Obama's crippling agenda
Three stories in the July 7 Tribune-Review (and TribLIVE.com) showcase the sometimes dangerous effects of the environmental agenda.
First, there is the report of the train derailment in Quebec (“Train hauling crude oil derails in Quebec town”), which highlights the hazards of shipping crude oil via rail. This obviously is also a hazard when using trucks, and both are being advocated by the Obama administration's ridiculous and illogical opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Then there is The Associated Press story in the Business section where the “reporter” advocates “making the switch to the cheaper and cleaner fuel” (“Ethanol debate heats up”). A quick Internet search reveals how ethanol lowers fuel efficiency, raises food costs here and abroad and has an enormous negative environmental impact related to its production and use.
Also in the Business section, there's a story about anti-fracking activists who seem to be thrilled to have a “cause” and just don't like the looks of the equipment and machinery required at natural gas drilling sites (“Activists make anti-fracking cause a mission”).
The Obama administration continues its quest to bring transformational change to our nation through enormous economic damage under its environmental agenda and policies. When energy prices “necessarily skyrocket,” as then-presidential-candidate Obama promised, and we are not able to drive our cars or heat our homes and eat, it will be too late, and there will be no satisfaction in telling the Democrats that we tried to warn them.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- It’s not personal
- The next wave?
- Anti-Israel bias
- Kill ‘Lio’