Democrats Lie on support for oil production.
Americans may be a little premature in celebrating the reluctant decision by the Democrats not to reinstate the bans on oil drilling and shale oil production.
Realising that the ban was forcing up oil prices and they would suffer in the election for it, they very publicly made a show of appearing to withdraw from their avid support for it. This was a sham.
Democrats believe in what they have always believed, that Americans should be restricted in their access to oil. They still do. That way they can point to the massive cost of imports and use it as an excuse for higher taxes, excises, and presumably some sort of government intervention in the supply and distribution of energy supplies.
The first attempt at reinstating the ban is already under way from them, using the current financial bailout as a smokescreen to cover a ban on shale oil.
Town Hall released details today.
Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to ban shale oil exploration while most members of Congress are focusing on the $700 billion financial bailout.Buried in the depths of a 77 page amendment to be moved by Slippery Harry and Bob Byrd (The Dixiecrat and former Klukker who spoke for fourteen hours to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964), is a short passage: -
Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) posted the text of Reid’s proposed ban on shale on his Senate blog Thursday afternoon. "It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale,” a DeMint staffer wrote.
Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard’s (R.) staff also sounded the alarm once they got wind of Reid’s plans. Allard’s state would be directly affected by the shale ban, as most of the nation’s shale depositories are in the Western states.
Approximately 800 billion to 2 trillion barrels of oil are estimated to be located there.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling and shale exploration is set to expire on September 30. Conservative proponents of domestic energy exploration have declared October 1 “Energy Freedom Day” to celebrate the ban’s termination. …….
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.This looks innocent enough on its own, just standard political crap talk and easily overlooked, which was of course the intention.
“Freedom Works,” saved me the trouble of sorting through a lot of information to find just what this meant: -
It is only when you go to Public Law 110-161 that it becomes more clear. The specific section of relevance, section 433 of division F of Public Law 110-161 reads:So here’s how it works, the Dems slip his through on the quiet, and presumably one on oil somewhere else, while maintaining their feigned acceptance of the peoples wish until after the election, then when everybody is looking towards more and cheaper oil in the future, they notice a couple of legislative obstacles.
SEC. 433. None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law109–58) or to conduct an oil shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such Act.
“Aw Shucks, it can’t be done.”
anyone who thinks drilling in alaska, or shale oil production will give us cheaper oil is dreaming.The oil will go onto world market to the highest bidder.ReplyDelete
Oil barrons will be the only winners.
Thank you Carmen. You are indeed right, the increase in oil production will benefit consumers world wide, as the better parity between production and consumption will cause a downward trend in prices across the globe.ReplyDelete
Accessing shale oil alone gives the US access to what is estimated to be three times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia. Imagine the extra benefits from the offshore reserves and the stuff in Alaska.
America will no longer have to kow tow to hostile, obscene, dictatorial, despots who in the main, currently control most of the worlds reserves.
Even the Dems should go for it, they are always bleating about 'wars for oil'. Self sufficiency would obviate this.
And that oil baron thing; get yourself some energy stocks, you can benefit too.
There is a much heated debate over the horrible financial crisis at the momemt. Everyone is wringing their hands over the cost, some $700 billion, to bail out our major financial institutions.ReplyDelete
Even though this is a big deal, and as we wail and whine over this princely sum, most Americans are blissfully unaware that $700 billion was the price we begrudgingly paid for foreign oil this past year. Sen. Reid and many other Democrats caused us to pay this huge sum by blocking domestic oil production. We have paid trillions over the past ten years, thanks to Sen. Reid and friends. This has harmed our Country and its people. Its cost has been greater than the damage caused by the 9/11 terrorists.
To my way of thinking, Sen. Reid and the entire anti-drilling bunch have committed acts of treason. They should all be removed from office and put on trial as traitors. Why not? We want as much for the CEOs of the failed financial institutions, don't we?
Thank you Jeff, The Democrats, like the labor party here are pursuing power for themselves at the cost of their countries economy. The need to get radical greens to vote for them is more important o them than the need of the workers to get fuel.ReplyDelete
The aim of the left has always been to get power and control of all that money, which they then piss up against the wall on grandiose schemes, and vote buying.
The economic problems they claim to be Bush's fault, amd "The result of eight years of economic mismanagement are in reality rooted in the Clinton administrations efforts to get loans to poorer people who could not afford to pay for them.
Obama is directly linked to this from his association with ACORN.