David Pring-Mill:
"...Obama characterizes other politicians as having “three-point plans for two-dollar gas: drill, drill, and drill some more.” And in an ideal situation crafted to Obama’s political preferences, we could immediately switch to alternative energy and he wouldn’t have to worry about disappointing the environmentalists whose votes he needs for reelection. But in the necessitated interim, perhaps it’s better to make temporary environmental compromises than it is to remain in business with Middle Eastern dictators whose beliefs and regimes are antithetical to American values. Instead of contorting our foreign policy and watching gas prices rise, let’s tell dictators to take a hike. Let’s expand U.S. drilling significantly enough to independently enable a realistic transition to alternative energy. Obama has expanded drilling, but not to the required extent. If the history of human progress is any indicator, energy research will plod forward, and out of that process, the next Tesla will emerge with an invention that will eclipse the methods detailed in Obama’s all-of-the-above strategy – but until then, our nation must be prepared and self-reliant.
President Obama’s argument is intellectually dishonest in that it dually misrepresents our national oil resources – (there are 1,442 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil) – and misrepresents the readiness and viability of so-called alternative energy. A half-billion dollar loan from the federal government to Solyndra certainly didn’t produce results.[3] There is a very pernicious edge to government’s eagerness to find and facilitate an alternative energy solution. For instance, government policies of industrialized nations promoted and subsidized bio-fuels. This caused the deaths of nearly two hundred thousand people.[4] Expanded demand for grain harvest increased food prices globally, which resulted in mass starvation amongst the poor.[5] And the U.S. alone spent more than $20 billion on ethanol subsidies.[6]
Barack Obama’s willingness to ignore factual realities and over promise a swift, idealistic solution is reminiscent of past behavior. When he was running for President, Obama said that he would immediately shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, even though doing so struck others as logistically infeasible. It’s now 2012, and Gitmo is still there. “President Obama is still trying to shut down Gitmo as soon as possible, it’s just turning out that it’s not possible,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.[7] This statement is an inadvertent riddle – if someone is trying to do something as soon as possible but they know that it is impossible, what is their ETA on completion?
This is a president who relies upon ambiguity to ingratiate himself with the electorate, routinely offering the semblance of solutions to worsening and very real problems. Barack Obama won election in 2008 after his campaign relentlessly emphasized the non-specifics of “hope” and “change.” After his 2011 State of the Union, Obama was criticized for failing to offer a specific and comprehensive plan for debt reduction.[8] In his 2012 State of the Union address, he utilized more nonspecific rhetoric while seemingly courting centrist and independent voters who have been drawn towards the libertarian ideals being espoused in the GOP primary. The President said, “I’ve ordered federal agencies to get rid of regulations that don’t make sense.” I’ll give the President some credit here – not literal financial credit, of course, given the economic precedent – and assume that this statement was a rhetorical oversimplification of his actual directives. The President’s rhetoric deliberately averts the mention of concrete objectives that, if specified, may have to be pursued...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
No comments:
Post a Comment