Attention conservative laymen: ‘Think’, do not ‘react’.

News outlets are turning the primary into American Idol by trying these tricks to set up conflict, 30 second answers etc. Newt was right to chastise those Fox News reporters for this.

Are the issues of the day worth more than a 30-60 second soundbite?

Some of my conservative friends are being manipulated by the “American Idoling” of the presentation, and that only serves to get Obama re-elected.

You have two choices. Stop “reacting” and start thinking OR you can be played like a Stradivarius by every leftist propagandist who knows how to pluck your conservative heartstrings.

Your heart is in the right place, but in the age of Saul Alinsky that is no longer good enough.

Donald Trump on Economics, China, Trade, Energy, Healthcare, and START.

Now that candidates will be seeking Donald Trump’s endorsement it is good to take a second look at his positions – Editor

While I do not agree with Trump on every issue, he does make some points which should be addressed in the upcoming election.

Free trade is OK as long as the enforcement is not one sided against us as it usually is, and if we don’t have a government that passes so many corrupt regulations that choke the economy and taxes businesses to the point where they flee. Trump is right that we cannot have endless consumption without production. Trump is right that ObamaCare is causing the price of health care to skyrocket.

Trump is right about START. Trump is also right that we should not be defending wealthy countries without them at least contributing to that defense.

Trump needs to understand what happens if you have a war and leave a power vacuum.

Obama Administration implemented policy to have political appointees review all FOIA requests….

So much for transparency…

Those who understand politics and corruption know what this means. This gives political appointees time to destroy documents, colluded to “get stories straight” and time to plan prior restraint and/or retaliation against those trying to gain information. This is the administration that promised unprecedented transparency. … If Bush had done this….

Yahoo News, with some editorial comments in red:

WASHINGTON – A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

The letter to Homeland Security was sent late Friday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It represents an early move by House Republicans who have vowed to launch numerous probes of President Barack Obama’s administration, ranging from its implementation of the new health care law to rules curbing air pollution to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa’s letter, Homeland Security’s chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of “significant and potentially controversial requests.”

Mary Ellen Callahan told them that political appointees reviewed the agency’s FOIA response letters for grammatical and other errors and did not edit or delay their release, the letter states. She also told the committee that Homeland Security abandoned the practice in response to the AP’s article, according to Issa’s letter. [WHAT!!. LOL – Political appointees are not going to have grammar nearly as good as a secretary/PR pro in a federal department. This reasoning is laughable. apparently the practice was not abandoned as the administration indicated – Editor]

On Sunday, Oversight panel spokesman Frederick Hill said Issa sent the letter “because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the veracity of DHS officials” on the matter. He did not elaborate.

Issa asked the agency to provide the documents by Jan. 29.

Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last summer, officials said fewer than 500 requests were vetted by political officials. The department received about 103,000 requests for information in a recent 12-month period.

The agency’s directive said political appointees wanted to see FOIA requests for “awareness purposes,” regardless of who had filed them. The AP reported that the agency’s career employees were told to provide political appointees with information about who requested documents, where they lived, whether they were reporters and where they worked. [This is disturbing because what we have seen from the NYT, Washington Post, CBS,NBC.ABC,CNN.MSNBC is that in unison, within minutes of the shooting in Arizona these elite media outlets immediately using the same spin blamed Sarah Palin and other conservatives. Several of these same outlets talking heads chastised Sarah Palin for not speaking out, and when they did they in unison said that she was injecting herself into the news. This reminds me of the 2000 election when G.W. Bush picked Dick Cheney for VP the news in unison said that Cheney was picked because he had “gravitas” (implying that Bush had none). Why have a state-run media when the so-called legit media is willing to act as the PR arm of the Democratic leadership? A reporter is looking into something he shouldn’t, so the administration leans on said reporter’s bosses and bye-bye FOIA. – Editor]

According to the directive, political aides were to review requests related to Obama policy priorities, or anything related to controversial or sensitive subjects. Requests from journalists, lawmakers and activist groups were to also to be examined.

Under a new policy last summer, documents are given to agency political advisers three days before they are released, but they can be distributed without those officials’ approval.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Related:

Obama arbitrarily revoking coal mining permits, putting people out of work, raising energy costs.

Gas prices up 55% under Obama

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

CPI: Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight by Stimulus (government picking winners and losers)

Little Truth in President’s Oil Spill Comments

SCANDAL – Administration lies about conclusion by expert panel to ban off shore drilling. “We never said that” expert panelists say. Obama still refusing skimmer ships from foreign countries….

Another Lie: Obama now fully reversed on offshore drilling.

Heritage:

Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue that could help close the federal deficit is being lost as a result of President Obama’s anti-drilling agenda.

Production in the Gulf of Mexico — which normally accounts for about 30 percent of all U.S. production — is expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With oil currently at $90 a barrel and the royalty rate at 18.75 percent, that equals $3.7 million in lost revenue each day.

If the agency projections hold over the course of the year, the federal government would lose more than $1.35 billion from Gulf royalty payments this year.

The number grows even larger when coupled with a lack of Gulf lease sales and fewer rental payments. Those three components — royalties, leases and rent — make up a sizeable amount of government revenue.

The looming shortfall is raising red flags on Capitol Hill. Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s drilling moratorium and the subsequent slowdown in permitting, first called attention to it in September.

“It’s not only about job loss along the Gulf Coast — the federal government is losing revenue as a result of the administration’s misguided moratorium,” Vitter explained.
“I’ve been attacking the moratorium from multiple angles and will continue to do so until drilling can fully resume.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled a Gulf lease sale last October. He postponed another in the central Gulf of Mexico, originally scheduled for March, until 2012. One planned for October 2011 in the western Gulf also could be delayed until 2012. That would make 2011 the first year since 1965 that the federal government has failed to hold a lease sale in the Gulf.

Bonus bids from lease sales averaged about $1 billion in 2009 and 2010, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE).

The lack of lease sales ultimately means the government will collect less in rent payments by lease holders. Offshore rents currently generate more than $200 million per year.

The Gulf revenue decline comes as Obama’s oil spill commission is recommending new fees for oil companies – a scenario that could be avoided if the government removed barriers to exploration and production.

“Over the years, offshore production royalties have provided billions of dollars to the U.S. government,” saidNational Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi, former director of the Minerals Management Service, which predated BOEMRE. “Now, at a time when Congress is looking to maximize efficiency without raising taxes, there sits millions of dollars per day uncollected,” he said.

The Obama administration has dismissed the financial impact. The revenue loss would be “negligible,” Rebecca Blank, under secretary for economic affairs at the Department of Commerce, told a Senate committee in the fall.

“It is difficult to speculate now on the specific impact the moratorium would have over the five- or 10-year budget window, but one would expect the impact on the deficit to be negligible,” Blank wrote to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in September.

“Revenues may be higher or they may be lower depending on future years’ oil prices and the time profile of production,” Blank said.

Energy experts said the administration’s policies are certain to have long-term consequences for the industry.

“You continually need new discoveries and new production coming online to replace what’s being depleted,” said Andy Radford, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. “These wells taper off over time — the ones that are producing now — so without a continual flow of new discoveries and new production, the number will continue to decrease.”

A report from the economic forecasting firm IHS Global Insight estimated that federal, state and local taxes related to the Gulf, combined with royalty payments, totaled $19 billion in 2009.

Royalties, bonus and rent payments made up more than $6 billion of that number. That pot of money could go a long way toward deficit reduction. And that’s from the Gulf alone.

Significant additional revenues would be generated if the federal government opened access to exploration and production in areas currently closed to development such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico, portions of the Rocky Mountains, ANWR, and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

recent study conducted by Wood Mackenzie for the American Petroleum Institute estimated that increased access to those areas would bring $150 billion into federal coffers by 2025.

Why leave so much money uncollected, especially in a time of rising deficits?

Originally published by the Washington Examiner.

Obama pushed Brazil to drill more, promised aid to Brazilian drilling. Imposes drilling ban at home.

Obama is doing this for three reasons:

1 – Who is a big investor in Brazilian oil? George Soros, who is likely the single largest contributor to far left causes.

2 – Like many leftist academics Obama believes that America’s wealth needs to be redistributed around the world. So as long as we buy foreign energy that is our money leaving the country.

3 – Energy companies usually tend to favor Republicans when it comes to donations. An exception to that is British Petroleum which is 45% the former Amoco.

IBD:

Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we’ll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.

His “What, me worry?” presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country’s ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America’s decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices “necessarily skyrocket” to foster his green energy agenda.

In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: “Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership.”

Related –

US Import-Export Bank gives $2 billion to Brazil to drill for oil.