With the right leaders, the US CAN be energy independent!

  Supporting Hoosierman's observations about energy production in the United States, we go to a Powerline article entitled "The smart and the dumb"  (that quotes extensively from a WSJ article entitled "How South Dakota became Saudi Arabia") about POTUS's views on exploring for oil:

When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.” 

The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”

  Powerline also points to Mr. Hamm's observations about the energy sources POTUS's government IS pursuing: 

 The government floods green energy—a niche market that supplies 2.5% of our energy needs—with billions of dollars of subsidies a year. “Wind isn’t commercially feasible with natural gas prices below $6 per thousand cubic feet,” notes Mr. Hamm. Right now its price is below $4. This may explain the administration’s hostility to the fossil-fuel renaissance.

  The Stephen Moore WSJ article is really an eye-opening must read. Mr. Hamm believes the US could be completely energy independent, in fact producing so much oil that production could easily knock out the national debt.
  Why would this administration continue to pursue highly unprofitable, immature and unlikely forms of energy, claiming it is green, and at the same time financially support  traditional forms of carbon based energy in places like Brazil, which will cost taxpayer dollars, yield more "global warming," and yet financially benefit only Brazil, not American taxpayers who foot the bill?
  Michelle Malkin has some insight on where all those green dollars are going:

The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, a vigilant chronicler of green subsidies, notes that time and again, it’s Obama insiders and Democratic operatives pocketing all the green while the unemployment hovers at double-digits. To wit: “Al Gore acolyte Cathy Zoi was Obama’s assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy while her husband was an executive at a company that received direct subsidies from the Obama administration and profited from the Cash-for-Caulkers bill Zoi’s division implemented.” Treasury Department Chief of Staff Mark Patterson lobbied for Goldman Sachs on ethanol subsidies while holding down his job in the administration. And last year, another Obama pet project — Illinois-based FutureGen, a near-zero-emissions coal power plant — received a $1 billion stimulus earmark despite having been previously defunded over doubts about the feasibility and efficiency of the project.

  And Washington continues to over-regulate, micromanage and harass industries who are struggling to create jobs in this country.
 Why?
  For example, from the WSJ again, DOJ (the department that won't enforce voting rights for whites) prosecuted 7 oil companies for "causing the death of 28" birds...

 ...in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Continental's crime was killing one bird "the size of a sparrow" in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail. "It's not even a rare bird. There're jillions of them," he explains. He says that "people in North Dakota are really outraged by these legal actions," which he views as "completely discriminatory" because the feds have rarely if ever prosecuted the Obama administration's beloved wind industry, which kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year.

  This WSJ article and Mr. Hamm's insight are truly shocking, dispiriting and revealing.
  It only reinforces the need to elect open minded, patriotic and sensible senators and congressmen in 2012, not to mention a president who cares more about the country than padding his green cronies' pocketbooks.