Posts Tagged ‘environmentalists’

Hey Unions, SHUT UP: Messiah Obama Just Gave WalMart Divine Absolution. So Begone, Ye Racist Paupers!

May 9, 2014

Unions are more than slightly upset that Barack Obama is spurning them to be the whore of the environmentalists.  But they probably should have read the fine print before supporting the Whore-in-Chief.

Note to liberals: what’s good for the goose is just as good for the gander: unions only oppose Obama because unions are racist:

Flanked by bargain-priced displays of women’s wear and patio lighting, President Barack Obama came to a Wal-Mart store in Silicon Valley on Friday to praise new steps by businesses and communities to deploy solar energy.

The President was showcasing efforts to combat climate change that don’t rely on a disinclined Congress.

But in choosing the giant retailer as the backdrop for his announcement, Obama also triggered a backlash from labor unions and pay equity advocates who say low wages paid by Wal-Mart fly in the face of Obama’s vaunted push on pay equity.

President Barack Obama poses for a photo after speaking at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California on Friday

‘What numbskull in the White House arranged this?’ former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in the Bill Clinton administration, said on Facebook.

Obama said more than 300 companies and state and local governments have pledged to use solar technology, and he unveiled his own executive actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency with a goal of reducing U.S. reliance on carbon fuels.

The two tracks underscored Obama’s strategy of sidestepping Congress to advance his own agenda, but they also illustrated the limits of his reach in a bitterly divided government.

‘The commitments we’re announcing today prove that there are cost-effective ways to tackle climate change and create jobs at the same time,’ Obama said at a sprawling Wal-Mart store in Mountain View.

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

 

The solar effort will power the equivalent of 130,000 homes, the White House said, while Obama’s administrative actions could reduce carbon pollution in an amount equal to taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.

The White House also announced that long-delayed energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers have finally been completed.

Ticking off a list of economic and environmental benefits he attributed to solar technology, Obama cast the commitments as part of a broader campaign to reduce American energy dependence, create jobs in renewable energy and lower heat-trapping emissions blamed for global warming.

‘This is what you call a win-win-win,’ Obama told about 250 store employees as he wrapped up a three-day swing through California focused heavily on raising money for Democrats in advance of November’s midterm elections.

Obama announced new steps by companies, local governments and his own administration to deploy solar technology

 

Tweaking the mostly Republican opponents of his energy policies in Congress, Obama lamented that lawmakers have ‘not always been as visionary on these issues as we would like.’

That’s why he’s seizing opportunities this year to act unilaterally to advance those goals, Obama said.

‘Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we still have some climate deniers who shout loud,’ Obama said. ‘But they’re wasting people’s time on a settled debate.’

His policies unable to generate momentum in Congress, Obama has increasingly gone outside the federal government to press his agenda.

He has won commitments from colleges and universities to expand access to more students; he has created innovation hubs that link businesses and education institutions; and he has drawn attention to companies and state and local governments that have increased pay for workers.

President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the Walmart store

 

Still, that choice of tactics has severely limited what Obama may be able to accomplish, a reality the president acknowledged the night before as he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in La Jolla benefiting House Democrats.

‘Regardless of how hard I push, regardless of how many administrative actions I take, we’re not going to be able to go where we need to go, and can go, and should go unless I’ve got a Congress that’s willing to work with me,’ Obama said.

The White House said it chose Wal-Mart because the company has committed to doubling the number of solar energy projects at its stores, Sam’s Clubs and distribution centers.

The Wal-Mart location he visited gets about 15 percent of its power from solar panels.

Wal-Mart’s president, Bill Simon, said. Obama is the first president to visit one of the chain’s warehouse stores.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624149/At-Wal-Mart-Obama-praises-steps-solar-power.html#ixzz31Fi78NuT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sorry your messiah betrayed you, unions.

Now please shop at WalMart.  Otherwise you’re a racist (or the rhetoric of liberalism is pure demagogic slander).

Boy, this is probably the biggest leftist betrayal of leftist since Hitler started murdering the homosexuals who had brought him to power

Sotomayor’s ‘Empathy’ For Extreme Green Groups Would Have Cost Americans Billions

June 1, 2009

Empathy.  Who doesn’t want some?

I mean, I suppose that some part of me, as a conservative, would love for some judge to come along and say, “There, there.  I’ll make sure those mean Democrats don’t do stuff you don’t want.  I’ll overturn the election.”

Only that isn’t the direction the “empathy river” flows, is it?  It’s a manure river that springs and flows from the radical left and routinely runs its banks to flood over conservatives.

In the case of Sonia Sotomayor, that crap river has run pretty deep and pretty wide.  It has run over white firefighters who made the mistake of playing by the rules against a racially-biased system increasingly geared to flood over them.  And in the case of Sotomayor, it is a river that would have flooded over every single American to the tune of billions of dollars had the Supreme Court not reversed her decision.

If Sotomayor gets appointed to the Supreme Court, you can bet that THIS crap river will be flowing over you soon:

Sotomayor Ruling Could Have Cost Consumers Billions

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
By: Phil Brennan

A decision rendered by Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, fortunately reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2009, could have been extravagantly costly to American consumers, according to the Steve Milloy’s authoritative Junkscience.Com.

Charging that her nomination represents a potential threat to U.S. Consumers and to the economy in terms of energy and the environment, Milloy reported on her 2007 Second Circuit decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. V. EPA 475 F. 3d 83′

Milloy wrote that in her ruling Judge Sotomayor sided with “extreme green groups” who had sued the Environmental Protection Agency because the agency permitted cost-benefit analysis to be used in the determination of environmental protection technology for power plant cooling water intake structures.

Cost benefit analysis involves the balancing of the total expected costs of a proposal or project against its total expected benefits in order to determine its economic feasibility. Do the benefits outweigh or justify the cost?

According to Milloy, had the EPA been required to abide by Judge Sotomayor’s decision, U.S. Consumers would have been forced to pay billions of dollars more in energy costs every year as power plants producing more than one-half of the nation’s electricity would have had to undertake expensive retrofits.”

Noting that President Obama said he wanted somebody “who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,” Milloy said that in the Riverkeeper case Sotomayor didn’t display too much of a “common touch” and “practical sense” when it came to the cost-benefit analysis.

Senators, Milloy advised, should probe whether Judge Sotomayor “lacks the common-sense realization that the benefits of environmental regulation ought to outweigh its costs — a worldview with ominous implications given the nation’s present rush toward cap-and-tax global warming regulation and other green mindlessness.”

What is truly sad, truly pathetic, and truly laughable (in a hysterical-laughing-into-a-crying-jag-whilest-curled-up-in-a-fetal-position sort of way) is that Americans have already said, “Please, sir, may we have some more” when it comes to massive energy taxes that will do to our economy what a German U-boat did to the Lusitania.

Judge Sotomayor clearly doesn’t have a whole lot of that “common touch” or “practical sense.”  Indeed, writing for the majority decision that overturned Sotomayor’s ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia:

noted that forcing compliance under Sotomayor’s reasoning would make companies spend nine times the amount necessary to accomplish “nearly the same benefit to the environment that cheaper technologies would achieve.”

Spend nine times more for very nearly the same benefit.  And liberals wonder why conservatives call them “insane.”

Now, it just so happens that “common touch” and “practical sense” didn’t matter very much when we voted for our president, either.  So why should it matter to us when we put yet another black-robed master over us for the rest of her life?

Let’s hear what Obama said he wanted:

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

The guy we voted for as our president said he planned to bankrupt fully half of our source of electricity.

“Empathy” means millions of Americans freezing to death in the dark.

Get ready for it.  Because Obama’s and Sotomayor’s crap river is going to flood right down your family’s throat.

Obama’s “New Stand” On Energy Just Dumb In A Different Way

August 6, 2008

Yesterday’s New York Times ran an article on Obama’s new energy plan, titled “Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve” by Larry Rohter.

As the New York Times puts it, Barack Obama now has a “new stand” on energy. Maybe it’s a new stand, but it’s the same old flip flopping from a serial panderer who has long-since proven he will say anything to get elected.

And his energy plan is still dumb, just dumb in a slightly different way.

According to the article, Obama “outlined an energy plan that contrasts with Senator John McCain’s greater emphasis on expanded offshore drilling and coal and nuclear technology.” That’s his first mistake. It’s bad enough to take oil – by far and away our dominant energy source – off the table. But to then take coal and nuclear energy off the table as well is to remove the only alternatives to oil that could even theoretically take up the slack. It amounts to sacrificing common sense to political gamesmanship.

Most of the reasons liberals and environmentalists have given over the years in decrying nuclear energy have turned out to be patently false. The French have been safely, effectively, and efficiently using nuclear power for decades. Rather than the half life of their fuel being millions of years, we are learning that it is actually only about sixty years. Big diff.

What Obama is doing is frankly abandoning what would best work in favor of what is most politically expedient.

John McCain is promising to increase our energy supply. Obama is promising to conserve. The problem is, you don’t grow an economy by conserving energy. We need more energy in order to continue growing our economy, and Obama refuses to allow its production.

The second thing Obama says – in contradiction from his earlier positions – was to open up the reserves and swap heavy crude for light crude. The problem with that is that heavy crude is difficult to refine, and requires special refineries. Elgie Holstein, an Obama energy advisor, said that while fewer refineries now are capable of refining the heavier stuff into gasoline, that won’t be the case in the future.

But it certainly WILL be the case in the future, unless Barack Obama and the Democrats are swept from power in an overwhelming Republican victory. It has been Democrats who are overwhelmingly to blame for the fact that we haven’t built any refineries for over thirty years. And it has been Democrats’ liberal supporters among the ranks of environmentalists and lawyers who continue to thwart effort after effort to build this vital energy infrastructure.

There’s something even larger at issue regarding Obama’s reversal to open up the strategic reserves, however. Opening up the reserves would lower the price of fuel by temporarily injecting more oil into the market. The very fact that Obama is calling for this step is an implicit acknowledgment that we need more oil. His policy thus comes into direct contradiction with his rhetoric. If we do what he says and open the reserves, what will we do when the price goes back up? Where will we get the oil we need then? Thus we find that Obama – in calling for the reserves to be opened – is really only calling for a temporary solution that he hope will take oil prices off the table long enough to get himself elected. This “solution” is therefore really just incredibly cyncial politics of the very worst kind.

Tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserves won’t increase the total supply of oil. Only drilling will.

This leads to another example of Obama’s hypocrisy and stupidity on energy.

“Obama said his goal was to have 10 percent of the country’s energy needs met by renewable resources by the end of his first term, more than double the current figure.” But again, can’t you see that he is implicitly affirming that the energy sources he is actively opposing would still amount to supplying 90% of our energy needs even given his own best case scenario?

An intelligent man would worry more about securing the more than 95% of our energy we currently use and less about the 5% he intends to double to 10%. His previous policy against ANY increased drilling amounted to a suicide pact with environmentalist groups. And regardless of what he says now – in direct contradiction to his past position – is simply not to be trusted. Barack Obama has already assured us that he is a candidate who doesn’t want more oil, coal, and nuclear power. He wants less of them. But those are the very things that give us 95% of our energy!!!

We have had solar and wind tecnhology since the early 1980s. It’s not that we don’t have the technology; it’s that these technologies – and others as well – are nowhere near cost effective, efficient, or versatile enough to meet our needs. And other alternative sources are still more theoretical than practical. Are you willing to gamble your future and your children’s future on unproven theories?

T. Boone Pickens has been calling for increased wind power in his massive advertising campaign. He is also calling to drill up the whazoo and to produce more oil, more coal, and more natural gas energy even as we develop the alternative source of wind technology.

The remaining thing that Obama wants is a bunch of handouts. He wants $150 billion to go to his voters as a big government transfer payment, and he wants to have the government subsidize hybrid automobiles to the tune of $7,000 each. He also wants to add on a massive “windfall profits” tax against oil companies.

What we want is better sources of energy; what we don’t want is worse sources of energy. When government takes the decision out of the hands of the market and subsidizes something, the political intrusion very often encourages bad ideas and discourages good ones. Politicians understand special interests, political action committees, and cleverly disguised quid pro quo donations well enough; but they don’t understand the fundamentals of science, engineering, or economics. A classic example of this is corn-based ethanol. Politicians were essentially induced by campaign donations from special interests to subsidize ethanol in order to bring the price down to a level where it could compete, thereby preventing other technologies from entering the market. And now we know that using our food source as an energy source was a very bad idea.

Children are literally starving to death in some parts of the world, thanks to the Democrat-inspired effort to turn our food into fuel to avoid using oil. And it is also causing food shortages, higher costs, and hunger in the U.S. It was a terrible and immoral idea; and it was your Democrats at work.

Barack Obama wants the government to make the same fundamental mistake again and again. He is a socialist at heart, and he simply can’t trust the wisdom of the free market.

But that isn’t the end of Obama’s error of subsidizing one thing and taxing another.

When you tax something, you make it more expensive and you make it more scarce. Taxing oil companies – which already are the most heavily taxed corporate entities – amounts to penalizing them for producing the very thing we need more of. We tried windfall profits taxes during the Carter years and it was a fiasco for the same reasons it would be a fiasco today. What we need is cheaper and more abundant energy; what Obama wants to bring us is scarcer and more expensive energy.

To then offset a terribly flawed policy by underwriting it with government funding is a fool’s solution.

Obama recently said, “Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face,” the Illinois Democrat told a supportive audience as he began a week’s focus on energy issues. “It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy.”

Obama is just as wrong to call Americans’ need for oil an “addiction” as he would be to call our need for water, food, or clothing an addiction. The American way of life has been based on readily available oil. Obama’s slogan betrays an anti-American agenda that would dramatically alter and impoverish our way of life if implemented. He is also wrong in his lack of understanding as to what such a “complete transformation of our economy” would cost, and he is wrong for not informing the American people of the REAL costs of his policies.

On a whole host of issues that will face the next president and chief executive, we need a grown-up who can provide mature solutions. Barack obama – a pandering flip flopper who offers one bad idea after another – simply isn’t that guy.

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

July 7, 2008

The June 22, 2008 program of ABC’s This Week had an interesting panel discussion consisting of George Stephanapoulos (the host of the program and former Clinton communications director); Democrat Rep. Ed Markey, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence; Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; Jeffery Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute; and Red Cavaney, the President of the American Petroleum Institute. Their discussion was a good window into the positions of the Democratic and Republican political positions, as well as into the liberal environmentalist groups and the conservative-friendly oil industry.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And let’s play off the summit this morning in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have announced that they’re going to increase production by 200,000 barrels a day. Say they may even do more. But Congressman Markey, King Abdullah also took off after speculators. Is this increase in production going to be enough to bring prices down?

REP. ED MARKEY: It may have a marginal impact. There is, without question, in my mind, speculation going on. Manipulation going on. The Democrats are going to put bills on the House floor this week to deal with that issue. But in the end, this crisis is really caused by 12 years of Republican control of Congress. We’ve gone from 46% dependence when the Republicans took over the House and Senate in 1995 to 61% dependence upon imported oil today. We’ve had an oil and gas agenda. They’ve thwarted the renewal energy agenda. They are still blocking in the Senate the tax breaks for renewable wind and solar and geothermal and other renewal energy technology. We only have 2% of the oil reserves in the United States. OPEC has 67%. That’s our weakness. Our strength is that we are technological giants. We have not yet unleashed it. The Republican White House and House and Senate are still blocking that revolution.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well of course, I would say that the Democrats have thwarted every effort we have made to increase our supply. This is a supply and demand issue. The demand has skyrocketed mostly because of global increases. And we have not done anything about supply because we’re thwarted in nuclear power, we’re thwarted in using our own national resources. Drilling offshore on a state-by-state option is something that I think we could do very environmentally safely. And yet anything that says production is killed by the Democrats. What I think we ought to do to get the speculators to stop thinking that the prices are going to go up is for Congress to show that we are going to take action with a balanced plan, with renewables, with nuclear power with expanded refineries, with drilling and exploration of our own natural resources. If we did that, yes, it would take five to ten years to get those things in line but the speculators would be out of the market.

RED CAVANEY: It is fundamentally, because unless you had very tight supply and demand, you wouldn’t create the platform that would allow people to think that there was an opportunity here to make an investment, and then that could lead to other kinds of things. So you must address the base global supply and demand situation in order to bring some sort of order. Like right now we’ve had civil disruptions of Nigeria. A million barrels are offline that are not available.

JEFFREY SACHS: We have to move fast on a number of fronts. We need conservation. We need long mileage automobiles which was delayed forever. We do need alternative energy sources, renewables. We need the nuclear. That’s got to be part of the mix. We are going to have to work together internationally. We ducked that issue entirely. Climate change is also part of the equation. This administration hid that from view for eight years. And so we never had a balanced plan. We never had a strategy at all. It was oil from first day. That’s been the big mistake.

Let me come in at this point and say that the basic parameters are all in place here: the Democrats do not view oil as part of the solution to the energy problem. They demand alternatives to oil. The Republicans do – and have for years – viewed domestic oil as a critical part of any solution to our short- and long-tern energy needs, and have tried largely without success due to implement a policy of increased domestic oil production.

Red Cavaney points out that the speculation that drives up prices only enters into the cost equation when the supplies aren’t meeting the demand. When supplies are abundant, you don’t have people betting that the prices will go up.

Rep. Markey attempts to attack Republicans for the increase in dependence on foreign oil; but do you see how absurd that is? It’s analogous to me beating the hell out of you with a baseball bat and then blaming you for being in poor health. Of course we’re more dependent on foreign oil than we were 12 years ago: a determined Democratic minority has been allowed to block any – and I mean ANY – significant effort to increase our domestic oil production. And – in absolute refutation of the Democrat’s mantra – we have NEEDED, now NEED, and will continue to NEED oil for the foreseeable future.

Markey goes on to say, “They’ve thwarted the renewal energy agenda. They are still blocking in the Senate the tax breaks for renewable wind and solar and geothermal and other renewal energy technology.” And that is partially true (although Democrats and their environmentalist allies have been responsible for overturning wind technology, and liberal environmentalists recently sued to stop the use of solar technology, so let’s not go too far blaming Republicans); but Democrats ought to look in the mirror when they demonize Republicans for blocking alternative energy by blocking tax breaks.

Democrats routinely shoot the country’s national interests, and then put the gun in the Republican’s hands.

Markey said we have only 2% of the world’s oil reserves. This is patently false, although one can measure “oil reserves” in so many different ways that virtually any figure is true depending upon one’s definitions. However, a significant percentage of the United States domestic oil reserves is contained in fields that will require new or improved technology for cost-efficient production. We are on the verge of being able to cleanly obtain oil from coal (the United States has the largest coal deposits in the world); we are on the verge of being able to obtain oil from shale (we have massive shale oil deposits in the Bakkan , and we are on the verge of being able to profitably employ deep-water drilling and slant drilling techniques. If and when the Demcrats allow the American people to obtain the oil it has, that “2%” figure would increase very dramatically. The fact of the matter is, if the Democrats allowed us to simply access the oil that is already readily available in ANWR and offshore, we could very quickly go from being the 12th largest producer of oil to the 4th largest producer of oil.

Another area that should be considered is the Democrat’s approach to “conservation.” Requiring automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars is nothing more than an indirect way of forcing Americans to buy small, underpowered cars that they have historically not wanted. It is their way of attempting to force their will on the market – just as preventing domestic drilling is a way for the Democrats to force their will upon the market.

If they came out and imposed legislation requiring Americans to buy dinky little hybrid cars, Americans would be outraged. By trying to force automakers to produce the cars that they want Americans to drive, they are essentially doing the same thing, but most Americans haven’t quite figured that out yet.

I drive the speed limit, and I routinely see two things: 1) a lot of SUVs, trucks, and large-engined performance vehicles on the road; and 2) the aforementioned vehicles and virtually everyone else whizzing past me on the freeway going 10-20 mph beyond the 70 mph speed limit. The fact of the matter is that most Americans simply do not want to have draconian energy conservation policies imposed upon them – which is precisely the approach that Democrats favor.

In their constant attempts to manipulate the oil producers, and to manipulate the automakers, to do their bidding, Democrats show a fundamental distrust of the market and of the market forces that made this country great. And I would ask, based on what do they believe that big government bureaucracy can do a better job than the free market? Senate Democrats couldn’t even run their own cafeteria; just why on earth should we trust them to run anything?

Another interesting exchange:

REP. ED MARKEY: It’s kind of a sad day in American history. We were given one week’s notice to go over to Saudi Arabia today to beg the Saudi Arabians and OPEC to please produce more oil we can purchase. We have 700 million barrels of oil in our strategic oil reserve. The president should say to OPEC, that he is going to begin deploying 100,000 barrels of oil per day out of that strategic petroleum reserve to drive down the price. And he should also say to them like President Kennedy said to Khrushchev in 1961, that we are going to put a man on the moon. We are not going to allow the communists to control the skies. He should announce today a crash program that we are going to have automobiles that are dramatically more efficient. That we’re going to have wind and solar and geothermal. That we are going to use our technology in order to break our dependence upon Saudi Arabia and the rest of these countries. But that is not happening instead we’re over there with a tin cup begging them to sell more of our weakness to us, imported oil.

RED CAVANEY: Look, our concern is that what you need are permanent solutions. That’s the signal the market’s looking for. Opening up, providing some access, doing everything. We support all of the alternatives. Our companies are some of the largest players in that. Any scenario you look at, you will find that you need all the energy we can get of every kind and to take some off or to marginalize others is going to end up hurting the consumer. The consumer, when we went past $3 a gallon of gasoline, up to $4, they connected the dots. And that’s why you’re now seeing them asking for urgent action on the part of the Congress. They understand that we need more energy.

JEFFREY SACHS: It’s so interesting how there’s a, you know, a rough consensus on the things that need to go into this. But there’s been nothing that’s been done during this whole administration. Because they basically just turned away from realities, turned away from the alternatives, turned away from massive investments that are needed in the science and technology. They turned away from really investing in long mileage automobiles, millions of dollars rather than billions that are needed to get these going.

SEN KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well first of all, we have made major investments in renewables and research. We have. We have increased huge amounts. However, let me just say look at the last month just as an example. We, the Republicans, have put forward a balanced plan. The Democrats came forward with a plan that had no energy production at all. It was sue OPEC. Congressman Markey has just said oh, we’ve gone over there with a tin cup. Well, at the same time, the Democrats are passing in the United States Senate a bill that would sue them. Now what kind of reaction are we going to expect from Saudi Arabia which is today, looking at trying to help the world market if we are going to sue them? That’s not a way to try to make friends and increase our supply. In addition the Democratic plan had two other things. A windfall profits tax which has been shown not to work and form a commission to investigate price gouging which is being done by the CPSC right now. So I do think we could come together. But not if the Democrats refuse to have any increase in supply. And the Republicans are willing to certainly do more in research, more in renewables, more in conservation, and I think you have a point. We haven’t done enough in conservation. But make those investments.

What is truly sad is that the United States has to go to Saudi Arabia and beg them to produce more oil when we could have been producing that oil ourselves. In a way, Markey – who is ostensibly blaming this situation on Bush and the Republicans – is actually lamenting that Democrats have been successful in implementing their agenda!!! If Republicans had had their way – and if they had not had their bills blocked by Democrats – we would not have had to go beg the Saudis, would we? Even by the liberals incredibly stingy figures on our oil reserves (the oil companies who actually know what they’re talking about claim we have much more), there is no question that we could have produced the amount of oil in question just by opening up ANWR.

One of the things that I always marvel at about Democrats is that they believe that only government money matters. They despise the free market system, and therefore consistently seek to impose big government bureaucracy in place of the free market system they fear, hate, and misunderstand.

The reality is this: why does the government have to invest in all these alternative energy sources? Why aren’t private investors doing it? I mean, by all accounts Barack Obama is going to raise $500 million dollars for his campaign; why can’t all these people put their money where their mouth is and invest in their vision of alternative energy? Answer: because their solutions don’t work, won’t work, and the market knows that.

I remember several years back when the State of California obtained $6 billion dollars for government-sponsered research in embryonic stem cells. How many cures has that $6 billion resulted in? ZERO. NADA. NEIN. BUTKUS. We needed that huge sum of money because private money wasn’t going into embryonic stem cell research. Apart from the fact that embryonic stem cell research has killed innocent human life, it hasn’t produced squat. So government money came in to fill the void, and the government funding hasn’t produced squat either. We might as well have dug a big hole, thrown in $6 billion, and then filled in the hole.

If a research program actually promises to produce a positive outcome that will result in an investment profit, private money will pour in. You can always spot a financial black hole by the cries for government funding. And the greater the cries for government funding, the bigger the black hole it is.

Contrast this with financing for oil exploration, drilling, and alternative source techniques. First of all, we are talking about a proven resource that WILL work, not some pie-in-the-sky useless liberal crap, and not some product that will require a massive overhaul of our entire energy infrastructure. But second, the reason these areas are underfunded is not because they won’t produce a positive return on investment, but due to the fact that they can’t produce any return at all because Democrats block any oil production! When the government won’t allow oil companies to produce oil, there is far less incentive for investment to fund the new technologies they will need. If Democrats would just get the hell out of the way, our market system would start working and producing the vital oil and energy that this country desperately needs.

Markey cites Kennedy vs. Khrushchev, when the United States beat the communists to the moon. The problem is, Markey and his fellow Democrats are today playing the role of Khrushchev and the communists, rather than actually helping the United States of America to accomplish its goal of energy independence. They are blocking the free market and imposing their bureaucracy in a matter very reminiscent of the communist state-managed economy (i.e. the folks who lost in the race to the moon, and then went bankrupt and collapsed altogether).

The real problem is, as Sen. Hutchison says, “The Democrats came forward with a plan that had no energy production at all.”

We need to make oil prices the albatross that we hang around the neck of Democrats. Barack Obama is in lock step with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who says:

“Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, it’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world.”

(See my article discussing that little pearl of wisdom).

Democrats routinely demonize oil. They routinely demonize oil companies who produce the vital resource we desperately need. They steadfastly refuse to allow the United States to increase either it’s domestic oil production or its refining capacity. It is directly due to their “commonsense plan” that we are in the situation we are in, and that we will continue to remain in the situation we are in.

If you want $12 a gallon gasoline, vote Democrat. They will offer “global warming” solutions up the whazoo that will undermine and eventually gut the American economy by starving our economy of the oil we need for our survival. If you want to lower the price of gasoline by means of effectively increasing our oil supply, vote Republican.

It’s as simple as that.

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

July 3, 2008

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said:

“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.”

Watch it on Youtube if prefer seeing your idiots in living color.

Well, how about if YOU stop, Harry. And tell all your fellow liberals and Democrts to stop right along with you. The rest of us realize that we need the stuff, and that we will continue to need it for decades to come.

Let us not forget to point out that Barack Obama has the same stupid and self-defeating ideas about energy.

So it’s not coal and oil that we’re sick of, Harry. We’re sick of you and your irrational and self-defeating energy policies. Coal and oil is what made our country great; it’s what our economy has been – and continues to be – based upon. It’s what we will continue to need in order to continue to improve our way of life.

Stop and think about it: Route 66; the interstate system; distant communities interconnected by vast stretches of freeways and roads. Our entire way of life has been based upon the mobility that oil has provided. We can’t just get rid of oil and keep right on truckin’. The Democrat’s vision will create enormous adjustment and enormous pain for Americans.

At some point, we will clearly need to transition to another dominant source of energy. But there is simply no way that we will be ready to make that transition any time soon. To refuse to allow our vast domestic oil supplies to be utilized by citing theoretical alternatives is foolish beyond crazy.

While a few R.I.N.O. (Republican In Name Only) politicians (I like the term “Stockholm Syndrome Republicans”) have embraced global warming alarmism and environmentalist bans on drilling, the simple fact of the matter is that it was Bill Clinton who vetoed taking advantage of our oil reserves over a Republican effort to expand our supplies, and it has overwhelmingly been Democrats who have thwarted every effort both to increase oil drilling and oil refining every since.

The result is that we have been deliberately left completely vulnerable to just the kind of sky-high prices that we are seeing now.

Democrats argue that drilling is pointless because it won’t produce any results for 10 years. But that is insane. Number one, only a fool doesn’t plan for the future. Number two, had Bill Clinton allowed us to drill in the 90’s we wouldn’t be where we are now. And number three, oil drillers say that they could be getting substantial oil out of the ground within one year; and even the most technically difficult sites wouldn’t take longer than six years to harvest.

Democrats argue that they have provided oil companies with leases giving them access to millions of acres for exploration. But these leases weren’t granted on the basis of geologists’ studies (that these are the best locations for oil); but rather on the basis of “junk” land that doesn’t have any political (and likely not any energy) value. It’s the equivalent of the U.S. Government putting the Indians on the crappiest land in the country and then saying, “There: we’ve given you plenty of land.” The reality is that 92% of our offshore reserves and most of the state and federal lands are off limits to oil companies.The outer continental shelf – which contains the best known sources of oil – are completely off limits to the American oil companies, even as Chinese rigs are going up in those very same oil fields!!!

An Associated Press story titled, “Much of oil, gas off limits” says:

WASHINGTON — About half the oil and more than a quarter of the natural gas beneath 99 million acres of federal land is off-limits to drilling, the Bush administration says in a report that industry sought to highlight environmental and other hurdles to development.

Just 3 percent of the oil and 13 percent of the gas under federal land is accessible under standard lease terms that require only basic protections for the environment and cultural resources, according to the survey, which was ordered last year by Congress.

An additional 46 percent of the oil and 60 percent of the gas “may be developed subject to additional restrictions” such as bans to protect winter rangeland for foraging antelope, nesting areas for bald eagles and jagged slopes from erosion during parts of the year.

The revised inventory, released Tuesday by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, is starkly different from a study done three years ago. That version, which covered 59 million acres in the Rocky Mountains, estimated more than 80 percent of oil and gas was accessible, although in some cases subject to restrictions. Environmentalists often cited that figure in arguing that a wealth of energy resources is available for developing without going into pristine areas now off limits.

And, the actual fact of the matter is that the oil companies are routinely unable to drill even in those leased areas that the Democrats deceitfully claim that they have available to them. There are plenty of stories like this out there:

Billings, Mont. (AP) – Two conservation groups have asked the federal government to impose new restrictions on oil and gas development in the West to protect the greater sage grouse, a popular game bird on the decline.

Scientists contend sage grouse breeding areas are suffering in the face of accelerating oil and gas exploration in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and other Western states.

West Nile virus, drought and residential development also have taken a toll on the bird, which is being considered for the endangered species list.

Federal rules now say oil and gas companies cannot drill within quarter of a mile of sage grouse breeding areas. Last week, Idaho-based North American Grouse Partnership and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership of Washington, D.C., filed a legal petition asking for the rule be extended to two miles.

I don’t apologize for caring more about my family and friends than I do about some rare species of bird. Frankly, Democrats should be apologizing to the American people for caring more about a few birds than they do about them.

Again and again, Democrats, Democrat-controlled government bureaucracies, and their left-wing allies in the “environmentalist” and “litigation” communities have blocked oil companies from doing anything. The result is years of lawsuits and court proceedings, red tape, delay, and other excessive costs that make such projects unfeasible.

There’s an old joke about a modern-day Noah trying to build an ark in today’s liberal political environment. It certainly has the pro-bureaucracy, anti-business policies that characterize the Democratic Party in mind.

Democrats routinely use environmental groups’ minimized estimates as to how much oil is actually in a given field. The oil companies believe there is much more available in those fields; that’s why they want to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to start getting that oil out of the ground. Think about it: Democrats routinely say that there isn’t very much oil in places like ANWR, and that oil companies don’t want to drill anyway. If that were even remotely true, then why are the Democrats repeatedly preventing oil companies from drilling by force of law? If the Democrats are anything other than lying demagogues, allow the oil companies to drill where they believe the oil is without the massive bureaucratic hassles; and if they don’t drill and increase our oil suppolies, the Democrats could say, “See, we were right.”

Proven reserves” are resources that drilling has confirmed exist and can be produced with current technology and prices. By imposing bans on leasing, and encouraging environmentalists to challenge seismic and drilling permits on existing leases, politicians ensure that we will never increase our proven reserves. In fact, reserves will decrease, as we deplete existing deposits and don’t replace them. The rhetoric is clever – but disingenuous, fraudulent and harmful.

They have repeatedly argued that opening up ANWR would do virtually nothing to alleviate the price of gasoline. But Democratic Senators have called upon the Saudis to increase production by amounts that would be less – even according to ridiculously low liberal estimates – than the amount of daily oil flow that ANWR would generate.

The Geological Survey and Congressional Research Service say it’s 95% likely that there are 15.6 billion barrels of oil beneath ANWR. And we could add to that an estimated 169 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, Rockies, Great Lakes, Southwest and ANWR – as well as natural gas, coal, uranium and hydroelectric resources that are currently off limits because of Democratic activism.

One of our best prospects is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which geologists say contains billions of barrels of recoverable oil. If President Clinton hadn’t bowed to Wilderness Society demands and vetoed 1995 legislation, we’d be producing a million barrels a day from ANWR right now. That’s equal to US imports from Saudi Arabia, at $50 billion annually.

Mexico has increased its oil production 64 percent since 1980. Canada’s production has increased 85 percent. If we’d increased production at the rate of our North American neighbors, we’d be producing 91 percent of our current consumption, noted National Review’s Noel Sheppard.

Democrats routinely demonize oil companies for their “excessive” and “windfall” profits. But – as usual – they merely prove what hypocrites and demogogues they truly are. Look at the revelations from The Hill:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who calls for “windfall profit taxes on big oil,” has some $200,000 in oil holdings with Exxon and BP. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who publicly says that oil companies are guilty of “price fixing,” has some $350,000 in oil holdings with Exxon and BP. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx) – who speaks of “unjustifiable tax breaks for big oil” has $350,000 in Exxon Mobil and Chevron holdings. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) who claims oil companies are “gouging” has $200,000 in holdings with Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Schlumberger. These Democrats are privately profiting from the very companies they publicly claim are so terrible. What hypocrites!

And they falsely demonize oil profits in the way of the classic demagogue. The reality is that the oil companies invest FAR more than they retain in profits; and the reality is that their profits are actually quite modest given the sheer massiveness of their operations.

Investor’s Business Daily says the following:

Yes, oil companies make money. But they spend more than they make on finding new sources of oil. A new Ernst & Young study shows the five major oil companies had $765 billion of new investment from 1992 to 2006 compared with net income of $662 billion.

Over the same stretch, the industry — which includes 57 of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas companies — had new investments of $1.25 trillion compared with a net income of $900 billion and a cash flow of $1.77 trillion.

This is an industry that has redefined innovation, reinvesting profits to find innovative ways to recover oil and gas wherever they find it. This includes fields once considered “dead,” vast tracts miles beneath the ocean surface, and sands or even shale in North Dakota.

Democrats talk about the need to conserve oil and use alternative energies instead. But do the American people truly want to drastically and dramatically change their way of life when the clear alternative of domestic oil production is readily available? Even the most radical environmentalist activists such as Al Gore clearly don’t want to make such a transition in their own personal lives: Gore has routinely been faulted for his own shockingly high rate of energy consumption. And as I see drivers routinely whiz by me on the freeway, I realize that few Americans are determined to make the kinds of painful sacrifices that Democratic strategies call upon them to make.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that such sacrifice will amount to anything. With China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world increasing its oil consumption, all the “global warming” hyperbole justifying the deliberate restriction of US energy consumption (and therefore economic production) will be “much ado, signifying nothing.” If China and India use the oil we would have used – which by all accounts is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen – then what is the net climate gain?

As a further point revealing the absurdity of Democrats’ claims that we must not drill for oil lest we contaminate the environment and increase global warming, just what do you think is going on in the Middle East? When they increase their production to meet our energy needs (at a massive profit), are they not contaminating the environment and increasing global warming even more than we would, given our higher level of technology and environmental regulations?

Democrats are currently hollering and screaming about speculators artificially driving up the price of gas. But let us consider this:

NEW YORK — Oil prices rose Monday on disappointment over Saudi Arabia’s modest production increase and concerns that output from Nigeria will decline. Retail gas prices, meanwhile, inched lower overnight, but appear unlikely to change much as long as oil prices stay in a trading range.

Saudi Arabia said Sunday at a meeting of oil producing and consuming nations that it would turn out more crude oil this year if the market needs it. The kingdom said it would add 200,000 barrels per day in July to a 300,000 barrel per day production increase it first announced in May, raising total daily output to 9.7 million barrels.

But that pledge at the meeting held in the Saudi city of Jeddah fell far short of U.S. hopes for a larger increase. The United States and other nations argue that oil production has not kept up with increasing demand, especially from China, India and the Middle East.

The fact that the price of oil goes UP when the supply goes DOWN ought to tell you something about what is truly driving the shocking price increases: supply and demand.

As we see the volatility of oil prices, and as we see that threats in the Middle East, or in unstable regimes such as Nigeria, send our prices through one roof after another, thinking, rational people must surely come to realize that there is an urgent, long-term strategic need for American to have it’s own stable domestic oil supply.

And one political party – the Democrats – are clearly standing in the way of that critical strategic goal. Our survival depends upon energy independence. But Democrats are literally STANDING on our ability to provide that independence.