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 CapitolHillDaily.com 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 AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Obama’s Ideology Propels Scandal-mania

Democrat Donkey Scandals Train SC Obama’s Ideology Propels Scandal mania

White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said there’s no chance Attorney General Eric Holder will resign in light of the mounting evidence against the Obama administration, including the IRS’ ongoing targeting of Christians, conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party groups (the IRS commissioner met with Obama 157 times) and revelations that his Justice Department had been spying on journalists. 

Jarrett made the overly confident statement this week, long ago having moved on from the deadly Fast and Furious scandal and the tragic Benghazi attacks and murders, to name a few.

“Obviously, I know the president pretty well. And I know the attorney general very well. And he will be in his position for quite a while.” 

Jarrett and Obama helped bring Chicago politics to the White House. A Republican with the same background would have been vetted extensively, covered 24/7 by the media, and would never be elected. The radical, leftist, progressive individuals who make up Obama’s close friends, associations, and his administration also reflect his policies and worldview.

Class warfare. Racial politics. Marxism packaged as Christianity. America is evil. Islam is good. Twenty years involvement with Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church in Chicago. Friend of terrorists.

The following is an excerpt from ERADICATE: BLOTTING OUT GOD IN AMERICA:

The sad truth is that many Americans today don’t care that prior to his election, Obama’s handlers concealed information about his college years and no official records were ever made available – a first in our history. No college transcripts, published records, or papers had been released. What were they hiding?

By the time Barack Obama made it to college at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, you can be sure he had formed enough anti-American views to build on what he had already gleaned from his childhood men­tor, communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a labor activist, writer, and community organizer as well as a Communist Party USA member. [Valerie Jarrett’s father, Vernon had close contact with Davis, and was also a Communist]

In 2010, Dr. John Drew, one of Barack Obama’s college friends, came forward and confirmed what many informed people already knew that Obama “was basically a Marxist-Leninist.” Drew talked about his past arguments with Obama about the many brands of Marxism:

“I see evidence of a continuing commitment to Marxist ideol­ogy…. In the Marxist model, the economy is the driving force behind change in the other spheres of society.”

Dr. John Drew did his senior honors thesis on Marxist economics at Occidental College, and he also founded the Democratic Student Socialist Alliance. He was a contemporary of Obama at Occidental and a Marxist himself. In fact, Drew was a well-known campus com­munist and was attracted to the college because Occidental was known for its Left-leaning politics and Marxist professors. Some even said it was considered “the Moscow of southern California.”

Occidental attracted America’s future president. Drew believed Obama was looking for a social revolution during his college days, and he expected a movement where “the working class would overthrow the ruling class” leading to a socialist utopia in America. Drew admitted how extreme he thought Obama’s views were at the time.

In 2010, John Drew was interviewed by Dr. Paul Kengor, an author, Reagan biographer, columnist, radio host, and Executive Director of The Center for Vision & Values. Drew admitted that at Occidental he was a comrade who leaned more toward the Frankfurt School of Marxism.

Here is a partial transcript of Dr. Kengor’s radio interview with John Drew: 

Drew: “I felt like I was doing Obama a favor by pointing out that the Marxist revolution that he and [our friends] were hoping for was really kind of a pipe dream, and that there was nothing in European history or the history of developed nations that would make that sort of fantasy – you know, Frank Marshall Davis fantasy of revolution – come true.”

Kengor: “So you had a realistic sense that even though you liked these ideas, it really couldn’t happen or really wouldn’t even work.”

Drew: “Right. I was still a card-carrying Marxist, but I was kind of a more advanced, East Coast, Cornell University Marxist….”

Kengor: “I know people are listening right now who want me to address this – and especially people who are Obama sup­porters. To be fair, I mean, look at where you were then and now where you are today.”

Drew: “Well, yeah, now I’m a Ronald Reagan, churchgoing, Baptist conservative.”

Kengor: “But now, okay, so what about Obama? Where do you think he is today? And to the people who are listening and are angry that we’re even having this conversation: Look, you don’t want us to talk about this because you don’t like what it says about Obama’s past, but we have to know this stuff about our presidents! “You can’t leave this out of biographies…  That’s why the background is so crucial – Frank Marshall Davis, what happened at Occidental, goes straight to Columbia from Occidental, the Bill Ayers affili­ation, no real-world experience – this matters….”

Drew: “Yeah, I think whenever he talks about people clinging to their guns and their religion due to economic stress, that’s just the standard Marxist argument. In fact, that’s the argu­ment of alienation and class-consciousness … the superficial religious and cultural ideals of the capitalist culture … and I really think he’s surrounded by people that share that mental architecture.”

Obama is surrounded by dangerous anti-Christian, socialism-loving people. They’ve plotted and pushed their agenda to transform America. Record numbers of people now rely on government assistance. We have record spending; increasing taxes, high energy, gas prices, and unemployment; racial and political division; the healthcare system takeover; and threats on our freedoms (including speech and religion.) And now, more invasions of privacy.

Government has become an enemy of American citizens, and this administration is very good at using the tactics of distraction and diversion. With more of us becoming outraged while the media protects this administration, it will be fascinating to see this epic drama played out.

Blame “Big Corn” For High Gas Prices

 

Gasoline Pump SC Blame Big Corn for High Gas Prices

A frequent question that has beeen asked in recent months is why the record increases in America’s crude oil production over the last several years haven’t translated into lower prices at the pump for gasoline in the US. A recent BloombergBusinessweek article explains “Why Abundant Oil Hasn’t Cut Gasoline Prices,” here are some edited excerpts:

For the first time since 1995, the U.S. will produce more oil than it imports, but the benefits of all that cheap domestic crude still haven’t shown up at the one place it matters most: the gas station. Even as fuel consumption has fallen to 16 percent below its 2007 peak, gasoline remains a dollar higher than the average price over the past decade.

Simple economics suggest that higher supplies and lower demand should translate into cheaper prices. That presumes today’s petroleum markets are simple. Over the last year, the oil boom has upended the long-held belief that U.S. production would inexorably decline while America’s appetite for gasoline continued to rise, leaving the country hopelessly hooked on foreign crude. As the opposite has occurred, regulatory and transportation systems that grew out of those old assumptions have become increasingly outdated, preventing the forces of supply and demand from working efficiently.

And ethanol requirements have backfired. The idea was to stretch a limited oil supply, cut reliance on imported crude, and make use of abundant corn harvests. But today the ethanol program is raising costs for refiners even as the price of oil has fallen 10 percent over the last year.

U.S. refiners retain a price advantage over their foreign competitors in Europe and Latin America, since U.S. crude is still cheaper than most foreign benchmark blends. This has led to healthy profits for some of the nation’s largest refiners. Now those lucrative margins have come under pressure as fuel makers run headlong into a biofuel mandate that has become tougher and more expensive to meet.

Read More at The American Enterprise Institute . By Mark J. Perry.

Photo Credit: jhyerczyk (Creative Commons)