Obama fights against US coal exports

March 24, 2014
In Obama's crosshairs

In Obama’s crosshairs

I’m not sure what the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado did to Barack Obama –after all, they gave him the electoral votes he needed to win reelection– but he sure has it in for their major exports and the jobs they create:

The leaders also announced that the Netherlands was joining the U.S. and other countries in an effort to stop the international funding of new coal-fired power plants by development banks.

“We’re pleased that the Netherlands has joined our initiative that will virtually end all public financing for coal-fired plants abroad,” Obama said. “It’s concrete action like this that can keep making progress on reducing emissions while we develop new global agreements on climate change.”

Per Bryan Preston, the US is the world’s second largest coal exporter, and each million tons exported creates over 1,300 jobs. Now, why on Earth would an American president work so hard against American economic interests, especially in difficult times with such large numbers of people unemployed and under-employed? It’s almost as if he sees American power as a problem, something to be solved by managed decline… Nah, couldn’t be.

I sorely wish more people in those coal-mining states had seen the danger Obama poses to their own livelihoods and the nation’s well-being; I’ve little doubt we’d be in a better situation right now, if they had. But that’s done, and now we have to work to convince voters that any Democrat nominee in 2016 is going to be beholden to the same radical environmentalist interests that Obama is placating with this initiative. Those factions are not interested in mitigating the problems with coal use until a genuine replacement comes along or with good conservation practices in its mining: they want to ban it outright, now, and the consequences be damned for communities reliant on its extraction and an economy dependent on the energy it produces.

And, right now, they have their guy in office.

Read the rest of Preston’s report for the international implications of this agreement.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Oil slick: if you thought they were incompetent yesterday…

June 9, 2010

Yet another beauty from the Keystone Kops Obama Administration. So far, we’ve learned that the administration and the agencies it supervises have moved, if at all, at a snail’s pace regarding the offer of a Maine businessman to supply them with roughly eight miles of containment boom per day. Now, per Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle, we have yet another example of how the Greatest Administration Ever couldn’t find it’s rear end with both hands and a flashlight:

U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertise

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

Oh, well, that’s just dandy! Only a month-and-a-half after being offered help from experts in this kind of crisis, the government and BP finally get around to saying “Yeah, okay. Might be a good idea.”

Call me parochial and lacking in nuance, but, isn’t it better to have more resources on hand to fix a problem than not to have what you need? Do you wait to go the store for a hammer to fix the hole in the roof until it collapses during a downpour? When your neighbor offers to help put out a fire on your property, don’t you say “yes, thanks?”

Hell yes you do!

Oh, and they were even willing to build Governor Jindal his sand berms – the ones the Interior Department couldn’t make up their minds about.

WTF? I ask again, W.T.F.??

Does anyone in the White House or BP know what they’re doing?

(via Hot Air)


Amsterdam’s dhimmi judges

February 7, 2010

A few days ago I wrote about the trial of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who has been charged with “inciting hatred” for criticizing Islam. At the time, I described the decadent state of liberty in Holland, where a free man could be put on trial for expressing an opinion. The great Pat Condell minces no words in his latest video, declaring that Wilders was put on trial for embarrassing the Dutch establishment with the truth and calling shame on the crooked judges of Amsterdam:


Free speech on trial in The Netherlands

January 27, 2010

For the last several days, Dutch parliamentarian and head of the Freedom Party Geert Wilders, who has to live in hiding because of death threats from Muslims, has been on trial in The Netherlands for exercising his rights to free speech by criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration to his country.  He has been charged under laws against “inciting hatred,” which, in effect, criminalize thought and speech that deviates from a  politically correct norm. At the opening of his trial, Wilders made a statement using truth as a defense and asking how a fact can be illegal:

Whether one agrees with Wilders or not about the problems and challenges posed by aggressive Islam (and I largely do), I should think everyone concerned with the fundamental liberties we consider unalienable would be worried by any attempt to punish a freeborn citizen for his or her opinions.

At Big Journalism, Rich Trzupek looks at the Wilders trial and what it says about the decadent state of Liberty in The Netherlands, where it is permissible to criticize Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or any religion, but criticizing Islam is somehow “hate speech.” He offers two reasons: first, the dead hand of politically-correct multiculturalism, which declares all cultures of equal worth and free of criticism – unless it is Western culture being attacked. The second is simple fear: criticism of Islam can result in threats, violence, and even murder from Islamic supremacists.

Both are at play, along with a supine unwillingness to stand for those liberties the West has spent millennia building as a civilization, to declare their value and, indeed, their superiority, and to defend them against those who would hide behind them to advance their own illiberal, fascist agendas. In short, surrender.

The Wilders trial, taking place in a small corner of the world, should be something watched by all concerned for civil liberties.

LINKS: You can learn more at Defend Geert Wilders.