Waiting for Barack Obama to
approve the Keystone XL pipeline is getting on my nerves. I’ve never been as
enthusiastic about any other President in my life. He’s exceptional; I trust
him and I’m a conservative Canadian. Yet, he hugs the power to say no.
"Obama Faces Risks in
Pipeline Decision," the New York
Times acknowledges. Then the article attempts to lighten his responsibilities by
treating the matter as just another psychological and partisan drama.
“The Keystone pipeline is
treated mainly as a domestic issue in Washington. But for Canada’s Conservative
government, which has its power base in the oil-rich province of Alberta, it
represents a crucial moment in Canada’s relationship with its most vital
foreign partner even if the oil sands are also a divisive issue within Canada.
Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are not close, and the two
make a portrait of contrasts in style and substance. While Mr. Obama comes from
the liberal wing of his party and is known for stirring speeches, Mr. Harper is
conservative even by the standards of his own Conservative Party and can be
stiff in public. His political base, the province of Alberta, is the heart of
the Canadian oil patch.
“Mr. Obama’s recent
expressions of concern
about climate change contrast starkly with Mr. Harper’s
stated priorities.”
This is disingenuous.
Keystone isn’t a domestic issue at all, nor is it merely
a liberal President’s best chance since Jack Kennedy to humiliate a
Conservative Prime Minister. Obama has no record on climate change that puts
him in front of Canada and has no known score to settle with his northern ally.
The President’s fine rhetoric on climate change no
more beggars the Prime Minister’s policies than it does his own.
No matter how far apart they are temperamentally,
Obama has had no surer an ally in the West. On going into Libya, staying out of
Syria, not subsidizing European governments, applying sanctions on Iran, and
fighting recession in North America, Harper has stood firmly with Washington. (Okay,
Harper hasn’t publicly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for
expanding settlements, but then again, neither has Obama.)
The importance of the Keystone decision is
inspired by a global problem, and how
it’s resolved will enhance—or shatter—Obama’s reputation as a steady President
and trustworthy ally in addressing global
problems.
Except for the cynics and Daryl Hannah, and their
fans, everyone recognizes that attacking capitalism and pipelines and singling
out one mining operation in the fossil fuel supply chain won’t save the planet
or elect liberals. Nevertheless, rejecting a pipeline over mining practices in
Canada would hurt Canada’s economy severely, be a roaring hypocrisy, and, as
likely, be a breach of Canada-US and GATT trade covenants.
Over the two precious years Barack Obama has left
to launch something big on climate change and North American renewal, Stephen
Harper will be Canada’s majority Prime Minister.
With the Keystone decision, the President can
decide whether he wants to fashion a credible North American policy or simply
issue environmental regulations that will make Republicans angry without
solving the problem.
Prime Minister of Canada proved to everyone once and for all the big difference between the United States and Canada. He stated on CNN the other day that all the land that is being mined for shale oil belongs to him as in Canada, even though they are elected by a vote of the people, the power of the government lies with those elected into ofice and through the Crown; while here in the UInited States the power of the government lies equally through all the citizens of the United States and is adminstered by all those elected to Congress only. the President and the US Supreme Court can only do what the Constitution allows them to do and what laws that Congress passes, as long as they don't infringe on the Constitution except if do so as per Article V of the Constitution. Where the Prime Minister has full and unhibited control over all the lands of Canada and do so without any recourse, the President, the US Supreme Court all the way down to the Mayor of any community and its city Council don't have that luxury or leagal authority. That is why no private lands or properties, and even public lands, cannot be taken away and used for "for-profity" purposes without the consent of the people through their elected officials in the legislative branches of government, and then, and only then, through "due-process-of-law". Too often the citizens of this nation, particularly those that live within the confines of any state, county/parish/burough or city because US Attorney Generals office, state Attorney General office, or US Supreme Court state Suprem Court has failed to uphold the US Constitution, the states Supreme Court or any of their "oath-of- ofice" as required by Aricle VI of th US Constitution. When the Prime Minister tells the American people what he intends to do in this country he is way out of line. We tried to tell them what to do in the War of 1812 and got our butts kicked. Now he needs to reconsider because now the butt kicking is on the other foot. All constitutions and laws are only pertinent to that particular country only, and aren't supposed to have any bearing upon any other country, unless that country implies, attmpts or actually takes any type of action against another.
ReplyDelete