Investors Business Daily Editorial
Energy: The White House billed President Obama’s energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.
Obama’s main message to struggling motorists was: It’s not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama’s peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:
“We’re focused on production.”
Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.
Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.
His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has “done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.”
“The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”
Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that “we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices.” The argument goes that since the U.S. supply is limited, it won’t ever make a difference to world prices.
Bbbbbuuuuttt, when you-know-who was Prez (the oil dude from Texas) prices went up a lot too, and he had even made it seem like he’d be able to face down the Middle Easterners and keep prices down, but he then got photographed holding hands and even kissing a Sheik… the rest is history including two wars that we are still paying for. You may want to add that into the current prices, if you wanted to be rational and logical about any of this. Unless you’d rather not… This is really just shows how desperate the Right is re: Obama’s chances of re-election. And to quote Neil- what has this do to with AGW???
Jan 20, 2009. Just a little over 3 years ago now. Yes, that’s YEARS. If you don’t recall, that is the day that George Bush left Washington for good. I really think it is weird how you always bring up Bush. He’s gone. Been gone more than three years and you can’t seem to get over it.
I did not like Clinton, but when he left office I said “YAY”, and then let it go. He was gone. But every time there is criticism of Obama, you have to bring up Bush. I really think you need to let it go.You should talk to your therapist about it.
Its not weird at all. Saying its weird is weird. The Right kept blaming things on Clinton for much longer, and for many things that weren’t even his fault. If anyone is going to try and blame something on anyone, that isn’t logical rational or true then I will defend that person. Everyeone knows the Prez, whoever it is has little control over the price of gas. MY POINT WAS THAT Bush campainged on it and failed. Obama never has, nor will because he’s smart enuogh to know his limitations. That ain’t weird Neil- its logic and reason, in direct response to something I didn’t even start, this time. What some cheese with your whine?
Oh, and everything is not about you Neil. You “let it go” when Clinton was done. Hey, great for you! But the Right didn’t stop attacking him until just a couple years or so ago. And that’s the truth. AND we are still paying for and dealing with Bush’s policies, etc. That is ALSO reality. I’ve recently heard criticism of Carter (re: something he did or didin’t do while Prez that is supposedly having a negative effect today) for God’s sake. And you know what? If its true, then its fair game. What’s wrong with that? Nothing at all that I can see, for any rational person that is.
Wow! You should talk to your therapist about your anger issues as well. Good luck.
Projecting much? Tough time with logic much? (P.S. Joe actually brought up Carter neagatively ON THIS SITE) . Hypocritical much?
Logic? Where? There is none that I can see.
I know Neil. I’m sorry for you. Please tell me, if you can, what exactly you don’t find logical. Or more specifically what you find is illogical. It’s an easy thing to say, and you have before, but you never back it up with anything.
Again- you hit and run.
It is also doubtful that a majority of the voters are going to hang the blame for the high gasoline prices at the pump squarely on Barack Obama’s shoulders when the biggest corporate welfare recipients, Big Oil, are the Republican Party’s patrons.
Last year, for example, Big Oil exported $88 billion in U.S.-produced oil to foreign markets for the purpose of keeping domestic gasoline prices high while raking in even higher profits by selling to oil-hungry foreign countries. And they are still doing this. They wouldn’t feel bad at all if it costs Obama some votes. It ain’t rocket science.
Sorry RNH, I have other things to do other than sit and wait to respond to your idiotic assertions. In fact I’m not going to respond to you at all anymore. Everyting you put out there is a re-hash of things we have gone over time, and time again. And it is just left wing ridiculousness.
Facts are ridiculousness? Now who is narrow-minded? The post above that you seemingly dislike so much is actually new information to me, anyway, thus is probably for many people as well. Perhaps you are so well informed that it is worthless. So be it. But ridiculous it is not. Neil, if you’d to stop responding to me, by all means, but don’t pretend to blame it on its merit. FYI- You only make yourself look foolish by doing so.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
“The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin—it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces – and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.
We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.
Therefore:
1.The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
2.The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
The skeptical view is compatible with the data.”
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that, ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
“DeSmogBlog expects us to be impressed that these documents reveal that Heartland raises “money from oil companies” and that it also receives money from a foundation DeSmogBlog characterizes as a “fossil fuel fortune.”
If these are mortal sins I look forward to the posting of internal documents from the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and Conservation International. All of those groups have also taken oil money. Should they not be similarly drawn-and-quartered?
While DeSmogBlog is at it, perhaps it will purloin confidential files connected to Rajendra Pachauri’s annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit. In both 2003 and 2004 the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. were among its sponsors.
The 2005 summit was similarly supported by two oil companies – one of which was Shell. In its turn, BP was a sponsor in 2006 and 2007.
In 2008 General Electric joined the sponsorship ranks. The fact that this multinational corporation provides “equipment and services for all segments of the oil and gas industry” was not regarded as an impediment to accepting its financial largesse.
In 2010, one of the people on the summit’s organizing committee was a gent named Jamshed Irani. He’s the director of Tata Sons – which owns Tata Petrodyne. As the large print on the latter company’s website explains, it’s a “Significant player in the Exploration and Production of Crude Oil and Natural Gas.”
Moreover, Pachauri’s summit took money from the Rockefeller Foundation in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. According to Wikipedia, John Rockefeller founded Standard Oil and became the world’s richest man on the strength of his kerosene and gasoline interests.
Isn’t it about time that we journalists, bloggers, and environmental activists all grew up? Either fossil fuel money is dirty or it isn’t. Either everyone who takes it deserves to be tarred, feathered, and have their private business posted on the Internet – or no one does.
Question for Neil- who never responded previously, so is being given a second chance. Which group, in your opinion, enjoys more power and influence, Oil or Environmental?
Yes.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/02/heartland-vs-climategate
Although climate alarmists have attempted to present the public release of the Heartland Institute documents as being a scandal for climate sceptics comparable to the one Climategate has been for AGW proponents, the comparison is spurious in several key respects:
•Heartland is a private advocacy group, whereas Climategate involved publicly funded scientific research.
•Climategate entailed a legal and ethical obligation to FOI. Heartland does not.
•The Heartland documents were obtained by criminal impersonation of a Heartland board member. It is unknown if the Climategate documents were obtained illegally or were released by a whistle blower.
•No malfeasance was revealed in the Heartland documents. The Climategate documents exposed multiple ongoing instances of scientific misconduct and conspiracy to illegally thwart FOI requests.
•The only Heartland document suggesting anything less than entirely ethical intent has been denounced as a fabrication and there is strong evidence to support this claim. The authenticity of the Climategate documents has never been denied by any of those involved.
•The very modest remuneration provided by Heartland to a few researchers for their assistance becomes a pathetic joke in contrast to the multiple orders of magnitude greater personal remuneration plus million dollar research grants received by leading climate alarmists.
The only significant parallel between the Heartland and the Climategate affairs has been in the behaviour of the climate alarmists themselves. In both instances they have:
•Been exposed to have blatantly lied
•Committed criminal offences
•Maliciously denigrated any who dare to question their claims
•Demonstrated a casual disregard for scientific and ethical norms
•Repeatedly attempted to excuse and even justify gross malfeasance by climate alarmists
Huh? Try again grasshopper…
NO!
No, you don’t get the pebble back.
Not a Yes/No question.
47
?
An update (below) which shows how the courts are now moving to protect speculators over consumers which (of course) means more pain at the pump. Here’s the link:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/27/140158/federal-judge-weighs-whether-to.html#storylink=cpy
Liberal activist Judges? Yeah right… just the opposite.
Maybe we should limit speculators of orange futures. How about gold, rice, bananas, or diamonds? Oil is a commodity. As are the other things I listed. There is no difference on how speculators speculate on oil or anything else.
Yes, and that is the problem. How is your statement helpful to this huge problem that is causing unecessary rises in prices for such an important thing? Are just a fatalist, and weak and will take whatever they throw at you just because? That is VERY lame.
I would think that you would like seeing a rise in gas prices as it is theorised to force people into using alternative energy. You are an oil hater. I would think that the speculators are doing the lord’s work for you. You confuse me.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/us_heartland_spending.jpg
Question for Neil- who never responded previously, so is being given a third chance. Which group, in your opinion, enjoys more power and influence, Oil or Environmental?
Oh, I responded. I have decided to use a new moniker however, and am waiting for all of the comments made under that name to be moderated.
Afraid to answer? You tried to above… but failed.
Why do you answer a simple question Neil?
FOX News has become the lead provider of misinformation to the alternative “bubble narrative” of a “moral majority” white United States. Many of its watchers are whites in economic need and distressed by America’s shifting demographics – not to mention a black president. Other viewers are the well-off who believe that if you aren’t rich, it’s your fault. For these people, FOX News creates an ongoing fictional set of factoids to emotionally incite watchers who are looking for a scapegoat.
The motivation of FOX is purely political – as Murdoch and FOX News honcho CEO Roger Ailes lead the charge for the oligarchy and the corporate wing of the Republican Party. The aim of FOX News is to create a “pod people” constituency to elect a GOP president and legislators who will advance the interests of the financially elite. Truth or the good of the nation as a whole have nothing to do with it. News isn’t reported; it’s manufactured to fit a pre-conceived partisan narrative.
Dan?! Rob sure is spending a lot of time talking to himself. Isn’t there a rule here about that? Wouldn’t want this site to be linked to an Arizona type thing if you know what I mean. Double secret probation I say! Rob worries me!
Daddy! I mean Danny!
Very very lame. And strange.
Thought you guys loved freedom- and yet you are the first to call out for a stong daddy to help you. That much I give Dan much credit for. On everything else I disagree with him, his motives, and his politics, etc.
So it is your intent to be a foil. I always thought that. Thanks for confirming it.
How’s that? Why can’t you people understand simple English? Why do you have to read into everything what you want it to be? I am only a foil to foolishness, illogic, the irrational and the unreasonable. That is all. I have admitted to many things and have always been honest. Where I believe you go wrong is projecting your own dishonesty onto me, and/or read into things as mentioned above, to relieve your internal anxieties. The truly wise person knows what to accept. To argue ad infinitum is no great feat. And Neil your 1/3 theory of our populace is farily accurate, as far as it goes. But AGAIN, you are still missing the forest for your weedy mind. I even ADMITTED/AGREED with as much before TOO, only to elicit another argument from you. I was not talkling about the simplistic political breakdown of VOTERS. What I was referring to was something more subtle, and yet measurable among the populace BASED ON research studies re: opinions about a wide variety of things. But if that sort of thing seems to complicated to you, then just dismiss it, as you usually do. Don’t try to understand that which you don’t really want to. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Because we know what your motivations are. You are working towards a fundamental change to our society. We know that you want this country to be a socialist country. You are an anti-capitalist. That is how we can read between your lines. I know it seems illogical to you because you think the things you say are perfectly logical and reasonable. But they are only logical and reasonable to anyone who wants the same thing as you. And that does not describe most of the people here that frequent this site. Which is what is fundamentally frustrating to you. I’m sorry but you are not preaching to the proverbial chior here. So, don’t get all offended when we disagree with you.
I am for what made this country great to begin with and most of its original ideas. It is the corporate state that is changing this country fundamentally. This what you are blind to, what you either consciously or otherwise support, it is a radical change, that is slowly altering everything that made this a great country. That is all. I am not radical. I am the new conservative, actually, if you look at it logically. It is the corporate state and people like you who are the new radicals. The only difference between you and the traditional radical is you are backed up and in support of the status quo, which is giving more and more power to the corporate state. That is what you are blind to, and brainwashed about, and what people like me are trying to get you to see. But some people want to be blinid and brainwashed and will never understand until it is much much too late. It probably is already too late. And re: the proverbial chior- wouldn’t that be much easier for me to do, eh? Much like what you want here- back and forth amongst your own chior? What is the challenge with that? None. It’s a safe cop-out actually. Go on “liberal” sites and argue with them, and see how far you get with your version of logic and “truth.” Then maybe you’d grow up some. That goes for Joe too, but he’s too old to learn new “tricks” obviously. There’s no hope for him. But someone like you can grow.
Oh and neil, I don’t get offended when any of you disagree with me. That is all you do… I’m used to it. it is you guys who get offended. Again- projection. Try to realize these things before accusing me of anything.
After a yearlong drilling moratorium, BP and other oil companies are intensifying their exploration and production in the gulf, which will soon surpass the levels attained before the accident. Drilling in the area is about to be expanded in Mexican and Cuban waters, beyond most American controls, even though any accident would almost inevitably affect the United States shoreline. Oil companies are also moving into new areas off the coast of East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.
Poor oil companies are so restricted and persecuted. Not.
And you again misundertand me in that respect… disagreement is not only inevitable it can often be productive and beneficial (if followed up with debate/discussion). The problem I have with you guys is, you are black and white thinkers, thus you have to disagree with virtually everything I post, and you don’t engage in any real follow up.
BTW I am also not anti-capitalist. Just not rabidly so, and not irationally so. There’s a balance for everything including capitalism. We had a much better balance in the 40’s and 50’s (economically). This country has gone downhill ever since due to an increasing imbalance. It is not rocket science. For those of you who cannot see this, recognize this for what it is, is a HUGE problem for us all. It, and you, will be our final downfall. Unless of course you wise up.
Even if global warming is a lie, we will at some point in time run out of fossil fuels. So eventually we’ll need to find alternatives to them. My thought is it’s better to get started on it now so when we do run out of oil and coal all the bugs we will be worked out of wind, solar, tidal and any other power source we can dream up.
Well said Ian. I have said as much, also, of course. But I have plumbed the depths of the Righty psyche, and it is bottomless. We, Liberal “leaning” folks, are the new conservatives, in a way. What you advocate above is really a conservative minded idea. But it also is common sense and progressive too in that it looks to the future and is not afraid of new ideas and things.
A government that is run only for 1%er plutocrats will only do things that benefit plutocrats. As the governments of the world are increasingly “captured” by the plutocrats they will increasingly cut back on doing things for regular people. It doesn’t matter if this hurts or even kills their economies in the future, 1%ers don’t care. Plutocrats want it now, for themselves, and take it now, for themselves, the rest be damned.
And let me add, they’ll say (and do) what they need to, to get that.
The article was about Obama’s statements that are not factual. Did you read the article,? or are you writing your agenda? Simple question as I note you continue to change the subject and rant. Answer?
I am writing on my own agenda… loosely based on each article presented. Sometimes very loosely admittedly. A thousand apologies your Highness.
I note your agenda.
Thank you sir, but what about the apology, is that not noted also?! P.S. I could, with a little more effort than I am currently willing and able to give, refute factually every “lie” in Obama’s speech per this article’s smear job. But it’s not worth my effort at this point with this small and close-minded audience.
worded that slightly wrong- should have said- refute that he used lies…
Refute every lie. I’m awaiting your response.
I thought I bowed out and gave reasons…more than you ever do usually- can’t read english or what? If I get the time and inclination I will. Or not. Still a free country ain’t it brother?
Reaganomics, also known as “greedism,” was not born in 1981; more like 1584. The result is that for more than four centuries now, America has had one value system, and it is finally showing itself to be extremely lopsided and self-destructive. Our political and cultural system never let fresh air in; it squelched the alternatives as quaint or feeble-minded. Appearances to the contrary, this is what “democracy” always meant in America—the freedom to become rich. Except that 99% don’t and/or can’t for various reasons. But even the chronically poor adhere to this myth. As John Steinbeck said: a poor person is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
Wow- see the Dow?! What’s Obama doing wrong??
Printing money. The dow is based on the price of shares of stock. As the dollar loses value prices go up. Look at gas, food, etc. You’re seeing inflation.
Ohhhh! I knew there would be something wrong with that and it would be Obama’s fault some how! Just like if the DOW was down (and when it was for awhile) that was Obama’s fault too! Thanks for clarifying that so well Dan!
Rightys live in a make-believe world all their own. Fact and history are rendered moot. It’s make it up as you go along- whatever can hurt the other guy is fair game, is the new “reality”. All supported by corporate-owned mass media, white-washed for mass brainwashing. Nothing new, just more powerful than ever. Thank God for the internet.
Hood, you seem to be a legend in your own mind. Hope you can take a mini-vacation and clear your trained thoughts? DC would, I assume, be a start? Pelosi would love to see ya again as well as Air-America guy? What’s his name again? Oh, that’s right, Franken. Forgot to watch SNL which is no longer funny.
Logic and reason are legend. I am just their humble servant, forever straining to live up to its potential.
Republicans have continually decried the Obama Administration’s “runaway spending” since he took office, blaming him for growing deficits and a mounting national debt. But a quick glance at the facts show that, compared to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Obama is actually embracing fiscal conservatism more than any other president in recent history, with the exception of fellow Democrat Bill Clinton.
My God, you are delusional. Your post is a joke? Eh? If not, your numbers are so incorrect I assume you believe it is April 1st? You are not serious in your statement are you? If so suggest take a nap and forget your no-factual nightmare you just posted. A Man needs 9 hours of sleep. You must be sleep deprived?