- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Letters to the Editor
Question of the Day
Robert Zubrin’s Op-Ed would more properly be titled “U.S. is strangling American economy” (“OPEC strangling American economy,” Friday). Forget all of the alternative-energy substitutes, which have been and are continually studied. It is an easily demonstrated fact that government policy has been to buy energy from foreign sources rather than producing it at home.
This policy was not a necessity. The money that bought foreign oil could have just as easily bought American oil from an American company extracting it from Alaska, the East Coast, the West Coast or — as the Chinese will make good on with the help of the Cubans — off the coast of Florida.
The situation is so pathetic it has degenerated into the comedy of Congress passing a law to sue the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Barack Obama has come forth with the usual liberal refrain of pointing out the ethics of consuming 25 percent of the world’s energy and accounting for 5 percent of the world’s population. The implication is a moral one, but it amounts to morality turned on its head — not to mention the last 200 years of technological history.
What is truly remarkable about the American experience is that we created 50 percent of the world”s capital with 25 percent of its energy. Would the world be better off without that capital creation?
If you think so, then regress your standard of living back 100 years. Also, you can forget about reducing world hunger and poverty. You would not have the ability to do so. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates would not exist.
The moral path is to continue to produce, and accept the fact that we have to do it with our own energy sources, whatever they may be.
Energy, transportation sense
All of the plans that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, proposes to alleviate the impact of high energy costs make good sense (“Republicans unveil energy agenda,” Op-Ed, Thursday). I would add one additional suggestion, however, and that is that we immediately invest more money in safe, convenient, affordable mass transportation.
If we could get a sufficient number of commuter buses up and running on all of our major national highways as soon as possible and dedicate our HOV lanes to them during peak rush hours, it would cut down on automobile use and fuel consumption, and it would reduce traffic volume considerably.
President wants everyone but himself to pay more
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq