Politics

July 03, 2008

Obama's Phoney Move to the Right

Patriotic Have you noticed Obama’s rhetoric has shifted to the right?  Since he won the Democratic nomination (I know, I know, the coronation hasn’t taken place, yet.) Obama is clearly going after the Red State vote.  This doesn’t come as a surprise to most of us, but the real question is how far will he go before the election with his swing to the right.  We all know what he really thinks, but how far will he go with his rhetoric?

Questions: 

How far will Obama go on the following issues?

The possible war or attack on Iran.  Will he stick with his “let’s talk” routine?

Iraq:  Will he modify his stand on an immediate pull out?

Afghanistan: What will be Obama position just before the election?

Universal health care – Will he modify his stance on it?

June 25, 2008

How the Liberal Media Twists the News

Newspaper  About 20 years ago, I ran across an article in the old Los Angeles Herald Examiner (now defunct)  that outlined the phrases used by the media and politicians.  It was so good, I typed it off and kept it.  My apologies to the author of this article, because I failed to keep his or her name.  It, however, is priceless, because it will help you decode the drive-by-media’s code.

"Every field has its own special words and expressions which others find hard to understand.  Politics is no exception.  For those who have difficulty understanding the strange way words are used by politicians and the media, here is a glossary translating political rhetoric into plain English:

CRISIS:  any situation you want to change.

BILINGUAL:  unable to speak English.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY:  preferential treatment.

NON-JUDGMENTAL:  blaming society.

COMPASSION:  the use of tax money to buy votes.

INSENSITIVITY:  objection to the use of tax money to buy votes.

SIMPLISTIC:  an argument you disagree with but can't answer.

REHABILITATION:  magic words said before releasing criminals.

DEMONSTRATION:  a riot by people you agree with.

MOB VIOLENCE:  a riot by people you disagree with.

A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE:  a political controversy involving convictions of liberals.

AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE:  a political controversy involving convictions of conservatives.

FUNDING:  money from the government.

COMMITMENT:  more money from the government.

DOCUDRAMA:  a work of fiction about famous people.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY:  a work of fiction about yourself.

FEDERAL BUDGET:  a work of fiction about government spending.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC:  a place where you do as you're told or get shot.

NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS:  organizations trying to create People's
Republics.

STEREOTYPES:  behavior patterns you don't want to think about.

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION:  judges reading their own political views into the constitutions.

POLITICIZING THE COURTS:  criticizing judges for reading their own political views into the constitution.

A PROUD PEOPLE:  chauvinists you like.

BIGOTS:  chauvinists you don't like.

PRIVATE GREED:  making money selling people what they want.

PUBLIC SERVICE:  gaining power to make people do what you want them to.

INNOVATION:  something new.

NEW INNOVATION:  something new by someone who doesn't understand English.

SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY:  politically organized conservatives.

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP:  politically organized liberals.

ACCOUNTABILITY:  holding teachers, public officials, and private business responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds.

CHILLING EFFECT:  holding journalists responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds."

Questions:

What other terms can we add to this list?

June 21, 2008

John McCain's Image Problem -- Barack Obama's BS Problem

McCain I’ve been watching John McCain more closely than I had in the past.  I’m rooting for McCain, because he has far better credentials to be President than Obama.  He has more experience in every facet of government than Obama.  His plans for the economy, energy, foreign and domestic policies are superior to Obama’s.

So what’s wrong?  Why is Obama reportedly leading McCain by as much as 14%?  John McCain has an image problem – and an oratory problem – and a perceived age problem.  Yes, I know he also has the problem of the liberal media either chipping away at him or simply ignoring him.  McCain needs to make some changes.  One of my sons, who likes and is planning to vote for McCain, told me he thinks McCain comes across as “an old tired white guy.”  I can’t say as I disagree with his assessment.  I think McCain tries to project the image of the wise elder statesman, who speaks slower and in softer tones.  Unfortunately, this is perceived by the masses as an old tired white guy talking.  (I didn’t say the masses were smart.)

Maybe he could start by visiting a tanning salon once a week.  Not too brown, but let’s get rid of the pasty look of someone who hasn’t been outside in 10 years.

Next, let’s get him a voice coach to put some strength and punch into his speeches.  He has the experience advantage; let him project it.  He doesn’t need to pretend he’s 50 again, but neither does he need to look as though he’s eager to embrace 90.

Meanwhile, the black JFK is out enjoying rock star status.  Why?  Because he promises political pork like no other politician has before him – and he does it convincingly.   His voice projects strength and sincerity, albeit fake.  People will bite on a freebee anytime.  “What do I have to lose?” 

Questions:

If you were John McCain’s campaign manager, what advice would you give him?

Is there any chance McCain will change his campaign strategy?

What is the foremost thing that McCain needs to do in order to win?

June 14, 2008

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Air Force Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

1 Can we lose this war?
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of
some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned-- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .. and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA


June 08, 2008

Terrorism - Will Americans Remember in November?

NY Twin Towers3 Over the course of the next few months we are going to hear a lot about pulling our troops out of the Middle-East.  I fear that many Americans will be lulled into the trap of thinking, “If we leave them (the Muslims) alone, they will leave us alone.” 

Obama and the Democrats have already laid the groundwork for blaming George W. Bush for any future attacks on the U.S.   The blame game goes like this:  When the U.S. launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, this triggered jihad against the United States.  Any future attacks is just part of that continuing jihad.  I think it is critical for the McCain campaign to continually remind Americans that we has been under attack since 1968.


1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male, who thought he was striking a blow for the Palestinians.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.  Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim males.

In addition to reminding our fellow Americans about these attacks, it is important to remind them there have been no attacks against us since 9/ll.

Questions:

How should the McCain campaign handle this information?

Should it be made part of the official campaign?  If McCain does and there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., what effect would that have?

Will Americans remember this when they go to the polls in November?

June 07, 2008

The Coming Oil Bust

Oil Dollar Whoa, oil hit a record $139.00 a barrel today.  That along with declining employment and Israeli threats against Iran caused the stock market to nose dive 400 points.  The big question that is on everyone’s mind is: Where is the price of oil going? 

The president of Exxon, in recent senate hearings, told the panel that market manipulation is responsible for a sizable portion of the booming oil prices.  Senators have urged the CFTC to look into what is happening in the oil market, but the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is woefully ill equipped to do a full-blown investigation into manipulation of this magnitude.  They have simply shrugged their shoulders and said, “It’s market forces that is driving the price of oil.” 

How much of the oil crisis is caused by speculators?  It’s time to take a reality check.  Yes, China is using more oil.  Yes, we haven’t cut back that much on our gas consumption.  Yes, OPEC production is up slightly.  What is wrong with this picture?   Seriously, is the world using twice as much oil as it did a year ago?  Oil consumption may be up, but not that much.  The difference in price is obviously caused by speculators. 

The second big question is what factor or factors can put the brakes on  increasing oil prices.  We could compare the oil spike to the spike in silver and gold prices when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market.  At that time everyone was hot to invest in silver.  After all, it can only go up.

The government intervened and the price of silver dropped overnight.
The question is how does the government intervene?  In my view at some point the speculators will pull the plug and the price of oil will take a precipitous dive.

Questions:

What would happen if the government released oil from our federal reserves?

Can the U.S. and other countries be held as captives indefinitely?

What will cause the speculators to lose interest and start to sell?

What can be done to assure this won’t happen again?

June 03, 2008

Bill Clinton and the Strange Article in Vanity Fair

PresidentClinton I never thought I would be defending Bill Clinton, but I question the journalistic integrity of Vanity Fair’s upcoming article, titled The Comeback Kid.  According to the author of the article, Bill Clinton has been doing some late night one on one campaigning.  Supposedly, old friends and aides are anxious over Clinton’s recent escapades that include dubious and secretive business dealings, jetting around with a skirt-chasing posse and all-round bad behavior.  The tenor of the article would suggest that Bill Clinton is out playing while Hillary is occupied with her campaign for president.  Oh, a word about the author of the article.  It was written by the husband of Dee Dee Myers, who was Clinton’s White House press secretary.

When I first heard about the Vanity Fair article, I looked forward to reading it.  I was disappointed; instead of a well-documented look into Bill Clinton’s nocturnal forays, it was long on gossipy rumor and short on verifiable facts.  A sample: “Bill Clinton.   He had come to the City of Light (Paris) with the motley crew that constitutes some of the post-presidential rat pack to celebrate the marriage of Douglas Band, the man who for the last decade has been his personal aide, gatekeeper, enforcer, and—more recently—counselor in the multifarious business, philanthropic, and political dealings that keep Clinton restlessly circling the globe.”

According to the article, Bill Clinton is a close “bachelor buddy” of Ron Burkle, the California supermarket billionaire.  Burkle reportedly jets around the world in his converted Boeing 757 that Clinton calls “Ron Air” and Burkle’s circle of young aides privately refer to as “Air Fuck One.”   If one didn’t read carefully, the reader would think Bill Clinton flew to Paris with Burkle, but Clinton flew in with Steve Bing, a real estate heir and Democratic donor.  The article rambles on for several more pages of innuendo.  A strange article.

The timing of this article is interesting to say the least.  The story is breaking just as Hillary Clinton is the last throws of her campaign for President or as some think, Vice-President.  Lots of questions on this one.

Questions:

Was the article a deliberate hatchet piece or just another expose?

Was the timing of the article coincidental?

Are Obama’s people behind it?

Why did Vanity Fair run a piece that didn’t include verifiable sources?

How does Dee Dee Myers figure into this scenario?



June 01, 2008

Is War with Iran Inevitable?

Iran Terrorists Reuters is reporting that a spokesman for the Iranian government flatly stated in a press conference yesterday that Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium.  Meanwhile, a committee representing the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China are putting together an “upgraded package of incentives”  (which is a nice name for a bribe) to try to coax Iran into halting its program to enrich uranium.  Iran has rejected previous “incentive packages.” 

Iran claims it wants to develop nuclear energy to generate electricity, but this statement is suspect when one considers Iran is the fourth largest producer of oil in the world.  Three things are clear: 1) Iran is going to proceed with its development of nuclear energy; 2) Iran will develop nuclear bombs and warheads; 3) Iran has pledged to destroy Israel.

Questions:

Will the U.N. sanctions have any effect?

Will the West allow Iran to develop nuclear bombs?

What kind of action will be taken, if any?

After all the criticism the U.S. has taken over going to war with Iraq, can we take unilateral action against Iran?

Will Israel take unilateral action?

When will this action be taken?

If Iran’s nuclear site is destroyed, how can we be sure it’s their only site?

May 30, 2008

Oil, Gas and the Economy

Gas Nozzle Color1 As we all know, the price of gas is double what it was a year ago.  In addition to hitting us at the pumps, there is the threat of what higher gas prices will mean to our economy.  And the biggest question is, “Will this push us into a recession?”  As consumers, we simply take the hit, hoping the price of fuel won’t get any higher.  Meanwhile, businesses can simply pass their increased costs on to consumers.

Economists are divided over whether the price of oil has risen high enough to push the economy into a recession.  Richard DeKeKaser, chief economist for National City Corporation, is optimistic about the economy:  "There is nothing magical about $130 oil. It's just more of a drag, more intense."  Some economists believe gas prices would have to go to the $7 or $8 range before it would seriously affect our economy.  Motorists in Europe are already paying these prices.

On the other hand, the Chicken Littles are saying the rise in energy prices is coming too fast and that the US economy is now in an "oil shock" downturn.

Economists say for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, America’s output of goods and services goes down by 0.2%.  Translated, this means rising oil prices has caused a 1.6% loss in our GDP during the past year.  The President’s stimulus package is expected to add about 1% of our GDP (Gross Domestic Production)

So, what are some of the repercussions of increased gas prices?  Ford Motor Co. announced last week that it was cutting production of some of their larger vehicles by about 40% for the second half of 2008.

The manufacturers of plastic products are estimating the price of PVC products will rise 20 to 30 percent. 

Probably one of the biggest problems with rising oil costs is one of fear.  Many businesses are deferring new projects until prices stabilize.

This brings us to several questions:

Is the oil market being manipulated by third parties?

If so, who?

How high will the price of oil go?

How much does the price of oil has to do with commodity speculators?

Trucks carry huge loads, so will $4 gas or diesel substantially affect the price of the goods they carry?

May 29, 2008

Why Won't Barack Obama go to Iraq?

Iraq Macine Gun John McCain has invited Barack Obama to come with him to Iraq, but Obama isn’t biting. `Senator Obama has been to Iraq once, a little over two years ago…and he has never seized the opportunity, except in a hearing, to meet with General Petraeus. This is about leadership and learning,” said McCain.

Obama countered by charging McCain is stubbornly clinging to “the failed Bush policy” on Iraq.  There has been a slight shift in Obama’s position on withdrawing troops from Iraq.  A few months ago, Obama called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  He has since modified this to “a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops…”

Obama let it be known last night that he would consider a visit to Iraq sometime this summer.  This would be his first since becoming a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile McCain said, "To say that we're failing in Iraq and not succeeding does not comport with the facts on the ground, so we've got to show him the facts on the ground."

Questions:

Why is Obama reluctant to go to Iraq?

How will he be greeted by the troops?

If he goes, will he have to admit the surge is working?

Will the contrast between him and McCain be too glaring?

Will he have preconditions to his trip?

If Obama does go, how will he spin it?

Newsvine Top News