Obama needs to stop lying about Keystone

Obama’s claim that Keystone XL oil ‘bypasses the U.S.’ earns Four Pinocchios

“I’ve already said I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf. It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that’s something that we very much support.”

– President Obama, interview with WDAY of Fargo, N.D., Feb. 26, 2015

The Pinocchio Test

When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report.

Clearly, the report remains unread.

The president’s latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department’s findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis. Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline.

Four Pinocchios



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/02/obamas-claim-that-keystone-xl-oil-bypasses-the-u-s-earns-four-pinocchios/

You liberal hypocrites on here are too funny, I recall you jumping all over some crackpot far right talking head about a lie but when it comes to Obama the guy can tell an outrageous lie with nothing but silence from you.

Hypocrites.

Seriously, Z...the "hobgoblins of climate change"...? What about the landowners who don't want the pipeline crossing their property? They're having to fight eminent domain by a foreign corporation in the courts...and of course the GOP is silent on the property rights issue because the Koch Brothers want the pipeline...they are major shareholders of TransCanada. Hypocrites cheered Cliven Bundy grazing his animals for free on public land, but they can't get behind the actual landowners on this issue. Apparently the Texas courts refused to uphold property rights in that state...surprise, surprise. But a Nebraska judge has at least temporarily halted the seizure of private property for the pipeline. And apparently the proposed route crosses the Rosebud Sioux reservation, which is also fighting the project.

Even if climate change impact studies are totally off base, there WILL be environmental impact. Do you really expect TransCanada to even maintain the pipelines in the US, much less clean up the inevitable spills?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/nebraska-transcanada-keystone-eminent-domain_n_6673552.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/01/3625804/keystone-kelo-eminent-domain-property/

TransCanada Is Seizing People’s Land To Build Keystone, But Conservatives Have Been Dead Silent


BY JOSH ISRAEL & KATIE VALENTINE POSTED ON MARCH 1, 2015 AT 9:45 AM UPDATED: MARCH 1, 2015 AT 10:43 AM

"For Julia Trigg Crawford, watching TransCanada construct the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline on a corner of her 600-acre farm was “gut-wrenching.”
Crawford, who lives in Direct, Texas, had been trying since 2011 to keep the pipeline company off her property. But she ultimately lost, the portion of her land needed for the pipeline condemned through eminent domain — a process by which government can force citizens to sell their property for “public use,” such as the building of roads, railroads, and power lines. Crawford can’t wrap her head around why TransCanada, a foreign company, was granted the right of eminent domain to build a pipeline that wouldn’t be carrying Texas oil through the state of Texas.
That question — how eminent domain can be used in a case like Keystone — has some anti-Keystone groups stumped too. But the groups that usually are vocal proponents of property rights, including the Institute for Justice, have been silent when it comes to the controversial pipeline.
“I have not seen a single group that would normally rail against eminent domain speak up on behalf of farmers or ranchers on the Keystone XL route,” said Jane Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.
That’s surprising to Kleeb, whose organization is supporting the efforts of a group of Nebraska landowners along the pipeline’s proposed route who have held out against giving TransCanada access to their land. She had thought that at least a few conservative or pro-lands rights groups would have voiced their general support for Keystone XL, but still denounced the use of eminent domain to get it built. That hasn’t happened, Kleeb said — not among property rights groups nor among most pro-Keystone lawmakers.


“If this were a wind mill project or a solar project, Republicans would have been hair-on-fire crazy supporting the property rights of farmers and ranchers,” she observed. “But because it’s an oil pipeline, it’s fine.”...""

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Then how the heck did all of the other pipelines that currently exist ever get built?



It is very clear what is driving the opposition to this project. Opponents do not want the "dirty" tar sands oil to be refined in American refineries. Climate change concerns are the fly in the ointment.

Why is this oil being imported? Because the types of refineries in Oklahoma and elsewhere along the gulf coast are specialized to refine heavy oil. They once refined voluminous quantities of heavy Venezuelan oil. You know, the stuff produced by that late Marxist, Hugo Chavez. Our government was opposed to Venezuela and Chavez. So, we started importing heavy oil from Canada (a friendly nation and ally) as the Alberta oil sands resource grew in development, in order to replace oil imports from Venezuela. Our country still imports roughly 8 million barrels of oil per day--even with all of the new oil production resulting from fracking. If we cannot get it from our friends, then we must buy it from the unstable Middle East and Africa. You will never see American soldiers deployed to Canada.

It would be wonderful if we could just wave a magic-wand and tell the world it no longer needs petroleum; that renewable energy can save the day. We are not there yet.

Our "government" was not opposed to Chavez; George W Bush was opposed to Chavez, and apparently Bush tried to have him assassinated. And that's because Chavez cut the royalties to US companies drilling in Venezuela.

http://www.gregpalast.com/vaya-con-dios-hugo-chavez-mi-amigo/

"...Reverend Pat Robertson said,

"Hugo Chavez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

It was 2005 and Robertson was channeling the frustration of George Bush's State Department.

Despite Bush's providing intelligence, funds and even a note of congratulations to the crew who kidnapped Chavez (we'll get there), Hugo remained in office, reelected and wildly popular.

But why the Bush regime's hate, hate, HATE of the President of Venezuela?

Reverend Pat wasn't coy about the answer: It's the oil.

"This is a dangerous enemy to our South controlling a huge pool of oil."

A really BIG pool of oil. Indeed, according to Guy Caruso, former chief of oil intelligence for the CIA, Venezuela hold a recoverable reserve of 1.36 trillion barrels, that is, a whole lot more than Saudi Arabia.

If we didn't kill Chavez, we'd have to do an "Iraq" on his nation. So the Reverend suggests,

"We don't need another $200 billion war….It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez himself told me he was stunned by Bush's attacks: Chavez had been quite chummy with Bush Senior and with Bill Clinton.

So what made Chavez suddenly "a dangerous enemy"? Here's the answer you won't find in The New York Times:

Just after Bush's inauguration in 2001, Chavez' congress voted in a new "Law of Hydrocarbons." Henceforth, Exxon, British Petroleum, Shell Oil and Chevron would get to keep 70% of the sales revenues from the crude they sucked out of Venezuela. Not bad, considering the price of oil was rising toward $100 a barrel.

But to the oil companies, which had bitch-slapped Venezeula's prior government into giving them 84% of the sales price, a cut to 70% was "no bueno." Worse, Venezuela had been charging a joke of a royalty – just one percent – on "heavy" crude from the Orinoco Basin. Chavez told Exxon and friends they'd now have to pay 16.6%.

Clearly, Chavez had to be taught a lesson about the etiquette of dealings with Big Oil.

On April 11, 2002, President Chavez was kidnapped at gunpoint and flown to an island prison in the Caribbean Sea. On April 12, Pedro Carmona, a business partner of the US oil companies and president of the nation's Chamber of Commerce, declared himself President of Venezuela – giving a whole new meaning to the term, "corporate takeover."

U.S. Ambassador Charles Shapiro immediately rushed down from his hilltop embassy to have his picture taken grinning with the self-proclaimed "President" and the leaders of the coup d'état.

Bush's White House spokesman admitted that Chavez was, "democratically elected," but, he added, "Legitimacy is something that is conferred not by just the majority of voters." I see..."

Let me help poor gator on this one:

1. There are two legs of the Keystone pipeline. The first leg of the pipeline is handling American and Canadian crude oil which is flowing to Illinois and Indiana refineries. This oil brings the price of oil in surrounding states down about 2 cents per gallon and is very favorable. I watched the first leg of the pipeline being installed a few years ago, and I strongly support the first and second leg.

2. The first leg can take all the American crude oil and then some currently, and is taking the Canadian oil to boot. The second leg capacity is ENTIRELY for Canadian Crude oil. President Obama is entirely correct. The American oil fields are being serviced with probably less than half the capacity of the first leg with most of the oil coming from Canada. The second leg capacity is entirely for Canadian crude. Now will there be mixing of American and Canadian after the second leg is complete.....yes there will be, but to call that mixing a lie is bone headed stupid and ill informed. American oil cannot fill up the first leg of the pipeline, so the capacity of the second leg is strictly Canadian oil. His number on the jobs is correct.

3. It is in America's interest to complete the second leg for both safety and long term strategic advantages. However, once the second leg is complete, there will be a reduction in the first leg volume of oil because both pipelines will be far from capacity, and that loss oil going to the midwest refineries will result in higher pump prices.....2 cent range. Now the jobs lost in rail once that capacity is switched will exceed those created. However, the key here is there will be a reduction in the midwest refinery capacity once the volume is reduced and jobs are lost.........so with Berkshire and the Burlington railroad, the state of Illinois and Indiana getting advantages, and the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement all wanting the second leg not to be completed, the President has been truthful, and has a rational basis for veto...........I just disagree entirely.

2seaoat wrote:the President has been truthful, and has a rational basis for veto...........I just disagree entirely.

Obviously you didn't read the linked article - I'm not surprised. Your spin doesn't even complete one 360 degree revolution.....Obama lied again - I'm afraid you'll just have to face that fact given the overwhelming OBJECTIVE evidence supplied by the Washington Post. Oh and by the way, Obama completely ignored the extensive State Department report on Keystone. He, like you, apparently find it easy to ignore facts.