April 30, 2012

Media Diverts Attention from Obama Record

by Donald G. Mashburn

If you thought the national news media was all about reporting news that’s important to the nation’s wellbeing, think again. The recent media emphasis on trivial and overworked events indicates their desire to divert attention of voters from major issues leading up to the November elections.

Those in the media who push the liberal agenda – don’t be misled by the endless repetition of the “progressive” label – realize that President Barack Obama can’t run on his record and win in November.

They know that the hard facts are against his reelection, whether those facts deal with debt, spending, energy policy, or unemployment, etc. So in their bitterly partisan manner, they’re resorting to the junk news non-stories about conservatives, Republicans, big business, women, or just about anyone who finds the liberal agenda lacking.

There’s a certain air of desperation in their efforts. They seize the slightest opportunity to belittle anyone and anything that opposes the Obama socialistic agenda. They grab onto trivia that has no national significance, now or in the future. But their stories have become tiresome and hard to stomach.

In recent weeks we’ve been subjected to a steady diet of junk news.” There was the liberal media non-story of how Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and his family, on a vacation trip – 30 years ago! – transported a dog in a carrier strapped to the top of their car. The Romney family filled the vehicle, so the family resorted to using a carrier atop the vehicle to take the dog with them.

The stories vary as to whether the carrier was a made-for-dogs transport carrier or a crate. All we can ascertain is that the liberal media have howled about how this was cruel to the Romney pet. We haven’t heard how happy the dog was to be taken along.

My aching clavicle! Can’t the media find something of substance to write about?

Even Romney defenders joined in the trivia. Someone found in Obama’s memoir an admission that as a child, when he lived in Indonesia in the 1960s, the future president ate dog meat. That was more than 40 years ago! Dog meat has been eaten in many parts of the world, for a variety of reasons, and the boy-ate-dog story wasn’t news, not even junk news.

The Obama supporters seem bent on being the silliest of the silly. One of the latest flaps arose from the claim that Ann Romney, wife the Republican presidential candidate, “has actually never worked a day in her life.” That remark grades high on the “dumb scale” for any supposedly informed reporter or commentator. It was made by Hilary Rosen, who should have known better, as Ms. Rosen is a Democratic strategist and CNN analyst.

Ann Romney is the mother of five children, and the wife of a Republican candidate for president. She’s not a candidate for any office. She may be a prospective first lady, but the title of “mother” fits that position quite well, thank you.

The media’s fixation on junk news non-stories has become repugnant to most of us. Americans are worried about the nation’s wellbeing, not partisan carping. We are angered when campaign supporters and sycophantic media talking heads blather on about trivia when, according to April reports, 12.7 million persons are unemployed.

We are hacked-off no little when time is spent whining about a family vacation 30 years ago, while, as this is written, the national debt stands at $15.7 TRILLION.

We want news that means something. News that informs us. In brief, we are tired of being seen as ignorant, obtuse, mentally challenged dunces that will vote against someone because of some non-story about something that happened decades ago. The Obama reelection machine, and their supporters at CNN and other like-minded media outlets demean the election process by putting out the junk news stuff. We no doubt can expect it to become worse as November gets closer.

In the meantime, savvy voters should note the efforts of the liberal media to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s actual record.

It’s a sorry record, when you look at the unemployment rate that stands at 8.2 percent.

It looks worse when you realize the administration’s non-business policies have swelled the unemployed ranks to 12.7 million people, all of whom need a job.

Obama’s administration has given us an all-time high national debt of $15.7 Trillion

His administration has pumped up the debt so high that it now amounts to $50,010 for each of us – even for each new baby born today, tomorrow, the day after, and the day after, ….

*********

April 30, 2012

Obama’s Foolish Fight Against Fossil Fuels

by Donald G. Mashburn

President Barack Obama’s fight against fossil fuels is both shortsighted and foolish. Shortsighted because there are no commonsense and economical alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal, and foolish because any reasoned evaluation that the real world runs largely on energy from fossil fuels.

If we talk about electricity, and the growing need for it, we should realize that most of it comes to us courtesy of fossil fuels. The biggest contributors re coal, natural gas and oil. Hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear and wind power make contributions, but nothing on the scale generated by fossil fuels.

The Obama administration activists have seemingly set out on a course to hamstring the development of our domestic energy resources. They, led by the president, have blocked off huge offshore areas of great potential. They have kept us from drilling an almost miniscule 2000 acres of ANWAR on the frozen, barren coastal plains of Alaska. And, without any technology or knowledge to back them up, the activists in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are trying to keep American petroleum innovators and entrepreneurs from making the United States from becoming independently self-sufficient in oil production.

The oil and gas industry has applied new drilling and completion technology to gas-bearing shale, and have increased natural gas supplies so successfully that gas that sold for around $13 to $14 per million Btu some four years ago recently was selling for only $1.80-$1.90 in the Louisiana spot market.

When we speak of energy needs for electricity, we obviously need to consider all fossil fuels: coal, natural gas, and oil. For these are the major sources of heat energy that gets converted to electricity.

But when we speak of energy for transportation, we of necessity are forced to look at fuels provided by the petroleum. Thankfully, that industry historically has been highly innovative and successful in spite of natural obstacles and governmental hindrances. Now, in this present age of burgeoning technology of many types, the nation’s leaders – if they are leaders, and not merely political advocates, must think in terms of what makes engines go, what makes turbines turn, and what provides lift and thrust for vehicles that fly through the air.

For now, cars and trucks need – and the nation must travel on – energy supplied from what we call the “oil fields” of the world. That term includes natural gas production, also. It’s true that natural gas is finding a niche as a fuel for automotive purposes. And it’s true that batteries can move a car a short distance before it needs recharging. But when it comes to the nation’s need for its millions of cars and trucks, and its thousands of aircraft, we’re going to be dependent for a long time on what comes out of an oil well, called crude petroleum.

The stuff that gets transported to a refinery to be made into gasoline and diesel, which then is trucked to service stations all over the country to provide fuel for our vehicles so we can get to work, haul what we need to haul, travel as we want, and fly to any airport we can get a plane to.

Out almost total dependence on petroleum for surface and air transportation make President Obama’s fight against fossil fuels foolish, shortsighted, and harmful to the wellbeing of the nation and its citizens.

Of course, we should and must explore alternative fuels and fuel sources. We should investigate, experiment, and test every possible source of heat energy that can converted to other forms of useful energy, such as electricity, heat energy, and work.

President Obama seems to be ill-equipped to understand our energy dependence. Even when flying around the country in Air Force One, he seems oblivious to his and our dependence on petroleum products. When he recently flew on Air Force One to Oklahoma City for what was clearly a campaign trip to falsely claim credit for “oil credentials,” the flight cost the taxpayers more than $181,700 per hour on his Boeing 747, according to a recent government report.

The president uses (or wastes) jet fuel from oil seemingly without a thought. He saves the “green” rhetoric for his base. But he should start thinking, not of reelection, but of the nations dependence on oil, and how we can develop more of it.

It can be done. American ingenuity, applied to the Bakken oil shale in the North Dakota-Montana area has brought an oil boom, and thousands of jobs along with it. The boom has boosted North Dakota’s oil production from a token level to more than 400 barrels per day. That helps North Dakota to now rank in the top five among states in oil production.

The oil activity has spawned a housing boom in Bismarck and other communities. New homes are being build because oil workers, who make very good wages and salaries, need housing. The local entrepreneurs are responding by identifying needs and working to supply them.

The Obama hypocrisy on oil development was on full display at Cushing, Oklahoma, the nation’s largest oil storage and pipeline terminal. Standing in front of a stack of pipe, the president said that under his administration oil production had increased by so much. He implied that his policies and his administration was should be credited for that increase. But what the president did not say was that some 96 percent of that increase took place on private land, and the government did nothing to aid the effort.

President Obama hasn’t learned that words the equivalent of actual results. His administration continues to oppose oil development in nearly all of the newly prospective offshore areas, and in places like ANWR that have high probability of providing significant oil supplies. Yet in the months leading to the November election, he’s trying to convince voters that he is actually “pro-oil.”

If he wants to avoid the label as the political world’s greatest hypocrite, he needs to tone done his foolish fight against fossil fuels, and for one make his actions match his many words.