Ed Schultz is learning so much about the American Revolution from its cartoonish depiction via the History Channel's Sons of Liberty. And while he is so engaged, Schultz might want to crack open his dust-covered copy of the Constitution.
The liberal podcaster and MSNBC action hero has been on a tear, scarcely letting a waking hour pass without denouncing the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that he initially supported until sticking his finger in the wind and realizing that the overwrought leftists who comprise his audience were blowing plenty of hot air in the opposite direction.
Thanks to his viewing of Sons of Liberty, Schultz is employing a new line of attack against Keystone, as heard on his podcast Wednesday (audio) --
How many hours have we spent on Keystone? You can go back and search our website and see how often we have touched on this controversial issue in the middle of the country, and it only just gets better. An offshoot to this, if I may, I don't know if any of you have been watching the History Channel in recent evenings, the (sic) Sons of Liberty.
Now, what's the connection between that and Keystone? We're now down to a property rights issue in Nebraska, which is being totally ignored in the United States Senate. In fact, today it's going to be a second marathon session, this Wednesday. They're going to be voting on 18 amendments that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. I mean, they're throwing all kinds of stuff out there -- campaign finance, Alaska wilderness, all kinds of stuff just to get Keystone approved on an amendment basis.
The president's not going to make a decision, just get that through our (thick?) American heads, because he doesn't have to, that's number one. (At least not until after his nap). The Republicans think it's a jobs' bill which it's not. They just want ammunition, being able to say to the American people that President Obama's against jobs and they're shovel-ready jobs, even though there's 42,000 of them and they're temporary, that's the case they want to make.
So the Democrats produced their first filibuster of 2015 yesterday on Keystone XL, saying you know, no, they want a cloture vote, all right, so they don't have the 60 to get it through 'cause the Democrats are holding strong here. (Sure about that, Ed ...?).
Bottom line in all of this is that all politics is local. We are now down to property rights. This goes back to the colonial days. This goes back to the days when King George was taking property because he wasn't happy with the way, number one, property owners were using their property, the profit that they were making, the independence that they wanted. And so to be heavy handed, they would just take property as collateral and say it belongs to the king, boom, it's over!
Well, we're seeing this all unfold in this series that's playing on the History Channel. But this was the birth of property rights. When you own it, what does it mean? When you own it, does it mean you control it? When you own it, does that mean you're the final say? When you own it, do you own the liability? Do you own the responsibility? Can you do whatever you want? Are you the final say in all court proceedings that you are the property owner? This going back to the colonial days and the rebellion against the Brits is to the very fabric of what's happening right now in Nebraska!
It's none other than -- ta-da! -- Schultz himself who refutes his own rant. On The Ed Show this past Tuesday, Schultz interviewed a Nebraska landowner who would be affected by Keystone XL if it gets built. Inexplicably enough, TransCanada has offered to pay the man for use of his property instead of simply stealing it --
SCHULTZ: TransCanada is breaking out the checkbook, hoping they can cash-whip landowners into approving the project. Recently, the offers have been staggering.
SCHULTZ (interviewing landowner): I've been told that you were offered $250,000 to allow this pipeline to come over your land. Is that true?
LANDOWNER: Yes. That was their first offer. The best offer I've got amounted to about $307,000.
SCHULTZ: And you say no to that?
LANDOWNER: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Can you be bought?
LANDOWNER: No, because my land is worth more to me and my family that any amount of money they could offer me, or would offer me, I should say that.
SCHULTZ: So this is as much emotional as it is anything else.
LANDOWNER: It's about the land. It's about what's in the pipeline and it's about what should stay in Canada and get refined, and then if they want to pump that oil down through my farm, I could accept that.
Sounds like he's not entirely opposed to a pipeline coming through his property. More accurately, not this pipeline.
The nerve of TransCanada, cash-whipping Nebraskans with "staggering" sums of money for easements across their properties -- not land takings and forced relocation, a huge distinction in eminent domain. So utterly reminiscent of those thuggish Redcoats pillaging their way through the colonies.
The crucial difference between then and now -- the drafting and ratification of a document known as the United States Constitution. More specifically the Fifth Amendment in its Bill of Rights, which states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Having already lived through rapacious governance and fought a bitter war to separate themselves from it, the Founders were loathe to create another government that engaged in the same hated practices.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether a pipeline built by the privately-owned corporation based in another country constitutes "public use." What is beyond dispute is that TransCanada cannot run roughshod over abutters without "just compensation" -- and $307,000 to run a pipeline under a man's property (not over) may strike some observers as just.
