Chemtrails: Geoengineering or a Vehicle for Mass Genocide?
[CWNewsONLINE.net]
Posted: May 6, 2013
By: Justin Waldman
This story begins as I was discussing chemtrails and contrails with a friend. The “chemtrail” stories have, generally, not surfaced in the national mainstream media news, yet. Yes, there are some markets that have run their stories on the lasting impressions of these sky phenomenon. Some news outlets have had discussions with qualified meteorologists, geologists, and former military experts.
The difference between “contrails” and “chemtrails” is very different. Contrails refer to gasses and condensation that is expelled from an aircraft jet, or other, engine. Chemtrails refer to aircraft spreading specific gasses, particles, or substances that are being deliberately spread over the atmosphere in certain areas to accomplish a scientific experiment. This difference between the two is that contrails evaporate and and quickly dissipate. Chemtrails, on the other hand, are said to linger for hours or days over the sky leaving (sometimes) a hazy-white fog in the midsts of what would otherwise be blue sky.
Geoengineering for the good of the planet (i. e. cloud seeding for rain, specific attempts to control certain rays from the sun through reflective means, or other non-lethal means) is said to be a science to accomplish certain specific experiments or tests to help our society in specific ways. There are scientists doing research for the good of our planet. Yet, there are skeptics that believe it is a government attempt at reducing our population.
Nevertheless, how do we know the “intent” of government or scientific research if we are not made aware of it? There are some conspiracy theorists that have successfully launched investigative work towards finding the truth about this phenomenon.
It’s so cold; it’s GLOBAL WARMING – No, it’s a HOAX!
[CWNewsONLINE.net]
April 10, 2013
By Justin Waldman
Last week I was listening when this young 13-year-old boy named Alex called Rush Limbaugh. Funny, how the Left Liberals get so pushed out of shape with people who don’t believe in “man-made global warming.” This call is reverberating across the media. And it’s all because of this call to Rush.
Why is the left so worried about a young boy doing his own research come to that conclusion? Just as Alex said, they do not want to believe the lie and the evidence. It’s also because of the AGENDA behind all of the proposed precepts that global warming is caused by carbon released into the air.
FACT: DID YOU KNOW THAT PLANTS DEPEND ON CARBON DIOXIDE TO SURVIVE? AND WE DEPEND ON PLANTS BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE OXYGEN.
Obama’s agenda includes getting into this global lie of climate change and man-made global warming is bad, therefore, we must do something about it. In his first term, the progressive Left tried to pass a law that would enact Cap and Trade, which would be a way to tax industry for carbon (CO2) pollution.
This “science” and it’s proponent politicians have been trying to make carbon units a “commodity” for trading. I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s true. Be like Alex and do your own research. This is why the progressive left is so afraid! It’s a hoax to make money.
That’s why there is this global push for “green” energy, carbon reduction, pollution taxes, etc. It’s all based on a lie. The University East Anglia emails have proved it. To me, this is rotten how the progressive Left still wants people to believe this LIE.
Obama Pursues Higher Tax Rates, Growth Be Damned
[Townhall.com]
May 21, 2012
In the run-up to this weekend’s G-8 summit at Camp David, journalists have unfavorably compared European “austerity” with Barack Obama’s economic policies.
European spending cuts, the argument goes, have hurt people and are arousing political opposition, while Obama’s proposals to keep federal spending at 24 percent of gross domestic product indefinitely are likely to succeed.
Evil Republican spending cuts, in contrast, would deny the economy needed stimulus and wreak havoc on ordinary people. But the facts undermine the storyline. Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University took a look at what “austerity” in Europe actually means.
First Solar CEO grilled for dumping stock after taxpayer loan
[HumanEvents.com]
First Solar chairman of the board Michael Ahearn, who was once CEO of that fabled “green energy” disaster, hopped on his corporate jet and flew to Washington this week, for a nostalgic look back at President Obama’s “investments” held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I asked House Oversight chairman Darrell Issa if Ahearn’s jet was solar-powered, or perhaps powered by lightning strikes like the one used by France’s new socialist president Francoise Hollande, but the busy Chairman hasn’t gotten back to me yet.
The House hearing bore a title that could serve as one of American history’s great rhetorical questions: “The Obama Administration’s Green Energy Gamble: What Have All The Taxpayer Subsidies Achieved?” One of the President’s notable achievements was inspiring Ahearn to sell over $450 million of his own company’s stock between 2008 and 2012, a period when First Solar’s stock value dropped by almost 95 percent.
Michael Ahearn might have thought his own company was a lousy investment, but who was he to question the investment wisdom of Barack Obama? In August 2011, after years of collapsing First Solar value, and undoubtedly tense conversations between Ahearn and his broker, the President – which means you – subsidized a billion-dollar Department of Energy loan to First Solar. A couple of days later, Ahearn celebrated by selling another 700,000 shares of his own First Solar stock, raking in a cool $68.5 million.
Life is not tough for everybody under Obamanomics.
Meteorologist: Gore going insane with ‘bullsh–’
[WND.com] EXCLUSIVE
May 6, 2012
‘Tipper certainly deserves better than this buffoon’
Al Gore’s now infamous “Bullsh–” speech is evidence the former U.S. vice president is becoming a raving lunatic, charges a meteorologist who exposes the prime disciple of so-called global warming in a brand-new book.
“He’s clearly becoming mentally unstable,” says Brian Sussman, author of “Eco-Tyranny.”
During his address, Gore claimed special interest groups “pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’
Civil War shipwreck creates hurdle for government’s $653M plan
[FoxNews.com]
Associated Press
Published May 05, 2012
May 4, 2012: This undated image provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shows a rendering of the CSS Georgia, a Confederate warship that sank in the Savannah River nearly 148 years ago in Savannah, Ga.
Before government engineers can deepen one of the nation’s busiest seaports to accommodate future trade, they first need to remove a $14 million obstacle from the past — a Confederate warship rotting on the Savannah River bottom for nearly 150 years.
Confederate troops scuttled the ironclad CSS Georgia to prevent its capture by Gen. William T. Sherman when his Union troops took Savannah in December 1864. It’s been on the river bottom ever since.
Now, the Civil War shipwreck sits in the way of a government agency’s $653 million plan to deepen the waterway that links the nation’s fourth-busiest container port to the Atlantic Ocean. The ship’s remains are considered so historically significant that dredging the river is prohibited within 50 feet of the wreckage.
So the Army Corps of Engineers plans to raise and preserve what’s left of the CSS Georgia. The agency’s final report on the project last month estimated the cost to taxpayers at $14 million. The work could start next year on what’s sure to be a painstaking effort.
EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21
[PatriotUpdate.com]
Friday, May 4, 2012
One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven’t heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.
Of course, there were President Bill Clinton’s establishment of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order in 1993 and President Obama’s “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have been incorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21 grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.
The establishment of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN’s ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21. We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make the PCSD appear to be completely separate from the UN’s Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, said the following in 1998:
Washington Crucifies Job Creators
[PersonalLiberty.com]
May 4, 2012 by Chip Wood
Armendariz was in charge of enforcing EPA regulations in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and New Mexico. He was appointed to his post in November 2009 by President Barack Obama and quickly demonstrated a zeal for the job. He was infamous for his office’s harsh prosecution — many would say persecution — of any company that fell afoul of EPA regulations.
In a lecture two years ago, Armendariz explained his “philosophy of enforcement” to the audience:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
That’s a pretty chilling and cold-blooded attitude, wouldn’t you say? Notice that guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Armendariz’s methodology. All he’s concerned about is how quickly and how ruthlessly he can intimidate his subjects.
Email Claims: Obama Promised Solyndra CEO He Would Look Into Buying Solyndra’s Solar Panels for Gov’t Buildings
[CNSNews.com]
President Barack Obama visits Solyndra headquarters in Fremont, Calif., on May 26, 2010. (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – Less than three months after President Barack Obama’s May 26, 2010 visit to the Solyndra plant in Fremont, Calif., a Solyndra investor claimed in an e-mail to the company’s new CEO, Brian Harrison, that during Obama’s visit he had personally witnessed the president “actually promise” the company’s previous CEO, Chris Gronet, that he would “look into” having the federal government buy Solyndra’s solar panels to place on federal buildings.
About a month and a half after Obama’s visit to Solyndra, internal government emails show, an Energy Department official sought to arrange a meeting between the government’s procurement agency and the Solyndra CEO to whom Obama had talked.
“Getting business from Uncle Sam is a principal element of Solyndra’s channel strategy,” the investor, whose name was redacted, said in an Aug. 10, 2010 email to Solyndra CEO Harrison and Steve Mitchell, managing director of Argonaut Private Equity, which was Solyndra’s largest private investor.
“When Obama visited Solyndra in June, 2010, Chris Gronet spoke very openly to Obama about the need for installation of Solynra’s rooftop solar on U.S. government buildings,” the investor wrote. “I heard Obama actually promise Chris [Gronet] that he would look into it when he returned to Washington. The point is that the government has to pay for energy no matter what. The capital funding to deploy a lot of rooftop solar on government buildings (say $300 million) just falls off the table in Washington anyway.”
Obama: Vote For Me Or The Kids Die… [Huh??]
Posted: April 07, 2012
President Obama suggested this evening that the Republican governing agenda will lead to “poisoning our kids” with pollution.
“I believe that it is part of our solemn responsibility to future generations that we look after this planet; that we make sure our air is clean and our water is clean; that we’re not poisoning our kids,” Obama said at a campaign fundraiser tonight. That credo came as he explained that “the contrast between visions in this election could not be more stark, because I believe that America is stronger when we’re looking for one another.”
Obama’s line evokes his Associated Press speech this week, when he said Republicans believe that if the government “let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we’d all be better off.” Mitt Romney, at his Associated Press luncheon speech, dismissed Obama’s “rhetorical excess.” (04-06-2012)
Coming Soon: The Commercials that Obama Fears
[American Thinker]
March 14, 2012
By Ed Lasky
President Obama knows that every public statement he makes is recorded and lives forever on the internet. That is cause for serious worry. The best campaign ad to run against Obama is one that uses his own words — and those of the officials he has empowered — against him. When it comes to high gasoline prices, this is a target-rich environment.
Two new polls show that Americans’ opinion of Barack Obama has taken a dive. The Washington Post headline “Gas Prices sink Obama’s ratings on economy” zeroes in on the impact of high gas prices on his political prospects. A New York Times/CBS poll released the same day shows a similar dramatic decline and states that Obama is heading into the general election on “treacherous political ground” and also chalks up at least part of the decline to much higher prices at the pump over the last few months.
High gas prices are a particular vulnerability of Obama’s since they affect so many people so many times a week — especially in those battleground states where people are forced to drive long distances. Each of those signs is free advertising for the Republicans. They can’t be explained away by Barack Obama’s friends in the media.
[Warning to Obama] Canada To Sell Their Oil To China If XL Pipeline Isn’t Approved Soon
[FloppingAces.net]
Obama “the job destroyer” has come even closer to not only losing all the jobs that would come with the XL Pipeline but also losing all that oil:
Canada is now looking to Asian countries to market its abundance of oil, natural gas and minerals as plans to build the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have stalled with the U.S. administration.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper will travel to China next month to discuss selling Canada’s bounty to the rapidly growing nation.
The preferred initial plan was to build the $7 billion Keystone pipeline to deliver Alberta’s oilsands crude to refineries in Texas on the Gulf of Mexico.
Harper reasoned that the U.S. government would prefer to deal with a friendly neighbor to help meet its energy needs while creating thousands of jobs.
With widespread opposition by U.S. environmentalists, the Obama administration has delayed its decision on whether to approve the project proposed by energy giant TransCanada Pipelines.
Call the Liberals’ Bluff: Oil Subsidies Should Go
[BigGovernment.com]
Posted Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:01 pm
by Jamie Radtke
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, David Gregory asked Barack Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, “Should government be playing venture capitalist to try to prop these interest–industries up [referring to Solyndra]?”
Plouffe’s answer: “Well, let’s step back for a minute. We have to win this race, you know, we–if we don’t win the clean energy race in terms of technology, innovation, and jobs, and cede it to other countries, we’re not going to have the century–we need this. It’d be like us ceding the automotive industry race or the Internet and computer race.” [emphasis mine]
What pure balderdash! I am sure that Henry Ford would not be happy to hear that the White House was taking credit for his successes – like inventing the assembly line. The success of the American automotive industry and Internet was not because the government subsidizing Henry Ford or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; it was because private investors saw the value of their ideas.
David Gregory’s question goes to the heart of our economic train wreck. Where in the Constitution does it state that Congress should be playing the role of venture capitalist and funding one business over another? What authorizes the government to fund one particular business – whether it’s Solyndra or Exxon – with everyone else’s money?
Ethanol producers receive billions in government subsidies. What does it accomplish? It increases the price the farmers pay to feed their livestock, devours huge quantities of the corn supply (more than 40%), and increases the price of corn for American families and families around the world. How crazy is that – a government subsidy that drives up the cost of food?
Obama’s Solyndra Scandal Reeks of the Chicago Way
[BigGovernment.com]
Posted Sep 17th 2011 at 1:27 pm
by Publius
From the invaluable John Kass in The Chicago Tribune:
The Solyndra scandal cost at least a half-billion public dollars. It is plaguing President Barack Obama. And it’s being billed as a Washington story.
But back in Obama’s political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls “optics.” In fact, it’s not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros.
The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts.
Gore, Reid and More of Stimulus’ Biggest Bust: Obama’s Perfect September Storm
BigGovernment.com
Posted Aug 12th 2011 at 1:45 pm
This WaPo article — “Obama tries to change subject back to green jobs” — is an instant classic of a new, Obama-era genre: cheerleading for expensive schemes which exist solely due to political whimsy and consideration, and are therefore little more than make-work.
The item begins, “After spending weeks talking about topics he probably would have preferred to avoid — debt limits, deficits, a plunging stock market — President Obama will hit the road Thursday to talk about jobs. Specifically, about how his administration is trying to create more of them.”
The green ones. Which schemes failed where the president used to tell us to look but no longer does because the failures were exposed. As his spokesman admits “the White House doesn’t create jobs”.
And his critics say he’s out of ideas! But, hmm. Yes. I suppose that ‘green jobs’ thing went over well last time he led with it. Still, if ending up as a punch-line is victory, what does defeat look like?
More to the point, how much would whatever constitutes defeat cost us? Because WaPo says about this, the Obama administration’s chosen, sterling example of the economy they seek to design (what happened to telling us to look to Spain?), in return for $305 million in cited wealth transfers, “All told, the company has said its advanced battery operations could create 500 new positions.”
That is, this rosy, nice round-numbered scenario of ‘could’ (read: unlikely), produce temporary jobs — that is, they all disappear when the wealth transfer and/or mandates or preferences are burned through — at $610,000 per.
The WH’s Man Made Energy Crisis
VisionToAmerica.com
Victor Davis Hanson
March 24, 2011
Gas is well over $4 a gallon in most places in California — and soaring elsewhere as well. But are such high energy prices good or bad?
That should be a stupid question. Yet it is not, when the Obama administration has stopped new domestic offshore oil exploration in many American waters, curbed oil leases in the West, and keeps oil-rich areas of Alaska exempt from drilling. Last week, President Obama went to Brazil and declared of that country’s new offshore finds: “With the new oil finds off Brazil, President [Dilma] Rousseff has said that Brazil wants to be a major supplier of new stable sources of energy, and I’ve told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which would be a win-win for both our countries.”
Consider the logic of the president’s Orwellian declaration: The United States in the last two years has restricted oil exploration of the sort Brazil is now rushing to embrace. We have run up more than $4 trillion in consecutive budget deficits during the Obama administration and are near federal insolvency. Therefore, the United States should be happy to borrow more money to purchase the sort of “new stable sources of energy” from Brazil’s offshore wells that we most certainly will not develop off our own coasts.
High-Speed Rail and the Poverty of Obamanomics
BigGovernment.com
Posted Feb 17th 2011 at 4:37 am
Hard on the heels of his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in which he jawboned the owners of private businesses to increase hiring in return for federal tax breaks and other subsidies, President Obama has included in his budget request for fiscal year 2012 a proposal to make a $8 billion down payment on a six-year, $53 billion taxpayer-financed “investment” in high-speed rail.
The president’s budget proposal is a bad idea for at least two reasons. First and foremost, the public sector has little or no incentive to spend the taxpayers’ money in ways that maximize the ratio of benefits to costs. What is more important, no public transit system in the country, with the possible exception of New York City’s subway, generates passenger revenues sufficient to cover operating costs, let alone capital costs. All others gush red ink year after year.
Passenger fares on public transit modes typically are set at rates below full cost in order to maximize ridership and to “prove” that transportation via bus or rail is a worthy public service.
It may be reasonable to assume that high-speed rail transportation in the Northeast corridor, linking Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and Boston, could pay its own way, but that conclusion depends on the relative cost of rail versus air and automobile travel among those same cities.
Obama Coal Crackdown Sends Message to Industry
FoxNews.com
By Doug McKelway
Published January 17, 2011
In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn it’s energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.
Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.
The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia’s two Democratic Senators.
Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw
BigGovernment.com
Posted Nov 27th 2010 at 10:23 am
In my Big Journalism piece, “How an Enviro-Advocacy Group Propped Up Global Warming in the MSM – A Nov 2 Election Connection” I described how the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” phrase is a viral accusation against global warming skeptic scientists. The beauty of the phrase is its simplicity and powerful influence, even when people misstate organizations associated with it. Al Gore disciples say global warming is a proven fact, all scientists know this, but a minority received massive energy industry funding to say the science isn’t settled.
The phrase is prominently seen in Gore’s movie, full screen in red letters for six seconds, followed by a slide of a very old cigarette advertisement as a setup for the next slide where Gore quoted a supposedly leaked tobacco industry memo, “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a controversy in the public’s mind.”
Gore didn’t identify the origins of the “reposition” phrase in the movie, so errors occurring when it was repeated it are understandable. I’ve seen offbeat errors where blog writers say the phrase came from “a surgeon general”, that it was “a leaked government memo”, that it is part of “a movement by politicians to reposition global warming”, or that it was “memos circulated by some of today’s oil companies.”
But Gore himself said this, in a 2008 YouTube video, starting at the 29:10 point,
Exxon Mobil has funded 40 different front groups that have all been a part of a strategic persuasion campaign to, in their own words ‘reposition global warming as theory rather than fact’
This is inexplicably contradictory to the book version of his movie – although it takes one additional step to understand why - when he says in reference to:
…a relatively small but extremely well-funded cadre of special interests, including Exxon Mobil and a few other oil, coal, and utilities companies…. One of the internal memos prepared by this group to guide the employees they hired to run their disinformation campaign was discovered by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ross Gelbspan. Here was the group’s stated objective: to “reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact.
As I pointed out in my July American Thinker article, Gelbspan is neither the discoverer nor a Pulitzer winner, and a careful examination of his 1997 book The Heat is On reveals he specifically said the “reposition” phrase came exclusively from the 1991 Information Council on the Environment (ICE) public relations campaign, created by group of utility and coal industries.
Utility and coal, not oil – or oil industry associations.
Sorry Inconvenient Truthers, the ‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ Is Still Skeptical
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 17th 2010 at 7:17 am
Two weeks ago the U.K. Guardian gleefully reported that the self-proclaimed “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg, the best-selling writer on the environment, professor, and director of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank, had made a serious acquiescence to the global warming climate change global climate disruption movement that could quite possibly change the face of the entire conversation. From the article:
The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.
Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled “sceptical environmentalist” once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN’s climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.
But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. “Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,” the book concludes.
Recycled: The Other Green Energy
Liveshots-FoxNews
July 6, 2010 – 4:45 PM | by: Michael Tobin
The Obama administration just announced a handout of $2 Billion to build solar panels. The development of this type of energy is politically sexy. Jobs are created to build and maintain the panels, which scream eco-friendly every time they appear on camera.
No one is criticizing the initiative, but it overlooks a power source boasting far greater reliability and intensity than both solar and wind power. Arguably, it produces NO carbon footprint. You could even say it creates a negative carbon footprint.
The source is recycled energy. Instead of burning a fuel to create energy, it takes energy that we are otherwise throwing away and converting that into something useable. It captures heat that otherwise disappears into thin air and turns the heat into power.
Cleaning Up Obama’s Mess in the Gulf
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jun 30th 2010 at 9:27 am
by Todd Thurman
A lot of things have gone wrong in the last 72 days since oil started spilling into the Gulf, and very few things have gone right. Unfortunately, the oil spilling into the Gulf is only one of many, many problems in the Gulf. There are the obvious problems of extremely polluted water, the oil soaked animals, the oil soaked beaches, the loss of tourism, the loss of jobs, and the loss of faith in the process that is supposed to ensure things like this never happen. But, why hasn’t the oil been cleaned up? Why is the leak still spewing oil into the Gulf? BP has their fair share of blame, but so does the federal government.
The government has had a lot of missteps. The EPA would not allow ships to skim oil from the water because they couldn’t get 100% of the oil out. They could only get 99% of the oil out. They failed to get rid of the horribly outdated Jones Act that forbids foreign vessels from helping us clean up the gulf. There have been plenty of problems with the way the Federal Government has reacted to the oil spill, but it’s never too late to start getting it right.
The Heritage Foundation has put together a list of things the Obama administration can do to mitigate the damage that the oil slick can still do. These are steps that can be taken immediately, and more items will be added to the list when appropriate. Simple things like waiving the Jones Act (as the Bush Administration did during Katrina), or accepting international assistance. Or allowing ships like the S.S. A-Whale–that has the capability to skim 500,000 barrels a day– to immediately start assisting efforts. It’s in the Gulf now, but it is still not being used.
Who told Obama deep-sea drilling was “absolutely safe”?
HotAir.com
posted at 11:36 am on June 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
Byron York gives us a great whodunit today, and actually a second Obamateurism of the Day. In his speech on Tuesday, Obama defended his earlier decision to expand off-shore drilling because he had been told that such activity was “absolutely safe.” If Obama actually believed that, then a few people would like to sell him a bridge or two:
There was one particularly striking moment in President Obama’s widely panned Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil disaster. About midway through his talk, Obama acknowledged that he had approved new offshore drilling a few weeks before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion on April 20. But Obama said he had done so only “under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe.”
Absolutely safe? Even before the Gulf spill, few defenders of offshore drilling would go that far. And when the president announced his drilling plan, on March 31, he said it was “not a decision that I’ve made lightly” and that he and his advisers had “looked at [it] closely for more than a year.” Surely he was told of the possible risks.
The Greatest Ecological Disaster In The History of The United States And Obama Tells Us We Need Windmills [Reader Post]
FloppingAces.net
Posted by: Skookum @ 8:39 am, June 17, 2010
The Gulf Oil Spill has at least allowed Obama to make good on one of his campaign promises: he has managed to unite the country, the country is now more united than it has been in years; of course, we are united against the foolish Progressive Agenda of the Clown in Chief. Even the most dedicated Socialists and the most fervent Obama ideologues are realizing that Obama has neither the ability nor the experience to guide a country through this disaster or any other emergency. Rather than seeking solutions to our immediate problems, he is advancing the energy agenda that he has been behind since day one; an energy program that is detrimental to the integrity of our economy and our way of life.
CWNews Posted Comments