Last Updated:October 1 @ 07:56 am

GOP Moves to Approve Keystone Pipeline... without Obama

By Bobby Eberle

How many speeches has Barack Obama given on jobs? How many times has he said the economy is his number one priority? Unfortunately, his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. The only suitable job worth creating to him is a government job. When it came time to approve the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada to the refineries in the Gulf states, Obama said no. Tens of thousands of jobs would have been created, but politics won the day. Now, GOP members of the U.S. Senate are using the Constitution in an attempt to approve the pipeline without Obama's consent.

As reported by The Hill, Senate Republicans "floated legislation Monday that would bypass the Obama administration and approve TransCanada Corp.'s pipeline."

The bill goes further than the GOP provision in December's payroll tax cut deal, which simply imposed a deadline for a decision on the Obama administration -- one that President Obama met early when he rejected the project on Jan. 18.

"This new bill is a lot like the old one, but it makes it definitive that Congress has the authority to push the Keystone XL pipeline forward," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who sponsored the measure along with Sens. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).

The GOP senators have confidence in their approach thanks to a study by the Congressional Research Service. The report states that the "U.S. Congress has the constitutional right to legislate permits for cross-border oil pipelines like TransCanada's Keystone XL."

Historically, U.S. presidents have made executive decisions on pipelines that cross borders. But Congress had the power all along to weigh in on the permits, said the study, done by four legislative attorneys with the CRS.

"If Congress chose to assert its authority in the area of border-crossing facilities, this would likely be considered within its Constitutionally enumerated authority to regulate foreign commerce," the study said.

Obama halted approval of the pipelined, because he said that the environmental impacts were unknown and further study was required. Give me a break! Is creating jobs the good-old-fashioned way that foreign to him?

The Senate bill currently has 44 sponsors comprised of 43 Republicans and Democrat Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Passage through the Senate would be iffy at best, but the GOP-controlled House would surely follow suit if a bill made it out of the Senate. But even then, Obama could veto the measure.

Veto or not, the GOP should push forward with this effort, because it is the right thing to do. Let Obama defend his job-killing actions in an election year, and see how the American people respond.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.5/10 (353 votes cast)
GOP Moves to Approve Keystone Pipeline... without Obama, 9.5 out of 10 based on 353 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

56 Comments

  1. newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
    January 31, 2012 @ 9:29 am

     ”…floated legislation Monday that would bypass the Obama administration and approve TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline.”

    I commend this move, and I only wish they could make progress, however it isn’t very likely that the bill will pass the Senate once Harry Reid starts mealy mouthing.  It’s gutsy though, and this is what we need to squelch the arrogance of Obama.  

    Somebody at least grew a backbone initiating this maneuver and even though Obama would veto the bill, at least it proves that not all the people leading this country are ultra wimps only interested in their laid-back careers. 

    Hats off to Joe Manchin from West Virginia who thumbed his nose at partisanship and did the right thing for the welfare of his country.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (100 votes cast)
  2. middlegroundComment by middleground
    January 31, 2012 @ 9:50 am

    Is Congress actually taking back some of its Constitutional power from the Executive Division? It should make an interesting SC case on the limits of presidental power to issue edicts. George III in his 1763 edict gaving the potential manufacturing centers of western Pennsyklvania and Alabama to the tribes was one of the main causes of the American Revolution — historicans just don’t cite it very often, but Pennsylania’s Quackers certainly knew full well the potential of iron and coal and that America’s potential was larger than that of England. Darby was after all a Quacker who discovered how to use coal in smelting.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (37 votes cast)
    • liberty49Comment by liberty49
      January 31, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

      What kind of a hold or rather what is Harry holding over the heads of even the more moderate Democrats in the Senate?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (27 votes cast)
    • JuneComment by June
      January 31, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

      middleground-Not trying to be “picky”, but did you mean “Quakers”- -the religious group?  I was pretty certain you didn’t mean “quackers” – -like ducks, but thanks, you gave me a chuckle.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by TexasGuy
      January 31, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

      Thank you, June.  I was trying to think of a nice way to say the same thing but nothing I thought of would fly.  My thoughts took wing and I didn’t want to get stuck with the bill, but now the web of my thoughts is light as a feather.

      Well, if it looks like a _____, talks like a _____ and walks like a _____, it must be a Quaker.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
      January 31, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

      No, it’s a Quacker!  I’ve made these typos myself a million times, but this one was funny.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  3. wolfComment by wolf
    January 31, 2012 @ 9:56 am

    Hey NewsJunky…let’s just attach this to the next big bill that Obama pushes for.  Hehehe

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (31 votes cast)
    • newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
      January 31, 2012 @ 10:25 am

      Good idea, wolf!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (19 votes cast)
  4. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:00 am

    In any sane political world, he who would attack and eliminate a nation’s pipeline that would decrease our dependency and our need for Arab oil by 20% and the very source of the energy which drives our manufacting industry, would be considered an enemy of the state who has committed and act of war and treason upon the people. I need say no more. This man has shown his true colors. Obama again makes war upon the American people, American Industry, jobs and our elected representatives in Congress.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (63 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by TexasGuy
      January 31, 2012 @ 10:57 am

      In reality, the Keystone pipeline would almost exactly replace the oil we are buying from Venezuela (aka George Soros, Obamass’s buddy) which is another America-hater.  See: http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/video-canadian-talk-show-host-destroys-obama-over-keystone-decision.html

      It’s a very interesting clip about the pipeline from the perspective of a Canadian talk show host.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (33 votes cast)
    • JuneComment by June
      January 31, 2012 @ 5:01 pm

      inluminatuo-”he” showed his “true colors” before he ever “illegally” stole the office of “President of the United States” and in spite of my attempts to educate and enlighten people, they were “mesmerized” by the teleprompter speeches and the lies, lies, lies, spouted by the nazi-muslim!  Those lies were effectively “propagandized” by all the “lamestream media”!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
    • jkcarinaComment by jkcarina
      February 1, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

      Be careful of what you wish for~!~
            The Gov. of North Dakota does not think the pipeline is a good deal. If the refining of sand oil  crude was such a good deal and profitable why doesn’t Canada refine same ?     The refined crude from this pipeline,   will be sold overseas as the demand is greater than in the USA. The refiners in the USA like Texas  type crude which is a light crude.  Even the Alaska – heavy crude-  is sent overseas and that was built in the 70′s.  We should have had cheap energy for years and why not~?~?   Alaska crude is  the cheapest we produce in the in the USA.  Sand oil crude  is very expensive and costly to refine.  More Pollution and why should Texas get this pollution- southern states of USA-  with no benefit to the USA  user. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  5. KMcCComment by KMcC
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:08 am

    I am of the opinion that Obama wants to provide more funding to the Arab’s (Islam) so they can continue to mount  financial and physical attack on the USA.  This is the way he can continue to send our money to them without anyones approval !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (50 votes cast)
    • JuneComment by June
      January 31, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

      Keep telling Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership to “Ground Air Force One and burn obama-soetoro’s checkbook” – -if enough of US say it, often enough, just maybe they’ll listen!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
  6. KlausComment by Klaus
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:24 am

    Well, finally the Republicans are pushing back. This effort will of course be defeated by Harry Reid and his ilk, but at least it will put Democrats on record. I just hope Republicans  will use this when it gets close to election time.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (40 votes cast)
    • danielspickardComment by danielspickard
      January 31, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

      What you people may or may not know is that there are a large amount of Democrats in the senate who are coming up for reelection, and if they don’t want to see their cushy jobs go by the way-side, they’ll vote for a 2/3 vote in the senate.  This will give both the house and the senate enough votes to make it law, and there’s not a damn thing the president can do to stop it.  Now let’s see who wants to keep their cushy job in Washington DC.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (29 votes cast)
  7. orpheus75Comment by orpheus75
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:35 am

    Wow, about time someone grew a pair.  Even if the Senate blocks this, this can only hurt the Senate while still showing Obama that he is NOT a King or single entity ruler.  Then again, he’ll just get all indignant and push his nose in the air anyway while touting how the GOP wants to destroy the Earth and are standing in the way of his true job creation.  He’s too arrogant and narcissistic to actually get it.
    But my hats off to the House for pushing this! Keep it up!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (32 votes cast)
    • gunterComment by gunter
      January 31, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

      I wish that your phrase, “He’s too arrogant and narcissistic to actually get it,” was actually correct.  I believe arrogance, etc. is the least of his intentions.  He is trying to tear down this country day by day, and if we don’t stop him, by any means necessary, evict, convict, impeach, etc., we will be the ultimate losers in this battle.  This guy is an enemy of the state – and one day this will become evident to everyone.  Take it to the bank!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (21 votes cast)
  8. Spiritof76Comment by Spiritof76
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:38 am

    I will believe it when it actually happens.  Remember the debt limit bravado?  Also, Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot is only now being pursued in a handful of states.  It has nothing to do with his birth certificate or place of birth.  It has to do with the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen which courts have determined to mean both the father and mother to be citizens of the US at the time of birth of the natural born citizen.  Obama’s father was a citizen of a British Protectorate of Kenya and not a citizen of the US.  The Constitution has been usurped and deliberately mangled to the point of becoming a meaningless document today.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (32 votes cast)
    • gthComment by gth
      January 31, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

      Spiritof76 you are absolutely correct.  Everybody can twitch and fidget all they want about the birth certificate or anything else but the truth of the matter is the the fact that that BOTH of Obama’s parents were NOT U.S. Citizens means that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born.  For immediately practical purposes, that one fact alone renders all other speculation moot.

      To punctuate the hypocrisy it is my understanding that when vetting McCain’s eligibility they lingered long and long winded over his being born in (at that time) American controlled Panama – to two American Citizen parents – before seemingly almost begrudgingly concluding McCain is a U.S. Citizen.   

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (14 votes cast)
  9. MadeinAmerica33Comment by MadeinAmerica33
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:47 am

    It is about time actions are taken. Now , how about reductions to the budget and passing one! Seems the DEms would prefer to keep a floating budget/no budget at all.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (20 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      January 31, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

      He who politically does nothing, does nothing wrong,,,that he can be held accountable for. Too bad Obama and the Democrats did not follow the “First do no Harm” part of the Hyocratic Oath doctors take before they rammed Obamacare down our throats.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)
  10. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    January 31, 2012 @ 10:54 am

    All I can say is GOOD LUCK! I have little faith in the current republican leadership. They have time and time again failed to show any intestinal fortitude. Let alone a pair of cojones. We the people have to get off our butts and vote these low life liberals out of office.
    Then we need to go after the media with more stringent laws in regards to what they portray as the truth. We need an honest media not the slanted political biased crud the gives us now! If they outright lie they should be fined and if they take things out of context to change the truth then they should be fined. 
     I think if you fine these media companies they might start requiring honest among their journalist. There are very few real journalist out there. Most of them appear to be nothing but political mouth pieces for the liberals.
     
    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (28 votes cast)
    • newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
      January 31, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

      “All I can say is GOOD LUCK! I have little faith in the current republican leadership.”

      I’ll second that!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (16 votes cast)
    • SAnnComment by SAnn
      January 31, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

      Onewildman: It is your right to state ‘Impeach Obama’, but think about this, if you impeach him it will legalize him as president, which is a fallacy because he is a fraud and the Georgia courts are a beginning to prove that.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by TexasGuy
      January 31, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

      Not only that, but think about it: if Obamass is impeached, who becomes President?  Do you really want that?  The advantage is that Biden would be MUCH easier to defeat in a general election.  Other than that, I shudder to think of the things that could happen.  And for you folks who say it couldn’t be any worse than Obamass, consider how much easier it would be for the ones behind the scenes to manipulate Biden.  I think they would love to have that goofball in office.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      January 31, 2012 @ 3:16 pm

      SAnn, Impeaching Obama does not legitimize him. It gets him out of office now. as for the courts in George. They are only handling a case to keep Obama off the ballot. This does not address him in his current position as president.
       Fraud against the people is an impeachable offense. The sad truth is Obama has control of most of the courts in this nation. It should be apparent in the fact that judges dismissed cases against Obama without ever allowing any evidence to be placed before the court. Finally Obama has control of the DOJ and we cannot expect any truth from Holder. You have to cut the head off the snake to kill the body.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      January 31, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

      It does little to put faith in a powerless Republican Leadership unless we give them the power over all three branches of government in the next election. Unmotivated, sit at home Conservative voters have become part of the problem as well. The Senate MUST be recaptured so send your dollars, no matter how small to swing state Republican Senatorial candidates as well as your choice for President. If we Give them the House, the Senate and the Presidency and they still fail to act,,,, then it will be time the Tea Party separates and becomes their own poltical force to be contended with alone,,,,,Like the Republican Party did in the 1850′s

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
    • northernerComment by northerner
      January 31, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

      The downside to impeachment, we end up with Joe “Bite Me” as Prez.  Not sure how that would work out…just sayin’…you know, “Mr. Spontaneous Cerebral Infarction” himself.  That nickname comes from Iowahawk’s blog…btw.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Bayushi ZeroComment by Bayushi Zero
      January 31, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

      @inluminatuo:
      But how else would I vote but to sit at home?
       
      Oregon votes via mail. Also, I don’t have to worry about a thieving neo-liberal roommate stealing my ballot, as all of my current roommates (I have nine) are conservative or libertarian.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by TexasGuy
      January 31, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

      Bayushi Zero, if you have nine roommates then you have problems that none of us can solve.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  11. spincipherComment by spincipher
    January 31, 2012 @ 11:09 am

    Please allow me to cut to the chase.  The Kenyan isn’t stupid, ill-advised, or incompetent.  He’s hasn’t missed a step.  The Left’s plan is working to a tee. They’ve been wildly successful in efforts to destroy the United States of America.  Our nation is being subdued by a foreign national without one shot being fired, and the “luminaries” among us refuse to consider the eligibility issue. Okay, fine, “luminaries.” Continue to be “puffed-up” in your brilliant luminescence; the “Wrecking Ball in Chief” will continue to demolish America until it is too late.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (24 votes cast)
  12. waterwayComment by waterway
    January 31, 2012 @ 11:17 am

    Boy, there seems to be a lot of confusion on this topic.  From what I understand, the Governor of Nebraska asked that the pipeline be put on hold until his environmental concerns had been addressed.  Also, the oil would go to Texas for processing and then be sold on the open market, probably going to South America.  Then because this oil is so dirty, the toxic waste from processing is really bad and that gets to stay in Texas.  And lastly, the oil is highly corrosive and tends to destroy the very pipes that carry it.
    It seems that all we get from the deal the risks and very few of the rewards.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.5/5 (27 votes cast)
    • retiredmarinepilotComment by retiredmarinepilot
      January 31, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

      That corrosion you speak of Comrade, is put there intentionally to keep the pipes clean and the oil flowing.  It is standard practice in oil transport.  I was on scene commander for the Corps in Alaska when the Exxon Vadez went aground and all the tree huggers were crying about the permanent damage to the environment it caused.  A couple of years later, the environment was flourishing.  Exxon hired all the local one-toothers to polish the rocks along the shoreline to the tune of billions and that made everyone happy.  Had no affect on the environment one way or the other.  The oil is there, and is meant to be used.  Use it, or lose it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (21 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      January 31, 2012 @ 12:47 pm

       I don’t know where you get your information from but there is no peer-reviewed on the issue of corrosiveness  but there studies that show that this oil is no more corrosive than conventional oil. 
       IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (19 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      January 31, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

      “And lastly, the oil is highly corrosive and tends to destroy the very pipes that carry it.”

      So how have they dealt with this “problem” regarding the Alaska pipeline that has been operating for decades?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (16 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by TexasGuy
      January 31, 2012 @ 2:08 pm

      The oil is no more corrosive than the high-sulfer oil we are already pulling in and transporting by pipeline.  Oil in and of itself is not corrosive; what is corrosive is the acids that sometimes come with it.   The proposed Keystone pipeline will be lined and sealed, with state-of-the-art protections against corrosion.  Having said that, the Canadian oil is not the same as the Alaskan oil, which is not the same as light, sweet crude from West Texas.  Nevertheless it can, has and will be transported in a safe and environmentally sound way.  The alarmists and eco-fascists are making a lot of noise to cover up their lack of facts and knowledge.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  13. gthComment by gth
    January 31, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

    It is long, long overdue for the Republicans (or real Americans of any political stripe) in Congress to start growing enough spine to resist Obama’s relentless, audacious and galling accumulation and abuse of . . . power. 

    Even if unsuccessful (this time) it will finally serve notice to Obama that he and his abuse of Executive Branch power is – not – beneath the legitimate challenge by the Legislative Branch.   

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
  14. retiredmarinepilotComment by retiredmarinepilot
    January 31, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

    The question is, will senate democrats have the courage to go along with this bill?  I see them backing the President and nixing it.  We’ll see how bipartisan these maggots are once and for all.  Thank you to the three GOP senaters for bringing this forward.  I notice MSM has made no note of this at all, just like they aren’t talking about the Georgia court affair.  We are getting ripe for another civil war in this country.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      January 31, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

      Let’s hope there are enough Democrat Senators in those Red States that the pipelines go through to swing the issue in our favor. Any patriotic Senator no matter which party should vote for these jobs and energy independence.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  15. rickinnevComment by rickinnev
    January 31, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

    Finally! Republicans actin like Republicans..get some gonads boys and bypass this Chicago Crime Boy every chance you can..this lunatic is the worst enemy the United States of America has and is not one of us.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
  16. memawComment by memaw
    January 31, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

    spincypher, I fear that even if Georgia wins the non natural-born citizen thing, that he would still have to be impeached.  I think that, because he was elected by a majority of the states’ electoral votes.  This problem has not come up before when a candidate was actually elected.  The lawsuit might win in that he won’t be reelected, but impeachment takes so long, we might as well wait until after the election. 

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  17. krispykritterComment by krispykritter
    January 31, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

    With Georgia not putting Obama on the ballot that will give him an excuse to challenge the election process. Keeping him off the ballot in Ga will not matter as he is not going to win there anyhow. When he does not win, he will keep up with the challenges so he will remain in office untill the winner can be certified.This could go on for a long time and in the meantime he will go full bore to trash the nation.
      He is a dangerous man.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (11 votes cast)
  18. SweetOlBobComment by SweetOlBob
    January 31, 2012 @ 2:10 pm

    We are doing it again, boys and girls.  We are letting the SLL* in the white house bluff us out of backing him down.  His veto will get him unelected faster than anything else he has done. 

    And we’re doing something else again too !  We are sitting there on our thumbs and letting the “Old Boys” and the Manure Stream Media pick another McCin for us.  How many articles and comments have you read or heard of for Rick Santorum ?  He had to nearly have a beloved child die before the press, or the RNC mentioned his name.
    Yet he is the only candidate that came out as pro life, pro right to work, and anti shariah law.  The other two in the limelight just two step and waltz around any of these subjects that we all claim to support.

    Lets not forget that there THREE viable candidates, one of whom has only a fraction of baggage of the other two shooting war, insulters and mud slingers.

    If you take a look at Santorum, yoi’ll readily see the difference.
    *Slimey Little Liar

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  19. bna42Comment by bna42
    January 31, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

    “. . .the truth of the matter is the the fact that that BOTH of Obama’s parents were NOT U.S. Citizens means that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born.”

    GTH, I have heard this comment several times, I am aware of an 1875 ruling in Minor vs Happersett, but I also know that the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land and the citizenship of the parents was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. It has also been said that the Founding Fathers understood that natural-born meant 2 citizen parents, but how do we know what they understood if they didn’t bother to include such an important issue when defining the natural-born clause?

    What about all the “anchor babies” born on U.S. soil to parents which were neither U.S. citizens?  Do you really think the Supreme Court or Congress is going to deny that they are “natural-born” citizens should the issue ever arise?  How do you propose to get around the 14th Amendment which clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside”?  These children were BORN in the U.S. and they are certainly subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the U.S. as long as they reside here.  Do you think they will be denied natural-born status?  The only way Obama is going to be proved ineligible is to prove that he was NOT born in Hawaii, a state within the United States.  The idiots questioning McCain’s status were complaining about his being born outside the U.S., but they didn’t take into consideration that he was actually born on a U.S. military installation in Panama which is considered U.S. soil.  Can you explain WHY these same people didn’t question Obama’s status at the same time?
     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • thecitizenComment by thecitizen
      February 1, 2012 @ 2:08 am

      In reply I’ll use a specific example:  Senator Marco Rubio.  Rubio was born in the USA (an anchor baby) to immigrant parents who had not yet become ‘naturalized’ citizens.

      Rubio is NOT a natural born citizen.  He is a native born Citizen (as are all the ‘anchor babies’ and therefore entitled to basic citizenship privileges) under the 14th Amendment and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision which grants basic citizenship to individuals born in the USA.  But Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States per Article II, Section 1, and the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which states, ‘but no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the USA’.

      Which is probably why Rubio has unequivocally stated early and often, “I’m not interested (in a VP ticket).”

      Sooner or later some immigrants may become ‘naturalized’ by completing the immigration process but, they cannot ever be ‘natural born’ Citizens.  Offspring of two (2) naturalized citizens then becomes natural born citizens and are therefore eligible for the office of President or Vice President.

      IF – BO was born in the USA, fine, he’s a ‘native born‘ citizen (anchor baby), regardless the citizenship of both his parents. Absent BOTH of his parents being natural born or naturalized citizens BO cannot be a ‘natural born’ citizen and therefore IN-eligible for the office he now holds.  

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • gthComment by gth
      February 2, 2012 @ 12:57 am

      I’ve been away.  Sorry so long in reply.  thecitizen seems to have addressed most of your issues so I’ll try to answer the one he/she didn’t. 

      Can you explain WHY these same people didn’t question Obama’s status at the same time?

      The short answers are sheer audacity and gall by the Democrats, and, because they could! 

      A little bit longer answer is because at that time the Democrats held a majority in both houses (and still do in the senate).  That majority entitles them to select the chairman of ALL committees, sub committees, etc., etc., and I think, to have at least a one person majority in each committee.  The CHAIRMAN of each committee has the power to chose which topics are discussed, tabled, delayed, ignored, glossed over or completely buried.

      The chairman of the committee (judiciary, I think) vetting POTUS candidates chose to thoroughly interrogate McCain, and then had the audacity and gall to ignore or gloss over the vetting of Obama.

      Memory serves, the then Speaker of the house and chairman of some mucky-muck Democratic political committee (Pelosi) sent a letter to all 50 states declaring that Obama was eligible to be POTUS.

      Best as I can tell that was the official sum total vetting for BO.

      Important note:  Historically, much of the vetting of any candidate for any office has always been done by the due diligence of a responsible minded and very public MSM – free press.  Well folks, the times are a’changin/have changed.  Now, sadly, our once venerable ‘free press’ is rabidly biased and irresponsible.  So they duly vetted McCain, then not only gave BO a complete pass, but viciously attacked any/everyone who even whispered a challenge to BO’s eligibility.              

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      February 2, 2012 @ 10:27 am

      gth. I want you to know that there was a person in California of all places, who did file a law suit to stop Obama from being sworn in. The liberal judge he went before, told him he could bring action because Obama was not sworn in yet. Onec Obama was sworn in this person refiled his case. He was then told he had no standing because Obama had already been sworn in.
       So you see liberal judges are a big part of the problem. All the cases brought against Obama…Until Georgia were summarily dismissed with any evidence being herd. To the media they too are heavily liberal biased. How many stories have you seen on mainstream TV news have you seen? My bet none. What are they going to say if this judge rules against Obama? How can they explain away the fact they blacked coverage? I have read that their were reporters from numerous news organizations there. But wheres the coverage. 
       Even tho there is a first amendment protecting the news media it is time they can be sued for taking things out of context and using them in an obvious political attempt to bring a candidate down. those things are what you expect from Talk Show Host and other politicians and people like Sharpton and Jackson.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  20. sdbickComment by sdbick
    January 31, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  21. krispykritterComment by krispykritter
    January 31, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

    It is good that they are going to try to pass it without Obama.
     We could do a lot of things good for the country..sans Obama
     Obama is the greatest impediment to America.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  22. OldpatriotComment by gotammo46
    January 31, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

    Just one more purposeful move by a President determined to wreck the greatest country in the world.  For once, hats off to the Congress for making BHO take a stand and for finally calling him out.  We will all see if they have enough stones to stand up to him.  If so, it will be a first.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  23. questionmanComment by questionman
    February 1, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

    Analysis: (UPDATED) As stated above, Article II of the U.S. Constitution indeed specifies that only natural-born citizens are eligible for the office of the presidency:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Though the term “natural-born citizen” was left undefined by the Framers of the Constitution, it was broadly understood in English common law at the time as referring to one who possesses citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, which is still the general meaning of the phrase as it’s used today.

    In the United States there are two established legal principles upon which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus (“right of blood”), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens, and jus soli (“right of soil”), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on U.S. soil. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” all individuals born on U.S. soil are considered “birthright citizens” under the law regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

    Obama qualifies both by jus sanguinis (through his mother) and jus soli (by being born in Hawaii.

    It doesn’t even help your case considering There have been 97 lawsuits filed in state and federal courts over President Obama’s eligibility, and they all have been dismissed, rejected or denied.

    Even if the improbable worst case scenario happened, and Obama’s name were kept off the Georgia ballot, the Dem. party could put someone else’s name on the ballot as a “stand in”. Then, if the Dem. party won Georgia and its Electors, those Electors could vote for Obama.
    Besides, Obama is NOT likely to win Georgia in any scenario.

    I was right! The truth is out! The GOP knows they will lose in November. They know they don’t have ANYONE who can beat President Obama. They know that their candidates are a base of clowns, idiots, and bat-spit insane people. They know he’s gonna win a second term.
    So they resort to this. Claiming this is about the Constitution when they know damn well this is about race. Nothing more, Nothing less.
    (less)

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • gthComment by gth
      February 2, 2012 @ 1:17 am

      . . . jus sanguinus (“right of blood”), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens

      See the little – s – highlighted above, on ‘parents’?  In English, that little – s – is a pluralizer for nouns, meaning more than one, or in more simple terms it means . . . both . . . parents!

      Obama is a – native born – not ‘natural born’ citizen. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      February 2, 2012 @ 10:01 am

      questionman it is quite obvious that you do not understand what you read. you also did not read the decision in regards to the term “Natural Born Citizen” by the Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, It said: “Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
       That being said. the only one who has a race problem is you. This man is destroying the country. he is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of unemployed people. He has done all he can to hurt this nation and will do more harm if allowed. he is a traitor.
       
      First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.
      First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student then denies he was a foreigner.
      First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
      First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States.
      First President to violate the War Powers Act.
      First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
      First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
      First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
      First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
      First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
      First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
      First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
      First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
      First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.
      First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.
      First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
      First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
      First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
      First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they are allowed to locate a factory.
      First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
      First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
      First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
      First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.
      First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.
      First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
      First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
      First President to coddle American enemies while alienating America’s allies.
      First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.
      First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
      First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.
      First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
      First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
      First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense.
      First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an. Openly admit the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
       
      1. The individual mandate
      No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term.
       
      2. Medicaid coercion
      The Court will also be taking up Obamacare’s massive intrusion on federal-state relations in the form of a coercive Medicaid expansion. The law compels states to drastically increase their Medicaid expenditures and reorganize their health care bureaucracies, on penalty of losing all (not just additional) Medicaid funds. No state contemplated such a program when it signed onto Medicaid — Arizona was the last to join, in 1982 — and now no state can afford to withdraw. Indeed, even if some withdrawal mechanism existed, withdrawn states’ taxpayers would still be funding complying states’ Medicaid programs. As the Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Dole, there comes a point when “the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion.”
       
      3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a. “The Death Panel”)
      IPAB is the group of 15 presidential appointees who, beginning in 2014, are tasked with reducing Medicare spending. Any decisions IPAB makes automatically become law that can only be overridden by a three-fifths majority vote in the Senate. Unlike other federal agencies, IPAB is subject to no external review — no public notification in advance of proposed rules or opportunity for comment, no administrative guidelines and no judicial review. Medicare comprises about 13 percent of the federal budget, so that’s an awesome amount of power for Congress to delegate to unelected executive-branch bureaucrats. Indeed, it’s so basic a violation of traditional separation of powers that there’s no historical analog. The Goldwater Institute has filed a strong lawsuit challenging this (yet another) unprecedented aspect of Obamacare, which will continue wending its way through the lower courts regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the individual mandate and Medicaid-coercion issues.
       
      4. The Chrysler bailout
      Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors — who were entitled to “absolute priority” — into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses. This blatant crony capitalism — government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders — discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law.

      5. Dodd-Frank
      Intended to remedy weaknesses in the U.S. financial system — ensuring transparency and accountability — the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” empowered unlimited, unreviewable and often secret bureaucratic discretion. The administrative bodies the legislation created face no constraints on the exercise of arbitrary authority. For example, the Treasury Department now has broad and essentially unchecked power to seize banks and other financial entities that it determines are unsound but “too big to fail.” The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, meanwhile, craft, execute and interpret their own law. Due process and separation of powers issues abound.

      6. The deep-water drilling ban
      Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Interior Department issued a blanket six-month moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge struck down that moratorium as arbitrary and capricious, but the government issued a new order to replace the one that was struck down. That order was subsequently withdrawn, but the judge was so shocked by the administration’s conduct that he found the government in civil contempt of court.
       
      7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors
      In April of this year, President Obama released a draft executive order (still pending) that would require businesses with federal contracts to disclose independent expenditures on federal elections (political speech independent of candidates and parties). This order is intended to undermine the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision — allowing independent expenditures by corporations, unions and other associations — by discouraging federal contractors and their executives from engaging in political speech. Citizens United held that such expenditures do not enable the kind of quid pro quo corruption that campaign finance laws are allowed to regulate, so this draft executive order shows contempt for the First Amendment by chilling protected speech.

      8. Taxing political contributions
      Earlier this year, the IRS tried to muzzle political speech by asserting that donations to certain nonprofit advocacy groups (so-called 501(c)(4) organizations) would be subject to the gift tax. Historically, the IRS has not applied the gift tax in this way — donations to advocacy groups are not likely to be used to circumvent the estate tax — and when the IRS previously tried to tax political donations, it was rebuffed by the courts on the grounds that such transfers are not gifts (i.e., the donor is getting something in return). The IRS has since backed down, but the suspicion remains that it was trying to chill the political speech of those opposed to President Obama’s policies, in violation of the First Amendment.
       
      9. Graphic tobacco warnings
      Late last year, the FDA issued regulations requiring cigarette manufacturers to display graphic warnings on all packs of cigarettes that must cover at least 50% of the packaging and graphically portray tobacco-related illnesses. These warnings violate the First Amendment because the government is compelling the cigarette manufacturers to discourage their customers from buying their lawful products. Last month, a federal judge blocked the new regulation, which was due to go into effect in January, but the administration is appealing.

      10. Health care waivers
      The Department of Health and Human Services has granted nearly 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s onerous regulations. Nearly 20 percent of these waivers went to gourmet restaurants and other <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations " businesses in Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while Republican-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Even beyond the unseemly political favoritism, such arbitrary dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions ranging from equal protection to the “intelligible principle” required for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies. Unlike 17th-century English monarchs, American presidents were not granted dispensing powers: As we’ve seen, the power to suspend a legal requirement can and will be used to arbitrarily favor the politically connected. Moreover, most of these waivers were never authorized by Congress in the first place!
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  24. BlackthorneComment by Blackthorne
    May 5, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

    What few people realize and UNDERSTAND is that every drop of that Canadian oil will NOT enter the United States consumer supply! Zero. Zip. Nada. Ask yourself this: Since there are NUMEROUS oil refineries in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming, why would another 1200 miles of pipeline be built? Well, greed. See, all those refineries on The Gulf Coast of Texas were built there with the blessing of Washington politicians in what is termed a “Free Trade Zone.” Now, the refineries there refine crude into gasoline, home heating oil, diesel fuel, then pump them into waiting ocean-going tankers which transport it to China, Japan, Taiwan, India, The Philipines, etc. Uh huh. Oh, and being in that “FREE TRADE ZONE?” The oil moguls pay NO TAXES on their sales. And they sell the products at higher margins than domestically.

    This entire Keystone XL pipeline project is the biggest boondoggle against the American public EVER in history! The politicians who helped grease the skids to enrich the oil barons stand in line for the envelopes stuffed with dirty cash, and we’re stuffed with $4.00 a gallon gas. Click the following link and read about the United States becoming a NET EXPORTER of refined petroleum products, folks.

    http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-other-fuels-top-us-export-200739553.html

    Sharpsguy
    Sharpsguy

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      May 5, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

      Blackthorne What you fail to understand is… The fact this will create thousands of direct jobs which will create thousands of other non oil related jobs. second more oil on the world market. That intern drives crude oil prices down worldwide. That means that the price at the pump goes down.
      So yes Americans do get something out of this. The only boondoggle is being caused by Obama. And yes we do need this.

      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





The Loft Archives

  • September 2014
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer