The promise breaker keeps a promise…and we lose
We’ve all read, heard and seen the many lies that have come from the Obama Administration. Some call it politics as usual, but it sure seems to me that this particular administration has outdone even itself when it comes to the number of deceptions and outright lies it has fed to the American people.
I could come up with a bunch of them just from ObamaCare alone, which would not even touch the ones we’ve witnessed pertaining to the IRS, the EPA and the Department of Justice.
I mention all this because the president has recently kept a promise, and I think that’s worth noting. He kept his word by vetoing the Keystone XL Pipeline bill that Republicans and some Democrats have been trying to get passed. As with most bills, it’s very detailed, but the bottom line is that this pipeline – designed to stretch from Canada to Texas – would help America become less dependent on foreign oil and would provide jobs for thousands of Americans.
But none of that matters to a president is who is more interested in keeping the special interest groups happy who got him elected twice. The environmentalists, who often prove they are more concerned over the fate of one polar bear than the fate of thousands of Americans who need jobs to support their families, have put a lot of pressure on Obama and he has wilted under it.
House Speaker John Boehner called Obama’s veto a “national embarrassment,” while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “It’s extremely disappointing that President Obama vetoed a bipartisan bill that would support thousands of good jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy.”
Can you think of another promise that Obama kept? I can think of a doozy. (Hint: it had to do with electricity.) Let me know which ones you come up with.
Like what you read? There’s more where that came from. See how your stockpile stacks up… Click here!
Obama didn’t want the Keystone pipeline because it would employ thousands of Americans. He is an un-American as any one I know of.
Regarding the issue of public vs. private funds to build the pipeline. First, this could be treated as a utility; just like the power lines, gas lines, cable lines, phone lines, water lines, sewer lines; who all have easements on all of our properties for the ‘public good’ even though they are primarily privately owned.
Second, IF this is such a great idea in a business model, then then oil co’s. should put up their own money to build it and maintain it. Not the taxpayers. Free market competition should determine whether a pipeline is better than trucks and trains and ships. If the gov. owns it; the gov would should charge Canada and the oil co. a fee for using the pipeline. Every time the gov. is involved in any venture, the costs overrun, fraud and waste are astronomical. So, although I am in favor of having a pipeline, I am not for taxpayers getting stuck with the bill while billion dollar co. get off the hook. I feel the same way about cities paying for sports stadiums with public funds. If the owners want a building for their business, they should pay for it themselves.
Even if the construction jobs would be temporary, they would still help those who obtain those jobs; until the next construction project. With 94 million not in the work force, we cannot wait for perfect or great. We should settle for good, or even ok. Unless we have a complete collapse, there should always be construction jobs. Plus the local business would benefit, at least temporarily while the crews are nearby. Plus you have to have permanent jobs of repairs, maintenance, inspections, operations. Plus, all those people need houses, cars, food, etc. Plus, Houston gets the refinement contract, not a foreign country.
If you are actually one of those who believe in the hoax of man-made global warming, then you should be against the burning the massive tons of fuel to ship crude across wide oceans — twice, the fuel for shipping on trains and trucks, and allowing other countries to “pollute” the atmosphere with lower standards than we have. Remember, you can’t pollute just half a sky, nor can you clean just half a sky.
Even if you do not believe in man made climate change, does it not bother you that we can be so hypocritical in this matter that it is ok for another country to pollute, so long as it is NIMBY? That is exactly what Obama is doing. The environmentalists are turning a blind eye to this part of the issue. Which proves this is more about destroying America and our economy and setting up a communist dictatorship or UN agenda 21, than it is about protecting the planet.
it is more simple than most of you know warren buffet’s co. owns most of the rail cars that transport oil,,a big contributor to the executive anus campaign now these same rail cars are derailing and causing major oil spills, but very little outcry from the tree huggers duh pipe lies do leak sometimes, but repaired quickly and with little damage nothing is perfect but this is best and yes it will benefit the good ol’ usa, instead of china let’s build it god bless america,,
Sorry but I’m not with you on this one. You say that the XL Pipeline will bring thousands of jobs to the US but in reality these are mostly temporary construction jobs. Most of which will last less than 2 years. The job of overseeing the pipeline will be centered in Canada leaving only a few hundred permanent jobs total in the US. If you investigate the poor maintenance and environmental safety records of the existing pipelines then you will see that the XL pipeline has a substantial risk and little gain for this country.
Question: will this pipeline lower the price of fuel at the pump if the oil from Canada ties up the production of the Gulf refineries? I didn’t think so. After the line is layed, how many jobs USA jobs will remain? Not many, I suspect. Unless more independent USA refrineries are built, the major oil companies will claim the need for increased fuel prices to make up for thr refineries dedicated to processing Canadian oil sands.
is Keystone for moving USA oil or for moving Canadian oil ??? If coming from Canada then it may be just for moving Canadian oil to a port. Will pipeline take in USA oil along the way ?? Why should we have a foreign oil pipeline going thro our country and taking our land ???
I remember Obama also telling us that by eliminating coal, the price of electricity was undoubtedly skyrocket, but that was the price you have to pay for clean energy. Never mind how the poor or our seniors were going to be able to pay for that expensive electricity.
I have been wondering for years why we don’t just build a new state of the art refinery on the Canadian border. Close to the source, close to our own oil fields in the Dakotas. Less potential for environmental impact and less vulnerability for damage by terrorists and wannabe terrorists.
Why would you even consider closing down oil fields in the Dakotas when they provide thousands of jobs? And they also help to provide independence from the oil barons over seas!
When inquiring about the Keystone XL Pipeline, the first thing I would ask is, “what’s in it for President Obama?” I know he vetoed the bill, but you know as well as I that this so called modern miracle, the Keystone XL Pipeline would in fact become an over priced boondoggle that We the People would end up paying for anyway and for a very long time without the benefits that were promised.
As I recall, the same was said about the Alaska pipeline back in the 70’s. The Government said that it would provide jobs for thousands of Americans, we would have cheaper oil, and we would become less dependent on foreign oil. Then reality struck. Only a few oil companies were able to pad their wallets with avalanche of cash. The oil was sent to the state of Washington and shipped to Japan and South Korea for refining. The oil had a high sulfur content and wouldn’t meet US air standards. So we sold the oil to these countries, had them refine it, then they would sell it back to us as gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum products. Then it was shipped back to the US where it went to the port of Long Beach, California or it was shipped to the Gulf of Mexico where it was off loaded in Houston and sent to the tank farms in Texas and Oklahoma. When all was said and done, we as American citizens paid 3 times more for that fuel than if we had refined it and kept it ourselves.
Learn from the past. What the Government puts it spin on what this will do for the country if it isn’t in writing then who are you going to believe – them or your lying eyes?
If a pipeline is needed then have the oil companies pay for it. After all we will end up paying for it, again, sooner or later. The oil companies just don’t want to spend their cash or take the risk. Besides they already have a pipeline that services the area. It’s just not a direct line from the top of the country to the bottom of the country to suit the oil company needs. ( That is when everything is subsidized by the Government and a few key Government personnel get paid under the table for their assistance. This is what it all boils down to, Government subsidizes.
This comment has a lot of half truths. First, the reason that a lot of the oil is shipped to Korea and other like locations is that it is cheaper to ship it there and buy other oil with that money. The major refineries for handling imported oil asre on the Gulf Coast, which would require a trip around the tip of South America (most modern tankers cannot use the Panama Canal). Just look where the refineries are. Only 2 large refineries (250K bbls/day) are locatged on the west Coast (in California. Texas has 8 and Louisiana has 3, by contrast. It is easier to get oil from Mexico, Venzuela, the North Sea and West Africa for the Gulf Coast.
As for the current oil from the Dakotal and other major new oil fields, there is not enough capacity in the current pipelines. Much of the new oil has to be shipped by rail, which has a much higher envireonmental impact than a pipeline.
As for why the government has to build the pipeline, it is the same reason that it has to build highways–private companies do not have certain means (like eminent domain) to get it done. The taxes can be rercovered by a reasonable system of charges, just like turnpikes.
Sorry Mark, but I can back up everything I have stated and it wouldn’t be a half truth about it. I work in the oil and gas industry for the last 25 years since I have retired from the U.S. Army. In fact my mother was Vice President of Gulf Oil Co. back in the 70’s and 80’s.
It sounds to me that you have some sort of interest in the XL pipeline. Care to say what it is?
Like I said I stand behind everything I say. The EPA and U.S. Government find it cheaper to have high sulfur fuel to be refine in foreign countries because it is easier to have them pollute their environment than to pollute our own.
When transferring oil to the major markets in the U.S. A. it is cheaper to go through the Panama Canal and deliver the load to Houston, Texas where they don’t pay for the off loading of oil in that state like they do in California. California has very high environmental laws, fines and fees for foreign oil off loaded in long Beach and the Bay Area. California has one of the highest standards for smog in the nation. Therefore it is cheaper to deliver it to Houston, Texas than California, or Washington State. Also when the fuel is delivered to Texas it can be transferred to the tank farms in the Midwest, which in turn transferred to the Northern States of the Pacific region areas of the country.
But when all is said and done, the bottom line is there are few jobs available, having the XL pipeline is nothing more than a supersized money pit which certain States and oil Companies will benefit from and not the American People!
Now Mark F, prove me wrong!
Oh yea, I forgot to mention that your statistics is a bit off. California has 7 large refinery’s. Four are in the LA area, two are in Bakersfield area and the other one is in the Bay area. Now I’m not taking in account the 250 k bbls/day because here in California the refineries play the shell game. When one plant goes out of service due to re-tooling or upgrades the fuel levels remain more or less at the same level. When that refinery comes back on line another refinery goes out of service. Recently, not only has a refinery gone out of service for maintenance or re-tooling or upgrades but there have been some refinery accidents that have taken a refinery out of service for several years. Yet the fuel level drops or the refinery maintains the status quo fuel level in California. When this happens the smaller refineries step in and keep the level up. So quoting 250K bbls/day is bogus accounting.
The same goes for Texas which has 15 refineries and Louisiana has 8. Then you have Oklahoma, Kansas. The raw crude oil is stored in these states until needed for refinement. It can and often bought and sold several times, never once leaving the tank farms from which they are stored in.
The oil you mentioned from South America and Mexico come up through a pipeline that goes through Phoenix, Arizona, El Paso, Texas and Brownsville, Texas. Usually this oil has been refined already. But for the raw crude that isn’t it goes to the tank farms until needed, again sold several times while in storage. The Phoenix crude is shipped to Southern California and Texas and Colorado. Which is then dispersed to other areas. As for the Dakotas well your are right. Most of the oil is shipped by rail to the Northern states for refinement. They follow the pipelines that go across the Great Lakes area, like Lake Erie, and drop into Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.
Again Mark F., prove me wrong.