Failing Grade

Despite all the catastrophic hyperbole tossed around leading up to the climate mega-conference in Paris, the American public is not paying much attention. For months we have been warned by the prophets of doom, that the United Nation’s climate conference marks the final and best chance for humanity to save itself from certain destruction. We are told that if the 2015 Conference of the Parties (COP21) fails to deliver a major climate change treaty, the world will have missed the last opportunity to mitigate global warming and avert a worldwide disaster. To save ourselves, we simply need our collective governments to agree to impose regulations that change our lifestyles, downgrade our standards of living, and sacrifice our economies. But the alarmist sales job isn’t working, and any binding agreement is highly unlikely to emerge from Paris.

Environmentalists are frustrated. They’ve worked so hard, for so long, to get the U.S. onboard with a binding international climate treaty. So far every attempt has failed, in large part because the American public is not convinced. The main problem with alarmist propaganda of the last two decades is that they can only cry wolf so many times before the public begins to doubt the story. Al Gore’s Academy Award winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” proved to be short on truth. A British court went so far as to identify nine scientific errors in the film, and mandate that it could only be shown in British schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

For years Hollywood environmental crusaders such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Redford, Harrison Ford and Sean Penn, have used their fame to try to influence public opinion about global warming. But for all their alarmist drama, a new Washington Post/ABC poll shows that today only about 47 percent believe the government should do more to deal with global warming, down from 61 percent in 2008. According to Schwarzenegger in an interview last week with the Sacramento Bee, it’s all because of a failure to communicate, “I think it is sad the way, you know, the miscommunication about climate change, because so many times, you know, you hear … that the oceans will rise, and the sea levels are rising and the temperature’s rising and the icebergs’ melting, and it’s all stuff that people cannot even relate to,” Schwarzenegger said, “I mean, our brain is not wired that way, that we’re worried about things that are happening in 2050, or 50 years from now. It’s wired about what’s happening today, and no one – even the top environmental officials – really communicates this the right way.” Of course, if the public is too dumb to understand something so important, then governments need to be convinced to make decisions for them, which is why Schwarzenegger, Robert Redford and Sean Penn are taking the stage in Paris this week.

Environmentalists have tried the political route to stir up support. They hoped they could turn global warming into a major campaign issue and elect candidates who agree with their agenda. They spent tens of millions on this endeavor in 2014 – and failed. Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer alone spent $58 million and saw almost every candidate he backed defeated. When his PAC, NextGen Climate Action Committee, realized the millions they spent on climate alarm ads weren’t moving the numbers, they were forced to switch to ads on social issues and the economy. A 2014 Gallup poll showed climate change ranked 13th as an issue of importance, with only 40 percent of voters identifying climate change as either “very important” or “extremely important” to their votes. Only 3% of voters rank climate change as the number one election issue.

 

Mainstream media outlets have provided an echo chamber for climate fear mongering. They enthusiastically play along with every attempt to link global warming to the latest weather pattern or tragedy. This week’s headlines offer great examples; The Clock is Ticking Toward Climate Catastrophe (Yahoo News), Climate Change is a Form of Terror (CNN), COP21: Humanity’s Last-Chance Saloon (Huffington Post), Obama: Climate change could lead to rise in extremism (The Hill), Climate Change: 48-page document could save the planet (CNN.com<http://cnn.com>), If the Republicans Destroy Our Planet, Blame It on the Devil (Haaretz), Faith communities organize to save the planet at COP21 (National Observer). But for all their combined efforts to raise public concern, a poll recently conducted by GlobeScan in 20 top industrial countries showed a 13 point drop since 2009 in those who view climate change as a “very serious” issue.

President Obama, intent on making climate change a legacy issue, has used his bully pulpit to amplify climate alarmism and to demagogue warming deniers. He began his second term with a State of the Union speech claiming climate change is the “greatest threat to the nation.” Then, following the Paris terror attacks, he used the opportunity to make a bizarre reference about Islamic terrorist’s opposition to COP21, “What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.” One could almost infer that the President was suggesting the terror attacks in Paris were an attempt to deter world leaders from tackling global warming. A new Economist/YouGov poll shows only 8 percent of Republicans, 19 percent of Independents, and 25 percent of Democrats believe there is any connection between climate change and an increase in terrorism.

Pope Francis triggered new enthusiasm with environmentalists when he took up the mantle of an eco-evangelist. Perhaps by making global warming a religious moral issue, many in the public would finally have a climate change conversion. In anticipation of the Paris climate conference the Pope rolled out his encyclical teaching on global warming earlier this year, and has used every opportunity to implore the world to adopt the Paris accord. His encyclical frames the fight against CO2 emissions as a moral imperative for the Catholic Church. Fossil fuels are characterized as the embodiment of evil. On Sunday he prayed, “For the sake of the common home we share and for future generations, every effort should be made in Paris to mitigate the impact of climate change and, at the same time, to tackle poverty and to let human dignity flourish.” If the Pope’s prayer were answered it would be unfortunate for the poor. The U.N.’s regulation of fossil fuels would have the greatest negative impact on the quality of life for those who are more concerned about immediate nourishment and shelter than anthropogenic climate model projections.

Despite the Pope’s climate sermons, impoverished countries know how much their economies and citizens depend on access to affordable fossil fuels. It’s the key reason they won’t sign on to an equivalent deal without the extracting a long-term financial prize from wealthy nations. The religious dogma hasn’t inspired a host of new believers. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, around 47 percent of Catholics, attributed global warming to human causes, and less than half viewed it as a very serious problem. The demographic groups least concerned about global warming happen to be religious communities – white Catholics and white evangelicals.

So what’s the deal? Why all the climate apathy and global warming denial? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger right – a majority of people are simply too ignorant to understand what they are being told? I don’t believe it’s a communication problem. I believe it’s a science problem, and a global warming solutions problem. Global warming alarmists are masters of propaganda. They have employed the most Orwellian tactics in their attempt to produce a seismic shift in the American conscious over global warming.

The fact that alarmists effectively changed the basic term of the debate from “global warming” to the catch all term “climate change,” even though the science they continue to reference is all about warming, is revealing. First, it should make us all skeptics. If global warming was an undisputed fact, evidenced by Al Gore’s warming predictions actually becoming reality, alarmists wouldn’t need to change the term to “climate change.” It also reveals how shrewd they are with their warming rhetoric. Climate change is a convenient catch all propaganda term for alarmists. It encompasses every weather related event, every storm, every drought. It can be twisted and distorted to mean almost anything. Even war and terrorism can now be blamed on the weather. But after all the manipulative word games, millions of dollars spent on promoting global warming ideology, celebrity prattle, and a U.S. President who claims that global warming is the greatest threat to mankind – public opinion appears to be, at best, stagnant or shifting in the opposite direction.

When 150 world leaders gather to discuss something, that something must a real big deal. But the world is giving a collective yawn to the international confab in Paris. That’s a mistake. We should pay attention, not because the alarmists are correct with their predictions of a global warming Armageddon, but because three quarters of the world’s leaders are attending a meeting for the purpose of inking an agreement to significantly change our quality of life, strangle our economy, eliminate jobs, and provide billions of taxpayer dollars to developing country’s economies in the form of green bribes.

If you aren’t a skeptic about global warming science, you should be a skeptic about global warming solutions. Take a few minutes and browse the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc.int<http://unfccc.int/>), or their blueprint for sustainable development, Agenda 21 (sustainabledevelopment.un.org<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf>). It’s big government on steroids, imposing international regulations on almost every component of our lives. It uses climate change as an excuse for government to address every Leftist issue imaginable, from wealth redistribution to empowering unions, to feminism. It’s not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, our democracy or our ideals. There are many nuances to the art of twisting the facts to influence opinions and behavior, but political propaganda is most effective when its target audience fails to recognize the persuasive tactics being employed and how they shape the public’s beliefs. It’s been said that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” When it comes to climate propaganda, and meetings like COP21, Americans should all be very vigilant. A binding U.N. climate treaty would prove to be a real man-made global disaster. (David Spady)

Save us from The Chicken Little Orwellian Dictator Wanna-be’s.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Sky isn’t Falling!

This will annoy the faithful of the Religion of Global Warming.  But as Douglas Adams once said, “For Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing” so the faithful will carry on because it is much more about the religion now than the science. The science was justifying the religion and they will still use it and abuse it but it’s a religion now and faith is more powerful than science.

And this all it comes from the Holy site, the Met Office in Great Britain. And they did it in typically liberal style, a weekend document dump.

UK Daily Mail: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changes

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

But THEY HAVE BEEN DOING JUST THAT THEMSELVES. The whole Global Warming scam has been based on these short time periods and then predictions of doom for all mankind in the future  if we didn’t cow-tow to their control over everything. The Sky was falling! The Sky was Falling!

Well, maybe not…

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Just like your religion. But that won’t stop you now.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Because that is what the religion dictates. Science is about facts, not religious doctrines.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts. 

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

So it’s about greed. Pure and simple. Your own pet projects for your own pet money. How basically and base capitalist can you get from socialists. 🙂
It’s about their government largesse. Their “interest group”. Their money.
Their greed.

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

So the religious would say it’s BECAUSE they have been pushing so hard (and failing but that’s not a part of a religious argument) that we need to continue to do so or else doom itself will breath down all our necks.

Sounds very religious doesn’t it? 🙂

Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year.

In American terms that is about $160. So if your energy bill is is higher because of greenie religious fervor from the left, is that not a “middle class” hike in costs? Aren’t the greenies hurting the poor with their religious obsession?

Solyndra, First Solar and other  BILLIONS of dollars wasted on fear and intimidation.

This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But at this point the science doesn’t back up the fear campaign and thus should that not be questioned?

Or is that Heresy? 🙂

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

But the religion must live on! After all, their is a “consensus” that it is happening according to the religious Left. 🙂

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and  models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

HERESY! BURN THE HERETIC!

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

But rather than science, the faithful will turn to the warmth of their religion for comfort against the heretics in their midst.

But is it man or nature? The Politics of Fear and Control?

Fear and Control, sounds familiar somehow…Obam…something…:)

 

The End Justifies The Means

“We’re headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they’re not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training,” Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) said on MSNBC’s Al Sharpton program.

“The idea that Republicans are trying to help those who are unemployed is nonsense and I think that on this election day, those who have a job can credit the administration for stabilizing our economy and those who don’t know that this administration is trying to put them to work,” he said.

We’re Counting on Naivete,Greed, and Narcissism and if that doesn’t work, then we’ll just use Fear,Envy, Cheating, and Intimidation.

Democracy, Liberal style!

More people giving up and being taken off the unemployment statistics is not progress. And 8%+ for OVER 3 YEARS STRAIGHT is not an “accomplishment” in a good way, unless you’re a Liberal or a slobbering Ministry of Truth hack like NBC.

But here’s a creative solution to the Post Office’s Bankruptcy problems (no government unions and their campaign money were harmed during this presentation):

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) comes up with a plan to save the collapsing United States Postal Service: build wind farms off of the Atlantic Coast to power a new fleet of battery-operated postal delivery vehicles.

<<RIMSHOT>>

Man, with brain power like that no wonder everything is just perfect in Liberal La-La Land.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

“[O]il and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production,” Al Armendariz says in the video.

The top-ranking EPA official goes on to explain his philosophy of policy enforcement [emphases added]:

“But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave, I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And, that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. So you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly. That’s what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that’s our general philosophy.”

“[The] EPA’s proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from about half the nation’s electric power supply is a poorly disguised cap-and-tax scheme that represents energy and economic policy at its worst,” President and CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement from the National Mining Association.

The regulations will limit the emissions from new coal-based plants (as opposed to plants that existed before the drafting of the proposal). This, of course, will discourage entrepreneurs from establishing and building new power plants. And although the proposed regulations don’t specifically dictate which fuels a plant can and can’t burn, the rules still require new coal plants to match the dioxide emissions from more their “more efficient” gas-powered cousins, according to Reuters.

In order to meet the EPA’s new emissions standards, coal-based power plants have been encouraged to invest in equipment that captures carbon emissions and buries them underground for “permanent storage.” But there’s a catch: carbon capture and storage technology isn’t yet “commercially available,” according to the coal industry.

So what, Solar power is not commercially viable at this time but yet the little skulls of “feel good” mush want it anyways. They don’t care how many companies go bankrupt because in typical liberal fashion – The End Justifies The Means.

Not to worry; the EPA believes the tech will be available soon enough.

Just like that Algae-driven car. 🙂

“Supporters of the rules argue that the industry has been moving away from coal and towards natural gas because of low prices and abundant supply,” Reuters reports.

“The portion of U.S. electricity fired by coal has slipped from about 50 percent to 45 percent in the last few years as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and other drilling techniques have allowed access to vast new domestic supplies of natural gas,” the report adds.

However, as Ed Morrisey of Hot Air points out, considering the EPA’s current stance against natural gas, this argument may not hold up very well:

This leads us to the natural-gas option…The response might be, “Well, okay, Obama’s bankrupting the coal industry, but we can still use natural gas.”  That’s only true if we can get the natural gas.  The EPA has also begun blocking the use of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, which allows for massive improvement in extraction and access to vast amounts of natural gas.

Environmentalist groups praised the Obama administration for proposing “performance standard rules” they say will help “protect the country from climate change.”

“The bottom line for our country is that cleaner power will cut harmful carbon dioxide pollution, protect our children and help secure a safe prosperous future,” said Vickie Patton, the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Oh, but here’s the best part: none of these new EPA climate rules need to be approved by Congress.

“After Congress refused to pass carbon caps, the administration insisted there were other ways to skin the cat, and this is another way — by setting a standard deliberately calculated to drive affordable coal out of the electricity market,”

More stealth regulations, maneuvers, and back-handed “well if I can’t get by Congress I’ll get it my way anyhow by regulations”

Higher utility bills and fewer jobs are the only certain outcomes from this reckless attempt to override Congress’s repeated refusal to enact punitive caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

But it’s for your own good. So what if you’re unemployed or poor and you have to pay higher utility bills. Vote for Obama, he’ll make you feel better than that evil capitalist pig “silver spoon” Romney.

After all, they are evil polluters and you should be glad to have that $40 light bulb and pay 4,5,6 times as much for electricity than you do know.

The government will take care of you! 🙂

They will provide!

Unlike the republicans who just want you to starve, and die. 🙂

Trust them. They have your back (the large and multiple knifes in your back are the Republicans fault for not wanting to do as we wanted them to).

This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA’s regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop. It is not an “all of the above” energy strategy; it does not create jobs; and it does not make it easier for Americans to pay their mortgages. Instead, the proposed New Source Performance Standards would deliberately push America to abandon coal, its most abundant and reliable energy source in favor of costlier fuels—even though Congress has repeatedly rejected this policy.

“If you thought gas prices will never stop rising, just wait until you see what happens to electricity after the Barack Obama’s EPA gets its way,” Ed Morrissey writes. (The Blaze)

President Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar confirmed that the administration has gotten “more strict on denying drilling permits” since the Deepwater Horizon, though he contended Obama is also pursuing an effective all-of-the-above energy strategy.

“Yes,” Salazar answered when asked if he is “being more strict on denying drilling permits based on safety and environmental concerns” since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

“We have new sets of regulations that that have been put into place,” Salazar told reporters at the National Press Club yesterday. “The permit reviews are rigourous. We make sure that any company that is going to be operating in the waters of the United States is going to be complying in the rules that we set out.”

Salazar also declared that “we are now producing 13 percent more oil off of our public lands than was being produced three years ago.”

The Department of Energy seems to contradict Salazar’s claim. Oil production is at the same level it was in 2009 — and dramatically lower than in 2010 — according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Washington Examiner)

Less is More because I said so. 🙂

The oil production that is up is on PRIVATE LANDS not federal lands. But it’s not like Liberals care about Facts…

“they don’t think we should be getting rid of every regulation on the books.”-Obama when asked about Congressional Republicans and the people.

I love the all-or-nothing extremism of Liberals. It’s either do it my way or it must be the most extreme on the other end.

Obama 10/2011: “My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work,” President Obama said at a campaign event today. “Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan.”

The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: ‘Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.’ (RCP)

“Frankly, I know that there are good, decent Republicans on Capitol Hill who, in a different environment, would welcome the capacity to work with me,” Obama said. “But right now, in an atmosphere in which folks like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are defining what it means to be a true conservative, they are lying low. My hope is that after this next election, they’ll feel a little more liberated to go out and say, ‘Let’s redirect the Republican Party back to those traditions in which a Dwight Eisenhower can build an interstate highway system.'”

So basically, there’s a category of “decent” Republicans who believe in a large role for the federal government, but those of us who believe in a smaller government are somehow indecent, and are holding the good guys hostage.(Washington Examiner)

Can I get an “Amen”. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Mindless IV: The Circle of Cronyism

And the light WAS train anyhow, but because it was politically incorrect (fossil fuels you know) it was discontinued because it cost too much with all the new taxes and regulations and ObamaCare it was too much for the evil corporate greedy bastards to care about anymore and all the employees went to work for Solyndra…That went bankrupt you say? Taking $535 Million dollars in taxpayer money with it down the rat hole…well, isn’t that just depressing. 🙂
2 Notes: 1 Yes, there was no blog yesterday. Long Story. 2) Today is the first anniversary of my mother’s death, I still miss you dearly.
Now back to the show… Oh, and more head against wall, breaking wall Liberalism.

The Energy Department announced Wednesday that is has finalized more than $1 billion in loan guarantees for two separate solar energy projects. (Meaning, when they go bust we get stuck with the check AGAIN!).

The decision comes several weeks after Solyndra, a California-based solar manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration in 2009, filed for bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers, setting off a firestorm in Washington.

DOE announced a $737 million loan guarantee to help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve.

The Energy Department said the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs.

OOH!!! 45 jobs!!! WOW!!! Impressive.
Lost 1100 jobs and $535 Million on Solyndra so lets do it again with even more more money and create 45!!
That sounds like Obamanomics to a tee doesn’t it!?
Only 14 Million more to go!
Head, meet Wall. Wall, you’re going down! 🙂
Oh, and just in case you forgot about Obama’s “agenda” cronyism…

A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.

And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.

We have nothing to hide. We are the “most transparent administration ever”. Yeah, but what it’s transparent about is not good. 🙂

Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA have already, collectively, received billions in loans through Obama administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants in the southwestern United States.

Yet each, with the exception of the privately held SolarReserve, has seen its stock price hammered at the same time it was lobbying the Obama administration and Congress for billions in loan guarantees.

The Hill newspaper reported Wednesday that the Santa Monica, Calif.-based SolarReserve has secured a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for a Nevada solar project.

That company has ties to George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire who raised $53,500 for President Obama’s campaign in 2008. Through his Argonaut Private Equity firm, Kaiser holds a majority stake in Solyndra.

Argonaut has a voting stake on SolarReserve’s board of directors in the person of Steve Mitchell, who also serves on Solyndra’s board of directors.

Ah, Circle of Cronyism Life…

But don’t worry, Obama doesn’t allow lobbyists in his administration. He said so. You trust him, don’t you? He’s never lied to you.

It was George Bush who cut down the Cherry tree. Or was it The Tsunami, ATMS, Tea-baggers, racists,Bankers, “rich” people,or Republicans. 🙂
FAST AND FURIOUS
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Evasion.

During a White House roundtable with three Spanish-language media outlets on Wednesday, President Barack Obama skated around questions about Operation Fast and Furious.

“We’re working very hard to have a much more effective interdiction effort … we are checking southbound transit … to capture illegal guns, illegal cash transfers to cartels,” he said at the morning event with representatives from Yahoo!, MSN Latino, and AOL Latino/Huffington Post Latino Voices. “It is something we’ve been building … it’s not yet finished, and there’s more work to do,” he said. (DC)

That’s why we forceably sold 1700 of them to know criminals and forced agents to let them cross the border so they could be lost in Mexico and kill people. Yeah!!

So he’s looking in to it. Just have patience. Sounds familiar some how?

Oh, it’s that “laser like focus”. That’s the ticket! 🙂

Obama blamed budget problems, in part, for what some see as ATF’s incompetence. “Part of the problem is budgetary [and] … we are going to have to figure out ways to operate smarter and more efficiently in investigations without a huge expansion of resources  because those resources are aren’t there.”

In other words, lets spend as little as possible looking into this embarrassing screw up. That’s the budgetary problem.

PASS THE BILL

“A chief economist at Moody’s [Mark Zandi] (The people who downgraded us and let the mortgage mess go unchecked) — someone who has advised both Republicans and Democrats — very recently has said that the American Jobs Act will add two percent of growth to the American economy and create almost 2 million badly needed jobs,” Sebelius said at the U.S. Commerce Department’s Annual Minority Enterprise Development Week conference on Wednesday.

Mark Zandi: “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus,” Zandi said in a statement released by the White House last week.

The only impact the stimulus had was to raise the deficit and more people LOST their jobs. So it’s go big and go home! 🙂

The Stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%
ObamaCare was supposed to create 4 Million Jobs.
And now the new solar deal will create 45!
So naturally, you have to believe them, right?
Head….Wall! 🙂

Always beware of Democrat who like a “republican/conservative economist”. There’s a RINO in the tent. Or in this case, the Democrats have made it all up.

To his credit, Zandi has never tried to hide his ideological beliefs. “I’m a registered Democrat,” he told The Washington Post in a 2009 profile. He worked with McCain not because he agreed with the GOP’s economic agenda but because of his policy of “help(ing) any policymaker who asks, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat.” According Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic advisor, Zandi was brought on to the campaign to provide instant analysis of economic news, not to set policy.

Democrats first began citing Zandi’s tenuous conservative credentials and support for government spending during the debate over Obama’s original stimulus plan. “I’m just saying what Mark Zandi from Moody’s, an adviser to John McCain, is saying: You have to have a package of this robustness if you’re going to make a difference,” then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a press conference in early 2009.

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer had referred to him as a “conservative Republican” in an interview with Fox News the month before.

Orwellian dishonesty from Democrats, jeez whodathunkit?! 🙂
Barney Keller, a spokesman for the influential Club for Growth. “He’s about as conservative as Paul Krugman, and wrong just as often.” (DC)
After all, Obama is the President of all “57 States”. 🙂
The White House mixed up Wyoming and Colorado when issuing press credentials for President Barack Obama’s tour of Western states this week. The press credentials show California, Washington, and Wyoming highlighted in white. However, the president spoke Tuesday in the other rectangular-shaped state: Colorado.  (where he was met by protesters from the Left who were mad at him for not be Leftist enough).
All those square states look the same anyway. (NRO)
Trust Us, We are from the Government and we are here to help you! 🙂
OBAMACARE
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The signature legislation of the Obama Administration, the Affordable Care Act, came under damaging assault Wednesday from a Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found it has already partially contributed to increasing health care costs.

The Kaiser survey helps to shed some light on why so few employers are hiring, as health care costs for employers are spiraling upwards.

The survey found that insurance premiums rose by 9 percent in 2011. Healthcare costs for a single worker went up on average from $5,049 to $5,429, and for a family, costs rose from $13,770 to $15,073, on average.

The survey also found that some provisions of the Affordable Care Act already in place — including the allowance for young people up to 26 years of age to remain on their parents insurance policy — contributed to 20 percent of that increase.

And in case you were wondering, the majority of Americans still hate ObamaCare and favor repeal.

But don’t tell the Mainstream Media or the Democrats, they are too busy with “pass the bill” and pass the buck to care what you think. They just want you to think what they want you to think. That’s all. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Dumb & Dumber

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

IBD: Over the weekend, President Obama encouraged everyone to read his jobs proposal and judge it for themselves. We took him up on his offer, and found five more reasons to kill the bill.

We’ve noted how Obama’s so-called jobs bill is an expensive rehash of all the policy failures he’s already imposed on the country, with the only new idea being several job-killing tax hikes.

But when he urged Americans during his weekly Saturday address to read the bill and decide for themselves, we thought we’d give the 155-page bill another try. Our conclusion: It’s even worse than we thought. Among the dumber ideas tucked in:

Wage insurance: The bill would let states use unemployment funds to make up the difference between an over-50 worker’s previous wage and what he gets paid at his new job. Why not? Isn’t it written in the Bill of Rights somewhere that no American shall ever be forced to take a job paying less than his previous one?

Bridge to nowhere: Obama claims his “Bridge to Work” idea will let people on unemployment “participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills,” citing the Georgia Works program as an example. But as Reuters reported, only 92 had signed up for that program since February and, according to the person in charge, it’s “fraught with problems.”

48th federal jobs training program: Obama would also create a $50 million training program for transportation jobs. Does he really think another federal jobs training program on top of the 47 existing failures — costing a combined $18 billion — will make a difference?

Let’s share: Borrowing from job-creation machines such as Italy, the bill would let companies cut workers’ hours, rather than lay them off, with unemployment insurance making up most of the difference in pay.

Sounds great, except that it would be ripe for abuse. And while more than a dozen states — including California and New York — already have similar “work share” programs, almost no one uses them because of all the fraud-preventing red tape involved.

Sued for hiring: How do you get jittery businesses to hire? Threaten to sue them if they hire someone who already has a job! At least, that’s how the White House thinks. It stuffed in a provision to make it illegal to “discriminate” against the unemployed when hiring.

Given all this dreck, is it any wonder that so few have bothered to take Obama up on his oft-repeated call for citizens to flood lawmakers’ offices with demands that they “pass this bill”?

But if you don’t you’re an “obstructionist”, a “do-nothing” “tea bagger” “racist” 🙂

And where is the actual spending cuts? Look in the mirror, see the smoke…

Gee, that make me feel better now. How about you? 🙂

MORE GREEN FRAUD

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama defended the weatherization portion of the stimulus bill in a February 2009 CBS interview, saying it would immediately put people back to work, reduce energy costs and lay the groundwork for future energy independence.

“What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?” said Obama at the time. “That’s exactly the kind of program that we should be funding.”

In total, the stimulus program allocated about $5 billion to the cause of home weatherization, outfitting homes with the latest green technology in order to reduce energy prices.

But in October 2010, Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General at the Department of Energy, issued a scathing report on Illinois’ weatherization program funded with stimulus dollars.

Among his findings were that 14 out of 15 “weatherized” homes failed final inspection because of poor workmanship and 12 out of 15 homes contained substandard work that could have “resulted in significant property damage or injury to the homeowners.”

But Friedman’s report didn’t stop there.

In one weatherized home, 11 out of 14 items the weatherization contractor installed failed inspection. Another home had an improperly installed exhaust system that turned out to be a potential fire hazard.

The audit also found that the number of gas leaks discovered was “alarming.”

Worst still, Friedman reported that contractors hired to weatherize homes charged homeowners prices significantly higher than market value for the items they installed.

“For example, CEDA’s published prices for smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, and thermostats ranged from about 120 percent to 200 percent over the average retail price,” reads the audit report. “Neither CEDA nor State officials could justify such large mark-ups on materials.”

The IG’s audit also turned up erroneous billing practices, where contractors would over-charge for services that were never carried out.

“Additionally, a contractor had installed one carbon monoxide detector, but had billed CEDA for 3; another contractor had installed 12 light bulbs, but had billed CEDA for 20; and, yet another had failed to install a gas shut-off valve, but had billed for the work. In addition, a contractor had billed for almost four times the amount of drywall actually installed,” reads the report.

When contacted by TheDC, a DOE spokesperson Bill Gibbons said, “The weatherization programs are creating thousands of jobs, helping families save money, and deploying new clean energy technologies in local communities around the country.”

“We always expected that it would take some time to get these programs fully up and running in the beginning, but we are on track to significantly exceed the 600,000 home goal set for the program,” Gibbons added. “The Department takes any reported case of abuse or poor performance very seriously, but these have been the exception rather than the rule and we have taken aggressive actions to address the issues and hold those responsible accountable.”

Still, one member of the advisory board overseeing the state program, Republican state Sen. Dan Duffy, resigned from the non-voting position in March 2011 because he so incensed at what he saw to be an obvious waste of taxpayer money

“The more questions I asked, the more I was told ‘Dan, you don’t really have a vote,’” Duffy told TheDC.

“I guess I don’t understand, when the state of Illinois literally cannot pay its bills and is going bankrupt, is this really the best use of money?” Duffy added. “I don’t care if its state or federal. Why are we spending millions of dollars with absolutely no credibility of how the spend that money?”

The story of Illinois’ weatherization program, however, doesn’t stop there.

The state-run program is being promoted by four separate public relations firms. Two of those firms have close ties to the Obama administration.

Gee, I guess we just need to spend even more money and give it more time. 🙂

Isn’t that the Liberal answer to everything?

But Illinois isn’t the only state that struggled with its weatherization program. Delaware suspended its program altogether after only nine months when it became apparent the fraud and mismanagement was getting out of control.

A state audit in Tennessee, which received more than $100 million in stimulus funds for weatherization, also found rampant waste and abuse. The 260-page report uncovered problems very similar to those in Illinois: work was done improperly and funds went to homeowners not even eligible for the program.

Illinois, Delaware and Tennessee are only three examples, but numerous reports show the mismanagement is widespread throughout then entire nationwide program.

“It was a set up for failure,” Duffy told TheDC.

But it “felt good”. And if some Democrat cronies benefit, so much the better. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert



Black Face and Black Deals

Arizona State Fans Black Out Wearing Black Face

Arizona, a state that is regularly accused of having a serious issue with people of color, received another stain to its reputation. Last week, four white female students at Arizona State University showed up to a football game wearing Black face. The school asked students to wear all-Black attire to celebrate the new uniforms in their game against the Missouri Tigers. This is when a few students took it too far.
At least four Arizona State fans attended Saturday’s college football game against the University of Missouri in Blackface.
The broadcast, which aired on ESPN, showed four young white women with their faces, necks and arms painted all Black.
    Arizona State would win 37-30, thus validating the practice of white (and other) folks painting their faces Black as part of an audience gimmick.
So, on a scale of 1-10 how racist is this? And how ignorant? I’m going to give these girls just a four out of 10 for racism, but a solid 7.5 for ignorance. (Ology and other goofy websites)

Problem (amongst many): Other than creating “racism where it doesn’t exist. If you look closely enough you will notice that one of these girls is actually Black For real!!
Whoops!
But don’t expect the “outraged” liberals to care about that. No sir, not one bit.

I wonder if they are offended by  burnt toast (it’s black you know) or “blackened” fish?
or “black” coffee. or “colored pencils”??
Or “blackened” fish?
or “blackouts” or “Black Friday” sales?
or Black Light?
Pretty White Clouds become menacing dark black clouds, so is Mother Nature Racist??
Or are you just hunting for racism where it doesn’t exist to just satisfy your craving for hatred?
Are you going to address the Southern Democrats, Like Al Gore Sr, who voted against the Civil Rights Acts?
Nope.
It’s just hate for hate sake. And it’s a knee jerk reaction that obvious made their brains fall out.
I would give the liberal article writers an 11 for racism and Infinity for ignorance.

***********

Green Jobs Boondoggle

The Solyndra case.  Here’s the cliffsnotes version: A solar panel manufacturing company that received over half-a-billion taxpayer dollars in federal “stimulus” loan guarantees from the Obama administration in 2009 has filed for bankruptcy and laid off all of its employees.  One of the principal investors in Solyndra was a major Obama donor.  He and various Solyndra officials visited the White House repeatedly before and after the controversial loan was approved.  The president toured the company’s California headquarters in 2010, using the setting to tout his green energy agenda and the Recovery Act.  Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Solyndra imploded last month.  Last week, the FBI raided Solyndra’s offices, seeking undisclosed information.  We also learned that Obama Energy Department representatives sat in on numerous Solyndra board meetings in the months leading up to the company’s failure.  They knew it was coming.  Oh well, the White House argues, there are always risks in these sorts of things — and besides, the Solyndra loan process began during the Bush administration.  That house of cards is now collapsing.  Yesterday, ABC News dropped the bombshell that Bush era Energy auditors actually nixed the loan as unsound, and that Obama OMB staffers raised similar concerns upon their own evaluation.  The White House’s political team seemed to disagree, putting the deal on a “fast track.” Just days later, the massive government loan to the unstable “green” poster-child — backed by major Obama donor cash — was fortuitously approved.

So you, the tax payers are on the hook for $535 MILLION dollars in payola to a company that even with that much cash went bankrupt in just over a year!

Now that’s betting on the horse from the glue factory. But since it was “green” the left won’t care and the media will try to bury it.

The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.  Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of “a major outstanding issue” — namely, that Solyndra’s numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.  There was also concern about the high-risk nature of the project. Internally, the Office of Management and Budget wrote that “the risk rating for the project sponsor [Solyndra] … seems high.” Outside analysts had warned for months that the company might not be a sound investment.

So, again, Solyndra’s Bush-era application was denied because of concerns over the company’s balance sheets and business model.  Obama’s own OMB staffers were waving bright red flags, essentially shouting “no!”  One even presciently predicted that Solyndra could run out of money….right about now.  Funny, that.  And yet, the irresponsible loan was fast-tracked for approval, apparently at the behest of Obama’s “West Wing” (ie, political) aides.  Remember, these aides were regularly conferring with one of the company’s primary investors, George Kaiser, — who just happened to be a top Obama campaign fundraising “bundler” during the last campaign.  After misleading the public about the Bush administration’s role in this mess, the Obama White House now tells us all of those meetings with Kaiser had nothing to do with the risky loan in question.  Does anyone believe that?  Anyone?  This is far from over. (townhall)

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne


 

Been Here, Done This

Green Jobs Vs Reality: Green Jobs

President Obama is expected to seek another $250 billion or so in new stimulus funds next week, with plenty of money for clean energy and the creation of so-called green jobs.

Never mind that no one can seem to find many Americans who got green jobs as a result of the original stimulus spending. Consider two stories.

In the 2009 stimulus, the feds gave nearly $3.2 million in green-energy grants to my county of Arlington, Va., with almost $300,000 used to install solar paneling on the roof of our local library. (Don’t ask why the feds are giving one of the five wealthiest counties in America free money.)

Arlington officials boast the project will save $14,000 in annual electricity costs, but the solar panels have a life span of no more than 10 to 15 years. So the feds spent $300,000 to shave at most $150,000 off the net present value of Arlington’s electric bills. Some 3,000 counties across the country received federal funds for the same kind of negative-return energy conservation “investments.” This is the kind of “clean energy” program the administration wants to expand.

Oh, and the Company that got $535 Million in Stimulus Money and was the golden boy of Obama’s plan, just went bankrupt and we lost all the money and the jobs!

Wind, waves, and solar which are all the hippie liberals will consider in their “all in” energy plans are not viable. But they don’t care. They will make them work and if you have to suffer for it until they do (or don’t)–well by god you’ll suffer!

Obama instead touted steps his administration has taken without Congress, including the new vehicle-fuel economy standards announced in recent weeks. (The one that some economics predict will make your next car cost $11,000 more and may not be technologically viable at this point without everyone being forced to by a hybrid or an electric car–gee I never thought of that… 🙂 ).

Think about it. That’s what we got done — and by the way, we didn’t go through Congress to do it,” Obama told workers at an advanced battery plant. “But we did use the tools of government — us working together — to help make it happen.” (The Hill)

Congress (aka The Republicans) are evil and get in his way!

“I think the White House continues to believe that oil politics are very important to the economy and the next election, and they are determined to enact whatever policies they can, especially those that have a populist bent,” Paul Bledsoe, a senior adviser at the Bipartisan Policy Center said. (The Hill)

Whether they work or not is inconsequential. They just have to sound good, feel good, and get him re-elected. So that when he’ not facing a re-election campaign from 2013-2016 he can do whatever the hell he wants and Congress can go pound sand!

Don’t doubt it.

Now for a good energy news story. I recently traveled to Wheeling, W.V., which is 45 minutes down the road from Pittsburgh along the Ohio River and smack in the heart of the old Rust Belt. Unlike most places you go to these days, the town is booming. Defying the national mood, people are optimistic about the future. Why? It’s what residents are calling the “West Virginia gold rush.”

Except it’s not gold, it’s natural gas. Wheeling sits atop the famous Marcellus shale formation—one of the biggest treasure troves of natural gas ever discovered in America. With recent breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing technology, that gas can be extracted at very affordable prices. A few years ago Wheeling farmers and land owners were getting about $50 to $100 an acre for drilling rights. Now they get up to $3,000, plus monthly royalties. What was once a dying town now has jobs and new funds for schools and roads, while West Virginian farmers and land owners are getting rich. The same story of economic revival can be told about counties in Pennsylvania and Ohio sitting atop the Marcellus bonanza.

Then there the oil in the Dakotas, possibly more than Saudi Arabia…

Even the White House acknowledges that the natural gas deposits in the Midwest and Texas contain potentially 100 years worth of cheap natural gas. Yet as far as I can tell, President Obama has never even uttered the words “Marcellus shale” in a major speech. Incredible.

In early August a Department of Energy advisory panel reported that fracking for natural gas poses risks to air and water quality and so should be subject to tighter regulations—hardly a ringing endorsement. The green movement wants it stopped completely because of dangers to water, even though continued technological progress will reduce these risks.

The White House’s hostility toward fossil fuels seems to know no bounds. Exxon has made some of the largest oil finds in a decade, in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet the Obama administration is holding up the leases and permitting process. In North Dakota, an Obama-appointed U.S attorney has brought criminal charges against seven oil companies (with penalties of up to six months in prison) for causing the deaths of 28 migratory birds found in oil waste pits.

According to data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Industrial Production Indexes, the oil and gas industry, which the Obama Energy Department loathes, has had more growth in output than any other manufacturing industry in the U.S. from 2005 through 2011. As a reward, the administration is proposing $35 billion in new taxes on the industry to slow it down. Even if we accept the dubious White House claim that all the oil and gas tax write-offs are unwarranted loopholes, a 2011 Congressional Research Service study finds that per unit of electricity produced, for every two cents of tax subsidy to Big Oil, Big Green (wind and solar) get closer to $1 in handouts.

The environmentalists are for any energy source unless it actually works,” notes Stephen Hayward, an energy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. A few years ago the Democrats were all in favor of natural gas at least as a “bridge” energy source. That abruptly changed when the extent of America’s abundant natural gas resources became fully known and more affordable drilling techniques opened up a superhighway to energy security. The irony of the green movement’s reactionary antifracking crusade is that one of the most important developments in cutting U.S. carbon emissions has come from replacing coal-burning fire plants with natural gas.

So we now have a national energy policy directing our resources away from cheap, efficient and increasingly abundant fuels like coal, oil and natural gas while we channel billions of tax dollars to 500-year-old energy technologies like wind power that can’t possibly scale up to power a modern-day industrial economy. That’s a shame. (Stephen Moore)

But it “feels” good.:) It’s all touchy feely…

For more than two years the president has been giving “important” jobs speeches — and no wonder. After an $830 billion stimulus and multiple “jobs” bills since, the employment picture has only deteriorated. The economy added zero jobs in August, and 2.4 million fewer people work today than when Obama took office.

Yet despite the advance billing on all those previous speeches, none was anything remotely “bold” or “imaginative,” something Democratic lawmakers and Obama’s liberal media cheerleaders are now hoping for with his next one.

Instead, in every speech, Obama simply dusted off the same crabbed list — more money for roads and “clean energy,” various temporary tax credits, more unemployment insurance, temporary payroll tax cuts — despite the fact that each has already been tried on his watch, and all proved to be expensive failures. A rundown:

• In December 2009, Obama’s big jobs speech called for billions more on roads, extended unemployment benefits, tax credits for weatherizing homes and some temporary help for small companies.

• In his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama said “jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010” and touted his “new jobs bill.” What was in it? Money for roads, a small-business tax credit, weatherization credits and investment in clean energy.

• On Labor Day that year, Obama delivered yet another jobs speech, but offered only one idea — $50 billion more for roads.

• His 2011 State of the Union speech was also supposed to focus on jobs, but all he had to offer was a vague “innovation agenda,” another push for clean energy and — you guessed it — more money for roads.

• And then in July 2011, Obama argued that once the debt-ceiling debate was finished, the country could turn again to jobs. His big ideas: extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, and spend more on roads.

Maybe this speech will be different. But unless Obama has kept some secret breakthrough job-creating idea hidden in his closet all this time, would it be a surprise if he just puts a fresh rhetorical gloss on these same proposals?

The problem isn’t just that these ideas aren’t “bold,” it’s that they’ve all been tried since Obama took office, and they’ve all failed. Among those he’s expected to include this time around:

More infrastructure spending. The stimulus bill spent nearly $100 billion on infrastructure. Yet when the bulk of that money started to get spent in the “Recovery Summer” of 2010, the economy shed 329,000 jobs.

A new-hire tax credit. Obama signed the $17.5 billion HIRE Act in March 2010 that offered companies up to $6,000 in credits and exemptions for hiring unemployed workers. Obama said this would “encourage businesses to hire and put Americans back to work.”

Employers apparently didn’t get that memo, since the number of private-sector jobs climbed a meager 0.6% by the end of the year.

More unemployment benefits. These have been extended several times in the past few years. The administration thinks they will create jobs. But every credible economic study says that extending unemployment benefits mainly extends unemployment as many workers wait until benefits run out before taking that next job.

Extending the payroll tax cut. In January, Vice President Biden claimed the one-year payroll tax cut that had just kicked in would “put $112 billion into the pockets of 155 million workers … spurring growth and creating jobs.”

The results so far this year: virtually no GDP growth and 104,000 more unemployed. Economist Bruce Bartlett summed it up: “There is no evidence that the lower payroll tax has done much of anything to stimulate either spending or hiring.”

Money for clean-energy jobs. In January 2010, Obama announced a $2.3 billion clean-energy tax-credit plan that would, he said, “give a much needed boost” to this industry.

Today, the landscape is increasingly littered with failed clean-energy companies, including Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that got $535 million in stimulus-backed loans but which is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Will Obama go bold this time? What other options does he have? The nation’s in no mood for another massive “stimulus” plan after the last one mainly just doubled the nation’s debt.

But he’ll give us one anyways, he’ll just manipulate the words but the meaning will be the same. His ideological playbook doesn’t have any other pages in it.

And he and his economic advisers don’t appear ideologically capable of embracing genuine free-market solutions that would generate actual growth — real tax reform that cuts rates and dramatically simplifies the code, significant relief from Obama’s own out-of-control regulatory machinery, an end to the looming ObamaCare nightmare, major entitlement reform, among them.

Instead, the administration appears eternally wedded to the idea that endless government meddling and tinkering in the private sector with targeted spending, temporary tax credits, and eye-of-the-needle tax relief will somehow, someday miraculously combine to spark growth.

In a piece published almost exactly one year ago, Obama’s newly appointed chief economic adviser, Alan Krueger, boasted that the HIRE Act was “an example of the kind of temporary, targeted and responsible policy that has been the hallmark of this administration.”

We hope Obama has learned by now that this approach isn’t responsible at all, and that he would offer some truly bold proposals that break from his failed Keynesian past. But given what we’ve seen over the past 2 1/2 years, we’re not holding our breath. (IBD)

I wouldn’t. He’s too ideologically rigid to notice. If we just SPEND EVEN MORE  (“Infrastructure”) eventually banging our ideological head against the wall will break the wall! 🙂

Don’t doubt it.