Boycott CITGO and Chavez Propaganda
Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 11:03AM Citgo is a company "owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran , Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela . The five Founding Members were later joined by eight other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973–1992) and Gabon (1975–1994). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna, Austria, on September 1, 1965.
OPEC's objective is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry.
Who cares? OPEC determines the price of oil. CNN put it this way:
Crude oil: Currently, this is the biggest portion of the consumer's cost of gas. About 53 percent of what you pay for each gallon goes to crude oil suppliers. This is determined largely by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. The amount of crude oil produced by OPEC determines the price of a barrel of oil.
After the disgusting display yesterday at the United Nations by Hugo Chavez, and even more so by the U.N. delegates who applauded the sickening anti-American rant, it's worth noting exactly how much the United States is investing in the U.N. The latest details are from 2004.
So Chavez calls the US President the devil, owns CITGO and distributes oil to poor Americans. And the U.S. sets the stage.
The time has come for the US to end the funding of its own oppression at the U.N. and to boycott CITGO.
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Bluto Sister Toldjah The Anchoress A Blog for All Michelle Malkin Hot Air Gateway Pundit Ms. Underestimated Born Again Redneck
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/691258
Amy Proctor
Democrats distance themselves from Chavez
I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.
George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us..... (continued)
"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.
"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."
*Don't pat the Democrats on the back just yet... it's political. Where were the comments 24 hours ago after the U.N. speech by Chavez? Dems put their collective finger in air to see which way the public opinion polls were blowing.
**Rush Limbaugh is all over it. He's playing an audio of Rangel a year ago saying almost the SAME THING CHAVEZ SAID. Told you!
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (50)
I know I would leave my church immediately if they had welcomed this idiot.
I saw a clip yesterday, finally, and I began to life as he made the sign of the cross after speaking about President Bush. What a moron.
Dennis, I'm boycotting Citgo. I had heard rumors that it was owned by Venezuela but now that I positively, that's it.
Leticia, it's like NY is in the twilight zone. It's hard to believe the reception of Chavez particularly coming off the heels of 9/11. What are these people thinking? Although there are NYers who think 9/11 is an inside job. I'll bet some of them go to Olivet Baptist Church.
Tim, I wouldn't go that far, but I have a feeling Chavez will burn somewhere eventually.
Now you are starting to understand that the war in Iraq was based in lies, and you say: french were right!. May be in some years you will say CHAVEZ was right, Bush is a someone without sense that is damaging the image and credibility of the US, and his foreign policy is creating hate and misery.
Only your friends tell you when you are wrong.
No we don't. The French were not right, nor will they be.
"Bush is a someone without sense that is damaging the image and credibility of the US, and his foreign policy is creating hate and misery."
Bush is actually OUR president, and I could personally care less if some Canuck or any other person elsewhere gets pissed because he does what is best for US.
I'm sure you'd agree that Americans have a right to spend their money as they see fit. This is a principle of capitalism combined with the civil rights method of subsidizing your oppression. While Chavez isn't suppressing Americans (although he did say he wants us finished), hell if I'm going to pay my enemy for his gasoline. He gets over 50% of Venezuela's profits from the US. If he thinks our President is the devil, he can take his oil elsewhere. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you....
Stephen, well I've never endorsed Pat Robertson's comments. I think it's inappropriate for a Christian leader to say what he did openly, although everyone has the right to say whatever they want behind closed doors.
"Now you are starting to understand that the war in Iraq was based in lies, and you say: french were right!. May be in some years you will say CHAVEZ was right, Bush is a someone without sense that is damaging the image and credibility of the US, and his foreign policy is creating hate and misery.
Only your friends tell you when you are wrong."
visitor,
So.... you're saying Saddam would also someday have been our friend and that we should have left him in power, right? And who says the French are right, and about what? Chavez will never be right about Bush. Anti-war nuts have for decades saying that the image of the US is being damaged... who can you pin the blame on during WWI and WWII? Certainly not Bush.
Donald Rumsfeld said this at an address to the 107th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 28, 2006:
http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1034
*********************
"In 1946, one year after the Nazis surrendered and the allies sought to rebuild post-war Germany:
A New York Times article said, and I quote, "The United States has ‘fumbled’ the job."
Life Magazine declared, and I quote, "Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. . . . All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion."
Does any of that sound familiar? "
***********************
Check out this page:
http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000872.html
January 1946 issue of Life Magazine pronounced that America was losing in Iraq... er, EUROPE. Losing in Europe. Here are some excerpts:
************
Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions.
“We’ve lost the peace.”
A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.
We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery.
We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."
**************
Apparently the more things change, the more they stay the same.
And I challenge you to give me an example of Bush being the devil.
I'm just curious: if the US ever found itself in a military conflict against or involving Venezuela, would you still think that Robertson's comment was inappropriate?
My position is that there's something to be said for assassination vs. war.
He said on August 22, 2005:
"There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Some comments from Jessica's Well site
'I think the difference is that the war against the Fascists and the Nazis was almost universally recognized by the liberal democracies of the world as a just war, a necessary task.'
'But for the Iraq war we saw no consensus among the liberal democracies. Alone among civilised nations and without a causus belli the US decided to abrogate the sovereignty of a nation that had not attacked it.'
'And as for causes belli, yes Saddam was a nasty piece of work and attempted many times to do an end run around UN Sanctions. But that misbehaviour is not an excuse to invade a country. Sanctions, yes. Invasion, no. And in point of fact, Mr Kay's recent WMD report shows conclusively thatthe sanctions regime was successful for over a decade in stopping Iraq's attempts to develop prohibited weapons. My God, even the North Koreans were screwing them with impunity.
Multilateral action works, the UN sanctions worked, and attempts by the Bush Regime to pretend that they did not are laughable at best, mendacious at worst.'
****************
Finally,
Americans can do whatever they want with your money. The time US will take to be indenpendent from venezuelean oil, Venezuela will be selling it to China.
I just hope that then Bush and Chavez are both out of office.
If you wanna believe the war in Iraq was justified. Believed it. Your comments show that you expect that the time will give Bush reason.
Sincerally I have lost faith in men's as leaders. There are always personal interest or manipulation here and there. If you wanna believe Bush is sincere and competent, and he took good decisions about Iraq, I don't think I'm gonna I change your mind.
But it is not the first time that the US. invades or support causes for economic or political interest.
That was the case of conflicts in Central and South America. In that cases, the U.S. didn't really care about those people's but just economics or politics.
That's why Chile's new (a soft lefty) president said: 'We see things differenty from the south'.
Some of the visitors said that invading Iraq was the best for the U.S...
Why? because of the WMD...? (NOP)
To 'free iraqis' ...? (why not before?)
Someday I asked my self how God could say that we have to respect authorities - even dictators (in other times kings) to rule tyranically. I guess that was because any kind of gouvernment is better than anarchy.
I think Sadamm was able to keep the orderin Irak (with the different communities).
So far the war-imposed democracy is not 'working', at least for the people that die everyday. I hope someday it will.
I don't think Bush is the evil. But as well as Chavez, he is not doing the best with the responsabilites he has. T
'An Utterly Phony Comparison
When WWII broke out, nobody had the slightest idea who would join in and how it would end. It raged across the planet for six years leaving millions dead and displaced; fortunately the USA beat the Nazi's to the atom bomb... The USA was a military lightweight before the war, and came our of it a world super-power.
The Marshall plan didn't even get under way until 1948 -- 2 years after this article (and largely out of recognition that the European occupation was failing).
The Iraq invasion was a measly three-week operation premised, as it was, on lies that Saddam's WMD's posed an imminent threat, that he was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and that Iraqi's would greet coalition troops with flowers and candy.
Unlike WWII, the Bush-nits were warned in advance about every piece of the Iraq quagmire we now see. But out of arrogance and ideological correctness, they over-ruled the judgement of military experts and the Iraq Study Group in favor of pointy-headed wing-nuts like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle.
Add this WWII anaology to the list of lame attempts by Bush apologists to rationalize the Iraq quagmire.'
"I think Sadamm was able to keep the orderin Irak (with the different communities)."
The body count under Saddam's government was FOUR TIMES as great as it is now under the conditions following the regime change, provisional government, insurgency, and the establishment of the permanent elected government.
So much for "keeping order". Amy's quotes from the 1946 Life Magazine article are EXTREMELY relevant.
On the other hand, as I stated on my blog, boycotting local Citgo stations does more harm to the American business owner than it does to Chavez, who will sell more oil to outside sources if the US consumption falls.
I'll link your post on the matter to mine to present both points of view and see what kind of comments ensue. I am still open-minded on the issue, convince me!
Saddam killed more than 250 000 (during 23 years.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1250521,00.html
Iraquis casualities since the war...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_in_the_conflict_in_Iraq
- 100,000 excess deaths - estimated in the September 2004 Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq;
- The United Nations reported that 14,000 deaths have occurred in the first half of 2006 alone.
http://thetomoreport.blogspot.com/2006/09/boycott-citgo_21.html
*******
The US gives 50% of Venezuela their business. This to me is like the bus boycotts of the Civil Rights movement. African Americans eventually decided not to finance their own oppression, paying just as much to sit in the back of the bus or to give their seats up to a white person.
Their bus boycott crippled the transit business. Did it hurt US jobs? Yep. But they had the consciense to not pay for a slap across the face. THAT is the lesson here.
I'm not giving a cent to Chavez if I can help it. Who knows what we're actually funding. Have you seen his friends?? Iran? Hezbollah? Lebanon?
If American jobs are lost as a result, so be it. Better American jobs lots than down the road American LIVES lost because we're helping Chavez hurt America. He certainly made some threats at the U.N. last week against the US, saying we need to be "brought down".
I don't think it gets any clearer than that. We cannot let sentimentality kill us.
My opinion....
The Human Rights Watch says that approx. 400,000 Iraqi CHILDREN under the age of 12 died unnecessarily due to totally preventable diseases. The U.N. was SUPPOSED to be helping the Iraqi people, but of course, the ever corrupt organization was in bed with Saddam while children died unnecessarily. Saddam and the U.N. are respsonbile for that.
It's quite easy to prove (I don't have the time now but have done so MANY times on this blog) that Saddam has killed over 1 million people, visitor. The article YOU posted reads:
****
In an article last year the chief executive of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, cited the figure of 250,000 victims and spoke of the mass graves being excavated in post-invasion Iraq.
"Among the occupants of these graves are 100,000 Kurdish men and boys machine-gunned to death during the 1988 Anfal genocide, 30,000 Shi'ites and Kurds slaughtered after the 1991 uprising, other Shi'ites killed during the 1980s because of their perceived sympathy for Iran, so-called Marsh Arabs killed as the Iraqi government drained the marshes ... and many individual Iraqis of all faiths and ethnicities who were singled out, their lives ended, for real or perceived opposition to the regime," he wrote.
*****
Those figures are incomplete. Add the 10's of thousands who simply disappeared, the additional 10's+ of thousands who were found in mass graves since that article was written AND factor in the war in Iran Saddam started..... oh, and that figure is low for the Kurds. All told, Saddam and his militia had over 1 million people killed.
It is al-Qaeda, Iran and remaining Baathists, as well as sectarian pay back that killed the majority of Iraqis, not Americans. Oh, and the BBC has been caught lumping together Iraqi insurgents/terrorists with Iraqi civilians. So the number will appear higher.
I'll go back and find the links and figures.
If Iraq is a quamire, so was the American Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII and Korean War. We would have won the Vietnam War if peaceniks hadn't influenced the US public to pull out. As a consequence, S. Vietnamese were slaughtered in retribution.
I'm assuming your point is that you want the same for Iraq. How sweet.
I agree.
I'm assuming your point is that you want the same for Iraq. How sweet.'
I think the U.S. is in a situation where they can't leave and they can't stay. I also think that the war has given to Iraq a role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists (it has been confirmed that there were no ties between saddam and al'qaeda), and the whole situation over there have intensified the resentment towards the U.S. and the western world in the muslim world.
Critics of Chávez in Venezuela[2][3] and the United States[4] claim that the Chávez government is leading Venezuela in an authoritarian direction, abandoning democratic tradition, extending state control over the economy, eliminating dissent, and carrying out "social programs that will set Venezuela back".[5]
According to The Boston Globe, the president of the National Assembly's finance commission, Rodrigo Cabezas, says that PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, will generate nearly US$19 billion which will go to social spending in 2006. Another US$4.5 billion will be set aside for antipoverty projects, and PDVSA is depositing about $100 million a week into a discretionary presidential spending fund.
During a 2004 visit to Washington to meet U.S. government officials including George Bush, Súmate's Vice-President María Corina Machado alleged that Chávez had "profoundly damaged Venezuela's democratic institutions".[9] She stated that she was motivated to campaign for the referendum "to dissipate tensions before they built up", believing that it was "a choice of ballots over bullets."[10]
Regarding the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004, according to the Center for Security Policy, "the (Hugo Chávez) regime delayed and obstructed the recall referendum process at every turn. Once the regime was forced to submit to such a referendum, moreover, it used a fraud-filled voting process to ensure victory. The government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor. The outcome was then affirmed and legitimated by ex-President Jimmy Carter’s near-unconditional support." "Jimmy Carter ignored pleas from the opposition and publicly endorsed the results, despite the fact that the government reneged on its agreement to carry out an audit of the results."[17] The Carter Center claims to have carried out the audit.[18]
It goes on... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
U.S. News & World Report and U.S. government officials claim that the Chávez administration allows alleged terrorist organizations to operate within Venezuela's borders, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamiyya al Gammat. U.S. officials also allege that the Venezuelan government is knowingly providing identity documents these organizations. The Venezuelan government flatly denies all of these claims, however.[105] The U.S. government criticizes Venezuela's cooperation in the "War on Terrorism" as negligible or purposely indifferent, particularly with regards to FARC and ELN in neighboring Colombia[3], which the U.S. government considers to be terrorist organizations,[106] while Venezuela accuses the U.S. government of having a double standard for giving safe haven to Luis Posada Carriles.[107] However, U.S. officials acknowledge that there is no evidence of Chavez engaging directly in terrorism.[108]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
the link you provided regarding the US and the UN does not tell the whole story.
First of all the amount each country has to pay is related to various factors, such as national income and others.
As of today the US owes the UN about $1.3 billion.
Please take a look rather here:
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/honroll.html to see a list having made a full payment to the UN.
Before yelling like an hysteric christian women, I advise you to educate yourself first.
Have a good one.
PS: You do not have any point criticzing Chavez calling Bush the devil.
Bush came up after all first with the whole "Axis of Evil" bs.
Don't be an hypocrite like every other christians.
First of all the amount each country has to pay is related to various factors, such as national income and others.
As of today the US owes the UN about $1.3 billion."
Reporter, we owe the United Nations nothing. They owe us an explanation for the children being raped and the thousands being exterminated in Africa today while they do nothing, for Lebanon becoming a home for terrorists while their troops stand idly by, for taking kickbacks as part of the "Oil-for-Food" scandal during the time Saddam Hussein was in power, etc.
I see the United Nations as a club for thug nations that no reputable nation should associate themselves with and I certainly think that we would be better off forming a Coalition of Democratic Nations and put our best geo-political energies into that instead.
Please read youserlf again. "The UN [...] taking kickbacks as part of the Oil-for-Food scanal".
The UN is an organization representing nations.
Is the church a pedophile organization because of a few pedohile priests ?
I think www.un.org can answer your questions very well as obviously you have no idea about the news (www.un.org).
For example resolution 1709 (2006)....
PS: You owe the UN still $1.3 billion you bunch of cheap greedy vultures.
I am an Anti-Chavez.
I hope he leave office for the good of Venezuela.
I don't want him to spend the money of the venezuelean oil in this stupid campaign againts the U.S. and buying russian fighters and traveling around the world and talking stupid things the whole day and involving Venezuela with the leaders of Iran, Syria, etc.
Venezuela people and history doesn't deserve that.
I would of course prefer that he spends the money on the venezuelean people, taking advantage of this years of fat cows (oil market) so they could have a better future, and I hope venezuelean people can wake up and find truly good leaders Not the kind they had before during decades of corruption that have lead the 50% of the population in poverty. May be all this situation could wake them up.
I would not go that far saying Chavez is supporting islamic terrorism, (but who knows) --
you cited: ''However, U.S. officials acknowledge that there is no evidence of Chavez engaging directly in terrorism.''
I don't think he is that stupid to give the U.S. that kind of pretext to invade the country. But, who knows and even without that may be soon they'll get a another good U.S. 'invasion' (as in Panama?).
Well, I hope they don't need to get there.
you are obviously biased and far from having any rationality in this debate.
I don't know what is the biggest scandal between the Oil-for-food involving a few individuals, or the priests from one of the major religion on earth molesting children.
I will not even start with the Vatican and their bank accounts.
Please be rational and objective, as God does not like blind faithed people.
The U.N. has had greater rape and molestation rates than the Church. Period. This is a non-issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185675,00.html
The U.N. corruption inquiry expanded last month to include more than 200 investigations and led to eight U.N. staff members being put on paid leave. Any criminal wrongdoing discovered in the inquiry will be turned over to federal prosecutors in New York.
The U.N. instituted a policy of zero tolerance of sex abuse and zero contact last year following an investigation that found U.N. peacekeepers in Congo had sex with Congolese women and girls. Sex abuse has been reported in peacekeeping missions from Bosnia and Kosovo to Cambodia, East Timor, West Africa and Congo.
****
Etc., etc. Please, tell me about the Vatican banks. EVIL Catholics! How dare they... have.... money? that they donate in charitable giving? Wait, that doesn't make sense... does it, reporter.
I will not reply to your points not because of lack of arguments as I am sure you know there are plenty,
but rather as a sign of my protest toward your bias and obvious ignorance,
have a good one,
and good luck finding God through your evil ways.
I've often thought of taking the information I have and reporting to the 'Suspicious Activity' section of the Defense Department or FBI. Maybe I will, especially since I still have evidence.
I just read (part of the article) it today and I was amazed.
I mean, it's a huge theory (may be insane). May be I am naif.
Before, reading it I thought that Chavez was a stupid man yelling to the U.S. the world superpower, even knowing that it is venezuelas first oil buyer.
Then, (I said myself) why he was doing all this alliances with Iran, a country that has nothing in common but oil.
And why he started business with China, planning refineries over there knowing that it will be more expensive to send venezuelean heavy oil over there.
And, finally that crazy speech of Chavez, talking about U.S. hegemony and then when he returned to Venezuela he recomended to sell the U.S. dollars...
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606o.html
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47790%00
Finally, I want to be esceptical, I mean I know nothing about (macro)economics and I'm not sure if they are telling something that is true, or if it is Economic Fiction (a new genre).
I'm waiting for your comments.
PS:In worst of the cases, I'll say that I prefer the 'American Empire' than an Iranian or Oil Empire...
PS2: I admit I don't know a lot of history and conspiracy and crazy people exploiting.
PS3: I just present these articles to expose those ideas, but I'm not close to defend them, just want to have your opinion about the ideas (or the authors bakground if u know). I have noticed that you have a lot of background in the whole war situation and I'm sure you'll come with interesting things
Chavez ordered to change to Euros all the venezuelan funds worldwide (it is not nothing).
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/01/strange_ideas_a.html
"A Wikipedian has expressed the opinion that this article is unbalanced.
Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints.
Please see the discussion on the talk page. "
The guy is a young inteligent lawyer.
He studied law in one university and politic science in the other one, what is almost impossible in that system. His Bs. thesis talked about what caused failed coup d'etat that Chavez leaded in the 80's. This thesis is considered one of the best written works of his generation.
He won a european scholarship to do his Master over there and now he is pursuing his PhD.
This guy loves his country ad since I know him his objective is to work for the good of Venezuela, as a leader.
He is an Anti-Chavez and during his senior year was the student representant of the Oppostion Union agains Chavez.
In one ocassion he told me that Chavez was a necessary bad thing. That's because the way Venezuela had been managed,the money of oil won't never benefit Venezuelean people.
Once he said: 'the owners of Venezuela don't even live in Venezuela'.
I guessed he meant that because of the corruption the money was going to private hands, friends of the parties in power, or even to multinationals through inconvenient contracts for venezuelean state.
And it is true that since Chavez is in power he increased the royalties demanded to foreign oil companys and started to even ask the paiement of old royalties that were not paid by manipulation of the companys.
Now, I think that is possible (almost sure) that other 'friends' of him are getting the benefits others got before.
Yeah!
I think us patriotic americans need to "stand for something" and boycott Citgo in the short term. For the long term, we should encourage a major U.S. corporation to buyout Citgo.
In some aspects, the boycott is already begun. You have Boston legislators trying to take down the Citgo landmark sign that is next to Fenway Park. In Florida, legislators are trying to get Citgo off of the turnpike. 7-Eleven has already announced that they are discontinuing the contract with Citgo for a U.S. based supplier.
This is all well and good for the short term. However, we need to focus on getting Citgo owned by a U.S. corporation.
"I believe this is the first time, ever, that I DISAGREE WITH AMY!!!! I do believe that US military bases need to disassociate themselves with Citgo yesterday. I am right there with you.
On the other hand, as I stated on my blog, boycotting local Citgo stations does more harm to the American business owner than it does to Chavez, who will sell more oil to outside sources if the US consumption falls.
I'll link your post on the matter to mine to present both points of view and see what kind of comments ensue. I am still open-minded on the issue, convince me!"
You know if the guys choose to lie with dogs, they are gonna get fleas. They have the option of changing fuel affiliations. I'm sure that a Marathon or Amoco or Shell or other sign isn't going to make that much difference in their amount of business.
I believe it to be inexcusable that the military is purchasing fuel from these morons.
Jerry, I believe whoever supports a profitting Chavez should suffer the consequences.
I'm not sure if you mean military bases or military personnel buying Citgo gas, but military bases do NOT have Citgo stations. Individual soldiers are citizens and can do what they want...ignorance or a disconnect from the situation may persuade some to place convenience over priority, but THIS Army family never buys from Citgo, even if it hurts Americans.
There are lots of things that hurt American companies like boycotting their pornography or abortion clinics, but sometime's what's good for *some* companies is not good for America.
Amy,
Actually, NEX-Exchange gas stations on base ARE CITGO. So are AAFES gas stations in some areas as well. Why? I have no clue, and would love for someone to enlighten me on why the US Military has some sort of arrangement with Chavez/CITGO, we NEVER buy Citgo gas, even though on base it is a good 15 cents cheaper than out in town, and I spread word to all I see too.
I wish there was a way to get the bases to stop using Citgo gas.
hey there,
I have been looking for a fast way to grab some
music, I have tried everything, but the link below is where i found the best
way online, its like a media player that allows you to rip and burn music.
50 Cent Music
I have tried loads of other sites,and they are all good, but I like the above site more.
mp3.com
mp3raid.com
mp3fusion.net