Monday, August 27, 2012

To Honor Neil Armstrong, Obama Posts Photo of Himself


26 Aug 2012

The thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is his unearned narcissism. His smugness and arrogance are beyond the ability of science to measure. I don't mind someone being a bit cocky or even arrogant, IF they have the accomplishments and achievements to back up the attitude.

Obama's greatest achievement, though, is creating his own personal narrative. He is his own personal touchstone. Even when honoring a great American hero, Obama can't help but thrust himself into the event.
On Friday, America and the world lost a true hero. Neil Armstrong, who died of heart complications at the age of 82, was the first human to walk on the moon. His steps onto the lunar surface were watched by the largest television audience in history. His statement "one giant leap for mankind" echoed throughout the world, allowing people everywhere to step back from the clutter of their daily lives and pause to dream big things. People who witnessed it will never forget it.
Armstrong's heroism wasn't the lunar walk, though. It was how he comported himself afterwards that showed the true measure of the man. He was among the more famous human beings in history. Yet he retired to a quiet and private life teaching aeronautical engineering and tending to his farm. His walk on the moon wasn't a personal achievement, per se, but an accomplishment for all of humanity.
He made few public appearances. He gave very few speeches or interviews. His resignation from the public square made his lunar walk something mankind achieved rather than something Neil Armstrong achieved. His walk was the culmination of the work, not only of the thousands of engineers and scientists who directly worked on the mission, but also of the countless others throughout the ages who looked up at the skies and dreamed. Armstrong understood this.
How many of us could have resisted the siren song of global celebrity? How many of us would have chosen to withdraw and ensure the walk is remembered as mankind's greatest triumph rather than a personal glory?
Certainly not Barack Obama.
Obama took to his tumblr page to offer a tribute to Neil Armstrong. The words--two sentences--are fine in a generic politician way. But, Obama being Obama, he injected himself into the tribute. He included a photo, not of Armstrong or the iconic step onto the lunar surface, but of himself, gazing up at the moon.
Obama is a literary construct. It's as if Zelig jumped off the movie screen and took up residence in the Oval Office. He puts himself in the frame of historical events, even if he has only the smallest cameo. He let Democrats in Congress construct the stimulus package, as well as his signature legislation, Obamacare. He comes on the scene just in time for the photo-op, after others have done the heavy lifting.
Neil Armstrong did the heavy lifting. Even a tribute to his death is just another photo-op for Obama.

PRICELESS

Posted Image

FWORD

Posted Image

Caring

Posted Image

Responsible?

Posted Image

Why Indeed?

Posted Image

Herrrresss...Bill

Posted Image

Border Crossing

Change the subject!

Posted Image

Now you can have it!

Posted Image

Guns Welcome

Posted Image

Don't Look!

Posted Image

Epiphany

Posted Image

Hive of scum and villainy

Posted Image

The Theory of 'DUH'

Posted Image

More Sane People

Posted Image

O-SHIT

Posted Image

OMG


Posted Image

Obama Email to Supporters: If I Lose, It's Your Fault

Breitbart ^ | August 25, 2012 | BEN SHAPIRO

Today, President Obama sent out a campaign email essentially blaming his supporters if he loses. See, he’s supposedly being outspent. And because he’s supposedly being outspent, he’s losing. And he can’t spend more money unless his supporters fork it over.

This is the campaign version of Obama’s entire economic argument: he can’t fix the economy unless he spends more money. And unless we give him more money, he can’t spend it. So if the economy fails, it’s our fault.
Here’s the perverse logic:
Last week, when I was in Iowa, voters told me they were feeling it. The numbers back it up: Our side is getting outspent 2-to-1 on the air there.
But the folks asking me about this don't want an explanation -- they want to know what I'm going to do about it.
And the fact is that solving this problem is up to you ….
We're losing this air war right now.
I don't have as much time to campaign this time as I did in 2008, so this whole thing is riding on you making it happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Mitt Romney On Energy

Political Realities ^ | 08/27/12 | LD Jackson

There are some who will read this who believe Mitt Romney is no different, and certainly no better, than Barack Obama. I disagree with that, for a number of reasons, some of which I have stated before. Another reason I believe Mitt Romney would be a better President than the current resident of the White House is his energy policy. Let's look at some of the differences.

Barack Obama On Energy

What has Barack Obama done about our domestic energy since he took office. The most glaring example is how he has treated the coal industry. He openly stated his policies would necessarily make energy prices go up and could bankrupt the coal industry. We have seen evidence of that in the last three years. He seems to have an open hostility towards all sources of energy that are not considered to be green energy. The coal industry has suffered because of that hostility. President Obama has also put policies into place that limit access to publicly owned lands for energy companies to drill for oil and gas. In the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he arbitrarily placed a ban on drilling in the Gulf, even though he was ordered to lift the ban by a federal judge. Everywhere you turn, you can see the effects of his hostility towards the producers and suppliers of oil, gas, and coal. Could his policies be part of the reason gasoline and diesel prices have spiked up in the last several weeks?
Contrast that with Obama's love affair with sources of green energy. It doesn't matter if those sources of energy are practical or not, he is willing to spend billions of dollars of our money to prop up wind and solar energy companies that produce nothing of real value to the American people. I've lost count of how many solar energy companies have went bankrupt, even though the Obama administration provided them with government-backed loans to help keep them afloat.

Mitt Romney On Energy

Enough about President Obama. Let's look at what Mitt Romney proposes to do.
(Human Events) The Romney-Ryan campaign released a white paper on their energy proposal last week. While short on details, it describes an ambitious plan to achieve energy independence by 2020, create millions of jobs and return $1 trillion in revenue to local and federal governments. Partnering with Canada and Mexico to dramatically increase domestic energy production is listed as a “crucial component.”
The white paper says the Romney administration would rely on the private sector rather than taxpayers to fund alternative energy, revitalize nuclear power by approving new reactor designs, give states more power to approve energy development on public lands, conduct a survey of unexplored oil and gas reserves, and maintain the ethanol mandate.
Recent statements by Romney and a platform released by his campaign provide a clear preview of how a his administration would tackle the issues.
“The goal of my energy policy is straightforward: guarantee America the most affordable and reliable supply in the world,” Romney’s platform said. “In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed … as president, I will unleash American innovation and productivity to make full use of our natural resources.”
On an Aug. 14 trip to coal country in Ohio, Romney said the Obama administration is “waging a war on coal” and that bureaucratic regulations have crippled the industry. “There were some promises he kept. One promise he kept was with regard to energy. He said if he’s elected president and his policies get put in place the cost of energy would skyrocket. That’s one he’s kept,” Romney said.
The Romney-Ryan platform would modernize outdated environmental laws to reconsider the cost to ratepayers, and “stop the EPA’s practice of using imaginary benefits to justify onerous burdens. In my administration, coal will not be a four-letter word,” the platform said.
Romney has stated that the first business of his administration would be to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas, which Obama has repeatedly blocked. Romney plans on expanding domestic oil production, too.
Romney does not support cap-and-trade mandates, which he calls “feel-good policies” that “could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.”
A thoughtful approach to energy and the environment need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs, Romney said.
Let me state here that I disagree with Mitt Romney on one thing in his proposals on energy. I do not believe the ethanol mandate should be kept. Given the evidence that describes the effect it has on engines, plus the fact that it is not as efficient as gasoline, and that it costs so much to produce, I believe it should be scrapped. Other than that, I agree with Mitt Romney on what he proposes to do. Please note here that his proposals aim to reduce the role the federal government has played in the past several years in our energy production. He wants to reduce federal regulations and allow state governments to have more control over the energy production that takes place within their borders. He also wants to drop the policies that prop up sources of energy that are not practical, focusing on the ones that actually work.
From where I stand, there are major differences between the two men on how they would treat our energy production and our natural resources. Barack Obama wants to force feed us new sources of energy that do not work, using our money to prop them up. Mitt Romney wants to use the natural resources we have to their fullest potential. At the same time, he would allow private enterprise to explore the possibilities of wind, solar, and any other forms green energy that may become available.
Tell me again how there is little or no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

GOP Considers Return to Gold Standard, Audit the Fed

New American ^ | 8/26/2012 | Alex Newman

The Republican Party looks set to adopt platform planks at the upcoming GOP national convention in Tampa to support an audit of the Federal Reserve and to call for a commission to study a return to the gold standard, according to news reports. Analysts had a range of reactions to the news, varying from excitement to disdain and disbelief.

Despite media claims that Republicans were seeking an end to centrally managed fiat currency and a return to gold-backed money, drafts of the platform revealed far less ambition. According to sources within the GOP cited in reports, the party is simply considering an inquiry into the possibility of re-establishing the tie between the U.S. dollar and the precious metal. What remained of the link was completely severed by President Richard Nixon in 1971.
After being signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, a previous gold committee examined the issue in the 1980s during the Ronald Reagan administration. Despite a vocal minority including Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) that dissented, the final recommendations advised against a return to gold-backed money to control wild inflation.
However, following decades of disastrous and unrestrained monetary gimmicks by the central bank, Republicans apparently want to re-examine the issue — or at least pretend to be concerned about sound money. And news reports indicated that the platform was all but guaranteed to include the new language.
"Now, three decades later, as we face the task of cleaning up the wreckage of the current administration's policies, we propose a similar commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar," the draft platform says, according to a Republican National Committee official cited by Reuters. Final decisions on the exact contents of the GOP platform will be made next week.
Analysts said the language might be a nod to the decades-long efforts by Rep. Paul to restore honest money. The liberty-minded Congressman’s tireless quest was most recently highlighted during his term as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Monetary Policy, where he held multiple hearings on reining in the Fed, legalizing competition in currency, and more.
In recent years, Paul’s ideas have become increasingly popular and mainstream — at least among the general public, with more than 80 percent of Americans supporting an audit of the Fed. But true advocates of an honest monetary system were not entirely convinced about the GOP’s sincerity.
“In one sense, this is a tribute to Ron, and his endless efforts to educate us all about sound money, in the Austrian tradition,” explained Lew Rockwell, head of the liberty-minded Ludwing von Mises Institute and a former chief of staff to Rep. Paul. “He has been so successful with the people that the GOP sees a chance for another profitable lie.”
Rockwell was unimpressed by the overture, however. “In fact, of course, this plank is a bit of rancid cheese on the trigger to the rat trap that is the GOP,” he continued. “Still, if there is another gold commission, intended like the last one to promote fiat money and the Fed, may Ron [Paul] and Lew Lehrman get to write the minority report again. Their last volume is an enduring masterpiece.”
In an interview on CNBC, Rep. Paul himself did acknowledge that the GOP proposals may have been partly an effort to appease him and his legions of enthusiastic supporters, many of whom have so far refused to back presumed presidential nominee Mitt Romney. However, it is more than that, Paul added. “It’s a reflection of the effort we’ve had educating people about the return to gold,” he explained.
Reconsidering America’s increasingly flawed monetary system is also a good idea, according to Paul, who went to Congress after Nixon severed the dollar’s final, tenuous link to the precious metal. “We could avoid some of the horrendous swings in the marketplace with bubbles building and bursting and transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealth,” he said.
Real solutions must be found soon, and the status quo will not suffice. “We’re deeply in debt and all that is being offered out of Washington is spend more money, borrow more money and print more money,” Paul concluded. “You can’t get out of a debt problem by creating more debt and printing more money.”
The other proposal being considered for the upcoming GOP platform is support for Rep. Paul’s “Audit the Fed” crusade. In the wake of the recent economic crisis, which saw the central bank secretly print trillions of dollars to shower on foreign and domestic financial institutions and governments, the bill was approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yet again in July. It is currently being held up in the Senate by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the chair of the platform committee, confirmed to reporters that the audit proposal had indeed been included. "It calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve on an annual basis, but it is very specific that it has to be done in a way with appropriate flexibility that it does not impair the independence of the Federal Reserve,” he explained. "Many of us believe that more sunshine more accountability of the federal government, and state government for that matter, is a good idea."
Lawmakers involved in drafting the GOP platform, however, downplayed Paul’s influence on the consideration of the proposals. "These were adopted because they are things that Republicans agree on," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who serves as the co-chair of the GOP platform committee. "The House recently passed a bill on this, and this is something that we think needs to be done."
According to the Financial Times, which first broke the news about the gold standard plank, the Republican platform in 1980 mentioned the “restoration of a dependable monetary standard." In 1984, the GOP expanded on the idea, adding that “the gold standard may be a useful mechanism.” More recently, however, the GOP platforms have failed to address the issue at all.
But following trillions in so-called “bankster bailouts,” wild money printing, and continued efforts to maintain a shroud of secrecy over the central bank and its operations, activists are speaking out. “There is a growing recognition within the Republican Party and in America more generally that we’re not going to be able to print our way to prosperity,” American Principles Project Chairman Sean Fieler, whose organization advocates a return to a gold standard, was quoted as saying.
FreedomWorks Vice President Russ Walker, who is also serving as a GOP delegate from Oregon, expressed support for taking up the issue as well. “We like the idea of looking at monetary policy and looking at what we call sound money,” he was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. Countless Tea Party activists have backed the plan, too.
A few opponents expressed concerns that returning to sound money could somehow contribute to depressions — adding weight to the arguments advanced by many sound-money advocates that the government should allow people to trade using whatever medium of exchange they prefer. Some opponents even falsely blamed the Great Depression on the gold standard despite the fact that even current Fed boss Ben Bernanke has acknowledged it was caused by the central bank and its policies.
Other critics of the monetary commission proposal worried that a return to the gold standard would remove the Fed’s ability to manipulate the economy, stripping some of its central-planning powers. Under gold, for example, the Fed would lose its monopoly control over the currency supply and its powers to bail out mega-banks at the public’s expense simply by creating new fiat dollars.
Hard money would also restrain government spending because the privately owned Fed would no longer be able to conjure unlimited amounts of currency into existence to fund perpetual runaway government deficits. The dollar, of course, has lost more than 95 percent of its value since the Fed was created in 1913.
Those are just some of the reasons the U.S. government should completely re-think monetary policy, advocates of sound money say. And the sentiment is catching on across America, with Utah recently legalizing gold and silver for use as legal tender. Numerous other states are considering similar measures as trust in the fiat dollar continues to plummet.
The GOP platform, of course, is non-binding. Virtually no analyst expects a Romney administration to seriously address the monetary problems that have plagued the U.S. economy for almost a century under the Federal Reserve System. However, the fact that the issues are even being discussed is a giant step forward, according to supporters.

Natural Gas for Cars (The key to ending OPEC’s control over the U.S. transportation industry)

National Review ^ | 08/26/2012 | T. Boone Pickens & R. James Woolsey

Recent headlines provoked by two positive but modest developments — a slight early-summer decline in gasoline prices and a laudable increase in domestic oil production — have trumpeted that these developments mean we are on the verge of achieving “energy independence.”

Whoa.

Oil monopolizes about 95 percent of the world’s transportation, and OPEC — eight nations in the Middle East and four others — controls nearly 80 percent of the world’s conventional oil reserves. We cannot change anything fundamental if we continue to permit oil and OPEC, a monopoly with a cartel nested inside it, to maintain their dominance of the transportation-fuel market and if we relegate ourselves merely to working within the framework of that dominance to increase our share of the oil market. It’s true that by doing so we can improve our balance of payments and add some domestic oil-related jobs. Good. But this won’t fill the basic need: to break oil’s monopoly and OPEC’s cartel.
Why is that essential? Because oil is not just a commodity. It is a crucial strategic commodity, as salt was for many centuries when it was the only means of preserving food (to borrow Anne Korin’s excellent analogy). So long as transportation is almost exclusively dependent on oil, we are in thrall to OPEC and its decisions on how much to pump and what to charge us. OPEC has made the basic decision to maintain oil prices at a level where we borrow about a billion dollars a day — equivalent to a tax of some $4,000 a year on every American family. OPEC has this power to, essentially, tax us (without any more representation than George III provided our ancestors), because the Saudis and some others in OPEC can lift oil for less than five dollars a barrel, whereas for the U.S. and most other non-OPEC nations the cost is tens of dollars a barrel.
Saudi Arabia, the swing producer — the nation with large oil reserves that it can tap or not, as it wishes — has indicated that, to meet its domestic-welfare commitments, it needs oil’s price to be more than $90 per barrel. What it means is that, if the price of oil were lower, the Saudi government would need to go to the trouble of putting together an economy in which it couldn’t afford to keep a staggering half of its men unemployed and on the dole.
This low cost of lifting oil, especially in Saudi Arabia, and OPEC’s control of over three-quarters of the world’s reserves of conventional oil is why improved fuel economy for our vehicles, although a good idea, is not the solution to our central problem. Seeing us economize, OPEC can just cut production to keep prices up. We could never reclaim anything like the oil-market dominance we held in the Fifties and Sixties. OPEC would manipulate the market to plunge the U.S. deeper and deeper into debt and force us to spend the maximum it can wring out of us.
OPEC chooses to sell only about 31 million barrels of oil a day, almost exactly what it sold 40 years ago when both oil demand and the size of the world’s economy were about half what they are today. Like John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the 20th century, OPEC withholds oil from the market to keep the price up. It holds nearly 80 percent of the reserves of conventional oil, but only about a third of what is sold daily on the world market is sold by OPEC. We cannot escape the consequences of OPEC’s price-fixing by buying more oil from, say, non-OPEC Canada and less from Saudi Arabia. There is essentially one worldwide oil market. Other countries will just buy more from Saudi Arabia and less from Canada.
But suppose we become what many, inaccurately, call “energy independent” — that is, we produce about as much oil as we use. Wouldn’t that solve our problem?
No.
The U.K. was, by this distorted definition, essentially energy independent in 2008, and yet there oil hit the same peak, over $145 a barrel, that it hit everywhere else. The high price of diesel fuel in the U.K. led truckers there to strike.
A good idea would be the creation of a North American Energy Alliance. In the event of major hostilities that halted international shipping, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico could still share resources among themselves. Our two major neighbors are allies and good friends, and we should work with them when we can — for example, by permitting construction of the Keystone pipeline in an environmentally sound fashion — from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
We should not plan to secede from the world’s oil market. The problem is OPEC’s control of prices, not the fact of trade itself. As long as oil overwhelmingly dominates transportation and OPEC controls oil’s price, we cannot end OPEC’s control of oil prices simply by seceding from the world oil market. We do not become “energy independent” just by being able to produce as much as we use, as Britain learned in 2008.
“Independent” means “free from control by others” — not autarky, that is, shunning imports. We should neither move toward secession nor assume that our oil problems are solved merely because we produce more oil and improve our balance of payments. Instead we should follow Teddy Roosevelt’s example in dealing with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly and make OPEC’s cartel face competition. The only realistic way to accomplish this is to enable vehicles, in short order and with relatively little investment in new infrastructure, to operate on alternatives to petroleum products.
What are those alternatives?
Biofuels? Probably, to some degree. At present, the best candidates are mainly those made from algae. Biomass gasification to produce synfuels also shows some promise. Ethanol may have a role as well, as long as it can compete, unsubsidized, with gasoline.
Electricity? It has promise, but it won’t move 18-wheelers, and it will take years before all-electric cars and plug-in hybrids are a large-enough share of the vehicles on the road to substantially reduce the market for oil.
Other renewables? We are fans of an evolution toward wind and solar for electricity generation and will be more so as batteries or other electricity-storage systems grow more affordable. But what gets lost in the shouting on the cable-news talk shows is that since less than 1 percent of our electricity is generated by oil, the president’s call for renewable electricity generation to reduce oil consumption is more than 99 percent off base. Two-thirds of the oil we consume is used to move our 250 million cars and light trucks and 8 million heavy-duty vehicles. We can’t solve our oil problem without making it possible for people, realistically and soon, to choose a different transportation fuel.
The laboring oar in any practical, affordable, and near-term competition with oil will have to be pulled by a plan to enable drivers to choose between gasoline and fuels derived from natural gas.
Natural gas has become a game-changer because of horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing (fracking), which now make available huge reserves in shale-gas deposits. The effect of this combination on energy prices is stunning. There are about the same number of BTU’s in a million cubic feet of natural gas as in six barrels of oil. So some years ago, when oil and natural-gas prices tracked one another, if natural gas’s price (in mmcf) was at $8, oil would have been at about $48 — a ratio of 6 (barrels of oil) to 1 (mmcf of gas). But because of horizontal drilling, fracking, and OPEC’s thirst for U.S. dollars, natural gas at one point this year was under $2 per mmcf, while oil was well over $100 per barrel — a ratio of more than 50 to 1.
Fracking and horizontal drilling have caused the price of natural gas to plummet, and OPEC’s machinations have caused oil’s price to reach new heights, so the days of a 6-to-1 price ratio of oil to gas are largely gone. We are now in a world where the ratios are 30 to 1, 50 to 1, or even higher. This completely changes the energy picture.
Certainly drilling, including fracking, must be done in an environmentally sensible manner, but this is entirely feasible. The two of us grew up in Oklahoma, a few miles and a few years apart, hunting, fishing, and camping on land that had been fracked (although at that point fracking had not yet been combined with horizontal drilling). Except when you came across a small valve (a “Christmas tree,” named after its size and silhouette) surrounded by a small cyclone fence, you had no idea of what had taken place thousands of feet below you. Indeed, of the some 4 million oil and gas wells drilled in human history, about 3 million of them were drilled in Oklahoma and Texas. And hundreds of thousands of those, beginning in the 1940s, were fracked. The environmental issues that have understandably been raised about fracking are manageable if both sides are committed to reason.
Cheap natural gas, which is key to ending our vehicles’ oil addiction affordably and promptly, can destroy oil’s monopoly and OPEC’s cartel.
We need to move expeditiously to convert a large share of our buses, delivery vans, and other fleet vehicles to run on compressed natural gas (CNG); and trucks, to run on liqueified natural gas (LNG). The conversions will pay for themselves within a year or two because of the now-huge price advantage that natural gas has over oil. The market is already moving this way.
Moreover, innovative companies are rapidly devising methods for using natural gas as a feedstock for liquid fuels as well as for industrial chemicals. Stay tuned — these will not be limited to the old version of the highly capital-intensive Fischer-Tropsch process invented in Germany in the 1920s. Silicon Valley, Houston, Oklahoma City, and other venues are home to concentrations of very smart folks turning their attention to the goal of driving on liquid fuels made from natural gas. They are already beginning to change the energy game fundamentally.
Finally, the two of us agree that the U.S. should have an open fuels standard, a requirement that vehicles be able to use multiple fuels, not solely fuels derived from petroleum. An open fuels standard would inject fuel competition into the transportation sector. The two of us disagree only on one point: whether, as an alternative to gasoline for powering the family car, natural gas itself or methanol (“wood alcohol”) made from natural gas is likely to move faster into the market.
One of us (Pickens) emphasizes transitioning the nation’s heavy-duty and fleet-vehicle market to compressed and liquefied natural gas, a move that could create more than 400,000 new jobs and cut OPEC dependence by 70 percent. The other (Woolsey) stresses the low, one-time cost (under $100 per car), according to recent studies by MIT and General Motors, of making it possible to use methanol and gasoline in the same vehicle. But the point is not for policymakers, or the two of us, or indeed anyone to resolve these disagreements at the level of policy. The point is to do something OPEC won’t — let the market, the people, decide. Do as the Brazilians do and the Chinese are beginning to do — let drivers pull into a filling station and make their own choice about what to fill up with.
Do we really want to stay on our current path of being less willing than the government of Communist China to permit competition in the transportation sector of the economy?
Moreover, freedom to drive vehicles that run on fuels other than gasoline entail important health benefits. Driving on either natural gas or methanol removes the need to add benzene, which is carcinogenic, or other dangerous chemicals to our fuel tanks for the purpose of boosting octane. Published work by Boyden Gray and Andrew Varcoe shows how the use of benzene, like the use of lead in an earlier era, leads to huge medical costs — tens of thousands of shortened lives and well over $100 billion annually.
Our dependence on OPEC oil and the consequent strain on our national security and the undermining of our economic vitality add up to a problem that does, though, have a solution, if we just stay at it. Let’s choose some leaders who understand the issue and can lead the transition to natural gas as a clean, lower-cost, domestic replacement for today’s diesel, gasoline, and other fuels made from OPEC-controlled oil. And let’s arrange the transition so that the people decide how much natural gas replaces oil.
Let’s make a national commitment to this and bring forward the day when we can all cheerfully tell OPEC that if they don’t like it they can go play in their oil ponds.
— T. Boone Pickens is a longtime oil-and-gas-industry executive. R. James Woolsey is a former director of Central Intelligence, a venture partner with Lux Capital, and chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and of the Opportunities Development Group’s Advisory Board.