Democrats: No offshore drilling

Hell for the price of the war we could have drilled through the earth and sucked the ME dry by now.

As I recall, the Germans made oil out of coal, enough to fill their needs in WWII.

Now, almost 70 years later, if we cannot figure out how to extract the 800 billion barrels of oil out of our shale deposits, enough to run our country for over 100 years, then we may as well just hang it up.

I'm all for drilling, this environmental stuff has just gone too far as usual. I'm all for saving the environment, but not to the detriment of the whole continent. We won't or can't change our consumption, so what is the alternative?? Did you see the governor of Alaska on TV? She's filed suit against the EPA regarding them disallowing drilling in Alaska. Good for her!!

Alaskan may know lots more on this??

But it's okay to allow ski slopes/reports on public lands so the Nany Pelosi and John Kerry types of thw world can ski, but do not dare touch one inch of these same public lands for a necessary commodity that fuels this country. It's okay for Russia, Nigeria, etc to spoil their own environments to satisfy our needs, but our land is somehow more sacred than theirs? I doubt Reid's math of only 3% of the world's oil reserves, but even if correct, we might as wtap into it.

And at the rate the democrats are stalling all efforts to drill for America's reserves, that "3%" will eventually be all of the world's reserves...

I remember years ago when the dems first closed ANWR to drilling. One of the reasons was that it would not solve the immediate problem and that it would not be available until a few years down the road. Well, here it is a few years down the road and the problem is still here and nothing has been done.

Can someone please provide a succinct answer to the already-leasing red herring?

A few issues here. Does anyone know whether it is true, as the Democrats claim, that oil companies are just sitting on offshore oil leases without actively exploring for oil, either through actual drilling or seismic studies? If it is true, that's pretty damning evidence against the oil companies, I would say.

I'm not sure bush is really serious about urging Congress to lift the decades-long ban on offshore drilling in certain coastal waters. If he were really serious, he could easily undermine the Democrats' principal objection to lifting the ban -- that it's a giveaway to the oil companies -- by rescinding tax breaks in the form of the oil depletion allowance and toughening environmental safeguards that might include criminal liability for oil company senior executives. The depletion allowance is particularly galling since tech companies, for example, aren't given a tax break as demand for their products diminish over time due to market saturation or product obsolescence. And criminal liability for disregarding environmental laws should be included to prevent a re-occurrence of the Valdez disaster, where the oil companies completely ignored their (either contractual or lawful) obligation to store equipment for cleaning up an oil spill in Alaska, rather than in Texas.

Sorry about the typos: resorts vice reports, etc.

But my point is that the Federal Government already allows various non-recreational activities to take place on federal lands. What is the hang up about drilling for oil?

Britain and Norway drilled offshore.
Our "public resources" aren't doing anyone any good just sitting in the ground, Speaker Pelosi.
Supposedly the minimum that can be retrieved would replace everything we buy from Hugo Chavez for the next thirty years.
Democrats have a real aversion to jobs for Americans. Where do they think the tax revenue for all their entitlements comes from?
We can't drill our way out of this? Well what do you suppose we do, Senator Reid? If America has three percent of the world's reserves what are we holding them for? As for all the oil we use, what kind of car do you drive and how big are your and your four sons' homes?
Our not drilling will not keep those waters pristine. Cuba and China are set to drill just fifty miles off America's shores. Anyone who thinks China will be a protector of the oceanic environment has another think coming.

This country could have been energy independent generations ago, but there was never any will on the part of the government to make us independent. So long as cheap oil was available everyone was happy.

I don't care if we drill offshore or not, just so long as there's an alternative. If the Democrats have an alternative, what is it, and why aren't we trying it?

This is the most piss-poor generation of leaders we've ever had in this country.

sheik yer booty,

The oil companies are holding leases on federal land, not offshore. Most are going undeveloped. Some are in areas designated for wilderness preservation. Some the environmentalists would probably sue to prevent drilling.
It seems the leases, even unused, are an asset to the owners and look good on the balance sheets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184

Rational

"This is the most p--- poor generation of leaders we have ever had in this country"

That about says it all.

sheik yer booty :

The government auctions off a large amounts of land for oil exploration, on dry land much of it is (technically called) a goat pasture, there is dirt, more dirt and no oil. Just because the government auctions off some land for oil and gas exploration it DOES NOT mean there is gas or oil under the dirt there most likely is just more dirt. Offshore oil leases might have at one time shown that there might have been oil out there but the cost to get it would exceed the value of the oil. Democrats claim a lot of stuff, some gross exaggerations of the truth, others totally untrue. Drilling offshore costs a lot, really a lot of money as do seismic studies, so you just don't go drilling any where just because you have a lease to do so. Also if they show interest in drilling on one or more leases environmental groups will burry them under a mountain of law suits and environmental studies which make it almost economically unfeasible to drill. Of course that is not stopping the Chinese from drilling 50 miles off the coast of Key West, as we have seen environmental groups are unwilling to do to the Chinese (who have the worst environmental pollution record of any country in the world) what they are more than happy to do to US companies.
To be totally fair , the repusakins claim a lot of stuff, some gross exaggerations of the truth, others totally untrue also.

'cynical campaign ploy'....is that like promising American 'if you elect us Democrats to the Senate and House we will fix the gas prices because we have a plan and are ready to implement it'.

Remember that in 2006? Where is that plan?

Look at the above comments and all of the comments that from the Democrats ALL of their arguments never have any fix. It is all arguing against but never a fix, or solution. If anything they keep talking about 'alternative' engergy, like it is going to drop out of the sky.

Ask anyof them what 'alternative energy' is the fix? and when is it coming? They have no idea.

The answer to these guys saying 'we cannot drill our way out of this' is 'we cannot sit our way out of this'.

I'm tired of hearing politicians say we can't drill our way out of this problem. Yes we can. There's ten years worth of oil off our coasts, one to two years of oil in ANWR (and possibly much more) and oil depostis in Colorado and North Dakota and elsewhere. We've probably got at least twenty years worth of oil here in the US. Add to this development of nuclear power, utilization of coal reserves with all the latest technology (e.g., liquefied coal) and non-pie-in-the-sky development of alternative energy sources (though I'm very skeptical of ethanol; ditto for solar and wind) and America can be virtually energy independent in about a decade. But, sad to say, I think we'll continue to dither because our political class is grossly deficient on this issue.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but if we started drilling today, it would be at least a decade before we got any oil out of it. In that time, we could have completely remade our economy using fuel more high-tech and sustainable. It's simply not worth it.

We could make a one-time investment in wind or solar power today, have an immediate power source without drilling underground first--AND we'll have a renewable resource that won't be subject to increasing marginal costs for every additional barrel.

McCain's idea of nuclear power is a better solution, and superior to his offshore drilling plan (which is pure politics). If we can get the political will for nuclear that's great.

I trust all of the Democrats who are against offshore drilling are doing their part by driving hybrids or compact, high-mpg vehicles.

Heh.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael "I don't know if this has been mentioned, but if we started drilling today, it would be at least a decade before we got any oil out of it."

While this statement sounds reasonable it is simply not true.

From one of my ealier posts;

Actually there is more oil in Alaska than Saudi Arabia ever had. There is enough crude oil to run this country at our present rate of consumption for 200 years.
The United States has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia but this happy though shocking information has been covered up for years.

The wells have been drilled, it's merely a matter of turning on the faucets to supply America's needs for 200 years.

These astounding revelations have been confirmed by a 30-year veteran oil exe cutive with leukemia who has decided to speak out.

In 1980, Lindsey Williams wrote a book, The Energy Non-Crisis, based upon his eye witness accounts during the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. As a chaplain assigned to executive status and the advisory board of Atlantic Richfield %26 Co. (ARCO), he was privy to detailed information.

"All of our energy problems could have been solved in the '70s with the huge discovery of oil under Gull Island, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," Williams said. "There is more pure grade oil there than in all of Sau di Arabia. Gull Island contains as much oil and natural gas as Americans could use in 200 years."

Oddly though, immediately after this massive discovery, the federal government ordered the rigs to be capped and oil production shut down.

Developing Alaskan oil would make the United States completely independent of oil imports, Williams said in his book.

Why is the government covering up such good news? Why does it want to be dependent on imported oil? Do international financiers who are heavily invested in the oil industry want to keep the supply limited and prices up?

Will the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), investigate what could be a criminal cover-up? Will the appropriate House committees in quire? Or the Justice Department? Since the cover-up has extended through four presidential administrations, only public outrage can force action.

"Everything you hear on the evening news and out of Washington is garbage," said Jim Lawler, an oil production manager with ARCO. "Eight wells have already been drilled in the areas environmentalists are claiming we must not go in. We have already been in and out. There was no damage done. All we need to do is start production."

The mainstream media is mind-molding public opinion by repeatedly showing running caribou, touting environmentalists' claims that the caribou and other endangered species and habitats would be destroyed.

"The Alaska Fish and Game Depart ment just did a study on the por cupine car i bou in Prudhoe Bay. The size of the herds has increased since 1969 by 35 percent. The pipeline area is a protected designation and the caribou have figured this out. They have migrated into this area for protection," Lawler said.

The Alaskan pipeline was built in 1977 and runs from Prudhoe Bay to the southern shores of Alaska in Valdez.

Lawler maintains that several things can be done to reduce American energy bills.

The Alaskan pipeline can be permitted to run at full capacity. In addition, the Department of Energy can allow a new pipeline to be built across Canada and con nected to the existing system in the United States.

Alaska can also ship oil to the West Coast immediately. Alaskan oil is of such high grade and low sulfur content that it can be utilized at any refinery, without damage to the environment.

"Currently, an estimated 4,000 barrels a day are liquefied at Prudhoe Bay, but government regulation controls that limit," added Lawler.

Liquefying is the process by which oil sludge brought from the ground is pro cessed to be transported.

Lawler said the existing Alaskan pipe line was built to hold another four-foot diameter pipe above it, which could be used for natural gas. However, he said it "is not ne cessary because the Alaskan pipe line has never been permitted to run at full capacity."

This same situation can be multiplied in Wyoming, Texas and other oil-productive areas across the country. The government has imposed strict orders not to produce.

And in a real emergency, Lawler contends hydrogen plants can sprout up in less than six months with just a nuclear reactor placed at sea.

"One nuclear reactor can power all of Los Angeles," Lawler said.

Natural gas is readily available; Prud hoe Bay has 48 747-jet engines pumping one billion cubic feet of natural gas back into the ground 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They have nowhere else to put the natural gas.

From the book Energy non Crisis. CHAPTER 17 - If Gull Island Didn't Blow Your Mind-This Will! Gull Island just proved what the oil companies have believed for some time. It authenticated the seismographic findings. Seismographic testing has indicated that there is as much crude oil on the North Slope of Alaska as in Saudi Arabia. Since the Gull Island find proved to be seismographically correct, then the other testings are correct also. There are many hundreds of square miles of oil under the North Slope of Alaska. ... The Gull Island burn produced 30,000 barrels of oil per day through a 3 1/2 inch pipe at 900 feet.

Three wells have been drilled, proven, and capped at Gull Island. The East Dock well also hit the Gull Island oil pool (you can tell by the chemical structure). For forty miles to the east of Gull Island, there has not been a single dry hole drilled, although many wells have been drilled. This shows the immensity of the size of the field. ...

The following is a comparison between the three oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska which have been drilled into with numerous wells, tested, and proven. Prudhoe Bay can produce two (2) million barrels of oil every 24 hours for 20 to 40 years at artesian pressure. Imagine what the production of the Kuparuk and Gull Island fields could be.

Field Pay Zone Oil Area of Field

(Average depth of oil pool)

Prudhoe 600 Ft. of pay zone 100 square miles

Kuparuk 300 Ft. of pay zone Twice the size of Prudhoe

Gull Island 1,200 Ft. of pay zone At least four times the size of Prudhoe . . .

Estimates are that it is the richest oil field on the face of the earth.

I often support the environmental agenda but at times it gets taken to the level of lunacy.
Such as this time….it gets raised to the level of a religious faith.

I suppose Frederic Nietzsche predicted this when he said that God was dead and that now, to sin against the earth was the greatest of all sins.

I wonder what he thought about Islam?

Reid's statement of "America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil." is so full BS l dont know where to start.
first of all, there is more than 3percent, as this does not allow for oil that is untapped and found. and lastly about the US (Hate America types) using up a quarter of oil. another lie, but MORE important , AMerican produces the bulk of food stuff, etc, including countries like Canada, for the rest of the world, ie China, ME, Africa.. who depend on our grain and produce! Like l said earlier if Canada can drill for oil in our pristine wilderness so can the US!

Obama is digging his grave now. THe american population are all for home drilling, but Obama says "No drilling!"
Good luck on that!

Just one more reason to vote Republican.

we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said.

Nor can we talk our way out of it, nor can we tax our way out of it, nor can we sue OPEC our way out of it.

Never is the old saying more true than with how our current government (all 3 branches) is handling this situation . . ."LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY."

Had we started drilling offshore and ANWR 10 years ago, we'd be producing that oil, had we built nuclear power plants 10 years ago, we'd be producing that electricity by now, had we built refineries 10 years ago, we'd be producing gasoline by now, had we developed wind, solar power and biofuels 10 years ago, we'd be producing that energy by now (i.e. the wind farm off the coast of Marthas Vineyard blocked by champion of the environment Ted Kennedy).

For 30 years R's and D's have ignored, hindered or blocked development of energy in this country for various reasons, none of which include national security.

Get off your asses and do something constructive for a change.

Well havekoranwilltravel

Reading your post is a lot like my first visit here. It is as hard to swallow as it was to find out Islam is not a Religion of Peace.

Dems do not want to drill for fear of upsetting their donors.

The Saudi Princes; The Indonesians; The Venesuelans; The Chinese; Screw the Americans, the Dems need to please their masters.

The list to whom they are beholden to is long and notorius.

What is your policy to CHANGE this OBAMA? TAX our way to energy independance?

The opening line of this article.

"No one understands this problem in the context of the global jihad, so they do not understand the urgency of finding solutions."

I would think that the problem is less of the global jihad, but globalization itself. If america does all the things that various posters have proposed, it would not mean that the middle east would be starved of funds for global jihad, it would mean that the economies of China and India would have to spend a bit less for energy and thus would make their goods that are vulnerable to the cost of transportation more attractive to those whose patriotism is reserved for their wallets and bank accounts.

The 911 attackers spent money on box cutters and flying lessons, and one way tickets, our military talks about bang for the buck the al-kida suicide murderers got lots of bang for very little bucks.

Other nations that import oil will also be able to take advantage of america deciding to spend more by harder extraction methods.

Those who are concerned about global warming may find less to blame america for, but in the larger context they should remember that the term is global warming, not USA warming.

I would appreciate if more of those who post here would explain the context of global jihad and drilling in anwar or on the continental shelf. It seems to me that most of what has been written is not very apropos of a site named Jihad watch.

Shlomo_Michael :

Wind power is out as Sen. Kennedy and his rich pals have shown, put those wind turbines up anywhere but in my back yard. It just so happens that a few miles off Nantucket is one of the best places in the US for a wind farm, BUT it will spoil Sen. Kennedy's view. Also some ecology groups are opposed to wind because some birds fly into the blades and get chopped. This of course discounts the fact that birds have intelligence and after they see a few killed will stay away. To prove my point you have some birds making a mess on your roof, you put a fake owl up there and the birds stay away. Why? Because they have seen owls kill and eat other birds, after a while they realize it's fake and continue to mess up your roof. Proof of intelligence on the part of the birds.
As far as solar, you will have to cover at least 10 to 15% of the land mass in the US to produce enough electricity. Then you have thunder storms with marble sized or larger hail, tornadoes, in the south west sand storms (or vandalism) and you have to replace one heck of a lot of solar panels, in the mean time NO electricity. Under the solar panels vegetation on the endangered species list will die (no sun always in the shade) and now you have ecology groups filing law suits in behalf of the plants. Drill if we don't others will and we will be forced to buy oil that should have been ours from them, a rather closed minded approach to energy independence.
If we go nuclear we MUST follow the French model (I know rather galling isn't it) build IDENTICAL nuclear power stations (if you have a problem in one you can correct it in all the others BEFORE it becomes a problem in them) and also the savings in design, design one and you've designed them all. Also reprocess the fuel and use it again like the French the more you reprocess and use until it is useless the smaller the waste foot print becomes (the French must be on to something 70% of their electricity comes from nuclear power stations) AND find SOMEPLACE other than Yucca Mt. to store it, Yucca Mt. has to be one of the worst places to store nuclear waste, next to storing on top of the San Andrea's fault.

First off we're paying the price for encouraging China and India to industrial to become "just like us"

Every bit we don't buy those two nations do.

Secondly the dollar has imploded in value and given that oil is bought on the world market with dollars we are bound to take it in the wallet. We are now in hock to China and Saudi Arabia.

Blame Bush's economic policies and the Iraq for this.

Thirdly we consume so much oil(%60+ for automobiles)that we cannot be energy independent simply by drilling. We need nuclear and all the other sources if we want to live the high energy lifestyle we are accustomed too.

Forth American REFUSED TO BUY high MPG vehicles and instead opted for those huge motorized CODPIECES called SUV's and large pickups to make those daily 50-150 mile daily commutes with.

Now they are whining like spoiled brats. Screw'em. They are not entitled to cheap gas so as to parade around in their vanity vehicles.

As for solutions:
There are no short term fixes. Even ANWR will take 6-8 years to bring on line.
*Uncapping old oil derricks and wells(those capped in the 80's and 90's when oil dropped like a rock)
can be brought online sooner, but there isn't enough capacity to deal with demand.

*As far the Canadian tar sands go - the Chinese already own them.

*Montana has lots of coal - however the energy and water requirements for the conversion make it a dubious prospect unless new refining technology is developed. Nor is it a good use for coal - fueling our easy motoring lifestyle

*Rebuilding our railways and railroads would help tremendously, its a much more fuel efficient way of moving people and goods than 18 wheelers or airlines now. But not a word from either party or candidate to fixed our maxed out railsystem.

*Ethanol is just insane, anyone who buys a vehicle that runs on ethanol ought to clubbed like a baby seal. YOU DON'T YOUR FOOD!!!

Nuclear is here now and can be made better. We can use sealed thorium reactors or even reactors made to run on nuclear waste. The technology has come along ways.

How can you tell if a politician is lying?? Because he/she is speaking! [thank you Mark Twain]

Using current technology, which would very likely improve if we get to it, there is enough oil locked-up in oil shale deposits in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah to supply current US needs for about a century. Are the environmentalists interested in letting this happen? Not!!

Recall that it takes about 1000 [yes, that is one thousand] gallons of water to produce one [yep, 1] gallon of ethanol. And, since the energy out is less than the energy in, I guess we haven't discovered perpetual motion, yet.

To recover the oil from shale takes from five to seven barrels per barrel of oil recovered, and the water is 90+ percent reusable. Using 'in situ' recovery techniques would be minimally disruptive from an environmental point of view; actually, less in the long run than producing ethanol. Oh, and have you actually seen the land scape of the oil shale region of the Rocky Mountain West? Looks much like the moon, but with air and some water.

Odyessus:

"I wonder what he thought about Islam?"

He loved Islam. Strange but true.

Here's something for the Democrat politicans to think about: if we could just increase our domestic production and reduce our oil imports by just 1 million bbl/day, at $130/bbl, that's over $47 billion/year; which would be a nice dent in our balance-of-payments deficit. That would be money circulating in the U.S. economy, money paid to U.S. workers, to U.S. pension funds, to share-holders of the oil companies, and to all sorts of governments, from municipal to federal, in the form of taxes.

It seems the dems. want to do exactly opposite of bush,so he should have come out and denounced drilling as an act of terrorism ,and then see how fast they could get the pipes in the ground.

Thanks PMK & WLF for your responses.

Just to set the record straight, especially for those of you who have read my occasional posts over the past couple of years on the subject of energy & the environment & concluded that I'm some sort of radical environmentalist, I'm not. I'm in favor of developing nuclear power at flank speed. And I favor exploiting almost all our O&G resources, including offshore waters. But you'll forgive me if I admit to a deep distrust of the big oil companies. I'm not sure whether what havekoranwilltravel says about the immense amount of proven, but inexplicably unexploited, Alaskan oil reserves is true, but even if it isn't, how can you trust an industry that as recently as 3-4 years ago, i.e., well after the Exxon/Valdez disaster, the big oil consortium that operates the Alaskan pipeline failed to perform routine pipeline maintenance over a period of years, and falsified their maintenance records to indicate to state & federal authorities that they had? The solution, as Reagan said in another context, is trust, but verify. So you open up almost all acreage to drilling, but with safeguards, such as the following:

- criminal penalties for senior execs if their companies break environmental laws.

- structure the leases in such as way as the leaseholder has to exploit the property right within a limited period of time, or forfeit it altogether.

alaskan1000 expressed a thought that one frequently hears from the crowd that thinks that republicans, the oil industry & the free market are good, while Democrats, environmentalists & government programs are bad. He wrote: "Ask any of them [Democrats] what 'alternative energy' is the fix? and when is it coming? They have no idea."
Similar questions could have been posed to republicans back in the 1980s regarding SDI, as follows: Ask any of those Republicans what kind of missile shield is the fix? and when is it coming? They have no idea.
alaskan1000, if you oppose government programs to develop alternative energy b/c "they have no idea," wouldn't logical consistency have required you to oppose SDI, as well? Since you evidently are a partican Republican, I take it that you supported SDI. If so, good for you, b/c I did & do, too. And now that the norks & the iranians are rush to develop nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, the wisdom of the SDI program, even during those early years when we had precious little to show for all those billions spent on it, is undeniable.

Energy independence (which does not exclude energy dependence on long-standing allies, such as Canada, eh?), like a ballistic missile shield, is a matter of the highest national security, regardless of how eternally friendly our president thinks the saudis are. And b/c it is a national security issue, we shouldn't leave it entirely up to the free market to see us through, b/c the goal of the free market is to maximize profit, not energy independence. So just as the government explored various technologies to shield us against ballistic missiles,& then concentrated financial resources on the most promising ones, I believe the gov't should fund a number of alternative energy/ energy conservation/ energy efficiency approaches & then concentrate financial resources on the most promising ones.

When the Democrats start loving their country more than they hate business, then they'll relent on private enterprise solutions for our energy needs.

You don't need a degree in Economics to know that if Congress gave the green light to expand drilling, oil prices would drop significantly NSTANTLY. (All you actually do need is a day's work in retail. You can test this theory by going to BestBuy and perusing the flat-screens. Then when the salesperson comes up to you, listen to the spiel, and then say, "Nah, I think I'll wait for Circuit City's sale next week," and see what happens.) In other words, OPEC will try hard to make it not worth our while to go that route.

Yes, it might take "5 years" to get the wells up to capacity, but it will NOT take 5 years to have an effect on gas prices. Logically, this rates a big "duh."

By the way, to "waltc": You're right about the trains. The sorry state of America's rail system is utterly mystifying and a national disgrace.

I dare to presume that all these highly paid representatives of the people get their thirty pieces of silver from their saudi lord and masters and they dont give a hoot how much the people they represent suffer from the high gasoline prices.

Remember each petro dollar is financing the destruction of the USA.

Tiny bit OT? Perhaps not.

Bush, and many other people are now screaming, "drill here, drill there". I might be a bit thick, dense, or stupid, but have I missed a very important point here?

Why are we even using an outdated commodity, oil, when, if what I have been reading is true, we have absolutely no need of this.

I'm not talking about hybrids, compressed and dangerous hydrogen tanks in the car, vegetable oil, or anything like that. If I've got the story right, I understand that in about 1886, or thereabouts, someone had already invented a hydrogen producing machine powering an ordinary internal combustion engine.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Second. Stan Meyer, an American inventor built and was driving around a vehicle which looked just like a dune buggy, which he said could go from coast to coast on 25 gallons of water. That's all, just water! I understand, the US government was interested in using a hybrid version to power the Humvee. I understand that this brilliant gentleman suddenly died under very suspicious circumstances and his vehicles stolen. Now I wonder who that would benefit?

Just the other evening I watched this little Japanese, two seater car running entirely on water. The write-up said:

Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water. River water, rain, sea water - even tea. Or probably even pee! If I am correct. The only byproduct to come out of the exhaust pipe, if it has one, would be water. Surely that could be condensed and reintroduced into the system.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

SOUNDBITE: Kiyoshi Hirasawa, CEO, Genepax.

Michelle Carlile-Alkhouri reports.
1 litre (2 pints) of water will keep the car running at 80 km per hour (about 50 mph) for around an hour. My bad arithmetic makes that about 200 miles per gallon. Yes, it's a little two seater. So what? Make a bigger, more powerful version and it would still be a great deal. No oil! No petrol! Watch the video.

This is the Japanese water car URL video. http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

Looks as thought the Japanese might mass produce it, then it won't matter how much Big Oil screams, their time will have come. Same for the desert bunnies. Let them eat sand!

As I say, I've might have missed something, or it could be just pie in the sky, but as the Japanese are looking to mass produce this car. I hardly think so.

What I can't understand is is this. Surely to God, the president, or other people in charge of our country have either watched the above video, or been made aware of it. Why this blinkered vision of just oil! oil! oil! Even if a little Japanese car needs improvement, small-scale Manhattan project, using all the brains we have in this country could surely eliminate totally and for ever need for oil.

The White House and other departments should be flooded with hundreds of thousands of e-mails, containing that Japanese video and asking Bush frankly, what the hell he intends doing about it and doing about it NOW.

Also what, if anything, has been done about the murdered(?) Stan Meyer's dune buggy, which looked a lot more powerful than the Japanese version in the video I saw on youtube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg

Ray

stickman,

If America devotes more energy to drilling for oil and finding new sources of energy it means LESS money will go to the Middle East. If we find feasible alternatives to fossil fuels we may create new industries here in the US and make life better for Americans. We need fuel to get our goods and people from place to place. The fact that lower prices might also make it easier for China and India shouldn't prevent us from helping ourselves as well. There are industries that just can't be moved - like farming. Farmers shouldn't have to pay exorbitant fuel prices just to keep oil prices high in India and China.

"Other nations that import oil will also be able to take advantage of america deciding to spend more by harder extraction methods."

I'm not sure what you mean here. The means to extract oil from shale are widely known. When oil prices were under $20 per barrel there was no financial incentive to employ them. Cheaper oil could be obtained elsewhere. We're not the first country to pursue offshore drilling. If America develops enough energy resources so that it can once again become an oil exporter then those who buy our oil will pay for the cost of extracting it, which will be reflected in the price. If an American entrepreneur finds a more economical way of extracting oil from tar sands or shale, he can make a fortune by licensing and selling his invention. All Americans will benefit. It's not a zero-sum game.
The relevance of this issue to JW is that the more oil we produce or otherwise obtain from non-OPEC sources, the less money can flow to the jihadists.
The 9/11 jihadists got a lot of bang for the buck but they also had easy access to this country and Americans were still under the delusion that all those who made the effort to come here should be welcomed as friends. That's no longer the case. It's harder to get here and more people have their eyes on Muslims in America. We no longer give everyone the benefit of the doubt, for which Muslims have only themselves to blame.

Greycap,
There is supposedly an ICE that gets 80 to 100 mpg of gasoline. The story I keep hearing is that the oil companies bought the patent and took it off the market.
An engine that runs on water has been promised for at least thirty-five years. No doubt there are many similar inventions, a lot of which would work in niche markets but might be impractical for anything more than a trip around town.

Perhaps drilling is part of the solution but it isn't any kind of quick fix. We need a comprehensive program to economize energy usage in all forms. Neither party has made an effort to do much in this area.

Jerry

The math is simple. Still, Harry Reid doesn't understand it.

Sen. Reid's math (we have only 3% of the world's reserves) craftily leaves out the huge resources we actually do possess, but which he wants left out of the equation for his straw man argument. Bakken, the Gulf domes found recently, the shale oil in the Mountain West, and ANWR - all are HUGE. Enormous.

His statement - that we use too much of the very deceptive figure he cited - is meant to deflect the argument.

And so we now know their minds in full. If the Republicans and McCain do not hammer these fools over this issue, then they deserve the whuppin' they'll get in November.

One thing everyone needs to know is that oil is fluid - both literally and economically. In other words, the price of oil in the world market isn't merely what OPEC wants it to be: it's market price. Let's assume that Alaska was fully operational. The companies that would drill the oil there would then be free to sell the oil worldwide, particularly since other countries are at liberty to pay more for more oil (this isn't a product where volume sales drives prices down, but instead up. So unless such an operation was nationalized - Maxine Waters style, the availability of such oil would give others a source outside OPEC. In other words, if China and India wanted to buy the oil, would the Alaskan operators in question say 'No'? This would be a strange case of Americans hurting their own economy by not exporting what would currently be their most valuable export, with no 'Made in China' or 'Made in Malaysia' tags on it.

But what it would do is put on the world market oil whose prices aren't dictated by OPEC, and assuming that that oil sells for less than OPEC oil (although auctioning between different buyers worldwide would drive prices back to OPEC levels), it could potentially arrest the skyrocketing prices of oil. This in turn could reduce the influence of OPEC on world currency market, which is really what drives the world economy, and thereby the fortunes of all democratic governments. If that is reduced, the damage to the Infidel world will be reduced, although there'll still be the issue of payments to OPEC.

On the flip side, OPEC, which currently has only anti-US members, can dump oil in the world market to drive down prices back to the $50/gallon, thereby making such new operations loss making ventures.

In short, I'm all for drilling everywhere, but we have to be mindful of the risks involved.

One thing I've advocated in the past is getting all commercial energy (the energy we use to power our homes, manufacturing, et al) off oil completely, and replace it with nuclear, hydro-electric, coal, so that oil only finds a market in the transportation sector. Even in the transportation sector, look at replacing as much oil as possible with clean coal (as in transportation trains), bio-diesel and yes, even solar. Once the market size that's available to OPEC is irrecoverably altered, that would also have a serious and lasting impact on their revenues. Which is a bigger goal and what should drive this from our POV: the goals of McCain and Obama is to simply reduce the price of energy, without necessarily impacting whether we fund our enemies (which is secondory in their opinion).

As for developing "alternative sources and technologies" - consult engineers who have already scoped this out. We are DECADES away from that solution. In the interim we need to expand supply. Of course, making more efficient automobiles should be a priority as well. So should the building of nuclear power plants. Solar and wind are niche solutions for the people and communities who can afford it and are in climates not hostile to it.

But to hear the Jackasses talk about this, they think a new Manhattan project can solve the engineering and physics problems within a matter of a few years. No can do. In the interim, we will have a stagnant or depressed economy with a lot of hardship for people who cannot afford to fuel their way to work or heat their homes in the winter.

Our airline industry is on the verge of implosion. Meanwhile, oil futures traders who used to work for Enron laugh their asses off over the uproar over how the speculators are killing our economy. They didn't mind the government bailing out the mortgage bundling and trading firms, but they would howl with protest if the margin requirements in the commodities' business were to be raised. I'm with Karl Rove in not agreeing with actually requiring speculators take delivery of the oil, because airlines actually do use the commodities futures market to hedge against the risk that fuel will get more pricey than they budgeted for.

Does anyone stop to think that maybe Iranian and Russian money may be filtering in through intermediaries into to oil futures' markets?

Forget about oil, let's start drilling for some brains and character to govern this nation. Seems to me those fields dried up long ago.

Quick question - what % of the non transportational energy sector in the US is oil based?

Robert you are probably right in believing the policy makers do not understand the problem in the context of the global jihad. With that assumption I think its even more important to support any efforts toward alternatives other than middle eastern oil.

I just signed the wwww.americansolutions.com petition Signer #942,855

FredIsinglass,

You made some good points. About raising the margin requirements - how about changing the futures trading requirements in such a way as to favor actual hedgers over speculators? While it is argued that speculators play an essential role in providing liquidity to the market, it is also known that excessive speculation can play havoc with the volatility, hence futures prices. One way to ameliorate this problem would be to introduce a mechanism to put a damper on pure speculation, such as raising margin requirements across the board and then give tax credits to both ends of the producer/consumer chain, i.e., the people who actually use the market to hedge. This would tend to put a damper on excessive speculation, hence reduce volatility.

Several people have noted that Harry Reid's math is crap.

"The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

He must have learned his math from Karl Marx, because it is just as convoluted:

He says that 3% of the world oil reserves are in the USA.

The US uses 25% of the oil that is marketed, not 25% of the world reserves.

He intentionally confuses two different sets of oil in one sentence for propaganda purposes to make US consumer seem oil gluttons. In other words, he's lying.

There was a time I would have agreed with Congress, but now things are different. We need cheaper oil. This isn't going to make eveerything go back to old days but it will help a lot, since speculation is based on perceptions. I don't love the oil companies or the selfish fools who waste fuel for a hobby, but these high prices are killing us and making the wrong people rich.

Whew! I'm glad Fred stepped in to clear up this issue. He has raised up his spyglass, peered into the future & declared with all the confidence of would-be Belmont winner Big Brown's trainer that we are not 1 year, not 2 years, not 5 years, but "DECADES" (i.e., > 20 years) away from developing significant alternative sources of energy.

Since all the engineers & physicists "in the know" ostensibly agree with you, would it be too much to ask that you inform lesser lights investigating new energy technologies that they are wasting their time? One such lesser light was Dr. Robert Bussard, who before his untimely death a few months ago, had made great progress toward testing the feasbility of a new nuclear fusion technology he had invented. But his successor, Dr. Richard Nebel, would surely benefit from your insights. I'm sure you're already quite familiar w/ the nature and futility of Dr. Bussard's work, so I provide a couple of links below not for your benefit, but merely to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of the interested reader.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/Robert_Bussard__1928_2007_Physicist_known_for_pursuits_into_fus

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/06/fusion-report-13-june-008.html

stickman, One thing missing from your formula is
the cost of human life. In the nation of islam
there is no cost for human life. In the West,
we put a very high price on our son's and daughter's lives. So their getting a better deal
for their morons, than we are getting for our top quality soldiers(who actually have loved ones waiting and worrying at home)
To protect our sons and daughters we should switch to hydrogen. Thats the biggist bomb we have isn't it?

In regard to the energy crisis, one thing to remember is that any solution must be economically competitive. In other words, maybe the legendary 80 mpg carburetor, so beloved of Popular Mechanics for 50 years or more, really does exist, but it costs $100,000. How many of you are going to run out and get one for your Toyota Camry or Chevy Malibu? Anybody? Someone driving ca. 20,000 mi/yr would save 750 gallons of gas, or about $3000/yr, a 3% return on investment. And are you going to keep your car as your everyday transportation for 33 years, to fully recoup your investment?
Then there's the coal-gasification idea, supposedly used by the Germans in WW2. But remember, they had no alternative; Germany had very little in the way of petroleum; even with the Romanian oil fields they were short of oil. So they had to go with coal-gasification. But it was expensive and inefficient. We could still do the same if we were willing to pay a price much higher than $4/gal, and put up with much greater pollution.
Remember the Chrysler gas-turbine cars of the 1960's? They would run on any combustible liquid: gasoline, diesel, kerosene, or any kind of alcohol. Publicity films show Chrysler execs pouring Napoleon brandy into the gas tank, and the turbine ran on that, but at a cost equivalent (roughly) to $400/gal. Not too many of us would be willing to pay that price except in very unusual circumstances.
Oil shale is another technology highly touted as the answer to high oil prices. There's no secret about getting oil from oil shale; it just costs too much (at present prices, and with present technology) to be competitive. Even if it could be produced at only $5/gal, how many Americans are patriotic enough to pay a $1/gal premium for the U.S.-made product. Judging by the numbers willing to pay more for American-made shoes, shirts, and electronics, not many.
In general that's the problem with all the "alternative" sources, they are economically competitive with oil only because of a lot of financial jiggery-pokery by the gummint. Thus their use becomes a political decision, rather than an economic one. Maybe it is a good idea to promote gasohol, but recognize that in order to save at the gas-pump, you're paying more at the grocery, and more in taxes to subsidize the alcohol production.

sheik_yer_booty,

Why are you being snarky and flip with me? I'm not one of the bad guys here. The engineers I talked with a few weeks ago told me that we are decades away from feasible, affordable hydrogen cells. The energy that is required to charge those cells far exceeds what you get out of them. I'm not a scientist or an engineer, so you can accuse me of credulousness, but at least be civil about it.

Until this problem is solved and feasible mass production can be achieved, we need to take care of the interim. We can have productive oil extraction of our own reserves well within a decade. The test drilling has already been done in the Gulf of Mexico and out in Colorado for the shale oil. The Bakken formation right now is hands-off, thanks to the environmentalists.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with exploiting the fossil fuel resources within our own country and offshore.

Meanwhile, until the scientists and engineers can solve other problems, many people are really struggling just to pay for the gas to get to and from work and heat their homes in the winter. I'm not at all shutting my mind to the possibilities in the future, but it's the "in-between" period that's tricky.

Our airline industry is hurting very badly. Very large layoffs, sidelined jets, canceled routes, much higher fares and surcharges. Some carriers will be out of business by the end of the year. Many airports will no longer have service.

The high cost of petroleum also affects many other products and services. This is no laughing matter.

I hope all concerned Americans follow the governor of Alaska's example and file their own lawsuits. This will tell the EPA and environmentalist extremists that stranglehold on our political system has come to an end! I too am for protecting the environment, but I suspect that the leaders of the environmentalist movement do not really care about our planet. Instead, they want all enemies of humanity to destroy our civilization. Perhaps causing our society to regress to the era of the stone age is the first step in their incideous plan.

Democrats hate Americans individual independence.

sheik yer booty,

Robert Bussard is famous among space buffs for the Bussard Ramjet, a propulsion concept that would have made interstellar travel feasible by tapping the hydrogen in interstellar space to fuel onboard fusion reactors. The idea was championed by the British Interplanetary Society for many years and was the subject of a lot of articles and conferences in the 60s and 70s.

Unfortunately, Bussard apparently didn't know enough plasma physics (and neither did anyone in the BIS) to realize that the basic concept behind his ramjet was flawed at the fundamental level (the formation of an upstream collisionless shock and magnotosheath would deflect the hydrogen around the spacecraft instead of funneling it into his reactor - similar to how the solar wind gets deflected around Uranus instead of being funneled into its polar cap). But he was of a genre of big thinkers that didn't let little things like facts prevent him from seeking large amounts of government funding to pursue impractical schemes based on little more than hand waving arguments. I think he was fundamentally honest in presenting what he believed to be true, and he worked zealously to build an engine to demonstrate proof of principle, in the highest tradition of science. It would be wonderful if his boron engine actually worked and proved to be practical, but there is a lot of skepticism that it will.

I saw a YouTube presentation he made a few years ago to a youthful looking Google crowd, who clearly had no idea what he was talking about. If his presentation to funding agencies was in any way like his talk, which dwelt excessively on slamming his detractors, it's no wonder his funding was cut. The audience looked bored.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Once we need a totally new energy source, we'll find it.
The oil embargo of the 1970s was supposed to be our wake-up call but we hit the snooze button. Then prices fell and we went back to sleep.

Putting aside Sen. Reid's math, his main point is unassailable--the solution for America's energy problem will not come from opening up new areas to drilling. It is conceded that the amounts of energy (assuming the most optimistic projections are correct), that might be extracted from these areas will at best postpone for a decade or less the same reckoning that we are staring at now. We need to get off of fossil fuels, and as quickly and painlessly as possible. The only way is to allow a combination of the free market (high prices=conservation and new technologies) and hefty government intervention to make sure it happens smoothly. Don’t like that last sentence? Government is always wrong and the enemy? Get your head out of the sand (no oil down there!). Our government has always given support to favored industries and technologies, it just time to get them to the do that for alternative energy. Examples of the past aid? The railroad land giveaways, federal mining leases, the interstate highway program, massive subsides to nuclear power etc. I’m not saying that all of these things were wrong, but lets be honest about the role of our government in our economy.

I wish I lived close enough to where I work. I'd saddle up every morning and ride there... I can't imagine a more pleasant way to make the daily trip.

No, I can't, at this time, move.

Distances are part of our problem. My daily commute is thirty miles round trip.

One little note, a bit more on topic-- Just because we can't provide all of our own energy needs right now, doesn't mean that getting a start in the right direction is a waste of time. We can wean ourselves off the Saudi oil. Wouldn't that "hurt their feelings, though"!

From above: there are many similar inventions, a lot of which would work in niche markets but might be impractical for anything more than a trip around town.

Inexpensive trips around town are fine with me..

1. I'm not waiting for the gov to do anything, or for someone to sell me an expensive gizmo.
I'm creating my own gizmo's for my own use.
At the moment I am testing those dreaded hydrogen generators that I built. Yep there are a few bugs in the works, but that is what research and development are for. There are ways around all drawbacks.
2. You don't and won't need a large hydrogen storage tank in your car, and you can do away with dangerous gas tanks and flammable liquids.
3. You won't be driving around in a bomb.
That alone is a blessing. And you never run out of fuel.
4. The end result of burned hydrogen, is water.
It puts oxygen back into the air, which is reverse pollution.
5. The solution is not hydrogen technology alone, but a multi front, grass roots movement, to create from the energy, and creativeness of the people, free or nearly free energy. If we wait for government it won't happen. If we wait for industry, the free energy won't be free.
6. If you know of an old codger, or even a young codger, tinkering with such things in their garage, look in on him, you might be surprised...

I support off shore drilling.

Our economy is dependent upon affordable oil. During the past 4 years, the price increase that Americans have been paying for oil is astonishing. More damage could be done in the future unless the U.S. government finds a reasonable way to boost production ( drill offshore) or increase our refinery capacity.

I am pro-environment and pro-American family. One doesn't have to pick one side or the other in the off shore drilling debate. I believe that drilling off shore can be done in a responsible manner- with light environmental impact to nature. Britian and Norway have already found ways to do this.

It hurts me to think that some American families are sacrificing their basic necessities in order to come up with extra money to pay for commuting to work.

There are billions of gallons of oil that is just sitting out there waiting to be drilled. But environmentalists in the Democrat party would rather have it sit in the ocean while American families go hungry.

There is something deeply flawed about that!

FredIsinglass:

You asked, "Why are you being snarky and flip with me?" Well, referring to your earlier statement that "to hear the Jackasses talk about this, they think a new Manhattan project can solve the engineering and physics problems within a matter of a few years," I took exception to myself & others of like mind being dismissed as jackasses b/c we believe that a Manhattan-type project to achieve energy independence (which probably should include alternative energy sources) is a good idea. If you disagree based on your understanding of the situation, that's fine. But please don't call those of us on the other side of this issue "jackasses."

But to a substantive point, even if it is 20+ years before a Manhattan-type project gives us the technology & infrastructure to achieve complete energy indepdence, the salutary (from our view) effect on oil prices will occur long before that, perhaps as much as a decade. Once OPEC sees that we are committed to achieving energy indepdence & are progressing technologically toward that goal, the "use it or lose it" principle will come into play. That is, OPEC countries will realize that even though they may have 20, 30 or 50 years' worth of oil in the ground, the West will achieve energy independence in the next decade or so, & will no longer buy OPEC oil after that. The result? They will pump it faster & sell it now while they still can. It might even be every OPEC country for itself. Oil prices should fall dramatically, & stay low for the duration.

Eastview:

I'm not claiming, or even suggesting, that Bussard's fusion machine is the Answer. The last thing we need is another Fleishmann/Pons fiasco to taint the entire alternative energy field. But assuming his idea is reasonably scientifically sound & the experimental data is promising & reproduceable, why shouldn't the government fund the next step? And if that next step also pans out, I would enthusiastically support fully funding the next step, which according to Bussard's successor, Nebel, is a $200 million demonstration project.

You also wrote:
"I saw a YouTube presentation he made a few years ago to a youthful looking Google crowd, who clearly had no idea what he was talking about. If his presentation to funding agencies was in any way like his talk, which dwelt excessively on slamming his detractors, it's no wonder his funding was cut. The audience looked bored."
You're not suggesting that we base funding decisions on the ability of the principal researcher to wow an audience of the YouTube generation, are you? I wouldn't think that such an approach would work, though I will admit it could be wildly entertaining. :)

This is a terrific example of why I am so frustrated by the folks in Washington. The Republicans want offshore oil drilling to start again. The Democrats want a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Neither party will support the other's proposals. So nothing gets done.

Why not both? Why can't these clowns grow up and learn how to compromise? Why do we elect these fools to do nothing except fight with each other?

sheik_yer_mami,

I do stand corrected per your last post. It was me being impatient with the political impasse we find ourselves in, with respect to "what do we do in the many years before we get to independence from fossil fuels." For the next 20 to 30 years we are pretty much stuck with current technology and fuels. We can conserve, and do a much better job of it. I'm all for that, but am wondering if we will get there, given that the auto industry does tend to give the consumer what they want - and what the consumer tends to want is big, badass, and powerful. That may not be MY preference, but when I'm out on the roads I am amazed at the vehicles people are driving, when I know that my income is significantly higher than theirs and yet they, and not I, pay the big bucks for v-8 and v-6 vehicles.

If we will not exploit our resources, and Russia, Venezuela, the Muslim rebels in Nigeria, and OPEC hold back production, then we are in for gargantuan problems. Our only recourse will be conserving and efficiency. Most new homes (I live in a new one)are already quite a bit more energy efficient. I can't go to solar power, because I live in a part of the country where at least half the time we don't have sunny days, especially in winter.

What is going to happen to our airline industry?

And if people do not want more nuclear power plants, what are we to do?

We are in one hell of a bind, and some of it is our fault.

Do you think I want to see OPEC continually collecting the jizya from us?

I see no other way out other than to do our part to increase the supply of fossil fuels in the interim.

. The end result of burned hydrogen, is water.
It puts oxygen back into the air, which is reverse pollution.
posted by: duh_swami

Ah, sorry, swami, but it DOES take oxygen out of the atmosphere. Burning is simply rapid oxidation; and water is H2O, which is hydrogen (H) plus Oxygen (O).

.We are in one hell of a bind and some of it is our fault. Posted by: FredIsinglass

We shouldn't blame ourselves in any way. We employ our government executives to keep our ship afloat. This is a republic and not a democracy.

The problem we have is purely the fault of repeated gross negligece over many many years by our Congress, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch. Possibly worse. They have access to expert advice and it is their decision, not ours, as to what to do.

All we can do is hold them accountable.

sheik_yer_booty,

I went back to look at what I had originally posted. The meaning of my use of the word "Jackasses" was a reference to the Democrats. Get it? The symbol of their party being the Donkey? I sometimes, in frustration, refer to them as the Jackasses.

If ANWR drilling had started in the mid 1990's when Clinton canned the idea, those wells would be coming online now. Almost 1,000,000 bbl/day would make a nice addition to what we're already producing. Would is solve the problem? No, but anything is better than nothing at all.

Do we need to conserve where we can? Yes. Do we need to look at alternative solutions? Yes. Do we need petroleum until those solutions can be implemented? Yes.
The revolution that started in Ontario in 1858 and Pennsylvania in 1859 transformed the way the world works. Our modern society would not, and cannot, exist without petroleum. I don't think people realize the unique benefit we get from petroleum products. Fuels and lubricants; plastics and synthetic materials; fertilizers- petrochemicals are completely tied into the modern world. You want modern farming that can feed the world? You need oil and natural gas. Do you like the lightweight, dynamic, artificial legs that allow amputees (like my daughter) to have a life like everyone else? You need petroleum-derived synthetic materials. Do you enjoy your bagels and bread not getting stale? Then you need a plastic bread bag. The list of what we get from petroleum is endless. Complain all you want and the problems associated with oil, but I personally have no desire to live in a pre-petroleum world.
Alternate solutions are welcome, but for now we need oil and natural gas. 150 years of technology is not going to be replaced overnight, and the industry isn't going to be transformed by misusing food crops and other stupid and misguided ideas.
In the mean time...we're paying the enemy for what we need. Drill ANWR now, and tell Chavez to go to hell. Drill, conserve, find alternate sources, and get back to taking care of ourselves rather than funding our own demise.

YES to Drilling!

NO to Dems!

Every vulnerability we have endured for over 40 years has been secured and allowed to flourish under Democrats, each and every one.

Now that we finally are encircled and have the noose around our necks, as many have warned during those ensuing decades, Democrats absolutely refuse to allow us to be sovereign once more. In amazing pyschological warfare, they have successfully confused ordinary Americans who now believe that livid, repeated and synchronized treason and sedition are really acceptable international relations.

The will to fight is gone; the will to defend and assert our right to exist is gone. When I was yopunger the older ones predicted we would fall from within. The remake of the movie The Three Musketeers with Kiefer Sutherland is lookimng mighty familiar.

I haven't voted Democrat since the 1990s, in any election because I finally opened my eyes. I often wonder what General George Washington and Colonel William "Wild Bill" Donovan would do if they could come back from the dead for just one week.

Every vulnerability we have endured for over 40 years has been secured and allowed to flourish under Democrats, each and every one.

Now that we finally are encircled and have the noose around our necks, as many have warned during those ensuing decades, Democrats absolutely refuse to allow us to be sovereign once more. In amazing pyschological warfare, they have successfully confused ordinary Americans who now believe that livid, repeated and synchronized treason and sedition are really acceptable international relations.

The will to fight is gone; the will to defend and assert our right to exist is gone. When I was yopunger the older ones predicted we would fall from within. The remake of the movie The Three Musketeers with Kiefer Sutherland is lookimng mighty familiar.

I haven't voted Democrat since the 1990s, in any election because I finally opened my eyes. I often wonder what General George Washington and Colonel William "Wild Bill" Donovan would do if they could come back from the dead for just one week.

Every vulnerability we have endured for over 40 years has been secured and allowed to flourish under Democrats, each and every one.

Now that we finally are encircled and have the noose around our necks, as many have warned during those ensuing decades, Democrats absolutely refuse to allow us to be sovereign once more. In amazing pyschological warfare, they have successfully confused ordinary Americans who now believe that livid, repeated and synchronized treason and sedition are really acceptable international relations.

The will to fight is gone; the will to defend and assert our right to exist is gone. When I was yopunger the older ones predicted we would fall from within. The remake of the movie The Three Musketeers with Kiefer Sutherland is lookimng mighty familiar.

I haven't voted Democrat since the 1990s, in any election because I finally opened my eyes. I often wonder what General George Washington and Colonel William "Wild Bill" Donovan would do if they could come back from the dead for just one week.