In my opinion, 9/11 was largely the responsibility of Jamie Gorelick. Jamie Gorelick is pure evil. Period. Her name figures prominently in several domestic disasters. Sure, she didn’t break the levees in New Orleans, but it was the climate of non-communication between agencies that contributed to the problems in a substantial way. So yeah, some of the blame for the consequences of Katrina can be attributed to her.
I mean, her name is mentioned in association with:
- Waco
- Ruby Ridge
- Although she handled the Oklahoma City bombing fairly competently, it was HOW the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were handled, in a large part by Gorelick, that led to the bombing.
- Sandy Berger’s thefts
- Able Danger
- 9/11, repeatedly
- The legal wrong side of the Duke Lacrosse rape case ( which involved, par for course, ignoring obvious evidence. )
- The bad situation of Fannie Mae due to lack of oversight and cooperation with auditors by the board she was a member of.
- And, believe it or not, she’s now part of the exploding gasoline prices crisis as she’s a board member for Schlumberger Ltd. An oil field developer. She was hired there in 2002. Pretty much when the War in Iraq started. You know, the war everyone tried to blame on Dick Cheney and Haliburton. BTW, Schlumberger is a direct competitor to Haliburton. Schlumberger was directed by John Deutch from 1998 until 2007. You remember John Deutch, he was the CIA director who downsized the CIA following the collapse of the Soviet Union and thereby pretty much eliminated our foreign intelligence operations. It was this lack of foreign intelligence that was directly blamed for 9/11. jamie Gorelick’s wall was the other primary reason. John hired Jamie. Schlumberger lost out to Halliburton. Repeating the past, John’s gone now, Jamie’s not. In the meantime, who’s the primary benefactor in the US for NOT driving down the price of oil by developing more wells? You guessed it, Schlumberger vis a vis Jamie Gorelick:
- Of course, they wouldn’t be successful at it if it weren’t for the complete support of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who REFUSE to do the right thing and allow OTHER companies to do the drilling that Schlumberger apparently refuses to do.
How many more disasters does this woman have to be involved in before CNN and MSNBC out her?
I will admit Jamie Gorelick’s life reads like a movie. Only problem is it would be a bizarro Forrest Gump where horrible things happen to millions of people every time she steps into the picture. It’d probably be a huge hit though.
It’s making the rounds again as the Dems warm up for the fall. Obama’s already testing it. Clinton has worn it out already. Several have already blamed the price of gas on Bush, and most have offered their solutions to the Bush problem. When you listen to them make those arguments, remember one thing:
That’s the imports under Clinton. Now, compare that to the imports under Bush:
During the same periods, domestic production decreased by 15% for Clinton, 11% under Bush. In fact, it’s actually leveled off in the last couple of years.
So, the net result is the foreigners did not quite as well under Bush as Clinton, but locals haven’t been hurt nearly as much under Bush as they were under Clinton.
And, the reason we’re paying what we are now is almost exclusively because OPEC figured out we can’t support our petroleum fix. And, they’re right. However, we can very quickly find a new supplier. The Clintons wanted more foreign oil, the Bush’s wanted more domestic. Which would you prefer?
And, once you’ve answered that, answer this one for me again. Who is more beholden to the major oil companies? I’ve never bought that crap from day one for the simple reason I have seen us selling out to OPEC for the last twenty years. They supported every terrorist on the planet and we just kissed their butts for that cheap oil. Now, all of a sudden, someone says we’re tired of that crap and the price of oil suddenly skyrockets.
So, the question becomes, will the next President sacrifice our security for cheap gas as I think the previous one did? Or, will the continue to let them know we’re tired of terrorism and pay the price at the pump?
Or, will they get even ballsier and declare a state of emergency and send drilling rigs to the reserves we’ve got right here and tell OPEC and the eco-terrorists to kiss our oily butts? While at the same time sanctioning five hundred new reactors and mandating all new personal transportation by 2015 be electric.
Then, watch the price of oil half way across the planet.
26
Nov
Mike Huckabee had this to say in what I think is a response to the gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia:
Ten years? This I gotta see. I think I’m gonna vote for Huckabee now just to see how he pulls this off. Now, I chastised John Edwars for making what appeared to be a purely election minded announcement to open the federal reserve. There was nothing to support his statement. However, this is what Huckabee has had to say in the past on energy policy:
Seems fairly consistent. Not sure I’m willing to write this one off as purely rhetoric.
However, it ain’t gonna happen in ten years. We do have the resources to do it, we just don’t have the resolve to do what it takes. That’s not Huckabee’s fault. However, it is Huckabee’s reality.
John Edwards is now calling upon Bush to tap into the federal natural gas reserves to combat skyrocketing prices. Citing prices in New Hampshire, he had this to say:
“American families are facing skyrocketing home heating oil and gasoline prices, while big oil companies earn massive profits…..”
“We need to stand up to the oil companies, increase the use of renewable energy and create affordable choices for regular families.”
Now, the problem I have here is manyfold. First of all, expanding LIHEAP wildly doesn’t stand up to oil companies, it gives them exactly what they want. They just charge whatever they want and the government softens the blow by paying for it. There will be no outrage when your bill is subsidized. People will not be motivated to conserve energy. People will turn their themostats back up a few degrees. It won’t hurt.
Secondly, where does the oil in the reserves come from? You guessed it, the same big oil companies sticking it to the little guy. The amount in the reserves is so minor compared to daily US usage it won’t mean squat. At 689 million barrels, and the US using about 21 million per day, it wouldn’t have a whole lot of impact for very long. Plus, knowing that the US government would have to re-stock eventually, it probably wouldn’t have any impact at all on the price of crude coming from OPEC.
Thirdly, if Edwards wants to stand up to oil companies putting the screws to the little guy, open ANWR and restrict production to domestic companies. That’ll knock out the BP’s and Citgo. Bid out the entire field to the absolute lowest bidder. That’ll knock out the Exxon’s as they are too beholden to OPEC. You won’t see Edwards going that route.
What Edwards is doing is politically expedient in that’s convenient. He didn’t think this up. It’s been tossed around and used in the past. It acomplished nothing then. Why does Edwards suddenly think it’ll accomplish anything now? It won’t. It just sounds good.
My buds at Independent Sources so nailed this issue I just suggest going there and reading it. A synopsis:
…….but reading this story about Brazil’s recent discovery of a deep water oil field of 5,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 barrels of oil made me think of it…….
……but when the US has a known field of 25 to 50% greater size which is easier to extract it’s exploitation will do nothing to lower prices or decrease foreign oil dependence.
Ditto. Methinks there’s a lot more to ANWR than simple economics.
15
May
Today is the national protest aimed at the oil producers where people are encouraged to not buy gas for one day as a sign of protect.
I won’t be buying gas today. My wife won’t be buying gas today. It’s not because either of us think this will work. It’s because we bought gas the previous day or two. and just don’t need any.
I really don’t think this accomplishes anything. What you don’t buy today, you’ll buy tomorrow. The oil companies could care less which day we bought their product. The only real protest that would work is when our entire society decides to eschew some things so that we don’t have to drive as much as we do now. Not just for one day, but everyday. Only then will there be any impact at all. So, I’d just as soon they quit pushing the idea that a one day temper tantrum will amount to anything and start pushing tangible ideas like giving up an activity that cuts gas use permanently.
And, buy higher mileage vehicles too.
And, build more eco-friendly houses, like the one I’m building now.
Then, they’ll see the writing on the wall that people want cheaper energy and look for something new that is not a vanishing resource.
25
Dec
This was a rather heavy read for a late Christmas night:
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could disappear by 2015, a National Academy of Sciences analysis found.
And, I stumbled on this while trying to find the actual source document for the above information:
"The budget allocated to the government will run out by the end of (the Iranian month of) Azar (December 22)," the agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
"We are going to put forward a supplementary budget bill to cover the three remaining months (of the Iranian year, ending on March 20 2007) and the first two months of next year.
The president did not give a reason why the budget had run over.
Now, Roger Stern ( NAS ), assumes we can peacefully wait out the current Iranian crisis. However, I don’t think it’s going to be quite that simple. Apparently the Iranian government realizes it’s hitting a crisis already, hence the rush for nuclear power. Now, with Iraq totally destabilized, Pakistan almost always destabilized, and several other Middle Eastern countries in a proverbial mess, I’m not sure a destabilized Iran is a good thing. Althought the government may go belly up, that doesn’t mean a lot of individuals have made a gazillion bucks already. I am assuming Stern thinks that once the Iranian coffers are bare, they’ll peacefully enter the civilized world and quit doing the bad things the US is fighting against. I think Stern, if that is truly his thinking, is horribly naive. Even with the total collapse of government rule in Iraq, with the offer to assist them in forming the government of their choice, the Iraqis have chosen to a large degree to endorse total chaos based on very selective religious preferences. It’s not good enough that they are all Muslem, you have to be a certain KIND of Muslem to avoid the car bombs and death squads. That’s how deep these fanatic convictions go. I can’t see how Iran is any different than the Cradle of Mankind. If the Iranian government does go broke, and the military collapses with it, we’ll just get more fanatical chaos. That hasn’t done the US any good at all. It was the chaos in Afghanistan that allowed one individual to garner so much influence and power that he could destroy the World Trade Centers in New York CIty, USA, while never leavind his cave. So, I can’t go along with Stern’s conclusion that the Iranian situation could resolve itself peacefully if we just wait it out. Chaos has never benefitted the US or the world and only leaves voids for tyrants and radicals to fill.
Now, what I think will work is to allow the Russians to give the Iranians all the energy, via nuclear power, they want. However, until Iran is more stable and world-friendly, just run lines INTO Iran.
And until those lines are finished, bomb the hell out of any nuclear plants Iran builds.
It would seem to me as soon as these new wells come online, our reliance on the Middle East should be marginalized. We’re already been leaning more and more on Mexico and Canada. Once this well, and others yet found in the Gulf and elsewhere, the political dynamics of the US regarding the Middle East should change. No longer will there be any incentive at all to look the other way when Saudi Arabia disses the US. No longer will there be the “it’s all about oil” copout when we try to deal with Iraq. The radical elements of the Middle East are funded by the excessive wealth being generated by oil which the US in large part buys. Although China and other countries will quickly fill our void buying their oil, it eliminates a stigma when the US tries to do something about these radical elements. And, more importantly, it eliminates a weapon the Middle East terrorists have against the US vis a vis attacking oil production facilities. They don’t seem too concerned about attacking Chinese interests there.
Start drilling tomorrow Chevron. If you need help getting it up and going, I’d think it be in the best interests of Homeland Security to help them get it going. And, don’t forget, with the increased reserves and production, I expect a discount at the pump!
Wonder why gas costs what it does right now?
Members Voting Against Peterson Amendment to Lift Federal Moratorium on Exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf
House Appropriations Committee
May 10, 2006
Allen Boyd (D) |
(202) 225-5235 |
20 of the 25 votes against expanding drilling were Democrat.
What part of supply and demand do they not understand?
|
WASHINGTON, April 18 /U.S. Newswire/ — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on news reports that the price of oil has skyrocketed to more than $70 a barrel:“As Americans pay almost 90 percent more to fill their gas tanks since President Bush took office, oil companies continue to reap gigantic profits and oil executives receive astronomical compensation. Record prices, record retirement packages, and record profits are just the latest example of the wealthy few benefiting at the expense of hard-working Americans under the Bush Administration. “The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has passed two energy bills, costing taxpayers $12 billion for giveaways to big oil companies. But the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as the price of a barrel of oil has settled above $70 a barrel – the highest price in our history. Even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve agrees that gas prices are decreasing the purchasing power of American families and depressing the U.S. economy. “Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just the few. Our plan would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on price gouging to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, increase production of alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies.” |
What part of supply and demand does SHE not understand as well? Given the chance to do something about high gas prices, her comrades chose to oppose doing anything about it.
To be accusing Bush and Cheney of being oil guys, the oil industry couldn’t ask
for better foot soldiers than Pelosi and her bunch. Remember that in November folks.
- Heads up to Redstate.com for the article.
3
May
Thomas Freidman made the above observation: He then ties in this quote:
When I heard the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declare that the Holocaust was a myth, I couldnt help asking myself: I wonder if the president of Iran would be talking this way if the price of oil were $20 a barrel today rather than $60 a barrel.
In essence, the price of Freedom is directly proportional to the price of oil. And, he cites some obvious correlations. The ebb and flow of democracy in Russia. The actions in Iran. The actions in several parts of the world.
But, he also omits ( from the synopsis I have seen ), to very obvious situations that are running contrary to those observations. IMO, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and even Afghanistan. In my essence, several countries are bucking the price of oil to freedom connection. Now, what I do agree with is something slightly different and a LOT older, basically, “He has the gold rules”. Now, you have to slightly modify that to fit my
actual philosophy to something like “They who has the gold THINK they rule”.
Now, that is a lot different than actually ruling. So, I really don’t agree with Friedman’s “petropolitics” as he’s describing it here. IMO, we live in the silicon age and the availability of silicon products is what’s directly proportional to freedom. Our obsession with oil just makes little Caesars a little braver is all.
