Posts Tagged ‘public opinion’

Dishonest Obama Administration Lies Re: People’s Demand To Harness America’s Oil Resources

February 9, 2010

From Big Government.com

Drillgate: Internal Emails Shows Obama Team Lying to Public
by Vince Haley

If you’re the President of the United States or one of his political appointees and you’re ideologically opposed to new oil and natural gas development offshore, what do you do when the public registers its overwhelming support for new drilling in public opinion polls?

You dance, delay, and deceive. You speak melodious words about seeking the wisdom of the public in making these decisions and then ignore evidence of the public will when you get it, or worse, you hide it.

First came the dance.  In August 2008, after soaring gas prices and a dramatic shift in public opinion caused President Bush, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and Republican presidential candidate John McCain to reverse their positions on offshore drilling, then-Senator Obama also changed. The Democratic presidential nominee reversed his own position and that of his party, saying he was open to offshore drilling as part of an overall energy plan.  The Democratic Congress followed a month later by quietly dropping the 25-year Congressional ban on offshore drilling.

Then came the delay. In January 2009, President Obama inherited a draft five year offshore drilling plan prepared by the outgoing Bush administration.  The plan was already receiving public comment as part of the elaborate rule making process followed by federal agencies.  Ken Salazar, Obama’s new Secretary of Interior, determined the decision about new offshore drilling was so important that he ordered a six-month extension to the comment period.

Third comes the dishonesty.

In April of 2009, during a discussion about offshore exploration in San Francisco, Salazar said that President Obama directed him to “to make sure that we have an open and transparent government” and that “these are not decisions that are going to be made behind closed doors.” Salazar went on to say that President Obama wanted to make sure that DOI was “maximizing the opportunity for the public to give us guidance on what it is that they want to do.”

Yet, more than four months after the comment period ended, the Department of the Interior has failed to make any public announcement about the results, even though sources have told American Solutions for months the comments show a 2-1 advantage in support of offshore drilling.

It took American Solutions almost four months and the power of the Freedom of Information Act to finally uncover indirect confirmation that, out of over 530,000 comments submitted, pro-drilling comments outnumbered anti-drilling comments by a 2-1 margin.

In an email dated October 27, 2009, Liz Birnbaum, director of the Minerals Management Service, informs other Interior officials that a preliminary tabulation of the results of the comment period had not yet gone to Secretary Salazar, adding “[s]o the Secretary can honestly say in response to any questions that he’s [SIC] has not yet seen the analysis of the comments – staff is still working on it. I did, however, confirm to him the 2-1 split that these guys [at American Solutions] are emphasizing.”

When a public employee is on record condoning purposeful deception of the American people, the taxpayer should no longer have to fund his or her job.  Secretary Salazar should immediately fire Liz Birnbaum for purposefully deceiving him, and in turn, the American people.  It’s not possible for the Secretary to honor pledges of openness, honestly, and transparency in government if his staff is going to deliberately undermine such pledges.

Public opinion polls already measure near 70% support for offshore drilling, so the results from a public comment period that reflect the same public sentiment should not be surprising.  But after all this talk of wanting the public’s input, Secretary Salazar and his team must find it a real stumbling block to have to explain all their anti-energy development actions in light of the comment period results to which they previously attached such great importance.

This newly gained insight into the anti-energy exploration mindset within the Department of the Interior allows a new perspective of President Obama’s mention of offshore development in his recent State of the Union address.  Here is the one paragraph in which the President described offshore development:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.  It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.  And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

To the passive listener, it sounded like President Obama expressed at least rhetorical support for offshore drilling.

But the President only says we must make “tough decisions” on offshore drilling, deliberately refusing to apply that standard to other decisions on energy.

But tough for whom? Certainly not for the public that overwhelmingly supports more offshore drilling.

Indeed, the only person facing a tough decision is the President since an important part of his political base is opposed to new American energy development.

Bucking public opinion would indeed be a tough decision for this President, but he has shown himself quite comfortable with bucking public opinion to pursue stunningly unpopular policies on health care and cap and trade.

In short, it’s a fair conclusion that the tough decisions the President identified in his State of the Union was his intended decision not to pursue any new offshore oil and gas development. The actions by Salazar and his team are entirely consistent with that conclusion.

What makes all of this dispiriting, especially this month, is that with 15 million Americans out of work and with the President’s recently submitted budget projecting trillion dollar annual deficits for the next ten years and a near tripling of the national debt by 2020, the President is throwing away a golden opportunity over the next three decades to create millions of new jobs and generate more than $270 billion in annual economic growth from new oil and gas development, including $54 billion annually in federal tax receipts that could help lower the federal deficit and the national debt.

These extraordinary benefits of job creation and economic growth – all without requiring any federal spending – are, sadly, not on President Obama’s agenda, notwithstanding all the phony rhetoric to the contrary.

Indeed, we can look forward to the President’s continued strategy of dance, delay, and deceive.

In contrast to opening up our vital oil fields, which would have a huge positive impact in terms of both jobs, the economy, and our national security, it is interesting to compare Obama’s energy policy.

In Obama’s own words:

“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.”

You had a chance to decide which policy you wanted 16 months ago – and you chose national bankruptcy.

We voted for this foolish clown.  I guess we deserve to suffer until he’s finally, mercifully gone.

Advertisements

As Democrats Lament Voting For Obama, I Have To Ask: Who Are The ‘Wingnuts’ Now?

January 20, 2010

Democrats don’t seem to be finding any “hope and change” in their messiah.  You know who is?  Republicans.  After all, it is really an incredibly amazing – frankly a miraculous – “change” that a Democrat president could actually turn Camelot Republican.  That’s FAR more than we ever could have “hoped” for.

How’s THIS for a title from a Democrat regarding Barack Obama?

He’s Done Everything Wrong

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately
.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties Inc. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

It’s nice to finally see such wisdom from the Daily Beast.

Back when Obama was adored as He-Upon-Whom-The-Sun-Rises-And-Sets, the Daily Beast took me to task for urging conservatives to take this clown down:

Ironically, some wingnuts on the right are blaming Democrats’ techniques on their newfound commitment to tear down the next President of the United States. Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden of TheAmericanSentinel.com, who writes: “Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle…don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave Bush… It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.”

I didn’t like being referred to as a “wingnut,” but I couldn’t help but think that “one particularly unhinged culture warrior” had a rather nice ring to it.

The article I wrote was entitled, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  I was livid that this man – whom I knew would be a miserable failure and a danger and disgrace to my country – was actually being elected to the highest office in the land through demagoguery while Republicans cowered in fear.

And, of course, the Daily Beast was infuriated that a conservative actually suggest that Republicans stop accepting the constant double-standard of the past 25 years and actually do unto Obama as liberals did unto Bush.

My very first entry into blogging revolved around the outrage that was Barack Obama’s reverend, mentor, and spiritual guide, Jeremiah Wright.  Barack Obama had spent 23 years in a Marxist, anti-American, racist church; a den of vipers otherwise known as Obama’s fellow congregants leaped to their feet by the thousands and cheered wildly while Rev. Wright spewed one vile line after another.  And nobody at the top ever bothered to talk about it – either out of partisan ideology or out of fear of violating some insane and morally idiotic norm of political correctness.

Now finally someone at the Daily Beast is beginning to understand something that I understood exactly 22 months ago last night.

I was that “wingnut” and “particularly unhinged culture warrior” who saw with crystal clarity that Barack Hussein Obama was a genuinely evil man with a radical agenda who would bring this country to ruin if his agenda got off the ground.

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I’m sure not the one who’s lamenting his vote.

And the only thing that leaves me “very disappointed” is that so many of my own countrymen proved to be so utterly blind as to the unmitigated  disaster an Obama presidency would be.

And now, to cite Barack Obama’s demonic preacher for 23 years, “The Democrats’ chickens are coming home to roost.”

Who are the “wingnuts” now?

Of Presidential Fitness And Media Propaganda

November 26, 2008

Fox News anchor Brit Hume reported today:

The president-elect isn’t shy about his penchant for exercise. He begins most mornings with a visit to a gym and frequently discusses his love for sports. Associated Press reporter Deanna Bellandi describes the incoming first couple as “fabulously fit.” Back in June, Men’s Fitness magazine ranked Obama the candidate as one of the 25 fittest guys in America.

So if this virtue of exercise is praised, how, you ask, have reporters referred to President Bush’s workout routine? They have used words such as “obsession,” “indulgence” and even “creepy” to describe the President’s exercise habit.

— FOX News Channel’s Zachary Kenworthy contributed to this report.

Just so we can all be aware that the blatant media propaganda campaign that damned and condemned everything about Bush while praising and adoring everything about Obama extends even into the most trivial aspects of their lives.

I don’t know.  Maybe it’s partially because, unlike President Bush and all our other past Presidents, Barack Obama does his fitness routines in place of honoring God on Sunday mornings.

The Russian media (actually a quite fitting role model for the Tass-like American media of today) provides an example of the sheer power of propaganda to distort the truth and shape public opinion:

Though Moscow’s stock market is hit harder than its counterparts in Paris or London, Russian media are limiting their coverage of the financial crisis to Wall Street’s debacle, thereby adhering to confidence-boosting instructions from the Kremlin…

The Russian stock market has suffered a drop double that of Paris and has lost two-thirds of its value in just a few months, but this national channel gives no information on the situation and devotes less than 30 seconds to the financial markets.

In the corridors of Russia’s national media there is talk of a directive issued by the Kremlin – on the sensitive issue of the financial crisis, the order is – be positive on TV.

“It’s forbidden to use the word crisis if you’re speaking about Russia,” says Vladimir Vorfolomeev, the vice editorial director of radio Echo Moskvy. “You can’t say that the Russian market is falling or that shares are plunging…you have to be more neutral, saying for example that the share value is falling.”

But on the other hand, there are no restrictions when it comes to reporting on Wall Street – there, Russian journalists do speak of crisis and the inevitable recession which shows the limits of capitalism.

“They report that the plummeting US economy is dragging the rest of the world down,” says Vladimir Vorfolomeev. “They report Europe’s misfortunes – just like we did in Soviet times. On the one side there’s the West, which is in the process of collapsing, and on the other Russia, which if it is not prospering, can at least boast stability”.

And the Kremlin’s plan is working: if you believe the opinion polls more and more Russians are convinced that their economy is in good shape. Russians are not worried – for now the crisis is elsewhere and hasn’t affected them.

Barack Obama has talked at length about the United States becoming more like the rest of the world.  And in some ways we already have: our media, for instance, is now as thoroughly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy as news services of all the totalitarian regimes we used to stand against.