Gay Patriot Header Image

Flashback: Hillary’s Big Russia Deal

…in which Our Brrrrrrrrave Gal approved the transfer of 20% of the U.S. ongoing supply of uranium to Russian control, while taking millions in Russian- and/or deal-related donations.

I’m following this New York Times article from April 2015:

…the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, [took] over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal…brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States…the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among [them] was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns…Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show…

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. [ed: Riiiiiight.] But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors…

The article continues with pages of details. One tiny sample:

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

…several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Did the Clintons hide some large donations, possibly showing consciousness of guilt? Yes. Example:

To judge from [Clinton] disclosures…the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.

By the way, I didn’t know that “While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves…”

Exit questions:

  1. Why would NYT publish such an article? Why in April 2015? On whose hidden agenda?

    To be clear: I’m glad they gave us the info. But NYT is usually pro-Hillary. Why would they do something that undercuts her? Because Schweizer’s book was about to come out anyway?

  2. Why has no Special Counsel ever been appointed to look into all this?

UPDATE: Do the Clintons profit personally from the Clinton Foundation? (more…)

Now, this just has to be George W. Bush’s fault

Heading out of town this morning, I stopped to fill up my tank. Should have done it yesterday.

RELATED: Ace, via Instapundit, cites the gas station at Fairfax and Olympic which I pictured here. Gas at $4.99 back in March.

Must be George W. Bush’s Fault

Just seen on Drudge:  Gas prices in CA hit record highs…

Just snapped at the corner of Fairfax and Beverly, one of the cheapest places to buy gas in Hollywood:

FROM THE COMMENTSV the K asks the question others dare not ask:

“Gas Prices Are Spiking to Record Highs. How will this affect the presidential race?” – said absolutely no one in the MFM.

Even Yahoo! is onto Obama’s Oil Demagoguery

Saw this last night on Yahoo! — where the news tends to skew left:

Smoke and mirrors?


President Obama today raised the ante on his efforts to limit the rise in oil prices. The president, joined by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Attorney General Eric Holder, called on Congress to adopt tougher rules on speculators in the oil market.

. . . .

The Daily Ticker’s Henry Blodget says the proposal is “embarrassing” because speculators have little to do with the rising price of oil and gasoline. Prices are moving higher, Henry says, because “three billion new capitalists” in India and China are consuming oil and gasoline. It’s the balance between supply and demand that determines whether oil prices rise or fall, not speculators, Henry argues.

And then, of course, there are the Obama administration’s own policies which, by limiting exploration, have made it difficult to increase supply to match increasing demand.  If the president were serious about reducing oil prices, he would eliminate federal regulations preventing exploration and expedite the approval process for drilling on federal lands.

Seems that for this president, the solution to every problem is tougher federal oversight when, in many case, it’s federal meddling which created (or exacerbated) the problem in the first place.

And this time for a change, some in the media are catching on.

Why did Obama feel it necessary to politicize his energy addresses??

In a campaign speech cleverly disguised as his Weekly Address to the nation,” writes Joe Newby of the Spokane Conservative Examiner, the president rehashed “his Miami campaign speech”, the self-proclaimed post-partisan politician engaged in partisan posturing:

Now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity.  And since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas.  I’ll save you the suspense:  Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling.  We hear the same thing every year.

Well the American people aren’t stupid.  You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling.  It’s a bumper sticker.  It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge.  It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.

That’s rich.  He launches a partisan broadside in a policy speech while attacking his opponents for playing politics.

Why did the incumbent president feel it incumbent upon himself to attack his partisan adversaries in a policy speech?  Couldn’t he just have put forward his energy policy (which, if you just remove the algae and other green subsidies, contains proposals similar to those put forward by Republicans) without the partisan attacks?  Isn’t that what a “post-partisan” politician would do?

Did his predecessor, often faulted for his divisiveness engage in such partisan attacks in his policy speeches?

The president would have served himself better — and sounded more presidential — had he simply acknowledged the problem of higher gas prices and then articulated what his administration had done– and was planning to do — to address the problem.

The question remains:  why can’t Obama deliver a policy address without launching a partisan attack?

Playing defense on gas prices, Obama faults Republicans for doing what he (and top Democrats) did when W was in office

For the better part of the past two months, the president has had it pretty easy. We’ve seen some decent jobs numbers. He has not really been in the public eye while the media have focused on the GOP’s internecine struggles. He hasn’t really had to play defense.

Until gas prices started rising. And this reminds us of a lesson we learned in the brief window of the 2008 presidential campaign when he fell behind John McCain in the polls, Barack Obama is not good on defense.

With gas prices rising on his watch, he lashes out at Republicans:

Now, some politicians they see this as a political opportunity. I know you’re shocked by that. (Laughter.) Last week, the lead story in one newspaper said, “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.” (Laughter.) That’s a quote. That was the lead. “Licking their chops.” Only in politics do people root for bad news, do they greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more; they’re licking their chops.

You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. (Laughter.) We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for President. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years.

Well, the American people aren’t stupid.

No, we’re not stupid, Mr. President. If Republican see rising gas prices as a political opportunity, you can take some credit, as Doug Powers reminds us in linking this video:

Or maybe they took the lead from your fellow Democrat, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she called for hearings when the nationwide average price for a gallon of gas was $3.07: (more…)

What conservatives see as media bias, NYTimes finds curious

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:54 pm - February 23, 2012.
Filed under: Energy Independence,Media Bias

Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked a New York Times article on rising gas prices which included this gem:

Curiously, gas prices did not figure prominently in the Republican debate on Wednesday in Arizona, where the candidates trained most of their fire on each other rather than on the president. But Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama for not opening more federal land to exploration, and for not approving the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada.

Emphasis added.  Curiously, curiously?  C’mon now.  Did the candidates get to pick the questions?

Remember, the moderator was the very guy who led off the South Carolina debate by asking a candidate about his sex life.  As James Freeman wrote in today’s‘s Political Diary (available by subscription):

CNN moderator John King will have a harder time rebutting conservative charges of bias after last night’s Republican debate in Arizona. Recall that in January Mr. King opened a Republican debate in South Carolina with a question to Newt Gingrich about an ex-wife’s report that Mr. Gingrich had suggested an “open marriage.” After an angry response from Mr. Gingrich, Mr. King defended his decision to lead with the issue because he claimed it was the top campaign story of the day and he was simply being a good reporter.

Flash forward to yesterday. Under any objective standard the campaign news of the day was Mitt Romney’s announcement of a new plan to cut tax rates 20% across the board. But Mr. King didn’t lead with it, because he first felt compelled to ask Ron Paul why he thinks Rick Santorum is “fake” and to ask Mitt Romney what he meant when he described himself as “severely conservative.” (more…)

Most partisan president nixes shovel-ready jobs

Once again, Charles Krauthammer is in rare form, but then again since that sage columnist is often in this form, it’s probably not entirely accurate to call it “rare.”  Well, the idiom works.

Writing on the failures of the various big-government initiatives this president had put into place, the conservative columnist quips,

So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can’t? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It’s all the fault of Republican rejectionism.

He goes on to show how “a president whose central campaign theme is that Republicans put party over nation, sacrificing country to crass political ends” was putting party over nation, sacrificing country for crass political ends.

Krauthammer’s focus is the 1,700-mile trans-USA Keystone XL pipeline: “President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months — postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year’s election.”  The pipeline, the columnist reminds us, “angered Obama’s environmental constituency.”  So, now the Democrat’s got them in his camp for 2012, but he has prevented private companies from providing the shovels for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of shovel-ready jobs.

Oh, and he’s depriving the American people of access to oil from our very hemisphere — and from one of our closest allies.  As oil fluctuates near the $100 mark.

Post-partisan?  Most partisan in more like it.

Washington Post decries crony capitalism

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:07 pm - November 18, 2011.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Energy Independence

Democrats alone, the editors of the Washington Post remind us, aren’t responsible for the mess at Solyndra.  Congress, Energy Secretary Chu told what the paper called a “Republican-controlled House committee” (wonder if they would have called the House Energy and Commerce Committee a Democrat-controlled committee when the president’s party held the majority) that Congress authorized the program during the George W. Bush administration.

This is just a reminder that Republicans have not always held true to small-government principles — and why we need organizations like the Tea Party to hold their feet to the fire.  The political favoritism the administration showed to the company — and some of its backers — is just part of the scandal.  The Post editors contend “the real scandal is the loan guarantee program itself“:

The United States needs alternatives to oil, for reasons ranging from climate change to national security. Shoveling taxpayer dollars into profit-seeking manufacturing companies is not the way to develop them.

You can call it crony capitalism or venture socialism — but by whatever name, the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program privatizes profits and socializes losses. It’s an especially risky approach in the alternative-energy space, where solar energy is many years from being cost-competitive with fossil fuels for most uses — and history is littered with failed government attempts to back the next big thing.

Emphasis added.  Yes, they’re right, the real scandal is a government program putting its capital into the marketplace.

Now, to be sure, crony capitalism has grown considerably in our nation’s capital since January 20, 2009, but it’s been around a lot longer than that.  And it’s nice to see the editors of one of the nation’s largest (and most liberal) dailies remind us of the real problem of government subsidies for private industries:  they privatize profits and socialize losses. (more…)

Overzealous EPA Regulation Threatens Energy Production

Among the “five steps officials in Washington should take immediately to spur faster hiring in America’s private sector”  the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Tom Donohue offered yesterday was unlocking our domestic energy resources.  When I blogged on Donohue’s points, Bruce chimed in claiming that one “would do the most good for the economy“.

Well, it seems that if something is good for the economy, the Obama administration intends to do the exact opposite.

And they’re not just limiting energy exploration, they’re also blocking its production.

New Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules threaten to shut down coal-fired power plants in Texas, costing jobs, increasing the cost and limiting the availability of energy in Texas.  (Via Insapundit.)  Over at RedState, Ben Howe details just how agency Administrator Lisa Jackson’s policies are helping destroy the coal industry.

As Joy McCann warns us, the same agency “is setting up a new standard for ozone in the air” which task “local authorities to figure out how they can remove a naturally occurring gas.”  (Read the whole thing.)

The agency wants totake over North Dakota’s federally authorized regional haze program because it doesn’t think the state’s rules will be tough enough to regulate two power plants.”  North Dakota is one of the few states booming in the economic downturn.

Those are just a few examples of how overzealous regulation at the EPA threatens energy production.  And that doesn’t even get to administration efforts to limit energy exploration.

The problem with demonizing oil companies

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:16 am - June 20, 2011.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery,Economy,Energy Independence

While prices at the pump have tapered off a bit in the past few weeks, they still remain a drain on the pocketbooks of most Americans.  In order to deflect criticism from the Democratic administration, the president’s fellow partisans have demonized oil companies, with Senate Democrats seeking to “deny five major oil companies the domestic production tax credit that is available to all manufacturers and mining companies, including oil companies” because as Michael Barone puts it, “big oil companies get lousy ratings in polls. So stick ‘em with a higher tax bill.

Problem is, as the sage pundit adds:

. . . energy companies including but not limited to the big oil companies have been developing new economically viable sources of natural gas and oil production, while government subsidies to renewable sources like solar and wind energy aren’t producing significant increases in energy supply. So the policy on this bill is to take away money from the productive and give it to the unproductive.

Read the whole thing.  It does seem some legislative Democrats have a visceral opposition to the productive sector of our economy.

When you demonize the oil companies, you demonize those entrepreneurs best suited to develop new sources of energy and more efficient means of production.  By contrast, if government would reduce the amount of regulations it imposes on oil companies while lowering the tax burden on these energy developers, their costs go down and their ability to innovate goes up, making them better able to reduce the price at the pump.

The Canadian cure to high gas prices

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:36 pm - May 4, 2011.
Filed under: Energy Independence,Politics abroad

In the wake of his smashing victory Sunday,

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday the energy sector can rest easy that his government will not impede plans to vastly expand the country’s oil sands output and ship some of the crude to Asia.

Harper, in his Western Canadian home base of Calgary on the morning after his Conservatives won big in the federal election, singled out the Western-based oil industry as being a beneficiary of his party’s pro-business agenda, which will also include corporate tax cuts and deficit reduction. Investors greeted the result with relief.

(Via Sondra K via V the K.)  Do hope President Obama is paying attention and intends to follow the lead of our neighbor to the North.  If he moves to unfetter oil exploration, instead of spiking, oil prices might start to decrease.

Mark Tapscott explains why “Oil prices suddenly plummeted from their historic high of $145 a barrel” on July 14, 2008:

Because that was the day President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico and off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Overnight, the price per barrel of oil plunged, and that plunge was reflected at the pump soon thereafter.

In other words, Obama could with the stroke of a pen sign an executive order telling his appointees at EPA, the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy to stop throwing up obstacles to increased U.S. oil and natural gas production and instead work with the energy industry on a crash program to “drill here, drill now.”

Seems the Canadian Prime Minister is more aware of what happened when the immediate past American president moved to allow more oil exploration than is the incumbent.

Government, not oil companies, responsible for high gas prices

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:04 pm - April 25, 2011.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Energy Independence

Over at the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, just back from vacation is blogging up a storm and her posts are, as always, well worth your time.  She mocks “the media horde” who, “like a moth to the flame”, have been congregating “around the egomaniacal Donald Trump.”  She asks if the president is going to “allow Gaddafi’s mercenaries to act with impunity“.  She critiques his “half-hearted Middle East policy.

And, she notes, as the cost of a gas climbs toward $5 a gallon, at least here in California, this new kind of politician has turned to a page from the old Democratic playbook and decided to blame the oil companies for rising prices, devoting “his Saturday radio address to the issue of rising gas taxes”.

The problem, however, is not big, bad greedy oil companies, but the big, strong regulatory apparatus of the federal government, preventing companies from drilling for oil on our own shores and for developing, free of the hand of state intervention, new sources of energy.  Indeed, the Obama Administration, Rubin reminds us, has “helped restrict domestic supply.”  When we could pump more oil, we increase domestic supply.  A greater supply means lower prices.

Thus, “If Obama,” she concludes, “wants to do something productive, he’d open up new domestic sources of oil and natural gas instead of new inquisitions of energy executives.”  Exactly.

With his push for “‘clean-energy’ government subsidies”, the president pulls another page from his party’s playbook, calling for the federal government to “fix” a problem the federal government created  — and not by eliminating the source of the problem, but instead by compounding.  More government intervention as the answer to the failure of government intervention.

Without strict federal regulation over our natural resources, we could pump a lot more oil in the United States, thus sending fewer dollars overseas and keeping gas prices lower across the country.

UDPATE:   Doug Ross provides one example of how the administration is keeping gas prices high:  “the EPA,” he reports, has “blocked Shell Oil’s second effort to drill an exploratory well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.”

End The Light Bulb Madness

As Glenn Reynolds would say… SAVE THE EDISON LIGHT BULB!  FASTER, PLEASE! (via The Red Dog Report)

On Thursday, Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming introduced legislation to reverse a 2007 ban on incandescent light bulbs that is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2012.

The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB) is intended to repeal the amendment that was attached to a comprehensive energy bill signed by President George W. Bush in 2007.   The ban on incandescent light bulbs was intended to save energy and limit pollution.

Now, Enzi and other lawmakers are attacking the ban as a measure that limits choices for Americans.  “I think it’s fine if someone wants to fill their home or business with the light from the new bulbs,” said Enzi in a statement.

I also think it is fine if someone wants to buy an old-fashioned bulb because it works better for them,” he added.  “If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace.  Government doesn’t need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use.”

RedDog rightly notes: 

Let me see if I have this right… The government gives you a choice when it comes to ending the life of a child, But not when it comes to deciding what type of light bulb you use?

As trivial as this may sound, many people — including yours truly — are now hoarding the Edison Light Bulb before it vanishes into the dustheap of history.  Call your Senator and stop the Global Warming Hoax Madness from gaining any more traction in the way the Government rules our lives.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

President Makes Case for Unshackling Energy Industry

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:07 pm - October 23, 2009.
Filed under: Energy Independence,Entrepreneurs

If you look at the history of American innovations which have resulted in technological improvements and led to cheaper and more efficient manufacture and delivery of those products and services, you will find that overwhelmingly, private entrepreneurs (often in conjunction with inventors tinkering away on their own initiative) drove the development of such products.

This applies to the energy industry as well as health care. Strangely, in his pitch for greater government regulation of energy President Barack Obama made the case for less regulation.  In a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the president

. . . said the nation’s economic future is tied to its environmental promise, describing innovation as key to righting a flagging economy, saving the globe’s natural resources and ensuring U.S. competitiveness. . . .

“The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy,” Obama said. “I am convinced of that.”

So am I.  And to win that competition, we need to unshackle the most productive sectors of our society, cut regulation and lower taxes to encourage innovation.

Unfortunately, the president’s program will do just the opposite.

Obama and Off-Shore Drilling:
Paying a Brazilian Company to Do What Americans Cannot
(because of his fellow partisans’ policies)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:50 am - August 20, 2009.
Filed under: Energy Independence,Liberal Hypocrisy,Obama Watch

While Bruce has been quite busy with work, he frequently forwards links he receives via Twitter, he alerted me to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s note on Facebook about the President’s decision to grant $2 billion in loans to “to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

So, while Democrats (and a smattering of Republicans) have blocked attempts to exploit resources off our own shores, the Democratic President is helping a foreign country exploit its resources.  If his predecessor had done this, liberals would be screaming how he was polluting a third world country in order to secure profits for his cronies in the oil industry.

If we can help subsidize Brazil’s efforts to extract its natural resources, why can’t we allow private companies to exploit our own on their own dime?

Considering this conundrum, Ed Morrissey offers:

Let American companies do what Obama is paying Brazilian companies to do — drill offshore.  We won’t have to pay them money or float them any loans to do it, either.  In fact, we will make money off of the leases, while the effort creates hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the US, creating more tax revenue rather than emptying out the Treasury.

Michelle speculates about a Soros connection.

Gas Crisis Continues In Charlotte; National Media Ignores


As of Saturday morning, most of Charlotte-area gas stations still have plastic bags over their pumps and gas hunting cars zipping in, around, and out of their parking lots.  WBT-AM reports than only 7 of 80 gas stations surveyed in the Charlotte metro area have gasoline this morning.

Many parts of the Southeast are in a Gas Shortage Crisis, and the National Mainstream Media continues to ignore it.

Anderson Cooper…. where are you, man?

Gas lines remain today; deliveries still promised –

It appears to be more of the same at gas stations across the Charlotte metro region, with only a fraction of stations selling fuel and long lines forming — despite promises that shipments of gas are on the way.

Lines began forming in the pre-dawn hours Saturday at a number of stations in the Charlotte area.

But officials from AAA Carolinas, government leaders and gasoline distributors say the tanker trucks are coming. A large shipment of fuel was reported to have been sent to Charlotte on Friday. However, some of those experts warned that the shortage won’t end quickly.

This week’s shortage is a result of hurricanes Ike and Gustav, which hit the Gulf Coast earlier this month, disrupting refinery production. Refineries had enough fuel in reserve to stock Southeastern pumps for about a week, but many stations ran out before the refineries could resume full production.

Four of the 17 Houston-area refineries remain closed, with most others in partial or full operation, AAA said.

Charlotte isn’t the only place grappling with a short gas supply, though the area saw the most serious disruptions in the state, with little or no shortages reported in eastern North Carolina, Crosby said. Stations were running out of fuel this week in Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and elsewhere, with the Atlanta area feeling particular pressure, the Associated Press reported.

Just this morning, I canvassed five gas stations in the South Charlotte area and all still had dry fuel tanks.  I’m staying home now until I know for sure there will be gas somewhere.  I’m running on fumes.

Remember folks, Charlotte is now the 20th largest city in the USA, the 2nd largest banking center in the USA (sorry, San Francisco) and North Carolina is the 10th largest state by population in the USA (sorry, New Jersey).

So where is the media focus and questions that a similar crisis in New York or Washington, DC would have attracted as soon as it started?

And Senator McCain — you’d be VERY wise to have you or Sarah come to Charlotte and talk about Energy Independence.  You would be very popular right now with that message!

UPDATE:  1:30pm – Finally got gas at my local place.  The tanker truck was still there as I pulled up.  The wait was shorter than I expected — about 20 minutes.  Unlike reports from other parts of Charlotte, my fellow gas-starved residents were orderly and no fights broke out.  In fact, there were a couple pumps open for a few minutes — unlike last night when people were cutting each other off and getting into accidents to get to any open pump.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Gas Shortage, Panic Hits Charlotte, NC

Yes folks, it is true what you’ve been hearing the past couple of days.  We here in the Queen City are without gasoline.  Of course it is affecting the normal folks like me who just want to fill up the tank.  But it is also impacting schools (they are closed — buses can’t fill up), and law enforcement (imagine calling 911 and being told “we can’t come — no fuel).

Drivers across the Charlotte region are waiting patiently — and, in some cases, impatiently — for a promised large shipment of gasoline expected to reach the Queen City by afternoon.

But the lines and traffic disruptions that dominated on Thursday continue this morning, with people in some cases having parked at gas stations overnight, waiting near the pumps with their tanks on empty. As was the case yesterday, arguments and scuffles are breaking out as frustrations boil over.

At about 8:30 this morning, a woman in line at a Citgo station in Charlotte’s Plaza Midwood neighborhood told others in line she was saving a place for her father, who was on his way with gas cans. The station, at Parkwood Avenue and The Plaza, was selling only premium gas. The wait was about 45 minutes.

When I flew back into Charlotte-Douglas Airport last night, I went quickly to hunt out three gas stations I know about near the airport.  All pumps were closed and police were guarding the businesses.

PatriotMom reported witnessing yesterday a foreign invader (Florida tags) butt in front of the whole gas line at a station in South Carolina and people getting quite angry.

I had planned to get some photos of gas lines (they are miles long) today.  People are lining up at a station at there mere rumor that a tanker truck is on its way with petrol.

This photo is courtesy of the Charlotte Observer — but I don’t live very far from this gas station in South Charlotte.

However, my own gas tank is so low that I don’t have the luxury yet of going out until I know for sure there is a guarantee I’ll get gas.   I will take my camera with me though in case I have to sit in a long line later this weekend.

Why is all this happening in Charlotte this week, you may ask?

The shortage is caused by the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast this month, disrupting refinery production. Refineries had enough fuel in reserve to stock southeastern pumps for a week or so, but it ran out before the refineries could get back to full production.

The Charlotte area is served by the Colonial pipeline, which told Carolinas officials yesterday that they were delivering a large shipment of fuel to Spartanburg, S.C., and that an even larger shipment would arrive in Charlotte this afternoon. N.C. Gov. Mike Easley asked several oil companies to release additional supplies from Tennessee and Wilmington.

Remind me again why Democrats are opposed to drilling US oil reserves?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Biden’s gaffes & Obama’s judgment

First, we have Joe Biden “call an Obama campaign ad terrible” before saying he wouldn’t have so described the ad had he actually seen it.  Then, he’s telling us about FDR’s nationally televised addresses both before presidents delivered such things and well before that Democrat had been elected to the White House.

Now, we’ve got him contradicting his running mate on clean coal.  In Ohio, he said, “we’re not supporting ‘clean coal'” while the Obama campaign website favors the development of clean coal technology.

Had Palin had this many gaffes, Victor Davis Hanson opines, “the election would now be over.”

Biden’s gaffes don’t just reflect poorly on the Delaware Senator. They also call into question the judgment of the man who tapped him for the Democratic ticket. As the Jewish Athena writes:

. . . it is becoming apparent that these guys are not on the same page. For a candidate who repeatedly stressed that we should judge him by how he conducts his campaign, it is ironic that his most important hiring decision (the VP) and his first supervisory role (corralling Biden) are going so poorly.

Is there any wonder the MSM is paying more attention to Sarah Palin, hoping for her to slip up.  For her rival for the Vice Presidency seems to do so every time he opens his mouth.

UPDATE: In Today’s (09/24/08) OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription) John Fund observes:

the fact that Mr. Biden largely gets a pass on his exaggerations — especially given his history during his 1988 presidential campaign of embroidering the truth — makes one wonder about the disparity in scrutiny between Mr. Biden and Mrs. Palin. The latter’s press-shy attitude can’t be justified, but given the double standard exercised by the media it is certainly understandable.

The Case Against Drilling Takes Another Hit

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:31 pm - September 14, 2008.
Filed under: Energy Independence

Oil prices continued their decline as “refineries along the Gulf of Mexico coast will soon resume operations after escaping major damage from Hurricane Ike.

This reminds me of something Charles Krauthammer wrote in June:

Technological conditions have changed as well. We now are able to drill with far more precision and environmental care than a quarter-century ago. We have thousands of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, yet not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in spills of any significance.

Although there are reports of two Gulf oil rigs adrift (though “not in a critical position“) in the wake of the latest storm, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of any significant spills.

Seems that with new technologies, we can drill off-shore without much risk to the environment.