“Time to Get Tough” by Donald Trump (2011)

Yesterday I picked up a remaindered copy of President Trump's "Time to get tough" (2011). I've been browsing--and it's actually shocking to see that he was the same guy 8 years ago (or 9 if you count the time to write it). And it's exactly in his style.

Trump was running in 2011 (announced he was dropping it in May 2011)--and didn't have wonderful things to say about Obama. "Obama's popularity in America may be at rock bottom levels, but I know one place his ratings are likely sky high: the Kremlin. Russia's leaders can hardly believe their luck. Never in a million years did they think America would elect a guy as ineffective as this. Obama's pretty-please diplomacy and endless American apology tours have served Russian interests extremely well. . . No sooner did Obama move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than he began making concessions and sacrificing American power on the Altar of "improving relations" with Russia." (pp. 93-94, PB)

Called that one.

There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, California, where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. Keep that in mind when you hear about man made environmental problems like oil spills. Research is on-going. https://www.msi.ucsb.edu/current-projects/effect-hydrocarbon-production-offshore-natural-seep-rates-coal-oil-point-area-santa?

Donald Trump mentioned this in his 2011 book, "Time to get tough," as he commented on the amount of oil and gas the U.S. has, but because of the environmental lobby and Obama's weakness and messing around with the free market economy, there was no leadership.

"Here at home, he's kept in place the bans on drilling off our coasts. But he goes to Brazil, gives them $2 billion through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and brags that he's proud and excited to make America one of Brazil's "best customers." . . . It's the most ludicrous, anemic leadership anyone could imagine."

Where is it safer to have a blow out--on land or 5,000 ft under water

Who pushed BP off shore into deep water (5,000 ft depth) and gave them the permit to drill after reviewing their plan? Who benefits from their taxes? Who are their employees? Who uses their oil? What pension funds (outside Britain) are paying dividends to investors and retirees? And couldn't they do the same, much safer and cheaper on land? Yes.

"Whether more exploration on federal lands would make the U.S. energy independent is debatable, but more onshore development would certainly be safer. In early June there was a blowout in western Pennsylvania. Did you see it on the nightly news? No, because it was capped in 16 hours. The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates oil and gas production there, recorded 102 blowouts of oil and gas wells since the start of 2006, resulting in 10 fires, 12 injuries, and two deaths. None of those made the nightly news either. The largest oil spill on Alaska's North Slope in 2006 was from a pipeline leak. It dumped only 6,357 barrels and had no disastrous impacts."

Terry Anderson: Why it's safer to drill in the backyard

And by the way, just how do you feel about windmills off your coast or on your prairie vista in your line of vision, or a nuclear plant next to your river? How long before "alternative" energy sources will be able to handle this summer's heat?