Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

China’s Growing Chokehold On Oil

August 8, 2012 by  

China’s Growing Chokehold On Oil
This is China’s century, handed over by the Greens.

If you don’t like the Greens now, wait a decade and you might really hate them. That is because by then China could lock-down much of Canada’s oil sands production and be shipping it across the Pacific to power their 21st century ambitions as the world’s only superpower. At the same time, America may be floundering because of acute energy shortages and or because we are under the thumb of Arab oil.

A couple of weeks ago China took a historic step toward reaching its goal to becoming a global resource powerhouse when it bid $15.1 billion (U.S.) to buy Calgary-based oil producer Nexen Inc.

The offer by state-backed CNOOC, Ltd., is the largest by any Chinese firm to purchase a foreign company. It is evidence that China wants to use Canada to fuel its global economic and military ambitions through strategically secure oil reserves – the same reserves the United States has been reluctant to tie down because environmentalists maintain oil sands damage the environment.

If the deal is approved by the Canadian government as expected, it will be the largest in a string of earlier acquisitions by Chinese firms in Canada’s oil sands sector. It would also be the second-largest deal ever in Canada’s energy sector and the sixth-largest takeover ever in Canada.

The Nexen bid was announced within hours of a $1.5 billion deal by China’s top refiner, Sinopec, Corp., to acquire a 49 percent stake in the North Sea operations of Talisman, one of Canada’s largest oil and gas exploration companies.

According to Bloomberg, China has funneled more than $53 billion into Canadian oil interests over the past 10 years, dwarfing the $31 billion or so the U.S. has invested in Canada.

China has been building on its long-term strategy to build partnerships in Canadian petroleum projects that will give it access to energy regardless of what happens in the Middle East; that volatile region upon which Washington is betting.

“The slogan of the Chinese government for their major companies is to go global,” said Richard Herd, the chief China economist for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. “They are hoping they can earn better returns in resources in direct investment abroad than they can in investing in U.S. treasuries.”

That is a double assault on the United States that could find it desperately needs Canadian oil at the same time it must finance the Nation’s day-to-day operations by selling ever more billions of dollars in treasuries to Beijing.

Nexen and other Canadian companies like it could give China a stranglehold on Canada’s oil sands reserves; the third-largest recoverable crude deposits in the world.

Virginia Republican Congressman Randy Forbes, founder and co-chairman of the Congressional China Caucus, has long warned of China’s growing military and economic power. Forbes is worried by China’s latest bid for an increased presence in Canada’s oil sector, especially because it allows China to be “right off our coast,” Forbes told Reuters. Forbes pointed out the other obvious problem with the Nexen deal: For China, it secures Canada’s finite energy resources that could otherwise be made available to America.

Obama Bends To The Greens

“More than a foot in the door, this is a body in the door for the Chinese in the North American energy market,” Forbes told Reuters in July, slamming President Obama’s decision to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project designed to funnel oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Forbes and many other Republicans want Obama to immediately approve the pipeline to give the Canadians an alternative to doing business with the Chinese. That is not going to happen before the election and if Obama is reelected it probably will not happen. That is good news for Beijing whose global ambitions are built upon fossil fuels and not the fantasy of unproven clean energy.

In Canada, plans are being drawn up to move oil from Alberta west through British Columbia via a newly constructed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Wall Street Journal summed up the situation on July 25th:

Mr. Obama’s rejection of the $7 billion Keystone XL has no doubt concentrated Chinese and Canadian minds. The pipeline would have moved oil from Canada and North Dakota to refineries on the Gulf Coast, and Mr. Obama’s bow to American greens was a direct snub to Canada, which provides nearly 30% of U.S. imports. Prime Minister Stephen Harper promptly said that Canada needs to diversify its energy markets, perhaps by building a pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast to export to Asia.

The lesson for America, and especially Democrats, is that Canada’s oil sands will be developed, whether their green financiers like it or not. If the U.S. doesn’t want the oil, China and the rest of Asia will gladly take it. The world wants to grow—must grow to reduce poverty—and it needs abundant, cheap energy to do it. Why is that so hard for some Americans to understand?

Canadians understand. After the rejection of the Keystone XL, Calgary-based Enbridge moved to the forefront with its $5.5 billion pipeline project that will carry Canadian oil sands crude to Canada’s west coast where tankers could transport it to Asian countries, none of which have a more critical need for oil than China.

This is China’s century. Every great power that has dominated has fallen into permanent decline. Why should it be any different for the United States which has insurmountable debts and an overstretched military? Just as those world powers rotted from within because of corruption and terrible leaders, so, too, will the United States.

Earlier this year East Asia Forum wrote, “China is now strong enough to contest America’s leadership in Asia, and is plainly doing so. That means the old days of uncontested American primacy, and the Asian order that has been built on this foundation, are already history.”

China is building a war chest not only for Asian domination but for global domination and a key component of it is buying up oil from America’s next door neighbor. Those reserves might be crucial to the U.S. someday but American Greens can comfort each other that they didn’t dirty up the environment… when they talk or text in Mandarin.

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 “China’s Growing Chokehold On Oil”

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

  • Randy131

    Any ‘dirty up the environment’ actions will be done by China now, and the result of that will be brought right into the USA’s back yard through the Pacific trade winds, and we’ll suffer the pollution of China as a result, but will receive no benefits from it.

    • chiefcabioch

      Randy, I lived in China in 2004, most places there you cant see the sun till almost 11 am…in Beijing most days you cant see tall buildings unless it rains the day before…, China is so polluted the Yangtze river in Nanjing was being dug up and the river beds all hauled off …it looked like they were hauling Asphalt , a black gooey mess,….

      • DaveH

        The destiny of countries that give up Capitalism for Socialism.

      • hljmesa

        The destiny of countries that give up communism for unregulated capitalism:
        An example of unregulated capitalism here;

      • Nadzieja Batki

        hljmesa, when the government starts regulating capitalism it is no longer capitalism. Along with the good of capitalism you will get people who will take advantage of it by second handing.
        So according to you noone should be allowed to start a business or invent anything because there are evil people who will abuse capitalism.
        Why don’t we have everyone sit on their hands and don’t do anything but somehow expect food, clothing, and shelter, and transportation, etc., to magically appear.

      • Joe Brooks

        Our Solution is simple; a return to the Founders Amercan School of Economics [regulated Capitalism]. Yes it works, the USA was the most prosperous nation on Earth following this.

      • DaveH

        Some reality:

        From the article — “The most effective tool was the appeal to property rights as protected by common law. Citizens who found their property and personal health damaged by nearby factories could find redress from the courts and often were successful. However, as the state authorities began to see industrialization as something in the “public interest,” the courts began to side with polluters without proper redress given to those whose health and property were harmed”.
        As the article states — “In fact, the destruction of private property rights and the metamorphosis of private property into common property has been a central reason why industrial pollution had reached nearly intolerable levels in some municipalities by 1970. For example, the famous 1969 fire in Cleveland, Ohio’s, Cuyahoga River would never had happened had the law recognized private property rights of waterways instead of having them declared “public” (read that, common) property. The same goes for the air above one’s property”.

      • DaveH

        For the two Progressives:
        Read this book to find out what Regulation is really all about. You’ve been lied to:

      • Joe Brooks

        For Dave H. the Red Chinese Rep., read this:

        “The monopoly of all manufacturing industry by the mother
        country was one of the chief causes of the American Revolution; the
        tea duty merely afforded an opportunity for its outbreak.”

      • DaveH

        For Joe Brooks, the guy who can’t logically argue his point, so must instead resort to name-calling and other adolescent manipulative techniques:
        From the book:
        “The stock market broke sharply on the day that Hoover agreed
        to sign the Smoot–Hawley Bill. This bill gave the signal for protectionism
        to proliferate all over the world. Markets, and the international
        division of labor, were hampered, and American consumers
        were further burdened, and farm as well as other export
        industries were hindered by the ensuing decline of international
        So Joe Brooks, the Patriot (in his mind only), figures that adding a middleman between two voluntary traders will somehow result in more prosperity, even though history shows differently.
        Perhaps you could explain to the readers, Joe, why the first thing that Governments do to punish enemy countries is to embargo them? If you were right, they would be aiding those countries.

      • DaveH
      • Joe Brooks

        I do not use name calling Dave H. I do not need to. I am stating the facts. It is not name calling to point out that a moron can see “free trade” is destroying the USA, it is a fact.

        It is not name calling to call a “free trading” foreign lobbyist a “free trading” foreign lobbyist, when you can trace foreign money to these proponents.

        You are using the last refuge of the loser in a debate; you clearly can only quote people who have an agenda and try to revise history in the hopes that no one will ever look up what Jefferson and others actually said and did. Especially as Jefferson earned some real world experience:

        See next reply

      • Joe Brooks

        Even the most adamant opponent of Hamilton, and the Federalist supporters of his plan, Thomas Jefferson would soon come to realize the importance after serving as President of the United States and watching Britain, a former trading partner of our Union, invade our nation and burn our capitol to the ground.

        1816 January 9. (Jefferson to Benjamin Austin). “You tell me I am quoted by those who wish to continue our dependence on England for manufactures. There was a time when I might have been so quoted with more candor, but within the thirty years which have since elapsed, how are circumstances changed! We were then in peace. Our independent place among nations was acknowledged…We have experienced what we did not then believe, that there exists both profligacy and power enough to exclude us from the field of interchange with other nations: that to be independent for the comforts of life we must fabricate them ourselves. We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturist…He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture, must be for reducing us either to dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins, and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns. I am not one of these; experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort…If it shall be opposed to go beyond our own supply, the question of ’85 will then recur, will our surplus labor be then most beneficially employed in the culture of the earth, or in the fabrications of art? We have time yet for consideration, before that question will press upon us; and the maxim to be applied will depend on the circumstances which shall then exist; for in so complicated a science as political economy, no one axiom can be laid down as wise and expedient for all times and circumstances, and for their contraries.”[26]

    • Inventor64

      Or you could use “Free Energy” and not need to use Petroleum at all.

      • kid

        Free Energy. Don’t believe I’ve heard that one? Bottom Line, Obama was placed in power to destroy our country from the inside. Nakita Kruschev in 1960 or 61 as he banged his shoe on the podioum said ‘”WE WILL DESTROY THE USA FROM WITH IN. Folks open your eyes. Try to remember who we are. THE HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE. THOSE WHO DIED FROM THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR TO THE MIDDLE EAST LIVES ARE WASTED BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE COWARDS AND WILL NOT STAND UP!!!! OBAMA WANTS AMERICA TO FAIL, AS PER UN AGENDA 21. GOD HELP US IF HE GETS BACK IN!!!!!

      • vicki

        Free energy? You mean slaves?

      • DaveH

        Perhaps he is referring to setting up generators with spokes similar to the old Roman Grain Mills where the slaves pushed the mills around. Only in this case we could have the welfare recipients taking turns pushing the generators around with 30 minutes per hour of break time.

      • pweiters9

        8/9/12, I have a relative w/a small child; he’s now 7. His mother believes in Obama; I told her, the way we’re progressing he could be working in China. If BO comes full circle in a 2nd term, the US will certainly surrender it’s hegemony. When BO pledged to “fundamentally change” this country, I couldn’t stomach him. He has amassed a mindless cult following—-everything from derelict to professional class. This ought to scare you.

      • Jon

        While it isn’t completely free, I have invested in the expected future. I bought a bicycle, wood stove, and candles.

  • Chief_Cabioch

    this is simply all part of the plan to Undermine America, to reduce it’s status in the world and to collapse the dollar so the UN can step in and “Manage” the earth….if Americans do NOT get off their butts, and get obama OUT at ANY cost…..we as a Nation have sung our last song……and the last one out…..wont have to turn out the lights….they’ll have been off a long time by then.

    • DaveH

      It’s not just Obama, Chief. It’s Big Government in general. The Leaders are living off their brainwashed minions and the rest of us, and they don’t care how bad the economy gets as long as they remain in Power. Witness Cuba, or North Korea, or Zimbabwe, or the many other countries whose Governments control every aspect of their country’s economy. The only sure way back to prosperity is to get Big Government out of our Marketplaces and out of our wallets, and let the people do what they do best — Produce:

      • DaveH
      • G. Smith

        It’s not Obama at fault him for this mess is simply naive. If you want to dig into pure evil first do like Michael Moore suggested .. wrap a yellow crime scene ribbon around all of wall street and put the federal reserve on trial and jail everyone in it and that would just be a good start …

      • Inventor64

        Time for a flat 10% tax for the federal gov’t. Flat 5% tax for the states. The other 85% is in your wallet. “By the people and for the people”!!

      • vicki

        G. Smith says:
        “wrap a yellow crime scene ribbon around all of wall street and put the federal reserve on trial and jail everyone in it and that would just be a good start …”

        Neither Wallstreet nor the (private)federal reserve has any power over us without the force of government. Big government. Big force for the CRONYS to use to regulate their competitors out of business and print their way out of any debt.

    • eddie47d

      Your either two people or you are confusing yourself Chief.First you say you saw the environmental damages in China and how filthy their rivers are and then you bash Obama for siding with our environmentalists who are desperately trying to avoid the messes the Chinese have done to their country. So do you want environmental controls to keep America’s health, landscape and rivers in good shape or anything goes free for all the Chinese endorse?

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      “At ANY cost”??? Even if we put in the “other guy” who will do the same thing?!? NO!!! We need to get these people OUT of OUR government!!! Both of the so called republicans and the so called democrats work for the SAME people!!! They CONTROL BOTH PARTIES!!! We need to clean house from the top down!!! Don’t vote for republicans and democrats! Vote for the underdog with no money! It’s our only chance! Throw out big money!!! Send them a message!!!

  • Warrior

    This issue calls for a bold solution and there is only one person on or as big as the planet to handle it. Yes, al gore. He could invoke a carbon tax sooo large on those pesky little reds that they would be willing to forgo all those gold medals they’re obtaining, probably illegally, in the socialist healthcare olympics! What? No, no partisan political statements from this camp.

    • chiefcabioch

      China thumbed their noses at any attempts to “charge” them , or India for getting in line, those two nations have 2.7 Billion people, roughly 1/3 of the earth population and they refuse to buy into the global warming carbon tax BS….wisely so I might add…..

    • GALT

      Mr. Myer’s

      There are no “super power’s”…..only failed ‘empire’s…….and stupid economists, and people like you…….the “spoiled children” who think if they babble long enough, you can die with your toys………..which in your case might be true…….. ( see patrick cox to live forever, ask bob for a referral )

      Define unalienable? we have inseparable so far…..but that isn’t definition……

      Tell us about “admiralty and maritime” vs ( common law and equity )

      And besides being a self promoting useless individual……tell us what your favorite toy is, besides making a profit from being a self promoting useless individual?

      That was a question in a series…….you get to answer the last one, if you can answer the first two……….

      China and everyone else will be scrambling for existence within the decade…..and the enemy will be the “toy owners”……….

      Is the truth profitable?

      “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

      • Vigilant

        Said GALT to a sane man one day,
        “Why do people ignore what I say?”
        Said the man “listen up,
        You’re an ignorant pup,
        Best you dry up and then blow away.”

      • GALT

        Well ( never, ever ) Vigilant, it probably won’t matter but you have managed to demonstrate that 1.) you are NOT the “sane man” and 2.) whatever your intent was, you
        “contradicted yourself” by responding………

        What “salivating dogs” opine… of no concern……the target was identified, and failed to respond………

        Still, this “forum” and others……demonstrate a clearer understanding of “unalienable”, as humans of the w.i.A.L.F. breed show that it is possible to convince them that they have the
        “unalienable right” to believe any FANTASY that can be imagined ……..and maybe make a profit too………

      • Vigilant

        The scientist said to our GALT.
        “What a pity I ran out of salt.
        It’s a crying ass shame
        I can’t pickle your brain
        And lock it away in the vault.”

  • Brad

    Impeach Obama and all his cronies, maybe if we put all the greenies in CA the fault line will crack and they all will fall off into the Pacific with 1/2 of the fags in the US.

    • Warrior

      It may work but we should get the opinion of an expert. Who was that congresscreature who proclaimed the island in the pacific was going to be so overpopulated that it would tip over! Come on you constituents of that “genius” help me out.

  • http://yahoo dranyamelknur

    We need to conserve our environment. Maybe some don’t mind living in a cess pool of pollution from filthy fossil fuels, but it is doubtful future generations will agree. We humans have been given the task of devising strategies that enable us to live in an environment of our own making. This has great potential for good as well as harm. We have been able to accomplish a lot and we should not underestimate our adaptability.
    Just because filthy oil was our first primitive artificial energy source, does not mean it has to be our last. We have the potential to extract hydrogen from water in creative, low cost ways. That will take carbon and other pollutants out of our combustion processes. It is already used for rocket fuel and we also have autos and entire houses that run on hydrogen. What is lacking is capital, which is now tied up by filthy fossil fuel monopolies and a government slavishly devoted to them. Obama’s energy czar killed hydrogen investment inherited from the Bush Administration. It is time to revive it. We won’t need oil shale, a very wasteful, difficult and disastrous approach. It sends our clean water down below the water table where it is lost for generations.
    True conservatives want to conserve our energy independence, our pristine environment and our way of life. That does not require us to compete with the Chinese as we can become a beacon for mankind by eschewing filthy fossil fuels instead of their adversary for oil.

    • Jim S

      I’m all for protecting the environment. However, I haven’t seen a cruiser, destroyer or airplane yet that runs on hydrogen. A hydrogen fuel cell may be fine for running a Honda Civic, but we still need oil to move ships and airplanes. I’m sure they will come up with another fuel source that will power an airplane, but I’m guessing that is still decades away. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. There are still some things that will need that evil, vile oil to power them for generations. So, we should be securing as many sources as possible, including utilizing our own plentiful deposits until then.

      • eddie47d

        That is an easy solution. Tone down our warmongering and the “battleships” that are needed to pursue those wars. This article is about China yet they aren’t involved in shooting wars to fuel their economy. Maybe we could learn something from them.

      • vicki

        Hydrogen fuel burns and emits the #1 greenhouse gas. How smart is that?

      • Ben W. Gardner

        2H2 + O2 = 2H2O Water is the most polluting byproduct of burning hydrogen…? I don’t think so!

      • Vigilant

        Water VAPOR, son, water vapor. You should have read Vicki’s wise link first before you stuck your foot in your mouth.

      • Vicki

        He should also read what I wrote. I said the #1 GREENHOUSE gas. I didn’t say anything about it being a pollutant. Though I bet fires consider it to be deadly. :)

    • Chester

      I am glad to learn that you are ready to pay fifty dollars to climb in a cab, only to be told it will cost you a hundred dollars a mile, as the fuel he is forced to use only gives about three miles to the gallon, and the last tankful he bought sold for twenty dollars a gallon, with the guarantee the next time he bought fuel, it would be closer to twenty-five. That means that hundred gallon tank you are sitting over will take him across town about twice, if the lights don’t run against him.

      • Chester

        fuel mileage was supposed to read three gallons per mile

    • DaveH

      The poorest countries have the dirtiest environments. That’s a fact. The rich countries can afford cleaner environments. So why do you want to impoverish our country, Dranya, with uneconomical alternative energy schemes?
      The intelligent way to achieve a clean environment is for Government to butt out of the Marketplace, and let the Productive private sector do what they do best. As time goes on, innovative people, seeking clean solutions and profits, would fund their projects with their own money. They would do it much more efficiently than Big Government because they are working with their own money, not somebody else’s unwilling money. Eventually clean economical solutions would be available for those who desire cleaner environments.
      Instead we have uneconomical eye-sores forced on us like these garish monsters in the Palm Springs area that look like something out of an Edward Scissorhands’ nightmare:
      If those had been proposed by Conservatives (they wouldn’t be though), the Environmentalists would have raised bloody hell.

      Dranya says — “True conservatives want to conserve our energy independence, our pristine environment and our way of life”.
      Everybody does. But True Conservatives know the best way to achieve that is to get Big Government and their Crony Capitalists, who feed out of the public’s wallets, out of the Marketplace and let Free Enterprise do what they do best.

      • eddie47d

        We’ve been there done that Dave H. in allowing free enterprise to do as they please. Oil companies,chemical companies,coal companies and drillers haven’t always been responsible. So you need a better line in attacking environmentalists.

      • DaveH

        You need a better line of attack, Eddie, than your usual conjecture and fabricated facts.

      • vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “Oil companies,chemical companies,coal companies and drillers haven’t always been responsible.”

        Environmentalists and politicians haven’t always been responsible.

        What was your point again Eddie?

      • eddie47d

        That is coal companies,oil companies,chemical companies and drillers. Apparently Vickie and Dave didn’t get the first memo. Do you need a fax too?

      • DaveH

        From “The Case for Legalizing Capitalism”:
        In 2006, the most polluted places in the world were in countries that have the weakest property rights:
        1. Chernobyl, Ukraine
        2. Dzerzhinsk, Russia
        3. Haina, Dominican Republic
        4. Kabwe, Zambia
        5. La Oroya, Peru
        6. Linfen, China
        7. Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
        8. Norilsk, Russia
        9. Ranipet, India
        10. Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, Russia

    • MNIce

      1. Fossil fuels, by definition, are made of carbon and hydrogen that were once part of the ecosystem. Burning is the most efficient and productive means of returning the lost material to the environment. The problem is not in making it available for use by plants and animals, nor even the risk of poisoning them (so long as we ensure it is cleanly burned and toxic elements removed). The problem is the ecosystem isn’t taking it up as rapidly as we would like. Instead of focusing on silly, counterproductive schemes like underground sequestration, we should work on restoring the ecosystem’s carbon carrying capacity. You can scream all you want about how “filthy” it is, but like manure, it came from nature.

      If you really want “clean” power, you would support nuclear energy. The total amount of radioactive waste, including low-level material such as used protective suits, produced by a nuclear plant in a year is less than half the toxic heavy metals in the ash from an equivalent coal powered plant.

      2. Water is burned hydrogen. It takes at least as much energy to “unburn” it as you would get back from combustion or fuel cell oxidation. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a primary source. To get the energy to produce it, you have to take energy away from other uses. It makes no sense to burn coal to make hydrogen for energy use unless that is the most efficient and cost-effective means of filling the need. It may make sense for using surplus production from intermittent primary sources such as solar or wind, but the environmental costs of manufacturing and covering the landscape with enough such collectors to fulfill our transportation needs would be significant.

      You can learn all sorts of amazing things when you study physics and chemistry. You should try it.

      • DaveH

        Ditto when you study economics:

        The only true solution is to let private individuals invest their own monies in those pursuits which they believe to hold the most potential for real profits, rather than expecting self-serving know-nothing Politicians, who are working with other peoples’ money and thus have nothing to lose if they’re wrong, to do the right thing.

      • vicki

        Effective environmentalists don’t wait around for crony government to use other peoples money to buy their friends silly inventions (/wave solyndra). They get out and buy working technology using their own money from PRIVATE companies and install them themselves or put installers to work.

        And how does government reward these people. It slaps a 30% surcharge on one of the key and most expensive components just to protect failed companies like solyndra

      • Ben W. Gardner


        “Fossil fuels, by definition, are made of carbon and hydrogen that were once part of the ecosystem.”

        This is true, but misleading. Yes, we’re talking carbon and hydrogen, but two very different types. Gasoline, as we know it, is a blend from the paraffin series (CnH2n+1) that includes everything from ethyl alcohol through Vaseline. The stuff from Alberta is primarily from the benzene series (CnHn – an aromatic hydrocarbon best known as a carcinogen among other things).

    • Nadzieja Batki

      We will continue to use fossil fuels because our transportation, our whole way of life is derived from it.
      If you are adverse to using the byproducts of the fossil fuel industry, make sure you find a cosy and warm cave to live in because you will not be wearing clothes, shoes, etc.. You can always use a stick to settle the arguments with the animals who will refuse to share the cave with you. So sorry but you cannot eat since most of the food is transported to the grocery stores using fossil fuels.

      • eddie47d

        Our energy needs will not change overnight yet it has been over 50 years since we have been aware of the problems caused by our dependency on oil. Nothing will change as long as Nadzieja keeps living in her cave and future generations wonder why she was so stubborn to a more positive change.

    • Inventor64

      We could wait for 12/21/12 and let the creator to clean it up once and for all. The end of the people, we didn’t work out very well!!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Every person in this country SHOULD BE ALLOWED to invest in alternative energy! NO one (ie taxpayers) in this country SHOULD BE FORCED to invest in alternative energy! If it’s such a good idea, someone will build it! Whenever government gets involved in free enterprise, the money disappears! It is stolen! Alternative energies known to us at this time are not viable. That is why nobody wants to put their own money into it! The government’s financing is just a pay off for campaign support! They STEAL our money and give it to their CRONIES!!!

      • GALT

        Actually, the only reason alternative energy appears to be non viable, is because you are being FORCED to use carbon based fuels…………..and the actual costs of using these
        fuels is back loaded……..

        Buckminster Fuller, in his book Critical Path calculated the costs of burning one gallon of gasoline at one million dollars, and this was in the seventies……

        Of course, it is possible that the deteriorating condition of the planet that makes your life possible has escaped you…….but the front loaded cost adjusted for inflation would now be
        $ 3 million a gal…………..”Filler’ up, Mr. Buffet?”


      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I may be ignorant but I’m working to remedy the situation!

    • Jon

      Out of curiosity, have you tried a hydrogen generator on your car? I did. The gas mileage increased about 10% and my cost per mile driven increased 20%. After a year, I tore it out because I couldn’t afford the “improvement”. My attempts to use solar at home had the same result. It worked, but cost more than standard service. Until “green” energy becomes more efficient and cost effective, there is no short-term future in it. And count on the government saving it with our dollars. They have a true Sadim Touch. Everything gold they touch turns to mud.

  • Joe Brooks

    This is why “free trade” should be abandoned and the exact reason Marx advocated unilateral free trade for non Communist countries. Free trade is the colonization of the morons who practice it and domination by protectionist countries with expansionist goals.

    “Gentlemen deceive themselves.
    It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead, substantially, to the recolonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain.”

    The above quote comes from Henry Clay’s “In Defence of The American System”. His thoughts apply just as well, today. Red China, India and many others have learned this lesson, we have politicians who choose to ignore it. The quote comes from pages 23, 24.

    • DaveH

      Joe Brooks says — “Free trade is the colonization of the morons who practice it and domination by protectionist countries with expansionist goals”.
      If you’re going to damn a concept, Joe, then you need to understand what it really is, not the mangled definition that is assigned by you dishonest Progressives. Free Trade is that which occurs without Government meddling. You can’t have Free Trade and a Protectionist country at the same time — it’s an oxymoron.
      Henry Clay promoted what was called Mercantilism in those days, but is called Crony Capitalism these days — Government picking the winners and losers instead of the consumers picking the winners and losers (as it would be in real Free Markets). We fought the Revolution to rid ourselves of Great Britain’s Mercantilism, and remained that way until “honest” Abe tore our Constitution asunder and implemented Henry Clay’s system of Mercantilism. We’ve been stuck with varying levels of Crony Capitalism, disguised with immense Propaganda, ever since:

      • Joe Brooks

        Dave H, I understand “free trade” perfectly, it is you who does not. We have been over this point so many times and you continue to refuse to see the truth.

        Ricardo, Smith, were actively promoting “free trade” for everyone but themselves during British colonial expansion. As agents of the Crown, do you really believe they wanted a powerful, strong and independent US?

        Marx figured out what “free trade” really is and promoted it for everyone but Communist countries, exactly what has been happening for 40 years. No one promoting “free trade” is a American patriot, they are knowingly or not agents of foreign governments. The massive import tariffs of Red China, India, Mexico are stark examples of my point. US unilateral free trade with these countries is suicide, plain and simple and plain to see. Look around at the 6 million manufacturing jobs lost and 60K factories closed/bulldozed in just the last 15 years, not counting the ripple effect on the US economy. The various government budget defcits closely follow the trade deficits, simple stuff to figure out why and I have shown you this many times.

        I have been pointing this out to you for nearly 3 years. The results of Communist bought and paid for unilateral US “free trade” is obvious to even a low grade moron, now. Just as anyone with a real understanding of Economics predicted 20 years ago:

        Did U.S. taxpayers save GM for China? Listen to the candid comments of GM’s CEO.

        45 signs China is colonizing the US

        Thanks to the foolishness of our politicians, today American workers have to compete directly for jobs with workers on the other side of the globe where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.

      • Joe Brooks

        Dave H, you really have no knowledge of history I guess.

        “You can’t have Free Trade and a Protectionist country at the same time — it’s an oxymoron.”

        Hogwash. What do you think made the USA the most prosperous nation on Earth?

        The Constitution prevents taxes [tariffs] between the states and tells Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations. The 2nd act of Congress in 1789 was a broad sweeping import tariff devised by the Founders to make the US self sufficient, independent and build the middle class [promote the general welfare]. They created Import tariffs and free markets within our own borders, where these could be watched and governed properly. Regulations control the actions of people, not the markets. This lasted pretty much intact until 1970. So, by Dave H reasoning the Founders were a bunch of Commie Progressives.

        He also calls the American School of Capitalism Crony Capitalism. Uh Oh. The American System of Regulated Capitalism was the only Economic plan devised by man to create a land of opportunity, so anyone could succeed, no matter whether born to wealth or not. This was intentional and 180 degrees from the “free trading” Commies who want to monopolize opportunity to their own advantage.

        Wikipedia has great articles on the subject of the American School of Economics.

      • DaveH

        Free Trade, like Freedom in general, entails the absence of Government peoples’ meddling. What you are talking about, Joe, is Crony Capitalism where Government picks the winners and losers instead of the consumers picking the winners and losers. Of course when Government people can manipulate the Marketplace there is going to be corruption.
        Government’s only role in the Marketplace should be to punish business people for fraud or trespass on the property or bodies of others.
        No, Joe, you don’t have a clue what Free Trade means. You only know what the bastardized version of the phrase Free Trade means.
        If you would take the time to read this book, you could learn something (ohh, the horrors):

      • DaveH

        Joe says — “No one promoting “free trade” is a American patriot, they are knowingly or not agents of foreign governments. The massive import tariffs of Red China, India, Mexico are stark examples of my point. US unilateral free trade with these countries is suicide, plain and simple and plain to see”.
        Quite the opposite, Joe. Nobody promoting Unfree Trade is an American Patriot. Don’t confuse Free Trade with NAFTA or other Government administered trade panels which inevitably work to favor certain companies at the rest of our expense. Real Free Trade doesn’t have Government involvement.
        When countries put massive tariffs on their products, they only deter their consumers from buying the products which they desire, which hurts their countries’ consumers, not us.
        What I find odd in this case, Joe, is that if you got your way, there would be no trade between countries. So that is a tacit admission that you think we could be successful without trading with other countries. So, if you think that, then why would you care if they tariffed their products to the max?
        For those who want to be more knowledgeable than Joe wants to be:

      • DaveH

        Joe says — “The Constitution prevents taxes [tariffs] between the states and tells Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations”.
        Why do you suppose our Founders prevented protectionism between the states, Joe? Because they knew that protectionism was a detriment to a country. The same applies to political units of any size around the world. The more freely we trade, the more products are available, and the cheaper those products are to buy. Free Trade benefits everybody except perhaps the Leaders and their special interest Crony Capitalists.
        For those who want to understand what our Founders meant by “regulate”:

      • DaveH

        Joe says — “I have been pointing this out to you for nearly 3 years. The results of Communist bought and paid for unilateral US “free trade” is obvious to even a low grade moron, now. Just as anyone with a real understanding of Economics predicted 20 years ago”.
        You’ve been wrong for those 3 years, Joe. And the fact that you must resort to adolescent manipulative tactics, bolsters that contention.
        It’s funny, Joe, that you would use Communist countries as your example of the benefits of Unfree Trade, since their economies suck highly. If they’re taking advantage of us, they’re certainly not doing a very good job of it.
        Speaking of History, here’s what a Real Economist thinks about Free Trade:

      • vicki

        Governments only job in a truly free trade is to keep the trades honest. Protection only hurts the protectors people. Great example is the protectionist tariff applied by the US on China over solar panels. China may threaten a lot but why would they really care? They have the whole rest of the world to sell to and they do.

        Meanwhile in the protected country the panels are now too expensive for the consumer.

        But wait. Along comes government to save the day by offering OTHER PEPOPLES money to the consumer to buy the panels at the higher cost.

        Nice racket. Al (C and maybe G) would be proud.

      • Joe Brooks

        Dave H. your standard hogwash. I will let a real American patriot speaking from grave and murdered by a “free trading” Communist blow your dialectic arguments into the malarkey they are:

        “William McKinley was a U.S. Congressman in 1882 when he spoke on the tariff policy, and on the social conditions won for the people by nationalists associated with Abraham Lincoln. McKinley distinguished between a low tariff for purposes of collecting tax revenue only, and a higher tariff which deliberately protects native industries against trade war by foreign powers. McKinley asked his fellow Congressmen: who originated the free trade, low tariff policy?

        “Who has demanded a tariff for revenue only…. What portion of our citizens? What part of our population? not the agriculturalist; not the laborer; not the mechanic; not the manufacturer; [the Multi-nationals, who are dependent on slave labor do] not a petition before us, to my knowledge, asking for an adjustment of tariff rates to a revenue basis.”

        Congressman McKinley answered his own question: “England wants it, demands it–not for our good, but for hers; for she is more anxious to maintain her old position of supremacy than she is to promote the interests and welfare of the people of this republic, and a great party in this country voices her interest…. She would manufacture for us, and permit us to raise wheat and corn for her. We are satisfied to do the latter, but unwilling to concede to her the monopoly of the former.”

        The future President then explained why the British system was not appropriate to the United States: “…|Free trade may be suitable to Great Britain and its peculiar social and political structure, but it has no place in this republic, where classes are unknown, and where caste has long since been banished; where equality is a rule; where labor is dignified and honorable; where education and improvement are the individual striving of every citizen, no matter what may be the accident of his birth, or the poverty of his early surroundings. Here the mechanic of today is the manufacturer of a few years hence. Under such conditions, free trade can have no abiding place here.” Substitute China, Mexico, India, Brazil etc. for England, now.”

        McKinley on trade:

      • Joe Brooks

        Dave H, Vicki, only a blind man cannot see that the Communist Chinese have up to 300% import tariffs on our products, besides government subsidies for their solar power panel manufacturing State Capitalistic firms.

        Your idea of “free trade” equals giving US competitors a 99 meter head start in 100 meter race. Currently, under the US 2.5% import tariff and 60 to 300% import tariffs for the rest of the world, our competition just has to fall over the finish line as they are laughing hysterically to beat us.

        Clearly the USA practices “free trade” with the non competitive real world tariffs we have. Do not try to tell any knowledgeable person we do not have “free trade”, we do.

        The special interest enrichment schemes, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc are just more evidence of the corruption your cherished “free trade” breeds.

      • DaveH

        Do you think your childish attempts to personally attack me score you any points with the readers, Joe?
        Ridicule and ad hominem attacks are the hallmark of Progressives who can’t make a logical factual argument.
        Your double-speak hasn’t convinced me, Joe. And I doubt it will convince anybody else who has carefully read the suggested links.
        This “moron” has two 4-year degrees, both graduated with honors. And has spent 40 years studying matters economic and political. And this “moron” says you haven’t got a clue, Joe Brooks.

      • DaveH

        For those who don’t want to follow Joe and his cohorts over the economic cliff:
        From the article:
        “According to the Cato Institute’s 2004 report on Economic Freedom of the World, which measures economic freedom in 123 countries, the per capita gross domestic product in the quintile of countries with the most restricted trading was only $1,883 in 2002. That year’s per capita GDP in the quintile of countries with the freest trading regimes was $23,938″.

    • Joe Brooks

      “The more freely we trade, the more products are available, and the cheaper those products are to buy. Free Trade benefits everybody except perhaps the Leaders and their special interest Crony Capitalists.”

      Been to Walmart lately? Those cheap prices are getting awfully high and were temporary as price gouging continues to increase.

      I realize it is no use arguing with tools of the “free trade” political propaganda payoff machine, but some folks who might be interested in the truth may happen on this page. I have met many converts, here.

      Btw, my argument that even a moron can see that “free trade” has been very damaging to the country is hardly kid stuff and is plain to see.

      Once again, you resort to the tactics of someone with no legitimate argument.

      • DaveH

        You resort to name-calling and other adolescent manipulative tactics, with no convincing logical basis in your comments, and you tell ME that I have “no legitimate argument”?
        Only uneducated people who aren’t capable of logical reasoning would fall for your BS, Joe.

      • DaveH

        The problem is, Joe, that your sails are up but there’s no wind. Your motor is revving, but your tires are flat.
        As is typical with Progressives, you have neither logic nor empirical evidence on your side. All you have is emotional manipulative tactics that may work on the weak-minded but fall short with knowledgeable people.

    • Shawn Eng

      Is not comparative advantage the pillar of Ricardian free trade? Comparative advantage by any means necessary? Should we trade with a nation where workers are routinely abused and denied the freedom of expression or recourse in court? If the answer is yes, then I ask if you think IBM should have sold punch-card census machines to Germany in the late 1930s?

      I want to test the limits of free-trade principles. Let’s say a foreign nation has decided to produce a perfect copy of a patented, brand name pharmaceutical and is selling it at 1% of the price of something Merck or Pfizer charges to cover the cost of research. Should I be allowed to purchase the pirated drugs from that country? But it’s FREE TRADE. But Merck holds a PATENT? Who grants that patent? The government? The government is actually granting an artificial monopoly to someone? Choosing winners and losers?

      It is my goal to purge the free-traders from the GOP and the Libertarians. Both Republicans and Democrats followed the neo-liberals straight down the toilet and the time as come to crack down and clean house.

      I will not be voting for Romney or Obama, but I will write in Buddy Roemer, even though he isn’t running anymore. Being in New York, it doesn’t really matter because Obama will get all the electoral votes. But in places like OH, WI, PA and MI, every vote counts. If in some small way, I contributed to Romney’s defeat this November. Don’t blame me. I voted for Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan. Blame the establishment GOP and the free-trade think tanks for disappointing voters like me.

      Here is a copy a letter I sent to over 150 small town newspapers across the battleground states in the Rust Belt. I can’t compete with SuperPAC TV ads and so I will reach out to the out of the way voters who don’t have computers and have been written off by the party machine.

      “NAFTA has failed. Global free trade has failed. We were promised by the free-traders that if we opened the borders, prosperity and liberty would come to China but time and again, Beijing has proven by their continued repression that they never intended to keep their part of the bargain. We were are the suckered into celebrating this “new economy.” The free-traders in both parties still see no problem with the bleeding of the manufacturing sector and keeping our ports wide open to goods made by people who do not have our same freedoms. When Republicans pass tax cuts, the money eventually ends up buying imports from China. When Democrats pass stimulus, the money is again used to buy imports from China. China then uses those dollars to buy debt that our children and grandchildren will never hope to pay off while the big box retailers and importers squirrel away their gains in off-shore accounts.

      Every time the American people demand action, our representatives delay and stall. As of today, H.R. 639 (Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act) has over 230 co-sponsors, both Republicans and Democrats and yet is still stuck in committee thanks to Speaker Boehner and Michigan’s own David Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The Senate version of this bill already passed last year with overwhelming bi-partisan support so why the delay?

      You have heard much talk from candidates on trade and manufacturing and that’s all it is, talk. They pay lip service to Chinese currency manipulation but when it comes time to act, they cut and run. This your chance, Ohio. You are one of the most important swing states and if you don’t hold Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire on this issue, who will? Certainly not Silicon Valley. Certainly not Wall Street. Ohio has lost over 100,000 jobs to China in the last decade. After the election, all the pollsters and campaign workers go back to DC and forgets about the Buckeye State. Ohioans should demand what their representative’s position is on H.R.639.”

      • DaveH

        Shawn says — “Should we trade with a nation where workers are routinely abused”.
        Abused? As in what, Shawn? Lower wages? Longer hours? Are they forced to work, or is it just your opinion that they are abused? Did you ask the foreign workers if they’d rather be without a job? Are you really just feigning concern for their plight? Do you care that your trade sanctions deprive these same workers of a much needed income? I doubt it, because most likely you’re just protecting yourself and your elite cronies from competition.

      • DaveH

        Shawn says — “Let’s say a foreign nation has decided to produce a perfect copy of a patented, brand name pharmaceutical and is selling it at 1% of the price of something Merck or Pfizer charges to cover the cost of research. Should I be allowed to purchase the pirated drugs from that country?”.
        Short answer — YES.
        Murray Rothbard says — “It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditure being conducted. For while it is true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that competitors are excluded from production in the area of the patent for many years… Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels”.
        Stephan Kinsella points out — “…maybe more money for R&D would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits.”.
        Gene Callahan says — “The idea that patent law “used to work” relies heavily on the indefensible notion that someone could objectively determine whether “too little” invention is occurring. Gleick says, “[Patent law] fueled industrial progress in the early United States…” But how does he know? Did he examine the history of an alternate-universe United States and observe that it had less industrial progress?”.

      • DaveH

        I see that you’re using the same sort of circular reasoning that Joe uses, Shawn.
        Shawn says — “NAFTA has failed. Global free trade has failed. We were promised by the free-traders that if we opened the borders, prosperity and liberty would come to China but time and again, Beijing has proven by their continued repression that they never intended to keep their part of the bargain”.
        The problem is, Shawn, that NAFTA is Free Trade in name only. Real Free Trade is NOT administered by Government. You know, that’s the “Free” part.
        First the Progressives bastardize a concept, then they use the failure of that bastardized concept to “prove” that the original concept doesn’t work. How Convenient.
        As to Free Trade’s failure, I will repeat my comment made to Joe:
        From the article:
        “According to the Cato Institute’s 2004 report on Economic Freedom of the World, which measures economic freedom in 123 countries, the per capita gross domestic product in the quintile of countries with the most restricted trading was only $1,883 in 2002. That year’s per capita GDP in the quintile of countries with the freest trading regimes was $23,938″.

      • DaveH

        Shawn says — “It is my goal to purge the free-traders from the GOP and the Libertarians”.
        Then it’s your goal to trash the US economy, Shawn? Thanks a lot.
        The evidence proves that restricted trade greatly diminishes the restricting country’s economy.
        See the above comment.


    No I think it all part of an ingenious plan to use their otherwise worthless currency together with the export revenues of $US to buy valuable assets . The assets will be worth a great deal more than both their currency and the american imports which will be in landfill within a little few years.

    • Joe Brooks

      What’s the difference? Colonization is colonization, no matter what terminology is used.

      • vicki

        The difference is consent of the governed vs force on the governed.

    • Joe Brooks

      Vicki, you want to be a slave of Red China? That is very bizarre.

      • DaveH

        No Joe, what is “bizarre” is your repeated adolescent ad hominem attacks.

  • jim

    Make no mistake, we are being forced out of the picture by China, especially in the Pacific rim and other countries for the oil and minerals. China, Russia, India and others care nothing about polution and will stop at nothing in grabbing all the fuels for their own needs and wants. Obozo cares nothing about it all except staying in office to complete his distruction of the nation. Keeping the Canadian oil here will only help us. It is unreal how Obozo only supports energy sources that he knows will fail, while not supporting the ones that will work. GOD save us all from the evil one.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      China does not have a problem with getting rid of environmentalist squackers. They see it that it is better for them if America is innundated with useful idiots.

    • eddie47d

      You must be referring to the Republicans who keep us addicted to oil Nadzieja. They have their share of idiots too. It sure is odd that we have no problem with taking oil from Venezuela and the Middle East yet if China wants oil from Canada you all go ballistic. A few of you also act as if Canada is our 51st state and has to bow down to our whims.

      • vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “They (Republicans) have their share of idiots too.”

        We call them RINOs

    • Inventor64

      What picture?? Broken worthless trade “JUNK”?? We need real solutions. I’m working on a “Free Energy” device that generates electrical power from the whole atomic structure of the universe. No heat or carbon footprint, no noise no need for an fuels of any kind.
      How is that for an advancement??

      • vicki

        “How is that for an advancement??”

        When it comes you can market it (if you can find a free market it would be best). Till then we are sticking with currently practical methods of electrical power generation.

      • Dan Mancuso

        I wish you all the best for your invention, really, for your sake and all our sake’s. In the event that you do invent this Free Energy science/device I see a few problems;
        -Can you patent it?
        -Can you benefit from a patent in today’s mercenary ‘big business’ climate?
        -What has happened to all the other patents for alternate energy producing science/devices?
        -Where will you get financing to develop it, considering the previous point?
        -If you can succeed and over come all previous points, how do you expect the world to change, from a logistical and infrstructure perspective, to one that can support and work off this new science/device?
        -There are a few very powerful people and organizations that will not want you to succeed, are you ‘ready’ to be successful?
        If you do succeed with your invention, I sugest you keep it quiet until you know you can successfully release it to the world for free, for mankinds benefit. Not for any reason of altruism, but for your own survival!
        Good Luck

      • Ben W. Gardner

        I would definitely listen to Dan Mancuso. I developed a modified Pogue carburetor in the 70s and applied for a patent (the original Pogue patent expired over 50 years ago). When I tested the prototype on an International Harvester 402 cu inch engine which normally got 8 miles per gallon and measured between 60-70mpg. When I tried to market it, I was gently counseled by one major automobile manufacturer that if I were to put that on the market, my life expectancy would be measured in days rather than years. I still have my designs, but I also have my life.

        I currently drive a Toyota Tacoma that normally gets around 28mpg on the highway. I installed a Browns Gas generator (hydrogen-oxygen electrolysed from water) to the intake of the fuel injectors and increased my mileage to average 40mpg. These are both VERY old technologies, so the next time you hear an auto company moan that they cant meet proposed mileage standards, keep in mind that they could have since the 1930s.

        The energy crisis is totally about big money and criminal activity from the energy companies that create a profit of over one billion dollars every day.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      It’s a mistake to believe that we would ever “keep the Canadian oil here”. The oil goes to the highest bidder! We even sell American oil to China! Big boo hoos about not wanting to be dependent on the middle east oil but yet, we sell OUR oil to China! It’s all a bunch of crap to get people to support big money. Don’t kid yourselves. At least know the truth! IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!

  • Ben W. Gardner

    I hope all of you realize precisely how misleading this article is. First, the XL pipeline was to fulfill contracts that are already signed to sell the petroleum to Europe, none to the U.S. As for China, it’s bid to purchase Nexen is not a done deal and is being opposed by the opposition party. The only way to get oil to China from Canada is to build a pipeline through British Columbia, something that the Premier of BC and the First Nations whose property it would have to cross keep stating “ain’t going to happen”. If XL is ever approved, all labour to build it will be performed by Canadians, not Americans. The steel to build the pipeline has already been bought from Japan, not the U.S.

    If there is any advantage to America to buy tar from Alberta, I totally fail to see it. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Canadian dollar is currently worth more than the American dollar. It wasn’t that long ago when the Canadian dollar was worth $.75USD. Today, the U.S. dollar is below the value of the Canadian Loonie because Canada is still a manufacturing and exporting country, whereas America has sold off or off-shored all of its manufacturing facilities and jobs.

    Since it appears that America is on the verge of electing the king of off-shoring as president, I would definitely recommend that everybody pick up a copy Rosetta Stone and begin brushing up on their Hindi and Mandarin because that type of job will be all that is left in N. America.

    • Chester

      Ben, perhaps you had better take a GOOD look at where that XL pipeline goes. Granted, some of it goes through Canada, but as much, if not more, goes through the good old U S of A, and most of that not only has been approved, but is under construction as we speak. Seems the companies involved have already gotten Corps of Engineers approval to cross Corps controlled lands and waters, so now it is just a matter of time. Also, the only holdup on crossing from Canada to the US is one more quick evaluation by EPA, which is mostly done, then Hilary and Barak signing off on the international end of things. Yeah, greenies are screaming for all plans on this to come to a full dead stop, but there are a lot of us who are doing what we can to at least slow that scream down to a whimper or two.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        You know Chester, there is so much CRAP out there about this pipeline! I’m no environmentalist but I follow this closely because it affects MY drinking water!!! First of all, the pipeline would only provide a few thousand TEMPORARY jobs for Americans! Two years of employment at the most! Second of all, the pipeline is made in China and is DEFECTIVE! An engineer whose job it was to inspect the first TransCanada pipeline was a whistle blower and said the pipes were made of defective materials. They fired him and tried to shut him up. The first pipeline which has been in place for a short time has had MULTIPLE LEAKS!!! Now, here’s the problem! If oil leaks, they can clean it up, but this is not regular oil. This is tar sands oil. It is too thick to flow through the pipeline so they “thin” it with chemicals. It is the CHEMICALS that people are concerned about! TransCanada will NOT divulge what is in this mix of chemicals. They say it is a trade secret. The original plan was to run the pipeline right through the Sand Hills of Nebraska. Not only is this a delicate ecosystem but below it lies the Ogalala Aquifer. The aquifer provides drinking water for most of the state. In addition the aquifer provides irrigation water for most of the food grown in the midwest. If the water is poisoned, we in Nebraska have no water. The country’s food will also be poisoned. Would you trust a Canadian CORPORATION and China’s pipes with YOUR water and food?!? Now Nebraska officials, trying to quiet the greenies insisted on moving the route so that it did not go through the Sand Hills. But the new route still goes over the aquifer!!! So REALLY! Is it worth the HUGE RISK for a few thousand TEMPORARY jobs?!? You know, Nebraska isn’t just a wilderness of farm land. The Omaha metro area has nearly a million people. We DO need water! if YOUR water was on the line, how would YOU feel?!?

    • MNIce

      As of 10:01 Eastern Time, the Canadian dollar was worth 0.08 cents less than the US dollar. It has been a fraction of penny less for several weeks, and that is the highest it’s been in several months. Source:

      • Ben W. Gardner

        As of 4:30p.m. yesterday (Tuesday) the Loonie was worth $1.0058 USD (CBC.CA).

    • DaveH

      The Builders of XL defend themselves:

      • DaveH
      • eddie47d

        Name one company or even an individual that doesn’t “defend itself”. Even Enron defended itself so how did that work out for our economy? The issue is mostly non negotiable ground water with XL and they failed miserably in their early attempts to route their project. Now when they get it right it just may be endorsed. As Ben Gardner pointed out that oil is already contracted out to foreign nations which means there will be little impact at the gas pump and only a few American workers involved.

      • DaveH

        And your references to back up your conjecture are where, Eddie?

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        OMG!!! I ALMOST agree with eddie47d! NOW I KNOW THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!! It’s not conspiracy! IT’S TRUE!!!

  • Jim P

    The Keystone Pipeline is intended to be one of ways to get Canadian oil to China and other foreign markets. That’s the reason it ends at a foreign owned refinery in Texas. This is all explained in the Cornell University Report “Pipe Dreams”.

    • Chester

      One terminal where it pops up MAY be foreign owned, but that is NOT the only terminus, and for sure is not the dead end for that pipeline. Apparently you haven’t looked at the mapping for that, but it does have a major terminal in Oklahoma, with direct connections from there to other oil fields and refineries. It seems that Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas all have refineries that can handle this tar sands glop, which a lot of countries are not capable at this time of processing. Also, the terminal in Texas may be foreign owned, but who do you think is going to be getting the paychecks for running it? For sure will not be people brought in from overseas just to run a major terminal.

    • DaveH
  • Steve Brown

    Yes… and this present administration is in on it.

  • hljmesa

    Mr. Myers,
    China was going to buy this oil company anyway. It does not matter what the USA does, Keystone or not. You are playing a political blame game here. Why do you not tell you readers about another Chinese purchase, that of AMC theaters?
    Your readers could then boycott this theater.
    How about having your readers not purchase Chinese products from Wal-Mart, the biggest exporter of American jobs in this country?
    Get real sir, China has more American dollars than it can spend, due to our poor export/import policies. That sir, is the real problem.

    • DaveH

      Why not tell the readers that China has 4 times our population and only 3/4 of our GDP ($11.44 trillion vs. $15.29 trillion for US on a PPP basis), so they can relax and not fear paper tigers?
      The significant thing here is that “Since the late 1970s China has moved from a closed, centrally planned system to a more market-oriented one that plays a major global role”, while the US is going in the reverse direction:

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So what you are saying, is that China sees America as a land of a full stomach and empty brains.

      • 45caliber


        Sounds about like how I see America too.

  • G. Smith

    So Canada wants to run it’s sludge right over the top of probably our only under ground water supply in the entire west. Last time I checked water was in kind of short supply out there and you want to risk our water to canada’s sludge line to get it to the gulf of mexico and on to the world market to sell to the highest bidders. Please. I have heard to many arguments about how there is so much oil out there why then do we have to risk our environment and more importantly one of our major water supplies just for oil company profits that they do not share with us by the way for using our natural resources. We even subsidize the most profitable industry on earth. Why is that. Americans are the most innovative and creative people on the planet. What is it about the development of alternative energy sources that makes conservatives blame President Obama for problems we have known about and done nothing about for 40 years.

    Sure there is oil out there but no more easy oil as is evidenced by the pipeline folly that risks our clean water and our public lands. How many more bp disasters are we going to allow to happen for oil profits at all costs. We put people on the moon surely we can produce an effective and cheap energy source in conjunction with fossil fuels. Maybe instead of subsidizing billion dollar corporations that are more profitable than any other industry in the history of the world and use the our energy subsidies a little more wisely. When we invade iran and the flow of oil shuts down for a few weeks and gasoline climbs to 10.00 a gallon never to return to it’s present day prices maybe we will finally get the message.

    • MNIce

      I remember all the weeping and wailing back in the 1970′s when the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline was proposed – the environmentalists were dead certain it would totally trash the Alaskan landscape and environment. Instead, while it was operating at full capacity, it became a favorite hangout for the caribou herds, especially in winter when it provided extra shelter and a bit of warmth from the oil flowing through it. There is no significant record of destruction of water resources in Alaska from the pipeline, despite the brutal conditions under which it operates.

      That was built almost 40 years ago. Don’t you think we might have learned a few more things about building reliable pipelines since then?

      • lennyp96

        Yes! You sure would think so!

    • Chester

      That little problem HAS been corrected by changing the routing of the pipeline. Bad thing is, that change is now the ONLY excuse for the pipeline not already being built on the north end, the way it IS being built on the southern end. For all the noise, pipelines are the SAFEST way to move that oil, especially in the quantities needed to be profitable. Or perhaps you would PREFER a couple of million tanker trucks running back and forth between here and Canada on a daily basis?

    • MNIce

      You are mistaken about the economics of the oil industry. Apple Computer makes about three times the profit on a percentage basis than any major oil company. It is absurd to claim that the United States “subsidizes” oil companies; they pay out more in taxes than they get in after-tax profit. This comes right out of the latest quarterly report from Exxon Mobil.

      You probably got your notion about subsidies from a lying politician who spuriously tried to equate legitimate tax deductions for operational expenses with subsidies (which are a cash payout from the government to the operation being subsidized). There is a definite difference between letting someone keep his own money and giving him other people’s money. If you know of any true subsidies to the oil companies, call your Congressperson and demand that they be replaced with a tax cut – that’s more efficient and respectful of the rights of both the shareholders and the people at large.

      The governments of the world make more money from oil than the oil producers do, especially when prices go up. That is why there is always “tension” in the Mid-East, and that is why unlimited domestic oil production is discouraged. Anything that reduces the price of oil means less tax money for Mr. Obama and Mr. Ahminednejab to spend. The US and Iran are content to play “good guy-bad guy” as long as it works to extract more of our funds.

      • johnc

        The Liberal media has led the uniformed to think that …the administration is allowing the southern section to be built but in fact the states involved had that part of it relocated to avoid the aquifer problem. Unfortunately it is a pipeline to nowhere because it won’t carry much oil form its northern end to the southern end. The stupidity of the administration is so obvious on this. I would like to see the green freaks power their cars without gasoline and the farmers without fuel paying premium prices…what happens to the price of people are so stupid when you have no other viable source of energy to cut production of that energy here.

    • DaveH
      • eddie47d

        CATO is a good organization who debates all sides and all issues. They are right that greenhouse gases are proliferating because of the Tar Sands and millions of carbon collecting trees are being taken out to to get at the oil. Kudos to them and the environmentalists have been saying that all along. Now that XL may be rerouted to avoid aquifer damage the ranchers and farmers can breath a little easier. The environmentalists were right about that also and their actions halted the earlier and more potentially damaging route. CATO also chastised those who said this project will provide more jobs than are possible. Maybe CATO should be writing for this site for they would be a positive addition.

      • DaveH

        Where did they say anything at all about trees, Eddie?
        And their comments about Greenhouse Gase were not in support of the Homogenic Global Warming Hoax, but rather to say that whether or not the pipeline was built, the fields would still be developed and the gases would still be released.
        I see you’re still up to your old business of putting words in peoples’ mouths.

      • eddie47d

        I didn’t mention global warming so who is putting words into peoples mouths? I did add trees because that is what is happening in order to get to the tar sands. I think CATO is smart enough to know that. No different than tearing up trees to get to coal in W Virginia.

      • DaveH

        You didn’t mention Global Warming, Eddie?
        Then what was this — “They are right that greenhouse gases are proliferating because of the Tar Sands”?

        You’re beyond annoying, Eddie.

  • don

    with obunhole shooting down the pipeline and aiming to become the only superpower in them world shows his destructive powers towards the future of this country. his plans are toward putting the usa into third world status. then he’d move somewhere else with his nwo buddies while the country he destroyed would be in the sewer. we need to vote the destroyer out. 4 more years with him will put the usa in rapid decline. trillion dollar debt will do the trick. can you imagine what would happen if we run our households like the us government. we have a hell of a choice in november. romney has elitist connections too. i wish everyone woul vote and vote wisely. we have bypassed a few very good candidates over the years. ross perot, pat buchanan, and ron paul would have been better than what we got. elections are turned into something like beauty padgents and most of the voters are unaware of what the bankers and big business make sure we get for leaders when will we get this country back. probly after it is broken down and finished.

  • Doc Sarvis

    This is just another illustration that the easy/cheap oil is rapidly going away and that countries that don’t make moves to other energy sources are going to be in for very rough and expensive times.

    • DaveH

      Wouldn’t it be much smarter to use the cheaper energy source first until that time at which it does (or might) run out, thus saving our money for the future when we might have no choice but to switch to more expensive energy?

      • Doc Sarvis

        Wouldn’t it be smarter and cheaper to realize we are already paying WAY too much for the “cheap” oil with the lives of our brave military and the cost of all the conflicts we have been involved in for the last 40 years (at least)? Our government (us) has been paying much more for a gallon of gas than what it says on the gas pump.

      • DaveH

        While I agree, Doc, that we shouldn’t be the World’s Policemen, what has that got to do with the discussion?

      • DaveH

        Doc says — “Our government (us) has been paying much more for a gallon of gas than what it says on the gas pump”.
        Then vote Libertarian, Doc, so we can have Limited Government, Free Markets, Personal Responsibility, Individual Freedom, and the PEACE that comes with those:

  • http://aol malcoolmX

    it is embarrassing for America to watch these malcontents act stupid in public; imagine the uproarious laughter the rest of the civilized world is having; the monkeys are running the zoo..

  • http://google john p.

    This President don’t want Americans to work . That’s why Obama
    turned Canada down on there oil . Obama is looking for a UNIVERSAL
    WORLD . and the way to do that would be to break our country.
    and turn it over to the united nations for a short time . and then take
    back our country . that way the Democrats could get rid of the
    Constitution . and we won’t be called the United States but we wood
    be called the States . and our rights wood be out the door because
    the Democrats want that supper power over us . that’s where share
    the wealth come’s in . that’s right your bank account’s come in and
    your property will be taken from you . and given to some low life that
    never had a job and has a bunch of kid’s . so wake up and vote this
    IMPOSTOR out of office and out of the country .

    • http://aol malcoolmX

      and guess who is speaking at the dumo’s convention about obama’s unique qualifications to be A ONE WORLD LEADER????? JEEEEMY CARETER, UGH.

    • eddie47d

      So you two clowns are the ones who wrecked our environment all these years and want more of the same in our future. I appreciate the oil that our companies provide and I also appreciate the environmentalists who attempt to keep these same oil companies from damaging our health and livelihood. I want a better balance in how our businesses conduct their business. On the other hand you two, Malcoon and John P seem to approve of the unbalanced approach and don’t care what the oil companies do to achieve their profits.

      • DaveH

        The environmentalists aren’t saving our environment, Eddie, they are simply in it to force their way on others through Big Government.
        As an example, they want to drain Lake Powell to reveal the beautiful canyons that were once there (so they say), but then turn around and promote eyesores like this:
        The environmentalists Leaders don’t want beautiful environments. They want Power. And they want Redistribution of Wealth. They are making fools of their Followers.

      • DaveH

        It’s all about the Power and Wealth of the fanatical Greens:

      • DaveH

        For those who would like to explore just how much Power the Sierra Club wields:

      • eddie47d

        You are so wrong Dave H. Lake Powell is drying up and exposing old water levels because of the drought. You have heard of the drought now haven’t you? When it comes to Palm Springs and your ridiculous video only show how low you can be. Fortunately the wind power is working and in a good location with plenty of wind. Number two that area is extremely hot and dry and I bet the citizens of that area appreciate those windmills to power their air conditioners. I THINK even you can understand that. Well maybe not!

      • eddie47d

        What can’t you comprehend about FRIENDS OF LAKE POWELL Dave H? Is it the friends part or what? You ought to be thankful the Sierra Club is helping to solve our environmental problems. You come across like a bitter ex wife still causing trouble.

      • DaveH

        The Troll speaks his usual nonsense.

    • Doc Sarvis

      It was HIGHLY unlikely that the Canadian oil sands petrol would have been sold to Americans. It probably would have been sold to China – the highest bidder.

      • DaveH

        Do you have any references to support your conjecture?

      • Ben W. Gardner

        Dave H:
        I don’t have the precise links on me, but I would suggest you read the Toronto Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and also the CBC and CTV web sites and search for the info., It has been public info and published all over Canada for well over a year that the U.S., isn’t getting any of the oil.

      • DaveH

        Surely you jest? You make a claim that you can’t back up, yet want me to search for it?
        Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

    • Inventor64

      “King” Bam Bam.

  • Phil

    America has become very good at proclaiming we are better than everybody else. I’d rather see that energy used to prove it instead of filling the ozone with methane from hot air. The American engine needs some repairs and upgrades to stay on top.

  • Ted

    I’m sure that Mr. Myers knows much more about this subject than I, but doesn’t building a pipeline from Calgary to the Pacific Ocean mean crossing the Canadian Rockies? Why don’t the Chinese stay closer to home and build a highway across the Himalayas to the Mount Everest Hilton?

  • Craig

    What’s the problem? The federal government can just send the troops across the border and we can take it over without having to go overseas! Or we can convince the greens that China is polluting so bad that they will go up there to protest and shut it down with lawsuits and sit-ins.

  • Ben W. Gardner

    The U.S. tried that in 1812 and lost their butts to the British/Canadians. I wouldn’t recommend it again. We burned the White House down; you got a National Anthem out of it. Stephen Harper learned all he knows from G.W.B and Cheney and isn’t above playing dirty. :)

  • Chuck

    Apparently our “leaders” consider it of primary importance not to use oil sands because they’re considered to be a pollution risk, But it is also apparently OK if China uses those same oil sands and pollutes the environment(?). So as long as we are angelic and green we’ll be pure and above it all until America becomes a sainted Third World state.

    • eddie47d

      Since China doesn’t care about its environment doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. I don’t envy their reckless and desperate growth. I’m sure if we had 1.4 billion people we’d break down and do the same. Be careful in wanting to be like them.

    • 45caliber

      To the “Greens” environmentalism is a religion. Therefore it is better to be poor and starving than to take a chance on polluting even a mud-puddle. After all, everyone knows that after you die you will go to heaven (or somewhere nice) if you don’t sin. Isn’t that better than having a nice life here on earth? And all it takes is making everyone ELSE do what you want.

    • eddie47d

      Poor people don’t relish a dirty environment but that is where big corporations dump their products. So who is making them sick Caliber and eroding their life so you can live on the right side of town and avoid the health dangers. You blame everyone except the persons doing it.

  • Dave

    For the Greens, many of whom are anti-capitalist Socialist-Communist ideologues, this is a triple win-win-almost win position. Destroy capitalism and promote communism at the same time while using actions that “speak to” green environmentalism even if nothing concrete is accomplished environmentally.

    • eddie47d

      It’s more of a greed and selfishness issue in how our capitalists operate. When they conduct themselves more honestly then maybe they can be trusted. That has nothing to do in being in favor of communism. Considering the damages that capitalists have done to our environment over the years do you really think they can be wholly trusted to always do the right thing. Don’t be so naive.

      • DaveH

        Spoken by a lifelong greedy Union Extortionist.

    • eddie47d

      What will you be gleefully polluting today Dave H. Smoke and mirrors again? There is plenty of extortion going on in this world and here in this country. The Elite capitalists are doing plenty but as in all your comments you never seem to notice that.

  • The Christian American

    China is awash with dollars their trying to get rid of and this a good wat to do it. Plus, they could sell Canadian oil for EU’s, not dollars if the purchase allows them to. That’s what Iran is working at doing. Iran is starting a bourse, oil exchange trading in EU’s, and China will probably join them. There’s a squeeze on the dollar to replace it as the world’s sovereign currency by the “BRICS”, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Currently the US has a squeeze hold on Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries because their wealth is represented in dollars. They aren’t siding with us because they love us. Russia is the main supplier of oil to Europe and the Russians don’t trade in dollars, only EU’s. If this deal between China and Canada goes through it could mean the swan song for the counterfeit dollars. I wonder what currency it will be done in? Canada is afraid of the dollar like the rest of the world.

  • uvuvuv

    in a stadium full of 70,000 fans, if each one there eats one pound of hot dogs, peanuts, pretzels or cotton candy, that comes to 35 tons of food that was brought in at the loading dock. in fact in this country each day you could conservatively estimate that we eat (or in school lunch rooms throw out) 150,000 tons of food. a welfare mama with her one lb bag of cheetos (ironic in this case) adds up. where does all this food come from? it comes from mr petroleum, is where. if china takes over canada’s oil production, our farming will become a footnote in history books. you might disagree with this assessment now, and by the time you spend your days being darn hungry, it will be too late to say, he was right. even the plastic encasing your laptop came from an oil well. probably you didn’t know that. well we will all be learning all kinds of economics lessens very quickly.

    • Inventor64

      That is because we waste all that raw sewage, trash, etc. and throw away all that plastic.
      Item: You can take all of those plastic bags, bottles, containers and convert them to raw petroleum again using the “Beer” method. The sewage makes “Black Gold” in a linear digesting machine. It also gives off methane gas for fuel for new raw petroleum.

  • johnc

    This is exactly what was said would happen IF the US failed to build the XL pipeline Obama is so shortsighted he has deliberately jeopardized US security He is a traitor to the United States. We need rid of him in 2012 and we need to have him investigated as more information comes to light that he may not have even been a citizen. Why congress hasn’t acted on this is beyond me…except the congress may be complicit in this fraud and treasonous acts

    • The Christian American

      Remember, there’s 50 states and then there’s the District of Criminals (DC). Only a resident of DC is considered be President. Ron Paul was kicked out but Obama and Romney are right at home.

  • FreedomFighter

    Another avoidable crisis brought to you by OBAMA-NOMICS, where destruction of America is always our prime goal.

    Please send your re-election money from your welfare check to:

    Obama For Dictator
    1 BigAssMistake America
    Ground Zero

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • david

      You got it soldier!!! And, thanks for putting it on the line to keep us free.

      • eddie47d

        Don’t be so gullible David he’s only a bitter old man and becoming crazier with each passing day.

  • dat’s right

    Too late to nuke everything? Got a bow, can make some arrows. Can hunt man…..Let God try again. How many chances do we get? It’s all coming down to Greed. Right?

    • Doc Sarvis

      Greed, yes. The U.S. has used, historically, more oil than any other country and we still want the lion’s share.

      • DaveH

        Why not, Doc? They sell it to us voluntarily, don’t they?
        It seems to me, Doc, that if you’re not Greedy, you wouldn’t champion the redistribution of other peoples’ wealth, now would you?

  • david

    The environment and the treasures of the United States will not mean much if we do not control debt, retain military superiority, and become energy independent.
    Government has squandered our vital resources. It is time to reign in Marxism and give freedom another chance.

  • SJJolly

    IOW: Bejing wants to buy up Canadian oil-tar sands, and pipe the oil directly to Pacific Coast terminals, to be shipped to China. US oil companies want to pipe the oil to Gulf Coast refineries, then onto tankers, to be transported through the Panama Canal to China.
    What do US and Canadian citizens get out of eather arrangement? — the massive air polution from extracting the oil from the sands.

  • 45caliber

    I believe the oil rig disaster was sabotage and that Oblama has given the off-shore oil the US owns to China to continue his borrowing from them. Why shouldn’t they take advantage of gaining Canada’s oil as well? The “Greens” don’t care as long as we don’t use it – which has always mystrified me. Why are they against the US using it but not against someone else doing the same thing?

    • The Christian American

      When you but a car or house or anything else that required you to sign a Note to the lender, who actually owns it? Using Communist economics, the Chinese must own 10% of America as a debt to the Chinese before the can dictate to America and that’s where we are headed. What did the serpent say to the mouse? Come, let the two of us become one.


    When the jerk in the Oval Office is a known card carrying communist, it’s not to hard to see that his plans for this nation are not American or Constitutional…….Even the lefties don’t know who he is for sure but they vote for him, it’s a mental disorder…..

  • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

    Americans should be worried about Zionist infuence or control ,not Chinese. How many wars has China drawn the U.S. into???

    What ever happened to that good old fashioned American spirit…Free Enterprise …..or does that only apply when america has the advantage

  • The Christian American

    Oil is more that a source of energy for America. It’s the commodity that America is banking on to back the defunct dollar. If oil transactions are only done in dollars, then the dollar could be considered to be solvent. By solvent I mean the printing presses could run wild printing dollars. America could rule the world until God stepped in. Considering the dollar is the world’s sovereign currency, America could loose that position. If America lost that, the collapse of America is guaranteed. Obama is a man that is alien to America and is working toward a “new world order”. His and his ilk’s allegiance to America is based on the fact America’s might is their tool to accomplish their goal. They need America and it’s people as serfs.

  • mike

    What’s with all the hype about the pipeline? That oil was going to end up at the coast. Then what? I was going to go to china anyway because it would go to the highest bidder. And right now china is rolling in dough, US dough because too many Americans were short sighted and started buying all that chinese made junk thinking they were getting a bargain. Well my fellow Americans, the bargains you bought are coming back to bite you squarely in your posterior.

    Your dollars are being used to buy your future right out from under you and you have only yourselves to blame.

    Paybacks are hell aren’t they?????

  • S Johnson

    Come on Canada! The USA will eventually come to its senses and build Keystone! Think about ths, Weigh the cost of never having to have a defense system becasee of the good ole USA took care of ya! That should be worth a pretty penny!

    • DaveH

      Ohh please, S Johnson. When was the last time that any country (other than the US) attacked Canada?

  • black as coal

    china’s ambition is to control the world and enslave all. be careful of the yellow bird the bible teaches us.

  • actual socialist

    Mr Myars if you are paraniod thats fine but it dosnt give you the right to spread the paranioa

  • Brazzos

    John Myers is just like W and his assertions about impending al-Queda attcks. It was designed to put fear in the minds of those who do not think beforereacting. I guarantee John Myers has stock in oil. Of course, he does not mind if people get hurt by environmental problems, like Mitt didn’t care if outsourcing hurt others.

  • Dan Mancuso

    To re-cap Mr. Meyers article from a Canadian’s perspective; We tried to sell this oil to our good friends and nieghbours to the south (America), but your president vetoed this, using the Club of Rome sponsored environmentalists to do so! As is our right to do in wanting to benefit our economy and it’s supposed trickle down effect, we looked for another market for our resource, along came China – not my first choiuce – so Enbridge came up with the $ to move it west through BC in a pipeline. Well again, through the Club of Rome sponsored environmentalists and now the so-called native groups this is being , has been stopped.
    Personally I would prefer to see a much cleaner, renewable energy source like something based on Nicholas Tesla’s ideas using electromagnetism – why did the FBI end up with all his notes at his death and still have them?
    Some questons you should be asking;
    Why did your president really stop the pipeline south – no sane intelligent person buys into the whole global warming/bad human polluter destroying the Earth BS anymore?
    Who is the Club of Rome and what is their connection to the NWO and their real agenda concerning environmentalists?
    Why have the FBI not released Tesla’s papers – he died in poverty in 1943?

  • Gea

    US should be smarter than Chinese which are running their environment into the ground with copying old policies of US exploration of fossil fuels and non-renewable resources in order to boost their GNP and prophits.

    US does not need all that filthy tar-sands oil, if EACH of us takes care of our own energy needs by harvesting solar (both thermal and photovoltaic), and wind energy, and water falling free from the skies, combined with stroing energy and water in our basements and cisterns, which could also be used for geothermal heat exchange. It can be done cheaply and stored in a car battery of an electric car that can go 260 miles/charge (see

    We do not need any government intervention to get off the grid and run the fossils out of business. Use the old fashioned American ingenuity and get those large fossils that supply grid energy and oil for internal combustion engine polluters out! Obama stinks for other reasons than being flip flop about Key nstone, and making US even more dependent on Saudis and Iranians who supply money for the Islamic terrorists.

  • jopa

    All the pipeline meant for America was a few pipeline construction jobs for a couple years.Later on some pipeline cleanup jobs and all the oil going to China anyway.I even thought the Alaskan pipeline was owned by American interests, then I come to find out it is owned by BP(British Petroleum) however they would rather blow a little smoke at you and call themselves BP (Beyond Petroleum).Why are they so ashamed of letting the American public know who they really are with their takeover of a large segment of the gas business in the United States?

  • GiveMeLiberty

    This reminds me of an article I read many, many years ago (mid-80′s) in a foreign policy periodical, I believe called The Atlantic Monthly (I’ve been a political junky for decades). Anyhow, LT and processed food has caused me to forget the minor details of the article but I do vividly remember the hypothetical situation in the article. A large foreign country was economically holding the US essentially hostage. Although shocked and dismayed, we were indentured to this country and found ourselves in a puppet situation. So indentured in fact, our military was being used by that country to act globally as aggressor and/or police force. This country owned most our debt, treasury bonds and vast tracts of real estate. Though not ours, the tar sands in Alberta are close enough. At the time the USSR was our largest adversary but it was suggested it was a different country and not the Soviet Union.

    It was suggested this hypothetical country owned us economically to such a point they controlled us politically and therefore militarily as well! Although interesting, I dismissed it as hogwash! It was the time of Reagan, my WWII grandparents were still alive, and our economy and military were the envy of the world. Forget that, our values and principles were the envy of the world. We were NOT an agressor nation (at least until December 1989….thank you Bush Sr. and the NWO). There was NO WAY I recall, that America would ever find itself in such a situation. Plus, we’d have to have a Marxist president in power to let such nonsense ever happen. Not in this great country, never happen….I thought!

    Again, processed foods have impacted some memory function but I do believe the article theorized this country would be China. At which I only visualized gray uniforms and a very primitive ag society and such theories were non-sense. Again, not only did I say NO but after considering the article suggested China, it was more like HELL NO. Funny what the NWO will do for you.

    To have China own and control vast tracts of oil at our doorstep, set’s off alarm bells in my mind. To think we concluded, through national policy, that we have no interest in piping that precious oil through our country, is downright remarkable. I’m inclined to believe it’s way more than just pandering to the Green Leftists. I’m beginning to wonder if the Marxists running our country didn’t read the same article I read in the mid-80′s.

    Small, Limited Government (with a STRONG Defense) + Individual & Fiscal Responsibility + Free Markets = TRUE LIBERTY
    ~ GiveMeLiberty

  • Michael Lewis

    The following explains why no new refineries have been built in America for decades:

    Solemn Declaration I
    Conference of Sovereigns and Heads of State of OPEC Member Countries
    Algiers, Algeria, 4–6 March 1975

    Pages 13 and 14 –

    Developed countries must support measures taken by developing countries which are directed towards the stabilisation of the prices of their exports of raw materials and other basic commodities at equitable and remunerative levels.

    Fulfilment by the developed countries of their international commitments for the second UN Development Decade as a minimum contribution to be increased particularly by the most able of the developed countries for the benefit of the most affected developing countries.

    Formulation and implementation of an effective food programme under which the developed countries, particularly the world major producers and exporters of foodstuffs and products, extend grants and assistance to the most affected developing countries with respect to their food and agricultural requirements.

    Acceleration of the development processes of the developing countries, particularly through the adequate and timely transfer of modern technology and the removal of the obstacles that slow the utilization and integration of such technology in the economies of the developing countries. Considering that in many cases obstacles to development derive from insufficient and inappropriate transfers of technology, the Sovereigns and Heads of State attach the greatest importance to the transfer of technology which, in their opinion, constitutes a major test of adherence of the developed countries to the principle of international co-operation in favour of development. The transfer of technology should not be based on a division of labour in which the developing countries would produce goods of lesser technological content. An efficient transfer of technology must enable the developing countries to overcome the considerable technological lag in their economies through the manufacture in their territories of products of a high technological content, particularly in relation to the development and transformation of their natural resources. With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC’s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries.

    A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertiliser plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialised nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries.

  • benboublecrossed

    Obama and EPA are regulating coal fired power generation out of existence. So America has begun exporting coal to China. Is this is a better solution than creating cheap energy and high paying jobs in the USA?

    Progressive are so innovative they have my creative juices flowing. We should issue heat credits from Florida to little old ladies in New York who can’t afford to heat their homes. And cooling credits from Alaska to retirees sweltering in Florida’s summer sun. Why we could even solve the health care crisis by letting the healthy citizens sell wellness credits to the sick. Now if we can only stop the hot air exhaled from liberal politicians mouths.

    China is using every energy resource, including natural gas and coal to fuel its economic growth. And China is generating less than 1% of its energy from clean energy sources.

    America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and has hundreds of years of natural gas. The USA, like China, should use these resources to declare energy independence from OPEC, create domestic jobs and cease funding terrorists, while eliminating the need to fight trillion dollar wars in the Middle East.

    Imagine the lives that could have been saved and America’s economy if those trillions had been spent in America.

    Recommended links:

    China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said. –

    Meanwhile EPA regulations strangle the creation of new power plants in America.
    Booming China Is Buying Up World’s Coal
    Published: November 22, 2010

    Even as developed countries close or limit the construction of coal-fired power plants out of concern over pollution and climate-warming emissions, coal has found a rapidly expanding market elsewhere: Asia, particularly China.

    At ports in Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Colombia and South Africa, ships are lining up to load coal for furnaces in China, which has evolved virtually overnight from a coal exporter to one of the world’s leading purchasers.

    The United States now ships coal to China via Canada, but coal companies are scouting for new loading ports in Washington State. New mines are being planned for the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, some of the world’s more environmentally progressive regions are nascent epicenters of the new coal export trade, creating political tensions between business and environmental goals.

    Traditionally, coal is burned near where it is mined — particularly so-called thermal or steaming coal, used for heat and electricity. But in the last few years, long-distance international coal exports have been surging because of China’s galloping economy, which now burns half of the six billion tons of coal used globally each year.

    As a result, not only are the pollutants that developed countries have tried to reduce finding their way into the atmosphere anyway, but ships chugging halfway around the globe are spewing still more.

    And the rush to feed this new Asian market has helped double the price of coal over the past five years, leading to a renaissance of mining and exploration in many parts of the world.

    So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.