About Me

Name: Aaron F Park
Location: Roseville, CA
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Placer County Blogs

WWCBD?: Pro Life Protesters Roughed up at DNC (Charlie and the Life Issue)

Look forward to seeing tons of Kool-Aid drinkers at the NRC convention being treated with kid gloves. Remember, these protesters are usually anarchists, luddites and communists.

These are the people who chain themselves to the gates of power plants, bomb Hummer dealerships, torch developments and the like. They have to commit property damage before the police do anything – however in Denver, the latest chapter in the heavy-handed tactics against pro-life groups occurred.

WWCBD? Would Charlie stand up to Nancy Pelosi and the abortion mills to fight for these girl’s rights?

Watch this u tube video

WHO ARE THESE GIRLS?

DENVER, Aug. 28 /Christian Newswire/—On Wednesday, August 27, police officers brutally arrested two teenage girls, ages 15 and 17, near Senator Obama’s Denver hotel. The young women, Julia Giacopuzzi and Jayne White, were writing messages in sidewalk chalk on the public sidewalk when the police officers rushed in and violently arrested the girls without warning or provocation.

The girls are members of the pro-life youth organization Survivors, and were in Denver during the Democratic National Convention to call attention to Senator Barack Obama’s pro- abortion position as part of A Prayer for Change.

Throughout the DNC, the youth of Survivors were using sidewalk chalk throughout the city of Denver with the permission of City Attorney David Fine and Denver Deputy Chief of Police John Lamb. It was understood by the young women that sidewalk chalk was an accepted medium, and they were given no warning by the police before being cuffed and dragged away.

WWCBD? We know that Charlie is an abortion-rights supporter. While Brown has avoided any public statements on this issue like most other issues, his website is pretty clear.

From the Brown website: “Charlie supports existing law governing a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health care choices. He believes that promoting a culture of life means helping to reduce the number of abortions, through greater access to health care information, counseling, and other preventive services.”

Since the Democrats took control of congress in 2006 – funding for abstinence programs has been all but eliminated and the faith based charity initiative has been gutted. This means that Charlie will again have to take a stand against Pelosi if he is serious about his statements on his website.

Are you noticing a theme? It is called campaign ethics. Brown is walking a tightrope – he is wedged between his own campaign statements and the policies of Pelosi and the Dem leadership.

It does not stop there – you should listen to Brown speak at those fund-raisers he attends.

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

DOUG OSE ENDORSES TOM MCCLINTOCK WITH HARD-HITTING MAILER

Blogger’s Notes: Ohhhh Charlie, this has got to hurt.

Ose Endorsement Highlights McClintock’s Campaign Mailer

Former Congressman Doug Ose spent six million dollars to win the Republican nomination in the 4th Congressional District only to lose State Senator Tom McClintock. The day after the election, Ose called McClintock to congratulate and endorse. Now, McClintock is highlighting the Ose endorsement in the first of many direct mail pieces that voters will receive.

“When it comes to the issues that matter to us, there’s simply no comparison between our candidates for Congress. That’s why I support Tom McClintock,” states Doug Ose. The mailer is a two-sided comparison piece that highlights the positions and issues of McClintock and Democrat Charlie Brown. The issues highlighted are energy, taxes and spending, illegal immigration and gay marriage.

McClintock spokesman Stan Devereux said, “Congressman Doug Ose is a fierce competitor and we appreciate having his support as we work together to defeat Charlie Brown. This mailer is the first comparison piece highlighting the positions of Tom McClintock and Charlie Brown. It’s crystal clear that Charlie Brown is liberal and very partisan.”

As evidence, Devereux listed the issues highlighted in the mailer.

McClintock signed the “No New Taxes” pledge and insists that Congress pass a real balanced budget where we live within our means. McClintock challenged Brown to outline his opposition to raising taxes. Brown called on California lawmakers to approve a state budget that includes tax increases.

“The no tax pledge is so important. And that’s why Charlie Brown’s insistence on passing a budget with the second biggest tax increase in the history of California is so appalling – and why it’s important to understand what it would do to our economy,” said McClintock.

On energy, McClintock recently challenged Brown to join him in a bipartisan approach and ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi to end her vacation and reconvene Congress for a vote on an energy plan. Brown has refused to buck Nancy Pelsoi given that his first vote in Congress would be to elect her House speaker. McClintock wants to end the moratorium on tapping America ’s vast oil reserves offshore and in Alaska . Taking a strong partisan position, Charlie Brown opposes drilling for new oil remaining

On immigration, McClintock supports completing the border wall and deploying our armed forces along the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal aliens into our nation. McClintock also opposes amnesty and opposes giving illegal aliens benefits like social security, in-state college tuition and driver’s licenses. Charlie Brown supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

On social issues, McClintock strongly supports Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Charlie Brown supports Gay Marriage and opposes Proposition 8.

Devereux said, “The McClintock campaign believes that Charlie Brown is a Nancy Pelosi tax and spend liberal. Charlie Brown is unable to take one position and stick to it. He is trying to be all things to all people. The Voters of the 4th congressional district need want to know how Charlie Brown would vote if he was elected to Congress.”

“You can’t call yourself a conservative Democrat, support liberal positions on issues and raise money with the help of liberals like Brad Sherman and Barbara Lee,” Devereux said. “What’s the old saying about if it walks like a duck…?”

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

The Lunacy in Gov't Award: Measure Q Proponents SUE Placer CRA Over Ballot Argument

The second ever Bill Martin award for lunacy in government goes to the proponents of Measure Q.

As not reported in the Auburn Journal

They sued the Placer CRA – actually the Placer County Clerk’s office because they accepted our ballot argument against the Colfax school district’s school tax measure.

The Colfax argument in favor was replete with the same platitudes any school tax measure is full of – but the kicker is that the Placer CRA got mobilized to submit arguments against every local tax measure on the ballot.

The folks in the Colfax Unified School District wasted taxpayer money to SUE US over people who signed the argument against this tax. That’s correct – we need you to tax yourselves to pay for more whatever, but we are going to use money we say we don’t have to fight to get this tax passed.

After having a San Francisco law firm serve us with papers – apparently, the district decided against proceeding with their lawsuit.

A copy of the dismissal is posted here

The Colfax Unified School District has earned the second ever Bill Martin Award for Lunacy in Government – the first ever given to someone not named Bill Martin.

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

The Noose of Issues Tightens - McClintock Challenges Brown to take No New Taxes Pledge

McClintock Challenges Brown to Take the No Tax Pledge!
McClintock Says “I Will Not Raise Taxes”

State Senator Tom McClintock’s Democratic opponent, Charlie Brown, who has never been involved in state budget negotiations, last week distributed an email demanding passage of the budget now pending in the State Legislature. McClintock delivered a response to Nevada County Republicans in a speech Saturday in Grass Valley .

“Sorry, Charlie, I will not raise taxes. I will not raise taxes in California . I will not raise taxes in Washington D.C. I will not raise taxes, period,” McClintock said. “And, that is something the people of this district can take to the bank.”

While McClintock is a candidate in California ’s Fourth Congressional District, he has not stopped fulfilling the duties of his day job. McClintock is one of the 15 Senate Republicans holding the line in the debate over California ’s state budget. The current state budget proposal that Charlie Brown demands be passed includes more than $5 billion of new taxes that will boost California ’s sales tax to nearly 10 percent. McClintock said the state budget proposal contains the second biggest tax increase in the history of California .

“It will cost an average family some $550 of additional taxes at a time when they’re struggling to pay their electricity bill, their gasoline bill and a tax burden that is already one of the highest in the nation,” McClintock said. “That shouldn’t surprise us. Charlie has already proposed an $18 billion tax increase on oil companies. There’s only one problem with that. Oil companies don’t pay oil company taxes. We consumers pay oil company taxes as they pass them along to us as higher prices.”

McClintock said it comes as no surprise that Charlie Brown refuses to take the “No Tax Pledge” to protect the people of the 4th Congressional District from the massive tax increases that the Pelosi Congress is already preparing to unleash.

McClintock said that the Pelosi and her colleagues have refused to make the Bush tax cuts permanent – and they have refused to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. He said their refusal to do so makes those tax increases automatic.

“That’s why the election is so important. That’s why the no tax pledge is so important. And that’s why Charlie Brown’s insistence on passing a budget with the second biggest tax increase in the history of California is so appalling – and why it’s important to understand what it would do to our economy,” McClintock said.

Read the full text of the speech here

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

The Per-Diem Controversy Answered Definitavely

Have you noticed that the Charlie Brown campaign has changed-up their tactics from calling McClintock’s acceptance of Per-Diem payments a Felony (crime) to saying it is something he shouldn’t be doing?

They also purport to understand Tom McClintock’s finances so well that they can render a judgement as to weather he can afford to maintain two residences on just his salary. If McClintock was greedy, he’d work in the private sector… he’d make way more there!

Information has come to this blogger that a Woman from Sun City Lincoln, one of the strongest areas of support for Brown in 2006, sent a letter to the Attorney General’s office.

The sudden change by the Brown team tells me that they were involved in the request for information.

Take a look at the attached letter…

The letter makes a huge point – it says that a sitting member does not need to maintain a residence in their district once elected. This is why I see the “A46” car parked on American River Drive. Amazingly, that is the residence of Fabian Nunez. So, the argument that millions was spent on making doesn’t hold water.

In addition – the letter is signed by two very well known liberals. John Waldie’s father was a very liberal Congressman from the bay area.

When you read the letter – you can rapidly ascertain that the letter writer was alleging legal impropriety against Tom McClintock.

The attempt by the Brown team to gain a campaign issue went up in smoke.

Sorry Charlie! Maybe you will campaign on issues now?

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

The Brownies are Squirming / Blaming Bloggers for DebateGate (Update: Stenhouse Lied)

The Auburn Journal ran a story today about the whole war of “DebateGate” Press Releases.

The following excerpt pretty much says it all:

“Stenhouse said that initial talks were tainted when McClintock brought in a former Doolittle staff member in an attempt to manipulate the process rather than serve as facilitator. When false rumors began spreading on the Internet by McClintock supporters about the debate situation it was time to go public with Brown’s position to quell distortions, he said.”

What this basically means is that the glass-jawed Brown team fired a preemptive shot and are now trying to blame bloggers to cover for their attempt to score points.

And of Course – the AJ had to get their digs in on John Doolittle.

I will say this… this AJ Article was nowhere near as biased as the previous cheap-shot they picked up after a week of lobbying by Stenhouse. (Update – the AJ failed to follow up on the claims made by Stenhouse about Bloggers spreading disinformation)

Ask this blogger, the Brownies were standing in a vat of $4 a Gallon Gasoline lighting matches on this one. This round goes to McClintock who didn’t even have to do anything.

Blogger’s Update: It is apparent that Stenhouse lied to the Auburn Journal about Bloggers spreading disinformation. A check of blogs covering this race reveal no stories over DebateGate before the preemptive Brown Press release.

Charlie Brown is now up to number three on the lie brigade – Vietnam Vet Claims, Tom McClintock is getting paid while there is no budget and now blames bloggers to cover for a preemptive cheap shot over debates.

Pass me a Cuban Cigar so I can go to Key West and watch the Chinese Drill in 2009.

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

(Auburn Journal Rampage Update) - the AuburnShank Redemption?

The Editor’s culpability for the Auburn Journal’s horrid record on reporting crime

Source Documents


Well chronicled on these blogs has been Deric Rothe’s single-minded rampage against anything Republican in Placer County. Another pattern emerged as well with regard to the Auburn Journal’s spotty record on reporting crime.

It included trying and convicting John Doolittle, even though the now 4 1/2 year old investigation has yielded nothing. The Auburn Journal refused to report about the fact that all of Doolittle’s staff whose Subpoenas were front-page news months ago have now been withdrawn.

It also includes the white-washing of Emil John Vodonick. When Mike Spence broke the story about how Vodonick is one step away from losing has law license – the Auburn Journal received an advance copy of the story from Spence.

They called Vodonick and allowed him a pre-emptive comment. Vodonick characterized the severe penalty for misappropriating $53,000 of client’s money as a “failure to pay client’s fees”. To a layperson, that is felony embezzlement. Why didn’t the AJ care to go into any detail about the judgement against Vodonick in So Cal either?

Blogger’s Note: Vodonick is a registered Republican, but a professed Tom McClintock / John Doolittle hater. Maybe he is related to Joanne Neft?

Before these latest examples of bias, I started to wonder why the Auburn Journal was particularly obsessed with Bruce Kranz. Kranz is former law enforcement, and the Journal was trying to tar and feather Bruce with Michelle Ollar-Burris. Ollar-Burris was investigated and no charges were filed, so now the County is suing her.

What did Kranz have to do with it? She was one of dozens of appointments he made to various boards and committees. God forbid I ever hire an employee who gets investigated. The Auburn Journal will post on it Five times a week!

When Rothe posted an editorial trashing three strikes, it hit me. Rothe is completely disinterested in Crime unless unless reporting on it damages Republicans. Otherwise, Rothe could care less about Crime at all.

WHY?

I think Deric Rothe’s antipathy toward reporting crime has a personal Genesis.

Case Number 86436 8/18/1988 xref 1446198 Rothe Deric Evan – Count C001 HS 11351 severity: Felony, Count C002 PC 182(1) severity: Felony.

On 10/18/1988 Rothe pled guilty to count c001 Charge violation of HS 11351 a Felony. HS 11351 is used to try and convict drug dealers… usually those dealing in Cocaine or their derivatives. (It is also used for Heroin as well)

On 1/17/1989 Rothe was sentenced to 2 years in State Prison for drug trafficking.

On 1/28/1990 Rothe was released from Duel Correctional Facility on Parole after serving 360 days in State Prison.

On October 17th, 2003 – Rothe was granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation. This could mean that Rothe had his civil rights restored at that time. I have been unable to determine if Rothe was pardoned as the certificate recommends to the Governor that the named person on the Certificate be Pardoned.

Given the fact that Rothe has a strike (unless he was fully pardoned), no wonder why he opposes three strikes.

The infuriating thing for this blogger is that Rothe who looks to have been pardoned is using his paper to try and convict John Doolittle and Bruce Kranz.

At the same time, they wink at Kevin Ramirez’ shenanigans, ignore potential violations of Grand Jury law by Bill Martin and whitewash Emil Vodonick’s pilfering of $53,000 from a client. Roger Yohe running Western Placer into the ground, nope, a hero’s goodbye for that Ramirez associate, too.

But wait – there’s more… to be continued…

Source Documents

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

Jennifer Montgomery - Anti Growth Activist

Well chronicled on these blogs are the all-star team that Jennifer Montgomery has accumulated. Montgomery’s all-stars are salivating over the prospect of toppling Bruce Kranz.

The Auburn Journal will be there every step of the way, how? they report very little on Jennifer Montgomery. Why? Because when Jennifer Montgomery speaks, she loses votes.

Her All-Star team is the leading edge, but Montgomery in her own right has a few things to say about growth.

This article about Royal Gorge was the first shot. Montgomery says she is not opposed to development, but proceeds to go on a rampage over the next couple of years against Royal Gorge. In fact, the Auburn Journal was right there every step of the way trying to tar and feather Bruce Kranz with it.

Amazing considering this story from the Sierra Sun says nothing about Kranz or any other Republican being involved in the purchase of that Ski Resort.

Two years later – here is Montgomery showing her NIMBY side

The Royal Gorge project is about as green as they come, but here is Montgomery predicting the end of the world if it is built. Since Montgomery lives in Serene Lakes – one wonders if her motivation is environmental or just simple keep people out of my backyard.

The Coup d’etat – the Montgomery supporter with the Tourists Go Home letter, pretty much sums up Montgomery’s campaign the best

The best excerpt from the man’s letter says, “Bruce’s continued acceptance of financial support from the development and tourism industries (see www.placerco.ca and the Sierra Sun’s My Turn column of April 30) undoubtedly places him in the uncomfortable position of trying to keep his principal financial supporters happy at the expense of his constituents in District 5.”

When you couple this with the Sierra Club Support and their own antipathy for property rights – the Montgomery Agenda starts to become very clear.

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

Welcome to Blue America (Explains Charlie Brown's Base)

Read this unbelievable posting from Blue America -

These are the people who were the first to support Charlie Brown against John Doolittle.

My Favorite comment is this:

I asked Charlie to put himself in the shoes of a freshman congressman and tell us what he would be doing about the war now. One thing he said was that he would have signed on as a cosponsor to Jack Murtha’s re-deployment resolution (not one of the non-binding symbolic things). Only 9 freshmen have signed on as co-sponsors to either Murtha’s or Woolsey’s proposals, the first of which aiming to end escalation and the second of which aiming to end the war.

Charlie would like to be a cosponsor of the Murtha bill because he thinks Murtha’s credibility and impeccable military credentials make it clear that he supports the troops, just not the way the Bush Regime is misusing them.

and...

“We’re not just Democrats, we’re progressives. We’re not about getting the leadership of the Democratic party more power,” explains online activist Howie Klein of Blue America, which has raised more than $1 million since he co-founded it in 2005. “Blue America is about better Democrats, not more Democrats.”

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

Charlie's Delimma Part One

See what happens when you are a "Blue Dog", here come the MOONBATS!

How far to the right can Charlie Brown move before his base dissipates?

Liberal Democrats Turn on
One of Party’s ‘Blue Dogs’

Carney Is Opposed
For Backing Bush
On Surveillance Bill

By BRAD HAYNES
August 18, 2008; Page A5

Link for Attribution

FACTORYVILLE, Pa. —In 2006, liberal and centrist Democrats put aside longstanding differences to support candidates across the political spectrum in pursuit of the party’s first congressional majority in 12 years. Now, as Democrats have grown confident about expanding that majority, old fissures are re-emerging as some left-leaning activists once again emphasize loyalty to their ideas over loyalty to the party.

One of the first big battlegrounds is in northeastern Pennsylvania, where liberal bloggers who boosted Rep. Chris Carney’s 2006 upset win over a four-term Republican incumbent have this year turned against the freshman Democrat, actively campaigning for his defeat in November. Upset by Mr. Carney’s advocacy of President George W. Bush’s domestic-surveillance legislation, his former supporters have attacked him with television, radio and newspaper ads as he faces a tough re-election fight against millionaire Republican Chris Hackett.

Keep reading

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

The E-Mail Sent by Brown That Contains Falsehoods and Advocates Voting For State Budget

This E-mail was sent by Contact@CharlieBrownforCongress.org – please note that the graphics are broken down into their html code and were left in this post to verify authenticity of the seriously misleading and groosly inaccurate campaign e-mail from Charlie Brown.

Charlie Brown for Congress

Contribute

Join Us
Volunteer

Dear 4th District Residents,

If you didn’t do your job, you wouldn’t get paid. Right now in Sacramento,
Tom McClintock’s not doing his job. But while the state of California still
doesn’t have a budget, nothing happens to Tom McClintock. He’s still getting
paid in full.

I agree with Governor Schwarzenegger – if politicians aren’t going to do
their job, they shouldn’t get paid. That’s why I support a law that requires
a balanced budget in four years or Congress does not get paid.

Because if you don’t do your job and you don’t deliver results – you don’t
deserve your salary.

Maybe in L.A., where State Senator McClintock is from, they see things
differently. But in Northern California, we pay for results, not rhetoric.

Call Tom McClintock at his Thousand Oaks office in Southern California at
(805) 494-8808 and tell him we want results.

Sincerely,

Charlie Brown
Signature<http://dl.arganot.com/fs/distribution:letterFile/x3ky22chelwu3g_fi
les/xb9dlscxwilxdd>

Charlie Brown, Lt. Col. USAF Ret.

Point One – Brown falsely claims (aka lies) that McClintock is getting paid while there is no budget.

Point Two – Brown falsely claims that McClintock is doing nothing (not doing his job) – leading one to easily conclude that Brown says doing his job is voting yes on the Governor’s budget deal which includes sales tax increases and thinly veiled deficits.

Point Three – Brown singles out McClintock, but attacks all 40 Sentaors in the process.

Point Four – California has a balanced budget law, but it is so poorly written that it is a sham. It’s nice for Brown to say he supports such an amendment, but like so much on Brown’s website and campaing (like obama’s) it lacks anything specific.

Point Five – Brown goes back to the Southern California thing, it worked so well for Ose, didn’t it? It looks like Cuba just isn’t getting Brown enough traction in spite of his supporters at the Auburn Journal doing his bidding?

Do you think the Auburn Journal is going to pick up a story about these falsehoods from Brown’s Campaign? Do you think the Auburn Journal is going to take Brown to task for advocating a yes vote on the current budget?

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

Transcript of McClintock Speech Today in Chico, CA

Speech to “Mainstream America” Barbecue
Senator Tom McClintock
Chico, California
August 16, 2008

Thank you all for being here today; thank you for your hard work on behalf of our candidates and on behalf of our cause.

A funny thing is happening on the way to the Obama coronation. Americans are waking up and asking some basic questions, like:

Does anyone seriously believe our health care is going to be improved by handing it over to the same people who run the DMV and the Post Office?

Does anyone seriously believe that a House leadership that places William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee after he was caught with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer can be trusted with the security of our nation?

Does anyone seriously believe that socialism will work any better in America than it did in the Soviet Union?

And when they began asking those questions, the political tide began to turn in our favor. Just since the energy debate began in Washington last month, the Rasmussen poll has tracked a FIVE POINT shift toward Congressional Republicans.

Continue Reading

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

Charlie Brown's Top Ten Reasons why we Can't Drill

Folks – there has been a raging debate for two weeks on local Placer Blogs. Charlie Brown continues to duck the questions of why his energy plan was hailed by Calitics (a lefty blog) as being a carbon copy of Pelosi’s and weather or not he would stand up and tell Pelosi no.

We know that Charlie Brown left the Fire Summit early as the Sierra Club showed up to disrupt the attempts to plan the thinning and clearing of forests to stem wildfires. Is this what Charlie Brown Would do?

10. We can’t drill because Oil dropped from $147 a barrel to $111 today. That’s correct – Brown’s team is saying that the Republican efforts to bring Gas prices to the forefront of America’s conscience are a political stunt and prices are falling anyway. In 2004, a gallon of gas was less that $2. Oil was $60 a barrel – now $111 a barrel is good enough not the drill over.

9. We can’t drill because we should release Oil from the strategic reserve. This talking point has been parroted ad nauseum by Pelosi and Brown. the truth is that we DID release Oil from the reserve in the form of not adding to it -

Pelosi said today, “President Bush even refused our request to suspend buying oil at record prices for the federal stockpile until we passed a law, and the price fell by over $20 a barrel.” – Brown is repeating this Lie.

Legislation suspending oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was signed into law on May 19, 2008. That day, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $127.15. Six weeks later, on July 3, the price of crude had reached $145.31 – an increase of more than $18 – according to the Energy Information Administration.

See the final eight here

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

OTT From Congressman Doolittle: What Charlie Brown Doesn't Want you to Know

Blogger’s Note: The significance of this is Charlie Brown is running for Congress as a Democrat and he has already adopted Nancy Pelosi’s energy plan. This suggests that Brown will vote against all of the below and that Brown (like McNerney in CA-11) would vote against exploration and drilling.

Brown and his surrogates continue to dodge the hard questions – will you stand up and vote yes for America? WWCBD on the below bills? Would he honor the endorsement of the Sierra Club and vote no? Would he serve Nancy Pelosi and the anti-war left that almost got him elected in 2006 or will he serve us in the 4th Congressional District?

We have no doubt that Tom McClintock would support all of the below bills – vote for energy independence. Tom McClintcok.

Take a Look at the Bills Here

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

Cuba irks U.S. with plans for oil drilling

As reported by the International Herald Tribune – a Foreign edition of the New York Times. Tuesday May 9th, 2008

WASHINGTON: In 1977, the United States and Cuba signed a treaty that evenly divided the Florida Strait to preserve each country’s economic rights. They included access to vast underwater oil and gas fields on both sides of the line.

Now, with energy costs soaring, plans are under way to drill this year, but all on the Cuban side.

With only modest energy needs and no ability of its own to drill, Cuba has negotiated lease agreements with China and other energy-hungry countries to extract resources for themselves and for Cuba.

Cuba’s drilling plans have been in place for several years, but now that China, India and others are involved and fuel prices are unusually high, a growing number of lawmakers and business leaders in the United States are starting to complain.

They argue that the decades-old U.S. ban on drilling in coastal waters is driving up domestic energy costs and, in this case, is giving two chief economic competitors to the United States access to energy at its expense.

“This is the irony of ironies,” Charles Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said of Cuba’s collaborations with China and India.

“We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard,” Drevna said.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the energy field on Cuba’s side alone may have 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That much energy is equivalent to just a few months of the United States’ total energy consumption.

The survey does not say how much of an energy reserve is on the United States’ side of the Florida Strait just north of Cuba. But almost all of the country’s Outer Continental Shelf, waters within 200 miles, or 320 kilometers, of shorelines, has been off-limits to drilling since the early 1980s because of congressional bans and executive orders.

President George W. Bush, who renewed the 1977 treaty last December for two years, has cited China’s growing demand for oil and international efforts to obtain it as prime reasons for high gasoline prices.

The latest version of the administration’s national security strategy, issued in March, warned that China’s leaders were “acting as if they can somehow ‘lock up’ energy supplies around the world.”

To Drevna and others who are lobbying Congress to end the prohibitions, energy exploration in coastal waters represents a strong step toward energy independence and lower prices.

The Interior Department estimates that the Outer Continental Shelf has more than 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available for extraction. At current levels of consumption, that would satisfy U.S. oil needs for about 16 years and its natural gas needs for about 25 years.

Opponents of drilling in U.S. waters are equally passionate in their arguments, saying that drilling for oil off the coast poses environmental risks and that drilling for finite supplies undermines long-term conservation solutions.

They also say that modest supplies of additional oil would not necessarily lower gasoline prices in the United States because oil is traded on the world market.

But drilling proponents say the time has come to end the bans, especially with plans by China and India to capture oil and gas so close to the U.S. shoreline.

“My fear is for the future of America,” said Representative John Peterson, Republican of Pennsylvania, who has more than 160 co-sponsors for a bipartisan bill that would open coastal waters for natural gas development. “We have a natural gas crisis, and it’s the biggest threat we have to the American economy.”

Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, took narrow aim at the activities planned for the Florida Strait and recently complained on the Senate floor, “Red China should not be left to drill for oil within spitting distance of our shores without competition from U.S. industries.”

Cuba has divided its side of the Florida Strait into 59 lease areas. As of the end of February, foreign countries had secured the rights or were negotiating the rights to 16 of them, according to Cuban government documents provided by the Cuban Interests Section in Washington.

Kirby Jones, founder of the U.S. Cuba Trade Association, a group that promotes U.S. business interests in Cuba, said Cuba had signed agreements with companies from China, India, Spain and Canada.

At a recent trade conference in Mexico City arranged by Jones, Cuban officials invited U.S. oil companies to bid for the other leases on the Cuban side of the Florida Strait even though drilling in Cuban waters would violate the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.

“The main purpose,” Jones said, “was to let the American oil executives know what is happening in Cuba.”

U.S. oil companies would have a right to bid for Cuban leases under legislation Craig is drafting. Dan Whiting, his spokesman, said the measure would seek an exemption like the one created several years ago for U.S. companies to sell food and medicine to Cuba.

But an exemption for drilling seems uncertain, given the large number of lawmakers opposed to any economic relationship with Cuba as long as Fidel Castro is president.

Craig’s measure would be one of several Senate bills aimed at drilling in waters off U.S. coastlines. Two pending measures would approve operations in a small tract of the Gulf of Mexico, one of the few coastal areas where the government allows drilling. A separate measure introduced two weeks ago by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who opposes drilling within 150 miles of Florida’s coastline, would block renewal of the 1977 treaty and then deny foreign companies access to U.S. markets if they continued to drill in waters close to Cuba.

Blogger’s Notes – Let’s see, It ain’t just China, there’s India and Canada that are looking into Cuba. Tom McClintock lied – time to go put this in a mailer as a reason why not to drill.

Even Democrat Senator Bill Nelson wrote a bill to address the problem of drilling off the coast of Cuba!

The Article says that 16 leases have been sold by Cuba – McClintock must have lied because they aren’t actually drilling yet, just getting ready to. Of Course on the 68 million acres that have 77,000 holes on them – we need to declare use it or lose it because 77,000 holes means Oil companies aren’t drilling the leases they have…

I guess Charlie Brown needs to do a John Kerry style nuanced differentiation between the two – it is enough logical gyration to give someone a headache.

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