MOO! - ChicoEsquela's Blog - Bakersfield.com

MOO! - ChicoEsquela's Blog - Bakersfield.com http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela http://www.sounddogs.com/previews/2106/mp3/274602_SOUNDDOGS__co.mp3 http://www.sounddogs.com/previews/2106/mp3/274602_SOUNDDOGS__co.mp3 en-us Could it be a woman will show us the way? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32689 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32689 Could it be the rock star Barrack and his old political hack are  "Palin" in comparison to the real party of  "change" ??? <img alt="" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/542389855_811a187e7b.jpg" /> Vets for Freedom Ad -- One of the best I've seen....... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32506 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32506 I hope as many people as possible watch this: <a href="http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/">http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/</a>   Who will McCain choose? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32490 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32490 <img alt="" src="http://livingalaska.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sarah_palin2.jpg" /> He could do much worse than Sarah I know the faithful want Romney, but I think he may just pick a woman. Carly Fiorina has too much baggage from HP even though she might give him a shot in CA............... This lady is not only easy on the orbs, she makes a lot of energy sense as well. But, if his credo is to  "go safe" then Romney or Pawlenty might be chosen. But I could just see Pluggs Bidenpence debating with this gal, bragging about his trophy wife with her  "problematic" Doctorate........... I just watched the Obama-McCain Saddleback Forum and......... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32019 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/32019 ......... when Obama was done I turned to my wife and said  "poor Johnny boy, he's gonna completely flop in comparison to that.......Obama is just that good......."  My wife just said  "bless his heart [McCain's]"  (this is what she says when talking about someones' hooch she is trying to sell that is way over priced and in really sad shape BTW).........s I thought McCain made a big mistake in agreeing to do this type  "forum" I could not have been more wrong.......... The Obamasiuhhhh........... 10 reasons not to vote for him...... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30893 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30893 <li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoTvpE6dFZw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoTvpE6dFZw</a> </li> <li> </li> <li>Obama's foreign policy is dangerously naive -- While politicians with favorable views of W have been elected in Germany, Italy, France, and elsewhere... Obama is giving cause to make our allies even more nervous. The Washington Post reported that "European officials are increasingly concerned that Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies." Obama would give credibility/reward to ther world's chief sponsor of terrorism. Such a meeting would undermine Iranian dissidents... and lower the prestige of the office of POTUS.</li> <li>Obama's Iraq policy will put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists -- Barack says he will remove two combat brigades every month, and have all our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months... regardless of what military leaders on the ground in Iraq argue. When Bush announced the Surge strategy in 2007, Obama opposed it saying, "The President's strategy will not work." Beyond these miscalculations and poor judgments, Obama has been INCONSISTENT on Iraq... saying one thing to Democrat leaders in D.C. and another to the press.</li> <li>Obama's policy toward Israel is inconsistent and confused -- Last month, Obama told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. the next day, he backtracked, stating "Obviously, it is going to be up to the parties to negotiate and range of these issues... and Jerusalem will be part of the negotiations." These quick switches of policy stem from inexperience (at best) and general tone-deafness on the meaning of words and policy(at worst) in the Mideast. Given Obama's long-standing ties to Palestinian activities in the U.S., one has good cause to wonder.</li> <li>Obama's short-term flip-flops on NAFTA and other issues are dangerous -- Obama's Mideast policy may have been the quickest turnaround, but it is not the only one. During the primary, the campaign sent out fliers explaining Obama's opposition to NAFTA... but in the last month, Obama has backtracked on NAFTA saying, "We need to figure out how we can make this work for all people." As a primary candidate, he supported public financing of presidential campaigns. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. Then last month, Obama threw public financing under the bus.</li> <li>Obama's judgment about personal and professional affiliations is dangerous -- In March 2008, Obama was defending Jeremiah Wright... then after several clips of sermons by his longtime mentor surfaced on the Internet, Obama finally denounced Wright in public. Once Jeremiah Wright became a political liability, Obama dumped him. What about Bill Ayers?? Ayers participated in the bombings of NYC Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. Make no mistake: Obama and Ayers relationship goes back to the grassroots in Chicago.</li> <li>Obama would use the failed 1990s strategy against terrorism as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy -- Obama supported the Supreme Court decision to grant habeas corpus rights to terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. In an interview last month, Obama said "In the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial..." Ask the legal officials during the 1990s how cowed terrorists were by our continued indictments. Witness the attack on the USS Cole or September 11... and even more specifically, why there have been no successful attacks against American civilian interests abroad since 2004.</li> <li>Obama's economic policies are dangerous to the American economy -- In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Kimberly Strassel reported "Obama is hawking a tax policy that would take the nation back to the effective marginal tax rates of the Carter days. He wants to further tax income, payroll, capital gains, dividends, and death. His philosophy is pure redistribution." In effect, Obama's tax plans will mean the death of small businesses across the United States... and small businesses have created the most new jobs in recent decades. Unemployment will skyrocket!!</li> <li>Obama opposes any kind of drilling to reduce oil and gas prices -- Obama is not just against offshore drilling. He is against any drilling. Period. His solution to our energy crisis is additional tax burdens on oil company profits... taxes we can only imagine will be passed on to the consumer, thus causing an even more expensive trip to the gas station. As the New York Slimes recently detailed, ethanol subsidies are a major plank in Obama's view of energy independence and national security. Really!!?? Ethanol subsidies??!! Some of these subsidies will end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax.</li> <li>Obama is LEFT of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life -- As an Illinois Senator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the U.S. Senate, it passed unanimously.</li> <li>Obama is actually the MOST Liberal member of the U.S. Senate -- In 2007, Obama's composite Liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most Liberal Senators last year were Whitehouse (D-RI), Biden (D-Del), Sander (D-Ver), and Menendez (D-NJ). Who would such a Liberal Leftist appoint to the Supreme Court??</li> It really IS as simple as THIS............... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30206 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30206 <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/07/11/its_the_oil,_stupid">http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/07/11/its_the_oil,_stupid</a> Swimming & Drooling............ You Gotta LOVE This Dog! http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30176 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/30176 Officer Rikki's bio Breed: Bloodhound DOB: 10/05/05 Birthplace: Quebec, Canada <img height="131" alt="Rikki" src="http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/K-9/images/RIKKI.JPG" width="100" /> Her partner and handler is Senior Officer Andrea Pflugh.  Rikki is the first Bloodhound for the Bakersfield Police Department. Her specialty is tracking/trailing.  Rikki will be trained to follow the individual scent of a human.  Rikki will be utilized to find missing children, Alzheimer's patients and even bad guys as long as she has an item from that person to smell and get their scent.  Rikki is very loving and good natured.  Her favorite past times are swimming and drooling. Obama Will Revive Redistributionism................. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29905 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29905 Reviving Redistributionism New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%. Source and rest of article:<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121555916730437401.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121555916730437401.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary</a> Did Anyone see the Asteroid reported on KCAL9? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29440 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29440 You never know......... <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-r.htm">http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-r.htm</a>    Obama and Dems Lying About Oil Leases............. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29418 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29418 <div id="post_message_1029344">WSJ: Obama, Democrats Lying About "Nonproducing" Oil Leases —Ace Caught between public anger over $4.00+ per gallon gas and their anti-oil base which cannot countenance additional drilling of any kind, Democrats have trotted out an extremely stupid talking point -- make oil companies drill where they currently hold leases before allowing any additional exploration. If they can sell this stupidity, they can claim they are in fact for additional oil production -- they're the ones trying to pressure the oil companies to stop "stockpiling" oil-rich lands -- while holding the line on additional wells, thus appeasing their base. No Republican would be permitted such a convenient absurdity; the MSM would demolish it. But the rules are always different for Democrats, and the media is determined to help sell this lie. Except for a few conservative-titling outfits, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121478199392114387.html" target="_blank">such as the WSJ.</a> Oil companies take leases not because they know there's oil on the land (or under the sea), but because they think there might be oil and need the lease in order to explore that possibility and to secure the legal right to pump it if they do find it. It's simply ridiculous to assume, as the Democrats' talking points do, that each and every lease actually contains a huge amount of recoverable oil, and the oil companies are simply refusing to drill there. Instead, the claim goes, the oil companies are clamoring for the right to grab up additional leases... which then, of course, they will also leave untouched. Why are oil companies securing leases for oil they know is there but have no intention of drilling? If their goal is to not drill, why bother with the expense of a lease at all? They're all in on it together, in this conspiracy theory, so they can all just agree to not drill at all. They hardly need to pay the government money for the right not to drill. This is all so ridiculous that the entirety of the MSM should have called this dishonest spin for what it is. But they didn't, of course, and so the WSJ is left to explain the obvious: <blockquote>To deflect the GOP effort to relax the offshore-drilling ban – and thus boost supply while demand will remain strong – Democrats also say that most of the current leases are "nonproducing." The idea comes from a "special report" prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Resources Committee, chaired by Mr. Rahall. "If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal lands and waters," the authors write, the oil companies could "nearly double total U.S. oil production" (their emphasis). In other words, these whiz kids assume that every acre of every lease holds the same amount of oil and gas. </blockquote>In other words, they're assuming that that the currently-nonproducing leases can produce the same amount of oil as the producing ones. And yet the productive wells were not chosen at random, were they? They were explored because they were the most likely to have oil, and then they were drilled because the exploration proved they had oil. This is like assuming that because your wife agreed to marry you when you asked her to, you can randomly walk down the street proposing to strangers and enjoy the same 100% success rate. <blockquote>Yet the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources. Brian Kennedy of the Institute for Energy Research quips that, using the same extrapolation, the 9.4 billion acres of the currently nonproducing moon should yield 654 million barrels of oil per day. Nonetheless, the House still went through with a gesture called the "use it or lose it" bill, which passed on Thursday 223-195. It would be pointless even if it had a chance of becoming law. Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it's one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time. </blockquote>It also involves guessing at where one's resources are best used. If ExxonMobile has, say, thirty leases, and the money and equipment and manpower to only explore on, say, five areas at a time, they're obviously going to go after the most likely sites first, and the least likely areas will remain "nonproducing" in the interim. But even the most likely sites are in fact highly unlikely to produce recoverable oil. It's a numbers game. Oil can be found -- but they need to be able to look in a lot of places. <blockquote>... Yet companies are not allowed to explore where the biggest prospects for oil and gas may exist – especially on the Outer Continental Shelf. Seven of the top 20 U.S. oil fields are now located in analogous deepwater areas (greater than 1,000 feet) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7,000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014 – perhaps ushering in a new ultradeepwater frontier. </blockquote>But by all means let's try to force companies to drill where they have little hope of finding oil. Via <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/obama-misleads-on-oil-leases-wsj/" target="_blank">Hot Air, which also makes this point:</a> <blockquote>Demanding drilling first on all extant leases is an absurd position to take when they don’t have any indication of accessible oil from the preliminary studies. It amounts to drilling dry holes at a cost of tens of millions of dollars each just to demonstrate the futility. Who do you think will pay that cost? Hint: it won’t be Barack Obama or Congress, but the people who drive up to the pumps every day.</blockquote></div>  <div>Source: The Wall Street Journal</div>