When Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, the price of gasoline was just $1.85 a gallon. Three years later, that same gallon is $3.39—an increase of over 80 percent—and the cost is expected to rise substantially in the coming year. Some experts predict that it will climb to $5.00 a gallon by the time of the election.
Despite the price nearly doubling, President Obama has refused to allow the Canadian Keystone Pipeline project to proceed, despite the fact that it would create 20,000 jobs immediately, while not costing the American taxpayer a dime. Additionally, the proposed pipeline would generate as much as 700,000 gallons of crude oil each day for Texas refineries. Such a project would definitely be a step in the right direction toward achieving energy independence.
With so much to gain and virtually nothing to lose, it simply doesn’t make sense for President Obama to put forth a roadblock, halting the pipeline, which ensures this much-needed oil will end up in China. Because of the jobs created, even the unions favor the project. To approve it and laud it, as an accomplishment of his administration seems like a no-brainer for Obama, right?
Most political commentators indicate that President Obama’s refusal is aimed at mollifying the environmentalists, which constitute a key support group for his reelection bid. By announcing that the Canadians can reapply for the permit once a thorough environmental study has been complete in three years, to many, Obama appears to be a wise guardian of America’s environment. Because he ruled against the interests of the oil companies, his “class warfare” supporters are also pleased with his decision. Opposing the oil lobby is “red meat” for Obama’s entire base—just like bashing the media is for conservatives.
It seems that everybody, regardless of political position, believes this was Obama’s motive, but what if it is more than that? What if that was just a ruse, camouflaging another, more sinister motive?
In politics, when in doubt, follow the money. Who benefits the most from the cancellation of the pipeline? The environmentalists gain nothing financially from it. Then, who does? The answer is obvious: OPEC.
If we don’t receive those 700,000 barrels of crude from Canada, those barrels have to come from somewhere. This means that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela will benefit the most, along with some others—all at the expense of Canadian and American jobs.
Although this is a particularly cynical view of President Obama, it does make sense, doesn’t it? It gives me no pleasure to make this analysis but, given Obama’s tepid support of Israel, as well as his positive position on the “Muslim Spring” in Egypt, Libya, and across North Africa, which undermines Israel’s security, I believe it is accurate.
Although Obama repeatedly says that he is the most supportive President of Israel in American history, his assertions are absurd, especially his position that Israel must return to its pre-war 1967 borders, which would make Israel indefensible to attack. Obama has consistently supported the agenda of Islamic nations over Israel, going so far as to bow to the King in Saudi Arabia in 2009, which no other American President would even consider doing.
Rejecting the pipeline weakens the United States and ensures that we remain dependent on OPEC. By not looking at the “money trail,” which most analysts haven’t, Obama’s position just seems irrationally cautious. If his position is viewed from a global perspective, however, taking into consideration that he favors the goals of the Islam at the expense of Israel, then it makes perfect sense.
It’s just not an answer most Americans are willing to accept. It’s hard to accept that we have a President who does not have our best interest as his own. I hope that I am mistaken, but I doubt that I am. Given his goals, it makes perfect sense.