A Lose Lose Proposition Using Obama Logic

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been viewed as a means to alleviate several problems: reducing America’s dependency upon Middle East Oil, providing a source for America’s refining of oil if America ever decides to face reality and challenge the environmentalist insistence against building domestic refineries, lowering the price of fuel at the pump (since increasing pump prices directly influences the price of all domestic products, everything moves by oil), providing employment for many Americans in the construction of the pipeline and at the port, and an assurance of a reliable source of crude (in case we decide to accept reality).

Why would a president who has the best interests of a country and its people foremost as his priorities spend years dithering over whether to give the economy a real stimulus? Many would say the president doesn’t like the idea of halting the flow of America’s wealth to the Middle East in the exchange of oil for dollars that only continues to weaken the American economy while providing unimaginable wealth to a few dictators in a perverse form of Wealth Redistribution.

President Obama:

“But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. (Applause.) Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods — all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late. (Applause.)

Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. (Applause.) I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. And we’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year — let’s drive down costs even further. As long as countries like China keep going all in on clean energy, so must we.”

Maintaining this conspicuous drain on America’s wealth and denying the obvious benefits of the Keystone has been hard to for Leftists to justify, even for the bizarre logic of the Obama sycophant; yet Obama may have a solution that will mollify his Progressive constituencies and their anti-America bias.

The solution is a stroke of genius among those who seek control and a revival of the Global Warming Hoax: a carbon tax will placate the effete environmentalist, it will ease the deficit, and it will help Obama achieve one of his campaign promises, to make the price of energy skyrocket.

The astute student of American government would say Congress will never approve such a tax, but California Senator Boxer is way ahead of you Constitutional types, she has already outlined a plan to impose a Carbon Tax through the EPA.

Barbara Boxer the day after Obama’s speech:

“I’m telling you right now, EPA has the authority in the transportation sector, the electricity sector, and the industrial sector under the Clean Air Act” to do everything that legislation might otherwise do.

Boxer explains the implementation of the new tax in Orwellian terms, the basis for Obama Logic:

Mrs. Boxer helpfully detailed Democrats’ new strategy for getting a foothold. Now that cars are so much more fuel-efficient, she explained, the gas tax isn’t bringing in enough revenue to cover highway needs. How to fix this? Easy! Just replace the gas tax with a carbon tax.

The softening of resistance among the elite environmentalists has begun. Nature magazine a prestigious environmental rag:

“Regarding the Keystone pipeline, the administration should face down critics of the project, ensure environmental standards are met and then approve it.”

The science writers at Nature also managed a mental reflux of on the meme of Canadian Tar Sands, since they are now:

“not as dirty as many believe.”

Obama’s handlers have set the perfect snare for Canadians and Americans and they are both about to feel what it is like to have the steel cable tighten around their collective necks.

In a strange twist of Obama non-logic, Obama is insisting that Canada must impose a Carbon Tax on itself for exporting the deadly Carbon that seems to be a non-issue in the debunked theory of Global Warming.

The carbon taxes will help to neutralize any negligible gains the in the economy and it will tend to reassure the environmentalists and the Progressive sycophant looking for direction and talking points, and according to Nature it will seduce the Conservatives into complacency.

“By approving Keystone, Obama can bolster his credibility within industry and among conservatives.” While conservatives are lulled, Nature proposed new regulations, crackdown on the coal industry, and a carbon tax.

The Washington Post has joined in the melee. In January the Post pressed the president:

“ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue.”

Last week in a Climate Change editorial, the Post endorsed a carbon tax:

“slowly rising, significant price on carbon emissions” would encourage people to burn less fossil fuel. As an added fiscal bonus, since Washington needs new revenues to meet its fiscal crisis, “a carbon tax would be an ideal source” of revenue.

Without doubt, Obama sees himself as the winner in this strange dance of prosperity versus ideological nonsense. He can placate the environmentalist with carbon taxes and an ever-tightening ligature around the neck of the American and Canadian economies, and he can reassure the Conservatives that he does actually want to decrease America’s dependence on Middle East oil.

There are a few problems:

Keeping peace with the activist left will not be easy. A two-bit chorus of B-grade Hollywood stars — Alec Baldwin, Ed Norton, Yoko Ono — are backing the Sierra Club’s call for a march on Washington next weekend, “the largest climate rally in U.S. history.” Under the “Forward on Climate” banner, the target is clear in the Sierra Club’s marching call: “The first step to putting our country on the path to addressing the climate crisis is for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.”

The Sierra Club wants the country to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, excluding their personal jets and limousines of course. Obama would have a difficult time trying to deliver on this idea; especially since he would fall out of favor with his friends in the Middle East and America would soon descend into a Third World cess pool. Although the carbon tax is a compromise and Canada may soon be paying its fair share.

Ottawa and Alberta are desperate to get the Keystone XL Pipeline approved; otherwise, they must contend with the uncertain and unreliable markets of Asia with a pipe line through British Columbia. Although, the vast resources of the United States are also a factor; if the deal is prolonged indefinitely, America will tap more domestic resources and the need to build a pipe line will be decreased. Thus they are encouraged to accept the carbon tax on oil entering the United States. Canadians will be paying more for oil for the privilege of selling oil to the United States. A situation similar to the Obama Logic of borrowing from China to give the money to Greece.

Ottawa and Alberta seem ready for anything to get Keystone approved. The level of appeasement if not desperation in the language of Canadian politicians rises by the day. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver — heading to Washington to plead for Keystone’s approval — says Canada is moving in “lockstep” with Washington on environmental issues. Trade Minister John Baird said Ottawa is “like-minded” on environmental objectives. Mr. Obama and Mr. Harper, he said, have both set a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Alberta’s new representative in Washington, David Manning, said last week Premier Alison Redford is ready to deal with Washington over Keystone. “We have much more in our toolbox” to offer Washington in return for a green light on Keystone, he said, without elaborating.

Many in the oil industry in Canada and the United States support a carbon tax paid by consumers, especially if it means getting political support for energy projects. Better to tax consumers than industry. The Canada West Foundation, a big Keystone booster, has often supported a carbon tax in Canada. “We need a carbon price: transparent, unmistakable and extending across the economy,” wrote a foundation official recently.

The carbon tax will cause severe damage to an ailing economy, but more importantly, it will penalize the American consumer. As the consumer pays more for a gallon of gas, he has less money to spend for other goods and services in the economy, and the economy suffers, but the elite environmentalist who isn’t worried about feeding a family, the oil industry executive and crony capitalists, and the mindless drones who hang on every word of the messiah in Washington who is fixing everything will rejoice over the sheer joy of carbon taxes; until, the reality of a failed economy settles around them.

In the bleak years to come, as America wallows in the despair of self-inflicted poverty ruled by wealthy elitists, we must remember the architect who was responsible for destroying America’s great wealth to create a quasi-Socialist Welfare State.