What Would A Patriotic Leader Do?

Imagine we had a president who was actually working for the United States, instead of working feverishly to destroy it.

She would aggressively develop North American energy supplies to an extent where we could choke off the Middle Eastern oil which finances Islamic terrorism.

ScreenHunter_4598 Nov. 15 09.59

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to What Would A Patriotic Leader Do?

  1. David says:

    Independants will not vote for her is the only problem. They despise her the way Republicans despise Hillary. That is just how it is if she runs we get a Dimwitacrat probably Hitlarry

    • nielszoo says:

      If our “friends” in the uber liberal Progressive “news” media told the truth about her, that wouldn’t be a problem… most of the independents and quite a few Democrats would vote for her ’cause she makes sense and is the real deal. That is why there is a constant, concerted effort to keep the barrage of ridicule, half truths and (mostly) outright lies about her coming from the “mainstream” media and the Hollywood sheep… they are terrified of her and what she represents.

      • rah says:

        You can always tell who the left fears by the number of sources, and vehemence and pure nastiness of those sources attacks on them. In the case of Palin they were down right terrified and still are. Fact is every single thing they claimed was pure fiction.
        I like her very much but I don’t think the Lady is quite presidential material yet though for sure I would vote for her against any democrat likely to get the nomination.

    • Smokey says:

      David,

      And why would low information voters despise her? Is it because the despicable media demonized her at every possible opportunity?

      That woman has more common sense and competence than the entire Dem party — doubled and squared.

  2. annieoakley says:

    Who knows what an Independent would do? I am one and I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I am not brainwashed.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Same here.

      I am to the point where I figure that if a politician is demonized by the Press, it means he has slipped his leash and may actually be working FOR the American public.

      Remember that the Banksters OWN the press and have done for a hundred years. Also Top Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin let slip ” “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

      Oh, and just in case you are wondering where the gold in Fort Knox, confiscated from citizens by FDR went…

      …The Second World War gave the big bankers who owned the Federal Reserve System a chance to unload on the country billions of dollars printed early in 1930, in the biggest counterfeiting operation in history, all legalized by Roosevelt’s government, of course. Henry Hazlitt writes in the January 4, 1943 issue of Newsweek Magazine:

      “The money that began to appear in circulation a week ago, December 21, 1942, was really printing press money in the fullest sense of the term, that is, money which has no collateral of any kind behind it. The Federal Reserve statement that ‘The Board of Governors, after consultation with the Treasury Department, has authorized Federal Reserve Banks to utilize at this time the existing stocks of currency printed in the early thirties, known as ‘Federal Reserve Banknotes’. We repeat, these notes have absolutely no collateral of any kind behind them.”

      Governor Eccles also testified to some other interesting matters of the Federal Reserve and war finance at the Senate Hearings on the Office of Price Administration in 1944:

      “The currency in circulation was increased from seven billion dollars in four years to twenty-one and a half billion. We are losing some considerable amounts of gold during the war period. As our exports have gone out, largely on a lend-lease basis, we have taken imports on which we have given dollar balances. These countries are now drawing off these dollar balances in the form of gold.

      MR. SMITH: Governor Eccles, what is the objective that the foreign governments are after in this projected program whereby we would contribute gold to an international fund?

      GOVERNOR ECCLES: I would like to discuss OPA, and leave the stabilization fund for a time when I am prepared to go into it.

      MR. SMITH: Just a minute. I feel that this fund is very pertinent to what we are talking about today.

      MR. FORD: I believe that the stabilization fund is entirely off the @OPA and consequently we ought to stick to the business at hand.”

      The Congressmen never did get to discuss the Stabilization Fund, another setup whereby we would give the impoverished countries of Europe back the gold which had been sent over here. In 1945, Henry Hazlitt, commenting in Newsweek of January 22, on Roosevelt’s annual budget message to Congress, quoted Roosevelt as saying:

      “I shall later recommend legislation reducing the present high gold reserve requirements of the Federal Reserve Banks.”

      Hazlitt pointed out that the reserve requirement was not high, it was just what it had been for the past thirty years. Roosevelt’s purpose was to free more gold from the Federal Reserve System and make it available for the Stabilization Fund, later called the International Monetary Fund, part of the World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the equivalent of the League Finance Committee which would have swallowed the financial sovereignty of the United States if the Senate had let us join it….
      CHAPTER THIRTEEN The 1930’s [SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE By Eustace Mullins]

  3. There are many other customers for Middle East oil, selling it won’t ever be a problem.

    • Not if the US and Canada are selling it cheaper.

      • A good portion Canada’s oil reserves are in the Athabaskan sand formations. Expensive to extract compared to pumping Middle East crude.

        • stewart pid says:

          The bitumen is in the McMurray formation and the correct spelling is Athabasca but they are indeed called the Athabasca oil sands due to their outcropping along the Athabasca river.

      • rah says:

        People really don’t understand the magnitude of the oil and gas boom the US is experiencing now. Perhaps a chart of comparison might get the message across?

      • pa32r says:

        Lol at that. As if any amount of “drill baby drill” could not only make the U.S. self-sufficient in oil but could allow us to export it to replace Middle Eastern/OPEC oil AND do it at a price that would undercut them.

        • The US is the #1 producer of oil in the world now, with massive reserves in shale. But thanks for your pointless comment.

        • stewart pid says:

          Tony – last I read Russia was still well ahead of US oil production … what data r u using?

        • stewart pid says:

          I think there is some confusion on actual oil production and BOE petroleum production (ie natural gas converted to barrels of oil ) but I can’t be certain … US production is around 9 million barrels a day from what I can find and I’m almost certain the Russian production was around 11 million.
          http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/crude.cfm

        • rah says:

          Sounds exactly like the BS I’ve been hearing for half of my life time from “progressives/greens”. We’re gonna run out! There isn’t enough! And now 30 years later here we are in the largest oil boom the US has had in it’s history. Fact is the OPEC has already admitted it’s hurting and the US government now says the US N. America is now self sufficient in POL!

      • pa32r says:

        Yes, it is. And yet we still import over 7 million barrels per day. You contend we could make that up, have excess for export, and do so at a price that would undercut OPEC? I ask seriously.

        • Depending on technology and economics, as much as 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent could be recoverable from oil shale resources yielding greater than 25 gallons per ton [iii]. For reference, 1 trillion barrels is nearly 4 times the amount of proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
          http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/oil-shale/

        • pa32r says:

          I don’t doubt that it exists, it’s clear that it does. But the belief that it could fill the role we’ve been discussing requires a belief in technologies that no one is even imagining, let alone considering (Shell and Chevron have abandoned their shale projects). Without the technology, the economics won’t work out. So yes, the kerogen exists, but a world economy in which using it to produce oil is economically competitive is very different than this one, and not in happy ways.

        • U.S. Shale-Oil Surge to Continue Amid Price Slump: IEA
          By Lananh Nguyen Nov 14, 2014 4:00 AM ET

          The U.S. shale boom does not appear to be slowing in response to the oil-price slump, with the country’s output of petroleum liquids rising above 12 million barrels a day for the first time, according to the International Energy Agency.
          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/u-s-shale-oil-surge-to-continue-amid-price-slump-iea.html

          Ahh worked on awl shale for president Jimmee Caathur, yew know

        • David A says:

          In such a sane world oil demand would continue to grow, and US production would keep the M.E. honest, and incapable of leveraging there vanished monopoly for political gain.
          Europe is a case study in mindless political group think, beholden to Russia, something they could have easily avoided.
          Thus even if the ME could produce slightly cheaper oil, (including shipping costs only slightly cheaper, we would not be purchasing it, and there economy is locked in at high rates being necessary to have internal political stability.

          Abundant inexpensive energy is a no-brainer, except to a progressive/\.

        • An Inquirer says:

          pa32r,
          There is not doubt that Middle Eastern Countries could undercut us on production costs. The key is not that we can sell oil cheaper than they can . . . the key is how much wealth and leverage that the Middle Eastern countries (and Russian) can accumulate if there is not a viable alternative for their oil. Middle Eastern countries need to have a considerable amount of oil revenue just to keep their population satisfied. But at a hundred dollars a barrel, they have a lot of excess funds to fund terrorism. At $70 a barrel, they have much less, and at $50, they lose their ability to leverage and extort.

    • Mike D says:

      Ugh. Of course they can sell it, but if the price drops, their profit drops. Say it costs a country $50/barrel to extract. At $110/barrel sale price their profit is $60/barrel. At $80/barrel sale price their profit is $30/barrel, or half what it was. The countries in the Middle East use the profit to run their governments. So they need a certain amount of funding, or they may have to dip into their investments to make up the difference.

      They have a big decision to make, along with all the other oil producers in the world. As the US adds supply, unless worldwide demand grows by that same amount, some others have to reduce, or the increased supply drives the price lower. It is fairly clear that supply growth has outpaced demand growth this year, particularly the last several months.

      As the price goes lower, then a given producer/country has to sell even more to make the same profit, which could then lead to lower prices. So it is the best interest of the oil producers for everyone to stay in line and not put a lot of oil on the market, and even take some off. But which government’s spending decreases over time? None of them do, so reducing production isn’t easy.

      Here’s an article that discusses some of this.
      https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25499373/opec-sees-lower-2015-demand-for-its-oil-saudi-output-still-high/

      The US has almost doubled oil production since 2005, back to levels from the 80’s.
      http://www.aei.org/publication/thursday-afternoon-links-14/

      There’s no need for the US to replace all the other supply in the world for there to be a significant effect. Just displacing some of the production and keeping the price low has a big impact. If oil hovers at $75 – $80, it’s a different world than at $100 – $110. Not only is there lower profit for other countries, but more dollars stay here instead of going towards imported oil.

  4. Pathway says:

    Drill baby Drill. Any woman who can gut a moose and pull a gill net will get my vote.

    • rah says:

      Imagine what would be happening right now if the leftists were shoved to the side. Anwar would be well on the way to full development now to add to the exploitation of the massive reserves the leftist couldn’t stop and the advances in drilling and fracking that have made old fields new again!

      • Anthony S says:

        Yes. TAPS wouldn’t be running at such a low capacity that its in danger of shutting down in the winter because the oil gets too cold and the waxes solidify.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Not to mention thorium nuclear power plants to produce electricity and perhaps power our ships and locomotives.

        UK: The potential of the molten salt reactor for warship propulsion

        This would leave petroleum and natural gas for use in individual vehicles and as chemical precursors.

        We have had this technology since 1954 and tossed it away. The project was cancelled by President Kennedy in June 1961. “…Weinberg was removed from ORNL in 1973 after 18 years as the laboratory’s director because he continued to advocate Molten Salt Reactors (citing greater nuclear safety) instead of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) chosen by the head of the AEC. This not only adversely affected development of the MSR but brought to an end all work exploring the use of thorium as a reactor fuel…”

        So now China and India are taking our research and will patent it and sell it back to us… China has even hacked into the ORNL computers to steal out research.

  5. davesix says:

    Production in many Middle Eastern fields is beginning to decline. Money that the Sheiks currently spend on Bentleys, New York condos, French first growths, high-priced white call girls, and Islamist terrorists will have to be invested instead in those fields to maintain that production.

    What a pity.

    • rah says:

      The Sheiks will continue to spend the wealth and when it declines to the point where they can’t sustain their social programs and Arabs that now live off the system actually have to work, there will be an Islamic revolution. The Sheiks have built their own coffins by their policies. You folks do know that there isn’t a single complex piece of equipment or weaponry that the Saudi’s have that isn’t maintained by foreign, mostly former American military technicians! From their tanks to their Artillery pieces to their aircraft to their commo. Every single bit of it is maintained by techs from the countries in which it was manufactured.

  6. Jason Calley says:

    “What would a patriotic President do?”

    For a starter, follow her oath of office, cut back the Federal government about 90% and then leave us alone. After that, she would leave us alone some more. The cause of most of our political problems today is not that our politicians are not doing something which we need — the problem is that they do so blasted much that they have neither cause nor authority to do. After all, politicians who take a cut off the top from doing too much make a lot of money. Politicians who take a cut off the top and do nothing, go broke.

    As someone who no longer trusts either the Donkey or the Elephants, I cannot help but think that Palin would still be MUCH better than the current White House occupant. Still, the question that bothers me is this: Assuming that Palin was truly, deeply, and unabashedly loyal to all the principles that our nation was founded on — would the American people put up with her? Does a majority of the US population even understand what it means by such phrases as “the principles of natural rights”, of “personal liberty”, of “individual property rights”? How many Americans can even tell you what the word “inalienable” means?

    If the question is “What would a patriotic President do?” then the sad answer is most likely, “Get immediately impeached and removed from office with the blessing of a majority of the American voters.”

    Long term and large scale I am still optimistic about humans on this planet — but here in the US, we have (taken as a group) reached such a state of political ignorance and ethical weakness that when it comes to government, we are more like the uneducated tribesmen of some third world, banana republic which raises up oligarchs and tyrants. Most Americans do not want a patriotic President as an executive. They want a Big Daddy who will give them candy and punish anyone with whom they disagree or disapprove.

    Sorry for the rant — but the crowd that posts here on Tony’s blog is a rare and self selected group. The majority of the readers and posters here actually THINK about things, and that immediately puts them into a small fraction of the people at large. The readers and posters here are not average. It is going to take massive suffering and (sadly, but likely) blood in the streets before the average American realizes just how foolish he has become.

  7. jjreuter says:

    She is a patriot and that makes her hated. I would vote for her in a heartbeat. Patriot is synonymous with terrorist in the lefts opinion.

  8. Opium cultivation also contributes funds to extremist causes.

  9. Jim Jensen says:

    Long before oil was important, Muslims were fighting Jews & Christians & others. To presume that US oil production will have any effect on extremism is naive. The box cutters that were used in the 9-11 attacks were not very exensive. The price of oil does not stop terrorists from buying box cutters. There are a lot of people in this World who do not understand how the climate works and there are also a lot of people who do not understand how terrorists work. And, when politics get involved, there is not much rational thinking. Similar to the thinking of a terrorist. 1+1 does not equal 2.

    • ISIS is financed by oil money, Homer.
      I understand though. Logical thought is difficult for progressives.

    • An Inquirer says:

      Many Muslims have long had a hatred for Jews and Christians, but for hundreds of years, they were not to express that hatred in terrorism, violence and leverage until oil revenues gave them leverage. (Hundreds of years ago, they were able express that hatred in terrorism and violence through military might — a realization that is sorely lacking in Western education.)

    • Ben says:

      I think ISIS has been funded by cowards who abandoned their posts and left the equipment behind. Who have they been purchasing weapons from with all that oil money? They haven’t had to thus far. Those are OUR HumVees they are driving, and our ordinance they are firing, abandoned by Iraqis, who in turn were abandoned by Obama.

      In 1929, The Jewish community in Hebron was wiped out long before oil funded terrorists.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

      The US Marine hymn mentions the shores of Tripoli. Long before there was oil, insane caliphates were absconding with our men and ships. Way back in the 1800s, Congress even paid them off once. Where did Jefferson acquire the book that Keith Ellison used to take the oath of office?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

      From 1000-1100AD, 30,000 churches and synagogues were destroyed in the Middle East. It took 80 years for news to reach the West, because no one believed it was possible. Then we learned to read native Islamic historians, who bragged of the carnage.

  10. Joe P. says:

    The secret is not to intervene with government to fix things, not to subsidize, solar, ethanol, green energy or tax coal, or aggressively get pipelines built, or switch to nuclear power. The price of energy sources does all that is needed to divert resources to their most efficient outcome. lets go back to the wood crisis 100 years ago and all the Congressional hearings as they thought we would run out building so many railroads and railroad bridges, etc., well if the price of wood rises, they will switch to concrete or steel railroad ties with no gov. intervention, same for whale oil crisis, when price of whale oil for lighting when up people switched to cheaper distilled petroleum or kerosene lamps. I am not worried in the least bit about limited oil running out, worried more about do-gooders trying to fix things with dismal results, can you say Obammacare and trilions $ in damage for example? Global warming fix for non-existent problem the same. Always bright promises and dismal results.

  11. bot38 says:

    i would never vote for a quitter

    • Gail Combs says:

      She had good reason for quitting. Continuous lawsuits by the left leaving no time for her to do her duties. It also tied up the Alaska courts in dealing with the frivolous suits and was bankrupting her family.

      In my opinion she made the correct choice for her family and her state.

      Todd and I, we’re looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills just in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime. … My staff and I spend most of our days, we’re dealing with this stuff instead of progressing our state now.
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/07/06/fnc-highlights-baseless-lawsuits-hitting-palin

      From another source:

      Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin receives deluge of ethics complaints
      Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s life has changed in a myriad of ways since she became the Republican vice presidential nominee last August, but one aspect of her newfound fame has been more bracing than the others: Since entering the national spotlight, Palin has been inundated by ethics complaints, most of them filed against her after she agreed to become Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

      The complaints run the gamut, ranging from the governor’s use of state funds and staff to the workings of her political action committee and even to a jacket she wore to a snow machine race involving her husband.

      It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how many complaints have been filed because the state doesn’t keep count and the complaints are kept confidential by the attorney general’s office unless the state moves forward with a public accusation of wrongdoing. But in total there have been more than a dozen, and most of those have surfaced in the last seven months.

      • Ben says:

        Don’t forget when they crowd-sourced her emails, predicting incontrovertible evidence of corruption. 20,000 emails later, cricket sounds.

        Bastages

  12. RivenOne says:

    The tax takers are outnumbering the taxpayers if it hasn’t happened already. Look how everyone acted so scandalized at Romney’s “47%” comment in spite of it being a mere statement of statistical fact. Want to see the future of politics in the US? Go visit Tumblr.

  13. libertatis says:

    Is it wrong that she would have, um, attractive physical assets?
    I’m greatly in favor of discarding the Janet Reno/Janet Napolitano/Cankles female politician template. Break the mold; that model’s ugly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s