FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
Al-Jazeera and Green Peace Unite Against Keystone Pipeline
Shockingly, they're both against American oil independence.
Al Jazeera, arguably the most terrorist-friendly news station after MSNBC, has offered some thoughts on the proposed Keystone Pipeline which will bring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to the United States.
Calling it a “pipeline of poison,” writer Dahr Jamail makes the case that the project will be an environmental catastrophe. Quite a shocker that the media outlet of choice in the middle east would be against something that might make us more energy independent.
But Al-Jazeera is not alone in this brave mission. They have found allies in the environmental movement as well, namely, Green Peace. In case you don’t know what Green Peace is all about, this video will give you a nice education:
Their latest bit of “emotionalizing” that they put on a show for in August, is related to one of the rare things that has received a modicum of bi-partisan support in America: the Keystone Pipeline.
The stakes? A 2000 mile pipeline that, if built, will carry the dirtiest fuel on earth from Alberta, Canada to Texas— in the process bringing us closer to irreversible climate change.
The more radical movements, no doubt inspired by Green Peace over the decades, have taken a harder line against the project.
Green Peace has trained the environmental movement to approach everything with their trademark subtlety, for example, this piece from the Tar Sands Action Group:
So, with terrorist supporters and actual terrorists (you figure out which one is which) it seems that the choice should be easy. Judge the project by its enemies, and surely green-lighting Keystone will be no problem.
It’s possible that this type of opposition is actually giving Democrats pause. There’s little other explanation for why so many have chosen to sit out the debate.
Their silence has been deafening enough that even fellow Democrats are beginning to call them out.
Former Democrat Congressman Harold Ford, Jr, writes a piece at the Wall Street Journal accusing Democrats of getting in the way of the project. He celebrates Hillary Clinton’s support, but his tepid support of President Obama seems to indicate that there are some holdups in the administration.
We spend so much time theorizing about new steps government can take to create jobs that we sometimes overlook the jobs that are right in front of us waiting for government approval.
Take the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline running from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. It would create tens of thousands of new jobs in construction, maintenance and refining. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports the project, yet regulatory hurdles remain. States like Nebraska, whose approval is overdue, need to get on board with Secretary Clinton and help push this massive jobs creation project through.
With millions of Americans clamoring for employment opportunities, there is no excuse to delay. A study released last month by the Woods Mackenzie research firm found that 1.4 million jobs and $800 billion in new government revenue could be created over the next two decades by removing barriers to increased domestic oil and gas production. These are high-paying jobs, available now, and private industry—not the taxpayer—is making the investment.
We need to support leaders who are working to realize the enormous potential of America’s oil and gas industry. I don’t agree with everything President Obama has done on the economic front, but it has been unfortunate to watch fellow Democrats not back him on energy projects like the Arctic Sea permits. To ignore these resources and economic potential is counterproductive.
It’s incredible that its this difficult to get on board with a project that creates jobs, is better for the environment, helps move us toward energy independence, adds billions of dollars to the economy, and is only opposed by the likes of Al-Jazeera and Green Peace.
Such is the state of the Democrat party. They’ve split themselves between so many disconnected and divergent interests that when it comes to making an actual decision, they have no idea what to do.