Saturday, June 23, 2012

Pipeline Death By a Thousand Studies 

By: Phil Kerpen  / Townhall.com

There has never been a more "shovel ready" project in history than the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been exhaustively engineered, studied, reviewed, and re-reviewed as Obama tries to kill the project without admitting that's what he's doing. At stake are about 20,000 immediate jobs, a secure supply of North American oil, billions in private investment, and the global efficiency benefits of connecting a major crude source to the world's most efficient refining center. The latest news is that rather than simply say "yes," Obama is conducting yet another open-ended study.

The original permit application for the project was submitted in 2008. The State Department exhaustively reviewed every aspect of the proposal.

The State Department issued three different press releases in the spring of 2011 -- in March, April, and June -- that included this sentence: "The U.S. Department of State expects to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of 2011." 

The president's jobs council touted the economic benefits of pipelines in its official report, saying: "Policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary."

But what if such timely development comes into conflict with ideologically motivated, powerful environmental special interests? We now know where Obama comes down.

The environmental protest crowd decided to make this into a litmus test political issue, instead of the no-brainer source of jobs and affordable energy that it really is. Their professed concern is that developing energy from increasingly-important unconventional sources, like the Alberta oil sands, will increase global warming.

Even if they're right, they're wrong to oppose the pipeline. If the Canadians can't build a pipeline to U.S. refineries, they've already announced they'll build a pipeline to export terminals on the west coast of Canada instead, from which it will go to dirtier and less efficient Asian refineries. A lose-lose for the economy and the environment.

The State Department's exhaustive review process ended last summer, and they recommended approval. All that remained was the usually perfunctory approval of the president. But Obama ignored all the reviews, the evidence, and the recommendations of his own jobs council to side with the protest crowd. He said he would wait until after his re-election to decide whether to approve it.

Congress forced his hand in a bipartisan bill passed around Christmas. It required Obama to decide to either approve or reject the pipeline within 60 days. He rejected it.

The pipeline company resubmitted the application.

 Now the State Department is conducting yet another review. A new public comment period has been opened through the end of July, and the State Department will then review those comments. Who knows how long that will take? This is despite the fact that the review issued last August all but approving the project was labeled "final."

Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, which needs the pipeline to efficiently bring some of the oil from its miraculous energy boom to market, observed: "In essence they're saying, 'OK, now we're going to start all over again.'" 


With unemployment rates and gas prices still painfully high, the thousands of workers hoping for jobs building the pipeline and the millions of Americans who will benefit from the oil that will flow through it can't afford to wait. Obama needs to stop playing the endless-study game and approve the Keystone XL pipeline now.

Recap Of Latest Obama Eligibility Hearing - Parts 1 & 2

           

obama birth certificate Recap Of Latest Obama Eligibility Hearing Part 1                              
A hearing was held on June 18, 2012; it began precisely at 9 am Eastern Time in Leon County, Florida in the Court of Judge Terry Lewis to decide whether Obama would appear on the ballot in November and whether the lawsuit filed by Mr. Michael Voeltz (a lifelong Democrat) should be dismissed with prejudice.  The same Judge who heard the famous Bush V. Gore (ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States), heard this matter.  This famous case was started in his courtroom at the circuit court level where Judge Lewis presided in 2000 over Florida election statutes as well.

Speaking for the plaintiff was Larry Klayman; his opening statement quoted John Adams, our second President: “We are a Nation of Laws, not Men.” (framing the question for the court, the state of Florida and the Nation in his first utterance.) Mr. Klayman outlined that Florida election law does not operate in a vacuum but in concert with the Constitution of Florida, the United States, and our respective legislature(s).  He showed that each party’s obligations and interests must be read in concert with one another.

This was in stark contrast to Obama’s attorneys and the attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State, who attempted to narrow the issues for the court and Judge Lewis.  The basis for their argument was that since Obama was not in fact “nominated” by the Democratic Party and would not be until September, this action in this court was not ripe and should be dismissed with prejudice.  Their argument was supposedly based on Florida Statute Chapter 103.101, which in their view states that since the election held last February was a “Presidential Preference Primary” election and that Obama ran un-opposed that he in fact was not “nominated” by the Democratic Party and therefore the action in this court was premature.

To dispense with some of the more technical issues, which will be discussed shortly, a synopsis will be presented first.

The basis of the argument came down to a multi-faceted supposition that was construed as a technicality by Obama’s attorneys and the State’s counsel.  In their view, it was operative in the context that the Democratic Party (a private legal entity) controls the nomination process.  To bring some clarity to this issue, it is ludicrous as a “matter of “law” to allow such an argument to stand.  We have in essence three parties to the candidacy of any individual that seeks either a state or federal office.  Therefore, to develop some reasonable logic, we need to look to each party’s rights, duties, and obligations in this process.

Only two of these parties reduce to a matter of law, the actual candidate and the election law within the state that the individual files to declare candidacy. The political parties (Democrats, Republicans, Marxists, Libertarians etc.) are legal entities that control who they will support with their funds, political machinery, and operatives.  They must also meet certain qualifications under law and affirmatively execute certain documents that are filed with either local or state election officials.

Even if a political party chooses to “nominate” and support a given candidate, the candidate must tender the affirmative execution of qualification documents.

These political parties choose whom it is that they will support; the statute makes clear that the people of Florida will know their choice.  They do not as a matter of “law” control the process as to the “legality” of any candidate(s) filing for any office within the borders of any state or for the nation for that matter, which is where their argument fails for Obama and his attorneys.

If we were to accept the argument of Obama and the state of Florida, we must accept the choice that the political party makes and only that choice.  If this position and argument were allowed to stand, the voter’s choice(s) could then be nullified regardless of their choice of candidate after an election, a ludicrous proposition.  Much to the chagrin of Obama, we are not a one-party state and government quite yet in the fashion of the communist party of the defunct Soviet Union, where only their party’s candidates appeared on the ballot.

If we accept Obama’s argument, that is in effect what we would have to accept.

Once again, it is the political parties’ “prerogative” to lend support, not declare who any candidate is; they only choose the declared candidate they wish to financially and cooperatively support.  Therefore, we must look to the “laws” of the state of Florida for any answers to this issue and the legislature’s intent to enjoin the parties in the interests of the Constitution, the candidate, and the people of Florida.

Florida Statutes

Florida law under Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) declares what a candidate must do to become eligible to be placed upon any ballot for public office in Florida.

Chapter 103 discusses “Presidential Electors, Political Parties, Executive Committees, and Members”; Florida statutes are specific as to what must be done when a political party declares a “candidate” that will carry their “brand” of political identity of the nominating party.

It must be assumed that Chapter 103 was written by the legislature to make sure that any citizen of the state of Florida was aware of the “party affiliation” of any “person” who filed for any public office in Florida, or national office. In this matter, of course, for the office of president.

These private legal entities (political parties) do not control who would in fact be placed upon a ballot in the state of Florida. This is affirmed in the statutes that after “nomination” by a political party, the Secretary of State notifies the nominee by certified mail.  Furthermore, the named individual, if they do not intend to run for the office of president, must decline the “nomination” to the Secretary of State.  These safeguards have been legislated so the people of Florida will expressly know if a given candidate has a political party affiliation supporting them in an election.  The action by the individual is considered affirmative so that the political party is not dictating to the “candidate” or the state of Florida who must appear on a general election ballot.

To do otherwise could disenfranchise the electorate and nullify any vote that the “people” could make when they voted their preference of any particular “candidate” for public office in Florida.  The “political party” could otherwise substitute candidates at will even after an election for possibly capricious reasons if these safeguards were not in force.

Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) occurs first in Florida election law and therefore declares what qualifications a “candidate” must posses and would be considered a predicate condition for consideration to any office.

  Section 99.061 (“Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office”) declares what must happen for a candidate to be considered qualified for any particular party(s) nomination:
99.061Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.—

(1)The provisions of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding, each person seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a federal, state, or multicounty district office, other than election to a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or the office of school board member, shall file his or her qualification papers with, and pay the qualifying fee, which shall consist of the filing fee and election assessment, and party assessment, if any has been levied, to, the Department of State, or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the Department of State, at any time after noon of the 1st day for qualifying, which shall be as follows: the 120th day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 116th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to federal office or to the office of the state attorney or the public defender; and noon of the 71st day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 67th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state or multicounty district office, other than the office of the state attorney or the public defender.  
Therefore, if we look at these statutes, we will ascertain what must occur for a candidate in-and-of-themselves to become eligible to be placed upon a ballot.  This section of Florida law is shown below for these qualifications in Chapter 99.0955:
99.0955 Candidates with no party affiliation; name on general election ballot.

(1)Each person seeking to qualify for election as a candidate with no party affiliation shall file his or her qualifying papers and pay the qualifying fee or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the officer and during the times and under the circumstances prescribed in s. 99.061. Upon qualifying, the candidate is entitled to have his or her name placed on the general election ballot.
(2)The qualifying fee for candidates with no party affiliation shall consist of a filing fee and an election assessment as prescribed in s. 99.092. Filing fees paid to the Department of State shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund of the state. Filing fees paid to the supervisor of elections shall be deposited into the general revenue fund of the county.
As can be seen by the above statute, “party affiliation” is not necessary to be placed upon any election ballot in Florida.  Furthermore, these qualifications are the minimal qualifications that a “candidate” must possess to be placed upon a ballot. So why would the legislature create this statute if a “candidate” could only be placed upon a ballot if they needed the endorsement(s) of a political party?  The short answer is they would not!  So, then, why was this statute drafted and made into law?

Again, it can only be seen in the light of the people of Florida to truly know what party was supporting a given “candidate”, not that they controlled the ballot of any person’s name within the state of Florida.  An affirmative action must be performed by the candidates themselves when they file the qualifying documents with the Secretary of State; after they are “nominated” by a political party, they must again affirmatively decline by expressly declining the “nomination” directly to the Secretary of State if they choose not to run.

In Obama’s case the ‘law” is clear as shown below:
101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.-
(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.
Now that we have examined the applicable statutes of a particular candidate’s qualifications and the express declaration of a candidate’s political party affiliation, we can turn our attention to the particular statute cited by Mr. Klayman, Chapter 102.168 Section 3(b), with the applicable law shown below:
102.168 Contest of election.
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
Mr. Klayman has stated the particular statute that is applicable to this case, much to the admonishment of Obama’s counsel who vehemently opposes such a condition.  The “taxpayer” requirement of the statute is satisfied from section 1, and an election did transpire and was challenged by a “person” of standing to bring a complaint to the circuit court as required in the statute.  Mr. Voeltz has been specific in his complaint on what especially is a defect with Obama, namely his ineligibility to hold office under section 3 (b) shown above.

The statute discusses two reasons: either they are not eligible for “nomination” (again, a reference to a political party) or actual qualification for the office itself.

In Obama’s case, he is not eligible as he is not a “natural born citizen”; however, he is the de-facto nominee of his party and for his attorneys and Secretary of State to believe otherwise is mere folly.  Having them make believe that it is contingent upon the Democrats’ Convention in September is merely obscuring the facts in this case.

If common sense was applied by these men, they would know that Obama is running for president in every state in the union, and by statute, he is already the declared nominee in Florida.

So, pardon me if the authorities are engaging in subterfuge; we can expect that from Obama. However, the Secretary of State for Florida is a real stretch since Obama is “declared” nominated per statute 101.252!
What in essence we have done is lay open the fallacy of the arguments made by Obama and his attorneys, as it is unreasonable to assume that a “private entity” (the Democratic Party) has complete control on who would be placed upon a primary or general election ballot in the state of Florida. If we follow the arguments of Obama’s attorneys, the people are disenfranchised and nullified by the sheer capricious whim of a political party that would be free to place any person upon a ballot in Florida, even against the expressed wishes of any given candidate, again a ludicrous proposition which the “law” precludes.

Part two discusses the actual arguments at the hearing and the position of the parties.
Click and read Part two here:  http://www.westernjournalism.com/what-happened-at-obamas-eligibility-hearing-part-2/

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible 

Obama Official Portrait SC 752x1024 Dems Admit Obamas Not Eligible                    Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”

In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.

But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.

In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.

On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.

Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.

At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.
Op-ed:
Somebody please shut Pelosi up!
By: Diane Sori
 
As the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal reverberates across the country a new voice has come forward to add total absurdity to the already laughable Eric Holder ‘dog and pony’ show.  Self-appointed House queen, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said during her weekly televised press conference, “They’re going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states…This is no accident, it is no coincidence.  It is a plan on the part of Republicans.”

Can you believe the total lunacy of this statement!  Nancy Pelosi actually believes that Republicans are going after Eric Holder NOT because he’s withholding subpoenaed documents and trying to cover-up his involvement in 'Fast and Furious' or because of his false claim that law enforcement never allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico to be given to drug cartels, but because he opposes states cracking down on voter fraud.  

Oh please, a statement as ludicrous as this makes me wonder if she was in her right mind or under the influence of something when she made it.  In NO way can a sane person connect in any way the hearings to voter suppression.

While voter fraud is real and does indeed happen, case in point is Acorn’s fix of the 2008 election, it’s been proven that cases of voter fraud disproportionately benefit Democrats NOT Republicans.  No wonder Pelosi and Holder don’t want voter fraud to be investigated!  Thankfully, more than a dozen states have passed laws restricting voting, and some, like Florida, are actually suing the DOJ for trying to stop them from purging their voter rolls of those not legally eligible to vote (the dead will just have to stay dead this time around), as Pelosi and other far-left liberals continue to argue the newly enacted laws aim to suppress and discourage minorities from voting.
 
But what does investigating voter fraud have to do with over 200 Mexicans dying and US Border Agent Brian Terry being murdered due to the lies and deceits perpetrated by Eric Holder, the Department of Justice, and Barack Hussein Obama, who inserted himself right into the middle of this mess by asserting Executive Privilege to protect his buddy Holder. 

The two instances have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other...NOTHING!

“This is no accident. It is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of the Republicans,” Pelosi still continues to whine.

Yeah, sure it is Nancy, and if you really believe that I’ve got some swamp land to sell you.  And yet with Pelosi and the liberal media continuing to spew their distracting vile, they’re hoping the American people will lose focus that these proceedings are really about justice for Brian Terry.  But as more and more people are seeing that Holder’s withholding of the subpoenaed documents amounts to nothing but a cover-up, answers are being demanded as to just why Brian Terry was murdered by illegal alien thugs who were armed by Eric Holder and the DOJ, and to why no one has been held accountable.

Brian Terry's family deserves answers, the American people deserve answers, and justice must be adjudicated for this horrible miscarriage of justice and cover-up.  And Nancy Pelosi needs to just keep her big trap shut because she is making more of a fool of herself than she already is.

And here’s another happy thought...once the furor over Pelosi’s statements die down can the blaming of these hearings on the fact that Eric Holder is black be far behind, after all when all else fails the race card will assuredly be played.  Can’t wait for that one.