-
Senator Frank Lautenberg, R.I.P.
June 3, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike
May 28, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Various media outlets are reporting that at a press conference this afternoon the State Department will reject going forward with the Keystone XL pipeline as it is currently defined but will allow TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, to offer a new proposal.
Few things so clearly exemplify the mindset of the Obama Administration and its deep hatred of inexpensive energy. It trumps even its love of labor unions (in part because its greater love is for public sector unions rather than industrial and private sector unions).
When a liberal campaign contribution “bundler” for President Obama says that she would have a hard time raising more money for Obama if the pipeline went forward, you know you’re living in a nation being influenced, if not dominated, by people who don’t love the environment as much as they hate humanity.
Every once in a while, the Obama Administration is put (or puts itself) in a position that even it can’t spin into a tale with broad appeal.
This is one of those situations. And while I’d much rather have cheaper, more reliable energy supplies than yet another issue to hold against Democrats in November, we do have to be slightly grateful every time Obama shows what he really believes, especially in a way that pits him against many large unions, as the rejection of Keystone XL does.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/18/keystone-not-xl-not-even-xs
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Happy Fourth
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ncatty| 1.18.12 @ 1:15PM
Build the pipeline and develop our domestic resources and this will keep us out of the middle east, create jobs and reduce the cost of energy. However, this is against the religious beliefs of the administration and its supporters. There is no other explanation.
Bob Grant| 1.18.12 @ 1:52PM
Our dictator believes this is part of the pain our country must endure as we 'get over hump' while transitioning toward the beloved green economy.
It's all part of the Ameritopia Mark Levin describes in his new book.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.18.12 @ 1:53PM
Accurate article.
Oldefarte| 1.18.12 @ 2:32PM
Again, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS:
'... We need an American energy plan -- 'strait' away..by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)..Posted 01/18/2012 ET...One-fifth of the world’s oil trade passes through a six-mile wide sea traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz, bounded on one side by the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the other by the Arabian Peninsula.An average of 14 oil tankers travel through the strait each day on their way to deliver fuel to Europe, Asia, and the United States.Cutting off this supply line would propel soaring energy prices and cripple economies around the world. That is exactly why Iran’s regime has threatened to close the Strait in retaliation if the United States or Europe takes serious steps to punish its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
It’s not exactly an idle threat. Such a narrow chokepoint, the U.S. military has acknowledged Iran could likely close the Strait for a period using mines and conventional naval forces or even with more crude tactics like sinking barges in the shipping lanes. Iran recently spent 10 days conducting naval exercises in the area to prove it could close the Strait, and earlier this month armed Iranian speedboats harassed two U.S. Navy vessels in separate incidents. Even if Iran is unlikely to prevail in a naval conflict with the United States, the regime is so unpredictable that such a conflict could be dangerous and disruptive.With Europe confronting recession and the United States coping with slow growth and high unemployment, the spike in gas prices that would result could not come at worse time. The Iranian regime wants to force America and Europe to choose between higher energy prices and deterring its nuclear development.Either outcome—an Iranian nuclear weapon or economic disaster from an oil shock—should be unacceptable to Americans. After all of Iran’s threats surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, how big a warning do we need to have an American energy policy that makes us independent from such conflicts?Our energy supply should not be hostage to the whims of a dangerous and erratic regime when we have enormous untapped resources right here in the United States. A real American energy policy would employ offshore oil and natural gas development, domestic oil shale, wind, biofuels, clean coal and nuclear energy to eliminate our dependence on oil from an unstable and unfriendly region of the world. America should never be faced with a choice either to appease regimes like Iran’s or to hinder our economy.The obstacles to an American energy policy are political, bureaucratic, and ideological. For instance, we have an estimated three times more oil than Saudi Arabia locked up in oil shale in western states, much of which is banned from development. That’s just the beginning. Oil and natural gas worth hundreds of billions of dollars is sitting just off our coasts in land the American people own but which the Obama administration refuses to allow to be developed. Since the President reneged in 2010 on a promise to allow oil and natural gas exploration on the federal lands of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, states along the East Coast have been denied what could become an important source of revenue, tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, and most of all a new source of American energy.
There are an estimated $28 billion worth of oil and natural gas off South Carolina and almost $64 billion off Virginia. Oil and gas resources worth hundreds of billions are likely available off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts of the United States.Even these estimates might be lower than the true American energy potential. Predictions for the East Coast, for instance, are based on decades-old seismic research done with obsolete technology. Such outdated assessments have often dramatically underestimated the potential of American energy. The estimate of the Bakken formation in North Dakota has jumped 25-fold, 2,500 percent, since 1995 due to new technology. The amount of natural gas in shale has increased our estimated supply of natural gas by more than 15-fold, 1,500 percent, in the last decade.The administration’s regulatory barriers to American energy development—and for that matter, its indecision on the Keystone XL pipeline—are needlessly crippling our economy, thwarting thousands of good jobs, and keeping our energy supply vulnerable to Iranian aggression.Undoubtedly, the United States should do anything required to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. But when President Obama is faced with the prospect of using military action to preserve oil routes a few miles from Iran’s shore at the same time as he denies so much energy potential here at home, his priorities are profoundly wrong....'
Mike 3/505| 1.18.12 @ 10:18PM
OldeFarte,
I am one too. My old eyes have a hard time with your posts. Please help me out and put some paragraphs in...Please
Regards (Old) Mike
Bob K.| 1.18.12 @ 2:36PM
Why build a pipeline to the Gulf?
Why not build refineries right there where the oil is? It is centrally located in the USA and Canada and in the middle of a vast highway system and next to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Trucks and ships could deliver gasoline quickly and economically throughout North America and part of our energy crisis would be solved.
I know all about the environmental rules and regulations that have made it impossible to build refineries and they also apply to the pipeline. But rumor has it they will be eased for the construction of the pipeline after the election.
And to that end there is another rumor about what will really happen to this oil. I have read that this oil is already sold and this pipeline is the shortest and quickest way to get it on the World Market and if it isn't approved Canada will ship it by the Seaway or through a pipeline they will build to Vancouver for it's sale to the Far East.
Another consideration: After it is built (if it is built) will the USA get rental payments for it's use from Canada? Most of the oil will be Canada's oil. Or will it be another gift to the world like the Panama Canal became?
Occam's Tool| 1.18.12 @ 2:53PM
We have a pathetic maggot in the White House; a man who found killing OBL to be a "hard call."
He would prefer funding child rape and female oppression, while listening to the sweet sounds of the muezzin.
Pathetic Maggot| 1.18.12 @ 5:59PM
Hey! I take offense, and I demand an apology. I might be a pathetic maggot, but have I standards - and I will not stand for this type of character assassination! On his best day, that contemptable piece of excrement couldn't scrape his way up to the status of maggot.
Lesser Weevil| 1.18.12 @ 3:19PM
Great news for the communist Chinese. Thanks, Dear Leader!
Oldefarte| 1.18.12 @ 4:53PM
Bob K's ideas ['...Why build a pipeline to the Gulf? Why not build refineries right there where the oil is? It is centrally located in the USA and Canada and in the middle of a vast highway system and next to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Trucks and ships could deliver gasoline quickly and economically throughout North America and part of our energy crisis would be solved....'] neglect the less expensive alternative of building the pipeline to the existing refineries versus building the refineries next to the shale oil source/location in Canada. The large quantity of existing refineries in Texas and Oklahoma would become underutilized from the decrease in processing ME oil [since Canadian oil would replace same]; in addition to the increased cost/expense of shipping Canada oil via truck/ship to inland US locations. The whole idea of the Canada oil production and shipment via pipeline is to REPACE the ME oil supplies that we now import to the tune of 2/3 of our domestic oil supply needs. We'd get a two-fer besides in that not only would the US get a cheaper oil supply [not price governed by the ME oil thugs of Arab countries' OPEC monopolistic dictates and price gouging, but also the US could economically/financially starve these ME Arab countries of their oil revenue that is partially siphoned off and privided to their domestic AlQueda Muslim terrorist organizations from the revenues that this country provides from our buying their oil [from replacement with Canadian oil instead]!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob K.| 1.18.12 @ 6:51PM
Granted, it is an alternative, if the refined product is for use in this country and in Canada, as it should be, and if all of the oil that makes its way south is refined. That will certainly contribute in a great way to North America's energy independence and to American/Canadian trade relations. Canada will supply most of this oil and we will refine it for us and them. Surpluses, if any, can be sold on the world market.
But if a substantial part of it is destined, whether it be unrefined or refined, to other destinations because Canada has it under contract to sell, it won't help that much in bringing us energy independence.
And then, we have to remember that our refineries are aging rapidly and we may not have enough to handle this new source. We haven't built a new refinery in 29 years. We are going to have to start building a few again if we intend to start exploiting our untapped reserves.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_.....ted_States
Nite| 1.18.12 @ 7:29PM
Hope the Democratic Senators and House members in states the line would have crossed, remember who cost them thousands of jobs in their states.