Thursday, March 31, 2011

Fuel for firing Obama

Michael Graham
by Michael Graham


President would raise dependency on foreign oil



This is the headline from The New York Times Web site yesterday: “Obama Lays Out Plan to Cut Reliance on Fuel Imports.”

Did I say “headline?” I meant “laugh line.”

Because President Barack Obama giving a speech on increasing U.S. oil production is like Charlie Sheen lecturing me to “Just Say No.” It inspires more than merely a raised eyebrow. We’re in full-on Pelosi Forehead territory here.

Obama yesterday set a goal of reducing the amount of oil we import by 3 million barrels a day over the next 10 years. And part of the solution is his hard work promoting more domestic production, he managed to say with a straight face.

Barack Obama — oil producer? The same Obama who rejected any new drilling during the 2008 campaign?

Who actually suggested we forget drilling and “properly inflate our tires?”

Who imposed a moratorium on all new drilling in 2010?

The same President Obama who . . . well, I’ll let the liberal-leaning Washington Post take over from here:

“When was the last time an American president stood before an audience in a foreign country and announced that he looked forward to importing more of its oil? Answer: Just over a week ago,” the Post wrote, referring to Obama’s visit to Brazil, where he promised American subsidies for Brazilian offshore drilling, and the promise that “when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

So Obama’s plan to reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to travel to other countries, offer to pay them to drill off their own coasts so we can buy more of their oil? Please tell me I’m missing something here.

If Obama were urging everyone to develop their oil reserves, that would be one thing. But while he’s subsidizing Brazil’s oil workers, he’s simultaneously punishing ours.

In December, he announced that his moratorium on oil exploration off our own East and West coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico would continue “indefinitely.”

He still opposes drilling in the vast, empty Alaskan wasteland that is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the American Petroleum Institute pointed out yesterday that “based on current policy, that this could be the first year since 1957 the U.S. doesn’t issue a single new drilling permit.”

In other words, “Read Obama’s lips: No new oil.”

So how do we cut down on imports?

Why, by getting more production out of our existing wells, of course!

Yeah, about that . . .

“[The Department of Energy] predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13 percent this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling,” The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial earlier this year, “ . . . a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.”

When Obama claimed yesterday that existing oil production is high, he’s telling the truth — but it has absolutely nothing to do with his anti-production policies.

According to Amy Harder at National Journal magazine, “most, if not all, of the production increase recorded is likely due to action that predates Obama, since Obama didn’t take any major action expanding offshore drilling his first year in office.”

Guess what, Amy — he still hasn’t.

“Barack the Internationalist” I’ll believe. “Barack Obama, Repairer of Race Relations,” I’ll tag along. Even “Barack Obama, Savior Of The Banking Industry (especially Goldman Sachs)” I can take.

But “Barack the Oil Bringer?” No way.

Everyone already knows about the president’s true energy policy. In fact, this headline appeared in the Christian Science Monitor just a couple of weeks ago:

“Gas prices too high? Obama may not think so. He’s pumped to use high oil prices.”

Tell us something we don’t know.


President Barack Obama salutes as he...

President Obama, salutes as he steps off of Marine One onto the

South Lawn of the White House, to announce his 10 year plan on

reducing dependency on foreign oil.



Donnie Howie Michael Bill
My Photos | Donnie Boston Howie CarrMichael Graham
Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

No leadership on Libya

Michael Graham

Obama's crafty but not smart


by Michael Graham
Tuesday, Mar. 22, 2011

Building on the success of “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?” Fox Television has begun production on a sure-fire hit: “Are You Smarter Than The President Of The United States?”

And in this show — everybody wins!

That’s because almost every American citizen — with the possible exception of the members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation — is smarter about Libya than Barack Obama

Really — you are, right now, more intelligent than the Smartest President Ever.

For example, would you launch a military attack in Libya without being able to answer the question: “Why am I attacking Libya?” No way.

But that’s just what Obama has done. Are we attacking Libya to get rid of kooky Col. Moammar Gadhafi? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says yes.

“We do believe that a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by [Gadhafi] to leave,” she told Reuters on Friday.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Carter Ham, who’s overseeing the action, both say “no.” They can see Gadhafi still being in power when this mission is over.

And Obama?

He’s playing soccer on the streets of Rio with some school kids. Apparently “My Pet Goat” hasn’t been translated into Portuguese.

“The international community rallied and said we have to stop any potential atrocities in Libya, and provided a broad mandate in addition to that specific task,” Obama said yesterday after arriving in Chile.

So it’s just a humanitarian mission. Obama says “no” regime change.

But wait — there’s more!

“I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi has to go,” he added. So we’re finally going to get rid of the terror-sponsoring SOB who’s killed hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks, including the Lockerbie bombing. Right?

“We’ve got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy,” Obama concluded.

So we’re just on a humanitarian mission that has nothing to do with toppling Gadhafi, except that it’s our policy to topple him, only we’re not going to use the military.

We’re only going to blow up stuff that won’t knock Gadhafi out of office? Terrific.

At this point, allow me to be the 3,749th opinion writer to point out that a policy which a) stops Gadhafi from committing atrocities against his people while b) leaving him in power to commit future atrocities is idiotic. It’s like saying, “We don’t want to catch the Boston Strangler, we just want to make sure he stays home watching TV for now.”

Some smart people believe that America standing aside and allowing Gadhafi to turn eastern Libya into the new Bosnia or Darfur would be a geopolitical disaster. They say it would undermine our allies and hurt America’s credibility across the Middle East.

Other smart people say Tripoli isn’t worth the blood of a single American airman, and we should leave the Libyans to have their civil war.

But nobody, other than the president, is saying both.

Rudy Giuliani, who knows a thing or two about leadership during crisis, told National Review yesterday that “if [Obama] thought that it would be in America’s national interest to remove Gadhafi, he should have already outlined steps two, three and four. It does not seem like he has done that.”

As for launching a no-fly zone and promising no ground forces, Giuliani notes, “I don’t know why he has to decide that right now except for political reasons. Strategically, you want Gadhafi thinking that we might use troops.”

What the president really wants people thinking is “Whatever happens in Libya, none of it is Obama’s fault.”



In this image taken from Libya State...
In this image taken from Libya State TV, broadcast,
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi says he will fight
imposed "no fly zone."



Donnie Howie Michael Bill
My Photos | Donnie Boston Howie CarrMichael Graham
Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.