Obama has to be gloating at the hatred spewing out of the mouths of the misinformed, the surfacing of hatred and discord that grips our land and even the vileness from Hamas sympathizers in Congress.. This is what he intended when he said he wanted to transform America and we listened but did not believe for fear of being called racists.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BBC Journalists SUPPORT Hamas?
The BBC quickly launched an “urgent” investigation into a contingent of its Arab journalists over expressing support for. Read More »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joe Biden Caught Lying During His Trip to Israel
By Sarah Arnold
Another day, another lie told by our President of the United States.
During his short-lived trip to Israel, President Joe Biden fabricated the truth while reliving his first visit to the Jewish country in 1973 when he met with former Prime Minister Golda Meir.
Biden claimed he had met Meir before the Six-Day War, kicking off his visit with an already-debunked lie.
"I remember the first time I was in Israel with Golda Meir. It was right before the Six-Day War," Biden said.
More from Newsweek:
His 1973 visit to Israel came just before the Yom Kippur War—not the Six-Day War, which was fought between Israel and several other countries in the region in June of 1967. That was five years before Biden became a United States senator in 1972. The gaffe was quickly noticed on social media. Biden's critics have sought to make his age an issue in the 2024 presidential election, arguing that he no longer has the mental capacity to serve as President, pointing to numerous gaffes he has made as President. His defenders, however, say he remains mentally fit to serve, arguing that his active role in matters such as the U.S. response to the Israel-Hamas war proves his competency.
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL.) pointed out the outright lie Biden made for a second time.
In 2021, Newsweek debunked the lie again, as Biden has told the same story several times during his political career.
Trending News details the time when Biden previously told the lie.
Biden has been repeating this particular fabrication since 2021, when Newsweek initially debunked it, writing, "During the Six Day War, which took place between June 5 and 10, 1967, Biden, then aged 25, was in his second year of law school at Syracuse University and hadn't yet launched his political career." In 21′ he told the slightly extended version, saying, "During the Six Day War…she invited me to come over because I was going to be the liaison between she and the Egyptians about the Suez," he failed to specify what "liaison" role he was to hold. He claimed that he sat "in front of her desk" as Meir flipped through a "bevy of maps," adding, "It was so depressing…about what happened. She gave me every detail."
Biden has described the meeting with Meir as "one of the most consequential meetings" he has ever had.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Why did Hamas start a war they knew they would lose?
Simply, they put no value on human life, not for others and not for themselves. They are a death cult.
By Jack Engelhard
They knew that, in the end, they would get pounded and beaten. So what was the point?
The point was firstly to kill Jews, but also to win the headline wars and to fire up Jew-hatred across the world. Some of that they got….at least for a start.
Hours after the attack, brutality not seen since the Holocaust, Hamas defenders marched in New York City to display their brotherhood for terrorism against Israel and Jewish people everywhere, multiplied by such scenes in Los Angeles, Tampa, Chicago, Philadelphia, London, and Sydney.
Such scenes duplicate Kristallnacht.
Fist pumping and howling in favor of barbarism, they were joined by some 30 academic leaders from Harvard.
These professors used academic-speak but the message was that of the mobs – “Gas the Jews.”
These savages, meaning Hamas, know one thing above all else, and it is their most powerful weapon.
Simply, they put no value on human life…not for others and not for themselves. They are a death cult.
Jews love life. It is the first imperative in the Hebrew Bible. For Jews, life is precious and must be preserved at all costs.
Right away, in this clash. Hamas and Palestinian Arabs all around, enjoy a distinct advantage. In fact, they’ll want dead Arab bodies in Gaza, for the pictures to win the media.
Hamas played this for Israel, and then the world…just as Hitler did, when he knew the ship St. Louis, the voyage of the damned, would be turned back port by port.
How cleverly he knew the world.
Don’t underestimate the cleverness of these goons. As they stirred up the mobs, in their favor, they got the worldwide media to forget the savagery from that one side.
Instead, the usual suspects, like the BBC, termed it a war “between both combatants.” There’s your moral equivalence.
Even the US media, the networks, could not resist the temptation to name Netanyahu an “extreme right-winger.”
For some, that’s code for White Supremacist.
Nor could they stop themselves from calling Judea/Samaria, aka the West Bank, “occupied territory.”
This much though…altogether, the coverage has turned more favorable. There is no hiding what the eye can see, and even Harvard leaders have scolded the hateful professors.
The evil is too transparent.
Even for leftists?
Some say, and I agree, that Israeli leftists brought this on. The storm they unleashed against Netanyahu confounded and preoccupied the entire nation.
For some three years there was no other business except Get Bibi.
For such internal strife, Hamas saw the opening and struck. Israel had taken its eye off the ball.
Leftists had infiltrated all systems, including the military. So they fiddled, too blinded by leftist ideologies to see what’s coming.
The leftist establishment were in a freeze because they trusted these Arabs to be basically good, good people. Just give them a chance.
Now they know, the hard way. Goodness is a theory. Wickedness is a fact.
New York-based bestselling American novelist Jack Engelhard writes regularly for Arutz Sheva.
He wrote the worldwide book-to-movie bestseller “Indecent Proposal,” the authoritative newsroom epic, “The Bathsheba Deadline,” followed by his coming-of-age classics, “The Girls of Cincinnati,” and, the Holocaust-to-Montreal memoir, “Escape from Mount Moriah.” For that and his 1960s epic “The Days of the Bitter End,” contemporaries have hailed him “The last Hemingway, a writer without peer, and the conscience of us all.” Contact here.
Plus, a free sample chapter of his noir gambling thriller, Compulsive, is available from his website, here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iran continues to lie about hospital explosion to fuel conflict - analysis
Iran has used the incident to spread anti-Semitic lies and inflame regional conflicts and biases.
Demonstrators burn banners depicting the Israeli flag during a protest against Israel and the USA in support of Palestinians for those killed in a blast at Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza that Israeli and Palestinian officials blamed on each other, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Iran’s regime mobilized its media machine quickly after Hamas claimed an explosion at a hospital in Gaza had led to hundreds of deaths. It is now known, and widely accepted, that the claims of an “attack” or “strike” were disinformation spread by Hamas. It is also believed the number of casualties cited by Hamas was inflated. However, it is also clear that Iranian regime media worked hard to push this narrative in the region to inflame hatred.
Iran’s media was not the only one working this angle. In Turkey protests were also organized and incitement grew against Israel. It appears that this coordinated effort spanned the region, from Turkey to Iran, Qatar and also to Russia. The goal was to use the incident to increase tensions and to cause protests and escalation.
Wild comparisons and nonsensical conclusions
Two days later Iran’s regime continued to push this narrative. For instance on Thursday Iran’s Fars News claimed that incident at the hospital was similar to crimes committed by Saddam Hussein. This is a bizarre claim, considering the fact that Saddam’s regime was a major opponent of Israel and even fired missiles at Israel in 1991. However, Iran’s regime also opposed Saddam. So linking Israel to Iraq’s crimes in the 1980s is part of Tehran’s propaganda. Media in Iran also used images of children and graphic images to promote its claim that “1,000” people had been killed at the hospital. There is no evidence of this.
Tehran clearly believes that message discipline on this can influence the region. However, almost two days after the protests began in places in the region, it appears many countries now agree that the attack never happened in the way Hamas claimed it did.
Iran also tried to push anti-Semitic dog whistles in its coverage, calling Israel “demonic” and “bloodthirsty.” Tasnim media showed an image of US President Joe Biden visiting Israel and wearing a yarmulke. This is to try to illustrate the wider narrative from Tehran that portrays the US and Israel as one and the same. Iran has tried to fuel attacks on the US in Iraq and in Lebanon. It is part of a wider attempt to cause anger at the US and Israel. This worked on Wednesday when leaders cancelled meetings with Biden and also worked to fuel protests in Turkey.
Pro-Iranian media Al-Mayadeen also continued to have manipulative coverage on the hospital incident on Thursday. Clearly the media axis that links Iran to Hamas and Lebanon, Iraq and also other countries, planned to exploit this incident. The continued coverage, which has messaging that is linked to language used by Iran’s leaders, shows a an attempt to skew the regional reporting on the story.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have no doubt Biden's trip to Israel was well intended but it proved to be a disaster as he was shunned by everyone Sec. Blinken arranged for him to meet.
This insult, to both Biden and America, demonstrates the shambles our foreign policy has reached.
To make matters worse, if that is possible, when Biden goes off script he generally winds up with his foot in his mouth.
+++
++++
Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader. I call it the effect of WD 40. He commented: "I said the dam on the Left was about to break. This is very encouraging. I suggest you include it in one of your memos."
+++
Time to Throw the Intersectional Left Under the Bus!
This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats.
By RUY TEIXEIRA
The appalling terrorist attack by the appalling terrorist group Hamas, which slaughtered more than 1300 Israelis, 87 percent of whom were civilians, is the largest single day killing of Jews since the Holocaust. The response of America’s intersectional left has also been appalling. As Sohrab Ahmari accurately noted in a Compact magazine article titled “Woke Is Dying”:
Many of those who spent the last few years promoting #Defund, “intersectionality,” and similar concepts refused to condemn Hamas’s butchery—that is, when they didn’t celebrate it. The Chicago chapter of Black Lives Matter tweeted, “I Stand With Palestine,” along with a picture of a paraglider, an allusion to how Hamas terrorists descended upon an outdoor party, murdering some 260 ravers. Yale American Studies professor Zareena Grewal declared: “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.” The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America promoted a Times Square rally at which murderers were hailed as liberators.
What is wrong with these people?
In my opinion, the rot goes very deep. This is not a one-off. Over the last number of years, huge swathes of the American left have become infected with an ideology that judges actions or arguments not by their content but rather by the identity of those involved in said actions or arguments. Those identities in turn are defined by an intersectional web of oppressed and oppressors, of the powerful and powerless, of the dominant and marginalized. With this approach, one judges an action not by whether it’s effective or an argument by whether it’s true but rather by whether the people involved in the action or argument are in the oppressed/powerless/marginalized bucket or not. If they are, the actions or arguments should be supported; if not, they should be opposed.
This approach was always a terrible idea, in obvious contradiction to logic and common sense. But it has led much of the left and large sectors of the Democratic Party to take positions that have little purchase in social or political reality and are offensive to the basic values most people hold. The failure to unequivocally condemn the Hamas massacre as a crime against humanity is just the latest example of this intellectual and moral malignancy.
Take the vogue for “anti-racist” posturing. This dates back to the mid-teens and gathered overwhelming force in 2020 with the George Floyd police killing and subsequent nationwide protests. It became de rigueur in left and liberal Democratic circles to solemnly pronounce American society structurally racist and shot through with white supremacy from top to bottom. No argument along these lines was too outrageous if it came from or on behalf of “people of color”, who must be deferred to given their place in the intersectional hierarchy.
Nothing exemplifies this better than the lionization of Ibram X. Kendi, whose thoroughly ridiculous claims were treated as revealed truth by tens of millions of good liberals and leftists:
There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups…The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination….The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
Only those who have checked their capacity for critical thinking at the door could possibly take this “analysis” seriously. But they did because of the intersectional positioning of Kendi and those he claimed to advocate for.
Share
How else to explain why liberals didn’t run screaming in the opposite direction when Kendi called for the passage of an “anti-racist Constitutional amendment” that would:
…establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
It is difficult to imagine anything more illiberal than proposing an unelected Soviet-style bureaucracy of “experts” that would vet the actions, ideas, and perhaps even the thoughts of all public officials in the country for their anti-racist content and punish those who deviate from the correct path. Madness! And yet he has been showered with honors, money, and coveted academic positions (though recent revelations of epic mismanagement at his Boston University Center for Antiracist Research may curb some of that enthusiasm).
Bad ideas and arguments are bad ideas and arguments. It shouldn’t matter who makes them. Just like it shouldn’t matter who in the intersectional hierarchy massacres Jews. It’s still an atrocity.
It’s high time for Democrats to decisively reject this kind of thinking across the board. Embrace instead the universalistic principles the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in. They believe, unlike Kendi, that racial preferences in rewards and decision-making are not fair and fairness is a fundamental part of their world outlook. They actually believe, with Martin Luther King Jr., that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” In a recent University of Southern California Dornsife survey, this classic statement of colorblind equality was posed to respondents: “Our goal as a society should be to treat all people the same without regard to the color of their skin.” This MLK-style statement elicited sky-high (92 percent) agreement from the public, despite the assaults on this idea from Critical Race Theory (CRT), Kendi, and large sectors of the Democratic left. In a fascinating related finding, the researchers found that most people who claim to have heard about CRT believe CRT includes this colorblind perspective, rather than directly contradicting it. Perhaps they just can’t believe any theory that has anything to do with race would reject this fundamental principle.
Similarly a recent Public Agenda Hidden Common Ground survey found 91 percent agreement with the statement: “All people deserve an equal opportunity to succeed, no matter their race or ethnicity.” This is what people deeply believe in: equal opportunity not, unlike the intersectional left, equal outcomes.
Equally, Americans believe crime is crime no matter who commits it and that criminals should be punished. They do not believe that open drug use, street camping, shoplifting and countless other symptoms of social disorder should be tolerated because the populations involved are “marginalized” or because enforcement outcomes might not be equally distributed across races. Nor do they believe that the borders of the United States are merely suggestions that can be ignored by those appropriately placed in the intersectional hierarchy.
Reactions to the Hamas massacre have exposed the moral cul-de-sac occupied by the intersectional left. Democrats and liberals should seize this opportunity to dissociate themselves not just from these disgraceful reactions but also from the entire world view that has produced bad policy and worse politics in area after area.
Of course the usual suspects will inevitably say that returning to a universalist, mainstream approach is tantamount to throwing loyal Democratic constituencies in need of help “under the bus”. But who is throwing whom under the bus? Perhaps it is those whose intersectional dogma stands in the way of a Democratic approach that could plausibly generate the widest possible support that are throwing those who need help the most under the bus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Public neutrality about Hamas and Israel is complicity
By Johnathan Tobin
Yes, we do have a right to be judgmental about those who share their views on social media on all sorts of issues, yet suddenly don’t have an opinion about the mass slaughter of Jews.
It’s terribly unfair. That’s the way some liberal Americans, especially some prominent Jews, are characterizing the criticism that they and others are getting for not being willing to publicly discuss their opinion about the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel perpetrated by Hamas—the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. The terror organization’s assault on Gaza border communities left 1,400 men, women and children dead with whole families murdered, as well as thousands wounded, and as many as 150 kidnapped and dragged across the border into Gaza. But as far as many prominent people are concerned, those numbers—not to mention the evidence found of horrifying crimes committed by the terrorists against their victims, including torture, rape and the desecration of corpses—is not enough reason for them to stick out their necks and identify themselves with the cause of Israel.
That’s been a shock to some in the Jewish community. They wonder why a historic event that has shaken them to their very core is something a lot of people have been so silent about. Along with the graphic pictures and videos of the horror inflicted by Hamas terrorists—some of which they posted themselves as they boasted of their crimes—this silence from a great many people, including some whose every opinion and move is chronicled on their own carefully curated social-media pages, is giving a lot of us a wake-up call about the world in which we live.
An ominous silence
For those who feel connected to Israel or simply believe that a crime of this magnitude demands both sympathy and robust support for efforts to end this terrorist scourge, the response to the Hamas atrocities has been intense and passionate. But the contrast between the broken hearts of those who care about Israel and the indifference of others—and that means many of the rich, talented or famous with large social-media followings—is staggering. It’s led some to conclude that, perhaps for the first time, they finally understand how the Holocaust happened. And that has caused them to draw some angry and negative conclusions about those who have remained ominously quiet.
One person who went public with her resentment about such conclusions is Democratic pollster and New York Times contributing columnist Elizabeth Spiers. In a column titled, “I Don’t Have to Post My Outrage. Neither Do You,” she whined about the way she’s been attacked on X for not stating her opinion about the crimes of Hamas.
She started by explaining that she was “neither Jewish nor Palestinian” and that her regular beat was not foreign policy. Spiers then accounted for her initial silence about last week’s attack by noting that was dealing with a case of shingles and an ongoing battle with depression. If she had left it at that, no one would have criticized her.
But she went on to declare that the whole idea that decent people have to express an opinion about random bad things that make the news is wrong. She also believes that the impulse to post opinions in this manner leads to simplistic statements that reduce everything to a binary choice when so much in life is complex and ought to be discussed with nuance rather than a rush to issue a 280-character broadside.
How social media operates
If you know nothing about Internet culture, that might sound reasonable. Spiers has 81,900 followers on X (formerly Twitter), which gives her a decent platform for her views but one that is not comparable to the real heavy-hitter opinion leaders on that platform or the celebrities who post their pictures on Instagram. For her and others who make their living in large measure by keeping themselves and their opinions in the public eye, the notion that we shouldn’t draw conclusions about what topics they consider to be worthy of their attention is ridiculous.
If this is what you do professionally—and virtually everyone in politics, culture, and especially, journalism is now something of a slave to social media—the decision about whether or not to post about something in the news is a choice that makes a statement about who you are and what you believe. Any pretense to the contrary is disingenuous.
Spiers gives the game away by explaining her reluctance to state opinions about the current situation in the Middle East by going on to express her views in great detail. While she thinks that Hamas terrorism is bad, she considers Israeli efforts to isolate the murderers by cutting off their electricity as also wrong. Indeed, she considers just about any effort to deal with the problem militarily to be immoral because of the possible impact on Palestinian civilians, whom she insisted should not be conflated with the Islamist group that has governed them for 16 years and actually enjoys wide popular support.
Like it or not, we live in the age where ordinary people—and particularly celebrities with mass followings on platforms like Instagram, Facebook or X—routinely share their views on just about everything that happens in the world as well as the minute details of their lives, including photos of what they had for lunch.
Just as important, in recent years social media has come to serve two main functions in our public life. It is—for better or worse—the public square for American democracy. As such, political, social and cultural arguments are now largely conducted there. Secondly, it’s also the venue for indicating not just what you think is important but how you identify yourself in the cultural and political battles of the day.
Which lives matter?
That’s why the clearest sign that a cause is important is if a lot of people change their Facebook profile picture to include a graphic that indicates their opinion about it. That’s how you knew that in the summer of 2020, much of America was desperate to make sure that everyone knew they believed “Black Lives Matter.” In 2021, that was replaced by something that proclaimed your vaccination status and, by implication, your disdain for those who chose not to get vaccinated.
In the wake of the killing of one man—George Floyd—those who stayed neutral about the BLM movement or refused to “black out” their social-media accounts knew that many of their fellow citizens were prepared to jump to the conclusion that they were racists. The same was true if you let on that you were aware that the widespread belief that police were routinely murdering unarmed African-Americans was false, and that however deplorable such incidents were, they were also quite rare. To note the antisemitic nature of BLM or to protest the tearing down of historical statues was also a fast track to getting canceled.
That’s the context for those now questioning the way so many celebrities and opinion leaders don’t seem to think that the murder of 1,400 Jews or the kidnapping of dozens of little Jewish children is an event about which decent people should have a clear opinion.
Before the rise of social media, when only politicians were expected to issue statements about the news of the day, this wouldn’t be an issue. But there’s no putting that genie back in the bottle. Now anyone in the public eye—other than those intrepid few who refuse to go on the platforms—is expected to weigh in with posts on stories the public cares about.
So, the issue isn’t whether it’s wrong to have an opinion about someone who stays silent about a great moral outrage. The problem is why so many are silent about the slaughter on Oct. 7.
Many in the chattering classes are deeply influenced by toxic ideologies like critical race theory that aid the demonization of Israel, as well as mainstream antisemitic attitudes that create a moral equivalence between those who want to slaughter Jews and the efforts of the Jews to oppose those who want to kill them. Not even the crimes of Hamas seem to be enough to demolish the widespread belief that the battle between Israelis and those dedicated to their extinction is merely a dispute about which reasonable people may differ.
But there are some issues about which moral clarity is not just called for but demanded. Jews have a right to feel abandoned when they see those who treated Floyd’s death as a reason to take to the streets and tear down statues have nothing to say about 1,4000 Jewish corpses and dozens of kidnapped Jewish children. We have every right to be judgmental about that as well as to declare that there is only one decent opinion to hold about a choice between defending Jewish lives and allowing Hamas’s ongoing campaign to take them to continue.
It’s as simple as this. If you think that last week’s atrocities are not awful enough to require disarming and overthrowing Hamas by force, then don’t be surprised when that is interpreted as indifference to Jewish suffering. If you aren’t moved to tears or fury—or even feel obligated to just post an anodyne sentiment about how awful it is that so many innocent Jewish people were brutalized and slaughtered by heartless barbarians—then your virtue-signaling about other causes, witty observations about life and the attractive pictures you might post does say something about you. In fact, it sends the message that perhaps you’re not as nice a person as you think you are.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another Biden disaster:
+++
+++
U.S. OIL SUPPLY - INCREDIBLE
About 10 months ago, there was a news program on oil and one of The Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer. How much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "More than all the Middle East put together."
The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and Extreme eastern Montana.
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable (5 Billion barrels), at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion. "When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their Jaws hit the floor.”
“They had no idea." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyzer. "This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
It's a formation known as the Williston Basin but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U.S. Oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.
However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's Massive reserves, And, we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!
U.S. Oil Discovery - Largest Reserve in the World Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006.
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In many recent years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this mother lode of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore Drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on Earth.
Here are the official estimates:
· 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
· 18 times as much oil as Iraq
· 21 times as much oil as Kuwait
· 22 times as much oil as Iran
· 500 times as much oil as Yemen
And it's all right here in the Western United States!
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?
Because environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become Independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.
WHY? James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped.
That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the World today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this: Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices, by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to everyone in your address book.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment