Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

On A Rig And A Prayer

October 3, 2012 by  

On A Rig And A Prayer
PHOTOS.COM

Let us hope Mitt Romney is uncorking non-alcoholic champagne in 34 days. If Romney is victorious, the caps being blown won’t only be on bottles from Romney’s stock. Across the land, there will be celebrations as hundreds of rigs get set to drill and capture oil inside the United States and along the Nation’s coastlines. Included in the festivities are new jobs created by Keystone Pipeline.

The GOP Presidential candidate has gone so far as to promise North American energy independence in the next eight years. If this sounds like déjà vu, you are right. American Presidents have been raising their glasses to the promise of American energy independence since President Richard Nixon proposed it four decades ago.

1347540607874

Brian Beutler demonstrated this in the graph above published by TPM.com on Sept. 11. The numbers, taken from the Energy Information Administration, show petroleum imports as a percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Headlined are the years that three Presidents promised American energy independence.

President Barack Obama also has plans to reduce America’s oil imports, but his solution is mostly meant to please his liberal constituency and is centered on greater investment in unproven, unreliable and uneconomical green energy.

Romney is more realistic than past Presidents because he is calling for North American energy independence, which would allow Canada — yes, with its gummy oil sands — to move American transport, heat America’s homes and malls, and power its factories. The moose and ducks in northern Alberta may not like the off-world landscape that the oil sands leave behind, but I have a feeling that North Americans will find it a lifesaver.

What has led to U.S. oil dependence on OPEC has been half a century of restrictive drilling inside the United States, plus a growing mountain of green legislation that threatens to block pipeline imports from Canada. America has become more involved in one crisis after another in the Islamic world — home to two-thirds of the world’s conventional oil reserves.

Romney stands head and shoulders over Obama when it comes to energy. Last week, Romney pushed for energy independence at a rally in Jefferson County, Colo.

Romney said: “We have kind of an ace in the hole that came along to us because someone learned how to drill into the earth, not just vertically but horizontally. I will double licenses and permits, and I’ll make sure we’ll drill in the outer continental shelf and drill in Alaska and bring in that pipeline from Canada.”

On Sept. 25, on the campaign trail in Ohio, an outspoken Romney condemned Obama’s plan to invest in green companies: “He spent $90 billion and sent them to companies in many cases that were owned by campaign contributors of his.”

Romney’s emphasis on the drill bit over the windmill is certainly right-minded, but that has not stopped a storm of criticism by wind-power advocates who oppose Romney because he wants to do away with the Federal tax credit extension for wind power.

While Romney is accused of saying what is needed to win, Obama is worse. The President has gone so far as to obstruct petroleum exploration.

“There is an entire new world of geology out there that’s awaiting us,” said Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources Inc., at a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee hearing last month.

According to Hamm, Federal regulations hinder development by delaying the permits needed. As a result, his Oklahoma City-based company avoids drilling on Federal lands. Hamm added that he wasn’t representing the campaign in his testimony.

Bloomberg recently reported that oil production climbed to almost 6.2 million barrels a day this year (from less than 5 million barrels in 2008), helping reduce imports to 42 percent of total consumption from more than 60 percent in 2005.

Through fracking, a process that injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet below the surface, companies like Continental can access fossil fuels trapped in shale rock formations, whereas conventional techniques require the oil to flow to the well, according to Hamm.

Noble Causes

Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) rebutted that the Republicans’ energy plans are too reliant on fossil fuels which release gases that scientists have linked to climate change.

That should read “some scientists.” The key point is that even if there is global warming (and no one is certain that there is), it is manmade.

One person who wonders about all the outrage over global warming is Anthony Watts. A former meteorologist, Watts attended Purdue University. While he doesn’t claim to be a scientist, he certainly questions the science of global warming.

Watts was recently interviewed by PBS Newshour (not a conservative program). The first question: “What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?”

Watts’ answer: “They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society… There’s a term that was used to describe this. It’s called noble cause corruption. And actually I was a victim of that at one time, where you’re so fervent in your belief that you have to do something. You’re saving the planet, you’re making a difference, you’re making things better that you’re so focused on this goal of fixing it or changing it that you kind of forget to look along the path to make sure that you haven’t missed some things.”

What Of China And India?

Watts points out that global warming has become a business in its own right. If so, it is a business that obstructs U.S. energy advantages but has no impact on America’s new competitors: China and India.

In 2006, China became the largest national emitter of carbon dioxide. It was reported this past summer that the average Chinese person’s carbon footprint is now almost equal to the average European’s.

The Guardian reported: “Chinese CO2 emissions are now around 80% higher than those of America. This widening gap reflects a 9% increase in total emissions in China in 2011, driven mainly by rising coal use, compared with a 2% decline in the US.”

What Obama and the Democrats don’t understand is that cleaning up America’s carbon emissions will give nations like China and India an economic advantage at a time when the United States cannot afford it. This is something Romney and the people in charge of his energy policy understand, and it is something Obama and his loyalists are either willfully ignorant of or else understand all too well and simply don’t care.

Romney’s understanding about energy makes him a much better candidate to be the next President of the United States. He will put rigs back to work, and that is enough reason for me to pray for his victory.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “On A Rig And A Prayer”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Cathartic

    Ditto. It’s painfully obvious to me that this whole man made global warming claim is really about
    global financial equalization. The global elite want a one world government & they don’t want a strong USA getting in their way. They need an excuse to usher in World Taxation, for oppression of countries that are too prosperous. Otherwise why ignore the carbon out put of China?

  • http://www.facebook.com/philip.pease Philip Pease

    The reason I will NOT vote for Romney is he thinks he knows more than scientists. Your statements about greenhouse gasses and global climate change are B.S.; and they do reflect pretty much the same views as Romney. His stupidity regarding science is astounding; and since I doubt he is really that stupid, I suspect his position is really because he is being paid big $ by the fossil fuel industry (who cares not what happens to civilization, but only cares about making big $).

    • Dale left coast

      Gorebull Warming . . . . WAS A LIE ! ! !
      They made it up Philip . . . it was about YOUR WALLET . . .
      CO2 never has nor never will warm up the planet . . . it is a benign, rare, odorless, colorless gas that enables plants to grow.
      Philip . . . if you EVER find the Science . . . the real provable Science that backs up the gorebull warming/climate nonsense . . . please post it for us . . . I have been asking for almost 20 years . . . still waiting ! ! !

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        “Global warming happens every year in the spring and continues through summer”
        ~ Gemma Freeman on endothermic processes

        Scientists first observed global warming in 1895.

        In 1920 they said it was global cooling.

        In 1935 they said there was global warming, but then in 1975 they said it
        was the verge of a new Ice Age but then it became global warming again.

        But that is all old news. Let’s stop talking about discredited work and move on to the real history.

        Of course, the main cause of global warming is the well-known poisonous gas carbon dioxide (molecular formula: C666O2). There is more of it in the air than there used to be, we know that combustion, smokestacks, and buttholes emit it, and we know that flasks containing pure carbon dioxide get pretty fricking hot. Ergo, a human-caused apocalypse.

        Human causation is irrefutably proven by the fact that all the other planets in our solar system are experiencing comparable climate changes.

      • George E

        Dale,

        I am not a believer in man-made global warming. However, the theory is based on sound science. That is heat from the sun penetrates our atmosphere at one wave length, and heats the earth. The earth then radiates this heat at another wave length back into the atmosphere, but this heat can’t penetrate the “greenhouse” gases in the upper atmosphere. The heat is then trapped around the earth and gets even hotter as time goes by and as the amount of greenhouse gases accumulate in greater volumes. While the theory is sound, many of the assumptions are not. As you state, there is no provable data to show that man-made global warming is an established fact at this time.

  • RichE

    Drill-baby-drill is an empty promise.

    • George E

      Why? It’s working. Production of oil and gas are up (on private lands) due to new technology developments.

      • r b

        Drill-baby-drill is an empty promise.

        Why? It’s working. Production of oil and gas are up (on private lands) due to new technology developments. <<

        the price of oil and refined fuels are up as well. evidently all that has been accomplished is an increase in revenue for the oil industry.

      • George E

        rb,

        You may have noticed that the value of the USD has dropped substantially in recent years. This has driven the price of oil up proportionally. You can thank our huge federal government debt and deficits and the Fed’s willingness to finance that debt by printing excess US dollars for this devaluation. Government policy of restricting drilling and production hasn’t helped either. This simply sends a signal to the market that suggests US production of oil may be further cut over time. Futures buyers respond by bidding up the price of oil because they expect supply to fall with respect to demand.

      • r b

        rb, You may have noticed that the value of the USD has dropped substantially in recent years. This has driven the price of oil up proportionally. You can thank our huge federal government debt and deficits and the Fed’s willingness to finance that debt by printing excess US dollars for this devaluation. Government policy of restricting drilling and production hasn’t helped either. This simply sends a signal to the market that suggests
        US production of oil may be further cut over time. Futures buyers respond by bidding up the price of oil because they expect supply to fall with respect to demand. <<

        the out come of borrow and spend was predicted and predictable. that is not a revelation. the debate over tax and spend vs borrow and spend. many still support borrow and spend.

        the u.s. has convinced opec to increase production, on more than one occasion, to keep the price from increasing more than it has.

        all opec has to do is decrease production. and the price goes up. oil producers can produce less and increase profits.

        no one that supports increased drilling has been able to show how that increase would lower prices.

        futures buyers will notice that world oil production has been decreased and will pay more. which means that oil produced in the u.s. will still be sold at world market prices.

        we would have to form a coalition that was willing to produce oil in sufficient quantity to off set any actions by opec or other producers. that means we would have to produce more oil than the world demand. if you can do that, then you could lower the price. try selling that to the oil producers.

      • George E

        rb,

        If I understand your central argument correctly, it’s that oil companies benefit more by producing less because oil prices go up when they produce less. It’s true that oil prices do go up when production goes down relative to supply and oil companies benefit from that so long as they don’t have to cut “their” production. The key here is that if company #1 can get company #2 to reduce its production without company #1 having to cut its production, then company #1 will benefit. Obviously, company #2 won’t agree to that because it wants to produce all the oil it can to sell to the market so it will make as much money as it can. Companies are very unlikely to collaborate in this way because 1) it’s illegal to do so in this country, and 2) it just doesn’t work out well for all the collaborators. Further, the more producers there are in the world market, the less influence on the market any one company will have. That’s pretty much where we are today. If the market is being manipulated, it’s by countries not companies.

      • r b

        rb, If I understand your central argument correctly, it’s that oil companies benefit more by producing less because oil prices go up when they produce less. It’s true that oil prices do go up when production goes down relative to supply and oil companies benefit from that so long as they don’t have to cut “their” production. The key here is that if company #1 can get company #2 to reduce its production without company #1 having to cut its production, then company #1 will benefit. Obviously, company #2 won’t agree to that because it wants to produce all the oil it can to sell to the market so it will make as much money as it can. Companies are very unlikely to collaborate in this way because 1) it’s illegal to do so in this country, and 2) it just doesn’t work out well for all the collaborators. Further, the more producers there are in the world market, the less influence on the market any one company will have. That’s pretty much where we are today. If the market is being manipulated, it’s by countries not companies. <<

        it is manipulated by countries. i would have no problem convincing opec to lower production to increase oil prices. or to start selling their oil to other countries besides us.
        price reduction because of production means you have to be able to produce close to current world production.
        cutting production would actually increase profits. a higher price for the same cost per unit equates a higher profit for less production.
        if i can realise $150 per barrel for the same cost as $50 a barrel, i would reduce production.
        oil is controlled by a minimal number of producers. along with refiners who purchase crude.

      • George E

        rb,

        If companies made more money by not selling their products on the market, why would any company ever sell anything? Total sales revenue is the product of unit price (USD/barrel) times volume (# barrels) sold. Increasing the price by lowering the volume doesn’t increase sales revenue, nor total profit unless the product of these two numbers is greater than before the volume is reduced.

      • r b

        rb, If companies made more money by not selling their products on the market, why would any company ever sell anything? Total sales revenue is the product of unit price (USD/barrel) times volume (# barrels) sold. Increasing the price by lowering the volume doesn’t increase sales revenue, nor total profit unless the product of these two numbers is greater than before the volume is reduced. <<

        it is too late to play dumb. you have proven you grasp the concept. but for any that might still be reading these posts.

        if the cost to produce is $25 per barrel, market is 100/bl and by reducing my production i can move the market to 150. i obtain 50 per barrel in additional profits with out increasing my costs. in this particular case, i could effectively reduce my costs while increasing my profits. i have reduced my production by 40% and still obtain the same profits.

        which is exactly what the oil producers have been doing for years. they match their production to demand. manipulating price. this is the result of higher demand coupled with no competition.

        the real answer is lower demand &/or competition that is not profit driven. both can be accomplished.

      • George E

        rb,

        I guess one of the differences between your view and mine is that I believe the oil and gas markets are highly competitive, and not manipulated, at least not by the oil companies. I believe government does more harm to these markets than do the companies participating in them. These companies got large to reduce their costs, not to manipulate the market.

      • r b

        rb, I guess one of the differences between your view and mine is that I believe the oil and gas markets are highly competitive, and not manipulated, at least not by the oil companies. I believe government does more harm to these markets than do the companies participating in them. These companies got large to reduce their costs, not to
        manipulate the market. <<

        highly competitive? with whom? and why? this is a demand market. as long as the demand remains and continues to increase where is the reason for competition?

        you are working with a supply side economic view. this is not a supply side business.

        you can not show any viable reason why any oil company needs to be competitive. the demand for their product is increasing and there is no alternative being pushed into the market.

        if i produce a 100 barrels per day, there will always be a buyer. the only question is how much i can get for the oil.

      • RichE

        “Government policy of restricting drilling and production hasn’t helped either.” That’s a generalization I don’t like that obviously hasn’t affected their profit margin. Would you be specific please as to how this has hurt them and contributed to the price?

      • George E

        RichE,

        I assume your question is directed to me. I think you’re asking “how has the government’s policy of restricting oil production hurt oil companies and contributed to price increases?” Fundamentally, oil futures buyers have to predict the price of oil in the future when they decide how much they’re willing to pay for it today. When they see threats of reducing oil production, they assume the price will go up as demand outstrips supply. Therefore, they bid the price up today in anticipation of declining supplies in the future. Likewise, when buyers see governments taking steps to encourage drilling and production and reducing political tensions that might result in interruptions in the supply of oil, the price generally remains stable or moves lower. If governments restrict drilling, then they keep oil companies from finding and producing oil. That affects the volume of oil these companies can sell to the market and that affects their profits.

      • RichE

        George E: IMO your claim, “government policy contributed …”is still hollow. You’ve not give me a specific, just generalizations about speculators. I don’t disagree that speculators do affect price, but price increase are beneficial to energy producers therefore it would be to their advantage to obfuscate any and all government policy. Sarbanes–Oxley is a severe pain in the butt, but it didn’t double prices for all businesses. Please be specific as to which governmental policy, that was directed solely at an energy producer, that caused them to double the price.

      • George E

        RichE,

        As I’ve stated in other posts, I don’t think the oil companies are setting oil prices. That’s a function of the market. Specifically, which government regulations are causing the price at the pump to double, that’s another issue. I think the one that’s had the most effect on prices is the devaluation of the USD. At least that makes sense to me and this has been validated by the Saudis in past comments they’ve made. Also, as you know from your economics training, anytime the supply of a commodity is reduced relative to demand the price tends to move higher, and vice versa. I can think of several government regulations, especially those of the EPA, that have made it harder for drillers, producers, and distributors to get permits. This certainly constrains supply, if not outright reducing it.

      • RichE

        Why is it an empty promise? Because its been made since 1973 and still no independence.

      • George E

        Technology has finally caught up and it looks like the industry is on the cusp of a new revolution in production. It’s obvious that’s already happened with natural gas, but it’s also about to happen with oil. I think you’ll see old oil fields come back to life with new drilling and fracturing techniques, not to mention new fields that can now be economically developed. Many of our previous assumptions about “peak” oil are about to be turned upside down, and the US will again be an exporting nation.

      • RichE

        That should keep us happy… for awhile.

      • George E

        It certainly could be one of the key elements in the revival of the American economy. God knows we really need it and many more such examples if we’re going to climb out of the extremely deep hole we’re in.

      • RichE

        And a little fiscal responsibility.

      • George E

        Absolutely! How about a LOT of fiscal responsibility?

  • Wade Laird

    This is old and in the way outdated thinking. It waaaaaaay past time this country declared outright war on big oil. We need to make strong moves toward an energy independent United states which will NEVER happen as long as we stay married to fossil fuels. The rest of the world is leaving us in the dust in this regard. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Brazil–the list goes on and on and on.

    • Dale left coast

      “The rest of the world is leaving us in the dust in this regard. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Brazil–the list goes on and on and on.”
      How so Wade?
      Brazil is drilling in a MILE OF WATER for what? You guessed it OIL . . . and Obammy gave them 2 Billion US Tax Dollars to help them out.
      Germany is closing down nuclear plants . . . I believe they are using coal and gas fired plants to pick up the slack . . . that’s going from ZERO pollution to pollution right ! ! !
      Norway and Sweden . . . are around 7 or 8 million each . . . lots of hydro dams and some nuclear.
      So . . . Wade . . . what’s your point? Just so much you don’t know . . . .

      • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

        Brazil, along with Russia, India, China and South Africa, (the BRICS) are backing away from the dollar as the world’s soverign currency. By doing that they can price their oil at whatever they want. The price of oil is determined by the value of the dollar.

    • George E

      Wade,

      Natural gas is the best energy source, now and in the foreseeable future, for the economy and environment.

  • Alex

    Nice try, John Myers! More Black Death!

    The GOP has fought every sensible measure meant to reduce our use of petroleum, clean the air and water, and move away from gas-guzzlers and toward much more sensible and sustainable public transportation.

    We are the world’s oil pigs. Rather than use your tiny pea brains, you just think we can drill our way to glory—well, you are not only mistaken but you clearly care not one whit about
    your children or grandchildren (assuming you found a woman stupid enough to marry you….).

    As long as you can keep your latest Ford Excretion filled so that you can drive the arduous three blocks to the store, you could give a flip about the air, the water, or the coastlines.
    Too bad—You lose! November will see Mitt the Liar strap Paul Ayn Ryan to the top of his car and drive him to Canada…

    • Dale left coast

      “black death” ? That is patently INSANE ! ! !

      You of course . . . walk to work, ride a bike and don’t use airlines . . . right.
      What is the cleanest country on the planet Alex? Why its the USA . . .
      Your enviro-nazi loonacy is just nonsense . . . there is NOTHING on the planet that will replace oil tomorrow, next week or next year.
      Are you in favor of just shutting the country down and sitting in the dark to save the planet from Gorebull Warming?
      Good news Alex . . . the Polar ice caps are growing, the globe is cooling . . . but Alex, there is much pollution in China, Russia and India . . . why don’t you just go there and show them how to FIX IT ! ! !

  • Pete

    For every oil well we refuse to open or force to be shut the Islamic world will open numerous to supply our demand – In fact the green people fill their vehicles with Islamic oil and gas to drive across the country to demonstrate the American companies and prevent them from drilling for oil. The Islamic countries don’t give a hoot about pollution or global warming. So I would rather suggest that we drill our own oil responsibly and not use the oil from the Islamic countries – then we wouldn’t have stake in their oil and we wouldn’t need to worry about going over their to fight for it. Then we would be able to let them take care of their own fights, which they seem to enjoy. Blowing themselves up seems to be their favorite celebrations.

  • John C

    We all know that Obamas green energy initiative will never succeed because it is a scam and will only help his buddies in these industries, who will kick back money to Obama. We need research into hydrogen fuel and a goal to have it by the end of a decade. Natural gas should play a big part of the interim solution it is cleaner burning than gasoline and abundant enough for 200 years. Electric cars are a soultion but current battery technology is not up to the task more research into batteries and also alternatives on how to get the electricity to the car…maybe using hydrogen fuel cell technology…again Hydrogen fuel plays a big part. We had the space race why not the Energy race…we do not need OPEC to rule our lives and our country lets wean off this dependence and see if the Radical Arab states can eat thier oil.

  • jopa

    There is no shortage at the moment for gas and oil.The speculators are driving up the prices along with a choking of the oil supply by the slowdown of refinery capacity.There are refineries in Pa, N.J. and the Caribbean at this time sitting idle to keep up the price of crude.This is the real story.

    • DaveH

      How do those speculators drive up the prices, Jopa?

      • jopa

        Dave H:Artificially.

      • DaveH

        You can’t answer that, can you Jopa? Because you don’t have a clue about the mechanisms and effects of “speculators”.
        Read this and change that condition, Jopa:
        http://mises.org/daily/2819

    • Dale left coast

      They are sitting idle . . . maybe they have NO OIL . . .
      dopa . . . what about the 100′s of BILLIONS that go off-shore every year to buy Foreign Oil? Do you think if that money stated in the USA it might create a JOB or TWO?

      • jopa

        Dave H: Checked out your site on Austrian Economics.Austria, isn’t that where Hitler was born and formed all of his ideas and opinions?

    • momo

      Those refineries are siotting idle because they’re being readied to switch over to winter gasoline. In the spring they’ll sit idle to be readied for summer gasoline. As for speculators, try having a market without them.

    • George E

      Jopa,

      I believe the main reason the price of oil has gone up is the devaluation of the US dollar by printing money to service the federal government’s debt and deficit.

      • jopa

        rb; There is lower production and demand however the big oil companies are content with this situation and mega profits.

      • r b

        rb; There is lower production and demand however the big oil companies are content with this situation and mega profits.<<

        i agree. handing out more drilling permits or increasing land to be leased will not change that.

  • ImListening

    Obummer has used all of this to his best advantage. He’s been able to pay of his cronies with his stimulus to solar and wind companies that went belly up after receiving the huge payoffs. No one now knows where the money went. He’s been able to cripple our economy with his non-exploration of oil and no drilling policies. He’s kept millions from good paying jobs that would work related to drilling or building a pipeline. He’s stifled the natural gas possibilities. It’s all part of his Master Plan of making America a Third World Country, no longer a power to be dealt with. Perhaps, this will make him feel more like at home in Kenya.

    • John C

      Well in Novemebr let us all help Obama move to his chosen country he can solve their problems, or maybe we can make him Ambassador to Kenya…we just wont have any marines there at the embassy because he doesnt need them… just like the ambassador in Libya didnt need them

      • Flashy

        There is more to the Libyan situation and our Ambassador than what is being let out. There’s a reason he was there with only one bodyguard and two “unidentified” American consultants. I doubt we’ll have the real story for quite some time…but I suspect there was a espionage/information meeting scheduled or being set up.

        think about that … and I wouldn’t be so hasty about criticism after thinking it through.

      • Dale left coast

        Yea Flash . . . it was the anniversary of 9/11 . . . the State Dept was warned . . . Rice, Dillery and the O covered it up . . . came up with the lame video thing . . .
        It was a TERRORIST ATTACK . . . the result of O’bammy’s failed ME policies. Did you real the signs Flash? “We are all Bin Laden now” . . .
        Then he goes to the UN to apologize again to the mooslimes . . .
        Flash . . . your guy is the most dopy pres in the countries history . . . and has all but spent the US over the cliff.

  • Chris

    I have no problem drilling for oil “IF” it does not have a negative impact on people or wildlife. I DO have a BIG problem with drilling in water or near ANY BODY of water.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But you don’t really care about the land or the animals or water. You are a parrot by nature and are repeating the environmentalist mantra.

      • Karolyn

        Said by another parrot of the other side who has the lowdown on who everybody is and what they REALLY think. Yes, I think Nadzieja is a clairvoyant!

    • John C

      SQUAWKKKKKKK …I parrot everything the liberals say…I do not have a mind …I just repeat everything I hear …no need to do any research on the subject…the liberals have done that ALL for me

    • John C

      Really Chris how do you get to the Mall I bet you drive a car and are a part of the problem. To solve this everyone should use bicycles it would be healthier for us…we would get exercise …and not pollute the enviorment, Cars will be for the politicians and the rich everyone else will have to wallk, use public transportation or ride a bike…also you will have to get a permit if you want to fly to any where…so you can pay the carbon tax to the rich so they can have their cars

      • Chris

        You who are attacking me are missing the point. I know there is pollution around, and hopefully, someone with brains will solve that in the future. What I am saying is that without the environment, we are nothing. I am not a “parrot”……I am not a follower……I see things for what they are and I’ve seen what could happen, as many of us have. I’m just saying this government needs to be more careful in where they allow oil drilling, and it needs to be where it will cause the least amount of damage to life on this planet.

      • George E

        Chris,

        You’re right except for one thing. The oil isn’t always in safe places to drill. We have to go where ever it is and get it there.

      • r b

        Chris, You’re right except for one thing. The oil isn’t always in safe places to drill. We have to go where ever it is and get it there.<<

        so we ruin the water to extract the oil. then what will you do without water. the next great war will be over water, not oil.

      • George E

        No. We need to develop safe methods of drilling in these sensitive places. For the most part, we’re already there, I think.

    • You are ignoring the collateral benefits of drilling in the US

      You are neglecting to consider the positive effects of being energy independent on the environment and political situation. It takes vast amounts of fuel to transport raw petroleum to the refineries in the US, that fuel could be saved, the danger of oil spills during the transportation would be eliminated. drilling and pumping here in the US would be done undercontrolled conditions as opposed to wildcat drilling in foreign nations. In addition If we are not buying oil and petroleum from OPEC then the radical islamists and mooooooslims (there is no such ani-mule as a moderate islamist) will not be able to finance the wars, terrorism and aggression they are perpetuating in throughout the world. We are not the only target of thier aggression, every nation in the world is a target of islam even fellow islamic nations there is a struggle going on to see who will be the head terrorist and ultimately the head of the islamic led world..

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      The price of oil, (black gold) is determining the value of the bankrupt dollar.

  • tony

    We will Never get the Public to see the Truth about all the criminal fraud that is taking place by the Obama Administration , but I think if you make people think they are being Played for fools thats a game changer !!!!! We need to work on the mind of Obama with a tactical concept of Reverse Psycho Ops because thats what he and his administration is doing , if we do this it will Intimidate and create a unbalance to the effort by Obama to appear in control . For Obama Telling the Truth becomes a Psycho Ops Exercise to get reelected . Romney needs to tell people to look at the facts about the economy , and ask people if they see Real Tangible Durable Growth in their Pockets or just more Hope and Talk coming from President Obama and his Handlers who are ANTI Growth to begin with ???
    If President Obama and his handles feel its necessary to control the minds of the voters by controlling polling and at the same time stringing people along with some kind of Government assistance while telling us things are getting better , this policy is purely being based off the controlling of people minds to give a perception to people that his policies are working while we have seen ONLY DEBT as the growth factor , no expansion in industrial durable growth just DEBT , so Obamas only focus is controlling your Mind and we should be should be seriously analyzing this tactic and asking why ? This would explain why Obama has not been able to keep his domestic policy promises but now is trying to convince the voters that he needs more time . But if you consider the aspect that Environmentalists Love a NO Growth Domestic Policy this is why Obama is playing this game of Hope with no Substance , and Romney needs to Exploit this fact and call him out as a Capitalist Supply-Side Economic Fraud and the debt and attempt to Control People’s Minds about the Process of economic recovery as the ONLY form of Negative Economic Growth is Proof of this Claim !!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    I wish I could share in all this enthusiasm but I see Romney just as dangerous as Bush and Obama. He’ll use the office of president like a CEO and expect the nation to jump to his tune, no questions asked. Between Bush and Obama America’s being by executive orders and Romney will not On foreign policy, he’ll get us into war sooner than Obama did. He has an obligation to the Zionists to go to war against Iran, and that can take us to Armageddon. This country was founded by Christ and his followers, not the Joseph Smith’s, and now that we do not love and obey the Lord but Muslims and Mormons. We’ve turned our back on Him and, from I’m seeing, He’s not happy with America. God and Christ ran show and we’ll see Mohammed and Joseph Smith can do. The first thing that should be done is “In God We Trust” off our counterfeit paper. God hates hypocrits.

    • Dan

      Christ, told his deciples to leave the other teachers of him alone that his “NAME” was being “GLORIFIED” Muslims hate the teachings of Jesus Christ and they proclaim that GOD hath no “SON” That sir makes them Anti-Christ. You should not compare them as the same or even to resemble the same. Joseph Smith is a dead man. People who choose to Jesus Christ and proclaim his name I leave to their own Doctrine of choise.

  • Joe Hammond

    Making the US energy independent is not solely on the shoulders of the drillers and oil companies. Why are we in love with SUV’s anyway? They get poor milage and I see them far too many times being driven on city roads with one person in them (and they are speaking or texting on the phone). Windmills are along the Texas coast now in places like Corpus Christi but why not the entire gulf coast? Las Vegas is prime for solar power and what about increasing insulation in homes and apartments? How about we move the dial up a degree or two in the summer and down a degree or two in the winter? What happened to us that we have become a nation of hedonists? Bad education for one thing and bad political choices like Obama and Romney. And it is the fault of the voter. We elect these sleaze merchants at a local level and then we continue to push them up the ladder until we have a congress of prostitudes to whoever has the most money…and we wonder why things are so bad…..Face it, as a people the US breeds shear stupidity which is why entertainment is such a large part of our hedonistic lifestyle….go porn!!!!

    • DaveH

      Joe says — “Why are we in love with SUV’s anyway?”.
      Why is that any of your business, Joe?

      Joe says — “Windmills are along the Texas coast now in places like Corpus Christi but why not the entire gulf coast?”.
      Sure, why shouldn’t we replace the garish oil rigs (the bane of Liberal Progressives’ existence) with garish Wind Generators that are less cost effective and just as garish?
      This looks like one of Edward Scissorhand’s nightmares:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ_bHVJfHrs

      Joe says — “what about increasing insulation in homes and apartments? How about we move the dial up a degree or two in the summer and down a degree or two in the winter? What happened to us that we have become a nation of hedonists?”.
      What happened to Free Choice, Joe, or is that just for people who don’t want babies in your Liberal Progressive mind of Force?

    • Dale left coast

      Joe . . . windmills look like krap . . . solar panels in Nevada? You would have to cover half the state with solar panels to power Vegas . . . who will dust them every other day?
      These technologies cost up to 12 times what convention energy does . . . so if your electric bill goes from $100 a month to $1200 a month . . . that will create economic activity and job growth in the state? Green energy is a JOKE . . . check out how this worked for Spain . . . they did this 10 years ago . . . lost 3 conventional jobs for every green job and are BANKRUPT TODAY ! ! !

      • Flashy

        Dale….most think oil rigs aren’t exactly adding to the landscape. As for cost…ahem …. the following is from my utility provider …

        “…customers can purchase wind energy for 100% of their electricity needs at a premium of 1.5¢/kWh. Power for the program is supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) from the Condon, Klondike and Stateline wind projects located in Eastern Oregon. ” That works out to about $2.00 a month added to my bill…which is mostly from hydro power…MUCH cheaper to produce than coal or oil.

        My tab for the past month came in at $65.64 for electricity. 100% from wind and water. What was yours?

      • Dennis48e

        “Dale….most think oil rigs aren’t exactly adding to the landscape.”

        I am not aware of any standing oil rigs in any but the oldest oil fields. It has been many many years since the rigs were left standing after the well was drilled. Now all you have at the well site is the pump itself and that is miniscule compared to the huge mast and blades of the wind turbine generators.

      • DaveH

        That’s so lame, Flashdunce.
        First of all, the regular readers know you have no credibility, so your figures are questionable to begin with. Secondly, you have no idea how much taxpayer subsidy has gone into the building of those wind generators. Thirdly, talking about the portion of your bill that is from water power is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
        But then, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the Administration Shill known as Flashman (and various other identities).

    • George E

      Joe,

      In a “free” society people ought to be allowed to buy any vehicle they want. There aren’t more wind mills than there are because the cost of generating electricity that way is more expensive than generating electricity using either coal or natural gas. Investors don’t want to “burn” money building more wind mills.

  • Flashy

    Ah yes…the typical cry of support from conservatives, the wealthy, and representatives of the elite energy power brokers calling for us to move backwards. Calling for further monies to be spent for continued reliance on an outmoded energy source which carries with it deterimental health effects when burned. Call for allocation of oil for fuel and energy when so many other vital and desirable uses are available 9and affect cost of those goods).

    Yep…typical cry for more drilling subsidies and access to lands when WE DON”T NEED IT. We don’t need to give anything to Big Oil. If anything, worst case, give them a few more leases, and cut the subsidies and tax breaks. Give those monies, or a large percentage of the savings, to non oil energy R&D and stat ups. And start to wean ourselves from the ‘big is good’ mindset of the public towards needing huge utility companies.

    Let China and India build a manufacturing base reliant upon fossil fuels. let China have to deal with the ME oil politics. I don’t know if y’all have noticed of late, but we are entering the 21st Century. What does it say about ‘vision’ when the wacked right continues to whine and wail about moving away from an outmoded, 100 year old energy source technology? The LEADERS of the international community in the latter part of this century will not be those who insist on keeping themselves in the past. They will be those who are moving forward advancing into scientific frontiers on all fronts…including energy.

    The question is…do we listen and give credence to the calls to remain in the past…or do we move forward and look to the future as our guiding principles?

    • momo

      Flashy says:
      ” Give those monies, or a large percentage of the savings, to non oil energy R&D and stat ups.”

      Like Solyndra? Brilliant!

      “What does it say about ‘vision’ when the wacked right continues to whine and wail about moving away from an outmoded, 100 year old energy source technology?”

      On what vision are we getting from the wacked left? Oh yeah, lets have the EPA close down all our coal plants with their onerous regulations. Even Jay Rockefeller (D), West Virginia, is asking questions about that. Or lets invest in wind farms…yeah right.

      • Flashy

        Momo…yes, like Solyndra. That was a huge mistake, but was it error? Even the Golden Child Mitt didn’t pick 100% winners. Solyndra execs conned a lot of people, not just the US government. But to now say we should not invest in our future because one company went bad…that is short sighted and…well… just plain stupid.

        You diss wind? Perhaps you should do some reading. In the PacNW..home to six college teams in the Top 25 AP rankings, Bonneville Power is facing a problem. They have hydro from the dams on the Columbia, and the wind farms are pushing out the watts…and they have too much power and haven’t the grid to be able to handle it. They can’t send all the excess down to California and have to juggle when to generate from the dams when the ind generated product slacks a bit. Their problem is growing as more and more power is being generated from the wind farms.

        Of late, OSU has partnered with another company and begun a wave generation facility in the ocean…15 megawatts in the first commercial test scale version.

        The State is contracting out to have solar panels placed at various places along the freeways to supply the lights and cut costs via self generation and there are studies being conducted by the universities (through R&D monies) about placing wired grids under various portions of the road which are susceptible to freezing and accidents, the aim is to see if heating those road areas will prevent freezing and cut accidents and road maintenance needed because of plows and chemmies.

        but then..to you it’s a waste and we should just toss more money to profitable il companies…is that correct?

      • momo

        I thought a mistake and an error were the same thing, but in your world up is down, black is white and Obama will rescue us from ourselves, right?
        It’s not only Solyndra, ever hear of Evergreen Solar and Spectra Watt just to name a few.
        Wind gerneration world wide supplies 2.5 percent of energy needs…wow sparky that’s so good it has the Germans rethinking their investment in wind. The point is hydrocarbons are going to be with us for awhile, whether you like it or not. And what does college footbal have to do with this? You been eating too much tree bark!

      • Flashy

        Momo..yep. Know of them both. I also know that there are others which have been struggling due to China dumping solar cells on the market. i believe the administration has taken action against the dumping below cost.

        China is investing in alternative energies, as is India. Now why should we decide to lag behind? We are in an economic tug of war with China. Fact is….they may have been the ones trying to break into the communications networks of the Pentagon and the Treasury last week.

        So…China must think it important to develop. We shouldn’t?

      • George E

        Flashy,

        China is also investing in a bunch of coal-fired power plants. Should we follow their lead in that area? If not, then why should we follow their lead in building solar power plants? Their central government planners aren’t all-knowing any more than ours are. When they make mistakes, they are really big ones.

      • momo

        Yeah, Germany thought it was a great idea too, not so much anymore.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/germanys-wind-power-chaos-2012-9

      • DaveH

        It’s so easy to spend other peoples’ money, isn’t it Momo?

    • DaveH

      Flashman says — “the typical cry of support from conservatives, the wealthy, and representatives of the elite energy power brokers calling for us to move backwards”.
      Oh sure, we should instead adopt the policies of Socialism that have resulted in Serfdom throughout history. The most primitive form of Government — Socialism. But we should make Flashman and his Handlers happy and listen to him — Damn the rest of us.

    • DaveH

      Flashman says — “Calling for further monies to be spent for continued reliance on an outmoded energy source which carries with it deterimental health effects when burned”.
      Further monies? When it is a fact that Alternative Energies are pricier (by far) for the energy produced?
      Detrimental health effects?
      What is more detrimental than starving to death, like millions of people around the world who have succumbed to the Socialists’ Siren Song?

    • DaveH

      For those people who just don’t know yet that Flashman has no credibility:
      http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

      • Flashy

        Dave….did you read the paper? Seriously….it had a catchy title and looked like it was on point, so you pasted it to up your image..right? At least it wasn’t another Mises link…

        So had we decided back in the early 90′s that a 386 was not suitable for everyday use, or that cell phones wer too bulky..and the ‘net and cell tower infrastructure was too much hassle…you’d have chucked it? because you do realize BOTH advanced as fast and as far as they did in the beginning due to government subsidies and R&D.

        remember when?

        https://www.google.com/search?q=old+cell+phones+1990&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Fdm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0VZsULifN-roiwLErYDQBA&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

        https://www.google.com/search?q=old+computers+1990&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Lem&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=FVdsUIG4NcTmiwLAtIHoCg&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

        And that is what you would have advocated back then…they were uneconomical, not of general use, so therefore we should have turned our back to them ….

        (Psst..next time, do try and read the articles which you link to)

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “(Psst..next time, do try and read the articles which you link to)”.
        That’s Flashman code for “I don’t have an intelligent response so I’ll try disparaging him instead”.
        What does anything you said have to do with the fact that taxpayers are paying for your Liberal Progressive wet dreams whether they want to or not, and whether they are cost effective or not, Flashdunce? Of course they’re not cost effective. If they were, the citizens would buy them willingly without the Force of Big Government.

      • Flashy

        Got it DaveH..you didn’t read the article. Hokayyyy

        DaveH, you realize that this forum would likely not be here if government did not step up to the plate and subsidize the ‘net and its development? And toss your cell phone Sparky…’cause it likely would not be in your hand without government not subsidizing the cell tower network …

      • DaveH

        Au Contraire, Flashdunce.
        Without Government subsidizing the losers with the money from the winners, the winners would have been investing their own money instead of the losers being left to waste it on inefficient projects, so our current technology would have been far more advanced and cheaper than it is now.

    • independant thinker

      Flashy, how long have solar and wind energy been promoted in the US, 40, 50, 60 years?

      • Flashy

        IT In earnest as an offiacl government policy that has teeth? About 4 years …

        Before that? Any policy promoting alternative energies other than oil and coal had about as much teeth as a chicken.

      • independant thinker

        Since Flashy either doesn’t know or is off posting on some other site I will answer for him. Both solar and wind energy have been worked on and promoted since at least the 1960′s. You would think after that many years they would be practical but after all this time they are still not economicaly feasable without government subsidies.

      • RichE

        What isn’t practical without government subsidies?

      • Flashy

        IT…sorry. A bit of housekeeping needed to be attended to. Since the 60′s…and when were they promoted and R&D subsidized in earnest?

    • Dale left coast

      Flashey . . . there is NOTHING ON THE PLANET . . . that will replace oil tomorrow . . . FACT ! ! ! Unless of course you have Dilithium Crytals in your basement Flash.
      Oil is “Abiotic” . . . it is not fossil fuel . . . it is created in the core of the earth . . . anyone who thinks it is dinosaur juice is living in the dark ages.
      The US uses about 25% of global energy . . . the US has 25% of the world’s economy . . . you cannot give up one without giving up the other.
      Obammy’s vision . . . 350 Million on Food Stamps . . . would require little energy.

      • Flashy

        Dale..no one has said oil can be replaced tomorrow! Get it ?

        But to not build for an economy not being dependent upon oil for its energy needs is wise. Ya think a modern 21st century economy based on 100 year old plus energy technology/source is going to be as efficient, as independent from foreign influence, and as safe as one reliant and support with renewable non-oil energy?

      • George E

        Flashy,

        Your argument that “we shouldn’t build our 21st century economy on 100 year old technology” works for me, especially if you’re referring to transportation, like trains. On the other hand, I don’t think we should force anyone to use high cost, inefficient energies, like wind and solar, even though oil and gas have been around for many years. Right now natural gas is the fuel that does the best job of balancing the cost with cleaning the environment.

    • .50BMG

      It’s not a bad idea to move toward green energy- problem is that if we don’t use oil NOW there won’t be any economy to develop green energy with. If it takes $I00 to buy a gallon of milk we will have a lot more to worry about than green energy as the job creators will not spend and take their money elsewhere. I think we should go ahead with oil, coal and nuclear for now until we can get the economy rockin’- THEN we will have more resources to develop green stuff. I’m not claiming to be very informed on this, it’s just my take (before I get jumped on). Thanks for reading.

  • Elected4Life

    Conservative here who once worked in the oilfield and although utilizing existing wells might be good, hmm after researching online articles and video documentaries/news segments, I’m a bit concerned about making a pin cushion out of our country via this hydraulic fracking process (with all it’s toxic chemicals and negligent company actions). It has been a curse for many American families already, contaminating wells, poisonous gas emissions, nerve racking high pitched noise from burns, lost livestock & wildlife and even loss of homesteads that have been in families for generations.

    One way to thwart the energy issue at home is to go to alternative means such as solar and wind by cutting down on your unneeded “wants” and get back to actual “needs”. Most people go about it wrong, calling a pro who shows up with a clipboard and dollar sign in his eyes with the sole goal of converting your current highly wasteful power hungry lifestyle over to alternative energy and of course gives you a quote for $30,000 with the assuring smile that it will pay for itself over x number of years especially with your utility company buying excess power from you.

    The secret is to recognize what is guzzling power in your home and either eliminate or replace with something more efficient and often times that’s NOT going to be found at your local home improvement store. You have to get off the beaten path where there’s a world of better/smarter choices.

    • DaveH
    • George E

      Elected,

      Do you know of anyone who actually had their well water contaminated from fracturing chemicals? I don’t, and all of the research I’ve done strongly suggests this hasn’t been a problem, and probably never will be a problem due to the extreme depths that this sort of fracturing takes place.

      • r b

        Elected, Do you know of anyone who actually had their well water contaminated from fracturing chemicals? I don’t, and all of the research I’ve done strongly suggests this hasn’t been a problem, and probably never will be a problem due to the extreme depths that this sort of fracturing takes place. <<

        we have several here. even worse, the company that was supposed to remove the chemicals dumped them into a creek that runs into the lake the city draws it's water from. we are awaiting test results that have been done by the state.

      • George E

        rb,

        That’s terrible, but that was not a problem with underground fracturing. The chemicals got into the lake by someone (apparently) intentionally pouring them into the lake. That could happen whether or not underground fracturing was happening or not. No doubt someone will be heavily penalized, and possibly go to jail for that stunt.

      • r b

        rb, That’s terrible, but that was not a problem with underground fracturing. The chemicals got into the lake by someone (apparently) intentionally pouring them into the lake. That could happen whether or not underground fracturing was happening or not. No doubt someone will be heavily penalized, and possibly go to jail for that stunt. <<

        we do have contaminated wells here. along with several holding ponds that have been cracked. putting someone in jail will not cure the immediate problem. i don't think enough got into the lake to present a major danger. but it is a problem that could occur again.

        have you seen the studies linking fracking with plate shifting. many are starting to think we are causing the earthquakes in fracking areas.

      • George E

        rb,

        The sources I have confidence in convince me that all the arguments against fracturing natural gas wells are mostly baseless. The environmentalist who hate fossil fuels will stop at nothing to try to discredit any technology which makes these fuels more available at lower costs. It goes against their long held belief that we’ve got to get off these fuels, regardless of the facts and economics. I live in Texas where we have thousands of oil and gas wells, not to mention thousands of miles of pipelines. The issues we’ve faced are minor in comparison to the benefits we have enjoyed from producing these products. I can’t believe other states couldn’t/shouldn’t do the same. There is abundant, cheap, clean burning natural gas reserves all over this country that can really help our economy. Let’s produce it and enjoy the benefits to our economies and lives.

      • r b

        rb, The sources I have confidence in convince me that all the arguments against fracturing natural gas wells are mostly baseless. <<

        the is a relative new technology. end results are still being assessed.

        there was a time when the best 'sources' believed the world was flat.

  • Lena Truster

    Vote!! Funny that so many people didn’t vote for Obama and he got elected!! We need to vote and accept the results…even if it is a bitter pill like the last four years!!
    I am tired of nearly $4 gallon gas and now that the reps say we will have $6 gallon for milk. Wonder what will be next with those Yahoos in Congress. Let’s turn all the Congress people out to pasture, stop their retirement and health guarantees and let them live like the rest of us in retirement.
    Newly elected Congress people can then figure out how they can save for retirement years and do the job they are elected to do….not immediately campaigning fore relection to do nothing!!

    • Don

      Lena. your the only one posting on here that makes sense !

  • Kebbyn

    It doesn’t matter how much oil we have. We need more refineries. Every time there is a whisper of wind, the speculators feel that oile prices should go up because they will need to close down a refinery.

    • eddie47d

      Mitt Romney should concentrate on dealing with those Speculators and other market manipulators. Solve the problem of how they control the pricing then he might get some respect. He can gloat about more drilling all he wants but that won’t change who controls the world wide markets. He also would have allowed the Keystone Pipeline to go through as is without concern for the environment. He want to make a big splash without considering the consequences then he has no concern for our future. Keystone will probably get built but should be done with careful impact statements and not just to get himself elected. Since the oil from the pipeline is already bought on those worldwide markets will he level with the American people on that? Will he be honest and tell them that gas prices will not go down if it is built? Will he be honest on the actual jobs numbers for the pipeline? Those numbers will be few (2-3 thousand) but will he tell you that. Will he tell you about all the chemicals that have to be mixed with the tar sands oil in order for that oil to flow within the pipeline? That the cost of taking those chemicals out once they hit Port Arthur or even Oklahoma with be exhorbant and pricing will rise not lowered? I doubt it!

      • Dale left coast

        you are living proof . . . you just can’t fix stoooopid ! ! !
        100′s of thousands of miles of pipelines in the US . . . minimal problems . . . since the US economy runs on oil and gas . . . take this away . . . NO Economy . . . although Obammy is doing a great job of this by himself.
        Eddie . . . how about the thousands of birds being killed by your useless windmills? Eagles, Condors, bats being chopped to pieces . . . where the enviro-nazis?

  • Doc Sarvis

    Oil extracted from U.S. territory is and will continue to be sold on the open market making the highest profit for the oil companies. This probably means more will go to China and the price will continue to rise as the easy oil is fast disappearing. I don’t hear Romney promising that oil we drill here will stay here, that would restrict profits to his buddies in the 1%.
    Public lands will contribute relatively little to any oil and gas production.

    • DaveH

      Doc,
      It really doesn’t matter if the oil is sold on the World Market or not, due to the fungibility of such commodity. The price of oil will adjust to the world price unless we put restrictions on the pricing. And the history of price fixing is one of failure. In fact any meddling in the marketplace by Government results in failure because no Central Agency can possibly decide prices more effectively than the Free Market with its millions of customers choosing voluntarily which products to buy to please themselves the most.
      Please read this and learn what’s really going on, not what the Crony Capitalists and their Crony Politicians want us to think is going on:
      http://library.mises.org/books/Kel%20Kelly/The%20Case%20for%20Legalizing%20Capitalism.pdf

  • Corkey

    More wishful thinking and “this time it will be different”. The election is really analogous to Shemp vs Curly.

    • momo

      Now that’s funny.

  • erik

    I pray Obama to win. Ever since Mittens and co stole the election from the true conservative Ron Paul. May the GOP party of old racist white males crash and burn!

  • skippy

    Go Mitt Go!!! I hear ya baby!!!
    The oil & gas industry employs THousands ++++! Oh, and hey…all of them pay taxes and buy stuff……….job & economic problems solved. :)
    Next problem………….

    • eddie47d

      I live 1 mile from where Mitt spoke in “Jefferson County Colorado”. We don’t need him telling us how to run our energy needs . He’s a day late and a dollar short. We have plenty of drilling going on here in our state thank you Mr Romney.We have oil well and gas wells. We have huge solar operations and several wind farms. We are a diversified state where 17% of our energy needs come from alternatives.That will be 23% within 5 years. Those 15,000 new well heads (out of 30,000) went on line during the Obama Presidency. We also have regulations to keep those oil companies in check. Unlike some other states we value our drinking water and want those businesses to conduct themselves appropriately in not leaving undesirable messes. Romney’s politics of anything goes might not be welcomed here in our beautiful state.

      • DaveH

        If you want to throw your money away on Alternative Energy, Eddie, I respect that. But I don’t respect that you use Big Government to Force you choices on other unwilling people. You are part of the Problem, Eddie, not the Solution.

      • DaveH

        Alternative Energy, Not Cheap, Not Green:
        http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

      • Dan

        eddie, You can vote for obama it is your privaledage. But we are not buying your little story. It is old news obama has done everything he can do to cripple our energy production while wasting tax payers money on his Croneys. My bet is millions of those dollars found their way back to obama’s bank accoun, or campagne.

      • eddie47d

        Typical extreme Conservative response Dan. We can have the best of both worlds in energy production and Colorado is balancing our needs fairly well.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “We have huge solar operations and several wind farms. We are a diversified state where 17% of our energy needs come from alternatives.That will be 23% within 5 years.”

        These technologies have been around for what 40 or more years and they still cannot produce affordable energy without much government subsidies. That means your affordable wind and solar energy is being paid for by those Americans who are still working and paying taxes and the continuing huge deficits America is running. Hope you enjoy the free ride eddie.

      • Don

        That’s because most of you in Colorado are liberal idiots eddie

      • DaveH234

        Most all the fact checking has proven that no cronies were given an advantage. These are unfounded allegations with not much tread to them.
        Like most of the lies in the PAC Right Wing ads running still after the “truths” were proven to be lies.

      • tony

        I can’t stand Liberals because they want population controls and are willing to do anything to have it cast down all over the world !!!!

      • DaveH234

        Well, Don, The Liberal Idiots still are better people than the Conservative idiots. I mean fi your right they are all idiots, right.

      • DaveH234

        Buster, we still subsidized the oil companies many billions of dollars for many many years. These people are also sucking the teet of the taxpayer…to what end?

      • Opal the Gem

        Hey eddie, how big is the solar array on your house and how many wind generators are in your back yard?

      • DaveH

        Dave234 says — “Most all the fact checking has proven that no cronies were given an advantage. These are unfounded allegations with not much tread to them”.
        You are one of those, Dave234, whose word isn’t his bond, so how about providing some references for your claims?
        Here is just one example:
        http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/15/sarah-palin-general-electric-is-poster-child-of-crony-capitalism/

      • DaveH

        Dave234 says — “Buster, we still subsidized the oil companies many billions of dollars for many many years. These people are also sucking the teet of the taxpayer…to what end?”.
        Another Liberal Progressive who thinks that two wrongs make a right.

      • eddie47d

        We have solar farms in Colorado Opal the Dopal and how many I have is none of your business. You are nothing but a trouble making troll Opal and never say anything relevant. I have had solar panels on my house back in the early 80′s if you really give a damn. The community I live in now finally allows them so we’ll see. I knew you were a fool and now I know how big a one you really are!

      • TML

        eddie says, “We also have regulations to keep those oil companies in check. Unlike some other states we value our drinking water and want those businesses to conduct themselves appropriately in not leaving undesirable messes.”

        I think your emphasis in state responsibility, over federal, in such matters of local economy, is the most agreeable part of your comment.

      • George E

        Eddie,

        Who’s to say that there are enough wellheads if people want to drill more? What imperative do you or the government have to limit the number of well heads? What imperative does the government have to force people to pay for wind and solar projects if the electricity is going to be more expensive? Yes, there have been many new wells drilled while Obama has been President. However, very few have been drilled on public lands, and the EPA has done just about everything they know of to slow drilling on private lands. Fortunately for us, there has been enough interest by private investors to risk their capital in drilling that even Obama hasn’t been able to stop this activity. All the while environmentalists have been yelling that we need to stop drilling, producing, and using fossil fuels because they are fouling our environment, the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere in the US over the past few years has been less due to conversion of coal fired power plants to natural gas plants than that of European countries who have spent a small fortune in wind and solar power generation.

  • erik

    I pray Obama to win. Ever since Mittens and co stole the election from the true conservative Ron Paul. My the GOP party of old racist white males crash and burn!

    • http://N/A Jana

      Or if “z” (short for zero) wins you and I will crash and burn. Heaven help us. Jana

    • Dan

      eric,? I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul’s policies. But you are a prime exsample of his “Poisoning” of peoples minds against Conservatives . Or you are just another Obamanite, trying to Lie your way into the conversation ?????????? which is it eric

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are not a Ron Paul voter. None of Ron Paul’s idealogy or moral and worldviews have rubbed off on you.
      Go vote for O, you are his follower and have always been.

    • Dale left coast

      erik . . . RP is no conservative . . . but you are a certifiable LOON ! ! !

  • Mike the American

    Lets just hope Iran develops the bomb before Romney gets elected. The last thing this country needs is to get involved in another war which Romney seems hell bent on doing if he gets in the white house.

    • George E

      Mike,

      It’s likely we’ll get caught up in a war with Iran regardless who is our President, especially if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. It’s really up to Iran as to when and how this plays out.

      • DaveH

        What colossal hypocrites we would be to attack Iran for possessing a nuclear weapon when:
        The US has the second highest number of nuclear weapons in the world, and ours probably will work.
        The US is the only country in the world to have actually used Nuclear Weapons against another country (including civilians).
        The meddling US has its troops in more countries around the world than any other meddling country.
        Which country is the most fearsome — Iran or the United States?

      • George E

        Dave,

        I don’t want to get into another military conflict either. But in this case, we’ve got a rogue country, Iran, that is no doubt developing nuclear weapons and has stated their intent to wipe Israel and the US off the map. They have demonstrated a missile with the capability of delivering a weapon as far away as Europe, and they have a well developed terrorist organization that may be able to penetrate our borders. Should we sit back and hope that their weapon won’t work when they deliver it to our shores? That’s going to be a difficult position to defend if they blow up a nuclear bomb in one of our cities. Won’t it?

      • DaveH

        And then there are these facts:
        In 2000 Iraq began selling its oil in euros.
        In 2006 Syria switched all of the state’s foreign currency transactions to euros from dollars.
        In 2009 Iran completely stopped conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars.
        In 2011 Libyan Leader Ghadafi decided to to pursue a gold standard and reject dollars for oil payments.
        Why does the US Government involve our country in these countries’ affairs?
        Is it to protect our Freedom? Unlikely since building the number of people who hate us can hardly result in LESS future violence against our country.
        Is it to make the world “safe for democracy”?
        When has that worked? We can teach people to respect Democracy better by example than at the point of a gun. And besides, our wise Founders (and many of us now) knew that Democracy was two wolves and a sheep voting “What’s for Dinner?”. That’s why they established smaller more local Governments with strict protections for individual rights — a Republic.
        Or is it because Bankers and Crony Capitalists are feathering their nests at the rest of our expense?
        There’s no doubt in MY mind which of the 3 is the truth.
        Read this to get a better understanding of what’s going on in our country:
        http://mises.org/Books/historyofmoney.pdf

      • Joe Hammond

        If we go to war with Iran it will be to make sure Israel gets rid of another country that it hates. Israel may be in the first strike but it will not put boots on the ground since that will thin out their defenses and create casualties for the Jewish state. And to not put boots on the ground means that oil tankers cannot use the Straits of Hormuz which are loaded with Silkworm anti-ship missiles sold to Iran by Communist China. That stops the flow of oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. In fact, it would allow Communist China to cut a deal with Iran and build a pipeline from Iran to China while we lose troops fighting 78 million Persians. But let us not forget Israel. We will give them anything they want even though we can no longer afford it because we are in Israel’s pocket (hell, we even allow them to spy on us like the Pollards did…by the way every time Nastyyahoo comes here he asks for the Pollards to be released to Israel). If Israel wants a war with Iran to stop Iran from getting nuclear power and weapons than let them use some of their 300-400 nuclear weapons they have stockpiled without allowing anyone from the IAEA to inspect which they have demanded from Iran.

        If we attack Iran then expect to have 5-8 dollar per gallon gas. We do not have the refinery capacity to use our reserves to counter the prices Communist China will be willing to pay…and which the oil barons will demand….so they will ship more oil to Communist China and give us the tab……..By the way, no Romney will be in the military forces even though he has 5 sons who could go…but won’t….like most of the sons of the wealthy…..

      • George E

        Joe,

        If Iran sends missiles with nuclear weapons to Israel and kill thousands of Israeli’s, it’s going to be difficult for the US not to come to Israel’s defense. If Iran sinks tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and shuts down the flow of oil out of the Middle East driving up oil prices to new highs, it’ll be an attack on oil consumers all over the world, not the least of which will be all of us in the US. Shall we sit back and let them get away with it? Again, it’ll be pretty difficult not to respond to such an action when we know very well we have the capability to open up the Strait and get the oil flowing again. I don’t know anyone who wants to go to war, but at the same time we don’t want to let rogue countries step on our rights either.

      • Dale left coast

        DaveH says “Which country is the most fearsome — Iran or the United States?”

        Well lets asses this statement . . . Iran is run by a radical mooslime despot who is eager to initiate a conflict and BELIEVES he will release the 12th imam from the well to set in motion the creation of the world wide califat . . . he has said so many times Dave . . . are you listening? Achmed Dinnerjacket does not value his life on this planet and is eager to get his 72 virgins . . . lol . . .
        The president of the USA . . . has to go to Congress to get approval for his actions, except for the Libyan campaign which the O neglected to do that. Most US Presidents have valued life on this planet . . . although I can’t speak for the present occupant or the WH.

      • DaveH

        Do you speak Persian, Dale?
        How do you know what they really are saying? You are simply buying into the Propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you.
        The US has been warring against Afghanistan for over 10 years and Iraq also. We even butted into Libya for no good reason (except to satisfy the Bankers who didn’t like the fact that Libya was going to start pricing their oil in Gold-Backed Dinars). What has Iran done that comes anywhere close to that?
        You have been duped by the Bankers, Dale:
        http://2012patriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/new-libyan-gold-dinar/

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        The only problem with your assessment, Dale, is that it cannot be verified; except of course, and only trough and by the main-stream-media, which is owned by evil-greedy-despots who are always found in bed with the military-industrial-complex!

      • TML

        Dale says, “…Iran is run by a radical mooslime despot who is eager to initiate a conflict…”

        “Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has welcomed recent comments by U.S. President Barack Obama emphasizing diplomacy — not military action — to resolve the standoff over the Iranian nuclear program.” – “This talk is good talk and shows an exit from illusion,” Khamenei said, http://www.rferl.org/content/iran_khamenei_hails_obama_remarks/24509196.html

        Seems like you’re wrong about that sentiment, Dale

  • dan

    BP is already sitting on an untapped deep well (ie: already drilled and ready to pump) that sits
    BENEATH what was one of the North Slopes highest producing wells on Gull Island. Reserves are estimated to be in excess of ALL KNOWN WORLD RESERVES COMBINED. Natural gas has been pumped back into the well at Gull Island for 20 years and would supply gas for electrical generation for the united States for the next 200 years.

    • Joe Hammond

      I take you people are aware that the US is shipping american oil and gas to Communist China from ports like Corpus Christi, Texas because they can get a better price………

      • Guest

        But, more people are working and earning money which they will spend in the USA
        And, even if the oil is sold to the highest bidder, so what? More profits for the company means more drilling and result more workers. If the company makes little profit there will be no incentive to expand and then hire will there?
        So, I say, let’s get real and fire up the mines and be really energy independent.

      • momo

        Joe Hammond says: “I take you people are aware that the US is shipping american oil and gas to Communist China from ports like Corpus Christi, Texas because they can get a better price………”

        That’s about the only thing we’re exporting to them, maybe it will help with our balance of trade.

      • http://none Charlie

        Joe Hammond,,,
        What’s new? every inch of the Alaska oil pipeline was made of Japanese steel ,,,would you like to take a guess at how much Alaska oil is shipped out ???
        America was sold out way back at FDR…. So what’s a DAA going to do about it???

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    “John Myers,”

    NO OFFENSE – BUT, YOU “TURNED-ME-OFF,” BY SAYING Governor Mitt Romney WILL HOPEFULLY UNCORK A NON-ALCOHOLIC BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE. AS A SCOTCH-WHISKEY DRINKER, I APPRECIATE A “REAL” MAN – ONE WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL! WE ALREADY HAVE A “WHIMP” IN THE White House!

    I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO LIKES TO “BOOZE-IT-UP,” FROM TIME-TO-TIME!

    • DaveH

      You needn’t worry about that, Christopher. Most politicians have drinking problems. How else could they stand themselves?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        I HEAR YA, “DaveH!”

      • http://personaliberty.com Travis

        Yeah just like the rest of us… ha ha

      • Kate8

        Good one, DaveH.

        My understanding is that America has hocked all of its natural resource lands to nations such as China, and we CAN’T touch them. Even if we did start to drill, who would be doing it, Americans or Chinese? Just who would get the jobs?

        Just like with the pipeline through the midwest… Those jobs would not go to American workers.

        Unless we kick out the crooks now running things, and tell the Chinese, Saudis and anyone else they’ve sold us out to that they need to recoup what they can from the cabals and their minions who made the deals (unbeknownst to the American people), we aren’t going to see ANYTHING happen to benefit Americans. They want us done, kaput.

        Romney is as full of lies and deceptive “campaign rhetoric” as Obama. I wouldn’t be holding my breath that he’d come through. Like Obama, he’s nobody. Another empty suit.

      • tony

        I think the Federal Reserve was why the Government hocked all the USA natural resources so they could con these nations to continue to take the dollar and allow it to remain the world trade currency , but i think it has about ran its course , and once this dollar rejection occurs our Depression hits

      • Kate8

        tony – Correct. The Federal Reserve IS part of the financial elite cabals.

      • DonR

        DaveH; On October 3, 2012 at 7:51 am, you posted a link to “The Roosevelt Myth”.

        I’ve thought for sometime that FDR was a bad President and this book confirms it. One thing in particular that I would like to point out to others here is this comment on page 87.
        Mr. Flynn it referring to the opposing position of the Republicans:

        “Their chief reliance was upon the charge that the President [FDR] had usurped the powers of Congress, attacked the integrity of the courts, invaded the constitutional prerogatives of the states, attempted to substitute regulated monopoly for free enterprise, forced through Congress unconstitutional laws, filled a vast array of bureaus with swarms of bureaucrats to harass the people and breed fear in commerce and industry, discouraged new enterprises and thus prolonged the depression, had used relief to corrupt and intimidate the voters and made appeals to class prejudice to inflame the masses and create dangerous divisions.”

        I agree with this assessment [of FDR] and I think it applies just as much today to Obama as it did then.

        Obama is using all these tactics to push his agenda and buy votes in order to stay in power!

    • KG

      That’s why people loved Clinton as well as Kennedy. They were real people.

      There was this one guy who was a war hero, vegetarian, and spurned sexual relations for the good of his country.

      Then there was this guy who was a womanizer, ate whatever he wanted, smoked like a broken stove, and was crippled.

      Now, who would you choose?

      • DaveH

        First of all, I want to thank you, KG, for once again revealing your lack of morality and respect for other people. But I am beginning to wonder if you are purposely trying to make Liberal Progressives look bad?
        To answer your question, I would choose the guy who butted out of my Personal Choices and who showed respect for other peoples’ bodies and property.
        Both of the people in your example were “real” people. They just chose different life-styles.
        However the latter person, by being a womanizer, was showing disrespect for his wife, and for the women who he was just using for his own personal pleasure. Hardly the kind of person I would admire. If he can’t show respect for females, how in the world could you expect him to show respect for any person? And if you’re talking about FDR, he didn’t. He lied and manipulated to get the US into WWII which cost millions of lives. He continued the ruin of our economy for 10 more years with more meddling Government policies. He set Government policies in place which are still existent today and still ruining our economy. And he created the UN which is very likely to result in the loss of US sovereignty over time unless we get wise and exit the organization.
        Something those people, who think FDR was a hero, should read:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20T%20Flynn/The%20Roosevelt%20Myth.pdf

      • Joe Hammond

        Dave H.,

        So you would have prefered to allow Hitler to either defeat the Soviet Union and gain all those resources for the most advanced scientific country in the world at that time (which was also in acton to change the genetic composition of the human species) or lose to the Soviet Union and have all of Europe with the exception of Great Britain under the control of communism (and remember, Von Braun and the other Nazi scientists would have been working for Stalin). Better that than to engage against the nazis? If you had your way there would be no Israel nor would there be a non-militarised Japan….nor would there be a Chinese slave empire to have the 1% send US jobs……Not a world that I would want to live in…..

      • DaveH

        Joe,
        You’ve been successfully Propagandized.
        You or I or anybody else cannot say what the outcome would have been had we not entered into WWI and WWII. But most likely if we had not entered WWI, the Germans (pre Hitler) would not have suffered the Draconian Versailles Treaty, and thus would not have been so resentful that they eventually elected a Hitler whose main campaign promise was to rebuild Germany militarily, contrary to the Versailles Treaty.
        As it was, we “liberated” countries from one tyrant (Hitler) just to deliver them to another tyrant (Stalin). What was up with that? John T. Flynn presents pretty good evidence that FDR had ambitions of being the World Leader via the UN (his creation), and was willing to throw those Eastern European countries under the bus to achieve his personal ambitions.
        I can’t convince you of your mistakes in a short comment, so I suggest that you read this book to learn some Reality to replace the Propaganda that has been instilled by our Masters:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20V%20Denson/A%20Century%20of%20War%20Lincoln,%20Wilson%20and%20Roosevelt.pdf

      • DaveH

        This is another book you should read, Joe, to further your education:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20T%20Flynn/The%20Roosevelt%20Myth.pdf

      • Nadzieja Batki

        No KG, they were not real people or real men to be exact.They were just two dogs in heat. Because they were “leaders”, they also had lots and lots of copies of themselves and heaped enablers and liars to themselves.

      • mark

        DaveH,

        The U.S. did not “liberate” countries from one dictator, Hitler, and then hand them over to another, Stalin. The Red Army did. The Soviet Army conquered Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, one third of Germany, (the Eastern part),and most of Austria. They then imposed their tyrranical system there. The Anglo-American armies liberated France, the Low Countries, Italy, Greece, Denmark, and two-thirds of Germany. They then helped restore or construct democratic, capitalist gov’ts there. Everyone with a basic knowledge of the military history of WWII knows this. You create the false impression that the U.S. army liberated all of Eastern Europe and then handed it over to the Soviets. When the Yalta Accords were finalized in the Crimea in February 1945, the Red Army already controlled all of Eastern Europe (that and their expulsion of the Germans from Russian territory cost them 27 million lives). The Western Allies were faced with a fait accompli in Eastern Europe. They had no bargaining power there. It was already Soviet occupied and dominated. And the Red Army was 40 miles from Berlin, not 350 miles away as the Anglo-American armies were. Military facts on the ground count in all diplomatic resolutions in all wars.

      • DaveH

        How can you say Russia liberated any country, mark? Unless your idea of “liberation” is the same as Stalin’s?
        It was entirely within the United States power to not hand over the East European countries to Stalin. We fought a costly war, supposedly to Liberate countries from Hitler, and then just let them be occupied by another equally evil dictator. To a logical person, that belies the claim that we fought that war to Liberate anybody.
        Did you read either of the books that I linked to? Of course you didn’t. You wouldn’t want to upset your delicate Propaganda Framework, now would you, mark?

      • Lindy

        I agree with Mark on the point that the Red Army “liberated” the countries of Eastern Europe and with the Red Army much, much closer to Berlin than the Allies, there was indeed a ‘fait accompli” in any negotiations regarding the soon to be Iron Curtain countries. However, DaveH is correct to point out that the word “liberate” means to “set free”. While the Red Army removed the occupying Nazis and “liberated” Eastern Europe from their German occupiers, it was hardly “liberation” in the truest sense of the word.

        Perhaps both Mark and DaveH would share in General Patton’s opinion “…the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.”

        I also agree with DaveH’s premise that Roosevelt did not have to acquiesce to Stalin’s desires. DaveH is absolutely correct when he states that America’s entry into World War I, combined with the vindictive and punitive the Treaty of Versailles inevitably led to the rise of Hitler, the Nazis and World War II.

        Thank you DaveH, for providing the links and introducing me to the books “The Roosevelt Myth” and “A Century of War”, in my quick review, I found these books to be well researched, objective ( refreshingly non-partisan) nor were they what could be labelled “revisionist”. These are types of books that history classes should be based on, as they clearly explain the underlying economic motives and political/diplomatic trickery involved in both conflicts. These books also show how the actions of Churchill and Roosevelt continue to haunt the world to this day and that the motivations for war, then as now, seem to be based on resources in general and petroleum in particular.

      • DaveH

        mark,
        At the very least read book 3, chapter 13 — The Final Betrayal — in “The Roosevelt Myth” (page 387). Preferably read the whole book to learn how deceptive and self-interested Roosevelt really was.

      • mark

        DaveH,

        You write: How can you say Russia liberated any country, mark? Unless your idea of “liberation” is the same as Stalin’s? I put the word “liberate” in scare quotes just as you did in your original note which means that I don’t believe they libertated anyone, the same reason you put the word in scare quotes. In fact if you read my note you will see that I explicitly said that the Red Army conquered rather than liberated Eastern Europe as they did. I read Mr. Flynn’s last chapters in The Roosevelt Myth and they just don’t hold up historically. Flynn puts way too much weight on promises made at the Yalta Conference. Treaties and diplomatic assurances unfortunately mean very little in the world of power politics which Mr. Flynn doesn’t seem to understand. Stalin had 6 million troops, 8 thousand tanks, 30 thousand artillery pieces, and 9 thousand aircraft in Eastern Europe in the spring of 1945. All the paper agreements from the Yalta Conference meant nothing to him compared to that force. The only way the United States could have gotten Stalin off that land was to go to war with him. The British would not have gone along, they were broke and exhausted, and the American people would not have supported this either as they still saw Russia as a U.S. ally at this point that had inflicted 75% of all the combat casualties on the German Army in World War II. No one wanted another massive war to liberate a bunch of Eastern European countries that few cared for and that Stalin claimed he needed to secure his own Western borders from future attacks. Many of these countries were by no means democratic or republican either before either the Germans or the Russians conquered them force. Dictators such as Antonesceau in Romania, Admiral Horthy in Hungary, General Pilsudski in Poland ruled these lands with an iron hand before -and in some cases – during World War II. So, they were never democratic countries in the first place – not that that means they deserved to be conquered by anyone.

        Also, the U.S. did not possess an atomic bomb that they knew was operational until July 1945. Truman tried to use this weapon to pressure Stalin but he would not give up Eastern Europe unless Washington was willing to go to war which no American leader was willing to do except for General Patton who possessed zero political power in either the Roosevelt or the Truman adminstrations. The Americans only had 2 atomic bombs in the late summer of 1945 both of which they sent to the Pacific to defeat Japan. Also in the summer of 1945, more than anything else Truman wanted the Soviets to live up to their promises to move massive amounts of troops east and attack the Japanese armies in China and Manchuria, which Stalin did. Going to war over the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe would have killed any U.S.-Soviet cooperation against Japan at a time when Washington was not sure if the A-Bomb would work. Flynn fails to address any of these key aspects of strategic reasoning in the Roosevelt Myth. But these were all the most cogent and determinative facts on the ground.

      • DaveH

        mark says — “I read Mr. Flynn’s last chapters in The Roosevelt Myth and they just don’t hold up historically”.
        So we have Flynn’s words for it, with lots of references, and we have mark’s words for it, with no references. Who should we trust?

      • DaveH

        And mark, you have gotten way off base from my original comment which was to dispute that we saved the world from Hitler-like tyranny by entering WWII. If you were correct and we didn’t have the resources to stop Stalin (I doubt that), then we also didn’t have the resources to become involved in the first place since we didn’t accomplish the stated goal of saving the world from tyranny. Neither you nor I have the knowledge to determine whether we could have beat Russia easily or not. Of course, there is no doubt in my mind that the real involvement had nothing to do with saving the world from tyranny and everything to do with increasing Politicians and their Crony Capitalists’ Power and Wealth at the rest of our expense.
        It is a fact that 50 million people were killed in WWII, and 70% of those were civilians, most of whom were killed in the bombing of cities by Great Britain and the United States. Without US involvement, Great Britain either would not have gotten involved or would have had to bow out quickly as they ran out of resources, thus saving tens of millions of lives. I’m betting that most of the victims would have preferred tyranny to death.

      • DaveH

        Here are a couple of books that give you a perspective on WWI and WWII that you won’t get from the Propaganda Schools:
        http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Story-Affects-Today/dp/0942617428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

      • DaveH
      • DaveH

        Here’s another interesting book by John T. Flynn, and it’s Free thanks to Mises Institute:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20T%20Flynn/As%20We%20Go%20Marching.pdf

    • Doc Sarvis

      President Obama is a REAL person and drinks beer. Ritt Momney, as a Mormon does not drink.

      • DaveH

        I support your right to put anything into your body that you choose.
        But isn’t it a bit odd that you would think the chosen lifestyle of Obama somehow makes him more “real” than Romney? Last I saw of those two, they both were living breathing “real” humans. And they both want to make other peoples’ personal choices.

      • DaveH

        Let’s vote for the Presidential Candidate who doesn’t want to use Big Government to meddle in other peoples’ affairs:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXab-nPucwA

      • Dan

        Doc Sarvis, Is your spelling that bad. Or does the name Mitt Romney properly spelled , Demand so much respect and stand for so much Principal that yon can’t stand to see it. Vote MITT ROMNEY for President and get these Liberal America Hateing Democrats !!! “OUT”

      • JTB

        If I had to deal with obama on a daily basis I’d drink more beers than you could count. If you think obama is a real person you are an idiot.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Because you say so, Doc Sarvis, we are to believe anything that comes out through your posts.
        You of course will twist to your advantage, as a typical Leftist, that Romney’s not drinking liquor will somehow put the liquor industry in peril. But we will have more decisions made with clear heads.
        Clinton’s and Kennedy’s immorality did not increase the lingerie industry nor increased the liquor industries profits. The pharmaceutical industries had to produce more STD meds and more birth control pills, etc., aand more meds for liver damage, etc..

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Doc Sarvis,”

        SINCE YOU SPELLED HIS FIRST NAME, “Ritt,” ARE YOU DRINKING, SIR?

      • http://gravatar.com/dalene44 Justin57

        I’m not sure which of the Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama is the “real” person who “drinks beer”. The Obama ‘person’ gave BP special environmental exemptions and fought in court on behalf of the Deepwater Horizon to fast track their drill in the Gulf. After the blowout this same administration shut down environmentally regulated US companies while giving Brazil 2 billion to drill off shore. We need a president who works With the US, not one who works against us. GM is now 70% outsourced and pays no taxes.

    • JC

      No offense Christopher…but I don’t mind a sober man (or woman) at the helm.
      In fact I prefer it. Drinking does not constitute a “real man.”

      • Dan

        Well said JC. A drunk man is about as smart as a crazed monkey with it’s brain slpped out. But I believe Obama’s proplem exstends to being a self exsorbed “POTT HEAD”. Or should I say “POTTY HEAD” HA HA HA.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JC,”

        I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE. BUT, SINCE THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO HAVE A “MANLY” REPUTATION. SOLDIERS DO NOT MIND TAKING ORDERS FROM A “MAN.”

        BUT, THEY DO MIND TAKING ORDERS FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS THE REPUTATION OF PLAYING “NAKED TWISTER” WITH, Rahm Emanuel.

    • Granpa David

      Real mature thinking Christopher. And women vote for the hair. and 40% vote for the free stuff. We are in real terouble if we don’t grow up.

      • jopa

        Grandpa David;I don’t know how you will take this however Romney thinks of you as being a 47 per center.One of those low life mooching non taxpaying Americans that won’t stand up or do anything for themselves and always looking for a handout off of his dime.That’s what he thinks of 99.9% of the people that post here but have blinders on and a deaf ear.Gee if he only thought of you as you think of him.

      • tony

        Jopa the only growth we have seen out of Obama is DEBT growth and NO supply -side expansion because his Environmental Marxists ordered him to have NO growth to save Earth from People so what the heck is so Great about that ???

      • Nadzieja Batki

        jopa, still yapping nonsense.

    • Eddie G.

      It’s obvious Chris that you’re anti Mormon as Romney is an LDS church member and alcohol is a no no. A drunk President can’t lead the country as well as a sober one can. Jimmy Carter as a devout Baptist didn’t allow booze neither. He was a lousy President but at least was sober. Jimmy’s brother Billy was the beer drinker and a family embarassment. So the conclusion is, if a POTUS wants to hoist one now and then or pop a top after a day’s work,use the product in moderation.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Eddie G.,”

        DO YOU DENY THAT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MORMONS ARE TREATED LIKE, “WEIRDOS?” – REMEMBER, Warren Jetts?

    • http://yahoo.com ohfwb

      Sounds like your one of obama’s lover boys, you don’t have to drink to be a man you drink and sound like a fool.

    • Karolyn

      No offense, Chris, but that was a pretty lame remark.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Karolyn,”

        MA’AM, DO PEOPLE REALLY WANT A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT DRINK? WHEN THE PRESIDENT GIVES HIS ANNUAL Super Bowl Sunday Address, DO YOU WANT HIM TO BE DRINKING GREEN TEA?

        AMERICAN CAPITALISM IS BASED ON “PARTY-TIME.” BUSINESSES MAKE THE MAJORITY OF THEIR REVENUE DURING TIMES OF CELEBRATION. A NON-DRINKING PRESIDENT IS AN ASSAULT ON AMERICAN COMMERCE.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Karolyn,”

        MA’AM – SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD WHICH COMMENT.

        IN REFERENCE TO MY “Rahm Emanuel- ‘JAB’,” WOULD YOU AGREE MOST Personal Libertarians WOULD SAY Governor Mitt Romney AND Gary Johnson DO NOT HAVE THEIR MANHOODS SEXUALLY QUESTIONED TO THE POINT OF BEING “VIRAL” ON THE INTERNET?

        THE KENYAN AND “Man’s Country” IS A “BIG DEAL” IN CONSERVATIVE “CIRCLES.”

    • Huapakechi

      It has escaped you that the current resident of the White House and his co-conspirators are drunk on power?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Huapakechi,”

        I AGREE. I WAS ONLY TAKING A “LIGHT-HEARTED JAB” AT, “John Myers,” FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT.

        I DID NOT KNOW MORMONS DO NOT DRINK. I HAVE ONLY HEARD MALE MORMONS LIKE HAVING TEN OR TWELVE WIVES. I KNOW THAT IS A “RED FLAG” FOR MANY AMERICANS.

    • Aberdeem

      You turned me off with your statement Dave……………a real man does not have to drink.

    • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

      10/7/12, Cheers, Horton. Romney will prevail. We don’t care if he (Mormon) drinks or not; you & I can down a few. How about that?

    • Sherry

      Drinking Wiskey has nothing to do with being a real man. Drill Mitt Drill

      • http://FACEBOOK FRED GARTEN

        WAKE UP AND SELL THE ROSES HE WILL STRIP YOU OF YOU MONEY TOO!!!!!!

blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom