Home › Opinion › Pulse
U.S. cannot drill its way to energy independence
Here we go again
STORY TOOLS 
More from PulseLike many Californians, I was a little surprised to see Republican presidential candidate John McCain campaigning in Santa Barbara the week before last touting his new plan for energy independence — the centerpiece of which focuses on new offshore drilling. As someone who lives in and represents Santa Barbara and witnessed the horrible economic and environmental consequences of the huge 1969 oil spill, I know I have a certain bias against new offshore drilling. But, even so, it seems obvious that President Bush's drilling-heavy energy policy, now being embraced by Sen. McCain, is, in no small part, responsible for today's gas prices of well over $4 per gallon. But the call for more drilling as a solution hits a few dry holes.
First, even if we wanted to, we simply can't drill our way to "energy independence." The U.S. has less than 3 percent of world oil supplies, yet, we make up nearly 25 percent of world demand. More drilling off our coasts (and in Alaska, for that matter) isn't going to change those numbers, so no one should believe arguments that more drilling in these pristine areas means we stop relying on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or Russia. More drilling won't end our addiction to oil — it just enables it.
Second, most people probably don't know that 80 percent of the oil and gas resources off our coasts are already available for leasing and drilling. While large swaths of our coasts are off limits to new drilling, the areas where most oil and gas are located are not. Listening to Sen. McCain and others, you'd think we've been locking up all our resources — the opposite is true.
Third, we are drilling more domestically than we have in years. Following Vice President Dick Cheney's ridiculous view that conservation is merely a "personal virtue," the Bush administration's energy policy has basically been to drill for more resources. It has leased public lands for drilling throughout the west, the Gulf Coast and elsewhere at a record pace over the last seven-and-a-half years. In fact, right now, the oil and gas industry has leased nearly 70 million acres of public lands where they aren't drilling. It also has some 6,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico (where the majority of oil and natural gas reserves are found) that are not being drilled in. According to Sen. McCain and President Bush, the oil and gas industry wants to lower prices for American consumers, but they can't because they're prevented from drilling. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Fourth, even Sen. McCain and the Bush administration's own Energy Department admit that opening up our coasts would have no effect on today's gas prices and little on tomorrow's. The best estimate is that it would take 10 years for the product to come on line and then maybe it would affect prices by a few cents. Sen. McCain's latest hope is that opening our coasts will provide a "psychological" benefit to lower gas prices. That's hardly encouraging.
So, we're drilling domestically more than ever, the oil industry already has access to most offshore resources, the industry is not drilling in millions of acres of public land that it has leased and, even if it did, it wouldn't lower prices and it wouldn't really have any effect on our reliance on foreign oil. Like McCain's previous proposal for a gas-tax holiday, his new embrace of offshore drilling is just another political gimmick rather than a responsible solution for meeting our nation's energy needs.
The latest Bush-McCain push for more offshore drilling is just more of the same failed approach that brought us $4-a-gallon gas and has actually increased our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It means more drilling in environmentally sensitive places, more profits for big oil and more pain at the pump for American consumers. And while it's a sweet deal for the Bush-McCain buddies in the big oil industry, it won't lower gas prices or make us more energy independent. At the end of the day, Sen. McCain's "new" plan will have a devastating effect on California's economy, environment and its health.
With the right leadership, this could be an opportunity for us to move forward in a new direction on energy policy that embraces alternative energy sources and pushes enhanced energy efficiency. Unfortunately, President Bush and Sen. McCain appear content to push the same tired combination of old ideas and political gimmicks.
— Rep Lois Capps represents parts of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in Congress.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 6, 2008 at 12:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to do more than drill, but Lois, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me we won't be better off using our own oil than buying from the Middle Eastern nations that hate us. And a lot of the drilling stuff you're spouting off is the same old Democratic/liberal crap. Check out the voting records if you don't believe it.
Posted by SPnative on July 6, 2008 at 5:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rep Capps,
As usual the same useless points with no solutions. Why not dedicate your 8 paragraphs stating the Democrat parties' energy policy? Because there isn't one.
There is not one legislative body across this country talking openly about the real impact of $4 a gallon gas, more tax money to waste. Instead they will fight about who gets to spend the new windfall. Start looking at the oil industry as part of this country's infrastructure (because really, fiscally it is our most important one) and invest accordingly. If you apply the "Oh its going to take to long, so let's not talk about it" mentality, then the 101 through Wagon Wheel junction in Oxnard would still be a 4 lane road.
The American people want and deserve realistic solutions to this problem, not more hot air from politicians that blame everyone but themselves.
Posted by SPnative on July 6, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JW1000: Did the law pass? You said "attempted" so I am guessing it didn't. That being said, as of Jan 4, 2007 both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. With a simple majority, they can by law enact whatever grand energy policy plans they have in mind (BTW please provide links on these ideas to help raise my IQ) but they don't, now why is that?
Posted by cslaurie on July 6, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm heartened to see that a school nurse is so educated concerning the oil business.
How about something really simple? It is called balance of trade. If we can avoid exporting say 3 billion dollars to the Mid-East and instead keep the money here are we not better off?
Posted by cslaurie on July 6, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way JW, I drove out to California in 1964 in my 1955 VW. I paid 16 cents a gallon in Texas - there was a gas price war going on. Remember price wars? And I got a free map too. What's your point? The Democratic President at the time was Lyndon Johnson, the guy who loved Vietnam so much he sacrificed 50,000+ American sons.
Posted by cassandra2 on July 6, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice to see Rep. Capps is a. knowledgeable b. is not being stampeded into telling folks what they want to hear instead of what they need to.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about--we are at peak oil. Supply is static a few years though the industry tries to cover its prior lies about reserves by giving figures in "liquid fuels" so that ethanol, tar sands and any oleant but your salad dressing can count.
We will never have cheap oil again. It isn't speculator's messing with the market, though they probably do that. It isn't failure to drill in coastal waters. It isn't those pesky moslems refusing to jack up availability. We have simply reached the point where it is not economically feasible to increase supplies significantly.
And it never will be again.
Posted by hemlock1262 on July 6, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know what would have been nice? The Senate passing that legislation (in 1990) introduced by Nevada Democrat Richard Bryan that would have raised CAFE standards on cars to 40 m.p.g. That alone would have saved us 3 million barrels of oil a day now.
Too bad it was blocked by Jesse Helms.
You know what would have been nice? The Congress increasing the tax on gasoline by $0.15 per gallon and directing that money to new research for fuel independence, as President George H.W. Bush wanted.
Too bad it was blocked by Newt Gingrich.
You know what would have been nice? If, in 1995, Congress had passed President Clinton's plan to require increased fuel efficiency standards as part of his omnibus energy plan.
Too bad it was blocked by House Republicans, who compelled the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to freeze fuel efficiency standards until 2001.
You know what would have been nice? If more Alaskan oil fields had been opened for exploration in 1998, as Democrat Senator Chuck Shumer proposed, as long as Detroit agreed to stop producing gargantuan SUVs.
Too bad it was blocked by Congressional Republicans, the Heritage Foundation, and other "conservatives" who said that it was "unfair" to corporate America.
Yes, lots of things would have been nice, like the 2007 law mandating better fuel efficiency in vehicles, passed only after the 2006 defeat of the Republican party.
Yes, lots of things would have been nice.
Too bad we had Republicans around to mess them up.
Posted by hemlock1262 on July 6, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Republicans! Want cheap gas prices? Here's a list of places where you can live.
Lots of economic opportunity!
Call me if you need someone to help you pack -- would be thrilled to see you go!
Cuba -- $3.03/gal
Lebanon -- $2.63/gal
Nicaragua -- $2.61/gal
Russia -- $2.10/gal
Saudi Arabia -- $0.91/gal
Nigeria -- $0.38/gal
Venezuela -- $0.12/gal
Posted by cassandra2 on July 6, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In lieu of drilling, here are some things that will help a smidge to alleviate this predictable crisis:
1. Drive less and consolidate errands.
2. Use public transport where feasible or car pool or bike or walk.
3. Support a. railroad expansion and rail transport b. pedestrian and bike friendly city planning c. local businesses whose profits remain here and can help us plan for whatever future we might have.
4. Look for small scale organic locally produced foods. Industrial farming takes tons of fossil fuels for fertilizers and then more for transport. (produces an inferior product as well.)
5. Odd one. Cut down on meat or eschew it entirely. Most livestock is fed on grain resulting in increased use of fossil fuels in the production.
6. Help end the war. The military is either the biggest or one of the biggest consumers of petroleum, (not to mention taxpayer funds that could build and repair our dilapidated infrastructure).
Posted by cassandra2 on July 6, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, one more. Do away with free parking. It isn't really free. Its cost adds to the price of things and it encourages driving.
A certain amount of parking space is required for new buildings, giving folks no choice. Maybe just eliminating this municipal regulation would help.
Posted by jdyckes on July 6, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lois
I'm so thrilled that I've moved out of Ventura County with views like yours.
Liberals for the last 30 years have put up every obstacle they can to new refineries, to expanding existing ones, they don't want coal plants, nuclear is out of bounds for them too.
No wonder folks like Al Gore make comments "I wish the internal combustion engine was never created".
Good grief. These people want to run the economy on pixie dust energy. It's truly amazing how out to lunch they are.
Posted by harlan on July 6, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The ONLY currently available road to energy independence is hydrogen, and we've spent precious little working to develop it. Anything else is a stopgap measure of the same sort that brought us to the precipice where we currently teeter.
Does anyone here remember how the first Alaskan Pipeline was sold to America? They claimed that it would free us from dependence on foreign oil. In reality, 85% of the light, sweet, crude that traveled through that conduit wound up being sold overseas because a) we were trying to keep the Europeans (and others) from buying gas from the Soviets, and b) Europe was paying the equivalent of $6 a gallon even back then and the people selling the petroleum wanted to sell their product in the market where they could get the highest return. Only 15% of the crude that left Alaska actually got used in America, and only about 8% of that wound up being used to propel personal transportation. The rest of it wound being used for lubricants and other petroleum products. The oil companies and their bought-and-paid-for politicians lied to us back then, and they're lying to us now, too, when they suggest that drilling for untapped oil on American territory will bring us energy independence. It will bring us nothing but wealthier oil companies, period.
If we allow drilling in ANWR and other currently off-limit areas, the people who own the oil are going to do the same thing they did back then; they're going to sell the oil overseas where they can get the most money for it. Guaranteed. And, when you hear the oil companies and their shills talk about the tiny amount of land that will actually be occupied for drilling operations, remember that they are intentionally leaving out of their figures the many, many, square miles of land that will be turned into the spiderweb of roads and pipeline routes that will essentially criss-cross most of the disputed area.
Keep that in mind; the 2000 or so acres they're talking about disrupting is a figure that only includes the area occupied by the drilling pads and the worker's settlements, and they're actually going to be bulldozing hundreds of thousands of acres in order to tie their enterprise together and get the oil to market.
If you think that you can trust companies that made over 9 billion dollars profit last year off of Americans who searched in vain at the 99 Cent Store for produce without green mold on it, then I hope you enjoy eating slippery, fuzzy food for a long, long, time.
Posted by harlan on July 6, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, should you ever wonder why many Alaskans don't seem to mind the idea of opening up ANWR, remember that these folks have been getting $1000-a-year checks from the oil companies via the State of Alaska for a long, long, time, and the size of that check will increase with each new area that is opened up to drilling.
What have Californians ever gotten for allowing oil production in their state? Consistently the most expensive gas in the U.S.A, that's what -- even more expensive than in states that produce no petroleum at all. It's academic, but I wonder if we would have accepted the bribe as easily as the Alaskans did?
Posted by dila813 on July 6, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is illegal to even explore for oil in many of the closed off areas.
We have no idea how much oil we have.
Look at Brazil's oil find.
The headline for this article should be,
"Ignorance and Fear will not solve the Gas Crisis."
Posted by silver357 on July 6, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lois, this is 2008, not 1969. It's time to quit living in the past. Forty years have come and gone.
I've listened to quite a few drilling experts refute the "10 years" theory. They say five years, max. But so what if it takes 10 years? If we had ignored the 10 year doom & gloomers 10 years ago, that oil would be flowing now. TODAY.
However, it doesn't take an immediate influx of new oil to lower oil prices. The mere commitment to drilling for new oil would have an immediate affect on oil prices.
By the way, in 2006 the Democrats promised to lower the price of gasoline if they won Congress. Well, they won Congress, and since then the price for a gallon of gasoline has increased 80 percent.
Posted by silver357 on July 6, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right now the government is studying alternative energy sources, but guess what? There has to be environmental impact studies done first. No nuclear, no coal, no oil. What's left? Wind power? Too many birds get killed. Animal rights groups are against it. Hydroelectric? Too many salmon die. Whatever form of energy there is, a Democrat Party support group opposes it.
The Democrat Party and and all of it's fringe supporters won't be happy until Americans are living in caves. Unless it negatively impacts indigenous cave dwelling animals.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 6, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassie---I agree with some of your comments. We may never see cheap gas again, but that is a function of big oil's drive for profits, not of supply. I also agree with your suggestions 1-4. After that, I can't say much; you still hate the military although you know absolutely nothing about it.
harlan has some good points.
Lois Capps is still spouting the same old Democratic crap. They should be shot.
jw---many times you have demonstrated your absolute stupidity. Why don't you quit cluttering this place up?
Posted by gramagracie on July 6, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms Capps, what is your solution? In plain simple english,please.
How long will it take to design an automobile, that will be affordable, for the alternative fuel...which is what? Tell us something that every other democrat hasn't said before. Yet no solution. My choice is we have autos designed to use oil...no brainer...let's start drilling.
Who keeps saying that it's going to take 10 years? We start drilling and I am sure that the foreign oil companies will start bringing the gas prices down real quick!!
Hydrogen...Hindenberg! Ethanol...food prices sky high!
Remember when we were told the Diesel cars were going to be better for the environment and it would be cheaper...check the price lately?
Someone once said "How dare we think that we mere mortals could destroy the earth that God created". Pretty good quote. He created the earth and the crude oil with it...via the dinosaurs.
Posted by sinz52 on July 6, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've had just about enough of Democrat "bait and switch" tactics. OK, so they don't want to produce more oil. What energy sources do they want me to power my car with, and power my home with?
Let's see: When wind farms have been proposed, Senator TED KENNEDY opposed one in his own state of Massachusetts. When nuclear power has been proposed, the same liberals who oppose producing more oil also oppose producing more nuclear plants.
So what else is left? How many states of the Union do we have to pave over with solar panels, in order to generate enough electricity to drive every car, home and building in America?
Evidently the Democrats in Congress, like Congresswoman Pines, seem to think that they can repeal the law of conservation of energy and just wave new energy into existence with a magic wand. But I haven't seen a single quantitative econometric model that shows how their pie-in-the-sky can generate anywhere near the electricity and transportation power needed for an economy the size of America's. Just a lot of vague handwaving that wouldn't be acceptable in a high-school science class.
When Congresswoman Pines can come back with an actual spreadsheet that we can run on a computer, showing her calculations on how much "alternative energy" the Democrats are planning to wave into existence, then we might actually have a proposal worthy of debate. Until then, her slogans are as worthless as Jimmy Carter's "Moral equivalent of war" was.
Posted by WalkAbout on July 6, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rep. Capps,
I would like to see my representative talk about solutions, not the Democratic Party's talking-point. Your missive was typical derisive, political rhetoric. I heard nothing new and nothing about what you plan to do to solve the oil crisis of 2008.
I expect you and our other legislators to find solutions and that means working together. Your criticism of the Republicans is not forwarding the change we need. If all you can do is write op pieces, than quit congress and start writing for one of the local newspapers. Tearing each other apart is not solution-oriented politics; it’s more of the nonproductive same.
At least McCain has worked across party lines to work towards solutions. What have you done, besides blame the Republicans?
The safety in oil drilling and production has dramatically changed since 1969. You are trapped in a 1969 mindset, which explains your failure to implement viable solutions. Open your mind to the possibilities.
Posted by retired_chief on July 6, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hemlock--how about the prices is the countries in Europe that can be considered liberal:
Sweden-$8.12/gal
France-$8.30/gal
Germany-$8.36/gal
Denmark-$8.54/gal
Netherlands-$9.39/gal
So feel free to move there any time you like. Of course you don't have to drive there, you can always wait for the bus or train. Sweden in December that wait can get a little chilly let me tell ya.
Posted by yehrtoast on July 6, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No way we can drill enough oil to keep up with our immigration policy.
Do the math, 1 person uses 12 barrels oil a year* petroleum institute fact!
5 million annual immigrants = 60 million barrels of oil.
Add 5 million more next year & you need 120 million more barrels of oil per year.
We've increased our population by over 100,000,000 people since the first arab embargo.
We have a less than flat learning curve, we have a learning cliff.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the Star --- I think this lady's letter has received more than enough visibility. How many days does she get?
Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Drilling off the US coasts is largely irrelevant. The world has hit peak oil production and future supplies will never match growing demand. (Please do your homework and google Robert Hirsch for his report commissioned by Congress on peak oil). Its time to shift focus and stop wasting time debating drilling or not drilling.
We need a large scale deployment of renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc.), electric cars, compact urban development, and a curb in out-of-control consumerism. It can be done but we need to get started now.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on July 7, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sick and tired of political hacks arguing over what to do and what not to do. The American people need solutions and action. Lois Capps, since you are so convinced that drilling is not a viable solution, why don't you propose a bill that would push for more nuclear power plants. We could build one here in Ventura County, and provide not only efficient energy, but provide jobs to our economy here at home. Why don't you do SOMETHING, because honestly the American public has heard nothing but empty promises and rhetoric on oil for over 30 years!!! The insanity must stop. DO SOMETHING OR SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
market--the question now is do we pay to use our own oil or do we pay the Middle East countries who don't like us (to say the least)? And do we continue to let them keep us over a barrel (pardon the pun)?
Posted by Formosa on July 7, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1) Energy independence is impossible and people who think it is poosible or desirable are playing into politicians hands
2) More Supply = Lower prices, Check an Econ 101 text book.
Capps does not reside over my district. THANK GOD!
Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike,
"do we pay to use our own oil or do we pay the Middle East countries" is the wrong question. We have no chance of being energy independent "using our own oil". The US hit peak oil production in 1970. From 1974 onwards we went into decline in production. This is well before there was an environmenntal movement or any restrictions on drilling in the US. ANWR is not going to make a dent in our US supply. Its a false hope. Go ahead and drill all you want, but I would be concerned that this would just give people a false sense of security. The real question is how do we break our dependence on foreign oil by switching away from gasoline and diesel driven vehicles.
My bet is on the electric car powered by renewables. Nuclear is just to capital expensive (a new Nuclear plant will likely costs over $5 billion). Also, our cities need to be completely re-designed. No more large parking lots and endless strip malls built around the car. We need a massive push in public transport. Its all possible and good in the long run.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
market---wrong again. You say we hit peak oil production years ago. Now why do you suppose that is? As for nuclear power, the enormous expense is largely due to all the restrictions and wickets put up in front of the developers. Many of these could be bypassed by using proven designs TO A POINT. The process is bogged down by bureaucratic bs. As for switching away from fuel oil (upon which the nation's economy almost totally depends), I'll clue you, it isn't going to happen overnight. We better have something in the meantime.
Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike, We, the US, hit peak oil production in 1970. This was the same year the US EPA was formed. Are you saying just by the act of forming the US EPA, oil production started to slow? That's pretty effective government.
An alternative reason may be the one proposed by Shell geologist Dr. M King Hubbert based on his research presented to the petroleum community that the was a finite quantity of oil in the United States and that production would peak in the 1970s. Please see link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicti...
Yes, it will take a lot to transform the economy, but it can be done, but only if we get started. But it just seems like so many people believe that all ills are due to the environmentalists, democrats, liberals, immigrants, etc. No one wants to hear that oil is a finite resource and we'd better prepare for its gradual decline in production rates.
Posted by live_for_purpose on July 7, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Usually liberals, such as Robert Kennedy, Jr. and John Kerry fly by private jet. They could fly an airline like the rest of us, but because they can afford a private jet, they use it. They are hypocrites.
How many times did I hear Algore preaching to us about "alternative fuels" and now that they have done a little bit of that, food prices have shot up. Now the same crowd is complaining. Good job, Albert!
I say develop a multi-pronged energy approach that would include doing a lot more exploring and drilling on and off shore domestically, nuclear power, more hydroelectric when any dam is built or redone (as needs to be done on the Mississippi), more wind power, more hybrids (but those batteries are expensive), keep working on hydrogen fuel cells, improve mass transit (to the extent you can--it doesn't work everywhere), more geothermal and biomass, more solar, and electric cars (but remember--we have barely enough electricity to go around now!).
Have you checked your last SCE bill? The amount of power coming from hydroelectric is way down. I suppose that is due to our current drought. And that may continue for a long while. More evidence that our strategy needs to be multi-pronged.
And by the way, please move your work and your home closer together. For 16 years I lived close enough to work that I could walk and be there inside of 5 minutes. Then for one year I drove a 29 mpg car about 64 miles one way. That was TERRIBLE! Now I am about 7 miles away from work. I say that is far enough. Would you people quit driving an SUV or pickup 60 miles one way to work? That is INSANE, and I bet now you are finding other ways to get there! Too bad it took such high prices for all of us for you to change your gas-guzzling habits!
P.S. Starve a terrorist: drill here at home!
Posted by Fred on July 8, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gas will be 3 bucks a gallon - miraculously right at election time.
Posted by THX1138 on July 9, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Walkabout: correct, this article was more about finger pointing than listing some kind of solution.
The US is actually sitting on a lot of oil [per the USGS]. Most of the oil is in the Mid-West and Alaska. Sadly the oil co's are in no hurry to extract it. Also there's no effort being made to build more refineries to process the various blends. Oil companies only care about their stock holders...
re: gas guzzlers; if the buying public didn't purchase suv's and other guzzlers, the big 3 in Detroit would not have continued making them. Just imagine how much fuel would've been saved if the suv trend never happened...[?!]
Posted by nomiannzhere on July 12, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No matter who's side whoever is on ... there is only one thing that we need to do to get control of our own money, and that is to make it high on our priority list to drill right here in our own nation.
Some people in here just love to point fingers at Republicans ... well, I guess I have to say, we believe in "independance" NOT "DEPENDANCE!" There is Alaska, the Rockies, the Gulf, and so many more areas available to us, we just need to get ahold of some of these "tree huggers" and make them understand that we need to become once again a nation of "INDEPENDANCE" away from the dependancy on other governments!
Some of you need to get away from pointing fingers at everyone else ... FOX NEWS is the only News station that tells it like it is! No lies ... and if you can't take the truth ... you need to stick with your own news blogs/bloggers or your news stations who are loosing their ratings.
And about the "pointing of fingers" ... just remember that when you do that, you have three other fingers pointing back at yourself!!
So I'm sorry, Ms. Capps ... WE NEED TO ONCE AGAIN BECOME SELF-SUFFICIENT! AND THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE FACT!!! ~NomiAnn
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 34 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.