29 April 2008

Congress Needs To Show Us They Care

By congress' own actions, I would say that they agree with the findings of the Economic Policy Institute, in their assessment is that "Higher gas prices .. incentivize conserving". In other words, they seem to believe that higher Gas prices are "good" for the country, because the force people to conserve and use less gas. The sad part is that by my conversations with people in Coffee shops and people I meet in stores, many American's, or at least Rich American's (I live in one of the wealthiest areas in the country), feel the same way. The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that, as the Economic Policy Institute so astutely observed, it affects the bottom half of income earners the hardest; not to mention the devastating effects these policies have on the world's poor. Gas and corn prices have gone up at least 50% and 100% respectively, since Congress was taken over by the Democrats almost 2 years ago. In other words, we're building this brave new "Green World", on the backs of the ones who can afford it the least. Everyone talks about about oil as if it's passe technology, like we don't need it anymore. We should just move on. NewsFlash! The world still runs on oil, and we still don't have any alternative that is as economically viable as oil.
This morning President Bush expounded on Congress to do something to increase domestic drilling to help the economy. His comments were dismissed mostly because Congress, despite the high prices, seems to feel that we need to focus more on Green Fuels. Unfortunately, they know that Green Fuels can't compete with cheap gas and so they are reluctant to act, even if it's what the American People want. Popular Mechanics did a great story last year, where they show that Green Fuels have a long way to go be competitive with Gas, this is still true even with the recent run up in prices, especially corn based ethanol, which is about 50% higher than last year, due to increases in oil and corn.
On January 28th 1981, Reagan, faced with gas at 3X what it was when Carter stepped into office, decided that the government tried and failed in their attempts at regulating the Oil and Gas business. He decided to let the free markets dictate the price. In the book Envy of the World: A History of the US Economy and Big Business by Timothy, J. Botti, on page 392, the author talks about how, "Reagan dropped all price controls on the industry for the first time since 1971. In addition, he cut Carter's windfall profits tax of 30% on new oil exploration in half". Later, in 1988, after the ensuing Oil Glut, Reagan was able to eliminate the tax entirely, since the Oil industry was just barely making a profit. The U.S. consumer benefited with lower gas prices for the next 20 years! This my friends is what is called Leadership, something sorely needed by our so called leaders today. The reason it worked was simple, unshackled by excessive taxation and regulation, the industry found so much oil, that our reserves during the 80's increased by over 29%. To top it off, in order to compete with the U.S. massive oil output, OPEC, ended up cutting prices to the point to where Oil was as low as $8.00 a barrel!
Instead of following the example of what worked, set by Reagan, here's what congress is doing:
  1. Subsidizing millionaire farmers.
  2. Restricting Oil Exploration and production.
  3. Ignoring Maryland's call to restart the 'Synthetic Fuels Corporation'.
  4. Focusing on Corn based Ethanol, which only benefits Agribusiness.
How did we get here? After the Oil collapse of 1985, Oil companies started to consolidate the industry through mergers and acquisitions to become more profitable, and in many cases to stem huge losses. At the same time, OPEC seeing a threat from a more energy independent U.S. Started cutting prices to the point to where it costs less for us to buy our oil, than to go out, try to find it, extract it and so forth. The U.S. not only had excess capacity of Oil, we had a HUGE excess gas capacity as well. If gas prices had stayed high, they could still make money, but by the end of 1985, gas prices bottomed out at about .89 cents a gallon, too low for them to make any money. Through merger's acquisitions (and explosions) we cut the number of gas refineries down do about half today of what we had during the Reagan years, but unfortunately, congress used the Exxon Valdez spill as an excuse to once again, shower the industry with regulations, most of which had nothing to do with Shipping, and environmental spills, and more to do with protecting the industry from newcomers getting into the business. This had the effect of allowing the industry to continue to consolidate, and cut costs, while at the same time preventing any newcomers installing new refineries or oil drilling to compete with the existing business. In other industries, such as Airlines, smaller carriers like Spirit or Jet Blue enter the market to provide low cost choices, where Mergers caused those low cost choices to disappear, not so in the Oil industry. The past few years has seen the merger of Exxon and Mobile, Chevron and Texaco, British Petroleum and Amoco. Where are the new startups to challenge these guys?

Of course, the other White Elephant in the room is Global Warming. Too many of congress' decisions are based upon the whole "Carbon Footprint" theory, that somehow we are causing Global Warming. Before you dismiss me outright, let's keep in mind that the Southern Hemisphere has been cooling about as much as the northern hemisphere has been warming over the last decade or so. Also, 3 of the 5 or 6 hottest days on record since 1890, happened over 70 years ago. There's absolutely no proof that we are outside of normal variations. In addition, the tales of the oceans rising, it turns out were falsified. Even a British judge has said that Gore's movie, needed to be shown with Guidance notes to point out the "Political Indoctrination" and "Factual Errors".

But here we are betting our entire future that this is all correct, when in reality it's nothing more than the latest political fad du jour. A hundred years from now, when the next Glaciation Cycle starts, historians will be saying, "What the hell were those people thinking? Didn't they have the technology to study history back then?" I'll get into that in another post.
Back to the subject at hand, if congress really cares about us, here's what they need to do to lower prices on Gas.
  1. Realizing the Industry is cleaner than it's ever been, streamline the EPA process required to get a new site up and running.
  2. Reform the EPA to actually allow more Gasoline Refineries to be built in the U.S. (without it costing Billions to do)
  3. Restart the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.
  4. Offer tax breaks to companies to switch Power Generation from Oil to Coal.
  5. Mandate higher fuel efficiency for vehicles.
  6. Mandate all new homes be built with Solar Hot Water Heaters at the bare minimum.
  7. Mandate higher energy efficiency in Homes and appliances.
  8. Mandate to all electric utilities that they MUST buy any available electricity at the same cost, that it costs them to generate that electricity (this way if someone builds a Garbage powered generator, he can sell the electricity back to the utility.
If these policies are announced on the SAME DAY that they announce a stop in Emergency Reserve purchases until the end of the summer driving season, AND a stop to interest rate cuts, believe it would be enough to burst the current Oil bubble that is powering oil up even higher every day.

So there you have it congress, now show us you care!

Recap of references used in this Story on Diigo.

27 April 2008

The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Clinton!

WSJ Reported... "The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Obama! Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee."
This reporting though, fails to take certain things into account. The first is the entire reason why the 'Super Delegates' were created in the first place. It wasn't to mirror what the party wanted, it was created for exactly the reasons that the WSJ stated about the Democrat Party Primary Process, "No centrist can secure the party's nomination in a primary system dominated by left-liberal activists". Which is fine, if left leaning leberals are electable, but as the past has shown us, they are not. Obama, is nothing more than a modern day McGovern, completely unelectable, or did the newspaper not get the news? They wrote in this same article that McGovern (1972), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) and Kerry ('04), were exactly the types of far leaning left liberals that Middle America won't vote for. Obama is no different.
North Carolina is a perfect example of the massive problems the Democrats have if they side with Obama, According to Rasmussen, even though as of April 5th, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points, over half of Clinton Supporters say they won't vote for Obama against McCain, if he wins the nomination. North Carolina is just one of the 30 States that went with Bush in the 2000 General election against Gore, and they're also one of the 31 States that went with Bush in the 2004 General Election vs Kerry. The WSJ fails to see that in addition to having a huge block of voters that won't vote for Obama in the general election, Clinton has also won the states with the Most Electoral College votes. Ultimately most Obama voters would vote for Clinton in the General Election, which makes her the more electable of the two candidates. Also, Obama voters tend to be younger and less likely to vote than the Older voters that Clinton has.
One last thing that the WSJ fails to see is that both Florida and Michigan's vote WILL count in the general election, and if the Democrat Party fails to take them into account, they will lose the general election.
If the Super Delegates don't see this or won't act on it, then why have the Super Delegate system in the first place? They might as well adopt the same system the Republicans have and avoid all these headaches in the future.

read more | digg story

26 April 2008

Bush Answers - How Presidential Candidates Would Handle a Zombie Threat

I found this story about how the Candidates would handle the issue of Zombie's but, Apparently, only Bush has answered this question so far. Bush again shows leadership in an issue where there are few leaders to be found.

read more | digg story

(Just a bit of a comedy break guys, don't take it too seriously)

Run and Hide Obama, Run and Hide

The Washington Post reported how Obama, is opting not to engage Clinton in debates anymore, since apparently she does better in that format. I really wish I had good video editing software, I can envision the scene in Oceans 11, where once the owner of the Bellagio realizes what's going on, he says... "So I have complied with your every request that you made of me".. "Good".... "Now I have one request of you"... Run and Hide Obama, Run and Hide.

In all seriousness though, do we really want a president that's afraid to engage and forcefully put forth his vision for America? Why wouldn't he want to answer the tough questions, if he so strongly believes in his answers? This also begs other questions, like how would he push through any reforms, if he's afraid of engaging those who disagree with him once he's in the White house? Actually though, I think he just doesn't want to answer any more questions about his associates. There's also his lies about not taking money from the Oil industry and other "Mis-spoken words". The biggest problem with Obama is that the more he goes "Off Script", the more "Problems" he has with the media.

read more | digg story

23 April 2008

Obama Cash Machine - Overrun by 'Operation Chaos'

Obama outspent Clinton by 3 to 1 and in some markets as much as 5 to 1, yet he was unable to close the margin of Clintons victory to less than 10 points. Conceding that he didn't think he could win, Obama was at least hoping to close the margin down to single digits. A very close victory for Clinton here, would have signaled that the Democrat Primary race was pretty much over, but now it doesn't look like this will happen. Or did it? A full 14% of all Democrats voting in yesterday's Pennsylvania Primary, were brand spanking new registered Democrats. How many of those were operatives in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? Did Operation Chaos tip the vote in Clinton's favor, extending the Chaos going on in the Democrat party?

Clinton, emboldened by her victory, entered the Philadelphia auditorium singing, "I'll stand my ground, and I won't back down!" and then said "Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don't quit and they deserve a president who doesn't quit either"

My analisis of this situation raises some questions though, the problem that I have with this, is the fact that Clinton's Cash Machine, only raised 20 Million in the month of March, about a 50% decline from February, while Obama's Cash Machine raised 40 Million in March, while still a drop from February (super Tuesday month), the drop wasn't nearly as huge as Clinton's drop in contributions. If Clinton is surging ahead of Obama this way, why haven't her finance number's reflected this? This leads me to believe that Obama really did win among true democrats and her margin of victory is almost entirely attributed to Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. While true, that now that she's shown a win, her contributions have soared, but prior to this win, it seems that her support was waning with calls among democrats to drop out of the election.

Rush Limbaugh, commenting on their last debate relished on what he sees is his pivotal "Operatives" changing the outcome of the vote, claiming that "Obama is Damaged Goods, but Radical Hillary Can't Close the Deal".

At the same time, the other side is that Exit polls showed that the vast majority of new registrants voted for Obama, so this begs the question. Did Rush's Operation Chaos win the race for Clinton, or did she win because all of Obama's issues are starting to catch up to him. Are Obama's chickens "coming home to roost"?

19 April 2008

Carter Suffering From StockHolm Syndrome

According to the Wikipedia, Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger in which the hostage has been placed. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term Stockholm Syndrome was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.

What else could possibly explain Carter's second visit to Hamas, a Terrorist group funded by Iran, the same country that humiliated him during his presidency. A presidency held hostage to the Iran Hostage Crisis. It's almost as if he wants these Brutal killers to "like him".
Carter Claims that he's there to broker a release of the hostage soldier, Gilad Shalit, but neither Israel, nor the U.S. Government have requested, nor do they want his participation. As Condoleezza Rice said before the trip, via State Department spokesman Sean McCormack "Carter had opened himself up to 'exploitation' by both Hamas and the Syrian government. (Since Carter also met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.). The two Palestinians he met with an hour ago, are considered terrorists by the U.S. government and Israel accuses them of masterminding attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians.

I suppose that Carter has forgotten the lessons learned about dealing with the Iranians, you don't negotiate with Terrorists. He is being used as a tool in their propaganda machine to lend legitimacy to their government and to their cause. Not wanting to leave an impression that Carter won any concessions, Hamas said Friday that Shalit would "not see the light" until Palestinian prisoners are also released in an exchange - code for "we want hundreds released for this one". Talk about your slap in the face.
They also spoke of a way to end the siege on the palestinians by Israel. Let's not forget that it was Hamas who started this whole thing, by Kidnapping Shalit, and begun the Shelling of Israel, via lands that Israel conceded to the Palestinian Authority. I wonder if Carter glossed over that little factoid.

In a move reminiscent of the Nazi Party, Hamas, once a minority group in Palestine, has forcibly seized control of Gaza from Fatah in June, utilizing financing and weapons provided by the Iranian Government. They then proceeded to setup a Rival regime to the legitimate government of President Mahmoud Abbas' West Bank Government. Just as the Nazi's their stated purpose is the death and destruction and displacement of all Jews.
Incensed with Carter's undermining of U.S. policy not to negotiate with Terrorists, Rep. Sue Myrick of N.C. has called on Rice to revoke Carter's passport. Citing, "Former President Carter has acted in contradiction of international agreements to isolate Hamas".
No telling on the effect this move will have on Obama's support among the Jewish community in the U.S., Obama has been critical of Carter's visit, since Carter had hinted on supporting Obama. Obama has been very unfortunate, in that many of his supporters, such as Wright, Farrakhan, and now Carter, seem to be insensitive, if not hostile to the needs of the Jewish Community.

18 April 2008

Can Mr. Wonderful win the Race?

Online Videos by Veoh.com
verywhere you look. ABC's Blogs about the coverage of the Debate. The Huffington Post's blogs about how unfair ABC was, the Obama supporters are in an absolute uproar. It's like a collective "How Dare They" came out of their mouths all at the same time. What Obama supporters are failing to realize is that Americans have questions.
There are many issues on which we here at NoSocialism.com can go after Obama, I've written previously about why we believe he can't win, mostly because of the fact that we believe that he does in fact have some very socialist tendency's. However, with the left trying to define the kinds of questions that are appropriate or that can be asked, I'd like to focus for a moment, not so much on the issues, but on what kinds of questions are the right questions, that we should be asking a presidential candidate. I'm going to make an analogy and I know many of you will take this the wrong way, but here we go.
If a white guy named "Mr. Wonderful" came out running for the most powerful office in the country, or even if it was just for mayor of your city, and he came up with a grand plan that would save everyone. Everyone was in complete agreement that the plan was the right plan, but they then found out the man's best friend was the GrandMaster of the KKK, who despite being a Scoutmaster and an upstanding Citizen, used to get supporters in an uproar over how "Blacks have it in for them". In addition, they found out that another friend, hated Jews and was a member of the American Nazi Party, who was trying to organize a Million White Man March. Finally, there was also a revelation that this Mr. Wonderful, that could speak circles around anyone. That seemed to have a solution for every issue, also held strategy meetings at Timothy McVeigh's home at one time, when he lived down the street from him. Would it be fair to say that this "Mr. Wonderful, would be absolutely crucified by the media in every shape and form that they could? Would comments by Mr. Wonderful that 'We can Move Beyond this" be enough to placate his critics that maybe he's not so wonderful? Would these even be fair questions if the plan he had was so absolutely brilliant?
So here we are, with Obama's claims that his 20 year relationship with his Pastor is irrelevant. Here is a man that has said things from, "White people introduced AIDS to the Black community to kill them off" to "America's Chickens are coming home to roost", over the 9/11 Incident. That 20 year relationship, isn't indicative of how he thinks? That relationship doesn't represent his views. The vast majority of people that I know, usually have the closest relationships, with people that they agree with on many, many levels. Most usually tend to distance themselves from people that have viewpoints that are very different then theirs. As for his relationship with Farrakhan, who clearly hates not only Whites but also Jews. He went to his Million Man March, his church, and Pastor Wright gave Farrakhan an Award saying he "Epitomized Greatness". To top it all off, he goes to Bill Ayers home, (formerly of the Weather Underground) where Bill proceeds to host an event for Obama when he was running for State Senator. Clearly this is more than "simply an acquaintance".
According to Obama's supporter's these kinds of questions are a waste of time. We should only be talking about the issues. If it was Mr. Wonderful, would that be the case? Or would we begin to question the man's character and the man's ability to simply "do the right thing". Character is extremely important, and how can you know a man's character, without knowing anything about the company that he keeps? Let's do some super simple math, without getting into too many details.
About 45% of voters always vote Democrat, and about 45% of voters always vote Republican. There's a swing vote, of about 10% that could go either way, and usually don't really solidify their position, until just weeks before the election. Like it or not, Obama Supporters, right now a bit less than HALF of your party is supporting Clinton, let's just say that it's 22% of all voters, Republican, Democrat and undecided. That leaves Obama supporters with 23%, McCain 45% and then there's the 10% Swingers. (Pun intended seeing as they like to jump in either bed). I know what you're thinking, you can get the 22% supporting Clinton, once she's out and, you can get the 10% swingers too, for a 55 to 45 win. Not so fast. You see, you guys might see it that way, but the rest of us don't. Again, right now, as it stands you're in the Minority, with only 23% and you can't define all the issues, we are 77%, and also have a say in what questions are asked and we believe that Character is important. We believe that it's important the we see the kinds of people that you choose to surround yourself with. We believe that it's important to not only define a plan for the country, but to also let us know what kind of person you are and can you be trusted. We are trusting the president with the most powerful position in the entire planet. If we can't ask these kinds of questions of a potential candidate, then that candidate should not be running, period.

17 April 2008

Congress Behind Latest Increases in Gas and Oil

Chris Mehl of the Wilderness Society was ecstatic, Kohlman Co., an Oil & Gas development firm, agreed to cede it's oil and gas leases on 33,411 acres along the "Front" to Trout Unlimited, a conservation group. So far the group has racked up 40,074 Acres from companies giving up their leases on the land. 4 companies have agreed to give up their leases on the land since Congress passed a law giving tax credits to companies who give up their leases on 400,000 acres of Federal lands along the Front.

The bill, passed by congress in 2006, expanded the 1997 decision to remove 365,000 acres of Federal land from Oil & Gas leases along the Front. The Front is the area where the Northern Rockies and the Great Plains meet from Montana Hwy. 200 to Glacier National Park in the North.

Chris Hunt, of Trout Unlimited, said the Badger ­Two Medicine area is home to the state fish, as well as grizzly bears that move back and forth between the plains and moun­tains.

This is a treasured place for hunters and anglers,” Hunt said.

"Bob", A commenter on the Great Falls Tribune Website said, "May do some good for the trout, paid guides, people with the money to go on these wilderness trips and foreign governments that sell us their oil and gas and then kill us with our own money. But chock up another loss for the working class. These development companies are under such strict reclamation regulations and I've seen these newer developments myself in other states and they look fine. All that's left is a small fenced area with a pipe sticking out of the ground in most cases and a nice well maintained road." Roads that can be dismantled later after the well is exhausted.

Indeed, the industry is being blocked at every turn, in California, New Mexico, Utah, everywhere you look there are new roadblocks, new restrictions and more and more regulations being placed on the industry making it more difficult to find and extract the energy that America needs.

While Americans certainly wish to preserve their pristine places is such action really warranted?

With Gas prices hovering at well over $3.00 a Gallon and pricing experts saying that Gas should hit $4.00 a gallon very soon, and possibly much higher in the future, is Congress doing something, Anything to get a handle on this?

With the Technology that we have today, from zero noise drilling platforms, to Horizontal Drilling techniques, the actual footprint of oil drilling equipment is getting smaller and smaller. Even in the hotly contested area of ANWR, a report issued on March of 2003 on the North Slope, showed that Caribou populations in the area were through the roof, despite 30 years of drilling. The report showed that the environmental impact in the area was incredibly small. Less than 1% of the total area was affected.

According to BP, a 20 Acre well pad in 1970 could access about 502 acres of land, meaning you had to dot the landscape with Pads to get to the oil. With today's techniques, a pad of 5 to 6 Acres can access oil on about 32,000 acres of land. Clearly, with new technology, we no longer need to dot the entire landscape with drilling pads, which of course means a lot less access roads need to be built. Additionally, frozen areas like ANWAR, new Exploration techniques are leaving nary a trace of a footprint. Solid Ice Bases and Ice Roads are being implemented that simply melt out of existence in the Summer. Leaving a single capped well head as the only evidence that humans were there.

We need to ask congress, why with rising Food and Gas prices, are they, instead of urging the Oil companies to develop more oil, they instead are doing everything they can to make more and more lands not accessible to Drilling.

Instead, congress recently passed a huge tax increase (HR 5351) on the Oil and Gas industry that discourages the very investments on technology that have made the industry much cleaner. While it might feel good to "Stick it to them", if anything this will lead to even higher prices, as the industry attempts to compensate for higher costs of doing business.

These tax increases will have the effect of telling the industry to just buy the oil from overseas and resell here at the Gas Stations, since Capital Investments will no longer be tax deductible for them, like it is for every industry in the U.S. This coupled with the closure of more and more areas to drilling, will only have the future effect of making oil even more scarce, and the more scarce things get, the more expensive things get. It's a basic law of supply and demand.

But congress isn't done raising your Gas prices, not by a long shot, a proposed Bill S. 1419, includes provisions for the Oil industry to subsidize Ethanol. A move that could double the price of Gas by 2016, even without any additional increases in Oil. And if that's not enough, congress is also considering 29 Billion in new taxes on the Oil industry to subsidize Wind and Solar Power, a move that will surely increase the price of gas even more. If all of these provisions are passed, we could easily be paying $10-$15.00 a Gallon within the next 10 years.

When the Oil Embargo of 73 happened, it had devastating effects on our economy. We ended up with the tripled gas prices, long lines to purchase gas, gas rationing, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, 21% Interest rates to buy cars, more people were unemployed since at any time since the Great Depression. Back then we only imported 35% of our oil. Today we import 53%! More and more of our money is ending up in the hands of enemies like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the Middle East, who have a penchant for funding Islamic Extremist of the sort that would rather see us dead. What happens to us now if there's a future disruption of supply?

The results are clear. With the artificial caps on production, and less and less supply every year, the prices of oil will continue to skyrocket. We're starting to see the huge problems that Green Fuels deliver, so that's not a real alternative. It turns out that the debate on Global Warming, really isn't over, so we shouldn't just stop producing oil, and destroy our economy for something that might be a mistake. It's nice to dream of some day when we will have cheap and plentiful clean power from some new mystical invention in the future, but right now our economy runs on Oil. And it's running out of Gas. We need to tell congress to be part of the Solution and not part of the Problem.

14 April 2008

Global Warming Panic Causing Hunger and Rioting

U.S. Policy on Oil production is hitting the poorest of the poor, those who make less than $2.00 a day, the hardest. Mostly because of environmental concerns, especially over Global Warming, The United States has been steadily increasing regulations of it's oil production, to the point to where there are no new production projects coming online in the United States. The U.S. is now producing less oil than we have in almost 60 years, even though we have some of the worlds largest reserves. This in turn has created an artificial shortage of Oil which has seen Spot prices jump to all time high's of over $110.00 a barrel. At first, the higher gas prices started to cause food to go up in price mostly because of transport, but that was nothing, now with the "Biofuel" craze, food prices are rocketing up faster than most in the third world can handle, up to a threefold increase since 2005 on some commodities. Corn especially has been getting a lot of attention on being turned into Ethanol for Gas production, but is it really wise for us to use the planet's food supply to drive our cars with? Especially when there's plenty of oil available off the Coast of Florida and in Alaska?

Many people don't even realize that Corn is used in making everything from beer to bubblegum and while here in the U.S. the higher prices are more of an inconvenience, in Third World nations, it can be the difference on whether you eat or not. To make matters worse, corn is expected to go even higher, because farmers are planting more Wheat & Soybeans this year, due to better profitability. In addition, we've gone from 50 ethanol plants in 1999 to 134 today! The Renewable Fuels Association has estimated that up to 1/3rd of the nations Corn production could soon be swallowed up by the Ethanol producers.

Prices are not just accelerating on Corn, Wheat & Soybeans; dairy farmers, meat producers, chicken farmers and others who rely on corn feed for their livestock are having to increase prices to compensate for Corn's skyrocketing costs, adding even more upward pressure on the nations food supply. Could this be the spark that drives a 70's style runaway inflation?

The Dirty secret about Corn though, is that it takes massive amounts of water and Nitrogen fertilizers to grow. Additionally, mountains of pesticides need to be added to keep the bugs from devouring it. Since Nitrogen is derived from Natural Gas, and pesticides come from Petroleum, as corn production increases, we can expect to see much higher costs of heating our homes and even higher prices for oil.

Now the fallout, In Haiti, the government almost endured a coup d'etat over last week's food riots on April 5th & 7th where at least 3 people were killed. Prime Minister Jacques Edouard has been ousted, leaving his appointee's merely passengers on a bus going nowhere until a new head of state can be ushered in.

In Mexico 75,000 people came out to protest against rising Tortilla prices, if people think the border situation is bad now, wait until poor Mexicans can't afford their Tortillas. We'll see even more border crossings as people who are starving don't care about things like immigration laws.

From Bangladesh to Egypt to Latin America and Africa, food riots are breaking out all around the world, while the U.S. has committed to a 200 Million dollar emergency aid program, the U.N.'s World Food program needs at least 500 Million just to meet emergency needs. We've yet to see if other nations around the world will step up to fill the gaps.

If the debate is over, then we need to start a new debate, because the policy changes we're implementing seem to be doing more damage to the Economy and the rest of the world, than any actual Global Warming. The worst part is, that the planet has actually stopped warming several years ago! While the debate continues as to wether this is proof that Global Warming was overblown, or if this is temporary, it seems that the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

11 April 2008

Obama Loses 10-Point Advantage Over McCain

Republican Sen. John McCain has erased Sen. Barack Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.Further evidence that the story I wrote about previously is true. Obama cannot and will not win this election. He's hoping that the whole Wright thing will just go away, but it's an issue that won't go away, because the American public doesn't want someone in the White House that thinks they're a bunch of evil racists.

read more digg story

09 April 2008

Why Obama Can't and Won't Win

If anyone were to take a look at the news coverage of the 2000 Elections, everyone was in agreement, Gore would win. To everyone's amazement, or at least anyone along either coastline of the U.S., Bush won the White House. Of course, there were the calls that Bush "stole" the election and all of that noise, or that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, but wasn't Gore supposed to win by a wide margin, wasn't he supposed to win with a Reagan Style landslide? It didn't happen that way mostly because of the "Red States" along America's Beltway. Regions of the U.S. mostly ignored by your average Pundit and News Anchor, all voted for Bush. Keep in mind that the only states that voted for Gore, were most of the northern Midwest, the West Coast and except for New Hampshire, the Northeast, only 18 states and DC! Everyone else, 32 States, voted for Bush.

Fast forward to 2004, and again. No way that the "Moron" Bush could win. He's up against the "Intellectual" John Kerry, a man who's "Infinitely Smarter than Bush", polls were showing that Kerry was leading 47% to 44%, only 44% felt that the country was going in the right direction, 43% said that Bush should be re-elected and 51% wanted someone new. So what happened, again the Democrats lost.

So now here we are, 2008 and it's time for a new Election. Again, CNN and the rest of the Left Leaning Media are proclaiming that a Democrat will win, most likely Obama, since Obama leads and has most of the votes he needs to win. Unless of course Clinton can figure out a way to "steal" the election, at which point this article would be moot. But I don't think that's going to happen. The outrage in the democrat party, especially amongst the Blacks would be unbelievably intense. Obama will be the Democratic Candidate led to defeat at the hands of McCain. Why? It's simple, if my domain name hasn't hit you yet, NoSocialism.com.

When Americans are polled about whether they like the direction of the Administration, they're not given the choice to say specifically what it is that they don't like. The Pollsters assume that American's are dissatisfied with the same things that they themselves are dissatisfied with, but especially in the Heartland of America, nothing is further from the truth. So let me give you a clue as to what it is that Americans in the heartland worry about. Between the years of 2001 through 2005, Inflation went up by 12%, an average of around 3% a year. As for the Government, let's take a look at some numbers from the OMB:
  • Science, Space & Technology; up 21%
  • Department of Transportation; up 24%
  • Unemployment Benefits; 26%
  • General Government Spending; 32%
  • Social Security & Related Programs; 39%
  • Health Care Spending; 42%
  • Community Programs; 71%
  • Housing & Commerce; 86%
  • International Affairs; 94%
  • Education Department; 99%
This is a "Government Gone Wild" and it's only gotten worse since 2005. Social Security and related programs last year alone almost matched the increases between 2001 through 2005! I didn't even include increases in Military spending, because obviously with the war going on, it's a necessary expense and the only thing of this list here that is a constitutional requirement. These are the things that the Heartland is worried about, so what is Obama's response to this, absolutely nothing. He wants to increase spending not decrease it. He wants expanded government, not a government that's more limited. John McCain has a huge advantage here since, according to Pig Book, Hillary Clinton has inserted 281 individual projects totaling 296.2 Million bucks! Big Spender Obama wasn't quite as lavish, inserting 53 pet projects totaling over 97 Million a huge amount for a Jr. Senator. John McCain should be given a Medal for keeping his hands out of the cookie jar, he's the only one of the candidates with no pet projects and 1 out of only 4 senators with no pork barrel spending.

Spending is not the only reason why Obama will lose, but I think it highlights the differences between Obama and McCain and why Americans will choose a more responsible legislator, over someone who simply talks a good game. The biggest mistake that Democrats make is that they think they can win by Lying, by playing games, by grandstanding and other dishonest tactics. These things might work in NY, they might work in Chicago, they might work in San Fransisco, but they sure as heck don't work in America's Heartland where American's don't listen to CNN and MSNBC as if it were God's Gospel truth. In the 2000 election, did Gore really think that we didn't take "Fair Trade" to mean protectionism? Did he really think that voters didn't realize how expensive his Health care reforms would be? Did he think that Americans wanted to grant our sovereignty to World Governments via the Kyoto protocol? When it was Kerry's turn, again the lying. Did he really think we'd buy the "I voted for it before I voted against it"? How stupid did he think we were. Did he really think we wouldn't look at all the video's where he kept saying over and over that we needed to invade Iraq, but when the election came around, he disavowed everything he said. Did he really think we wouldn't look into it.

And now we have Obama. While not as easy to beat as Clinton, let's face it every time she opens her mouth, it's to expand government even more, but does Obama really think that people will believe that he didn't know what his pastor has been saying for the past 20 years? Does he think that we're so dimwitted that we don't know that all of these government programs he's proposing will have to be paid for out of our own pockets? As the Heartland continues to prosper with ever increasing exports to China and India of food and heavy manufacturing equipment, does he think that his protectionist rhetoric will sit well with them?

The Heartland of America believes in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Obama believes in Abortion, Regulation and as Rush Limbaugh often says, "When was the last time you saw a happy Liberal... They're always complaining about how bad things are, even in Boom times!"

The Heartland of America believes in "Pull yourself up from the bootstraps". They believe in Patriotism. They believe in smaller government. They believe in equality. They believe that America is the GREATEST country in the world, and Obama doesn't believe any of these things. From Michelle's comments about this being the first time she's proud of America, to Obama's book outlining how he used to count the Marxist professors as friends to Obama's minister speaking of "Evil America" and the US of KKK A. These are things that don't sit well with Middle America, and unlike the major coastal cities, Middle America doesn't let CNN and MSNBC tell them How to vote.

Obama won't lose because America is Racist, on my street alone, (and I live in a fairly wealthy subdivision) at least 4 of my neighbors are biracial couples, and that's only counting the Marriages between Black's and Whites, it doesn't include the Asian / White couples, Asian /Hispanic couple, Jewish /Hispanic couples, so on and so forth. Keep in mind that my street is only 2 blocks long. I would go as far as to say that anywhere from a third to half of all my neighbors are of mixed backgrounds, this is no longer a big deal in America. By and large people no longer have the racist attitudes that their parents or grandparents had. I live in South Florida, and so we may be a bit more of a melting pot than the rest of the country, but I've been around enough to realize that most of the rest of America is just as tolerant as we are here.

No, the only reason that Obama will lose is because of his Socialist and Marxist policies that are totally at odds with core American Values. The sooner the Democrats realize this, the sooner they can put down their hateful name calling, their villainization of America, the villainization of the President and the Republican Party. Then and only then can the Democrats actually work together with us to build a stronger America that all Citizens will be proud to call home.

06 April 2008

Protesters try to douse Olympic Flame in London

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Protesters angry over China's human rights record and its recent actions in Tibet scuffled with police and made attempts to grab the Olympic torch and douse it with a fire extinguisher on Sunday.


Reema Desai of Orlando, Florida, captured this image of the protests at the torch relay.

Here in the United States of America, we should be outraged. We stand for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and yet we are the primary source of income for China. We are the ones that are putting the guns, hardware and technology into the hands of the Chinese to continue their repressive rule. Yes, it would hurt our economy to impose sanctions on the Chinese, but how else would they learn? The worst part is, the world community has even given them the Olympics!

After Tienanmen Square, we should have imposed sanctions until basic human rights issues had been resolved. Back then it would have been a relatively painless exercise, because we didn't rely on China for all that much in terms of Goods and Services. Now however with China importing almost a Trillion a year, and exporting over 1.2 Trillion a year, of which almost 233 Billion of that trade hitting U.S. Shore's the economic impact of an embargo today would be near catastrophic. Since Europe's Bi-Lateral trade with China exceeds 300 Billion, they're even more defendant on the cheap goods they provide, so of course, they won't do anything about it either. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where only time will tell what the impact of our inaction becomes. Given China's 5000 year history of subduing their enemies, I don't think the outcome will be a good one.

05 April 2008

Some Superdelegates More Super Than Rest

These prominent Democrats can name additional super delegates, giving them control over multiple convention votes, and that could be the difference in a race that may not be decided until the August convention.It just goes to show you the complete disdain that the Democrats have for their own voters, in that they don't trust them to make "proper" decisions. They basically rigged the system to where they could change the outcome of any race to suit their own needs.

read more | digg story

04 April 2008

World Bank accused of climate change "hijack"

The above video was released a while ago, well today, it's starting to show that it's all true. The following story shows how Developing countries and environmental groups accused the World Bank on Friday of trying to seize control of the billions of dollars of aid that will be used to tackle climate change in the next four decades.

It just goes to show you what these people were REALLY all about, it was about getting the cash in their pockets and nothing more.

read more digg story

02 April 2008

Clinton, Obama take on Big Oil

"The Democratic presidential candidates are criss-crossing Pennsylvania this week, dropping in at gas stations and truck stops to convince voters they've got the best plan to tackle soaring gas prices and Big Oil profits."So the plan again is to change the tax code so that Oil companies can't take the same tax breaks on investments that every other company in the U.S. is entitled to. Exactly HOW does this lower prices? It just goes to show that neither one of these candidates understands things like BASIC economics, how can we trust either one of them to lead the U.S. when they don't understand that increaasing taxes on the Energy industry will only lead to HIGHER prices not lower prices.The only way that we will see lower prices is if we start drilling for more of our own oil right here in the United States, and increase the numbeer of Refineries here in the U.S. That is the ONLY way that it will happen in the near term. As for the future, who knows if we'll come up with viable alternatives, but unless we increase supply the prices will only get higher.

read more | digg story

01 April 2008

Obama is the change that America has tried to hide

"If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill." ....
So now English newspapers are trying to tell us how to vote. Of course, I'm sure many of them would like to see the U.S. descend into the Socialist Economies that they have over there in Europe. What American DOESN'T need is more Socialism, more big government, more Government controls and regulations and more of the same of what they have in Europe. What I find amazing about Europe is that these guys have been around for thousands of years, and yet here comes America and in just a few hundred years becomes the pre-eminate Super Power of the world. We have an economy that is unmatched by any other country in the world, our populace enjoys a level of weath and comfort unmatched anywhere in the world, we drive the biggest cars, live in the biggest homes, have the most disposable income and live the most lavish lifestyles, yet the Europeans want us to be more like them, instead of them being more like us. Strange yet true, this is the world we live in.

read more digg story

Our Sponsors