This is a photo making the rounds via email. I don't know what the First Couple were doing
but the email claimed they were saluting the flag.
I doubt it and I don't like lying propaganda.
but the email claimed they were saluting the flag.
I doubt it and I don't like lying propaganda.
Deuce wrote in the last thread: "This Obama disgusts me." Had Blogger not been screwy, I was going to post that my "disdains for Obama and Company grows by the day."
The man may be an American citizen but he is certainly not a red-blooded, red, white and blue and apple pie American. This is the guy who would not wear an American flag lapel pin in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack. This is a man of the left. And I'm not talking about the center left, this guy comes from the far left of the spectrum. His agenda is antithetical to the American ideals that most of us cherish.
He may or may not have refused to salute a flag. I can see a young Obama refusing to salute the flag or pledge allegiance and that's no big deal to me. I can excuse the zeal of youth. I realize that people change as they mature but for a large portion of what I call the dysfunctional, envious left, that maturation process seems stunted. They never mature. They forever rebel against the establishment, against "the man." They harbor and even nourish their grievances. They embrace those ideals which are in direct opposition to the melting-pot America. They reject the Judaeo-Christian traditions of our country. It's a form of rebellion exemplified in the extreme by groups such as the late 19th century anarchists, Trotskyites, the Black Panthers, the early Green Party in Europe, the communists in Italy, the environmental activists. Barack Obama is their leader but he's an embarrassment to our country.
Be well, Deuce.
ReplyDeleteGet off your lazy ass, Deuce!
ReplyDeleteAmericans United gets it oh so wrong on Idaho textbooks decision
ReplyDeleteEarlier today, Communications Director Joseph Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State authored a post on AU's blog where he gloated over a federal judge's decision upholding the State of Idaho's ban on any use of all religious documents and texts in all public schools in the state. AU writes as though they "know" the law, but do they? One might come to the conclusions they do--assuming one is ignorant of the history of law involved in this case.
Is Idaho's constitution "really clear" in that it forbids the use of any religious texts--even to study history or western civilization? What does the language of the Idaho Constitution actually state? After all, shouldn't we look to the text when trying to decide what it says and what it doesn't say?
Obama was immersed in Anti-Americanism as a child.
ReplyDeleteAs an adult, he has chosen Anti-Americanism at every turn.
A "man" who never matured beyond puberty.
...Our President.
Holder, Napalitano, and Barrack:
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not read Idaho's Constitution, but
"Idaho's constitution is "really clear" in that it forbids the use of any religious texts."
Anyone who thinks otherwis is acting stupidly, like that racist Cambridge Cop.
Jack Conway is strikingly handsome.
ReplyDeleteMr Obama is President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteLearn it, live it, love it.
He personifies the United States, to the whirled.
He personifies the Federal Government, to everyone.
That's the reality.
Learn it, Live it, Love it.
The "War on Oil", amigos, beat the drum for change!
But do not advocate against the Civil Rights Act.
Please.
Rat says:
ReplyDeleteThe "War on Oil", amigos, beat the drum for change!
Excellent, Glad to see you moved to MY position advocated for years...
Serenity breaks out on the EB because I decide to take a couple of days off? WTF?
ReplyDeleteI've always been there, misdirection.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that NOW, there is a window of opportunity to push forward.
Using Green propaganda to drive the issue. Along with the conservative economic drivers regarding the balance of payments economic issue.
The Deep Horizon disaster opens the window, the "Drill Baby Drill Team" has to change direction.
They need to go back to the farm.
The solution is in rural, agricultural America, not in industrializing the ocean floor.
Do not fight the tide of political environmentalism, ride it to victory.
Did ya have a nice nap, Deuce?
ReplyDeleteGood, now get back to work.
Have a good time Deuce.
ReplyDeleteYou deserve some time off.
(You also probably need it. You seemed wound a little tight over the past couple days while commenting on our current leadership)
:)
.
The US education system has ingrained environmental concern into our society. As long as that reality is viewed, by us, as an issue that favors the "Left", it will.
ReplyDeleteBut if real, red blooded, true blue Americans supported a shift from foreign oil to domestic ethanol, as a National Security concern, we could harness the Green power that has been socially stockpiled.
Our addiction to foreign oil is a security concern on a variety of fronts, military, economic and philosophical. By achieving victory, in the "War on Oil" we could turn the tide of our economic decline.
Look to our society as it is, not how it used to be, nor even how we'd like it to be, and drive the issues forward, in the real whirled.
The enemy is not Islam, its' our addiction to their oil that is the enemy.
GW Bush was rhetorically correct about that, but all wrong in the solution he chose to pursue to solve the problem.
Declare a "War on Oil", demanding a domestic, agricultural, middle American strategy for victory.
It's a winner.
Leave the Civil Rights Act alone.
Please!
DOW down 280.
ReplyDeleteTomorrow, the German Parliament votes, in essence, on the future of the Euro.
ReplyDeleteDeclare our shoreline sacrosanct and use our military to shut down any of those foreign platforms that could, in a worse case scenario, damage our coasts.
ReplyDeletePreemptively efend the US, first.
Move quickly on the ag based solution.
Real Change.
Beyond partisan politics.
Those media outlets which are owned, controlled or influenced by oil money, like Mr Murdock's FOX News and his Wall Street Journal, may make some nasty noises, but the national interests of the United States must prevail, regardless.
Rand Paul would not (according to him) have voted for the "Civil Rights Act."
ReplyDeleteI think the "Tea Partiers" have jumped the shark.
Problem is, Rat: Obama is on the OTHER team. That is, the Saudi-led, OPEC Team.
ReplyDeleteI am sure glad Whoopee was center stage at the State Dinner. I was worried there for a minute.
ReplyDeleteWell sure Mr Obama is, rufus.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, so is Mr McCain and Mr Romney.
That is why, at this moment, there is an opportunity to move the ball, on a grass roots level.
That the Tea Party is prepped and ready, just misdirected, a reality that could and should be exploited.
The idea is to mobilize existing public sentiment to gain those National Security goals that we all agree upon.
Go Green, hard.
Back to nature, back to the farm.
Break our addiction to the oil supplied by the despots of the whirled. Hugo, Colonel Q and the Wahhabi of the Middle East.
That is, always was, the most strategic step we could take, to win the War on Terror.
Plus we can "Save Our Shores".
Go Green, Baby, Go Green!
With the research already done on the high sugar content feed stocks, the new enzyme bio-tech developments and the anti-deep sea oil spillage, pro environment mindset of the general public, now is the time to move forward.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to eye the prize, not to worry about the governing philosophy that allows for legislation like the Civil Rights Act.
Fuckin' idiot.
The Tea Partiers, like boob, will all go back to the farm, philosophically.
ReplyDeleteIt's Jeffersonian. Political power dispersed amongst the agricultural base of the United States.
It's Jacksonian, too.
The "War on Oil" can bridge the ideological differences of the electorate. It is both conservative and progressive, at the same time.
And, now, there is a viable alternative to that foreign oil, an alternative that we can ride to independence.
"...Declare a "War on Oil", demanding a domestic, agricultural, middle American strategy for victory...
ReplyDeleteDo not fight the tide of political environmentalism, ride it to victory...
Go Green, hard.
Back to nature, back to the farm...
You sound pumped rat. Downright inspirational.
Keep pumping that message.
An environmental Che’ Guevera. A modern day Thoreau. A pumped up Andy Rooney.
You go girl.
.
Well, The Ratster has sure got ME pumped. I think I'm going to contact this local Tea Party Bigwig, and see if I can talk some sense into Him.
ReplyDeleteThe Memphis guy is supposed to be some kind of "mover, and shaker," I think.
ReplyDeleteTrish would say,
ReplyDeleteTea hee.
.
Well, we can continue sending a Billion Dollars/Day overseas to various "Terrorist-funding" States, or we can utilize 3% of our more "marginal" land to grow our energy (and pay less per mile while we're at it.)
ReplyDeleteIf that's not a "no-brainer" the concept of no-brainer was not well-explained to me.
and all ya need is a biiiggg government program to git 'er done!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really think you should give Mr. and Mrs. Obama the benefit of the doubt. They could very well be dyslexic.
ReplyDeleteI'm kidding Ruf.
ReplyDeleteI'm a kidder.
Although, I do go by that saying: Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
.
What?
ReplyDeleteDid you say somethin, Q?
Yes, Ash; if we're going to git'er done in a "timely" manner, we'll need a pretty good-sized gummint program. Not much money, but a lot of loan guarantees, and such.
ReplyDeleteI'm a "pragmatist," Ash. Not a "Libertarian" bone in my body.
ReplyDeleteThanks for askng Ruf.
ReplyDeleteSeeing you and rat today I was merely musing (I do that a lot) and noted a slight irony.
You have often denounced some of the jingoism evident here. Likewise, you have denounced religious absolutism. And Al Gores religion of the environment, don't get me atarted.
Yet when it comes to ethanol it's rare your comments start with "I think..." More likely they start with "It's so simple. All we have to do is..."
And now you have your own John the Baptist in rat out there evangelizing in the name of the Religion of the Corn.
.
Well, Quirk, back in '03 there was a window open, we could have driven into Syria, and broke the back of the Baathists, there.
ReplyDeleteLeaving the Iranians isolated, instead of empowered.
But that view did not prevail, the audience in DC rejected that program. Instead we bogged down in Iraq, leaving those opposed to US influence in that region more empowered than before our arrival.
By 2004 that window of opportunity was shut, closed for good. We were then condemned to a decade of misadventure and compounding error.
There is another window open, today.
It did not open by design, but even so it presents an opportunity to move the ball. The first opportunity, really, in a decade. We are at a moment when public sentiment can be harnessed to achieve the real national interest of the United States.
Achieving the goals of those that know that as long the US sends over $1,000,000,000 USD a day to despots, we cannot win, cannot extend the rights of man so eloquently describe in the Declaration of Indepence to those that are currently deprived of such.
"You also probably need it. You seemed wound a little tight over the past couple days while commenting on our current leadership."
ReplyDeleteWhit's wound a little tight, too. I find myself taken aback two days in a row, but then recall: Did I not myself say things here like, "George W. Bush butt-fucked the nation"? Worse: While he was still in office and I was serving in an official capacity, representing my country and a department under his purview abroad? Yes. Yes, I did.
I spent whole years saying incredibly nasty things about the last WH. Often enough with a 'motherfucker' and 'shit' thrown in for good measure.
Still managed to get those security clearances. Being by far the lesser half of a useful pair.
Did it make me feel better, ranting away? Yes and no.
Tightly wound? Unhinged? Completely screwed into the ceiling? Gone round the bend?
Oh, yeah.
I feel your pain.
but to get wound up and screwed into the ceiling over a probably flipped on its axis photo? Lordy!
ReplyDeleteash, as I said, now that a strategic opportunity has presented itself, it is not time to discuss the philosophical differences we have with the trends of power accumulation by the Federals.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to harness public opinion and force the Federals to act, in the country's best interest.
That involves bringing sanity to our balance of payments deficit, cutting off the need for imported oil from the Wahhabi.
The use of the fleet, in the Caribe Sea, underlines the seriousness we place on the environmental concerns of our people and the danger to our shores that deep water drilling represents.
It'd be a popular program, saving the Florida Keys from tar balls.
trying to save the Keys from evil tar balls could be likened to slamming the barn door shut after the horses have bolted given the current leakage of oil into the gulf.
ReplyDeleteEspecially Charlie Chi-com's tar balls.
ReplyDeleteLittle matter, ash.
ReplyDeleteIt's political theater, anyway.
A way to motivate public opinion, which is primed for action. We would need to preempt the next spill, as much as clean up after the current one.
Now that the lesson has been learnt, we have to preempt the next episode.
Never Again!
Has a certain ring to it, no?
It is an emotional hook, to sell the ethanol solution.
While not allowing our foreign competitors the opportunity to exploit those deep waters, if we limit ourselves from them.
ReplyDeleteWhich we should, to force the development of comprehensive ethanol blending.
There are aspects of the War on Oil pleasing every political constituency.
"...but to get wound up and screwed into the ceiling over a probably flipped on its axis photo? Lordy!"
ReplyDeleteI am extending myself in order to give the appearance of empathy and identification with the Bar management, for purely selfish reasons. Don't ruin it.
Pretty provocative if the US tries to enforce a drilling ban outside the 200 mile limit.
ReplyDeleteNothing, not when compared to landing 250,000 troops in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteIf it is in the US best interest, and in a worse case scenario any oil reaching a US shore, we'd have to act, to protect our shores.
I bet the Caribbean Security agreement would cover US, outside the 200 mile limit. We are already legally empowered to secure all of the Caribe from economic disaster.
Thank the Tri-lateralists.
"It is time to harness public opinion and force the Federals to act, in the country's best interest."
ReplyDeleteI'm not denigrating ethanol rat. It has it's place. Maybe a big place. But to say "This is 'THE' answer" strikes me as a bit presumptuous. It reminds me of the certitude of an Al Gore.
With regard to your comment about putting the fleet into the Gulf, although you've mentioned it a couple of times I still don't know exactly what you are proposing they do there.
Mere speculation on the answer to that question makes me fear I have another one of those comments were I reference "licking toads" or "ingesting peyote" coming on. Something I don't like to do since it has now lost its freshness.
.
.
Flipped photo?
ReplyDeleteOnly if he wears his lapel pin on the right lapel.
he Partnership for Prosperity and Security in the Caribbean (PPS)
ReplyDeleteThe major principles covered under the agreement are:
* Trade, Development, Finance, the Environment, Justice and Security
As part of agreement the heads agree to pledge their confidence and support in the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and adhering to the goals of World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the multi-lateral agenda of security in the Caribbean region
ok, rufus, Obama and wife sneakily use their left hands to pledge allegiance...gotcha. See Q. for "licking toads" quip.
ReplyDeleteQ, I can "SEE" that $2.86 gas going into my tank. I don't have to read fairy tales about it.
ReplyDeleteI can verify E85 for $1.86 all over Iowa.
It ain't a "Religion," Q. I can see it, and drive my car on it.
And, if it was one of those new Buick Regals, it would be costing me $0.06/mile.
Well, Quirk, you are welcome to propose another viable alternative, to ethanol, for the existing fleet.
ReplyDeleteOne that could be on line within a year and is basically carbon neutral.
Whether carbon neutrality is really needed, not an issue. That fact is that carbon neutrality is politically required, it has to be part of the Green Solution.
Mining and refining tar sands and such, not able to marketed as environmentally friendly.
Because it is not.
Give us another option, it has to be able to be marketed as Green and it has to be technologically available, now, to provide energy to 300 million existing vehicles.
Whatever, Ash. Maybe he does wear his lapel pin on his "right" lapel.
ReplyDeleteAt least he let go of his balls.
I propose to force the Chinese, Cubans and anyone else from drilling, deep water, if the US decides upon a moratorium for itself, due to safety and technological concerns.
ReplyDeleteThe threat from deep water drilling, to our shores and the shores of our Caribe partners, would be to great to permit. Especially now that those dangers are publicly known.
We would use our Navy to underscore the seriousness with which we perceive the threat.
Much as with the Cuban Missile Crisis we'd use our resources to shut down the operations of those platforms which were a threat to either our own or our Caribe partners environmental security.
We would act preemptively to:
Save Our Shores
Rufus, in order for this ethanol thing to getting US past the tipping point in the War on Oil don't we need a much higher concentration than E85? Isn't E85 pretty close to the max the current fleet can handle?
ReplyDeleteThe use of the military, for environmental security, would be warmly received by the electorate.
ReplyDeleteNo, ash.
ReplyDeleteWe do not need to reach E85, not to replace the non-Americas imports.
E30 would be sufficient.
That would eliminate the need for 30% of the oil now refined into gasoline.
The Wahhabi share.
Domstic oil, Canadian oil, Mexican oil would still be available.
ReplyDeleteHugo's production would be addressed in the next phase of the time line. By then we would need to be using more E85, and there would be more vehicles able to use that fuel, as the time went by.
The E30 could be blended for another 20 years, so as to not make any of the current fleet obsolete, before their time.
Ash, E85 is 85% Ethanol - 15% Gasoline.
ReplyDeleteWith today's engines you need at least 15% gasoline for smooth starting. (ethanol burns at a lower temperature.)
Delphi is coming out with "heated" injectors in the fall of 2011. That will eliminate the need for "Any" gasoline, basically.
Here are the import numbers
ReplyDeletePretty simple process, if the political will was there to implement it, against wishes of the Saudis.
pardon my misuse of the E ratio. Aren't most gas stations serving up 10% ethanol now? What ratio can a 2006 Ford engine take?
ReplyDeleteThe Federals mandated an E10 blend, for Maricopa County, supposedly for Federal air quality standards to be met.
ReplyDeleteSo the idea that requiring an ethanol blending, not an expansion of Federal authority or power.
They already do it.
Up to E30, ash.
ReplyDelete"Flipped photo?"
ReplyDeletePeople have questioned where he was born.
Perhaps he is Klingon which would explain it.
Just speculating.
.
You would not encounter any problems, other than a small loss of power at the top performance levels, perhaps a small decrease in mileage.
ReplyDeleteBTW, that hand over his chest is sporting a wedding ring.
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose he wears his wedding ring on his right hand?
Maybe it gets in the way when he's fondling his balls with the left.
photoshop is a powerful little image manipulator.
ReplyDeleteEven if that photo isn't doctored, as whit wrote, he doesn't know where it came from but the more important point is, c'mon, give your head a shake, if the the Big O and M regularly tried to diss America by pledging allegiance with their left hand folk just might notice. Hardly the secret clan handshake.
Ash, the "optimum" blend would, probably, as Rat said, be E30. You might, however, find a slight "increase" in power.
ReplyDeleteYou could probably run E40 to E50 without getting a "check engine light." (at some point the O2 sensor will sense too much oxygen in the exhaust, and think you're running "too lean.)
Your car's plumbing will be fine with whatever blend you run. Your car can be converted to a "flexfuel" vehicle simply by adjusting the computer program.
I figure the photo might have been taking back in the "early campaign" days, before they got the hang of that "salutin' thingy."
ReplyDeleteOr, maybe they're just two dumshits.
ReplyDeleteQuirk,
ReplyDeletePlease, tell me that somewhere in that post you were thinking "Children of the Corn" :)
Wow! Environmental Chauvinism...
what Rufus said.
ReplyDeletePlease, please, someone HELP ME! I can't stop myself from posting this. About an article in The Journal of Neath Death Studies, Volumn 28, Number 2, Winter 2009, which I just read, by a moron muzzie named Joel Ibrahim Kreps, entitled "The Search For Muslim Near Death Experiences".I've read this journal since the days of Anabiosis, which goes back 20 years and more. It is the worst article I have ever seen in the Journal. I quote (he says they never found an example, after some earthquake) "The Pakistani Muslims did not need this type of revelation. They were already beievers in their own revelation..." The idea is, the NDE is a type a learning experience, which it may well be, but the Muzzies (his little study couldn't find any, he says, who had exerienced this) (which is total bs, cause, while it's rare, it's all over the world) don't need it CAUSE THE MURDEROUS FUCKERS DONT NEED THE EXPERIENCE, THEY ALRREADY KNOW! Whatever the truth may be about life and death, I call this attitude Spiritual Imperialism, Idiocy, and Unlettered Moronism, and a true Failure of Intellectual Curiosity. I'm a little ashamed of the Journal for printing this garbage, and look forward to the rebuts in the next issue. Hell, we don't need no stinkin' NDE, to give US, the MUZZIES, a Hint. Christ, I can't stand the muzzies. By the way, both Obamas are left handed, sinester in my language. I laughed my ass off, and damn near cried, when I read this article. These people are the enemies of free thinking people everywhere.
ReplyDeleteTalk about Arrested Development....no curiosity whatsoever.....muzzies, the curse of the Intellectual Earth....
ReplyDeleteThank God for the Tucannon, I bought a Washington fishing license, first time, and when the river lows a little, I'm goin'.
ReplyDeleteWhen the river lows a little/ I'll fish the muzzies out of my mind/ and with a little spittle/spit them from my mouth/and with fly rod/in my hand/ I'll be rid of them/in my mind/I'll get back to basics/and be happy/ with the sacrement, the only one I know.
ReplyDeleteHigh river, hard fishin', I know. Night.
ReplyDeletelordy...
ReplyDelete... boobie and company!
An extremely cogent intelligent comment, Ash.
ReplyDeleteAsh, really, if you can't even get the very drift of what I have tried to post over the years, I really, truly feel for you. But, it doesn't make no difference, to me. You can go to hell, for all I care, cept, you are human. If I am right, you too, even you, will know, one of these "days", which is just another time metaphor, remember Kant, Schopenhauer, remember, you are out of your league, but maybe you will get a hint "sometime", another metaphor. You might try reading Boethius. I'm just trying to bring some light to the rat, a hopeless task,in my own way. I have faith in you,Ash, and your education. I know you have an open mind. You and Ruf are saveable, and worth the effort. rat needs a little burning, I am afraid. Can you tell me where I am wrong, o my son, in my argument from Descartes, to Berkeley, to Hume, to Kant, to Schopenhauer, to BioCentrism? Do you even know what I am taling about, you tennis racket?
ReplyDelete” Well, Quirk, you are welcome to propose another viable alternative, to ethanol, for the existing fleet.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t offer solutions rat. I offer opinions on solutions.
I’ve given my opinion before. The energy crisis will be solved. It will be resolved utilizing a whole range of technologies including biofuels. It won’t be solved by one magic bullet but rather by a progression of technologies some coming on line faster than others. Ethanol is a major player.
We won’t get energy independence from oil in one year, or two, or three. It will take a number of years barring any significant catastrophic event that creates the absence of oil, i.e. a war that shuts down the ME production. Even that might not do it without concurrent slowdowns caused by terrorists in Nigeria and Hugo Chavez not paying his electric bill. The other possible event is that we run out of oil. I don’t doubt that could happen but it won’t happen tomorrow and as a nation we are not good at addressing crisis until we have to.
You mentioned the Gulf oil spill. I doubt that the spill will turn out to be that catalyzing event. However, even if it was, it would merely affect public opinion and the politicos (some of them). In other words it addresses only one of the problems facing rapid deployment. You would still face technical, legal, political, logistical, environmental, societal, etc. impediments to overcome. Hopefully, you won’t force me to explain them all to you. I grew tired of the debate with Rufus years ago.
“One that could be on line within a year and is basically carbon neutral.”
You pose a false dilemma rat. Your comment presumes you could get enough ethanol on stream in a year to give us energy independence. I’ve already pointed out that is a pipe dream. From your comment on carbon neutral, I assume you, like Rufus, agree that corn based ethanol is not the way to go. Yet that is all we have at the moment. And if I recall the numbers (it’s been a few years) if we used all the land currently used for corn and devoted it for ethanol use it would only cover 12% of our gasoline needs.
.
(Ethanol Post cont'd)
ReplyDeleteCellulosic ethanol? Is it a viable alternative that will reduce cost, add to the “green” benefits, and help in the “food vs. fuel” debate? From the progress they’ve made and everything I’ve heard, sure. Will it solve the energy independence problem in a year? I doubt it very much. In a previous life, I came from Missouri. Just call me when you’re actually pumping a significant amount. (In a place where flex fuel cars can get to it.)
”Give us another option, it has to be able to be marketed as Green and it has to be technologically available, now, to provide energy to 300 million existing vehicles.
I already told you where I stand on solutions. And once again you present me with a false dilemma. You say you have a solution that will work for all the cars in the US fleet. And Ash nods his head. Unfortunately, the EPA doesn’t agree with you at this point. They won’t be passing legislation mandating E15 until later this summer and then only for cars 2001 and newer. This in itself will likely result in lawsuits during the transition period.
True the ‘corn dogs’ are pushing for an EPA waiver to make E15 available for cars prior to the 2001 model. But even if that passed which I kinda doubt it would result in a whole series of additional lawsuits on liability issues. Of course, the government could authorize another “cash for klunkers” type program to retrofit or scrap all those vehicles. How do you think that would go over?
E30? Heck, Brazil’s maximum is E25 and they have a domestic fleet already set up for it.
I’ll tell you what rat. I like everyone else am looking forward to energy independence. I’m also looking to see lower energy prices, not the ones built on subsidies and tariffs, but real ones. I would hope we could get all the benefits you foresee without all the problems I foresee. I would love for you to be right.
Rufus has already indicated that he thinks your idea of using the Tea Party movement to drum up support for your visions is a good one. He has offered to contact the Memphis chapter. You live in Arizona. There’s got to be a slew of them there that you can get in touch with.
Get started.
It’s May 20, 2010. I’ll put it on my calendar. On May 20, 2011, we’ll reconvene and discuss the progress. If your right, even though it would be a little embarrassing, I will try to be the man that Buddy Larsen was and have the good manners to apologize to you.
.
"I propose to force the Chinese, Cubans and anyone else from drilling, deep water, if the US decides upon a moratorium for itself, due to safety and technological concerns..."
ReplyDeleteGood heavens rat, aren't you the one who is constantly bringing up international law, the law of the sea, the UN, etc. etc.
Do our Caribe partners get a say in this?
.
Those Caribe Partners, quirk, they've already signed, they're along for the ride.
ReplyDeleteThe number of deep water rigs is minimal, the supposed violation of law, minor. It is mostly political theater.
The primary political objective of using the Navy, maintain a level playing field and protect US interests, as we shut down our own deep water exploits.
The primary objective of the "War on Oil" is to limit the need for imported Wahhabi oil. As I recall the amount of acreage required, to replace that, amounts to what we currently use for corn. But not the same lands. As both switch grass and Sweet Sorghum thrive on what are considered marginal farmlands.
I doubt that the Partiers will heed the call, they are already pocketed by the Sauds.
Without Mr Murdock, there'd be no Tea Party, without the Saudis, there'd be no Murdock Media Conglomerate.
But the opportunity is there, for US to utilize the Greening of America to our advantage.
This country can do a lot when it has the will and puts its mind to it rat.
ReplyDeleteWill we?
History seems to indicate we will only do it when pushed to the edge.
We'll have to see how this one plays out.
.