Help us fight the
ObamaMedia

click title for home page
  
Be a subscribing
member

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #1 
Jim Hoft says With gas prices at record highs -- The Obama State Department today announced that they WILL NOT approve the Keystone Pipeline from Canada.
 
The Keystone Pipeline project was expected to create tens of thousands of high paying jobs in the oil industry.   The project itself would create 20,000 construction jobs.
 
But it was just a big pipe dream.

 

  
Barack Obama refused to approvethe project in 2011 despite the fact that gas prices hit a record high last year under his failed leadership.

The New York Post reported:

The US State Department is expected to announce that it will not approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, FOX News Channel reported, citing an industry source.

Sources told Politico the announcement will be made Wednesday afternoon by the State Department, which has the final say in the pipeline’s approval because it crosses international borders.

The pipeline, which would run from Canada to Texas, was a major sticking point in the debate in Congress last month over the extension of the payroll tax holiday.  The ultimate agreement on the extension included a provision forcing the Obama administration to make a quicker decision on whether to approve the pipeline.

The administration had until Feb. 21 to make its decision.

This decision comes one day after the Saudi regime announced they would keep oil prices above $100 per barrel.

But, remember…This was all part of Obama’s plan.
  
He told us that he supported high gas prices if they are gradually hiked.
 


  
Related:  Obama blames Republicans for Keystone XL decision

Related:  Obama's jobs council report says "drill"
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #2 

Obama’s new energy regulations will put 32 coal plants out of business

 

Jim Hoft says that after he killed the pipeline yesterday, Obama's next target is the coal industry.

New EPA regulations will force 32 coal plants to close their doors putting hundreds of Americans out of work.
  

The latest move by the EPA will force new regulations on 26 states. The new rules will kill thousands of jobs, cost billions of dollars and increase electricity rates for every family.
  



New EPA rules will force Western coal-fired power plants to install haze-reducing pollution-control equipment at a cost of $1.6 billion a year. Pictured is the Dave Johnston Power Plant in Glenrock, Wyoming. (IBD)

The AP reported:

An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.

No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect. One rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. Another sets first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from smokestacks.

The effect is greatest in the Midwest and in coal belt states such as Virginia and West Virginia, where dozens of units are likely to shut down.

Take Giles County, where American Electric Power’s Glen Lyn plant is located, and where 44 jobs are on the line.

County Administrator Chris McKlarney worries about the $600,000 tax-revenue hit his $40 million budget will take. But that’s just one concern involving a plant and workers whose community contribution is “hard to quantify.”

“They’ve done so much donation-wise for local causes … And they’re really good people working there,” he said. “They’re coaches in Little League sports, involved in the Parent-Teacher Organization — you lose those kind of people, it’s tough.”

And they’re good jobs — stable, well-paying positions with good benefits in places where such things can be hard to find.

The Obama Administration’s new energy regulations will shut down about 8% of all U.S. generating capacity or the equivalent of wiping out all power generation for Florida and Mississippi.

Marathon Pundit
says the new regulations are cold-blooded.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #3 
Under Obama, oil, gas production on federal lands is down 40%

Rob Bluey says in his announcement rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline today, Barack Obama boasted that under his administration, “domestic oil and natural gas production is up.”  Obama, of course, he failed to mention that his administration can’t actually take any credit for the increase.

The vast majority of America’s new oil and gas production is happening on private lands in states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas.

It’s not that Obama is devoid of responsibility.  His administration oversees oil and gas production on federal lands by issuing leases.  But when measuring oil and gas production in areas under Obama’s jurisdiction, the numbers tell a different story.

Citing publicly available federal data, the House Natural Resources Committee noted these figures:

  • Under the Obama administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.

Despite the Obama administration’s restrictive policies for oil and gas production on federal lands, overall production still increased thanks to the pro-energy policies in states like North Dakota.

“North Dakota has been the poster child for what can happen when we unleash free enterprise and allow states to develop and commercialize their resources,” Heritage’s Nick Loris wrote recently on The Foundry.  “North Dakota is drilling at record pace.”

The result: North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.4 percent, the lowest in the country.  According to a recent report from IHS Global Insight, North Dakota already returned to pre-recession employment along with energy-rich Alaska.  Texas is expected to do so in the first quarter of 2012, followed by Nebraska and South Dakota next year.

Those states all have something in common: energy production.

That policy aligns with recommendations from Obama’s own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which yesterday issued a report calling for more energy production that includes drilling and pipelines.  Here’s the language from the Jobs Council report:

As a nation, we need to take advantage of all our natural resources to spur economic growth, create jobs and reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil.  First, we should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands.  Where sources of shale natural gas have been uncovered, federal, state and local authorities should encourage its safe and responsible extraction.  While the administration has supported holding additional lease sales and evaluating new areas for drilling, further expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels both offshore and onshore (in conjunction with more electric and natural gas vehicles) will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and the huge outflow of U.S. dollars this reliance entails.  In addition, policies that encourage rapid lease development while emphasizing the highest safety standards will ensure companies responsibly drill for natural gas or oil and mine for coal or other our minerals in federal areas in a timely manner.

With the Keystone XL decision, Obama rejected that advice.  “At a time when unemployment remains unacceptably high, Iran is threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and Canada is looking to take this oil elsewhere, it is difficult to understand how Obama could say no to thousands of jobs and an increase in energy supply from our ally,” Loris wrote in reaction to the decision.

It's not difficult to understand, at all.  Obama is out to destroy America.
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #4 

Boehner savages Obama for approving Solyndra but rejecting Keystone

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #5 

Obama in Fantasyland

 

 

Joseph Goebbels was a truth-teller compared to Team Obama.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #6 
It's for the children

 

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, claimed the Keystone decision was made for the children.

CARNEY:  Even prior to the signing of that legislation (extending payroll tax cut), the State Department, which again reviews this process, made clear that setting an arbitrary deadline through this purely political effort would put the State Department in a corner.

[It] would severely hamper their ability to review an alternate route and a new pipeline route in the proper way, a way that has long been established by precedent and that would take into consideration all the criteria that are so important in decisions like this.  Economic impact, national security impact, environmental impact, the effect on the water that our children breathe -- rather, the water our children drink and the air that they breathe.

Yes.  They just played the kids card.  Unreal.
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
pinebark

Registered:
Posts: 80
Reply with quote  #7 
LOL the water that they breathe, yes as in drowning in debt
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #8 

Flashback: Obama complains during 2008 campaign about paying $3.50 for gas

  

 

Well that was just because he was driving this gas-guzzler.  What a freakin' hypocrite!
 

 

Now he is ordering the American People to drive the Obama Volt.
 

Just more of Obama's do what I say, not what I do philosophy.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #9 





Please don't get me wrong on the issue of the car, (The VW)  I have owned many (6) of them and they are great little cars, they have an excellent engine and get great mileage as well as being very good at getting from point A to point B in any kind of weather,  but the premise that it was born under is identical to that of the Volt...........OUR TAXES ARE PAYING FOR IT AND WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT WE MUST DRIVE IT.....by a DICTATOR

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #10 

Explaining Obama’s lethargic reaction to high gas prices
 

Charles C. Johnson says some times a picture is worth billions. A new chart, pictured below, puts the lie to the Obama line that he has no effect over gas prices.
 

  
Indeed, Sarah Palin’s Facebook pronouncements to the contrary, one of the mistaken assumptions about the Obama administration is that it has no energy policy. On the contrary, there is one, best summed up by Steven Chu, the U.S. Secretary of Energy. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in 2008. It now appears that the Obama administration has found a way: restricting the supply of oil.  At a time when America is exiting the Great Recession, rising gas prices threaten to throw the country back into its clutches.
 
Unfortunately Secretary Chu’s assumption -- that high gas prices will force more “clean tech” innovation is dubious -- but his hope of European-level gas prices is quickly being realized. In 2011, Americans spent $4,000 filling up -- 8% of household budgets -- and twice the amount they spend in 2002. It is predicted to go even higher this year. In Los Angeles, America’s car capital, some stations are even charging $4.93 a gallon. In California, where ten percent of America lives, prices reached $4.03 on President Day, according to the AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report, jumping more than 18.9 cents in just the pass week. Since last September, the price of a barrel of oil in America has risen a whopping 34%.
 
The worse may be yet to come. Goldman Sachs predicts the price of a barrel of crude oil will rise to $123.50 by the end of the year, up from $106.07 right now. The effect on the U.S. economy could very well be disastrous. A 25-cent bump in gas price will cost the economy some $35 billion, if sustained over the year. Such increases hurt the poor and the middle class most of all. To grasp how devastating the increase in prices has been for America’s middle-class, consider the following which has best been explained by Ron Klain, a former Obama economic adviser:

… an average couple living in suburbia, driving about 1,500 miles per person each month, in two cars that get average gas mileage, a 50-cents-a-gallon increase will cost them about 20 percent more than the payroll- tax cut saves them. In their case, what the president and Congress gives, the gas man takes away.

Rising gas prices also hurt consumer spending, which is already harmed by the Great Recession. For every penny increase gas prices, consumer spending is reduced a $1 billion, so the difference from $3.00 to $4.00 a gallon gas is equivalent to a $100 billion drag on the economy. Inflation, too, is taking its bite out of American paychecks. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy (both of which have gone up!), increased 2.3%, its highest point in more than three years. Food, gas, rent, and clothing have all increased.

What has gone wrong?

Continue reading here . . .
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #11 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #12 

Energy Secretary Chu admits administration OK with high gas prices

Mark Whittington is reporting that Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.
 
Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.
 
The Heritage Foundation points out that hammering the American consumer with high gas prices to make electric and hybrid cars more appealing is consistent with Obama administration policy and Chu's philosophy. That explains the refusal to allow the building of the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow drilling in wide areas of the U.S. and offshore areas.
 
Continue reading here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
jhancock

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #13 
Just another rabbit pulled out of the hat for election 2012
  
Obama plans to announce in Cushing, Oklahoma that his administration will expedite the permit for the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Since moving back to Nebraska from Arizona, I've heard nothing but lies coming out of the Obama administration including the trumped up concerns about the Ogallala Aquifer that underlays the Great Plains including Nebraska. 

Obama has to do more studies? Since 2008, the U.S. Department of State has been leading a comprehensive environmental review of all aspects of the Keystone XL.  In August of 2011 the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project was released.  This review was the most comprehensive review ever done for a cross border pipeline.

The FEIS review concluded that the analysis of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed project suggest that there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed project route. No fewer than ten key agencies of the federal government contributed to this study!

If pipelines transversing the Ogallala Aquifer were problematic, we would have already been inundated with stories about the damage from the existing 25,000 miles of pipelines already running through the Nebraska territory.  In addition, TransCanada guaranteed that the pipeline would be constructed and operated at a safety level beyond that of any existing cride oil pipeline in the United States and specifically outlined those details.

I suspect most of you know much of this already. I was so angry upon hearing of Obama's plans to make expediting the southern portion of the pipeline sound like a big favor I just had to confront this ruse and expose yet another smoke and mirrors act.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #14 

Obama lies about oil AGAIN!

John Hinderaker says Barack Obama has repeatedly embarrassed himself by lying about America’s petroleum resources. He loves to tell audiences that we need to invest billions in “green” energy because we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves, and consume 20% of the oil. We and many others have called Obama on this misrepresentation many times. His fibbing has been so persistent that even the Washington Post has called him on it. “Reserves” in the United States (unlike other countries) include only petroleum that can profitably be recovered at current prices, and that it is legal to develop under existing laws and regulations. So Obama’s reasoning is circular: if we opened up ANWR, for example, to drilling, our “reserves” would expand dramatically, overnight.

But despite the fact that everyone who is at all knowledgeable about energy knows he is lying, President Obama did it again today. Speaking at the Copper Mountain Solar 1 Facility in Boulder City, Nevada, Obama claimed that enormous “green” energy development is a must because the U.S. has “only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.” The man is absolutely shameless.

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Jay Carney railed against the House Republicans’ budget today, claiming that “Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republicans who support his budget plan are ‘aggressively and deliberately ignorant’ when it comes to the need to invest in clean energy.” Actually, it is Obama and his minions who are “aggressively and deliberately ignorant” when it comes to America’s petroleum resources. As always, they count on the voters to be ignorant, too.

 

Related:  Copper Mountain Solar 1 plant has only five full-time employees.

The plant, owned by San Diego-based energy company Sempra, was built in late 2010 at a cost of $141 million. Funding included $42 million in federal-government tax credits and $12 million in tax-rebate commitments from the state of Nevada.

Construction of the plant involved over 300 part-time jobs, but currently only five full-time employees operate the plant, a Sempra spokeswoman confirmed. That comes out to $10.8 million in tax-dollar subsidies per employee.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #15 
and it is a HUGE EYESORE and blight on the desert to all who see it!!!   they took a large slice out of our beautiful desert (and away from all the little bugs/lizards/snake/cactus and other plants), that should be protected by Environmentalists and KILLTHEM all because they disturbed their natural habitat) and not one ohm of that electricity that is produced goes to any NEVADAN, but is all sold to California while Nevadans have paid for that monstrocity..... and I am not really sure, but I dont think it has made that much of a a profit YET, and the cost of the tranmission lines (I think, can't get any good answers to that question yet) still has to be paid for by Nevadans.... by increases to the cost of OUR real electricity to accomodate the cost of the lines....

I didn't know that there were only five real employees, so I wonder who he was speaking to at that promotion he gave yesterday.....  funny how they didn't really say anything to that effect when talking about and showing the speech.  Talk about smoke and mirrors and illusions, he had a bunch of solar mirrors to back him up during that speech, guess that was the purpose of it.  And all he did during that speech was be a PARROT and repeat the teaching he learned during his Cloward-Piven indoctrinations.  Wonder if those scars on his head have anything to do with that indoctrination??
jhancock

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #16 
When my husband and I lived in Arizona we were well aware of the Copper Mountain project and the environmental impact.  Nothing could remain, plant or reptile or animal, in the vicinity of the project that might disturb the operation of this least productive and most unstable avenue available to replace fossil fuels. 
   
And of course, California reaped the greatest benefits.

Back to the gasoline "shortage" (not) and onto what is predicted to be the next great worldwide crisis which is that of water.  I remember one subject of great concern in Arizona was the statistic that it takes 80 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Not only do we burn productive acres of food to make a fuel that is not as economical as gasoline, but we waste a very precious resource in doing so.  There has long been an ongoing battle regarding water usage from the Colorado River.  In the lower basin, California consumes the greatest proportion of water. When the "unused allotment" of water from other states is finally consumed by California (which will be soon), what will be the price of a gallon of ethanol then?  The obvious answer to that is...

Obama doesn't care.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #17 

 

 

From The people's Cube . . .

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #18 

From The people's Cube . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #19 

Obama kills Atlantic offshore drilling for five years

John Sexton is reporting that the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell notes that a planned lease sale, which the administration cancelled last year, will now be put off until at least 2018. As you might expect, Republicans were not impressed with the decision:

"The president's actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. The announcement "continues the president's election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America," he said.

Finally, given that this is the Obama administration, you won't be surprised to learn that oil and gas exploration is not the only aim of the survey:

In addition to assessing how much oil and natural gas is in the area, seismic testing would help determine the best places for wind turbines and other renewable energy projects, locate sand and gravel for restoring eroding coastal areas, and identify cultural artifacts such as historic sunken ships.

The Post reports that environmentalists are already opposing the survey which, conveniently, won't begin until after the election.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #20 

Nine dollar gas

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #21 

you know, I have seen that Ad on my TV for the past two or so weeks recently and he, and he or his propaganda people, are sooo speaking to the wrong people here in Nevada.  We have long distances to drive and many places where there are only gas stations about every 50 or so milles at the closest, and NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION out in the outlying areas, and he wants US to have to pay what Europe pays for Gas, when we have an abundance of it here in our Country and we RELY on our vehicles to go to the jobs that pay the best money for the work we have been/are doing and he wants to make it unrealistic to get anywhere when we have to pay even what we are paying now for that pleasure, it will be more economical for us all to go back to the Horse and buggy, then we only have to feed the horse and repair the buggy.   HE IS SO UNREALISTIC it makes me sad to see that we have put this person who really doesn't give a rats A&$ about the people who support this country with their work, their ethics, and their hearts..............  he is breaking the backs of all those who made this Country what it USED TO BE, and supporting those who want to have it be a taker Nation.............

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #22 

Our disingenuous Obama

Bruce Bialosky says Many Americans believe that whenever a politician opens his mouth, something pops out other than the truth. But on the issue of energy, Barack Obama has really stepped into an issue and now seems able to maintain his political credibility solely with more lies and obfuscation.

We live in an age in which America and the rest of the world has a huge need for electrical power -- with no evidence of reduced demand on the horizon. Even though our automobiles, appliances, and tools have become more energy-efficient, we have more devices than ever like smartphones and tablets and our thirst for energy has not and will not subside in the foreseeable future.

Obama repeatedly attacks his political opponents for not supporting taxpayer-funding of new forms of energy. First he accuses Republicans of being behind the loans given to Solyndra and other "clean-energy" companies -- most of which have gone bust during his administration. But then out of the other side of his mouth, he accuses Republicans of being members of the Flat Earth Society for being "against energy innovation."

This is the same man who enthusiastically extols the benefits of wind-generated power. But when I think of wind energy, I just can’t help imagining a 16th-century Dutch windmill. There’s a reason that this form of energy went out of use -- it is grossly inefficient. I’ve had extensive conversations with the owners of wind farms, the quality of whose windmills has vastly improved over the past twenty years. They are far more productive than they’ve ever been, and yet they still don’t come close to the energy density of fossil fuels.

And there are other downsides. First, windmills generate huge numbers of dead birds -- including endangered species -- but for some reason there’s no outcry from the likely suspects on the left. PETA is attempting to eliminate the killing of chickens -- one of our most important food sources -- but never says a word about the large-scale slaughter that windmills cause every day. Windmills consume thousands of acres of quality farmland, blighting the horizons worse than billboards. And yet, even if we were to devote large swaths of the American landscape to windmills, we would still be producing only a small percentage of our energy from what is a highly irregular source. And Obama calls us Flat-Earthers?

Again and again, Barack Obama attempts to defend his preposterous decisions and policies on the topic of fossil fuels. Let’s face it -- he and his green buddies (most of whom are big-time campaign contributors) just don’t like oil and natural gas and want to get rid of them as a fuel source. But now that gasoline prices are going through the roof, largely due to his mismanagement of energy policy and the injection of trillions of dollars of false money into the economy, he’s saying that there is no "silver bullet." Unfortunately for our disingenuous Mr. Obama, there really is a silver bullet.

After decades of declining domestic oil and gas production, our ingenious scientists have found new ways to extract energy from underground sources. Based on these new methods, we have the largest oil and gas supplies in the world. Yes, folks, that’s correct -- the entire world. Regrettably, we have a political class unwilling to address our energy problems. Just think how many jobs would be created, not to mention how quickly our trade deficit would plummet, if we were to produce our own energy for the next hundred years. We have the unique opportunity to actually be energy-independent in the next five to ten years. But our disingenuous President says that there are no silver bullets.

Obama continually ridicules Newt Gingrich for talking about $2.50 per gallon gasoline. Obama should be saying that this price is too high. The two states at the forefront of energy development -- Alaska and North Dakota -- have virtually eliminated state taxes and are giving back money to their residents. Perhaps Obama should familiarize himself with the price of gasoline in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. In both countries, gasoline costs less than a dollar per gallon. Development is the key.

Unfortunately, Obama still continues to prohibit the transportation of new sources of oil through the Keystone pipeline in order to appease his rich, environmentally-radical friends. He and his cronies maintain that Nebraska halted the line -- despite the fact that Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman made it very clear at the beginning of this year that they are ready, willing, and able to move forward on their portion of the project.

Barack Obama has stepped into an issue that has come back to bite him; but, instead of re-thinking his policies, he has jumped in with both feet. Rather than adapt to modern, far-reaching developments in the world of energy, he has doubled down on the antiquated, anti-energy policies of his far-left base. And he calls Republicans anti-Galileo. We can disagree on issues, but Obama has no right to be use disingenuousness as his only defense.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
jhancock

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #23 
Great: US will pay more for Canadian oil due to Keystone decision
Guy Benson

Even if President Barack Obama approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, at least some Canadian oil would still flow to Asia, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In an interview...Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline - even temporarily - stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oil sands crude.  And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.  "We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products.  We just cannot be in that position."  Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.  So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oil sands crude will be more competitive.  "We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy", Harper said.

Heckuva job, Mr. President.  Not only does your lefty dogma deny American workers 20,000 jobs and increase our reliance on hostile foreign oil-producing nations, it will also end up jacking up energy costs even higher for US consumers, while needlessly alienating a close ally.  Remember, you personally lobbied to kill this thing, and no amount of face-saving misdirection can change that fact.  
jhancock

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #24 
More deceit from Obama. Finally, the Keystone XL Fiasco reveals the truth!
--excerpts from American Thinker and The Blaze.
 
 
What prompted the president to turn the lights out on what critics argue would have been an environmentally-sound, job-boosting , oil-producing project that would benefit the nation and preserve the financially beneficial Canadian-U.S. oil relationship?  What does President Obama have to gain by rejecting Keystone XL and who else stands to benefit from his decision?

In the absence of the pipeline, two railroads--the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Canadian Pacific--are currently hauling nearly all of the oil from the sands of Canada and the Bakken formation in North Dakota. 

The two railroads happen to be owned by two good friends and frequent investment partners, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.  Additionally, each railroad has contracted for thousands of new tanker cars to haul the oil.  The maker of the tankers in the United States is Marmon Industries, a company also owned by Warren Buffett.  The Canadian subsidiary of Marmon that is manufacturing tankers for the Canadian Pacific is owned by...you guessed it...Bill Gates. Both billionaires are huge supporters of Obama.

All roads lead to Nebraska.  GBTV uncovered a startling connection between Berkshire Hathaway's home state and that state's Senator Ben Nelson, who voted against the Keystone XL despite maintaining his state would heartily welcome the jobs created by the project.  Nelson is said to own between $1.5 and $6 million of the company's stock.

The pendulum seems to swing both ways, however.  Buffett's Burlington Northern Santa Fe PAC in turn contributed $5,000 to Senator Nelson's Nebraska Leadership PAC and Berkshire Hathaway employees have reportedly long supported the senator, contributing at least $75,550 to the Nebraska Democrat over the course of his political career according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 

Another area explored by GBTV was Nelson's involvement in overhauling financial regulation.  Among the considerations during a tentative deal to set restrictions on trading derivatives, was a substantial provision being lobbied for by Buffett that would have buffered his company from financial blows.

The WSJ adds:  the provision, sought by Berkshire and pushed by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in the Senate Agriculture Committee, would largely exempt existing derivatives contracts from the proposed rules.  Previously, the legislation could have allowed regulators to require that companies such as Nebraska-based Berkshire put aside large sums to cover potential losses.  The article adds that the change "thus would aid Berkshire, which has a $63 billion derivatives portfolio." 

So, we have at least four players here...Obama, Buffet, Nelson and Gates. Meanwhile, Obama is pretending to push for the "Buffett Rule"...a mere election ploy to rile the useful idiots. We here in Omaha think Buffett should just pony up with the billion in taxes he's fighting about with the IRS and then shut up. The Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting is here the weekend of May 5.  Wouldn't I love to ask a few questions at that meeting!    

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #25 
I certainly would like to ask a lot of questions of Buffet also, and I suspect that mine would be just about the same as yours.......

I knew about Buffet and the Burlington connection, but did NOT know about Nelson's part in it, he is certainly a player in a lot of nasty deals.  And Gates is a player also, whoo knew.....  turn coats all of them, going against America....   would wishes come true and Buffet suffer greatly with his new diagnosis... he cerrainly deserves to be in the hot seat for many of his actions...
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscribing
member

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved