Hugo threatens $200 oil

Hugo Chavez, left wing dictator of Venezuela, warns the United States of oil reaching $200 per barrel if the US attacks either Iran or Venezuela.  However let’s look at a few facts on the subject of oil in Iran and Venezuela.

Both Iran and Venezuela are economically isolated countries, Iran’s economy is in shambles, it’s infrastructure for pumping oil is not well maintained and it is controlled by the Iranian government.  If Iran would modernize (or allow outside companies to do it for them) then more oil could be pumped.  Venezuela has had socialism thrust upon them and Chavez is taking every nickel he can squeeze from oil and fund social programs.  The problem with this is that he to is not maintaining his ability to pump oil.  He has taken over all the oil interests for this country and doesn’t allow private companies to invest in the needed upgrades to bring more oil out of the ground.

So with both of these large oil producing countries so screwed up how can we avoid $200 oil anyway?  Shouldn’t we work to remove these thugs that run these countries so that the oil that drives the world economy can be pumped from the ground?  Yes I know a war would drive the price up in the short term but fixing the infrastructure would allow both countries to produce two or three times their output today and this would bring the price of oil back down to the $35 or $40 range.

Granted this only solves half the problem.  We also have to remove the socialists from power in the US.  The environmental movement, and current far left wackos in congress are probably a greater threat to the United States than Hugo or Mahmoud could ever hope to be.  All the oil in the world means very little if it can’t be refined and our refining capacity hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years.  We import roughly 3.5 million barrels of refined product every day.

So I say fine, let’s remove both dictators and get on with the war.  The sooner we do it the sooner we restore balance to the world, the sooner that we will see added growth in the world economy, and oh the byproduct that no one seems to care about the sooner that millions more people in Iran and Venezuela will be free from tyrannical dictators.

Mitt Romney’s Social Distortion

crossposted from here

Mitt Romney’s Social Distortion: Is He Being Honest With the American People About His Position Regarding the Human Life Amendment?
Tommy Oliver
Race42008.com

In February of 2007, James Bopp, who had endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, wrote in the National Review that Romney “has fought for a federal marriage amendment and McCain and Giuliani oppose one.”

This was, at the time, seen as damage control after Governor Romney had given an interview with Marc Ambinder for the National Journal. Here is the transcript of that interview:

Ambinder: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?

Romney: What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.

Ambinder: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?

Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.

Now, this type of retraction happens on a fairly regular basis in politics, where a spokesman has to clarify a candidate’s statement. Opponents will regularly catch one candidate misspeaking, and then try to capitalize on their misfortune. Mr. Bopp, a lawyer, helped write the 2004 Republican Party Platform which supports the Human Life Amendment. It was later revealed that Mr. Bopp advised the governor that,“ there are a wide range of possible human life amendments; ranging from a total ban on abortion to an amendment that let states make the decision. On top of that, getting both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 states to support a constitutional amendment is unrealistic.” Ramesh Ponnuru (NRO) recently said that Romney does support a constitutional ban.

Later on in the summer, when Governor Romney gave an interview with ABC News, he went further in stating his support for the amendment to outlaw abortion on a federal level when he indicated that he supported the pro-life plank of the GOP platform, which means he would support establishing legal personhood for all unborn children in all 50 states.

The date of that story was August 8, 2007. Since then, Romney’s advisers and supporters have used this to champion their candidate in numerous instances- riding it to strong showings in straw polls and surveys. The campaign has used the momentum to define its “3 legged stool” of conservatism, and Governor Romney, himself, has claimed to speak for “The Republican Wing.” The candidate’s numbers have risen in the polls, and he is now seen as possibly the most conservative candidate in the field. When Fred Thompson received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee this week, the Romney campaign was up in arms, and his supporters cried foul. They wondered why the leading grassroots pro-life organization would snub their favored candidate for someone who refused to support a federal ban on abortion.

Romney supporters truly believe that he supports a Human Life Amendment, but at the same time, it was always advisors or supporters who were actually saying that. Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of the Moral Majority, stated that he believed Romney’s recent conversion to the pro-life cause to be “sincere.” Romney also won the endorsement of Bob Jones III, the president of the evangelical university that carries his name.

However, besides Romney’s interview with ABC news, the candidate has never actually stated that he supports the amendment. The actual interview transcript says:

“You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I’m pro-life.”

The former Governor said that he would support the platform of the party, as has all the other candidates. The question is… “ Just how up front is Romney actually being with the voters?”

The answer may lie in a statement he made in South Carolina, on April 13, 2007. This date was well after James Bopp’s clarification in February that Romney does support the amendment. On that day, while speaking to a small group of business owners, Romney said:

“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”

Let’s repeat that again…

I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”

The question remains… When I read the statement, he says that a one size fits all approach is wrong. One could make the argument that Romney is saying that Roe Vs. Wade is wrong, but then he used the words “one size fits all is wrong.” He didn’t have to go this far, but he did. In April, while James Bobb and Hugh Hewitt were arguing that Romney was a supporter of this amendment, the candidate said the opposite.

Somebody was not being up front with the voters. It was either Romney, or his advisors/high profile supporters. The real problem is that it further muddies how much one can trust the candidate, or the people who either represent or speak for him. If Romney was disavowing Bopp’s claim, then how is one not to suspect that he changed his mind when he saw that it only hurt him more, opening him to attacks from then-candidate Sam Brownback.

It’s difficult for the Governor to distance himself from a statement this blunt. Of course, one could consider that he meant “Roe vs. Wade” is a one size fits all approach that is wrong, and a human life amendment would not be. The problem with this theory is that it directly contradicts the sentence before it. Let’s look one more time at the statement.

“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion.”

First, he said that he would “like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion.” That’s a pretty straight forward, federalist approach:

“I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”

Strict Federalism. Romney says that a “one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.” That he would say “one-size-fits-all” when making a statement about Roe vs. Wade, but then turn around a support the Human Life Amendment, is very unlikely, at least on that date.

What happened? Only Governor Romney really knows, but it’s a direct contradiction that dates from 2007, not 1994 or 2002. Other than saying he wouldn’t overturn the platform in his ABC interview, he didn’t say that he would support a Human Life Amendment. If he has said that since, it would seem to have been a political calculation.

Does anyone really care about Hollywood writers?

Why do Hollywood writers even have a union?  This question ranks up there with professional football and baseball players having a union.  Are the working conditions that bad?  Anyway despite media efforts to the contrary most people don’t give a rip about Hollywood writers.

 

And why should we, these are the people that give us all the same garbage, how many movies are sequels and remakes?  The sit-coms are basically all the same, the plot is the same, the characters may be a little different here and there but what was the last original show to come from these writers?

 

Basically it boils down to a group of people that want to get paid more for giving us the same old garbage we have already seen for the last fifteen plus years.  As for me, it doesn’t matter much; I don’t watch network television and haven’t been to a theater in quite some time.  There really hasn’t been much worth going to see.

Huckabee on Bush Immigration proposal

from the Washington Post:

On immigration, Huckabee aligns himself with President Bush rather than more conservative elements of the Republican Party, favoring a pathway to citizenship for those who at one time entered the United States illegally.
To think that we’re going to go lock up 12 million people or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go might make a great political speech but it’s not going to happen, said Huckabee.
He downplayed the political consequences of the issue, insisting that while there is a segment of people who are “truly exercised about this and virtually nothing but this,” the vast majority of voters are not up in arms over the idea of offering illegal immigrants a chance to be citizens. “I just don’t believe that at the breakfast table in most homes in Arkansas the first thing that happens is the man throws his cereal spoon down and says: ‘Let’s talking about immigration, honey, said Huckabee.

National Right to Life Committee To Endorse Fred Thompson

From Carl Cameron:

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has won the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, the largest U.S. antiabortion group, three sources tell FOX News.
The announcement is scheduled to be made Tuesday in Washington D.C.

Hillary pandering to the far left as usual

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has admitted to planting questions about global warming at a recent town hall event to discuss clean energy.  This begs the question: if you have plant a question about global warming at a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy then how important is this issue anyway.  Could it be that most people, outside of the few kooks on the far left and the college students who have been programmed to believe this garbage, don’t believe in global warming after all?

Now it appears that this is a very common practice for Hillary.  It seems that someone else has come forward to say that basically the same thing, that a Hillary staffer approached them at a campaign event and asked them to ask a specific question. 

In a telephone interview with Fox, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding. The encounter happened before an event on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa. The Clinton event was hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Fraise.

Mr. Mitchell declined to ask the question requested by Clinton staffer Chris Hayler:

“I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Sen. Clinton,” Mitchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said: “I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn’t consider that a mistake.”

And then surprisingly enough Hillary declined to take questions at the event.  I guess it boils down to the reality that if Hillary can’t choose the questions she will answer then she won’t take questions at all.  This woman thinks she is qualified to be President?  Only a fool likes to hear the sound of their own voice…..

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, media bias

« Previous Page — Next Page »