Paying at the Pump With Eric Bolling and Gov. Sarah Palin

If you missed the Eric Bolling – Sarah Palin Special: Paying at the Pump, aired on Fox News over the weekend, here it is.  Definitely worth the watch!

‘The Special’ offers input from experts, everyday people and some solutions including from Governor Sarah Palin and Eric Bolling…

Paying at the Pump with Eric Bolling and Sarah Palin

Video:  Paying at the Pump with Eric Bolling and Sarah Palin

The video clearly points out that energy production in America is directly related to the American economy… and in turn energy independence is directly related to American economic recovery.  This special touches on several common sense solutions.

And for the environmentalists out there, there are green solutions for clean-up.  Here’s one: check-out these products: DualZorb®, PondZorb® and AcidZorb® distributed domestically and globally by a growing company MC Endeavors, Inc. who just launched an Online Store.

Updated: 4.17.12 at 12:05 ET – National Review Online

(Curiously just on the heals of, but not a word for credit or even a mention of the Bolling- Palin special… so as stated below this seems to be the big ‘campaign’ initiative of the day, but nothing will come of it… and certainly no shared credit if something should!)

Obama Announces New ‘Oil Market Manipulator’ Hunt Four Years Straight by Jim Gerahty

President Obama’s big initiative for the day is yet another pledge to crack down on nefarious energy traders who are driving up prices of oil and gasoline.

Today: “Under pressure to take action on rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama wants Congress to strengthen federal supervision of oil markets, increase penalties for market manipulation and empower regulators to increase the amount of money energy traders are required to put behind their transactions. The White House plan, which Obama was to unveil Tuesday, is more likely to draw sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans than have an immediate effect on prices at the pump. The measures seek to boost spending for Wall Street enforcement at a time when congressional Republicans are seeking to limit the reach of federal financial regulations.”

If this pledge sounds familiar… it’s because Obama and his administration announce some new initiative to do this every year, usually as spring turns to summer and the price of gas increases as Americans drive more. It’s almost like the Cherry Blossom Festival.

Last June: “The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether oil companies have engaged in anticompetitive practices or manipulated crude oil prices, the government’s latest salvo to rein in high energy prices. The commission said on Monday it was also looking into whether oil companies had provided false or misleading information to a federal agency related to the wholesale price of oil or petroleum products. “We remain committed to preventing and prosecuting any anticompetitive, fraudulent, or otherwise illegal activity which we identify through the foregoing investigation,” commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a letter to Senator John Rockefeller, who called on the FTC in March to launch an investigation.”

Just about one year ago today, April, 2011: “With U.S. gasoline pump prices soaring, the Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a working group of federal agencies to probe potential fraud in the energy markets. The White House is worried that if average gas prices rise above $4 a gallon, the economic and political fallout could dominate next year’s presidential campaign and drown out President Barack Obama’s message of economic recovery. Obama asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to assemble a team of agency officials to “root out” cases of oil market fraud that affect pump prices, including actions by speculators.”

March 2011: “Obama said he had ordered a review of why oil companies aren’t producing more petroleum on federal land, and said his administration would monitor “any possible manipulation in the oil markets” and work with state governments to monitor for potential price gouging at the gas pump.”

July 2010: “Traders will face new rules aimed at making it easier for regulators to prove manipulation in markets for commodities such as oil, wheat and natural gas under the financial overhaul awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature.”

And then in August 2009: “Energy traders and companies will face fines of up to $1 million a day if they manipulate oil markets, the Federal Trade Commission ruled on Thursday in a crackdown on fraud that they said causes widespread damage to the U.S. economy. The agency issued a rule, which takes effect November 4, to prohibit fraud or deceit both in the cash, or physical, energy markets and on the regulated futures exchanges.”

Now… with gas averaging $3.89 per gallon nationally and much higher in many parts of the country, we can conclude that either every previous initiative announced by the administration was spectacularly ineffective at containing the nefarious menace of oil price speculators… or that oil price speculators are not really the reason gas prices increase.

Obama’s Choice: Dirty Oil (Keystone XL Oil Pipeline) or Clean Water and Land?

By Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

One big decision looms ominously on Obama’s horizon and he will not be able to blame anyone but himself for the consequences.  Obama must render the momentous verdict by November 1 to give or not to give approval for the historical Keystone XL Pipeline Project.  This pipeline will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels… tar sand oil which is vastly different from regular oil being ten times heavier than water and very corrosive.

Presidential permission is required because the 2,147-mile pipeline crosses the border between Canada and eight states of the United States.  The present route is scheduled to cross prime agriculture heartland, 19,000 square mile wetlands, and the world’s largest fresh water aquifer—the Ogallala. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

Originally proposed on February 9, 2005, it is still in the making.   It began supplying oil to Illinois and Missouri in 2010. Phase II of the project, launched in February 2011, would extend the pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma — a pivotal crude oil refining and pipeline hub and then on to the Gulf of Mexico.

According to The New American, the new segment of this project is waiting for Obama’s approval, but the Keystone XL is facing fierce opposition from landowners and concerned citizens.

“Though the pipeline has been in operation for almost a year, a new segment of the project, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion, also known as Keystone XL — which would originate in Hardisty, Alberta Canada, and run southeast through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, while incorporating Phase II of the pipeline to extend to Oklahoma markets and the Texas Gulf Coast ports of Houston and Port Arthur — is facing formidable hurdles. The Canadian government’s National Energy Board approved the expansion in 2010, but is awaiting final approval from the Obama administration”

According to the Nebraska Farmers Union, many landowners have been intimidated and threatened with the Right of Eminent Domain.  Does a foreign country owned business have that right?

In 2007, Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law Section 526 which disallows the U.S. purchase of tar sands oil.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Energy Committee, wrote to the Senate Commerce Committee in 2008, the law "applies to fuels derived from unconventional petroleum sources such as tar sands which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional sources." 

In the article it also states that the Canadian government and big oil are working  behind the scenes to get section 526 changed.

“Meanwhile, the Canadian government has been working behind the scenes to strike Section 526 from the books to clear the way for tar sands extraction. Using Freedom of Information requests, the Pembina Institute and Climate Action Network Canada uncovered a 2008 strategy memo by Canadian Embassy official Hélène Viau which urged U.S. oil lobbyists to send letters to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of State to show "concerns with regard to section 526 and argue that oil sands products should not be targeted by this provision," and to develop "a comprehensive oil sands advocacy strategy to focus on outreach to allies, influencers, legislators, etc."

And Big Oil lobbyists have taken Viau's suggestions to heart. Matt Fox, senior vice president of oil sands for ConocoPhillips warned U.S. legislators that Section 526 "could bring [oil sands] development to a screeching halt. You'd have to think twice about oil sands development if your intention was to deliver oil to the lower '48."

The debate regarding the Keystone XL involves the economic issues versus environmental issues. The final impact statement was released by the White House in August.

Video:  Why Oil Sands Pipeline Is Just Too Risky

Those who favor the pipeline list these benefits:

1. Making money for states tax revenues

2. Providing jobs

3. Advancing national security by less foreign oil dependence

Those who are against the pipeline submit:

1. Money cannot replace clean water and land

2. Jobs provided will be temporary

3. The U.S. already imports three-fourths of its oil from western sources

Quote from the Nebraska Senator Tony Fulton:

"I would be doing a bad job if I didn't step up and say that I have some concern about the proposed route of this pipeline. If that puts me on the same side as environmentalists, or folks that I don't typically see eye to eye with, so be it."

Narrator: Fulton wants TransCanada to re-route the pipeline. He is promoting legislation he hopes would give state government the power to force the company to by-pass the aquifer. He says building this pipeline without the Nebraska's input is a violation of state's rights. We ought to have some say as to how that pipeline makes its way through Nebraska. And at this point it has been President Obama, Secretary Clinton and TransCanada who have chosen this route.

Environmentalists site the Enbridge tragic tar sand oil leak in the Kalamazoo River occurring in July 2010, as an example of what will be repeated again.  Enbridge, competitor of TransCanada, says that there is no oil remaining in the river.  The EPA has estimated that over one million gallons of oil leaked into the Kalamazoo River and has still not been totally cleaned up.  Because the tar sand oil is heavier than water, it has sunk down into the river and the only way to remove it is through drudging. 

China has actively been investing in Canadian oil and many believe that the true intent of the oil pipeline is to make it easier to ship the oil from Texas ports to Asian markets.  The pipeline happens to follow part of the same route as the notorious North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) Super Highway.

The only thing Obama fears more than the Environmentalists are the Labor Unions.  The political reality is that Obama would risk losing the votes and campaign donations of ALL 1.8 million Nebraskans whose lives depend on the Ogallala for clean drinking water and even most of the Environmentalists, but he cannot afford to lose the support of ANY Labor Unions that want the pipeline built at any and all costs for the jobs and tax-base it will generate.

TransCanada has refused to reroute the Keystone from going over the Ogallala, so they are trying to save money with pipe line construction, and is choosing economic concerns over environmental concerns that relate to the aquifer. Does greed always win in this world? 

We will know for sure by November 1, which one Obama will choose… Dirty Oil or Clean Water and Land.

Related:

Obama Allies’ Interests Collide Over Keystone Pipeline

An Environmentalist's Thesaurus

'Global warming' is so passé.  This would be hysterical… if it wasn’t so scary and devious!

Some experts think the environmentalist movement has an image problem. According to them, greens are losing the battle against primeval despoilers of Nature's awesome bounty because they continue to use antiquated, in-your-face terms like "global warming," "cap and trade," and yes even "the environment." So says a new report by ecoAmerica, a cutting-edge, Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in environmental marketing and messaging, as reported in the New York Times (henceforth known as the Green Lady).

According to ecoAmerica, which has conducted rigorous, focus-group research in this area, environmentalists are taking it on the chin because politically charged terms like "global warming" conjure up images of hirsute, confrontational '60s types. "When you say 'global warming,'" Robert M. Perkowitz, ecoAmerica's president and founder, told the Times, "a certain group of Americans think that's a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues."  How about… the fact that it is just a wrong assumption?

Sadly, Mr. Perkowitz never explained how this "certain group" manages to draw a connection between global warming and gay marriage. And it must be said, I'd love to see his raw data on the subject.

In any event, to right the listing ship of sustainable biodiversity, ecoAmerica recommends that environmentalists mothball the textured scientific lingo and get right down to the nitty-gritty. That means ditching excessively technical terms like "carbon dioxide" and substituting catchy phrases like "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."

EcoAmerica also recommends jettisoning the cumbersome term "the environment" and replacing it with the infinitely more felicitous "the air we breathe, the water our children drink." The organization probably got paid tons of money for this high-level research, so its advice should not go unheeded…?

Clearly, ecoAmerica is on to something with this bold initiative. But perhaps the subtle neologisms it's proposed don't go far enough. No one pays any attention to bloodless expressions like "depletion of the ozone layer" anymore. Moreover, "depletion" is a stupid word, since what it's supposed to decry is "catastrophic destruction" of the ozone layer, not its mere shrinkage.

What is needed here is more graphic language that the man on the street can understand. Thus, instead of saying something like "If mankind continues to deplete the ozone layer, we will cause irreparable damage to the environment," activists should say: "If we keep using the dirty fuels of the past to mess up that awesome thing in the sky that prevents our butts from like totally frying at the beach, then we might as well just spew filth into the air we breathe and the water our children drink and all curl up and die right now. Am I right, or what?"

Anyone can see how more colorful, less partisan, less politically rancorous language would enable environmentalists to seize the higher ground. Now it no longer sounds like some prissy elitist's butt that's going to fry. It could be somebody in a trailer park. Maybe even Dick Cheney.

There are many other environmentalist catchphrases that could use fine-tuning. "No carbon footprint" is a term so trendy, so precious, that it cannot help but reinforce the image of environmentalists as condescending do-gooders. Surely something less deviously euphemistic would work better.

Instead of hanging a sign in the window reading, "As of midnight Tuesday, this dining establishment will no longer leave a carbon footprint," restaurant owners could hang a placard reading: "Starting Tuesday, we will no longer allow disgusting fumes to belch all over the food your kids are eating and stinking up the air you breathe. We already warned the cook."

Similarly, instead of talking about "the melting of the polar ice cap," a phrase too apocalyptically antediluvian to scare anyone anymore, environmentalists should start referring to "dead polar bears in your driveway." "Degradation of habitat" could be replaced by a more evocative phrase like "torching Bambi's crib."

The one term environmentalists should probably deep-six, though, is "biological diversity." The ding-dongs who confuse "global warming" with gay marriage might think that biological diversity refers to features of the environment that only ethnic minorities care about. At this rate, we'll never get the planet back in working order.

By:  Mr. Queenan, a satirist and writer, is the author of numerous books. His memoir, "Closing Time," has just been published by Viking.

Source: online.wsj.com

As funny as this is… the process of rebranding the Green Movement by “the powers that be” and the companies like G.E. that will benefit from Cap-and-Trade and new Green Energy Project contracts” has begun…

The bottom-line here is that Global Warming is a farce.  The Earth has actually been (overall) cooling the past 10-years, but no matter how many scientists present their studies to Congress and the White House and no matter how much the American Public is against the new “Green” program because it will cost the American taypayer more money… a lot more money as well as 'lose jobs' not increase them at a time that America just can’t afford it... the powers that be trudge on!  Cap-and-Trade is a huge tax. And 'two' jobs are actually lost in the United States for every 'one' Green job created.  As for Al Gore, is he evil?  No… just being used and a bit clueless!!  After all, he wants to be remembered for something and thinks he invented the Internet… and that should say it all.

Should we all care about the environment… absolutely!  Are there many issues that we should all get behind… stopping deforestation, cleaner disposal and recycling of our waste, loss of plant and animal species at an unimaginable rate, cleaner water, cleaner air… and the list goes on?  Should we encourage the world to stop procreating irresponsibly?… absolutely!  And should the world slowly and responsibly shift toward cleaner and renewable energy sources, with a little help from the government?... absolutely!  We should have started doing all this 40-years-ago when the flower children and hippies were protesting about it! Just like we should have planned ahead and stopped borrowing from social security and Medicare and planned for the Baby-Boomer Retirement at least 20-year-ago.  I have books in my bookcase from 20 and even 40 years ago predicting and discussing all the above.  But if you are buying into the present Green movement (rebranding of Global Warming) and Cap-and-Trade… you are being had!

Before it is too late… educate yourself, and that does not mean watch the daily regular media news, especially NBC, whose parent company is General Electric (GE) and is in the bag for the Obama White House and that has and stands to make billions. They already have received $139 Billion from the FDIC in bailout money.  HMMM… are they a bank?

  Green Hell – A Must Read!

What Can I Do?

• Educate Yourself (Starting Now) – You are living during a time that will change the America we know forever.  You owe it to yourself and future generations to pay attention
• Watch, listen and read a full spectrum of news and informational TV programs, Internet websites, newspapers, magazines and books
• Contact Your Representatives (ASAP) and let them know you are against Cap-and-Trade and that you think Global Warming is a farce
• Get Involved – Be Creative; Organize a Green Tea Party/Anti-Cap and Trade Tea Party; Tell Just One More Person…
• Stop Believing That The Government Will Look Out For You... For Us..., So Functioning as 'The Silent Majority' Is Okay!
• Cast an ‘Educated Vote’ Not An Emotional Vote in 2010 and 2012
• 
  
  American Progressivism 
  
  An Inconvenient Book
  Animal Spirits - (Engineering the Stock Market)

Green Hell – A Must Read!