BloggeRhythms

George Will yesterday put his finger on what might be a wake-up call for national leadership around the free world. Because, up until now, terrorisms been treated very carefully by them, in the hope that reason and tolerance will appease Islamist fundamentalists, thereby convincing them to abandon violence in their cause.     

 

Appearing on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Will noted that, “in the wake of the Paris attack and other recent incidents of violence, the tide may be turning as far as the international community’s response to – and intolerance for – acts of terror.

 

“We could be reaching now a kind of tipping point,” he said. “Starting with the attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels in May, killing 124 children in Pakistan. Against that, we're now seeing a reaction.

 

“When SiSi of Egypt, head of the most important nation in the world for the Islamic world… gives an extraordinary speech saying this is a disgrace what's being done and there must be a reformation in Islam, it is just possible we've reached a critical mass of horror and things are going to change.”

 

Now, for much of the free world, Mr. Will’s observation might very well be true and perhaps this will truly be the beginning of a solid retaliation against Islamic terrorism. But, as far as the US President and his administration goes, Mr. Will's words will more likely lead to an uprising against Mr. Will and everyone else appearing on Fox News.

 

Here’s what reader gdpolitics had to say on the subject: “America should learn from the european immigration results. 

 

“If you let foreigners into your country in droves and do not enforce the stay limits or enforce any limits and then you bend over to accomodate their desires for home life and tradition and language and culture, you end up losing your country and its traditions and culture.”

 

On another topic where the presidents standing against the popular majority, he got some more bad news today when, also according to Fox, “Nebraska's highest court on Friday tossed a lawsuit challenging the proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, in a major victory for pipeline supporters that fueled congressional efforts to force approval of the project.”

 

However, when reading the details of the case, what’s most interesting is that although the mainstream media keeps harping on the environmentalist objections to the pipeline, and potential harm they project will occur from its operation, the lawsuit actually has nothing to do with that subject at all, as follows:

 

“The lawsuit challenged a 2012 state law that allowed the governor to empower Calgary-based TransCanada to force eastern Nebraska landowners to sell their property for the project. A lower court had sided with the landowners, who said that power resided with the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which regulates pipelines and other utilities. But the White House has said Obama will veto the bill because it "prevents the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests." The pipeline needs presidential approval because it would cross the U.S.-Canada border.”

 

So, although during the past six years the pipeline's passed every environmentl test, including basic approval from the State Department, the president has still been hanging on to this last thread of potential judicial blockage. Yet, while even that seems to have been eliminated now, the chances of a veto favoring his political allies still remains very high.

 

Which leads to the question of why, with the benefits of the chance to really become globally independent energy-wise, while simultaneously reducing the power of nations like Russia and Iran, wouldn’t any truly forthright leader jump at the remarkable opportunity to improve the disposable income and safety of his constituents?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios