Representatives from Mr. Pyle, President of the Institute for Energy Research, recently reached out to me in an effort to set the record straight on natural gas extraction. Recently, the Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed that was chockfull of scare tactics, false analysis, and misrepresentations about the science and methods behind natural gas extractions. In fact, the op-ed was so misleading it caught the attention of Mr. Pyle himself. Big Journalism is where he turned to help set the record straight.

Consider these bullets before reading the rebuttal by Mr. Pyle.

• A current estimate of natural gas in America is 2,047 trillion cubic feet (enough to power our nation for the next 100 years).
• Congressional Research Service claimed that America’s supply of recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal is the largest on the planet.

(more…)

Media Matters has offered up a ridiculous post that tries to distort the fundamental facts about Barack Obama’s green energy program. I hesitated whether to even comment on it because they fail in the basic tenets of honest journalism. George Soros is a large contributor to Media Matters. In my book Throw Them All Out, I point out how Soros has received millions in taxpayer money via the green energy program. And I also devote an entire chapter to Soros’s crony capitalism as it relates to the stimulus. Does Media Matters disclose this blatant conflict of interest? Of course not. Media Matters is displaying blatant cronyism, pure and simple.

Since my book Throw Them All Out is about cronyism and conflicts of interest, I guess now I’m going to have to include a new chapter on Media Matters for the paperback edition.  I will respond to their criticisms now. But until they release the names of their large donors who have received green energy taxpayer money, I will not respond more in the future. It’s a waste of time to exchange arguments with an organization that claims to be interested in the truth but runs from it. Failure to disclose these names shows a complete and total lack of integrity. Full disclosure: my source of support is apparent in my title. I am the William J. Casey Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Financial support comes from the William J. Casey Foundation. And just so Media Matters doesn’t try to distort matters further, this foundation is not connected with the oil industry. Now, Media Matters, it’s your turn.

First, let’s see what they don’t dispute: that at least 10 members of Barack Obama’s 2008 National Campaign Finance Committee are large investors in companies that received Obama stimulus money and that at least one dozen campaign bundlers did the same. How many of these individuals are financial supporters of Media Matters? We will never know, because the organization would never be honest enough to reveal them to us. They also never dispute the fact that Obama-linked lobbyists have served as intermediaries to get money for green tech companies. And finally, they never dispute the criticisms that the Department of Energy’s own Inspector General has raised about how the various green energy stimulus programs have been run. (more…)

I can hear them right now in newsrooms  across the country—

“Are you sure we need to cover this story about a possible fraudulent solar power company?”

“Won’t we look bad when we promote ‘Green Week?’”

“Should we show that video of the Obama at the Solyndra plant, or just act like we lost that file video?”

“But we have been saying for years that Green Jobs will save our future and our economy, how do we walk this back?”

“Won’t this make the Stimulus look bad?”

“If we just ignore it, it’ll go away, besides, we have the Michael Jackson doctor story to lead with!”

“How much did Obama know and when did he know it?” Wait, forget that last question, they won’t be asking that.

These questions might not be asked out loud at meetings, but they don’t have to be.

Don’t worry my media friends, I know how you roll, I’ve been in those meetings, you are hoping the public is much more stupid than they are (they are not) and hoping that they are not paying attention (and they are.) Some of those viewers actually have the internet and they know how to use it. They might even (gasp) listen to Evil Talk Radio.

The Obama connection with Solyndra is an easy one to make. Perhaps that’s why we’re not seeing the story. Protect Dear Leader.

(more…)

In a recurrence of its bout with Bush Derangement Syndrome, MSNBC recently relied on a left-wing, green activist to assert that the whole Solyndra scandal was really started by George W. Bush. Yep, it’s Boosh’s fault once again. Of course, the facts speak otherwise, but let’s not let truth get in the way of a good left-wing trope, shall we?

On the Friday September 23 episode of “MSNBC Live,” host Thomas Roberts was discussing the wasted loan of half a billion in tax dollars to the later bankrupt green company Solyndra and he brought on a the left-winger to address the mounting scandal plaguing the Obama administration. Naturally Thomas and guest were desperate to find someone other than Obama to blame this mess on. And who better to blame than the left’s favorite fall guy, George W. Bush?

Thomas had showed a video clip of Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R, Fla) who called the loan “waste” and “corruption,” but Thomas next went to left-wing, green activist Dr. Mijin Cha who earnestly told the audience that, “the administration actually didn’t do any wrongdoing, right,” because “this loan was begun under the Bush administration.”

Sorry, Dr. Cha, but you’re wrong.

It is true that the loans for Solyndra were first broached in the Bush White House. But as noted on Sept. 14, the Bush White House also declined to approve them.

Per ABC News:

The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.

The facts are that the Bush administration did not approve these loans. The same cannot be said for The One’s administration.

Not only did Obama’s crew approve the loans but recent investigations and news reports have shown that the loans for Solyndra were actually rushed through by the Obama regime.

(more…)

Why is Ezra Klein considered one of the Left’s smartest bloggers / pundits? What criteria are they using? Does the ability to take the latest Center for American Progress’ talking point memo and rewording it make you “smart” among the Left? Or is it his ability to use some other Soros-funded think tank’s analysis in order to argue that up is down? It’s baffling. Naturally, MSNBC seems to be grooming him for TV — he guest hosts a few of their shows — but why?

This IQ-sapping post about the recent bankruptcy of solar-power technology developer, Solyndra, is a perfect example of Klein’s “smart” – read “not really very smart” – analysis. (via Washington Post)

I don’t know all the specifics behind Solyndra, the solar-power company that the White House touted as a successful renewable-energy investment but which went belly-up this week.

He should have stopped right there, but the failure is a very high profile one for progressives, the “green” agenda, and Obama, so Klein had to comment — and this is his problem. He takes it upon himself to be the guy who tries to explain to the peons out there why progressivism’s failures aren’t failures. For some inexplicable reason, editors and program managers out there keep paying him to do it, too. And then there are all the people who read his “analysis” and agree with it! It’s unreal.

To his credit, Klein did at least point to an article (also on Washington Post) which does a good job reporting how the $535 Million government-backed loan Solyndra received was sketchy. Chances regular Klein readers actually read the other article? Slim. They’re not there to read about the deal or if it was a wise investment. They’re on Klein’s blog to be told that a massive failure was okay. They want to hear that Obama made the right call and that Klein is going to give them a warm fuzzy feeling if it’s the last thing he does.

But as a general point, it’s entirely possible for the initial investment to have made sense and for the company to have eventually failed. If we’re going to try to support young companies doing risky things in sectors that we’re hoping to dominate, we’re going to have to be prepared for some of them to fail. In fact, we should be hoping some of them fail. If our success rate is too high, it means government is making bad investments.

There’s so much wrong-disguised-as-common-sense in this paragraph one could probably write a book about it. Klein seems incapable of asking himself if the Federal Government should be doing this at all. Should it be supporting young companies doing risky things? The question has probably never crossed his mind.

If “we” as a society are hoping to dominate the solar power sector, wouldn’t the private sector be all over it? The failure to ask these questions leads to the two ridiculous sentences at the end of the paragraph. No one hopes some of their investments fail. No one. And the government, particularly, shouldn’t hope their investments fail because they’re not investing their own money. They’re investing taxpayer money that is not being voluntarily given. They’d better have a really high success rate! If not, they shouldn’t be doing it!

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Michael Watson:

In a news analysis article, Reuters looked at Republican efforts to stymie the activism of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has increased its regulatory efforts under President Obama. Reuters, in keeping with the post-Giffords “new civility,” characterizes the Republican efforts as an “assault of similar vigor” to that which accompanied the debt ceiling increase.

Reuters’ second paragraph asserts that Republican opposition is “backed by wealthy conservative lobbyists.” The report asserts that the EPA is the “last bastion of hope for [President Obama’s] environmental policy” after his “push for a climate bill in Congress collapsed last year.”

It collapsed in a Democrat-controlled Congress for good political reason, too. Popular opposition to cap-and-trade in the U.S. led to the loss of two long-held Democratic House seats in 2010 as well: Morgan Griffith (R-VA) defeated the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Rick Boucher, who co-authored the cap-and-trade proposal in a Virginia coal-country seat that Boucher had held since 1983. In Minnesota’s Iron Belt, retired Northwest Airlines pilot Chip Cravaack defeated Jim Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who had served since 1975 and supported President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as well as an extension of the Clean Water Act opposed by his constituents. Elsewhere, in Australia, a similar effort by the Australian Labor Party to institute a tax on carbon dioxide has seen that party fall to devastating lows in opinion polls.

Reuters notes that Richard Nixon’s administration established the EPA, calling it “ironic” that Republicans now oppose its expanded authority. Of course, Nixon was no Goldwater-Reagan conservative. He once said that “I am now a Keynesian in economics” and instituted wage and price controls.

(more…)

I recently wrote about the New York Times brushing off the ethical concerns raised by many who were concerned that the sourcing the paper had done was shoddy at best.  The Times reacted to critics with the gusto of a government bureaucrat and likely hoped the entire ordeal would disappear.

No such luck.

Copies of the emails used for the articles have fallen into the hands of one of the critics.  As such, it’s come to light that many of the “officials” and “industry insiders” that were referenced in the series were nothing of the sort.

In the article and in the document viewer, readers never learn the actual positions or identities of the e-mail senders, who are characterized using descriptors like “official,” “energy analyst,” “federal analyst,” “senior adviser” or “senior official.” Nowhere is an e-mailer characterized as an “intern.” …

The “intern” was C. Hobson Bryan, a 2009 college physics-engineering graduate who E.I.A. said was hired as an intern in summer 2009 and upgraded to general engineer in March 2011. [Emphasis added.]

Using interns as well as people who stand to financially gain from the downfall of shale gas makes one wonder why the Times seems so committed to creating the narrative that there is something fishy going on with shale gas.  The answer is painfully unsurprising: (more…)

For those of you who missed it, The New York Times recently ran some controversial, front-page stories regarding the natural gas industry.  Specifically, some are questioning whether or not this was an agenda driven hit piece on the gas industry.

Ken Boehm, of the National Legal and Policy Center, has called for an investigation into the matter where he lays out what the issues are:

I write to request a formal inquiry by the Public Editor into a series of articles published last week in The New York Times about the natural gas industry and the investment banking world.  In the “Drilling Down” series, Ian Urbina alleges that there is a speculative bubble in the shale gas industry, “in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles.”  But at least two of the sources for his articles are not industry insiders at all.  Rather they appear to be two individuals whose agenda is to publicly disparage the shale gas industry’s image and outlook.

The accusation sounds soft at first, but harsh words followed:

I am concerned that the Times, in a serious breach of long-established journalist   standards, ignored, concealed, or was misled regarding the conflicts of some of its key sources.

Not using industry sources to support this series would be oversight enough, but Boehm had a specific person in mind.

In fact, however, the likely source of some of these emails is Arthur Berman of Labyrinth Consulting Services in Sugar Land, Texas, who does not work for the shale gas drilling industry.  As Mr. Urbina acknowledges at one point in the June 25 story, Arthur Berman is actually “one of the most vocal skeptics of shale gas economics.”  Yet the Urbina stories do not disclose that Mr. Berman is much more than that.  He is the creator and leading popularizer of the shale gas “bubble” critique embraced by Mr. Urbina, and seems to have been his main source.  Perhaps most egregiously, the Urbana stories also neglect to mention that Arthur Berman makes his living providing investment advice based upon his own position as a shale gas critic.^[1]

Compelling to say the least.

After growing pressure from a chorus of critics, reports began appearing that NYT editors were mounting a vigorous defense in response to Boehm’s request. In fact, New York Magazine reported that Rick Berke, national editor of the NYT, sent “an internal memo defending the gas investigation.”  New York Magazine provided excerpts of the “surprisingly detailed” letter to NYT Public Editor Arthur Brisbane:

The terms that have attracted the most attention — ‘ponzi scheme’, comparisons to Enron, ‘dot-com bubble’ — are not terms that the Times itself used,” Berke wrote to Brisbane. “These terms come directly from internal emails that were written by industry officials, market analysts, and others. So that readers could judge the context of these comments, the Times published the emails themselves. The emails are indeed striking in their bluntness. Some of the authors of the emails say they have been ’sounding the alarm bells’ about what they see as serious issues that are being ignored. We were further careful to add calibration and qualification language about the emails.”

Either Berke is actively trying to not understand the point of the concerns, or he’s doing the written version of placing his hands on his ears and humming an annoying song.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Michael Watson:

In a Tweet sent by White House media official Jesse Lee in direct response to AIM’s coverage of the Politico report on the elusive “green jobs” the President has promised, the press office sent “a few folks who disagree.”

The first item was an image of President Obama at a photo-op with workers at a solar energy plant. The second item is more interesting. Lee Tweeted an article written for CNBC by “freelance journalist” Rob Reuteman which claimed that “everyone seems to agree there will be many more [green jobs] in the coming decades.” Reuteman claims that “market forces” in addition to regulatory mandates are creating such jobs.

Reuteman notes that “twenty-nine states have ordered their utilities to produce up to 30 percent of power through renewable energy in the next couple decades.” This is a mandate, not a market force.

Reuteman reports that the stimulus program “earmarked more than $70 billion in direct spending, tax breaks, and loan guarantees … most of it for ‘green energy.’” This too is not a market force but state intervention.

Reuteman then finds his first “market force,” noting that a for-profit university in Colorado offers a degree in “Wind Energy Technology.” This is the same “Wind Energy Technology” that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) noted receives “25 times as much [in subsidy] per megawatt-hour as…all other forms of electricity combined.”

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Michael Watson:

While researchers at King Juan Carlos University in Spain found in 2009 that the Spanish “green jobs” program killed over two jobs for every one it created, Politico notes that “the White House can’t point to much solid evidence” that green jobs are being created. Politico states that “Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers suggests 225,000 clean energy jobs were either created or preserved,” but does not acknowledge the follow-on effects identified by the Spanish study.

Politico, which deserves some credit for its open skepticism of Obama administration claims, reports that “White House officials say asking about the connection between the 9.1 percent unemployment rate and the administration’s green jobs campaign is the wrong question.” Instead of looking at macroeconomic effects of policy, Politico notes that the officials would rather show off the “exponential growth” in highly subsidized “clean technology industries.”

The Politico quotes “top Republican” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) as “not seeing [green jobs].” Murkowski said, “I don’t know” when speculating on whether it was premature to judge.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media‘s Cliff Kincaid:

Always anxious to put the best possible face on the illegal actions of the Obama Administration, the Saturday Washington Post story by David A. Fahrenthold reported that President Obama had “missed a legal deadline” requiring that he obtain congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. The word “missed” implies an oversight or mistake, rather than a deliberate action. Hence, the Post wants to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s unauthorized attack on Libya was an impeachable offense.

The Post failed to note that Obama, when he was running for office, said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” There was no threat to the U.S. from Libya.

Indeed, The Post failed to explicitly note that the War Powers Resolution, with the 60 day deadline, authorizes the use of force only in situations “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.

(more…)

Once again, its time to add to the official Jeff Dunetz, “Stupid Things Blamed on Global Warming” list. During the past two and a half years, global warming moonbats have blamed each of  the following on global warming, climate change or whatever the latest they have decided to give their over-hyped environmental calamity.

Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, Heroin addiction, Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs , unrest in the Middle East. screwed-up love making, the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, horrible rash of tornadoes in southeast United States.

The latest addition comes from  Dan Ferber and Dr. Paul Epstein, authors of a new book, Changing Planet, Changing Health: How the Climate Crisis Threatens Our Health and What We Can Do about It. Ferber is a reporter, and the good Doctor is Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School (wow, an MD and Harvard Medical School, his mother must be so proud).

Some might say the two authors simply chose something new to alarm the public about.  However, I disagree. These guys may have stumbled upon a solution to climate change and the violence in the Middle East. Miraculously they their book has “killed two birds with one stone.” Allow me to explain.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media‘s Allie Duzett:

A blog at CNN.com today begins as follows:

President Barack Obama confronted two political realities this week:
– Rising gas prices are bad for a politician’s poll numbers
– There is almost nothing a politician can do about it, at least in the short run.

Read the article here and see for yourself how CNN defends President Obama’s actions regarding oil prices. CNN showcases Obama’s recent rhetoric about gas prices, while conveniently neglecting to fact check any of President Obama’s claims (as CNN did when covering President Bush’s gas price rhetoric in past years).

Throughout the article, President Obama is depicted as an everyman who is just as concerned about gas prices as you are—and just as helpless as you are, too. There are “no easy answers,” the blog entry concludes, immediately after quoting President Obama’s complaint that such things as natural disasters and pirates were “not in [his] campaign platform.” “Add gas prices to the list,” CNN adds.

(more…)

The absolute disconnect between the media and reality on “Pain at the Pump” gets more profound every day.

The first rule for the media on high gas prices, do not make a connection between Barack Obama and rising prices, in fact, make it look like he is doing everything he can to help stop the suffering.

Second rule, tell the viewers/readers that there’s really nothing they can do about the high prices, just deal with it and believe in wind chimes and moonbeams to fuel our future. Instead of pointing out why gas prices have risen to 4, 5, soon to be 6 bucks a gallon, they tell us to just accept it and buy a Nissan Leaf, drive only downhill, or walk. “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

First things first: Obama. As I have pointed out before, the incessant printing of money is causing prices of everything to rise. You don’t have to be Alan Greenspan to know that when you print money at the rate of this administration prices will go up, especially on gas because the price of oil is tied directly to the dollar. Last week NBC briefly mentioned this salient fact towards the end of one of its news stories (without blaming Obama, of course) but then ran virtually the same story in its next newscast without mentioning the main reason why prices are going up. Somebody must’ve made a phone call.

(more…)

Energy crisis. Obesity crisis. Climate crisis. Unemployment crisis. The solution came to me in a rerun.

What do high gas prices, global warming, high youth employment, and child obesity have in common? The lack of a government solution. I’ve found it.

The Lean Green Obamachine.

How to make it happen? Use the stretch marks on the Commerce Clause to ban those nasty, polluting cars from metropolitan areas. Through ObamaCare‘s student loan program, lucky college students get to work off their enormous debts – and dorm butts – by public service in the rickshaw ranks of the green governmental solution.

Plus, it adds new meaning to Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” program for obese kids. Public employee unions can get on board with Chicago-style student exercise programs – they could trot behind the college student carrying water and government issued nutrition in little green government issued backpacks.

This AmeriCorpse legion of environmental pedestrian patriots will finally learn to pull their weight and experience the joy of work in the Great Outdoors. As a bonus we get an overnight drop in noxious car emissions and traffic gridlock and noise. With lighter weight traffic on roads there will be fewer road repairs, freeing up still unspent shovel-ready TARP funds.

And Government Motors would probably love the opportunity to switch out one of their idle Chevy Volt production lines to manufacture the Obamashaw.

According to the AP, after bravely running away from the impending Government shut-down Crisis ™, President Obama attended a townhall meeting in Pennsylvania. During the course of the rally townhall meeting, he had this to say in response to a man relaying that he could not afford to fill his gas tank:

Obama says little short-term help for gas prices

“Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.”

“”If you’re complainin­g about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly­. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

Guys, stop bitterly clinging to your cars – and your hard-earned money! So you’d have to go into debt to trade-in your car and get a fancy pants Elitist-approved car. It’s hilarious and no big whoop anyway; it’s not like you have to buy arugula. Have you seen those prices?

(more…)

As deceptive as the activist old media can be, nobody will accuse them of being total idiots. Barack Obama has stepped in it and the media will do everything it can to hide the smell.

They are hoping and praying (if they pray) for other stories that can knock the Libyan War off the headlines—they know the longer it goes, the more embarrassing it is for Dear Leader. Every headline on this war makes him look more and more the hypocrite. Eventually they will try to blame this on Bush, if they haven’t already.

Take the crackup of the coalition in the conflict, Germany has bailed and the story is ignored. This is sort of a biggie, there folks. There is confusion amongst the countries over who is in charge. Are the French, British, the Americans, who knows? Since Obama insists that America is just another country on the map with a flag, there can be no Alpha Dog leading this war, thus, we see collapse in the coalition that the media so praised from day one.

The media had a lot on its collective plate on Wednesday. Liz Taylor died and there was more fear and anxiety to spread over the nuclear plants in Japan (BTW, on that front, the media has gotten more of those stories wrong than they have gotten right, but we knew that from the start.) Then there was another cute baby video to show from YouTube. All sorts of big stories to tell—who cares that Germany has told Obama they are bailing and virtually the only place you can find this info is in the British newspapers.

(more…)

Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has launched hundreds of Cruise Missiles into Libya inflicting major damage and killing civilians. He has also kept two wars going while ramping up the battle in Afghanistan.

Sounds like a warmonger.

Now, I’m not here to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of Obama’s war policy, just to point out the inconsistencies in the media’s reporting on the issue of Obama and his wars. Did I mention this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner launching these attacks? In getting that award he was honored for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I could make a joke out of that statement, but this is serious stuff.

First, notice how carefully the media works to not peg the invasion of Libya (yes, sending missiles is an invasion) on their Dear Leader. The international coalition is doing this, not Obama, is what they are telling us. Put that in the context of what the media told us with George W. Bush and Iraq.

Bush had 40 nations join the efforts in Iraq; do you think the media ever considered that war anything other than “Evil Bush’s War?” They still mention the Mission Accomplished banner in derision, long after the mission was actually successfully accomplished. Also, the media will rarely point out that this attack on Libya would not have happened without US backing. Had Obama said no, there would’ve been no “international coalition,” yes, it is that simple.

(more…)

Okay, I guess I seem a little obsessed by this gas price thing — but I have a couple of good reasons for it.

One, like everybody else I fill up twice a week and I think swear words whenever I do. Two, as a news anchor I was given all those stories to read in 2005 and 2008 blaming George Bush for high gas prices. Seems like these days the media has forgotten to point the finger at the White House. Imagine that?

Journalistic malpractice is everywhere on this story and the activist old media keeps piling it on.

$5.39 a gallon in Orlando and ABC goes after the owner of the gas station. Great job ABC. You find an aberration and try to show your toughness by going after the owner of the gas station. 99.99999% of Americans do not go to that gas station. What about the rest of us, tough guys? Ask President Obama why these prices are so high. You go after the owner of a gas station in Orlando, but let Dear Leader have a pass? What happened to “speaking truth to power?” Now I guess the “power” is the guy who runs the corner gas station.

The media has clearly shown they cannot think for themselves on this issue. They refuse to tell us about the tremendous oil reserves we have in this country spreading from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico. A Federal judge has held Obama in contempt of court for not allowing drilling in the Gulf, but do you think that makes any of their exposes on “Pain at The Pump?” Nope.

“Now the airlines are taking it out on us,” says ABC along with tips on what we can do to save gas given to us from the so-called, “Smart Screen.” They tell us all the time how we can sacrifice and scrimp and save ourselves, without telling us the real reasons why the prices have skyrocketed. Bianna Golodryga told us earlier this week, while standing in front of the Smart Screen, that “gas prices are directly tied to the price of oil.” That’s one Smart Screen there. Brilliant Screen, I would say.

(more…)

On “Good Morning America,” Robin Roberts asks, “is there anything the President can really do to stop the rising gas prices here at home? Jake Tapper has more …”

Finally an answer! Finally! They must’ve read my previous colums here on Big Journalism and they’re going to mention the non-stop printing of money and a major drop in domestic production as the main reasons for the rise in oil prices, certainly they won’t blame the middle east again, would they?

Uh oh — Jake started with Libya. Libya this, Libya that. “An OPEC ripple that has hit American shores, fueling American uncertainty and spiking prices,” said Tap Tap.

Democrat Jay Rockerfeller called for Barack Obama to open the strategic reserves (as Bush did when prices spiked in 2008.) “To relived uncertainty and economic harm happening in our country,” Rockerfeller said.

Throughout the story they post this banner in the “bottom third” of the screen.  “PRESIDENT’S TOUGH TALK.”

I haven’t heard the President yet, and I have heard no tough talk.

(more…)