That's right. As the title implies, I believe President Obama was correct to put the kibosh on that Keystone pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Here is why.
First of all, it is estimated that building the pipeline would create 20,000 jobs. Better those people remain out of work and free to participate in the Occupy protests. If they are working to build that pipeline, they won't have the time to protest-nor the inclination.
Secondly, this enables Canada to take its business elsewhere-in this case- to China. This is a good deal-for China.
Thirdly, Obama is under pressure from environmentalists not to approve the pipeline. Apparently, the governor of Nebraska, a Republican no less, is afraid the pipeline might run through downtown Omaha or across farmer Brown's corn field. We can't have that.
Most importantly, however, the pipeline would badly disrupt our business with countries like Saudi Arabia, which depend on oil sales for their economy-indeed their survival. And here is a side benefit you may not have considered. Much of the money we send to Saudi Arabia in the form of petro-dollars actually comes back to the US.
That's right. With the money we send them, the Saudis are funding construction of all kinds of new mosques in the US and even sending Wahhabist imams to staff them in order to ensure that the proper form of Islam is taught to American Muslims. In addition, Saudi oil money also is sent back to American universities to create new Middle Eastern Studies departments, staffed with great professors like UC Berkeley's Hatem Bazian, who can teach their students about the evils of Israel, as well as our own flaws.
In sum, we must avoid any effort to become energy self-sufficient. We live in a Global Village, and we must remain dependent on the rest of the world. Besides, if we ever reach the point where we don't need Middle Eastern oil, what excuse would we have to go to war?
And do we really want our oil prices to go down? C'mon.
President Obama exercised sound judgement in my view.
"That's right."
4 comments:
President Obama has NOT committed to permanently denying approval for the pipeline... as you probably know. He declined to make a rushed decision, and since some eager-beaver rhetoriticians in congress inserted language in a bill requiring A decision by this date, that rushed decision was, quite properly, no.
There is something of a sagebrush rebellion out on the plains, particularly in Nebraska, about the impact of the pipeline on the lives and livelihoods of people in its path. Those could, perhaps, be resolved to mutual satisfaction with care, reason, time, and mutual good will. It can't be properly done on this rushed timeline, so it was, for now, denied.
Looks to me like Obama is merely keeping one of his campaign promises, namely that the cost of energy will "skyrocket" under his policies. This would appear to be borne out by the facts that the price of gasoline has essentially doubled since he was inaugurated. (Further, during that same period the cost of propane, which I burn for heat,has dramatically increased, as has the rate from my electric co-opno doubt BDS will dictate that is Bush's fault, although he has been gone for over three years now).
Similarly unfortunately, he has also failed to keep a couple promises that I can think of. My health care costs have gone up, rather than down, each year of his tenure.
Further, although I know it is a sob story, as a fixed/middle income (far, far, FAR less than the $200K-$250K he mentioned repeatedly, not even anywhere close to six digits)retired senior,I actually had about a 10% increase in Federal income taxes for 2011, with essentially exactly the same income I had in 2010. With increased health care costs, increased tax withholding, and no COLA's, my disposable income actually decreased from 2010 to 2011. Poor me. So much for an improving economy.
I am posting this comment for Miggie, who had problems putting it up from his Iphone.
On Saturday, he (Gingrich) continued his attacks on Obama, calling him "out of
touch with reality.
"The president says, 'no,' we don't want you to build a pipeline from central
Canada straight down with no mountains intervening to the largest petrochemical
centre in the world, Houston, so that we'd make money on the pipeline, we'd make
money on managing the pipeline, we'd make money on refining the oil, and we'd
make money on the ports of Houston and Galveston shipping the oil," Gingrich
said. "Oh no, we don't want to do that because Barack Obama and his extremist
left-wing friends in San Francisco, they think that'll really stop the oil from
heading out."
Supporters of the Keystone pipeline, which would ship 700,000 barrels of crude
oil a day from Alberta to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, have estimated
the project would create 20,000 jobs and add hundreds of billions to the
American economy.
Critics have opposed the project because the original route took the pipeline
through an environmentally sensitive area in Nebraska. Even though TransCanada
and the Nebraska legislature have since agreed to a new route around the Ogallala Aquifer, some environmentalists still oppose the pipeline because they
say crude from Alberta's oilsands is "dirty" and more carbon intensive to produce."
This was from a Canadian newspaper. Someplace else he pinted out that we won
WWII in less time than this project has been held up in "review". In Texas
they can get a pipeline approved, built, and operational sooner than it takes to get federal approvals.
Obama is stifling business and there is no wonder why there is such high unemployment.
I take it Gingrich is not planning to run in the Republican primary in Nebraska, where the real opposition is. San Francisco? What do they care? They want all the oil to go to Houston, as long as it doesn't spoil THEIR ocean view on the Pacific.
Post a Comment