Well, with whats happening in the halls of Congress today, it's obvious what the Demoncrat energy policy is:

AND it's obvious what tactics that they will employ to get their way:

MY stance ?

I'm glad to see that there are still some in the GOP that have the guts to stick up for their principles...just hope it's not too little,too late.

Folks, these politicians are playing with the future of our country; and I for one believe that our future shouldn't be viewed as a game, as the Dems seem to do. They are like spoiled brats that say "if you don't do what I want; I won't play". In reading the comments at Politico, I saw there were a number of ignorant people that still have nothing to contribute but "drilling now won't lower prices" (despite the FACT that Pres. Bush just ending the symbolic Presidential ban on offshore drilling has ALREADY lowered the cost of crude by $20. a barrel). they decry that "speculators" are the cost of high oil prices, and then deny that future production has any effect on those speculators actions...seems they all must have slept through Econ 101.

They also wail that Big Oil makes too much profit, and "something should be done to those greedy b*st*rds". Three points I'd like to make about that issue;

1) Oil companies by and large have one of the smallest profit margins of any industry. Just citing final (net) profits is almost meaningless; you have to know the cost to return ratio (profit margin) to really understand what it takes to get that gallon of gasoline to the consumer. if we go by stark net profit, there are many companies that are far worse offenders than Big Oil.

2) There is a player in this game that makes almost TWICE as much "profit" off of each gallon of gas than the Oil companies themselves make; this player castigates the oil companies for being "greedy" at the same time that it makes double that profit, while doing nothing to find, produce, refine, or distribute that oil. That player is CONGRESS **.

3) Some demagogues say that the oil companies have million of acres where they have oil leases where they aren't drilling, and they should drill there before trying for the offshore/Anwar deposits. Guess what, it's TRUE that the companies DO have many millions of acres where they do have a legal right to drill and they aren't drilling...because they have determined that there is no oil to drill for on that land. Congress seems to think that all you have to do is drill a hole and you get oil every time, usually you have to drill five or six holes to get ONE producing well, and the rate of production from even the wet holes may not offset the costs of drilling. Companies obtain oil rights on vast areas of land just to try to explore where oil may be found; just because they have the right to produce on any given piece of land doesn't mean that they CAN produce any oil on that land, no matter what political demagogues try to say.

4) The Left is saying we need to use "alternative energy sources" rather than oil....and they are correct in that we do need to find newer resources, after all, oil IS a finite commodity. But I'd like to ask them, just WHAT those resources should be...they cringe at the thought of building new Nuclear plants...heaven forfend we should use coal, even though we have invented methods to clean the exhaust of the plants...they say WIND and SOLAR is the way to go...yeah, okay...what happens when the winds don't blow hard enough, or its too cloudy to get the best capture of solar power (disregarding the FACT that the best solar efficiency we have to date is a mere 12-18%!, hardly good use in large industrial settings.) And WHO is doing the research on those alternative energy sources? MOST of it is funded by Big Oil. And what do they use to provide that funding? The PROFIT they make from oil production.

Enough of ranting for now, I know I won't change any already closed minds anyway, but it sure is frustrating to see so many such morons in positions of power that affect every aspect of our future. I sure hope that G-d does, indeed, Bless America, we sure don't help ourselves too much.

**A barrel of crude oil contains 42 gallons and currently costs (at time of publishing) about $130. That means the raw material costs $3.10 a gallon. For finding the oil, getting it out of the ground, transporting it to a refinery, turning it into gasoline, and distributing that gasoline, ExxonMobil cleared about 58 cents per gallon in 2007, based on figures in its annual report. Of that 58 cents, Exxon paid about 25 cents in federal income tax. The feds also collected 18.4 cents of excise tax per gallon. Meanwhile, the state (Michigan, for example) collects 19.875 cents per gallon of "excise and environmental" taxes, along with 24 cents of sales tax (at $4 per gallon). So, ExxonMobil nets 33 cents per gallon, while our federal and state governments take 87 cents per gallon.

So, who profits more from high oil prices? Big oil or big government?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:17 PM | Comments (62) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 kb.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 08:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 08:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

This from the American Federation of Republican Women (AFRW):

If Barack Obama is elected it is possible that four Supreme Court Justices could be selected during his tenure.

Do you trust him to select Supreme Court Judges?

Obama's Words
When asked what criteria Obama would require when selecting judges he said,
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." - Barack Obama, To Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts:
"Truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." September 22, 2005

The Supreme Court Oath
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

NFRW's Words
A Supreme Court Justice is to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich"-not just the poor as Obama believes.

A Supreme Court Justice is to, "administer justice without respect to persons,"-not taking into account if that person is "African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old," as Obama said.

A Supreme Court Justice is to, "be impartial,"-not talking in to account "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy," as Obama said.

Barack Obama does not honor the Supreme Court Oath and its intent.

Do you trust him to select Supreme Court Justices?

*****************************************************************

NO. I DON"T.

20 WEEKS UNTIL THE 2008 ELECTION

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:42 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama says "Lay off my wife".

What a PUTZ! He should have thought of the effects running for the Presidency would bring on his family before he decided to throw his hat in the ring.

With the exception of minor children; the Presidents family is fair game, and he should know that fact; it's just another example of his unfitness for high office if he claims to believe it to be any different.

The First Lady is just that; an example for the Nation. The Clintons made the claim that, if elected, we would get "two for the price of one"...I leave it up to you how THAT turned out, but it is still cold hard FACT that the First Lady is a highly visible symbol of our Nation, and we need to know almost as much about her as about the Candidate in order to help inform our choice on Election day. People tend to wed those that, at the very least, tolerate their own point of view. Political marriages tend to be between those who are even more congruent in their views.

Personally, I believe all that I have learned about our putative First Lady shows her to be an ungrateful, racist, and closedminded Bitch person. If that is the kind of "change" that Obama is espousing, I just have to say 'thanks, but NO THANKS'.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 06:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.