Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
President George H. W. Bush: 1924-2018

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.…[more]

December 06, 2018 • 12:58 pm

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   
The son of which one of the following U.S. politicians currently serves as a Marine aviator aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese…[more]
 
 
—President Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 8, 1941, in an Address to Congress Asking That a State of War Be Declared Between the United States and Japan
— President Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 8, 1941, in an Address to Congress Asking That a State of War Be Declared Between the United States and Japan
 
Liberty Poll   

For family Christmas giving this year, are you spending more than usual, about the same as usual, or less than usual?