America’s Untapped Oil…

That headline is the title of an article over at CNN.  This article is the typical CNN style reporting, short on facts and full of speculation.  In fact, reading the article is quite the challenge, because of the many contradictions within it!  This is an article that was obviously written by taking the Democrat talking points and putting them into a line.  The point of the article is to condemn the oil companies (yet again) as the big bad mean guys who are trying to stick it to the rest of us.

First, the article points out that the oil industry has 90 million acres of leases in the gulf of Mexico.  Of that some 70 million acres are not producing oil.  The article also points out that the US produces about 8 million barrels of oil per day, and then consumes 21 million.  Now, I was never real good at math in school, but doing some quick calculations, I find that they have some 20 million acres of leases producing something less than 8 million barrels of oil per day.  I am also not in the oil industry, but I’m thinking that isn’t a real good production record.  So, the democrats want the oil companies to be forced to drill the remaining 90 million acres of leases at the same pitiful rate before letting them explore the possibilities more productive sites like ANWAR and the Atlantic coast.  Just to illustrate the socialistic viewpoint of the article, rather than the proper free market attitude, consider this quote:

Oil companies “should finish what’s on their plate before they go back in line,” said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

The same man, later in the article, agreed that oil companies were not just sitting on leases.  So, if they are not just “sitting on leases” and they are wanting more land, there must be a good reason.  The reason is that what they have under lease is not productive enough to drill at the current cost of equipment and laying pipelines.  The equipment itself is in high demand right now because of the high cost of oil–oil is being taken from everywhere it can be found and harvested.  That makes it economically infeasible to try to harvest from the deep water areas of the Gulf, where production has been average at best.  However, if the companies could drill closer to shore, along the Atlantic coast (you know, the same oil that the Chinese are going after!) then they would be able to produce more oil at more reasonable cost.

The same principle holds true in ANWAR.  They can get in and get the oil from a relatively small parcel of land, and produce up to 2 million barrels per day.  So, 8 million (or less) barrels per day from 20 million acres, or 2 million barrels per day from a couple of thousand acres.  Which sounds like the better plan to you?

This article also quotes “one democrat staffer” as a source.  I don’t know about you, but that is who I want to take my information from.  This “staffer” claimed that if the oil companies would drill the remaining 70 million acres that they have in lease, they would produce an additional 5 million barrels per day.  70 million acres, 5 million barrels.  That is even more pitiful production than what they already have.  So, they should spend all the money necessary to drill, and pipe that oil from the gulf of Mexico, and end up with a lower production rate than when they started.  Sounds like a brilliant strategy to me.  Sounds like a democrat strategy to me!  By the way, the oil companies have said that the estimates of this “staffer” are way too high.  So, it would be even worse than the projections above.

I am glad to hear that John McCain has come out in favor of lifting the bans on offshore drilling.  That will help to alleviate some of the problem if companies are actually allowed to go in there and get the oil.  That remains to be seen.  It is time for McCain to wise up and change his stance on ANWAR too.  He keeps claiming he is a rebel…now he has a chance to prove it.  After all, every other candidate continues to cower before the environmental lobbies.  He could buck the system and do the right thing for a change!

What are People Thinking?

I run another blog, which is primarily focused on outdoor pursuits, as that is one of my hobbies.  I wrote a post over there addressing Obama’s position on gun control, and the 2nd amendment.  Recently, someone commented on that blog that Obama’s lack of respect for the 2nd amendment isn’t really a big deal.  Here is the comment from the other blog:

i support obama…..i also understand where you’re comming from feeling worried about the whole “right to bear arms” situation…..but really, IS that the most important thing right now? yes, it’s our right as americans, and some would say that gun control policies would only lead to the government then slashing away at other rights, but i don’t believe that would happen….when politicians support gun control, it’s because they believe it’s a way to make our country a safer place….their intentions aren’t those of oppression. and as i stated before, we have much bigger problems facing this country…not voting for someone who otherwise has very good policies, just because of their stance on one issue is illogical.

What this person does not seem to understand is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.  That means that politicians are not allowed to come along and decide that they “can make our nation a safer place” by getting rid of this right.  Could the same politician decide that taking away the freedom of speech (1st amendment) could make our country safer, and therefore get rid of it?  I think not, there would be wide spread outrage over such a move.  However, much of the country is satisfied with taking away the 2nd amendment on a whim.

I am amazed that someone would ever think that BO’s policies are good other than this.  I for one, find very little (if anything) that I can agree with BO on.  His policies for the future of this country will certainly bring change, but that change will not be good.  His idea is to turn as much over to government as humanly possible, after all the government knows better what is good for you than you do.  I for one don’t need the government taking over my health care, or taking more money from my paycheck to pay for all the entitlement programs that are on the democratic agenda.  We have far too many people wanting handouts rather than a hand up in this society, and BO and his policies will only exasperate the situation.

This person obviously has only swallowed the BO and democrat kool-aid.  Never has taking away guns made a society safer.  We can take the handgun ban in Washington D.C. as one example.  Only one time since the institution of the ban has the murder rate been lower than when it was instituted.  Seems to me that makes the plan a failure, as it was put in place to help cut the murder rate in the city.  And yet, proponents of the ban insist that it remain.  So, there is a whole city whose citizens cannot purchase a handgun to protect themselves–the whole point of the 2nd amendment!

Liberals will so easily allow the government to take away my rights, but they want to make sure that those detainees in Guantanamo Bay have their rights.   What seems to be the problem here?  I am a US citizen, and as such I have a right to keep and bear arms…I don’t think BO has the right to decide for me whether that is safe or not.  I will most definitely vote against candidates that campaign on taking away constitutional rights.  If you vote for them, then you had better start practicing keeping your mouth shut…your right to free speech just might be next!

McCain called Obama’s bluff… and Obama didn’t like it!

If you’ll recall, Senator Obama has trashed President Bush’s policies in Iraq for years now. He has repeated himself numerous times, talking about the “failed policies of the Bush administration” in Iraq. He has campaigned rather vigorously on the platform that he will get the United States out of Iraq. (Of course, someone with more wisdom than the Senator apparently cautioned him about saying he would “immediately” pull the troops out… a naive sentiment indeed. That wording has disappeared from the Senator’s speeches.)

Enter Senator McCain. Senator McCain publicly offered to accompany Senator Obama to Iraq to examine whether things were really as bad off as Senator Obama was saying.

That offer amounted to Senator McCain calling Senator Obama’s bluff. Senator Obama has not been to Iraq in more than two years, and yet he continues to talk about how unsuccessful the Bush policies have been. Senator McCain wanted to show Senator Obama that progress is indeed being made. Senator Obama refused.

In a speech Tuesday night, Senator Obama wanted to abandon talking about Iraq entirely. When he had free reign to spout off about a subject he actually knows little about, he was bold to challenge Republicans. When confronted by someone who is more than able to debate him on the issue (Senator McCain-a veteran), Senator Obama said that Senator McCain needs to spend more time talking about domestic issues and less time talking about Iraq.

How convenient, Senator Obama. Once again you’ve proved, despite your insufferable protests to the contrary, that you are just like every other politician. How dare Senator McCain actually challenge you??

Is Barak Ready to Give up His “Religion”?

From the beginning of the campaign, Obama has tried to put himself forward as a “good Christian candidate.” Now, if you remember, back in 2000 when then Governor Bush was running for president, the left bashed him from beginning to end for being religious. Then Bush won the election. Yes, he won it, despite what the liberals say, and the movies they make to try to change history after the fact. In 2004, the left began to lighten up a bit on the anti-religion kick. In fact, John Kerry actually spoke in a church during the campaign. But, they still weren’t going to fully embrace the “religious right”…until Bush won yet again. Somehow, he pulled off two wins when he shouldn’t have been able to. The libs attributed it to what they called “right wing religious fanatics”, and so they started changing their tactics. I don’t know how many times I heard some liberal say something like: “We need to make sure the voters know that the Republicans don’t have the market cornered on morality.” And so, it became more fashionable among the Dems to be religious. The only real problem is that they (at least those in the lead right now) have no real commitment to their religion…it is hard to even tell that they really are religious.

Let’s take Obama for example. He bragged about how he was a Christian, and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Then the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright came to light. Turns out that Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s preacher for about 20 years, is incredibly racist. Obama is out claiming that he is the one who can unite not only the Democratic Party, but the whole country. And yet, he sat at the feet of a racist preacher for 20 years, listening to him spew his black power speech. Obama, in the meantime, claims that he didn’t know that Wright (his religious mentor earlier in the campaign) held these extremist beliefs.

Wright was forced, by the media publicity, to resign his post at the church. In steps a young new preacher, who Obama speaks highly of. In fact, he stated that he was only staying there because he liked the new, energetic preacher. The question then becomes, is he any better than Wright? And the answer is obviously a resounding, “No!” In his “Easter” sermon, almost immediately following Wright’s resignation, Otis Moss III preached a sermon entitled, “How to Handle a Public Lynching.” In the “sermon” (and I use that term very lightly) Moss compared the attacks on Wright to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That shows that either he has no real concept of the sacrifice of Christ, or else that he has no respect for it, or real religion in general.

As if all of this was not enough, just recently another religious mentor and friend of Barak Obama preached a “sermon” at Trinity United Church of Christ in which he ridiculed Hillary Clinton by name. Michael Pfleger, Roman Catholic priest, blasted Clinton as being racist, and thinking herself entitled to have the Democratic nomination. Here is a quote, as taken from Fox News:

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’” he said.

“And then out of nowhere came, hey, I’m Barack Obama. And she said, ‘Oh ****, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.’” Those remarks were mockingly performed in a falsetto, and drew a standing ovation.

This is a man that is known as an activist in the Chicago area. Being an activist is not necessarily a bad thing, but this man has fraternized with others that are obviously divisive, rather than uniting. Consider this from CBS News:

Pfleger, known locally as a community activist and organizer, was arrested in June 2007 with the Rev. Jesse Jackson during a protest outside of a south suburban Chicago gun shop. The criminal trespass charges were later dropped.

He also has hosted Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, at St. Sabina and has called him “a gift from God to a sick, sick world.”

There is something wrong with a man who calls Louis Farrakhan, a “gift from God”! How can we ever believe that this type of man could be a good influence on Obama?

It seems like Obama has now had his 3 strikes. He can continue to act as if he is oblivious to the beliefs and teachings of all of these men, but it is just not believable. Obama has associated with these men for years, and has most certainly accepted the “Christianity” that they are proclaiming. Again, I use that word very loosely, as the doctrine they teach has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a message of divisiveness, and hatred. That is exactly the kind of presidency that we will get out of Obama!

McCain Invites Obama to Visit Iraq

Democrats are calling it a political stunt. Maybe it is. But, it certainly proves a point. John McCain has invited Barak Obama to visit Iraq with him. Why would he do such a thing, especially with the general election looming in the near future? Because he thinks he is right when it comes to how to deal with the Iraq War!

There cannot be two more drastic positions for how to deal with the Iraq War than the two expressed by McCain and Obama. McCain is convinced that we can actually win the war, and Obama is convinced that there isn’t anything in the world that we can do to win the war. He used to say that he, if elected, would begin pulling the troops out immediately. Of course, he was extremely naive when he was saying that, and has changed his position to say that he would start working toward getting the troops home. The bottom line is that he is ready to give up on Iraq, and pull out as soon as possible, regardless of what happens in the region when he pulls out.

McCain, on the other hand, actually believes that the military can win the war, given the proper resources. He will work more diligently to make sure that the troops have all that they need to be able to finish the objectives laid out for them.

We can argue all day about whether we should be in Iraq or not. That is a debate that has been going on since we went into Iraq in the first place. But, what we really need to realize is that we are there now…the time for that debate is over. How can we get out victoriously? It certainly is not going to be accomplished by pulling out before the work is done.

So, why won’t Barak visit Iraq, especially with McCain? Because he would see that there is progress being made, and that McCain is right about what needs to be done in Iraq. Obama has only been in Iraq one time, and that was 2 years ago, before the surge (which has been successful). What exactly might he be afraid of finding out? He might be afraid of finding out that McCain really can teach him a thing or two when it comes to military conflicts!

I have already made it clear in previous posts that I am not thrilled about McCain as a president, but I think when it comes to national security, and specifically the war in Iraq, he will do a much better job than Obama. Obama wants to sit down and talk with the dictators of the world “without preconditions”, but he will first cut the military down to an incredible low (something like when Bill Clinton was president). He wants to throw out the name of Ronald Reagan, like his policy is similar to Reagan’s, when in fact it could not be more different. Obama is not ready to deal with the issues that are looming on the horizon in the area of national security. He is far too inexperienced to be able to be successful in these areas!

Only a Democrat Gets By With That One!

I am sure that by now you all have heard what Hillary Clinton had to say when asked if she was going to get out of the race now…after all, it’s all over and she is the odd candidate out. Maybe she’s not the oddest candidate, but she is the one left out. Here’s her own words, just in case you missed it:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,”

Can you imagine if a republican had said such a thing? He’d be roasted alive! Think that is overstepping the reaction? Just remember Mike Huckabee’s ill conceived joke when speaking before the NRA:

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Huckabee has been blasted in the media, and in the left wing blogs for his comments. I admit that they weren’t well thought out, and not really all that funny (for the joke it was meant to be). But the point is that he was not allowed to get by with his statement by anyone. Of course, CNN tried to tie the comments to John McCain by making sure to point out that Huckabee is supporting McCain. He must agree with every word uttered by those that support him. Funny how that doesn’t apply when your preacher is a racist.

I don’t think Hillary was really calling for the assassination of Barak Obama, but maybe she is secretly hoping some nut job out there will figure out that if he is not in the race, she then has a chance to win. On the other hand, those that get on the wrong side of the Clintons do seem to have a relatively short life span. If something were to happen to Obama before the election, maybe they should investigate Hillary… Just to be clear, I wish no harm for either Obama or Hillary. I’m just taking a look at the comments made by Clinton.

I found it interesting that when Huckabee made his comments, he apologized to Obama. He meant no real disrespect, and was only trying to make a joke. Hillary, on the other hand apologized to the Kennedys I guess she didn’t want to anger the only political family in the democratic party with more clout than her own. Here’s what she had to say:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,”

Of course, this is being spun in the media (for the most part) as only being a statement about how long the campaign should go on. But the duplicity with how it has been handled is obvious. Only could a democrat get by with such a statement. Why can’t we just chalk stupid statements up to just that, no matter who makes them. This is far different than the planned statements found in speeches, and should be considered differently. However, Clinton might want to apologize to Obama, rather than the Kennedys, after all she was talking about him!

What’s the Difference Between Republicans and Democrats?

A friend of mine sent me this funny quip by email a few days ago. You may have already seen something similar to this, as it has been making its way around the internet, but I thought it was pretty funny, so here it is for your viewing pleasure:

Senator Kennedy Diagnosed With a Malignant Brain Tumor

Senator Ted Kennedy suffered from a couple of seizures last Saturday, and was taken to the hospital, where he has undergone tests.  Today, doctors are saying that Kennedy is suffering from a malignant brain tumor.  While we here at Shooting from the Right would disagree with Kennedy on nearly every political issue, I do hate to hear this diagnosis on his behalf.

Fox News is reporting that the type of cancer that Senator Kennedy has is very serious.  It has been identified as being inoperable, and therefore must be tackled with chemotherapy and radiation.   Because of this, the prognosis is not good.  The typical survival is between 1 and 5 years.  This is, however, a preliminary diagnosis on Senator Kennedy, and may change as more information is gathered.

I am glad to see that this is being treated kindly by the republicans in congress.  I have not yet heard anything but well wishes for Senator Kennedy, though I am sure there are some examples out there somewhere.  Sean Hannity said it well a few moments ago on his radio program when he stated that life transcends politics.  We can certainly disagree on politics, and at the same time respect one another.  Here is what President Bush had to say:

Laura and I are concerned to learn of our friend Senator Kennedy’s diagnosis.

“Ted Kennedy is a man of tremendous courage, remarkable strength, and powerful spirit. Our thoughts are with Senator Kennedy and his family during this difficult period. We join our fellow Americans in praying for his full recovery.”

Even with all the disagreements that the republicans have had with the democrats, and all the abuse he has taken from the left over the last 8 years, Bush still offered very kind words for Kennedy.  It shows he gets it…there are more important things that politics.  I think most politicians on either side of the aisle really have the same perspective. At least I like to hope so!

So, I just want to wish Senator Kennedy the best.  I hope he is able to overcome this disease, as Senator Specter did not long ago.

Can Barak Obama Get it Done Today?

Today marks yet another primary, and one that may be very important.  If all the cards fall in the right order, Barak Obama may clinch the Democratic Nomination.  He needs to secure at least 2025 delegates.  Of course, he could declare victory without that magic number, but that would be taking the gamble that Florida and Michigan will not be seated at the convention.  Just on a side note, that whole fiasco is hilarious.  For the last two presidential election cycles, the democrats have accused the republicans (without any evidence) of not counting all the votes.  They claimed that there were thousands of voters who were “disenfranchised”.  Now, they are doing the same thing to their own folks!  They didn’t like that Florida and Michigan actually wanted to have a say in the nominee, so they just took their votes away.  On the other hand, Hillary agreed to the sanctions against those states, so she really should quit whining.  Of course, when Obama wins, Hillary will be just like Al Gore, and complain that she was the real winner, even though she is the loser!

One primary is in the state of Kentucky today.  That is another state that Obama cannot possibly win.  I’m sure it is just because they are all a bunch of gun-toting, religious, racist fanatics.  That was what happened in West Virginia, or so we were told.

Obama’s inability to win in Kentucky throws up many red flags, which will obviously be completely ignored by his supporters. He is the “chosen one” and nothing that comes up can possibly be a sign of a bump in his campaign. But, the states of West Virginia and Kentucky (and Obama’s ignoring of these states and the people within them) highlight the fact that Obama is not the “unifier” that he claims to be. Obama cannot win in these two states, and he will lose a lot of votes in other moderate states. The truth is that Obama, no matter how much he tries to paint himself as “mainstream”, is ridiculously liberal, and really only appeals to the extreme left base (and those who refuse to actually try to understand his “plan for America). There are many reasons that Obama cannot win in these states, none of which include “racism.” I don’t deny there are racists in West Virginia and Kentucky, but there are also racists in every other state. That doesn’t excuse the racism, but it certainly takes excuse out of his basket. It’s amazing that we didn’t know that there were proportionately more racists in West Virginia and Kentucky until Obama ran for president! It’s just an excuse…don’t buy into it! I did find it interesting that former clan member, Robert Byrd, senior senator from West Virginia, endorsed Obama this week. Despite the obvious “mandate of the people” of West Virginia in voting for Clinton, two of the top 3 super delegates in West Virginia have cast their support to Obama. We are still waiting to see what the governor will do.

Obama recently has been coming off as a whiner as well. That will hurt him quite a bit in states like Kentucky, where people are struggling to make ends meet. They really don’t want to hear about how hard his life is, and how unfairly he is being treated. He whined about the president rebuking his proposed foreign policy. He whined because republicans used the words of his wife against him. If anyone speaks out against him or his policy, he whines. I’m just wondering…how much whining are we going to hear from him when the nations around the world refuse to bow down to him? I don’t know how this can possibly make him look better to his supporters!

Just a note to Barak Obama: If you send your wife out to campaign for you, she, and the things she says, cannot be “off limits.” Yes, Michelle will be an issue in the campaign. If she goes out on the campaign trail and says something stupid, republicans are allowed to point it out, and use it against you, as she is speaking for you! By the way, the same rule goes for the Clinton campaign. They have complained about unfair treatment of Chelsea, and the things she has said. If you send her out to campaign, she is fair game. Quit whining.

The democratic nominee may be chosen today, but I hope not. If Obama doesn’t get his 2025 delegates, he needs to hold off on declaring victory. I’d love for this to go all the way to convention. Let them keep on fighting amongst themselves!

Is this guy for real?

Source.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do."

"But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable," he said.

Obama praised his wife’s patriotism and said that for Republicans "to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class … and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable."

Seriously, Senator? Do you ever stop whining? Your wife is making herself a public figure, making outrageous statements about this nation that YOU want to be the President of, and her remarks are "off-limits."

See, Senator, you’ve bought into what the media has built for you: That no one should be allowed to criticize anything about you. You want to be President, but you don’t want anyone saying anything that YOU deem "unacceptable." Well, of course, Senator: anything that casts you in a bad light is obviously going to be "unacceptable" to you.

"I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record" - You don’t really mean that. Anytime they say anything about you, you whine about it.

Senator, welcome to big-time politics. Yes, we understand its all new to you. After all, you came into this race with absolutely no experience. So we expect you to be a little uncomfortable. But for crying out loud, take it like a man. You degrade President Bush every single day, and I’ve yet to hear him whine about it. Take a cue from him, won’t you?