IF YOU GOT A SHOCK through the phone while you were talking with Mark Simone on the Sean Hannity show this afternoon, it was me, yelling loud enough to send a jolt through the speakers in my car, into the radio, back out through the antenna, through the air to the WKRC antenna and transmitter, through the wires to their station, then through the phone lines (fiber optic, yet!) to New York, then back out on a similar path to whatever cesspit you were inhabiting at the moment. I was reacting to this statement:
“Surely we all agree that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East…”
It was at that point that I roared at the radio:
NO, WE DON’T!
…and you should have gotten your jolt some instants later, allowing for the light speed lag.
Get used to it. You’re going to feel it from now on, whenever you utter such a despicable and tendentious — egregious, evennn — slop-bucket of lies within hearing of anyone who is aware of the facts and concerned for true liberty.
And how did you lie? Oh, let me count the ways!
First, that turd of mendacity — straight out of Alinsky, it must be — “Surely we all agree.” No, as I said, we don’t. What you follow with is always wrong, always false, always mis- or mal-informed, dangerous to liberty and property, and probably illegal in 45 of 50 states, as well as Burkina Faso and the District of Columbia.
Not that that last has anything to recommend it, mind you.
Count yourself as bitch-slapped. Bob, you lying media whore. We most manifestly do not agree.
Second, the contention that we — presumably America, though I’m tempted to ask what you mean by “We,” (Paleface)? — need to end our dependence on foreign oil.
If by that you mean we should explore and exploit our domestic reserves, I couldn’t agree more. But your words and deeds in the past, and those of your co-partisans, belie the notion.
If by ending our dependence on all oil, you might as well say, “We need to wean ourselves off that pesky air stuff.”
Judging by the stench that’s coming off that BIG steaming pile shat out by the House last Friday, that’s exactly where they’re headed.
There is no way we can do without oil as a fuel. Period. Full Stop. Paragraph.
Nor can we do without it as a feedstock for all manner of chemicals we use in our daily lives, from fertilizers and food additives to medicines, to plastics, to colorants, to fibers for clothing and other uses. But as a fuel, which is what you’re talking about, Bob, oil has no peer and probably never will.
Oh, surely you can back that up.
Sure. With chapter and verse. But let it suffice us to say that if you want to maintain a modern civilization on Planet Earth, you’re going to burn hydrocarbons. You may be able to use nukes to provide electricity to sessile applications, but for mobile apps, hydrocarbons are it. And among hydrocarbons, you have two broad classes of molecues — petroleum distillates or alcohols. It has been dispositively demonstrated to my satisfaction that the overhead costs are least in the case of petroleum, and therefore, it is a market winner hands down.
But none of your brainfart pipe dreams is going to supplant it. Not now. Not in 50 years. Not ever. There isn’t enough arable land on the planet to provide the feedstock for ethanol at any realistic volume. It. Just. Doesn’t. Scale.
So oil it is.
And, yes, thanks to your buddies in the Democrat party, Bob, we are largely dependent on foreign-sourced oil.
From Mexico and Canada. (Those dastardly dictatorships!)
We get less than 5% of our oil from the Middle East.
Now, lets get down to the truth of the matter.
You don’t give a flying fuck about our energy sources.
Your purpose is to destroy Western civilization so that you can supplant it with your own Utopian nightmare.
Since free markets, and the fuel which provides their nearly boundless energy, are the life’s blood of that civilization, you must of necessity first distort and render impotent the markets in those fuels, steal what you can from the substance of the markets, cripple the industries with high prices, high taxes, and onerous regulation. That is the inevitable result of your program, and there’s no use in denying that is also your true aim.
You have been warned time and again of the consequences of your actions, had the truth of those warning demonstrated over and over, and still you persist. There is only one reasonable conclusion — this is intentional. The disastrous results of your policy are not an unfortunate byproduct of your ignorance and hubris, they are its desiderata. Not a bug, but a feature.