From Forbes, our image of the day captures nicely the mainstream media's credibility problem, as their…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Mainstream Media's Evaporating Credibility

From Forbes, our image of the day captures nicely the mainstream media's credibility problem, as their cries of "Wolf!" accumulate.  Simultaneously, it captures how three institutions most intertwined with conservative values - the military, small business and police - remain atop the list of public esteem.

.  

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="960"] Media's Evaporating Credibility[/caption]

 

.  …[more]

October 04, 2019 • 10:29 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Activists Target Federally Approved Pipeline With Threats and Intimidation Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, September 01 2016
Most alarming is the use of intimidation by the activists toward pipeline employees.

When is enough enough

When a rational person knows they aren’t going to win, that their point isn’t going to be heard, that they came up short – they throw in the towel.  Sure, a toddler may continue to whine and cry, but an adult moves on.  There’s a time and a place to protest, to stand your ground.  But when a decision is final, most rational people will give up.

So when it comes to the Dakota Access Pipeline Project, when is enough enough?

For context, the new Dakota Access pipeline stretches nearly 1,170 miles from North Dakota’s Bakken and Three Forks production areas across South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. When completed, the pipeline will transfer 470,000 barrels per day, with a capacity as high as 570,000 barrels per day or more. That could represent approximately half of Bakken current daily crude oil production. In addition to strengthening US energy security, a primary goal of the project is to reduce costs for energy intensive states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa – all states that rank among the top ten energy consumers in the country according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Currently, however, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe is protesting the pipeline’s construction in North Dakota.  Protesters have gathered near the construction site since April, but recent surges in numbers have left local law enforcement struggling to protect the safety of the workers.

Developments out of the protestors’ encampment are disturbing for several reasons. Most alarming is the use of intimidation by the activists toward pipeline employees. Protesting is nothing new to large energy projects like Dakota Access, but no difference of opinion grants protestors the right to endanger pipeline workers simply doing their job.

At no point – repeat, at no point – did protestors make their voices heard during the two-year review and comment period by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC). As PSC Commissioner Brian Kalk said, "I would just put one point out there: we had these hearings, these groups didn't come to our hearings so that in itself is disappointing with what they're doing now."

Further, the tribe claims that the US Army Corps never consulted them on the project. In court filings, however, the Corps notes there have been almost 400 meetings on cultural surveying results and 11 meetings between the US Army Corps of Engineers and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

What’s the definition of “meaningful consultation” if this prodigious number of meetings doesn’t count?   Moreover, pipeline construction is currently underway and already at 63% completion in North Dakota.

Activists had the chance to voice their concerns during the nearly two-year regulatory approval process, so they've got no excuse for resorting to intimidation and disruption rather than due process. As Julie Fedorchak, Chairwoman of the PSC said, "They have a right to disagree. They don’t have the right to threaten. They don’t have the right to obstruct."

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following is still remembered as the most infamous incident in American industrial history?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Everyone who already thought the case for President Trump's impeachment was a slam-dunk went berserk Thursday, claiming that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had just admitted to a quid pro quo with Ukraine.Except that what Mulvaney 'admitted' is that the administration was doing what it should -- pushing a foreign government to cooperate in getting to the bottom of foreign interference…[more]
 
 
—The Editorial Board, New York Post
— The Editorial Board, New York Post
 
Liberty Poll   

Why do you think House Speaker Pelosi will not call a vote on formal impeachment proceedings?