The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Obama’s Oily Desperation Redux

By on 3.16.12 @ 6:10AM

A trial balloon that failed to rise above the president’s rhetorical gutter.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that Britain and the U.S. have reached an agreement to release oil from the nations’ oil reserves. The report states that the idea originated with the Obama administration and that “Britain would respond positively” to a formal request.

The report was immediately denied by a White House spokesman and questioned by some oil analysts.

Such a move would be a reprise of a similar failed effort less than a year ago. However, given pressure from Democrats and bad polling for President Obama on fuel prices, the initial report is easier to believe than the White House’s denial. Indeed, the denial did not say that this was not a topic for discussion between Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, but simply that there was no actual agreement.

The burst of activity, including how quickly the administration had a response ready, had the distinct air of a “trial balloon,” something that panicky administrations resort to when out of ideas.

In June 2011, President Obama, desperate to avoid the political ramifications of high oil and gasoline prices, announced a release of oil from America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The release, justified on the basis of the temporary interruption of Libya’s oil exports, was coordinated with two dozen other nations. The U.S. released 30 million barrels of oil from its stockpiles, with other nations matching that amount in the aggregate, for a total of 60 million barrels of oil put on to the world market.

For perspective, the world uses about 89 million barrels of oil per day. Of that amount, nearly 20 million barrels is used by the U.S., about 14 million by Europe, and about 10 million by China. So last year’s release sated U.S. demand for 36 hours and world demand for half that time.

It was only the third time that the SPR had been tapped, with the first two being in 1991 during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and in 2005 just following Hurricane Katrina’s damage to the Gulf’s oil production and refining facilities. Obama now proposes the fourth, with no supply interruptions — other than those his administration is causing by blocking pipelines and drilling — to justify the request.

Following news of the June 2011 release, oil briefly fell about $3 per barrel to $91 in trading on the NYMEX. In ensuing days, oil prices recovered as the market realized that the SPR release was a drop in an oily ocean.

Prior to the Reuters report on Thursday, crude oil had been trading just below $106 per barrel. The news knocked it down almost $2 in 5 minutes before recovering two thirds of that drop, trading back above $105 within 40 minutes of the initial news and the subsequent White House denial and ending the day down only a few cents from Wednesday’s closing price.

During an oil price decline during the late summer of 2011 which accompanied a stock-market sell-off amid fears of slower global economic growth, the SPR did not replace the oil released in June. Thus, the government sold 30 million barrels of oil in the low $90s, which is now at least $12 higher, costing taxpayers over $350 million so far. At least it was a smaller loss than Solyndra.

If only President Obama were as good a commodity trader as Hillary Clinton.

SPEAKING OF SPECULATORS, Democrats often blame them for higher oil prices. To be sure, there is substantial speculator participation in oil markets. However, as usual for the political party that believes that people do not react to economic incentives, Democrats misunderstand capital markets. Speculators will not be deterred by any short-term policy, such as tapping the SPR, that does not change the fundamental long-term supply and demand calculus.

On Wednesday, the head of the International Energy Agency, Maria van der Hoeven, noted that the supply-demand balance currently favors higher prices — thus minimizing any suggestion that speculators are the primary force in current prices — but that the situation it is not dramatic enough to justify the move a desperate Obama administration may be calling for: “There is a tightening market, there is no doubt about that. At this moment there is no need to use [strategic oil reserves].”

President Obama’s energy policy is schizophrenic at best. Obama himself, as well as Energy Secretary Steven “I don’t own a car” Chu, are on record supporting high energy prices as part of their cultish devotion to “renewable,” which is to say inefficient, energy sources. Chu offered a refreshing bit of truth when speaking before a congressional committee on February 28, saying that lowering fuel costs was not the Energy Department’s goal. And Obama famously said that his cap-and-trade policy would cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket” due to high taxes on coal.

They are birds of a (green) feather, flying into the political wind turbine of political reality as their daydreams of minimizing the amount of plant food, also known as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere strikes rational Americans — who do drive their own cars — as economic masochism.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (169) |

donserge| 3.16.12 @ 6:32AM

If the election were held today Obama would lose in a landslide. All that the white house is doing shows they are worried about Obama's poll numbers.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 9:07AM

I disagree. I don't think he's "Panicked" at all. Not this guy. Not The One. Not The Messiah. Not the Guy with the Greek Columns. His minions might scurry about, but not HIM.

"I'm not an Ideologue." (Laughter) " I'm NOT!"

Oh, but he his. More so than anyone who came before him. He is the Ideologue who would be King. The Single Minded Narcissist, with a God Complex, an infinite amount of (OUR) Money to dole out to his Street Gangs, and a Slavish Media that will do anything for the Honour of greasing up and bending over before their GOD.

A man like that doesn't "Panic". He attacks. He doubles down. He lies, and he lies, and he lies some more. (Surprised?)

"We have 2% of the World's Oil Reserves, yet we use 20% of the Oil." "We are Drilling more, under my watch, than ever." "We're drilling all over the Country." "President's can't affect the price at the pump." "I'm releasing Oil from the Strategic Reserves, to increase the Supply on the Open Market, as a way to get the Price Down." "We cannot drill our way out of this." "The next time you hear these Politicians making their outrageous Accusations about the Gas Prices, remember, you've got the FACTS."

Somewhere in Hell. Joseph Goebbels has a boner, right now.

All he left out was the "FACT" that the Sun has come up in the East, every day since he took Office.

As far as the Democrat ploy of Releasing oil from the National Reserve? (Which, apparently is there to alleviate any Gas Price related Re-Election Emergency, that a Democrat might face.) That was to stop his "Advisers" from nipping at his heels. As if GOD needs advisers.

Things will get progressively worse, as the months tick by. There are no jobs, and none are on the Horizon. In fact, if you work at a Company that Hussain is giving FREE MONEY to? You might wanna get that Resume dusted off.

Nothing will be off the table, but we KNOW one thing that Democrats like to do. They like to use our Military, when the going gets tough, FOR THEM.

Bill Clinton bombed a deserted Sand Dune with $1,000,000 Cruise Missiles, on the Day he Testified before a Federal Grand Jury. He bombed a defenseless Aspirin Factory with $1,000,000 Cruise Misslies, on the day his Impeachment Vote was being held. He bombed SERBIA, at the height of the Monica Lewinski debacle.

Mark my words: Somebody, somewhere, is gonna get a BOMBING.

You can take it to the Bank.

That is, unless the Bank has already been seized by the Feds.

Matt | 3.16.12 @ 12:28PM

i guess goebbels ejaculated when john stossel said the president has no affect on gas prices, and any drilling would only move prices down by a cent..

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 2:02PM

Who's touting John Stossel, besides you?

And, who gives a sh*t, what you say, idiot?

Stevie| 3.16.12 @ 2:19PM

LMAO, Timothy

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 2:25PM

I'm 54. I don't know what LMAO means.

Stevie| 3.16.12 @ 2:28PM

Laughing my a$$ off...I'm 59!

benny havens| 3.16.12 @ 4:17PM

LMFAO at 66

Doctor Right| 3.16.12 @ 5:51PM

54 and going on 13 with another juvenile, totally uninsightful rant full of old news and tidbits that the rest of us have known for years.

Stammon| 3.16.12 @ 6:27PM

I'm 56, and when I read your answer to Matt I laughed bourbon out my nose.
Hurts like hell.

Mike 3/505| 3.17.12 @ 5:12PM

Waste of perfectly good booze

donserge| 3.16.12 @ 3:47PM

My post says nothing about panic. But to carry yours to its logical conclusion...why would someone double down and blatantly (and so obviously) lie if they were not in a 'panic' mode?

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 4:29PM

Because he's an Arrogant FCK, dumb*ss.

macwell| 3.18.12 @ 6:14PM

Well said Mr. Pennell, these so-called representatives only represent their own interest any more. Time to take down the "good old boy's club".

Harry the Horrible| 3.16.12 @ 9:37AM

I doubt it.

"Generic Republican" could kick Obama all over the place. But we're not running him. We're running Romney (yeah, I'm resigned), who's about as exciting as a block raw tofu.

The best we can pull off will be a narrow victory.

And even then, we won't have a Conservative in the Presidency, just a Northeastern "Moderate" (Liberal) Republican.

Things are just not looking good.

Matt | 3.16.12 @ 10:01AM

maybe it tells you something when 75% of America's first choice is to the left of you

Harry the Horrible| 3.16.12 @ 2:06PM

Yeah. The same thing that 50% of the people not paying income taxes tell me.
The wrong people have the vote.

Stormzeye| 3.16.12 @ 10:07AM

Romney's more conservative than Obama. That's enough for me during this election cycle.

beebop2| 3.17.12 @ 2:12PM

Romney ISN'T 0bama and that is all we can pray for.

Remind me .... isn't the problem our usage and not the supply? If you follow that logic * such as it is * WTF would be the sense of releasing from the strategic oil supply?

William L. Gensert| 3.16.12 @ 12:08PM

The coming election will be about Barack Obama, not the Republican nominee.

Sure I wish we had a stronger candidate, but like bin Laden, Reagan is still dead.

If the campaign is run correctly, Forrest Gump could beat Obama. After all he was more successful and nicer -- but I digress.

Conservatives need to Breitbart Barack;

Is there any better example of a warrior than Andrew Breitbart? The man was rigorous, relentless, and totally without remorse in search of the truth and in opposition to those who would rewrite history to expand and support the liberal narrative. Using the weapons of the left -- all media, and no subject taboo -- he pursued the illusions of progressivism with élan. Exceedingly effective, his name has entered the lexicon as a verb.

Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com.....z1pIRunVOz

macwell| 3.18.12 @ 6:16PM

Well said sir, and spot on.
We the people are Breitbart!

donserge| 3.16.12 @ 3:48PM

My post says 'today' not November.

Matt | 3.16.12 @ 12:26PM

really? his poll numbers have improved over the years... he ranges from a +2 to a +12 over Romney... he is ahead in all of the important swing states... he won 365 electoral votes last year... even if the repugs pull away 90 electoral votes, he still wins

Purple Lips| 3.16.12 @ 1:26PM

I only it were so! Heck, Bush41 had better numbers in 1988 than Barry had 2008. And Barry Obammy had everything, I mean everything fall his way. Nope, 2012 will not be anything close to 2008. And with job disapproval numbers as bad as they are for our Kenyan President, he will be lucky to win any swing states. No sitting President has ever won re-election with job disapproval numbers greater than 50%. Obama's are currently just over that number.

matt | 3.16.12 @ 2:00PM

that's desperate... only 1 poll has disapproval above 50%, and that's rasmussen, and today its at 49%...

not only is obama more popular than republicans... but mccain was more popular among republicans than any of the current nominees..

also, wall street has placed a 60% chance Obama wins reelection

Thorny| 3.16.12 @ 5:16PM

32 years ago this time of year Carter led Reagan in polls 58% to 40%.

Conservatives know Barry "I'd like higher gas prices" Obama is toast right now. Liberals like you will be in denial about the crushing reelection defeat of Barry "I'd like higher gas prices" Obama 32 years from now.

This is just one of reasons you are an idiot.

donserge| 3.16.12 @ 3:53PM

The white house does not pay attention to a CBS poll of 'adults' with Democrat respondents having a plus 10% advantage over Republicans...it is meaningless. They have their own internal polls and I would wager they do not see them as a good sign.

Bill| 3.16.12 @ 6:39AM

DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

benny havens| 3.16.12 @ 7:32AM

On one hand he claims that additional drilling will not reduce gas prices. He has been wandering from state to state making this the center point of his campaign speeches.

Then the next day he says they are thinking about releasing oil from our strategic supply to ease the high gas prices.

I thought he just said that more oil would not reduce the price of gas?

Oh yeah, this guy knows what he is talking about.

Bill| 3.16.12 @ 8:43AM

Remember Obama was an ex-mobster. His skill on perjury is legendary.

Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 1:13PM

See this mornings WSJ in re oil prices.

Jack in Wi.| 3.16.12 @ 6:41AM

Try calling off the war with Iran and allowing drilling anywhere in the USA and it's coastline and watch oil prices drop through the floor. Iran should be given an ambassador and all trade sanctions ended. The Iranians wanted to settle all differences in 2003. Powell, Rice, and Armitage wanted to get it done and begin immediate negotiations. Evil Dick Cheney and his neocon pals got to Bush first and put a stop to it.

Think what the price of gas would be is we have a drill america policy and we had kept our noses out of the Middle East. Our policies have only encouraged the gulf states to gouge their oil prices. It is the only way they can get even with us. If we had let Iraq resume production in the 1990's and stayed out of Libya prices would be a lot lower and we would not have a trillions of dollars in debt.They have to sell their oil to live.

Brian Mc| 3.16.12 @ 7:09AM

"...settle all the differences..." You mean the one where we are to submit, that one was included in the differences? I didn't see that memo. As far as 'evil' goes, I'm not sure that labelling deserves a response short of "Your objectivity is showing".

Thom| 3.16.12 @ 3:34PM

“Try calling off the war with Iran” … “ Iran should be given an ambassador…”

Jack in Wi,

We gave Iran an entire Embassy staff for over a year back in 1979-80…. They didn’t want to give them back as I remember…but I’m ok with you going over there and being our “consul” in being. You won’t get a staff or Marine Guard. That would make it a “military base” and we know you are against those (640, 720, 800, 900) foreign bases we have hidden around the world.

If Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, your fantasy world of "isolationism will protect us" will suffer a rather rude shock at the pump. It won't matter at all what we do or don't do before, during or after that event because the price of just about everything is tied to the currency exchange rate of the "dollar" and "dollars" are the store of value for the entire global energy market including "oil" produced here. If we didn't import a drop from outside our own territory the cost of everything exchanged on international markets would rise and we would pay more for everything imported and get less for everything we export solely based on the vast amounts of "dollars" tied up in energy markets.

If you ever learned to not speak while your head was still up your arse and had a moron's understanding of the basic global economics you wouldn't make a fool of yourself as often as you do. A Nation state that has threatened "death to America" for over 30 years now, funds and arms several well-known Terrorist organizations that act upon Iran's behalf, continuously threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" but hasn't a single connection to or security issue with said country separated by 800 miles of land and sea with several countries between the two, kills its own citizens in large numbers to stop their otherwise peaceful protest and is building multistage long range ballistic missiles in large numbers that have no meaningful military value without a "nuke" on top isn't something you can just ignore and hope it all turns out ok .... “We” aren’t talking “war” to Iran. Iran has threatened “war” several times now over international sanctions brought about by International bodies that see clear evidence of Iran violating the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty it sign-ed. We aren’t talking about illegally making fire crackers here.

Get a clue Jack, this isn't the 1790s world any longer and Rodney King's view on how the world should work have never worked for any length of time without a "stick" to back up the sweat smelling words you put so much faith in.

Don| 3.17.12 @ 7:42PM

To Jack in Wi., Would appreciate sources for the communique from Iran to Bush in 2003. I've been trying for months to track down and verify. Where did you learn of it? I spoke to someone who claimed to see it when he was a communications man for the national security person in the White House. I'm sceptical, but would appreciate help in tracking it.

Brian Mc| 3.16.12 @ 7:13AM

The alien's efforts remind me of the joke about the man with the drill, in a boat, who is determined to let the water out.

JAWilson| 3.16.12 @ 7:14AM

Brack is always showing up at community colleges for these crazy rants. Can't he fill a big house, or can't he afford the cost?

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 7:48AM

That's because these are the same people who were manning the Boy King's Occupy Barricades. He knows that they don't know anything. They don't have Jobs/Homes/Families/Responsibilities/ or Commitments. They don't have Mortgages/Homes Underwater/or High Food Bills. They don't don't have Car Payments/Electric Bills/Insurance Bills/ or need to buy GASOLINE or Home Heating Fuel.

In other words, they are the perfect Audience for FOOLING. Children are easily tricked. Easily Impressed. And are easy Prey for the Con Man's schtick.

Especialy, if you happen to be a Magician/Illusionist/Hypnotist, all rolled in to one guy when it comes to stating the Facts. (LIES)

Who better to talk to, when you've got nothing but Sh*t, to Shovel?

Pecos Pete| 3.16.12 @ 9:27AM

PLUS King O gets some youngster fainting and lots of applause from people whose heads are filled with mush. And, King O's entertainment shows provide the media something to showcase on national news.

Jack in Wi.| 3.16.12 @ 9:59AM

Timmy boy. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney, are all the same gang pushing war and the the bailouts of their pals. Obama is just one of a long line of bad Presidents. He made some of the mess, but not all of it.

beebop2| 3.17.12 @ 2:16PM

You dont give him enough credit.

macwell| 3.18.12 @ 6:27PM

Timothy?
You're a funny guy for sure. I see the same faces that were in golden Gate Park in 67 when we buried the hippy. Same faces, same tired old message, give me, give me, give me.
Funny how seeing that tiny little face come out and look up at you for the first time. At that point you understand what responsibility is. You stop thinking like a child, acting like a child. That tiny being is totally dependent on you, and we had 2 more and they're all doing okay.

Seek| 3.20.12 @ 1:20PM

Put down the tire iron already.

UpChuck.Liberals| 3.16.12 @ 10:12PM

@JAWilson, Barry deserves to be in a Big House (Fed Max). A life sentence would be just about right.

Clint| 3.16.12 @ 7:35AM

Americans Will Vote Their Wallets.

More U.S. Oil Supply, Lower Oil Prices.

Weaker U.S. Dollar, More U.S. Oil Exports To Foreigners.

Open Up U.S. Oil Supply, Stop The FED From Printing Money.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 9:11AM

Did I ever tell you how STUPID, Jack is?

He is one dumbmthrfckr, ya know that?

Stupider than sh*t. That's what that guy is.

Stupid.

Jack in Wi.| 3.16.12 @ 9:55AM

By far one of your most intelligent and lucid comments Timmy boy.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 2:05PM

That's what I thought while I was writing it.

jothepro| 3.17.12 @ 6:42AM

Hey Jack, You finally wrote something I agree with..

RCV| 3.17.12 @ 12:57PM

It's the first time I've agreed with both Jack and Pennell!

richard ryan| 3.16.12 @ 7:53AM

I also used to think Obama did not believe in market incentives and market forces. Now I think he DOES understand the reality of the free market. He simple hates it. Capitalism OFFENDS him.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 9:52AM

Congratulations. You get it.

Now. run this through your head: He HATES this Country. He HATES our Founding Fathers, and our Founding Documents. He HATES our Men and Women in Uniform (Unless they're not White) He HATES the Jews. He HATES the Catholic Church. He HATES any Church that doesn't have a Black Radical Marxist/White Hating?Jew Hating/America Hating Pastor. And he will do everything in his power to bring this Country to its Knees.

EVERYTHING!

You come to grips with all that?

That'll mean you REALLY get it.

And those are the people we need, right now.

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 12:24PM

Timothy,

It is difficult to come to grips that our POTUS hates what our country has stood for, but you are exactly right. The more people understand that, the more likely he will be defeated in November.

Obama, Van Jones, Axelrod, Valerie Jarret, Bill Ayers, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club all have ties to the Communist Party. They do not want what's best for America. They despise the fact that the U.S., or any country, should be above another in stature. To bring us down to size, they must put their boots on the throat of our economy by restricting our energy supplies and burdening our businesses with taxes, mandates, regulations, and gov't-run health care.

Let's pretend for just a moment that these guys weren't intentionally trying to minimize our economy. If they wanted to (secretly) minimize it, what would they do that they are not doing now?

Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 1:11PM

First let's agree that low gasoline prices are in the national interest.

Given that, two fast actions come to mind that would greatly impact pump prices. One: eliminate the ethanol mandate and subsidy. The stuff is bad for the engines in any event and the cost is upwards of fifty cents per gallon. Second: Domestic production is high, but is being sold on the world market. Domestic production should stay in the domestic market. We need new refineries to process it so they should be rapidly licensed for national security reasons. Our military should not have to rely on imports.

It is of no concern to American consumers or the national interest what the price of gasoline in Europe, India or China may be. It is of significant national security concern that domestic availability be secure and accesible. A half dozen new refineries, and for that matter a half dozen new nuclear plants for electricity, would go a long way toward securing our economy from world market fluctuations and disruption potentials. .

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 2:49PM

Al Adab,

Yes, WE agree that lower gasoline prices are in the nation's best interest. Unfortunately, some people, and groups, do not want what's best for our nation.

As for the domestic oil/gas staying in our country, I'm not aware of that being a problem. I have read that some refineries, near the Canadian border, are providing Canadians with gasoline and other refined products, but I understand that's because of their close proximity to the refinery. Also, there are some refinieries that are not in the oil production business, but they have contracts to import oil specifically to be delivered back to the other country as refined products, such as gasoline. To my knowledge, we are not being deprived of gasoline supplies because of a shortage of oil.

I have not read of any refineries, located here in the U.S., operating at 100% capacity. Actually, I read that some refineries are closing due to lack of demand and others are closing because they can't make a profit. They are not being deprived of oil supplies. Yes, we are importing 9 million barrels of oil a day which could be eliminated by increasig domestic drilling, but let's stay focused on gasoline. I'm convinced the high price is due to the cost of Gov't mandates and regulations. The Gov't has greatly increased the refineries' cost of doing business. They must pass those costs on to the consumer. If there is not enough gasoline demand so that the costs can be passed on the consumer, the refinery must close.

Yes, I agree that, at least temporarily, removing the ethanol mandate and other "environmental" blend requirements could reduce the cost of gasoline almost immediately. Those are some of the mandates and regulations that are driving up the cost of gasoline.

If you have information showing something different, can you please provide some links or steer me in the right direction?

Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 3:22PM

Tommy:
I do not have any good figures on just what percentage of domestic production is sold offshore, but certainly every tanker load sent out requires a tanker load sent in or reduces the supply for domestic use. Our production is high and yes, refineries are not operating at capacity. They should be and we can glut the market. With current demand, that causes prices to fall. I do feel that the retention of domerstic production for domwstic use - even at the low price which lowers company profits - is a national security matter. Tanks and planes and naval ships all use fuel oil, keosene and diesel. Our military should not be hostage (strong word) to our ability to import (ask the Japanese) or to the world market price.

Regulatory costs are quite high and directly effect the consumer. It is a matter of taking care of our own citizens rather than matching the European price. Sadly, The Left and this administration, take it as a matter of Faith that gasoline is bad and, as they have said, want to see prices rise to force down consumption. I think for the most part, we are on the same page here.

Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 3:28PM

Meant to add, a good analysis on editorial page of tadays' WSJ.

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 4:06PM

Yes, I read that opinion piece stating that the surge in gasoline prices was due to the volatile situation surrounding Iran. I tend to agree with MikeBee's comments below (3:14pm) where he says our Iranian imports are a small percentage of our oil imports, therefore, should not have caused a 100% increase in gasoline costs over the last three years. The WSJ opinion piece is ignoring the fact that the EPA is now imposing carbon emmision restrictions (regulations) on the oil/gas industry even though the Senate voted down Cap & Trade.

The oil/gas industry is a very complicated business. It would be nice if AS would allow some folks from the industry to post at this site and clear up some of the misunderstandings most of us have about the industry. I'd rather read facts from the experts than opinions from pundits.

Enjoy your weekend, my friend.

Anthony| 3.16.12 @ 4:57PM

Do you guys remember that it was only a month ago that the Canadian P.M. chastised Obozo for not allowing the Keystone pipeline into the U.S.?
And more to the point, the Canadian P.M. pointedly accused Obozo of being a radical enviornmentalist, when he chastised Obozo for demanding every other country drill for oil, when Obozo was deliberately putting the halt on U.S. drilling.
The Canadian P.M. was essentially calling Obozo a one man wrecking crew of the American economy.

Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 5:14PM

Anthony:
Not at all forgotten. Just a part of the problem with the supply issue. Since we are not "allowed" by our government to import even from friendly countries, why should we be exporting any let alone buying from no so friendly nations?

RCV| 3.17.12 @ 12:59PM

The reality is that the US is producing more oil under this administration than previously - up significantly.

Dick in Ca.| 3.17.12 @ 4:48PM

Instead of most people continuing to think you are just another liberal moron, why don't you go ahead and back your claim up with some actual significant evidence to support it?

Or is the reality you really are what many many readers claim you to be, just another liberal blowhard?

Von Mises Jr.| 3.17.12 @ 3:50PM

Spot on Richard and Timothy. Oil and gas drilling spells capitalism and profits. This means liberty and freedom.
Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Iran and Saudi Arabia, to name a few, finance their dictatorial regimes mostly on oil revenues. So what are the chances that we have the only socialist in the world that hate oil and carbon based fuel?
Our socialist are just like socialist the world over. They hate liberty, free markets and shared prosperity.
Why do you think the Federal Government owns almost 70% of Alaska, and half of states such as AZ, UT and NV? Because the natural resources are de facto nationalized through their acquisition, and at the whim of the elite ruling class!
BTW, North Dakota has about 3% unemployment and allegedly high paying jobs that remain unfilled. Texas has about 5% unemployment.

ebonystone| 3.17.12 @ 11:11PM

The reason that the fedferal gov't owns so much of the land in many Western states is that nobody else wanted it. When the Louisiana territory, the Southwest, and the Pacific Northwest became part of the United States, virtually all of the land became fedrally owned. The only exceptions were the small areas already settled under the
Spanish and Mexicans in New Mexico and California. When states were organized and admited to the Union, they were given some of the land as a revenue source -- generally 2 square miles out of every 36. Other lands were given away, or sold cheaply, to homesteaders and railroad companies, to encourage settlement and development. In state like Iowa and Nebraska, where most of the land was good for agriculture, virtually all of the land was granted away. In the mountain and desert states, the land wasn't good for agriculture, and had no takers, so it remains in federal hands.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.18.12 @ 8:14AM

Have you been to Utah and AZ and seen Zion and Bryce Canyon? Have you been to ID, MT and WY and seen Yellowstone? If you have not, I can assure you that lots of people would love to have "affordable housing," like a mountain or lake cabin near these national treasures.
But Agenda21 is going to put naive and easily led sheep in "stack and pack" apartments to catch the high-speed rail to your fascist factory job. Watch this video and tell me the land out west with oil and minerals is worthless, and nobody wants it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Hope I don't see you at the compound, comrade.

ebonystone| 3.18.12 @ 10:37PM

I said that nobody "wanted" it [past tense], not nobody "wants" it. I was explaining why so much of Western land is still in federal ownership. The Homestead Act has been terminated. It applied to settlers who were given the land on condition that they "improve" it [i.e. farm it, or make a living from it] within a certain period of time. It was not intended to provide free summer-home lots to the wealthy.
I never said the land was worthless, I only said that in the past it was not wanted. Nowadays, people have found new reasons to want it -- such as for oil and gas production, or for summer homes, as you mention. I can see no reason for the gummint not to sell land for either purpose, providing it gets a good price. But I imagine that the summer-home owners would object to an oil well next door just as much as the environmentalists do. Kind of lowers the tone of the neighborhood, doncha know? And -- horrors -- reduces home values.
I've been to all the states and parks you mentioned and can't help thinking how much the North Rim of Grand Canyon NP would be improved by a few thousand summer homes along the canyon rim. Or how much nicer the Old Faithful geyser basin would be with a few thousand time-share condos around it.
And my factory job is with a private, capitalist factory; all the fascist jobs are with the government.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 7:13AM

Your factory job will not be private, capitalistic for long. Watch Agenda21 for "Dummies."

I did not say that we should have houses on the rim of the Grand Canyon. But if you have been to Zion, you would know there is a town right, smack in the middle of the canyon. And Yellowstone has towns near each of the gates.

It is just that your handlers have not chosen to put a "stack and pack" "Smart Growth" cluster there for you. You will probably be in the new Detroit or revitalized Newark.
And if you could think past your handlers conditioning, you would mentally explore the possibility that oil companies drilling for oil would like to buy property next to oil companies drilling for oil. It is how money used to be made.

ebonystone| 3.19.12 @ 10:30AM

Hmmm. A truly "revitalized" Newark would be a really desirable place to live -- a short subway ride from Manhattan, handy to an international airport, and right on the high-speed rail line to Philly and DC. But alas, I don't see that happening; the gummint may throw a lot of money at Newark, but they won't take the steps to truly revitalize it.
And, let's see; Cody, WY, is over 50 miles from the eastern entrance to Yellowstone, and Jackson, WY, over 50 miles from the southern one. Not exactly near the gates.

gearjammer| 3.16.12 @ 8:17AM

All together now " the greens have the democrats bt the throat and by extension all of us by the throat". Is it not time we cut off their hands. Sierra
Club get your hands off my body ! Got that women of the left !

martin j smith| 3.16.12 @ 8:20AM

The issue my dear is not what Obama says or does at this point--but how our opposition responds. that is the nub of the jist. We already have known for years that most of what Obama says is a lie--nothing new there and his moves are blatantly cynical . Nothing new there. The news I am waiting for and waiting and waiting and waiting is for our grand Republican Leadershit to do their jobs that voters pay them to do. Those whoi are running who do not call Obama out as a liar are in my book not worth the money they get either.

Having said all that--Get rid of Obama --vote against him by voting for the Republican Mickey Mouse.

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 11:51AM

Excellent points, Martin.

We gave the Repubs the House in 2010, yet they say they still have no power and won't have any power until they own the Senate and the White House too. Yet, the Dems always seem to have power and are always able to broadcast a coordinated message.

The only coordinated message we get from the GOP establishment is their support for a moderate candidate.

loulou| 3.16.12 @ 12:13PM

Boehner thinks he earned the speakership all by himself. He is a statist and is only concerned about his power. And tanning and golfing and brown-nosing the dems.

Boehner has to go. As does Cantor. Statists.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 2:34PM

You are WISE beyond your years.

I like to call John Boehner's office and say: The next time you're crying, won't be because you're the Speaker. It'll be because you're NOT.

Time to clean House.

Boehnor, Hatch, Lugar, Kyle, and anybody else who DOESN'T GET IT!

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 3:03PM

I would love to see Boehner's face if Newt were to walk into Boehner's office and announce, "I'm back........."

As I'm sure you know, Boehner was one of the main conspirators in getting Gingrich removed as Speaker. Justice would be served.

One if by land...| 3.16.12 @ 3:22PM

That would be all but perhaps three elected officials, at any level, in the whole country. I agree with you. Time to return to the days of Citizen Statesmen!

gearjammer| 3.16.12 @ 12:03PM

I mean if we get our candidate settled soon can that not lead to the formation of a shadow cabinet of sorts. I mean can ya see Newt showing up the next day wherever O just was with his road show ? Newt gets under the skin of the people in this whitehouse - big time. I just think the sooner we join forces and get in the guys FACE the better. I know here comes what's his name and the brokered convention.

JP| 3.16.12 @ 8:27AM

I have a solution that will cause oil prices to drop overnight: have the Fed raise interest rates by 1 full percentage point. Not only will oil prices plunge, but so will stock prices.

Louis Jenkins| 3.16.12 @ 8:50AM

We cannot believe that Obama is really concerned about oil prices. He couldn't give a tinker's da-- about oil prices. He is concerned about his re-election (and result in a mess to this country). The lines are drawn. Obama has his crowd in-line to cast their ballots, and we're still searching for the one bright spot in the candidacy. Well, Obama ain't made your car payment, nor filled your tanks with gas, although he has made your mortgage easier to pay, and he is putting food (cash, weapons, etc.) on your table using EBT cards. It's all about the elections. We had better get our act together people, or we will not like what happens in the next four years.

ebonystone| 3.19.12 @ 10:33AM

Of course, Obama has also made it easier for other people to make you pay their mortgages for them.

Mike Rogers | 3.16.12 @ 8:51AM

The one surprising comment I heard in the last few days was libertarian convert and free marketeer, John Stossel claiming that drilling in the US would not affect the market, because it is a global market, affected by global factors.
He's right to a point, but the intentions of a major producer like the USA are also part of that global market. Just like Saudi Arabia announcing an increase or decrease in oil production can cause major market moves, so can the US' declaration of intent to restrict or encourage domestic exploration and production.
For those who remember the price runup in 2008, there were two factors which cause the price bubble to collapse: The one they all want to remind you of is the reduction in demand due to the recession, but that was not initially global; the other important factor was expiration of restrictions on offshore drilling, and Republican determination to keep it that way.
Obama has, of course, reimposed restrictions, and done everything in his power (and way beyond) to limit areas of both land and sea available for oil and gas drilling. It is in indication of federal overreach that Utah is proposing legislation to seize control of its own land, what a concept!

gearjammer| 3.16.12 @ 12:07PM

Stossell is more and more a goof. He'd provide meth in school lunch program. If we had energy supply free and clear of the nut job nations-we'd be flying high. WE need to investigate Sierra Club how money do those goons get from Saudis ?

loulou| 3.16.12 @ 12:15PM

I heard Stossel when he came out with that nonsense. I wonder if he's becoming more and more like Ron Paul? Stossel is unreliable. I take him with a grain of salt.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 2:41PM

"Stossel is unreliable. I take him with a grain of salt."

As you should. Libertarians are NOT Conservatives. They are more like the KNOW NOTHING PARTY, if you ask me.

Clint| 3.16.12 @ 4:17PM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Clint| 3.16.12 @ 4:20PM

Dr. Ron Paul,
" President Obama remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems. The President speaks of giving us energy independence from unstable nations, yet he refuses to allow the type of development needed to achieve this goal, while at the same time his administration hands out favors to the politically connected--those given to the likes of Solyndra, who fail to produce jobs or energy but succeed in ripping off the taxpayers. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Westie| 3.17.12 @ 10:51AM

Good commentary Clint. Conservatism w/o libertarianism (freedom) is actually as dangerous as unrestricted Leftism. See GWB, McCain and Graham as prime examples.

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 12:33PM

Mike,

Stossel and Bill O'Reilly shouldn't comment on the oil/gas industry because they obviously don't know what they're talking about. Their ignorant statements are only helping Obama fool the people into believing that the oil companies are to blame for the rising gasoline prices.

Another sad reality we have to accept is that the Fox News Channel is becoming more like the MSM every day.

One if by land...| 3.16.12 @ 3:24PM

O'Reilly isn't a conservative and you are right.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.17.12 @ 3:57PM

Stossel is correct that it would not dramatically reduce prices at the pump short-term. Even longer term, it will have only limited effect on global prices.
But it will enrich the United States, especially in the areas where the drilling creates jobs.

An example would be that if I grow all my vegatables that I use in a year, it will not change the price of corn or a tomato at the grocery store. But I will be richer by the amount I personally saved on groceries. I could then spend that money on other products that create more jobs inother industries. It adds to the GDP and is wealth creation.

ebonystone| 3.19.12 @ 11:01AM

"Utah is proposing legislation to seize control of its own land"

At the end of the Mexican War, all the land that is now in Utah became federal property, with the exception of existing private claims. When Utah became a State in 1896, it received 4 square miles out of every 36 to provide revenue to the state government. This incidentally was a very generous settlement; most of the trans-Mississippi States received only 2 sqmi out of evry 36, and States of the Old Northwest only 1 out of 36. Utah still owns these state lands, although in some areas, swaps have been agreed to with the feds in order to form large contiguous holdings of state lands.
I thoroughly agree that the feds have been making poor choices about the use of their lands: they should allow more energy exploration and development, and stop locking away so much land in wilderness areas. But the land in question is federal property, and has been since the 1840's.

Jabber3| 3.16.12 @ 8:56AM

As this administration descends into chaos and panic over their deteriorating poll numbers, the majority of voting Americans are demanding real solutions because they realize that Obama and his socialist cabal are the problem and not the source of solutions. Even Obama's key constituencies are beginning to speak out against him and this will get very personal. When is this president going to cease his unconstitutional behavior and stop putting politics ahead of country?

Clint| 3.16.12 @ 8:57AM

Among the Government Accountability Office investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report.

Dick Nome| 3.16.12 @ 9:42AM

Wow, no sh!t Clint . Whodda thunk it. Are you surprised by that??

Clint| 3.16.12 @ 4:12PM

I Got The Israel Firster Smear Bund Buffoon, Little Dick Trained To Follow Me Around.

Now, Go Fetch Bibi's Bone, Little Dick.

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 2:26PM

WTF does that have to do with this editorial's subject???????????????????????

Clint| 3.16.12 @ 4:27PM

JP Will Explain It To You, As Soon As The Nurse Changes Your Adult Diaper , Four Years Older Than Dirt RINO-CINO Buffoon.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Clint's Dad| 3.16.12 @ 6:01PM

You're the dumbass who says dumbass things and who said he'd only vote for another dumbass who says dumbass things and who lives in his dumbass mom's dumbass basement in a dumbass little burg in Pennsyl-dumbass-vania and who likes Bob "Dumbass" Casey.

The dumbass rebellion is coming to a Chuck E. Cheese near you.

Clint| 3.17.12 @ 2:42PM

You're The Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar Coward Buffoon,Who Poseur Punk Posts, Using Multiple Phoney Poseur Punk Poster Monikers & Whining Your Crybaby Rants.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Norman Conquest| 3.16.12 @ 9:26AM

The American people aren’t stupid,” said Obama on February 23, mocking “Drill, baby, drill.” The “only solution,” he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that “we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down.” Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home . . . that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”

So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?

Obama says of drilling: “That’s not a plan.” Of course it’s a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.

Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those dollars within the U.S. economy, repatriating not just wealth but jobs, and denying them to foreign unfriendlies. Drilling is the single most important thing we can do to spur growth at home while strengthening our hand abroad.

Instead, Obama offers what he fancies to be the fuels of the future. You would think that he’d be a tad more modest today about his powers of divination after the Solyndra bankruptcy, the collapse of government-subsidized Ener1 (past makers of the batteries of the future), and GM’s suspension of production — for lack of demand — of another federally dictated confection, the flammable Chevy Volt.

Deterred? Hardly. Our undaunted seer of the energy future has come up with his own miracle fuel: algae. Yes, green slime, upon which Steven Chu’s Energy Department will be sprinkling yet another $14 million of taxpayer money.

This is the very same Dr. Chu who famously said in 2008 that he wanted U.S. gas prices to rise to European levels ($8–$10 a gallon) — and who Tuesday, eight months before Election Day, publicly recanted before Congress, Galileo-style.

Who do they think they’re fooling? An oil crisis looms, prices are spiking — and our president is extolling algae. After Solyndra, Keystone, and promises of seaweed in their gas tanks, Americans sense a president so ideologically antipathetic to fossil fuels — which we possess in staggering abundance — that he is utterly unserious about the real world of oil in which the rest of us live.

High gasoline prices are a major political problem for Obama. They are not just a pain at the pump, however. They are a constant reminder of three years of a rigid, fatuous, fantasy-driven energy policy that has rendered us scandalously dependent and excessively vulnerable.

Matt | 3.16.12 @ 9:48AM

the hackery is noted.. someone has Obama penis envy

Dick Nome| 3.16.12 @ 2:20PM

Not so, Michelle owns that part. WHy do you Liberals have such a fixation of anal orifices and and genitalia??

Mike Hawk| 3.17.12 @ 9:01PM

How do you know Matt?? Does Obama Tweet you with pictures like Weiner did?? Do you like Weiner??

Mark MacInnis| 3.16.12 @ 9:53AM

He's missing a big point, and so is everyone else:

Drill here and pump here and refine here and sell here and, as a DIRECT RESULT, more people are employed and the economy grows and tax revenues rise and the deficit shrinks and the debt shrinks.

Got it? Not very hard, is it?

Everything else is just blather and failed ideology.

Tree huggers: ....if you don't like it, you are FREE to move.... Democrats: You can be on the American people'sside, or you can be on the socialist's side. There ain't no straddling it and their ain't no inbetween.

Matt | 3.16.12 @ 10:00AM

very few jobs would be created... to think drilling for oil would make a dent in our deficit... wow... you have to be hyper partisan to believe that...

Tim the Enchanter| 3.16.12 @ 10:59AM

Matt: you have a typo. Should read: "...you have to be hyper partisan NOT to believe that..."
Much better. The way you originally typed it read like gibberish.

Matt | 3.16.12 @ 11:17AM

how many jobs would be created?

TR| 3.16.12 @ 1:20PM

How many would have to be created to meet with your approval? Any American jobs are welcome by me. I see construction jobs, roughneck jobs, trucking jobs, refinery jobs, sales jobs, service station jobs, manufacturing jobs....all from opening up drilling and exploration right here in the good old USA. Not to mention that the money would be staying right here, not going to enrich arabs who hate us. What is your problem Matt?

Tommy Frisco| 3.16.12 @ 3:10PM

TR,
Don't leave out the royalties that the landowner's receive. That's money that most likely would b invested or spent here in the U.S.

The Feds could also collect royalties if they'd open up drilling on Federally-owned lands. There's enough potential there to pay off the national debt. Can you think of a less painful way of paying off 16 trillion dollars in debt?

Wxcynic| 3.16.12 @ 6:58PM

The county I live in has 4600 people. The new coal mine has added over 250 new jobs. The oil and gas resurgance has added numerous temporary and some permanent jobs(don't have exact figures yet, but the local motels are nearly full as there are few rentals vacant). The increased tax revenue from severance and equipment, additional people moving here, new homes being built, land being sold, additional funding for schools, county services such as law enforcement(one new deputy), fire and ambulance, etc. is too long to list. Remember, that money is spent over and over. Exploiting our natural resources is the main ingredient that creates new wealth. Most jobs in this country are based on respending that wealth. It is a very big deal to the county I live in.

Norman Conquest| 3.16.12 @ 10:09AM

Mr. President, you are a liar of the first order. Here's some energy grievances from my list of grievances.

He has imposed upon the citizenry the burden of higher energy costs due to his desire to replace the current fossil-fuels with renewable energy sources. He with the help of the Interior, Energy Departments and the Environmental Protection Agency, by executive fiat and ever increasing regulations, is forcing this change despite the fact that Congress failed to pass Cap and Trade legislation. Despite the rising price of fuel, this administration
has declared they have no interest in lowering it. However, this administration has been quick to point out decreased imports and increases in domestic production are results of its policies. This blatant lie continues to be spoken by the President, himself, despite a drop in demand for imports due to production increases on private or state lands because of newly developed extraction technologies. Leasing and drilling on federals has actually declined. Instead of opening up government lands to exploration and extraction, he has invested heavily in the renewable energy field. Many of these corporations have since filed for bankruptcy, or manufactured products which are too expensive for the average citizen, meaning that the United States taxpayer will never see any return on this President’s investment in green technology.

He has shown his hypocrisy by his shutdown of petroleum production in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas within the territorial waters of the United States, while at the same time provided financial support to the country of Brazil for similar efforts to extract petroleum from their territorial waters. That such a financial transaction would be allowed in view of this administration’s expressed concern for the protection of the environment is indeed a puzzling thing to contemplate.

He has used the power of government to force a private corporation, the party held responsible for a catastrophic oil spill within the Gulf of Mexico, to create an escrow fund without the approval of Congress, or any legislation passed by that body. He, alone, has set down the procedures by which those suffering financial injury, due to the petroleum spill, will be compensated, determining the amount of such compensation.

He has used the construction of a petroleum pipeline from the tar sands of Canada to the United States for his own political purposes. By delaying his decision, he has gained the support of environmentalists for his reelection bid, despite his claim that he is friendly to the idea of increased energy production and providing jobs.

He has opened up the National Petroleum Reserve for political purposes now, despite the fact that the reserve was established for national emergencies. This action will not lower the price of fuel in the long run. The damage done by the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing Policy, devaluing the dollar, is responsible for higher prices, a policy that the President supported.

Add the FED and your devaluation of the dollar by your Quantitative Easing and one can see that YOU are responsible for the rise of fuel prices because our dollar can't buy what it use to.

Moe Blotz| 3.16.12 @ 10:59AM

Releasing crude from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not get peddled on an open market. When the boy president released stocks from SPR, potential buyers submitted their bids and the politically connected were chosen according to who was a FOB. The price the "winners" paid was based on the cost of the oil when it was bought and put into storage. Windfall profits for the cronies, nowt for us. If Barry goes through with the alleged plan, he will pay off his crony socialists once again.

MikeBee| 3.16.12 @ 11:30AM

About fourteen years ago, President Bill Clinton said that increasing drilling would not have any effect on gas prices for at least ten years. He was right. Today, Obama says that increasing drilling would not have any short-term effect on gas prices. He is correct.

However, had we began drilling under Clinton fourteen years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. We would already have lower gas prices, and the price of oil would not be an election year issue for Obama, causing his poll numbers to drop. Stupid is as stupid does.

It's time for Democrats to realize that they only hurt themselves when they adopt policies to please their environmental lobby. This would not even be an issue today, if Bill Clinton and the Dems of fourteen years ago had decided to drill in ANWR and elsewhere.

Mike Hawk| 3.17.12 @ 8:55PM

It's not a matter of realizing anything for Democrats. They don't care. They are ideologs getting what they want.

Who Knows?| 3.16.12 @ 11:52AM

Thanks for your always-edifying articles, Ross. You have gained a fan.

Maybe you’ve read “The Bottomless Well-The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy”, by the well known experts Peter W. Huber and Mark P Mills, from 2005. Don Luskin highly recommended this basic supply-demand analysis of the energy market, and I think anyone who wants to be truly informed needs to take it into account.

Real reality, as opposed to the increasingly disreputable faux reality known as contemporary “conventional wisdom”, must assert itself, eventually.

Hey! As Keynes famously noted, “In the long term we are all dead”. Of course, he was using this truth to buttress some short-term economic jiggering, but what do you TRULY know?

The “we” in that statement can indicate said “conventional wisdom”, and whoa! That “eventuality” is arriving, as we live and pay more and more for gas.

Barrack Obama is also the “we”! And, the Long term” has shortened to less than four years, in his case. His presidency is already dead---BHO: dead man walking.

Indiana Alex| 3.16.12 @ 11:53AM

It is both environmentally and economically irresponsible for the US to outsource oil production to the extent that it does.

Liberals do not support increasing domestic production, but, as is far too consistent, when their favored policies result in higher energy prices, they dissemble, distract, and disown the the results of their own policies.

More than 10 yrs ago the argument against opening up ANWAR was that we wouldn't actually get oil out for 10 yrs. Hindsight is a bitch.

Liberals will always disavow their own policies when politically expedient, which means almost always.

Show some freaking conviction children, you want higher prices for carbon based energy to save the planet, and increase the economics of alternative energy. But when it comes to paying a political price for these convictions, you simply try to spin it away with the typically and disgustingly synical game plan:

Find a boogie man, speculators or doctors or insurance companies or banks or simply "the rich".

Find statistics that have nothing to do with your policies, but seem to make sense to the dense, like infant mortality stats, number of catholics on the pill, drilling leases versus permits, or number of toads in a hole.

Whatever it takes, you have to hide your true intentions because your policy prescriptions are so revolting to so many people, and the results of which have such a consistent record of abject failure, the only way to justify them is to disown them, and hold shiny objects in front of mesmorized useful idiots.

Indiana Alex| 3.16.12 @ 11:53AM

It is both environmentally and economically irresponsible for the US to outsource oil production to the extent that it does.

Liberals do not support increasing domestic production, but, as is far too consistent, when their favored policies result in higher energy prices, they dissemble, distract, and disown the the results of their own policies.

More than 10 yrs ago the argument against opening up ANWAR was that we wouldn't actually get oil out for 10 yrs. Hindsight is a bitch.

Liberals will always disavow their own policies when politically expedient, which means almost always.

Show some freaking conviction children, you want higher prices for carbon based energy to save the planet, and increase the economics of alternative energy. But when it comes to paying a political price for these convictions, you simply try to spin it away with the typically and disgustingly synical game plan:

Find a boogie man, speculators or doctors or insurance companies or banks or simply "the rich".

Find statistics that have nothing to do with your policies, but seem to make sense to the dense, like infant mortality stats, number of catholics on the pill, drilling leases versus permits, or number of toads in a hole.

Whatever it takes, you have to hide your true intentions because your policy prescriptions are so revolting to so many people, and the results of which have such a consistent record of abject failure, the only way to justify them is to disown them, and hold shiny objects in front of mesmorized useful idiots.

Anthony| 3.16.12 @ 11:57AM

What a smarmy adolescent punk the Muslim Marxist president is.
So he tells a bunch of community college students an outright lie about his drilling position, and then proceeds, like the punk that he is, to denegrate the argument by saying it's true we're not drilling at the National Maul or in your backyards.
Who could imagine that America would end up with a nastier, more vicious replica of Ferris Buhler as president?
America is in deep trouble.

martin j smith| 3.16.12 @ 11:58AM

Let me add that this British bimbo was probably threatened with exposure of something to be a lap dog for Obama --this Cameron person. But do not forget Great ( or not so any more ) Britain and the rest of the Eu actually support Obama's policies no matter what they say. He is their ilk and BTW it would be a good idea to investigate the nature of the EU and Obama connections. At any rate the notion of opening our Oil Reserves when Iran could possibly close down the Straight of Hormuz ( Obama will do nothing except if it helps him be re-elected ) and then he will wag his finger while Iran cuts it off. What a sick sick joke we have for having Obama as our president. GWB was bad but Obama--way over the top--.

John786| 3.16.12 @ 12:37PM

May be not making war against Iran would be a good place to start. The sanctions will squeeze further millions out of the market. And a war will make it very scarce . And may be some good environmental policies: outlawing gas guzzlers. Some sensible policies.And yes dill baby drill.

Guzzle Baby Guzzle| 3.17.12 @ 4:31AM

The faster we use up all the world's oil the faster the raghead jihadists have nothing to barter with.

George F.| 3.16.12 @ 12:45PM

Someone tell me why so many pictures of Obama speaking to a crowd make him look like evil incarnate. Just looking at those pictures makes me shudder.

Norman Conquest| 3.16.12 @ 2:57PM

Because he is evil incarnate.

Dagny Taggert| 3.16.12 @ 1:02PM

Ross, excellent article as usual. Heard a good one from a caller on Howie Carr yesterday afternoon (I think good bumpersticker material):

Obama's Energy Policy-
Sensible on the Stump,
Invisible at the Pump

Rational Ron| 3.16.12 @ 2:03PM

Let's go to this irrefutable source to determine how much control ANY President has over gas prices. http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon.....r_slatest.

And if you arm-chair warriors would quit clamoring for war with Iran, prices would come down right now. Here are some EXPERT opinions for you: "If there’s an effective diplomatic outreach here that pushes back the prospect of a military confrontation with Tehran, we probably have something on order of $20-$30 a barrel geopolitical risk premium that could drop out of the oil price very dramatically," wrote Tim Evans, energy analyst at Citi Futures Perspective in New York in the Financial Times. Oil consultant [Michael] Lynch agreed. "The recent run up the price of oil is almost completely the result of concerns about losing Iranian oil or Iran attacking shipments in the Strait of Hormuz," he says.

MikeBee| 3.16.12 @ 3:14PM

RR,
Kindly refer to my post above.

Fact: the U.S. receives only 30% of its oil from the entire middle East. Iran only accounts for a small part of this, say, no more than 10%.

Fact: drilling in ANWR, starting fourteen years ago, when Bill Clinton used the excuse of it not having an immediate impact on oil prices for NOT doing so, would have already driven Iran out of the U.S. oil market, at least.

Fact: allowing the Keystone pipeline from Canada would easily completely replace the output of oil the U.S. receives from the entire middle East today.

Fact: it is Democrats who have constantly stonewalled the efforts of Republicans to replace the middle East's 30% of our oil market with resources from home.

Fact: it is Democrats who are to blame for there even being a risk premium placed on a barrel of oil today. We could already be well on our way out of importing oil from the middle East, were it not for the stonewalling of Democrats.

A war in Iran, even with today's import percentage from Iran, should only affect the price of gasoline about 30 to 50 cents per gallon. So, you're correct that a war with Iran would increase gas prices, making them about 10 - 15% higher. However, drilling in ANWR and the Keystone pipeline would drop the price of gas to about $2.50, or about 38%, a much bigger impact.

Add to that the fact that no longer importing oil from the middle East takes power away from Iran and others, along with making them FAR less impactful on our lives, would alone lead to more peace. The response of the U.S. to an Iraq takeover of Kuwait, for instance, would be, "Yawn!"

Slacker| 3.16.12 @ 2:04PM

I don’t buy this desperation scenario.

If Obama believed tapping the reserve would actually lower gas prices, then he positively would not do it. He knows this will be ineffectual. He wants high gas prices.

He has an intense desire to punish his enemies -rural folks who happened drive gas guzzlers lengthy distances. Plus it might move some Chevy Volts.

He gets to look like he cares which will soothe the populace. Most will believe his bullshit because the truth is too sour. The guy simply does not like you.

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 2:45PM

Excellent article Ross as usual; but I'll go beyone your PC kindness and the the bloggers' usual of stating the obvious here. This prevention of domestic drilling has been going on for most of my substantial adult lifetime. When I exited college, gasoline was selling for $.35/gallon [don't pass out now], so it's gradually fluctuated up and down until its present price of approximately $3.80/gallon. This occurred because of the Democratic Party's historical dedication to extreme invironmental causes politically, but as to energy, I'm now of the opinion that same is a disguised ruse and that their actual/real reasons for restricting domestic drilling is to financially prop-up the Middle Eastern countries sole source of economic revenue from oil production and sales of same to other countries. If their oil revenue was eliminated or disenfranchised, these countries would become bankrupt and all would thereafter resemble Cuba [since they have no other sources of revenue worth anything to the rest of the world other than their oil]. Additionally, with same siphoning off portions of their immense oil revenues to their surrounding Muslim terrorists elements as bribe money so that same will not overthrow these ruling/wealthy sheiks and therfore financially supporting international Muslim terrorism, every time we all fill up our car/truck gasoline tanks with this ME energy, we're actually contributing to funding of this terrorism. This country could not only substantially benefit our economic situation by fully developing/producing our own oil [and replacing the 2/3 of our supply from the ME] but we could also financially bring Muslim terrorism to a screaching halt from denying to them their operational funding from ME oil revenues. Not only do I believe that this administration is not naive or ignorant regarding their intended administrative dictates regarding preventing domestic oil drilling, but I actually am convinced that they do so intentionally and purposely in order to enhance and continue funding of this terrorism from ME oil. I do not think that their stated environmental concerns are the truth, the whole truth etc but are actually a political disguise. As the congressman shouted at the SOTU address......THEY LIE!!!!!!!

fletch92131 | 3.29.12 @ 2:55PM

Oldefarte,
I tend to think that it is more of an issue of thinking that the world is coming to an end, unless the enviros save us from our wasteful/sinful ways.

The American Spectator | 3.16.12 @ 2:48PM

It is that time of the year again, and we are all seeing just how much the government has taken from us over the course of the year to redistribute to the "more deserving."

Well, you are in luck because we offer the platform for the perfect payback — supporting an organization that reveals the waste and corruption of government, The American Spectator Foundation!

Support The American Spectator today with a $25, $75, or even $120 contribution, and this time next year, you'll be writing off your tax-deductible donation as an investment in your economic freedom.

https://spectator.org/donate

Thank you.

The American Spectator Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, so contributions are tax-deductible. Donors receive a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Norman Conquest| 3.16.12 @ 2:55PM

Prince George's Community College is a predominantly black college in a predominantly black suburb of DC. Small wonder the purple-lipped prevaricator chooses that venue for his bilious spewings so often.

ABNCP| 3.16.12 @ 3:22PM

Obama is doing just what he was put into office to accomplilsh, destroy traditional America. Read D'Souza, Corsi, Thiessen they all have this traitor taped. Corsi in his book Obama Nation that was written prior to the 2008 election predicted pretty much what Obama would try to do to this country.
He was right. Many perhaps most Americans have not yet realized what is going to happen to things like their Medicare monthly payments under ObamaCare in 2013, 2014 and from then on. If this man is reelected in 2012 their will be blood on the streets. Take a look at firearms makers like Ruger. Their stock has shot up like a dot comm IPO in the last year. And yet we hear over 50% of those Americans polled think he is doing a good job! God bless and help America.

Oldefarte| 3.17.12 @ 11:06AM

Absolutely correct. Additionally read Dick Morris' outstanding book CATASTROPHE!!!!

Seek| 3.20.12 @ 1:24PM

Are you predicting massive violence or advocating it? With people like you, the line between the two is very thin.

Norman Conquest| 3.16.12 @ 3:32PM

NO TIME FOR WORK: 5 CAMPAIGN EVENTS ON POTUS SKED...
MARCH 16, 2012 07:41:37 EDT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 15, 2012

DAILY GUIDANCE AND PRESS SCHEDULE FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2012

In the morning, the President will depart from the White House en route Chicago, Illinois. The departure from the South Lawn and arrival at O’Hare International Airport are open press.

In Chicago, the President will deliver remarks at a campaign event and then attend a campaign event at the Palmer House Hilton. The first event is pooled for television and open to pre-credentialed correspondents and still photographers. The second event is closed press.

In the afternoon, the President will depart from Chicago, Illinois, en route Atlanta, Georgia. The departure from O’Hare International Airport and arrival at Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport are open press.

After arriving in Atlanta, the President will deliver remarks at a campaign event at a private residence. There will be print pool coverage for remarks only.

Later, the President will deliver remarks at a campaign event at Tyler Perry Studios. This event is pooled for television and open to pre-credentialed correspondents and still photographers.

Later in the evening, the President will deliver remarks at a campaign event at a private residence. There will be print pool coverage for remarks only.

At night, the President will return to Washington, DC. The departure from Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport and arrival on the South Lawn are open press. ...

EDT

9:15AM

Pool Call Time

10:30AM

THE PRESIDENT departs the White House en route Joint Base Andrews

South Lawn...

10:45AM

THE PRESIDENT departs Joint Base Andrews en route Chicago, Illinois...

CDT

11:40AM

THE PRESIDENT arrives Chicago, Illinois

O’Hare International Airport

Open Press

12:20PM

THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a campaign event

Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois...

1:35PM

THE PRESIDENT attends a campaign event

Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois

Closed Press

3:00PM

THE PRESIDENT departs Chicago, Illinois, en route Atlanta, Georgia

O’Hare International Airport

Open Press

EDT

5:30PM

THE PRESIDENT arrives Atlanta, Georgia

Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport

Open Press

6:35PM

THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a campaign event

Private Residence

Print Pool for Remarks Only

8:25PM

THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a campaign event

Tyler Perry Studios, Atlanta, Georgia

Pooled for Television, Open to Pre-Credentialed Still Photographers and Correspondents

9:20PM

THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a campaign event

Private Residence

Print Pool for Remarks Only

10:55PM

THE PRESIDENT departs Atlanta, Georgia, en route Joint Base Andrews

Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport

Open Press

12:25AM

THE PRESIDENT arrives Joint Base Andrews

Out-of-Town Travel Pool Coverage

12:40AM

THE PRESIDENT arrives the White House

South Lawn

Purple-Lipped Mongrel| 3.16.12 @ 3:50PM

How ironic. A megalomaniacal, messianic, narcissistic Marxist ideologue who can tame the rising oceans, can't lower oil prices. A man who subscribes to a political religion that worships power, and prides itself as having the answers to all things material, can't find a way to increase domestic supply to exceed demand, thereby lowering the cost.

In this case Obama is equal parts dishonest and inept. He doesn't want to lower prices, except during his campaign, but he is so to ideologically constipated and so devoid of any impulse to actually help the economy that now, when he needs to help it to help himself, he doesn't know what to do. It seemed so easy for Marx...

old progrmr| 3.16.12 @ 4:22PM

Here we go again, doing what each leftist, anti-free market Dem has always done in face of too high fuel prices: 1) Organize a task force to investigate oil speculators, 2) Tap the Strategic Oil Reserve for half a day's worth of oil, 3) Talk and talk and talk some more about the need for alternative energy sources, 4) Begin proposing windfall Profits Taxes on Big Oil, 5) Threaten to issue more drilling permits, but, of course, never really approve them, 6) Direct a few more billions of dollars to Dem campaign financial bundlers who surprisingly control windmill and solar energy start-up companies. Do the Dems really think WE are all stupid. Remember once during the Bush administration when prices soared, Bush simply began issuing more permits and "jawboned" in favor of increased domestic production and the prices dropped significantly over a three week period. Just a REALISTIC threat of increased domestic production, like APPROVING the XL pipeline, opening ANWR and really expediting offshore drilling permits would reduce prices by 15 - 20% in a month.

cicero| 3.16.12 @ 5:52PM

Perhaps the main reason for the rise in the price of a gallonof gas at the pump is the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar. Until the federal government stops the insane, unaccounted for spending, and the correspondingly necessary printing of worthless money, the price of gas will not be going down. They have just reported another $trillion dollar deficit for this fiscal year. And that is just a wild guess, because there is no budget. This administration, and its fellow congressional counterparts have decided, as they told us in 2008, that they will fundamentally change this country. They are doing that by driving it into bankruptcy. The devaluation of the dollar is part of that process. The price of oil is only the most visible face of the overall inflation facing the majority of the country.
They want us to stare at the price at the pump, and keep chanting that there is nothing that we can do about it. In the meanwhile, they are enriching themselves and their minions at our expense. If you want to bring down the price of gas at the pump, bring down the cost of government.

matt | 3.16.12 @ 6:19PM

ugh... global demand is about where it was in 2007... the year if you remember where we had $120 dollars a barrel... if we have the same world demand we had when we had $120 a barrel, how would a weaker dollar give us $105 a barrel?

Thorny| 3.16.12 @ 10:32PM

Have you gotten dumber over the course of the last two days or is it just more obvious to see after having read a dozen or so of your previous dumb comments?

Questionman| 3.16.12 @ 6:24PM

This is a message to Klansman Timothy! Republicans want Obama to fail, making Americans suffer, just so they can get elected

They are destroying our country, just to win the power of the White House and Congress.

Its pretty sick if u think about us.

Not to mention, the way they have been for at least half a century.

When they are in the majority they spend like drunk fools, trample all over the constitution and tell people “Deficits don’t matter” and “If you haven’t done anything wrong, the US government should be able to do whatever they want and spy on you.”

NOW: Put a Democrat into the White House and all of a sudden, these same Republicans get out their guns, literally, saying how things have changed so much, and they will fight to the death for their “Don’t Tread On Me” flags.

FIRST: George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act, which completely trumps the US Constitution.

SECOND: George W. Bush administration forcefully disarmed people during the Katrina disaster.

THIRD: George W. Bush wanted to invade Iraq, when they should of stayed in Afghanistan, but he had finally found a way where he could get away with something he wanted to do for about a decade.

FOURTH: George W. Bush dismantled the branch of government created to find Osama Bin Laden.

FIFTH: He passed the ‘Faith Based Initiatives’ which is unconstitutional, he did this not with the help of congress, but he forced it through, like a Dictator does.

SIXTH: They hate the fact that Obama got (not killed! He didn't shoot him) one of the biggest terrorist in existance, but they want to give credit to Bush. Give credit to exact same man who, he himseld, said that he QUIT looking for Bin Laden!

Now, I can name many more things, but I want, and granted Obama is basically just following in Bush’s footsteps, it was Bush who opened up the can of worms, he created a precedent, that all future Presidents can use as an excuse to do whatever they want.

Obama is no marxist he is trying to take back the USA from the zionist neocon run Bush thugs and start to rebuild from all the damage the antichrist Bush has done here and abroad.

Obama is no communist, and he's not a socialist either. He's a corporatist. Ask any real socialist or communist if Obama is either and they will laugh in your dumb face.

Obama is a better Christian than most of the hateful righties. The USA Political Right Wing has been irresponsibly stirring up hate by preying upon the naive and fearful.

The USA Political Right Wing has been irresponsibly stirring up hate by preying upon the naive and fearful.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.17.12 @ 8:47AM

Did he say : "ZIONIST"?

Of course he did.

Is anyone Surprised?

Oldefarte| 3.17.12 @ 11:09AM

Forrest Gump had a saying for this MORON, which was.....STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES [SAYS in this case]!!!!!

Oldefarte| 3.17.12 @ 2:08PM

PS: "Republicans want Obama to fail, making Americans suffer, just so they can get elected" What a crock. He'd have to PERFORM AN ACTION IN ORDER TO POSSIBLY 'FAIL' and he's incapable of performing anything [ he couldn't find the Oval Office if a GPS was stuck up his bu*t]!!!!

matt | 3.16.12 @ 6:36PM

sorry in 2008 oil went up to $144 dollars a barrel, with a world demand of 85 million barrels a day... today with world demand at 89 million barrels a day.. .the price is $107...

Thorny| 3.16.12 @ 10:34PM

I dare you to explain the point you are attempting to make in words so easy to understand even conservatives can understand it.

albert constantine jr.| 3.16.12 @ 10:49PM

...and then it went down, to the point that in 2008 before Obama was elected (and until January, 2009, when he was inaugurated), gasoline was in the range of $1.85-1.95 per gallon, which is the more meaningful statistical cost to the consumer .

skip| 3.17.12 @ 7:32PM

. . . so an outline of the chronological order of events is:

2008 oil rose over $140 a barrel
2008 gas rose over $4 a gallon
2008 Bush aggressively pursued 'drill baby drill'
2008 gas fell under $2 a gallon
2008 McCain caught and passed Obama month and a half before election
2008 inevitable housing financial bubble burst
2008 Obama elected
2009 Democrats increase federal spending 33%
2009 Democrats fight to keep and fund 33% spending increase
2010 Democrats fight to keep and fund 33% spending increase
2010 Republicans elected in historic alltime rout with over 710 gains nationwide
2011 Democrats fight to keep and fund 33% spending increase
2012 Democrats fight to keep and fund 33% spending increase
2012 oil rises to over $120 a barrel
2012 gas rises over $4 a gallon
2012 no 'drill baby drill' needed as president states nation already drilling everywhere but national mall and backyards even as court injunctions to drill are defied by the president even as federal land drilling is down 11% even as energy secretary states "somehow we have to figure out how to boost price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" currently at $10 a gallon even as president states "I'd like higher gas prices" and . . .

cicero| 3.16.12 @ 6:48PM

Matt, in the early 200s, speculators were assuming a continuing uptick in the demand because of the rising economies of China and India. That didn't happen, and the price per barrel fell. At that time, the big oil companies were on record as saying that they could make money at $40.00 per barrel. The price dropped like a rock. There is no such speculation as to ramped up use today. If you take the value back down to its 2008 level, you will see that the actual cost per barrel is about the same, or less.

POST American| 3.16.12 @ 11:29PM

------BTW!

Speaking of oily redux-es

IS everyone catching Alex Jones's
masterful breakdown and evisceration
of the Rockefeller-Gates----Jolie
'KONY 2012' hoax?

-----------The BEST viewing on the web!

Truly, what the world banking (ie USURY)
and EUGENICS bory UN's been up to on
the African continent, and around the world
makes Himmler, Beria, Yehzov and even
MAO look like slackers.

-------------------------------------------WOE!!!!!!

New-Remberg ---has NEVER been NEWER!

Flee| 3.17.12 @ 12:09AM

And to top it off, in the photo you show of Obama at the top of the article it looks like he is wearing a wife beater under his crisp white shirt. First it was mommy jeans to throw out the first pitch at the All Star Game and now he sports wife beaters. I guess you can take the wild child out of Hawaii but not Hawaii out of the wild child.
Oh and the commodity trading skills he has shown, with other people's money of course, pales in comparison to Hillary. When will a DC reporter ask Obama why he needs to raise so much $ to campaign? If his policies and ideas are such winners they should speak for themselves. Oh that's right, they do speak for themselves and therein lies the problem.

martin j smith| 3.17.12 @ 8:19AM

The best person to oppose Obama is one who is willing to call him out not only on his specific policies but on the FACT that he wants to change our society to one more like a Communist Dictatorship. Romney does not qualify on both accounts because his poilcies emulate Obama's and because he refuses to call Obama what he actually is.

WestHoustonGeo| 3.17.12 @ 12:25PM

History, Geology and Technology have combined to make US energy independence about ten years from now. We live at the beginning of the Oil Age, not at its end.
That is only if the current administration is defeated in November. Otherwise, final economic disaster is inevitable.

Marc Jeric| 3.18.12 @ 12:35AM

Two comments;
1) Mullah Obama should be encouraged in his pursuit of "green energy". Why? It does not exist, that's why. He is doomed to failure, just like those medieval princes whose alchemists were trying to make gold out of lead.
2) Mullah Obama's arab friends will increase oil production sometime in August/September this year to bring the price of a barrell of oil down to about $50, and so insure his re-election. Right after November the price will jump back to $110 per barrell.

MJF| 3.18.12 @ 10:19AM

Man you people have to be the dumbest bunch of people I have ever seen. I mean you can' even understand the basic rules of economics and yet you are here arguing something that is obviously over your heads.

Drill, Drill, Drill? Why....All the Oil that is drilled is bought and sold on the World Market. It is not like we can buy American Oil Cheaper.

The simplicity of economics is an item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. We have high fuel prices because other countries want to buy our refined fuels, and are willing to keep paying the price for it.

If you think flooding the market with more oil will help ask yourself why is Diesel and its variants so much more expensive? Especially when it is the cheapest and easiest of all the fuels to refine?

Oh and couple all of that with a weak dollar...and you pay more.

Try opening up a book once in awhile instead of spouting off the opinions of others just because you like the way it sounds.

Maybe then, just then, when you post something....you might be able to back it up with some facts, and not political opinion.

skip| 3.18.12 @ 1:53PM

In all that emotional prattle, that somehow avoided any reason and experience, you somehow avoided helping we the dumbest bunch of people you somehow have ever seen, to understand somehow any basic rule of economics.

In all that emotional prattle, that somehow avoided any reason and experience, you somehow avoided helping we the dumbest bunch of people you somehow have ever seen, to understand somehow how government regulation affects price.

In all that emotional prattle, that somehow avoided any reason and experience, you somehow avoided helping we the dumbest bunch of people you somehow have ever seen, to understand somehow how government monetary policy affects the dollar.

In all that emotional prattle, that somehow avoided any reason and experience, you somehow avoided helping we the dumbest bunch of people you somehow have ever seen, to understand somehow how the basic rule of economics of supply and demand affects price.

Somehow you have become an idiot.

MJF| 3.18.12 @ 3:46PM

So what you are saying is you neglected to read the last two paragraphs I wrote..

"Try opening up a book once in awhile instead of spouting off the opinions of others just because you like the way it sounds.

Maybe then, just then, when you post something....you might be able to back it up with some facts, and not political opinion."

So explain to me why It is my responsibilities to teach you frickin moons anything? Stop being a lazy POS your hole life and get to one of those socialist libraries and educate yourself.

But please...I have read all of your idiotic post. If you really need me to explain everything to you I will.

Just give me a few days to put together a nice sock puppet demonstration for you so I can get it to your level of comprehension.....Sound like a plan there Spanky?

skip| 3.18.12 @ 6:29PM

So what you are emotionally prattling about that pointedly avoids any reason and experience, that is just your emotionally prattled opinion that pointedly avoids any actual facts, is for all us dumbest bunch of people you have ever seen to stop being the dumbest bunch of people you have ever seen without all us dumbest bunch of people you have ever seen ever seeing an actual fact from you, so that "maybe then, just then, when" all us dumbest people you have ever seen "post something...." all us dumbest people you have ever seen "might be able to back it up with some facts, and not some political opinion", this being based on just your opinion, which you just refuse to back up with just even one actual fact.

Have you just been this pathetic and despciable an idiot your hole life?

MJF| 3.18.12 @ 10:08PM

Aww look at you....so special. Did I get under your skin a bit? Did you mangina start to hurt when I insulted you already pathetic intelligence.

facts are this...The US is already producing more Fuel than in years past.....Thats your supply dipshit

Your demand is coming from other countries that are paying the high price to get out fuel....There is the demand.

The US is exporting more refined fuel than in past years....Thats your Free Market working for you....Selling the fuel for maximum profit.

Obviously you have a hard time comprehending facts but you can try the DOE website for all the facts you need there spanky. Maybe you can get mommy and daddy to give you a hand in your homework....that is assuming they are not as smacked ass stupid as yourself....However looking at you...If you not adopted, or retarded...then I think the low double digit IQ runs in the family

psst...here ya go.....some help for the special one.

Don't be afraid....its a fact.

http://content.usatoday.com/co.....2aU1uV7X6M

skip| 3.19.12 @ 1:20PM

"facts are this... The US is already producing more Fuel than in years past..... Thats your supply dipshit"
(hole - not whalf - idiot | 3.18.12 @ 10:08PM)

Your link, a USA today article,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. is producing,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. has produced in the past,
did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has increased,
and did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has decreased.

Your link, a USA Today article, contained four links,
a Bloomberg article,
a Petroleum Supply Monthly report,
and two 24/7 Wall St. articles.

The Bloomberg article,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. is producing,
did not mention how much gasoline The U.S. has produced in the past,
did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has increased,
and did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has decreased.

The Petroleum Supply Monthly report,
in a link to a reports table of contents,
in the table for 'U.S. Supply',
that shows 'Supply: Refinery and Blender Net Production, Latest Periods:',
shows the latest period,
'Dec 2011 (Current): 582,956 (Thousand Barrels)',
shows the latest period,
'Aug 2011: 604,945 (Thousand Barrels)',
shows the latest period,
'Dec 2010: 586,231 (Thousand Barrels)',
and shows the latest period,
'May 2008: 588,562 (Thousand Barrels)'.

The first of two 24/7 articles,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. is producing,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. has produced in the past,
but did mention:
"Over the last four weeks, gasoline supplied has declined by -6.7% compared to the same period last year."

The second of two 24/7 articles,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. is producing,
did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. has produced in the past,
did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has increased,
and did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has decreased.

"facts are this... The US is already producing more Fuel than in years past..... Thats your supply dipshit
(hole - not whalf - idiot | 3.18.12 @ 10:08PM)

Somehow you have become an idiot.

Have you just been this pathetic and despicable an idiot your hole life?

If somehow you had just been this pathetic and despicable the last whalf of your hole life,
you would know you are a pathetic and despicable hole idiot right now,
you would know you have been a pathetic and despicable whalf of a hole idiot in the past,
and you would be able to determine whether you as a pathetic and despicable hole idiot is increasing the hole of your idiocy whether by whalf or by another holely hole hole of idiocy,
and you would be able to determine whether you as a pathetic and despicable hole idiot is not decreasing the whole of your idiocy whether by whalf or by another holely hole hole of idiocy.

MJF| 3.19.12 @ 1:56PM

Yo Dumbass...I told you to check out the DOE for info on Imports and exports.....you know what that is? The Department of Energy Website.

There is also the US energy Information Administration....

How have you become so lazy that you need me to look up fats for you? honestly, what a pathetic bitch you must be. Asking me to find answers for you...Man your parents must have been f'in retards to even allow you to be born.

Tell ya what.....give up already....It is not my job to teach you how to look up information....It is not my job to tell you how to think....It is not my job to do work for your lazy ass..............

My job is to make sure you know you are a F'in moron...and with that...I succeeded. Dipshit.

skip| 3.19.12 @ 2:56PM

"facts are this... The US is already producing more Fuel than in years past..... Thats your supply dipshit"
(hole - not whalf - idiot | 3.18.12 @ 10:08PM)

Your 'facts',
that the U.S. is producing more gasoline than in years past,
based on your link,
the link that did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. is producing,
the link that did not mention how much gasoline the U.S. has produced in the past,
the link that did not mention whether U.S. gasoline production has increased,
but the link that did mention "Over the last four weeks, gasoline supplied has declined by -6.7% compared to the same period last year",
the link that also did provide a link within the link to the Petroleum Supply Monthly report,
that showed 'U.S. Supply Refinery and Blender Net Production, Latest Periods', including:

Dec 2011 (Current):
582,956 (Thousand Barrels)

Aug 2011:
604,945 (Thousand Barrels)

Dec 2010:
586,231 (Thousand Barrels)

May 2008:
588,562 (Thousand Barrels)

these numbers directly from the Petroleum Supply Monthly report,
The Petroleum Supply Monthly report that is provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"There is also the US energy Information Administration...."
(hole - not - whalf - idiot | 3.19.12 @ 1:56PM)

Are you a hole - not whalf - idiot because you are pathetic and despicable,
or are you pathetic and despicable because you are a hole - not whalf - idiot?

MJF| 3.19.12 @ 10:36PM

Hey Dipshit...The article I provided for you said absolutely nothing about us producing more fuel than years past you illiterate moron. It says we are exporting more than years past. Do you understand the difference you friggin dumbass?

And let me ask you a question since you are hell bent on refinery output....

Who controls the refinery output? Is it the government or the companies who own the refineries?

Last time I checked we do not have a shortage of Oil....and drilling more would be like filling your tank up and then filling up storage tanks just to fill them up.

Your logic is flawed, just like your inability of critical thought.....One can only hope your gene pool is ending with you, for you mating with your sister will just make for even more dumb children to pollute my country with even more stupidity.

To put it bluntly, your so stupid I bet at times you need to remind yourself to breathe.

skip| 3.20.12 @ 1:50PM

"Hey Dipshit... The article I provided for you said absolutely nothing about us producing more fuel than years past you illiterate moron."
(hole - not whalf - idiot | 3.19.12 @ 10:36PM)

"facts are this... The US is already producing more fuel than in the past..... Thats your supply dipshit."

"psst...here ya go.....some help for the special one. Don't be afraid, its a fact.

"http://content.usatoday.com/..."

(hole - not whalf - idiot | 3.18.12 @ 10:08PM)

"Your logic is flawed, just like your inability of critical thought....."
(hole - not whalf - idiot | 3.19.12 @ 10:36PM)

Are you pathetic and despicable because you are a hole - not whalf - idiot,
or are you a hole - not whalf - idiot because you are pathetic and despicable?

MJF| 3.20.12 @ 2:04PM

Lmao...Looks like I have won this battle. I am so glad I taught you a lesson in getting your illiterate ass kicked by someone much smarter than yourself.

Enjoy your life of failure....and in closing...enjoy another 4 years of MR. OBAMA Bitch.

LMAO.....LOSER

skip| 3.20.12 @ 2:17PM

a hole - not a whalf - idiot:

"facts are this...The US is already producing more fuel than in the past..... Thats your supply dipshit.

psst...here ya go.....

http://content.usatoday.com/...

Hey Dipshit... The article I provided for you said absolutely nothing about us producing more fuel than in years past you illiterate moron.

Your logic is flawed, just like your inability of critical thought.....

I am so glad i taught you a lesson in getting your illiterate ass kicked by someone much smarter than yourself."

This a hole - not a whalf - idiot represents the integrity and the credibility, and the intelligence and the honesty, of every liberal and of every Obama voter.

ebonystone| 3.19.12 @ 11:54AM

In regard to American refineries exporting refined products: We may be exporting some refined products, but we are importing far more. The EPA has been prohibiting the building of new refineries, and the rebuilding of existing ones, for years, so that we are increasingly importing refined products, not crude.
Also, only a certain percentage of a barrel of crude can be made into gasoline, and even a smaller percentage into diesel. For gasoline, it's roughly one-half: for each barrel of crude, one can obtain about half a barrel of gasoline. The percentage can be tuned to a certain small extent: normally the refiners adjust the process to produce a larger amount of heating oil in the winter, and a smaller amount of gasoline; and then do the reverse in the summer.

MJF| 3.19.12 @ 2:41PM

Actually you are mistaken....We are exporting more refined products.....Gasoline is just one of them.

http://www.econbrowser.com/arc.....ports.html

And as for your breakdown of fuel from a barrel of oil...it is dependent upon the type of crude, however here is some nice info...

http://205.254.135.7/pub/oil_g.....simple.htm

As for the adding of more refineries, well thats a catch 22, and it is not all the EPA. You telling me there are not places in Arizona, Nevada, etc where we can't build them?

No the reason for the lack of refineries is no one wants them in their backyard....that and who is going to build them? Why would the Oil companies want to build refineries to help lower fuel prices? that is not economically feasible for them.
As long as they are still making a profit they will sit back and not worry about anything or building anything.
You see Oil companies make very little profit on refined fuel...Exxon profits are around 3% from refined fuel sales. So they really do not care what the price of fuel is, as long as they are selling it and people are buying it.

Refining only accounts for roughly 8% of the cost of fuel. Marketing and distribution accounts for 10% and taxes account for 13%. The other 69% is based upon the price of oil. Now this will vary from state to state depending on local taxes, but in general, this is the breakdown.

It is not something anyone wants to hear, but the cheapest and easiest way to get cheap fuel is to socialize the production and distribution. Keep US oil here and refine it hear by federally operated refineries. Oil will not be subjected to the price of the world market but to our market.

I mean there is a reason why in the countries that have socialized oil distribution fuel is at prices under a dollar a gallon.

The Price of fuel has nothing to do with the current government or government in the past. It has everything to do with the free market and that market only.
The only exception I would say to that is Diesel Fuel. The reason Diesel is so high is because of the strained demand by the US military usage.

MJF`| 3.20.12 @ 4:43PM

All you people that have to be the dumbest people I've ever seen, are all F'in morons you don't know my initials stand for Mister Jharp Fckewe.

And I'm LMAO.....all you losers.

POST American| 3.18.12 @ 10:42PM

BTW---putting aside the cover up and
memory holing of Andrew Breitbart's
murder and the 'disappearance' of the very
substance of former Kissinger aide,
'BAR---Rockefeller' Obama's college video(s)---

IS everyone noticing the complete
capstone media BLACK OUT of
IMPEACHMENT proceedings against
Obama in the US Senate in the wake
of 'PAN--NET---us' treasonous testimony
before congress last week?

As we've said ----

full blown, boots to the ground, USURER
Globalist 'managed' handover and receivership
to the world's MOST awesomely genocidal
--er-- we meant 'EUGENICS saavvy'
regime ---ACROSS the Pacific ---within
3 years.

Remember, CFR Globalism isn't even TREASON
---it's occupation by an alien force using
debt creation and tax free front ops as its
prime instruments of manipulation and control.

REALLY

And remember, UNLIKE the poor benighted
fools of 1920--1940,

-----------------YOU WERE WARNED-----------------

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Special Report

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obamacare Implodes

May 15, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?

May 14, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want

May 14, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/16/obamas-oily-desperation-redux

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|106 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|68 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.