About Us

Name: Stefano
Location: Clayton, MO
Biography
Name:
Email: tectonic.stl@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Message From Pinky Reid and Grandma Pelosi

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:47:10 PM

You Americans just don't know what's good for you and the country.  We cannot continue our addiction to carbon based energy.  We don’t have a supply problem in the US, we have a consumption problem.  Americans are using too much energy, far more than their share of the world’s supply.  The United States Congress, under our leadership, is going to encourage America to use less by continuing to block development of oil reserves in the outer continental shelf off the east and west coast.  We will continue to block additional drilling for oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  We will continue to protect ANWR from oil production.  Nuclear power plants will also be blocked, although we may study that energy source for a few years before we decide not to allow their development. 

To control our excessive consumption we will mandate the following measures: an emissions cap, hybrid and flex fuel cars, 25%-30% renewable fuel electricity, zero emissions buildings, reduction of speed limits, personal carbon limits, and decreased development in suburban areas. 

All of these mandates will most likely keep gasoline prices below $10 per gallon.  That’s our energy plan for the future. The result may be massive unemployment, freezing poor people, and a chaotic economy but we're willing to impose those sacrifices in order to cure this unhealthy addiction.  Call it a cold turkey solution if you like, and we're not referring to lowered thermostats, but we, with our vast experience and wisdom know that this is the best medicine for our country. Vote for the Democrats and Oback Arama in November and you can count on it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Incomprehensible Numbers

Posted by Stefano on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:10:29 PM

  I have difficulty getting my mind around large numbers like the distance to the sun or the distance to the nearest star. In fact, when the number exceeds a couple of million, it helps me if I break the number down to a recognizable quantity to understand its enormity. For instance, how long would it take to drive to the sun (I know that this can’t be done) given that the distance is 93,000,000 miles? At 80 miles per hour, it would take about 177 years, assuming I lived that long and somehow managed to not be incinerated on the way. 

The number of abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade, now approaching 50,000,000 kids, is a similarly difficult number to comprehend. Here’s an attempt to put the number in context. The new Busch Stadium in St. Louis holds about 47,000 people. If I divide that capacity into the 50 million abortions number, I compute a total of 1,063. Divide that by the 81 home dates that the Cardinals play each year and you come up with the number 13. So the number of kids aborted since Roe vs. Wade would represent thirteen totally sold out seasons for the St. Louis Cardinals. That’s an image that I can wrap my mind around and an image that takes my breath away. It’s also an image that should move us to action.     

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrat Brain Trust Energy Plan

Posted by Stefano on Monday, July 21, 2008 12:16:57 PM
Democrat solution to high energy prices:

1. Tax the “windfall profits” of all domestic oil companies.
2. Allow no drilling on the outer continental shelf in any locations currently not leased.
3. Allow no additional nuclear power plants.
4. Allow no drilling in ANWR.
5. Allow no oil shale development.
6. A cap and trade carbon emissions law which severely penalizes the majority of our current energy producers and users.
7. Mandate conservation through speed limits, automotive MPG requirements, enforced car pooling, enforced mass transit use, centralized thermostat control in commercial and residential buildings, and a restriction on suburban residential growth.
8. Mandate and fund through taxes alternative energy programs not yet developed.

Most Likely Result: Massive energy shortages and commonplace blackouts, greater foreign oil dependency, accelerating export of US wealth, destruction of energy intensive industry jobs, and increasing death of low income citizens.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Powerline blog on Global Warming

Posted by Stefano on Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:43:24 PM
This Column on a global warming article in the Australian is a must read.  The article was written by David Evans who was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005.
 
 
some key points:
 
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. ...
 
There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...
 
 The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). ...
 
Go check it out.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oback and Posturing

Posted by Stefano on Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:39:45 AM

 There's a big drive, no doubt from Obama operatives and media dupes, to attempt to validate Oback's goofy shifting positions on Iraq.  The thrust of this disinformation campaign is following one of these lines: Maliki endorsment of Obama plans, or Bush and McCain using Obama withdrawal plans, or plans being negotiated between Iraq and US mirror Obama plans.  It's a full court press attempt but a simple review of Oback actions and statements on Iraq shows that he has never had the ball and doesn't know where the basket is located.

History shows that the dems in general and Oback in particular supported an immediate surrender in Iraq back in 2007 with total withdrawal by March of 2008. His continuing shifts on Iraq surrender are weak pathetic political posturing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html?nav=emailpage Quote from Wash Post article: "Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."

 This weasel will change his position as quickly as the tides change in the Chesapeake Bay.  What would this proposed withdrawal have meant in an historical sense? No surge, no success, retreat, surrender, humiliation, Al Qaida with a permanent effective foothold in Iraq, and a concentration of jihadis in Afghanistan attempting to drive NATO out, in other words a devastating setback in the War on Terror.

Would this defeat have mattered to Oback? Certainly not.  His goal is political power and he'll do what ever is necessary to obscure his true socialist agenda in order to attain the goal. Obama would be no better than Dennis Kuscinich or Barney Frank as commander-in-Chief.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cartoons and Smears

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:10:08 PM
    I have yet to hear a responsible conservative commentator come out with a positive comment on the New Yorker cover cartoon of the Obamas. It seems that the objective of the cover was to smear conservatives as a group. The New Yorker and reasonable folks know that there is a kook fringe in both parties. Neither party wants to acknowledge the fringe but both parties need them in November. In the meantime the views of the kook fringe can be used and manipulated to smear either party with a broad brush.  The New Yorker has done so by design but they at least have the excuse of satire to fall back on. What is the excuse of the main stream media and liberal commentary shows on the tube that use the cartoon as an opportunity to execute a broad brush smear of conservatives as right wing nut cases?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy Price Job Destruction

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:35:34 AM
   It's difficult to believe that labor unions like UAW, Teamsters, the airline unions, and other energy intensive industry unions don't understand the job destruction that will result with the sustained ramping up of energy prices over the coming years. I don't see how all of these folks who are already beginning to lose their jobs are going to find new jobs in "clean green industries". How do they plan to feed their families, pay their mortgages, pay their school tuition, and pay their utility bills while waiting for these jobs to magically appear.  The pie-in-the-sky Democrat promises of innumerable "green industry" jobs is a talking point without substance.  And yet these hard working folks are found in polls supporting Obama and the Democrats and seen prominently among the mind-numbed masses chanting: Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!

   John Andrews column of July 9 (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnAndrews/2008/07/09/another_dem_strikes_out_on_energy) is dead on right when he says : "That stuff (alternative energy) is tomorrow, whereas oil and gas – and nuclear.....are today." Our economic future and our national security are hanging on the education of our citizenry on this central point.

Drill here, drill now, pay less.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Claire McCaskill and Drilling

Posted by Stefano on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:23:25 PM
 Here is a letter forwarded to me by a constituent of US Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri.  It is her answer to his concerns about high energy prices. 

In summary, her answer to "Drill here, Drill now, Pay less" is "Use less, Regulate more, Pay more."  If you are a citizen of the state of Missouri and are not a multi-millionaire like she and her husband, she is telling you that you're just going to have to adjust your lifestyle, and in the meantime wait until there are enough windmills and solar power plants to give you energy you can afford.  By the way, if you're a trucker, an airline employee, an auto maker or a worker in any energy intensive industry, sorry about the layoffs.  Now go find a great job in one of the new green industries.  Those jobs are more ethical and good.  "All best"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Morgan Date: Jul 7, 2008 8:55 PM
Subject: Claire McCaskill's Answer To Drill Now
To: kmiller@zingo.net

The following is Claire McCaskill's response to my Drill Here, Drill Now petition.  How can we develop a groundswell and overpower the liberals?  This is the typical democrat, Obama, and liberal media answer to our high energy prices.  

Doug Morgan

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morgan:

Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic energy production. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Our leaders need to be more up-front about what is really going on with energy production in this country. Oil companies already have an opportunity to increase domestic oil supply, but they sit on their hands and ask for more land when there is no evidence that they need it. Approvals for drilling on federal lands are at an all-time high and leasing to areas like the Outer Continental Shelf is already occurring.

Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land that they're not using both in Alaska and in the Gulf. This is over 80% of available federal land and the federal government provides these leases at a discount. Congress needs to pass legislation that would force oil companies to fully utilize these existing areas which contain some of the most abundant supply of oil in this country. It only makes sense that they explore and develop the millions of acres they already have access to before Congress permits drilling in new areas.

Energy experts contend opening new areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would not lower prices at the pump for years and then only by a few cents. Additionally, it would fail to move the country toward energy independence. With only 3 percent of the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the world's demand, it is clear America can not drill its way to lower prices. Our country instead needs real solutions to the energy crisis.

Congress, for example, is taking a hard look at oil speculation and whether there should be more regulation in this area to more accurately reflect the rates of supply and demand. This could mean a more fair and reasonable price at the gas pump. I also believe that continued investment in alternative fuels is the best way to reduce America's addiction to oil and America's best long-term energy strategy. Unfortunately, some members of Congress continue to block legislation that would help address this crisis and allow our nation become energy independent.

Also, I want to take this opportunity to dispel the myth that appears to be circulating that China has partnered with Cuba to drill off the coast of Florida. Some of my constituents are concerned that this is happening, but there is no offshore drilling venture between Cuba and China at this time.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issue that is important to you.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy, Science, and Lust

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:08:58 AM
   Are the Democrats truly interested in the plight of the common man or the poor of this country?  Of course not.  Their lust for power will almost always eclipse their duty to their country.  The economic middle class and below are the hardest hit when gas and energy prices shoot up.   Rather than working with our oil industry to move toward a decrease in energy prices through an increase in domestic supply, the Democrats want to make exploration more difficult by further constraining the time line for exploration and production on US leased land.  Their Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251) known as the "Use it or Lose it" bill would give oil exploration companies insufficient time to evaluate prospective tracts of land for energy resources. The bill has now been shown to be a simple political ploy without basis in scientific fact.  
 
   Willard R. Green, president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has sent a letter   to US House of Rep. leaders (http://www.mapsearch.com/news/display.html?id=332591) that brings technical expertise to the debate.  It gives a scientific overview of the geological and technological steps necessary to determine the viability of any potential oil fields leased by the US government.  It also shows that the time line limits are already compressed to an uncomfortable level.   
 
   The scientific facts of course will never stand in the way of the Democrat lust for power.  They can come up with their own facts plucked from the air such as their goofy June 4 report titled : "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits."
 Dem leaders refuse to reveal exactly where the report came up with such manufactured data as "68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million bbl of oil and 44.7 bcfd of natural gas", and "This would nearly double total US oil production and increase gas production by 75%, cut US oil imports by more than one-third and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." 
 
   Now is the time for us to pin these guys (the Dems) to the mat and force them to make meaningful moves toward the energy independence of our nation.  Drill here, drill now, pay less.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy and Ignorance

Posted by Stefano on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:15:18 PM
A very large portion of the electorate and the media do not understand basic economics, and a large portion of Congress (mostly the left) knows how to manipulate that ignorance to maintain power. The people hurt the most by higher gas prices are the middle class and below. The democrats demagogue and point to the domestic oil companies as the cause and the media transmits the lie to the masses. The people most affected vent their anger at the target pointed at by the left and at those who speak the real truth about the decreasing supply of oil and the increasing demand of consumers. The conservatives need a massive education movement to crush the lies of the left with the truth. The American Solutions formula of "Drill here, drill now, pay less" is a great start. That needs to be backed up with a simple message that encompasses such things as the fact that the largest oil company in the US, Exxon is only ranked #17 in the world by reserves. The top 12 are:

Saudi Arabian Oil Company 295b

National Iranian Oil Company 287b

Qatar Petroleum 165b

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company 137b

Iraq National Oil Company 137b

Gazprom 115b

Kuwait Petroleum Corporation 107b

Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. 102b

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation 62b

National Oil Corporation (Libya) 45b

Sonatrach 40b

Rosneft 35b

To claim that Exxon controls world oil prices is simply goofy.

The dems want to tax the "windfall profits" of our domestic oil companies. You don't have to be a high school graduate to know that stealing capital from the oil companies reduces their ability to compete for resources on the world stage. Also, the theft of money from oil companies affects millions of pension plans of retired and working people by confiscating a portion of the book value or dividends of oil companies invested in by their pension plans.

This is the basic kind of stuff that the right needs to get hot on now in order to save this country from the socialist tidal wave bearing down it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and Economics

Posted by Stefano on Monday, June 23, 2008 12:00:00 AM
Obama has recently affirmed his support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. How in the world does he expect to lower gas prices by imposing special taxes on our private oil companies? For anyone who has an IRA or 401K invested in mutual funds, Obama is planning to effectively steal capital from your pension by reducing the book value of any oil companies owned by your pension fund through his special tax. This type of tax will increase oil prices due to the fact that oil companies will have less capital and less incentive to explore for oil thus decreasing supply.

In the past he has promised to nearly double capital gains taxes. History has shown that increasing capital gains taxes actually reduces tax revenue. Reducing capital gains taxes increases revenue. That is the reason his idol JFK ran on a platform calling for a reduction of capital gains taxes.

In 2009, the Bush tax cuts will disappear and we will experience the largest tax increase in our history. Obama will not stop this from happening and our economy will go down the tubes.

The debate on these subjects between the candidates should be:
1. Should corporate taxes be eliminated or just significantly reduced?
2. Should capital gains taxes be eliminated, significantly reduced, or phased out over a three to five year period?
3. Should we go to a flat tax to reduce the burden on tax payers or should we cut personal taxes further, or should we just make the Bush tax cuts permanent?

None of these options are even on Obama's radar. His answers to all of these situations are extreme and dangerous to our economy and our security.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »