Why does the media feel the need to make him seem even worse?
Obama “replaces,” Trump “ousts.” Got it.
I hear that the President will be unveiling a plan today for increased regulation of oil speculators in an attempt to lower gas prices.
Washington (CNN) – Under pressure to bring down the high price of gas, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday will outline a proposal to increase federal supervision of the oil markets in an effort to clip the wings of speculators who are profiting off the volatility of the oil market.
The president’s $52 million plan would let regulators force energy traders to put more of their own money into trades and also boost the penalties on manipulators who are found to be speculating unlawfully, according to a senior administration source who would not comment on the record in advance of the president’s remarks.
Oh, look at CNN! Isn’t it clever how they subtly morphed oil speculators into evil market manipulators? But I digress.
I’ve previously explained, in terms so simple anyone can understand, why oil speculation is a moderating factor in the oil market.
In light of that, I would like to suggest to the President that the best way to lower gasoline prices is to ensure a steady supply of oil free from interference – dare I say manipulation – from hostile foreign governments. Everyone understands this, except, apparently, the President and his energy policy advisors. Maybe the President needs a few more grandmothers and a few less egghead academics advising him.
Approving the Keystone Pipeline project would have been a good first step in that direction. And after that, drilling for our own oil. We have plenty.
But a steady supply of reasonably priced oil wouldn’t promote the green agenda as so foolishly stated by (then incoming) Energy Secretary Stephen Chu back in 2008, now, would it? Despite Chu’s recent attempts to walk that statement back, it’s clear that lowering gasoline prices isn’t a serious priority for this administration.
Update 1: The President announced a crackdown on oil speculators earlier today and “coincidentally,” oil prices have risen over a $1.00. The White House refuses to “speculate” on how much effect the crackdown will affect prices at the pump. I’m not sure, but I believe that’s code for “not at all.”
It’s the million dollar question: Who should be held responsible for 1,500 weapons being delivered into the hands of brutal Mexican drug cartels resulting in God only knows how many deaths, including that of U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry?
It’s criminal. Someone must be held to account.
Here’s the best part of the video, from Darrell Issa, naturally (love that man!).
Well I certainly believe that [Attorney General Eric Holder] either misrepresented the facts or he’s sufficiently incompetent that he didn’t know what was in his weekly briefings.
Update 1: Eric Holder doubles down, correctly discerning that perjury is a crime, but incompetence is not. A helpful hint for the Attorney General: If you don’t want “law enforcement and government employees who devote their lives to protecting our citizens be considered ‘accessories to murder,'” then you shouldn’t allow 1,500 firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. Or he should man up and take the fall.
The Fast and Furious documents released by the White House last Friday reveal that Attorney General Eric Holder received at least two memos in 2010 relating to the misbegotten operation. (If you don’t know what Fast and Furious is, welcome back to Earth! How was Mars?)
This would seem to be in direct conflict with his testimony before Congress on May 3rd, 2011, which included the following exchange.
Rep. Darrell Issa: When did you first know about the program, officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?
Eric Holder: I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.
Now the Department of Justice is saying that Holder didn’t understand what was being asked and was, in fact, answering a different question, “When did you first know the sordid details about this program.”
Maybe it’s just me, but if I were testifying before Congress, I’d be paying careful attention to the questions and asking for clarification if I was uncertain about what was being asked. When I answered, I’d be picking my words pretty carefully.
“When did you first know about the program…” doesn’t mean, “When did you learn the details.” I know that because words have meanings and, over the years, I’ve learned the meanings for quite a few of them. Now I’m just a stoopid teabagger with a high school education, so I’d imagine that Attorney General Holder, with his fancy college education, must know the meanings for even more. That leaves me wondering how he could misunderstand a rather simple question, plainly stated, especially when his answer appears to be a direct response.
Moreover, if you take a closer look at the second part of that response, “…I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks,” you have to question his command of the English language if his intention was to indicate that he’d only recently learned all the details about the program. He clearly says he’d just heard about it “for the first time.”
I don’t care what line of bull Holder the the DOJ try to tell us about this response. Words. Have. Meanings. Most of us say we’ve just “heard” about something when we mean the absolute first mention of it, ever. And we all know what “for the first time” means.