Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (255976)	6/28/2008 10:28:43 AM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

Our Left exposed their real evil on this question when they started talking about banning the import of Canadian Oil from the oil sands. "Evil" is the correct word and it cannot be emphasized enough. This IBD editorial has been posted on several SI threads and I thought it would be appropriate to show it here.. ibdeditorials.com Demonizing Canada By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT Energy Policy: The U.S. is beset by hostile petro-states determined to drive up oil and ream our economy. No matter to Barack Obama. He's drawn a new bead on . . . Canada, our best supplier. His arrogance will cost us. It was the second time Obama tried to cast our friendly northern neighbor as some sort of problem. On Wednesday, he indicated that Canada's prized Alberta oil-sands extractions were "dirty" and his energy adviser called it an "open question" as to whether oil-sands production, already 47% of Canada's output, would be used to resolve $4 a gallon gas at the pump. Cloaking himself in environmental virtue, he cited global warming. So goodbye Canadian oil-sands — and Canadian oil. This follows Obama's outrageous statements last February, where he blamed Canada, our No. 1 trading partner, for problems imagined with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Obama vowed to go after Canada "with a hammer," if it didn't renegotiate the 1994 treaty to his diktat — statements so outrageous and ignorant he had to backtrack on them. But the message isn't lost on Canada. Between being our number one oil supplier, providing 17% of our oil imports, and our top trading partner, with $1.1 trillion in two-way trade, Canada has become a convenient scapegoat for Obama. So much for his vow to improve America's image abroad, especially among allies. What this really seems to be about is making excuses for years of Democrat-led failures to develop alternative energy sources and keep American industries competitive. Canada has no electoral votes, so it's a convenient target. Canadians are rightly upset about this kind of talk. Virtually all of its newspapers are brimming with disgust that America, a country that depends on Canada not just for much of its oil and natural gas, but for much else in the energy realm: energy supply guarantees under NAFTA, the feedstocks for several U.S. refineries, and the land route for future pipelines that will transport Alaska oil and gas to the lower 48. Obama is jeopardizing this to make patently false charges that Canada doesn't care about the environment. Never mind that Canada has stringent environmental standards in place, while the other major oil-sands producer, Venezuela, has none. The careless and, frankly, foolish Obama talk has driven Canada's leaders to begin speaking of producing less oil for the U.S., and scrapping other energy cooperation, too. Finance and Enterprise Minister Iris Evans told the Calgary Herald they "won't rule out" cutting oil production to the U.S. if the abuse from Obama and his Democratic confederates in Congress didn't stop. Diplomacy, of course, normally would be used, but in the political climate of scapegoating "there's a sense this isn't working," Calgary Herald writer Don Braid noted. Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty warns that if Obama wants to renegotiate NAFTA, then Canada would like to be released from its obligations to give the U.S. first dibs on its energy. "We would want to put on the table how we deal with energy issues." What a fine situation that could bring for the U.S. What can this be called but arrogance? Obama's statements on the oil sands seems to take Canada's goodwill for granted. But Canada can easily sell its oil to buyers who don't insult them — like the Chinese, who'd be happy to snap up Canada's oil-sand production and burn it instead. Net carbon emission reduction: zero, and China doesn't do Kyoto cuts. America, which has plenty of energy but cannot drill for it, would end up poorer with no benefit in return. We've heard about the dynamic of petrotyrants, but until Obama showed up, never the arrogance and stupidity of petrobuyers. It's as if Democrats think energy comes from the Oil Fairy. The needless antagonizing of our top oil supplier — a friendly nation that never gives us any trouble — leaves us instead to plead with energy troublemakers like Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria or declining Mexico for more oil. Combine this vanity with naivete, and as philosopher Eric Hoffer once said, the result is indistinguishable from stupidity. When is Obama going to quit offending Canada?