« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Oil Spill Commissioner’s Anti-Oil Bias

Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida is co-chair of the President’s Oil Spill Commission. The Commission, stacked with environmentalists and Harvard lawyers and notably absent any working industry expertise, delivered its report to the President earlier this month. Its contents were predictable, calling for more regulation and more government.

Here’s what Sen. Graham had to say this week:

This is a wakeup call to the American people. Why are we drilling in deeper and inherently more risky offshore locations? The United States is consuming about 22 percent of the world’s daily extraction of petroleum while it sits on top of less than 1.5 percent of the world’s proved reserves. If we “drill baby drill” in an attempt to go totally independent, and if our thirst for petroleum continues at its current level, the United States will drain its remaining proven domestic oil reserves by 2031.

If we stay at our current 48 percent domestic and 52 percent imported oil, that date will only be extended to 2068. Unless we develop and sustain a national energy policy which will fundamentally change our petroleum addiction, the only choice our generation will have is whether to leave to our children or to our grandchildren an America totally dependent on foreign oil producers for its national security, economy and way of life.

[Source. Formatting in original.]

Uh, I have a few problems with this.

  1. First off, his numbers are wrong. In round numbers, worldwide production is about 85 million barrels a day. Domestic production is about 5 million barrels a day of crude plus a couple of million barrels of natural gas condensate and liquids. Domestic production is about 30-35% of consumption, not 48% as Graham asserts.
  2. Oil companies don’t just drill for oil. Probably 80% of the drilling on the shallow-water “Shelf” in the Gulf of Mexico is for natural gas. It’s much less risky than deepwater oil, but it has been shut down, too. When you consider that we have 100 years of domestic resources (mostly as yet undiscovered), and that gas is environmentally superior to coal and oil, then Sen. Graham should do everything in his power to get behind gas exploration.
  3. Even more troubling is that Graham has bought into the Leftist lie, “The U.S. has only 1.5% of the world’s reserves but consumes 22% of its oil.”

As I’ve pointed out previously in these pages, there’s a lot of confusion between oil reserves and oil resources.

As practiced in the U.S., “proved reserves” are a conservative, audited estimate of production that will be produced mostly by existing wells.  The SEC requires that American companies report reserves to their shareholders. “Resources” is the term applied to the quantities that are expected to be found by future drilling. Resources are converted to reserves by drilling (unless politicians, greens and NIMBYs prevent development of resources, which is the subject of another diary…)

Not only that, but most of the reserves in the world are owned by National Oil Companies in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Angola, Nigeria, etc. Their reserves are whatever they say they are, because they are not subject to the SEC rules. And usually they guess high. As a result, the U.S. proportion of the world total deceptively low.

Our policy makers don’t seem to understand that the U.S. is resource-rich, but reserves-poor. That is a result of policy, not a fact of life.

Imagine a situation where I had $500,000 in savings and home equity, plus $10,000 in my checking account. My living expenses are $2,000 per month.

If I told you I would be broke in 5 months, you’d say I was an idiot. And you would be right.

“Only choice?” Hardly. Sen. Graham’s case against oil is specious, while betraying a total ignorance of natural resource planning issues. That we put unqualified, biased politicians in a position to influence important policy decisions boggles the mind.

I don’t understand why such important policy has been turned over to neophytes and Leftist ideologues, but that seems to be the pattern under Obama.

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

Follow VladimirRS on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • skorrent1

    Why this is happening. It’s all part of the pitch for “sustainable”, “green” energy which requries government control and subsidy.

  • gwalt

    Just saw a news story in Atlanta where the Dekalb County chapter of the NAACP is protesting a gas station for “price gouging”. Yeah, it’s the stations fault.

    They either have no clue, or don’t want to state the real reason because their man in the WH is causing the high gas prices (land leases not being issued, the Gulf moratorium still basically in effect, no offshore VA drilling, no ANWR drilling).

    Do they know the truth? Do they care? I think this is to deflect from the real story—–Obama is causing this almost single-handedly. The spike two and a half years ago (2008) was due to storms that disrupted refineries.

    Moreover, is this orchestrated to con their fellow AA’s that it’s [wrongly] the gas station’s fault, and not Obama, Salazar et al. Why is the NAACP protesting in the first place? Doesn’t make sense, other than they are getting complaints within the AA community about $3.50/gallon gas and NAACP doesn’t want Obama with the blame. Don’t they have more important fish to fry (like calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them “racist”)?

    Vlad,
    Do you believe the first Republican to draft a domestic oil drilling program would be the lead dog? Environmental groups have lost a lot of credibility (Climate-gate) and the media has lost a lot of credibility since the days of showing caribou roaming ANWR—-which were demonstrably false. Remember how popular drill here, drill now, all of the above (nuclear, solar) was?

    At any rate—-the sooner we get rid of this Admin, the better for America. And the world. (Rezko—-sing!! Tell all!!)

    • ohiohistorian

      If a single station is “price-gouging”, then the people who buy are free to go elsewhere. Thus, the free economy will put it out of business.

      The NAACP, by suing, will also put the station out of business. This will cut the neighborhood employment and will have secondary economic impact from this hit, including one more blighted property.

      Thus, even if you were to assume the NAACP were “do-gooders”, the good that they do will be to shoot the community in the foot instead of helping it. It would be much more helpful to picket and educate the community (a well-placed sign indicating prices elsewhere would do it if it is gouging; if it is NOT gouging, and are locally high prices, then the NAACP is another of the group of “useful idiots”).

      • msctex

        Progressives live in a world where the station would find a way to lower its prices while paying more for the product it offers.

        I’m not sure what color the sky is there.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    …according to our own government!

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233

    This administration is flat out lying to, as mentioned by skorrent,, continue to push its green agenda.

    • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

      for this administration. Obama has his “perfect” expert. It’s all about the agenda, real facts be damned.

    • The_Gadfly

      what we are talking about in the middle of the conversation. Fossil fuel reserves are NOT equal to oil reserves (even if you include gas with oil). A very good chunk of that reserve is in coal.

      Vladimir is specifically discussing oil (and gas) not coal. I will grant the arguments for coal development are parallel to his. One of the points of differentiation is that as currently configured our economy is more dependent on oil, and The Big 0 is working harder on reducing our oil reserves than he is on our coal production (although that’s taking a hit too in the name of miner safety).

    • momof4

      Right…green as the lefts’ agenda. The more the green nonsense is touted, the more it costs us, the taxpayer. By the way, I have been recycling since the early 1990′s (well before it was cool) and even recycled while living in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, came to find out, during the mid 90′s, HK couldn’t figure out what to do with all the recycling, so it was sent off the island in barges to float around. Gave new meaning to the term “Fragrant Harbor”. We also use setback thermostats, conserve energy and water as well (don’t want our liberal friends to think we Republicans don’t care about the world we hand our children).

  • horizon3

    And that were formerly there, who were consulted during the Macondo spill. I was one of them, I had several conference calls with the spill panel, and a plethora of other engineers in the field. “several of these panel members migrated to this panel”.
    They really weren’t one iota interested in what we had to say, or in our suggestion for effective non-intrusive regulation. They had their agenda planned out long before the panel ever convened and a single phone call made to REAL experts in the field.

    • izoneguy

      And that is the way Obama will keep governing. All of his talk about jobs and growing small business is code for “I want to kill jobs & small business”.
      To Obama – people that can make their own decisions and not need government help are dangerous and even “radical”. You see – Obama wants to fatten everyone up for the kill, when it will too late to get off your fat arse to do anything about it. That is why what is going in Tunisia is very troubling to Obama and his cabal of The New World Order. Of course in the SOTU address Obama will be cheering for the people of Tunisia. Don’t believe it.

    • edintexas

      It was self-evident what the findings would be once the panel members were announced. Politicians and academics are hardly a substitute for industry experts in an alleged “investigation” into an industry specific technical subject. Unless, or course, you have a specific agenda in mind and employ that knowledge when choosing/appointing the panel members.

  • bushhog

    will solve our jobs problem, our national security problem and our deficit/debt problems. Not to mention changing global perception of us from “naive wimps” to “global superpower” again, and protecting the value of the dollar. Who knows — we could become an “oil exporting” nation!

    • izoneguy

      or at least impede the “Green Movement”.
      We will have to get rid of activist judges, easier said than done.

      California could solve their budget crisis overnight by allowing more oil drilling.
      Do they really have the will? I don’t think the people in California do.
      In Texas the EPA and local officials are doing everything they can to halt nature gas exploration. It’s about power & control. Until the federal bureaucrats are scaled back it will be hard to unleash the oil & gas industry.

      When the dollar no longer becomes the currency of choice for oil purchases then the crap will hit the fan when Americans start paying $10 a gallon for gas. I think then you will see support for the “Green Movement” dry up and anyone that gets in the way of drill here, drill now will be crushed.

      • astrolite

        Lets put the taxes where they would do the most good—— Tax environmental organizations heavily, and maybe like Klinton-retroactive! Tax the ALCU and SPLC, into bankruptcy. If the NOW and other orgs love murder so much—-tax it too, especially the perpetrators making the profits–the abortion doctors! I love it when THEY accuse US of violent rhetoric while condoning the bloody actions like were just exposed in Philly. It exposes their mental state! Liberalism IS a Disease!

  • NeoKong

    Even more troubling is that Graham has bought into the Leftist lie, ?The U.S. has only 1.5% of the world?s reserves but consumes 22% of its oil.?

    Right between his back pockets.

    It is one of those statistics that imply that others would have more if only we used less.
    It’s a claim he cannot back up and typical leftie envirospeak.

    • carolina

      Seems like folks would start to ‘get a clue’.

      • NeoKong

        11 million illegal aliens

        People were using that number ten years ago.
        It’s probably triple by now.

  • gwalt

    Place an ad on a billboard with a picture of Obama and this underneath:

    “You can thank Mr. Obama for $4.00/gallon gas!!”
    Contact him at : barack@ofa.org

    (or whatever his e-mail is)

    • izoneguy

      Gas will be way over $5 a gallon……with no relief in sight and another crisis will happen around Sept of 2012 for Obama to capitalize on.

      • The_Gadfly

        for any extended period of time he won’t be able to capitalize on any of his man caused disasters. Heck, gas touching $5 a gallon is going to make it difficult to capitalize on other man caused disasters. And I wouldn’t wager a can of soda against your prediction.

  • dsmurf

    ethanol mix? Is that possible?
    Does this dude have stock in foreign oil companies such as BP, and or Canadian drillers and producers, since Canadian are our largest oil source?
    How many ethanol companies is he invested in?
    Oh never mind, Soros, safe to say is pulling his strings, yes?

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      It will ruin every engine on cars built before 2006, if I recall correctly. Ethanol is not only stupid, now it will cost every American driver the price of a new car.

      • dsmurf

        and newer cars to have the 15% mix. I’m assuming that the lower the Octane the higher the ethanol mix. So so far it hasn’t advertised as higher than 10%. I know our lawnmower warns on anything higher than 10 % ethanol,
        I know our 95 Prizm gets nearly 30 a gallon on premium, and our 2003 won’t run for more than a few days until the maintenance light goes on if we put the lowest octane fuel in, or we have to put a STP drying agent fuel additive in to correct the condition.
        This whole report sounds like a push for ethanol to 15% + food inflation dangers be dammed, so that the W era ethanol mandate have a chance for real world realization.
        I really doubt the 35 mph can be realized with the ethanol mix that high, just my hypothetical guesstimate based on our own anecdotal experience.

        • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

          I did a quick back-of-the-envelope assuming that ethanol is 66% as efficient as gasoline. I don’t know how the chemistry works (not my area of expertise), but if 15% of your fuel is 66% efficient and 85% is 100% efficient, then the blended efficiency is 0.15 X 0.66 + 0.85 X 1 = 0.95. To get an output of 35 MPG, multiply 35 X (1 / 0.95) = 37.

          So, assuming that all of that is correct, you could get 35 MPG out of an engine rated for 37 MPG running 15% ethanol.

          That said, it’s probably not how the chemistry works (Car people, please help), and given the problems that ethanol causes (watery gas, short shelf life, ruining engines), it seems like a very bad idea to me. Plus, it’s my understanding that it actually puts out more carbon than gas. Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real, I don’t see how this is a good thing, especially given the cost of ethanol versus gasoline.

          • ohiohistorian

            is that you spend 100 units of energy to get 108 units. ( http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf Table 6). This is compared with 100 units of energy to get 500 units of petroleum energy. Ethanol is SUCH a bad deal that the current Congress should shut down all subsidies. Unfortunately, that would gore some of agriculture’s ox, so don’t expect it anytime soon.

            BTW, for those of you who will rebut with the Argonne report, Wang is either wrong or is deliberately hoodwinking you. The ratios are on two different bases, so to claim that you use 100 Btu’s to produce 80 Btu’s of petroleum is not only wrong, but it cannot be justified macro-economically for countries (e.g. Japan) that are on nearly all crude oil.

          • dsmurf

            Researching tobacco topics on wikipedia, apparently tobacco was the top crop into the 1960s.

            I know I met an Army reservist from Ohio in 94 who said they made ends meet thanks to their tobacco crop.

            So now corn farmers are chasing the government subsidy? I know tobacco wasn’t grown everywhere, but all the government intrusion in this area sure does give the impression of
            “First they came for tobacco growers, but I didn’t care because I didn’t smoke or care for it. Next they came for ______ etc.
            I saw that the ATF will come after people if you have more than 10000 cigarrettes in your possession- for black market purposes I reckon
            I saw a web link for UK based sellers of tobacco seed that you can make 5000 cigarettes out of an 1 meter x 8 meter plot devoted to tobacco leaf.
            I personally think growing my own tobacco would be the biggest “up your caboose” should the Health care law and other intrusive pieces of legislation not get rolled back. I might even make pipe tobacco that smelled good, like the pipe tobacco my Dad smoked back in the 70s.
            There’s got to be better ways, I see the Egyptians and Tunisians had food riots based on BBC reports, and this isn’t the first time that corn ethanol has been blamed for third world food rice hyperinflation.

          • dsmurf

            has a 6 for city mph and up to 10 mph per gallon difference between E85 and (100%) gas, I presume- that is gas gets the better mph.

            The web site shows a large percentage of GM vehicles with flex fuel capacity.

            As for CAFE standards, flex fuels can’t cut it- get the 35 mph, so this may be a push for hybrids, I reckon based on their CAFE standards at the web site

            As for free market solutions, I know Ford is developing an “Ecoboost” engine with 20% better mph.
            Volkswagen features diesel vehicles rated at over 35 mph according to .gov site above. So the push for Flex fuel thvehicles by Growth Energy lobby is looking for requiring all cars become flex fuel vehicles. see
            http://www.growthenergy.org/ethanol-issues-policy/fueling-freedom-plan/ So much for Growth Energy’s perspective of choice of fuels between oil and ethanol, they would mandate a specific engine via the gov, -look at the pull they have with the EPA in requesting such and such percentage of fuels. Good grief, I have better things to do with $120 than to be required on our next vehicle purchase to buy a Flex fuel vehicles, like buy stock in companies drilling at the Bakken oil field:) thank you very much or buy my first tobacco seeds and curing equipment.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            If a gallon of gasoline fuels a car for 10 miles, then 0.85 gallons should get you 8.5 miles. Even if ethanol has zero value as a fuel, the minimum that an 85% blend should get is 8.5 MPG. To take a car 6 miles, the ethanol in the blend would have to reduce the efficacy of the 85% of the fuel that is gasoline.

            Using the numbers that you provide, I’d have to use ~1.7 gallons of 85% ethanol blend to drive 10 miles. Of this 1.7 gallons, ~1.4 gallons are gas, and ~0.3 are ethanol. In other words, I’d have to use 40% more actual gasoline to go the same distance, thereby increasing petroleum consumption.

            What the heck? That seems really bizarre. Am I doing my math wrong?

          • dsmurf

            using E85 and achieving the 35 mph CAFE standard, seems on track from my own anecdotal evidence of my 95 Prizm on Premium and regular, I’ve driven that thing through the $4 per gallon gas and I just opted for the premium because I got at least an extra day of driving with the Premium as compared to lowest octane rating, now this Growth energy group gets this kind of influence and they are lobbying for 100% flex fuel engines.

            My bet for overwhelming success would be with Ford’s new Eco boost engine, ethanol or not it will maximize mph with my favorite fuels with the known technology available. Otherwise I’d be aiming for Volkswagen’s diesel vehicles, of which they are already over the 35 mph threshold and they aren’t crushable car coffins if I’m not mistaken.

        • carolina

          I think Beaglescout is exactly right. Ethanol will eat up valves and fittings/seals if the car is not designed for it. I know I’m not going to use it.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            I would gladly pay more for 100% gasoline, but most of the gas stations in Charlotte are 10% ethanol, and they don’t come out and say so directly on a big sign that you can see from the road. Very frustrating.

          • acat

            The initial reason for adding ethanol was to add a compound with more oxygen to prevent forming some of the worse pollutants from the tailpipe. It’s not in there to add suck to your mileage or to make corn farmers happy, it’s to make the air cleaner .. or at least that’s the theory the EPA wants to sell us.

            I’m in the “let the private sector figure it out” camp, I don’t much care what I put in the gas tank as long as (a) it won’t damage the car and (b) it works… but I’d expect Shell or BP or ADM to figure out how to grow fuel for profit if it is, in fact, possible. If it takes government involvement and tax breaks and loans, then .. it’s not possible and more research needs doing.

            Mew

          • carolina

            Their only refinery is on St Croix (largest refinery in the world) and I don’t think they do ethanol blending. However, I need to verify that.

          • carolina

            http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=NC

          • dsmurf

            emissions, too bad they aren’t checking on the mileage comparison of 15%, 10% or no ethanol vehicles.

            This ethanol boondoggle doesn’t add up for anyone when shopping for food. Ups the probability of making crushable car coffins so that fleet averages get to 35 mph on fuels that are ineffecient and require even more mitigating equipment to ensure that people’s cars aren’t wrecked because they were too uninformed, drunk or whatever other human vice may wreck their own vehicle-

            They really are missing a critical part of the question that must be made for the CAFE standards in the latest January 21 2011 waivers for E15 ethanol from the EPA.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            It’s no wonder I haven’t found any non-ethanol filling stations. There are only two in the whole city, and they’re both on the west side of town (not my neighborhood). This is a great resource, though. Thanks!

          • carolina
          • gekster

            from:
            http://www.fuel-testers.com/marine_boat_ethanol_problems.html

            excerpt:
            “Ethanol alcohal is a solvant, degreaser, cleanser, antifreeze and most problomatic is ethanol’s “hygroscopic” propoerties. Hygroscopic and miscible means ethanol attracts and absorbs water.

            Ethanol fuels, (E10 and E85), rapidly absorb 50 times more water, than non-alcohal gas.
            Alcohal fuels are not suitable for marine use…..”

  • Tbone

    They are trying to destroy this Country. They should be arrested and tried.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    The logic he’s using says that because (according to him) we’re almost out of oil, we should pretend that we’re totally out of oil.

    Rather than relying on the ingenuity of Americans to come up with new ways to pursue a profit, the Greens want to force us to develop these energy solutions now, because we’re told to do so.

    They seem to think the Earth has a need to keep its oil, perhaps out of some religious devotion. Whatever the reason, it clouds their thinking, letting them fall prey to logic that is, as you say, specious.

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

      And while we’re told to develop alternative energy, we’re also told that it’s unacceptable to take radioactive rocks out of the ground in one otherwise useless place, process them into useful energy to power their inefficient electric cars, use them up, and put them back in the ground in another, even less useful, place.

      Because Cher made a movie.

      • gamechange11two

        Here’s the link:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/us-energy-independence-by-2020/

        I had no idea thorium was useful as an energy source. I’ve always thought of thorium as a medical tool. But it turns out to be far more potent than uranium and far more abundant, too, without many of the safety challenges uranium presents. (See Archibald’s article.)
        Why isn’t this topic getting more attention from the all-of the-above crowd?

        • acat

          Used to go into gas lamp mantles…

          Used to be a manufacturing plant that did a lot of gas mantles in the Chicago suburbs … lots of contamination, lots of protests when people figured out that their yards and their river were tainted. Not nearly as bad as some of our industrial legacy, but .. not something a new homeowner wants to find. Anyway, if thorium takes off, watch for the greens to focus on this:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Chicago,_Illinois

          All that said, yes, thorium makes for a much safer, much harder to weaponize source of clean energy.

          Mew

          • gamechange11two

            Any source of energy that provides actual energy w/o requiring a lifetime of subsidies is off the agenda for them.
            But safe handling standards have come a long way since the days of Marie Curie. With a long list of uses for the depleted product, long term storage and disposal are non-issues.
            If reducing our need for oil, especially foreign oil, is a top priority, this seems a valid option, even for the technologically aversive.
            I know there are no panaceas. I’m just surprised at how little play such a promising alternative is getting.

          • acat

            Thorium is an outsider in the energy market. Thorium never got the government/miltary benefit of uranium, doesn’t have the history of development and refinement of oil or coal or even natural gas.

            None of that means it can’t be viable .. just that nobody has decided to spend the money to work through the details … yet…

            Mew

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
  • Common_Cents

    While his buddy Soros buys millions of preferred shares in petrobras.

  • jstjoan

    “BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) ? Billionaire oilman Harold Hamm told North Dakota bankers on Thursday that government estimates of recoverable oil in the Bakken and Three Forks formations are too conservative.

    Hamm, 64, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc., said the formations in North Dakota and Montana hold about 20 billion barrels of recoverable crude, or about five times the amount previously estimated by federal geologists. The formations also hold the natural gas equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil, he said.”

    Read the whole thing here:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/oilman-bakken-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil.html

    • renny

      Thanks for the list of what’s available here and that we do not have to pay trillions to people who hate us half way around the world to fuel our own ec. Let alone, such industry would boom in the ec. and provide millions of jobs.

  • renny

    oil, and fossil fuels in general. The US alone has a couple hundred years of coal. There’s now natural gas from NY to VA and PA is drilling for it. Nat. gas is off NJ and oil is off VA, let alone all around FL, which has state law to keep from drilling, but then let their prices rise. CA could solve its budget problems by defying the feds and ramping up its mothballed off-shore rigs and start pumping crude in a year. Santa Barbara has even voted to do that, and Santa Barbara is the site of the great oil spill of 1969 that set off the anti-drilling hysteria.
    Just as a reminder, in the 70s they also told us a new ice age was coming (an “In Search of” with Leonard Nemoy from 1978 must be running around the channels somewhere on the new ice age); also, we would run out of fresh water by 2000, and countries would have major wars over water, and we would over-populate and have major wars over arable land–the green revolution solved that problem.
    NONE OF THOSE PREDICTIONS HAPPENED AND BOB GRAHAM’S WON’T EITHER. And if he wants to save energy, he could stop serving on fed. committees using computers and taking meetings that require airline flights and speaking in front of television cameras that are energy intensive or appearing publicly where stadium lighting or extra facilities are required. Go back to his cave and live on wind power. I had a Piney relative years ago who lived in the woods and ran a little windmill to generate enough electricity to run one electric light bulb and power the black and white tv for the Friday night fights. Bob Graham prob. doesn’t live like that, and if he doesn’t, whatever he says is worth sh*t.

  • Michael Dugas

    Are trying to shut down EVERY reliable source of energy there is.
    They say:
    NO to Oil
    NO to Coal
    NO to Nuclear
    NO to Natural Gas

    They say NO to improving our refining capabilities
    They say NO to improving our existing nuclear generating plants

    There is NO way they believe that we can provide the power this country needs from wind and current solar technologies. Even if there was a breakthrough in hydrogen technologies there is no infrastructure in place to reliably distribute that fuel to the masses.

    The Democrat Party is trying to break the economic back of this country so that they can RULE instead of GOVERN at the will of the people.

    We are in the midst of a coup and they know the only way to defeat this country is from within so that is what they are doing.
    Time is NOT on our side people as the Left is not alone in their desire to bring America to its knees. They get plenty of help from foreign entities that have no love for us either.

    • Michael Dugas

      metaphorically slap them with the angry rhetoric of a bitter clinger!

  • edintexas

    MPH = Miles per Hour. How fast something is traveling

    MPG = Miles per Gallon. How far a liquid fuel using vehicle will travel on one gallon of the liquid fuel.

    Maybe we could reach that CAFE standard of 35 MPG if we had a maximum speed limit of 35 MPH.

  • miroco

    Should one be able to force himself to read the entire report, one must conclude Lefties are genetically stupid..A preponderance of the anti- American low lifes are also Lawyers, a double hickey. It is actually impossible to accept a single “fact” propounded by the — I smell a bunch of affirmative action blended in this mix, only they have such contempt for whitey as to put forth such a treatise.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir