aptitude and experience than Obama---though I'm not as tall or colorful.
'Sen. Obama’s entire career – from community organizing [what exactly is that?] in urban Chicago, to failed political bids, to the Illinois legislator, to 143 days in the Senate before announcing a bid for the presidency – has been one of constant up-the-ladder maneuvering.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
One might also note Obama had the 'judgment' in Illinois to serve his constituents and the State by voting 'present' 130 times, and speaking out and voting against [one of those rare times he actually voted yes or no] the 'IL born Alive Infant Protection Bill.'
'I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.' - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
'Whenever Senator Obama has sought to ascertain a position of high political prestige, whether he failed or succeeded in that endeavor, he has immediately begun looking to ascertain a position of even higher political prestige.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
Rather like the professional student as it were. Senator Obama was barely in the Senate long enough to find his seat, before he announced his intention to run for the Presidency, thus leading to the longest Presidential campaign in history. I hope Illinois is proud of it's only working Senator, Dick Durbin.
'Obama seems to like the winning, but not the job or responsibility that comes with the winning. With no cheese at the end of the maze, the young lawyer/professor from Southside seems to lose his focus.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
'...and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.' - David Brookes
'...The next president will have to finish the denuclearization of North Korea; prevent the nuclearization of Iran; organize a departure from Iraq that maintains some level of stability; defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; establish, nurture, and make the most of a relationship with Pakistan’s new leaders; and confront a revanchist Russia…' - Peter Skoblic, The New Republic.
On speaking terms with most of the World's leaders, John McCain is by far the abler candidate to deal with these problems. In contrast, Obama made a noisy trip to the Middle East and a speech in Germany, where he declined a visit with wounded US soldiers because he couldn't make a political event out of it.
'But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.' - Sarah Palin.
This is a direct challenge to those Liberal, Obama-adoring media types who nit-pick the life of a good Governor trying to find something negative to talk about---even if they have to invent it.
'...voting for the 1980s nuclear freeze and against Reagan’s defense buildup; against the original Gulf War in 1991; for the Iraq trifurcation into ethnic enclaves and against the successful troop surge in the present; and against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards 'terrorists' - Nicholas Guariglia re Joe Biden.
Just what are Joe Biden's qualifications again? Sitting on committees and making speeches?
Senator Joe Biden recently announced to Israeli leaders that they should get used to a nuclear Iran. Well, that's another sign that Obama-Biden aren't going to be serious about meeting and dealing with our adversaries [not to mention their betrayal of our Government's support of Israel.] And they have the nerve to classify a more experienced Sarah Palin as a lightweight in the foreign policy arena?
'Yet according to Obama, his foreign policy experience consists of 'ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and the years he spent growing up in Indonesia. Now he has added a new personal detail to that résumé: a trip to Pakistan while a college student.' Perhaps his recent whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe, where he spoke in front of thousands of adoring Germans, can be considered another notch in his belt.' - Pam Meister, Family Security Matters.
Don't these facts ring a bell in your heads, oh genuflecting adorers of the Obamessiah? Does an empty suit flap in the wind?
And more recently, the Obama-Biden ticket has promised to prosecute anyone they could from the Bush administration for---well, for anything including excessive use of pencil erasers. If, God forbid, they get into their offices, most of the time will be spent on other than the Country's business. Obama isn't qualified to do anything anyway. And by the way, what would Obama aspire to run for after that? Pope? World Emperor?
While in the Illinois legislature, Senator Obama argued against the 'IL Born-Alive Infants Protection Bill', something that would have protected the life of the baby if born alive. I read Obama's argument on the Senate floor and found it to be rambling, incoherent at times, and bad enough for him to claim just about any sentiment from it. His later comment that if he were in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the federal 'Born-Alive Infant Protection Bill' is just a gratuitous statement of fancy.
It was recently announced that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and not married. She and her boyfriend/fiance have been planning marriage and will probably wed before the baby is born. Bristol has the complete support of her family, and she has a great opportunity to live a happy life with her own family as it grows. On the other hand, if she chose abortion or welfare, the left would love her to death. Don't kid yourselves readers, the left is the death dealer of your lifetime. It's idea of 'choice' doesn't include life, but it does include death even when the baby is almost born. Knocking heads together is nothing compared to crushing skulls, is it?
'Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,' he [Obama] said. 'I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.' - Barack Obama
It's so sad to hear a candidate for the highest office in the land state his belief that 'motherhood' is a punishment---and again by the way, 17 is at or past the age of consent in all the states, parents notwithstanding. He seems to forget that without motherhood and close parental care, we'd all be---well, we wouldn't be.
Sarah Palin's husband quit his 17-year British Petroleum oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife’s administration---a wise move.
On the other hand, Barack Obama's wife was promoted and given 160% pay raise by U of C hospitals within months of her husband’s election to U.S. Senate. Furthermore, her employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion. Just a coincidence, you say? Can pigs fly yet?
John McCain, a Navy veteran, was shot down and spent some five and half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp under horrid conditions. Besides basic deprivation, he suffered numerous broken bones in both arms and legs, shoulder, and ribcage. Yet, he refused to give up any strategic military information to his captors. He refused early release because his fellow prisoners weren't offered a similar release. His captivity showed his character and perseverence even under torture. He commanded a huge Naval group while on active duty, and he spent productive and active years as a US Senator---a bi-partisan maverick for most of them.
On the other hand you have Barack Obama. [You have him, I don't want him.] Now think deep in your hearts. Do you think that Barack Obama could have stood up against such captivity? Could he have kept his mouth shut under torture? With broken bones? Somehow, I doubt it. And he'd find that flowery oratory doesn't cut it in the real World.
Barack Obama wants to be President 'real bad', doesn't he? Well, since he has no experience, we should grant his basic wish and make him President of a small business in an area where he and his cronies can't exert political pressure. If he's successful, we can consider him for jobs higher and higher on the scale [we certainly don't want to give him something that's not in his 'pay grade'] until we come to political office: a full term as a mayor, maybe two; a state office where he actually has to work; and then maybe for Congress, where again he'll have to be there and actually get something done. After a few terms there, he consider running for the Presidency. He'll still be defeated, but he can logically run at that time. If he can't hack it early on in this program, then he should promise to go away and let the adults take care of matters he doesn't understand.
Governor Sarah Palin was vetted by the McCain campaign and the people of Alaska. But who has vetted Senator Obama? certainly not the American people. With the National media tripping over themselves and getting goose bumps every time they hear or come across Obama, they aren't about to report fairly and accurately to the American public. Could Obama even receive a top-secret security clearance? I doubt it. His past and present relationships with convicts, communists and purveyors of hate and terror would easily prevent that. And you on the left would give this man the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth?
And what about experience? Obama's a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington, especially on the left. The Senators and Representatives are: primarily lawyers, many of whom are strictly in name only; and they aren't qualified for city council, let alone National office. They are mostly 'good-old boys' living beyond their mental means, and scaring the public with their radical and illogical stands about National policy.
Would you hire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama, to run your business profitablly and with good will? Once again, I doubt it.
Finally: 'In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.' - Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
As a sidelight, this is a detailed comparison and contrast between Palin and Obama:
http://www.betterconstructed.com/sarah_palin.htm
For a varied list of Presidential factoids, I offer the following.
'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.' - Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman.
What he fails to note is that his candidate for the TOP post [with the actual beating heart] has much less experience, judgment, and executive ability than has the Republican woman running for the second post.
'...What has Sen. Obama ever run? What business, city, or state has he ever been in charge of? What employees and advisors has he ever had to get the most out of? What cabinet meetings has he ever orchestrated? What corporate agreements has he ever negotiated? What National Guard units has he ever been commander of?' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
Even I, Topaz, with no political history, have more general aptitude and experience than Obama---though I'm not as tall or colorful.
'Sen. Obama’s entire career – from community organizing [what exactly is that?] in urban Chicago, to failed political bids, to the Illinois legislator, to 143 days in the Senate before announcing a bid for the presidency – has been one of constant up-the-ladder maneuvering.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
One might also note Obama had the 'judgment' in Illinois to serve his constituents and the State by voting 'present' 130 times, and speaking out and voting against [one of those rare times he actually voted yes or no] the 'IL born Alive Infant Protection Bill.'
'I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.' - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
'Whenever Senator Obama has sought to ascertain a position of high political prestige, whether he failed or succeeded in that endeavor, he has immediately begun looking to ascertain a position of even higher political prestige.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
Rather like the professional student as it were. Senator Obama was barely in the Senate long enough to find his seat, before he announced his intention to run for the Presidency, thus leading to the longest Presidential campaign in history. I hope Illinois is proud of it's only working Senator, Dick Durbin.
'Obama seems to like the winning, but not the job or responsibility that comes with the winning. With no cheese at the end of the maze, the young lawyer/professor from Southside seems to lose his focus.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.
'...and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.' - David Brookes
'...The next president will have to finish the denuclearization of North Korea; prevent the nuclearization of Iran; organize a departure from Iraq that maintains some level of stability; defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; establish, nurture, and make the most of a relationship with Pakistan’s new leaders; and confront a revanchist Russia…' - Peter Skoblic, The New Republic.
On speaking terms with most of the World's leaders, John McCain is by far the abler candidate to deal with these problems. In contrast, Obama made a noisy trip to the Middle East and a speech in Germany, where he declined a visit with wounded US soldiers because he couldn't make a political event out of it.
'But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.' - Sarah Palin.
This is a direct challenge to those Liberal, Obama-adoring media types who nit-pick the life of a good Governor trying to find something negative to talk about---even if they have to invent it.
'...voting for the 1980s nuclear freeze and against Reagan’s defense buildup; against the original Gulf War in 1991; for the Iraq trifurcation into ethnic enclaves and against the successful troop surge in the present; and against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards 'terrorists' - Nicholas Guariglia re Joe Biden.
Just what are Joe Biden's qualifications again? Sitting on committees and making speeches?
Senator Joe Biden recently announced to Israeli leaders that they should get used to a nuclear Iran. Well, that's another sign that Obama-Biden aren't going to be serious about meeting and dealing with our adversaries [not to mention their betrayal of our Government's support of Israel.] And they have the nerve to classify a more experienced Sarah Palin as a lightweight in the foreign policy arena?
'Yet according to Obama, his foreign policy experience consists of 'ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and the years he spent growing up in Indonesia. Now he has added a new personal detail to that résumé: a trip to Pakistan while a college student.' Perhaps his recent whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe, where he spoke in front of thousands of adoring Germans, can be considered another notch in his belt.' - Pam Meister, Family Security Matters.
Don't these facts ring a bell in your heads, oh genuflecting adorers of the Obamessiah? Does an empty suit flap in the wind?
And more recently, the Obama-Biden ticket has promised to prosecute anyone they could from the Bush administration for---well, for anything including excessive use of pencil erasers. If, God forbid, they get into their offices, most of the time will be spent on other than the Country's business. Obama isn't qualified to do anything anyway. And by the way, what would Obama aspire to run for after that? Pope? World Emperor?
While in the Illinois legislature, Senator Obama argued against the 'IL Born-Alive Infants Protection Bill', something that would have protected the life of the baby if born alive. I read Obama's argument on the Senate floor and found it to be rambling, incoherent at times, and bad enough for him to claim just about any sentiment from it. His later comment that if he were in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the federal 'Born-Alive Infant Protection Bill' is just a gratuitous statement of fancy.
It was recently announced that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and not married. She and her boyfriend/fiance have been planning marriage and will probably wed before the baby is born. Bristol has the complete support of her family, and she has a great opportunity to live a happy life with her own family as it grows. On the other hand, if she chose abortion or welfare, the left would love her to death. Don't kid yourselves readers, the left is the death dealer of your lifetime. It's idea of 'choice' doesn't include life, but it does include death even when the baby is almost born. Knocking heads together is nothing compared to crushing skulls, is it?
'Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,' he [Obama] said. 'I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.' - Barack Obama
It's so sad to hear a candidate for the highest office in the land state his belief that 'motherhood' is a punishment---and again by the way, 17 is at or past the age of consent in all the states, parents notwithstanding. He seems to forget that without motherhood and close parental care, we'd all be---well, we wouldn't be.
Sarah Palin's husband quit his 17-year British Petroleum oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife’s administration---a wise move.
On the other hand, Barack Obama's wife was promoted and given 160% pay raise by U of C hospitals within months of her husband’s election to U.S. Senate. Furthermore, her employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion. Just a coincidence, you say? Can pigs fly yet?
John McCain, a Navy veteran, was shot down and spent some five and half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp under horrid conditions. Besides basic deprivation, he suffered numerous broken bones in both arms and legs, shoulder, and ribcage. Yet, he refused to give up any strategic military information to his captors. He refused early release because his fellow prisoners weren't offered a similar release. His captivity showed his character and perseverence even under torture. He commanded a huge Naval group while on active duty, and he spent productive and active years as a US Senator---a bi-partisan maverick for most of them.
On the other hand you have Barack Obama. [You have him, I don't want him.] Now think deep in your hearts. Do you think that Barack Obama could have stood up against such captivity? Could he have kept his mouth shut under torture? With broken bones? Somehow, I doubt it. And he'd find that flowery oratory doesn't cut it in the real World.
Barack Obama wants to be President 'real bad', doesn't he? Well, since he has no experience, we should grant his basic wish and make him President of a small business in an area where he and his cronies can't exert political pressure. If he's successful, we can consider him for jobs higher and higher on the scale [we certainly don't want to give him something that's not in his 'pay grade'] until we come to political office: a full term as a mayor, maybe two; a state office where he actually has to work; and then maybe for Congress, where again he'll have to be there and actually get something done. After a few terms there, he consider running for the Presidency. He'll still be defeated, but he can logically run at that time. If he can't hack it early on in this program, then he should promise to go away and let the adults take care of matters he doesn't understand.
Governor Sarah Palin was vetted by the McCain campaign and the people of Alaska. But who has vetted Senator Obama? certainly not the American people. With the National media tripping over themselves and getting goose bumps every time they hear or come across Obama, they aren't about to report fairly and accurately to the American public. Could Obama even receive a top-secret security clearance? I doubt it. His past and present relationships with convicts, communists and purveyors of hate and terror would easily prevent that. And you on the left would give this man the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth?
And what about experience? Obama's a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington, especially on the left. The Senators and Representatives are: primarily lawyers, many of whom are strictly in name only; and they aren't qualified for city council, let alone National office. They are mostly 'good-old boys' living beyond their mental means, and scaring the public with their radical and illogical stands about National policy.
Would you hire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama, to run your business profitablly and with good will? Once again, I doubt it.
Finally: 'In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.' - Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
As a sidelight, this is a detailed comparison and contrast between Palin and Obama:
http://www.betterconstructed.com/sarah_palin.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)