Palin: “Drill, Baby, Drill and Mine, Baby, Mine”

The staggering BP oil disaster and a string of coal mine disasters have not chastened the “Texas Tea” Party queen.  Sarah “the quitterer” Palin posted on Facebook a piece with the unintentionally ironic headline, “Drill, Baby, Drill and Mine, Baby, Mine; Serious Consequences,” with this half-baked Alaska argument:

Although the Left chooses to mock the mantra of “drill, baby, drill,” and they ignorantly argue against the facts pertaining to the need for America to responsibly develop her domestic supply of natural resources, surely they can’t argue the national security implications of relying on foreign countries to extract supplies that America desperately needs for industry, jobs, and security. Some of the countries we’re now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us.

The solution? Simply, please don’t elect politicians who cast votes that lock up our plentiful supplies. Please consider the case of China bending us over a barrel as it develops rare earth minerals while we ban mining. Please consider Venezuela and Russia and Saudi Arabia and Brazil (as we subsidize their off-shore drilling) and all other energy-producing countries as the Left locks up ANWR, NPR-A, and other American lands that are teeming with our own needed energy supplies.

“Drill, baby, drill and mine, baby, mine.” Yep, the mantra may be mocked by the Democrats, but serious consequences ensue when we let the Left make us rely on foreign countries to feed us energy. The joke is on us if they win.

Please see this article by David Case on the important issue of China and rare earths.

– Sarah Palin

In short, stay addicted to oil, so “Some of the countries we’re now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us” — as they have been doing since the first oil embargo!

Yes, the joke is on us.

For those who don’t know what Texas Tea is, click here.

“Mine, Baby, Mine” could be the conservative mantra for pretty much everything.

16 Responses to Palin: “Drill, Baby, Drill and Mine, Baby, Mine”

  1. MarkG says:

    There are significant quantities of rare earth elements in old electronics. Will Sarah now become a strong supporter of recycling?

  2. Sasparilla says:

    Dim, baby, dim.

  3. Sproqitman says:

    I hate to give Sarah credit for anything, but there’s a kernel of truthiness in what she says. Of course, the first and best course of action is to reduce our consumption of fossil and mineral resources. But if we are to make use of them, wouldn’t it be better to have the extraction take place within our own borders, where we can control the process? I point to Nigeria, Ecuador, Alberta, and Chile as examples of what happens when we outsource our thirst for resources. If we are to ravage the planet, I would prefer we do it here, where it can be subjected to the harsh light of day, instead of hiding it away in a developing country, making it somebody else’s problem.

  4. Peter Bellin says:

    With respect to the rare earths and other material in electronics, we need to develop manufacturing processes that will consider the ease of disassembly and recycling of components. Current designs do not (I believe) consider a cradle to cradle production cycle, but more of a cradle to grave cycle.

    Thus, recycled e-waste all too often gets shipped overseas where it is ‘recycled’ in a manner that is harmful to the workers and the environment.

  5. Michael Tucker says:

    Recycling is for suckers! Real Americans rip resources from the ground! However, it doesn’t matter whether we drill for oil or not we WILL STILL BE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL. You can’t get around the fact that the US cannot possibly supply its own oil requirements. No matter how much we try to develop the Arctic and punch ultra deep wells in the Gulf that will not change; the US simply uses too much to be able to keep up. We had very liberal oil drilling under Bush II and that did not prevent shortages when the economy heated up.

    As far as US rare earth production; the market set the trend. China undercut world prices back in the ‘90’s so the primary US mine, Mountain Pass, California, closed. Since China has stopped export of some rare earths I’m sure the owners are looking at reopening the California mine.

    All resource development has an environmental cost and if we want domestic rare earth production we also must consider the toxic waste. This is from the David Case piece referenced by Sister Sarah:

    “rare earths are exceedingly difficult and messy to isolate. The ore typically contains radioactive elements, like thorium, radium and even uranium in the case of the Chinese mine. Moreover, the ore needs to be boiled in acid literally thousands of times. This renders the waste stream dangerous — which is another reason China has excelled at producing rare earths. The massive Inner Mongolia mine, on the banks of the Yellow River, is said to be an enormous toxic wound on the earth, but environmental standards in the Middle Kingdom remain lax.”

    Oil and mining companies LOVE lax environmental standards but I think California has a different approach to that controversy. If the product is made in China then the recent embargo will not matter. If you want the product made in America then the restricted flow of rare earths from China will present a problem.

  6. wag says:

    I agree, we should tap America’s energy resources. Why, then, does Sarah Palin want to prevent us from using our vast wind and solar resources?

  7. Jim Groom says:

    That woman is an empty suit, no matter who bought it.

  8. dp says:

    part of what michael tucker said:




  9. Tim says:

    I wish someone would publicly quote the DOE report the late Alaska Senator Stevens had the DOE do concerning ANWR. Conclusion, as dp said: DRILLING IN THE US BARELY MATTERS. We do not have “plentiful” reserves – that is just baloney.

  10. Raul M. says:

    Could be shifted to the stage of will complex
    life be able to emerge after the climate has
    restabalized after many mallinia.

  11. James says:

    @ Sproqitman

    The argument Palin makes fails on a number of points:

    1. Unless Mrs. Palin suddenly believes in nationalizing all the oil drilled in this country, it doesn’t make much of a difference. It is sold on the world market, and while the physical oil might not leave the country, it won’t have any significant effect on the world market. We’ll still use the amount we use, and those “unfriendly” countries and corporations will still be profiting.

    2. As dp and Michael Tucker said, there simply isn’t enough oil under the ground in the US to make any significant impact, particularly if we rely exclusively on American oil. Even assuming we could produce the barrels per day to satisfy the immense demand in this country (which we can’t), all available American reserves would be depleted in a matter of years.

    3. By promoting a continued reliance on fossil fuels, it delays any movement toward rational long-term alternatives, so that when the day comes when we do exhaust our resources, we will not have made progress towards a new energy future and will again have to turn to the major oil providers.

    4. We very well may need our oil again one day, for plastics, pharmaceuticals and things we may not have even thought of yet. Why destroy our national supply when we can preserve it for future generations?

  12. ToddInNorway says:

    Is it just me or do I read an incredible Freudian slip by Palin that we should be “drilling in what is hers…”?! I have heard that sex sells but honestly this is toooo much….

  13. Chris Winter says:

    What Tim (#9) said about Alaskan oil supplies. The commonly quoted figure for ANWR is that its oil would last about six months once it got into production, which would take years from the date when permission was given.

    Meanwhile, the existing North Slope fields are running dry. I just read that the flow down the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is down to 700,000 bbl per day (it’s designed for 2 million). If it drops to 600,000, experts are concerned that it may freeze up along the way.

  14. Leif says:

    The Unites States wastes in inefficiencies the amount of energy that the Alaska pipeline produces. I do not have a like to that fact but I am sure that it is a valid statement. It may well even be an understatement.

  15. Leif says:

    “link” not “like” in the above comment. Still early out west.

  16. Mike Roddy says:

    The US has about 3% of global oil supplies.

    I wonder what someone like James Madison or Abraham Lincoln would think of Palin?