You are here: Home / Archives for Steven Chu

Media Keeping Americans Uninformed (Part 2: Green Energy Failures)

February 5, 2013 by 6 Comments

EPA Green Regulations SC Media Keeping Americans Uninformed (Part 2: Green Energy Failures)

Concerned American citizens who don’t know the facts about how our government uses taxpayer dollars are being misled because the truth is not reported by the media. Before the massive economic stimulus bill passed in 2009, VP Joe Biden insisted “We have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.” That was three and a half years ago, and Americans are still paying the bills.

We have a consistently anemic economy and high unemployment as well as increasing energy and healthcare costs. Is the government corrupt, or is it incompetent where handling taxpayer dollars is concerned? That stimulus money was supposed to lead to shovel-ready jobs – immediate economic growth – but as the president himself chuckled, “Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.”

Just last week, Obama shut down the Jobs Council that apparently was created as a photo op used to dupe the public into believing they were trying to get people back to work and recharge the economy.

In the case of the energy market, the government’s decisions have cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Let’s look at some under-reported facts.

Ten months ago, another Obama-backed solar company in California, Solar Trust for America, declared bankruptcy after receiving $2.1 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE). According to the Wash­ington Examiner, Energy Secretary Steven Chu boasted the deal was “the largest amount ever offered to a solar project.”

Through the massive economic stimulus, the Obama administra­tion basically funneled money to their Democratic allies; and even with all the evidence of failure, the media protects the administration, disregarding American citizens in the process. It sounds good to ‘invest’ in green energy and the future of America, but government typically rewards companies that are loyal to those who make the policies. Crony Capitalism 101.

Reports have noted that $80 billion was set aside in the 2009 Obama stimulus; and instead of creating desperately-needed jobs, the administration funded politically preferred energy projects. The DOE immediately provided over $35 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and conditional commitments to renewable energy companies before the American public knew what was going on. Sadly, many still don’t know.

Money was poured into companies that had poor track records. More than 36 companies have received money from generous U.S. taxpayers and have either gone bankrupt or are in the process of major cuts and layoffs. One spectacular failure is Brightsource Energy, which used $1.6 billion in taxpayer money.

First Solar received $1.46 billion. Next, Solyndra, a solar manufacturer, received a $535 million loan guarantee from the DOE and went bankrupt. Fisker Automotive, the electric vehicle manufacturer, received a $529 million DOE stimulus loan and has gone through layoffs. Evergreen Solar received $527 million.

Abound Solar received $400 million and has declared bankruptcy. Battery maker A123 received a $249 million stimulus grant from the DOE and has had layoffs. Ener1 received a $118.5 million stimulus grant; now, they are bankrupt. (Ener1 was on the White House list of 100 Projects that are Changing America.)

A few other glaring green energy failures include: Johnson Controls ($299 million), A123 Systems ($279 million), Babcock and Brown ($178 million), LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million), ECOtality ($126.2 million), and Mascoma Corp. ($100 million). See Heritage Foundation’s extended list.

THIS ISN’T NEWSWORTHY? Even an AP report showed Solyndra hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars years before the Obama administration signed off on the $535 million loan! The California-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy. Obama looked at the “investment” into Solyndra as a model.

At the time, Michigan Republican Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, warned:

“In this time of record debt, I question whether the govern­ment is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat.”

Solyndra announced bankruptcy on August 31st, 2011; and in October, the Media Research Center released a study that exposed ABC, CBS, and NBC because they rarely mentioned it. It was just the opposite of their reporting on Enron, an energy company with Republican ties during the Bush administration:

“In just the first two months of 2002, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts cranked out 198 stories on the Enron debacle, compared to just eight (at the time of this study) on Obama’s Solyndra, which is a 24-to-1 disparity.”

How about investing in the private economy? There is no substantial proof green jobs are going to be successful in the near future. The green energy loan program was supposed to create 65,000 jobs, but reports could claim only 3,545 jobs.

The Obama White House and DOE stuck with Solyndra because its largest financial backer was George Kaiser, a major financial donor to Obama. Accuracy in Media’s Roger Aronoff stated: “This goes against the media narrative that Obama operates on a higher ethical plane than previous scandal plagued politicians.”

An entire month after Solyndra declared bankruptcy, a Pew survey found 43% of Americans “had never even heard of the scandal.” As for MSNBC, their primetime lineup went months without even acknowledging Solyndra.

Will this administration relent on its agenda? Just three months ago, Obama told an audience in Wisconsin that they’d continue to gamble with taxpayer dollars on green energy projects, confessing that “some of the businesses we encourage” with government loans “will fail” like Solyndra.

Bankruptcies and failures won’t diminish the Obama administration’s drive to keep spending our money as long as the media refuses to hold them accountable.

 

In Part 1 of this series on media malpractice, we noted the lack of truthful reporting on abortion, and an overall abuse of power.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

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

‘Independent’ Audience Asks Twice As Many Anti-Romney Questions

October 17, 2012 by 6 Comments

Mitt Romney speech 3 SC Independent Audience Asks Twice As Many Anti Romney Questions

Candy Crowley’s disgraceful performance tonight masked her true failure: her failure to pick questions outside the Daily Kos mailbag. Here’s the full list of questions she pre-screened from members of the “independent” audience. They got more and more egregious as the evening progressed.

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate? Romney answered this one easily, but the question itself was framed from a leftist point of view. It is no president’s job to guarantee anyone employment after they graduate. All a president can do is create the conditions for economic growth, which provides jobs. Score this one as a neutral question.

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department? This question was directed to President Obama, and it was clearly an anti-Obama question. This led to an exchange in which Obama ended up claiming that low gas prices lead to economic recessions.

QUESTION: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the — these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit? I forgot.

QUESTION: Oh, I remember. The education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class? This question was so great for Obama that he decided to help the questioner along with it. She was trying to get Romney to talk about how he was going to hurt middle income people by getting rid of deductions for them. Romney answered it beautifully, and took the bat out of her hands.

Read More at breitbart.com . By Ben Shapiro.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: ,

Why Is Panetta Beating The War Drums On Climate Change?

May 18, 2012 by 2 Comments

Leon Panetta SC Why Is Panetta Beating The War Drums On Climate Change?

Global warming has been off the energy-news radar as high gas prices have usurped the spotlight—however Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has brought it back. “Defense Secretary?” you might ask. “Not Energy Secretary Steven Chu or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson?”

No. It was Leon Panetta, who, at an Environmental Defense Fund reception on Thursday May 3, declared “The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security.” (Are we going to declare war on countries like Canada for backing out of the Kyoto climate change commitments, or China and India for never supporting them in the first place?)

Panetta’s comments tell us two things. First, as I’ve stated in aprevious column, the environmental community is important to the president’s re-election efforts, and, second, global warming will be part of the debate in the coming months leading up to November.

President Obama campaigned with the promise that he would slow the rise of the oceans and enact cap-and-trade legislation. Talk of manmade climate change was central to his election efforts. Now we know it will still be a part of the re-election rhetoric.

Likewise, candidate Romney has also supported the theory of manmade climate change and was part of the founding of one of the original cap-and-trade programs. However, Romney has now, after seeing new data, admitted that he doesn’t know whether or not man’s activity plays a role in climate change.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney accepted what was the prevalent thinking on climate change at the time. Many believed that the “science” was “settled.” Scientists like NASA’s James Hansen and Penn State’s Michael Mann publicly proclaimed that global warming was a threat to all of humanity and the earth. But that was then. Leon Panetta’s comment reminds us that the Obama position on climate change has remained static, while Romney’s has matured with the latest findings.

Within the past few weeks, James Lovelock, a scientist and climate-change alarmist, who in 2006 wrote, “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” admitted he was wrong and acknowledges that he’d been “extrapolating too far.”

Lovelock puts himself in the same “alarmist” category as Al Gore. Now he sees that “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books—mine included—because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” Lovelock continues. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now. The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising—carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.” Despite rising carbon dioxide, sea levels are dropping—though it is doubtful that President Obama can take any credit for it since his promised cap-and-trade plan did not make it through the Democratic controlled Congress.

As Lovelock confessed, the dire predictions haven’t come true.

The polar bear, the mascot of the climate change crisis, believed to be drowning due to melting ice caps, is flourishing. Drikus Gissing, director of wildlife management for the Nunavut region, told theGlobe and Mail, “The bear population is not in crisis as people believed. There is no doom and gloom.” The Canadian study Gissing referenced found that the polar bear population was 66 percent higher than expected.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007 that “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Then, in 2010, they had to retract the estimate, admitting that it was based on “dubious scientific sources.” Time Magazine called the entire episode “a black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.” Now, there is a new study reported in Nature that points out that the contribution of melting ice “is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.”

As the Himalayan story exposes, some of the science behind the manmade climate change hysteria is “dubious.” And some is the result of scientific misconduct, as was revealed in the Climategate scandal that exposed falsified records and silenced scientists.

Add to the above the impact the general public is beginning to feel as climate change mitigation strategies—such as wind and solar power—are hitting their utility bills, and the disgust they feel over the president’s insistence that more taxpayer dollars be thrown at an increasing number of failing so-called renewable energy firms, and it is easy to see why support for manmade global warming theory has waned.

And, one has to question why the president is entrenched in ideology that has now been shown to be demonstrably deceptive. The issue of costly climate change mitigation schemes is about more than just our presidential candidates. More than half of the states have mandated requirements for expensive renewable energy that raises electricity rates for everyone. Each legislator who voted for the cost-increasing standards needs to be as honest as Romney, and admit that they were wrong and reverse the policies, or be voted out of office. Unless that happens, energy prices will continue to climb and will stunt the struggling economic recovery.

The combination of new data, dire predictions that were no more accurate than a carnival fortune teller, scientific misconduct, and harsh economic impacts don’t add up to a strong foundation for a presidential campaign—yet, as Leon Panetta exposed, President Obama continues to cling to claims of manmade climate change crisis while Romney, like former “alarmist” James Lovelock, admits he was wrong.

Thousands of scientists never believed the predictions put forth by computer models, and many more, like Lovelock, have begun to question the assumptions. Later this month, hundreds of them, from across the globe, will converge in Chicago for the world’s largest gathering of “skeptics.” There they will discuss and debate the science.

Over the next six months, we are bound to hear about climate change as an issue. Romney will likely be called a flip-flopper, while President Obama stands firm on his convictions—with one sounding shameful and the other honorable. In contrast, I believe it is honorable to accept new input and admit when we are wrong and shameful to ignore new evidence, putting ideology ahead of reality.

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.

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

Life Under An Obama With “More Flexibility” — Use Less, Pay More

April 3, 2012 by 5 Comments
Barack Obama 11 SC Life Under An Obama With “More Flexibility” — Use Less, Pay More
President Obama made headlines during his visit to Seoul, South Korea—though not for his public policy statements, rather for his private comments, unintentionally broadcast, in conversation with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Believing he will be reelected, President Obama addressed dealing with “controversial issues”: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

The comment was made specifically about missile defense. But there are many other “controversial issues” plaguing his presidency about which he is likely to feel that he has “more flexibility” when he no longer has a pending campaign keeping the lid on his actions.

One controversial issue facing President Obama today is energy. Since gas prices have been climbing dramatically, his rhetoric has changed. He is now bragging about increased oil production—though fact-checking shows that his statements are about as valid as “a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.” This apparent “change” is really just electoral posturing, not a new energy policy.

With the election behind him, four more years in the White House would allow President Obama to finish off the American dream—making all of us subjects of the state.

Some might think my claim is too harsh. Yet, looking strictly at energy issues, a third world is where we are headed. It is widely accepted that energy use, wealth and health are connected. The countries with the highest energy consumption are also the countries with the longest life expectancy and wealth: human well-being and material well-being.

When we study the words and actions of both President Obama and his administration, we see that given “more flexibility” our available energy will be greatly curtailed and what we do have will be far more expensive during an Obama second term.

“Energy” refers to both liquid fuels for transportation and electricity for residential and industrial use. In both cases, the Administration’s policies favor reduced use and increased cost. Use less, pay more.

Because gasoline prices, transportation fuels, are the headline issues, we’ll start there.

During his 2008 campaign, gas prices spiked—similar to the current increase. At that time, candidate Obama was asked about high gas prices. His response: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.”  And then, Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Under the pressure of a campaign, Secretary Chu has recanted, saying that he no longer “shares that view.” Yet, when asked about attempts to lower gas prices, he acknowledged that was not his goal.

President Obama continues his rant about penalizing the oil companies while promising to “double down on investment in clean energy technologies” such as “wind power, solar power and biofuels.” The biofuel he currently favors is algae: “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17% of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.” The study his quote is based on also notes that it would “take acreage equivalent to the area of South Carolina to generate that much oil. It takes 350 gallons of water for every one gallon of oil you produce” and “meeting that water requirement would take 25% of our irrigation capacity.”

Due to the global nature of oil markets, President Obama doesn’t think that drilling for more oil will lower the price of gasoline. In his second term, we can expect to see higher prices for gasoline (perhaps, to European levels) and increased “investment” in biofuels. At the same time, he will continue to push for vehicles with higher MPG, despite the fact that Americans don’t want them. Oh, and don’t forget, we’ll have to keep our tires inflated.

Like President Obama believes investment in biofuels is important, he feels the same way about wind power and solar power—though they have virtually nothing to do with transportation unless we all drive a Volt. While he is pushing for electric cars, he is systematically raising the cost of electricity.

Despite his “all of the above” claim, he really only likes wind, solar, and biofuel.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama stated that “it is wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy” and that he planned to enact a cap and trade program through which electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” He claimed that if “somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can, but it is going to bankrupt them.”

Now, with the election looming, the Obama administration is already causing electricity prices to skyrocket by killing coal-fueled generation while pushing wind and solar that are intermittent and considerably more expensive.

Just this past week, in addition to the onslaught of new regulations on coal, the EPA rolled out new rules for coal-fueled power plants that will effectively “bankrupt” anyone who tries to build a new power plant. The greenhouse gas rules do not currently apply to existing plants, but EPA officials won’t rule out issuing climate rules for existing power plants—and environmental groups want them. Given the Administration’s propensity to give into environmental demands, we can be sure that a second term of the Obama Administration will shut down more coal-fueled power plants. Coal-fueled power plant closures are already hurting communities that are struggling with the lost tax revenue that funds schools and essential services. However, the EPA doesn’t take job loss into its decision making process. These closures not only increase the cost of electricity and cause the loss of jobs, they threaten the reliability of the grid.

Some might think, no problem, we will replace the coal-fueled plants with natural gas. This is a possibility. But, it will require new construction or expensive conversions—paid for by the ratepayers (you and me). The abundance of natural gas has resulted in record low prices. However the supply growth is a result of hydraulic fracturing—a practice currently regulated on a state-by-state basis, for which the EPA wants oversight. Given the EPA’s overzealous hand, it is easy to picture the Obama Administration banning fracking altogether—which would cut the supply of natural gas and consequently raise the cost and cause a price increase in electricity generated from natural gas. A ban on hydro-fracking, would kill the economic growth in blue states like Ohio and Pennsylvania—states Obama needs to win reelection—so such a ban is not likely in 2012, but would probably be part of the “flexibility” of a second term.

And, I haven’t even touched on the dearth of drilling or mining permits issued, the impact of high gas prices on everything else and the resulting inflation, the growing number of failed renewable companies, or the rolling blackouts you can expect. But you get the picture of life under a continued Obama administration—now with “more flexibility.”

So if you like high gas prices—albeit gradually increased, if you can afford the high price of a Volt and can tolerate the low range—while the rest of us subsidize it, if you don’t mind being hot in the summer and cold in the winter, you know how to vote. If you want the health and wealth energy provides, you’d better revolt this November.

Read More and Comment: Life Under An Obama With “More Flexibility” — Use Less, Pay More

Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston (Creative Commons)

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

A Conservative’s Call For Palin To Run As A Third Party Candidate

March 31, 2012 by 12 Comments

Sarah Palin speaking CPAC 2 SC A Conservatives Call for Palin To Run As A Third Party Candidate

After listening to a recent Rush Limbaugh segment where he reads a letter from a conservative friend who is in despair at a Romney Republican ticket, it got me thinking about the dilemma we are in.

We have been told from the beginning by both the mainstream media and Republican establishment that Romney is the “inevitable” candidate—most recently by George H. W. Bush, telling us that we should “know when to fold ‘em.”

As Rush Limbaugh’s friend states, it looks like it is inevitable that conservatives will have to back the Republican establishment that have sat on the sidelines while those of us conservatives—Tea Partiers—have been fighting in the trenches. And it looks like it is inevitable that we will have to back Romney, a candidate who laid the foundation for Obamacare. A guy who doesn’t believe what we believe. A guy who will probably shake the conservative “Etch-a-Sketch” mask if he wins.

Yes, I said if.

We have a President who is a radical, who runs roughshod over Congress. If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, then what is to stop him from running roughshod over their ruling? He has stabbed Israel in the back several times. He is gutting our military. He routinely apologizes to and coddles our enemies.

So, the theory is that in order to stop Obama, we have to back Romney. But as Newt Gingrich has stated, and many others also, a moderate in the form of Bob Dole lost. A moderate in the form of John McCain lost. Will it be different with Romney? I don’t think so.

I have been behind Newt Gingrich from almost the beginning. Newt’s campaign has been “dead” several times per the mainstream media and Republican establishment. Newt was the first and only candidate to come out swinging against Obama’s war on religion with the HHS mandate. He was the first and only candidate to excoriate Obama’s apology to Karzai after the Koran burnings. He was the only candidate to have kept Obama on the ropes with his phony energy policy. In response to Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill Now/$2.50 gas” campaign (his attack of Obama’s “anti-Energy” Secretary Steven Chu and deceptive and misleading energy statistics,) Obama gave no less than six “energy” speeches.As we remember, his first and most ludicrous one was where he cited algae as the savior of high energy prices.

While Santorum was talking about the evils of contraception and Romney was talking about how much he liked lakes and trees and cars, Newt Gingrich was coming up with bold solutions.

You may now think that I’m am calling for a third party—a Tea Party ticket—in the form of Newt Gingrich.

No.

I think he should be a part of that ticket, perhaps as Energy Secretary, or even as Vice President.

Newt is the greatest ideas guy. The greatest solutions guy. The greatest get-things-done guy. But for whatever reason, even though he has a huge support base, a large segment of the population will not back him on his own. As to why this is, I don’t know. While Santorum and Romney are playing in the sand box with their Etch-a-Sketches, Gingrich is burning rubber around the country, grinding on Obama’s nerves. Of course, the MSM routinely ignores him, which doesn’t help.

But, after listening to Rush Limbaugh’s monologue, I came to the conclusion that a Newt Gingrich ticket is not going to happen. But I also came to the conclusion that a Romney ticket will hand Obama another term—which is not merely another term but a transformation of this country that will look mild compared to what he has already done. If Obama gets another term, there will be no United States. I’m sure of it, and many other in the Tea Party movement are sure of it also.

Now we have also been told that a third party will hand Obama the election on a silver platter by splitting the vote. This theory’s basis is in the form of what happened with Ross Perot. But Ross Perot with his idiotic charts and rambling speeches was more of an aberration than a candidate.

Before I supported Gingrich, I was behind Sarah Palin. When she announced she would not run for President, like many other Palin supporters, I felt like the wind was knocked out of me. I was literally in tears, and I’m sure I was not alone. America had gathered under the shadow of Mama Grizzly, protecting us from the unjust charges of racism and extremism.

When Sarah Palin announced she was not running for President, Mama Grizzly left us. However, she was not far away, still watching over us, protecting us. We were like a cub foraging on its own for the first time, making it independent and strong.

But it is time for us to return to Mama Grizzly. Not as a cub, but as a member of the pack, co-equal, and supporting her as the leader of this pack—of this army—to save America. To get us working again. To support our soldiers and allies again.

Mama Grizzly, I want you to run on a third party—a Tea Party ticket. Fight for us once again, Mama Grizzly, not as a mother over her cub, but as members of your pack.

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

Energy Secretary Chu Gives Himself An A Grade For Handling Higher Gas Prices

March 20, 2012 by 7 Comments

The Obama Team gives themselves high grades even when they fail. Here is another example of the hubris these people exhibit. Energy Secretary Chu gives him self an A for handling the rising price of gasoline. How high would prices need to go before his grade would move down to a B? I think the real problem is that these socialists are just delusional.

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

Hypocrisy: Staff Sgt. Robert Bales And Fast And Furious

March 19, 2012 by 3 Comments

 Robert Bales3 Hypocrisy: Staff Sgt. Robert Bales And Fast and Furious

Many in the Arab world were enraged after the murder of sixteen Afghan civilians by U.S. Army sniper Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, and, on the other side of the world, many in America were equally enraged that the first thing out of Secretary of Defense Panetta’s mouth was that the soldier could face a “possible death penalty.”

No one condones what Mr. Bales did. There is that photo of a man looking into the camera, tears in his eyes, with a small Afghan child dead by his side, his little hands peeking out from an old blanket. But for an Obama Administration that has routinely lied and covered up about not sixteen innocents being murdered, but hundreds—we are referring to Fast and Furious here—and no one in the Administration blathering about “death penalty,” is a little hypocritical to say the least, and most would call sickening. We know of at least three hundred innocent Mexican citizens that were murdered by weapons that were put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels by our own government. Panetta hasn’t been trotting around the globe wringing his hands about them.

What about Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata murdered with these same weapons? Not only has no one dribbled about the death penalty for their murderers—the American people, and more pointedly their families, simply want answers as to who was responsible for what happened.

Obama found time in his busy schedule to phone Sandra Fluke to offer support about her birth control needs, but neither Obama nor Eric Holder ever bothered to call the Terry or Zapata family to offer a simple apology for arming those who murdered their sons. In one of the many hearings before Congress where Holder stammered out equivocations and lies, he was asked if he had ever bothered to phone the Terry family to apologize. His response was no, to which Congress and the American people were shocked and led to Holder sending a letter to the Terry family, to which he conveniently leaked to the press before the family received it, to publicize his apparent contrition.

You want to talk about rage? The American people are feeling rage right now. It is an open secret to everyone in America that Fast and Furious weapons were allowed to walk so that Barack Obama’s phony statistic given in April of 2009 that 90% of the weapons used in Mexican drug cartel-related murders come from U.S. gun shops would be substantiated. It is an open secret that the Obama administration was going to use this “fact” to ramp up the regulations for U.S. gun purchases. And for those of us “conspiracy theorist,” would then lead to a disarming of America.

Yes, there is rage in America. We have an obviously rogue Administration that does what it wants, when it wants. “If Congress won’t act, I will,” is Obama’s battle cry. Obama not only ignores Congress, but Panetta declared on March 7 that his Commander-in-Chief not only does not need to get approval from Congress to go to war, but that NATO and the UN trump Congress!

When Obama groveled to Karzai about the Koran burnings, sending a three page formal letter by special courier to the autocrat (this after an almost tearful phone call), two hours later two U.S. soldiers were dead, gunned down by an Afghan soldier as retaliation for torching their holy books. This while Obama had been en route to Florida in damage control mode to give an “energy speech” in response to Newt Gingrich’s criticism of his Secretary of Anti-energy Steven Chu and his anti-fossil fuel policy and phony “Green” energy program. Instead of beginning his speech about the two dead soldiers, Obama sang the praises of algae being the savior of our energy problems, forgetting to mention our dead heroes.

There is an odd CBS interview given by the President before a special White House dinner “honoring Iraq War veterans,” where he is talking about how his Koran burning apology had “calmed things down.” This interview was given after five more U.S. soldiers were murdered and there was widespread rioting in Afghanistan. It is like watching an Orwellian nightmare unfold before our eyes, where we are told 2+2=5.

In Obama’s “calm,” Afghans have murdered seven of our finest, and who knows how many more will follow. And neither Obama nor Panetta is crying “death penalty” from the highest mountain, let alone offering any apology to the American people or the families of these fallen heroes.

After seven of our finest lost their lives to our “allies” the Afghan soldiers we trained or the Afghan mob that we’re trying to help, Panetta felt it was time to give two hundred Marines at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan a pep talk. In a sickening version of political correctness, Panetta disarmed the Marines, mandating that they leave their weapons outside, so that the Afghan soldiers who had to leave their weapons outside wouldn’t feel excluded. The real reason some surmise was that Panetta feared another soldier going rogue and shooting his head off. Either way the act was inappropriate in the least, and contrary to military protocol, voiced by many, including Congressman Allen West. To think that the Taliban could have attacked Camp Leatherneck and our finest having to scramble to get their weapons causes a sickness in America’s stomach that makes us want to vomit out this Administration and everything they stand for.

Robert Bales “had” Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. “Had” in the past tense according to media reports. He was miraculously cured of it, and sent back into combat. He had also miraculously been cured of the effects of traumatic brain injury from an IED.

Having worked with veterans that “had” and still have PTSD, I can tell you that its effects do not come and go with the flourishing of a pen by a bureaucrat in Washington. What formerly was called battle fatigue or what was colloquially referred to as “shell shock” in World War II, is much more insidious as a result of both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars (both of which Bales served in). The difference, according to experts, is that, in contradistinction to other wars, where service members serve one long stint in combat, then come home, they are repeatedly taken in and out of battle, which exacerbates its effects. Bales served three tours in Iraq and was on his first tour in Afghanistan. How many more tours would he have served in Afghanistan or any other of the various wars of this Administration before this tragedy took him out of combat we will never know. But we do know that this repeated taking in and out of combat—not to mention, as reported, his buddy having his leg blown off days before—apparently sent Bales’ non-existent PTSD over the edge.

No, Bales should not get the death penalty. Honestly—and I may be out of line here—I think Bales should be released to his family and a psychological support group put in place around him so that this nightmare of a rogue President and Defense Secretary can be put behind us.

Yes, there is rage in America. Hopefully soon our American nightmare will be over, whether through the November election, resignation, or Obama’s impeachment. The American people care not, only that this four year nightmare comes to an end.

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

Government-Approved Green Light Bulb Costs $50

March 10, 2012 by 2 Comments
Green Lightbulb Government Approved Green Light Bulb Costs $50

Photo Credit: Victory of the People (Creative Commons)

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

Read more at The Washington Post. By Peter Whoriskey.

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With:

Energy Secretary Chu Should Resign

March 7, 2012 by 5 Comments

220px Steven Chu official DOE portrait Energy Secretary Chu Should Resign

President Barack Obama is right. America must pursue an “all-of-the-above” strategy to take control of our energy future. We should build the Keystone Pipeline, drill in Alaska, manufacture energy-efficient vehicles, and call for the resignation of United States Energy Secretary Steven Chu, to name a few.

There is no doubt that this Nobel-prize winning scientist is an exceptionally smart man. Yet watching Chu in action goes to show you that one can be as sharp as a tack and dumb as a sack of hammers simultaneously.

During a Wall Street Journal interview in September of 2008, Mr. Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” to encourage consumers to sever their addiction to petroleum. Chu’s comment reminds us that earned degrees do not amount to a hill of beans if you lose your ability to understand common sense and fail to relate to the common man. Chu, who is part of the “1 Percent” that Liberals get their panties tied in a wad over, can easily afford Europe’s $8 per gallon of gasoline.

Chu stands resolute in the face of average gasoline prices nearing $4 — forcing everyday Americans to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk. In Congressional testimony February 28, 2012, Chu said his overall goal is not to lower gas prices, but to lower, or “decrease our dependency on oil.” No wonder the administration is doing everything in its power (and pocketbook) to have us “buzzing” around town in Chevy Volts — which are about as exciting as an electric sardine can on wheels.

While Chu’s earnestness is without question, his hands-on approach gave cause for question in a July 16, 2010 New York Times piece: “Energy Secretary Emerges to Take a Commanding Role in Effort to Corral Well.” The article said Chu inserted himself into the BP oil spill disaster and repeatedly took “command…ordering company officials to take steps they might not have taken on their own” though he had “no training in geology, seismology or oil well technology.” According to scientific calculations made by American Thinker’s Bruce Thompson, “BP’s top kill probably would have succeeded” and the “hole would have been plugged” long before it was — had Chu not intervened.

The Times article stated Chu did admit that “if he had understood geology and well technology better…he might have urged a faster attempt at the top kill…The delay, he said, might have allowed pressure to increase in the well.”

While the administration overflows with “could-haves, should-haves and would-haves” when it comes to BP’s mistakes, I’ll be fair and not go there concerning Dr. Chu. I’ll instead stick with the facts: Chu’s post-spill decisions by way of permit delays and moratoriums heaped untold collateral damage to the economy when it killed jobs and damaged domestic production.

Incorporating a comprehensive energy policy is a non-partisan no-brainer which most Americans would wholeheartedly embrace, given they were allowed to embrace it — voluntarily. Instead, the administration is bent on assuming a parental role in our lives, and Dr. Chu seems to take this role quite seriously. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2009, Chu likened the American public to teenagers when he said, “The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act” and must “really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

All this coming from the green energy zealot who gave us the Solyndra debacle. Americans are not the senseless teenagers Dr. Chu implies. We may not have as many degrees hanging on our walls, but we are steeped in common sense, and understand that raising gas prices “to the levels of Europe” is not a smart move.

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

High Gas Prices: Bad For America, Good For An Election

March 5, 2012 by 5 Comments

gas lines High Gas Prices: Bad For America, Good For An ElectionI don’t need to use a lot of space telling you why high gas prices are bad for America, but I contend that they are good for an election. Until the current precipitous price increases, energy seemed absent from the overall debate. Now the GOP candidates are all talking about how they would maximize American resources to bring down the price of gas and, rightly so, putting President Obama on the defense.

Press Secretary Jay Carney has recently repeated that there is nothing the White House can do. President Obama uses the high prices as an excuse to keep throwing good money after bad to develop “alternatives” like the now fabled Solyndra and this week’s Abound Solar announced lay-offs and delays—even though solar energy, if it ever became viable, has virtually nothing to do with transportation. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is now having to defend his comment in response to a question regarding whether or not the Administration’s goal is to lower gasoline prices: “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.”

While it might appear that the White House was broadsided by the energy conversation, President Obama is very well aware of the importance of energy in the 2012 election cycle.

Back in November when President Obama announced he’d delay the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline for more than a year, until after the elections, Republicans were outraged. The pipeline represents up to 20,000 direct jobs and untold thousands of follow-on jobs in hotels, restaurants, retail, and more. In an attempt to force the issue, Republicans inserted a Keystone decision into December’s payroll tax-cut extension bill. Weeks before an end-of-February answer was needed, President Obama handed the Republicans the makings of a campaign commercial. He claims to support job creation, yet here, with no government funds involved, were thousands of jobs—and he killed the project! Does he really care about out-of-work Americans and the economic boost those jobs would provide?

The answer lies in the location of those thousands of jobs: red states (those that typically vote Republican). The Keystone XL pipeline travels exclusively through red states; states the President is not likely to win no matter how many jobs his policies could create in the region. Supporting the pipeline and the 6,000-20,000 jobs it represents (pipeline opponents claim the 20,000 number is inflated, saying 6,000 jobs is more realistic) would not help his re-election efforts. He could kill Keystone, make his environmental base happy, and not lose an electoral vote.

Then, days later, January 24, in the State of the Union address (SOTU), President Obama angered that very same green base by ignoring their key cause—global warming and its supposed solution: green energy—and touted the benefits of natural gas. America’s natural gas abundance is a result of high-pressure extraction—a practice known as “fracking” (short for hydraulic-fracturing). Two states rich in this shale gas have turned poor farmers into overnight millionaires: Pennsylvania and Ohio—both are blue states (typically voting Democrat). Go against natural gas extraction in these two important states and President Obama could lose the entire election. Here, alienating the environmental base is worth the gamble.

Additionally, these two blue states have been trending red. The last gubernatorial election saw a Republican win in each state—replacing a Democrat. Both Pennsylvania and Ohio have one Democrat and one Republican Senator. The 2010 election brought in new Republican Senators in each state. In 2012, each state has a Democrat Senator up for reelection. Republican red already controls the House of Representatives. Taking control of the Senate would virtually neuter the White House.

President Obama’s SOTU support for natural gas contradicts his energy policies and practices. He has thrown money into green project after green project. His EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is threatening America’s newfound riches with a proposed ban on fracking. Such actions would bring an abrupt halt to the growing economies in Pennsylvania and Ohio. He’d anger the electorate and ensure a Republican vote. In the SOTU, President Obama had to quell concerns to try to keep those Democrat Senators.

His first campaign ad of the 2012 election cycle was designed to make the average viewer think that he is the champion of fossil fuels. His claim that the US oil imports are now below 50% is true—although no thanks to his policies.

President Obama knows energy is key to the 2012 election and has set policy based on votes rather than what is best for all of America. We can hope that the need to win Ohio will cause him to keep a lid on Lisa Jackson’s overzealous regulatory aims for fracking—but then, Steven Chu offered Republicans more campaign ad fodder when he went rogue and admitted that the Administration didn’t care about high gas prices.

Instead of beating up on each other, the Republican candidates need to grab the ball and run with it: attack President Obama for his abysmal record on energy, maximize the Keystone debacle, point out the damage to the Gulf economy his drilling ban inflicted, keep the EPA’s barrage of cost-increasing regulations front and center, and quote Chu.

When energy costs go up, everyone gets hurt—but the poor are more severely impacted. Trapped into dependence, hope of personal prosperity is dashed. James Fallows, in his Atlantic cover story, says Obama’s opponents will argue that he’s been “Too weak in defending the nation’s interests, and all too skillful in advancing his socialist agenda.”

America needs a President who will put “defending the nation’s interests” ahead of “advancing his socialist agenda.”

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: High Gas Prices: Bad For America, Good For An Election

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