These remarks from the Project 21 membership come after Obama made much of the his administration’s feeble efforts to encourage domestic production while continuing to embrace his risky alternative energy agenda during a White House press conference today.

“Obama should surrender in his war on fossil fuels,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “The losers in his war are the American people, who are paying more and watching good jobs move abroad. Obama could simultaneously boost employment and add to our domestic energy potential by allowing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.”

Calling the recent spike in oil prices “not a new phenomenon,” Obama said Americans need to realize the “hard truth” that this trend will continue. While saying he was committed to boosting domestic production, he failed to address his administration’s blanket moratoriums on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and its fight against a judge’s order to rule on stalled permit applications. He mentioned the existence of open leases, but did not address efforts to discourage permits in known locations of oil such as a remote area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Obama also did not discuss obtaining oil domestically from shale or natural gas from hydraulic-fracturing. What he did reiterate was his State of the Union Address goal of generating 80 percent of electricity from “clean sources” by 2035 and lauded fuel-efficiency standards enacted in the early days of his presidency.

“Obama’s rhetoric and actions suggest he is still content with keeping America dependent on foreign oil, which jeopardizes our national security and further weakens our crippled economy,” said Project 21 member Jerome Hudson. “Why this administration fails to realize the potential for energy independence resting right under our own feet is mind-boggling. While the Middle East melts, Obama chooses to handcuff the world’s strongest entrepreneurial spirit to a dangerous path of perpetual energy dependence and a marginalized future devoid of economic growth.”

Borelli added: “Obama must stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. By stopping this regulatory assault on industries that meet the majority of our nation’s energy needs, Obama could remove uncertainty surrounding future costs and availability, which would encourage domestic hiring and allow people to invest and save more.”

“I applaud subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield (KY) effort to expose the consequences of EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions on the job market. The EPA is taking the lead in advancing Obama’s war on fossil fuels and the agency’s primary weapon is to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately for hard working Americans, the cost of EPA’s action will make energy prices higher, drive jobs overseas and force more citizens to the unemployment line. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has been transformed to a job killing machine,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored Project 21 black conservative leadership network.

During a hearing before the same Subcommittee on February 9, Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, testified that EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, “will slow investment and job growth and have no significant impact on reducing global GHG emission growth.”

“Given the high-unemployment rate and soaring gasoline prices it’s unconscionable that Obama is allowing an agency under his control to add to the economic burdens of industry for no meaningful benefit to the environment,” added Deneen Borelli.

Dr. Thorning will be providing testimony at the hearing, “EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs,” Tuesday, March 1, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building.

“Congress needs to step up and stop EPA’s unrestrained effort to regulate our economy. The hearing will educate the public and lawmakers about the effects of EPA’s actions on job creation and likely provide evidence for elected officials to block the agency’s regulatory effort,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

“Our future economic prosperity depends on having a cheap and abundant supply of energy. Obama’s war on fossil fuels is really a war on the American way of life,” added Tom Borelli.

The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget, released today, reduces funding to the Low Income Home Energy Program (LIPHEAP) to $2.57 billion — roughly in half compared with the 2009 budget. In its analysis, the Office of Management and Budget justifies the cut by reporting that “energy prices are now significantly lower, and the prior level is no longer sustainable.”

This year, the EPA began imposing carbon emissions restrictions expected to increase fossil fuel-related energy prices. As a candidate, Obama described such regulations as inherently expensive, saying: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” In his State of the Union Address, Obama stressed his goal of 80 percent alternative energy production by 2035.

“Our goal as a society is to make people independent of government assistance, but the Obama Administration is cutting heating aid at the same time it is pursuing regulations that are sure to raise consumer prices on energy and virtually everything else,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “Obama’s decision to cut heating aid illustrates the peril of government dependency since, at any point, the government can pull the plug leaving families out in the cold.”

“President Obama needs to realize that fossil fuels are vital to our economy and well-being, and now is not the time to ram renewable energy mandates down our throats. Let the free market, not the government, determine the amount of energy generated from renewable sources,” added Borelli.

The cut in heating aid provoked outrage from Obama’s staunchest supporters. Senator Jean Shaheen (D-NH) said such a cut would be “a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens.” Last week, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wrote in a letter to Obama: “Cutting the program now would be devastating to the Northeast that depends on this support. If an increase is not an option we must do everything we can not to leave children and families out in the cold.”

Project 21′s Borelli continued: “People freezing now in the Northeast and elsewhere are not interested in Obama’s alternative energy goals for 2035. They want to know their power will be on and affordable in 2011, 2012 and 2013. America has the resources to become energy independent, but liberals who insist on alternative energy mandates want to stop efforts to develop new methods of exploration such as hydro-fracking for oil and natural gas, want moratoriums on existing drilling and further restrictions on coal. Obama is truly fulfilling his campaign goal of making our energy prices skyrocket – no matter how many suffer in the process.”

“After failing to legislatively enact cap-and-trade emissions regulations, the Obama Administration relied on a perverted interpretation of the Clean Air Act. America rang in the new year to new rules on energy and manufacturing that could cause our nation’s economic engine to seize up,” said Dana Joel Gattuso, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs.

On February 9, the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the discussion draft of “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.” This proposal, set to be introduced by Senator James Inhofe and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, specifies that the Clean Air Act is not to be used to address climate change and thereby bars EPA regulators from imposing and enforcing carbon restrictions based on the Act.

Regulations imposed by the Obama Administration on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources that went into effect on January 2 could return the American economy to the conditions from which it is still trying to recover. According to Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, U.S. investment could decline by five to 15 percent — a decline as large as was seen at the beginning of the current recession in late 2007.

Furthermore, the Affordable Power Alliance estimates 2.5 million jobs will be destroyed by 2030, and household incomes will decrease by $1,200 a year while consumer prices will increase. In particular, the Alliance points out the discriminatory nature of the new rule, noting: “The EPA regulation will impact low income groups, the elderly and minorities disproportionately, both because they have lower incomes to begin with, but also because they have to spend proportionately more of their incomes…”

“What the Obama Administration is ramming down America’s throat is a cap without the trade, and it could plunge our nation further into recessionary despair,” added the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Gattuso. “This hearing on the Upton-Inhofe proposal is the first step in putting accountable, elected representatives back in charge of the duties assigned to them by our Constitution.”

Mychal Massie: “Has Obama had an epiphany, or is he still dazed from his shellacking from the American people in the November elections? From the beginning, he was a free-spending Keynesian. Now he’s talking about capping spending and ending earmarks. It’s inconsistent with his advocacy thus far. It’s too much like when Bill Clinton declared that the ‘era of big government’ was over back in his 1996 address. Changing the language without changing the behavior is nothing more than obfuscation, and would signal that the only one Obama seeks to benefit is himself.” (Mychal Massie is the chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network.)

Coby W. Dillard: “President Obama tried to convince us tonight that the state of the union needs additional and new ‘investment’ to be strong. One only needs to look at the investment that was the stimulus to see how spending borrowed money and blowing up the national debt was no solution. The new Congress was elected to stop the blank checks and to rein in a government operating in a manner that would destroy households or businesses. Only when President Obama makes the tough choices regarding removing the barriers to job growth, controlling entitlements and embracing fiscal responsibility will we see out union grow stronger.” (Coby W. Dillard is a member of Project 21 and a founder of the Hampton Roads Tea Party in southeastern Virginia.)

Lisa Fritsch: “If we are really serious about having American students ‘Race to the Top’ to be innovative and compete with the likes of China and India, then we’d better get serious about focusing on teaching math and science like China and India rather than sex education, diversity initiatives and healthy eating habits. And let’s do away with talk of the DREAM Act and wake up to the reality that legal immigration and citizenship is a prerequisite to our innovation and sovereignty. Not until we get serious about protecting our borders and defending our American values can we truly educate, prepare and utilize those who desire to be productive American citizens.” (Lisa Fritsch is a member of Project 21 and a freelance writer and talk show host in Austin, Texas.)

Cherylyn Harley LeBon: “After two years in office and a steady rise in unemployment, Americans are still waiting for a plan for job growth from this president. ‘Innovation,’ ‘education’ and ‘infrastructure’ are wonderful words which are meaningless unless they translate into jobs TODAY. The American people need to get back to work, pay their mortgages and put food on the table. At the moment, we are less concerned about initiatives which will come to fruition in 25 years.” (Cherylyn Harley LeBon is a member of Project 21 and a former senior counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.)

Deneen Borelli: “President Obama’s energy agenda, as detailed in tonight’s address, is essentially tilting at windmills. He can dream all he wants about alternative energy sources, but Obama will stifle innovations for tomorrow if he hobbles fossil fuels today. Demonizing the oil companies and hampering their ability to produce is going to raise costs, destroy jobs and hurt our fragile economy. Like it our not, our nation needs fossil fuels.” (Deneen Borelli is a fellow with Project 21.)

Bishop E.W. Jackson: “There was no pivot in Obama’s speech this evening. Sure, it sounded good, but the first step in winning the future is not government encouraging innovation. The American people have been innovating since our country was formed. We need to stop the crushing burdens of debt and regulation which inhibit productivity. Only our American entrepreneurs can solve the dilemma we are now in. In order to do that, the government must get out of the way. To quote Ronald Reagan: ‘Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.’” (Bishop E.W. Jackson is a member of Project 21 and the founder of Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Virginia.)

While Project 21 members see a nation looking for reassurance that the government is acting in its best interest and focusing on the key issues of economic stability and job creation, they do not expect more than rhetoric from President Obama.

“When the polite applause and the partisan demonstrations of loyalty cease in the wake of tonight’s address, will we have seen anything more than the same campaign-style rhetoric we have come to expect from this president? I don’t think so,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “Despite his get-tough talk of late on spending and his alleged epiphany on regulations, there is no getting around the fact that Barack Obama’s spending leaves George W. Bush’s disregard for the taxpayers’ burden in the dust. There is no getting around the fact that Obama’s heavy-handed regulatory agenda is set up to continue his agenda where the peoples’ new representatives are being told to hold the line. What I expect is a deceptively stylish speech from a desperate man who hopes to convince a very worried nation that he possesses the leadership they need. Unfortunately, he does not.”

Project 21′s Kevin Martin added: “I don’t believe President Obama’s speech tonight will do much more than instill a short-term aura of confidence in his leadership. And, even then, there are fewer and fewer left who are likely to believe him. I expect the address to be long on new ideas and policies, but short on how they can be funded without further contributing to our exploding national debt. Furthermore, Obama will likely ignore his vote against increasing the debt ceiling from when he was a senator, instead asking for a blank check to tackle our economic woes in the only way he seems to know how — more spending. Supporters hope Obama’s speech will set a course for the remainder of his term. Before he can do that, however, Obama must actually take control of the currently rudderless ship of state.”

Project 21 full-time fellow Deneen Borelli added: “President Obama should end his war on fossil fuels by having the EPA immediately cease his plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ease drilling restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico. These actions would eliminate the air of uncertainty surrounding businesses who are hesitant to invest in manufacturing facilities and stimulate job creation through exploration of our natural resources. By now, Obama should realize his pledge to make energy prices “skyrocket” is bad for business investment and job creation.”

Experts with the National Center for Public Policy Research cite Immelt’s close ties with Obama on policy matters such as cap-and-trade and his ineffective leadership at GE as proof that this new council will not possess the dynamic leadership it deserves.

“Tragically, the continuing Obama-Immelt partnership is going to drive our economy and job creation over a cliff. Their war on fossil fuels is only going to drive jobs overseas,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “Americans stated loudly and clearly in last November’s elections that ‘We the People’ will not stand for policies that expands government and raises energy prices. Putting Immelt in charge of this new council sends exactly the wrong message.”

According to Obama, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will “focus its work on finding new ways to encourage the private sector to hire and invest in American competitiveness.” Immelt, in a January 21 Washington Post commentary boasting of his appointment, wrote: “My hope is that the council will be a sounding board for ideas and a catalyst for action on jobs and competitiveness. It will include large businesses, small businesses, labor, economists and government.”

“Obama and Immelt are mutually dependent on each other. Obama needs corporate money for his re-election campaign and Immelt needs the president’s muscle to continue the Administration’s war on cheap energy to make GE’s renewable energy products economically competitive,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Making energy prices skyrocket is not an economic recovery plan. It’s a recipe for economic disaster.”

As CEO of General Electric, Immelt directly participated in promoting Obama’s “cap-and-trade” energy regulations proposal. While this could increase GE’s short-term business in wind and solar technologies, the consequences of the policy is certain — by Obama’s own admission — to “skyrocket” energy costs. GE has additionally sold technology to Iran and it is planning on sharing jet engine technology with China. GE also lobbied for and received tens of millions in stimulus money and received financial support from the Federal Reserve. During Immelt’s ten-year reign as CEO, GE had to cut its dividend and its stock price has fallen to about half its previous value.

Obama’s pick of Immelt will undoubtedly provoke the further ire of tea party activists already unhappy with the White House’s big-government agenda. A recent nationwide poll conducted by FreedomWorks and the National Center, which can be found at www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Tea_Party_Survey_112310.html, found that GE was extremely unpopular with conservatives due to Immelt’s reliance on the government and support of Obama’s policies.

“Innovation and job creation will not come from someone who is already marching in lock-step with President Obama’s big government agenda,” added Deneen Borelli. “America needs economic leaders who embrace the entrepreneurial spirit not CEO leeches who feed on taxpayer money for revenue. Lead by the tea party movement, voters rejected progressive policies and cleaned house on Capitol Hill. If this council is going to be anything more than a continuation of the White House’s attempt to woo big business to Obama’s big government agenda, Immelt will provoke tea party activists.”

Washington, D.C. – Today policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research are calling attention to corporate special interest groups receiving stimulus money that also are lobbying for Obama’s energy policy.

“It’s alarming that many of the remaining corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a cap-and-trade lobbying group – such as General Electric, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, Exelon, and Honeywell all received economic stimulus funds. It seems pushing Obama’s agenda has financial rewards. The coordinated effort between big government and big business threatens our free enterprise system,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project .

General Electric seems to be a chief beneficiary of stimulus funds, with federal money being given to many of its businesses. As noted in a 2009 Wall Street Journal story, ‘General Electric Pursues Pot of Stimulus Gold,’ GE CEO Jeff Immelt geared up his lobbying army to exploit President Obama’s economic stimulus package.

“Immelt hit the jackpot with Obama’s stimulus funds. According to null, GE is the recipient of over $49 million in grants and contracts from a wide range of government departments including Energy, Defense, Justice, and Health and Human Services. Not only did GE get direct support, the company will likely benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars that went to GE’s utility customers – Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and Exelon. Looting public funds for profit appears to be a primary business strategy adopted by Immelt,” added Tom Borelli.

A renewable energy mandate is the latest energy policy being proposed in Congress. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sam Brownback (R-KS) recently introduced a renewable energy standard bill in the Senate that mandates 15 percent of electricity must be derived from energy sources such as wind and solar power by 2021.

“With cap-and-trade apparently dead in the Senate, Obama and his big business allies may push a renewable energy standard as a fallback position during the lame-duck session in Congress. The renewable electricity mandate would be an incremental step towards Obama’s energy goals,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored African-American leadership group Project 21.

“A renewable electricity requirement will benefit GE since it will force utilities to buy wind and solar power products that the company makes, but it will harm our economy. Electricity prices will increase, leading to a loss of manufacturing jobs,” added Deneen Borelli.

“Cap-and-trade is a central part of Obama’s war on fossil fuels,” said Borelli. “Obama has partnered with his big business allies including GE, Duke Energy and Johnson and Johnson to advance his global warming policy. Obama may push for a cap-and-trade bill to be passed during the lame duck session of Congress even though this policy is unpopular with Americans and it will harm the economy through high energy prices. The partnership between big government and big businesses threatens our liberty.”

The rally portion of the March on D.C., organized by FreedomWorks, is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM eastern on the West Front Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Borelli has taken on some of America’s biggest business leaders — including the heads of General Electric, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Johnson and Johnson and PG&E — because of their support of a cap-and-trade energy policy.

Most recently, a joint ad campaign undertaken by the National Center for Public Policy Research and FreedomWorks was credited with helping force heavy-equipment manufacturer Deere and Company to withdraw from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and radical environmental groups lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations.

The Free Enterprise Project is also calling on the public to sign a petition calling on GE CEO Jeff Immelt to resign due to his lobbying for economically risky Obama Administration initiatives and simultaneously running the MSNBC news network. The petition can be found at http://www.bigbusinesswatch.com.

“Tea party activists are just as mad at corporate America as they are with politicians who are selling out their freedom,” said Borelli. “Tea partiers want CEOs to be held accountable for trying to make a buck at the cost of people’s liberty and economic futures.”

Big Business Played a Major Role In Passing ObamaCare and the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Legislation, says the Free Enterprise Project

Washington, D.C. – The Free Enterprise Project is charging President Obama with having a double standard on corporate money and influence.

“After using big business to advance his political agenda, suddenly President Obama is expressing concerns about corporate money in the political process. The fact is corporations played a crucial role in making ObamaCare law and getting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed in the House of Representatives,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project.

During his radio address Saturday, President Obama expressed fear that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case would allow corporate special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections. The president warned that companies could “hide behind a phony name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future,’” since a business entity paying for TV advertising is not required to disclose its name. The president added that the business could be a foreign corporation: “You don’t know if it’s BP,” said Obama.

Borelli notes that President Obama was the sole spokesperson in a television advertisement touting the benefits of his health care plan — an advertisement sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, an organization funded by the drug industry and SEIU, the service employees’ union. In addition, Politico reported that PhRMA, the drug industry trade group, at one point planned to spend “as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.”

“President Obama’s selective outrage about corporate influence is alarming. It’s ironic that the president himself appeared in a TV advertisement sponsored by what he now calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” added Borelli.

“The President’s reference to BP is also disturbing. While Obama is trying to frighten the public by depicting BP as a ‘foreign-controlled corporation,’ he failed to mention the company was an ally in lobbying for his cherished cap-and-trade legislation. BP was a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying group that was largely responsible for passing the Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives in 2009,” said Borelli.

Borelli notes that corporate interests such as General Electric have been a key ally of President Obama: “GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been a cheerleader for Obama’s political plan including the president’s green energy agenda. Immelt has partnered with Obama in seeking the so-called green energy economy and the company has aggressively lobbied for the president’s $ 787 billion stimulus plan. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the stimulus money was subsequently steered to GE’s customers. It’s disingenuous for the president to challenge corporate influence when he has actively partnered with big business when it served his political purposes,” added Borelli.

In a radio address last year, Obama cited the important role corporations were playing in pressing for cap-and-trade, saying, “Utility companies and corporate leaders are working with environmental advocates and labor leaders to find a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to fight climate change, and to create millions of new jobs in America.”

Borelli concludes, “Corporate special interests such as GE and the drug industry can be as much as a risk to liberty as progressive politicians. This is especially true when the agenda of big business aligns with progressive elected officials and labor unions. This is why Tea Party activists need to challenge politicians and business leaders.”