Obama faces angry liberals over pipeline

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 31, 2013 | Joe Garofoli

[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."

[hedgetrimmer]

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.

[Pecos]

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

[Buckeye McFrog]

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.

[JPG]

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.

[Entrepreneur]

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

[bray]

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

[MestaMachine]

“’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?

[C. Edmund Wright]

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!!!!

[MrB]

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.

[Andrei Bulba]

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.

[Fresh Wind]

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?

[Huskrrrr]

You CARB tax baffoons are insane!

[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.

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.

[artichokegrower]

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.

[BwanaNdege]

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.

[Borax Queen]

LOL!

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

[copaliscrossing]

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!

[hedgetrimmer]

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.

[The Great RJ]

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?

[hedgetrimmer]

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.