Who needs their oil, anyway? ~ By Herman Cain

A revitalized and responsibly unleashed energy sector could be a significant economic stimulus to our economy right here at home.

Working families can't afford to spend more of their discretionary income on gasoline and energy costs, especially in a stalled economy.

America can't afford to continue spending billions of dollars to buy something that we can produce right here at home if we stop sitting on it. We must stop making other countries rich at our expense.

It's not just economic. It is common sense and a matter of national security.

This column will tell you what Herman Cain's energy policy would be if he was President of the United States! Wait, did I say that? Of course I did, because it is no secret that Herman Cain has an exploratory committee set up to determine if he should run for President.

The brilliance of this article is in helping people to understand that when energy prices increase, it ripples through the economy. Energy prices are directly related to the prices you pay for groceries and the number of jobs that are available. So, isn't it just common sense to develop our own energy in America, create jobs, and avoid having to purchase energy resources from countries that don't like us?

Who needs their oil, anyway?

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

March 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In the early 1970s, America's dependence on foreign oil was a little over 20 percent. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is over 65 percent. We have become more and more energy dependent because we have never had a serious energy independence strategy, and we still do not have one.

Energy independence is within our grasp because we have plenty of energy natural resources. We have billions of barrels of oil, plenty of natural gas reserves, more coal than any other country in the world, lots of places we could build dams for hydroelectricity and some of the safest nuclear power technology in the world.

Wind and solar energy development is not going to get us to energy independence. Studies such as the Department of Energy's "Billion Ton Study" have shown that those two sources could at best provide 5 percent of our energy needs combined.

But by maximizing all of our other domestic energy resources, we could become energy independent. This would not only help to keep down the cost of gasoline and the cost of nearly everything we buy, but it would also be a boost to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. But most importantly, energy independence would keep us from being vulnerable to the current instability in the Middle East or the whims of OPEC.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

What we know that isn't so ~ By John Stossel

Stossel sets us straight on a few so-called "facts."

People are ignorant enough about science that it's easy for politicians to scare them into supporting absurd regulations. For my show, I went to Times Square and asked if people would sign a petition demanding a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide," a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands. Most everyone signed.

They were embarrassed when they realized that dihydrogen monoxide is ... H2O. They eagerly endorsed a ban on water.

By John Stossel

Posted: March 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Much government interference with our peaceful pursuits is based on junk science and junk economics. Politicians know a lot of stuff that isn't so. So do reporters.

Let me count some of the ways. (I'll elaborate on tomorrow's Fox Business Network show.)

Congress now spends your money on a host of intrusive new programs designed to make America "energy independent." President Obama recently announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

I smiled when I heard. Finally, even Democrats woke up to the benefits of nuclear power. But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight:

"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."

Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' – you've got a Democratic speech about energy."

All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.

I thought the only reason nuclear didn't pay for itself is the burden of excessive regulations and objections from silly environmentalists. Apply for permission to build a plant, and their cumbersome lawsuits impose ruinously expensive delays.

Again, Taylor set me straight. He says the nuclear industry itself is comfortable with today's level of regulation. The big problem today is not environmental rules, but simply the huge cost. The same high costs, he says, are found in countries that have long been friendly to nuclear power.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!