Time for a "Gutsy Call" on Keystone, Mr. President!

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
By now, you have heard that there has been yet another environmental report on the Keystone pipeline. Like all it's predecessors for the last five years, it shows no detriment to the environment. Environmentalist wackos bleat that oil from shale produces more pollution. But since Canada is going to ship that oil whether it goes through our pipeline or not, there is zero difference made by the pipeline.

Truth be told, the pipeline would reduce carbon emissions in the transport of oil, because the pipeline is far more energy efficient than shipping by truck or by rail, with less likelihood of a disastrous spill.

As was pointed out here, in 2012, what is being called the Keystone pipeline is actually an extension of the Keystone pipeline, which was approved in 2008 by George W. Bush, and built in 2009. As I pointed out then, had there been any sizable spill, or environmental damage caused by the initial pipeline, we would have heard all about it. The silence is deafening.

In addition to bringing in imported oil from a friendly ally to be refined (that's value added, Mr. President), the extension passes by the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota, whose oil is being trucked from there on our nation's highways.

The Keystone XL pipeline will not increase pollution, will decrease carbon emissions on the transport of oil, will provide immediate jobs in the construction of the pipeline, addition jobs in maintaining it and adds to the world oil supply, which can increase energy independence for not only our country but perhaps Europe and beyond can reduce their dependence on hostile governments to provide their energy needs and increased prosperity for our neighbor and ally Canada.

You said you had a pen and weren't afraid to use it? Now's the time. Show that vocal minority of environmentalist wackos that you care more for the well being of the country and strengthening our economy than for their petty provincial, boutique politics.

Sign the agreement. It will create shovel ready jobs immediately, at no cost to the taxpayer. If your party wants to use it as a campaign issue in 2014, blame the Republicans for making you sign it, but show a little spine and sign it anyway.

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. What they do not tell you about this pipeline is how eminent domain is used to take private property and give it to a corporation. Very simply everyone that owns land along this pipeline route is not willing to sell and if approved they will have there property stolen for this pipeline. They will get market value for open farm land, but nothing close to what should be paid. If they could get land owners to sell, this would already be a done deal.

    1. Not sure what your sources for that are, but the only real impediment is that the pipeline crosses the US/Canadian border, which, by law requires a sign off by the feds.

  2. I'm confused - market value for open farmland seems reasonable. What "should be paid"? Just because the private company that gets the land will be putting it to very lucrative use, that does not entitle the current owners to take a cut of that revenue as compensation. Fair compensation is one thing, but extortion is quite another.

    Using eminent domain as an argument against the pipeline is a distraction from the real issue. The president, using his pen, could potentially sign the agreement on the condition that landowners lease the land to TransCanada instead, or that a certain formula will be used to compensate landowners 'fairly'. But that isn't happening. The hold-up is purely political.

    1. I haven't heard anything about eminent domain. For all I know, there's no change of ownership of the land. I would think you could do it with an easement if the land owner didn't want to sell. And yes, the hold up is purely political.

  3. http://www.inquisitr.com/1139934/keystone-xl-pipeline-eminent-domain-case-heats-up-in-nebraska
    I support more pipelines and I would support this one if the companies involved were not using the power of governments to take private property.

  4. Think of it this way. I need to put a pipeline from one place to the next. Someone in the middle doesn't want to sell. So I use the government to make them sell. The only reason is the straight line pipeline cost me less money to build than going around the property. Its easy to go around, but costs more. So government intrudes and helps a Canadian oil company save a little cash by stealing property from U.S. citizens. (serfs). Sometimes I forget where you people really stand.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.