05-17-2008

Why world oil producers prefer D to R:           

For a long time Republicans (Bush including) pushed for energy independence from the foreign oil suppliers. Among measures that they proposed were: drilling oil in the US (Alaska and off shore), building refineries and nuclear power stations, development of new energy sources including bio-fuel and other innovative solutions.

If the US will start creating nuclear stations and developing alternative sources of energy, it will obviously be good for us, but it will harm the world oil producers’ profits. New refineries and oil coming from the US will undermine their ability to raise prices, will reduce demand and psychologically make their biggest client feel more independent. If on top of that the US successfully launches inexpensive alternative energy, this might be the beginning of a slow end to those that rip us all off with $120 per barrel price of crude oil (and rising). Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Middle East oil producers badly want the US to stumble in its efforts to get of the hook of the oil they supply. For them it is a question of live or death. Can we safely assume that they are doing nothing to stop the US from achieving energy independence?

I am a marketing specialist and let’s assume that someone came to me and said – you have to stop America from achieving their energy goals. Money is not an object. We also have inroads into many media outlets, have hundreds of sympathizers in the upper echelons of the US power structure and people whose interests are coincide with ours (a couple o guys from the US oil companies will sell their mothers and their country to get the kind of money they make with us). So, dear Specialist, create us a plan.

Below is what I would do (assuming I took such task upon myself) to halt the US efforts to be energy independent:

1. Jump start movements in the US that under some “progressive” banners would fight against each of the proposed measures to drill oil on the US soil. For example, “there shall be no drilling in Alaska, because it … can endanger white sharks”. Or “there shall not be drilling in the continental shelf because it … will create an “Exxon-Valdez” effect on all of the US beaches”. More ridicules the slogan – less it can be logically and successfully rebuked.

2. Hire scientists that would proof “beyond any reasonable doubt” that nuclear power stations (even if they were tested for 40-50 years on the US navy vessels) would harm the environment and harm the population that lives near them.

3. Bring in hordes of journalists to create a mass hysteria about “Chernobyl-like” disaster that will “inevitably happen if such stations would be built.”

4. Channel money into creation of an “anti-nuclear stations movement”, and work hard on discrediting people who are behind the policies of energy independence.

5. Contact as many campuses as possible and create special de-stabilization groups from leftists-Marxists circles of both US and foreign students.

5. Offer some partial solutions to energy crisis to pre-occupy the population. Those initiatives shall produce results that will not really harm the oil producers. For example, promotion of energy production by wind and solar stations.

6. Take eyes of Americans off the oil problem by creating a phony global problem, for example “Global Warming”. Find a figurehead with great national standing who would champion such a problem without really researching it and weighting all sides of the arguments. 

Those are first and very general ideas that come to my mind. Now, let’s see if anyone is already doing that? We will not be able to trace sources of the money, especially since there probably is not ONE body that commissions those tasks. They’re probably many foreign organizations and individuals whose livelihood threatens by potential US energy independents. Some US companies can make their own moves to intercept some of the government actions. I doubt that the US oil companies would fight against oil drilling or building refineries, but gently push against nuclear and other power solutions, they might.

Now, let me ask you what party (D or R) supports the following movements and groups:

1. Movement to stop building of nuclear stations in America,
2. Movement to stop building new refineries in America,
3. Movement to stop drilling in Alaska, and  
4. Movement to stop drilling on the American coast shelf?

Also please think of which party (D or R) the following people are supporting:

5. Journalists who relentlessly write against drilling oil and building new refineries,
6. Scientists who relentlessly talk against nuclear power stations, and
7. Politicians and personalities that relentlessly talk about an unproven Global Warming and scaring population about unproven consequences of it?

Now you will have to conclude by yourself who has your interest in heart, and who is not. Who fights for your best future, who believes in this country, who wants to continue the great American traditions, and who is not? You shall decide by yourself who consciously or unconsciously aids to our sworn enemies and our semi-friends. You can show your decision in November at the voting booth. And I hope you will make the right choice.

Sincerely

Leon A.Weinstein

Los Angeles, CA

leonweinstin@hotmail.com