Sometimes, the chosen one’s never-ending campaign for President reminds me of the movie “Joe vs the Volcano.”
“Harry, I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?”
Yet, if there’s one thing he’s shown us during this time, it’s that he knows when to act like he’s doing something even when the facts prove otherwise.
With energy prices running out of control, the 2012 election just around the corner, and the absence of any comprehensive energy policy, Obama gave a speech this past Friday that attempted to convince America that the “O” in his name stands for “Oil.”
Besides manipulating a broad array of facts to make them look better than they really are, and then taking credit for the imaginary benefits, the whole media event was bogus. Why? Because Barry doesn’t care if your energy costs are getting higher.
In fact, it’s exactly what he wants to have happen.
It was candidate Obama who committed himself to higher energy prices in order for his radical agenda to come to fruition.
But wait, you might say. Wasn’t he talking about getting rid of coal as a source of electricity? That doesn’t have anything to do with oil and gas prices.
Well, you might say that, but you’d be wrong.
Higher oil and gasoline prices are just as much a part of Obama’s radical environmentalism as higher electricity rates. Proof of this can be found in his choice for Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu.
In a Wall Street Journal story published just prior to his confirmation, it was revealed that Dr. Chu believed in dramatically higher energy prices as a primary means to force America to submit to the radical agenda embraced by environmental extremists.
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.
Back then, he thought it would need to be done with higher gas taxes. Gee, a liberal advocating higher taxes. Who would have guessed? But I digress. . .
Or consider his Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar.
It was Salzar – I guess sometimes the bad guys wear a white hat – who should have been held in comtempt-of-court for his defiance of a judge’s order to restore oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico after the big spill.
Yet, his defiant actions were completely in line with his personal biases against oil exploration in that region, even if it meant higher gas prices. As the Washington Times reported prior to his confirmation:
Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Democrat and Mr. Obama’s nominee for interior secretary, was on record as opposing lifting the offshore moratorium even if gasoline were to reach $10 a gallon.
The Interior Department runs the federal energy-leasing programs. As secretary, Mr. Salazar has the power to slow such leasing to a crawl, with or without the help of Congress.
We should also remember that he appointed an avowed socialist, Carol Browner, as his energy czar. Her anti-capitalist beliefs were evident in her criticism of proposals to loosen restrictions on oil and natural gas drilling in the outer continental shelf, arguing that such moves would do little to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and risk damaging U.S. coastlines.
Besides being totally wrong, her actions limited supplies to consumers which contributed to higher costs.
With the never-ending campaign entering its next phase, we need to remember that Obama’s approach to energy depends on higher prices. . .
. . . and the “O” in Obama certainly doesn’t stand for oil.
What others had to say:
- Campaign Promises Kept – Moonbattery
- Does Obama Think I Drive a Bugatti Veyron? – Michelle Malkin
- Energy chairman warns US headed toward 1970s-style crisis – The Hill
- White House Falsely Takes Credit For Oil Production Increase
- Palin: Obama hostile to energy production