Here is a closer look at the so called "foregin policy expert", Joe Biden. It looks to me that on all of these major issues he has been on the wrong side of them.
*Opposed aid to Nicauraguan Contras
*Voted against Gulf War
*Voted for Iraq War
*Wanted a 3 state solution in Iraq
*Voted against the troop surge
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Credentials
With Sarah Palin's supposed gaffe of saying "you can see Russia from Alaska" here's what I have to say about her foreign policy credentials (BTW I did not write this myself). Also look for another post will come shortly about Joe Biden's so called foreign policy expertise.
Before you dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander of the Alaska National Guard, consider this: Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It¢s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units. As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's. She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans. Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about. According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.
Before you dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander of the Alaska National Guard, consider this: Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It¢s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units. As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's. She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans. Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about. According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Capital Gains Rebuttal
First of all you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying about community organizers. First, I applaud the work that community organizers do. Also, unlike many democrats, not Obama though, I strongly believe in private charities and churches provide services in lieu of government. It is just more efficient. However, my problem with Obama saying he is a community organizer is that he justifies that as experience of becoming president, because I don't think registering people to vote prepares you for making the decisions of president. Obama clearly demonstrates socialist ideas. For example income redistribution. Another example is that he will exapnd government programs. Also, I personally believe that if someone pays more then 50% of their income then that is socialism. If Obama is elected depending on what state you live in your taxes could be as high as 60%. That leads me to my next topic of tax revenues. No matter the tax that is cut, including the capital gains, revenues to the treasury have increased. When your boy JFK cut taxes heres what happened between 1962-68: 1 million jobs were created, economic growth rate increased 2.3%, and receipts to the treasury increased $20 billion. When Reagan cut income taxes in 1981 their revenue to the federal treasury nearly doubled to $1 bilion. Throughout the Reagan years taxe revenue increased 28%. Finally, in 2003 before the Bush tax cuts revenue stood at $1.9 trillion. In 2005 it was $2.5 trillion! So tax cuts do pay for themselves. With the tax rate Obama has been all over the place and we really don't know the rate he will impose. With Dick Morris it wasn't his finest but it doesn't discredit the facts he publishes even if his character is spotty, and it couldn't be worse than the democrat he worked for. Lastly, what I would ask is for you to find me a handful of economists that think the market and economy will benfit from raising taxes as Obama plans to do. On capital gains it's simple. Look I don't see the good the tax does. All it can do is discourage investment and market movement.
Fleeced by Dick Morris
Conservative Comebacks-Gregg Jackson
Fleeced by Dick Morris
Conservative Comebacks-Gregg Jackson
Biggest Flip-Flop Yet
Can this be true??? If so, this message getting out and about might put a kink in the Obama plan... time will tell. Very interesting possibility.
>
>
> Have you heard anything about this?
>
> .
> On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing
> health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur
> after the VP debate on 10/2.
>
> There have been talks all weekend about how to proceed with this info.
> Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there
> to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. I have
> already seen a few short blurbs about this - the 'health problem' cited in
> those articles was aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same
> rumblings.
>
> However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like
> this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best
> strategy is to get out in front of this Obama maneuver, spell it out in
> detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is.
>
>
> Have you heard anything about this?
>
> .
> On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing
> health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur
> after the VP debate on 10/2.
>
> There have been talks all weekend about how to proceed with this info.
> Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there
> to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. I have
> already seen a few short blurbs about this - the 'health problem' cited in
> those articles was aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same
> rumblings.
>
> However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like
> this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best
> strategy is to get out in front of this Obama maneuver, spell it out in
> detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Capital Gains Tax
When Barack Obama talks taxes clearly does not understand them. Not surprising for community organzier. Heres why. Assuming his goal of raising the capital gains tax is to pay for his socialism he will do the exact opposite of what he wants to. The three times in history that taxes were raised where in 1981, 1997, and 2003. In the years following the revenue from those taxes soared 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively. The only time when the rate was raised, revenues decreased 44%. So how does Obama think raisng the tax from 15% to 28% think that he will get more money. Since 52% of americans own stock 52%, not the top 1% like he says, they will get a tax hike.
"Fleeced" by Dick Morris
"Fleeced" by Dick Morris
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Obama's Flip-Flops
Here is a list, not in order, of Obamas' flip-flops in his attempted move to the center. Sources can be provided if you want to contest one, there are just to many to list at once for one. Who is the real Obama? This guy has changed his position on 15 major issues. If you want to know the specifics of each comment or ill probably have them up later in the week.
1. Gun Control
2. Withdrawal from Iraq
3. Cuba Embargo
4. Capital Gains
5. Social Security tax
6. Flag Pin
7. Iran
*Originally said they were not a serious threat, now says they are a grave threat
8. Meeting with Foreign Leaders
9. Wives in campaigns
10. Fisa Bill
11. Illegal Immigration
12. Decriminalizing Marijuana
13. Special Interest Money
14. Military
*In primaries said he would weaken military, and would cut defense spending, now says he believes in strong military
15. Public Financing of campaigns
1. Gun Control
2. Withdrawal from Iraq
3. Cuba Embargo
4. Capital Gains
5. Social Security tax
6. Flag Pin
7. Iran
*Originally said they were not a serious threat, now says they are a grave threat
8. Meeting with Foreign Leaders
9. Wives in campaigns
10. Fisa Bill
11. Illegal Immigration
12. Decriminalizing Marijuana
13. Special Interest Money
14. Military
*In primaries said he would weaken military, and would cut defense spending, now says he believes in strong military
15. Public Financing of campaigns
Saturday, September 13, 2008
rebuttal #2
So we don't confuse ourselves, let me state this. I acknowledge the effect of specualtors on the price of oil. I also agree with the point that we must move towards alternative energy for the future as we cannot drill our way out of this. What we need to do is all of the above. When you go after oil companies heres the point. They want to drill. If there was any oil there they would drill for it. However, your arguement contradicts itself, here why. You state that drilling would be enormously profitable for oil companies. So if your logic is true how does it make sense that they have land to drill on but are not drilling? The oil companies are also inveting billions in the land they lease, so it doesn't make any sense that they investing just to sit on lands. Experts can even prove that there is little oil in those fields.
Second, offshore drilling will not take 20 years. The energy department says about five years, but if the governement got out of the way I have no doubt the amount of time would be shortened. Unlike the oil in the 68 million acres the companies have, theres oil offshore, and a lot of it. Estimates show that there is almost 60 billion barrels of crude oil, and 217 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
One area that has not been mentioned in this debate is the MASSIVE amounts of oil in the Rocky Mountain oil shale. Independent research companie say that almost 2 trillion barrels of oil exist their. Compare this to the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and you find that the Rocky Mountain Shale has 8 times as much. With the current demand using just the oil from the Rocky Mountain Shale we would have enough oil for about 124 and a half years. Surely in that time we could find an alternative. Lastly, to put into picture just how much oil we have if we fully engaged all our energy resources at home we would have more then all the countries in the world put together.
Today we get 94% of our domestic energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, while the other 6% comes from alternatives like wind and solar. So how does Obama think that taxing coal and natural gas and not using nuclear power will lower prices?
Finally, it is your arguement that "misses the point." Picture this scenario: we drill everywhere, and prices are still not lowered, althought that won't happen. Although the goal of lowering prices may not be solved, one will. That is that we are taking money out of the hands of countries like Russia, Iran, Syria etc by not importing or importing less of their oil. This is a national security issue. If Ahmadinejad loses his his money from oil how will he finance his nuclear ambitions and terror operations?
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33824
ontheissues.org
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Second, offshore drilling will not take 20 years. The energy department says about five years, but if the governement got out of the way I have no doubt the amount of time would be shortened. Unlike the oil in the 68 million acres the companies have, theres oil offshore, and a lot of it. Estimates show that there is almost 60 billion barrels of crude oil, and 217 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
One area that has not been mentioned in this debate is the MASSIVE amounts of oil in the Rocky Mountain oil shale. Independent research companie say that almost 2 trillion barrels of oil exist their. Compare this to the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and you find that the Rocky Mountain Shale has 8 times as much. With the current demand using just the oil from the Rocky Mountain Shale we would have enough oil for about 124 and a half years. Surely in that time we could find an alternative. Lastly, to put into picture just how much oil we have if we fully engaged all our energy resources at home we would have more then all the countries in the world put together.
Today we get 94% of our domestic energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, while the other 6% comes from alternatives like wind and solar. So how does Obama think that taxing coal and natural gas and not using nuclear power will lower prices?
Finally, it is your arguement that "misses the point." Picture this scenario: we drill everywhere, and prices are still not lowered, althought that won't happen. Although the goal of lowering prices may not be solved, one will. That is that we are taking money out of the hands of countries like Russia, Iran, Syria etc by not importing or importing less of their oil. This is a national security issue. If Ahmadinejad loses his his money from oil how will he finance his nuclear ambitions and terror operations?
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33824
ontheissues.org
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Energy rebuttal
The issue here is in fact supply and demand. When George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on oil on July 14, the price stood at about $145. Although this order ultimately had no effect on drilling, as liberal democrats in congress continue to block offshore drilling, it sent a message to the market, as on Friday oil closed at $101.1. Do the math and you will see that oild dropped almost $45 at the possibility we might drill. Second, the current energy department has stated it would be 7-12 years to get oil from ANWR. Here are some 0ther points:
We could begin drilling in ANWR and the local Alaskan people, the Alaskan natives want the drilling to occur,” she told me, “We could begin drilling in ANWR,, we could begin pumping, and we would have access to over ten billion barrels of oil.”Swell. We’ve heard that before. But the Minnesota Republican then made a point that is rarely made: that the pipelines now “are only about 50% full, and we could be able to increase that production,” but—and this is a big “but”—“there is a very narrow window of opportunity.”
“With the current permitting process that is in place,” Bachmann explained, “it could take between six to nine years to get ANWR actually pumping. Here’s other kicker--if we don’t get more oil fields open for exploration and actually pumping up in Prudhoe Bay, we only have about 10 years for the oil yet to put online, but this easily trans-Alaskan pipelines is in a very difficult place, because if they send less than 300,000 barrels a day down that pipeline, the pipeline won’t work. The pipeline initially sent 2.1 million barrels a day down through the pipeline when the field first opened. We’re now pumping maybe 700,000 barrels a day and that’s because the field is diminishing. Congress has not allowed for an expansion of oil exploration and drilling. We have to expand our oil drilling up there or we could lose the valuable gift of this pipeline, and there’s no reason not to use this. It’s in place, it’s ready to go.”So what to do? Barham pointed out that “all we have to do is build the 74 additional miles of pipeline to get to ANWR to begin the pumping of which we believe is over 10 million barrels, and we’re in business. The American people would see a 50 percent increase in American energy from what we have now. There’s absolutely no reason not to drill in ANWR and begin doing so immediately. The problem, really, is the permitting process has so many artificial delays in it and also there are about 11 different points in that permitting process where lawsuits can be filed to stop production. One thing that I did about a week or so ago was introduce a bill that would fast track the permitting process and now after visiting ANWR I want to introduce another bill that would streamline the litigation process so that we don’t have useless lawsuits that unnecessarily slow down the process of bringing oil online.”-Article from Human Events
Michael Morris, a petroleum markets expert at the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said drilling on the 68 million acres already leased would contribute little to the domestic oil supply. If there was much more oil to be found, the oil companies would be drilling for it, he said, since it is in their best interest to obtain more oil. “That’s pretty much tapped out,” he said of the 68 million acres. “And they’ve done seismic surveys of those areas, and they haven’t found much.”-CNS news
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33824
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24wtic
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27679
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/methodology.html
We could begin drilling in ANWR and the local Alaskan people, the Alaskan natives want the drilling to occur,” she told me, “We could begin drilling in ANWR,, we could begin pumping, and we would have access to over ten billion barrels of oil.”Swell. We’ve heard that before. But the Minnesota Republican then made a point that is rarely made: that the pipelines now “are only about 50% full, and we could be able to increase that production,” but—and this is a big “but”—“there is a very narrow window of opportunity.”
“With the current permitting process that is in place,” Bachmann explained, “it could take between six to nine years to get ANWR actually pumping. Here’s other kicker--if we don’t get more oil fields open for exploration and actually pumping up in Prudhoe Bay, we only have about 10 years for the oil yet to put online, but this easily trans-Alaskan pipelines is in a very difficult place, because if they send less than 300,000 barrels a day down that pipeline, the pipeline won’t work. The pipeline initially sent 2.1 million barrels a day down through the pipeline when the field first opened. We’re now pumping maybe 700,000 barrels a day and that’s because the field is diminishing. Congress has not allowed for an expansion of oil exploration and drilling. We have to expand our oil drilling up there or we could lose the valuable gift of this pipeline, and there’s no reason not to use this. It’s in place, it’s ready to go.”So what to do? Barham pointed out that “all we have to do is build the 74 additional miles of pipeline to get to ANWR to begin the pumping of which we believe is over 10 million barrels, and we’re in business. The American people would see a 50 percent increase in American energy from what we have now. There’s absolutely no reason not to drill in ANWR and begin doing so immediately. The problem, really, is the permitting process has so many artificial delays in it and also there are about 11 different points in that permitting process where lawsuits can be filed to stop production. One thing that I did about a week or so ago was introduce a bill that would fast track the permitting process and now after visiting ANWR I want to introduce another bill that would streamline the litigation process so that we don’t have useless lawsuits that unnecessarily slow down the process of bringing oil online.”-Article from Human Events
Michael Morris, a petroleum markets expert at the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said drilling on the 68 million acres already leased would contribute little to the domestic oil supply. If there was much more oil to be found, the oil companies would be drilling for it, he said, since it is in their best interest to obtain more oil. “That’s pretty much tapped out,” he said of the 68 million acres. “And they’ve done seismic surveys of those areas, and they haven’t found much.”-CNS news
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33824
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24wtic
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27679
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/methodology.html
Friday, September 12, 2008
Democrats on Energy
If you're tired of paying $4 for a gallon of gas these numbers cannot be ignored. Although we must look beyond oil, for the time being we must drill. Even if in theory prices did not drop, we could at least get the satisfaction of knowing we are not sending billions and billions to leaders of rogue regimes that hate us.
ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid House Republicans: 97 % Supported House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oi l Shale Exploration House Republicans: 90% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration House Republicans: 81% Supported House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 96% Opposed
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil a and gas.
Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR. Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast. Democrats have blocked building oil refineries. Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production. Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid House Republicans: 97 % Supported House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oi l Shale Exploration House Republicans: 90% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration House Republicans: 81% Supported House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 96% Opposed
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil a and gas.
Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR. Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast. Democrats have blocked building oil refineries. Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production. Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
Welcome
Welcome to United We Stand. This blog will present fair, and factual opinions. I encourage conservatives, liberals, independents, and moderates to post here. Anything posted along the lines of racism, hate, criminal etc. will not be tolerated. Lets make this work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)