You are here: Home / Floyd Reports

Floyd Reports

floydreportslogo2 Floyd ReportsWelcome to the new home of FloydReports.com. Enter for conservative commentary, conservative videos, and conservative news from veteran political expert Floyd Brown,  President of the Western Center for Journalism. If you are a subscriber of FloydReports.com, you will still get the same great content to your inbox, just at a new home. The blog’s move to WesternJournalism.com will allow it to have greater reach and a more powerful server. Please take a look around, and if you have any comments, please use our contact page to reach us.

 

Is The Health Care Law Constitutional? No, Strike It Down Now!

March 29, 2012 by 10 Comments
Obamacare SC Is the Health Care Law Constitutional? No, Strike It Down Now!

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Neither Porter nor his firm are involved in the ACA litigation.

This summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether Congress violated the Constitution when it enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which contains an “individual mandate” requiring virtually every American to purchase health insurance. Based on the Constitution’s text and structure, and judicial interpretations of the relevant provisions, the mandate should be struck down.

Pennsylvania is one of 26 states to have attacked the ACA’s constitutionality. They seek to uphold the Constitution’s basic division of power between the national government and state governments.

The framers and those who ratified the Constitution withheld from Congress a plenary police power to enact any law that it deems desirable. Instead, the powers granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution are limited and enumerated. The 10th Amendment emphasizes this structure by affirming that all powers not given to Congress “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Given that background, the states’ argument against ACA is simple: Even under the broadest interpretation, Congress’ enumerated powers do not authorize a federal law that forces individuals to purchase health insurance.

ACA’s defenders argue that Congress’ authority to impose the mandate is granted by any of three constitutional provisions: the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Taxing Clause. However, under the original understanding of those provisions and the more expansive interpretation given to them by the Supreme Court in recent decades, the mandate is an unprecedented assertion of federal control that violates the framers’ constitutional design.

Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce. As originally understood, “interstate commerce” meant cross-border trade or exchange, as distinguished from other types of business activity such as manufacturing and agriculture. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have expanded the term to include instances of intrastate “economic activity” if that activity, “viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects” interstate commerce.

ACA’s defenders argue that the law regulates economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, namely the manner in which individuals insure against their future purchase of healthcare services. But the individual mandate does not regulate anyone’s ongoing activity—those who are subject to it are strangers to the insurance market. Rather, the law compels inactive, nonparticipants in the health insurance market to purchase insurance so they can then be regulated.

As Congress itself said in the ACA, the mandate purports to regulate each individual’s “economic and financial decision” whether to purchase health insurance. But if that is a valid exercise of Commerce Clause power, then there is literally no end to Congress’ power over individuals.

Congress could require people to buy a car because refraining from doing so is an “economic decision” substantially affecting the automobile industry. Congress could require us to purchase a television or a computer because engaging in quiet reflection rather than watching TV or surfing the Internet is an “economic decision” that substantially affects national markets for entertainment and communication.

The possibilities are endless, and these examples are not mere hyperbole. In the case on appeal to the Supreme Court, the federal government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service that would be unconstitutional under this elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

ACA’s defenders also argue that the mandate is supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives Congress wide latitude to determine what laws are necessary for the implementation of Congress’ enumerated powers. Specifically, the mandate is allegedly necessary to allow for other regulations and price controls (such as a ban on considering pre-existing conditions) that otherwise render the law unworkable and threaten to destroy the health insurance market.

The problem with this argument is that the individual mandate is neither “necessary” nor “proper.” A law is not “proper” if it depends on a constitutional theory that gives Congress unbounded discretion to legislate in areas traditionally reserved to the states. And a law is not “necessary” unless it carries into execution another enumerated power, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The ACA flunks both of these tests. Rather than enabling the exercise of an enumerated power, the mandate compels individuals to buy insurance in an attempt to suppress the ruinous effects of ACA’s other provisions. Don’t expect the Supreme Court to ignore constitutional limitations just because Congress claims an unenumerated power to offset regulatory burdens created by its own statute.

Finally, ACA’s defenders argue that even if the individual mandate is not supported by the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is nevertheless constitutional because it is a tax. For example, the penalty for noncompliance is calculated as a percentage of household income for income tax purposes, and it is self-declared on the taxpayer’s income tax return.

Congress foreclosed this argument by separating the individual mandate from the penalty. The mandate itself offends the constitutional separation of powers; it cannot be saved by pointing to a penalty for noncompliance.

In any event, the monetary fine was deliberately structured as a “penalty” and not as a “tax.” Congress could have provided health insurance for all Americans by invoking its Article I power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes,” but following President Barack Obama’s lead, it refused to do so for political reasons.

The federal government’s Taxing Clause argument has been rejected by every court that has reviewed the ACA, and the Supreme Court is not likely to adopt it, either. Nor should it.

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Take Obama Off His Teleprompter And He’s Void Of Originality And Honesty

March 29, 2012 by 6 Comments

When this video was posted by TruthSeeker 2012, he said: “Take this man off his teleprompter and he’s void of originality and honesty!” No truer words have been said. When you watch this video of Obama with various heads of state, you see just how lame and uncreative he is. He is truly the teleprompter king. Without it, he is worse than a zero.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

The Unintended Consequences Of Yet Another Liberal Policy

March 29, 2012 by 2 Comments
GM Jobs Jobs Jobs SC The Unintended Consequences Of Yet Another Liberal Policy

The 1973 Yom Kippur War pitting Israel against Syria and Egypt motivated an Arab petroleum boycott, instigating congressional passage of the 1975 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Known by its acronym, CAFE, the program does not man­date that every car sold in the United States be parsimonious but defines an average that each manufacturer’s cars must attain.

At the time, Republican and Democratic commentators anticipat­ed both major and collateral benefits. First, cars burning less fuel would reduce dependence on petroleum imports from potentially hostile na­tions. Second, CAFE would force domestic manufacturers to devote a higher percentage of output to small cars, curtailing loss of domestic au­tomobile sales and jobs to imports. In 1975 hardly anyone had heard of global warming or worried that car­bon dioxide emissions might pose a threat to human welfare, but it seems obvious that reducing petroleum consumption would reduce carbon emissions from that source.

Whatever one’s view of the merits of the triad — reducing imports of foreign petroleum, curtailing substi­tution of foreign for domestic au­tomobile production, reduction of carbon dioxide emissions — CAFE defined an excessively costly path to­ward those goals and led to perverse unintended consequences. Congress ignored people’s predilections to seek alternative ways to satisfy legislative­ly discouraged preferences. A more successful and less costly approach would merely define goals, use pric­es to properly align private incen­tives with those goals, then permit individuals to determine how best to make whatever adjustments they deem desirable.

Congress recognized that GM, Ford, and Chrysler each engaged in substantial automobile produc­tion abroad. Indeed, at that time, Ford, not Toyota or Volkswagen, was the largest car producer outside the United States. Gasoline taxes and hence retail prices throughout the rest of the developed world were a multiple of those in North America, while streets were narrow and park­ing scarce. Therefore, like the distri­bution of output of foreign manu­facturers, the Big Three biased their offshore production toward the small cars that most foreign buyers wanted.

Congressional fear that the Big Three would meet CAFE require­ments by increasing imports from their offshore operations led to the definition of separate pools — in order to avoid substantial fines, a pro­ducer had to satisfy the miles per gallon standard for one pool of domesti­cally produced automo­biles and separately for a distinct pool of those from abroad. Vehicles defined as light trucks soon became a third pool, with more lenient standards than are imposed on cars. Perversely, the distinction between light trucks and cars did not hinge on function or appearance, but on vehicle weight — once a model’s weight (and thus its fuel consumption) became high enough, it became a “light truck” ruled by more forgiving CAFE stan­dards.

The initial impact of CAFE on domestic producers was straightfor­ward: to satisfy the mandates, they had to produce fewer large cars and more small ones, artificially increas­ing the prices of large domestic cars and decreasing the prices of compet­ing small, imported models.

Almost exclusively, foreign com­panies had been exporting small cars to the United States and had no diffi­culty in meeting CAFE standards. In 1983, for instance, domestic produc­tion (at 24.4 mpg) failed to meet the CAFE standard (26.0 mpg) but im­ports easily exceeded the mark (32.4 mpg). Given the constrained ability of domestic producers to compete in one segment, the imports soon rec­ognized the attraction of designing larger cars than were demanded in their home markets in order to reap the increasing large-car profit mar­gins in the United States.

As CAFE standards gradually tightened, people who might have purchased a large domestic car (had its price not increased) opted instead for one of the increasingly large im­ports. CAFE induced domestically produced cars to burn less fuel, but perversely in­duced the average foreign import sold in the United States to burn more. Ac­cording to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the proportion of U.S. import sales that fall in large car segments has grown from about 5 percent upon CAFE’s implementa­tion to a level that fluctuates around 90 percent today. Over the same pe­riod, the import share of U.S. auto­mobile sales exploded. In retrospect, the loss of sales and jobs to imports was not discouraged but encouraged by CAFE.

A parallel transition occurred as some buyers switched from heavier varieties of domestic cars such as station wagons to even more fuel-thirsty “light trucks” such as SUVs and vans. Combining the impact of increasingly fuel-efficient domestic cars with decreasingly fuel-efficient imports, and taking account of the shift of sales toward imports and small trucks, the aggregated CAFE average achieved by vehicles sold in the United States fell continu­ously between 1987 and 2004. In 2005 world petroleum prices began a sharp upward climb and new car buyers became more interested in fuel-efficiency, but the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries deserves more credit than CAFE for that.

Congress ignored an obvious alternative policy that could have achieved better results with less disruption, an alternative long used throughout the developed world beyond North America — in­crease fuel taxes (gradually so people can adapt), and increase them sub­stantially (to encourage more fuel-efficient replacements). The congres­sional error was to force unwelcome changes in vehicle supply that car buyers have resisted rather than in­ducing demand changes. As one easily confirms when vacationing in Europe or Japan, with higher gaso­line prices even well off car buyers want fuel-efficient cars. The result­ing retail price increase of gasoline would have contributed to the U.S. treasury rather than those of OPEC nations. Offshore and onshore pro­duction would have faced identical constraints, light trucks the same as cars, gutting artificial incentives for buyers to hop from one CAFE pool to another.

Some drivers would continue to drive large cars, but CAFE also per­mits that, and those drivers get off cheap because gasoline prices gross of tax are low by world standards. More­over, when CAFE molds the mix, low fuel prices generate perverse after-pur­chase incentives even for fuel-efficient models — the car burns less fuel, re­ducing the per mile cost of driving and thus encouraging owners to drive additional miles. The proper focus is aggregate gallons of fuel consumed, not miles that one of those gallons can move a car. CAFE reverses the criteria.

Can the poor afford increased fuel taxes? The tax would be borne dis­proportionately by wealthier drivers — very few poor people drive Hum­mers. If Congress did not squander the funds but used them to reduce or eliminate other taxes, there is no reason anyone need be worse off. Individuals would consume less fuel — which after all is the goal — but compensatory decreases in other taxes would provide an offsetting ad­vantage.

CAFE leans only on the vehicle sector, indeed only a part of the ve­hicle sector. There are moves afoot to give heavier vehicles their own stan­dards (37 years after CAFE was insti­tuted!), but railroads, barges, airlines, and so on also consume petroleum. Moreover, for at least some uses vari­ous fuels are substitutes in either pro­duction, consumption, or both. For example, the proportion of a barrel of petroleum distilled into fuel oil rather than gasoline is a choice vari­able, within limits. CAFE pressures people to conserve the gasoline they burn in their cars, but unlike a com­prehensive fuel tax provides no in­centive to conserve the oil or meth­ane that heats homes, the electricity that cools them, nor long-distance flights.

More subtly, the arbitrary CAFE pools alter the mix of vehicles in inane ways. A population of cars that consumes X gallons of petroleum combined with a population of light trucks consuming Y gallons has the same impact on security from hostile nations and carbon dioxide emis­sions as cars consuming Y gallons and light trucks consuming X gallons — it is X + Y either way. Congress and NHTSA cannot judge how best to produce cars or vehicle mix, and should not micromanage this major sector of the economy. Had Congress opted for a fuel tax instead of CAFE mandates, the automobile industry and their customers would have cho­sen the mix — an identical benefit at substantially lower cost.

Am I being naive? Like most citi­zens, I lack insight into the shadowy internal workings of legislatures. Spe­cial interests, obscure to the rest of us, have their own reasons and bet­ter ability to force government policy away from superior options.

Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect Congress to institute one tax and use the proceeds to mitigate another. Certainly, increasing fuel taxes while retaining CAFE would be absurd, dooming a stressed economy to the disruptions of both. Nonetheless, CAFE is a placebo, creating an illu­sion of progress while little good and much harm results. All hope is lost if, for fear of seeming naive, one does not call this failed policy for what it is — a fool’s errand.

As has been understood since the 19th century, any command-and-control regulation is bereft of infor­mation it needs to attain its goal, and at least one of several incentive-compatible alternatives inevitably dominates. Seriously addressing the triad of goals defined at the outset of this article requires a radical tacti­cal alteration. The government can­not patch CAFE’s gushing leaks with Band-Aids of ever more dictatorial constraints, but needs to align indi­vidual incentives with public goals. CAFE has not been, nor ever will be, nor possibly could be, the bringer of the public benefits its proponents claim. Congress should relinquish the acronym to its proper claimants — small-scale purveyors of beverage and sustenance.

David D. Haddock is Professor of Law and Professor of Economics at North-western University in Illinois. He is also a Senior Fellow at PERC – The Property and Environment Research Center of Bozeman, Montana.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Who Decides Electability – “We The People” Or The Media?

March 29, 2012 by 8 Comments

Mitt Romney Rick Santorum SC Who Decides Electability – We the People or the Media?

The term ‘electability’ has become a catch word in this primary, but under scrutiny, it is easy to see that it is misused sometimes and generally overused at all times. With Gingrich falling to single digit results in the recent primaries and perennial candidate Ron Paul hanging on by a thread in most states, it is apparent that voters don’t care what the newsmen and commentators have to say – they plan to vote the way they want to. Isn’t that the way it is supposed to be?

In a time when we have a president whose particular religious beliefs are still in question after three years, the desire to know a candidate’s real beliefs has never been greater. Recent polls determined that 53 percent of Rick Santorum’s supporters believe that religious beliefs should influence a leader’s decision-making process, as opposed to only 28 percent of Romney’s followers.

There is no system of checks and balances to determine a candidate’s religious leanings and how they might affect his decision making, but there is plenty of information about each candidate’s particular religion.

It is well known that Mormonism is still considered a pseudo-Christian religion. That is a religion that seems to be Christian and has all the trappings of a regular Christian faith but lacks the doctrine, polity, and practice of a real (or should we dare say a ‘normal’) Christian religion. The Mormon faith has problems with its founders and its founding documents, particularly the ‘Book of Mormon.’ To some, the spurious and highly questionable book of Mormon puts the entire religion in a category with the cults.

To others, the Catholic Church’s dependence on Pontifical authority rather than scripture makes it another pseudo-Christian religion or a heresy in the eyes of many. The truth is that when Catholic patristic teachings and doctrine are compared to the scripture, much of Catholic dogma comes up short or is actually diametrically opposite the scriptural teaching.

The problem with both Catholicism and Mormonism is that they both have two authorities from which to guide their adherents. In a moment of crisis or decision, the followers of each must decide which authority they are going to be guided by. Will it be the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Pope? Protestants who hold the Scripture to be the final authority are never bothered with such problems.

It would seem that the differences between Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Scripture is nothing more than an endless debate than can be answered by anyone with the strongest opinion or most vociferous argument. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth of the argument is not found somewhere in between each faith’s doctrines or that grey area known as “your guess is as good as mine.” The argument is forever settled by authority, an authority that has been certified by God through the resurrection from the dead. Joseph Smith is still dead, as are all the Popes since Catholicism began; the one risen from the dead said these words about what we should accept as final or authoritative words:

“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (Joh 12: 48)

We may give a certain level of respect to what all men say, but only the words of Christ will be the measure of our lives in the very end. Religions notwithstanding, why would anyone adopt an additional authority if it has no bearing on our final destiny?

While 73 percent of Evangelicals and protestants see Rick Santorum as representing Biblical teachings in his stand, it is harder to see where Romney stands on scripture. This is  not because of the book of Mormon, but because he talks about his faith much less than Santorum. Since it is only in public discourse that anything can be known about what is generally held as a very private matter, who knows what Romney really believes about the Bible?

What is clear is that Santorum believes that abortion is evil and that the general decline into immorality (including every aspect of the gay agenda) is anti-biblical, anti-Christian, and anti-moral and is leading to the decline of the nation.

Hiding behind terms like “women’s rights”, “women’s health” and the “right to choose” doesn’t fool some people at all, including Rick Santorum. Excluding all male fetuses for the sake of argument, what rights, choices, or health is considered for the female fetuses that are ripped from mothers and thrown into a medical waste receptacle?

These potential ‘women’ (fetuses) are deprived of all the same benefits their mothers are demanding. The pro-abortion mantra that demands these rights gives new meaning to the word “hypocrisy.” Even without the Bible, it takes no great wisdom to see that abortion continues on the strength of a sorted, faltering, and absurd argument based on selfishness and raw stupidity.

The argument that if women are not allowed to abort that they will all resort to using coat hangers to remove their offspring is part of that stupidity. Let’s see: would 54,000,000 women have resorted to coat hangers since 1973 if Roe had failed? Were the same 54 mil subjected to the crime of rape and had no choice? Even as the immorality of the day deluges the American landscape, those ideas and arguments are at best juvenile and silly.

The tendency to put what is right on the back burner in place of what might produce more riches and security has never been more evident as it is today. This notion that the economy and jobs are the real issues has produced a term we now use to put the moral issues out of sight with called ‘hot button issues.’

It is time for America to grow up. We can’t go on calling the extermination of six million Jews a holocaust while referring to the murder and genocide of 54 million American unborn children as a “hot button issue.” If we continue to think the economy is a better issue to focus on, we will not see a full recovery until, as Jesus said, we have paid “uttermost farthing.” (Mt 5: 26) No juvenile language here; put simply, that means there will be no recovery.

To make a choice for president based on the false assumption that only the economy is the real or worthy issue to deal with may get Romney elected. What it will not do is save a nation that even with an economic rebound will not survive the coming worldwide changes.

No one can tell the American people who is the most electable candidate. That is, and always will be, for ‘we the people’ to decide.

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of columnist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Filed Under: Blogs, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

VA AG Ken Cuccinelli: Obamacare Must Be Thrown Out

March 29, 2012 by 7 Comments

It is important to understand that the Democrats removed the severability clause in Obamacare; this will force the Supreme Court to throw the entire law out. This was a political strategy developed to focus attention on the Court itself. The most important issue to be decided in the next election is the future make-up of the Supreme Court. This will likely outrage the left and enhance their activism for Obama in the fall.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

What The Obama Budget REALLY Does

March 29, 2012 by 2 Comments

It is not suprising that Obama’s budget was defeated 411 to zero. Not one Democrat voted for it. This short discussion on the US House Floor shows again why Obama and his ideas are disastrous for America.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

George Zimmerman’s Father Speaks Out

March 29, 2012 by 4 Comments

George Zimmerman’s dad sees what I see. When he looks at Obama, he sees a man full of racial rage and hate. I am glad he is speaking out, and I cannot immagine what it would be like to be the focus of so much rage, hate, and animosity. Obama has taken a tragic situation and made it worse by encouraging and embracing racial hatred.

EXCLUSIVE: Robert Zimmerman interview: MyFoxORLANDO.com

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: , ,

Russian Radio Interviews Sheriff Joe On Obama Forgery

March 28, 2012 by 18 Comments

Sheriff Arpaio has taken to an odd source in an attempt to get the groundbreaking news about ForgeryGate into the mainstream media—the Voice of Russia, in a radio interview, which is presented here.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: , , , ,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference At Arizona Capitol

March 28, 2012 by 59 Comments


Western Journalism has released an exclusive must watch video of today’s (March 27,2012) news conference at the Arizona Capitol announcing new legislation based on Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation findings.

State Representative Carl Seel, who introduced the bill, was joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, State Senator Lori Klein, and others in support of the bill. Important new information was revealed during the news conference including a request by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the current head of the Selective Service Board to investigate the criminal forgery committed in the case of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration. Inaddion, Carl Seel reveals some of the resistance that other Republicans are creating to stop the bill from even heading to a vote.

The bill will require Barack Obama, or any candidate seeking to be on the Arizona ballot, to certify eligibility for the office they are seeking. This will essentially require Barack Obama to certify his eligibility if he wants to be on the ballot this year in Arizona. This could potentially be a game-changing piece of legislation.

This bill is encountering some resistance. If you live in Arizona, consider calling your state representative to give your thoughts on this bill.

Sign up below to get notified when the March 31st Press Conference is shown on video

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: , ,

Obama’s Fake “Fossil Fuel Infatuation Tour”

March 28, 2012 by 1 Comment
Obama Kills Big Oil SC Obama’s Fake “Fossil Fuel Infatuation Tour”

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

President Obama must really be feeling the heat of high gas prices. He is on the defense.

For the past three years, America’s oil industry has endured public denigration, access denials, and permitting delays—all while the President touts the virtues of energy sources not equipped to power America: wind, solar, and, most recently, algae. As gas prices have been spiking up, President Obama has been speaking out against the evil oil companies and accusing them of obscene profits. Apparently, Americans haven’t been buying into the rhetoric. Polls show increasing numbers of people believe the President’s policies have contributed to the high prices.

Late last week, the American public was offered more evidence that President Obama’s energy policy is really more electoral posturing. Friday afternoon, March 16, an energy tour was announced that would “highlight his Administration’s all of the above energy strategy, including his focus on continuing to expand responsible oil and gas development…” Visiting only swing states, his fossil fuel infatuation tour included a trip to the oil fields of Southeastern New Mexico—where the pending decision regarding listing the sand dune lizard as an endangered species could kill the entire economy in that corner of the state.

With little notice, locals scrambled to put together a rally to greet the President when he touched down. Oil companies, ranchers, local businesses, and politicians sent out alerts—plans were underway. The original press release said: “The President will then travel to oil and gas production fields located on federal lands outside of Carlsbad, New Mexico, an area home to more than seventy active drilling rigs. While in Carlsbad, …”

Something didn’t sound right. The Carlsbad, NM airport cannot accommodate Air Force One. Assumptions were made. He must be flying into Roswell and then being helicoptered to Carlsbad, and driven to a well site. “We’ll have folks line the streets along the exit of the Carlsbad airport with signs…”

On Tuesday, a new press release came out. Nix Carlsbad. The President is landing in Roswell and then “will travel to oil and gas production fields located on federal lands outside of Maljamar, New Mexico.” Maljamar (population 38) is a wide sport in the road surrounded by tumbleweeds and pump jacks. Regroup.

An email alert offered “an important update on the President’s visit on Wednesday. The Secret Service requested that there be NO RALLY at the airport on Wednesday. They were promptly told that this was going to happen whether they wanted us there or not. The Secret Service is CLOSING Earl Cummings Parkway during his visit.”

The update continued, “We will most probably not see the President and our goal is to have enough people show up to draw media attention to what our President is doing to our home area, Lizard, Prairie Chicken etc. He is using this visit to show ‘support’ for our energy industry, while selling our livelihoods down the drain behind our backs.  PLEASE MAKE A SIGN TO BRING WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!”

President Obama’s total visit time was scheduled to be 2 hours and 15 minutes—with no public interaction. Off in the distance, he might have seen the crowd gathered at the rally—even if only in the news reports.

He was greeted at the Roswell International Air Center by Governor Susana Martinez and Roswell’s Mayor Del Jurney. The mayor of nearby Artesia declined to meet the President. Mayor Jurney says that he spoke to the President about the sand dune lizard: “When you have an opportunity to have boots on ground and to meet the people that it affects, I think the decision making process changes a bit and I am hoping that he’ll continue to consider the ill effects of things like the sand dune lizard and other EPA issues that harm oil and gas production.”

From the Roswell International Air Center, President Obama was flown to Maljamar for a nine-minute speech with a backdrop of pump jacks. The speech contained the usual talk of increased permitting and production. Even in front of the small, select audience, he received only sparse applause. Using his professorial tone, he lectured people who earn their living from oil production on how oil is priced in the global market.

In the last few minutes, President Obama launched into the now-well-known tirade about subsidies to oil and gas companies. I am sure the section made sense to the speech writers in the White House, but Obama clearly faltered while delivering the lines in front of his policy’s victims: “The oil companies who are drilling here in New Mexico, and all over the country, are making record profits. … I want American oil companies to do well. I have said, though, it doesn’t make sense to be providing a $4 billion subsidy when oil and gas are doing plenty well on their own. Oil companies are making record profits and that’s good, but we don’t need to subsidize them. $4 billion is a lot of money and we’ve been subsidizing them for 100 years. So my attitude is let’s make sure we use that money in smarter ways to develop a whole range of new energy sources since the oil industry is mature and has already taken off. Instead of investing tax dollars in profitable companies, let’s invest in our future. Let’s tell Congress to get their act together. Let’s allocate these subsidies in a smart kind of way. If we’re going to end our dependence on foreign oil and bring gas prices down once and for all, we’ve got to develop new technologies.”

Apparently, he came to my state to scold the successful while promising support for the start-ups.

If President Obama’s visit was about more than a photo op, he’d stop and look into the eyes of the men and women of New Mexico’s Permian Basin—which accounts for about 20% of the domestic oil production in the contiguous states. He would have seen good, hard-working people. If he took the time, he would have seen fear; fear not just for personal livelihoods, but also for the future of their communities. The people of Southeastern New Mexico are brave, not usually afraid. But they have watched as policy after policy put into place by the Administration directly impacts the economic stability of Southeastern New Mexico.

Greg Nibert, Chaves County Commissioner, District 5, in Roswell, New Mexico said, “I hope the President boards Air Force One committed to putting the citizens of Chaves County ahead of reptiles, birds, and whatever critters they might think of next. I further hope he will focus on policies that will get government out of the way so our farmers, ranchers, oil and gas companies, and local businesses can produce the economic prosperity needed by our community, state, and nation.”

Will President Obama return to Washington committed to unwinding the policies he previously promoted? Or, was his stop merely a photo op to create the image that he is a friend of fossil fuels and the American West? Sadly, history tells us his fossil fuel infatuation is fake. The people of New Mexico have been used.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

 

 

Read More and Comment: Obama’s Fake “Fossil Fuel Infatuation Tour”

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,