Here’s what Hillary Clinton said:
Now, MSNBC has been no fan of Hillary’s. I don’t think I’ve seen them dig terribly deep into anything Obama’s claimed. But, they did a good job of presenting the facts behind this situation. Mainly, Magnequench was already internationaly controlled. Their resources came FROM China, the patent from Japan. So, what was happening was they were importing the resources from China to Indiana to build at much higher wages. The owners, George Soros being one, were losing money and closed the plant. Nothing was lost. The intellectual property was already in China’s possession and has been for a decade. In fact, it fell into China’s hands in 1995. Wanna guess who was in charge in 1995? What made it possible for the Chinese to completely own Magnequench was this event in 2000:
By establishing normal trade relations with China, Bill Clinton made it possible for China to own companies that supplied military parts, along with those intellectual rights, to the the US Military. At that point, Magnequench in Indiana became completely useless. A LOT of people, including me, opposed the situation of allowing a military antagonist to the US that much access to our military secrets.
Digressing, Magnequench isn’t a threat to our national security because we have the ability to develop our own in California if need be. Given the rise of technology associated with hybrid cars, they are now making similar magnets and such. So, it’s not a crisis. But, it could have been. The free market usurped the dangers imposed by Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Now, eight years later, Hillary wants everyone to forget that she was right there with Bill when he signed normal trade relations with China and allowed military technology to be shipped to China, and allowed China unfettered access to ours. Now, she wants to blame Bush for being compelled, by law, both nationally and internationally, thanks to her husband, for what did not actually happen in Indiana.
That, in a nutshell, is why Hillary Clinton should never be allowed to be President.
We’ve already seen what Nancy Pelosi has done for rocketing energy prices, she’s made it worse. Now, we’ve got Harry Reid tackling the issue since it’s obvious Nancy’s ideas just make things worse.
Another item under consideration for Reid’s bill is a demand that the Bush administration put pressure on Saudi Arabia and other OPEC-member nations to increase oil supplies and bring down prices. Several Democrats last week warned that Congress will block military sales to those countries unless they open up the spigots.
Our only carrot is military sales? Given our relationship with Venezuela and a few other OPEC members, I seriously doubt military equipment is much of a carrot. The Russians and North Koreans I’m sure would be more than happy to fill that void. Sure, their stuff isn’t as good as ours, but who’s going to let another country jeapordize our oil supply? As usual, I’m sure most of OPEC will laugh off Harry’s threat.
Despite the effort, a similar bill is unlikely in the House, said a senior House Democratic aide, who applauded the Senate movement.
“We’ve done a number of energy bills already to lower prices and the speaker called on the president to not fill the SPR. We are pleased the Senate will take action on some of our bills,” the aide said.
Yeah, and see what those bills have done for us so far? I HATE, I mean I absolutely HATE that stupid SPR distraction. Put it in perspective here ok?
Among those championing stopping the SPR stockpiling effort is Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who frequently complains that it’s not in the nation’s interest for the Department of Energy to continue to put nearly 70,000 barrels of oil into the reserve.
Now, from another site, the US is consuming over 20 million barrels per day. Now, IF we completely stopped filling our reserves, that would lower demand .35%. That would amount to a savings for the average US consumer of just about 1 cent. That is the evidence Dorgan and Pelosi use to justify their argument that Bush is sold out to oil companies.
None of these measures will amount to crap at the pump. Not even close. None of their proposals in any requires the US to provide a real scare to OPEC. Open up ANWR. Susbidize drilling in North Dakota. Open up the coasts of California.. Open up rigs everywhere we can. Make Iraq the 51st state and import every drop of their oil. Subsidize new refineries that are much more efficient that our outdated ones.
And in the meantime, put every spare dime into renewable energy.
Then, we’ll have real solutions.
As long as they wanna play politics with the issue, we’re screwed and OPEC knows it.
Pride goeth before the fall. And, we’re falling. Time to drop their stupid aversion to drilling amongst the trees and get back to reality.
26
Apr
From Dick Morris, who I highly respect:
I tend to agree with him at this point. Hillary is obviously not at all concerned with doing what is best for the party. My gut feeling is she is posturing for 2012 and making sure someone she can beat is in the White House. Parties rarely vote out an incumbant member of their own party. What do you think?
On April 24, 2006, Nancy Pelosi made this promise:
Now, for those counting, here’s what’s happened since that promise:
In simpler terms, that’s a 20% increase in gas prices. Per the norm, she’s blaming it on Bush. However, Bush didn’t make that promise, she did.
Pelosi’s “commonsense” plan did nothing to increase petroleum production by opening ANWR, new drilling permits, or refinery permits. Instead it simply made it more expensive to do business. How’s that ever going to reduce the price of anything? In addition, her plan has also had another effect:
Try buying corn at the grocery store. That folks, is a 133% increase in the price of corn since Pelosi’s “commonsense plan”. The drive towards ethanol has pushed the price of corn sky-high ( can you read, skyrocketing prices? ). This is an inconvenience in the US. It’s a disaster in third world countries. It doesn’t stop there.
- Soybean is up 139%
- Wheat is up 163%
- Corn is up 133%
- Gas is up 20%
That folks, is the result of the “commonsense plan” you all chose. She told you what she would do as leader, and people just went along with it. Now, I’m sure, they’ll be following her lead trying their best to blame it on Bush. However, Bush tried to do the right things by resisting the the rash rush to ethanol AND trying to generate more supply by opening ANWR. Congress, led primrily by Democrats, rejected both. Now that Pelosi, through legislation, has compelled policies increasing world-wide resources for ethanol, as demanded by the Kyoto protocols, we are now learning what people tried to tell these idiots years in advance. By increasing the demand for scarce commodoties, it not only makes it harder for people to afford those scarce commodities, but it makes it nearly impossible for countries with limited resources to invest the money needed to develop cleaner alternative energy sources. No one wanted to hear that while rallying behind Al Gore, but the proof is in the pudding and things are going to get very ugly very quickly.
And don’t blame it on the scapegoat most media and Nancy Pelosi want you to blame it on. This one falls flatly on the Democrat leadership and the legislation they pushed regarding global warming.
Just a clue here, when someone touts “commonsense plan for skyrocketing gas prices” AND support for global warming, they’re telling you a lie.
21
Apr
Spain has it figured out:
21
Apr
DOwn the stretch of just about any major campaign, we get the same pattern. After months of touting the candidate and making them something they most likely are not, campaigns will predictably start knocking the other candidate down in order to make their own look better. Apparently this happening on the Democrat side now. The beauty of this race in my opinion has been the amazing lack of substance in lieu of vague promises of “change” and things like that. So, what’s the nature of these new negative attacks on each other?
Clinton, Obama attack each other for being too negative
They of course, attack each other for being too negative. On the front page of CNN there is also a poll running. So far, 76% of the respondents don’t like negative ads or think they do the candidate any good. I don’t really agree with that. You have to point out your advantage over your opposition, even if it’s by pointing out their weakness. It’s not a matter of being negative, it’s a matter of how you present it. Anything you say that demeans your opposition will be perceived as negative by the people supporting that candidate. So, negative ads are here to stay. It’s a matter of how it’s presented. So far, I haven’t seen any ad by either candidate that has been particularly negative. For that matter, I haven’t seen any that have been particularly positive either. Change does not connote anything good to me. So, for them to suddenly start trashing each other doesn’t really surprise me, disappoint me, or think anything different about either candidate. For me, it was predicted and expected. And, even though 76% of those pollers think it doesn’t help, it can not be avoided. So, let’s see what the candidates can do. Personally, I’m not expecting much to change from this sudden perception of negativity.
This is getting pretty near amazing to me. No sooner than I write about the media doing everything they can to cover up Nancy Pelosi’s Democrat culture of corruption, here comes another example:
“We are stunned,” Undersheriff Kenneth Tidwell said Thursday.
No one else from the sheriff’s department appears to be implicated, Tidwell said.
That’s 325 more words and not one single mention of his party affiliation. He is, of course, Democrat. Now, you might think I’m obsessing on this and spending way too much time scouring the news to figure this out. I’m not. It’s very simple at this point. If I read a story about corruption, and it never mentions their party affiliation, it is a so far 100% accurate that they will be a Democrat. The running count now is 3,719 words never mentioning the party affiliations of Democrat corrupt figures, 2 for Republicans.
Folks, it doesn’t get any more blatant thant this. Where’s O’Riley’s outrage? Where’s Olbermann’s outrage? Where’s Kos’s outrage? When is Nancy Pelosi going to address this inherent corruption that is destroying her party?
If you’re tossing all that off as silly, then why did one single person vote for “change” in 2006? And, why would they vote for “change” in 2008? The problem as I see it is not that there are a hand full of elected officials abusing the system, that will always happen. The true problem is that the filter for news in the US is horribly screwed up and people can’t vote THEM out of office. That to me is where the “change” needs to be made in the worst possible way. Once it is changed, and reports the news unbiased, THEN I think people will actually know what’s going and will be able to make logical decisions about when they want or need to vote for “change”.
17
Apr
Last night I didn’t watch the debate. I prefer to spend my time chasing a five year old around and working in the yard. Additionally, I prefer to just wait till it all filters out through what people take on it after the fact. 90% of any debate is fluff and posing, I just don’t consider that worth watching. The good stuff sticks around for a day or two. Apparently the best part of last night was George Stephanpoulos throwing Obama a curve-ball about his relationship with William Ayers. First of all, a little background on who William Ayers is:
Bill Ayers was a member of Weather Underground in the late 60′s and 70′s. They advocated violent opposition to the Vietnam War. I always loved people who advocated violence to stop a war, that should tell you about how bright they are in the first place. I mean, if we’re gonna have violence, explosions, and death, why not do it somewhere else? Back to the point, his main claim to fame in his quest for violence to end the war was blowing up three of his friends, including his girlfriend. Because of that, he went truly underground for a while. He eventually re-emerged and I guess the FBI decided he was too stupid to prosecute, since he did a better job busting his violent opposition group than the FBI did and the war ended so he apparently had nothing to violently oppose any more. So, he became a college professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Amazing how 1960′s radicals just magically become college professors.
Fast forward to last night. Based on a $200 contribution several years ago, and the fact Obama and Ayers are members of a local charity, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relation to Ayers. This is where it gets weird to me. Here’s his reply:
“George … this is an example of what I’ve been talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
“And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.”
OK so far, but then he decided to kick in an unnecessary opinion:
Instead, he struck a blow against bipartisanship by mentioning that he is friends with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who he termed “one of the most conservative Republicans” in the Senate and a politician who “once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.”
Continued Obama: “Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.
Now, the average person I think would see the difference between someone who expresses an opinion and works diligently with the system to get the change they want, and someone who thinks blowing things up because they’re not happy with it is a proper coping mechanism. What Coburn said I don’t agree with, but I feel he’s rational enough to discuss it. I don’t usually like arguing with people who blow up things they don’t like.
Hillary took the bait and ran with it. As usual, she should have just left well enough alone as Obama’s bizarre comparison wasn’t setting too well with people and Hillary had been handed a gift. She expressed her disdain for the comments Ayers had made after 9/11 and how it was something the Republicans would use in the fall. She was right on that part. However, a lot of pundits are attacking Stephanopoulos for asking what the Republicans would obviously bring up in the fall. I mean, comparing someone who hangs out with radicals ( the preacher ), and terrorists ( the weatherman ), versus a war hero is just too easy to pass up. The problem with last night wasn’t that the question was asked, it was Obama taking the answer too far AND the rebuttal by Clinton. She may not like the comments Ayers made or what he stood for in the 1960′s, but she has more of a connection to supporting The Weathermen that Obama had in the first place:
Now, here’s where it gets very troublesome for both. In Obama’s case, he’s once again linked to the radicals he was inferred to be one of again. Although he did say he didn’t agree with what Ayers was, he cited his relationship with another “radical” as his justification. The donation he received and kept from Ayers is physical proof that relationship exists. In Hillary’s case, she once again has pretty much lied. If she truly opposed Ayers, ergo the Weathermen, she would have openly opposed, or gotten her husband to not to pardon other Weathermen for murders they committed. Ayers killed people by accident, the others were in the act of a crime. Not a protest, but a robbery. For reasons unknown to me, the Clintons saw fit to pardon Susan Rosenberg. Now, which pile of evidence will be more damning, a check from someone else, or a signature by your husband? Hillary claims a lot of her experience from the fact she was the wife of a president. Once again, she wants to cherry pick what that experience is. Obama took a flesh wound from this one, Clinton then took the gun and aimed it squarely between her eyes, again.
The big winner here once again will be McCain. It could have been a moot point to a large degree, but neither candidate could keep their mouths shut.
A while back I did a piece quantifying SOME media’s reluctance to out Democrat crooks’ party affiliation. It was pretty staggeringly obvious. Something like 3,000+ words and not mentioning any of the crooks were Democrat, two words before they could blurt out the Republican. Well, those bizarrely obvious figures just keep getting worse. Here’s today’s Democrat member of Nancy Pelosi’s culture of corruption:
Former Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Sharpe James and co-defendant Tamika Riley were found guilty Wednesday of charges related to property fraud, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey said.Prosecutors said James, 72, hijacked a program designed to encourage urban renewal by offering developers land at low costs, and approved the sale of city-owned properties to Riley, 39, then his girlfriend, at a fraction of their actual value from 2001 to 2005.
At no point does CNN ever mention James’ party affiliation. Add 260 more words to that total. This is getting unreal.
He’s changed his mind over the years. I haven’t. What is cruel and unusual about punishing someone with the equivalent of the crime they committed?
