Elitist Liar Obama Takes On Romney In Video Wars

source: sodahead.com

March 5, 2012 - No surprise: The presidential election just keeps getting uglier --  and funnier. A new video from Comrade Barack Obama attacks Republican nominee hopeful Mitt Romney. Romney fires back with his own attack video.

This is particularly true when it comes to Obama's statements about energy prices. Whenever he says that he is trying to lower gas prices or any other fuel prices, know this: Obama is not telling the truth, and his own words prove it.

The first video here, "Mitt Romney Versus Reality," is from the Obama campaign. It uses clips from President Obama's speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors earlier this week, says Real Clear Politics, "to respond to charges made by Mitt Romney in his victory speech after winning primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington D.C."

Obama's speech to the editors was an amazing spew of Marxist babble. It was, honest-to-God, baffling. Robert Lenzner of Forbes thinks so too. He wrote a piece for Forbes today with the no-holds-barred headline, "Inept, Elitist Obama Speech Rotten Political Warfare." Wow.

"Your talk to the Society of Newspaper Editors," wrote Lenzner, "was more  Political Warfare  than a primer in  Math or  or an effective attack on Class Warfare, Mr. President. You lost me and most of America with all your talk about Trojan Horses and Social Darwinism, as I thought I was back in John Finley’s  Course on Classics or Arthur Schlesinger’s course on American Intellectual history at Harvard in the 1950s." Wow. Confused? We all were, weren't we?

The second video is from the Romney camp and was released yesterday on YouTube by mittromney. "President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney because his energy policies have failed," says the video's posted description. "In states across the country, gas prices have roughly doubled since President Obama took office. Mitt Romney will offer solutions to our energy problem instead of excuses."

The third video is Obama speaking to The San Francisco Chronicle in January, 2008.

In that interview, he told the Chronicle that he wants energy prices to rise. "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." 

This is a painful video for Obama supporters to watch. A warning to liberals: Obama's words are so unambiguous that only a hypnotized Obamabot could possibly deny the fact that the Obama Administration's energy policy is to encourage higher energy prices.

Pelosi's Big Oil Lies

April 28, 2011 - Did you know that the Obama Administration is subsidizing the oil industry in Brazil? Yep, that's right. This, of course, is with the full knowledge and consent of House Squeaker Nancy Pelosi. Yet there was Pelosi this morning, giving the old Lefty line about ending subsidies to Big Oil. (Translation: American Big Oil.) According to a report by MarketWatch today, House Dummy Leader Pelosi "used Exxon Mobil Corp.’s first-quarter profits to again call for ending subsidies to big oil companies, escalating the already-intense war of words over energy policy." The Obama Regime, by the way, has no energy policy other than to (a) prevent American exploration and drilling for new oil, (b) promise to hunt down all the speculators who have illegally driven up fuel prices (none have been found) and (c) throw U.S. taxpayer money at Brazil's oil drilling efforts. In part, Pelosi was inspired to spew her rant by news that Exxon Mobil said its profit rose 69% to nearly $11 billion in the first quarter. MarketWatch noted that "Pelosi, like President Barack Obama earlier in the week, said oil companies don’t deserve tax breaks and that the U.S. ought to be investing in clean energy." Seriously, does this make sense? I agree that "clean energy" should be pursued. It's a worthy goal, but it's very long term and in the here and now we need to make full use of the energy we have at hand. Pelosi, sticking to the Marxist line, said that U.S. taxpayers shouldn't "subsidize Big Oil’s profits.” Again, she said nothing about American taxpayers subsidizing Big Oil in Brazil. MarketWatch also reportesd that Obama’s 2012 budget would take away tax deductions from oil and gas companies, which would "raise about $46 billion over 10 years." Let's see, that's $4.6 billion per year, or $383,333,333 per month, which breaks down to $88,461,538 per week. That's about $12,602,739 per day, which is about how much it cost for Obama to fly into Chicago to tape an Oprah show yesterday. RELATED: Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling WSJ.com

Sweden Gets Real About Nuclear Power

I would never have thought that socialist Sweden would come to its senses about nuclear power before the United States did. That's the case, however, as Sweden's government is now planning to build new nuke plants. Why? Two good reasons: Cleaner power and energy independence. Nuclear reactors are to be built in Sweden for the first time in nearly 30 years after the Government decided to abandon a decades-old commitment to phase out the power source. Sweden joins a list of EU countries that have chosen nuclear energy under pressure to diversify from fossil fuels and meet tough climate-change targets for cutting CO2 emissions. Full Report from TimesOnline (UK)... When will the Democrat Party in the United States stop blocking nuclear power plant production? Watchblog.com, back in August, 2006, ran a provocative article called "It's Time to Develop Peaceful Nuclear Energy." That article spoke to Democrats, liberals, and yes, the handful of Republicans who still fear nuclear energy: Many people - liberal environmentalists, Democrats and Republicans are afraid of nuclear power but it is time to get over it. There have been many good reasons to be afraid of it in the past - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, plus a boat load of unreasonable fears. RELATED: While world burns, Democrats say no to nukes - Salon.com Bill would end nuclear power moratorium (in Kentucky) Democrats for Nuclear Power Portable Nuclear Power Shows Promise... Nuclear Power: A Clean, Safe Alternative The Future of Nuclear Power Nuclear Energy is the most certain future source China Eyes Massive Hike in Atomic Energy Target CNB RSS Feed

Biden Votes for Indian Nuclear Energy Independence

While you were busy watching the Cubs lose (or were you watching Animal Planet?), the Senate slipped this one through yesterday. It's another demonstration of politics making strange bedfellows, and of strange bedfellows making politics. Biden and Bush agreed on this deal... The India-U.S. nuclear deal on Thursday secured the approval of the U.S. Senate which overwhelmingly voted a bill rejecting all the killer amendments and paving the way for its implementation....Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, a strong supporter of India, also voted for the bill, which still contains a provision that would ensure cessation of U.S. nuclear cooperation in case New Delhi conducted a nuclear test. Wait, wait. Biden is glad to let India have nuclear power? Okay, then why is he, and his Democrat friends, so reluctant to allow the United States the same kind of energy independence? Mr. Bush and Mr. Biden hailed the passage of the legislation, saying it would strengthen global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and help India increase its energy production. MORE FROM THE HINDU NEWSPAPER...

Bush to Lift Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling

The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said. Wait, hold on. That's not the whole story: But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well. [Source] The accomplish-nothing Pelosi Congress has a chance to actually do something about fuel prices. When Nancy Pelosi took became Speaker of the House a couple of years ago, she told the nation that she and her fellow Democrats had a plan to bring down the price of gasoline. Since then, the price at the pump has about doubled. The U.S. has more oil in the ground (including shale oil) than Saudi Arabia does. It makes no sense to import the stuff at $130 per barrel when we are literally sitting on so much of it right here. RELATED: Bush to Lift Ban on Oil, Gas Drilling off US Coasts (Update1) Bloomberg Bush to lift ban on some offshore oil exploration USA Today Bush Administration Rejects Regulating Greenhouse Gases Red Orbit

Democrats: Dim Bulbs, Indeed

The incandescent light bulb, one of the most venerable inventions of its era but deemed too inefficient for our own, will be phased off the U.S. market beginning in 2012 under the new energy law just approved by Congress. (Source)

Yep, say goodbye to the nice, warm light you get from standard light bulbs. The Democrats - and some idiot Republicans, including First Dim Bulb George Bush - will force us all to replace the incandescent bulb with the compact fluorescent (CFL). The really good news: The CFL is filled with MERCURY! You drop one of these things and the freeking Hazmat Crew is gonna take over your house. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IDIOTIC THINGS THAT CONGRESS HAS EVER DONE. This is what voting Democrat gets you. You like this madness? Keep voting Democrat, genius.

ALSO: Incandescent stupidity: Washington outlaws 100-watt lightbulbs

Changing the Oil

Congress giveth and Congress taketh away. The nation's largest oil and gas companies are about to lose some big tax breaks. This could be good. It could be bad. It's probably a little of both. Donny Shaw's article at OpenCongress today sums it up: Now it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is planing on reattaching the House's recision of $14 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies and the mandate for utilities to produce 15 percent of their energy through renewable fuels. House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a $ 21 billion energy tax package that in large part repeals tax breaks for the biggest oil and gas companies to fund long-term extension of renewable-energy tax credits and encourages biofuels and energy efficiency. FULL ARTICLE...

Ethanol Madness Drives Up Milk Prices

The price of milk is now about the same as the price of gasoline, around $4.00 per gallon. One big reason why: Ethanol madness. Ethanol is probably more of a bane than a boon, and most estimates say that even if every kernel of US-grown corn was used for fuel, it would make up less than 15% of our fuel needs. MSNBC quotes an expert who says, "higher gasoline prices have increased the costs of moving milk from farm to market, and corn — the primary feed for dairy cattle — is being gobbled up by producers of the fuel-additive ethanol. The USDA projects that 3.2 billion bushels of this year’s corn crop will be used to make ethanol, a 52 percent increase over 2006." Another expert says, "The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant" (see "Ethanol Facts and Fiction"). The insane desire to use ethanol has caused far more problems than it has helped. Mexican consumer know this all too well (see "Of Tortillas and Ethanol"). Mexicans been paying much higher prices lately for items made of corn, due largely to the displacement of ethanol for fuel usage.

Synthetic Oil, Real Challenges

Kheris is an avid follower of the business of energy, and she puts together an interesting analysis and some good links about producing synthetic oil and the threat it poses to nearby water supplies, especially ground water. New technologies offer hope, but the clock is ticking and nothing is perfect. The notion of producing synthetic oil from the kerogen locked in shale deposits in Colorado and Wyoming has great allure for those looking for a magic bullet to 'end our dependence on foreign oil.' However, there are risks and costs to such production, something the Canadians are learning with their own tar sands operation in Alberta. MORE at The Living Room in Rogers Park...

Ethanol Facts and Fiction

Complicated problems rarely have simple solutions. Our energy problems are no exception, and the simple-minded school of thought that holds ethanol up as a cure-all is only fooling itself - and many of us. John Stossel has a great piece titled, "The Many Myths of Ethanol," and it is must-reading. (Hat tip to Backyard Conservative.) The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says. And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it. More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides. FULL ARTICLE... For more information see Eco Rebuttal