Mr. President, You Owe America An Apology

“We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” President Obama told an audience four years ago at the University of Miami.

Like this year, it was an election year, and Obama was running for re-election.

Later in his speech, he added: “Anybody who tells you that we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or just isn’t telling you the truth.” He scoffed at the Republicans for believing that drilling would result in $2 gasoline—remember, this was when prices at the pump, in many places, spiked to more than $4 a gallon. “You can bet that since it is an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, step three is drill.”

Well, Mr. President, you owe America, and the Republicans, an apology. Your snarky comments were wrong. The Republicans’ supposed three-point plan, which you mocked, was correct.

Today, on the four-year anniversary of another of Obama’s inaccurate predictions, we have drilled our way to $2 gas—despite the fact that he has supported the anti-fossil-fuel movement’s efforts to impede and block oil production. In fact, due to American ingenuity and initiative that successfully combined horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, we are producing so much, it has resulted in a global glut of oil and a national average gasoline price of $1.70.

He bragged: “Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years.” True, but not because of Obama’s support. A Congressional Research Service report released last year found that since fiscal year 2010, oil production on federal lands is down by 10 percent, while it is up 89 percent on state and private lands. Obama aligns himself with those who want to “keep it in the ground”—who count his “no” decision on the Keystone pipeline as their biggest victory to date.

He then launched into his requisite rhetoric on renewables: “The United States consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves. That means we can’t just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. … Because of investments we’ve made, the use of clean renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled. … As long as I’m President, I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China.”

Wait! Wind and solar do not reduce our need for oil. Wind turbines and solar panels do produce electricity—albeit ineffectively, inefficiently and uneconomically. But we do not have an electricity shortage. We do not import electricity. Automobiles run on gasoline made from oil—for which the president’s new budget includes a $10 a barrel tax that translates to about 24 cents per gallon.

Four years ago, in Miami, he said: “…high gas prices are like a tax” straight out of everyone’s paycheck. Yet today, he wants to increase the nearly $.45 a gallon we currently pay in taxes to $.69.

Obama’s false, “We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices” prediction was made during an election year. This election year is a good time to be reminded that, without government “investment,” we did drill our way to lower gas prices. At the same time, taxpayer-supported renewable projects continue to go bankrupt and be shuttered—taking with them our money and the jobs they were supposed to create.

Yes, Mr. President, you owe America an apology.


The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Steyer Ready To Run Over California Drivers

Liberal billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer is crying crocodile tears over the fact that California drivers pay the highest gas prices in the nation. He is so concerned, he is proposing to jack up gas prices even further by enacting a $2 billion tax increase on oil companies that operate in the Golden State.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that government policies, not market forces, are responsible for the price consumers pay at the pump.

The state has the third highest gasoline tax in the nation. Consumers are then forced to pay sales tax on top of that.

The states mandates different blends of gasoline for different times of the year.

To make matters worse, California enacted a Cap and Trade system, which is driving gas prices up even further.

Of course, to liberal environmentalists, these factors play no role in gouging consumers. Instead, they argue a conspiracy is at hand.

Speaking to the state Democratic Party Convention, Steyer accused oil companies of manipulating the market to keep prices high. He failed to mention any of the real factors at hand.

No mention of the high gas tax. No mention of the sales tax on top of that. No mention of the costly mandated blends. And certainly no mention of the holy grail of environmentalism, the Cap and Trade tax which went into effect in January.

It is difficult to imagine that a man could make a billion dollars in the stock market with this type of thinking, but it just proves that anything is possible in America.

The real reason for Steyer’s push to punish drivers is it helps his bottom line. Steyer is heavily invested in alternative green energy schemes. The more people look toward battery operated cars and solar panels, the richer he gets.

Californians can’t afford another punch in the gut every time they go to the gas station. It’s driving them to the poor house.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama’s Secret Mission Is Bankrupting Americans

Obamas War On Fossil Fuels SC Obamas Secret Mission is Bankrupting Americans

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is hopping mad at Obama. Why? Well, McConnell is from Kentucky, one of the coal-producing states that’s about to take it in the chops from new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.

McConnell explained the reason for his anger, saying, “The Obama administration has been waging a war on coal and Kentucky jobs ever since the president was elected. If these reports are accurate, his latest proposal is not only an open war on coal jobs, but on all the residents, jobs, and businesses across the commonwealth that rely on this vital industry.”

And guess what? McConnell is right. These regulations will sock it to Kentucky. The mines and coal-producing companies will likely have to lay off more employees. But what McConnell and the rest of the D.C. insiders have failed to mention is that everyone with a light switch, TV, or any other use for electricity will also be a victim of these new regulations.

You see, coal is a cheap way of generating electricity, both in the United States and around the world. And coal plants have been the price leader because the resource is so plentiful. It’s not an exaggeration to call the United States the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have vast stores of it in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains regions. In fact, it’s the fuel that made America an industrial power house.

But environmentalists don’t like coal because of its carbon footprint. You see, power generation creates almost 40% of the greenhouse gases emitted in the United States, and coal is a prime offender. But natural gas, on the other hand, emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal. By moving toward natural gas, Obama will please the environmentalist lobby, a core constituency of his.

Natural Gas Takes the Lead

As a result of the hydraulic fracking boom, America has been swimming in cheap natural gas. Prices dropped from about $12 per million BTU in 2008 to about $2 in 2012…but the trend in 2013 is in the other direction. As gas prices rise past $4 per million BTU, it’ll once again become less expensive for utilities to burn coal.

But with these new regulations, coal’s share of the market will shrink rapidly, from 51% in 2003 to 42% in 2011 to a projected 35% in 2040, says the Energy Information Agency (EIA).

According to the EIA projections, the U.S. will build only gas-fired plants from here forward. Coal technology just can’t achieve the carbon reduction Obama’s EPA is demanding. And the bottom line for you, the consumer or businessman, is higher electricity bills. America traditionally has paid some of the lowest electricity bills in the world. The cost for electricity ranges normally from $0.08 to $0.20 per kilowatt hour in the United States… and coal and hydroelectric power are the reasons why our prices remain so low.

Now, though, we need to get ready for this to change. The states that were leading the regulatory charge against coal, California and New York, already pay the highest power bills in the country. And D.C. is plotting to make the rest of our power bills higher too. Obama wants us all to pay more, and his EPA is poised to pass these coal regulations to make it happen.

A Hidden Silver Lining

The permanent class is lining up in D.C. to make money off this energy trend. They know how to follow the policies straight to the profits.

Luckily, we do too. We recently added a firm to the National Treasure Portfolio, part of Constitutional Wealth, that’s poised to make a bundle on higher electricity prices. In any community that has power bills above 15 kWh, this firm will mint money.

If you haven’t checked out Constitutional Wealth yet, your potential returns from this single stock will more than pay the risk-free subscription.


This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

The Road To Freedom Is Paved With Shale

 The Road to Freedom is Paved with Shale

Despite continuing opposition by liberal environmental groups, the case for shale gas grows stronger every day. From jump-starting the economy to liberating Washington from dependence on foreign powers, the shale revolution is fueling freedom around the globe.

Independence is the “one word that best characterizes this Nation and its essential nature”, declared then-President Richard Nixon during his 1973 national address. From the rugged self-sufficiency of our founding pioneers to the values of modern day Americans, few would disagree with these words from Nixon. The freedom to move forward in the direction of our choosing, to promote the values that we deem important, is what our country was founded upon and what many of our fellow citizens from the Left to the Right of the political spectrum hold dear. This independence, Nixon continued, comes at a cost, though; it takes “great sacrifices of blood and also of treasure.” For the last century, the great irreplaceable treasure has been fuel.

“Our independence will depend on maintaining and achieving self-sufficiency in energy,” Nixon concluded in his 1973 speech. Dependence on foreign energy is like being in debt. As long as we continue to bend over backwards to secure energy contracts with other countries, we will never truly be free as a country to fully pursue our own ends. Now, however, it seems we are closer than ever to achieving what Nixon heralded back in the 70s. One monumental scientific breakthrough, how to combine horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, has launched a new revolution in American energy, one that even has us set to surpass Saudi Arabia in fuel exports by 2020.

Liberal opposition to the shale revolution, however, is predictably standing in the way of American greatness once again, with environmental concerns seemingly set on keeping us in servitude to foreign powers. Fortunately, the case for shale gas is overwhelming, both as a motor of economic growth and the key to political liberation around the world.

The energy to ignite the American economy

There is no magic cure-all solution to the calamitous financial situation that we have found ourselves in after 5 years of ‘hope and change’, but the exploitation of American shale gas comes pretty close. In an age when the United States has been steadily losing manual jobs to China and other countries, shale gas will jumpstart American manufacturing to levels not seen in years.

As international energy specialist Philip Verleger argues, the fact that the US has perfected shale gas extraction techniques and boasts a competitive market that is not dominated by one giant player means that the new energy revolution will start here in the states. Competition ensures the low energy prices that bring investment in industry and job creation. Companies such as Michelin and Shell are already taking advantage of the low natural gas prices and building new plants in the US.

A free foreign policy

More than simply spurring economic growth, shale gas allows the United States to cease its dependence on questionable allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, states with poor human rights records and little respect for American values of freedom and democracy. Outside the United States as well, shale gas is proving itself to be a tool of political liberation. In Eastern Europe, where President Vladimir Putin is able to push around ex-Soviet states such as Belarus and Ukraine through their dependence on Russian gas, the discovery of shale gas is being touted as the key to their independence.

Though Belarus has already fallen to Mother Russia and joined a Kremlin-led ‘customs union’ that many are referring to as a ‘new USSR’, Ukraine is rapidly exploiting their shale gas deposits in an effort to shake off Russia’s hold. Indeed, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych hopes that energy independence will grant his country the freedom to choose its own future, to join the European Union and the Western World rather than remain under Putin’s thumb.

It seems that independence, that quintessential American value, has found in shale gas a powerful vehicle. Through the judicial exploitation of this incredible resource, the United States and countries around the world can reclaim the freedom to choose their own future.

Media Celebrate Obama’s Green Agenda

EPA Green Regulations SC Media Celebrate Obama’s Green Agenda

The IRS scandal refuses to disappear. Benghazi still raises questions. The press is still irate at the Administration because of its treatment of journalists who publish leaked information. This is the perfect time, apparently, for President Barack Obama to ignore the political firestorms. Instead, he moves to grab more power over the environment, and economy, by pushing for more Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

On Tuesday the President outlined a climate change agenda which will circumvent the halls of Congress and place additional authority into the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Far from criticizing such a move, the mainstream media have celebrated the Administration’s speech, and the suggested war on carbon emissions from new and existing power plants. National Public Radio calls it a “sweeping plan” and says the President is “striving to reach” an “emissions-reduction goal” he committed to in 2009 in Copenhagen.

“All of these proposals can be enacted without action on Capitol Hill,” writes Richard Harris. “That’s deliberate. Many Republicans in Congress reject the judgment of the National Academy of Sciences and other authorities who say climate change is a real concern.” In other words, Republicans are supposedly holding up the process to combat human-created global warming, and the President’s undemocratic sidestep is perfectly appropriate because progress must happen now.

Might there just be a reason that a major party in the United States opposes moving forward with climate change regulations?

Fox News even said that “Obama is expected to lay out a broad vision Tuesday, without detailed emission targets or specifics about how they will be put in place” (emphasis added).

U.S. News and World Report’s Michael Shank argued that “Obama Thinks Too Small on Climate Change.” “It is merely more of the same and most of it is safe,” writes Shank, director of foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. 2013 is no time for a small pitch on things like power plant carbon parameters. We needed something big if America is to survive at all,” he writes.

“What the president did not do, but should have, was put a price on carbon, because it is becoming increasingly costly to our country and the world.”

However, carbon is an essential building block of our world. To label it as a pollutant is disingenuous, at best.

In addition, a carbon tax would be detrimental to our economy. “Without accounting for how the revenues from a carbon tax would be used, such a tax would have a negative effect on the economy,” concluded the Congressional Budget Office this year. “The higher prices it caused would diminish the purchasing power of people’s earnings, effectively reducing their real (inflation-adjusted) wages. … Investment would also decline, further reducing the economy’s total output.”

The President’s motivations are clear. Not only did he argue for bankrupting the coal industry in 2008, but one scientific advisor to the President recently called for a “war on coal.” “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants,” Harvard University geochemist Daniel P. Schrag told The New York Times. (The Times has apparently scrubbed this quote from the original article, despite its being widely republished). “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed,” said Schrag.

“The President’s advisor calls it a ‘War on Coal,’ but it’s even more than that,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) in a recent statement. “These policies, rejected even by the last Democratic-controlled Congress, will shutter power plants, destroy good-paying American jobs, and raise electricity bills for families that can scarcely afford it.”

“Analysis from The Heritage Foundation (in a forthcoming paper) finds that significantly reducing coal’s share in America’s energy mix would, before 2030, raise natural gas prices by 42 percent,” writes the Heritage Foundation.

“At nearly 40 percent, coal remains the single largest source of power in the U.S., and there’s no question the EPA’s new standards will make its use more expensive,” writes Brad Wieners for Businessweek. The news organization argues that the climate plan to “ditch coal” will “be good for business. Really.” Heritage’s data show otherwise.

“Ultimately, the arguments for and against Obama’s plan come down to deciding who will choose when to get serious about the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels,” writes Wieners.

What the President has said is that he is no longer listening to the “Flat Earth Society.” “Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real,” he said at Georgetown University. “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.” This quote was widely republished by a rapt media.

“Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”

The President also said in his speech that “The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years.” In reality, some professors argue that we’ve been in a global cooling trend since 2002. “Professor Anastasios Tsonis…published a paper last March that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years,” according toClimate Depot. “He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years.” And Professor Judith Curry at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta says that “This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause.’”

Obama’s statement also ignores the fact that the mainstream media have been searching for a way to explain the temperature rise “plateau” they believe we find ourselves in. The New York Times has sought to rationalize this plateau as the result of heat being trapped in the deep ocean, although measurements of this phenomenon are “not good enough to confirm it absolutely.” More recently, the liberal New Republic tried to grapple with this problem, titling the article “Explaining the Global Warming Hiatus: Grappling with climate-change nuance in a toxic political environment.” “Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections,” writes Nate Cohn.

The problem for the New Republic writer is that “in a political environment where vast swathes of the American right reject even the premise of global warming—and where prominent right-wing pols suggest it’s an enormous fraud—this inconvenient news could easily lead to still more acrimony over the subject.” So, it’s politically inconvenient that the Earth isn’t warming as fast as projected because some might doubt the existence of global warming. “Especially since scientists themselves aren’t entirely sure what the evidence means,” writes Cohn. “If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?”

The science of climate change is not settled, and Congress remains divided on the issue because of this ongoing skepticism. “A slew of recent studies discredit the ‘planetary emergency’ narrative,” Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, recently said. “For instance, sea-change over the next century probably will be measured in inches, rather than feet.”

Lewis also said that “if [President Obama] put this plan in a bill and submitted it to Congress, it would be dead on arrival.” Shouldn’t this serve as a warning as to what’s in President Obama’s plan?

The media shouldn’t praise unilateral actions by the President to address this climate issue, with the assumption that the debate is over.


This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Photo credit: terrellaftermath