Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama faces angry liberals over pipeline
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 31, 2013 | Joe Garofoli

Posted on 02/01/2013 6:16:51 AM PST by hedgetrimmer

As he begins his second term, President Obama is barreling toward what one Bay Area activist predicts could be "all out warfare" with environmentalists who want him to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline, the transcontinental conduit for tar sands fuel from Canada that many scientists say could expedite climate change.

Obama's political dilemma lies in the pipeline's potential upside: The State Department projects that it could deliver 6,000 temporary jobs to the U.S., where 12.2 million people are unemployed. Bay Area liberals leading the Keystone opposition say Obama has only one choice.

"If he doesn't reject it," said Piedmont attorney Guy Saperstein, a former Sierra Club Foundation president and prominent liberal donor, "then I think it should be all out warfare for the next four years."

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: agw; agwfraud; democrats; envirofascism; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greenfraud; keystone; keystonexl; obama; thegreenlie
So Susie Tompkins Buell - the co-founder of the Esprit clothing company who has given more than $25 million to progressive causes does not want this oil going to the USA. Rather she wants it to go to China where she manufactures her line of clothing. I sense a conflict of interest here.
1 posted on 02/01/2013 6:16:56 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The whiff of hypocrisy is always in the air when the Left is going about its business.


2 posted on 02/01/2013 6:20:49 AM PST by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

They know they are goin’ under da bus. Obama wants to grow the government, enhance his power and reward his cronies. Doesn’t give a hoot about the planet.


3 posted on 02/01/2013 6:21:13 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Rich American libs use more oil products than anyone else on the planet, and they have the gall to lecture about the ‘evil’ of oil. Hypocrisy on steroids.
4 posted on 02/01/2013 6:21:26 AM PST by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The loony left should have no fear. Dear leader will find a way to block the pipeline.


5 posted on 02/01/2013 6:26:58 AM PST by Entrepreneur (We're past the tipping point - the only variable is the rate of decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Well you don’t expect our establishmedia to call them on it do you? There might be a Conservative J walking somewhere.

Pray for America


6 posted on 02/01/2013 6:27:47 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

“’If he doesn’t reject it,’ said Piedmont attorney Guy Saperstein, a former Sierra Club Foundation president and prominent liberal donor, ‘then I think it should be all out warfare for the next four years.’”

What are they gonna do? Not vote for him again?


7 posted on 02/01/2013 6:41:54 AM PST by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

And let’s not forget the blithering ignorant reporter who wrote this story, and described the economic benefits of the pipeline as merely being 6 thousand temporary jobs. Liberals have no concept of cause and effect on oil and the entire damned economy and way of life. Dante is waiting for all of them!!!!


8 posted on 02/01/2013 6:43:34 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG

For the sheeperals, it’s all about feeling good about yourself.
For the ruling class, it’s all about amassing more power.

When you know this, everything about the left makes sense.


9 posted on 02/01/2013 6:44:29 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

You see, the “problem” with the pipeline is its “upside”.

Make sense?

And they don’t even mention 50 years of oil as one of the upsides. Note this is now not to stop the pipeline but to stop oil itself.


10 posted on 02/01/2013 6:45:44 AM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The State Department projects that it could deliver 6,000 temporary jobs to the U.S.

I thought those were supposed to be "shovel ready" jobs? What changed?

11 posted on 02/01/2013 6:46:11 AM PST by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

You CARB tax baffoons are insane!


12 posted on 02/01/2013 6:48:31 AM PST by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
50 years of oil? Are you kidding? Check out some estimates of oil reserves. These are not all recoverable with present technology, but they will be some day.

Saudi Arabia 250 Billion Barrels
Canada 3 Trillion Barrels (mostly oil sands)

Canada has 12 times more oil deposits than Saudi Arabia. More like a few centuries supply than a few decades. There will be pipelines built to carry this oil south, west to the Pacific, and perhaps even east to Hudson Bay. The only question is when and which ones come first.

13 posted on 02/01/2013 6:55:28 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Piedmont attorney Guy Saperstein, a former Sierra Club Foundation president and prominent liberal donor, “then I think it should be all out warfare for the next four years.”

I fear a double mochatino latte with a soy whip bomb being lobbed at the Capitol Building.


14 posted on 02/01/2013 7:06:45 AM PST by artichokegrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Cut off all “imported” (from outside California) oil, gas, coal & electricity. Water, too, while we are at it. Plus reactor fuel and mined resources.

Let the enviro-whackos subsist on solar, wind and Nature’s Own rainfall.


15 posted on 02/01/2013 7:21:02 AM PST by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

LOL!

I thought their dear leader lectured all of us not to use such “vitriol”... or violent words like “warfare”....


16 posted on 02/01/2013 7:46:44 AM PST by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Here is another bit of hypocrisy when it comes to the left:

Even with an unfriendly Congress, activists say, Obama could do more to protect the environment through executive and administrative actions.

Wow, I guess it's OK if there isn't an (R) after the Presidents name....sheesh.

What's really funny in this whole thing is even though there is a lot of bluster from these lefties, they really have nowhere to go at this point because once their agenda and the ramifications sink in to the average joe, they lose. Why do you think this was all put off until after the election. They know they lose when their agenda is out in the open.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel we need a revolution of the media in this country. The covering up of these leftists agenda is appalling. The mainstream media will keep this kind of information away from the "low information voter" and trumpet that they are "reporting" this kind of thing but it gets buried on page C15 while the dalliances of a Republican gets headlines. UGH!
17 posted on 02/01/2013 7:53:20 AM PST by copaliscrossing (Progressives are Socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: copaliscrossing

If you want a revolution in media then the Telecommunications act of 1996 (Al Gore’s baby) must be rescinded.

In the 1990’s there were 85 independent national media companies, today there are 5 media companies all under the payroll of the Obama administration.

Local independent media is a requirement for a free society. Citizens apparently don’t care and have allowed the Telecommunications act of 1996 to stand.


18 posted on 02/01/2013 8:12:40 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Look at China's recent environmental catastrophe where the air in its industrial cities is so polluted residents are buying cans of clean air to breath. Would the environmentalists rather see the Canadian oil go to China where the damage to the environment will be exponentially worse or to the US with strict anti pollution laws?
19 posted on 02/01/2013 8:16:13 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Yes they would.

You see they, like Diane Feinstein, have ‘investments’ in China and make money from the pollution and loss of American jobs to China. They want nothing to change.


20 posted on 02/01/2013 8:23:04 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Local independent media is a requirement for a free society. Citizens apparently don’t care and have allowed the Telecommunications act of 1996 to stand.

Good to know! Thanks for the info.
21 posted on 02/01/2013 8:30:45 AM PST by copaliscrossing (Progressives are Socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The environmentalists are part of the communists like empire to destroy America. Our problem is they have not been exposed as such.


22 posted on 02/01/2013 8:55:59 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Rather she wants it to go to China where she manufactures her line of clothing.

That's because China cares about the environment.


23 posted on 02/01/2013 9:31:37 AM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: copaliscrossing
I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel we need a revolution of the media in this country.

I agree, and I suggest that Sarah Palin should start a conservative news network.

24 posted on 02/01/2013 9:52:52 AM PST by Max in Utah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
They know they are goin’ under da bus.

Or, if they can get some really big crowds and break a lot of windows and set some fires they can provide the kenyan with an excuse to cal out the troops or try out his new FEMA army. He really doesn't care if the heads he is breaking think they are on his left side of it or are TParty types.

25 posted on 02/01/2013 10:38:36 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Max in Utah; copaliscrossing
I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel we need a revolution of the media in this country. - copaliscrossing
I agree, and I suggest that Sarah Palin should start a conservative news network.
I am a broken record in my disdain for “the media.” But having studied the issue assiduously for decades, I feel qualified to state categorically that conservative journalism, in the mold of liberal journalism, is not possible. The problem we face is, as Adam Smith put it,
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.   - Adam Smith
In the founding era and up to the Civil War, newspapers were not dailies but mostly weeklies, and each newspaper was about the opinions of its printer, more than an even nominally factual basis. The printers had preferred access to each other’s papers (via a postal subsidy), but they did not literally have any news source which a man on the street, or in the saloon, might not have. Then came the telegraph, and the wire service (specifically, the AP). With the AP, suddenly your local newspaper editor had a cornucopia of reports which would not come to anyone else in the local newspaper’s area - until the local newspaper printed it.

Suddenly, the newspaper wasn’t like listening to Rush Limbaugh but was like listening to any ordinary news anchor we are now accustomed to. The credulity of the public was coopted by the sudden, unaccustomed fact that a newspaper would print a story today, and weeks later the report would be confirmed by first-hand witness reports. It was like magic. People raised alarms about the concentration of propaganda power which the AP represented, but the AP deflected them by by pointing out that the members of the AP were notorious for not agreeing about much of anything - and claiming that therefore the AP was objective.

The reality, of course, was that the AP homogenized the newspapers, leaving as a common denominator the self interest of journalism as such as the default assumption ruling all major journalism. And what is the self interest of journalism? It is to be respected, and to be thought of as must-read material every day. And what does that require? That journalism warn the public about dangers. Doesn’t matter if the dangers are real, only that they are threatening. And in fact there are advantages if the “danger” is supposed to come from a trusted person or institution rather than (say) Al Qaeda. First, it surprises and engrosses the public. And second, the trusted person who is put in the dock is not actually a danger to behead the editor of the newspaper.

The long and the short of the matter is that “liberalism” is the default of the business model of journalism. There are obvious PR benefits to going along with journalism, and those are recognized by both major parties. It’s just that the Democrats don’t have any principle which would prevent them from going along more completely with journalism than the Republicans can. That doesn’t prevent “RINOs” from trying - but it explains why they can’t succeed.

So expecting Sarah Palin, or any conservative, to create conservative journalism is to expect the impossible. FR is as good as it gets, I’m afraid . . .        

The Market for Conservative-Based News


26 posted on 02/01/2013 11:40:42 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: artichokegrower

Heh


27 posted on 02/01/2013 12:45:34 PM PST by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: hedgetrimmer

“Obama’s political dilemma lies in the pipeline’s potential upside: The State Department projects that it could deliver 6,000 temporary jobs to the U.S., where 12.2 million people are unemployed. Bay Area liberals leading the Keystone opposition say Obama has only one choice. “

The hypocrisy of both Parties....they spent 40 years willingly weakening our security and sending our manufacturing jobs to China, and now there aren’t those good jobs for those Americans that don’t have and can’t afford college or a technical skill.

So what’s the new Wall St/D/R solution? Let’s give amnesty to 30 million unskilled illegal Mexican immigrants while we keep paying unemployment and food stamps to Americans. We have had and continue to have a clueless bunch of incompetent corrupt traitors in DC and Congress. We’d do better with a dart and phone books.


29 posted on 02/01/2013 2:10:15 PM PST by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
50 years of oil? Are you kidding? Check out some estimates of oil reserves. These are not all recoverable with present technology, but they will be some day.

And the new discovery in CA...another Monterey shale play running from San Jose to south of LA with an estimated 50 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

And the biggie...Green River Formation that weighs in at 3 TRILLION barrels of oil with 1 Trillion recoverable with todays technology.

30 posted on 02/02/2013 11:08:55 PM PST by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
What none of the public knows is that Canada has 12 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The US has more reserves than Canada. The difference is that Canada has the political will to exploit its resources, the US, seemingly, does not.

As for reserves in California, they might as well be on the moon. The US consumer would have far more access to that oil if it was in Canada or even Mexico or Venezuela.

31 posted on 02/03/2013 4:53:50 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson