President Obama says he wants to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil by increasing U.S. production of domestic U.S. resources, including America's rich deposits of fossil fuels. To that end, Obama promises efforts to "enhance U.S. energy supplies through responsible development of domestic renewable energy, fossil fuels, advanced bio-fuels and nuclear energy." At least, that's what the president says he wants to do. To see what he's actually doing, take a look at the policies of the Department of Interior. In fact, the Obama administration is cutting production of domestic fossil fuels -- oil, natural gas and coal -- by creating costly and time-consuming new layers of suffocating red tape and legal barriers.
Here are the stark facts, as compiled by the Institute for Energy Research, about the area where the federal government has the most direct and immediate effect on domestic energy production -- managing energy exploration and production leases on western and off-shore public lands:
* The Interior Department has collected only one-tenth as much revenue from oil and gas lease sales in 2009 as it did in 2008.
* Revenue from such lease sales produced a return for the taxpayer of $942 per acre in the last year of the Bush administration, compared with only $254 per acre in the first year of the Obama administration
* Presently, not quite 3 percent of the 2.46 million available public lands are leased and that percentage is headed down. Under Obama's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, fewer acres on- and off-shore were leased in 2009 than in any previous year.
This is why IER's president, Thomas J. Pyle, says that "when it comes to paving the way for the responsible development of homegrown, job-creating energy resources, no administration in history has done more to ensure producers do less." Similarly, David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance, offers this common-sense observation: "Adding layers of additional and unnecessary bureaucratic red tape to the federal oil and gas leasing process will result in less homegrown energy. ... At the same time, erecting these needless roadblocks for safely producing American energy will not only lead to more expensive and less stable prices for struggling consumers, but it will also deepen our nation's dependence on foreign and often unfriendly regions of the world to meet our growing demands and to keep our economy moving." In other words, Obama's policies in the energy field are producing exactly the opposite result he claims to seek.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/09/2010 12:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You mean Obama lied???? Well hush my mouf, whoda thunk that.
#2
Since the global warmist want our carbon emissions back to 19th century levels, I want to know what the One's position is on cetacean based bio-fuels.
Back then we were world leaders in producing them.
an ugly look at John "Two Americas" Edwards, his wife and campaign. None of them look good and lotta inside scoop on how nasty they were. HT Drudge
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/09/2010 18:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Eh, like we didn't know from the git-go that the was a lightweight, pretty poser?
I do, for a sort of personal reason, keep a small warm feeling of affection for Elizabeth Edwards, though. When my parent's house burned to the ground in the Paradise Mountain Fire, and John Edwards was only a blip on the political horizon (as one of the possible Dem nominees - I think we called them the 14 dwarfs, or something of the sort) I posted about the loss of my parents' house and all the family things, on my original website, The Daily Brief.(Sorry, original comment and the post is long gone. Originator of the website could never recall all the details of where the site was hosted, onceuponnatime.)One of the comments to my blogpost was a very graceful and consoling note, from one Elizabeth Edwards, and the commenter's website link ran back to the-then-candidates's campaign website. The comment was so so perfect, and so gracious - that I have had a soft spot for her, ever since. Yeah, her taste in men sucked royally, and she may have been ugly to the campaign staff - but at least she had a grasp on how to make the excellent gesture.Pity that it was wasted in the service of a her d**chbag of a husband, but there you go.
#2
sorry, Mom, but Elizabeth knew and enabled this sh*t so that her husband, despite extortion/black-mailable material at hand would have a chance to be POTUS. She's as dirty and grasping as her POS husband...IMHO
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/09/2010 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Blah, blah, blah....
#1
Hank Greenberg's take on the debacle. Most of all, he cannot fathom why Treasury and the Federal Reserve let billions of dollars in taxpayer cash fly out the backdoor to Goldman and other firms. Washington could simply have ordained that AIG's debts were the government's debts and so no collateral was due give Uncle Sam's bulletproof credit rating.
#2
"A growing chorus of lawmakers says Geithner must explain his involvement in deals that diverted billions from AIG's bailout to Goldman Sachs and other big banks."
In other words, "Why didn't we get OUR cut?"
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/09/2010 21:29 Comments ||
Top||
It may only be a matter of time before Arkansas' Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln calls it quits. According to Rasmussen's latest poll of Arkansas likely voters, all four potential Republican rivals are trouncing Ms. Lincoln. Two out of five voters say they view her very unfavorably while only 5% say the same about State Senator Gilbert Baker, her best-known GOP challenger, who leads Ms. Lincoln by 51% to 39%.
Ms. Lincoln may have effectively thrown in the towel when she cast her vote clearing the way for passage of ObamaCare in the Senate. Fifty-one percent of Arkansas voters strongly oppose ObamaCare, and 51% consider cost-control the biggest problem with health care. Arkansas voters are no dummies. They realize that ObamaCare won't reduce their health-care costs but would saddle their state with more unfunded mandates. Mr. Baker, playing off the naked political payoffs to other Democratic Senators who voted for ObamaCare, quipped that Ms. Lincoln of had brought home "nothing more than unfunded mandates and government-controlled health care."
Ms. Lincoln's strategy to salvage her electoral bid seems to be capitalizing on voters' anger with fellow Democrat Ben Nelson's sweetheart Medicaid deal for Nebraska. She has publicly called for the political deal to be removed from the final bill and told reporters at a Kiwanis lunch this week that "the people of Arkansas didn't send me to Washington to be a horse trader."
Ms. Lincoln hasn't said whether she will vote for the final bill. However, given that she has fallen in line with the Democratic leadership at every step, she's unlikely to cast the only opposing Democratic vote and kill the bill. Washington is rife with suggestions that the Obama administration should provide jobs for legislators who lose their seats because of ObamaCare. Ms. Lincoln perhaps will be at the head of the line.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/09/2010 10:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She is politically dead in Ark already. The only thing to be decided, assuming she falls in line like the servile bitch of the Reid and Pelosi that she is, is the date she officially calls it quit s - either now, or after she is tossed out of office later this year by the voters.
#2
My bet: she stays long enough to pass ObamaCare and then becomes an ambassador somewhere pleasant.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/09/2010 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
She is quoted as saying she like the attention that she was getting, in the fawning over her vote. From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Several weekends ago, everyone anxiously awaited Lincolns vote on the first major health care hurdle for the Senate the procedural motion to move Majority Leader Harry Reids health-care bill to the Senate floor. With 59 votes securely lined up and 60 votes needed, all eyes were on Lincoln as she took to the Senate floor.
I will vote for cloture on the motion to proceed on this bill, declared Lincoln, who added, I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by Leader Reid.
Later, it came out that the drama was all for show. Lincoln intended to vote for the bill all along. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., almost let the cat out of the bag to reporters the day before the vote. News came later that Lincoln confided to fellow holdout Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., on Friday evening that she would vote for the motion but that she wanted to the be the 60th vote.
Why would Lincoln want to be the last holdout before finally giving in? Was this all a carefully timed chess move meant to keep Lt. Gov. Bill Halter from jumping in the Democratic primary race for her Senate seat?
As Lincoln weighed her decision in Washington, Halter was greeting needy Arkansans in Little Rock at a free health clinic while rumors of his Senate candidacy swirled.
By making a deliberate point of being the deciding vote, she took away Halters excuse to jump in at least for now.
As Republican Scott Brown's campaign warms up to take Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, Frank Quaratiello of the Boston Herald is reporting something shocking: if Brown wins, Massachusetts Democrats may drag out his certification as the victor to enable appointed Sen. Paul Kirk (the former DNC chairman) to put ObamaCare over the top.
"We want to get this resolved before President Obama's State of the Union address in early to mid-February," Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast...
"Absolutely," Kirk said, when asked if he'd vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. "It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy's agenda. . . . I think you're asking me a hypothetical question but I'd be pleased to vote for the bill."
After all the rule-bending shenanigans of the Massachusetts Democrats, leaving a dying Kennedy in office, and then ramrodding Kirk's appointment to the Senate to help ObamaCare, now they're desperate enough to ignore the people's vote?
It's one thing to immediately swear in Democrats, claiming a public mandate, as House Speaker Pelosi did in the Scozzafava and Garamendi special elections last year. It's another scandal entirely to delay a swearing-in -- telling the people that their elected choice shall not be allowed to represent their most current wishes. Will the national media notice? It certainly has national ramifications. The Herald story elaborated:
Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy's legacy and support health-care reform.
But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge of when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.
The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk's successor, but not until the state certifies the election.
Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor's Council would take a while.
"Because it's a federal election," spokesman Brian McNiff said. "We'd have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in."
Another source told the Herald that Galvin's office has said the election won't be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president's address.
Since the U.S. Senate doesn't meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin's office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.
In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/09/2010 10:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All this speculation is moot. Coakley will beat Brown (and probably by more than 8 percent).
#2
Perhaps. I suppose the smart money is still on Coakley, particularly if ACORN deploys as it usually does.
A Brown victory would scare the bejeebus out of the Dems. That in itself would be worth something.
One good point in the article: they do indeed have to wait for the absentee and military ballots.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/09/2010 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
they do indeed have to wait for the absentee and military ballots.
Only if Coakley is behind and they need to gin up votes. If she's a head by one vote at midnight they'll declare it over and certify the election
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/09/2010 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think you're wrong, Odysseus. He's either gonna beat her or push her right up against the wall. Democrats are even uninspired by this woman, from the leadership to the average voter on the ground. They think her campaign has been absolute shit, which it has. She's an ineffectual, lazy AG and a career party hack who thought she had this all wrapped up when she won the primary and put it on cruise control while Brown has been working his ass off. The poll last week that she was only 9 up with two weeks left struck like a thunderclap up here. Now the lawn signs and the bumper stickers are showing up and I have literally seen NONE going up for Coakley. This woman inspires NO ONE to go out in a snowstorm to vote for her. Brown's people will if they think he's got a chance. She's gonna have to work for it and the woman is anything but a workaholic. Believe me, she's beatable. VERY beatable. And the opposition smells blood in the water. A REPUBLICAN with a shot at Teddy's seat? If you told me I'd be saying that that was true two months ago, I'd have told you you were out of your mind. But it's true. He's got a chance. And if he does, it'll be like an earthquake. Both here and nationally.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/09/2010 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
missed you, tu. WB
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/09/2010 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Interesting post at Instapundit about this very thing:
"UPDATE: Reader Jane Woodworth emails:
I just got back from 3 hours at the Worcester phone bank for Scott Brown.
The place was full maybe 20 phones, with people waiting to help.
I probably made 100 calls to registered democrats and independents. It was least an hour before anyone said they were voting for Coakley. After 3 hours the total was: 2 for Coakley, 2 undecided, 96 for Brown.
The most pleasant surprise was how enthusiastic people were." Link
Without looking at a map of Mass. (which I don't have time to do), how does this track for Boston? Or any other large area of votes?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/09/2010 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I think a Republican victory would scare the living sh*t out of the bluedog democrats. And no, I haven't been following the special election either.
Even if they refuse to certify it until after Obamacare is rammed through unread - some bluedogs will be looking to save their own ass. And with Nelson as an example - they may not be all that open to bribes either.
#3
I know its not nice but I hope Byrd, or any of the other scumbags Senators supporting the bill, dies suddenly, before the Senate goes back into session. Stroke, heart attack, food poisoning from bad fugu, a fall off a balcony or stairs, lead poisoning, whatever. I just want them as deservedly dead as this monstrosity of a bill should have been.
Now, does anyone out there deny the crookedness of the Democrat party, ramming through a bill few want, by using legal trickery and thuggery? If they keep this up, people will eventually lose faith in the election system and start taking up arms. And the party hacks and "leaders", very people subverting the system, will be the ones with targets on their heads.
#4
...people will eventually lose faith in the election system...
I already have for some areas. Like Chicago. I doubt any fair election is possible in places like that.
I can see the rot spreading to other areas and unless this crap is stopped via people calling foul and some jail time, there is only two options left for us if the rot spreads over most of the land.
Accept it, or revolt.
Let's keep that future from happening by keeping the pressure on.
You wouldn't be referring to the honorable Senators from the Soviet of Hawaii, would you?
Posted by: Wholutch Scourge of the French6878 ||
01/09/2010 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This Kennedy rumpswab has been hanging out with them for too long. He's the eqivalent of a jacket on a barstool that someone uses to hold it for a friend. That he thinks he packs the juice to back up statements like this is laughable.
I don't think he has any idea how much damage he's doing to Coakley with this crap.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/09/2010 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hoist the Black Flag, Draw yer cutlasses. Its time to start boarding!
In other words, volunteer to help the campaign make calls. Use your cell minutes if you are out of state. Whats needed now is not money as much as manpower.
But he probably wouldn't have been cited with quite the same authority--particularly by mainstream media--if he'd been more upfront about the fact that he's being paid almost $300,000 by the Obama Administration for "special studies and analysis" of the health care bills, as a blogger on Firedoglake revealed last night. Ben Smith has the rundown; apparently most of the health care beat reporters were as unaware of the relationship as I was.
#5
Outed by Firedoglake? I wonder how many other little nasty secrets some of O's allies on the left might start to spill once the disillusionment sets in.
Barbara, extra butter on my next order, please? Thanks....
#6
Maybe the left are getting the idea that big Government "solutions" are only solutions to the rent seekers problem of "How to afford a bigger mansion".
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/09/2010 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier.
The rest of us have to read it for nothing and then we are stuck with the tax bill. $300K seems like a lot for an academic--even for MIT faculty. He probably gets that in addition to his MIT salary but I don't know.
Rep. Joe Sestak blames Democratic leaders for the plunge in public support for overhauling the health care system, saying Wednesday they failed to defend proposals that helped carry the party to victories in 2008.
"They said it would be transparent. Why isn't it?" said Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat, in a meeting with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. "At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren't transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members." [GAG] Bambi, Harry and Nancy weren't transparent on purpose: they knew what a stinker this was with the public.
#1
And he is a uber-liberal member of the donks. When the left side of the cabal (I consider Cafferty a charter member) start biting your ankles, you have bigger problems than if the Tea Party comes to town.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
01/09/2010 6:55 Comments ||
Top||
The Fall 2010 elections can not come fast enough for this country, as this "culture of corruption" by the Democratic Party must be stopped in its tracks.
#3
I think Sestak is just a tad bitter. He banked much on his '08 congressional election campaign contributions, always planning to run for Pa (D)
Senate seat. Then 'Benedict Arnold' Specter (the 60th (D) in the Senate) comes on over to the other side. Joe's in campaign mode for the Pa primaries on May 18.
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/09/2010 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"I need to let people know there's a principled alternative."
Yeah right. Sestak has been nothing more then a walkin-talkin Democrat bullet-point since he was elected. Now he sees Arlen getting the nod from the honchos and his coffers stagnate. Looks like someone advised him to re-brand as a maverick. This guys a snake.
#5
DepotGuy, Democrat - snake a distinction without a difference, although you really shouldn't slander snakes like that; at least they mostly eat mice and other vermin.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
