Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Drill For Oil? That's Incredibly Naive!

I don't often watch Keith Ubermann--who wants to listen to an ex-sportscaster with a minor speech impediment talk about politics? Ok, as a good, politically correct libertarian, I have to apologize for calling him an ex-sportscaster. Problem is, I went to Fox to watch O'Reilly, but he started right off accusing "the evil oil companies"of price fixing, monopolizing, trying to profit at more than 4%, and probably child dismemberment. When it comes to anything sexual or anything involving oil, O'Reilly must have serious issues. There is no rationality whatever in the man's head regarding either of these issues.

So, I switched to MSNBC and the Ubermann show.

The topic with Ubermann, predictably, was oil as well. He showed a clip of McCain suggesting that it would be a good idea to allow offshore oil drilling. He still, stupidly, won't admit drilling in ANWR is a good idea, which must be a concession to his famed reputation for bipartisanship. Still, drilling off the coast of the Stalag, as well as Florida, the Caribbean, the Gulf and other places, would help. He then showed B Hussein Obama saying that "drilling won't have any effect on the price of gas today." I'm pretty sure this is an exact quote.

Of course it won't, dummy. We aren't drilling today.

The Aussie sang, "If you want your boomerang to come back, first you've got to throw it." The proper counter to B Hussein's proclamation is, "If you want the price of gas to come down, first you've got to drill it."

Aside: A clip of B Hussein at a campaign stop in Iowa where volunteers were filling sandbags. He said (subsequently cut from the clip), "I can do that! I've seen shovels before!" At which point he took up a shovel and slowly, deliberately placed part of three or four scoops of sand in and near a sandbag held by a swooning supporter.

The blushing Democrat then put the bag in the trunk of his car, saying he was going to have it bronzed and hanged on the wall in his den.

Back to the point. I don't know how many times lying leftists have quoted, word for word, the mantra, "We can't drill our way out of the gas crisis."

Well, yes we can. Drilling, in fact, is the only way. Developing an inexpensive, universally available high quality replacement for petroleum to fuel our vehicles, heat our homes and supply fuel from which to produce electricity will happen, but not today. Not tomorrow. And if government gets involved, not for a long, long time.

The truth of the matter is, most political officeholders, both Democrat and Republican, want to immobilize Americans. It's been observed that most feudal serfs never traveled more than ten miles from where they were born. They were far easier to manage that way.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of the people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California


T. F. Stern said...

The fact remains, cheap abundant oil made it possible for the US, and then the world, to make huge leaps in the quality of life. Those who cling to the idea that limiting the use of oil will improve the quality of life are guilty of faulty logic.

MK said...

It's good that McCain is pushing for some drilling, which is better than no drilling. I'm surprised that Obambi is steadfastly refusing to 'change' his mind on drilling. Sure it might not bring the price of gas down today, but doesn't he want to change the price of gas in the coming years or is that not the sort of change he meant.

Col. Hogan said...


You're absolutely right. That's why I refer to those who refuse to allow full-scale oil drilling as being opposed to American prosperity.

Col. Hogan said...


....And both GW Bush and Newt Gingrich have jumped aboard the pro-drilling bandwagon.

Kent C said...

Obama said, paraphrasing, that the price of gas went up too quickly. Implying that it going up was ok with him, only the time frame was bad (What? before an election?). They could 'hide' the creeping inflation of the 70's - slow boil/frog.... And they like to point out what gas was at the 'start of the Bush Administration'. Fact is, it's almost doubled since the Dem's took over in just '07. It was around $1.40 when Bush took office.

These high prices is what the radical Left (read enviruses) have wanted for the longest time.

As far as drilling now 'won't help today' goes, I think that the speculation, which has been cited as 'a source' by both parties, has only reflected the future market under a more Democratic Congress and a possible Democratic President (or one that acts like one ;-). If drilling started today, the speculators would begin to adjust for that immediately, even though it may be 5 to 10 years out before we 'harvest' the new oil/nuclear/coal/natural gas.

Col. Hogan said...


I agree. I wonder how long it'll take before enough people will realize that the entire environmental movement is anti-progress--hence anti-life. And that it's designed to place everyone in a position of dependence 'pon the state.

Kent C said...

"I wonder how long it'll take..."


Good question. It seems, to some extent (there are other factors of course), with the changes in power that are occurring in Europe, that the people there have awoken to the effects of complying, even partly, with Kyoto, with little to show for it, other than unemployment, higher fuel prices and more restrictions in lifestyle.

I'm guessing, just from the reaction to $4 gas, that it won't take as long here. However, one is reminded of Jefferson's words in the D of I: "...Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."

The problem at this point in time, (and always ;-) is to educate people as to what the 'Evils' actually are - in this case, it is the "Forms" of liberal legislation and the people and the concepts behind it. We are so 'accustomed' to the spoken intent, the propaganda - to "help" - that hides the actual 'designs' of the ideologues to control and to suppress individualism in favor of an elite driven collectivism.

Col. Hogan said...


I wonder if this kind of rhetoric from B Hussein will cause conservatives (and maybe some libertarians) to reconsider sitting this one out, and vote for McCain in self defense.

As we finally begin to learn a little of substance about the big-eared Democrat, he's becoming more and more scary.

Kent C said...

Col. writes:

"I wonder if this kind of rhetoric from B Hussein will cause..."

Another good question. And I don't have the answer. There are some that think 'it takes a Carter to get a Reagan' and others that don't want to 'validate' McCain in any manner. Still others think that electing McCain (much like the 'it takes a Carter' theme) will show Republicans that a true conservative (libertarian/conservative) is what is Really needed. :-)

My best guess is that conservatives will cave the end and libertarians won't. And Barr may end up the determining factor, perhaps.

Keep your powder dry... (and don't rely on the first part of that quote - omitted here ;-)

Col. Hogan said...


Not only did this campaign begin about a year before it should have but, even with all that extra time, the crop of nominees was very poor. The only one worth a nickel was Dr Paul--yet even the media was more opposed to him than most of the rest. The only reason he got any traction at all (other than very vociferous and enthusiastic supporters) was that he's against the war.

Kent C said...

The Col. writes:

"The only reason he (RPaul) got any traction at all (other than very vociferous and enthusiastic supporters) was that he's against the war."

True. And the only reason, he didn't get more votes was that he sat there spinning his tires on that one issue. Everything went back to that on almost every question in the debates to where he made himself into a 'one trick pony' to people unfamiliar with him. That, for me, was the most discouraging thing about Paul when I _know_ he could have answered the questions on free market and small gov't better than anyone up there (and _mean_ it!). Yet if he was asked about healthcare, welfare, earmarks, energy, he'd 'default' back to the money being spent in the war. And the thing about that was - it sounded AS IF he would use it for those programs when anyone who knows him, knew otherwise. Hence, his support was only from those who knew him already.

Col. Hogan said...


I noticed that myself. During those debates, I was constantly wishing he'd get away from the Iraq war stuff and start talking about the many ways the collectivist policies of the Democrats and the RINOs have stifled progress and limited our choices.

Hannah J said...

Drilling today may not drive down oil *prices*, but, according to today's WSJ et al., it will probably drive down oil *futures*, which in turn influences prices. Nearsightedness?

Col. Hogan said...


You're right. Those leftists, with their memorized talking points, are simply lying. We'd start feeling relief within a year, with a freed oil industry.