Obama, Oil and the Games Being Played.

A few days ago in Largo, MD Obama said that the US is producing more oil than it has in the last 8 years (I heard the speech). That oil he is referring to is being produced only because private investors are doing it on private land and he cannot stop them.  There has been no new exploration on federal land whatsoever.  His speech he says "We are drilling everywhere.  Well not in the National Mall and not in your yard."  You Mr. Obama are doing nothing -- private enterprise is doing it all despite you.  When he talks to folks who want to think he supports oil exploration he uses this speech. When he is talking to environmental groups he brags about "no new rigs", "no Keystone pipeline". Which is it Mr. Obama?  Are "we" drilling a lot or aren't we?
 

Obama has in effect placed an embargo on the United States and that position has created YOUR gas prices. The rest of the world does not believe the US will become energy independent under this man and thus the price goes up. The moment they feel like we are expanding our exploration -- those prices will plummet.  Oh and he says we like "gas guzzlers" ... your presidential limo gets 8 miles to the gallon sir.

 

He is discussing, and when the timing is JUST right, he will release gas from the U.S. strategic reserves to bring the price at the pump down -- just in time for your vote. What he does not tell you is that we, the American tax payers, are required to replace that oil into the reserves at market price. Of course he denies they have "made a deal" but breaking news says that gas prices have already dropped a smidgen from the news of just the "talking". And he says that a president can do nothing to affect the price of gas? Hmmmmm.  "Talking" affected it in less than 24 hours. Your gas prices are high because the world watches us not produce our own oil.  They don't believe we will ever be able to pull out of Saudi Arabian oil and we are at their mercy -- and we are under Obama.  If they for a moment thought we could and would flood the market with inexpensive crude -- prices would drop dramatically.  Why in the worst economy of our lifetime would he decide to hamstring the economy with high fuel prices?  I have theories.

He already tapped into our strategic reserves twice (30 million barrels a pop -- that is almost 10% of it) to ease the pain at the pump for his politics -- he did not save us money -- we still have to pay for that oil. This is NOT new oil -- it is oil that is there for our strategic reserves -- he is playing politics with it...and we all (Rs & Ds) are paying for it.

 

He has issued no new permits to American companies in the gulf (but he has allowed foreign companies to do so). And JUST now he is talking about issuing a "handful of permits" for the gulf --- hmmmm, again very good timing.  Remember how talking affects prices? Thinking now, talking now, get a little excitement and when the timing before the election is "just" right he will issue them...the games go on.

 

And lastly -- do NOT, I repeat DO NOT believe a word the Obama administration tells you about the US having only 2% of the world's oil reserves. He is just not allowing us to access it and he would rather affect the market with OUR reserves like a parent doles out an allowance to a dependent child...

 

When he took office nationally gas averaged $1.78 a gallon...we have had no 9/11's the housing market does not affect oil prices...think about it. A self imposed embargo.... Hmmmmmm. Make it hurt and then come to the rescue… Then once you have elected him again, the price goes up and you are driven to use alternative energy because now it is relatively cheaper (the difference between the costs of fossil fuels and alternative energy is smaller now because of oil prices being through the roof).  Most alternative energy sources are NOT sustainable -- they cost more than they produce.  The wind farms of the plains will become broken down eyesores when the government subsidies dry up.  I support the research and development of alternative energy -- I do NOT want to be forced to use it by anyone UNTIL it is affordable and sustainable.  I am actually okay with government assistance in R&D -- I am not okay with it to fund operations that are not sustainable.  I hear people talk about the "fat cats" in the oil industry "lining their pockets".  Well Mr. Obama is the one helping line those pockets -- he is driving up the price!  And don't think for a MINUTE that there are not equally fat cats behind "alternative energy".  There are…

The Liberal Lynch Mob

I went to bed thinking about this and woke up thinking about it.  I am affected by it and I am not clear why so particularly other than how utterly blasphemous it is. It is frightening that this group can affect their state legislature regardless of what the law says.

The story, this is a direct quote from an online story:

"For 40 years, it's been illegal to hunt mountain lions in California -- so you'd think California's top Fish and Game Commissioner might respect the law, at least publicly.

Not Dan Richards. The new Fish and Game President not only traveled to Idaho to kill a mountain lion, he even responded to the mounting controversy surrounding the photo he made public saying it's "none of your business." 

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and at least 40 state lawmakers have now called for Richard's resignation. If he doesn't resign, he can and should be voted out by a simple majority in the legislature." (end quote)

I am stunned. This man did not break any law; he is a law enforcement officer. He might have thought twice about posting a picture on Facebook but it does not call for his moving or resignation/firing. Is your Facebook page  really his business?  If he loses his job he will most certainly have a case for wrongful termination.

Dan Richards traveled to a state where it is completely legal to hunt a mountain lion; he had a successful hunt and is now being told that while he is away from home, outside the state of California, that California law applies to him, no matter what! (The more I write the more stunned I get).  So by that rationale if the speed limit is 75 M.P.H. in Nevada and only 65 M.P.H. in California, he can be pulled over and ticketed for doing 70 in Nevada -- because after all California law applies to him everywhere!  Of course this argument would be dismissed as an example because it does not tug at the heart strings of the liberal lynch mob. Stunned.

Here is a better analogy and I hope that everyone reading this applies the example to his or her thought process. Christians think is is wrong to abort a pregnancy yet it is legal. To them the fetus is a living human being and abortion is tantamount to murder. Some Americans think it is wrong to hunt for sport -- yet it is legal. What would those calling for Dan Richards' resignation do if a bunch of Christians demanded the firing of a state official or high school teacher because it had been learned she had had an abortion?  There would be outrage and marching in the streets -- how DARE they accost this woman with their morality.  Well to those of you out to get Dan Richards…how dare you.

No one in the lynch mob has thought of this man as a human being.  Does anyone know if he is the sole bread winner in the household? Does he have twin boys about to enter college? A thirteen year old daughter who is battling leukemia? Or how about the idea that he and his wife are primary care givers to an ailing parent with Alzheimer's?  Does any of that matter?  None of these are facts that I know to be true -- they are simply examples of what could be. If these were the facts would if affect your opinion?  It seems that this activist group, including California's lieutenant governor, would rather ruin a man's career and take his whole family down because they simply "do not believe in hunting".  We are entitled to our opinions in this country.  What we are not entitled to is the circumventing of LAW in order to satisfy our capricious, emotion-based beliefs.  No one does to to the woman who had the abortion -- it is not right to do it to this man.

In California it is not necessarily a GOOD thing that these cats cannot be hunted.  They have no natural predators; California has an ABUNDANCE of what we in Colorado call "subdivision deer" and we are inviting them into our habitat as WELL as invading theirs.  Of course there is always the argument that "they were here first" but we have to examine how we, as humans have increased their population by providing havens for their prey.  They really face few food source shortages anymore because of us!  And they are opportunists -- they will take what is easy wherever and whenever they want to.

Mountain lions are not threatened nor endangered in California. In fact, the lion population is relatively high in California and their numbers appear to be stable. Mountain lions are legally classified as "specially protected species". This has nothing to do with their relative abundance and does not imply that they are rare. It is all politics and emotion to be brutally honest.  While most people who hike have never seen a cat -- be sure, they have seen you.

They are magnificent animals and even I, as a hunter, will never choose to hunt them.  They are just not "prey" me and I would not shoot what I would not eat. But just because someone does shoot something they will not eat does not make them wrong in my eyes.  I may not agree with what you choose to do -- but if it is a lawful activity -- I will defend your right to do it.

If we as humans unnaturally affect a population (either up or down) are not we as humans responsible, to the best of our ability, for returning some balance?  Unfortunately, for those who don't like it, the only thing we have at our disposal is hunting.  And in our infinite and skewed wisdom in California you ARE allowed to shoot a mountain lion if he is about to eat a big horn sheep -- his natural prey…

I am still utterly stunned.  If this man does lose his job over this he is well within his rights to sue the state of California for wrongful termination. And mark my word, he will win and each of these tax payers who are demanding for his termination will end up paying the bill -- your California tax dollars at work.