After the Largo Laugh-In, rising gas prices are bound to appear hysterically funny.
Before President Obama chose him to be his Secretary of Anti-Energy, Berkeley Professor Steven Chu said what America needs is the same gas prices as Europe. That is $8 to $10 a gallon. He believes that because he thinks that is good for the environment. Higher gas prices will force people to drive less, and turn to what he sees as enviro-friendly biofuels (like algae) and electric cars, reducing the use of oil, which he thinks is bad for the environment. The much higher gas prices of Europe are necessary to make these more costly alternatives economically competitive, even if they can be technologically produced some day in enough volume to power our modern economy.
Why did President Obama choose Chu for his Energy Secretary? Because Obama agrees with him. Obama told us as much in his 2008 campaign, saying that the only problem with the soaring gas prices of early 2008 was that they were too sudden. The increase should be more gradual so that American pocketbooks can get used to them.
Notice the careful, calculated deception Obama used in answering a question recently asking isn’t it true that he wants higher gas prices. Obama said, “Do you think a President running for reelection wants higher gas prices? Does anybody here think that makes sense?”
But that is not the question of interest to the American people. Chu recently answered that question, telling a Congressional panel that he no longer believes European gas prices would be good for America. But Newt Gingrich responded with the right question the American people are asking, “How many weeks after the election do you think it will take for him to go back to being who he is?” Ditto that for Obama.
When Obama was sworn in, the price of gas was $1.89. Today it’s $3.83. They told us they wanted higher gas prices, and why, and now gas prices have more than doubled. So what do you think the answer is to the question, doesn’t Obama want higher gas prices?
It’s the Supply and Demand,
President Obama produced quite a laugh riot in his speech last week at Prince Georges Community College in Largo, Maryland. The handpicked audience clearly loved it. As Newt Gingrich said in his response two days later, “So now we get to the President, who has just been more fun on this topic for the last 2 weeks.” Obama said:
Every time prices start to go up — especially in an election year — politicians dust off their 3-point plans for $2.00 gas. (Laughter) I guess this year they decided, we’re going to make it $2.50. (Laughter) But they tell the same story. They head down to the gas station…and they start acting like we’ve got a magic wand and we’ll give you cheap gas forever if you just elect us. (Laughter). Every time. Been the same script for 30 years. It’s like a bad rerun. (Laughter). Now here’s the thing. Because we’ve seen it all before, we know better. There is no such thing as a quick fix when it comes to high gas prices. There’s no silver bullet.
Obama explained to the audience supposedly why there is no quick fix, no silver bullet. “America uses more than 20% of the world’s oil. If we drilled every square inch of this country — so we went to your house and we went to the National Mall and we put those rigs up everywhere — we’d still have 2% of the world’s known oil reserves. We’re using 20; we have 2.”
Let me be honest with you, rather than falsely diplomatic. If Obama is not outright lying here, if he doesn’t know how confused and misleading this is, then he is too stupid to be President.
Here’s the problem. “Proven reserves” under the federal government’s definition can only exist where the oil companies are allowed to drill. Where there are no leases, and no permits, and no at least exploratory drilling to prove what is down there, there can be no “proven reserves.”
That is why in 1980 the federal government said America had 30 billion barrels of proven reserves, but between 1980 and 2007, we produced 75 billion barrels of oil. Obama can’t not know this. Therefore, he cannot not be deliberately trying to deceive us.
Gingrich again provided the response to Obama two days later (available online), making two effective transnational debates now where Obama has been whipped like a creamy dessert topping. As Gingrich pointed out, due to the development of new technology in the private sector, America has been enjoying an oil and gas boom in the private sector, Obama to the contrary notwithstanding. The technological breakthrough has been to combine the decades old practice of “fracking” to break up shale rock, with offshore drilling technologies that allow horizontal drilling in every direction from one hole.
That is why, as Gingrich has further explained, rather than the “proven reserves” of about 20 billion barrels that Obama emphasizes, “the number of recoverable barrels of oil estimated to be in the United States, waiting to be produced [is 1.44 trillion]. That’s about the amount of oil the entire world has consumed since the first well was drilled before the Civil War.” And that is why Goldman Sachs predicted last year that the U.S. has the potential to be the world’s largest oil-producing country by 2017.
Steve Moore explained the results in just one state, North Dakota, in the weekend Wall Street Journal for March 10-11:
In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated 150 million “technically recoverable barrels of oil” from the Bakken Shale [the root of the North Dakota boom]. In April 2008 that number was up to about four billion barrels, and in 2010 geologists… put it at eight billion. This week, given the discovery of a lower shelf of oil, they announced 24 billion barrels. Current technology allows for the extraction of only about 6% of the oil trapped one or two miles below the earth’s surface, so as the technology advances recoverable oil could eventually exceed 500 billion barrels.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online