Fossil Fuel Boom May Lead to “Green” President’s Re-election

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Hollywood, CA—A new short documentary explores the scenario that President Obama may gain re-election thanks to the fossil fuel industry and in particular a sector of the industry that the environmental movement hates.

The five minute documentary, The Dinosaur Election, points out that Ohio and Pennsylvania—two significant swing states in the election—are currently experiencing localized economic booms due in part to a method for extracting oil and natural gas from previously inaccessible shale rock. The process is hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

View the documentary here:

“Incumbent Presidents always do well when people feel optimistic, and at the moment—thanks to fracking and fossil fuels left by decaying dinosaurs—there is much to be optimistic about in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said journalist and filmmaker Phelim McAleer who directed and produced the documentary.

The fracking boom started to take off in Pennsylvania just five years ago and has recently spread to Ohio. It has brought tens of billions of dollars to the states in investments and royalties to farmers but has become the number one enemy of the environmental movement who claim the process is polluting and damaging.

The Dinosaur Election points out that this boom is part of a feel-good factor that is sweeping Ohio and PA and could lead to the re-election of President Obama.

But the prospect of President Obama getting re-elected because of fracking drips with irony.

“It’s no secret that President Obama and his administration don’t like fossil fuel industry and would rather support renewable such as solar panels and windmills,” McAleer said. “But they may owe their survival and second term to a boom they don’t like and don’t support.”

The Dinosaur Election features Republican and Democrat analysts who emphasize just how important the two states are for President Obama and how their mini-booms amidst a nation recession may swing the election in an unexpected way.

McAleer said there is a further irony that President Obama may use the flexibility of his second term to undermine and regulate the fracking boom, which is hated by the environmental wing of the Democrat Party.

“This isn’t a ‘donkey’ or ‘elephant’ election. It’s a ‘dinosaur’ election,” McAleer said.

# # #

Phelim McAleer is a journalist and the director of FrackNation, a documentary about fracking. For interviews, please contact: or call (202) 290-8671.

Obama’s Class Warfare: Don’t Be Fooled Again

By Chuck Norris

Obama is constantly resorting to this tactic because he’s simply unable to defend his own record in office as 23 million Americans are out of work or underemployed and the economy remains in distress.

Class warfare is all he has left.

But voters aren’t buying Obama’s polarizing rhetoric. In a Gallup survey of the 12 most important priorities this election year, the issue of “increasing taxes on wealthy Americans” came in dead last among voters. Understandably, Americans are far more concerned with issues such as “creating good jobs,” “reducing corruption in the federal government” and “reducing the federal budget deficit,” among other important priorities.

Nonetheless, Obama relentlessly attacks Mitt Romney’s prosperity, as if being a successful businessman – who takes financial risks and creates jobs – is an automatic disqualifier for anyone running for the nation’s highest office.

During the second presidential debate last week, Obama hammered Romney for his financial success and played the class-warfare card:

“I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.” (In fact, Obama has a larger pension than Romney.)

Obama attacked Romney’s “$20 million a year” income. (Romney actually made $13.7 million in 2011 and gave nearly 30 percent of his income to charity.)

He also accused Romney of shielding the wealthy from paying “a little bit more” in taxes.
He stated, “I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that’s how our economy is grown.”

Obama claims to support free enterprise, self-reliance and individual initiative, but his actions say otherwise. He has forced on America a federal takeover of health care, increased oppressive regulation of private business, sustained massive government spending and expanded our nation’s welfare rolls by 32 percent since 2008. He even attacks corporations while accepting campaign funds from the same ventures he condemns. (Ironically, Obama has accepted nearly $120,000 from Bain Capital executives, is the top recipient of funds from BP oil, has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust and staffed his own Cabinet with wealthy CEOs.)

In 2008, Obama famously told Joe the Plumber of his plans to confiscate money from small businesses: “[I]t’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too. … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

In 2010, he arrogantly remarked, “I think at some point you have made enough money.”

In July, Obama attacked business again, saying, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” (As I explained in an earlier column, that “somebody” to whom Obama referred was, in fact, the U.S. federal government.)

In other acts of class warfare, the president embraced the anarchist Occupy Wall Street movement, pitted labor unions that heavily fund his campaign against the private sector and blatantly condemned capitalism.

Meanwhile, Obama likes to say his tax increases will only affect “millionaires” and “billionaires,” but the actual hikes will hit couples with incomes of $250,000 and higher.

The president claims to be raising taxes on the rich, but he’s raising taxes on many of our nation’s job producers and using his class-warfare rhetoric to fool voters.

What do business-savvy employers do when burdened by crushing tax hikes? They look for options to reduce their taxable income.

Facing the increased cost burden of Obamacare, businesses are already looking for ways to avoid dealing with the soaring costs associated with the president’s health-care takeover – including potential layoffs and slashing employee hours from full time to part time.

Obamacare is the very definition of a class-warfare ploy because it drains the lifeblood from America’s producers to subsidize the uninsured. While “free” insurance may sound like a good idea in theory, increasing the burden on companies will force them to cut employees and their benefits to stay in business.

When businesses shed employees, revenue collected by federal and state governments as payroll taxes declines as well. That’s a lose-lose situation for our nation. The best way to get Americans back to work is to grow our economy and reduce tax burdens on our nation’s job creators.

When it comes to raising taxes and increasing regulations, there’s no limit to what Washington will impose. Where does it end?

What exactly does Obama consider “fair”?

Obama wants you to believe big government is good, profit is evil and “spreading the wealth” will improve the lives of everyone in America.

He wants you to believe he will help the middle class by promoting job creation and boosting the economy – but he has failed to do so in the last four years. And now he’s desperate.

Americans are tired of being pitted against one another by this administration. What they really want is jobs, a robust economy and a true leader who won’t resort to class warfare in an effort to distract voters and divide our great nation.


Another Green Company Goes Bust

Gerri Willis

Just in case any of you out there continue to harbor the belief government can do things better than the private sector: witness Satcon Technology Corp.

The Massachusetts- based solar energy company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Wednesday, which makes it the second taxpayer backed company to go toes up this week. Electric car battery company, A123 filed Tuesday.

Another week, and another hundred million or so of taxpayer money thrown out the window. Even the companies that continue to operate like LG Chem, a lithium-ion plant in Holland, Michigan are struggling. The plant, which was built with taxpayer dollars, is supposed to be making batteries for the Chevy Volt.

However, a local TV station reported employees at the company have so little work to do, that they spend hours playing cards and board games, reading magazines and watching movies. Some can’t take the boredom and are quitting! In other words, even as a government make-work project, LG Chem is failing!

Here’s President Obama at that plant just over two years ago.

“These plants will put thousands of people to work. This includes folks who were working at a couple of facilities being built in Michigan by another battery technology company called A123. This is a symbol of where Michigan is going, this is a
symbol of where Holland is going, this is a symbol of where America is going.”

A symbol of where America is going!

By the way, LG Chem is a Korean company that received a $151 million grant from U.S. taxpayers.

Anyway, back to Satcon. The good news is that the company only used $228,000 worth of taxpayer dollars, even though it was approved for $3 million under Obama’s Department of Energy.

Though it’s hard to see why.

Satcon has struggled financially for years. Its power conversion devices and other products were in steady demand in 2011, but the company’s managers couldn’t translate that into profitability.

The company posted losses each year from 2005 to 2011, as well as the first six months of 2012.

But look, it’s not just Satcon and A123.

According to the Heritage Foundation, 34 of the green energy companies that have gotten some sort of government assistance are faltering, going bankrupt, laying people off, or planning a bankruptcy.

Take a look at the list.

Heritage estimates that of the $90 billion in green energy loans, grants, and tax credits, 10% have gone to companies that are either bankrupt or circling the drain.

Even one, in my opinion is too many. This is precisely why the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers; or as Mitt Romney put it:

“You don’t pick winners and losers, you pick losers.”

Read more. ://

Charles Schwab: Obama’s Economics Crushing Seniors

Brokerage founder Charles Schwab tells Newsmax that if Mitt Romney is elected the economy will “pick up steam” and reverse the “no-growth policy” of President Obama that is crushing seniors with low interest rates.

He also predicts that Obama’s plan to raise taxes on wealthier Americans would not solve even “a fraction” of the problem with the federal budget deficit.

Schwab is founder and chairman of the Charles Schwab Corp., a discount brokerage that has made investing accessible to people around the globe. The San-Francisco-based company was founded in 1971 and now has more than 8 million brokerage accounts.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV in Florida on Thursday, Schwab — who supports Romney for president — was asked what Obama policies have been the most damaging to retirees in the Sunshine State and elsewhere.

“The most difficult thing I have to see and watch in the Obama administration is their almost no-growth policy. Everywhere you turn it seems as if they’re suppressing growth —on an attitudinal thing, raising taxes or regulation. It goes on and on and on,” Schwab says.

“And what has happened is the Obama administration has really deferred to the Federal Reserve to do anything that might help the economy. They brought interest rates down. In fact, they brought rates down to near zero.

“Who took the brunt of all of that? It’s the seniors. There are 40 million seniors in the United States. Florida has a huge population of seniors and these people are suffering. They get virtually no interest on their CDs, their money market accounts, their savings accounts. These are things that people planned on 35, 40 years ago. They’ve just seen their income, their nest egg, sort of disappear.

“Yes, they have the principal there, and that’s safe, but none of the income that they’d planned on to supplement their Social Security.”

Romney will not likely raise interest rates, Schwab opines.

“He won’t be raising rates or lowering them. What will happen is the economy will pick up steam, will start growing again. People will become employed. More tax revenue will come off people’s employment. It will spin on its own way as we grow out of this thing.

Urgent Poll: Obama or Romney? Who Won the Second Debate?

“We need about a 3 percent growth. So I would recommend to seniors, find the president that is going to make us grow faster. If you ever want to have any income from your savings account, we’ve got to get a growing economy. That’s the only way interest rates will ever go up. Get back to normal. Normal was when we had a 3 percent coupon, so to speak, on our savings account. It’s zero today.”

A President Romney would implement policies to encourage natural growth, according to Schwab.

“The Fed would have to increase rates because they flooded the whole world with money, the United States included. If we had growth with no increase in interest rates, we’d have massive inflation. But we have to get back to a growing economy in order for us to get some lift in interest rates for our savings accounts.”

As for Romney’s tax plan, Schwab tells Newsmax: “It would provide a great amount of psychological incentive. It would also inspire people that hard work is rewarded by their ability to keep more of their hard-earned income.

“In my case, someone who’s been quite successful and lucky along the way, my rates will probably go up 10 percent, which I’m perfectly happy to do because I spend a lot of my time now with non-profit institutions and I give a lot of money away to them and I’m able to deduct that.”

Romney has talked about lowering income tax rates and eliminating or limiting deductions, which include the mortgage interest deduction and charitable deduction, but Schwab doesn’t believe he will eliminate all the deductions.

“I don’t think he’s going to do that, but at my level if we eliminated all deductions, I would end up paying slightly more in the way of taxes,” he says.

“Now I’m sure he’ll probably have exemptions for the middle income people of America, whether it be we deduct the mortgage payments they’re making or interest on the mortgage payments. That will probably not go away. In my case, fortunately, being 75 years of age, I paid off my mortgage finally and I don’t have a mortgage anymore. So I don’t worry about the deductions.”

Asked if a lot of the problems with the economy now are psychological, Schwab responds: “Absolutely. But they’re also instituted by the leader of the organization, meaning our president.

“When the leader of any organization gives suppressing notes, beats up on different sectors of the economy for being too successful, that ends up converting people to being pretty depressed about their position.

“Successful people work hard and you’re going to get less work, you’re going to get less rewards, you’re going to get less income, and we’re in a funk right now as an economy.”

President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on higher income families and businesses “wouldn’t be enough, really, to accomplish a fraction of the problem we have with deficits of over a trillion dollars a year,” Schwab declares.

“So I don’t think anyone who’s successful is worried about paying slightly more. That’s not the issue. You want to create a system of taxes that will maximize output, maximize work, maximize incentives to do work, and then, out of the maximization of that, you get an adequate cash flow going to your federal government, your state and counties.”

Looking beyond the election, Schwab was asked if real reform of the tax code and budgetary process can be accomplished without everyone having to pay more.

Urgent Poll: Obama or Romney? Who Won the Second Debate?

“We probably will have to pay more because we want more services, frankly,” he responds.

“We all agree that if there is a large group, 30 million people supposedly, without insurance for their medical services, everyone feels we should help them too. That’s going to cost a bunch of money. We all want a lot of new things in the economy and some of that is going to take money.

“But what happens is once you start growing, there’s all kinds of new money being created. If you’re shrinking, as we have been, it gets less, the pie gets smaller and smaller and smaller. We want to turn things around and get the pie bigger. The growth sort of begets itself.”

Read more on Charles Schwab to Newsmax: Obama’s Economics Crushing Seniors.

CO2-molecule lobby plans to clear air about global warming

By Kirk Myers

CO2-molecule lobby plans to clear air about global warmingClimate experts, politicians, environmentalists and assorted green organizations have been beating the daylight out of CO2 for decades, charging it with a litany of crimes against Mother Earth – heating the atmosphere, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, acidifying oceans, driving polar bears to extinction and generally making a mess of things on the planet.

As the hobgoblin of the green movement, CO2 has taken it on the atmospheric chin. But what if CO2 had its own atmospheric lobby and could fight back? Perhaps we might see a story like this one in the news.


ORLANDO, Fla. – Faced with growing criticism, the CO2-molecule lobby said today that it will no longer take the heat for earth’s climate change, and has launched a campaign to restore its blackened reputation.

“It’s time to clear the air about the benefits of CO2,” announced chairman Nate Carbo at today’s Alliance of CO2 Molecules (ACO2M) tropospheric conference held high above Walt Disney Resort. “CO2 molecules have been the climate fall guy for years. We’ve been unfairly charged with crimes against humanity. Now we’re going to fight back with all our molecular energy.”

Chairman Carbo said ACO2M’s executive panel has drawn up a list of grievances that it will send this week to CO2 critics at the White House, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), EPA, Climate Research Unit (CRU), NASA, Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and major environmental organizations. A copy of the preliminary draft, received earlier today, makes the following 10 demands:

1. Stop calling CO2 molecules a pollutant – Plants depend on CO2, and they’ve been CO2-undernourished since the Jurassic period (an era plants refer to as “photosynthesis heaven”) when our molecular presence was nearly five times higher than current levels. Not surprisingly, the CO2-famished plants of today are green with envy. (Note: The world’s plant life is solidly behind our organization in backing this demand. They’ve given ACO2M the power of attorney to represent all earth vegetation in a lawsuit against Carol Browner and the scientists at the EPA, which recently declared CO2 a pollutant.)

2. Tell Michael Mann to shut up – There is no hockey stick-shaped warming in the atmosphere (in fact, the earth is cooling now), and if there was, it wouldn’t be CO2’s fault. Why don’t you blame the sun for a change? We CO2 molecules have been around this earth long enough to remember the gloriously comfortable days of the Roman Warm Era and Medieval Warm Period – a time when there were no cars, factories and power plants. Back then, humans were growing vineyards in England and raising crops in Greenland. Now their descendants want a one-way ticket to the beaches in Rio. We don’t deserve credit or blame for climate change.

3. End discrimination – CO2 is the whipping boy for every major climate disaster. We get blamed when it’s hot and screamed at when it’s cold. But the big yellow ball in the sky never takes the heat. Why? We CO2 molecules get our hind atoms scorched every time the sun spews another sunspot or solar flare. But, oh no, it’s always CO2 gas that gets fingered for imaginary global warming. Please look at the blast furnace overhead for a change.

4. Quit passing the buck – Frankly, we CO2 molecules feel betrayed. Not all of us emanate from cars, factories and burning wood piles. Many of us are sent on our tropospheric journey when humans breathe. Humans are breathing CO2 factories, but you never want to acknowledge your gaseous contribution. So if you’re truly serious about reducing the percentage of CO2 molecules, stop breathing and talking. (We’ve discovered, by the way, that CO2 emissions – and our molecular numbers – rise dramatically whenever Chicken Little eco-dummies like Al Gore take the microphone.)

5. Apologize to trees and other vegetation – Most of you spend lots of time and money tending your garden, caring for plants, trimming trees and manicuring your lawn. Your yard is a source of pride, and you brag about it to neighbors. So why in Heaven do you want to reduce its precious CO2 supply – nature’s sustenance? Shame on you! If you discover a brown patch in your St. Augustine tomorrow, consider it payback.

6. Urge Al Gore to take an oath of silence – The former VP is a charlatan and disgrace. All his flashy multimedia presentations cast us as some sort of global warming satan. But our molecular membership has never been responsible for rising temperatures. Look carefully at CO2 and temperature charts. When you superimpose them, you’ll find CO2 shuffling along hundreds of years after temperatures have risen. No wonder the enemies of CO2 show the charts separately. Telling the truth is just too inconvenient. (Note: Some of our normally friendly gas molecules want to lock Gore in a greenhouse for 30 days. But we warned them it might trigger a plant protest.)

7. Stop ignoring water vapor – We hate to rain on your parade, but water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. Yet it rarely gets mentioned in all the sky-is-falling rhetoric about global warming. At slightly less than four percent, CO2 is the small fry on the greenhouse-gas scale, along with methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and a few other trace gases. The big Kahuna, water vapor, is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect, and keeps your climate cozy and warm. Without its insulating effects, life on earth would be unbearably cold. We’d like to see you try to ban water vapor!

8. Stop fudging data – We’ve had to watch from afar as Professor Phil Jones, Dr. Michael Mann and other so-called climate scientists have manipulated temperature data to make CO2 look like the most harmful molecule on the planet. After reading a few of their CRU e-mails, we now know that they’ve warmed the earth more with their cooked research and phony models then we could ever do as a lowly CO2 gas. They’ve done a great disservice to plant life on earth with their incessant attacks on a blameless group of molecules whose atmospheric presence is a piddly 385 parts per million. If these hucksters truly desire redemption, they should shut up about climate change and exhale frequently for the good of the redwoods.

9. Protect earth’s food supply – When it comes to sustaining life, we CO2 molecules are high on the list of essential gases. If you succeed in carrying out your CO2 ethnic cleansing plan, you’ll hurt all vegetation. (Trees and plants don’t react well when deprived of their favorite atmospheric meal.) A CO2-depleted world will stunt plant growth, reduce crop yields and lead to famine and starvation. You want that on your tree-hugging green conscience?

10. Listen to honest scientists – Most of the climate experts predicting greenhouse doom are either on the government payroll, knee-deep in research grants or supplying the scientific rationale behind legislation designed to extort money from consumers in the form of carbon taxes. They have a vested interest in scaring the bejeebers out of people about the wickedness of the CO2 molecule – one of the most good-natured elements in the atmosphere. Their gloomy forecasts and high drama are full of hot air – pure junk science. They should be out on the street looking for work instead of receiving awards and more grant money.

The CO2 Alliance’s list of demands is not open to negotiation, said Greta Carbo, president of the League of Carbon Dioxide, a CO2-friendly lobby group with close ties to AC20M. In her opening speech last night, she called the anti-CO2 movement “dangerously extreme” and “a threat to all life on earth.” She said her group expects a White House response to its demands by early next week.

“We’ve stood by for decades while pseudo-scientists, self-serving politicians and the hysterical green movement bad-mouthed earth-friendly CO2 molecules for simply floating around and minding their own business. We’re tired of the fright-mongering. It’s time to set the record straight.”

ACO2M’s executive panel also announced today that it has scheduled talks next week with the Organization for the Protection of Plant Life on Earth (OPPLE) to discuss ways to counter the eco-alarmists’ anti-CO2 message and educate humans about the many benefits of carbon dioxide.

“This is serious business. We need to expose the lies, hysterics and rigged climate models driving the greenhouse scare campaign. Humans need to hear the truth about CO2. Their lives, and their children’s lives, depend on it,” Carbo said.

Reminder: Spain’s Green Disaster a Lesson for America

By Dale Hurd, CBN

BARCELONA, Spain — It was just last year that President Obama was touring Solyndra headquarters and telling us green technology was the future:

“The future is here. We are poised to transform the ways we power our homes and our cars and our businesses,” Obama said.

The president said America had better get on board or else fall behind the rest of the world in the growth of renewable or “green” technology.

Spain’s Colossal Failure

One the nations he held up as an example for America’s green technology effort was Spain.

However, President Obama may like Spain’s green technology program, but the Spanish — not so much. One study has declared it a colossal failure.

The Spanish recently threw out their socialist government over their terrible economy and a 22 percent unemployment rate.

Green technology was supposed to be Spain’s path to more jobs and a cleaner more prosperous future. It wasn’t.

“Politicians told us some years ago that they found a new way of investing or doing public investing in a new sector, in the renewable energies, that would create a sort of new economy with new jobs, green jobs, so called green jobs,” Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, with King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said.

But what the Spanish got was a big helping of a Solyndra style business debacle: a lot of taxpayer money down the drain and jobs that cost a fortune to create.

A Job Killer

Calzada, an economist, studied Spain’s green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.

“President Zapatero, for example, when he came in to power, said he knew, ‘he knew’ that solar energy was the future,” Calzada said. “He ‘knew’ this, so he put all the public money and investment into this model.”

But Calzada’s study found that for every four jobs created by Spain’s expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost.

Electricity generated was so expensive that each “green” megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs.

Unsafe Conditions

Marta Sabina lives on the outskirts of Barcelona in one of Spain’s new green technology apartment buildings.

It has been a nightmare for this mother of three young children. Her toilet uses recycled water with chemicals in it.

She said it’s unsafe for her children and often looks no different from toilet water that hasn’t been flushed.

“A lot of times I am coming to the bathroom and I am pushing all the time because the water is dirty and I don’t know if it’s the kids because they have not pushed or if because it’s the water,” Sabina said. “Sometimes it smells very bad and it’s very dirty and it’s not for kids.”

Sabina has also had to heat her family’s hot water on the stove because the building’s solar water heater didn’t work for three years.

Breaking the Bank

Spain’s green technology dream was costing the nation more than $15 billion a year before the government had to slash it because it had failed and Spain was going broke.

The Obama Administration’s 2007 stimulus package included $80 billion for green jobs.

“Green energy is not ready for prime time,” Seton Motley, president of Less Government, said. “It’s not ready for private sector production.”

“Everything that requires government money means there’s no market for it,” he explained. “Because if there was a market for it, there’d be plenty of private capital to invest in it and people saying, ‘Let’s go forward.'”

The market didn’t like General Motors, which faced bankruptcy. Then Washington came to the rescue. Uncle Sam bought 500-million shares of General Motors, which have since lost $15 billion in value.

“I can’t think of, off the top of my head, a bigger loser than GM, as far as most money in one place that’s going down the tubes,” Motley said.

Environmental Dream Buster

The Spanish could have taught the Americans a thing or two about government money down the tubes.

Spain spent billions on an environmental dream that helped make their economy worse and added to the nation’s already crushing government debt.

And now Spain’s future is looking more like what Greece is facing.

Spain Admits “Green Jobs” Program A Disaster (2010 link)

Eventually, no matter hard one tries to wish it away, reality will smack you in the face. Hard.

As predicted was inevitable, today the Spanish newspaper La Gaceta runs with a full-page article fessing up to the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” boondoggle, which happens to be the one naively cited by President Obama no less than eight times as his model for the United States. It is now out there as a bust, a costly disaster that has come undone in Spain to the point that even the Socialists admit it, with the media now in full pursuit. […]

La Gaceta boldly exposes the failure of the Spanish renewable policy and how Obama has been following it. The headline screams: “Spain admits that the green economy as sold to Obama is a disaster.”

According to the Spanish government, the policy has been such a failure that electricity prices are skyrocketing and the economy is losing jobs as a result (emphasis added):

The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute. Besides that, the official document is almost a copy point by point of the one that led to Calzada being denounced [lit. “vetoed”] by the Spanish Embassy in an act in the U.S. Congress.

The presentation recognizes explicitly that “the increase of the electric bill is principally due to the cost of renewable energies.” In fact, the increase in the extra costs of this industry explains more than 120% of the variation in the bill and has prevented the reduction in the costs of conventional electricity production to be reflected on the bills of the citizens.

[Translation of Spanish article provided by Chris Horner]

Despite these facts, which quite frankly have been known for quite some time, the Obama administration is still planning to move ahead with its own policy based explicitly on the Spanish one. As Horner states:

That fight [over the “green economy” policy] begins anew next week with the likely Senate vote on S.J. Res. 26, the Murkowski resolution to disapprove of the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to impose much of this agenda through the regulatory back door without Congress ever having authorized such an enormous economic intervention.

Just as with the ObamaCare boondoggle that was rammed into law despite its (a) known problems that are only now being admitted to, (b) real costs that are only now becoming evident, and (c) unacceptability to the vast majority of Americans, Obama is going full steam ahead with this “green economy” nonsense. Regardless of facts or reality, this administration is dead set on re-creating America in the image it likes best (i.e. European social democracy), regardless of the costs. So long as we end up with all the bells and whistles that are the hallmarks of our European betters (e.g. universal health care, carbon taxes, depleted military, enhanced welfare state, overwhelming government controls of the economy, sufficiently apologetic “transnationalist” foreign policy), the actual results of that transformation are unimportant. We may end up an economic basket case a la Greece, but hey, at least we’ll have all the nanny-state accouterments necessary to commiserate with the cool European kids.

It’s gotten to the point where pointing out that the emperor has no clothes only results in naked orgies of Utopian spending. This cannot end well.

H/T Tom Nelson

Wind Power Facts

This page has some articles about industrial wind power. What makes them different, is that they aren’t written by lobbyists.

My name is John Droz, jr, and I’m a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. I’ve been a member of the Sierra Club, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and the Resident’s Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, among others. [The views expressed here are mine as a scientist promoting science, and may not be consistent with the political agendas of those organizations. None of this is about me anyways. It all comes down to this: do you want our energy and environmental policies determined by Science or lobbyists? So far the lobbyists are pitching a shutout.]

The main point of all of my documents is to educate citizens about the basics of industrial wind power, a highly complex technical matter. [A major belief of mine is the KISS (Keep It Simple) philosophy, and my writings attempt to incorporate that principle.]

What then? The objective would be for educated citizens to demand that their government only support (and allow on the grid) energy solutions that have been verified as legitimate using scientific methodology. Science is not a body of data, but is really a methodology. Science without the Scientific Method is just a set of opinions.

That is my key message here: we do have serious energy (and environmental) problems, and we should insist on Sound Scientific Solutions for such matters.

[Note 1: Wind energy is the more technically correct term, but since most citizens are more familiar with the phrase wind power, I will use the latter here.]
[Note 2: This is not a NIMBY issue for me, as no wind power projects are proposed for my community.]
[Note 3: “Industrial wind power” refers to large scale ventures designed to provide electrical power on a commercial basis. This is an entirely different product (for several technical reasons) from home or boat based wind power generators, which can sometimes make economic sense.]

The ONLY legitimate reason industrial wind power should exist today is for it to live up to its promoter’s assurances that it will meaningfully (and affordably) help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2). However (since neither one of these conditions are being met), in almost all cases, wind power development is instead sold to a community based on the financial incentives offered by the developers.

This, of course, is a completely different and unrelated consideration. As the picture on the right shows, the only thing green in this whole matter is the substantial profit being made by the developers and their paid supporters. So begins a series of serious incongruities.

It is an unfortunate indictment of our society today that so many important decisions are primarily based on “what’s in it financially for me.” One obvious consequence of this shortsighted and selfish perspective is that we get what we deserve.

To those people who say wind power is good because it brings money to their community, then we would expect them to be leading the charge promoting other local economic developments that would also bring money to their community, like: a regional landfill, a chemical plant, a prison for terrorists, etc.

Courtesy of WindToons.
See their site for many other insightful representations.

I am STRONGLY in favor of reducing the pollutants of fossil fuel power facilities (like coal), and of aggressively investigating other good options for producing electricity. My main concern is that we should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — like some of the alternatives being promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.
A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source! In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits. (See near the bottom of this page for status of Common Sense.)

Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:
a) its technical performance, b) the economics of the power produced, and c) its FULL environmental impact.

All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.

Now, does stating that fact make me “anti-green?” How absurd a conclusion that would be! No, it makes me “anti-illusion” or “pro-science.” And I fully support legitimate “renewables” like industrial geothermal.

My articles discussing various aspects of this issue have been grouped into two categories:
1 – those of interest to anyone who wants to know more about industrial wind power, and
2 – those that relate to local groups who are organizing to resist the wind power conglomerate. As a bonus, a few selected documents written by other experts in the energy field are also referenced. Here is an example: Key Industry Terms in the wind energy business, is an important paper by energy expert Glenn Schleede that does a fine job of explaining many of the technical concepts that we are dealing with. Please read this closely!

Green jobs agenda costs US jobs and hurt economy

What is a “green job” anyway? Few can adequately define one. Even the government isn’t sure, you will learn in these pages. Still, President Obama and environmentalist coalitions such as the BlueGreen Alliance claim the creation of green jobs can save America’s economy, and are worth taxpayers’ investment.

But in Regulating to Disaster, Diana Furchtgott-Roth debunks that myth. Instead, energy prices rise dramatically and America’s economic growth and employment rate suffer — in some states much more than others — when government invests in nonviable ventures such as the bankrupted Solyndra, which the Obama Administration propped up far too long.

Electric cars, solar energy, wind farms, biofuels: President Obama’s insistence on these dubious pursuits ultimately hamstrings American businesses not deemed green enough, and squeezes struggling households with regulations. Adding insult to injury: the technology subsidies Americans pay for solar panels, wind turbines, and electric batteries really help create manufacturing jobs in China and South Korea.

Green jobs are the most recent reappearance of a perennial bad idea — government regulation of certain industries, designed to anoint winners and losers in the marketplace. Regulating to Disaster reveals the powerful nexus of union leaders, environmentalists, and lobbyists who dreamed up these hoaxes, and benefit politically and financially from green jobs policies. Unfortunately, there are more Solyndras on the horizon, and our economy is in no shape to absorb them.

Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America’s Economy

Message to Obama from one mad mom

By Dr. Gina Loudon

If Obama thinks he can exploit, poke fun at, and kill my child with DS, I have a word, or two for him.

In 2009, Barack Obama made one of his Hollywood pandering stops to be on the Jay Leno show. Instead of talking policy, or economy, Obama decided to talk about his bowling game. reports that Obama joked about his score being way too low—only 129. “That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno quipped. Obama then remarked that his score was “like the Special Olympics or something.” Note: During the campaign, the President bowled a game with a score of 37. My then 6 year old granddaughter would have beat him

As the mother of a wonderful little boy by way of adoption who happens to have Down Syndrome, I can tell you that Obama trounced on sacred ground that day. Add to my horror his eager endorsement of post birth abortion, where a baby is killed outside the womb. Never a woman has been saved by that procedure, and Obama makes no excuses for his endorsement of these eugenics. More than 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are already aborted. That is why it took my husband and I more than 10 years to adopt our Samuel. Think of all the babies that were killed while we waited those 10 long years!

The Democratic convention accused Christians and the republicans of waging a war on women. Yet they force religious hospitals and doctors and nurses to provide services that go against their religious beliefs like abortions.

The congress controls the laws for DC. They voted to permit abortion for any cause for any women up to the 40th week of pregnancy. They are proud of their support for abortion.

A document, “Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since 1973 based on data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood research arm.

This number of deaths is an extraordinary 41 times the total number of Americans who died in all the wars since the Revolutionary war in 1775.

Obama would like you to forget about that because he wants to parse up the American public and create groups of voters that he thinks are too stupid to know he can control them. From poor people that he enslaves with his empty promises of prosperity that they will never know in their state of slavery, to old people who will march cheerfully into their death panels under Obamacare, this is all about votes for Obama.

While he was out fishing for more groups to spin into his web, he thought that he would be smart to try to convince families of people with Down Syndrome that he cares. Most families of loved ones with Down Syndrome are smart enough to know that if someone wants you dead, they likely don’t care about you. Undaunted, a narcissistic Obama has no humility, and he exploited a 25-year-old young woman named Brittany for votes. He shares her as the “Letter of the Week” for his campaign. The letter was written by her mom and a friend, and claims that Brittany is in the 47% of voters that Romney calls “entitled” and “unable to take responsibility for (her) life.” Brittany has Down Syndrome.

When her mother decided to send the letter, she mentioned that Brittany would like a POTUS/FLOTUS visit to their home of Pennsylvania, and also that they would like to stay in the White House. One wonders what freebies Brittany’s mother has her eye on, when she uses her daughter in defense of a man who would not blink if she had killed her before, or after her birth.

In addition to this latest, brutal exploitation of this young woman, many of us who know just how much extra joy is in that one little chromosome wonder when Obama is going to apologize to us for condoning the loss of so much joy by the eugenics he endorses? We wonder when the holocaustic, search and destroy mission imposed on our loved ones will be memorialized? We wonder what the Obamacare death panels will do with our babies when we are no longer here to defend them, and they have Alzheimer’s disease (more than 70% of adults with Down Syndrome get the disease)?

Most mothers of children with Down Syndrome see right through the lies and disguise of this campaign, to the heart of a eugenicist.

As for my family, we don’t write letters for our Samuel. One day, if he is able to write them for himself, I am sure he would sign a big thank you note to those who loved people like him enough to call this exploitation exactly what it is. I am sure he will care more about his family’s budget, than how much money Mitt Romney has earned. I believe he will be too smart to think that he can get something for nothing, and to know that free stuff is never free. I am sure Samuel knows the difference between someone who loves you, and someone who thinks it is okay to kill you. Finally, I am sure Samuel knows that the champions in the Special Olympics have more heart, more joy, and more courage than those who would dispose of their lives could ever, ever have.

These things are pretty simple. Meanwhile, I don’t advise that Obama show up to any Special Olympics events. He might find out the hard way that Special Olympians are a lot smarter than he is, bowling notwithstanding.