Sojourners and Keystone: Using the Bible for political purposes
Fast as always with a press release, Sojourners came out with an extraordinary headline this afternoon: âObama Administration Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline. Christian and Other Faith Leaders Praise Administrationâs Decision to Put Creation over Narrow Corporate Interests.â
Why Mike of NY, well just not me, but taking notice Warren Buffet. Thanks. Railroads provide many more jobs than the temporary jobs of putting in a pipeline, and BNSF is much more beneficial to Nebraska than any pipeline. Our Arab buddies like Saudi Arabia noticed what we did and no doubt that help the supply of crude. The main beneficiary of pipeline besides Texas is North Dakota, and neither voted for Obama in either Presidential election. There's no reason to award those states for bad voting behavior.
But, since the Saudis would like to drive Iran into the ground they could really continue pumping the crude for quite some time. If you read the article, it was Congress trying to take over Presidential power in deciding a foreign question, and Boehner needed a refreshing slap in the face to point this out to him. As I pointed out, the article is fairly even-handed, so I can recommend people to read this one. This wasn't by a fly-by-night news service.
A temporary decrease in the price of crude as a reason for not being "economically viable" is not long term thinking. President No is merely doing what comes naturally for him, as his thinking is bent by his global warmist, as well as his anti free enterprise position. 185,000 miles of pipelines already, and they worry about pipeline leaks from Keystone? Anyone believe that?
But I'm sure Warren Buffet appreciates owning BNSF railroad system out that way. Looks like he gets to transport much of the oil, esp if no Keystone.
The pipeline isn't economicly viable anyway. Besides, more jobs are created and kept by shipping the oil by train barges and other means, even other pipelines. Anyway, Bloomberg isn't really considered a radical left news agency so the article above should be of interest to most everyone.
"Fast as always with a press release, Sojourners came out with an extraordinary headline this afternoon: âObama Administration Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline. Christian and Other Faith Leaders Praise Administrationâs Decision to Put Creation over Narrow Corporate Interests.â
So called faith leaders like Sojourners, headed by Jim Wallis, a self identified "public theologian" and "spiritual advisor" to Pres Obama. Their motto is "Faith in Action for Social Justice." What more need be said? Politically motivated lefties disguised as Christians, supporting their Caesar and his agenda.
Debate choked off? How many more years does it need to go on? All the studies have been done, even by the govt. The environmental debate has been settled. Only politics stands in the way now.
Some more information on the Keystone XL pipeline, Nebraska Supreme Court rules on Keystone XL pipeline. A good article which contains a link to another one, Keystone XL pipeline may no longer make economic sense, experts say. While the article makes good points in itself, this pipeline, if it is built and used, will hurt railroads who employ many more people than this pipeline would. This pipeline would just enrich the oil billionaires in Texas, who already have plenty of money. So, several reasons for not building it. While I have been somewhat for this pipeline earlier, I am now somewhat against it. I really have no strong feelings about it one way or another. Anyway, look over both articles, which bring up some interesting details.
Actually some things are so obvious to me, that I just assume that others should actually see it. I'll really have to stop over-estimating people's knowledge. So, no, I just happened to see Neil's comment for the first time as I was looking for a place to put the Keystone article I found with my tablet.
Mike of N.Y., I'm glad that you at least realize I'm a little more flexible on what I upload. Mike of N.Y., when one is just going to faint dead away if one party wins or looses, yes that is The Inadequacy of Moralism.
For some strange reason, President Obama, doesn't send me a file everyday, and say, "Hey, Jim, this is what I'm thinking, what do you think?" He may want to give the Democratic candidates for Congress all the help he can, so he isn't going to rile up Green voters by approving the pipeline. Besides it helps one of his supporters "No Billionaire left behind, when it comes to being taxed," who owns a lot of rolling stock that oil is shipped in. If one is going to benefit a billionaire, he's one of the better ones to do it for.
Interesting article. The pipeline would carry about 830000 barrels a day, which if transported by train would require approx 1185 tanker cars. That much oil being loaded, delivered and unloaded daily is quite the imaginative scenario. It shouldn't take a State dept report to determine the pipeline to be much safer.
The stalling by the prez is not a safety or environmental issue, for the pipeline is the most environmentally safe way, as proven already by the tens of thousands of miles of pipeline already in existence. So we have to ask, why is he opposed to less dependence on ME oil?
Jim, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I already know about fuel being our #1 export, but was asking for evidence that your Senator supported the âtake-it-or-leave itâ amendment as an oil-industry stooge, & not for any other reason. Otherwise, I'm no more inclined to believe you than him.
I think you & other oil-industry flamers are just greedy for cheap gas, & either assume oil execs are as greedy as you are, or else resent anything or anyone that inconveniences you. This probably explains your pathological hatred for all things George Bush, whom you flame at every opportunity. Perhaps the Secret Service should keep an eye on you. It is certainly not an attitude I expect from Christians.
Ah, Neil, this will somewhat back up my statement--In a first, gas and other fuels are top US export. I have no trouble agreeing with you that taxes and refining costs are the greatest costs for American consumers. I'm also surprised that Canadians didn't want to build more refineries to get the extra benefit from, "added values," to their oil production?
The Bushes,Dick Cheney,(You know, this fellow, and many of the other people in G. W. Bush's ruling cartel were in the oil business. I would think that's a fact that you should know, already, Neil.