Barack Obama – Who Actually TOLD US He Would Make Electricity Prices ‘Necessarily Skyrocket’ – Has Completely Broken Our Electrical Grid

I’ve been seeing articles about how “vulnerable” our electrical power grid has become to various potential crises.  And we’re finally starting to get to the root CAUSE of the REAL crisis.  In short, it is the “Crisis’-in-Chief” who also goes by the name Barack Hussein Obama.

Note how this article begins by blathering on about “the polar vortex.”  And then see how – by the time the average reader has probably switched his/her brain off – you see the paragraph that says:

The electrical system’s duress was a direct result of the polar vortex, the cold air mass that settled over the nation. But it exposed a more fundamental problem. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. The result is likely to be future price shocks. And they may not be temporary.

So allow me to simply restate the main point: the problem that has caused your electricity bill to soar to never-before-seen heights – and STAY THERE FOREVER – is your stupid decision to elect and then re-elect Barack Obama and a frankly Demonic bureauCrat party (which is what “Democrat” actually stands for).  It was Obama’s dictate – cheered on by worshipful DemoCrats, to bankrupt the coal plants that provided HALF America’s electricity and force them to shut down, to kill nuclear power, to shift to these extravagant and financially ruinous “green” energies so that the rich liberals who bought and invested in these boondoggles could gorge on the pig trough of public money.

I want you to understand before you read the LA Times’ spin: I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN.  I told you it would happen before you elected Obama and said, “I hope they find out about this … before they make the biggest mistake of their lives.”

I pointed out and preserved for the historic record what Obama said:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

[…]

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

[…]

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

That’s what Obama said.  That’s what Obama did.

Obama declared that electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket” under his plan.

Obama said:

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.

Congratulations for voting for his damn plan.

For the record, as this article from a couple of years ago proves, this has been going on.  Obama is and has been at war with American energy and while Obama is powerless, helpless and weak before Putin he is a tyrant when it comes to dictating his domestic agenda.  His war has succeeded.

I pointed out that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal.  We have billions of tons of the stuff.  And Obama made it not only useless to America’s national security and economic prosperity but actually a HANDICAP to them.

And now you get to pay for Obama’s ruinous policies.

I’m stating as a FACT that the LA Times is a biased piece of dishonest propaganda.  As an example, when they talk about “the last decade” and begin their dating with “2006” they don’t bother to tell you that that was the year that Democrats – having lied to the American people – took over both the House and the Senate.  Back then, EVERYTHING was George Bush’s fault because he was the president and he was a Republican and NOTHING could be the fault of Nancy Pelosi’s liberal lordship over the House and Harry Reid’s liberal tyranny in the Senate.  And of course now EVERYTHING is the Republican House’s fault and NOTHING is the president’s fault or the still-there Harry Reid’s fault.  The first thing Pelosi and Reid and the Democrats began doing was imposing energy insanity on America – as I documented.  But given that the LA Times is staffed with propagandist liars who spin the news rather than report it, I want you to note that even THESE Goebbels are admitting reality now:

U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good
Experts warn of a growing fragility as coal-fired plants are shut down, nuclear power is reduced and consumers switch to renewable energy.
By Ralph Vartabedian
April 25, 2014, 8:47 p.m.

As temperatures plunged to 16 below zero in Chicago in early January and set record lows across the eastern U.S., electrical system managers implored the public to turn off stoves, dryers and even lights or risk blackouts.

A fifth of all power-generating capacity in a grid serving 60 million people went suddenly offline, as coal piles froze, sensitive electrical equipment went haywire and utility operators had trouble finding enough to keep power plants running. The wholesale price of electricity skyrocketed to nearly $2 per kilowatt hour, more than 40 times the normal rate. The price hikes cascaded quickly down to consumers. Robert Thompson, who lives in the suburbs of Allentown, Pa., got a $1,250 bill for January.

“I thought, how am I going to pay this?” he recalled. “This was going to put us in the poorhouse.”

The bill was reduced to about $750 after Thompson complained, but Susan Martucci, a part-time administrative assistant in Allentown, got no relief on her $654 charge. “It was ridiculous,” she said.

The electrical system’s duress was a direct result of the polar vortex, the cold air mass that settled over the nation. But it exposed a more fundamental problem. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. The result is likely to be future price shocks. And they may not be temporary.

One recent study predicts the cost of electricity in California alone could jump 47% over the next 16 years, in part because of the state’s shift toward more expensive renewable energy.

“We are now in an era of rising electricity prices,” said Philip Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who said the steady reduction in generating capacity across the nation means that prices are headed up. “If you take enough supply out of the system, the price is going to increase.”

In fact, the price of electricity has already been rising over the last decade, jumping by double digits in many states, even after accounting for inflation. In California, residential electricity prices shot up 30% between 2006 and 2012, adjusted for inflation, according to Energy Department figures. Experts in the state’s energy markets project the price could jump an additional 47% over the next 15 years.

The problems confronting the electricity system are the result of a wide range of forces: new federal regulations on toxic emissions, rules on greenhouse gases, state mandates for renewable power, technical problems at nuclear power plants and unpredictable price trends for natural gas. Even cheap hydro power is declining in some areas, particularly California, owing to the long-lasting drought.

“Everywhere you turn, there are proposals and regulations to make prices go higher,” said Daniel Kish, senior vice president at the Institute for Energy Research. “The trend line is up, up, up. We are going into uncharted territory.”

New emissions rules on mercury, acid gases and other toxics by the Environmental Protection Agency are expected to result in significant losses of the nation’s coal-generated power, historically the largest and cheapest source of electricity. Already, two dozen coal generating units across the country are scheduled for decommissioning. When the regulations go into effect next year, 60 gigawatts of capacity — equivalent to the output of 60 nuclear reactors — will be taken out of the system, according to Energy Department estimates.

Moeller, the federal energy commissioner, warns that these rapid changes are eroding the system’s ability to handle unexpected upsets, such as the polar vortex, and could result in brownouts or even blackouts in some regions as early as next year. He doesn’t argue against the changes, but believes they are being phased in too quickly.

The federal government appears to have underestimated the impact as well. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis in 2011 had asserted that new regulations would cause few coal plant retirements. The forecast on coal plants turned out wrong almost immediately, as utilities decided it wasn’t economical to upgrade their plants and scheduled them for decommissioning.

The lost coal-generating capacity is being replaced largely with cleaner natural gas, but the result is that electricity prices are linked to a fuel that has been far more volatile in price than coal. The price of natural gas now stands at about $4.50 per million BTUs, more expensive than coal. Plans to export massive amounts of liquefied natural gas, the rapid construction of gas-fired power plants and the growing trend to convert the U.S. heavy truck fleet to natural gas could exert even more upward pressure on prices. Malcolm Johnson, a former Shell Oil gas executive who now teaches the Oxford Princeton Program, a private energy training company, said prices could move toward European price levels of $10.

“When those natural gas prices start going up again, we will feel it in the way of higher electricity prices,” warns James Sweeney, a Stanford University energy expert.

The loss of coal is being exacerbated by problems at the nation’s nuclear plants. Five reactors have been taken out of operation in the last few years, mainly due to technical problems. Additional shutdowns are under consideration.

At the same time, 30 states have mandates for renewable energy that will require the use of more expensive wind and solar energy. Since those sources depend on the weather, they require backup generation — a hidden factor that can add significantly to the overall cost to consumers.

Nowhere are the forces more in play than in California, which has the nation’s most aggressive mandate for renewable power. Major utilities must obtain 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020, not counting low-cost hydropower from giant dams in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

In some cases, the renewable power costs as much as twice the price of electricity from new gas-fired power plants. Newer facilities are more competitive and improved technology should hold down future electricity prices, said former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, now a San Francisco attorney.

But San Francisco-based Energy + Environmental Economics, a respected consultant, has projected that the cost of California’s electricity is likely to increase 47% over the next 16 years, adjusted for inflation, in part because of the renewable power mandate and heavy investments in transmission lines.

The mandate is just one market force. California has all but phased out coal-generated electricity. The state lost the output of San Onofre’s two nuclear reactors and is facing the shutdown of 19 gas-fired power plants along the coast because of new state-imposed ocean water rules by 2020.

“Our rates are increasing because of all of these changes that are occurring and will continue to occur as far out as we can see,” said Phil Leiber, chief financial officer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “Renewable power has merit, but unfortunately it is more costly and is one of the drivers of our rates.”

“While renewables are coming down in cost, they are still more expensive,” said Russell Garwacki, manager of pricing design and research at Southern California Edison. The company is imposing a 10% price hike this year to catch up with increased costs in the past.

Officials at the California Public Utilities Commission, responsible for setting utility rates, dispute predictions of large-scale electricity price hikes in the near future. Edward Randolph, head of the PUC’s energy division, said price increases were not likely to exceed the rate of inflation, though the commission has refused to spell out the data on which it bases its projections. In any case, while California already has some of the highest hourly rates for electricity in the nation, the average consumer in the state pays bills that are below the national average because overall electricity use is so low.

The push to wean California off fossil fuels for electricity could cause a consumer backlash as the price for doing so becomes increasingly apparent, warns Alex Leupp, an executive with the Northern California Power Agency, a nonprofit that generates low-cost power for 15 agencies across the state. The nonprofit was formed decades ago during a rebellion against the PUC and the high prices that resulted from its regulations.

“If power gets too expensive, there will be a revolt,” Leupp said. “If the state pushes too fast on renewables before the technology is viable, it could set back the environmental goals we all believe in at the end of the day.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-prices-20140426,0,6329274.story#ixzz30Cs9hCJQ

Will there be a revolt?  Probably not.  We live in times that are even MORE dishonest than Hitler’s and Stalin’s because our leaders are advantaged with the latest skills in mass media manipulation and our media outlets are more propagandistic than Joseph Goebbels or TASS ever was.  Democrats – liars to the cores of their beings – will simply find their equivalent of “Jews” (Republicans, energy companies, insurance companies, rich people, etc.) to slander.  Bad people invariably believe lies – and we have become a bad people.

Obama declared war on coal, and with the aid of the stupid American people who frankly deserve to freeze in the dark, coal was forced to surrender.

We won’t get these assets back for YEARS if we can get them back at all, ye stupid dumbasses.  Even if you vote Republican, the investors who would bring cheap, efficient coal back on line now know that we’re only one election away from a fascist who will bankrupt them.  They won’t DARE invest in coal again: because the moral idiot American people elected and then re-elected a fascist and they know that it can happen again (and may in 2016 in the pantsuited form of Hillary Clinton).

So you CAN count on the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has permanently caused American energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”  Amazingly, he did so in a country that has more coal than any other nation on the face of the earth.

In terms of energy and in terms of so many other things, Obama made the richest nation in the history of the world IMPOVERISHED.

And not only that, but the integrity of our grid is now in open question: having abolished coal, with NOTHING to take its place in terms of either price OR supply, we don’t have enough power to provide so we’re going to have more crashes and more devastating crashes in our electrical grid.

And who is going to suffer the most from this moral idiocy?  The rich?  They’ll buy themselves generators.  And even steep increases will hardly dent the percentage of income they dedicate to their heating and cooling bills.

You stupid liberals.  Here is another example of how you afflicted the poor who will now – thanks to the Democrat Party – have to pay unprecedented percentages of their meager household incomes on their energy because you made their rates soar.

And the only other thing you can count upon in God damn America as Democrats wage economic warfare on the poorest among us is that those very poor are ignorant enough and depraved enough to keep believing the lies of the Democrats who are most oppressing them.

What Liberals Now Openly Admitting About The Radical Green Enviornmentalist ‘Gospel’ Ought To Outrage You.

Note: The print edition of the Los Angeles Times’ March 4, 2013 AA1 top front-page story posted below was “Spreading California’s green gospel.”  The fact that this is ultimately an issue of religious belief for the left is thus reflected in my title.

I will bold face the part that admits the one thing that liberals despise the most – the truth – for your perusal:

Gov. Jerry Brown works to spread California’s green doctrine
California is a leader on the environment, but it needs other states — and nations — on board to keep down economic costs.
March 03, 2013|By Anthony York, Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO — When Gov. Jerry Brown called on his fellow governors at a conference in Washington last week to embrace a California-style pursuit of cleaner air, he was doing more than reinforcing the state’s image as an environmental trailblazer. He was trying to protect its economy.

Brown needs other states and the federal government to adopt key elements of California’s environmental agenda, such as reaping more energy from renewable sources and capping greenhouse gas emissions, if those programs are to be successful here.

The state’s aggressive pursuit of environmental goals has provided a new impetus for green jobs and federal subsidies. But the programs are costly to businesses, raising the price of their energy and forcing them to upgrade to cleaner manufacturing technologies.

If others don’t go green, California could become an outlier, saddling businesses with costly new power while neighboring states continue to use traditional, cheaper energy, experts say. If the efforts under way in California spread to become the new normal, however, all will benefit from economies of scale.

If more states order power companies to limit their use of fossil fuels, for example, the incentive will grow nationwide for firms to develop cheaper alternatives, leaving California consumers less exposed to spikes in electricity rates.

Likewise, if greenhouse gas caps are widely implemented, the state’s landmark climate change law is more likely to be successful. Cleansing the air is “clearly not something California can do on its own,” said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute.

The authors of California’s emissions law said as much in its text: The ultimate goal is “encouraging other states, the federal government and other countries to act.”

Brown has vowed to keep pushing to “decarbonize the economy.” He wants to advance the state’s mandate for renewable energy — already the most ambitious in the nation — further so California will receive as much as half its power from renewable sources within 20 years. In the courts, his administration is defending a state law, challenged by some oil and ethanol companies, that requires gasoline to contain 10% less carbon by the end of the decade.

In Washington, Brown pushed for others to join in. “We can’t do it alone,” he told state leaders gathered for the National Governors Assn. meeting. “We need other states…. We need China. We need India.”

You see, contrary to what “experts” have really been saying all along, liberals assured us that their “alternative” energy sources weren’t any more expensive than the “traditional” sources of fossil fuel that they despise so much and have tried so hard to literally criminalize.

Green energies are STUPIDLY more expensive than fossil fuels.  Period.  Thank you for pointing out at least one true thing in your paper today.  And wait, they revealed an even bigger truth: they also pointed out that if everybody else in the world doesn’t agree with us that the emperor looks incredible in that brilliant outfit and of course he’s not parading around in his underpants, the entire liberal green energy boondoggle will fail BECAUSE OUR COMPETITORS AREN’T AS STUPID AS OUR LIBERALS ARE.

Californians are paying more for their electricity than anyone in America with the exception of the also-liberally dominated Hawaii and the Northeastern region of the country.  North Dakota – a state that doesn’t criminalize fossil fuels – has residential rates of 7.97 cents per kilowatt hour, as opposed to California’s nearly double 15.3 cents.  It’s not that simple, obviously, given regional phenomena, but that’s an in-your-face fact.

As California dives in to the incredibly inefficient and expensive green energies by criminalizing fossil fuels and tax-funding their green energy boondoggles, our rates our going to skyrocket.  And even MORE actually-born-in-America citizens are going to flee this insanely stupid people’s republic.

Jerry Brown and California Democrats did what Obama is doing to the rest of America: they have bet their economy’s future on green energy.  And either every other state does it so it doesn’t make California’s investment look stupid and evil, or California goes bankrupt.  And as California goes, so goes the nation.

Either the entire world – including China and India which are actually building an average of four coal plants every single DAY in their countries rather than “going green” – goes Obama-stupid green worship – or America goes bankrupt.  Those are your choices now.

Liberals gambled everything on this one – and the facts show that they are going to lose our bet for us.  Obama made a bet, America got bit.  Bit by a poisonous snake that is going to kill us.

It’s amazing.  Even the Europeans who thought of this incredibly stupid green energy garbage in the first place are now beginning to flee this stupidity even as under Obama and Democrats we’re diving into it like no one ever has.  The Europe that embraced this crap is bankrupt because of it and closer to complete fiscal collapse than we are only because we were never this stupid until now.

Spain led Europe in diving into green energy.  It went bankrupt.  And now Spain is one of the most bankrupt nations in the EU.

And that’s the model we’re following.  Seriously.

One of the big reasons that our manufacturing fled to China is because the energy needed to manufacture something is dirt cheap.  They are leading in the manufacturing of all the green energy gizmos that liberals promised would create American jobs because of their energy cost and labor cost and cost of doing business are so much cheaper.  Chinese aren’t “pro-green” in the sense that they’re ever going to require their people to use it; they’re “pro-stupid” in the sense that they will build whatever stupid Americans want so they can take our jobs and our money from us.  If Americans want to bankrupt themselves with idiotic green energy, China will be only too happy to build our suicide machines for us and create more jobs for China in the process.

I mentioned coal and the fact that that’s the energy source that China is using to economically bury us with our own stupidity.

Nearly half – 48.2 percent – of the electricity generated in America came from coal when Obama took office.  And what was it that Obama said would happen to these producers of half of the nation’s electricity?  He promised to bankrupt them.

Please understand, we voted for our suicide.  Either we knew what we were doing and willingly chose suicide in voting for Obama, or we were so stupid that we proved ourselves unfit to survive by any Darwinian standard and voted for suicide by proxy.  But we voted for national suicide in 2008 and we confirmed that decision in 2012.

It doesn’t matter that coal is an incredibly cheap and efficient power source.  It doesn’t matter if America has more coal by far and away than any other nation on earth.  It doesn’t matter if bankrupting coal production is a synonym for bankrupting America.  We’re going to bankrupt coal producers and we’re going to bait and switch America to our green energy.

It is a truly amazing fact that three of your very most important elements to businesses – the cost of energy, the cost of labor, the cost of complying with government corruption and regulation – are THE most important things any employer bases business decisions on.  Liberals make all three plus many other costs of doing business MASSIVELY more expensive.  And then liberals are constantly shocked and appalled that businesses would respond to the middle finger that Democrats just gave them by taking their operations somewhere else.

So now you understand, as even acknowledged by liberalism: either the whole world decides to quit using cheap, abundant energy and chooses instead to only use expensive, production-intensive green energy boondoggles, or else America is going to go broke on the bet just as Europe went broke on pretty much the same bet.

But don’t worry about it, liberals.  The one thing you slandering liars know how to do is blame other people for your disasters.  You’ll get away with it again just like you got away with it in 2008.

Because the beast is coming.  And evil must blossom like a corpse flower to make straight in the wilderness a highway for their god.

You secular humanist liberals will be able to take his mark soon.

Electricity Rates WILL Skyrocket: Obama EPA Regulations To Cost Coal Industry Extra $180 BILLION

Gateway Pundit came up with this further proof that Barack Obama truly is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

For the record, nearly HALF of America’s electricity comes from coal.

Obama’s EPA Regulations Will Cost Coal Industry $180 Billion & Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, 8:03 PM

Worst. President. Ever.
In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”

He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to  skyrocket.

He wasn’t kidding.
In January the Obama Administration, for the first time ever, blocked an already approved bid to build one of the largest mountaintop removal coal mines in Appalachian history.

And, on Wednesday it was reported that Obama’s energy plans will cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket…
Just as he promised.
Via US News and World Reports:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits.

For the record… For every green job created by the Obama EPA, four jobs are lost in the economy.

This man is out to “fundamentally transform” America in a way that will fundamentally destroy America.

And he’s out to hurt ordinary Americans and make their children suffer.

Who do you think is ultimately going to pay this $180 billion TAX that Obama is imposing?  If you guessed “the poor bastard customers” you win the prize.  If you guessed anybody else, then you’re frankly too stupid to vote or reproduce.  Please terminate your voter registration and then go sterilize yourself.

The next question is just as simple: if you make energy prices skyrocket on businesses, are they going to be in a position to create more jobs?  If you think businesses are more likely to create jobs facing such gigantic price-hikes on their energy, I hope that you have already been spayed or neutered.  Because you are simply unreal stupid.  And this kind of dumb has got to end if this country is going to make it to the next generation.

If that isn’t enough, liberals are actually pushing a $1.00 a gallon tax on gasoline to force Americans to purchase the electric cars that Obama imposed on GM after Obama fired the GM CEO and after screwing GM bondholders in order to illegitimately give the company to unions.  It was Obama’s corporatist-fascist (see also here) mouthpiece pushing a huge gas tax to force Obama’s crappy electric clown cars on people who would never want it unless Big Brother made them buy it.

After screwing the legitimate owners of GM, Obama imposed a $16 billion loss for the American people.  But it’s only your money – and your money rewarded Obama’s union cronies who will of course return the favor to Obama with more of your dollars.  In the case of Chrysler, Obama demonized and threatened bondholders, with the result that he practically gave Chrysler away to a foreign company (Fiat).  And actually took credit for all of this as though it were a good thing!!!

Meanwhile, Obama is granting so few new permits for new oil drilling it is positively unreal, which will only make America more dependent on foreign oil and only make that heating oil and gasoline more and more expensive for us both now and down the line.

We now know what “hope and change” looks like: it looks like the American people freezing in the dark at night in the winter and sweltering in the dark at night in the summer, while all the while subsidizing huge write-offs to incentivize the purchase of electric clown cars.

Obama Hope N’ Change Now Means No Food, No Fuel And No Roof Over Your Head

Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” (Revelation 6:6).

Messiah Obama wisely understands that we need sky high energy prices to force us to abandon lifestyles that are bad for the world.  That way he can keep the promise he made to the earth: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”  The earth is much bigger than your little children, so Obama can break his competing promises to you and your family.  In fact, your evil if you want him to keep his promises that would prevent him from his messianic duties of healing the whole world.

A gallon of gas was $1.79 when Obama took over from that terrible George Bush.  Unfortunately, it has gone up about 110% under Obama, to $3.88 this week.  Damn that Bush devil!  Can you believe the way he actually wanted to keep the cost of our energy low, so people could do awful stuff like drive to work?  The half of us who sponge off the other half don’t need work, so why should the half we sponge off of?

The United States has more coal than anyone else on the planet by far and away, and half of our nation’s electricity comes from coal.  But America is evil if it uses coal.  Let China build a new coal-fired electricity plant every single week and overtake our economy.  They’ll be bad and our poor, destitute starving children will be good.  That’s why Obama promised liberal San Franciscans, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”  HERES the system any enlighted American would clearly want: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”  It won’t matter how many Americans die in abject poverty; Obama is just what we needed.

China will overtake the U.S. economy by 2016, they’re saying now.  What’s that, you ask?  They were saying China wouldn’t overtake us until 2018 just a few months ago?  You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the words “funamentally transform” very well, do you?  But they’ll be bad, because they’ll be burning all that oil and coal and we won’t be.  That makes us better.  And so what if we have to freeze in the dark?

And the messiah to the world also knows that if you can afford gasoline, you might be so selfish as to actually drive.  And evil working poor people usually can’t buy expensive and impractical electric cars, so he must force them by making it hurt for them to drive.  That’s why he appointed an energy secretary who has been trying to“figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” .  And of course when gas is $9 a gallon in Germany, Obama has a long way to go to bring Europe to America.  The only tragedy of soaring gas prices, of course, is that Americans might actually hold Obama responsible.  That’s why he answered the question, “Could the high gas prices help us?” by saying, “I think I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”

We already voted for the “hope and change” of $9 a gallon gas in the wonderful fundamentally transformative election of 2008.  And how dare people get angry about that now!!!

Because Obama in his blessed wisdom knows that most Americans are far, far too stupid to understand anything that happens gradually, such as gas rising to the $8 a gallon levels like they are in Europe.  And it doesn’t really matter how much the American people suffer.  Not compared to healing earth and lowering the seas like Moses.  Obama will be better than Moses; he’ll make the level of the whole ocean change!!!!

And then there are the large families that can’t fit all their kids into an electric car or a hybrid anyway.  Obama is right: they should like kill the extra children or something.  Because children should die so the earth can be happier.

And food?  So what if the price of food is going through the roof?  Michelle Obama will tell you that you’re too fat anyway.  You need to lose a whole lot of weight, and her husband’s policies will give you the help you need.  You shouldn’t be allowed to eat half as much food as you eat, anyway.  They don’t get to eat in North Korea, and it’s a socialist worker’s Utopia.  So why should it be any different in the worker’s Utopia your Dear Leader is trying to create for you here?  North Koreans are 5.3 inches (13.5 cm) shorter and 30 pounds (13.5 kg) lighter than those fat overfed capitalist South Korean bastards.  And American kids should be as short and gaunt as their fellow socialist travellers.

Michelle said of his worshipfulness: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  Or full.  Either your stomach or your gas tank.  And I couldn’t agree more.  As we socialists have said in the past, “Arbeit macht frei.”  And just what kind of a bad person are you for not being grateful to him?

I sure hope I’m not putting too much crap in the sandwich I’m feeding you.  Because excrement is a precious commodity in North Korea.  And it should be just as precious here.

But just in case you think the hope and change of Obama’s fundamental transformation is already more than you can bear, it gets even better.  The cost of having a roof over your head is skyrocketing, too.  Which might help you not worry so much about the price of food and the price of fuel.

Renters spending bigger chunk of income on housing
Study says supply of affordable housing has shrunk along with incomes.
Posted by Teresa at MSN Real Estate on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:48 PM

Record numbers of Americans are paying more than half of their pretax income for rental housing, according to a new study.

The study, by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, found that the recession’s toll on incomes had increased more families’ housing-cost burdens. Almost 26% of renters spend more than half of their income on rent and utilities. Another 26.2% spend 30% to 50% of their incomes.

The study’s findings are similar to the findings of the Center for Housing Policy, which found that working families, both renters and homeowners, were spending a larger proportion of their income on housing. [..]

Lower-income renters have historically struggled to find affordable housing and have paid a disproportionate share of their income in rent. But, according to the study, that problem is moving up the income ladder with more lower-middle-income renters and middle-income renters paying 30% to 50% of their incomes for rent and utilities.  […]

Here’s how The Washington Post summarizes the situation:

The study offers the latest in a series of grim statistics about the scarcity of rental housing, especially for the working poor. The supply has not kept up with demand in part because of a shortage of apartments, a key source of new rentals. Developers cut back on such projects when the economy deteriorated in 2009, which drove down vacancies and boosted rents. Analysts say they expect rents to keep climbing as developers try to ramp up new projects and catch up with demand.

In many areas, the demand is driven by families who lost their homes to foreclosure during the housing bust and ended up searching for rentals. Meanwhile, as the job market recovers, more newly employed young adults appear to be seeking their own apartments instead of living with their parents, putting even more upward pressure on rental rates, according to one of the study’s researchers.

But don’t worry.  Pretty soon, thanks to Obama’s financial policies, you’ll have cash.  Lots and lots of cash.  Wheelbarrows full of it, in fact.

The decline of the U.S. dollar is accelerating rapidly.

Here are a couple of videos worth watching about the exciting fundamentally transformative changes you can hope for coming your way soon!

.

.

Gas Prices Have Risen 55% On Obama’s Watch And Continue To Soar

Remember all the blame directed at George Bush when gas prices rose?  Remember how the Democrats literally began federal investigations over the price increases in what amounted to a political hit job?

Well, gasoline prices have quietly increased 55%, a dollar a gallon, under Obama’s watch, and suddenly the same Democrats who swore that high crimes and misdemeanors had been committed under Bush are now completely silent.

From the Washington Times:

Gas up $1 a gallon on Obama’s watch
Pressure rises for exploration
Thursday, March 25, 2010
By Stephen Dinan  and Kara Rowland

Gas prices have risen $1 since just after President Obama took office in January 2009 and are now closing in on the $3 mark, prompting an evaluation of the administration’s energy record and calls for the White House to open more U.S. land for oil exploration.

The average price per gallon across the U.S. hit $2.81 this week, according to the Energy Information Administration. That was up from $1.81 the week of Jan. 26, 2009, just after the inauguration, and marks the highest price since Oct. 20, 2008.

John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, said price increases are a result of the cost of crude oil, thanks to a decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries not to raise production even as economic growth in countries such as Russia and China spurs more demand.

“From all indications, we’re going to see $3 gas again this summer,” he said.

The Obama administration also blames the market for the high prices and argues that its record for expanding energy development has been solid over the past year.

“The prices are set by the world market,” said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, which manages federal lands that would be leased for oil exploration.

Gas prices have been on a roller-coaster ride over the past decade, dropping to near $1 after President George W. Bush’s first year in office, crossing the $2 mark in 2005 and reaching $4 in June 2008 before Congress and Mr. Bush took action, lifting presidential and congressionally imposed moratoriums on expanding offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. Bush lifted the presidential moratorium in July that year. The congressional moratorium expired Sept. 30, and prices fell precipitously, dropping more than $1 in October.

“The reason that it dropped is because the U.S. sent a signal to the markets, by dropping the moratoria, that we’re going to drill on our lands. Obviously, we never followed up, and thus you see the crisis gradually rising,” said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee.

He said the solution is the same for both the short-term and long-term prices: Assure the markets that the U.S. will pursue domestic exploration.

You can see the impact that America drilling for its own oil has on prices – and how despicable the mainstream media can be in covering up the truth – in the following CBS piece entitled “The Immediate Benefit Of Offshore Drilling” from July 17, 2008:

After trading at a record high of $147 a barrel Friday, the price of oil saw its largest one-day drop since the 2003 beginning of the Iraq war on Tuesday, falling $6.44 a barrel. Wednesday, it fell another $3.71, to $135.03, and at one point was trading as low as $132.

So what happened? As is usually the case with markets, a variety of factors caused this dramatic drop. According to the Associated Press, the Energy Information Administration announced that U.S. crude-oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels; beleaguered banks have been selling off valuable energy contracts to pay for other debts; and there’s even some speculation that computer programs used by Wall Street may create a “cascading effect” once prices start to drop.

But bizarrely, the AP didn’t mention that on Monday – again, the day of the single biggest one-day drop in oil prices in five years – President Bush removed the executive order imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States.

To think that this dramatic and unexpected move by the Bush administration didn’t have a significant effect on oil prices is folly. Even Democrats admit that relatively small margins in oil production could have a huge impact on prices.

The price per barrel of crude oil – which was at an all-time high the day Bush signed the moratorium that ended the ban on offshore drilling after going up and up and up to that point – continued to drop and drop.  By September, it was below $109 a barrel.  By October it had dropped even more.  And it kept dropping.

But now in the age of Obama, it’s going up and up and up again.  We have had a 55% increase in the price of our gasoline during a terrible recession.  Obama’s energy policies have hurt this nation badly at an incredibly vulnerable period, without so much as a peep from most of the media.

Barack Obama threatened to bankrupt the coal industry – which produces 49% of our nation’s electricity – and said that:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

He told just enough lies and half-truths to get coal-state Democrats such as  West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller to get them to believe he wouldn’t destroy their economies.  But now that he’s elected he’s free to break those promises and pursue ruinous policies.  Rockefeller is now saying of Obama that:

“he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

But it’s like, “Sorry Sucker.”  When you vote like a fool, you receive a fool’s fate.

Anyway, maybe you thought, “Well, I’m not in a coal producing state,” or “I’m not in a coal-fired electric grid,” so you thought Obama’s shockingly bad energy policies didn’t matter.

But you’re still going to have to put gas in your car, and Obama’s going to see to it that it costs you a pretty penny to do it.

In fact, gas will have to rise to the European level prices of at least $7/gallon in order for Obama’s policies to impact CO2 levels as per his energy policy.  So you can bet that fuel prices will continue to rise, and rise, and rise.

We’ve had a clear call from the American people to drill for our own oil before.  The Democrats who stopped us from drilling in the first place went utterly nutjob ballistic –

With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

– in their campaign to prevent domestic energy production – until an overwhelming majority in American opinion made them change their tune.  And then they pledged that they would allow the offshore drilling ban to expire.

Only they didn’t, because Democrats are liars without shame.  Obama signed a brand new moratorium banning domestic drilling.  There will be no domestic energy production under his watch – unless you count the pathetic little toys he says he’ll build that won’t even put so much as a scratch our energy requirements.

Oh, Obama was perfectly willing to lie to us about domestic oil the same way he lied to Jay Rockefeller about domestic coal.  Lies come incredibly easy for Obama – especially since the lamestream propaganda won’t expose him – which leaves him free to tell a whopping load of them.

We have TRILLIONS of barrels of recoverable oil.

Democrats keep saying that there’s no point drilling for our own oil because it would take ten years for the oil to get into system and bring prices down.  First of all that isn’t true; energy companies say they could be up and running in only 3-4 years.  But even if we assume their ten-year figure, they’ve been saying it for decades – and if we’d drilled ten years’ ago, we’d have that oil in our system NOW, wouldn’t we?

Obama’s policy is based upon undermining oil, coal, and natural gas in order to foster the development of solar, wind, and other energy methods that the moonbeam crowd favor.

Here’s the problem: we can’t even BEGIN to address our energy needs with these “environmental” sources.  You get so much more energy at so much lower of a cost from oil, coal, and natural gas versus solar or wind that it isn’t even funny.

A couple of charts illustrate this point:

.

We need to harness our domestic energy.  We need oil, coal, and natural gas.

We’re not going to get them under Obama, or under any form of Democrat rule.

You can count on seeing a shocking trend of higher and higher gasoline prices, to go with a “necessary skyrocketing” of our energy prices, under Barack Obama.

At least until we vote Democrats out of office.

Al Sharpton: ‘The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected President Obama’

This is an article about raving moral idiocy.

What follows will be Al Sharpton’s version of what Adolf Hitler basically told his people: “Look, you voted for me in 1933.  You made me your Chancellor, and then you made me your Fuhrer.  So the fact that I wrote about killing all the Jews in my Mein Kampf while on the campaign trail to absolute power means that YOU voted to kill all the Jews.  And therefore you are now duty bound to round up as many Jews as you can find.”

You may not like my analogy regarding Hitler and Jews, but it is exactly the same as what Al Sharpton is essentially saying about Obama and ObamaCare.

There’s not a single major polling organization that has found that the people want ObamaCare.  And most polls have support for ObamaCare in the 30s, with basically 2-1 margins against it.  Here’s an example from CNN’s poll out yesterday:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

That matches the 20-point margin from the Fox News poll, which had the margin at 55% against versus only 35% for ObamaCare.

We’ve had three statewide elections during the ObamaCare debate.  All three states had voted heavily for Obama; and all three states elected Republicans over Democrats.  Even Camelot voted Republican, as Massachusetts voters elected a man who campaigned to be the 41st vote against ObamaCare to replace Ted Kennedy as their senator.

But none of that matters for Al Sharpton.  We voted for our Fuhrer on November 2008.  And the will of the Fuhrer is therefore ergo sum the will of the people.

Here’s Al Sharpton’s moral “logic”:

“I think that the president and Nancy Pelosi get credit,” Sharpton said. “I think this began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on.”

And if that transformation is socialism, then so be it, he explained. That is what the American public “overwhelmingly” voted for.

“First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not act as though the president didn’t tell the American people – the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised.”

Despite polling showing otherwise leading up to the momentous occasion of the vote on health care reform, the claim this goes against the wishes of the American people is false based on the 2008 presidential election.

“I don’t understand Republicans saying this is against the will of the American people,” Sharpton said. “They voted for President Obama who said this was going to be one of the first things he would do and he has done the first hurdle of that tonight. So I think the American people was very loud and clear. This was not some concept the president introduced after he won. He ran on this and the American people won tonight because they got finally something from a president they voted for.”

Let me go back to my Hitler analogy.  It is my contention that, even if I had been fool enough to vote for Hitler in 1933, I had absolutely  no duty whatsoever to support his policy of killing Jews, even though I should have known all about his promise to do so when I voted for him.  Quite the contrary: I argue that I would have had a moral duty to oppose Hitler from carrying out his “final solution” policy, whether I had voted for him or not.

It is not only a bogus argument that Sharpton is making; it is a fundamentally immoral argument.

In one way, and one way only, I can’t disagree with Sharpton.  Barack Obama is a socialist – that’s what conservatives have been pointing out all along.  Sharpton now acknowledges that, but Democrats were falling all over themsleves to not only deny but denounce the charge during the campaign.

Now, Obama’s socialism is obvious to all, and Sharpton is saying, “You bought it, now you have to drive it and like it.”

The thing is, Al Sharpton fundamentally misunderstands a democratic republic.  In Marxist countries, you vote for your leader, and then that leader uses that vote to remain in power forever.  But in direct contradiction to those type of states, in America you have the right to change your mind.  You have the right to say, “I didn’t sign up for this.”  You have the right to say, “This isn’t what I voted for.”  You have the right to turn against the ideology, the policies, and even the person you voted for.

Al Sharpton’s “America” really looks more like Venezuela.  And Barack Obama should be president for life.  After all, didn’t we vote for him once?

Al Sharpton’s “America” is also a very hypocritical place.  Remember Iraq?  Americans – who voted for George Bush and even re-elected him – were once highly favorable of him, and supported the war in Iraq to numbers that dwarfed any support Obama ever had for ObamaCare.  But that didn’t stop Al Sharpton from railing against it, did it?

Suddenly, under Sharpton’s incredibly hypocritical vision, Republicans have utterly forfeited the right to oppose that Sharpton himself never seemed to feel he had forfeited when Bush was in power.

Now, I’m glad that Al Sharpton has finally openly affirmed that Barack Obama is a socialist.  I knew that was the case since March 2008, when I discovered that Obama had for 23 years been going to a “church” that spewed Marxist theology.  Sharpton is right about Obama’s socialism; but he’s wrong about America, he’s wrong about our political process, and he’s wrong about the American people.

Sharpton is right: Obama DID openly reveal his socialism.  But you had to read between the lines, because Obama would say one thing, and then say something else that was clearly in direct contradiction with the first thing he said.  And he did that over, and over, and over again.

Obama appeared to an audience in San Francisco and said of Pennsylvanians, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  It was hard-core Marxism, right out of Karl Marx’s “religion is the opiate of the masses”, except with a specifically anti-American twist.

He told another San Francisco audience that he planned to destroy America’s most plentiful source of energy (coal) with the power of government, bankrupt private coal producing businesses, and force the price of energy to “necessarily skyrocket.”

Nothing socialist about that one, eh?

He told Joe the plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”  Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” And you just can’t get away from that “socialism” word.  It comes right out of Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” playbook.

Al Sharpton is right.  It was socialism.  And Americans should have recognized that.

But many Americans didn’t.  Because Obama was saying all kinds of other stuff.  Because the Obama campaign and the mainstream media that was just spewing propaganda kept saying, “It’s not socialism!  Socialism, you say?  That’s outrageous!!!”

And too many Americans said, “Okay.  The New York Times says he’s wonderful.  He wouldn’t lie.”

But he DID lie.  And it was the New York Times that provided the core promise that Obama broke into a thousand cynical, disingenuous pieces.

I write about Obama’s biggest and most cynical lie in an article entitled, “Obama Promise to Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie.”  I provide a New York Times article that begins:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But he never even came close to healing anything.  He pushed a radical agenda, and demonized his opposition, right from the get-go.  Instead of reaching out to Republicans who were opposed to the slant of what turned out to be the gigantic stimulus boondoggle, Obama didn’t reach out: instead he said, “I won.”  Was THAT moving beyond the divisive politics of Washington???  Did that bring Democrats, independents, and Republicans together???

Not even close.

Do you call ramming a bill that will fundamentally transform our health care system, our society, and our very way of life on a narrow hard-core partisan vote by a nasty reconciliation process “moving beyond divisive politics”?

When John McCain spoke out about the incredibly corrupt process the Democrats had used to buy Democrat votes for ObamaCare behind closed doors, Obama told McCain, “We’re not campaigning anymore.  The election’s over.”

Excuse me?  Obama’s CALLING THAT DAMN SUMMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS AN ACT OF CAMPAIGNING.  And John McCain was not talking about the election; he was talking about the incredibly cynical process that was crafting a terrible health care bill.

But you see in Obama the same arrogance of power that Al Sharpton is trying to describe, that, “I am your elected Fuhrer and you WILL bow down and obey.”

Neither Obama or Sharpton ever gave Bush or HIS election (or re-election) one iota of the fealty they now demand Republicans and opponents must give to Obama.  It’s just an amazing act of hypocrisy.

In point of fact, the man who violated his CORE PROMISE – according to the New York Times – is now THE MOST POLARIZING PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Allow me to wrap up: Is Obama a socialist?  yes, Al Sharpton is quite correct that Barack Obama told us all about his socialism.  Does that mean that we now must bow down before the Obama agenda?  No, nothing could be further from the truth – and the very fact that Sharpton thinks so should mark him as an anathema to the American political process.  Did Obama fundamentally lie and misrepresent himself to the American people?  Absolutely.  And do the American people now have a right to turn against Obama and his socialist policies?

To quote Sarah Palin, “You betcha we do!”

Leading Democrat Says Obama “beginning not to be believable to me”

Oops.  Joe Wilson was right all along.  He just didn’t phrase it politely enough.

West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller ended his description about Obama lying to him on coal by saying, “And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

So maybe Joe Wilson would have been okay if he’d just shouted out, “You’re beginning to not be believable to me!”

There’s that saying, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  I wonder what they say after someone has been fooled like 50,000 times.

I only know what you’d call such a person: a liberal.

Obama’s starting to be “not believable” on coal …
posted at 4:54 pm on February 12, 2010 by Ed MorrisseyWhen it comes to coal, Barack Obama lost all of his credibility with the Right when he told the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008 that any new coal-burning plant would get bankrupted in an Obama presidency, thanks to tough environmental policies he planned to use to discourage fossil fuel use.  As for Democrats and crossover voters in Coal Belt states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, they clung to Obama’s promise to support clean-coal technology, and to his appointment of a supposedly coal-friendly EPA chief.  Now, however, after the EPA has announced its plans to consider carbon dioxide a dangerous emission and the halting of coal-mining permits, not even Senator Jay Rockefeller can maintain the illusion any longer (via Geoff A):

For too long, some coal-state members of Congress accepted Obama’s promises without noticing the 800-pound gorilla in the room – administration policies. There is evidence that may change.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., seems to have become a convert. Last week he signaled strongly that promises from the White House are not enough. During a Senate hearing on Obama’s proposal for the 2001 budget, Rockefeller lashed out.

According to one published report, Rockefeller made it clear “he isn’t sure he trusts the president’s commitments to coal. …” Referring to Obama’s pledges to support coal, the senator complained that, “He says it in his speeches, but he doesn’t say it in (his budget proposal). He doesn’t say it in the actions of (EPA Administrator) Lisa Jackson. And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Gee … ya think? How thick-headed does one have to be to not understand Obama’s point in saying this:

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Is Rockefeller sincere? I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that anyone with enough cranial power to breathe without written instructions could have misinterpreted what Obama promised in this Chronicle interview. It didn’t get made public until a few days before the election, and people in the Coal Belt may not have heard about it in time, but it’s been part of the record ever since. And as Rockefeller himself points out, the administration’s actions on coal for the past thirteen months have made clear their animus towards that “great natural resource.”

If Rockefeller is sincere, then he deserves a Captain Louis Renault Award for his shock, shock! at Obama’s hostility towards the industry that powers his home state. If not, then West Virginians need to replace Rockefeller at the first opportunity — unfortunately, four years out — to send someone a little more honest and less clueless to the US Senate. Either way, all of the rest of us who have been warning about Obama’s environmental extremism can certainly add Rockefeller’s belated complaint to the mountain(top) of evidence for our argument.

“There’s a sucker born every minute”, goes the famous phrase.

With “sucker” being a correct but impolite expression for “Democrat.”  Just like “he’s beginning to not be believable to me” is a polite way of saying, “YOU LIE!’

For myself, I’m trying to remember if there are any promises that Obama actually HAS kept.  At best, the nays far outnumber the ayes.

The Utter Farce of ‘Green Jobs’

A few questions to ask yourself as you’re reading this article.

If green energy is so good, or is in any way the ‘wave of the future,’ then how come it has to be so massively subsidized with government money?  Why aren’t private businesses putting their own money into this?

Another question I want you to consider is how expensive green energy is when compared to the energy produced by fossil fuels (I will answer that after the article below).  And a final question you might ask might be, when are people going to finally wake up and stop believing idiotic liberal lies and wake up to reality?

Boston firm shifts ‘green jobs’ to China
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
11/06/09 8:35 AM EST

President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress are spending billions of tax dollars to subsidize development of “green jobs” – positions for people and companies designing and manufacturing alternative energy sources such as biomass, wind and solar.

One of Obama’s buddies, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, is also a vocal advocate of such subsidies. Last year, Patrick put Massachusetts taxpayers’ money where is mouth is by backing a $58 million package of incentives and subsidies to Evergreen Solar, which manufacturers collector panels used in solar energy units.

Now barely a year later, Evergreen has announced that it is moving its final assembly phase to a factory in China, according to the Boston Globe. The firm’s Devens, Massachusetts, plant currently employs 577 full-time and 230 contract workers in designing and manufacturing the silicon wafers and cells that are then assembled into panels.

A company spokesman declined to say how many jobs will be shifted to the new assembly plant in China, according to the Globe.

“In exchange for receiving $58.6 million in grants, loans, land, tax incentives, and other aid to build in Massachusetts, Evergreen pledged that it would add 350 new jobs, a goal that it has, to date, far surpassed. However, the company disclosed in a financial filing yesterday that it would write off $40 million worth of equipment at Devens because of the production shift to China,” the Globe reported.

“The company has been a poster child of the Patrick administration’s efforts to develop a ‘green energy’ industry cluster in Massachusetts. But it has been struggling financially because of increased competition from overseas producers and rapidly falling prices for solar products. It recently persuaded the state to lend it another $5 million to cover equipment purchases, though the state has not yet released the funds,” the Globe said.

Evergreen has lost at least $167 million so far in 2009, according to the Globe. Last year during the same period, the company’s losses totalled only $33.6 million. Following announcement of the move to China, the company’s stock closed at $1.42 per share, down six cents per share.

So let’s see.  The poster boy for ‘green jobs’ got a $58 million handout, managed to lose $167 million in 2009, and is outsourcing its labor force to China.

If you think that’s the ‘wave of the future,’ then vote Democrat.  And may your children freeze in the dark at night for your moral idiocy.

Take a moment to ponder what Obama said about the impact of his own plan:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Why is that?  Why is it that green energy has to be subsidized, even as fossil fuel energy – even when it is regulated and taxed and outlawed – is still so much less expensive than the green energy that Obama wants to impose on America?

Fossil fuels are so much cheaper, so much more efficient, so much more powerful, and so much more superior, to Obama’s green energy it is utterly unreal.

Here’s a graph of the difference (the accompanying article is available here):

This should start to explain why ‘green energy’ has to be massively subsidized, and is still a dud even when fossil fuel energy is massively taxed.  This is why nobody with a clue would put his own money into green energy, apart from the belief that a socialist government will impose insanity on the energy system.

Barack Obama wants to bankrupt coal – which costs less than one cent per kilowatt hour – and wants to impose in its place something that will cost more than forty times more.  How will you like it when your energy rates go up forty times higher?

And the only way to avoid your energy costs going up beyond your ability to be able to afford it – under Obama’s own announced plan – is to massively, massively subsidize the cost of that green energy.  At the cost of far more government debt, and on the backs of your children’s children’s children’s children’s children.  Assuming that we don’t economically implode into a banana republic first, which is far more likely.

And Obama is selling this load of crap to you based on two lies.  Lie one is the giant load of hooey of global warming.  And lie two is the bogus economic advantages we would supposedly get from replacing our energy source with one that would cost us eight to forty times more.

We’ve been told for well over a decade that we had reached a tipping point where the earth could no longer handle the CO2 humans were creating, such that we would experience a massive increase in global warming.

Yeah, right:

(ChattahBox)—Brrrr—-meteorologists are predicting that the United States, particularly the entire eastern half of the country, will experience record-breaking blasts of frigid cold weather this winter. The nearly nationwide swath of cold and stormy weather has not been seen since January 1985, when freezing cold temperatures reached as far South as Georgia.

AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi, believes our current winter weather pattern is reminiscent of the long and bitterly cold winter of 1977-78, when the Eastern seaboard experienced the great blizzard of 1978. Bastardi predicts that the winter of 2009-2010 is shaping up like the snowy winters experienced during the Hippie-Vietnam War era. “It’ll be like the great winters of the ’60s and ’70s,” he said.

And this historic cold is a global phenomenon.

It’s like a desert out there, Al Gore.  But at least it’s a dry heat.

CO2 did go up, but there has never been a demonstrable link between CO2 and global temperatures.

We recently found out that the climatologists who were preaching global warming to line their own pockets were liars, frauds and demagogues.

Environmentalists and leftists want to seize $40 TRILLION of your money to “solve” the “crisis” of global warming.

From Time Magazine:

This is an enormously ambitious goal, but many experts agree it could make a real difference. The problem is that the cure may be worse than the disease. In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, climate economist Richard Tol, a lead author for the U.N. climate panel, determined that to cut carbon emissions enough to meet the 2° goal, the leading industrial nations would have to slap a huge tax on carbon-emitting fuels — one that by the end of the century would reach something on the order of $4,000 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or $35 per gallon of gas ($9 per liter). According to Tol, the impact of a tax hike of this magnitude could reduce world GDP 12.9% in 2100 — the equivalent of $40 trillion a year. In other words, to save ourselves $3 trillion a year, we’d be giving up $40 trillion a year. No wonder we’re not getting anywhere.

So make that $40 TRILLION PER YEAR.

This is nothing but a socialist redistributionist power-grab, intended to secure the leftist agenda and ensure leftist totalitarian domination for a century to come.

And the Democrats attempt to seize control over health care is no different.  They don’t want to improve anything but their dominance.  And they will use any means to secure that dominance.

Don’t believe these transparent lies.  Fight these people.  Vote them out of power.  Vote them right off the island.  Or you will pay dearly for the agenda they impose upon you and your family.

Update, January 8: Obama is pitching billions more in funding for green jobs while our unemployment rate climbs.  I guess he wants to piss more billions down the toilet.

New Study Published In ‘Nature Geoscience’ Shows Global Warming Models All Wrong

Let’s begin with the study:

Nature Geoscience
Published online: 13 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo578

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe¹, James C. Zachos² & Gerald R. Dickens³

Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks^{1, 2}. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of ¹³C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth’s surface, although the source remains an open issue^{3, 4}. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 ^°C within a few thousand years^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14} and stable carbon isotope composition^{10, 15, 16, 17} along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration¹, this rise in CO₂ can explain only between 1 and 3.5 ^°C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO₂ forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

---

1. School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1000 Pope Road, MSB 504, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
2. Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
3. Department of Earth Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA

This isn’t just telling us that those stupid dinosaurs didn’t send themselves into extinction by driving too many SUVs and failing to implement global warming legislation to deal with carbon dioxide.  It is saying that carbon dioxide was only a tiny, tiny little fraction of the global warming that the planet experienced 55 million years ago.

This is always one of the most amazing and incomprehensible things to me: we have HAD cycles of global warming and global cooling over and over and over again throughout the entire history of the planet.  And yet that is forgotten over and over again by people who have the educations to know better.  It is a form of willful blindness and deliberate stupidity that is simply shocking (It hearkens to Romans 1, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”).  And it is done in order to advance a political and in fact socialist agenda to redistribute wealth.

A pair of articles you should read:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A Fox News Special Report story had this to say:

West Virginia, where coal is the heart of the economy.  Coal mining produces both power and revenue.  So Obama’s plan to fight climate change by taxing carbon pollution with a cap and trade system is a serious threat.  And even ardent Obama backers like Gov. Joe Manchin says, “It’s far reaching, and I think it has detrimental effects to our economy – not just West Virginia; I think the United States of America’s economy –  cannot take that shock of artificially increasing the price much higher than what we compete.”  Both senators from W. Virginia Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller oppose the plan.

American Electrical Power CEO Mike Morris says cap and trade will raise everyone’s power cost.  “As an electric consumer and a consumer of any product you’re going to pay more for it.  This is a societal decision to deal with the issue of global warming, and you can’t do it for free.  This is not an inexpensive move.”

Support industries like heavy industries such as Caterpillar would be seriously affected too.  Caterpillar has a $50 million payroll in W.Virginia.  And about 75% of their revenues comes from the coal industry, says Rolger Lilly of Walker Caterpillar.

Burning coal creates nearly half the nation’s electricity.  It is far cheaper than alternative energies (solar $.20 per kilowatt hour; wind $.14 per kilowatt hour; vs. coal at only $.03 per kilowatt hour).

And of course you know Obama has said his plan would cause energy prices to “necessary skyrocket.”

This is a plan that will literally result in Americans starving in the dark and cold unless they stand up for sanity.

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and necessary gas.  Without it life on earth would be impossible.  Liberals like to call it “carbon” to make you think of something black and sooty and icky; but it is odorless and colorless.  It is no bogeyman; liberals are your bogeymen.

The fact of the matter is this: when we consider all global warming gasses, “anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.”

The evidence is abundantly clear, yet we are on the verge of crushing our economic output, and killing jobs in the process, to fight a problem which either doesn’t even exist in the first place or which we can do nothing to stop.

Meanwhile, we’ve got the Obama administration actively working to suppress the science that proves that global warming is bogus.  And we’ve got expert economists saying that the fact that China and India aren’t similarly curtailing THEIR emissions will do result in nothing more than America shooting itself in the foot.

Global Warming alarmists have called people like me “global warming deniers” to impugn me as tantamount to a Holocaust denier.  I respond by calling such people “reality deniers.”

Californians Reject TWO Alternative Energy Props; Will Dems Pay Attention?

The People’s Republic of California – which voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of 24 points – did something else that should send an even louder message: the “green,” “global warming,” “alternative energy” initiatives got utterly annihilated.   Proposition 7 – which would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 – went down 65% to 35%.  And Proposition 10 – which would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology – went down 60% to 40%.

Noel Sheppard wrote it up with the title, “Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?”  Answer: no way, Jose.

Sheppard asks, “Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?”  Not when the media is thoroughly corrupt, and proponents of anthropogenic global warming are demagogues.

I’ve written about the fraud that is known as “anthropogenic global warming”:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A question should be raised for all to hear that is never raised because the media is corrupt and produces little more than outright propaganda:

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

And one thing is certain: the Democrats you elected to run your lives certainly aren’t going to raise it, either.

Californians rejected both measures because they came to realize that they would have cost an already overstressed economy $15 billion dollars.  Are Californians liberal?  Big time.  Democrats are now in nearly total control of the state.  Are Californians socialist nuts?  Oh, yeah.  As one example among many, Californians in Berkeley passed two resolutions calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”  Are they suicidal loons who will go right off the cliff with their ideology?  Incredibly, as it turns out, not quite yet.

But what you don’t realize, America, is that you are going to have an alternative energy boondoggle that makes both California propositions look like a drop in the bucket forced onto your economy.  There isn’t a federal proposition system such that voters get to decide whether polar bears should be considered more important than your kids.  You already voted for it, whether you knew it or not.

You voted to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid near complete dominion over the Senate.  He lectured us:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

And – like it or not, ready or not – you WILL stop using fossil fuels.  The fact that there is nothing to replace them with is irrelevant (did you know that 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels?  Did you know that alternative energy sources can’t even begin to replace fossil fuels?).

You voted to give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi TOTAL domination in the House of Representatives.  In her frankly unhinged spiel on global warming, she ranted:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Democrats finally blinked on oil drilling after decades of obstruction.  They did so only after it was long past obvious that Americans overwhelmingly wanted them to harness our domestic oil supply.  But now that they have total power, and the price of oil has gone back down due to the coming recession, you can count on them to go back on whatever they said they would do.

And Barack Obama was recently discovered to have said of vital fossil fuel coal – which supplies 49% of the nation’s electricity:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And what would be the effect of that?  Obama wanted to make sure his San Francisco audience knew that he was going to implement his intentions with his eyes wide open:

The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Get ready, America: you voted to have your economy destroyed by foolish ideological agendas, and you are going to get it.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we’re going to abandon it.  No matter how much it costs us; no matter how harmful it is going to be on our economy; no matter how hard it is for millions of American families.  And we’re not going to drill for domestic oil, no matter how much it would help.  The people we elected don’t want oil.  They think it’s icky.  Same with nuclear energy.  They might occasionally talk about “being willing to consider” these energy sources.  But they aren’t; and you can know that because they never have been.

That’s why I earlier called Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama “The Three Stooges Of American Energy Policy.”  But the real stooges are the Americans who voted for them.

Ultimately, the joke will be on the nation that put these radical ideologues with their radical agenda in power.