PDA

View Full Version : anyone thinks is suspicious.about drill here drill now campaign




scandinaviany3
06-19-2008, 09:22 AM
A friend was talking to me after the texas republican party convention about the big push for drill here drill now by gingrich and the party.

What it curious about this from his perspective is:

-The lost treaty would have opened this this up, and it looked like this was the back up plan to make this the next step happen given its failure.

-The chinese/cuba drilling was sold as offshore US drilling.

-The amount of surveyed oil reserves off coastlines in the US was very small and could only last a few years (2-5 years) at a our current useage rate.

-The amount of oil survey at the north pole, that adjoins alaska, canada, former soviet union is the last untouched huge reserve. But numbers vary between 20-200 years on the size of the reserves we currently have access to in alaska. He believed the drive for the LOST treaty,SPP/NAU to give the US a claim through a joining with canada to have a viable claim against russsia on the north poles oil reserves was all part of the slippery plan that the elites are working on.

-The problem with drilling at the poles he mentioned was the hostile cold environment makes it hard for metal lines to survive under pressure. He works by the way in oil business. It definitely would be a costly and hostile process. But pipelines to the prudohoe bay exist...so the question he thought was first to let the state of Alaska decide on this and not corporatism, and party propoganda/brainwashing. Second to not allow any nation ownership of the poles.

-He stated that many new transportation technologies and alternate energy options were now coming out. He thought that if we could 3x our average mileage on transportation for commuter vehicles, then the alaska reserves could offset the current crisis.

-Also he stated that like our minerals in the US being sent to china and we only being allowed recycled metals(thus our costs are higher in the US). That oil in alaska for years was targetted to supply our allie Japan. He questioned why we aren't supplying our own needs first?

-Lastly he was clear that speculation, fear mongering/war, drop in the value of the dollar is the cause of oil price increase was to blame for the price of fuel increase. It seemed crazy to him to state anything else since companies in china have had the same demand now for years. So where was the sudden change then on demand that would effect the price of a fixed supply? Didnt happen he said....elites are just exploiting the situation they have setup to benefit their plans.

Any one have any more data or knowledge on these matters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004-2006

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 09:38 AM
The price of crude finally got high enough, to now really pay off. ;)

RoyalShock
06-19-2008, 10:18 AM
....elites are just exploiting the situation they have setup to benefit their plans.

That statement would seem to reinforce what Lindsey Williams has said.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3340274697167011147&hl=en

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

jkm1864
06-19-2008, 11:22 AM
Thats ignorant. I work in the GULF and We will not run out of oil in 5 years. The same people whom say that has been saying that for Years and guess what I've been doing this for 12 years and We havent run out yet. Now the gulf can only support about 25% of our energy needs but it does need to be opened up. We need to use every avenue until our country can start using alternative energy. I would love to see the day when the offshore barges were contracted to build huge wind mills off the gulf.

Kade
06-19-2008, 11:27 AM
A friend was talking to me after the texas republican party convention about the big push for drill here drill now by gingrich and the party.

What it curious about this from his perspective is:

-The lost treaty would have opened this this up, and it looked like this was the back up plan to make this the next step happen given its failure.

-The chinese/cuba drilling was sold as offshore US drilling.

-The amount of surveyed oil reserves off coastlines in the US was very small and could only last a few years (2-5 years) at a our current useage rate.

-The amount of oil survey at the north pole, that adjoins alaska, canada, former soviet union is the last untouched huge reserve. But numbers vary between 20-200 years on the size of the reserves we currently have access to in alaska. He believed the drive for the LOST treaty,SPP/NAU to give the US a claim through a joining with canada to have a viable claim against russsia on the north poles oil reserves was all part of the slippery plan that the elites are working on.

-The problem with drilling at the poles he mentioned was the hostile cold environment makes it hard for metal lines to survive under pressure. He works by the way in oil business. It definitely would be a costly and hostile process. But pipelines to the prudohoe bay exist...so the question he thought was first to let the state of Alaska decide on this and not corporatism, and party propoganda/brainwashing. Second to not allow any nation ownership of the poles.

-He stated that many new transportation technologies and alternate energy options were now coming out. He thought that if we could 3x our average mileage on transportation for commuter vehicles, then the alaska reserves could offset the current crisis.

-Also he stated that like our minerals in the US being sent to china and we only being allowed recycled metals(thus our costs are higher in the US). That oil in alaska for years was targetted to supply our allie Japan. He questioned why we aren't supplying our own needs first?

-Lastly he was clear that speculation, fear mongering/war, drop in the value of the dollar is the cause of oil price increase was to blame for the price of fuel increase. It seemed crazy to him to state anything else since companies in china have had the same demand now for years. So where was the sudden change then on demand that would effect the price of a fixed supply? Didnt happen he said....elites are just exploiting the situation they have setup to benefit their plans.

Any one have any more data or knowledge on these matters they can share to educate me?


Truth Warrior is a McCain Troll. I figured it out finally.


*********
This is more than suspicious... follow the line of reasoning...

Drilling in ANWR won't reduce prices.
Halliburton has the no bid contract to drill.
Price of oil must reach certain price before certain drilling becomes profitable, that price is close.
The oil in the ground is basically free money for whoever gets to drill it, it will not reduce prices.
It is a convenient way to blame the democrats and liberals for the gas prices.

They've taken this campaign as another scare tactic to trick people into voting Republican again.

Arklatex
06-19-2008, 11:31 AM
I'm against offshore drilling in the US, especially after I've became a scuba diver. I don't want to see our coast line and more coral reefs depleted over a small amount of oil, that in the big scheme of things changes nothing. We need a long term solution. Let's be conservative about this.

disclosure: But I'm all for deep water rigs in the Gulf and own shares of drillers there.

dannno
06-19-2008, 11:40 AM
I would love to see the day when the offshore barges were contracted to build huge wind mills off the gulf.

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/energyisland.jpg

tangent4ronpaul
06-19-2008, 11:40 AM
As was toward the end of that original post, someone was on C-SPAN talking about drilling in ANWAR and both say oil from Alaska would not go to the USA! - it would be shipped overseas.

People have testified in congressional subcommittees and pretty consistently say drilling off our shores and in Alaska would only reduce foreign demand by about 12%

Most of our oil now does not come from the middle east so OPEC can't be responsible for that much of the problem. A lot of the problem could be financial pressure for our actions in the Middle east though, from what I understand a lot comes from Russia and South America.

best as I can tell is the problem lies in 2 areas: stock speculation driving the price up and a deliberate lack of refinery capability in the US. The oil companies have no interest in building new refineries or rebuilding them, because their profits would go down.

-n

Kade
06-19-2008, 11:43 AM
As was toward the end of that original post, someone was on C-SPAN talking about drilling in ANWAR and both say oil from Alaska would not go to the USA! - it would be shipped overseas.

People have testified in congressional subcommittees and pretty consistently say drilling off our shores and in Alaska would only reduce foreign demand by about 12%

Most of our oil now does not come from the middle east so OPEC can't be responsible for that much of the problem. A lot of the problem could be financial pressure for our actions in the Middle east though, from what I understand a lot comes from Russia and South America.

best as I can tell is the problem lies in 2 areas: stock speculation driving the price up and a deliberate lack of refinery capability in the US. The oil companies have no interest in building new refineries or rebuilding them, because their profits would go down.

-n

+2008!!


This is a result of the "Enron Loop".

http://www.theseminal.com/2008/06/18/drilling-is-a-fraud/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/25252591#25252591

mediahasyou
06-19-2008, 12:03 PM
You have no right to tell them not to drill.

Setting laws into place to take away rights for drilling is unconstitutional...not to mention immoral.

Liberty for all is equality for all. Let them drill.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:12 PM
Thats ignorant. I work in the GULF and We will not run out of oil in 5 years. The same people whom say that has been saying that for Years and guess what I've been doing this for 12 years and We havent run out yet. Now the gulf can only support about 25% of our energy needs but it does need to be opened up. We need to use every avenue until our country can start using alternative energy. I would love to see the day when the offshore barges were contracted to build huge wind mills off the gulf.

but why hand over special license for corporate conglomerates to drill? why can't regular people drill? we need more competition in energy

Kade
06-19-2008, 12:13 PM
You have no right to tell them not to drill.

Setting laws into place to take away rights for drilling is unconstitutional...not to mention immoral.

Liberty for all is equality for all. Let them drill.

Pure-blooded nonsense.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 12:20 PM
Truth Warrior is a McCain Troll. I figured it out finally.

Sideburns worshiper and mere clone stooge wannabe! :p :rolleyes:

Kade
06-19-2008, 12:23 PM
Sideburns worshiper and mere clone stooge wannabe! :p :rolleyes:

Was it before or after he won Florida that you hopped on his lap?

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 12:30 PM
The age of oil is dying.New energy alternatives will be found.

Unnfortunately, the next 20 years are going to be a bitch!

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:33 PM
why not hope for global warming and then build a huge dam on our coasts to power the entire country once "the tide comes in"?

SnappleLlama
06-19-2008, 12:36 PM
Nuclear power is the way to go!

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 12:37 PM
why not hope for global warming and then build a huge dam on our coasts to power the entire country once "the tide comes in"?
Because if government does it, it won't work, and will cost 20X too much! :p :rolleyes: AGW is a NWO lie, con and swindle.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:37 PM
I like the idea of coal power. I like the smell of coal in the morning.. smells good on the grill anyway!

SnappleLlama
06-19-2008, 12:38 PM
I like the idea of coal power. I like the smell of coal in the morning

So do caged birds...

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:41 PM
how about we use water as an energy source?

maybe..carbonate it? let the carbonation move the turbines?

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 12:42 PM
how about we use water as an energy source?

maybe..carbonate it? let the carbonation move the turbines?
and eat the blades.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:45 PM
how about....people power? everyone has to be plugged up to something as they move around?

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 12:45 PM
You have no right to tell them not to drill.

Setting laws into place to take away rights for drilling is unconstitutional...not to mention immoral.

Liberty for all is equality for all. Let them drill.

Are you serious?

The Constitution advocates recklessness and open slather, for Oil companies?

Without considering the rights of landholders and sovereign nations...

Fuck your interpretation of equality.

Are you a lemming/bunny?

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:48 PM
why can't I drill for oil? Why does it always have to be corporations like Exxon Mobile?

dannno
06-19-2008, 12:48 PM
You have no right to tell them not to drill.

Setting laws into place to take away rights for drilling is unconstitutional...not to mention immoral.

Liberty for all is equality for all. Let them drill.

No, the drilling occurs in the ocean which I believe is technically federal *cough* land *cough*. Drilling affects property rights of actual land near the coast. We don't need to just let people start building whatever they want in the ocean. Build whatever you want on your property, on land, as long as it is not affecting the property rights of others.


Benefits:

Increase in jobs

Better the local economy


Costs:

Decrease in property values near coast

Increase possibility of highly concentrated oil spills in the ocean and local refineries ( http://www.independent.com/news/2008/apr/17/grekas-monkey-business/ )



Let the local people decide if they want to use their oceans for this purpose. Personally, I am against it in my local area, but I do not think it should be banned by the federal government. I am not against drilling in ANWR.

Kade
06-19-2008, 12:48 PM
Are you serious?

The Constitution advocates recklessness and open slather, for Oil companies?

Without considering the rights of landholders and sovereign nations...

Fuck your interpretation of equality.

Are you a lemming/bunny?

Nice. Occasionally, rarely, a few of you really brighten my day with pure refreshing common sense... it's like watching a petri dish of cluster bacteria being washed with pure ethyl alcohol.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:51 PM
Why can't regular people start oil companies?

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 12:51 PM
how about....people power? everyone has to be plugged up to something as they move around?
The whole frickin' universe is energy! :rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:53 PM
what did the Galactic Empire [SW] use to power itself? Maybe we should research this.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 12:55 PM
what did the Galactic Empire [SW] use to power itself? Maybe we should research this.
The Force! Both light and dark sides!

Kade
06-19-2008, 12:55 PM
Why can't regular people start oil companies?

I would support drilling in ANWR, if they let the Alaskan people (or anyone who wants to move out there) start their own businesses to do so... with the same benefits these corporations get...

phoenixrising
06-19-2008, 12:57 PM
try this on for size:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/344.html

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 12:59 PM
is there any oil in space?

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 01:01 PM
is there any oil in space?
Read Velikofsky!

Kade
06-19-2008, 01:02 PM
is there any oil in space?

Oil is the compressed liquid hydrocarbon of very ancient ( millions of years) organic plants and animals. So no.

Don't tell Theocrat about the age though... "goddit"

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:04 PM
I would support drilling in ANWR, if they let the Alaskan people (or anyone who wants to move out there) start their own businesses to do so... with the same benefits these corporations get...


Stay tuned to the Supreme Court.

Remember Exxon Valdeez?

Your fellow countrymen in Alaska are about to get screwed.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 01:05 PM
is there any oil in space?
Titan is swimming in LNG! No smoking allowed though. :D

Kade
06-19-2008, 01:06 PM
Stay tuned to the Supreme Court.

Remember Exxon Valdeez?

Your fellow countrymen in Alaska are about to get screwed.

yea, I know. It is a shame what has happened to this court... it is a shame the sort of absolutist vision of what the Founder's wanted... it is a shame that so few know what they are talking about, and the one's that do are holed up in Universities and considered fluke extremists.

I'm tired of the sheer stupidity of my countrymen.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 01:07 PM
Oil is the compressed liquid hydrocarbon of very ancient ( millions of years) organic plants and animals. So no.

Don't tell Theocrat about the age though... "goddit"

do we have any oil in our cemetaries yet? lol

SnappleLlama
06-19-2008, 01:09 PM
do we have any oil in our cemetaries yet? lol

Donate your corpse to a good cause...power your great-great-great-grandchildren's houses! :p

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 01:10 PM
hmm is there a way to artificially compress liquid carbon through means of plants and animals that died recently in order to create...oil?

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 01:13 PM
When the NWO lowers the world human population to 500 mill, there may be 6 billion to refine. Chub up!

dannno
06-19-2008, 01:15 PM
hmm is there a way to artificially compress liquid carbon through means of plants and animals that died recently in order to create...oil?

similar..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=143234

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:16 PM
During the meantime...

America is going broke, run by oil-men, intent on pipeline supply, through mideast conquest.

Guess what?

It's backfired, and now jJack and jJill have to pay for it, along with a few starving 3rd worlders.

And total dickheads still mount a defense for oil companies.

Based on what?

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:21 PM
Capitalism? Free markets?

Fuck off.

Go study Mussollini.

Learn.

Kade
06-19-2008, 01:28 PM
Capitalism? Free markets?

Fuck off.

Go study Mussollini.

Learn.

Do you understand how utterly refreshing it is to have the occasional intelligent person speak up in here?

Seriously..


Mussolini was very pro free market. He dismantled unions, privatized all aspects of industrial complexes, and allowed a complete open market on currency.

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:32 PM
Do you understand how utterly refreshing it is to have the occasional intelligent person speak up in here?

Seriously..


Mussolini was very pro free market. He dismantled unions, privatized all aspects of industrial complexes, and allowed a complete open market on currency.

A perfect union of government and business.

Corporate fascism.

This is the current model...

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 01:40 PM
The left ( socialists/fascists/communists ) screws with and up the US economy for decades and then complains, bitches and moans about how it all turns out.

CLASSIC! :p

Near perfect CFR/NWO setup!:rolleyes:

Problem -> Reaction -> Solution

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:46 PM
The left ( socialists/fascists/communists ) screws with and up the US economy for decades and then complains, bitches and moans about how it all turns out.

CLASSIC! :p

Near perfect CFR/NWO setup!:rolleyes:

Problem -> Reaction -> Solution

I don't understand your agro.

Do like Ron Paul says.

He advocates State - County - community governance.

Is that socialism?

It's people power.

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:50 PM
Might even be a Republic. A democratic Republic.

Get it?

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:52 PM
Not a Federal government.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 01:53 PM
I don't understand your agro.

Do like Ron Paul says.

He advocates State - County - community governance.

Is that socialism?

It's people power.
Miniaturized and multiplied TYRANNY AND LEVIATHAN! ( Refer to second sig quote below ) Ron Paul ain't my shepherd, BTW.

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 01:57 PM
Centralized government is never good.

"Politics, as a practice, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 02:03 PM
Centralized government is never good.

"Politics, as a practice, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

Kade
06-19-2008, 02:05 PM
"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

Orwell was a huge supporter of federal socialism in Europe... Ironic you would quote him McTroll.

winston_blade
06-19-2008, 02:10 PM
Speculation is actually good.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 02:13 PM
Orwell was a huge supporter of federal socialism in Europe... Ironic you would quote him McTroll.
Only to a guppy like YOU. :rolleyes:

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 02:14 PM
"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

Orwell again.:D

Blood oath!

Kade
06-19-2008, 02:25 PM
Only to a guppy like YOU. :rolleyes:

McTroll.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 02:28 PM
McTroll. Ooooo devastating attack! < coff, coff > :rolleyes: :p

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 02:44 PM
Capitalism? Free markets?

Fuck off.

Go study Mussollini.

Learn.

Fascism is not about free markets.

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Fascism is not about free markets.

You must be an oracle.

Please explain.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 02:54 PM
You must be an oracle.

Please explain.

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 03:08 PM
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

Interesting.

I am not a socialist, nor a capitalist.

I am an individual, who prefers rational and objective thinking.

I prefer to be self-reliant.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 03:17 PM
Interesting.

I am not a socialist, nor a capitalist.

I am an individual, who prefers rational and objective thinking.

I prefer to be self-reliant.
What non-statist economic system do you prefer?

Rational and objective implies free market capitalism.<IMHO>

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 03:24 PM
What non-statist economic system do you prefer?

Rational and objective implies free market capitalism.<IMHO>

Fishing.

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 03:27 PM
I am a businessman who ran a business with employees.

I naturally despise authority.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 03:47 PM
Fishing. I'll take that as a yes! :)

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 03:57 PM
I'll take that as a yes! :)

OK you wormed it out of me.

Rules, regulations, superanuation, workers comp,taxes, payroll tax, insurance, accountants, solicitors, and work safety irritate me.

Now I fish.

Ozwest
06-19-2008, 03:58 PM
And the fish are nervous...

kathy88
06-19-2008, 04:08 PM
As was toward the end of that original post, someone was on C-SPAN talking about drilling in ANWAR and both say oil from Alaska would not go to the USA! - it would be shipped overseas.

People have testified in congressional subcommittees and pretty consistently say drilling off our shores and in Alaska would only reduce foreign demand by about 12%

Most of our oil now does not come from the middle east so OPEC can't be responsible for that much of the problem. A lot of the problem could be financial pressure for our actions in the Middle east though, from what I understand a lot comes from Russia and South America.

best as I can tell is the problem lies in 2 areas: stock speculation driving the price up and a deliberate lack of refinery capability in the US. The oil companies have no interest in building new refineries or rebuilding them, because their profits would go down.

-n

That was the sum of Glenn Beck's hour last night.

libertarian4321
06-19-2008, 05:06 PM
As was toward the end of that original post, someone was on C-SPAN talking about drilling in ANWAR and both say oil from Alaska would not go to the USA! - it would be shipped overseas.



I think some of you are missing a key point here.

The oil market is a global market. There is a global supply and a global demand.

Any new oil put on the market - whether from Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Russia, Sudan, or the Canadian tar sands- has the effect of increasing GLOBAL supply and meeting global demand. It doesn't matter if its sold to the USA, China, Japan, or Germany.

So if they find and drill oil in China, its a good thing (increases GLOBAL supply). If they find and drill oil in the USA, even if they sell it to China/Japan/Belgium, its a GOOD THING, because it increases global supply.

You can't really have the old "us vs. them" mindset when discussing oil.

wgadget
06-19-2008, 05:33 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, just the first couple of pages. But after considering the source, Newt Gingrich, I'm thinking that this is just a set-up for the North American Union. While we argue over ANWR, they'll probably just throw up their hands and say, "GEE, if we could all get together here, we can just skip ANWR and drill off the coasts of Canada and Mexico....But we'll have to UNITE to do this....bleh, bleh, bleh."

Also, have you heard of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 05:37 PM
OK you wormed it out of me.

Rules, regulations, superanuation, workers comp,taxes, payroll tax, insurance, accountants, solicitors, and work safety irritate me.

Now I fish.
"State" capitalism aka Corporatism ( and more :p ) just really pisses me off too.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-20-2008, 10:27 AM
You must be an oracle.

Please explain.

In a nutshell it's about well regulated industries delegated to trusted corporations. Nothing free about that.

example:

Johnson Corp. would maybe let's say be given control over the corn industry. This means it has the sole right to corn production. It's just a government alternative to nationalization. The corporation is then hit with a price cap by the government but has no natural competition so they are able to make money with very little or no competition. This is how I envision a fascist economy. but for all industries. the government and corporations are in bed. but will this "privatization" really work? No. In the end it comes down to competition to increase the overall quality, and when there is none, well, then the corporation can sell you as much shit as it can get away with and there's little to nothing you can do about it.

Do you understand now? capitalism is about competition. you can't get away with selling people crap without government to back you up. that's just the fact. also, in fascist economies, the government tends to have ALOT of influence over the corporations. In my mind it's really just the government saying: "we're too inept to run things... you can do it for us"

the delegation of production power to a corporations

communists just want to scrap corporations and have the government run eveything itself.

Tarzan
06-20-2008, 10:39 AM
I think some of you are missing a key point here.

The oil market is a global market. There is a global supply and a global demand.

Any new oil put on the market - whether from Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Russia, Sudan, or the Canadian tar sands- has the effect of increasing GLOBAL supply and meeting global demand. It doesn't matter if its sold to the USA, China, Japan, or Germany.

So if they find and drill oil in China, its a good thing (increases GLOBAL supply). If they find and drill oil in the USA, even if they sell it to China/Japan/Belgium, its a GOOD THING, because it increases global supply.

You can't really have the old "us vs. them" mindset when discussing oil.

I think the bigger issue her (aside from all the money making schemes) is that this is a diversion of our attention.

While there are a number of factors causing the current price of gas the one, single, biggest issue is the collapsing value of the dollar. The media and congress are quick to point fingers at some of the culprits... but, in doing so they are carefully avoiding the primary souce of the problem. The dollar's decline.

And, the people who have caused the problems with the dollar... Congress. So, let's blame the guys who can take the heat (heck, they are used to it) and distract the american people away from the real problem... irresponsible spending by our representatives in congress.

If the media were beating THAT drum a substantial number of congressmen would find themselves out of a job. The Media will hype any story that sells... and congress is carefully selecting those who testify.

Congress is the primary problem with the economy... and they are busy avoiding the blame.

scandinaviany3
06-21-2008, 01:08 PM
I found these two posts very interesting to go with what everyone is saying:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Primary Navigation
HomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliti csElectionsScienceHealthMost Popular
Secondary Navigation
Politics Video Elections White House Congress U.S. Government World Supreme Court Press Releases Search: All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush says Democrats keep blocking his energy plans By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 21, 11:52 AM ET



WASHINGTON - President Bush is accusing Democrats in Congress of blocking his energy proposals, saying they are partly to blame for high gasoline costs pinching Americans' budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his Saturday radio address, Bush urged Congress to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling to increase U.S. energy production. Democrats have rejected the idea.

"This is a difficult time for many American families," Bush said. "Rising gasoline prices and economic uncertainty can affect everything from what food parents put on the table to where they can go on vacation."

Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida. What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress had to act first and then he would follow behind.

Congressional Democrats have been quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have under lease 68 million acres on federal lands and waters — outside the ban area — that are not being developed. Drilling proponents say that number is misleading because sometimes it takes years for actual development to take place.

"This week, President Bush and his Republicans allies rallied behind the oil industry's political agenda once again and advocated opening more of America's federal land, including coastal areas, to drilling," Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in the Democratic response. "This proposal will not bring the type of relief Americans deserve at the pump."

Bush says he wants to ease the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity and lift restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat and other processes.

"One major deposit in the Rocky Mountain West alone would equal current annual oil imports for more than 100 years," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development."

Bush said that in a spending bill last year, Democratic leaders inserted a provision blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands. "That provision can be taken out as easily as it was slipped in — and Congress should do so immediately," he said.

Bush also reiterated his desire to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, saying scientists have developed ways to reach this oil in northern Alaska with little impact on the land or local wildlife.

Bush said opposition from Democratic leaders opposition to his proposals has helped drive gas prices to record levels.

"I ask them to reconsider their positions," he said. "If congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act."

nbhadja
06-21-2008, 01:14 PM
A friend was talking to me after the texas republican party convention about the big push for drill here drill now by gingrich and the party.

What it curious about this from his perspective is:

-The lost treaty would have opened this this up, and it looked like this was the back up plan to make this the next step happen given its failure.

-The chinese/cuba drilling was sold as offshore US drilling.

-The amount of surveyed oil reserves off coastlines in the US was very small and could only last a few years (2-5 years) at a our current useage rate.

-The amount of oil survey at the north pole, that adjoins alaska, canada, former soviet union is the last untouched huge reserve. But numbers vary between 20-200 years on the size of the reserves we currently have access to in alaska. He believed the drive for the LOST treaty,SPP/NAU to give the US a claim through a joining with canada to have a viable claim against russsia on the north poles oil reserves was all part of the slippery plan that the elites are working on.

-The problem with drilling at the poles he mentioned was the hostile cold environment makes it hard for metal lines to survive under pressure. He works by the way in oil business. It definitely would be a costly and hostile process. But pipelines to the prudohoe bay exist...so the question he thought was first to let the state of Alaska decide on this and not corporatism, and party propoganda/brainwashing. Second to not allow any nation ownership of the poles.

-He stated that many new transportation technologies and alternate energy options were now coming out. He thought that if we could 3x our average mileage on transportation for commuter vehicles, then the alaska reserves could offset the current crisis.

-Also he stated that like our minerals in the US being sent to china and we only being allowed recycled metals(thus our costs are higher in the US). That oil in alaska for years was targetted to supply our allie Japan. He questioned why we aren't supplying our own needs first?

-Lastly he was clear that speculation, fear mongering/war, drop in the value of the dollar is the cause of oil price increase was to blame for the price of fuel increase. It seemed crazy to him to state anything else since companies in china have had the same demand now for years. So where was the sudden change then on demand that would effect the price of a fixed supply? Didnt happen he said....elites are just exploiting the situation they have setup to benefit their plans.

Any one have any more data or knowledge on these matters they can share to educate me?

...tree hugger troll alert.....

HOLLYWOOD
06-21-2008, 01:19 PM
Thats ignorant. I work in the GULF and We will not run out of oil in 5 years. The same people whom say that has been saying that for Years and guess what I've been doing this for 12 years and We havent run out yet. Now the gulf can only support about 25% of our energy needs but it does need to be opened up. We need to use every avenue until our country can start using alternative energy. I would love to see the day when the offshore barges were contracted to build huge wind mills off the gulf.

Right On!

I do Enjoy watching the Governmental Morons skewing the Numbers and Facts on BOTH SIDES to push their Agendas.

We are so screwed by the 2 Party Circus that the American Sheeple listen to and follow down the road of U.S. Government's Involuntary Servitude!

scandinaviany3
06-21-2008, 01:21 PM
http://www.eia.doe.gov/

The above govt group lists out all energy available in the US.

under this page there an excel sheet for oil production, demand,oil prices etc

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html

It would seem that if we were to get 18 billion barrels total from off shore drilling that at the current US demand that it will account for 2.5 years of useage.

But if we do not maintain sole ownership of the oil as is the case apparently with our drilling in alaska then on the world market this will only give us an additional 6 months of oil useage.

Could someone go through the data and build some excel charts to put online...especially would be good to look at dates where fed took action, speculation response from iraq, threatening iran, etc.

i think we should have these analysis done so we can not be fooled if this is a stepping stone for something we will not like.

scandinaviany3
06-21-2008, 01:27 PM
Thats ignorant. I work in the GULF and We will not run out of oil in 5 years. The same people whom say that has been saying that for Years and guess what I've been doing this for 12 years and We havent run out yet. Now the gulf can only support about 25% of our energy needs but it does need to be opened up. We need to use every avenue until our country can start using alternative energy. I would love to see the day when the offshore barges were contracted to build huge wind mills off the gulf.


Do you have a source for the gulf oil data?

Would be good to add to the analysis?

scandinaviany3
06-21-2008, 01:41 PM
...tree hugger troll alert.....

lol..off topic and nice try.

Living in the heart of oil country and having family and friends that work on oil rigs, etc. they would laugh at that one.

The on topic question here is there some scam going on with the gingrich's proposal of drill here, drill now that us educated folks can shed light on.

Somehow the numbers and plans you all are sending out so far seem to look like my friend suggested..nau/nwo/lost treaty stepping stones

It seems the north slope of alaska and having data on that area, etc scientifically surveyed to calculate the total available barrells would be very useful as compared to historic surveys and how accurate this data was.

scandinaviany3
06-21-2008, 01:43 PM
but why hand over special license for corporate conglomerates to drill? why can't regular people drill? we need more competition in energy

Maybe the movement should get into the energy and oil drilling business in alaska? :D

tpreitzel
06-21-2008, 01:50 PM
Suspicious? Yes. The primary cause of the rapid escalation of commodity prices vis-a-vis the dollar is the rapid devaluation of the dollar. Our government is broke and the Federal Reserve is expanding the supply of paper money like no tomorrow which, unfortunately, will insure a no tomorrow with enough time. Even IF oil production proceeded full steam ahead with oil fields in Montana (Baaken) and Alaska (Gull Island) exploited, the decline of the price of gasoline vis-a-vis the dollar would be minimal. The primary problem is the devaluation of the dollar. I'll say it again. The primary problem is the devaluation of the dollar as most commodities are rising in price relative to the dollar. In other words, the US dollar is becoming worth less to the point that it'll soon be worthless.

Bruno
06-21-2008, 01:51 PM
Nuclear power is the way to go!

I thought I heard it would take 800 nuke plants to offset our oil consumption? If that is true, what are we going to do with the nuclear waste if we can't even agree what to do with the massive stockpiles we have now with our current plants?




best as I can tell is the problem lies in 2 areas: stock speculation driving the price up and a deliberate lack of refinery capability in the US. The oil companies have no interest in building new refineries or rebuilding them, because their profits would go down.

-n

Don't forget about the inflation of our monetary supply and how it affects prices in dollars as well.

Truth Warrior
06-21-2008, 01:54 PM
Perhaps the goal is to "break" China! ;)

Strange are the "ways", of geopolitics AND geoeconomics! :)

HOLLYWOOD
06-21-2008, 02:14 PM
Stay tuned to the Supreme Court.

Remember Exxon Valdeez?

Your fellow countrymen in Alaska are about to get screwed.

Supreme Court... Yeah,

Reminds of the Nazi Circus Supreme Court proceedings, when they brought the group of military officers that attempted to assassinate Hitler. Same Findings and Rulings all to serve themselves, just different countries.

Has anyone taken a look at all the "PAID FOR TRIPS/PERKS" of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1541642 (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1541642)

Carole
06-21-2008, 02:25 PM
As soon as off-shore drilling takes hold and possibly passed by Congress (or a simple Executive Order by the PResident), Florida and California are ready to begin lawsuits that would tie it up in courts for years.

So I see McInSane's call for off shore drilling if the states choose to do so as a political move only. No one is going to drill. Besides it would not seriously affect prices at all some say-only a few pennies.

Many feel the 68 million acres the oil companies already have a lease on should be the first choice for drilling. They have held these leases for years and they may or may not be viable drilling locations, but they have done nothing with them.

These energy companies will do nothing to explore other resources for energy until the price of gas gets high enough to suit them if at all.

Truth Warrior
06-21-2008, 02:30 PM
As soon as off-shore drilling takes hold and possibly passed by Congress (or a simple Executive Order by the PResident), Florida and California are ready to begin lawsuits that would tie it up in courts for years.

So I see McInSane's call for off shore drilling if the states choose to do so as a political move only. No one is going to drill. Besides it would not seriously affect prices at all some say-only a few pennies.

Many feel the 68 million acres the oil companies already have a lease on should be the first choice for drilling. They have held these leases for years and they may or may not be viable drilling locations, but they have done nothing with them.

These energy companies will do nothing to explore other resources for energy until the price of gas gets high enough to suit them if at all.
Cases all dismissed on "TOP SECRET" NATIONAL SECURITY grounds. ;)

Carole
06-21-2008, 02:33 PM
So our oil could go to the highest bidder so to speak? He who will pay the most per gallon at the pump? :(

Carole
06-21-2008, 02:36 PM
Maybe some of our intelligent, clever people should invent the energies for the future today. Like water, wind, solar, and anything else viable.

Come on guys. We have a lot of smart people who also know a lot of smart people. If some dude can re-engineer his car in his garage to run on water, what else can we do? :D:D

Truth Warrior
06-21-2008, 02:37 PM
So our oil could go to the highest bidder so to speak? He who will pay the most per gallon at the pump? :(
How much US oil has been exported to other nations over the last 150 years or so? ;)

Truth Warrior
06-21-2008, 02:42 PM
Tuesday, April 05, 2005

US Oil Exports

US oil companies -- who've sold Congress on the need to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- exported 268 million barrels of US oil last year. Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) has fired off a letter to the Commerce Secretary demanding a list of the the companies. The Census Bureau -- part of the Commerce Department -- keeps track of the amount of US oil shipped overseas. But they refused to tell the Senator which companies were selling US oil abroad. (Reuters via Netscape News)

Carole
06-21-2008, 03:02 PM
Well, the oil companies do not WANT to drill. So..........?

RoamZero
06-21-2008, 03:11 PM
I thought I heard it would take 800 nuke plants to offset our oil consumption? If that is true, what are we going to do with the nuclear waste if we can't even agree what to do with the massive stockpiles we have now with our current plants?


Maybe we should use our remaining oil reserves as fuel to blast it into space :D

Carole
06-21-2008, 03:13 PM
Sounds like a political move to get Americans mad at Democrats and vote them out. :)

No one has any intention of drilling.

In the meantime Coal liquefication is out there and could be a viable alternative for the short run at least.

WVa (Rahall) had some po=eople over from Africa, ( thinik Africa) to look into WVa for such a project. They did not choose WVa. but someone else could. It could help ease the gas crunch in the short term.

Then again, if they want to push ethanol, it would make much more sense to use hemp to produce it than to use corn, evan though this is not a long term solution either I imagine.

The point is that NO ONE has any serious plans to do anything. It is all a fraud to deceive the public. They want demand to decrease and self-rationing then, federal rationing at some point I guess.

The scooter industry should prosper for a while. :D

Truth Warrior
06-21-2008, 03:16 PM
Well, the oil companies do not WANT to drill. So..........? Find some oil companies that do .......... :D

Carole
06-21-2008, 03:20 PM
Not allowed to build dams either. :(

Frankly, the whole idea is to destroy the middle class. No gas-cannot get to work. Lose our property, etc. Reduce food supply and population by 70% and have a more sustainable planet. This is their goal. They do not want to help us; they want to hurt us. It is war against the American people.

If anyone in this damned government had wanted to help his countrymen, they could have and would have had mass transit crisscrossing the country years ago. We are way behind the times and the government has squandered every opportunity to get us into the twenty-first century in the name of profit for a few.

Carole
06-21-2008, 03:22 PM
Probably not allowed-environmentalism in space, you know. :D

Carole
06-21-2008, 03:23 PM
Monopoly. :)

Truth Warrior
06-21-2008, 03:28 PM
Monopoly. :)
Risk. Clue. Scrabble. Parchesi. :D

driller80545
06-21-2008, 03:30 PM
Why can't regular people start oil companies?

All you need is money

Carole
06-21-2008, 05:54 PM
Perhaps this will help.

The Energy Non-Crisis by Lindsey Williams

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

fxmercenary
06-21-2008, 06:32 PM
http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/uploaded_images/dean-743939.jpg
BYAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Carole
06-22-2008, 09:36 AM
Here are all eight parts of the video by Lindsey Williams.


The Energy Non-Crisis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use. free 'The New American' magazine download-the NAU issue: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6230 http://www.free10dvds.com --Terrorists' Activities: prior knowledge furnished to the FBI six months in advance of 9-11--free download: http://www.scribd.com/doc/496170/Terrorists-Activitiesprior-knowledge-furnished-to-the-FBI-6-months-in-advance-of-911

The Energy Non-Crisis - 75 min - Oct 24, 2007

The Energy Non-Crisis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use. free 'The New American' magazine download-the NAU issue: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6230 http://www.free10dvds.com --Terrorists' Activities: prior knowledge furnished to the FBI six months in advance of 9-11--free download: http://www.scribd.com/doc/496170/Terrorists-Activitiesprior-knowledge-furnished-to-the-FBI-6-months-in-advance-of-911

The Energy Non-Crisis - 75 min - Oct 24, 2007

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 2 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGGjbDjnNzw&feature=user

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 3 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q39ic04vhNo&feature=related

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 4 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKCyCYz_aHY&feature=related

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 5 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TYmSGwAumk&feature=related

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 6 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwMOvV6ctg&feature=related

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 7 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5HGHsy3H_0&feature=related

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 8 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC61X78-OI0&feature=related

Lindsey Williams, who has been an ordained Baptist minister for 28 years, went to Alaska in 1971 as a missionary. The Transalaska oil pipeline began its construction phase in 1974, and because of Mr. Williams' love for his country and concern for the spiritual welfare of the "pipeliners," he volunteered to serve as Chaplain on the pipeline, with the subsequent full support of the Alyeska Pipeline Company. Because of the executive status accorded to him as Chaplain, he was given access to information documented in his eye opening book, The Energy Non-Crisis.
After numerous public speaking engagements in the western states, certain government officials and concerned individuals urged Mr. Williams to put into print what he saw and heard, stating that they felt this information was vital to national security. Mr. Williams firmly believes that whoever controls energy controls the economy. Thus, The Energy Non-Crisis.

Carole
06-22-2008, 10:22 AM
At the end of his talk Williams speaks of the fate of the the Signers (Dec. of Independence).

Here is the info from online.

A Rebuttal to "The Price They Paid" Essays

http://home.nycap.rr.com/elbrecht/signers/HARVEY-reb.htm

These are Paul Harvey's words as he wrote them. He has been plagiarized by many folks since [Hildreth, Trumbore, and countless others who said it was anonymous]. These words have appeared in print and all across the web for years, and much of their rhetoric is simply not true. By using liberal quotes of Harvey's words, I hope it will illuminate that these words are as far from 'anonymous' as they are true.
There have been several other essays written since 1956 that echo the tone and many of the incorrect legends that Harvey fell prey to believing. I believe that the others were written independently because they have included other facts & legends, and left some of Harvey's more compelling ones out. I suspect that some pre-1956 source, a quick read, and with a reputation that did not incline any of these entertainers to fact-check, is lying out there waiting to be rediscovered.
The essay that I'm quoting appears as part of Paul Harvey's _The Rest of the Story_, Hanover House, 1956. LOC Card #56-9395
In 1975 it was reprinted, with a short preface, in a booklet called _Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor_ by Word Books, Waco Texas. [the copyright notice in that issue mentions an additional copyright date of 1969, as well as the 1956 & 1975 copyrights]
I will not include the entire essay, but only that which is either in error, or which appears to me to be a key to its, and all the other's, origins. I will uses ellipses (.......) where there is a break what I am quoting. Since Harvey uses them frequently, I will include parens around my ellipses to prevent confusion. The Harvey text will be set in and in italics.

The United states of America was born in 1776. But it was conceived 169
years before that.
(........)
All others of the world's revolutions before and since were initiated by men who
had nothing to lose. Our founders had everything to lose... nothing to gain....
except one thing......
Our Lives,
Our Fortunes,
Our Sacred Honor
(....... )
These were men of means, well educated.
Most of the Signers were certainly men of means. Notably, though Sam Adams was so poor that the people he represented took up a collection to send him to Philadelphia in clothing befitting a representative of their town. Many of those well educated men were not educated by colleges, but on their own. Some acquired as many as three honorary degrees from leading universities without ever having gone beyond the most basic of formal education.
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and owners of large plantations.
This part is a common tie between all the bogus essays. They all try to define the Signers so simply, and it just cannot be done. Dumas Malone, in his _Making of the Declaration of Independence_ pp95 & 96, wrote; "They cannot be classified with precision on grounds of occupation, for this was not an age of specialization and occupations constantly overlapped."
Truer words were never spoken. Some, like Sam Adams, were singularly successful at being congressmen while not doing too well at their chosen 'occupation'. Many, like Nelson, were born into such wealth and standing, that their real calling was public life, and they hired folks to 'keep the books' at home while they dabbled in whatever struck their fancy. Many of these men had varied interests and were proficient at many trades.
Despite that, I felt compelled to make some attempt myself. Even though I have 13 men defined by only one occupation, and 2 as 'gentlemen', the remaining 41 who had a variety of occupations swelled the list to 141 entries long. The 'single occupation' men were lawyers (6), merchants (5) and 2 public servants that will likely go to either the 'agriculturist' or 'gentlemen' categories. The list is sure to get longer as I read more about each signer, but since I've finally gotten at least one entry for all of them, I thought I'd illustrate why I think the simple claim of "24 lawyers, 11 merchants, and 9 farmers" is both misleading and a clue to the source of all these inaccurate essays.
The longest category in my list is 'public service'. For this category, I only included those who held a public office prior to 1770. Many got involved in 1765, during the Stamp Act years. Others were 2nd or 3rd generation politicians.
Of the 44 who were 30 years old by 1770, I have 31 in my 'Public service' category so far.
First the lawyers. Some of the essays say '24[or 25] lawyers', and others say '24 lawyers and jurists'. There is a difference between an 18th century lawyer, and an 18th century jurist. There was no need to be a lawyer to be a jurist-- as several of the signers prove.[one even sat on the Supreme Court with no legal training]
My numbers so far;
22 lawyers
11 Judges & Justices
[28 were either lawyers or Judges or Justices before they signed]
Then the merchants. I count 18. Some had retired, but most of the retired merchants still received profits from their business.
The farmers were the toughest ones of all. The only one who I still might consider a farmer in the 20th century sense of the word would be John Hart and he wore several other hats as well..[Mill owner, politician, Justice]
Many of the signers were born into very wealthy families who owned huge estates which supported them. Others built these huge estates themselves. To call them farmers, is akin to calling Bill Gates a software salesman. It's accurate, but misleading.
I can't find a term that applies broadly enough to cover the southern planters like Braxton or Carroll [that isn't a man who plants cotton or rice-- he is a businessman who runs a business], and the northern aristocrats like Morris & Floyd, who essentially did the same thing & are likely counted as farmers in those essays.
Rather than resort to 'farmer', I've used 'agriculturists'. I didn't count those who were interested in farming as a hobby, but only those who derived a substantial income from their properties. [cattle, fruit, produce, lumber, 'renters', etc.] Of them, I counted 16.
This is my tally;
32 'public service' prior to 1770
22 lawyers
11 Judges & Justices
[28 were either lawyers or Judges or Justices before they signed]
18 merchants
16 planters, farmers, agriculturists
6 academics
5 authors
4 surveyors
3 doctors
3 ministers.
2 "gentlemen"
There was also a brewer, a cooper, a couple inventors, a musician, a poet, a printer, a publicist, a couple scientists, a seaman, a shoemaker, and a [land?] speculator.


(.....)
Fifty-six men placed their names beneath that pledge. Fifty-six men knew-when they signed-that they were risking everything.
They knew if they won this fight, the best they could expect would be years of hardship in a struggling nation. If they lost, they'd face a hangman's rope.
( ......)
Carter Braxton of Virginia, wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas. To pay his debts he lost his home and all his properties and died in rags.
He may have died poor, I haven't located a good biography of him yet, or found his will. He died at his spacious estate, Chericoke, so I suspect 'died in rags' might be misleading.
He did lose his ships which were flying the British flag when the Revolution began. They weren't necessarily 'swept from the seas', but more likely retained by his former business partner, the British Government. He did suffer losses in property due to the Revolution. He recouped those losses though, after the Revolution, and his next big setback was 'businesses gone sour' around the end of the 1700's. Though a great Patriot and Statesman, his business practices have met with considerable criticism.
(....)
Thomas McKean of Delaware was so harassed by the enemy that he was forced to move his family five times in five months He served in Congress without pay, his family in poverty and in hiding.
McKean [misspelled McKeam in so many copies floating around the net] was representing DE, but he was born in PA, and lived in Philadelphia. He held dual citizenship in the two colonies, and is the only representative to serve in congress throughout the entire war. [While holding positions of 'President of the State Of Delaware' for 3 years, president of congress for 1, and Chief Justice of Pennsylvania for several years along with other positions.]
He put his name on a list of volunteers to lead militia troops. After the July votes, he headed off to Perth Amboy to take charge of A Battalion of Pennsylvania 'Associators'. He arrived back in Philadelphia after the Aug 2 'Signing', so his name was added much later. Probably shortly after Jan 1777.
Vandals looted the properties of Ellery and Clymer and Hall and Gwinnett and Walton and Heyward and Rutledge and Middleton.
This is a phrase most often repeated in many of the copy-cat essays. Many don't spell Ellery or Rutledge correctly. It is probably true that some of the properties of those men were vandalized. [one of Ellery's homes was burned]
The same can be said for many more of the Signers, and nearly all of the wealthy people in the war-torn areas of our country in those years. Both Armies, the British and the Americans, 'foraged' for food. If a property owner had food, or lumber or livestock or wagons or horses, any army passing through was likely to appropriate them for their use. The most spacious homes were commandeered for billeting soldiers and officers of both sides. Loyalists would vandalize the homes of their Patriot neighbors.
Notable among the homes which were in occupied territory, but were left with little or no damage are homes belonging to; Floyd, Lewis Morris, Hopkinson, Stockton, Middleton, Witherspoon, Hart, Nelson, Jefferson, Harrison, Heyward, both Adams's, Hancock, Rush, Huntington, Wilson, Robert Morris, and the Lee brothers.

And Thomas Nelson, Jr., of Virginia, raised two million dollars on his own signature to provision our allies . . . the French fleet. After the war he personally paid back the loans, wiped out his entire estate. He was never reimbursed by his government.
In the final battle for Yorktown he, Nelson, urged General Washington to fire on his . . . Nelson's . . . own home, which was occupied by Cornwallis.
It was destroyed. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave. Thomas Nelson, Jr., had pledged "his life, his fortune and his sacred honor."
The $2,000,000 figure is repeated often. That might be an accurate translation of 30,000 1780 American pounds to 1956 US dollars. 30,000 pounds is what Nelson tried to have reimbursed by the VA government after 1783. The VA government did refuse to pay back the loans, but his estate was never in any danger of being 'wiped out'.
In the battle of Yorktown, Nelson, as Governor of VA, and the head of the VA militia was in command of the American battery which was destroying the headquarters of Cornwallis in Yorktown. The home, however, was not his, but the home of his uncle and namesake, Thomas, The Secretary, Nelson.
Soon after that, Nelson was officer of the day and reviewing the French troops in the center of the American lines. It was on this day that legend says he offered 5 guineas to any French artillerist who could hit his home. [a prominent feature in Yorktown, even today]
The legend, where I've seen it repeated by respected authorities does not mention him seeing Cornwallis near it, and indications are that Cornwallis was holed up in a root cellar on his uncle's property. His home was damaged, though not beyond repair. It is a National Park site and is visited by thousands every year.
Nelson did pay back all the loans that he could during his lifetime, but all of VA's elite were suffering through a post-war recession. Cash was in short supply. He sold some of his properties in Europe before his death. When he died, though 'cash poor', he was still among the top ten largest landholders in VA. His will allowed for the selling of several properties in VA to raise cash to pay off the rest of his debts. After those debts were settled, the remaining several [9or 10] plantations were divided up among his family, a friend, and one of his slaves.
The Hessians seized the home of Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey.
The reason we know that Hessians occupied Hopkinson's home is that one of those Hessians borrowed a book from Hopkinson's personal library, left a message on the flyleaf, and had it returned to the family.
Francis Lewis had his home and everything destroyed, his wife imprisoned. She died within a few months.
Lewis's Long Island home was apparently destroyed. Probably some of his NY City properties were destroyed too. His business, turned over to his son but still a source of income, appeared to survive the war intact.
Mrs. Lewis refused the order given to all Long Islanders to leave Long Island. [Mr. Lewis was in Philadelphia attending to his duties in Congress] She was imprisoned, and later exchanged for the wives of two British officials who the Americans had captured.
Her health, though probably adversely affected by her imprisonment had been failing for years. She died about two years after her exchange in Philadelphia.
Richard Stockton, who signed that Declaration, was captured and mistreated and his health broken to the extent that he died at fifty-one. His estate was pillaged.
Stockton is alone in that he is the only one of the five Signers captured that was not a military prisoner of war. He spent a couple months in prison. His release is reported in various places as being obtained by an exchange, or by his signing of an oath to cease rebellious activities. About a year after his release he began fighting a lip cancer which took his life in two more years.
His estate, Morven, in Princeton, was pillaged by soldiers from both sides as they passed through. One of George Washington's letters asks American soldiers to return any of Stockton's letters or papers that they may have picked up.
Thomas Heyward, Jr., was captured when Charleston fell.
When Charleston fell, all of the officers of the Rebel Army were paroled. Shortly afterward, the British had second thoughts, and ordered them all rounded up. Heyward and Rutledge, and Middleton were all officers.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside while she was dying. Their thirteen children fled in all directions for their lives His fields and gristmill were laid waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves and returned home after the war to find his wife dead, his children gone, his properties gone; he died a few weeks later of exhaustion and a broken heart.
Hart's wife died a month before the British invaded NJ. Their children were grown, there being only two who were still minors. The British occupied that part of NJ for less than 2 months.
After returning to his farm, Hart spent 2 more years serving in the NJ Provincial Assembly before taking a leave due to his kidney stones which claimed his life in 1779, nearly 2 1/2 years after his harrowing experiences in the woods.
Lewis Morris saw his land destroyed, his family scattered.
Morris' property was in one of those contested areas of Westchester County, NY. His son, Lewis Morris Jr., wrote to him in 1776;
".....There is a regiment at Morrisania, and your own house is made a barrack of, .....and there are troops all about us which makes it impossible to prosecute the business of the farm and besides they press your horses; the two coaches horses were pressed this afternoon which Colonel Shee has returned, and I believe unless speedily secured your breeding mares will come next. . . . Your fat cattle are in the hands of the commissary.... Colonel Hand's regiment plunder every body in Westchester County indiscriminately, even yourself have not escaped. Montrasseurs Island they plundered and committed the most unwarrantable destruction upon it; fifty dozen of bottles were broke in the cellar, the paper tore from the rooms and every pane of glass broke to pieces......"
[Cited as '-MORRIS, "Letters," N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., VIII, 440-443' in Commager & Morris' "Spirit of Seventy-Six' p478]
Lewis Jr. was speaking of the American Army, and accurately predicted the fall of Morrissania [Morris' home] to the British in coming weeks.
Morris' family was surely scattered. His children were mostly grown, and 3 of his sons served in the Continental Army. His wife, and I assume his younger children, went to live with friends when the Continental Army moved onto his property.
His wife later joined him in Philadelphia. After the war, they returned to Morrissania & rebuilt it to the magnificence which it shows to visitors today. He died there, with his family in 1798.


Philip Livingston died within a few months from the hard ships of the war.
Livingston died in York PA, June 12, 1778 of 'dropsy'. He was attending Congress, but took a months leave for his illness before he died.
John Hancock history remembers best due to a quirk of fate rather than anything he stood for. That great, sweeping signature attesting to his vanity towers over the others. One of the wealthiest men in New England, he stood outside Boston one terrible night of the war and said, "Burn Boston, though it makes John Hancock a beggar, if the public good requires it."
The legend goes that he used those words to affirm his agreement with those in the Committee of Safety who were suggesting burning Boston as a means of saving it from the British. [in 1775]
(.....)
Of the fifty-six, few were long to survive.
Nine died before the revolution was ended in 1783. Another twelve died in the next decade. Among them was an octogenarian, 2 septuarians, and none under 44. 19 yrs after signing, half were still alive. Most lived longer than their fathers had.
Five were captured by the British and tortured before they died.
Only one was captured because he signed. Richard Stockton was arrested by Loyalists and turned over to the British to be held in prison. The other four were prisoners of war.
There is no record of any Signer being tortured, or mistreated because they signed. The prisons on both sides were hell-holes.
Twelve had their homes .. . from Rhode Island to Charleston .. . sacked, looted, occupied by the enemy, or burned.
Here Harvey contradicts himself. Above he writes that three of the Georgian Signers' homes were looted, and here he implies that the looting, etc. stretched from Rhode Island to Charleston. Has he missed the Boston home of John Adams that was occupied, or the New Hampshire home of Bartlett which was burned by Loyalists in 1774?
I'll restate my thoughts from above. These homes were treated no differently than those of other wealthy Americans whose properties were in occupied territory. Both Armies took what they needed to fight a war.
Two lost their sons in the army. One had two sons captured.
I'll treat these two together because it is a puzzle I've tried to unravel for some time.
James Witherspoon was killed at the battle of Germantown.
Abraham Clark had two sons that were captured.
Historians are in agreement on those two facts. The second son that was killed remains a puzzle that no-one seems to be able to answer. I have two theories.
1. The second son referred to is the son of Henry Laurens. Laurens was a President of Congress during the war, though he was not a member of the 1776 Congress, so he did not sign. But his son was killed in a skirmish near Charleston. If the author meant to include Laurens, however, the number of 'captured' would rise to six, as Laurens himself was arrested on his way to Europe, and spent several months in the Tower of London.
2. Historians agree that Thomas and Aaron Clark, sons of Signer Abraham Clark, were POW's. Most accounts note that Captain Thomas was captured twice and escaped both times. What they aren't in agreement on is a young 19 yr. old Andrew Clark who died as a prisoner on the prison ship 'Jersey'. Even the Abraham Clark society cannot seem to either prove or disprove the connection to the Signer. But if we accept that the author meant the youngest Clark was killed, then he should have said 'one signer had three sons captured'.
3. A third possibility, and one I haven't been able to follow up on yet is John Morton.
I saw this posting on a genealogy mail list ;
"Martin's _History of Chester_ (1850) indicates that John MORTON, son of John MORTON, Signer of the
Declaration of Independence, died on board the prison ship Falmouth in New York Harbor, during the American Revolution."
I haven't seen it mentioned in the bios I've read about Morton-- but I haven't read a thorough biography and most bios pay little notice to the children of the Signers. The ones that do mention John Morton mention a son named John born about 1755, so he would have been the right age. The Falmouth was described in Barber's history of NY as a Hospital ship, though it made little difference in the mortality onboard.
A promising lead, but yet to be confirmed.

Nine of the fifty-six died in the war, from its hardships or from its more merciful bullets.
Nine died during the war. One died from a bullet; fired in a duel with a fellow officer. None died at the hands of the British, and none died due to 'hardships'. One was lost at sea.
It's easy enough to check to see who died before the war was over. Here they are, and, when available, a cause of death.
Morton, John, PA, died April 1777 aged 53 of ??? (K&BJ give no detail of how)[father died ae41]
Gwinnett, Button, GA, died May 16, 1777 aged 42, from wounds sustained in a duel.
Livingston, Philip, NY, died June 12, 1778 at 62, of "dropsy of the chest" [father died ae63]
Lynch, Thomas Jr., SC, died [probably] in 1779 ae30. Lost at sea. [father died ae49]
Hart, John, NJ, died May 11, 1779; aged 68[66?], of kidney stones [father died ae63]
Ross, George, PA, died July 14, 1779 aged 49, of gout [father died ae76]
Hewes, Joseph, NC, died Oct 10, 1779, aged 49, according to Bakeless of "overwork and irregular bachelor hours" [father died ae80-90]
Taylor, George, PA, Feb 23, 1781 at 65 yr. old
Stockton, Richard, NJ, died Feb 28, 1781 at 50, of Cancer of the lip. [father died ae86]


I don't know what impression you had of the men who met that hot summer in Philadelphia. But I think it is important that we remember this about them.
They were not poor men or wild-eyed pirates. They were men of means. Rich men, most of them, who enjoyed much ease and luxury in their personal living.
Despite disagreeing with the overall tone of this essay, Harvey and I are nearly in agreement here. With the notable exception of Sam Adams, who was neither rich nor 'calm', and a few of the more radical members of that Congress, most of the Signers were respectable statesmen of great wealth.
Not hungry men. Prosperous men. Wealthy landowners, substantially secure in their prosperity.
But they considered liberty-and this is as much as I shall say of it-they had learned that liberty-is so much more important than security-that they pledged their lives . . . their fortunes . . . and their sacred honor.

Much has been written about the motivations of the Signers and the Founders in general. From my study, I believe that as a body they were putting their country above their own personal gains. There is no doubt that they risked their own lives & property along with that of their countrymen.
I'm not sure whether I admire more the representative that voted no, but signed the Declaration or the representative that personally felt it was a bad idea, but voted yes because his constituents had expressed their wishes that he support independence.
I admire the Congress at large for, when it was inevitable that the vote would pass, doing everything in their power to make a united front. Both the delegates who stayed home and the new appointees, who were unable to take part in much more than a vote that had already been decided, are a tribute to a body who put the country and their countrymen above their personal egos.
And they fulfilled their pledge.
They paid the price.
And freedom was born.
All of the Americans who lived in those times 'paid the price'. John Adams wrote years later that all through the Revolution he would have given anything to have things returned to the way they were. He wasn't lamenting his own losses. Any human who has ever seen the suffering of the soldiers and innocents in a war zone has to wonder if an armed conflict is ever a worthy price for change. But the clock can't be turned back. The deed was done. And from it a glorious country emerged.

Carole
06-22-2008, 10:28 AM
At the end of his talk Williams speaks of the Signers (Dec of Independence)

Here are two versions online of the fates of the Signers.

The Blue Quill Series
Concord Learning Systems
________________________________________
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/signfate.html


A Rebuttal to "The Price They Paid" Essays
http://home.nycap.rr.com/elbrecht/signers/HARVEY-reb.htm

JosephTheLibertarian
06-22-2008, 11:13 AM
All you need is money

hmm. but there must be loads of red tape in order to artificially protect the oil giants from competition.

scandinaviany3
06-22-2008, 12:35 PM
I saw this posted earlier on the site.

There is a lot of fuel cell/catalyst work that i know of.

its interesting to see this system have an on board system as it does.

Anyone know anyone in japan that can check it out


http://www.genepax.co.jp/en/

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/

If so there are a lot of conversion places for prius's and other cars that the movement could get behind...

Then areas like alaska, washington state, oregon would become the new fuel capitols of the world along with other coastline states.

Wouldnt hurt that these areas are strong freedom areas

phoenixrising
06-22-2008, 12:59 PM
this one has been out for a while: http://domesticfuel.com/2006/05/14/water-power/

satchelmcqueen
06-22-2008, 01:42 PM
Thats ignorant. I work in the GULF and We will not run out of oil in 5 years. The same people whom say that has been saying that for Years and guess what I've been doing this for 12 years and We havent run out yet. Now the gulf can only support about 25% of our energy needs but it does need to be opened up. We need to use every avenue until our country can start using alternative energy. I would love to see the day when the offshore barges were contracted to build huge wind mills off the gulf.

i bet thats one interesting and tough job. how would one go about getting work like that? i bet windmills and solar collectors would be huge out in the ocean since there is no shade (except clouds) and wind would be alot i guess.

TastyWheat
06-25-2008, 12:17 PM
This is a big issue of property rights. I think ANWR is property of Alaska and not the federal government. The federal government therefore shouldn't be able to tell Alaska what they can and can't do with that land. According to coastal water boundaries anything within 3-10 miles of shore is state property (varies by state). The federal government should have no say what happens in this area. The next 200 miles is federal property and they can deny drilling in that area if they choose. Anything beyond that is fair game.

If federal and local governments respected property rights there would be very little debate on this subject right now.