Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump said during a recent campaign stop that Democrat Hillary Clinton will wage war on American energy if elected president. And, given some of her foreign entanglements, it makes perfect sense.
Noting that Clinton gleefully promised to put U.S. coal miners out of work earlier this year, Trump told a gathering of natural gas workers that the Democrat’s anti-energy policies could cost the U.S. economy more than $5 trillion.
“[Clinton] wants to put the coal miners out of work, ban hydraulic fracking in almost all places and extensively restrict and ban energy production on public lands and in most offshore areas,” Trump said.
Ultimately, Trump predicts, Clinton’s anti-energy policies will mean “devastation for states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and so many others, where shale oil and shale energy and coal and coal production are critical parts of the economy.”
The GOP candidate said that President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda has already damaged U.S. energy independence but warns that Clinton will take anti-energy policy to a new level.
“She’s not only declared war on the miners, but on all oil and natural gas production. It’s war,” he said. “It’s going to be worse under her than it has been under President Obama.”
Environmental groups attacked Trump almost immediately for the remarks.
“Donald Trump is a con man who takes money from his charity to cover his own legal fees, takes money from his campaign donors to enrich his own businesses, and takes talking points from the biggest polluters in the country to slap together his disastrous energy positions,” Khalid Pitts, the Sierra Club’s political director, said in a statement.
“Trump’s dirty-fuels-first plan is pretty simple: drill enough off our coasts to threaten beaches from Maine to Florida, frack enough to spoil groundwater across the nation, and burn enough coal to cook the planet and make our kids sick,” Pitts continued.
Of course, it’s pretty ridiculous to suggest that Clinton’s energy plans in the White House would have anything at all to do with the environment. It’s also pretty funny that Pitts brought up Trump’s charities in criticizing the GOP candidate.
That’s because Clinton’s war on energy in the U.S. would have far less to do with a love for the environment than it would the huge amount of money she and her husband received from oil-rich factions from Saudi Arabia through their family foundations over the years. The family has taken somewhere between $10 million and $20 million from wealthy people living in the Islamic kingdom.
Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Group, told CNBC at the beginning of the summer that the Saudis are definitely rooting for Clinton.
“It is no secret that the Saudis and other Gulf Sunni powers are rooting for Mrs. Clinton,” McNally said at the time.
“(There is) a lot of concern and anxiety about what Donald Trump would mean,” he said.
That’s because, for the Saudis, the idea that Trump would ignore environmental appeals to emotion and unleash America’s full energy potential is terrifying for their economic future.
Clinton, meanwhile, would continue to fight U.S. energy expansion with healthy backing from environmentalists oblivious to the fact that less energy production here simply means more somewhere else. In short, if Clinton isn’t elected the Saudi elites that own her are poised to get a pretty lousy return on their investment.
And if you have any remaining doubt that Clinton will serve as a Saudi oil puppet, compare her actions as Secretary of State to the agenda pushed by Saudi Arabia’s Sunni elites during the same period. You’ll find that she was more their top diplomat that she ever was the U.S.’s.