TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying Major121's 10 most recent comments.

• Environmentalists Protest Keystone XL Pipeline, Demand Action in Massive March on the National Mall

  February 18, 2013 at 8:15am

  They’re not all wacked out environmentalists who drank the climate change Kool-aid.

  The people I know personally that are there are landowners. Landowners who know their land better than Heineman, the NDEQ, or any other government officials. Landowners who do not want KXL on their land, because they have a good idea of the ramifications.

  It surprises me how many “conservatives” are okay with trampling private property rights.

• Cuts: By This Fall You Won’t Be Getting Your Saturday Mail Anymore

  February 6, 2013 at 8:39am

  In reply to Gonzo.

  I’m rural. I only already get mailed 3 days a week. No big deal.

• Nebraska’s Gov. Just Found a (Possible) Way to Let the Keystone Pipeline Move Forward

  January 23, 2013 at 8:56am

  In reply to idrathermisstotheright.

  The county sheriffs on the Nebraska border? No, that is not a good idea. It will not go over well at all with the people in those counties, seeing how the landowners here in the northern part of the state do not want the pipeline going through their ground.

  I have no problem with oil or a pipeline in general, but as a conservative, how can a foreign private company trump our rights to private property? How do conservatives miss this part of the issue? The landowners know their land better than the government, and they know that their will be serious issues both from putting the pipe in and from any leaks. This pipeline is still crossing the aquifer and the Sandhills (the NDEQ refused to designate it as such, even though it is).

  A better solution would have been to move the pipeline to the eastern part of the state where landowners have already welcomed one pipeline from TransCanada and would have gladly accepted another.

  Instead, Heineman sold us out.

• Keystone XL: The Litmus Test for Obama’s Second Term

  November 12, 2012 at 7:14pm

  In reply to Major121.

  Dano – I am sure that the reclamation process works for many areas, but the very people that know the Nebraska Sandhills, the landowners, don’t trust Transcanada with it. If the landowners were okay with it, I would have a lot less of a problem with it.

  I have never been to Saskatchewan, so I don’t know that it’s similar to the Nebraska Sandhills. I did grow up in the very area they are wanting to put the pipeline in and I do understand the concerns of the farmers and ranchers there. I am listening to the landowners (not the greenie morons), and yes, I have talked with some of them.

  I guess my biggest conern, as a conservative, is what about their private property rights?

• Keystone XL: The Litmus Test for Obama’s Second Term

  November 12, 2012 at 2:09pm

  Yes, we need the oil. I don’t dispute that.

  But — It really bothers me how conservatives overlook the private property rights associated with this. It still goes through northern Nebraska, through an area that IS Sandhills, although the Nebraska DEQ has refused to designate it as such. To completely avoid the Sandhills, Transcananda would have to change their entry point into the state of Nebraska, which would be a major inconvenience for them, so the DEQ has accomodated them with this in their Sandhills designation. Instead landowners are going to be forced to have this pipeline on their land, and most of them do not want to take on what they consider to be significant risks associated with this pipeline that could damage their water and soil. Believe me, these ranchers know their land better than any government official, and they know that if a leak occurred, especially on a wet year, it would probably be impossible for Transcanada to contain it.

  Why should landowners be forced to put something on their land that they don’t want, especially from a foreign company? A better solution would be to move the pipeline to eastern Nebraska, again a major inconvenience for Transcanada since it changes the entry point into the state. But, there is already another pipeline here, and it was much better received by the landowners.

• Liberal Revelation: Farmer Kids Don’t Want to Grow Corn…’They Want to Farm Wind!’

  June 11, 2012 at 4:53pm

  I wish a lot more conservatives would see how the rights to private property are being destroyed with this pipeline.
  If the Nebraska DEQ approves TransCanada’s proposed alternative route, it will force landowners to have this pipeline on their land. Some are okay with it, but most around here are not. The DEQ claims they are going around the Sandhills, but they land they are going through is still Sandhills; it just wasn’t designated as such by the DEQ. Installing the pipe will destroy pastures and hay meadows and cropland, and future leakage or spillage from the pipe will affect the water, as the water is still very close to the ground surface.

  Why should the landowners be forced to risk their livelihoods by eminent domain? They know better than any government official how their land will be affected.
  I have wondered if the reason TransCanada has refused to move the pipeline to the eastern part of the state, where they already have a pipeline, is because of the abundance of water here. It was admitted by TransCanada at local meetings several years ago that they could use the pipe for water in the future.

  And all those jobs they talk about? It’s union members, and it will be temporary jobs. I know, because they are the only ones that spoke in favor of the pipeline at the local State Department meetings last fall.

  While I disagree with Ms. Kleeb on most things, including this statement, she has been on the right side of the rights of the property own

• Prominent NASA Climate Change Scientist Arrested at D.C. Protest

  August 30, 2011 at 6:36pm

  I’ll agree with what most of you are saying–about how the environmentalists are trying to destroy us, and this is the first time I have ever somewhat agreed with them, although I am pretty sure it is not for the same reasons. I don’t have a problem with oil, coal, natural gas, etc… and I think that climate change is bs.

  BUT…I live in the Sandhills, just a few miles where this pipeline is going in. I don’t want to be a NIMBY but this is not the place for a pipeline. If they could move it 100 miles to the east, out of the Sandhills where there is already a pipeline, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. They are putting this through the Ogallala Aquifer. Spills or leaks happen quite often with these pipelines, and I don’t think it’s a far stretch to believe that it could easily contaminate a major source of water for thousands of people. The water in the aquifer is so close to the surface (where the pipeline will be) that I have flowing wells that provide the water for my family and my livestock. What will I and everyone else here do when our good clean water is contaminated with oil? What about the landowners–and their property rights–whose land they are destroying putting this in?