Posted on 11/28/2016 5:15:36 AM PST by Kaslin
Native Americans protesting the construction of the 1,200-mile Dakota Access oil pipeline: quit throwing rocks at police; stop setting cars ablaze; discard your “Children Don’t Drink Oil” signs—and join your fellow brothers and sisters in making America great again.
“We don’t have weapons. … We are looking out for … the children who are not even born yet,” Standing Rock Sioux chairman David Archambault II said to defend his 10,000-member tribe’s use of violence, aggression and disorderly conduct to protest the construction of the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline.
No weapons?
“A line of sheriff’s officers retreated in the face of riders on horseback circling and yipping through the grass,” and local Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier relayed “reports of weapons and gunshots” and that “protesters were getting ready to throw pipe bombs at a line of officers,” according to the New York Times.
Over 400 tribe-affiliated protesters have been arrested so far in the tribe’s not-so-peaceful (and taxpayer-subsidized) protest that has been raging near Cannon Ball, N.D. since April. Hundreds of Native Americans have threatened construction workers and law enforcement officers—claiming the pipeline jeopardizes their access to the Missouri River and stifles their heritage.
For the children?
Native American children will, in fact, be far safer; live on a cleaner planet; and have more economic opportunities if we build Dakota Access. Native Americans can still be faithful to their ancestors and traditions and welcome modern progress that will make America a better place for all of us, including the progeny of the Standing Rock Sioux.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the Dakota Access pipeline’s route, which traverses underground from the North Dakota Bakken oil patch to Illinois, hauling hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil daily to consumers in the Midwest and Gulf Coast. As part of its study, the corps meticulously interviewed representatives of Native American tribes—including Archambault’s tribe.
The corps found the pipeline presented no major threats the environment or tribal cultural sites. Yet, instead of accepting science and keeping their word, the same tribes that effectively gave their blessings to the project threw a tantrum. Tribal parents even set up a makeshift daycare for their toddlers on the prairie so they could sustain their public tantrum for the past eight months.
My message for Native American protesters: instead of squandering your lives by menacing cops by day and plotting schemes around a campfire by night—while accessing a state-sponsored medical supply trailer, portable bathrooms, and 500-gallon drinking water tanks—I entreat you to truly advocate for peace and support a pipeline that will make America better for you and your progeny. Let me explain.
Pipelines: Clean, Safe, Smart Energy
President-elect Trump will likely inherit the Dakota Access controversy. You may recall that President Obama’s administration shut down a similar project, the Keystone XL pipeline based on parallel protests. In the case of XL, as with Dakota Access, the protestor’s claims were demonstrably false.
Myth#1: “Pipelines pilfer the planet!”
The U.S. State Department not once; not twice; butthrice declared Keystone XL to be an environmentally sound project. Furthermore, it has been proven that crude transported by pipeline emits fewer emissions than crude transported by rail. And oil deliveries by rail escalated from 20 million barrels in 2010 to a whopping 323 million barrels in 2015 thanks to pipeline panic.
Oil pipelines are specifically designed to carry the extremely flammable form of crude produced by fracking whereas trains carrying crude are prone to hazardous derailments.
In 2013, a 72-car train derailed in Quebec—leveling over 30 buildings and killing 42 individuals. It is a miracle no one was killed in a 2014 derailment in Lynchburg, VA that occurred just outside of a children’s museum. In 2015, an oil train derailed in West Virginia that hurled a gigantic fireball up 20 stories. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude flowed into the Columbia River in June of this year after a train derailed in Oregon. Earlier this month, a 146-car train derailed in Minnesota—dumping hazardous chemicals and forcing around 700 people to evacuate their homes.
Myth#2: Solar, wind and electric can replace fossil fuels
Earth to environmentalists: wind power kills birds and solar power displaces natural habitats. Overall, green tech is not a job creator. Just last month, Mission Solar Energy closed its doors in Texas, eliminating 87 American jobs. Mission Solar’s closure is only one of many “green” companies that Obama’s administration forced you and me to help prop up—only to quickly buckle under. Even purportedly successful green companies like Tesla only exist thanks to monetary assistance from the American taxpayer.
Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk is a billionaire, but what do you and I have to show for his company’s profits? The option to buy his pricy deathtraps? A former Navy SEAL was killed by the Tesla S sports car’s “autopilot” technology in May and another driver was run off the road and bloodied by this supposedly superior “clean” car that Musk promised would “always take care” of its passenger.
I have no problem with electric, wind, or solar power. I do have a problem with subsidizing the so-called “renewable” ventures of billionaires—especially when their technology isn’t ready for the market.
Renewable energy companies wouldn’t stand a chance without funding from EPA-mandated subsidies. For example, petroleum refiner Valero is forced to purchase “renewable identification number credits” and effectively prop up renewables in order to stay within the EPA’s good graces.
Native Americans: better jobs, cleaner air, and a safer future for your children are yours if you only set aside your grievances—which have no foundation in science or spirituality—and join the rest of us in making America great again.
There are thousands of miles of pipelines along interstates. They are well off the highway and marked.
I don’t think so. If they’re “sacred lands” then they should be part of a reservation, no?
I believe the land at least where they’re camping is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers the pipeline is supposed to bypass Indian lands but because they used to live out with America you know what I’ll take a ground to them.
The pipeline in question is not on “native lands”.
It is on the right of way of a natural gas pipeline that is already there.
This is just a green hissy fit against technology in general.
I read somewhere that the pipeline company held over 350 meetings with 55 tribes. Standing Rock Sioux were invited to each meeting and never showed up. The other tribes worked with the company to preserve sensitive and sacred ground. The oil company made several route changes to accommodate them. Standing Rock Sioux refused to consider anything.
I also suspect that there are significant legal payments made for land. Given that there are over 300,000 miles of pipeline in the USA and very few accidents, this is by far the safest and most efficient way to transport oil.
It looks like there were about 20 pipeline breaches last year. Most were caused by being hit by dredges or forklifts. As I read it, the Dakota pipeline is completely underground. As it crossed the Missouri river, it’s 92 feet below the riverbed.
Time for these people to give up and go get a job.
Time for these people to give up and go get a job....Buffet pays quite well, I understand.
Thank you. If it’s on the right of way of a natural gas pipeline that’s already there, then there shouldn’t be a fuss. How come that isn’t a major part of the discussion supporting this pipeline?
Because it doesn’t make for good “Headlines”.
that’s true.
Of course, since we found lots of oil in Texas, let’s cancel the project completely, tell the other tribes they’re not getting paid and hope for a good old fashioned range war.
“and stifles their heritage”
If your “heritage” is so flimsy a pipeline can “stifle” it, it is worthless anyway.
How come that isn’t a major part of the discussion supporting this pipeline?
Because the establishment media has an agenda, and that fact does not fit the agenda.
The actions of the establishment media during the last election should make clear that they are activists first, and reporters second or third.
The Corp of Engineers website explains all of this. Each stretch that involved reservations involved meetings with many parties. There’s have been many hundreds of meetings as a result. This project was not done without consideration and careful planning.
FAQ: http://www.usace.army.mil/Dakota-Access-Pipeline/FAQs/
Good article with info: http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/op-ed-columns/4155469-viewpoint-dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-must-face-facts
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2801
Perhaps you prefer a train track in the same place with hundreds of oil tanker cars thundering by instead of an open prairie with a pipeline underground.
Beside the fact that this pipeline is not crossing Indian land, they are just the nearest ethnic group to exploit protecting the lucrative rail shipping interests of Soros.
Yep, rent-a-rage politics again...
When I lived in Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, PA, I had a gas pipeline running below the street in front of my house. They do go through some fairly well-off suburbs.
You're talking sense. I'd much rather see oil in pipelines and people in trains.
Thank you for the links.
Sorry, I am not going to play civilizational tic tac toe with you.
My side won, and we have penicillin.
If your side won, we’d be eating tree bark as a palliative.
That said, I apologize if I have offended you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.