This is what’s fundamentally missing from the Main Stream Media’s headlines and reporting, as a Liberal Judge cannot help but impose himself on blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline, based on his own prejudice. Blaming Trump as we’ve grown accustomed to hearing is supposed to shut down further reason and consideration. This is the way liberals like it, or should I say demand it?
This judge’s activist decision isn’t against Trump alone, it’s against nearly 63 million voters that elected President Trump. This insult and disrespect are more against the voter politic, that hopefully, liberals, judges, and activist will wake up to understand if there is ever going to be a return of civility and a genuine search for truth and understanding.
The Keystone Pipeline is one of many issues activist judges are salivating over to not call balls and strikes as originalist judges have cited, but to subvert the votes and interests of the everyday American.
The history and impact studies of the XL Pipeline have been extensive for almost ten years. Even advisors for the Obama administration were hard pressed to find a reasonable scientific and environmental argument to reject the proposal. In fact, they agreed there would be very little negative environmental impact.
However, in consistent liberal parlance, when logic and reason fail, let’s throw out the emotion and fear card. Why not, it’s been working up to now. In spite of the demonstrably false report that the Sierra Club wants us to believe about 95% of scientist agree with global warming, now climate change, have left most Americans unconvinced, and or confused. Is it because they’re too stupid, or because, even like most scientists with any amount of integrity, the “Why question” has not been answered?
And of course, the modern scientists have compromised their argument with a flawed foundational premise predicated upon faulty, incompetent and flat out false science.
What they fail to understand is that first, Americans are smarter than this and at the same time are a responsible sort especially when it comes to the stewardship of our earth and environment. Quit insulting them with emotional arguments based on a hidden agenda that is meant to restrict their God-given freedoms and control them. Thankfully, Americans are not easily duped for now.
To further this point, consider what the most recent elections demonstrated. Arizona and Nevada last Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected tightening renewable fuel mandates. And in Washington state, voters rejected a carbon tax 56% to 44%. “The jig,” as they say “may be up.”
For the sake of background and according to The Daily Wire:
On Thursday, a federal judge in Montana blocked the Keystone XL oil pipeline and President Trump’s permit for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline, which Trump signed within days of taking office in January 2017. The Keystone XL is designed to transport heavy crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, then connect with another pipeline to travel to Illinois.
Judge Brian Morris of the District Court for the District of Montana, who was nominated to his position by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the Trump administration’s reversal of Obama’s denial to give the pipeline a permit lacked proper justification. Morris claimed that the State Department, which analyzed the pipeline, “simply discarded” climate change concerns related to the project.
This, of course, is the Judge’s perception that supports his prejudice. Why has it taken so long to approve this at the state level if it had not been for extreme concern and debate regarding climate and environmental issues? But suddenly a judge with little scientific scholarship singularly negates the facts, research and years of studies.
Americans have had it with this Don Quixote battle with windmills. Morris stated that the State Department did not factor in low oil prices, the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases and the risk of oil spills when it executed its analysis. He said, again according to the Daily Caller, “The major spills that occurred between 2014 and 2017 qualify as significant. The department would have evaluated the spills in the 2014 [environmental review] had the information been available.”
Morris added, ““The department’s 2017 conclusory analysis that climate-related impacts from Keystone subsequently would prove inconsequential and its corresponding reliance on this conclusion as a centerpiece of its policy change required the department to provide a ‘reasoned explanation’ … The department instead simply discarded prior factual findings related to climate change to support its course reversal.”
If the judge was being fair, is it reasonable to consider that he didn’t use the same perspective/rules for both sides. His argument would appear prejudiced for the climate control side of the argument, does it not?
Bill Martinez is an award-winning marketing and broadcast journalist and host of the nationally syndicated radio show, Bill Martinez Live. Find out more at billmartinezlive.com
