Obama's Energy Rhetoric Doesn't Match His Policies from U.S. House Natural Resources Committee

President Obama Spins State of the Union Speech to

Claim Credit for Inherited Energy Successes

Administration’s Supposed Pro-Energy Rhetoric Does Not Match Anti-Energy Policies

For as much as President Obama complains about the bad economy that he inherited, he sure seems to be enjoying the inherited boom in U.S. oil and gas production on private and state lands. Last night President Obama dedicated a significant portion of his State of the Union speech to weaving a tale about what his Administration has done for American energy production. Unfortunately for the American people, President Obama’s energy policies have destroyed jobs and made America less energy secure. Here’s a look at what the Obama Administration has really done to American energy production.

CLAIM: “American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.”

FACTS:

· Increases in onshore or offshore oil and natural gas production can be attributed to previous Presidents Bush and Clinton’s pro-energy policies and the significant increase in energy production on state and private lands.

· For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 16 million barrels of oil in January 2011, compared to only a little more than 2 million in January 2002.

The majority of North Dakota’s production is on state and private land where the Obama Administration’s restrictive policies cannot hinder production.

· The Obama Administration’s actions have caused energy production on federal lands to decrease.

· In 2000 federal oil production accounted for 32% of total US production—in 2010, after two years of job destroying Obama Administration policies, federal production only accounts for 19% of total U.S. oil production.

· This begs the question, why is this Administration refusing to use our federal lands to create American jobs and produce American energy resources to grow the economy and make America more energy secure?

CLAIM: “Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration.”

FACTS:

· The Obama Administration has closed millions of areas offshore and onshore to energy production.

· President Obama effectively reinstated an offshore drilling ban off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, closed off parts of the Arctic to offshore drilling, blocked uranium mining on one million acres of land in Arizona, withdrew oil and natural gas leases in Utah, and is now imposing mandatory ocean zoning that could limit all types of energy production.

• The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.

• Under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the LOWEST number of onshore leases issued since 1984.

CLAIM: “I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”

FACTS:

· The Obama Administration has released a new draft offshore drilling five-year lease plan that CLOSES the majority of the OCS to new energy production through 2017.

· There is LESS offshore acreage open for energy production now than there was when President Obama took office when nearly 100% of the OCS was open for production.

· The Administration’s draft five-year plan prohibits offshore drilling in NEW areas and only allows lease sales to occur in areas that are already open.

· President Obama is being misleading by saying that 75% of our offshore “resources” are open. The REAL number should be acres—of the 1.76 billion acres in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, only 38 million acres—or a mere 2.16%—is actually leased for energy development.

· The draft plan only allows lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic – leaving portions of Alaska and the entire Atlantic and Pacific Coasts off-limits to new energy production and job creation.

CLAIM: “With only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.”

FACTS:

· The President is ignoring the majority of America’s energy resources. The 2% figure is a narrow estimate based on the United States’ “proven” oil reserves – currently measured at 28.4 billion barrels of oil. “Proven” reserves only means oil where we have drilled and confirmed there is oil in the ground.

· However, according to CRS the U.S. actually has 134.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the vast majority of which we haven’t drilled into to confirm if more could be there.

· Total recoverable energy reserves for the United States (combining oil, natural gas and coal) are 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent – the largest in the world.

· This number does not even take into account the large oil shale reserves in the United States. The Department of Energy estimates 1.38 trillion barrels of shale oil are recoverable from approximately 7.8 million acres of federal land. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that our oil shale reserves could be greater than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. This is five times larger than Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves.

###

House Natural Resources Committee Press Office

Contact: Spencer Pederson, Crystal Feldman or Jill Strait

202-229-9019

Radical Obama Court Nominee Defeated

Council for America and its project Americans for Sovereignty opposed the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Council for America and its thousands of supporters urged Senators to vote against cloture. Cloture failed and Liu was defeated.

Liu is yet another left-wing nominee of President Obama -- unfortunately, one of many. He is a far-left ideologue who is far out of the mainstream of jurisprudence.

On foreign law: Goodwin Liu states, “The use of foreign authority in American constitutional law is a judicial practice that has been very controversial in recent years. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited foreign authority in cases limiting the death penalty and invalidating criminal laws against homosexual sodomy, among others. The resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp, since the United States can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.”

On understanding the Constitution: Liu states, “I think that to say that all we do is we look at the text and we read the words literally, or all we do is look at the text and ask how did the people in 1789 or the people in 1868 understand it – that I think misses an entire range of experience that the nation has itself learned and that judges can rightly take into account.” He also says the Constitution is “ a living document,” “indeterminate,” and determined by “socially situated modes of reasoning…”

Mr. Liu openly supports judicial activism and the belief that a judge can interpret laws to suit their own world or political views.

Council for America in its 2011 Americans for Sovereignty Congressional Scorecard will be rating a vote against cloture as a plus vote. The defeat of Goodwin Liu’s nomination stops yet another far leftist from having a lifetime appointment to one of the highest courts of our land.

Stop It Before It START(s)

The “New START” Treaty, expected to come before the United States Senate very shortly, serves no useful national security purpose for the United States. More importantly it may fatally undermine the continued development and deployment of vitally needed missile defense systems.

The total failures of the Obama Administration to deter Iran and North Korea from proceeding with both their nuclear and missile development programs means the United States will become increasingly vulnerable to nuclear attack in the future. Thus a vibrant missile defense program is essential to Western security and should not be held hostage (as in New START) by allegedly making Russia’s strategic forces vulnerable

But in its misguided drive to “re-set” relations with an increasingly authoritarian regime in Russia, President Obama has proposed a largely politically motivated treaty that provides lopsided strategic benefits to Moscow. Russia will continue to upgrade its strategic forces while the United States would unilaterally retire some of our most potent weapons.

The entire treaty as written lacks sufficient verification procedures and turns the famous Reagan axiom on its head by, in effect, mandating that “we verify some, but mostly trust.”

Finally the attempt to rush the treaty through the final days of 111th Congress, during a lame duck session, precludes the careful deliberation a serious treaty deserves. Also, Senators should demand the negotiating documents to know what actually happened, and to make sure there are no other surprises.

The Senate’s role in the treaty-making process is vitally important. It is being seriously weakened if the START treaty is dealt with in a lame duck session. It also excludes from the process the newly elected Senators who will have the responsibility to carry out the terms of the treaty in the years ahead.

Forget American Energy Independence

Forget energy independence. Forget a sensible oil and gas drilling program. Forget reducing payments to foreign countries for our energy needs. Forget creating more good paying American jobs.

Remember the Obama Administration said back in March that it was opening more areas for drilling. It was a lie.

The Obama Administration has just put a big halt to offshore drilling off the Atlantic coast and any new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. They are also delaying two lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. And according to the Washington Post, further offshore drilling in Alaska may be postponed.

The United States is the only country in the world that severely restricts the use of its petroleum resources. Rather, we buy oil from many countries whose human rights and environmental standards are deplorable. And this new Obama policy will lead to even more such abuses.

Under the Obama policy, the earliest a new lease will be allowed is 2017.

What will the result be? More dependence on foreign oil that means less American sovereignty, more government spending on “green” energy if it is economically feasible or not, fewer American jobs, and more reliance on other countries. But then Council for America has been warning about this for months, just look at a few of our past blog posts on this subject (see in particular “Don’t Be Fooled”).

The Obama Administration has learned nothing from November. American voters said they want less government and less government spending. This decision will lead in the opposite direction. Federal and state governments spend billions of dollars a year on energy costs to heat and light buildings; to power military ships, tanks, jeeps and other vehicles; and to keep government cars and trucks on the roads. As a result of this policy, foreign countries will have even more control over our petroleum needs. Costs will go up.

If only we could forget the Obama Administration, maybe we could become energy independent.

Obama Moratorium: Hurts American Jobs and American Sovereignty

A blow struck against energy independence and jobs is a blow struck against U.S. sovereignty. President Obama’s latest oil drilling moratorium makes the U.S. even more dependent on foreign governments.

On March 31st President Obama made an announcement that seemed to open oil drilling restricted areas in an effort to foster the U.S. economy and end U.S. energy dependence on foreign oil. In the fall of 2009, British Petroleum drilled Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, and April 20th, 2010, the well blew killing eleven workers and polluting the Gulf waters.

On account of the disaster, the Secretary of the Interior fired the Minerals Management Services head Ms. Elizabeth Bernbaum. And recently, the President has placed a new moratorium on deep water drilling.

While the President Obama has put a moratorium on drilling, the U.S. Export Import Bank is providing a Brazilian company with resources to drill for oil for Brazil. Unfortunately, the Deepwater Horizon disaster shut thousands of jobs in the fishing and tour industry. According to Louisiana officials, the new moratorium will eliminate 40,000-100,000 American jobs.

At the same time, Cuba opens its coastal shores to deep water drilling. A Spanish oil company Repsol plans to begin drilling in 2011 and reports indicate that Russia and China are also planning to sign leases for deep water drilling. Much to U.S. chagrin, Cuba can officially allow drilling within 45 miles of Florida’s Key West. The drilling location is currently planned for approximately 65 miles south of Key West.

The U.S. receives one-third of its domestic oil and fifteen percent of its natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico. The President has struck out against U.S. coal and now the oil industry. Cuba is drilling off our shores, Brazil is getting U.S. government guaranteed credit to drill for more oil for themselves; and the U.S. is getting further away from energy independence. The Obama Administration is showing again that it cares little for U.S. sovereignty.

Oppose Kagan Now

Should the Supreme Court use foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, thinks so. And the Democrats in the Senate with 4 Republicans hope to have her approved by August 6.

In 1995, Elena Kagan decried the judicial nomination process declaring that it had taken “on an air of vacuity and farce.” According to her review of Stephen Carter’s book, “The Confirmation Mess,” the Supreme Court nomination debate should focus on “the understanding of the Constitution that the nominee would carry with him to the court.” She has since changed her mind as can be seen by her performance at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi wrote, “In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Kagan acknowledged that it is ‘difficult to take off the advocate’s hat and put on the judge’s hat.’ I do not have confidence that Ms. Kagan would be able to restrain her personal views and political advocacy from influencing her decisions if she were confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.”

When Ms. Kagan became the Dean of Harvard Law School, the school permitted military recruiters to use the campus recruiting facilities. Rather than continuing the present policy, she reinstated a previous dean’s policy breaking federal law and denying the military access to Harvard’s recruitment facilities.

She ignored precedence when she eliminated Harvard Law School requirements to study constitutional law and demanded that the curriculum require international and comparative law.

Her praise of Judge Barak Aharon’s judicial views (see our earlier post) shows that she will be a judge who will ignore what the Constitution says and give as much weight to foreign law as American. American freedom and American sovereignty will suffer. Barack Obama’s desire to radically change America will take a giant step forward.

To make your opinion known you can call your U.S. Senators now at 202-224-3121.

Kagan Nomination Threatens American Sovereignty

Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court would be a threat to American sovereignty. She would move the U.S. Supreme Court further left.

Just look at what she has done and said:

 She unabashedly acclaims a foreign judge known for judicial activism as her hero.

 As the Dean of Harvard’s Law School, she denied U.S. military recruiters access to Harvard Law School campus facilities even though she broke Federal law by denying access. Her position was even overwhelmingly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-0 decision with even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposing Kagan’s position.

 While at Harvard Law, she excluded Constitutional Law as a course requirement while requiring International and Comparative Law.

 In 2005, she supported the terrorists’ petition to civil review denouncing efforts to try terrorists in military tribunals. . She and three other liberal law school deans compared Congress’s bipartisan effort to clarify the laws on the War on Terror with the “fundamentally lawless” actions of a “dictatorship.”

 In the words of an Obama White House legal counsel, “She is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself.”

And let’s look in more detail at Elena Kagan’s praise – in her own words -- for that foreign judge Aharon Barak:

“I told [the judge], and I want to repeat in public, that he [Aharon Barak] is my judicial hero. He is the judge or Justice in my lifetime whom [sic], I think, best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law and of justice.”

However, according to Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, her model is an interventionist and judicial activist, one who considers legal interpretation to be fluid and “dynamic.” For Aharon Barak, the wording of a statute can take on “new meaning.” Posner writes:

“[o]ne of the most prominent of the aggressively interventionist foreign judges….[H]is book on judging is Exhibit A for why American judges should be wary about citing foreign judicial decisions…. Although Barak is familiar with the American legal system and supposes himself to be in some sort of sync with liberal American judges, he actually inhabits a completely and, to an American, weirdly different juristic universe.…”

Justice Richard Goldstone who was the chief prosecutor for criminal tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia concurs with Judge Posner and writes that, “[Aharon Barak] is unashamedly what, in U.S. terms, would be regarded as an ‘activist judge.’ ” Aharon Barak’s words confirm that a judge can practically generate a new law:

“The judge may give a statute a new meaning, a dynamic meaning, that seeks to bridge the gap between law and life’s changing reality.... The [wording of the] statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning....”

Elena Kagan’s praise of Barak needs to be investigated by the Senate. Is this the kind of U.S. Supreme Court Justice she would be?

If you can believe what Kagan says and writes, she would be an activist judge who thinks the Constitution has no fixed meaning and foreign laws should be given weight in determining what the U.S. Constitution means. This is not a nomination that bodes well for the Supreme Court, for the Constitution and for the liberties that Americans have enjoyed because of that Constitution.

Obama Administration Apology Tour Continues

A few weeks ago an Obama Administration official continued the Obama apology tour. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michel Posner told Chinese officials that the enforcement of federal immigration laws in Arizona was racial discrimination or potential discrimination. He said: "We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.” Of course, China has a terrible human rights record

Assistant Secretary Posner was referring to the recently enacted Arizona law S.B. 1070, which required enforcement of federal law! The bill reads: “No official or agency of the this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” He dismissed the law as an Arizona law fostering racial discrimination. In fact, the law reiterates and requires enforcement of federal law throughout the state of Arizona.

Besides Assistant Secretary Posner, other Obama Administration officials have spoken out against the Arizona law – much to everyone’s surprise, these high level officials have not read the law. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the federal government might challenge the law, although he recently admitted during a Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing that he had not read the bill. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also acknowledged that she had not read the bill before she publicly expressed concerns about it.

The Arizona Legislature specifically states that racial discrimination cannot trigger investigations particularly in reference to employment, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

Is China a country the Obama Administration should be apologizing to for a duly passed law in one of our states? Just a quick look at China’s record shows that the Obama Administration is way off base yet again.

The Chinese government has forced women to be sterilized and abort babies they wanted to keep. Chinese inmates are executed when organs are needed for transplants. Men and women are imprisoned for their religious beliefs, and freedom of expression and assembly are severely limited. The list is unending.

The Obama Administration does no good for human rights in China by comparing the U.S. record to China’s abominable record. The Obama State Department apologizes for and confesses the imaginary crimes of our nation to a country whose record on human rights is pitiful.

DON’T BE FOOLED

Today President Barrack Obama announced that his administration is opening up new areas for offshore drilling. Or did he?

Few would disagree, other than extreme environmentalists, that more domestic production of energy enhances American sovereignty. Opening more areas to drilling is a good thing.

And this is what President Obama said today, “today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. . . . . That's why my administration will consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic. That’s why we’ll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.”

But the language is interesting, he talks of “considering” and “continuing to support development of leased areas off the North Slope, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.” What does this mean? For one thing it means that the Obama Administration is canceling leases in the Bristol Bay of Alaska. Additionally, it is reversing the opening up of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in Alaska until scientists study these two areas longer. In addition, West Coast drilling would still be off limits.

And President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow is announcing tough new mileage and emission standards for automobiles that will add an estimated$1300 cost to each new car. This is what the Obama Administration call a balanced approach: raising costs, closing off areas for development, and maybe opening other areas.

Hope and Change? No Same Old, Same Old

President Obama's appearance at the United Nations gave him the chance to give yet another speech. This one continues his "apology" tour. He talks about how the U.S. is now a good country because his Administration has "paid our bills" (never mind that the U.S. under the previous Administration remained the largest source of funds for the U.N. of all its members). He also went on to say " we have rejoined the Human Rights Council" (even though it contains such human rights abusers as China, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, and Saudia Arabia -- to mention only a few). And then he goes on to say how the U.S. is now signing more U.N. agreements and signing on to more U.N. goals -- yet more attacks on American sovereignty.

In his speech, he again shows how his narcissism still runs rampant. For he said, "So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months. On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture . . . I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed . . .America will live its values, and we will lead by example."

In the relatively few words above President Obama shows:

• a disregard for American security

• more concern for foreign opinion about Guantanamo than about the need for Guantanamo to protect American citizens and others throughout the world from the threat these terrorists would provide if free

• a naivete that large numbers at the U.N. will follow the U.S. if we "lead by example"; too many are only interested in their own personal interests and how the unsavory regimes of which they are a part will keep power and wring as much money as possible out of the U.N. and the United States.

The U.N. has shown its true colors too often. The Obama Administration may be truly color blind when it comes to the U.N.

Who is the US Representative to the UN and what is that person doing?

Very few people even know who the US Representative to the UN is -- never mind knowing what that person is doing at the UN. Our current representative is no John Bolton who stood up for American sovereignty and for the United States.

The Obama Administration appointed Susan Rice (no relation to the former Secretary of State) to that post. She has received almost no publicity in the American media. But she is busy.

Just a few days ago she signed the "UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." From the UN press release announcing this is the following: "the Convention’s Optional Protocol allows individuals to petition an international expert body with grievances.

By signing, and then ratifying the treaty, States commit themselves to enact laws and other measures to improve disability rights, as well as abolish discriminatory legislation, customs and practices."

As we have shown in prior posts, the Obama Administration has a very spotty record in supporting American sovereignty. Is this latest action of signing a UN Convention only yet one more way to get the UN involved in American domestic policy -- somewhere the UN and its members have no right to be?