President Obama....err Senator Obama

An interesting story from the New York Post. It argues that the Senator improperly overstepped his bounds in trying to delay troop withdrawals and any agreement that the Iraqi government may sign with the US. It seems to me that this story is more about political expediency than anything else.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

It is clear that his agenda/promise was to get America out of Iraq in 18 months. All during the primaries President Obama was claiming the US presence was illegal when it is politically expedient he changes his mind and accepts a fact when it is convenient to him.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Once again you have to ask yourself about President Obama's capability to set foreign policy with good judgment without flip flopping back and forth on our position to whatever he deems politically expedient to him at the time. Obama answers to nobody but himself, he does what is politically expedient for his career and nothing more.

This is why the McCain/Palin ticket has been picking up speed under the mantra "Some candidates use change to promote their career while others user their career to promote change". The message is resonating with the American public. While the mindlessly shallow in America are easily fooled with a 30 second sound bite here and a softball interview on PMSNBC or CNN, the media's agenda has become more and more clear to a majority of the American people.

Senator Orrin Hatch on the Energy Debate

I've become a fan of Senator Hatch since I have started reading a book he compiled after his research into the Bill of Right's Second Amendment on the Right to Bear Arms. After seeing how he astutely and thouroughly researched the topic and developed a wise position on the 2nd Amendment Right, I stumbled across a speech he gave on the Senate floor on July 25th, where he was right on point!

It's long but it's worth reading if you want to have that RARE feeling that somebody in Washington GETS IT!!!!

Enjoy,
Nathan

Sen. Orrin Hatch
[R-UT]: Mr. President, the U.S. Congress has had its ups and downs, but the
way the 110th Congress has handled our energy crisis is a low point.
High
energy prices affect every American, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or
Independent; whether they are labor unions, school teachers, or lawyers; whether
they are white, African American, or Hispanic. But no group is hurt more by high
oil prices than the poor. Restricting our Nation's oil supply is the most
regressive policy imaginable.
All we have heard from the other side is let's
blame oil company profit; let's blame oil companies for sitting on the leases;
let's blame speculators for responding to a very small spare capacity of oil in
the world.
Our citizens are begging us to drill more, but all the Democrats
can do is blame more. Listening to the energy debate these past few days, I
couldn't help but wonder whether the Democrats really believe their own
arguments. Are they really drinking the Kool Aid the anti-oil environmentalists
are serving them, or do they actually know better?
I am no expert on energy,
but the arguments the anti-oil environmentalists are selling to my friends on
the other side of the aisle are so obviously wrong that I would like to put some
of their statements to the test.
Let's take a look at this chart here.
The
first item on this chart states that an oil lease allows an oil company to
drill. The truth is you cannot drill on your own oil leases without a permit to
drill, and there is a huge backlog of applications for permits to drill. It is a
very long, expensive, and frustrating process.
Let's take a look at this
chart. This is what happens after an oil company gets a lease. First of all, the
oil company must pay rental fees to hold onto its lease. Often, the detailed
analysis of the actual energy resource is completed after a lease has been won.
If the analysis indicates the resource is economic, the oil company must apply
for a permit to drill, and that kicks in the NEPA process requiring the
environmental studies.
And then there is still no guarantee the oil company
will get a permit to drill. But if they do, there are still serious hurdles to
overcome. They must comply with hundreds of State and Federal environmental
rules, seasonal restrictions due to wildlife patterns, and very, very often,
they must overcome protests and lawsuits by anti-oil environmentalists.
So
let's go back to our first chart. We can see that this first statement is not
true, so I'll put an "F" there for false.
The next line on the chart states
that companies don't want to drill. The irony here is astounding, because the
Democrats have been fed this line by the very same anti-oil extremists that are
putting up all the lawsuits against drilling permits.
Let's take a look what
the trend has actually been with oil permits and drilling.
The data on this
chart shows what's been happening at the BLM Office in Vernal, UT. This is very
representative of the rest of the country. Since the year 2000, applications for
permits to drill have doubled, permits granted by the government have doubled,
and new wells completed since the year 2000 have doubled. And even with a
doubling of efforts by the government and the oil companies, there is still a
very large backlog of applications for permits to drill. Mr. President, these
are

[Page: ]

The last
line is based on data the BLM just gave me yesterday, and this number applies to
all oil and gas permitting in the Nation. Since the year 2000, environmental
protests against oil and gas permits have gone up 700 percent.
It is an
insult to the American people to mislead them this way. Is it any wonder that
Americans are getting completely fed up with this Congress?
Anyway, let's go
back to our chart and put a big "F" on the line that says oil companies don't
want to drill.
And that leads us to the third line on the chart, which states
that the release of final commercial lease regulations on oil shale would lead
to a "fire sale" on oil shale leases.
It is an argument I have heard more
than once, but a very quick review of existing oil shale law proves it to be
false.
I was the sponsor of the Oil Shale and Tars Sands Development Act. It
is now Public Law and referred to as Section 369. Senators Pete Domenici and
Wayne Allard were heroic supporters of the proposals, and we consulted with
Senators Jeff Bingaman and Ken Salazar on the legislation.
It is worth taking
a look at the actual language in the law, and I am paraphrasing to save time,
but the law states it very clearly:
"The Secretary shall consult with the
Governors of the States ..... to determine the level of support and interest in
the States in the development of tar sands and oil shale......."
Even after
final commercial lease regulations are published, not one lease can be put out
to bid until after the Secretary of the Interior consults with the relevant
Governor to determine the level of State and local support for such activity.
Then the law states that:
"If the Secretary finds sufficient support and
interest exists in a State, the Secretary may conduct a lease sale in that
State."
Notice that the Secretary may move forward only if there is support
from the State. Anyone who reads the actual law, Mr. President, will see that
issuing final regulations on commercial oil shale leases will not lead to a fire
sale.
This chart shows the five major steps the law requires before the final
regulations are released and then another set of major steps that must be taken
after the final regulations are published, but before a single lease can be put
up to bid.
A fire sale is when a business sells damaged goods at basement
bargain prices. The public auction of oil shale leases is just the opposite. The
auction would offer up valuable leases of only to the highest bidder. The
winners will be paying a premium price to the Government with the goal of
getting a return on their investment, and the Government wants them to be
successful, because everyone wins when energy production occurs.
The oil
shale law specifically ensures that no company will just sit on commercial oil
shale leases. The law reads that "The Secretary shall, by regulation, designate
work requirements and milestones to ensure the diligent development of the
lease."
So let's go back to our original chart, and put a "F" on the third
line. Oil shale leasing is, in every way, the opposite of a fire sale.
I am
the sponsor of the FREEDOM Act, which provides strong tax incentives for plug-in
electric vehicles. I also sponsored the CLEAR Act, which is the existing law
giving tax credits for hybrids and alternative fuels. I understand that there
are alternatives to oil, but I also choose to deal in the real world when I make
policies. Just as with oil shale, each alternative will take years to fully
develop, but we must work on them today if we want the benefits
tomorrow.
Today, alternatives make up only about 3 percent of transportation
fuels, and most of that is corn ethanol.
I hate the mandate on ethanol, but I
am on record as a strong supporter of incentives for ethanol.
But let me
remind my colleagues of some of the points I made on the Senate floor earlier
this week. And these facts are based strictly on Government data and science
journals.
If ethanol production were expanded to make up 20 percent of our
fuel supply, it would move into drier areas and require irrigation.
This
chart shows a comparison of how much water would be required to make that much
ethanol, compared to the amount of water for the same amount of oil shale. The
idea that oil shale needs huge amounts of water is an absolute myth, but the
media keeps repeating it.
This chart shows us how much land would be required
to produce enough ethanol for 20 percent of our fuel supply. As you can see, it
would take the equivalent of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and South Dakota
combined to grow that much ethanol. This is calculated based on data from the
Energy Information Administration which shows it would take about 353,000 square
miles to make that much ethanol, which is represented by the green area on the
map.
Now, you probably cannot see it from your chair. But this red arrow on
the chart points to a tiny dot on the map, which is the smallest county in
Kansas. It is about 156 square miles, and that is all the area it would take to
produce enough oil shale for 20 percent of our fuel supply. It is important to
remember that after an acre of oil shale is used up, the law requires that it be
restored back to nature.
If you look at this large green area on the map you
can recognize that ethanol requires a lot of land cultivation.
The February
issue of Science magazine published a peer-reviewed article which states that
when land is cultivated, it releases gigantic amounts of CO
2 into the
atmosphere.
The Science article determined that because of the land
disturbance associated with corn ethanol production, ethanol emits 93 percent
more carbon than gasoline. And switchgrass, even when grown on existing corn
lands, emits 50 percent more carbon than gasoline.
On the other hand, the
Department of Energy calculates that oil shale, without using any carbon capture
technology, emits only 7 percent more carbon than gasoline.
Whether you are
talking about water, land use, or greenhouse gases, oil shale is certainly an
improvement over ethanol. I continue to support ethanol production, but I know
it is limited in what it can do.
On the other hand, as you can see by this
chart, we have between 1 and 2 trillion barrels of recoverable shale oil in the
United States. That is a pretty important number, because it is about the same
of amount of the entire world's proven oil reserves. All government has to do is
get out of the way.
Unfortunately, Congress has been exceedingly
dysfunctional when it comes to energy.
On one hand they complain about oil
companies sitting on oil leases, which we know isn't true, and on the other hand
they ban development of our Nation's biggest oil resource, oil shale.
I wish
they would make up their mind. And so do the American people, especially those
Americans who fall well under the poverty line.
Let's take a look at the last
item on our energy quiz today. It states that our poorest citizens spend about
half their income on energy costs.
A book written by one of our Nation's
civil rights crusaders, Roy Innis, shows how the poorest of the poor spend up to
50 percent of their income on energy needs. Can you imagine the impact the
anti-oil agenda has had on these Americans?
So, for this final item, I will
be marking it with a "T" because it is a true statement. Historically, the poor
have looked to the liberals to promote their needs in Congress, but on energy,
they have been sold out.
Earlier this month, a group of protesters came to
Capitol Hill calling on Congress to stop the war on the poor by groups and
congressmen who are closing off America's energy resources.
Included in the
group were pastors and civil rights leaders calling on this body to unlock
America's oil resources for the benefit of Americans and especially for the
benefit of lower income Americans.
One of the participants was Bishop Harry
Jackson. I would like to quote some of his remarks for the record. These are his
words:
I am a registered Democrat, but this has nothing to do with partisan
politics. Unless the public understands that there are specific people and
organizations that are fueling this war against the poor, nothing will change
and the poor will continue to suffer. We will unmask those behind this war
regardless of their political party or ideology. Party labels and partisan
ideologies are meaningless when it comes to protecting the lives of America's
most vulnerable citizens.
Democrats in Congress must choose between the very
well funded extreme anti-oil interests, or the poor, because on energy prices,
there is no compromise between the two. To be honest, I believe Americans have
put their finger on this conflict, even before their representatives in Congress
have fully begun to understand it.
Representative Henry Waxman passed a law
that bans the Federal Government from purchasing oil sands from Canada, unless
it can be proven that it has a lesser greenhouse gas footprint than gasoline. In
other words, we are turning away 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from a
friendly neighbor in favor of oil from the Middle East and Russia. What about
the greenhouse gas footprint of shipping that oil all the way over here?
Last
year, Representative Mark Udall, who represents Aspen, CO, passed the one-year
moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing. At first, I thought he was simply
seeking a little extra time for comments, but a year moratorium on leases is a
very long time. Now he is trying to extend the moratorium for another year.
I
guess there are not too many poor in Aspen. I love Aspen and the people there,
but it is no secret that it is home to plenty of wealthy elites and
environmentalists. I have no problem with Representative Udall choosing the
elite anti-oil crowd over the poor. But let's be honest about the choices we're
making around here.
Just a couple months ago a local Aspen newspaper reported
about how the city of Aspen has been besieged with building permit applications.
The article states that new building permits every day equate to about $2
million. From what I know about Aspen, I am sure there are some very nice
brandnew homes, stores and restaurants going up, and more power to
them.
Ironically, the local governments in Colorado's oil shale areas support
oil shale development. But it is the wealthy environmentally minded citizens
like the good people of the not so nearby Aspen who are opposing it. I addressed
the environmental benefits of oil shale production earlier in my remarks, but
extreme views are sometimes extremely hard to change.
The American people are
not asking for a big appropriation or some difficult action by Congress. They
are not asking us to give oil companies big subsidies or environmental
loopholes. All they ask is that this Congress stop locking up our domestic oil
resources. They are asking us to stop relying on foreign governments who are
much smarter than we are about developing their own oil resources. They are
asking us to find more and use less.

Great Website for keeping track of your pesky politicians!

For those of you who have been looking for a good way to keep in touch with my pesky politicians and make sure I communicate with them regularly to voice my displeasure with their unconstitutional behavoirs, amendments, bills, votes etc, here is a new tool tat you can use!

It is a website called www.govtrack.us and there you can track your member of congress and your senators. I would like to see if there is any way you can extend this to our state governements as well! Either way I've just played with it a little bit and found it to be very useful, and insightful.

Next I'll post a speech by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah that was right on point when it comes to the energy debate in this country.

Obama's Foriegn Expertise

I just finished reading yet another fantastic editorial by Mark Alexander from The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US), one of my favorite internet publications. In it he talks about Obama's preparedness for the most important constitutional duty of the President of the United States that is being the commander in chief.

Read the Article

Here are some of my favorite excerpts:

"Obama responded to Iran’s missile tests this week, saying, “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.”

“Incentives”? Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad has vowed to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust. How about this incentive—a paraphrase from JFK during the Cuban missile debacle: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any missile launched from Iran against any ally of the United States as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”

Further, Obama insists, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Come again? A quick fact check and one finds that Franklin Roosevelt did not hold direct talks with Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo. Harry Truman’s “pre-conditions” for peace negotiations with Japan were two atomic bombs, and Truman didn’t talk with North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung after his invasion of South Korea in 1950. Instead, he sent troops, and we are still there, as we are in Japan and Germany. As for John Kennedy, he did meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. But Khrushchev knew, after Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, that he could outflank Kennedy. "

Have a great weekend everybody!

In The Beginning

I've been thinking about starting to Blog, and here is my inspiration.

“Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last.” —Ronald Reagan

It is as simple as that. I decided that I was willing to do what very few do, study the issues, make myself aware, and then convey that message to who ever is willing to read my blog! I don't expect to have a lot of readers, but every mind, body and soul I can liberate is well worth the effort!

I know this is a short and anti-climactic first post, but it's late!!

Good night!
Nathan