Contrast between Reaganomics and Obamanomics
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Young Voters and Obama
Here’s an interesting look at the Presidential election and young people.
http://newsmax.com/
Jason Mattera: U.S. Youth 'Brainwashed' for Obama
Thursday, 08 Apr 2010 07:09 PM
Article Font Size
By: Jim Meyers
Conservative activist Jason Mattera tells Newsmax that young Americans have been “brainwashed” into supporting President Barack Obama even though his policies are a “torpedo” aimed at their futures.
Mattera, author of the book “Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation,” also says conservatives should learn from the Obama team’s tactics during the 2008 campaign and reach out to young people — or risk losing an entire generation of young voters.
Mattera is known for his “ambush videos” of Democratic leaders and young liberals. He has served as media spokesman at Young America’s Foundation, appeared on cable news programs including Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News, and was recently named editor at Human Events magazine.
Asked about his assertion that the Obama team brainwashed young Americans, Mattera says: “A lobotomy took place in 2008. John McCain lost the youth vote by almost 40 points. That was the biggest age demographic shift in presidential history.
Team Obama employed specific strategies and tactics to brainwash an entire group of people. They had Students for Obama chapters, more than a thousand of them, on college campuses. They were micro-targeting young people in their college dormitory. They were on Facebook doing it. They were uploading videos to YouTube. By the time the campaign ended, team Obama had uploaded more than 1,800 videos to YouTube, and John McCain barely scratched 330.
“It was digital domination. Team Obama was meeting young people where they were — on college campuses and on the array of social networking forums that the Internet has to offer.
“So conservatives really need to have a wakeup call, because it’s not just about losing elections, it’s about losing an entire generation of young people who are uninformed about limited government, personal responsibility, and free market ideas.”
Young Americans have been particularly brainwashed about healthcare reform, according to Mattera.
“Young people can be sold socialism, unfortunately, but you can’t sell it to a generation of hard-working Americans,” he says.
“Young people, my generation — except for the men and women fighting overseas — we’re made up of a bunch of spoiled brats who think we’re entitled to everything. So some politician like Barack comes around and says, I’m going to pay for your college tuition, I’m going to provide you with healthcare, I’m going to stop glaciers from melting.
“Young people still support Barack Obama more than any other age demographic even though his healthcare plan punishes them, redistributes their wealth from young to old. Because now insurance companies can no longer vary price according to one’s age.
“It affects people in my age demographic, and yet young people still, like circus animals, applaud this president even though his policies are a torpedo aimed at their futures.”
But Mattera believes conservatives can reverse the so-called “zombiefication” process.
“That’s why I wrote ‘Obama Zombies,’ to set the record straight, to show how conservatives are losing younger voters, but then to give a battle plan.
“Young people crave choices and services that big government can never provide. Team Obama was able to harness the power of social networking sites and the power of the Internet, and these were applications and programs that were all created through the power and ingenuity of capitalism, through free markets.
“Conservatives need smart messaging to young people. They need to say, Why are you attracted to things like Facebook and the Internet and music? It’s because there’s nobody lording over your shoulder, telling you what to do.
“The world is a mouse click away. It’s the ultimate expression of freedom, and by the way that’s what conservatives are about, the ultimate expression of freedom and individuality and personal responsibility. It’s the left that wants to lock you in a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan, to redistribute your income, to tax your carbon footprint.
“Conservatives want you to express yourself, and that has to be our message. Our conservative bedrock principles do not change, but the way we communicate them to younger voters must.”
Mattera says he sees some “buyers’ remorse” among young people who supported Obama, but notes that 57 percent of young people still back Obama. That will change, he asserts, when these young people graduate from college and can’t find a job in the “Obama economy.”
He also says the mainstream media’s “love fest” with Obama is continuing.
But he adds that it is “encouraging” to conservatives that a survey showed young Republicans are more energized than their Democratic counterparts and more likely to vote in the upcoming elections.
However, the GOP needs to reach out to younger voters to show them why conservatism is a much better option than liberalism, he stresses.
“Our conservative message will resonate with young people because they don’t hear conservative ideas, so [the ideas] come across as bold and fresh and new — everything that young and hungry minds crave.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
" It is all George Bush's fault"
Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Denver Post Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a life long Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece...Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises
Greener Pastures Column -- Posted 04/26/10
Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.
Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.
Wow! Talk about change.
Just one year ago. fresh from his inauguration celebrations. President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America 's first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.
Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault.
George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama's promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama's promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama's promise to end earmarks.
He broke Obama's promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama's promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
He broke Obama's promise to make peace with direct, no precondition talks with America 's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama's promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
He broke Obama's promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama's promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama's promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama's promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.
Yes. it's all George Bush's fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending. failed Bush administration.
If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel . North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.
Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats. under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks? There would be no ear marks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).
If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now.
All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama's fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It's all George Bush's fault.
Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president's attorney general, to hold terrorists' trials in New York City . Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.
Two disastrous decisions.
Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.
Need more proof?
You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month's election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing "the Ted Kennedy seat," President Obama said that Brown's victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years. and they wanted change.
Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush's fault.
Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.
It is all George Bush's fault.
Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something... anything?
(Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist and former editor=in-chief of The Denver Post.)
Letter from Barack Obama to a Concerned Citizen
From: Barack Obama
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:21 PM
Subject: Today, it's time to commit to vote
Friend --
Eighteen years ago, shortly after graduating from law school, I helped lead a voter registration campaign in Chicago that generated record turnout on Election Day.
That experience taught me one of the most important lessons I ever learned as a community organizer: When people promise that they'll do something -- like voting -- they are far more likely to do it.
That's why one key part of our Vote 2010 plan this year is to get folks like you from across the country to commit to vote, to make sure we get as many people as we can to cast their ballots this fall.
But getting the commitments we need starts with your own promise to make it to the polls and cast your ballot.
Will you please commit to vote in the 2010 elections?
Over the next 82 days, volunteers across the country will spend countless hours calling voters and knocking on their doors, asking them the same question.
And you can bet that I am counting on you to join them in talking to voters in your community.
This election offers a stark choice. We Democrats are hard at work trying to move America forward, repairing a decade of damage and growing an economy based on the Main Street values of hard work and responsibility.
We've fought for and won historic reforms to our health care system, a victory 100 years in the making, and to Wall Street, the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression.
But after years of policies that landed us in the worst recession since the 1930's, the Republicans who got us there have not come up with anything different from the policies of George W. Bush.
We simply cannot afford to go backwards or let them repeal our reforms. And making sure we can continue moving forward starts with your own promise to cast your ballot in these elections.
Please commit to vote this fall:
http://my.democrats.org/Commitment
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:21 PM
Subject: Today, it's time to commit to vote
Friend --
Eighteen years ago, shortly after graduating from law school, I helped lead a voter registration campaign in Chicago that generated record turnout on Election Day.
That experience taught me one of the most important lessons I ever learned as a community organizer: When people promise that they'll do something -- like voting -- they are far more likely to do it.
That's why one key part of our Vote 2010 plan this year is to get folks like you from across the country to commit to vote, to make sure we get as many people as we can to cast their ballots this fall.
But getting the commitments we need starts with your own promise to make it to the polls and cast your ballot.
Will you please commit to vote in the 2010 elections?
Over the next 82 days, volunteers across the country will spend countless hours calling voters and knocking on their doors, asking them the same question.
And you can bet that I am counting on you to join them in talking to voters in your community.
This election offers a stark choice. We Democrats are hard at work trying to move America forward, repairing a decade of damage and growing an economy based on the Main Street values of hard work and responsibility.
We've fought for and won historic reforms to our health care system, a victory 100 years in the making, and to Wall Street, the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression.
But after years of policies that landed us in the worst recession since the 1930's, the Republicans who got us there have not come up with anything different from the policies of George W. Bush.
We simply cannot afford to go backwards or let them repeal our reforms. And making sure we can continue moving forward starts with your own promise to cast your ballot in these elections.
Please commit to vote this fall:
http://my.democrats.org/Commitment
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Obama's inheriting a huge deficit from Bush-Nonsense
http://www.departmentofoffense.com/2010/06/29/obama-inheriting-a-huge-deficit-from-bush/
The Washington Post babbled again recently about Obama's inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. Remember?
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills. He signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, when Obama says he inherited a huge deficit, what he is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, Unless each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference.
The Washington Post babbled again recently about Obama's inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. Remember?
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills. He signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, when Obama says he inherited a huge deficit, what he is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, Unless each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Oil- Energy-and-Obama
“Oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”
President Barack Obama
Speech on the Gulf Oil Disaster
June 15, 2010
THE TRUTH:
A September 1, 2005 article in The Seattle Times
reported a U.S. Department of Energy study that
revealed discovery of massive oil-shale deposits
in a geological region of the western U.S. known
as the Green River Formation, which is thought
to contain the largest oil reserves in the world.
GREEN RIVER FORMATION:
While oil shale is found in many places on earth, by far the largest deposits are in the Unites States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. Assessments of oil reserves in the Green River Formation range from 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all Green River reserves are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could meet just a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years.
Source: http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
Yes, oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, as President Obama claimed, but not because America is running out of safer places to produce oil. They are drilling in more risky deepwater locations because Democrats have blocked exploration at shallower depths, and in lucrative locations on land, such as the Green River Formation.
FACT CHECK
OTHER U.S. OIL RESERVES
Bakken Formation: According to a 2008 report by the U.S. Geological Survey based on assessment techniques that did not exist ten years earlier, an area in North Dakota and Montana known as the Bakken Formation has up to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil — 25 times greater than estimated in 1998.
Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge: According to a USGS assessment in 1998, ANWR’s coastal plain has up to 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. But, because Democrats have since blocked the use of modern assessment techniques in ANWR, the area’s reserves could be far higher than previously believed. If the 1998 estimate for ANWR turned out to be as far off as was the 1998 estimate for the Bakken Formation, ANWR could contain as much as 400 billion barrels of oil, an amount greater than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.
If you hear that America has no place to drill for oil except
Friday, June 25, 2010
Why Has Barack Obama Refused To Accept International Help To Clean Up The Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Mexico?
Posted: 21 Jun 2010 09:59 PM PDT
As the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico enters a third month, many are now asking how in the world Barack Obama can keep refusing offers from other countries to help clean up the oil spill. The truth is that cleaning up oil spills is not rocket science. There have been massive oil spills in other areas of the world before and there are some folks that have some real expertise when it comes to cleaning them up. But Barack Obama and BP have been stumbling around as if they are trying to reinvent the wheel. So exactly what in the world is going on here? When it comes to Obama's approach to this crisis, there are really two options. Either this is one of the most extreme examples of presidential incompetence in modern American history, or Barack Obama is using this crisis for a particular purpose (such as advancing a particular agenda). In either event, Obama's actions during this crisis have been completely and totally unconscionable.
The truth is that 13 different countries have offered to help clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
Barack Obama turned all 13 of them down.
So let's get this straight....
We are dealing with the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history by far, and yet we completely refuse any assistance?
What kind of insanity is that?
In fact, it is being reported that just three days after the Deepwater Horizon sank to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico the Dutch government contacted Barack Obama and offered to loan BP ships outfitted with special oil-skimming booms. In addition, the Dutch had a plan to quickly build sand barriers to protect the vulnerable marshlands along the Louisiana coast.
Needless to say, those plans were not implemented.
According to one Dutch newspaper, the European oil companies that offered to help said that they could have completely cleaned all of the oil from the Gulf of Mexico in just four months.
But now Obama is telling us that the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico could last for years.
So what would keep Barack Obama from accepting international offers of help?
Well, Obama is using something called "the Jones Act" as an excuse.
Howard Portnoy recently described what is going on this way....
In order to accept the offers, which have come from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that claim to possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships, Obama would need to waive the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261). Also known as the Jones Act, the law requires essentially that all commercial acts conducted in U.S.-controlled waters be performed by “U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.”
So why not simply waive the act? Other presidents have under similar circumstances. George W. Bush waived the Jones Act following Hurricane Katrina, allowing foreign ships into Gulf waters to aid in the relief effort.
The truth is that the Jones Act is not a barrier to receiving assistance at all and Barack Obama knows this.
There would be absolutely no problem with waiving the Jones Act in these circumstances.
So Barack Obama has no excuse.
Either he is completely and totally incompetent or he has been trying to make this crisis worse than it should be.
You see, this is not the first catastrophic oil spill in the history of the world. There have been others, and we have learned quite a bit about cleaning up oil from those events. Anthony G. Martin recently described what happened during one particularly brutal oil spill in 1993 and 1994....
In 1993 and '94 the Saudis faced an oil spill of historic proportions in the Arabian Gulf as four leaking tankers and two oil gushers threatened to spur a catastrophic event that was 65 times worse than the Exxon-Valdez spill.
An American engineer, Nick Pozzi, was part of a task force charged with developing a solution to the looming disaster.
Pozzi had used various methods to clean up oil spills prior to this event. However, the time was short, and an effective solution was needed post-haste.
That's when Pozzi decided that the huge, empty oil tankers, sitting in the dock, could be used to simply vacuum up the oil right off of the top of the water.
The result was that 85% of the oil was recovered.
In a recent interview with Esquire, Pozzi explained that cleaning up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico should not be that complicated....
Keep in mind that what supertankers typically do is they sit in the middle of the ocean waiting for all the traders to come up with the right price. When they feel that the price is right, the tankers that are full, they take off, and they can be anywhere in the world in a few days. Right now there are probably 25 supertankers, waiting for orders, full of oil. So all they got to do is come to Texas, in the Gulf, unload the oil, and then turn around and suck up all this other stuff and pump it onto shore into on-shore storage. It's not rocket science. It's so simple.
So why won't Barack Obama and BP implement the "supertanker method"?
When asked about it they just brush it off.
Are they that incompetent?
Or is something else going on?
If this crisis had been handled properly, oil would not currently be blanketing our pristine Gulf coast beaches.
An increasing number of Gulf coast residents have become so frustrated that they have decided to take it upon themselves to stop the oil that is headed towards their homes and businesses.
But BP and the Obama administration have been running around trying to keep anyone else other than themselves from doing anything about this oil spill. In fact, Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of more than 17,000 National Guard members along the Gulf coast to be used "as needed" by state governors, and BP is being allowed to use private security contractors to keep the American people away from the oil cleanup sites.
If they used as much energy cleaning up the oil as they are in keeping the American people away from the spill they might actually be accomplishing something.
Meanwhile, CBS News is reporting that there could be as much as 1 billion barrels of oil under the damaged BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico and that it could keep flowing for more than a decade.
Apparently BP made one of the biggest oil discoveries in history, but the problem is that oil is now coming out of there at such high pressure that we simply do not have the technology to control it.
In addition, experts have discovered a massive gas bubble which is estimated to be 15 to 20 miles across and "tens of feet high" under the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.
So what in the world is going to happen if that thing blows?
Also, there are reports of fissures and cracks appearing on the ocean floor around the damaged wellhead.
If this thing goes from a "leak" to an "eruption" it could be a catastrophe beyond anything any of us could even imagine.
So let's hope that nothing like that happens.
But there is another very serious threat that we need to keep an eye on.
Some environmentalists are now warning that North America could be facing years of toxic rain because of the highly toxic chemical dispersants that BP is using to control the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Because it is so poisonous, the UK's Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the UK's North Sea, BP would not be able to use it. So BP really needs to start explaining why they are dumping so much of it into the Gulf of Mexico - especially since so much of it could end up raining down on us.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are busy playing golf and BP chief executive Tony Hayward has been busy watching his yacht race.
Well, considering the fact that Tony Hayward is set for a massive 10.8 million pound ($16 million) payout if he chooses to step down, perhaps he is not too concerned about exactly how things turn out.
As for Barack Obama, his main concern in all this seems to be advancing his climate agenda. During a recent interview, Obama directly compared the current crisis in the Gulf to 9/11, and indicated that he believed that it would fundamentally change the way that we all look at energy issues from now on. But the truth is that cleaning up the oil in the Gulf has nothing to do with the "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme that Obama is trying to foist on all of us.
What Obama needs to do is to accept all the help that is being offered, get everybody working together on cleaning up this mess, and find a way to stop all that oil from coming out of the ground.
Until he makes some progress on those things, the American people are not likely to want to hear the first thing about all of the new taxes, rules and regulations that he is so eager to impose on all of us.
The Gulf of Mexico is literally being destroyed, and already this disaster has been so horrific that the effects will be felt for decades. If Barack Obama cares one ounce about the American people he needs to start doing his job instead of playing politics with this crisis.
As the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico enters a third month, many are now asking how in the world Barack Obama can keep refusing offers from other countries to help clean up the oil spill. The truth is that cleaning up oil spills is not rocket science. There have been massive oil spills in other areas of the world before and there are some folks that have some real expertise when it comes to cleaning them up. But Barack Obama and BP have been stumbling around as if they are trying to reinvent the wheel. So exactly what in the world is going on here? When it comes to Obama's approach to this crisis, there are really two options. Either this is one of the most extreme examples of presidential incompetence in modern American history, or Barack Obama is using this crisis for a particular purpose (such as advancing a particular agenda). In either event, Obama's actions during this crisis have been completely and totally unconscionable.
The truth is that 13 different countries have offered to help clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
Barack Obama turned all 13 of them down.
So let's get this straight....
We are dealing with the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history by far, and yet we completely refuse any assistance?
What kind of insanity is that?
In fact, it is being reported that just three days after the Deepwater Horizon sank to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico the Dutch government contacted Barack Obama and offered to loan BP ships outfitted with special oil-skimming booms. In addition, the Dutch had a plan to quickly build sand barriers to protect the vulnerable marshlands along the Louisiana coast.
Needless to say, those plans were not implemented.
According to one Dutch newspaper, the European oil companies that offered to help said that they could have completely cleaned all of the oil from the Gulf of Mexico in just four months.
But now Obama is telling us that the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico could last for years.
So what would keep Barack Obama from accepting international offers of help?
Well, Obama is using something called "the Jones Act" as an excuse.
Howard Portnoy recently described what is going on this way....
In order to accept the offers, which have come from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that claim to possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships, Obama would need to waive the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261). Also known as the Jones Act, the law requires essentially that all commercial acts conducted in U.S.-controlled waters be performed by “U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.”
So why not simply waive the act? Other presidents have under similar circumstances. George W. Bush waived the Jones Act following Hurricane Katrina, allowing foreign ships into Gulf waters to aid in the relief effort.
The truth is that the Jones Act is not a barrier to receiving assistance at all and Barack Obama knows this.
There would be absolutely no problem with waiving the Jones Act in these circumstances.
So Barack Obama has no excuse.
Either he is completely and totally incompetent or he has been trying to make this crisis worse than it should be.
You see, this is not the first catastrophic oil spill in the history of the world. There have been others, and we have learned quite a bit about cleaning up oil from those events. Anthony G. Martin recently described what happened during one particularly brutal oil spill in 1993 and 1994....
In 1993 and '94 the Saudis faced an oil spill of historic proportions in the Arabian Gulf as four leaking tankers and two oil gushers threatened to spur a catastrophic event that was 65 times worse than the Exxon-Valdez spill.
An American engineer, Nick Pozzi, was part of a task force charged with developing a solution to the looming disaster.
Pozzi had used various methods to clean up oil spills prior to this event. However, the time was short, and an effective solution was needed post-haste.
That's when Pozzi decided that the huge, empty oil tankers, sitting in the dock, could be used to simply vacuum up the oil right off of the top of the water.
The result was that 85% of the oil was recovered.
In a recent interview with Esquire, Pozzi explained that cleaning up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico should not be that complicated....
Keep in mind that what supertankers typically do is they sit in the middle of the ocean waiting for all the traders to come up with the right price. When they feel that the price is right, the tankers that are full, they take off, and they can be anywhere in the world in a few days. Right now there are probably 25 supertankers, waiting for orders, full of oil. So all they got to do is come to Texas, in the Gulf, unload the oil, and then turn around and suck up all this other stuff and pump it onto shore into on-shore storage. It's not rocket science. It's so simple.
So why won't Barack Obama and BP implement the "supertanker method"?
When asked about it they just brush it off.
Are they that incompetent?
Or is something else going on?
If this crisis had been handled properly, oil would not currently be blanketing our pristine Gulf coast beaches.
An increasing number of Gulf coast residents have become so frustrated that they have decided to take it upon themselves to stop the oil that is headed towards their homes and businesses.
But BP and the Obama administration have been running around trying to keep anyone else other than themselves from doing anything about this oil spill. In fact, Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of more than 17,000 National Guard members along the Gulf coast to be used "as needed" by state governors, and BP is being allowed to use private security contractors to keep the American people away from the oil cleanup sites.
If they used as much energy cleaning up the oil as they are in keeping the American people away from the spill they might actually be accomplishing something.
Meanwhile, CBS News is reporting that there could be as much as 1 billion barrels of oil under the damaged BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico and that it could keep flowing for more than a decade.
Apparently BP made one of the biggest oil discoveries in history, but the problem is that oil is now coming out of there at such high pressure that we simply do not have the technology to control it.
In addition, experts have discovered a massive gas bubble which is estimated to be 15 to 20 miles across and "tens of feet high" under the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.
So what in the world is going to happen if that thing blows?
Also, there are reports of fissures and cracks appearing on the ocean floor around the damaged wellhead.
If this thing goes from a "leak" to an "eruption" it could be a catastrophe beyond anything any of us could even imagine.
So let's hope that nothing like that happens.
But there is another very serious threat that we need to keep an eye on.
Some environmentalists are now warning that North America could be facing years of toxic rain because of the highly toxic chemical dispersants that BP is using to control the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Because it is so poisonous, the UK's Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the UK's North Sea, BP would not be able to use it. So BP really needs to start explaining why they are dumping so much of it into the Gulf of Mexico - especially since so much of it could end up raining down on us.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are busy playing golf and BP chief executive Tony Hayward has been busy watching his yacht race.
Well, considering the fact that Tony Hayward is set for a massive 10.8 million pound ($16 million) payout if he chooses to step down, perhaps he is not too concerned about exactly how things turn out.
As for Barack Obama, his main concern in all this seems to be advancing his climate agenda. During a recent interview, Obama directly compared the current crisis in the Gulf to 9/11, and indicated that he believed that it would fundamentally change the way that we all look at energy issues from now on. But the truth is that cleaning up the oil in the Gulf has nothing to do with the "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme that Obama is trying to foist on all of us.
What Obama needs to do is to accept all the help that is being offered, get everybody working together on cleaning up this mess, and find a way to stop all that oil from coming out of the ground.
Until he makes some progress on those things, the American people are not likely to want to hear the first thing about all of the new taxes, rules and regulations that he is so eager to impose on all of us.
The Gulf of Mexico is literally being destroyed, and already this disaster has been so horrific that the effects will be felt for decades. If Barack Obama cares one ounce about the American people he needs to start doing his job instead of playing politics with this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)