Discussion:
liberal Democrat wacko environmentalists are starving USA of oil-110 year supply USA
(too old to reply)
Dwight D. Eisenhower
2008-06-21 13:02:10 UTC
Permalink
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...l_N.htm?csp=34


go to above link- map on left side of page, is map of North America

click on 3 areas of oil reserves- offshore, oil shale, and ANWR Alaska

total reserves of around 828 billion barrels, sitting here in USA
alone- easy to get

that is a 110 year supply at current USA useage rate of 21 million
barrels/day

we don't need Middle East oil, we have our own- but the Democrats are
choking our domestic supply off, so we buy hybrids and battery cars
instead

GET WITH IT PEOPLE- otherwise you'll be walking- sign petition in
other thread here, it's the smart thing to do, for us and future
generations, and for America

national petition to drill in USA for oil, to reduce prices

http://www.americansolutions.com/act...b-346a1e096659



first online youtube video survey

http://www.americansolutions.com/Gen...9-abfdc19abf41
The Trucker
2008-06-21 15:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...l_N.htm?csp=34
go to above link- map on left side of page, is map of North America
click on 3 areas of oil reserves- offshore, oil shale, and ANWR Alaska
total reserves of around 828 billion barrels, sitting here in USA
alone- easy to get
that is a 110 year supply at current USA useage rate of 21 million
barrels/day
we don't need Middle East oil, we have our own- but the Democrats are
choking our domestic supply off, so we buy hybrids and battery cars
instead
GET WITH IT PEOPLE- otherwise you'll be walking- sign petition in
other thread here, it's the smart thing to do, for us and future
generations, and for America
national petition to drill in USA for oil, to reduce prices
http://www.americansolutions.com/act...b-346a1e096659
first online youtube video survey
http://www.americansolutions.com/Gen...9-abfdc19abf41
You people are sick. You want to tie the economy to a resource that is
absolutely not sustainable. Forget about the environmental damages. Look
that the cliff you are headed toward. You say, of goody. We can drive our
SUV's for a hundred years. What happens after that is too damned bad. The
real reason for your position is the yearning for oil company and
Republican dominance over the people and the economy. You love fascism.
All of the alternatives other than nuclear power are MARKET alternatives.
This is to say that the alternatives are cost and price controlled by the
actual manufacturers of the energy or the converters of non varying
sustainable energy streams. Nuclear is the only alternative that
preserves centralized power and that is, therefore, the darling of the
fascists.

A reliance on oil is fascism unless you actually do want to nationalize
the oil companies. In that case (which I do not want) we might have
something to discuss.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
V***@tcq.net
2008-06-21 15:25:43 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 8:02 am, "Dwight D. Eisenhower" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

still shilling eh, just a different handle. how many handles you got
shill? and do you have the personalities to match:)

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006040.html

They want it all. The very heart and soul of the oil industry is an
unfettered and unlimited access to all suspected deposits of oil
reserves, they sit on proven reserves till the price goes up, then
they dribble it out, It is therefore crucial to the oil corporations
to secure leases on all potential oil reserves

June 18, 2008
Oil & Gasoline: The Politics

There is a factual story to be told about the multi-million dollar war
being waged between the Oil and Gas and Republican team on the one
side, and the Democrats, consumer, and environmental groups on the
other. The factual story however, leaves much room for guesswork as to
why the facts are as they are. Let’s examine this story as logically
as possible.
Folks don't want oil derricks in on their front lawns, town squares,
or Central Park. Hence, laws were passed ages ago regulating where
mining and drilling operations may take place, to protect towns,
farmlands, and even waterways, all necessary to American life.
The cost to the oil industry to buy up private properties where oil
might sit, is a very expensive proposition. Oil companies seek oil
deposits in the least expensive places possible to drill. Those places
happen to be on Federal lands, bought and paid for by taxpayers,
otherwise called the Public, and offshore.
Therefore, the Oil based corporations seek control of the reins of
government power to avail themselves and shareholders of the least
cost and maximum profit potential as possible, both now and into the
distant future. These oil corporations are spending millions on TV
advertising promoting an image of responsible management of America's
energy needs, as environmentally friendly investors in the future, and
in lobbying efforts seeking the authority to drill wherever and
whenever it will be most profitable.
The Republicans are tied to these oil corporation efforts by campaign
contributions, and more importantly, by their supporter's major
investments in oil stocks and corporations. Democrats are being
lobbied by the oil corporations as well, but view themselves as the
champions of the environment and alternative non-polluting energy
sources, which a majority of Americans also sanction. And here lies
the field of battle between the Democrats, Environmentalists, and
Coastal local governments on the one side, and Republicans, oil
corporations and their shareholders on the other.
10's of billions in tax payer dollars are the prize being fought for
on the U.S. Congress floor. Democrats want to subsidize alternative
energy source innovation and production and foster independence from
foreign oil which will require a long term commitment to that goal.
Republicans want the oil companies to have nearly unrestricted access
to oil deposits anywhere and anytime they discover them even though,
this would reduce dependence upon imported oil very little as our
domestic demand will increase as domestic supplies are increased.
However, more native oil supplies would mean more profits for American
oil corporations into the future.
It is a fact that the U.S. government has issued vast leases for oil
drilling on land and offshore which the oil corporations have sat on
without drilling them. There are 1 million square acres of Gulf Of
Mexico oil leases purchased by oil corporations which remain untapped.
Which begs the question, why are oil corporations fighting for oil
rights on the East and West Coast continental shelves and the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) when they have leases for vast areas
of federal lands and offshore sites which they have not begun to
drill?
It is a question no one in government or the media seems to want to
ask, nor are capable of answering with certainty and evidence. Which
leaves the answer open to speculation. But, there is an obvious
answer. This little known fact of sitting on, and not drilling,
available oil field leases has the effect of lowering oil supply of
domestic oil. Which in turn creates both higher profits on current oil
tapped as well as, and this is important, the illusion that there is
an emergency situation regarding shortage of oil the Republicans and
oil corporations can use to argue their need to get leases for areas
previously denied them.
They want it all. The very heart and soul of the oil industry is an
unfettered and unlimited access to all suspected deposits of oil
reserves. If alternative sources of energy are found to replace oil,
the oil corporations are out of the oil business, which has been an
extremely profitable business to be in. It is therefore, crucial to
the oil corporations to secure leases on all potential oil reserves
BEFORE such alternative energy sources are developed. Once alternative
energy sources and technologies are developed and marketed to the
point of being cost competitive with oil based energy, the oil
industry will immediately become less profitable as it competes with
alternatives for a lower price.
The oil industry with record profits today, can afford to fight this
battle on the airwaves and in the Congress to secure access to all of
America's oil reserves. Once alternatives to oil energy are
marketable, their profits will reduce, and the costs of fighting these
battles with environmentalists and Democrats will become less
affordable. Therefore, it is in their interest to promote the false
image of oil shortages and emergency need to secure access to all oil
reserves everywhere, despite the fact that millions of acres untapped
leases to drill are already available to the oil corporations.
This "crisis" is their means of swaying both the public and the
Congress to grant rights to drill on the East and West Coasts and
ANWR, while they can afford to wage that public perception war. There
are many issues being fought over, federalism and state's rights to
preserve the aesthetics and tourism industries for their coast lines,
for example, and taxation of oil corporations while they are reaping
historical records in profits. But, the core and central issue is
whether oil will remain the mainstay of energy and product development
for the rest of this century, or not.
In other words, this is a battle between the oil industry of the 20th
century, and alternative energy industries present and future of the
21st century. This is a transition point in history. There is every
indication that if sufficient investments are made today in
alternative energies and non-oil based technologies, that America
could become extremely oil independent, not just independent of
foreign oil imports, over the next 25 years. That would spell an
unprecedented decline in the oil industry and severe contraction in
their profitability margins throughout the rest of this century and
beyond.
The oil industry and Republicans view the Democrat's proposal to
increase taxes on oil corporations and invest those revenues in the
demise of the oil industry by fostering research and development of
alternative energies and technologies as unconscionable. The
Democrat's and Environmentalist's view as unconscionable the Oil
industry's sitting on thousands of untapped oil drilling leases, all
the while crying oil shortage.
You will hear Republicans say drilling in ANWR will reduce our oil
dependence. This will be true, 10 years from now, and perhaps for no
more than a couple years. You will hear Democrats say taxing oil
corporations and funding energy alternatives with those taxes will
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This may be true in from 5 to 20
years from now, depending on how quickly alternatives can be perfected
and marketed. The bottom line is, higher oil prices are hear to stay
until competitive alternatives are put in place. Oil may drop as low
as $80 to $100 per barrel in the future for a short period. That drop
however, will only be part of a 2 steps higher one step lower trend in
oil prices, until there is an available competitively priced
alternative energy source for oil.
Gasoline is a matter of refinery capacity. There is no oil shortage in
the world. We know this because not a single oil tanker anywhere in
the world has pulled up to a port to fill up and been turned away
empty or less than full. In America, there is an oil refinery capacity
problem which creates seasonal and regional gasoline shortages. As
these shortages occur more frequently, the price of gasoline spikes
higher. And because they are occurring more frequently, the price dips
don't dip as low as the previous one. This creates a trend of ever
higher gasoline prices overall.
There is also the speculative pressure on gasoline prices. If the
Democrats and environmentalists and alternative energy technology
start-ups win their battle against the oil industry and Republicans,
there will be no need for newer oil refineries. This makes the
investment in new oil refineries a very risky one, until the outcome
of the war over oil is determined.
It is crucial for the future of America that voters and the public
bear this discussion in mind going forward. It is after all, their,
and our children's future and pocketbooks which are hanging in the
balance. It is the environmental quality of our nation and earth also
hanging in the balance.
Some excellent article sources for the political battles being waged
over this issue are:
Billions could be lost in Gulf oil leases.
Happy Earth Day, How About An Oil Lease?
Democrats take jab at holders of unused oil leases.
Posted by David R. Remer at June 18, 2008 04:51 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080612/pl_nm/usa_congress_energy_dc

House Republicans vow push on oil drilling
By Donna Smith
Thu Jun 12, 3:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans vowed on Thursday to
make a major push for more U.S. oil and gas drilling and in the
process force Democrats to cast difficult votes at a time of
skyrocketing gasoline prices.
With the November congressional and presidential elections looming,
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are
blaming each other for rising energy costs and gasoline prices that
are topping $4 a gallon.
Republicans cited Democratic opposition to opening up the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and more offshore areas to oil and gas
exploration and drilling.
House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans would try
to raise public awareness and force more votes on the issue. He said
Republicans would back a comprehensive approach of more oil and gas
drilling as well as energy conservation and moves toward alternative
fuels supported by Democrats.
"Over the next five months, House Republicans will fight every single
day to hold Democrats accountable for their dismal record on producing
more energy in our country," Boehner told reporters.
Many democrats oppose opening ANWR and more offshore sites to oil and
gas drilling and support conservation and developing more alternative
energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But
Republicans believe rising gasoline prices will build public support
for expanding U.S. oil and gas development.
"We cannot drill our way out of this," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of
California countered. Opening the wildlife refuge in Alaska would
reduce U.S. gasoline prices by one penny per gallon, she said. She and
other Democrats blame President George W. Bush's energy policies for
the gasoline price spike.
"A barrel of oil now costs four times more than it did when President
Bush took office," Pelosi said. "Two oil men in the White House, cost
of oil four times higher. Price at the pump: $4 a gallon."
She said oil companies already lease about 68 million acres of land
that is not being drilled. She questioned why oil companies were
pushing to open up the ANWR in Alaska when so many acres they
currently hold are not being developed.
On that point, a group of Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation
that would compel oil companies to drill in lands they are now leasing
from the federal government.
"Oil corporations are trying to take control of as much land now
during the oil-friendly Bush administration years, but are holding off
on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so
they can make even greater profits," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New
York Democrat and a sponsor of the drilling bill.
The bill would force oil companies to pay fees for leased lands that
go unused. The fees would increase over time. Republicans argue
current law already requires oil companies to "use or lose" the lands
they lease.
(Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Christian
Wiessner)
V***@tcq.net
2008-06-21 15:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by V***@tcq.net
still shilling eh, just a different handle. how many handles you got
shill? and do you have the personalities to match:)
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006040.html
They want it all. The very heart and soul of the oil industry is an
unfettered and unlimited access to all suspected deposits of oil
reserves, they sit on proven reserves till the price goes up, then
they dribble it out, It is therefore crucial to the oil corporations
to secure leases on all potential oil reserves
June 18, 2008
Oil & Gasoline: The Politics
There is a factual story to be told about the multi-million dollar war
being waged between the Oil and Gas and Republican team on the one
side, and the Democrats, consumer, and environmental groups on the
other. The factual story however, leaves much room for guesswork as to
why the facts are as they are. Let’s examine this story as logically
as possible.
Folks don't want oil derricks in on their front lawns, town squares,
or Central Park. Hence, laws were passed ages ago regulating where
mining and drilling operations may take place, to protect towns,
farmlands, and even waterways, all necessary to American life.
The cost to the oil industry to buy up private properties where oil
might sit, is a very expensive proposition. Oil companies seek oil
deposits in the least expensive places possible to drill. Those places
happen to be on Federal lands, bought and paid for by taxpayers,
otherwise called the Public, and offshore.
Therefore, the Oil based corporations seek control of the reins of
government power to avail themselves and shareholders of the least
cost and maximum profit potential as possible, both now and into the
distant future. These oil corporations are spending millions on TV
advertising promoting an image of responsible management of America's
energy needs, as environmentally friendly investors in the future, and
in lobbying efforts seeking the authority to drill wherever and
whenever it will be most profitable.
The Republicans are tied to these oil corporation efforts by campaign
contributions, and more importantly, by their supporter's major
investments in oil stocks and corporations. Democrats are being
lobbied by the oil corporations as well, but view themselves as the
champions of the environment and alternative non-polluting energy
sources, which a majority of Americans also sanction. And here lies
the field of battle between the Democrats, Environmentalists, and
Coastal local governments on the one side, and Republicans, oil
corporations and their shareholders on the other.
10's of billions in tax payer dollars are the prize being fought for
on the U.S. Congress floor. Democrats want to subsidize alternative
energy source innovation and production and foster independence from
foreign oil which will require a long term commitment to that goal.
Republicans want the oil companies to have nearly unrestricted access
to oil deposits anywhere and anytime they discover them even though,
this would reduce dependence upon imported oil very little as our
domestic demand will increase as domestic supplies are increased.
However, more native oil supplies would mean more profits for American
oil corporations into the future.
It is a fact that the U.S. government has issued vast leases for oil
drilling on land and offshore which the oil corporations have sat on
without drilling them. There are 1 million square acres of Gulf Of
Mexico oil leases purchased by oil corporations which remain untapped.
Which begs the question, why are oil corporations fighting for oil
rights on the East and West Coast continental shelves and the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) when they have leases for vast areas
of federal lands and offshore sites which they have not begun to
drill?
It is a question no one in government or the media seems to want to
ask, nor are capable of answering with certainty and evidence. Which
leaves the answer open to speculation. But, there is an obvious
answer. This little known fact of sitting on, and not drilling,
available oil field leases has the effect of lowering oil supply of
domestic oil. Which in turn creates both higher profits on current oil
tapped as well as, and this is important, the illusion that there is
an emergency situation regarding shortage of oil the Republicans and
oil corporations can use to argue their need to get leases for areas
previously denied them.
They want it all. The very heart and soul of the oil industry is an
unfettered and unlimited access to all suspected deposits of oil
reserves. If alternative sources of energy are found to replace oil,
the oil corporations are out of the oil business, which has been an
extremely profitable business to be in. It is therefore, crucial to
the oil corporations to secure leases on all potential oil reserves
BEFORE such alternative energy sources are developed. Once alternative
energy sources and technologies are developed and marketed to the
point of being cost competitive with oil based energy, the oil
industry will immediately become less profitable as it competes with
alternatives for a lower price.
The oil industry with record profits today, can afford to fight this
battle on the airwaves and in the Congress to secure access to all of
America's oil reserves. Once alternatives to oil energy are
marketable, their profits will reduce, and the costs of fighting these
battles with environmentalists and Democrats will become less
affordable. Therefore, it is in their interest to promote the false
image of oil shortages and emergency need to secure access to all oil
reserves everywhere, despite the fact that millions of acres untapped
leases to drill are already available to the oil corporations.
This "crisis" is their means of swaying both the public and the
Congress to grant rights to drill on the East and West Coasts and
ANWR, while they can afford to wage that public perception war. There
are many issues being fought over, federalism and state's rights to
preserve the aesthetics and tourism industries for their coast lines,
for example, and taxation of oil corporations while they are reaping
historical records in profits. But, the core and central issue is
whether oil will remain the mainstay of energy and product development
for the rest of this century, or not.
In other words, this is a battle between the oil industry of the 20th
century, and alternative energy industries present and future of the
21st century. This is a transition point in history. There is every
indication that if sufficient investments are made today in
alternative energies and non-oil based technologies, that America
could become extremely oil independent, not just independent of
foreign oil imports, over the next 25 years. That would spell an
unprecedented decline in the oil industry and severe contraction in
their profitability margins throughout the rest of this century and
beyond.
The oil industry and Republicans view the Democrat's proposal to
increase taxes on oil corporations and invest those revenues in the
demise of the oil industry by fostering research and development of
alternative energies and technologies as unconscionable. The
Democrat's and Environmentalist's view as unconscionable the Oil
industry's sitting on thousands of untapped oil drilling leases, all
the while crying oil shortage.
You will hear Republicans say drilling in ANWR will reduce our oil
dependence. This will be true, 10 years from now, and perhaps for no
more than a couple years. You will hear Democrats say taxing oil
corporations and funding energy alternatives with those taxes will
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This may be true in from 5 to 20
years from now, depending on how quickly alternatives can be perfected
and marketed. The bottom line is, higher oil prices are hear to stay
until competitive alternatives are put in place. Oil may drop as low
as $80 to $100 per barrel in the future for a short period. That drop
however, will only be part of a 2 steps higher one step lower trend in
oil prices, until there is an available competitively priced
alternative energy source for oil.
Gasoline is a matter of refinery capacity. There is no oil shortage in
the world. We know this because not a single oil tanker anywhere in
the world has pulled up to a port to fill up and been turned away
empty or less than full. In America, there is an oil refinery capacity
problem which creates seasonal and regional gasoline shortages. As
these shortages occur more frequently, the price of gasoline spikes
higher. And because they are occurring more frequently, the price dips
don't dip as low as the previous one. This creates a trend of ever
higher gasoline prices overall.
There is also the speculative pressure on gasoline prices. If the
Democrats and environmentalists and alternative energy technology
start-ups win their battle against the oil industry and Republicans,
there will be no need for newer oil refineries. This makes the
investment in new oil refineries a very risky one, until the outcome
of the war over oil is determined.
It is crucial for the future of America that voters and the public
bear this discussion in mind going forward. It is after all, their,
and our children's future and pocketbooks which are hanging in the
balance. It is the environmental quality of our nation and earth also
hanging in the balance.
Some excellent article sources for the political battles being waged
Billions could be lost in Gulf oil leases.
Happy Earth Day, How About An Oil Lease?
Democrats take jab at holders of unused oil leases.
Posted by David R. Remer at June 18, 2008 04:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080612/pl_nm/usa_congress_energy_dc
House Republicans vow push on oil drilling
By Donna Smith
Thu Jun 12, 3:58 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans vowed on Thursday to
make a major push for more U.S. oil and gas drilling and in the ...
read more »
r***@comcast.net
2008-06-21 17:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Ike! I loved ya!

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my
gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity
they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our
nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing
you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I
shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and
solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my
successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and
farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will
labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed
with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential
agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which
will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous
basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West
Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate
post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during
these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have,
on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather
than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the
nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress
ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to
do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has
witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved
our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the
strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the
world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that
America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our
unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how
we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes
have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement,
and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among
nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or
readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at
home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the
conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention,
absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope,
atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.
Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration.
To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the
emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which
enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the
burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake.
Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted
course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or
domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that
some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous
solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer
elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure
every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied
research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising
in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to
travel.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no
potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration;
the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance
between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost
and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and
the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements
as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual;
balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of
the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it
eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their
Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have
responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no
potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by
any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of
World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and
as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk
emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to
this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in
the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more
than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make
swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation
of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence –
economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every
Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our
industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more
formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been
overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing
fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the
fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a
revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge
costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute
for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now
hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that
public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present – and is gravely to be regarded.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate
these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free
society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As
we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government –
must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our
own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We
cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without
asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We
want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become
the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that
this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a
community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud
confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to
the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as
we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table,
though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the
certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing
imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not
with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is
so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official
responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of
disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering
sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly
destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built
over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting
peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward
our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a
private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help
the world advance along that road.

So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you
for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war
and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy;
as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve
performance in the future.

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that
all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May
we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble
with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to
America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have
their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity
shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may
experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will
understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are
insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the
scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear
from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will
come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of
mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to
do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.


;->
r***@comcast.net
2008-06-21 15:44:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:02:10 -0700 (PDT), "Dwight D. Eisenhower"
Post by Dwight D. Eisenhower
we don't need Middle East oil, we have our own- but the Democrats are
choking our domestic supply off, so we buy hybrids and battery cars
instead
What nonsense. Look up how many oil leases issued aren't being used
already.
ZerkonX
2008-06-26 14:39:09 UTC
Permalink
the Democrats are choking our domestic supply off...
Wrong. Foreign oil surpassed domestic oil production under Nixon.

The beauty of Foreign oil to crooks is:

inventories/real prices can be kept very private
Necessitates the need for a larger military (SEE: military-industrial
complex)
Justifies a need for direct and indirect involvement in the internal
affairs of foreign governments
Expands a quasi-constitutional concept of 'national interest'. Good for
press conferences and the faithful.

More?

It is not Democrats and Republicans. It is one entire government and
money system of overlapping corruption, ignorance and stupidity.

Oil should have become a none-issue At LEAST 30 years ago.
The Trucker
2008-06-26 17:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZerkonX
the Democrats are choking our domestic supply off...
Wrong. Foreign oil surpassed domestic oil production under Nixon.
inventories/real prices can be kept very private
Necessitates the need for a larger military (SEE: military-industrial
complex)
Justifies a need for direct and indirect involvement in the internal
affairs of foreign governments
Expands a quasi-constitutional concept of 'national interest'. Good for
press conferences and the faithful.
More?
It is not Democrats and Republicans. It is one entire government and
money system of overlapping corruption, ignorance and stupidity.
Oil should have become a none-issue At LEAST 30 years ago.
That is all much too simplistic.

So long as we had access to very cheap oil and a lack of any real
competition for its use then importing oil made good sense. But that is
not the case any longer and our dependence on oil is killing us. The
answer is conservation and alternatives that leave us independent of the
rest of the world and independent of centralized control.

The later day Republicans (neocons) are fascists that seek to control the
world by controlling oil. The advent of algae based biofuels is a clear
threat to fascist control.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Loading...