“There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.”
– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
One thing that I learned from traveling on the road for so many years….was that there is an average intelligence in this country. And much to my dismay, it is WAY lower than I would like to admit. The IGNORANT vote has the potential of being WAY larger than the well informed vote. The only safe guard up until now is that the IGNORANT voter is too IGNORANT to actually go VOTE!
Be scared….VERY SCARED if the IGNORANT VOTER can be mobilized into action. THEIR VOTE is JUST AS POWERFUL as an intelligent vote. Think about that one….hmmmm
Did I say SCARY!!!
I could live with ANY outcome as long as I felt that it was what the US population REALLY WANTED. Right now, I am not at all sure that people are voting from a well informed position. People are voting from an emotionally driven place that is not based upon the reality that faces us in the world today.
There should be some kind of test given BEFORE being allowed to vote….have to know how to spell your candidates full name, know who their vice presidential nominee is, know what their job is currently (prior to running), know what state they are from, etc…..knowing at least 3 policies that they stand for that the voter agrees with….blah blah blah….that would certainly thin the heard and produce a more targeted outcome based upon reality and intelligence.
YIKES! ….can you tell I am WORN OUT with this crap!
Barack Obama has been spewing his “Hope and Change” theme for this election cycle. That has become the mantra for the Democrats. They never quite get to the point of what they talk about as far as “hope”. The definition of “hope” according to http://www.merriam-webster.com is:Hope:
1: to cherish a desire with anticipation
2: to desire with expectation of obtainment
What Senator Obama doesn’t tell you , is that Hope “Changes” to “HOPELESS”.
Hopeless:
1 a: having no expectation of good or success : despairing
b: not susceptible to remedy or cure
c: incapable of redemption or improvement
2 a: giving no ground for hope : desperate
b: incapable of solution, management, or accomplishment : impossible
synonyms see “despondent”
To me, the word “hope” is a negative. It’s an expectation. Most expectations get flushed down the toilet and never get met. It’s unrealistic to look for “hope” in something. It’s a way to camouflage what you really want to do.
What Obama and the Congress are doing is selling the American people a bill of goods. They are camouflaging Socialism with “Hope and Change”. Yes, just like Adolf Hitler did way back when. He promised the German people things he never intended on seeing through.
Hitler was hardly satisfied with a discussion of ideas. He sought to create a force for “change”. For this purpose, he needed followers. But he was still unsure of himself. Could he lead others? Would others listen to his ideas and follow him? The only way to know was to try.
Hitler discovered his two most powerful weapons: his ability to speak and excite people. From then on the meetings grew in numbers and so did the German Workers’ Party. Does this sound at all familiar?
In 1919 Hitler had been surprised to discover that he could capture the attention of seventy people. By the mid-1930s he had become a masterful speaker. He spoke at huge rallies organized by the Party, holding thousands of listeners spellbound with his visionary dreams of what Germany could become, and arousing them to a frenzied hatred of Jews, Communists, and political enemies.
In the fall of 1929 a shock wave began in the city of New York that was destined to help bring Hitler to power in far-off Germany. The Wall Street stock market crashed. The trading of stocks came to an abrupt halt when the value of the stocks suddenly fell to practically nothing. Millionaires became paupers overnight. The middle class saw its savings and investments disappear. People who had invested in stocks and bonds suddenly had nothing left. Banks failed and companies went bankrupt; people who had placed their money in savings accounts and checking accounts found that they could not draw their money out because the banks had been shut down. Factories and stores closed. Jobs were scarce.
Germany’s economy after World War I had been built on foreign loans, especially loans from the United States, and on world trade, which was also based on a system of loans and notes of credit. As a result, the fate of Germany (and of other countries as well) was tied up with that of the United States. When world trade and commerce collapsed, the German economy collapsed with it. Now millions of Germans were out of work. The middle class saw its savings and investments disappear. To pay their debts, people were forced to sell houses and furnishings. The Depression was the final blow, coming on top of Germany’s military defeat and the postwar years of inflation and unemployment. In Germany more than in any other country a feeling of utter hopelessness prevailed.
Hitler was tireless. He traveled from city to city by plane, automobile, and railroad. In the final few weeks before the election of 1930, he made as many as three speeches a day. He blamed the loss of the First World War on the old politicians of Germany; he told the people that they had been betrayed by Jewish bankers and moneylenders; he warned those who would listen that the time had come to rebuild Germany’s army and prepare for war against the Communists. He promised that there would be jobs for everyone when rebuilding began. Finally, he reminded the people of their lost pride in the fatherland, and he proclaimed the superiority of the Aryan race and German civilization.
People supported Hitler because he promised them what they wanted and needed to hear. Isn’t that what Obama is doing?
The Weimar Republic appeared to have no idea how to solve the problems of the Depression. The Nazis on the other hand promised to solve the problems. Hitler promised most groups in Germany what they wanted. Hitler used the Jews and other sections of society as scapegoats, blaming all the problems on them. To Germans at the time Hitler made sense, he united everyone by providing explanations for Germany’s problems. Obama and thhe Democrats are doing exactly the same thing. They are promising to solve problems. They are using George Bush and the Republicans as scapegoats for the problems we are facing instead of looking at what caused the real problems. THEM!
People in Germany were tired of their poor quality of life. Hitler promised to make Germany proud again – it was exactly what people wanted to hear. Hitler pledged something for every part of Germany society: He promised Farmers higher prices for their produce – making up for all their losses during the Depression. He promised unemployed workers jobs building public works such as roads and stadiums. He promised the middle class to restore the profits of small business and the value of savings. To end the Communist threat.
Obama and the Democrats are promising the same things. He’s promising jobs, profits for small businesses, tax cuts, higher wages….. TO END THE REPUBLICAN THREAT!
So…. if any of this upsets you I did my job. Just take a look at history and you will see what “Hope and Change” did to the world.
The minimum consideration of a candidate should be: The person, the candidate’s character, the issues they represent, the probable cabinet nominations they would add to their administration, the probable judicial characteristics they are likely to be guided by when nominating federal jurist and Supreme Court jurist, their endorsements, and their political trending. The culmination of the preceding concerns should be the standard investigation for any voter endowed with common sense before casting their vote.
In disregarding and reckless fashion, many plebiscites rarely penetrate the veneer of a candidate. Some voters settle for just a fraction of the person running–perhaps never looking beyond their gender, race, or religious affiliation. Some voters voted for Hillary Clinton solely because she is a women, or vote for Barack Obama only because he is black. The scenario could be reversed and a vote not cast for Clinton only because she is a woman, or a vote against Obama because he is black. Same with religion. Some voted against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.
Let’s Look at Johnny & Sarah first:
1) McCain does vote as he says he does. Barry does not. Do some real homework and don’t listen to the media right or left. They are all full of shit. Read the Congressional Record and see how they really voted on certain issues: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
2) John McCain is a true leader. He proved it in Viet Nam, he proved it as a Congressman and proved it as a Senator. He took D.C. to task and tried as hard as he could for reform in Government spending. He spent 22 years in the Navy as a pilot. On October 26, 1967, a missile struck his plane and forced him to eject, knocking him unconscious and breaking both his arms and his leg. He was then taken as a prisoner of war into the now infamous “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was denied necessary medical treatment and often beaten by the North Vietnamese. He spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. He had the opportunity to be released and he chose to stay and let his other men leave. That says alot about his character. If the commies couldn’t break him down, in the years he was a POW that’s the kind of guy I want leading this country.
McCain’s last Navy duty assignment was to serve as the naval liaison to the United States Senate. He retired from the Navy in 1981. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. This is the kind of guy I want in the oval office.
3) He has integrity. What you see is what you get. No bullshit with this guy. I don’t agree with everything he stands for, however, he lives his word. You may not agree with his positions, but he does not change his views due to political pressures put on him. I admire him for that.
4) You can judge a person by the company they keep, or in the case of a politician, by who endorses them. People who are supporting McCain are Joe Lieberman & Rudy Giuliani plus a host of others with true integrity and ideals.
5) Sarah Palin is also a no bullshit person. She’s a real person who is outside the mainstream. She has turned Alaska around. Granted she has only been a Mayor and a Governor, but she has more experience governing and making decisions than Barry, Joey or Johnny combined. You may not like her, but she is no dummy and WILL make a difference.
You say she has no experience. Here’s her resume:
Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002)
President of Alaska Conference of Mayors;City Council member (1992-1996)
Governor for 2 years;Mayor for 10 years
Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard
Sports reporter; Commercial Salmon fisherman
Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Here’s what she has done as Governor:
Chair of Alaska Conservation Commission (2003-4);Announced plans to create sub-cabinet group of advisors to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK
Called out Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) to “come clean” about financial dealings that are under fed investigation
Passed a landmark ethics reform bill;Used veto to cut budgetary spending;Prevented “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.
Replaced entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because of conflict of interest
Resigned in protest from position of Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.
She proposed House Bill 4001 and Senate bill 4002 which were signed into law by Governor Palin on August 25, 2008. SB 4002 pays $1,200 to each resident who qualifies. The money for these payments comes from the state’s natural resource revenue. This bill also suspends the state’s tax on gasoline.
Administrative Order 242. This order puts together a co-op of the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Revenue to work with organizations who wish to commercialize Alaska’s North Slope natural gas. The Order encourages the departments to support any who are pursuing development of natural gas projects which are liquefiable and economic.
She cut Alaska’s budget from the former administration:
She sold the private jet the former Governor bought with tax payer money.
Upon entering office as Governor, the first thing Palin did was fire the chef. She said she is able to make meals for her children and the chef is no longer necessary.
She is against wasteful spending of taxpayers dollars. She has integrity, if nothing else to bring to the position of Vice president of the USA. Her campaign for Governor centered around corrupt politics.
Rumors have been going around claiming Palin cut funding for Special Needs Education by 62%. The rumor has been found to be false and the funding in fact tripled for these special needs children education.
The Bridge To Nowhere:
Originally the report told was that Sarah Palin was against the bridge to Nowhere. After doing some digging around I found out the truth of the bridge. Sarah Palin originally was for the bridge and even made a statement to that affect which has been recorded.
Palin, Sept. 2006: The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done. This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.
When the proposal came before the senate, the bill was passed with a vote of 91 for and 4 against it, with 5 senators not voting. John McCain was one of the 4 who voted against it. Barak Obama and Joe Biden both voted for it.
The Bridge to Nowhere became a symbol of Pork Barrel spending and earmarks, which is something John McCain is against.
State Senator (1997-2004)
Community Organizer
Executive Experience: None
Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session
Once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans
Military Affairs experience: none
Associate at civil rights law firm
Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators in Hyde Park in 2002
Often says, “I am my brother’s keeper”;Brother lives in a hut in Nairobi on $12 per year
Voted “present” over 100 times as IL state senator
Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of “mainstream Democratic Chicago”;Purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko
Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms
Secured federal earmarks for wife’s employer and for campaign bundlers
Only IL state sen. to speak against the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions.
Talks about the environment a lot
Ran the Woods Foundation with terrorist William Ayers
Was a trainer and lawyer for ACORN which is the group that got us into this Economic mess with mortgages.
Supporters and friends:
William Ayers – terrorist
Bernadine Dohrn – terrorist
Tony Rezko – convicted felon. Of Wire Fraud, Money Laundering, And Aiding And Abetting Bribery
Larry Walsh
Kwame Kilpatrick – Pled Guilty To Two Felonies Forcing Him To Step Down As Mayor
Nadhmi Auchi – Had Been Convicted Of Fraud In France In 2003. After Visiting Chicago And Detroit In 2004, He Wasn’t Allowed Back Into This Country In 2005, According To A Prosecution Filing In The Rezko Case.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright – an unapologetic racist and hard Left firebrand.
Louis Farrakhan – Muslim Extremist
Jesse Jackson – racial hustler
Al Sharpton – racial hustler
I could keep going, but I think you get the drift.
Joey’s Record:
Seeing Biden is an military expert I decided to list his 10 greatest military accomplishments during his military service.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If I missed some, please let me know and I would be glad to add or replace some of my top 10.
BTY general Joe was in college until 1968. Make of that what you will.
Accused of plagiarism while in his first year at Syracuse University Law School. He was called before the disciplinary body at the law school during his first year because of charges that he had committed plagiarism on a paper (NY Times)
Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85
Said that he ”went to law school on a full academic scholarship – the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,” Mr. Biden said. He also said that he ”ended up in the top half” of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, he was ”the outstanding student in the political science department” and ”graduated with three degrees from college.”
In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ”I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.”
As for receiving three degrees, Mr. Biden said: ”I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors – I said ‘three’ and should have said ‘two.’ ” Mr. Biden received a single B.A. in history and political science…
He claimed that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ”My recollection is – and I’d have to confirm this – but I don’t recall paying any money to go to law school.” Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse ”on half scholarship based on financial need.
Biden was elected to the Senate at age 29 and spent only four years after graduating from Syracuse Law School in 1968 working in the private sector before entering public life.
For the last 15 years, Biden has been saying that women, and only women, can suffer from domestic violence.
educated at St. Helena’s School, Wilmington, Del., and Archmere Academy, Claymont, Del.;
graduated, University of Delaware, Newark, 1965, and Syracuse (N.Y.) University College of Law 1968
admitted to the Delaware bar in 1969 and commenced practice in Wilmington
served on the New Castle County Council 1970-1972
elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1972 and reelected in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, and again in 2002 for the term ending January 3, 2009
chair, Committee on the Judiciary (One Hundredth through One Hundred Third Congresses)
Committee on Foreign Relations (One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 3-20, 2001; June 6, 2001-January 3, 2003], One Hundred Tenth Congress)
Other than that he hasn’t done squat. He has never Governed.
If the Dems were so concerned with taking back the white house, they would not have backed a candidate who won with a tilted primary election process, the youth vote, and the homeless and dead people vote. And who was, in the end, selected by the super delegates. They would have backed the candidate who won the popular vote, from voters who are the base of the party and the most loyal of voters.
If the Dems were so concerned with tax breaks and concerned about the average Americans, they would not have supported a candidate who has shady dealings with slumlords, and who purchased a home, using funds from said slumlord, who was financed with money from Saudis. A candidate whose districts were some of the, if not the, most poorest in the country. A candidate who did nothing as 800 members in his districts, died in those slums during a heatwave. And those who froze to death during the winter, because, while Rezko was helping to finance Obama’s campaign, he could not afford to fix the heating in those slums.
If the Dems were so concerned with gay rights, they would not have supported a candidate who pandered to the conservative Christians by distributing religious materials, and hosted campaign rallies headlined by anti-gay bigots.
If the Dems were so concerned with keeping conservative policies out of the white house, they wouldn’t have supported a candidate who sat in a racist church for 20 years, that spewed anti-white hate, and who seemed to praise attacks on 9/11. A candidate who aligned himself with Wright, Phleger, and Meeks, and Farrakhan. They would not have supported a candidate who wants to provide even more funding to Bush’s Faith Based initiatives. Who believes that faith should not be left at the door to government.
Barry is a false prophet, a fraud, an empty suit, and he was selected by an undemocratic caucus system, where one person/one vote did not exist. African American communities and caucuses flooded with activists and riddled with illegal practices, gave Obama a much higher delegate count. Delegates were stolen from HRC, and awarded to Obama in FL & MI. Delegates for HRC were threatened and called uncle Toms, and some received death threats, and many had their careers threatened. And the roll call vote at the convention was a joke.
John McCain will get my vote, because I believe he is the better choice to lead our country moving forward, and I feel safer turning the country over to someone who nearly died for their country, then to someone who is friends with someone who bombed it, friends with someone who despises most of its citizens, and associates with someone who trashes gay people. And who has a wife who is not proud of her country.
McCain’s position on 2nd Amendment Rights will uphold the Constutution whereas Barry wants to do away with it in a very slick way by over taxing ammunition, banning ALL handguns and semi-automatics, limiting purchases, and basically taking guns away from people like me who abide by the law. If you look back over history, the countries that took away gun rights were facists dictatorships: Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, Turkey, Iran, Iraq… need I go on?
Who won the Vice Presidential debate will be debated until November. My personal feelings is that Sarah Palin edged out Biden. She comes off as a real person with real concerns and zero bullshit. My WTF Meter was off the charts last night as I watched the debate. Joe Biden came out with some of the most outrageous statements that were totally incorrect. Not that I’m saying he lied, but HE LIED THROUGH HIS PORCELAIN TEETH! And the scary part is people are buying this crap hook, line and sinker.
The problem is that Joey Biden has been in politics for over 30 years. What has this bozo done other than plagiarize other people and stick it to the public? Our entire Congress is at fault here. Last night Joey came up with some of the most outrageous crap and here it is:
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it. Joe Biden is wrong because Barack Obama said he would meet with the leaders of state sponsors of terror without preconditions.
Barack Obama Has Repeatedly Affirmed His Position Of Unconditionally Meeting With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror Like Ahmadinejad.
· At A July 2007 Debate, Barack Obama Said He Would Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror “Without Precondition.” QUESTION: “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”… OBAMA: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous.” (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
· In September 2007, Barack Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet With Iranian President Ahmadinejad. QUESTION: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad…” OBAMA: “Uh huh.” QUESTION: “Would you still meet with him today?” OBAMA: “Yeah, nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. (Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York City, 9/24/07)
· Watch:
· In An October 2007 CBS Interview, When Asked About Meeting With “Hugo Chavez And Etc. Etc.,” Barack Obama Said “Exactly, And Without Preconditions.” CBS’ Harry Smith: “You said, ‘I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc.'” Obama: “Exactly, and without preconditions.” (CBS’ “The Early Show,” 10/15/07)
· In February 2008, Barack Obama Said He Has Been “Absolutely Clear” On His Position: “I Will Meet Without Preconditions” With Leaders Of Iran And Other Hostile Regimes. OBAMA: “There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/4/08)
· According To Barack Obama’s Website, “Obama Is The Only Major Candidate Who Supports Tough, Direct Presidential Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions.” “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/12/08)
Joe Biden And Other Democrats Have Criticized Barack Obama’s “Without Precondition” Statements
· Joe Biden Said “Absolutely Positively No” To Unconditional Meetings With Leaders Of Rogue States. BIDEN: “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely positively no.” (Joe Biden, Remarks At The National Press Club, Washington, DC, 8/1/07)
· Sen. Clinton Said Barack Obama’s Position Was “Irresponsible And, Frankly, Naïve.” CLINTON: “I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive to say that you would commit to meeting with, you know, Chavez and Castro and others within the first year.” (ABC News,’ “Good Morning America,” 7/25/07)
America’s European Allies Are Concerned About Barack Obama’s Pledge To Meet With President Ahmadinejad Without Precondition.
· The Washington Post: Europeans “Increasingly Concerned That Sen. Barack Obama’s Campaign Pledge To Begin Direct Talks … Could Potentially Rupture U.S. Relations With Key European Allies.” “European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.” (Glenn Kessler, “Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran,” The Washington Post, 6/22/08)
More…
· Obama Adviser Philip Gordon: European Officials “Uncomfortable With Giving Up Precondition Of Uranium Enrichment Right Now.” (Glenn Kessler, “Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran,” The Washington Post, 6/22/08)
· The Washington Post: European Officials Say Precondition “Is A European Concept.” “European officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as interfering with U.S. politics, said the demand that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment is a European concept, not something forced on them by the Bush administration.” (Glenn Kessler, “Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran,” The Washington Post, 6/22/08)
Despite Barack Obama’s Claims, History Does Not Back Up Barack Obama’s “Without Precondition” Statement
· “If Barack Obama Wants To Follow In Kennedy’s Footsteps, He Should Heed The Lesson That Kennedy Learned In His First Year In Office: Sometimes There Is Good Reason To Fear To Negotiate.” (Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins, Op-Ed, “Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed,” The New York Times, 5/22/08)
· According To Former Nixon Administratration Official, President Nixon Waited Until The U.S. Had Leverage Before He Met With Mao Zedong. “Nixon also recognized the Sino-Soviet Communist alliance was cracking, and we could exploit it by being China’s great power counterweight to the Soviet Union. The threat of a loose Sino-American alliance gave us the leverage we needed to get the Soviets to the negotiating table on arms control. Nixon met with Mao Zedong only after he had the leverage needed to negotiate.” (K.T. McFarland, Op-Ed, “Obama Needs A Quick Refresher Course In Cold War History,” [New York] Daily News, 5/21/08)
· Roll Call’s Mort Kondracke: “But Reagan’s First Summit Was In 1985, Nearly Five Years After He Took Office And After He Acquired The Leverage.” “Obama and his advisers argue that President Ronald Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev despite calling the Soviet Union an ‘evil empire.’ But Reagan’s first summit was in 1985, nearly five years after he took office and after he had acquired the leverage of the Star Wars program and Pershing II missiles in Europe.” (Mort Kondracke, “Obama’s Foreign Vision Is Exciting – And Also Naïve,” Roll Call, 8/2/07)
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage. Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
· Barack Obama Voted Against The Emergency War Spending “After Pledging To Support Troop Funding.” “After pledging to support troop funding, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama in May voted against $124 billion in emergency war spending, following the lead of Democratic presidential candidate and war opponent Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. The bill nevertheless passed in a lopsided 80-14 vote. Mr. Biden, the only Democratic presidential contender in the Senate to vote for the bill, criticized his primary rivals for allowing liberal bloggers to dictate the war debate.” (S.A. Miller, “GOP To Play Card Of Strong Defense,” The Washington Times, 7/9/07)
Joe Biden Criticized Barack Obama For Voting Against The Troop Funding
· Joe Biden: “My Colleagues Voted Against The Funding To Make A Political Point … There’s No Political Point Worth My Son’s Life. There’s No Political Point Worth Anyone’s Life.” (Abby Simons, “Biden Blasts Rivals For Votes Against Iraq Money,” The Des Moines Register, 8/15/07)
· Joe Biden Attacked Fellow Democrats For Voting Against Funding U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan, Accusing Them Of “Cutting Off Support That Will Save The Lives Of Thousands Of American Troops.” BIDEN: “Hundreds of lives are being saved and will be saved by us sending these vehicles over which we are funding with this supplemental legislation. And I want to ask any of my other colleagues, would they, in fact, vote to cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That’s the right question. This isn’t cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 9/9/07)
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate. Joe Biden Said That He Didn’t Support Clean Coal And Said “No Coal Plants Here In America.” PERSON: “Senator, Senator, wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?” BIDEN: “Say … I didn’t hear what you said.” PERSON: “Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?” BIDEN: “We’re not supporting ‘clean coal.’ Guess what. China’s building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States. It’s causing people to die.” PERSON: “So will you support wind and solar?” BIDEN: “Absolutely. Before anybody did. The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me, 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me, 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware. But guess what. China is gonna burn three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it’s going to ruin your lungs and there’s nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them over there make ’em clean because they’re killing you.” (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)
· Watch It Here:
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false. The Obama-Biden Campaign Is “Wrong” In Their Health Care Attacks. “Joe Biden charged Thursday during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania that John McCain’s tax proposals for health insurance would be ‘the largest tax increase in the history of America for the middle class.’ He was wrong.” (Kevin Freking, “Biden Misleads With Accusation Of Tax Increase,” The Associated Press, 9/26/08)
The Obama-Campaign Leaves Out “That McCain Also Proposes To Give The Insured A New Tax Break.” “So, as Biden explained, someone who makes $40,000 and gets $12,000 in health insurance benefits would end up paying income taxes on $52,000. But what Biden didn’t say was that McCain also proposes to give the insured a new tax break in exchange _ a $2,500 tax credit for individuals and a $5,000 tax credit for families.” (Kevin Freking, “Biden Misleads With Accusation Of Tax Increase,” The Associated Press, 9/26/08)
A Middle Class Family Under John McCain’s Plan Would See Their After-Tax Income Rise. “To take Biden’s comparison one step further, consider his $40,000 family whose insurance cost $12,000. That family is in the 15 percent tax bracket. So, multiplying that additional $12,000 in income by 15 percent means that the family in Biden’s example currently gets an $1,800 federal income-tax break. McCain’s tax break for that family would be $5,000.” (Kevin Freking, “Biden Misleads With Accusation Of Tax Increase,” The Associated Press, 9/26/08)
· Tax Policy Center: “But Low- And Middle-Income Workers Would Still See A Rise In After-Tax Income.””By 2018, high-income households would be worse off under McCain’s plan than they would have been under current law because the credit would be worth less than the current tax exclusion. But low- and middle-income workers would still see a rise in after-tax income, the center projected.” (Kevin Freking, “Biden Misleads With Accusation Of Tax Increase,” The Associated Press, 9/26/08)
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie. Joe Biden blamed the very same deregulation that he voted for.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Was Supported By And Authored By Members Of His Campaign
· The Washington Post: Barack Obama Attacks The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Despite The Fact That It Was Supported By Members Of His Economic Team. “One element of the Obama campaign’s brief against Mr. McCain is that he supported repeal of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks. … Would it be churlish to point out that another author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law is former congressman Jim Leach, a founder of Republicans for Obama? Or that Obama advisers Lawrence H. Summers and Robert E. Rubin supported the repeal — which was signed by President Bill Clinton?” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation’?” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)
· The Bill “Was A Widely Accepted Bipartisan Compromise” Even Supported By “Obama’s Running Mate, Joe Biden.” “It’s true that Gramm authored the act, but what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 – 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 – 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat.” (Joe Miller And Brooks Jackson, “Who Caused The Economic Crisis?” FactCheck.org, 10/1/08)
· Joe Biden Voted For The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act Of 1999. (S. 900, CQ Vote #354: Adopted 90-8: R 52-1; D 38-7; I 1-0, 11/4/99, Biden Voted Yea)
· Jim Leach – Leader Of “Republicans For Obama” And Speaker At The Democratic National Convention – Was The Co-Author Of The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. (S. 900, Signed 11/12/99)
· Obama Economic Adviser Secretary Bob Rubin “Worked Very Hard On This” Bill. CLINTON: “But I do want to thank all the members here and all those who aren’t here and I’d like to thank two New Yorkers who aren’t here who have been mentioned — former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, who worked very hard on this, and former chairman, Senator Al D’Amato, who talked to me about this often.” (President Clinton, Remarks, Washington, D.C., 11/12/99)
· Obama Adviser Larry Summers Was Involved In Negotiating The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, And Called It A “Major Step Forward Toward The 21st Century.” “Mr. Summers, the Obama adviser, was among those who negotiated the [1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley] measure on behalf of the Clinton administration, and he praised it as a ‘major step forward toward the 21st Century.'” (Michael M. Phillips, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick, “Candidates Call Upon Big Names For Advice,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/08)
· President Clinton Signed The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Into Law On November 12, 1999 As Public Law No. 106-102. (P.L. No. 106-102)
According To Non-Partisan FactCheck.org, The Act “Had Nothing To Do With Causing The Crisis”
· FactCheck.org: The Act “Had Nothing To Do With Causing The Crisis.” “Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis.” (Joe Miller And Brooks Jackson, “Who Caused The Economic Crisis?” FactCheck.org, 10/1/08)
· FactCheck.org: “Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle.” (Joe Miller And Brooks Jackson, “Who Caused The Economic Crisis?” FactCheck.org, 10/1/08)
· Former President Clinton Said The Enactment Of The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Didn’t Have “Anything To Do With The Current Crisis.” Former President Clinton: “But I have really thought about this a lot. I don’t see that signing that bill [the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill.” (Editorial, “Bill V. Barack On Banks,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/1/08)
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right. Even Joe Biden says Barack Obama was wrong to vote against troop funding.
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
· Barack Obama Voted Against The Emergency War Spending “After Pledging To Support Troop Funding.” “After pledging to support troop funding, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama in May voted against $124 billion in emergency war spending, following the lead of Democratic presidential candidate and war opponent Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. The bill nevertheless passed in a lopsided 80-14 vote. Mr. Biden, the only Democratic presidential contender in the Senate to vote for the bill, criticized his primary rivals for allowing liberal bloggers to dictate the war debate.” (S.A. Miller, “GOP To Play Card Of Strong Defense,” The Washington Times, 7/9/07)
Joe Biden Criticized Barack Obama For Voting Against The Troop Funding
· Joe Biden: “My Colleagues Voted Against The Funding To Make A Political Point … There’s No Political Point Worth My Son’s Life. There’s No Political Point Worth Anyone’s Life.” (Abby Simons, “Biden Blasts Rivals For Votes Against Iraq Money,” The Des Moines Register, 8/15/07)
· Joe Biden Attacked Fellow Democrats For Voting Against Funding U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan, Accusing Them Of “Cutting Off Support That Will Save The Lives Of Thousands Of American Troops.” BIDEN: “Hundreds of lives are being saved and will be saved by us sending these vehicles over which we are funding with this supplemental legislation. And I want to ask any of my other colleagues, would they, in fact, vote to cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That’s the right question. This isn’t cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 9/9/07)
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
Joe Biden And Barack Obama Will Increase Taxes.
Governor Palin Has A Record Of Reducing Taxes
· In August 2008, Governor Palin Signed Energy Legislation In Alaska Eliminating The 8 Cent-A-Gallon Gas Tax. “Gov. Sarah Palin signed legislation into law Monday to pay each qualified Alaska resident a $1,200 ‘resource rebate,’ or personal share of the state’s multibillion-dollar oil revenue surplus.” (Wesley Loy, “Energy Legislation, Rebates Signed Into Law,” Anchorage Daily News, 8/26/08)
· In 2003, Governor Palin Signed A Pledge Saying She Opposed “Any Increase In The Federal Income Tax.” (Zaz Hollander, “Group Jumps Gun On Palin Candidacy,” Anchorage Daily News, 8/8/03)
· By End Of Her Tenure In Wasilla, Then Mayor Palin Had Reduced Property Tax, Personal Property Tax, And The Business Inventory Tax. (Tom Kizzia, “Rising Star: Wasilla Mayor Was Groomed From An Early Political Age,” Anchorage Daily News, 10/23/06)
McCain-Palin Has Proposed A Strong Pro-Growth Tax Agenda
· McCain-Palin Will Keep The Current Income Tax Rates And Will Fight Attempts To Increase Taxes. John McCain believes that lower tax rates spur economic growth.
· McCain-Palin Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. John McCain believes the tax code should be less of a burden on those, whether they are mothers and fathers or single parents, who are trying to raise a family. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.
· McCain-Palin Will Reduce The Business Tax Rate To 25 Percent From 35 Percent.
· McCain-Palin Will Keep The Current Rate On Dividends And Capital Gains.
· McCain-Palin Supports Cutting The Estate Tax Rate To 15 Percent And Having An Exemption Up To $10 Million.
· McCain-Palin Will Phase Out The Alternative Minimum Tax Which Will Provide Relief To 25 Million Middle Class Families.
· McCain-Palin Will Improve Business Investment Incentives. John McCain proposes to permit corporations to immediately deduct the cost of equipment investment, providing a valuable pro-growth investment incentive. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.
· McCain-Palin Will Ban Internet Taxes And New Cell Phone Taxes.
· McCain-Palin Will Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D.
Obama-Biden Will Increase Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. Obama Economic Advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee: “The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% … The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate.” (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, “The Obama Tax Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)
Obama-Biden Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
Obama-Biden Would Raise Social Security Taxes. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)
Obama-Biden Called For A Tax On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (“Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)
Obama-Biden Called For A Tax On Oil. Obama: “I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profits tax on our oil companies.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Charlotte, NC, 5/2/08)
In August 2006, Joe Biden Said “Sign Me Up” For Higher Taxes. NBC’s Tim Russert: “But Senator, you can read the headline, ‘Biden calls for tax increase.'” Biden: “Yes. I’ll say it again, ‘Biden says you should not have the new tax increase for people making over a million dollars.’ They didn’t ask for it.” Russert: “Tax cut.” Biden: “The tax cut. And they’ll argue it’s an increase.” Russert: “So that’s a tax increase.” Biden: “Yeah. ‘Sign me up. Sign me up.'” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 6/4/06)
· Biden: “I Would Let The Tax Cuts For All Of The Middle Class Lapse.” (Iowa’s Public Television’s “Interview With Joe Biden,” 4/27/07)
· Biden: “I Would Also Roll Back Tax Cuts On Dividends And Capital Gains. … Allowing Them To Expire Would Not Harm Our Economy.” (“Senator Biden’s Responses To NCPSSM Questionnaire,” National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare, www.ncpssm.org , 12/6/07)
Americans For Tax Reform Gave Biden A 0 Percent Rating For His 2007 Fiscal Voting Record. (Americans For Tax Reform Website, “Vote Ratings U.S. Senate: 110th Congress, First Session,” www.atr.org , Accessed 8/30/08)
Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Biden A 0 Percent Rating For His 2007 Fiscal Voting Record, And A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Percent. (Citizens Against Government Waste Website, “2007 Senate Scorecard,” councilfor.cagw.org, Accessed 8/30/08)
The National Taxpayers Union Gave Biden A Grade Of “F” For His 2007 Fiscal Voting Record, With 4 Percent Rating. (National Taxpayers Union Website, “National Taxpayers Union Rates Congress, 110th Congress – 1st Session 2007,” www.ntu.org , Accessed 8/30/08)
The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Gave Biden A 29 Percent Rating For His 2007 Voting Record. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, uschamber.com, Accessed 9/17/07)
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.” John McCain warned two years ago about Freddie and Fannie while Barack Obama was taking their contributions.
John McCain Fought For Greater Oversight Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac
John McCain Cosponsored The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005. “‘Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. … I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005,” Press Release, 5/26/06)
· At The Time, John McCain Warned That “If Congress Does Not Act, American Taxpayers Will Continue To Be Exposed To The Enormous Risk That Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Pose To The Housing Market…” “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005,” Press Release, 5/26/06)
John McCain Co-Sponsored The Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003 Which Would Have Created The Office of Federal Enterprise Supervision In The Treasury, And Given The New Office’s Director Supervisory And Regulatory Authority Over Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. (S. 1508, Introduced 7/31/03)
The Washington Post: In 2006, John McCain Pushed For Fannie And Freddie Regulation While “Obama Was Notably Silent.” “In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — while Mr. Obama was notably silent. ‘If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,’ Mr. McCain warned at the time.” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation’?” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)
· McClatchy: John McCain Called For Increased Regulation Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. “In 2006, he called for tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two federally chartered, privately run mortgage giants that the government now has taken over.” (Steve Thomma, “Out Of Bounds! Obama Misstates McCain’s Position On Regulation,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/20/08)
Barack Obama Was “Notably Silent” On Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac
The Washington Post: In 2006, John McCain Pushed For Fannie And Freddie Regulation While “Obama Was Notably Silent.” “In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — while Mr. Obama was notably silent. ‘If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,’ Mr. McCain warned at the time.” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation’?” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)
In Just Four Years, Barack Obama Has Received More Money From Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Than Any Other Member Of Congress In The Past Two Decades (Since 1989) Except Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org , 9/11/08)
The Washington Post: “Two Members Of Mr. Obama’s Political Circle, James A. Johnson And Franklin D. Raines, Are Former Chief Executives Of Fannie Mae.” (Editorial, “Tough Decision Coming,” The Washington Post, 8/28/08)
Obama Adviser Jim Johnson Is The Former CEO Of Fannie Mae. “There is no public policy reason to exempt them. It is not fair.’ Inside Fannie Mae’s sprawling Wisconsin Avenue headquarters, Lightfoot’s proposal set off alarms. A team of executives led by chief executive Jim Johnson and Vice Chairman Frank Raines gathered around the firm’s 34-foot-long boardroom table to decide how to respond.” (David A. Vise, “Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break,” The Washington Post, 1/16/95)
The Obama Campaign Has Solicited Franklin Raines, Who “Stepped Down As Fannie Mae’s Chief Executive Under The Shadow Of A $6.3 Billion Accounting Scandal,” For “Advice On Mortgage And Housing Policy.” (Anita Huslin, “On The Outside Now, Watching Fannie Falter,” The Washington Post, 7/16/08)
Former President Bill Clinton Said Democrats Bear Responsibility For Resisting Any Efforts To Reform Freddie And Fannie
Former President Bill Clinton: “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 9/25/08)
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
And the guy is a total moron. During an interview with Katie Couric, Biden pointed to former President Franklin Roosevelt as an example of a good leader during a crisis. He said Roosevelt immediately got on television to talk about the stock market crash in 1929. The only problem was that Herbert Hoover was president at the time and Americans didn’t have televisions.
If you want REAL change… all House seats are up for grabs this year. Read this interesting article on it: http://buzzpaths.com/?p=16
Both sides are purporting “Change”. Obama is constantly using the mantra “Vote For Change” while McCain’s campaign is saying “Country First. Reform, Prosperity, Peace”.
Here’s how I looks at it. Obama has zero experience. Joe Biden has been in the Senate for 35 years. John McCain has been in the Senate for 26 years.
The “Change” we need is not in the President of the United States. We need change in both the House and Senate. The entire Congress of the United States is dead wood. Stale. Stagnant.
Something that the press is not talking about at all are the Congressional and Gubernatorial elections.
If you want REAL CHANGE, in this year’s election DO NOT vote for incumbents. All 435 House seats are up for election with 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested. Thirty-three senate seats are regular elections; the winners will be eligible to serve six-year terms from January 3, 2009 until January 3, 2015 as members of Senate Class II. There are also two special elections: one in Wyoming and another in Mississippi; the winners will serve the remainder of terms that expire on January 3, 2013, as members of Senate Class I. Gubernatorial elections are being held in 11 states.
Let’s clean house once and for all and get rid of all of them! That’s what will cause real change.
If you look at what has been going on in the Congress all these years, it’s deplorable. The Republicans blew it when they had both houses. They did NOTHING. The Democrats now have both houses and they have done NOTHING. Nancy Pelosi upon becoming Speaker of the House said “I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership not partisanship, and look forward to working … with you on behalf of the American people. In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country. We stand united in our pride and prayers for our men and women in uniform. They are working together to protect the American people, and we, in this Congress we must work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice”
Did she live up to her word? I think not. Talk about partisianship! She has done everything in her power not to live up to her word.
In the Senate, where members generally show much more comity, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cast a bipartisan tone while outlining the Democratic agenda for the first part of the year and proceed to introduce 10 bills that will all be sent to committee hearings before they make it to the floor for debate.
“Last November, the voters sent us a message — Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change,” Reid said.
Guess what? NOTHING has happened. This Congress has been a total disaster from day one.
Here’s a sample of how long some Senators have been in office:
Robert Byrd (D-WV) elected in 1959=49 years
Arlen Spector elected to Senate 1980 = 28 years
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)elected to Senate 1962=46 years
Daniel Inouye (D-HI) elected in 1963= 45 years
Ted Stevens (R-AK) elected in 1968=40 years
Pete Domenici (R-NM) elected in 1973=35 years
Joe Biden (D-DE) elected in 1973=35 years
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) elected in 1975=33 years
Richard Lugar (R-IN) elected in 1977=31 years
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) elected in 1977= 31 years
Max Baucus (D-MT) elected in 1978=30 years
John Warner (R-VA) elected in 1979= 29 years
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) elected in 1992=16 years
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) elected in 1992=16 years
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) elected in 1993= 15 years
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) elected in 1999= 9 years
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) first elected in 1983-2001=25 years 2002-2008=6years total= 31 years
So if you want real change in the United States Government, YOU have the power to make that change happen by NOT voting for an incumbent. Stop complaining and take action. Let’s forget party lines and vote to make a difference. YOU have the power to shake it up this year and change history!
Being an avid gun collector, I was curious as to where each candidate stood on the Second Amendment which states: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I wasn’t too suprised by what I found.
What I did find interesting is that on Obama’s website on the main page after trying to figure out how to get past all the signup crap for his campaign and just get into the website, I was looking for issues. There is a menu called “Issues”. When you click on it you get a list. What was not on the list was Second Amendment or Gun Control. It was buried under “Other Issues” and titled “Sportsmen“: Whereas John McCain’s website under issues it has a link called 2nd Amendment. Interesting don’t you think?
In 2000, Barak Obama cosponsored a bill that would have limited the purchase of handguns to one per month. That may not sound significant, but the truth is, such a bill would impede the rights of law abiding citizens. There is no justifiable reason to limit the ability of people who have no criminal record from purchasing any legal fire arm. Obama at the same time also voted against allowing people to violate local fire arms bans even in the case of self protection. What does that mean in application? Criminals who are already breaking the law have nothing to worry about, because Obama has made sure that law abiding citizens cannot carry a weapon to protect themselves against those criminals.
According to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test of July 2, 1998, Obama also supports the banning of all semi-automatic weapon sales and transfers. When most people hear “semi-automatic weapon”, they think of the gun in the hand of the gang banger. That may be true, but there are a lot of other guns that are semi-automatic, which would also be included in such bans. Shotguns, for example, that are used by bird hunters would fall under the ban. The only reason to try to ban a whole class of gun, with such a wide stroke, is to start the progression of banning all guns eventually.
“Barack Obama did not grow up hunting and fishing, but he recognizes the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport.
Were it not for America’s hunters and anglers, including the great icons like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, our nation would not have the tradition of sound game management, a system of ethical, science-based game laws and an extensive public lands estate on which to pursue the sport. Obama recognizes that we must
forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America’s hunters and anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition.
PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns each year. Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.”
Now the real deal on where Barry stands:
* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
“Protecting Second Amendment Rights
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals – criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.Gun Manufacturer Liability
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.Assault Weapons
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called “assault rifles” and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.Importation of High Capacity Magazines
John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.
Gun Locks
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.
Banning Ammunition
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were “armor-piercing.”
DC Personal Protection
As part of John McCain’s defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.
Criminal Background Checks
John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Background Checks at Gun Shows
At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.
The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period
John McCain has opposed “waiting periods” for law abiding citizen’s purchase of firearms.
The Confiscation of Firearms After an Emergency
John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.
Stiffer Penalties for Criminals Who Use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime
John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.”
And also this:
* I know how to use guns; but I don’t own one. (Nov 2007)
* Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Don’t hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
* Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
* Calls for GOP “tolerance” of closing gun show loopholes. (May 2002)
* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
* Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
* Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
* Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
* Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
* Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
* Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
* Allow firearms in National Parks. (Feb 2008)
Gun control history has not been positive in favor of the unarmed citizen. The whole point of the Second Amendement is to protect yourself from your Government. Here’s what happed in history when those rights were taken away:
Turkey established gun control in 1911.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
The USSR established gun control in 1929.
From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other mongrelized peoples” unable to defend themselves from their government, were exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by their own government.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated people”, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
The US established gun control in 1968 with The Gun Control Act, which is nearly a verbatim copy of Germany’s 1938 gun control law. Since then, gun laws and much of the Criminal Code have become federalized, with police power being transferred to Washington, DC. War-making liberals at the United Nations are also in the act, declaring peaceful private gun owners should be disarmed. The stage is being set. The process of gun control and registration has begun. Does anybody see a pattern here?
Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
So who do you want as our next Commander in Chief? One who supports the Second Amendment, or one who wants to take away all our rights?
Barry Sotero’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was underwhelming to say the least.
He referred to the Kennedy’s 4 times, Marty King once. His entire campaign thus far has been a clone of the Kennedy campaign of 1960 from the way he dresses, struts his stuff, acts like a rock star, giving a speech in Berlin and to cap it off, giving his acceptance sermon in a stadium just as Kennedy did in 1960.
What gets me is his first paragraph thanking everyone who helped him get to where he is:
“Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest — a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours — Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.”
Let’s break this down:
Bill Clinton – here’s a guy who is an impeached president, was implicated in his brother Roger’s drug arrest. (Feb 2004) , gave Presidential Pardons to the following people in his last month in office: Department of Justice List of Clinton Pardons.
Hillary is just as bad. She has over the years lied about just about everything under the sun.
Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:
Admitted Lies
• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)
Lies She Won’t Confess To
• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
Ted Kennedy – a drunken murderer who has never held a real job in his life. Ted’s Father amassed a fortune through illegal activity (bootlegging) and unscrupulous stock market speculation; and how he used his money and connections with organized crime to influence both the media and the American political establishment.
Ted managed to graduate from prep school (Milton Academy) in 1950 with only a C average.
Teddy was never a scholar, and his brother Jack once referred to him as “the gay illiterate”.
Despite his terrible grades, Teddy (like brother Robert) was admitted to Harvard as a “legacy”, because his older brothers and father had graduated form there with such distinction.
Yet even at Harvard, young Ted floundered.
In his sophomore year he was expelled for cheating. He had been failing Spanish and feared it would keep him off the varsity football team.
He paid a friend to take the exam for him.
Ted’s friend, however, was recognized when he turned in the exam book.
Both lads were expelled, but were advised that they could apply for readmission in a year if they demonstrated responsible citizenship.
It was a shame and disgrace, but the family would manage to keep it a secret until Teddy ran for the Senate.
After his expulsion from Harvard, Teddy returned to Hyannis Port where he would sit brooding, sometimes for hours.
Finally, he enlisted in the Army.
Not surprisingly, he did not bother to read the enlistment papers and signed up for four years instead of two.
Ted’s father, the US Ambassador to England, was horrofied at the thought of his youngest son spending four years in the service, with a good chance of being sent into combat in Korea.
“Don’t you ever look at what you’re signing?” he shouted.
With one phone call Joe contacted a friend who managed to get hold of Teddy’s enlistment papers.
Ted’s enlistment period was shortened to two years, a maneuver that was nearly impossible for the average enlistee. Furthermore, Ted would do his service in Europe, not Korea.
Teddy never rose above the rank of private, and was discharged in 1952.
He returned to Harvard in the fall of 1953, as did his test-taking friend, and they graduated together.
Once back at Harvard, Teddy made the rugby team. During one match in 1954, Ted got into three fistfights with opposing players and was finally thrown out of the game. According to referee Frederick Costick, Teddy was the only player he had ever expelled from a game in thirty years of officiating. “Rugby is a character-building sport,” Costick said. “Players learn how to conduct themselves on the field with the idea that they will learn how to conduct themselves in life. When a player loses control of himself three times in a single afternoon, to my mind, that is a sign that, in a crisis, the man is not capable of thinking clearly and acting rationally. Such a man will panic under pressure.”
Of course, years later, in the crisis at Chappaquiddick, Teddy would do exactly that.
In 1957, Ted entered the University of Virginia Law School.
The warning signs of trouble would continue. While in law school, Ted would earn the nickname “Cadillac Eddie”. He was cited four times for reckless driving (three times in 1958 and once in 1959). These violations included running red lights and driving with his lights off at ninety miles per hour in a suburban area. Teddy was convicted of three violations and fined, but for some reason his driver’s license was never revoked.
And last but not least Joey “The Plagerist” Biden:
Biden was forced out of the 1988 presidential race — he officially dropped out on Sept. 23, 1987 — just when his candidacy seemed to be taking off in Iowa, the all-important first caucus, and just as he seemed to be gaining on Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee.
A Dukakis staffer noticed and fed to Maureen Dowd, then a New York Times reporter rather than columnist, that Biden had lifted almost verbatim his closing remarks at a debate at the Iowa state fairgrounds in August 1987. The lines were lifted from a passionate speech delivered by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.
Biden got in trouble in 1965, during his first year in law school. He wrote a paper in which he lifted five pages verbatim from the Fordham Law Review. He was given an “F” in the course. He managed to avoid being bounced from law school, retook the course and earned a B.
• He claimed that he was “the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.” He didn’t. He did have a half scholarship that was need-based.
• He claimed he graduated in the top half of his class. He did not graduate from law school in the top half of his class. He graduated 76th out of 85 — and he was near the bottom of his class all three years.
• He said he won the moot court competition — and he claimed at the time that he actually did — he did not put it on his resume, surprising for a man prone to so egregiously exaggerating his accomplishments.
• He did not win the award for being the outstanding student in the political science department at Delaware, and he graduated with one degree, not three. He had a “C” average and graduated 506th in a class of 688.
Here’s a ticket of Barry and Joey running for the two highest offices in this country. Where is the integrity? Do we really want people like this and the people they thank for getting them to where they are running our country?
Since my previous post regarding Jimmy Carter’s trip to meet with Hamas I contacted my Congressman asking that Carter be prosecuted under the Logan Act.I finally received a response from my Congressman today. CLick on the letter to see the full size:
I just finished responding to his letter. What I said was thus:
“Dear Congressman Kanjorski:
In response to your letter dated June 2nd which is enclosed, I have several issues regarding your response.
1) Jimmy Carter met with a Terrorist leader in a terrorist nation without the proper consent of our government.
2) He is in direct violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted.
3) Your second to last paragraph is what hit me. “Currently, there is no legislation in the House of Representatives pertaining to President Carter’s meeting with leaders of Hamas. Should I have the opportunity to consider such a measure during the 110th Congress, however, you can rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind and take actions as appropriate.”
You are a representative of the people of Pennsylvania. Your duty is to represent your constituents. If you had any backbone whatsoever, YOU would introduce legislation to prosecute Jimmy Carter in violation of the Logan Act. Get out of the stands and onto the playing field Congressman.”
so let’s see what kind of lame response I get this time around. To be continued…..
My take on the current gas prices is that not only is there a federal tax on each gallon but State and local taxes as well. The Federal Tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected in all states in addition to any state or local taxes on gasoline sales. Some of the politicos want to drop the Federal Gas Tax for the summer months. That in my opinion is a waste of time. What we must demand from them is to drop ALL the gasoline taxes and to stop exporting our domestic oil.
Gasoline taxes are levied in various ways in different states. Some states, such as Louisiana, levy a flat rate per gallon. Others charge a tax similar to a sales tax in that it applies to the monetary amount of the gasoline sold. Other states allow local communities to levy gasoline taxes in addition to any state taxes that might be levied.
So for example. In Pennsylvania the average price for a gallon of regular gas is $3.65. If you subtract all the taxes on that one gallon of gas: $3.65 – .18.4 (federal tax) – .31.1 (state tax) you would really be only paying $3.15 per gallon.
Now I ask myself what about all the oil reserves we hear the politicos talking about. I did some snooping and found this:
Thirty-one States have crude oil reserves. The top five are:
* Texas, with 4.9 billion barrels
* Alaska, with 3.9 billion barrels
* California, with 3.4 billion barrels
* Wyoming, with 706 million barrels
* New Mexico, with 696 million barrels.
Also, there are substantial crude oil reserves located in Federal Offshore fields: 3.7 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico and 441 million barrels in the Pacific. Offshore refers to that geographic area that lies seaward of the coastline. In general, the coastline is the line of ordinary low water along with that portion of the coast that is in direct contact with the open sea or the line making the seaward limit of inland water.
We have a law in place called the The Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s Statutory Authority for an SPR Drawdown
Here’s what it says:
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. As used in this Act:
(8) The term “severe energy supply interruption” means a national energy supply shortage which the President determines –
(A) is, or is likely to be, of significant scope and duration, and of an emergency nature;
(B) may cause major adverse impact on national safety or the national economy; and
(C) results, or is likely to result, from (i) an interruption in the supply of imported petroleum products, (ii) an interruption in the supply of domestic petroleum products, or (iii) sabotage or an act of God.
DRAWDOWN AND SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
SEC. 161.
(d)(1) Drawdown and sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may not be made unless the President has found drawdown and sale are required by a severe energy supply interruption or by obligations of the United States under the international energy program.
(2) For purposes of this section, in addition to the circumstances set forth in section 3 (8), a severe energy supply interruption shall be deemed to exist if the President determines that –
(A) an emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;
(B) a severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and
(C) such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.”
(g)(1) The Secretary shall conduct a continuing evaluation of the Distribution Plan. In the conduct of such evaluation, the Secretary is authorized to carry out test drawdown and distribution of crude oil from the Reserve. If any such test drawdown includes the sale or exchange of crude oil, then the aggregate quantity of crude oil withdrawn from the Reserve may not exceed 5,000,000 barrels during any such test drawdown or distribution.
(h)(1) If the President finds that –
(A) a circumstance, other than those described in subsection (d) [above], exists that constitutes, or is likely to become, a domestic or international energy supply shortages of significant scope or duration; and
(B) action taken….would assist directly and significantly in preventing or reducing the adverse impact of such shortage,
then the Secretary may…draw down and distribute the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
(2) In no case may the Reserve be drawn down under this subsection –
(A) in excess of an aggregate of 30,000,000 barrels with respect to each such shortage;
(B) for more than 60 days with respect to each such shortage;
(C) if there are fewer than 500,000,000 barrels of petroleum product stored in the Reserve; or
(D) below the level of an aggregate of 500,000,000 barrels of petroleum product stored in the Reserve.
Why is the government not Releasing Crude Oil From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve exists, first and foremost, as an emergency response tool the President can use should the United States be confronted with an economically-threatening disruption in oil supplies.
The Reserve has been used twice under these conditions. First, in 1991, at the beginning of Operation Desert Storm the United States joined its allies in assuring the adequacy of global oil supplies when war broke out in the Persian Gulf. An emergency sale of SPR crude oil was announced the day the war began. The second was in September 2005 after Hurricane Katrina devastated the oil production, distribution, and refining industries in the Gulf regions of Louisiana and Mississippi. (Hurricane Katrina’s impact was so great, in fact, that SPR emergency oil loans preceded the President’s decision to drawdown and sell oil from the Reserve. The first of several emergency loan requests from refiners was received and approved within 24 hours of Hurricane Katrina making landfall.)
In addition to national energy emergencies, crude oil has been withdrawn many times from the SPR sites for other reasons. Small quantities of oil are routinely pumped from the storage caverns in tests of the reserve’s equipment. And in several instances, oil has been removed from the caverns under the legal authority to “exchange” SPR crude oil. This authority allows the SPR to negotiate exchanges where the SPR ultimately receives more oil than it released; in other words, the exchanges can be used to acquire additional oil for the SPR. The Hurricane Katrina loans, mentioned above, were conducted using the exchange authority.
The following provides a brief history of the times when crude oil has been released from the SPR:
Crude Oil Sales and Emergency Drawdowns
Twice the Administration has conducted test sales to ensure the readiness of the Reserve and its personnel to carry out a Presidentially-ordered drawdown. The first took place in 1985, the second in the months immediately preceding Operation Desert Storm.
The 1985 Test Sale
Oil has been pumped into and out of the Reserve’s storage sites many times in routine tests. But until 1985, the competitive sales process had never been tested outside of simulations run inside the government. In 1985 Congress and the Administration agreed it was time to test the full system, both the pumps and paperwork, that would be needed to release oil from the Reserve in the event of an energy emergency. When it extended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in June 1985, Congress authorized the Department to conduct test sales for up to 5 million barrels that would involve the private sector in the competitive sales process for the first time.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (NPOSR) has a storied history beginning with its inception in 1912 during the Taft Administration, to the 1998 sale of its supergiant Elk Hills oil field (Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1) to Occidental Petroleum under the Clinton Administration. The infamous Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s during the Harding Administration may perhaps be the nadir in this storied history, but for the remainder of its almost-100 year history, the Reserves stood well managed to serve the Nation during times of both peace and war.
In response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the United States opened the Reserves to full production in 1976. Since that time, petroleum sales produced net revenues of $22 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The sale of the Elk Hills field in 1998 to Occidental Petroleum netted an additional $3.65 billion.
Today, three of the four original Petroleum Reserves (NPR-1, NPR-2, and NPR-4) have been sold or transferred to the Department of the Interior. The only remaining oil reserve managed by the Department of Energy is the Teapot Dome field (NPR-3) in Casper, Wyoming, which is now a stripper field that serves as an oilfield technology testing center.
In addition to the oil reserves, the Government also held oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming (NOSRs). During the early 1980s, the NOSRs were opened to oil shale development. After a brief hectic period, most oil shale development was abandoned because of a collapse in world oil prices from a high point of $40 per barrel in early 1980 to a low of $15 per barrel by 1989. Subsequently, the Government eventually transferred its NOSRs to BLM and an American Indian tribe.
Today’s high oil prices have once again renewed interest in oil shale and other unconventional strategic fuels development. Even though the NPOSR no longer controls the NOSRs, its unique experience in oil shale technology led Congress – as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – to designate the Petroleum Reserves program as the lead office to coordinate the creation and implementation of a commercial strategic fuel (oil shale and tar sands) development program for the United States.
Now what about OPEC? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members include Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Look at the countries listed. These are terrorists! Give me a break!
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, in September 1960, to unify and coordinate members’ petroleum policies. OPEC members’ national oil ministers meet regularly to discuss prices and, since 1982, to set crude oil production quotas. Original OPEC members include Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Between 1960 and 1975, the organization expanded to include Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962), the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), and Nigeria (1971). Ecuador and Gabon were members of OPEC, but Ecuador withdrew in December 1992, and Gabon followed suit in January 1995. Although Iraq remains a member of OPEC, Iraqi production has not been a part of any OPEC quota agreements since March 1998. EIA estimates that the current eleven OPEC members account for about 40% of world oil production, and about 2/3 of the world’s proven oil reserves.
So…. making a long story longer, my take on this entire gasoline mess is that we should tell OPEC to shove it, stop exporting all our domestic oil, lose the state and federal gasoline taxes and maybe, just maybe, prices will go down to a reasonable level.
I strongly urge everyone to contact their State legislators and demand that the gasoline taxes be repealed. You can contact them here.
Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday he hoped to help open talks between Hamas and U.S. leaders, saying Washington’s policy of not meeting with people it labeled terrorists was counterproductive.
Speaking at an event organized by an Israeli financial newspaper, Carter said he wanted to become a “communicator” between Hamas and the U.S.
The State Department has designated Hamas a “foreign terrorist organization.
We have the The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) which is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, which authorized the arrest and deportation of ALIENS and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government.
The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects”
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, “without authority of the United States,” to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government’s behavior on any “disputes or controversies with the United States.” Some background on this statute helps to understand why Mr. Carter may be in serious trouble.
My personal opinion is that Jimmy Carter is in violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted and he should go back to building houses.
