Forgive me for venturing out from strict horserace poll analysis, but given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.

A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.

Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

I asked OpenOffice to throw in the trend line. Additionally, the Pearson coefficient is -0.37. That means that the correlation is not small, and not strong, but medium, according to common Pearson interpretations.

Considering I’m not in any way predicting that coal use caused the 2008 gap, that’s an interesting finding. By chance, the closer a state was in 2008, the more coal it uses, on average. Of the states at 5% or less of a 2008 gap, only Florida doesn’t get a majority of its electricity from coal.

Again, I must stress the modesty of this find. I’m not predicting that the administration’s policies necessarily will cause shifts in coal energy prices soon enough or large enough to swing votes in coal-burning states. Nor am I predicting that the issue would necessarily be decisive of people’s votes.

I’m merely checking that if both of those things do happen, whether they would be happening in states where it would make a difference. The answer to that question is yes. Unluckily for the President as it may be.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Forgive me for venturing out from strict horserace poll analysis, but given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.

A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.

Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

I asked OpenOffice to throw in the trend line. Additionally, the Pearson coefficient is -0.37. That means that the correlation is not small, and not strong, but medium, according to common Pearson interpretations.

Considering I’m not in any way predicting that coal use caused the 2008 gap, that’s an interesting finding. By chance, the closer a state was in 2008, the more coal it uses, on average. Of the states at 5% or less of a 2008 gap, only Florida doesn’t get a majority of its electricity from coal.

Again, I must stress the modesty of this find. I’m not predicting that the administration’s policies necessarily will cause shifts in coal energy prices soon enough or large enough to swing votes in coal-burning states. Nor am I predicting that the issue would necessarily be decisive of people’s votes.

I’m merely checking that if both of those things do happen, whether they would be happening in states where it would make a difference. The answer to that question is yes. Unluckily for the President as it may be.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

On Tuesday, the Institute for Energy Research issued its North American Energy Inventory (.pdf link), a report which documents the government’s own estimates of oil, natural gas and coal resources for the U.S., Canada and Mexico. (The IER is a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)3 organization that is dedicated to advancing America’s supply using free market principles.)

In a nutshell, North America contains a vast bounty of energy sources in the form of oil, natural gas and coal. Reports that we are “running out” of energy sources use semantics and terminology to play with the facts. Simply put, we have chosen not to exploit potential sources close to home, finding it more expedient or convenient to depend on faraway sources for our energy.

Based on the ongoing tangible successes in North Dakota and Pennsylvania, one would think that the jobs/growth potential presented by aggressive energy development would tantalize any politician who is truly interested in helping the economy. One would think.

The following video will give you a quick run-down of the key points of the report, but I would encourage anyone interested to download and read the full report. It is extremely well-documented and although it is chock-full of facts and figures, I found it to be an easy read.

Excerpt from the report’s executive summary:

The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.

That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the present needs in the United States of seven billion barrels per year for around 250 years.

Moreover, it is important to note that that “reserves” estimates are constantly in flux. For example, in 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, we produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, we produced over 150 percent of our proved reserves. …

Proved reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout North America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural gas is even more impressive. The EIA estimates that the United States has 272.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas. The total amount of natural gas that is recoverable in North America is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet.

Given that U.S. consumption is currently about 24 trillion cubic feet per year, there is enough natural gas in North America to last the United States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption.

A key point of the IER report: We have been told repeatedly by our President, liberal members of Congress and our environmental community that the U.S. consumes 24% (or somesuch) of the world’s energy, but we have only 2% (or somesuch) of the world’s proved reserves. It’s just not fair!

However, IER explains how lying liars lie:

RESOURCES AND RESERVES: WHY TERMS MATTER WHEN JUDGING ENERGY POTENTIAL

A frequent source of confusion about America’s energy potential is the terminology used, primarily the enormous yet poorly understood difference between “resources” and “reserves.” The term “reserves” typically refers to a country’s known, proved and presently economic energy supplies, but a country’s resources are much larger, representing a nation’s total potential energy. The debate over whether a country has only a few years’ supply of a particular energy source or centuries’ worth can hinge upon the terms employed. It is merely semantics—not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce—that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy.

Hmmmm…. Sounds familiar….

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

On Tuesday, the Institute for Energy Research issued its North American Energy Inventory (.pdf link), a report which documents the government’s own estimates of oil, natural gas and coal resources for the U.S., Canada and Mexico. (The IER is a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)3 organization that is dedicated to advancing America’s supply using free market principles.)

In a nutshell, North America contains a vast bounty of energy sources in the form of oil, natural gas and coal. Reports that we are “running out” of energy sources use semantics and terminology to play with the facts. Simply put, we have chosen not to exploit potential sources close to home, finding it more expedient or convenient to depend on faraway sources for our energy.

Based on the ongoing tangible successes in North Dakota and Pennsylvania, one would think that the jobs/growth potential presented by aggressive energy development would tantalize any politician who is truly interested in helping the economy. One would think.

The following video will give you a quick run-down of the key points of the report, but I would encourage anyone interested to download and read the full report. It is extremely well-documented and although it is chock-full of facts and figures, I found it to be an easy read.

Excerpt from the report’s executive summary:

The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.

That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the present needs in the United States of seven billion barrels per year for around 250 years.

Moreover, it is important to note that that “reserves” estimates are constantly in flux. For example, in 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, we produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, we produced over 150 percent of our proved reserves. …

Proved reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout North America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural gas is even more impressive. The EIA estimates that the United States has 272.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas. The total amount of natural gas that is recoverable in North America is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet.

Given that U.S. consumption is currently about 24 trillion cubic feet per year, there is enough natural gas in North America to last the United States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption.

A key point of the IER report: We have been told repeatedly by our President, liberal members of Congress and our environmental community that the U.S. consumes 24% (or somesuch) of the world’s energy, but we have only 2% (or somesuch) of the world’s proved reserves. It’s just not fair!

However, IER explains how lying liars lie:

RESOURCES AND RESERVES: WHY TERMS MATTER WHEN JUDGING ENERGY POTENTIAL

A frequent source of confusion about America’s energy potential is the terminology used, primarily the enormous yet poorly understood difference between “resources” and “reserves.” The term “reserves” typically refers to a country’s known, proved and presently economic energy supplies, but a country’s resources are much larger, representing a nation’s total potential energy. The debate over whether a country has only a few years’ supply of a particular energy source or centuries’ worth can hinge upon the terms employed. It is merely semantics—not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce—that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy.

Hmmmm…. Sounds familiar….

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

When members of Congress return to Washington in September, they must confront the next budget challenge; a Continuing Resolution for FY 2012.  While the top line discretionary spending level has already been agreed upon through the debt ceiling agreement, the specific levels of funding for each department and agency are still up for debate (or closed-door negotiations, in this case).  Unfortunately, instead of prudently analyzing each line item of the budget through individual appropriations bills, as prescribed by the 1974 budget act, Congress will be forced to impetuously consider the entire federal budget in one bill.  There is one line item that should not be disregarded throughout the process; cutting down the EPA.

Obama and his socialist minions at the EPA intuitively understand that energy production in general, and fossil fuels, in particular, serve as the lifeblood of a free and prosperous economy.  This is why they have launched an inexorable war against our energy producers.  By disrupting our energy productivity, and replacing it with no-growth, impotent green energy sources, Obama plans not only to destroy thousands of jobs within the energy sector, but millions of jobs throughout every facet of the economy – jobs that are so reliant on reliable and cheap energy. The only jobs that will be sparred are the ones of his green corporate cronies, such as Johnson Controls, the electric car battery manufacturer in Michigan that was paid a visit by Obama on Thursday.

Let’s review some of the most recent sinister attempts by the EPA to discomfit our energy producers, kill jobs, and raise the cost of living on the very objects of their reprehensible class warfare.

The EPA has considerably diminished the volume of oil production in Alaska over the past view years.  They are refusing to issue permits for drilling on and offshore, while encumbering the process with unrealistic regulations.  These actions have triggered an alarming decrease in the flow of oil through the Alaska pipeline, threatening its future sustainability.  Additionally, the EPA has delayed the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline for years, costing us thousands of jobs, cheap imports of oil-sands oil from our Canadian friends, and much-needed revenue to some heartland states.

What about natural gas?  Even though shale fracking for natural gas has produced an unprecedented amount of jobs in North Dakota and Texas, while producing cheap energy for our hungry markets, EPA Director Lisa Jackson is seeking to destroy it.  She is now collaborating with environmental extremists to terminate this revolutionary means of energy exploration indefinitely.

While oil has always been a target of the EPA, they have recently made it a priority to eradicate coal from our economy.  Recently, following Obama’s failure to pass cap and trade through Congress, the EPA has launched an aggressive effort to impose carbon-cutting compliance standards on the coal industry.  These standards would either destroy the coal industry or precipitate a crippling increase in electricity rates on every home and business.

Concurrently, this job-killing behemoth is attempting to impose inordinate and unrealistic atmospheric ozone levels on all manufacturers in the country.  According to the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, these new regulations could expunge $1 trillion in annual productivity from the economy and eliminate 7.3 million jobs.  In light of the dismal manufacturing report that was published earlier this month, along with the decline of our exports, clearly these new regulations on manufacturing and energy would permanently revoke our status as a superpower.

Thus, the studies that suggest we are losing $1.75 trillion in annual wealth, or 12% of our GDP, as a result of onerous regulations, are outdated.  One cannot possibly calculate the amount of income lost, or quantity the number of jobs destroyed as a result of new and pending EPA regulations from the Obama administration.  When you add in Obama’s proposed fuel emissions standards for trucks – which will be exacerbated by Obama’s insidious efforts to raise the cost of fuel – transportation and delivery costs for virtually everything produced in this country will be insurmountable.

This is where Republicans in Congress can affect the debate and harness this historic opportunity to create jobs by cutting spending, and more precisely, cutting down burdensome government.  Most average Americans are not stirred by discussions of budgets and unsustainable debt per se.  They are focusing on the bread and butter issues and want to know how we will create jobs, grow income, and reduce the cost of living.  Republicans have a superlative opportunity to link these issues to the debt crisis, by showing how reducing the size of government and eliminating officious programs, agencies, and regulatory schemes, will achieve the desired goals.

As we have pointed out before, not all spending cuts are created equal because our goal is something beyond debt savings; it is to limit destructive government.  The EPA is clearly the most offensive and devious player in Obama’s government.  To that end, Republicans must stand firm in September by holding the line on their cuts to the EPA, along with the policy riders.  They must articulate to the American people that their ultimate goal is not merely budget austerity; it is the creation of jobs and a prosperous way of living that is engendered by balanced budgets and limited government.

Moreover, Republican presidential candidates must take the lead on this issue by making it a centerfold of their messaging to voters.  They must focus attention on how heavy-handed regulation, and eco-fascism, in particular, is killing our energy productivity, manufacturing, and transportation – the very essence of our economy.  A perspective candidate’s views on regulations and energy policy should be a litmus test for conservatives.

As part of a jobs plan, the next president should propose replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with the Employment Protection Agency.  Once the job-killing behemoth is neutralized, the new “EPA” would be given a mandate to investigate the hundreds of agencies, boards, offices, and commissions of the federal government, and target every superfluous job-killing, price-hiking regulation on the books.  The new EPA should be given priority status before the Office of Management and Budget, which would adopt its recommendations as part of the annual budget.

As we inch closer to the presidential election, it won’t be sufficient for candidates to express their support for spending cuts and budget austerity.  As conservatives, we must complete our sentences by articulating how and why the very economic ills we are experiencing today – are caused by the government agencies funded by prodigal spending and serviced with debt.  We must edify the public how downsizing government will lead to the most prosperity for all Americans and how it would provide them with the most job opportunities and the cheapest possible products and services.

The best place to start is with the EPA.  According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there were 345 new rules promulgated by the EPA in 2010 alone.  That is more than any other agency, and even more than any department except for the Treasury Department.

Whoever most effectively links limited government and free enterprise with job creation and prosperity – will be the next president.

Any takers?

When members of Congress return to Washington in September, they must confront the next budget challenge; a Continuing Resolution for FY 2012.  While the top line discretionary spending level has already been agreed upon through the debt ceiling agreement, the specific levels of funding for each department and agency are still up for debate (or closed-door negotiations, in this case).  Unfortunately, instead of prudently analyzing each line item of the budget through individual appropriations bills, as prescribed by the 1974 budget act, Congress will be forced to impetuously consider the entire federal budget in one bill.  There is one line item that should not be disregarded throughout the process; cutting down the EPA.

Obama and his socialist minions at the EPA intuitively understand that energy production in general, and fossil fuels, in particular, serve as the lifeblood of a free and prosperous economy.  This is why they have launched an inexorable war against our energy producers.  By disrupting our energy productivity, and replacing it with no-growth, impotent green energy sources, Obama plans not only to destroy thousands of jobs within the energy sector, but millions of jobs throughout every facet of the economy – jobs that are so reliant on reliable and cheap energy. The only jobs that will be sparred are the ones of his green corporate cronies, such as Johnson Controls, the electric car battery manufacturer in Michigan that was paid a visit by Obama on Thursday.

Let’s review some of the most recent sinister attempts by the EPA to discomfit our energy producers, kill jobs, and raise the cost of living on the very objects of their reprehensible class warfare.

The EPA has considerably diminished the volume of oil production in Alaska over the past view years.  They are refusing to issue permits for drilling on and offshore, while encumbering the process with unrealistic regulations.  These actions have triggered an alarming decrease in the flow of oil through the Alaska pipeline, threatening its future sustainability.  Additionally, the EPA has delayed the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline for years, costing us thousands of jobs, cheap imports of oil-sands oil from our Canadian friends, and much-needed revenue to some heartland states.

What about natural gas?  Even though shale fracking for natural gas has produced an unprecedented amount of jobs in North Dakota and Texas, while producing cheap energy for our hungry markets, EPA Director Lisa Jackson is seeking to destroy it.  She is now collaborating with environmental extremists to terminate this revolutionary means of energy exploration indefinitely.

While oil has always been a target of the EPA, they have recently made it a priority to eradicate coal from our economy.  Recently, following Obama’s failure to pass cap and trade through Congress, the EPA has launched an aggressive effort to impose carbon-cutting compliance standards on the coal industry.  These standards would either destroy the coal industry or precipitate a crippling increase in electricity rates on every home and business.

Concurrently, this job-killing behemoth is attempting to impose inordinate and unrealistic atmospheric ozone levels on all manufacturers in the country.  According to the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, these new regulations could expunge $1 trillion in annual productivity from the economy and eliminate 7.3 million jobs.  In light of the dismal manufacturing report that was published earlier this month, along with the decline of our exports, clearly these new regulations on manufacturing and energy would permanently revoke our status as a superpower.

Thus, the studies that suggest we are losing $1.75 trillion in annual wealth, or 12% of our GDP, as a result of onerous regulations, are outdated.  One cannot possibly calculate the amount of income lost, or quantity the number of jobs destroyed as a result of new and pending EPA regulations from the Obama administration.  When you add in Obama’s proposed fuel emissions standards for trucks – which will be exacerbated by Obama’s insidious efforts to raise the cost of fuel – transportation and delivery costs for virtually everything produced in this country will be insurmountable.

This is where Republicans in Congress can affect the debate and harness this historic opportunity to create jobs by cutting spending, and more precisely, cutting down burdensome government.  Most average Americans are not stirred by discussions of budgets and unsustainable debt per se.  They are focusing on the bread and butter issues and want to know how we will create jobs, grow income, and reduce the cost of living.  Republicans have a superlative opportunity to link these issues to the debt crisis, by showing how reducing the size of government and eliminating officious programs, agencies, and regulatory schemes, will achieve the desired goals.

As we have pointed out before, not all spending cuts are created equal because our goal is something beyond debt savings; it is to limit destructive government.  The EPA is clearly the most offensive and devious player in Obama’s government.  To that end, Republicans must stand firm in September by holding the line on their cuts to the EPA, along with the policy riders.  They must articulate to the American people that their ultimate goal is not merely budget austerity; it is the creation of jobs and a prosperous way of living that is engendered by balanced budgets and limited government.

Moreover, Republican presidential candidates must take the lead on this issue by making it a centerfold of their messaging to voters.  They must focus attention on how heavy-handed regulation, and eco-fascism, in particular, is killing our energy productivity, manufacturing, and transportation – the very essence of our economy.  A perspective candidate’s views on regulations and energy policy should be a litmus test for conservatives.

As part of a jobs plan, the next president should propose replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with the Employment Protection Agency.  Once the job-killing behemoth is neutralized, the new “EPA” would be given a mandate to investigate the hundreds of agencies, boards, offices, and commissions of the federal government, and target every superfluous job-killing, price-hiking regulation on the books.  The new EPA should be given priority status before the Office of Management and Budget, which would adopt its recommendations as part of the annual budget.

As we inch closer to the presidential election, it won’t be sufficient for candidates to express their support for spending cuts and budget austerity.  As conservatives, we must complete our sentences by articulating how and why the very economic ills we are experiencing today – are caused by the government agencies funded by prodigal spending and serviced with debt.  We must edify the public how downsizing government will lead to the most prosperity for all Americans and how it would provide them with the most job opportunities and the cheapest possible products and services.

The best place to start is with the EPA.  According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there were 345 new rules promulgated by the EPA in 2010 alone.  That is more than any other agency, and even more than any department except for the Treasury Department.

Whoever most effectively links limited government and free enterprise with job creation and prosperity – will be the next president.

Any takers?

Well, that didn’t take long.

In late May, and in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, Germany announced that it would phase out nuclear power generation by 2022. Nine active nuclear sites currently supply 22% of German electricity. Another eight are offline.

But there’s a hitch in this well-thought-out plan: it gets cold in northern Europe in the winter, and people need lots of reliable energy to stay warm. Since offshore wind energy’s not working out so hot, the Germans may have to start up one of those mothballed nukes to make it through the winter.

…Germany’s Federal Network Agency insisted on Tuesday that, should a nuclear plant have to be switched back on for this winter and next, it is only a “temporary solution.” After that, a spokesperson added, there should be enough coal-fired plants to fill the gap.

["Temporary solution"?! Must. Not. Go. There.]

Yes, you read that right.

[Chancellor Angela] Merkel and her government have celebrated the phase out of nuclear energy in Germany as an “energy revolution” and vowed to make up for the capacity lost through the reactor shutdowns through billions in investments in renewable energies and energy savings measures. But according to a report in the daily Berliner Zeitung on Wednesday, some of that money has now been earmarked to subsidize the construction of new coal-fired plants.

Citing a statement issued by the Economics Ministry in response to a formal query from the Green Party, the paper reported that over €163 million ($229.3 million) is to go toward subsidizing the construction of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants in both 2013 and 2014. The money, generated by the trade in CO2 emissions certificates, is reportedly to come out of a fund originally earmarked to finance projects aimed at promoting energy efficiency.

Criticism from the Greens has been scathing, with parliamentarian Oliver Krischer telling the paper that “coal-fired power plants are damaging to the climate and are not flexible enough to make up for fluctuations in the supply from renewable sources.”

So that leaves natural gas, which delivers a megawatt of electricity at a little over double the cost of coal.

Dependable, cheap coal. Dependable, clean natural gas. Good old fossil fuels. Personally, I don’t see what was so bad about the nukes; when is the last time you heard about a devastating tsunami in the Baltic?

The moral of this story is that if you leave your energy planning up to a bunch of greenies, you get an unreliable and impractical solution that no one can afford. It might warm the cockles of your heart while but it will freeze the other ones off.

Via The American Thinker. H/T Dave A.T.N.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

Follow @VladimirRS

Well, that didn’t take long.

In late May, and in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, Germany announced that it would phase out nuclear power generation by 2022. Nine active nuclear sites currently supply 22% of German electricity. Another eight are offline.

But there’s a hitch in this well-thought-out plan: it gets cold in northern Europe in the winter, and people need lots of reliable energy to stay warm. Since offshore wind energy’s not working out so hot, the Germans may have to start up one of those mothballed nukes to make it through the winter.

…Germany’s Federal Network Agency insisted on Tuesday that, should a nuclear plant have to be switched back on for this winter and next, it is only a “temporary solution.” After that, a spokesperson added, there should be enough coal-fired plants to fill the gap.

["Temporary solution"?! Must. Not. Go. There.]

Yes, you read that right.

[Chancellor Angela] Merkel and her government have celebrated the phase out of nuclear energy in Germany as an “energy revolution” and vowed to make up for the capacity lost through the reactor shutdowns through billions in investments in renewable energies and energy savings measures. But according to a report in the daily Berliner Zeitung on Wednesday, some of that money has now been earmarked to subsidize the construction of new coal-fired plants.

Citing a statement issued by the Economics Ministry in response to a formal query from the Green Party, the paper reported that over €163 million ($229.3 million) is to go toward subsidizing the construction of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants in both 2013 and 2014. The money, generated by the trade in CO2 emissions certificates, is reportedly to come out of a fund originally earmarked to finance projects aimed at promoting energy efficiency.

Criticism from the Greens has been scathing, with parliamentarian Oliver Krischer telling the paper that “coal-fired power plants are damaging to the climate and are not flexible enough to make up for fluctuations in the supply from renewable sources.”

So that leaves natural gas, which delivers a megawatt of electricity at a little over double the cost of coal.

Dependable, cheap coal. Dependable, clean natural gas. Good old fossil fuels. Personally, I don’t see what was so bad about the nukes; when is the last time you heard about a devastating tsunami in the Baltic?

The moral of this story is that if you leave your energy planning up to a bunch of greenies, you get an unreliable and impractical solution that no one can afford. It might warm the cockles of your heart while but it will freeze the other ones off.

Via The American Thinker. H/T Dave A.T.N.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

Follow @VladimirRS