Energy independence requires bold goals, leadership ~ By Herman Cain

A bold objective would be zero dependence on foreign oil!

We can do it if we maximize all of our own natural resources as I described in last week's commentary. We just need to streamline the government regulations that are holding us back.

I believe we can responsibly drill here now (oil), dig here now (coal) and develop safer and smaller nuclear facilities here now. In doing so, we can cut our energy dependence in half in 10 years on our way to energy independence.

A serious energy independence strategy would also curtail the rapidly escalating cost of gasoline and household energy costs, which are becoming a huge drain on consumers' discretionary income. The pain at the pump is just the beginning.

I will continue to stand by what I said last week in regard to Herman Cain's conceivable and achievable energy policy:

The brilliance of this article is in helping people to understand that when energy prices increase, it ripples through the economy. Energy prices are directly related to the prices you pay for groceries and the number of jobs that are available. So, isn't it just common sense to develop our own energy in America, create jobs, and avoid having to purchase energy resources from countries that don't like us?

Just before stopping at the grocery store yesterday morning, I noticed gas prices had gone up another nickle per gallon overnight. I was delighted that I had bought some gas the day before the latest price surge. But, my delight quickly fades as I go through the store to find that prices were going up, such as a pack of my favorite hotdogs that had increased from $3.99 to $4.49... Like Herman says, "The pain at the pump is just the beginning."

In this column, Herman Cain discusses Barack Obama's energy policy that was addressed last weekend in another teleprompter speech the President gave.  Herman points out the differences between what he had suggested last week in his column, and what the President is proposing, the point being that the President's plan can not do enough to lower our national security risk in a short enough time.

I am all for Herman Cain's suggestion for energy independence. It is imperative that we put bold energy policies in place as soon as possible.

But here is my real concern: Will it be soon enough? I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORY:
Who needs their oil, anyway? ~ By Herman Cain



Energy independence requires bold goals, leadership

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

April 04, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The president believes in energy security. I believe in energy independence. In case you missed the president's weekly radio address, here is what the White House released on energy security, so I will not be accused of not understanding what they meant. The title of the address was, "Energy Security Can Only Come If We Invest in Cleaner Fuels and Greater Efficiency."

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Obama discussed his strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and secure our nation's energy future. When the President was elected, America imported eleven million barrels of oil a day. This week he announced a bold, but achievable goal of cutting this number by one-third by 2025.

To achieve this goal we will increase responsible domestic oil and gas development in the short term, while also increasing efficiency and harnessing new technologies including biofuels, natural gas, and advanced batteries. …

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the foreseeable future is a key to bringing down energy costs and especially gasoline costs, the average price of which has doubled in the last two years. I think that's what he meant by secure our nation's energy future, but I am not sure. You really can't tell from the words he used, but they sounded good.

The president proposes to reduce our dependence by one-third in 14 years. That's not a bold goal using electric cars, alternative fuels, advanced batteries and all the wind and solar power we can muster. Remember, those batteries have to be recharged. That means traditional electricity, which is generated from coal and natural gas-fired power plants.

That's an anemic goal! In the early 1970s, we were nearly 25 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are nearly 70 percent dependent on foreign oil. Reducing our dependence by one-third would still mean we are nearly 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. That level still leaves oil dependency as a national security risk, especially with what's happening in the Middle East.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Who needs their oil, anyway? ~ By Herman Cain

A revitalized and responsibly unleashed energy sector could be a significant economic stimulus to our economy right here at home.

Working families can't afford to spend more of their discretionary income on gasoline and energy costs, especially in a stalled economy.

America can't afford to continue spending billions of dollars to buy something that we can produce right here at home if we stop sitting on it. We must stop making other countries rich at our expense.

It's not just economic. It is common sense and a matter of national security.

This column will tell you what Herman Cain's energy policy would be if he was President of the United States! Wait, did I say that? Of course I did, because it is no secret that Herman Cain has an exploratory committee set up to determine if he should run for President.

The brilliance of this article is in helping people to understand that when energy prices increase, it ripples through the economy. Energy prices are directly related to the prices you pay for groceries and the number of jobs that are available. So, isn't it just common sense to develop our own energy in America, create jobs, and avoid having to purchase energy resources from countries that don't like us?

Who needs their oil, anyway?

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

March 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In the early 1970s, America's dependence on foreign oil was a little over 20 percent. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is over 65 percent. We have become more and more energy dependent because we have never had a serious energy independence strategy, and we still do not have one.

Energy independence is within our grasp because we have plenty of energy natural resources. We have billions of barrels of oil, plenty of natural gas reserves, more coal than any other country in the world, lots of places we could build dams for hydroelectricity and some of the safest nuclear power technology in the world.

Wind and solar energy development is not going to get us to energy independence. Studies such as the Department of Energy's "Billion Ton Study" have shown that those two sources could at best provide 5 percent of our energy needs combined.

But by maximizing all of our other domestic energy resources, we could become energy independent. This would not only help to keep down the cost of gasoline and the cost of nearly everything we buy, but it would also be a boost to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. But most importantly, energy independence would keep us from being vulnerable to the current instability in the Middle East or the whims of OPEC.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Gas price too high? Here's whom to thank ~ By Henry Lamb

On top of all this, consider that China and India are increasing their use of carbon-based fuels to expand their economies dramatically. They are using cheap carbon energy to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines for use in America to generate energy that is outrageously expensive. What sense does this make? It certainly "spreads the wealth around" at the expense of Americans.

The only way to stop this nonsense is to continue the revolution started in November, 2010 and intensify efforts to put a majority in the Senate who understand and respect the U.S. Constitution and value a free-market economy. If the current administration can be replaced with a president who believes government has no business spreading around other people's wealth, and that the U.S. must become self-sufficient in energy production, while defending our borders at home and our interests abroad, then we can open ANWR, drill offshore and use the resources within our own nation.

Those who object to this goal should be re-tested.

Henry reveals the real reasons for our high gas prices. You probably won't be surprised to find out that much of it may have to do with "spreading the wealth around."

Henry Lamb actually discloses something that has been no secret for a long time, and yet, those that are executing such an idiotic plan are not phased by the fact that their policies are destroying America. Oh, wait, let me be clear. The progressive elites are really not that stupid, I suppose, being that many had graduated from Ivy League schools. So, that could mean only one other possibility: Their destruction of America is INTENTIONAL! And, if you still don't believe that, Henry's column will be another piece of the puzzle that will result, eventually, in giving you the ability to see the whole picture.

Gas price too high? Here's whom to thank

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

March 12, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

In December 1996, Bill Clinton vetoed legislation that would have added more than a million barrels of domestic oil per day to help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. His reasoning at the time was that ANWR could not produce oil for 10 years, a laughable excuse.

For years, responsible congressmen fought to open ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).

The real reason ANWR remains closed to needed domestic oil production is the relentless propaganda campaign waged by green organizations that preach the now-discredited gospel of global warming. These organizations contribute heavily to Democratic candidates and, during the Clinton administration, occupied the White House and management positions of federal agencies. (See this report and especially endnote No. 30.)

The Bush administration tried again to expand domestic oil production. Congressional Democrats would not allow it. They filibustered Sen. Ted Stevens' bill to open ANWR in 2005, and in 2008 killed a bill to expand off-shore drilling. Had the greens, the Dems and Clinton not conspired to prevent the expansion of domestic oil production nearly two decades ago, America could be nearly self-sufficient in energy production today.

Video provided by Veracifier on Apr 29, 2008

Obama may be worse than all of the above. Van Jones, his first green-jobs czar, is a self-proclaimed communist. His "Green Collar Economy" cannot exist unless carbon-based energy is either outlawed or taxed to a price point beyond the price of his proposed alternative energy. Carol Browner, his choice for global-warming czar, is a socialist. She served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration and hates the use of carbon-based energy in America.

There is no reason to force an already stressed economy into a "green" economy where, for example, a Chevy Volt costs $41,000 (before the $7,500 tax credit) for a mid-size hatchback that's rated 40 mpg highway. Dozens of mid-size cars are available for half the price with mpg ratings in the mid or high 30s. A "green" economy requires massive subsidies from government and/or increased taxes on carbon-based energy to equalize the playing field. This kind of manipulation is not a free-market economy. It is a major factor in rising gas prices and other energy costs.

What's happening in the Obama administration may be much worse than the price of gasoline. His admission to Joe the Plumber that he wants to "spread the wealth around" is a goal that is not limited to the United States. Even in defiance of a court order, Obama refuses to allow off-shore drilling for domestic energy. He has no reluctance, however, to provide $2 billion in funding for drilling off the Brazilian coastline. He is trying to spread the wealth to Brazil, while preventing wealth creation in U.S. oil fields.

Video provided by Obamamania on Oct 13, 2008

Obama's desire to spread the wealth around includes spreading American-generated wealth to foreign countries. It was Obama who pushed his "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) to increase foreign aid to the level dictated by the U.N.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Where the jobs are ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Everyone agrees that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Everyone agrees that we need to increase American jobs.

Everyone, except perhaps the president and his minions in the majority, agrees that the government cannot afford to subsidize either of these goals.

Both of these goals can be achieved quite easily with no government subsidy: drill here; drill now!

Congress could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the twinkling of a Senate vote. This would pave the way to upwards of 10 billion barrels of new crude for America. Paving the road to this new inventory would provide employment for as many as 735,000 people – at no cost to the government.

Congress could open the oil-rich areas offshore, where as much as 85 billion barrels of oil is waiting for our use. Every new barrel produced provides new jobs for America – at no cost to the government.

Instead of choosing this perfectly logical course of action, the president and his minions in the majority chose to spend $159 billion to create 640,000 jobs.That's $248,000 per job, for a job that typically pays much less than $100,000 per year and in many cases will last only a few months. How dumb is that?

When a stupid program doesn't work as well as was projected, the only thing to do is to up the ante and do it again. That's why the president wants to spend another $100 billion doing what didn't work last time. How dumb is that?

This stupidity cannot be laid at the feet of this president alone. Democrats, and a few Republicans, in Congress have justified this wrongheadedness on the U.N.'s threat that the continued use of carbon fuels would sink the continents and fry the polar regions. Anyone who still believes this nonsense has refused to read the preponderance of evidence that is now available.

Global warming that may have occurred over the last century is well within the range of normal variability.

READ FULL STORY >

Do you know what ANWR is?

The truth about drilling in Alaska is plainly seen in this post on ANWR. You'll discover the myth surrounding the "Depleted Wildlife" situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay.

Of course, we wouldn't want to destroy a prestine place like this. The trouble is, this isn't the area of ANWR that we want to drill in. The trouble is, Democrats and their useful idiots in the MSM want you to think it is, because they want the price at the pump to go up to at least $5.00/gallon. That of course will keep us from driving our SUV's so much, thus cutting down green house exhaust emmisions, and we could prevent the average world temperature from going up that whole 0.1 degree in the next twenty years...

"NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? YOU CAN START BY BLOGGING THIS SITE and SENDING THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. SO THEY WILL KNOW THE TRUTH."

read more | digg story