Live life to the fullest, which can only be in Christ
Now that the dust has mostly settled and the train wreck is complete let’s take a look at the death of the Keystone XL Pipeline project and the subsequent body count.
A year after President Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline project under the knowingly false premise of being “rushed” by Republicans to move before the facts were ready, the State Department released a draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) providing little but confirmation of its previous SEIS, issued prior to the controversial pipeline skuttling as payoff to Mr. Obama’s radical environmentalist base.
Within that original SEIS draft, of which Mr. Obama and the State Dept were fully aware when falsely claiming they had not had sufficient time for review, was the following excepts, among others. Keep in mind these are all excepts from the previous SEIS available in 2011, prior to the political maneuvering.
Notice that it had already been reviewed for 2.5 years (as you will see) and concluded to be as safe or safer than existing pipeline systems prior to false claims of insufficient time for review.
In fact, notice here the use of the term “Conclusions”
And when were these conclusions made available to the Obama Administration? Not after the 2012 election. No, not even after President Obama claimed the Republican Party was forcing him to make a decision before he had the facts. No, President Obama had the conclusions in his hands at least 18 months before he made his false claim and sent the State Dept on a wild goose chase over an already answered water quality question as you can see by the date below.
But who’s “conclusions was the Administration hiding?” Was the U.S. State Dept relying on its own opinion? Not at all. They were relying on numerous State and Federal entities normally held in high regard by the left, at least when the left thinks its water is being carried for them.
University of Nebraska, University of South Dakota, National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
and you guessed it…the Grand Daddy of them all,
You read it right. The State Dept provided their conclusions in August 2010 based on affirmation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Furthermore, the White House would have you falsely believe there was a lack of clear conclusions as to the benefit of building the pipeline. However the U.S. State Dept, after careful consideration of both environmental and economic impact said this,
This came as close as an agency will ever do at endorsing industrial activity short of Quid pro quo backroom power brokering deals involving over priced and less efficient taxpayer subsidized wind mills and solar panels.
The Administration would also falsely have you believe the existing area proposed for the Keystone Pipeline is pristine and untouched by any existing pipeline system. That could not be further from the truth.
The following is an example of available maps depicting existing pipeline systems across the U.S. including over the Ogallala Aquifer.
Not only is the proposed route not a threat to the Ogallala Aquifer, drinking water from it and other sources are not even crossed.
In fact, when considering all interests involved, the report concluded that doing nothing was not even as preferable to building the pipeline.
Furthermore, the report revealed that sufficient time was taken to consider many major alternative routes and that none were found preferable to that proposed by the TransCanada Corporation
In fact 14 major route alternatives were considered as well as 100’s of minor alternative routes in consultation with other State and Federal agencies.
Considerations were even given to route adjustments deemed necessary from any construction discoveries impacting environmental concerns.
Now consider the following questions when reading the next excerpt from the Federal PHMSA:
- Does the left not love Government environmental oversight of industry?
- If the left does not accept conclusions of said Govt bureaucracies then why do bureaucracies exist?
As you can see the Obama Administration knew full well that the impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline project would be no more wrought with environmental risks than other existing successful projects which utilize decades old environmental safety technology much inferior to today’s technology, projects such as the Trans Alaskan Pipeline, which faced far greater geologic and infrastructure challenges than that of proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.
And what of the figurative “body count?”
The independent Perryman Group study calculated permanent jobs directly and indirectly resulting from the pipeline would have ranged from 250,000 to 550,000 depending on the price of oil, which the study calculated prior to the Obama Administration’s war on energy, which could mean the 550k number would now be a lowball proposition.
As you have read, the State Dept, utilizing Federal Government environmental experts as well as regional University experts, both groups the left loves and empowers, gave their stamp of approval prior to Obama’s decision to make North American energy production and transport his own personal political football. You can see that the expert conclusions were readily available to the Obama Administration so one must ask themselves “If the Entire Administration didn’t know the EPA approved the pipeline, then why don’t they read their own reports?
The answer of course lies in the myriad of failed “green energy” firms who’s “keystone” investors donated heavily to the Obama campaign in 2008 and were tapping huge, seemingly unending reserves in the form of unprecedented taxpayer guaranteed loans.
Foul Intimidation Coming From Obama’s White House
THE CONSTITUTION, VATTEL, AND “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
By Publius Huldah
July 18, 2012
We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:
Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress can define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.
Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.
Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.
Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]
But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!
The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.
Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”. Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Read more here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm
While I disagree with Anita that a better “get out the vote” campaign would have overcome this level of vote fraud I still love her message of conservative / libertarian activism
Speaks for itself