Hillary Claims Oil Prices Drop Immediately if Elected

In a stunning display of desperation, Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed on Sunday in Iowa that if she is elected oil prices will experience a dramatic sudden drop.

FACT CHECK! In actuality, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly stated during her campaign for President that the federal tax on oil should be dramatically increased and that she plans on 'taking that money from oil companies,' referring to robbing the corporations and their stockholders of millions of dollars of profits in order to set up a federal fund to explore alternative fuels.

These proposals will do anything but cause oil prices to drop.

The government already gets roughly 6 times the amount per gallon in taxes than the oil companies make in profits. Yet Mrs. Clinton proposes raising the federal tax on gas at the pump, where by the time you add local, state, and federal taxes we are already paying between 50 and 60 cents per gallon.

The oil companies make a mere 13 cents per gallon in profits.

In addition, if Mrs. Clinton is going to raid the profits of the oil companies and their shareholders, you can bet your last drop of Texas-T that gas prices will go through the roof. This kind of anti-capitalism and anti-business, closely akin to Hugo Chavez, will not exactly reassure oil company execs that they can safely reduce prices.

Mrs. Clinton went further to make some of the most outlandishly erroneous statements she has ever uttered. She claims that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' in the late 70s in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

FACT CHECK!! I remember those days very well because I had to travel by car extensively. During Jimmy Carter's term in office, 1976-1980, gas prices went from roughly 44 cents per gallon to over ONE DOLLAR per gallon in 1979.

There were long gas lines and shortages as well.

Yet Hillary states that Brother Jimmy was 'on the right track.'

Well, if that was the right track, I would surely hate to see what the WRONG track would have been. And if we were 'on the right track' then Ronald Reagan would not have beaten the socks off of politically impotent Carter.

But stay with me. There's even more.

Hillary went further to state that Ronald Reagan 'dismantled' the 'good work' Carter was doing with regard to energy.

FACT CHECK!! The only thing President Reagan dismantled was the asinine, boneheaded, and imbecilic policies of the Carter Administration, which led to gas shortages, long lines at the pump, and gas prices that more than doubled.

After Reagan had been in office less than a year, gas prices settled back down to below 75 cents per gallon. Long lines at the pump vanished. And there were no more shortages.

You see, my friends, liberals/socialists like Hillary Clinton believe that the citizens should be forced to endure pain and suffering as a means of mandating a change in their lifestyle. And, since they have always had a Freudian issue with oil, the objective is to make it as expensive and hard to get as possible so that Americans will be forced to turn to something else.

The only reason husband Bill didn't do this in the 1990s is that he is much more of a shrewd politician than Hillary. Even so, Clinton raised federal taxes on oil.

No doubt Hillary sincerely believes the balderdash she has just unleashed. But I never thought she was dumb enough to say so right out in the open just days before the Iowa Caucuses.

She is desperate, no doubt. And she is betting on picking up some votes from those who merely hear the 5-second sound-byte, 'Oil prices will drop immediately if I am elected.'

But then again, maybe the stress of the campaign trail is really starting to get to her. This is the stuff of loony-'toons, not serious leaders.

Stupid, Idiotic, Clueless Yankee Woman

Other than being a very attractive woman, there is practically no redeeming value to the patent drivel of neo-Commie New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

She is an airhead. Her columns are sophomoric, detached from reality, lacking in insight, and basically nothing but anti-conservative diatribes.

I find her to be beneath contempt.

The fact that the New York Times publishes this totally irrational balderdash is only more proof that the newspaper is no longer a newspaper but a tabloid. Someone should go ahead and put it out of its misery before it becomes just another rag one finds in the racks along the checkout lines at grocery stores.

Dowd has made a career out of inadvertently drawing into clear focus what most Americans have known all along anyway--liberals are dangerous to America, lacking in any true adherence to the principles of the Founding Fathers and their legacy--the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--and so extremist that the mainstream citizens in the heartland fear for what would become of our nation if people of Dowd's ilk ever become the ruling majority in Washington.

A very impressive blog I have been reading of late, The Stiletto, has singled out Dowd for the latest of her less-than-stellar articles, in which she claims she was 'just a child' when she first encountered the Mormon Temple outside Washington on the Beltway.

As expected, the article is a set-up for a Romney-bash, using his religion to engage in a bit of liberal-approved religious bigotry. But of course, if the liberals do it, then it's not bigotry.

However, as the Stiletto points out, someone noticed a major discrepancy in Dowd's chronology of events in her life. The Mormon Temple to which she refers was completed in 1974. The problem is that Dowd was born in 1952, making her at least 21 years of age when she claims she used to pass by that edifice 'as a kid.'

In short, Dowd effectively shaved off 15 years from her age in this article.

So, the question becomes, how does a political columnist maintain any credibility when going after certain discrepancies on the part of Presidential candidates when the columnist herself is so willing to misrepresent her own life?

Read the full story here, at The Stiletto: http://thestilettoblog.com/2007/12/14/not-the-sharpest-knife-in-the-drawer-maureen-dowds-extended-childhood.aspx#Comment

LIBERAL LIES ABOUT AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ

Washington, DC (TLS). Remember when we invaded Iraq, and all the Liberals howled that they agreed with the military campaign in Afghanistan, but not Iraq?

Remember that ever since that time the Liberals have qualified their opposition to the War in Iraq by saying, 'But I was all for Afghanistan.'

Bull. Don't believe a word of it. They are lying.

They protested going into Afghanistan too. I was there and saw it with my own eyes. In short, they don't want to use military force for ANYTHING that serves our security or national interest, period!

Read this eye-opener from Blonde Sagacity:
http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2007/06/better-late-than-never.html