Tuesday, September 9, 2008

OPEC is getting ready to rape us again

and the Democrats will hold us down for them to do it.

The OPEC oil group has agreed to cut its real output by 520,000 barrels per day in the next 40 days, OPEC's President and Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil said Wednesday.

When asked about the size of a proposed cut to OPEC's current production, Khelil replied: "I think if you do your own calculations, it is a cut of 520,000 barrels per day."

That is a large cut and is obviously meant to drive prices back to the $4.00 level. This is proof positive that conservation and reduced usage due to a poor economy will not work to control prices.

The only thing that will work is if we have enough oil produced in the US that we can effectively change the amount of oil produced.


Wish I had said that

“This is a guy who supported George Bush 90% of the time. What does that say about somebody’s judgment that they agree with George Bush 90% of the time?” [Obama] said.
Obama is a man who spent 20 years with Pastor Wright, funneled earmarks to sexist Father Pfleger, associates with terrorist Bill Ayers, and used Illinois and federal earmarks to invest in Tony Rezko’s projects. And Pastor Wright’s extramarital affair was just posted this morning! What does all this say about somebody’s judgment? Like Obama can claim he has superior moral judgment.

Comment by Anonymous - September 9, 2008 at 6:48 pm


Help! Trapped Lefties!

European Court of Justice blows away conviction

Some may argue that the picture doesn't apply. I think it does. I think the canary in the mine is gasping for breath.

Please read this.

The European Court of Justice in Luxemburg has annulled a 2005 ruling against a Sweden-based Somali banking network which had its assets frozen due to suspicions of ties to terrorism.

Because those associated with the al Barakaat International Foundation, based in the Stockholm suburb of SpÄnga, had no way to defend themselves against the charges, the Court of Justice ruled that their fundamental rights had been violated.

The question remains, however, is the banking network tied to terrorists?

The EUCOJ's ruling doesn't answer that question. Indeed, it appears to not even care.


Makes no difference anyhow...

If Barack Obama's past had been subjected to one tenth the media scrutiny during the full year of his candidacy, to which Sarah Palin has been subjected during the last 11 days, Obama very probably still would be junior senator from Illinois, and Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.

That's a fairly standard world view among many Republicans and most Hillary Democrats and assumes that the Far Left is not in the majority within the Democratic Party.

I think it is in the majority and Hussein would have won no matter what. Remember who you are dealing with when you think the mouthings of Rev Wright, the association with William Ayers, Rezko, his lack of a experience, etc., would have mattered. Many would look at them as resume enhancements.


Why I should vote for Hussein - Answer Update

justfred has responded to my comments. He is not happy. As before, my comments are in italics.

"justfred has left a new comment on your post "Why should I vote for Hussein - An answer":

I knew I was wasting my time, but decided to try to educate you."

Well, to educate someone it is usually understood that the teacher must know more than the student. If you do, you didn't demonstrate it.

"However, you have again proven that it is impossible to educate someone who is so ill-informed that he thinks Obama's energy program is ONLY tire inflation; that his economic program is ONLY raising taxes; that his education program is giving more money to teachers unions; calls our historical allies names; obfuscates, lies and does not even know the candidate's name."

Then why didn't you provide some details? I know his energy plan is to inflate tires and, as you noted and I didn't dispute, spend billions of dollars on 20 year plans to solve a problem that will either be solved or we will be collapsed and a third world country in 10 years. It is the time fame that it falls short in.

But I am pleased to note that you agree that he plans on raising taxes. What other things will he do?? Details, justfred, details.

BTW - Are you saying that his middle name is not Hussein? Gosh. All those Google hits are wrong. I mean, who besides you knew?

And please. This is an important point. Countries have interests, not friends. They may be allies for a while, as we were with the Soviets during WWII, but that can and does change. See Venezuela. See Cuba. See Iran. See... oh well, I think you "see."

I am the student, fred. Present some actual factual information rather than claims. Or is this student smarter than the teacher?

"No wonder no one responds to you. You are pathetic and hopeless and a liar."

Can anyone tell me why a Leftie must always resort to personal attacks and slurs?

"You said my post would be treated with respect. You don't even know the meaning of the word."

Your comments were treated with respect. But that doesn't mean that I will just accept them without question. The world doesn't work that way, justfred. In the world ideas and claims must be defended. That you tried and failed is just a fact.

And note that it is you, not me that has went to the personal attack.

justfred, again. Hope is not a strategy.

Why should I vote for Hussein - An answer

A blogger named justfred has stepped up. Let's see what he has written. My comments are in italics.

First and foremost because he will truly unite the nation, restore respect for the Office of the President domestically and the nation, world wide. In the past our nation has been seen, as Ronald Reagan described, as the shining city on the hill - a beacon of freedom, democracy, hope and success of the human spirit. This image was damaged during Vietnam, restored by Reagan and Bush 41, but tinged by Clinton and destroyed by this administration.

What proof do you have of any of the above claims? He has demonstrated that he is a partisan Democrat and his leadership skills have not been extended past being a "community organizer." As for the rest of the world, remember that countries do not have "friends." Countries have "interests." The rest of the world will love us as long as we do what they want, and dislike us when we do things they do not like.

Is it your claim that Hussein will do things that will not be in our self-interest, but instead be in the interest of the United Nations?

How can we be the leader of the free world when we won't even talk to other countries? To quote JFK, 'We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.'

Out of context quotes from a JFK speech aside, do you understand that Hussein has said he would meet any country...and that would include terrorist sponsoring countries....without pre-conditions.

Now, since you brought up JFK, do you remember that he met with Khrushchev with no pre conditions?

The parties reached no agreement on any set agenda or proposals prior to their meeting in Vienna... By all accounts, including Kennedy's own, the meetings were a disaster. Khrushchev berated, belittled, and bullied Kennedy on subjects ranging from Communist ideology to the balance of power between the Soviet and Western blocs, to Laos, to "wars of national liberation," to nuclear testing. He threw down the gauntlet on Berlin in particular, all but threatening war.


Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev "had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs" and that he had "decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed." Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had "just beat [the] hell out of me" and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: "If he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him. So we have to act."


Some historians think that after the meeting Kennedy felt he had to make some dynamic move to establish his credibility and that was increasing support for Vietnam. A deadly unintended consequence of a foreign policy mistake by a inexperience and young President.

Did you see the throngs who came to see Obama in Berlin? Do you think they did so because they are anti-American? No - they are pro-American, but just confused because they no longer regognize the country.

Actually I think a goodly portion came for free beer and rock and roll. But, who cares? Germany is anti-war in Iraq and Europe is rapidly coming under the control of Muslims. We need to start learning how to do without them, now.

On defense, Obama recognizes that our troops are spread out too thinly and overtasked. When GWB campaigned in 2000 he reported that two divisions would have to report 'Not ready for duty, sir' - well how many do you think are NOW in that position? We are sending back soldiers who have been wounded, mentally and physically, for their third or fourth tours in Iraq. We are sending back those who cannot wear a helmet or carry their TA-50. We need to reconstitute much of our military, but we cannot do so while the rotations of our fighting forces require them to spend more time in combat than they are in CONUS.

Again you make a claim but offer no proof. And you also say is that Hussein will pull back to the US. There is a word for that, and it is RETREAT. Our enemies will gave no problem understanding that even if you and Hussein do not.

He will get our troops out of places which are optional, to which we should have never gone in the first place - and then use a rested and rebuilt military to help catch OBL and bring those who attacked us to justice.

And your point is that Clinton shouldn't have gone to Kosovo?? As for catching OBL, I am all for that, but think that killing his supporters should be our first priority. After all, they are the ones who will attack.

And what do you mean with, "bring those who attacked us to justice?" Shall we have a full US justice type trial, or just kill'em?? Palin said it right when she said Hussein is worried more about reading them their rights than fighting them.

He will bring common sense back to US economics. He will increase federal receipts, lower deficits and debt, and quit rewarding companies for shipping US jobs overseas. He will tie the economy to new industries and technology - like those in energy production - which will create jobs while lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

How will he increase federal receipts? The answer is, by tax increases that will kill the economy.

As for oil, his energy plan is for us to inflate our tires. He opposes drilling in the US which is the only thing that will drop the price of oil back to the $20-$30 range in an acceptable time frame and get the economy moving. As for "alternative fuels," why doesn't he join McCain and simply say, "All of the above?"

He recognizes that the future of this country lies in our young people, and will invest in education. Not just throw money at the problem, but invest money, time and champion educational programs from the bully pulpit to make it more of a national and personal priority.

How much more money do you want to invest in education? The current system, with the tests, etc., has shown some modest improvement. Will he increase Federal oversight? Of course not. He is a Democrat and the Democrats are married to the Teacher's unions. He proposes more of the same.

How many more reasons do you need?

Well, one would have been nice. But all you have given me is a bunch of claims with no proof. Remember, hope is not a strategy.