Obama’s New Attack Ad = Obama hearts Marxism


Obama’s new attack ad against McCain is something. Hypocritical and wrong….but it is something.

Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now Big Oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with 2 million dollars in contributions. Because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks.

After one president in the pocket of big oil… We can’t afford another.

Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.

Ahhh, the windfall tax. Socialism/Marxism at its finest. The oil companies make a modest profit and they should be punished. The big question you should ask is who is next after oil? Drug companies making a profit? Take it away. Coca-cola making a profit? Take it away. No one should be successful in this country after Obama is elected you see.

The WSJ asks just what the hell is a windfall profit anyways?

The “windfall profits” tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a “windfall” profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales — or does it merely depend on who earns it?

Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s “emergency” plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for “stimulus” checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take “a reasonable share” of oil company profits.
[Barack Obama]

Mr. Obama didn’t bother to define “reasonable,” and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that “The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.” Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.

Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any “windfall” tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we’re missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

Now…as far as McCain being in the pocket of big oil seeing as how he accepted contributions from them all you have to do is surf over to FactCheck.org and read about the hypocrisy:

In a new ad, Obama says, “I don’t take money from oil companies.”

Technically, that’s true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

  • Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
  • Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

The lie in the ad is the fact that Obama tries to say that big oil companies contribute to McCain’s campaign. As FactCheck stated, that would be illegal. Employees have contributed, as they have to Obama. Hell, Obama has two big wigs from big oil working to get contributions from small donors for his campaign.

That’s not being in the pocket of big oil?

Obama wants to punish those evil rich people by taking their profits and give them to the poor. Sounds wonderfully like Robin Hood right?

Actually, it sounds like Karl Marx.

Capitalism encourages people and businesses to become successful and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. They should not feel ashamed to make big profits, neither should big oil. Although, technically, they do not make big profits. Actually quite modest profits, percentage wise, and on top of that they pay huge amounts of taxes to the American peoples coffers.

If the bar for confiscation of profits is 10% then we are all in for a very rough Marxist ride for the next four years if this man gets into the Oval Office.

One other thing…..didn’t Obama say he would not put out negative ads?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Looks like we finally got the Marxism of Obama in the center ring.

Actually socialism would be the calling for nationalization of oil (like Maxine Waters). Marxism would be calling for nationalization of all industries.

As I have said before, Obama’s $1,000 tax “rebate” won’t help sectors of the economy which rely on affordable energy for transportation of goods and services. That means fewer jobs as companies cut costs (higher unemployment is already a factor).

As for Obama and big oil:


He’s taken nearly $400,000 from the oil industry. Much of that in bundled contributions.

A Windfall Profits Tax impacts more than the oil companies.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who are royalty owners. The average well in the USA produces something like 10 barrels per day. Under a Windfall Profits Tax scheme, these royalty owners will see their monthly royalty checks reduced 50% or more.

Additionally, the Oil Producing States impose a production tax on the oil produced in their state. Under a Windfall Profits Tax scheme, these states will see a reduction in their production tax income of 50% or more.

Those of us who oppose Obama and his Windfall Profits Tax scheme need to mobilize the hundreds of thousands of royalty owners and the tens of millions of people who live in the oil producing states.

These people need to understand that in no uncertain terms a Windfall Profits Tax will be a big hurt upon their income.

Why stop at oil companies? Why not tax the “windfall profits” of health insurance companies to pay for health insurance for everybody? And after that the “windfall profits” of Google and Microsoft to provide everybody with government controlled high speed internet access. And then the “windfall profits” of banks to provide everybody with a living wage.
Do you see what a slippery slope it is to buy into this rhetoric? Nobody’s income or profit will be safe from seizure by the government for the “greater good”.
Wall St. investors making a bundle in the market? No so fast. Haven’t you heard families don’t have HD TV in New Orleans yet? Give it up.

I agree. Why stop with oil companies ,,, or even companies. Why not individuals like authors who make a lot of money for something that is non-physical like writing a book. Didn’t Senator Obama make several million dollars from his books? Isn’t that excessive? Shouldn’t he have to pay a “windfall” tax – even one that is retroactive – just to be fair?

There are a lot of writers who have never been published. Shouldn’t they get some benefit?

Um, I think DELL, MICROSOFT, HP, Bank of America, Citicorp, etc also need to have their windfall profits taxed. Curious, shouldn’t windfall taxes fall upon organized labor groups since they produce nothing and therefore have excessive taxes?

Nah…probably not.

If it moves tax it. If it doen’t move paint it and then tax it. The practice of giving away other people’s money (but not mine) must be increased immediately. B Hussein O, POTUS.

Why are we having an election? BHO has already declared himself King of the world and the black population is screaming ‘BHO’ or die. A year from now millions of ‘anti-american democrats’ will be saying ‘where did my country go’? Be afraid, very afraid of, I’m not an Islamist but
“…I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” B Hussein Obama,

page 261 of his book, Audacity of Hope…

A homosexual (Sinclair says), drug addict (he admits), racist con man (proven in the past week) is the favorite of the left. Now do you understand Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Islamism is a dangerous combination?

Actually socialism would be the calling for nationalization of oil (like Maxine Waters). Marxism would be calling for nationalization of all industries.

Almost, but not quite, Fit Fit. Nationalization is flat out Communism, which is a higher stage of socialism. Socialism – aka Marxism – is a necessary stage to Communism, tho may not restructure the government to accommodate, as Venezula is busy doing taking over all industry in the State’s name.

Per Marxmail.org in their FAQs

Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).

Mata note: Socialism is not necessarily equal pay across the board. Skilled workers still draw more pay than unskilled workers.

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.


The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.

The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

Part of understand Socialism/Marxism is understanding what they consider personal property.

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.

Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.

More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.

Marxists use socialism as their definition interchangably, but draw the distinction between Marxist socialism and communism. From the Youth for Int’l Socialism site:

In Marxist terms, socialism is generally regarded as the period of transition between capitalism and communism – the transition to a system in which we can truly have “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. So genuine Marxists can be interchangeably called socialists so long as they have as their goal the abolishment of capitalism and the establishment of genuine worker controlled, democratic socialism.

Maxine certainly advocates Communism via socialism. BHO’s dances dangerously close by advocating just how much profit a business is allowed to make with “windfall taxes” propositions on his select businesses and industries. Perhaps you can forgive that since it will still be privately owned and operated. But if it ends up little more than a non-profit enterprise, it is little better than a state owned institution, as most, or all profits, are seized by the State to redistribute as they see fit.

Needless to say, dictating to the free market just how wealthy you may become is the total antithesis to our capitalist framework.

Barack Obama’s “Robin Hood” mentality will play well with his followers/lemmings, pitting the poor and downtrodden vs. the BIG BAD OIL COMPANYS. This is right out of the democrat playbook of class warfare. Oil companies are owned by shareholders and investments that range from college endowments to pension and retirement funds. Obama’s re-distribution of wealth plan will only hurt each individual investor while doing nothing to promote the shortage of our own natural resorces.

I like it. It’s a good ‘hit’ ad. Thumbs up!

“Modest profits.” Hardly:

The ad comes at the right time, too:

Curt: “One other thing…..didn’t Obama say he would not put out negative ads?”
…and you believed that? …silly rabbit, those tricks are for kids!

Curt: “One other thing…..didn’t Obama say he would not put out negative ads?”
…and you believed that? …silly rabbit, those tricks are for kids!

Of course not, but the Messiah is supposed to be all about hope and change. A new breed of politician. You know that stuff that’s supposedly all part of his appeal. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. More shine off his already tarnished armor.

Ah yes. “everyone is the same but the few” Not exact quote from Animal farm, but it will do.

You know we can not have anybody make a profit. That is just agianst the Obammasiah. Whoever makes a profit must give the profit to the needy.

Socailsim run amok. Just look at Eurabia for what will be coming if we elect Obammasiah. 10%-15% unemployment, apathy and no inginuity. Ah yes, the caste system works so well

Hussein O will be successful even if he destroys the economy. After all how many multi-millionaire’s do you know that have never had a real job, but was able to feed taxpayer money to his wife’s employer and get her a $150,000 per year raise in the process. Rip off’s and criminals always have money until someone whacks them. Don’t say McCain never had a job because the military is a harder job than 99% of the jobs in the country, and his wealth comes from a very smart wife and business woman. McCain is a Very smart man, he found a good looking rich woman who owns a beer company. I can see the envy by the left wingers on this one, but then they envy everyone who has three dollars because that’s two more than a liberl ever earned.

I understand the Messiah contributed less money than 99% of the rich, that is before he decided to run for POTUS and then he upped his help to the poor to cover his ‘don’t give a sh**’ attitude in the past.

>>“Modest profits.” Hardly:>>

And how much did they pay in taxes??? in other words, how much “profit” did the government make? and what investment and/or work does the government have in order to obtain _their_ profit?

Don’t let Obama’s ideology catch you by surprise. There is an explanation for it.

If you knew nothing about Barack Hussein Obama, and you were told that these following persons are or have been influential upon the formation of his ideals, what would you say?:

1. Louis Farrakhan, extreme militant Islamic leader; well-known as an advocate for African American interests and a critic of American society (extremist Muslim views).

2. Jeremiah Wright, extreme “Christian” (formerly Muslim), radical calling for “God, Damn America.” Obama’s “mentor.”

3. Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s other “mentor,” publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA; as reported by Accuracy in Media, February 12, 2008.

This is the short list. If you answered, “Barack Hussein Obama is a non-Christian, extremist radical Muslim Communist,” you are correct. Is it true? Yes. Has he denied it? You bet. Now ask yourself why and what are the implications for America and Americans?


Doug #11… did you read that article from the AP news? Or did you just scan it for the numbers?

A few realities you must have missed…

Like its competitors, Chevron made the bulk of its money at its exploration and production arm, also known as the upstream, where income nearly doubled from a year ago to $7.25 billion


At Chevron, the company division that refines and sells gasoline actually swung to a loss of $734 million in the quarter after earning $1.3 billion a year ago. The culprit: those same crude prices that lifted upstream earnings.

Like its peers, Chevron doesn’t produce enough oil on its own to feed its refineries, forcing it to buy some on the open market. And it wasn’t able to raise the price of gasoline and other products fast enough to recover its own rising costs for oil.

Chevron also said that planned downtime at some refineries contributed to the loss.

“The higher cost of crude oil used in the refining process was not fully recovered in the price of gasoline and other refined products,” said Chairman and CEO Dave O’Reilly. “As a result, our downstream operations incurred a loss in the second quarter, with most of the loss taking place in the United States.”

Chevron said overall production in the quarter fell about 3 percent from a year ago, hurt in part by production-sharing contracts. However, on a conference call with analysts Friday, company officials said project startups will increase production in the second half of 2008 and the company should meet or exceed its full-year volume target.

Chevron shares slipped 71 cents in afternoon trading to $83.85. They’ve traded in a range of $76.40 to $104.63 in the past year.

You and the less than truthful BHO may suggest they are making “windfall profits” off of US victims at the pump, when they are.. in fact… in the red financially. They too are subject to the high price of a barrel, and they don’t get it back at the pump.

This is also reiterated by Ray Holloway, Director of the RMI Petrol Retailers Association (PRA).

BP and Shell are international oil companies. Most of the profits made by BP and Shell are the result of oil exploration activities abroad. This is a separate business to the UK forecourt retail sector.


Holloway explains: ‘Most of the sites in the UK branded BP or Shell are actually independent retailers. They work in a challenging business area, with high costs and very low returns. Most are kept afloat by the shop attached to their site.

‘For many, these numbers are unsustainable and they are being forced to close in increasing numbers. Around 300 filling stations shut down every year, and motorists are now noticing gaps in fuel availability, and if it gets worse as expected, they will certainly be inconvenienced when searching for a forecourt in some areas.’

There are around 9,200 forecourts in the UK, including supermarket filling stations. This is the lowest number of filling stations in the UK since 1912. Since the fuel protests in 2000, one third of the filling stations open at the time have disappeared.

Holloway adds: ‘Oil company profits should not be confused with forecourt prosperity.’

To point out how clueless BHO is to this reality…

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.

The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can’t afford their energy bills.

“The profits right now are so remarkable that one could trim them 10 percent or so, which would turn out to be somewhere in the $15 billion range,” said Jason Grumet, an adviser to the Obama campaign.

A windfall tax on the taxable sector of retail oil/gas sales when they are in the arrears. i.e. to the tune of 734 million in a quarter? Uh huh… How does one get taxes from a turnip?

And the exploration is overseas profit.. money paid to the oil/gas companies for their exploration services by countries who are willing to find other resources.

Sure hope BHO ain’t planning on funding much off of a losing financial sector. The only reason they can stay in business is because exploration revenue offsets the refining sales loss.

I’d love to know how much of the government retirement systems’ money is invested in Big Oil. Anyone know that? No doubt Big Government’s fat, plush, cushy retirement system is getting a good goose from these “obscene profits.” You know, the sort of investment that will “bankrupt” us piss ants if we were to put money in the market instead of letting government do it for us (aka Social Security). I, for one, would love to see all government retirees, particular past members of Congress, take a major hit in their retirement bennies.

Government Doug? Even many American private pension plans include oil in their portfolios.

And the “obscene profits”? Care to point out where they are in regards to the pump? Or did you read not a bloody word of where they are getting their profits? As in from other countries who are willing to do what Pelosi and Reid are not… explore for oil.

And what’s your problem with everyone getting a piece of the profit pie… even if it’s overseas exploration?

I’d like to tax the Windfall Taxes the government collects on each gallon of gas.

After all, it’s only four to six times the profit made on the same gallon of gas.

Well done!


I suggest you step back and look at the larger tableau of a $6 billion profit at Chevron” next to a jobless rate hitting a 4 year high.

Oil company profits, cost of gas are now the centerpiece of this year’s politics. Recent polls show that most Americans think that our dependence on oil is the driving force in the collapse of the economy. Whether accurate or not, there couldn’t be a sharper contrast in the way the McBush and Obama are responding.

McCain now reminds me of an emperor called Cato the Elder, who always finished all his speeches with “Carthage must be destroyed!”; McBush now, regardless of what he’s talking about, is following his lead, but with a more modern corporate-political plot: ‘Coasts must be drilled’!

But that’s not the end of it. Obama reminds me now of an energy pimp, selling to the public energy wares that only encourage their ravenous consumer mindset.

Yet the two are very different. If Obama can’t de-pimp himself and build public support for a significantly alternative energy plan, then we may slip back deep into the pocket of oil for the next decade.

Obama needs to go longterm and quit pandering, while McCain ends his speeches on drilling (all he really needs now to finish his act is ‘a bastard from a basket’.

Socialism/Marxism at its finest.

Acts of the Apostles

(New Revised Standard version)

4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

well the reply to this ad should be the fact that obama took 29,000 dollars from Hamos and yet wouldn’t allow a representative of wounded veterans fly with him on his magical mystery tour because of “principle.

also since john mccain brought up the whole race card clinton thing, this would be a great time to dust off that whole memo sent to MSM on the clinton full of misrepresentations of what was actually said in order to push blacks away from the clintons. Use it as a club to beat the hell out of mr affirmative action *don’t use that term* just show obama has no substance and uses race as a red herring. Also attack his inability to speak of telepromter. One good ad of the uh ah uh ah uh ah uha um um, will definately help. you guys have no idea how bad that ‘bush and reading the my pet goat thing looked” if you can show that obama becomes startled when thrown of telepromt then you can attack his judgement if attack they can’t blame you for being racist because you’ve killed that one and put a stake through the heart. there are so many examples on you tube. Also use that cute little middle finger thing too. The family value people will love it especially since children were at that rally. crush obama. the man practically hands you the stuff on a silver platter and you are stupid if you don’t use it, cause he will use it on you.

did you ever read that part about the couple that got struck down because they pledged and then lied. nothing wrong with giving but you need to know how greedy you really are. And once you pledge it you can’t go back on it.

Steve J

Do you know the difference between “voluntary” and “enforced by law”?

The early Christians were indeed communists – but they made that as a personal choice. They could walk away anytime they chose.

Communism (note the captical C) also requires the sharing of all property. You can_not_ walk away. You do _not_ have a choice – unless it’s to live or die.

You can join a commune if you wish. If the Socialist/Communists get into power, you will have to leave the country – if you find one that will allow you to keep your personal wealth.

And by the way – legally requiring a morally good action serves to remove the morality from the action. Morality (in a spiritual sense) requires freedom of will. Impose a decision by law, and freedom of will is removed, hence so is morality.

I suggest you step back and look at the larger tableau of a $6 billion profit at Chevron” next to a jobless rate hitting a 4 year high.

Where you get to the company’s profit, as tied to a jobless rating, is baffling, Doug. In fact, your resentment at profit is also baffling, and seriously misguided.

The company isn’t responsible for employing the nation. Actually, of late, that’s the govt’s job. They employ about 1000 in their San Ramon headquarters, and about 65,000 employees world wide. Heaven knows if they could expand US business endeavors, they’d employ a lot more. But hang, they pulled out of Alaska themselves in the early 1990s, frustrated at spinning their wheels with a reluctant federal govt. Those job losses lie squarely on the shoulders of a PC Congress.

As far as the unemployment rates, perhaps you need to be reminded that today’s rates are not all that all fired different from the past.

U.S. unemployment rate average, 1982-1993: 7.1%
U.S. unemployment rate average, 1994-2005: 5.2%

This makes today’s rate, despite having the economic set backs from 911 and forward thru the subprime mess, Iraq & Afghanistan wars, and high oil prices, not much higher than during the Clinton “prosperity” years. You are, again, premature in your chicken little dance.

The point many wish to ignore is that the “gouging at the pump” is a pile of crap, as Chevron, BP and Shell (and we’re dealing with the smaller private companies and not the state owned giants here) are all losing their shirts at the pump. Chevron, in particular, is making their money from foreign nations, for exploration in foreign locations, as they do their exploration and production activities in Canada , Angola , Australia , Indonesia , the United Kingdom portion of the North Sea and the South China Sea

As is usual for anti-oil media, they quote gross profits. And unless Chevron has a Exploration and Production headquartered out of the US, they are likely paying a hefty tax on their profits, received from foreign revenue and services. That’s a perk for the US feds.

According to a 2007 financial statement they paid approx 42% in tax rate on their income before taxes *just for that quarter*. ($32,167,000 income after expenses, $13,479,000 in taxes).

The US has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. 42% is not chump change. All Chevron would have to do to save a boatload of cash is move their headquarters, and leave the US in the cold for that tax revenue. Afterall, they are making their profit on foreign business activities, and losing the most cash in US refined gas products.

Oil is not the highest profit structure industry. They are behind pharmaceuticals and banking. Yet the public demonization by the DNC, who enjoy the lobby money and special interests of the two higher revenue industries, is distinctly less for their prime supporters.

Most of this conversation for you is about how much they make. I am not bothered by profit. Most especially in that industry, as it takes big bucks to generate not only add’l oil resources, but also alternative energies. And the energy companies are engaging in that endeavor. Power is their business.

And true to this energy goal is Chevron Energy Solutions. In fact, in a 2006 BBC article, Chevron was spending $300mil annually to support development of new alternative energy technology.

The below excerpts are from an Oct 2007 article appearing in Alternative Energy News. Evidently they “get” something that the American public doesn’t…. because the media and DNC Congress have a hair up their butt to demonize oil companies.

Chevron Energy Solutions is a subsidiary of the Chevron Corporation, and is entirely owned by the company. The mission of Chevron Energy Solutions is to “to help clients use less energy and pay less for energy, and ensure reliable, high-quality power for critical operations.” So in pursuit of this mission, the Chevron subsidiary promotes alternative energy as a means for improving energy use in facility infrastructure. In other words, they seek to promote energy efficient technologies in public institutions and businesses. They accomplish this through the employment of projects and research in areas other than fossil fuels. Solar electric and stationary fuel cell technologies are among these projects.

As a group of engineers, project managers, energy managers and analysts, Chevron Energy Solutions harnesses the power and professionalism of the eco-friendly industries – all in its quest to promote alternative energy and technology. This Chevron subsidiary seeks to not only conserve natural resources in energy production, but to reduce greenhouse gases as well. This is accomplished through the reduction in demand for electricity that would otherwise be produced by fossil-fuel power plants.

Chevron Energy Solutions has also developed and commercialized advanced energy technologies. These technologies include fuel cells, as mentioned earlier. They also include photovoltaics and advanced batteries. The company has also claimed it is active in hydrogen fuel research and development efforts as well. In fact, Chevron is investing $300 million dollars each year into alternative fuel sources.


Chevron is often suspected of resisting alternative and renewable energy technologies. However the reality is that even Chevron is embracing the development of alternative energy. Remember that as the environmental revolution rolls on our energy resources will continue to evolve. So we must not overlook all of those who seek to develop alternatives to petroleum-based energy resources: even the petroleum-based companies themselves.

Now maybe you want the government to seize their profits just to fund what they are already doing… spending profits on R&D for alternative energies. It is a rich free market endeavor, afterall.

I prefer the private companies risk their own cash to do that R&D. That way if their efforts don’t pan out, it’s their money down the drain, and not the US taxpayers’.

There already is a windfall profits tax.

It’s all the tax revenue that the government is getting from the increased profits of of the oil companies. ExxonMobil made $12 billion profit last quarter while paying $34 billion in taxes.

Obama just wants it all. How much did you make … Send it in

Steve J

Do you know the difference between “voluntary” and “enforced by law”?

The early Christians were indeed communists – but they made that as a personal choice. They could walk away anytime they chose.

Communism (note the captical C) also requires the sharing of all property. You can_not_ walk away. You do _not_ have a choice – unless it’s to live or die.

You can join a commune if you wish. If the Socialist/Communists get into power, you will have to leave the country – if you find one that will allow you to keep your personal wealth.

Suek: do you know the difference between “following the word of God” and “going to hell?” For Christians, following the word of God is not supposed to be a choice–at least that was my understanding. For truly religious people, religion is not optional.

And by the way – legally requiring a morally good action serves to remove the morality from the action. Morality (in a spiritual sense) requires freedom of will. Impose a decision by law, and freedom of will is removed, hence so is morality.

Where’d you get this crapola? The right thing to do is the right thing to do, whether or not it’s enforced by law.

Do you know the difference between “voluntary” and “enforced by law”?

The early Christians were indeed communists – but they made that as a personal choice. They could walk away anytime they chose.

Communism (note the captical C) also requires the sharing of all property. You can_not_ walk away. You do _not_ have a choice – unless it’s to live or die.

A Christian Democracy WOULD be Communist.

If the Socialist/Communists get into power, you will have to leave the country

The Commuists won’t get into power simply because there are too few of them. If we have Western European socialism, most Americans would be better off.

Steve J waht have you been smoking. I want some.
A Christian Democracy would be anything from socialism unless you get the Liberation Theologists taking over. They are marxists, but a majority of Christians are far from being Marxists.

And what is so great about the Socialism in Eurabia??? The Muslims taking over, the unemployment, the caste system, the wait for medical care????

No I would rather have the rugged individualism of the Good Old USA.

If we have Western European socialism, most Americans would be better off.

ROTFLMAO!!!! There is simply nothing to say to someone that is this out of touch with Euro standards of living, taxes, petrol prices, economy, etal, but BWA HAHAHAHAHAH.