High Gas Prices Support War Effort?

Robbery By Gas Pump

As gas prices start to escalate and the war in Iraq heats up, we are told that high gas prices contribute to supporting the war efforts.

My problem with this information is that gas is taxed by the gallon, it is not taxed by dollars per gallon.

If gasoline is $1.29 a gallon and the tax base is say $0.47 per gallon, then gas goes to $5.00 per gallon, the tax base remains the same.

The only increase has been in profits for petroleum companies. And that from the increase in retail prices.

Petroleum companies have decided that they have America over the barrel, so to speak. Thus, they have decided to charge at will to increase their already excessive profit margins.

The petroleum price increases during the times of disaster in the United States are prime examples of the disregard for the American consumer. Strangely enough, American consumers support every major corporation in the world. It would seem that because of this, corporations would take great pains to safeguard the relationship with American consumers.

This is however not the case. Fostering good will during the recent disasters would have made a lot of difference in how the public is coming to feel about petroleum companies.

Most of us have come to believe that alternative fuels must be put into action, and kept from the hands of the greed infested petroleum companies.

The petroleum companies are devastating the world, the continent, the communities of America and all for the sake of more money than they can possibly ever spend.

The Exxon Valdez spill in Alaskan Waters affected an area that had increased by 1991 and 1992, to about 37,000 sq m.

Now oil drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness is next on the agenda. We are supposed to trust petroleum companies with a very fragile eco system. We cannot expect them to treat wilderness areas any better than they treat our oceans. Once they have destroyed the Alaskan Wilderness what will be on their agenda next? Where does it stop?

Plausible Deniability

Remember this term, you will be hearing it often here.

plau·si·ble
Pronunciation: 'plo-z&-b&lFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Latin plausibilis worthy of applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious 2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive 3 : appearing worthy of belief




de·ni·abil·i·ty

Pronunciation: dE-"nI-&-'bi-l&-tEFunction: noun: the ability to deny something especially on the basis of being officially uninformed.

Officially uninformed. What do you suppose this means? Could it be that there are those who are officially left out of the loop so they can say, "I am not aware of that?"

Well that was the original intention any way.
In most cases the President of the United States for instance does not have a Top Secret security clearance. It is said that is because if he were to ever be taken prisoner he could not divulge certai nNational Secrets.

Howwwever, some Presidents do have Top Secret security clearances. George Bush Sr. was former Director of the C.I.A. therefore as president he recieved intelligence briefings on a daily basis. He still recieves briefings on a daily basis. Why? In the event that the United States should go to war and the current director were taken prisoner or killed, then the former director could immediately fill that piosition even if only on a temporary basis.

We don't really think that George Sr. would keep information from George Jr. do we? Nah, I didn't tink so.

As long as the President maintains Plausible Deniability then he can for the most part convince many people that he did not have access to certain information.

It is also important to know that just because the President may not have a Top Secret Security clearance does not mean that he is not informed. It only means that he can deny being infoprmed.