53 responses to “The Decline of Obama’s America”

  1. luxury nyc hotels

    Great website…

    Cool post, I really enjoyed reading it. I will check out your site for some more content on this subject….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. business coach

    Websites worth visiting…

    I enjoyed reading your article, many thanks….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. kp5 cm023 airsoft electric gun full size loaded

    Airsoft Guns…

    It’s really a nice and helpful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. green tea tablets

    Nature Herbal World…

    Great line up. We will be linking to this great article on our site. Keep up the good writing….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Fishing Boats

    Bass Fishing Boats…

    We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve done an impressive job and our whole community will be thankful to you….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Apple Notebooks

    New Macbook Review…

    Great post! I always look forward to checking your blog every day! :)…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. blackheads

    2011…

    Wonderful site. Plenty of useful information here. I’m sending it to a few friends ans also sharing in delicious. And obviously, thanks for your effort!…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Potato And Leek Soup

    Potato And Leek Soup Nice flyer. I learn something more hard on separate blogs familiar. It be moving to construe proportion off their writers and practice a young something from their accumulation. I’d take to use whatsoever with all the accumulatio…

    Nice flyer. I learn something more hard on separate blogs familiar. It be moving to construe proportion off their writers and practice a young something from their accumulation. I’d take to use whatsoever with all the accumulation in my teeny weblog wh…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Final Countdown

    2011…

    Pretty! This was a really wonderful post. Thank you for your provided information….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. senior dating

    dating site ghanaweb…

    Sites of interest we have a link to…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. rewfarasfvmsdr

    Great website…

    Cool post, I really enjoyed reading it. I will check out your site for some more content on this subject….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Christine

    WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
    Call for Obama’s resignation cites ‘deceit, fraud, dishonesty’
    ‘We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government’
    Posted: June 08, 2010
    11:30 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely

    A retired U.S. military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites has issued a call for President Obama’s resignation and a new election to replace him.

    The call comes from Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific.

    “We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution,” he said in remarks delivered to a Lincoln Reagan dinner in Virginia City, Mont., last week and published today on the Stand Up America website.

    “And a call for a national petition for new elections to select the next president of the United States of America must be initiated,” he continued. “We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government.”

    A number of retired military members have sought the removal of Obama from office. They mostly have tried to utilize the courts to challenge his eligibility based on claims he fails to meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” Few have asserted Obama needs to walk away from the Oval Office for the best of the nation.

    “The Declaration of Independence states: ‘To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness,'” Vallely said in his remarks.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Christine

    Reality About Illegal Aliens
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eazJrO2mCk&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOXPbYmoD8&NR=1

    Bush didn’t take care of it. Obama, close the border! No amnisty to illegal aliens. No rewards for law breakers.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Christine

    The National Debt Road Trip
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Sean

    The reason why his ratings are down is because unemployment is still high. People don’t realize that they have only spent 10% of the stimulus and it is not supposed to kick in until 2010..

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/bruce-bartlett-misstates-the-problem/

    His ratings are also down because people think he is not doing enough and letting partisanship turn him from a liberal into a moderate. We are not going to get universal care, cap and trade isn’t enough, and gays still can’t get married. People don’t think that he is doing too much, they think that he is not doing enough..

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. longshotlouie

      Hmmm, wonder why they are already talking about the need for another ‘stimulus’.

      Krugman continues to be wrong.

      That’s odd, the people who originally supported him show the smallest decline in the polls. That makes your statement, as usual, hogwash.

      The majority of Americans do not want UC, C&T, or Homosexual ‘marriage’.

      Get A Clue

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. longshotlouie

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8.

    The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. longshotlouie

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –5.

    That Slippery Slide

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Dfens

    Here’s a link to the Chamber of Commerce/NASA website. Do you think the Chamber of Commerce cares who gets to the Moon first? Do you think they care who exploits the Moon’s resources first? Hell no. To them the US is just a market. It doesn’t matter who builds the products or who gets the resources. They don’t care about non-finacial terms like freedom and liberty. We’re a market. We are sheep. The sooner we can be herded into one large group the better.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Dfens

    If you were in Washington DC Wednesday, you could have attended a joint workshop on Lunar Surface Systems Concepts. It was funded by NASA and the US Chamber of Commerce. The US Chamber of Commerce! Now there’s a globalist organization if ever I saw one. They spend all their time lobbying for open borders, unlimited H1-b visas, and free trade.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Dfens

    Let me add this, there is a fundamental difference in the way a globalist and an American looks at the exploitation of lunar resources. To a globalist it does not matter who finds exploitable minerals on the Moon. It is a net benefit to the Earth if they are found in economically productive quantities and concentrations. It is a small expense if they are not found. If you’re an American then it is a big deal if another country gets there first. Even if they find ores than cannot be exploited economically now, if competing countries stake claims to these ores now that gives them a huge future benefit over our economy. That gives them a huge amount of economic power they can hold over us. Are you a globalist, or are you an American?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Dfens

    I hate to be alarmist, but the fact of the matter is, now is time to be alarmist. Even back in the hey day of aerospace it took 8 – 10 years to develop spacecraft and about 5 years for aircraft. Now the F-22 took 25 years to develop and I shudder to think about how long they can drag out a spacecraft design. So suddenly it’s 2009 and our good buddies in China are saying they think they’ll be on the Moon in 2017! Maybe the nay sayers are right. Maybe there’s nothing that can be economically mined – ever, but if they’re not and we’re the last ones up there… It’s too big a risk to take. This is the scientific equivalent of our monetary disaster, and in my opinion the stakes are just as high.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Sean

    whoever thinks that the moon is abundent enough in gold and platinum to build a base is totally wrong. I would like to see one inch of proof backing up that theory.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate D

      Building a base on the moon should not be for its resources. It is human’s nature to explore. It’s the future we look to, we all know space is the next step in our human evolution of exploration. If we want to advance as a human species then we have to go above and beyond.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Dfens

        Build it for whatever reason you choose, let’s just do it and do it now. The fact of the matter is, Sean could be right and there is no proof he’s wrong, but the consequences to our nation if he is wrong are extremely dire and enduring. One of the reasons for the growth and prosperity of the US was the relatively pristine nature of the mineral wealth that was here. The people who were here before the arrival of the Europeans had literally only scratched the surface of that wealth, and they themselves had accumulated considerable wealth in gold. Now we’re talking about going to the Moon where no one has touched any of the mineral wealth ever.

        Is there a chance Sean is right? Sure. But if he’s wrong we’re screwed. India is going. China is going. Japan is going. Europe is going. So let’s just sit here and hope they’re all wrong and there’s nothing of any value on the Moon. Let’s keep doling out the money to Blackwater and Haliburton for wars. Let’s keep paying it to crack addicted welfare mothers. Let’s spend trillions on video games and flat screen TVs. Hell, let’s make Sean our god. I’m sure he’d do just as well as Obama. Let’s do all that dumbass stuff and just hope all these other countries don’t know what they’re doing. After all, what could possibly go wrong with that approach?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          They pretty much know whats on the moon because they mapped it out. We mapped it out like 50 years ago, and we have actually been there. We know what every planet is made out of and what kind of resources they have. If there was an abundent source for anything that we could advance with, than we would have considered it in the 1960’s… We are going back to the moon and possibly building a base there before india and china… You have to realize that both india and china are like 50 years behind. India hasn’t even sent anyone to outerspace, they’ve only sent a shuttle.. The united states and russia are and have been dominate in space ever since the beginning. You can’t possibly think our scientists are stupid and have been missing out on something for 50 years.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Dfens

            “Our scientists” are telling your right now, as I said earlier, the Moon is made of the same stuff as the Earth. Theory has it the Moon split off the Earth in a huge planetary impact millions of years ago. That’s why the Moon always presents the same face to the Earth as it orbits. As an aside, there’s a chance Venus split off from the Earth at the same time as it always presents the same face to the Earth as it passes at it’s closest point. We know the Moon has more platinum than the Earth from Earth based observations.

            Back when we were the only ones who could go to the Moon the question was what is the probability there’s something there that’s minable. Now that we have competition, and if you read any of the articles I provided links to you’d know we do have competition, the question becomes, “what are the odds there’s nothing there of value?” Are you willing to bet the economic future of this nation on there being nothing?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Nate D

    It would be much cheaper to build a base on the moon than to support this stupid war. This shows the direction our country would rather take… We are stupid specias and we will destroy ourselves. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Dfens

    Mineral resources are the foundation of our economy. If we abandon the Moon’s resources to competing nations we will suffer, our children will suffer, our way of life and our freedoms will be threatened. Your attitude is treasonous. It is exactly the attitude the globalists want you to have. A weak America is easily taken. A strong American stands alone.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Dfens

    NASA is only currently designing one rocket, the Aries 1. It is a failure already. They’re finding out why a real rocket designer like Von Braun didn’t want to use a solid rocket motor for his first stage. Even if the concept itself was not foolish, the fact is they could have much more quickly put the Orion manned capsule on an existing Atlas or Delta heavy booster and it would have provided the same safety and reliability as NASA’s latest piece of garbage. The only down side would have been that NASA’s favorite contractor, ATK (aka Morton Thiokol of Challenger fame) would not have got a sole source contract to add a 5th segment to their 4 segment solid rocket motor they currently build for the shuttle. Adding a 5th segment necessitates a complete redesign of the booster because it increases the burn area by 25% and thus the pressure. Aries 1 also competes with most of the commercial rockets currently being developed. They plan on building an Aries V out of other shuttle parts at some time in the future. Don’t hold your breath.

    What you should be interested in is why they’re lying to you about this Helium 3, why they aren’t telling you the truth about why foreign countries are interested in going to the Moon, and why NASA continues to drag its feet, choosing to build new rockets instead of using existing assets to get our lunar exploitation program back online? Why has NASA competed with the commercial space industry instead of fostering it? Why have they not made a lunar outpost and the identification of lunar minerals a priority so that the commercial mining industry could exploit the Moon’s resources?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      That is the wildest conspiracy theory i’ve ever heard.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        we don’t need to go to outerspace to dig for resources we can find and take here.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Sean

    “Constellation is a NASA program with the stated goal of gaining significant experience in operating away from Earth’s environment, developing technologies needed for opening the space frontier and conducting fundamental science.[1] Constellation was developed through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which determined the best way for NASA to pursue the goals laid out in President George W. Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.

    NASA plans to develop a host of spacecraft and booster vehicles in order to replace the Space Shuttle and return astronauts to the Moon and then possibly send them to Mars as well. Currently, NASA is in the process of designing two boosters, the Ares I and Ares V. Ares I will have the sole function of launching mission crews into orbit. Ares V will be designed to launch other hardware for use on missions and will have a heavier lift capacity than the Ares I booster. In addition to these two boosters, NASA is designing a set of other spacecraft for use during Constellation. These will include the Orion crew capsule, the Earth Departure Stage and the Altair lunar lander.” wiki

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Dfens

    Really, Sean, NASA is doing just peachy? It is so good to know you think that. By the way, where were you when I was working on shuttle or space station? I don’t remember you being there. I guess your current high opinion of NASA tells me why you remain a nobody.

    Here’s what’s really going on in NASA’s own words:

    Fifty years after Sputnik became the world’s first artificial satellite, a new race is under way with the finish line on the moon. NASA, the former lunar champion, already is predicting defeat.

    “I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are,” NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a low-key lecture in Washington two weeks ago, marking the space agency’s 50th anniversary, still a year away.

    “I think when that happens, Americans will not like it. But they will just have to not like it.”

    Griffin’s candor startled many in the space community, but insiders acknowledge the reality. China has pulled off two manned spaceflights with its own rockets and is eager to head for the moon.

    NASA has a 2020 [and slipping] deadline for returning Americans to the moon. China would like to beat that.

    It has a probe poised for a launch to the moon, supposedly before year’s end. The lunar orbiter is to be followed by a lander and then, by 2017, a robotic mission to return moon rocks. Whether China could land one of its “taikonauts” there before American astronauts arrive is uncertain.

    The U.S. is “more technically advanced. We certainly could be back on the moon faster than the Chinese, but we don’t have the political will and therefore the resources to do it,” said Joan Johnson-Freese, head of the Naval War College’s national security decision-making department. – MSNBC

    I’ve got to admit, I’m amazed. The same people who gave you the Fed and trillion dollar deficits and giving you this line of total crap about our space program and you believe them? You don’t even filter what you hear with the least bit of a critical eye? Ask yourself this, if India is going to the Moon to get Helium 3, why did it bother to send a satelite to map mineral resources? If the Moon is trapping all this Helium 3 out of the solar wind like a sponge, then it’s everywhere uniformly, right? How damn brilliant do you have to be to figure that one out?

    There is a gold rush going on and your country is being left in the dust. It is being left out because your government is bought and paid for by foreign interests and because your aerospace companies are more interested in leaching off of you the taxpayer than they are building anything. No one is going to look out for your interests on this. You’ll either get mad about this and do something yourself, our you’ll be the laughing stock of history. The choice is yours.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      HAHA you used to work there??????? that is hillarious.

      http://www.nasa.gov/missions/index.html

      why don’t you read todays news..

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html

      or read any other news..
      India will send people to outerspace in 2015, and will “walk” on the moon in 2020. It says here in today’s news that the reason india is sending people to the moon is to promote domestic scientific research.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/4788143/India-to-spend-1.7bn-sending-man-to-the-moon.html

      This one describes how china is trying to get the public to fund their space “exploration”
      http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKTRE51O1PZ20090225

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        “Due to the rarity of helium-3 on Earth, it is typically manufactured instead of recovered from natural deposits. Helium-3 is a byproduct of tritium decay, and tritium can be produced through neutron bombardment of lithium, boron, or nitrogen targets. Current supplies of helium-3 come, in part, from the dismantling of nuclear weapons where it accumulates.

        If commercial fusion reactors were to use helium-3 as a fuel, they would require tens of tons of helium-3 each year to produce a fraction of the world’s power.

        The reality is not so clean-cut. The most advanced fusion programs in the world are inertial confinement fusion (such as National Ignition Facility) and magnetic confinement fusion (such as ITER and other tokamaks). In the case of the former, there is no solid roadmap to power generation. In the case of the latter, commercial power generation is not expected until around 2050.” – wiki

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Dfens

    No one gives a rat’s ass about He 3. No one has a reactor that can fuse He 3 or get any energy out of it what so ever. You seem to think you “burn it”. First of all, you don’t burn Helium. It is inert regardless of the isotope. Second, a fusion reactor has been the holy grail of physics for the last 50 years, and frankly we’re not any closer to having one now than we were 50 years ago.

    Physics is dead. The same thing happened to it that happened to aerodynamics. All our scientists started doing research for the sake of funding instead of seeking funding for the sake of research. As is it’s custom, our illegitimate government destroys everything it touches. So what are you going to do, throw up your hands and hope John Gault saves you, or fix government so it does what you need it to do?

    Right now we have a space program that exists to provide expensive, risk free development contracts to a handful of contractors. That’s why they don’t want you to know the serious nature of what we are up against. The contractors run the government and they don’t want their gravy train to end. If you’re fine with that, then let’s keep going the way we’re going and history will deal with us appropriately.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      Who knows what your talking about. NASA is going just as strong as they ever have. We have sent sattalites to every planet in our solar system. We have robots on mars… And next we are setting a new exploration. The milky way alone has 100 billion earth like planets and that is the next large objective for Nasa. Other than that, they probably have about 100 other projects going on including millitary research. NASA and Physics are not dead. Just because you read some article about other countries going to the moon doesn’t mean that we eliminated our space program. Since February 2006 NASA’s self-described mission statement is to “pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.” That is exactly what they are doing.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        China MIGHT send people to the moon in 15 years. Their government said, “the space program is too costly for a country that, despite rapid economic growth, is still struggling to eradicate rural poverty.”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Sean

      “So can we go after minerals on the moon? Before we do, let’s think about mining and smelting on Earth. We use huge amounts of water — huge amounts of power. We consume oxygen and we put out great clouds of gas. But there is no water on the moon, nothing to burn, and no power until we put it there.”
      -Prof. Donald M. Burt
      Geology Department
      Arizona State University

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Dfens

        There are no clouds on the Moon. Wouldn’t that suggest to you that solar power would be readily available? In fact, you could use a large concave mirror to produce a solar furnace quite easily on the Moon. At 1/5th the gravity, it wouldn’t be difficult to support structurally. And guess what one of the byproducts of reducing ores like aluminum and titanium is? If you guessed oxygen, you’d be right. As far as needing water, there is no mining process I know of other than panning for gold that does anything with water other than trying to keep it from flooding their mines.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Nate D

        Sean thinks he knows everything and pretends he is the only educated person here. The FACT there is water on the moon.
        http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/09/moon-water.html

        I could fill hundreds of books of things that Sean doesn’t know and that goes for everyone. So stop debating like you have all the answers, cause you don’t. Once you step foot in a Science debated I will be all over your ass cause that’s what I know best :D

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          what do you want? there is microscopic water found on the moon. No lakes and no fire hydrants. Do you know how to drill?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Nate D

            I’m just saying you post things that aren’t ture and I want to rub it in your face… :D

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            Its not like i’m pretending to know everything. I’ve had this same debate about mining gold on the moon before and i’ve been studying economics in school for years because i’ve really been facinated with monetary policies.. I’m really more into philosophy and history. I like to understand why we do the things we do and how we got here.. Trying to argue about something when somebody has had a passion about it for years, goes to school for it, and who reads about it everyother day is probably not the wisest idea.. I am open to suggestions, i agree with alot of things, and i am 100% okay with admitting i’m wrong when there is proof to back it up… Telling me I don’t know what i’m talking about and having nothing to show me where i’m wrong does nothing but turn a debate into an argument.. THis is okay, but all the arguing before was just a pain for the both of us and we got nowhere with it. We should put it all behind us

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Sean

          Water loosens the soil reducing the amount of impact needed.. Everybody who drills typically uses water.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. James

    What the indians, chinese, and russians are after on the moon is not platinum. It is Helium 3. It is estimated that 3 space shuttle loads of helium 3 burnt in a fusion reactor could meet the worlds power needs for an entire year. Helium 3 is not abundant on earth. The main source for helium 3 on earth is old nuclear warheads. The tritium in old nuclear warheads decays and forms Helium 3. However, since 1955, only about 150 kilograms of Helium 3 is estimated to have been formed in this manner, which isn’t very much at all.

    Helium 3 is trapped within the earth on the surface of the moon and is present in very small quantities (about 0.01 ppm). Therefore, you would need to mine quite a bit of soil to capture the Helium 3. It seems like the economical approach that is being considered is to mine for other precious metals as well, since you have to mine large quantities of earth to begin with.

    Helium 3 is the real prize that the chinese, russians, and indians are after. Whatever platinum and other rare metals they find in the process is a bonus.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      do you know how much it would cost to send three space shuttles to land on the moon?

      “If commercial fusion reactors were to use helium-3 as a fuel, they would require tens of tons of helium-3 each year to produce a fraction of the world’s power.” wiki

      “The reality is not so clean-cut. The most advanced fusion programs in the world are inertial confinement fusion (such as National Ignition Facility) and magnetic confinement fusion (such as ITER and other tokamaks). In the case of the former, there is no solid roadmap to power generation. In the case of the latter, commercial power generation is not expected until around 2050.” – wiki

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Dfens

    As I understand it, a rhetorical question is one where the answer is obvious. The way we are going now, we will be the last country to go to the Moon in this new era of exploration. If you are happy with that, then let’s keep going the way we are going, or we could follow Ron Paul’s advice and get rid of NASA entirely. He makes the valid point that NASA is not a constitutionally authorized entity. So his plan is to get rid of it.

    I suppose if Queen Isabella had followed that line of reasoning, this land we live in would still belong to the people who preceded those of us of European ancestry and we would not have a USA or a US Constitution. In my opinion basic research and risky kinds of exploration are a valid government function. I believe we should amend the US Constitution to allow this kind of thing to be funded by the government. I also think it is our responsibility to get behind the opening of the Moon to commercial exploitation by supporting the kinds of government funded programs required to get us there first instead of last. Now are you with me or are you against me? The answer is not obvious, but it should be.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Nate

    Thanks for the reply. But calm down just a little bit and if you don’t mind, go ahead and limit the rhetorical questions.

    Getting back to the video, it was pretty sweet. Looking forward to hearing Ron Paul’s questions to both Volcker and Bernanke.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Dfens

    Apollo showed the Moon is made of the same stuff as the Earth. Are there any valuable minerals here? Obviously yes, right? The big difference is the Moon is smaller, has more surface area for it’s mass, has less gravity to resist mining, and it has never ever been mined. We know that iron meteorites are generally high in platinum. In fact, one platinum mine in Canada is a meteor impact crater. Now imagine all the iron meteors that have hit the Moon, and many of these impacts have not been covered over by erosion or lava flows. The fact is, valuable minerals are there. The only question is which ones are most accessible? Is it uranium? Could the Moon supply all of our future energy needs? It seems likely platinum could be found in abundance there. Could that be the key to developing economical fuel cell technology that would put an end to our dependence on foreign oil and help balance our trade deficit?

    Whatever it is that can be exploited on the Moon, we don’t want to be the last one’s to find out, do we? We don’t want to be the last to stake our claim. The Chinese are going. The Russians are going. The Indians are going. Of that much we are certain. Do you want to be last? Will the US continue to be the economic powerhouse of this planet when we are buying our mineral wealth from countries that are willing to take a risk on the resources locked in our closest neighbor? How are we going to be judged by history if we were there first, we were there in the ’60s, and we squandered that lead? How will future generations of Americans judge us when we had it all, and let some 3rd world puke holes take it all away? Is that the legacy you want to leave your children and your children’s children? That’s not much to aspire to, is it?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Nate

    Seems to be a very costly mining mission doesn’t it? Is there any evidence to believe the moon holds a pile of minable gold and other precious metals?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Dfens

    I’m sure the only reason India is interested in space is so they can be just like us. Certainly they would never be interested in mining the Moon for resources. Why would anyone think that?

    [India's] Chandrayaan-1 is being sent on a two-year, 80-million-dollar mission to provide an in-depth map of the mineral, chemical and topographical characteristics of the moon’s surface. – Breitbart

    No one is going to the Moon to mine resources. They are just trying to impress us by being like us. That’s all. Doesn’t everyone want to be just like us?

    A chief scientist with China’s Moon exploration programme, Ouyang Ziyuan, said that the country was planning to launch its first mission to the Moon in 2010. He reportedly told the Beijing Morning Post: “Our long-term goal is to set up a base on the Moon and mine its riches for the benefit of humanity.” – BBC News

    Repeat after me, there is no space race, there is no space race. Keep saying it, there is no space race.

    India has approved a £1.7 billion plan to launch its first astronauts into space by 2015, in its latest bid to close the gap with China in what many see as a 21st Century Asian version of the Cold War race for the Moon. – Times Online

    Clearly a fortune in precious metals mined from the Moon, our nearest celestial neighbor that man first set foot on in the ’60s could never have any effect on the wealth of this nation or of this world. Let’s just ignore what’s going on and hope everything works out, shall we?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0