Back in May Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman rejected a call by Congress to release oil from the government's emergency stockpile. The congress gave the reason for this request as "oil is needed to bring down the current high fuel prices." Mr. Bodman rejected the request because "emergency stockpile oil is needed to respond to future supply emergencies, and not to influence prices." Now, as usual, the democrat controlled congress contradicts itself. In May Pres. Bush ask the Saudis to increase their oil production by 9.7 million barrels a day. The congress replied to that by saying that wouldn't help bring down the cost of oil. So they asked for 400 million barrels to be released into the economy, and said that it would reduce prices for Americans.
Let me just give you an idea of how long 400 million barrels would last. There are 43.5 gallons in a barrel of crude oil. Now then, 19.5 gallons of that end up as gasoline, 9 gallons of fuel oil, 4 gallons of jet fuel, and 11 gallons go to other products. So only 19.5 gallons out of a barrel end up as gas for your vehicle. Now if we do the math that 400 million barrels x 19.5 gallons = 7.8 billion gallons. However, we the "capitalistic pigs" of the Unites States use 386 million gallons of gas a day. So the amount of fuel that the democrat congress wants released would last us roughly 19.5 days.
My point is simply that neither releasing oil from the emergency stockpile, nor getting the Saudis to increase capacity is the answer. I think Pres. Bush has come to see this as well, by lifting the ban on drilling earlier this week. Our best way of getting back to "affordable" fuel cost is to drill in and around the good ol U.S.A. That means 100% energy independence from foreign oil. By lifting the ban, and by more Americans demanding we drill for our own oil, the ball has been placed in the democrat congress's court. What they need to do is release the ridiculous requirements that the EPA has on the oil companies. Secondly, they need to abolish the restrictions on oil exploration lands. Last, but not least, they need to reduce the federal gas tax (or do away with it, but lets not hold our breath.) These things will go alot further to helping relieve the strain on hard working Americans. If they want so badly to help the Americans, that are being "turned upside down, and having money shaken from their pockets", then why not commit to real methods of help. Yet another prime example of why we need smaller government instead of the Goliath it has grown into.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Obama: "I must earn troops trust."
A few days ago Obama had a reversal on the war in Iraq. He said that he would call together his joint chiefs of staff, and give them instructions to end the war now. Now that sounds firm, and I'm sure the anti-war left went nuts. However, for those that don't know the joint chiefs of staff have nothing to do with whether or not we stay or pull out. They don't have anything to do with the organizational charts for military operations in Iraq. They are completely separate from their respective services. (Each branch has a chief: Army chief, Navy chief, etc.) They are in place to advise the president, but are not at all part of the commander structure. They are not even allowed to participate in command structure, and this is to ensure that they stay independent and neutral. Yet the man that wants to be your next president does not know this himself. Of course he is flopping around out there as usual with his "well what had happened" or "what I meant was", and as usual the media gives him a pass. However the Obama train wreck does not stop with that comment.
Obama in his attempts to try and land some favor with military minded voters said "I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes that I have to earn the trust of the men and women in uniform. I don't presume that from the day I'm sworn in,
(pretty confident isn't he) every single serviceman or woman suddenly says 'This guy knows what he's doing.' I have to display those qualities of leadership in listening, in standing up for our military on some of the critical issues. I have to deliver on my promises so that relationships and trust are built. So that the people of the armed services feel I care, and not just like I'm looking to score some cheap political points."
Now all that would be believable if he displayed any interest whatsoever leading up to this point, but he hasn't at all. In fact Obama has spent time doing nothing but talking about pulling out/ending the war. He talks as if there is no progress. Obama has done nothing but spew lies, or support efforts to undermine all the progress that our military has made. However the positive news that has come out of Iraq as of late has caused Obama to flop around like a fish on dry land. The evidence of this is clear and simple. In one week he talked about telling his joint chiefs how to end the war immediately, and then tells the Military Times that he wants to earn and build this relationship with the military. So somebody please explain this to me. How does one earn trust or truly support someone in this manner?
Obama in his attempts to try and land some favor with military minded voters said "I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes that I have to earn the trust of the men and women in uniform. I don't presume that from the day I'm sworn in,
(pretty confident isn't he) every single serviceman or woman suddenly says 'This guy knows what he's doing.' I have to display those qualities of leadership in listening, in standing up for our military on some of the critical issues. I have to deliver on my promises so that relationships and trust are built. So that the people of the armed services feel I care, and not just like I'm looking to score some cheap political points."
Now all that would be believable if he displayed any interest whatsoever leading up to this point, but he hasn't at all. In fact Obama has spent time doing nothing but talking about pulling out/ending the war. He talks as if there is no progress. Obama has done nothing but spew lies, or support efforts to undermine all the progress that our military has made. However the positive news that has come out of Iraq as of late has caused Obama to flop around like a fish on dry land. The evidence of this is clear and simple. In one week he talked about telling his joint chiefs how to end the war immediately, and then tells the Military Times that he wants to earn and build this relationship with the military. So somebody please explain this to me. How does one earn trust or truly support someone in this manner?
Saturday, July 5, 2008
2008 Election Issues: Winning the War
"The terrorists who struck America that September morning intend to strike us again. We know this because the enemy has told us so." President Bush in a speech in November at the Heritage Foundation.
The terrorist have stated their goals. They have told the world that they intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire that would encompass all former and current Muslim lands. This would include countries from: Europe, North Africa, Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Now on the path to these goals the terrorist will not compromise, negotiate, and are not open to "dialogue" with infidels. (i.e. democrat party definition of dialogue- the the U.S. is evil, and that we understand why you hate us. We will also do whatever it takes to make you like us, like down sizing our military, or allowing you to destroy Israel and the rest of the free "christian" world.) Now having said that what do our democrat leaders, and especially Obama want to do? They want to sit down, and create a dialogue with these people. In fact Obama wants to sit down and talk with all terrorist dictators/leaders.
Now it would seem that most of us have a strong understanding of this concept. We understand that when bad guys with guns say that they want to hurt you, and have done so, they mean what they say, and follow through with more attacks. This brings me to my point about the war in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is the primary front in the war against al-Qaeda terrorist network, and Islamic radicalism. The U.S. led surge has been nothing BUT A SUCCESS. Iraq with a new born democracy is no longer on the path to "civil war". Ballot boxes, and the rule of law have taken the place of terrorist leadership, and intimidation as the societal norm. The U.S. and its allies must make a long term commitment to DEFEATING the al-Qaeda threat in Iraq. However the liberals in Washington continue to talk about a large troop withdrawal at the end of the Bush Administration. This mindless chatter does nothing but send an emboldening message to our enemies. If we pull out we will see nothing, but mass murder, chaos, and destruction in Iraq. (search for footage of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, and imagine it about 10 times worse.)
Afghanistan also is a crucial front in the global war on terror. Since the U.S. military victory in 2001, we have been unable to transform the political situation. We must make sure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for Islamic terrorist. We cannot do this if we remove the troops that we have there now. We must commit to a long term military, economic, and political campaign in Afghanistan like we have in Iraq. This is important because we must show the Afghans that a democratic government will serve them better than a radical Islamic regime.
In the big picture Iraq and Afghanistan are a microcosm of a much larger war the U.S. is waging against Islamic terrorism and extremism. These battles that are being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan have direct affects on U.S. national security, and the security of our allies. You can bet that if we don't take the fight to our enemies that they most certainly will bring the fight to us, again.
The terrorist have stated their goals. They have told the world that they intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire that would encompass all former and current Muslim lands. This would include countries from: Europe, North Africa, Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Now on the path to these goals the terrorist will not compromise, negotiate, and are not open to "dialogue" with infidels. (i.e. democrat party definition of dialogue- the the U.S. is evil, and that we understand why you hate us. We will also do whatever it takes to make you like us, like down sizing our military, or allowing you to destroy Israel and the rest of the free "christian" world.) Now having said that what do our democrat leaders, and especially Obama want to do? They want to sit down, and create a dialogue with these people. In fact Obama wants to sit down and talk with all terrorist dictators/leaders.
Now it would seem that most of us have a strong understanding of this concept. We understand that when bad guys with guns say that they want to hurt you, and have done so, they mean what they say, and follow through with more attacks. This brings me to my point about the war in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is the primary front in the war against al-Qaeda terrorist network, and Islamic radicalism. The U.S. led surge has been nothing BUT A SUCCESS. Iraq with a new born democracy is no longer on the path to "civil war". Ballot boxes, and the rule of law have taken the place of terrorist leadership, and intimidation as the societal norm. The U.S. and its allies must make a long term commitment to DEFEATING the al-Qaeda threat in Iraq. However the liberals in Washington continue to talk about a large troop withdrawal at the end of the Bush Administration. This mindless chatter does nothing but send an emboldening message to our enemies. If we pull out we will see nothing, but mass murder, chaos, and destruction in Iraq. (search for footage of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, and imagine it about 10 times worse.)
Afghanistan also is a crucial front in the global war on terror. Since the U.S. military victory in 2001, we have been unable to transform the political situation. We must make sure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for Islamic terrorist. We cannot do this if we remove the troops that we have there now. We must commit to a long term military, economic, and political campaign in Afghanistan like we have in Iraq. This is important because we must show the Afghans that a democratic government will serve them better than a radical Islamic regime.
In the big picture Iraq and Afghanistan are a microcosm of a much larger war the U.S. is waging against Islamic terrorism and extremism. These battles that are being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan have direct affects on U.S. national security, and the security of our allies. You can bet that if we don't take the fight to our enemies that they most certainly will bring the fight to us, again.
Friday, July 4, 2008
God Bless America
Ignore the advertising on the sides, but take minute to read this, and listen to this description of the Pledge of Allegiance. God Bless America, and Happy Independence Day.
 |
| |
On January 14, 1969, Red Skelton touched the hearts of millions of Americans with his "Pledge Of Allegiance", in which he explained the meaning of each and every word. Red Skelton's recitation of the "Pledge of Allegiance" was twice read into the Congressional Record of the United States and received numerous awards.
RED SKELTON: "I remember this one teacher. To me, he was the greatest teacher, a real sage of my time. He had such wisdom. We were all reciting the Pledge Of Allegiance and he walked over. Mr. Lasswell was his name... He said": "I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge Of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word:
I
Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge
Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance
My love and my devotion.
To the Flag
Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
of the United
That means that we have all come together.
States
Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic
Republic -- a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands
 Pledge of Allegiance Buy This Art Print At AllPosters.com |
One Nation
One Nation -- meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible
Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty
Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice
The principle, or quality, of dealing fairly with others.
For All
For All -- which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine. And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"
Red Skelton's recitation of the pledge of allegiance is available on DVD as part of the Red Skelton Christmas DVD.
Editor's note: sadly, Red Skelton was prescient - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the most overturned court in the United States of America) has done exactly that.
Courtesy of YouTube.com, here is a video clip of Red Skelton reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
