Showing posts with label approve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label approve. Show all posts

Friday, January 31, 2014

Keystone report raises pressure on Obama to approve pipeline




WASHINGTON Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:30pm EST



Protesters rally about the Keystone XL oil pipeline along U.S. President Barack Obama

Protesters rally about the Keystone XL oil pipeline along U.S. President Barack Obama’s motorcade as he arrives at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington July 11, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas




WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Pressure for President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline increased on Friday after a State Department report played down the impact it would have on climate change, irking environmentalists and delighting the project’s proponents.


The agency made no recommendation on whether Obama should grant or deny an application by TransCanada Corp to build the $ 5.4 billion line, which would transport crude from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.


But the State Department said blocking Keystone XL – or any pipeline – would do little to slow the expansion of Canada’s vast oil sands, maintaining the central finding of a preliminary study issued last year.


The 11-volume report’s publication opened a new and potentially final stage of an approval process that has dragged for more than five years, taking on enormous political significance.


“President Obama is out of excuses,” said John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and a big Keystone proponent.


“If President Obama wants to make this a ‘year of action’ he will stand up to the extreme Left in his own party, stand with the overwhelming majority of American people, and approve this critical project.”


With another three-month review process ahead and no firm deadline for a decision on the 1,179-mile line, the issue threatens to drag into the 2014 congressional elections in November.


Obama is under pressure from several vulnerable Democratic senators who favor the pipeline and face re-election at a time when Democrats are scrambling to hang on to control of the U.S. Senate. The project looms over the president’s economic and environmental legacy.


Canada’s oil sands are the world’s third largest crude oil reserve, behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and the largest open to private investment. The oil sands contain more than 170 billion barrels of bitumen, a tar-like form of crude that requires more energy to extract than conventional oil.


The report offered some solace to climate activists who want to stem the rise of oil sands output. It reaffirmed that Canada’s heavy crude reserves require more energy to produce and process – and therefore result in higher greenhouse gas emissions – than conventional oil fields.


But after extensive economic modeling, it found that the line itself would not slow or accelerate the development of the oil sands. That finding is largely in line with what oil industry executives have long argued.


“This final review puts to rest any credible concerns about the pipeline’s potential negative impact on the environment,” said Jack Gerard, head of the oil industry’s top lobby group, the American Petroleum Institute.


NOT OVER


Obama signaled in a major climate speech in June that he was closely watching the review and said he believed the pipeline should go ahead “only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”


Keystone XL opponents and the State Department itself warned that the process was not over.


“This environmental impact study … is by no means the final word on the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning group with strong ties to the White House. “I hope that President Obama will hold firm on the commitment he made in his climate speech and reject the pipeline.”


TransCanada Corp shares finished up more than 1 percent on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Friday, reflecting optimism that the report was positive for the eventual construction of the pipeline.


The company’s chief executive officer, Russ Girling, said the case for the Keystone pipeline “is as strong as ever.”


Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said he hoped Obama would make a decision in the first half of 2014.


“This has been a lengthy and thorough review process. The benefits to the United States and Canada are clear. We await a timely decision on this project,” Oliver said.


He described the environmental review “as a positive step on the route to approval.”


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will consult with eight government agencies over the next three months about the broader national security, economic and environmental impacts of the project before deciding whether he thinks it should go ahead. There is no deadline, and the report does not seek to address some of the larger strategic questions involved.


The public will have 30 days to comment, beginning next week. A previous comment period in March yielded more than 1.5 million comments.


The open-ended review made some pipeline supporters nervous.


“The administration’s strategy is to defeat the project with continuing delays,” said Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, where the oil boom has boosted truck and rail traffic.


Some North Dakota oil would move on the pipeline, designed to take as much as 830,000 barrels of crude per day from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would meet the project’s already complete southern leg to take the crude to the refining hub on the Texas Gulf coast.


PREMATURE VICTORY?


The State Department’s study found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is about 17 percent more “greenhouse gas intensive” than average oil used in the United States because of the energy required to extract and process it. It is 2 to 10 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than the heavy grades of oil it replaces.


The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, said the report shows the pipeline would create as much pollution each year as the exhaust from almost 6 million cars – evidence that it said will be hard for Obama to ignore.


“Reports of an industry victory on the Keystone XL pipeline are vastly over-stated,” said Michael Brune, the group’s executive director.


The study found oil sands development could be curbed if pipelines were not expanded, oil prices were low, and rail shipping costs soared.


The study examines data from a 2010 pipeline spill in Michigan, where more than 20,000 barrels gushed into the Kalamazoo River system. Pipeline operator Enbridge Energy Partners was ordered last summer to do more to dredge up oil from the bottom of the river.


(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferarro and Timothy Gardner; Editing by Peter Henderson, Jonathan Leff, Grant McCool and Mohammad Zargham)





Reuters: Business News



Keystone report raises pressure on Obama to approve pipeline

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Congress Rushing to Approve 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)


Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
December 12, 2013


The House and Senate Armed Services Committees have reached an agreement on the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).


e706780b43ac1d9045daf15d3361e855_MAs approved by the committees, the text of the latest iteration of the bill is derived from H.R. 1960, which passed the House on June 14 by a vote of 315-108 and S. 1197, a version passed by a Senate committee by a vote of 23-3, later that same day.


House and Senate leaders hurried to hammer out a mutually acceptable measure so as to get the whole package passed before the end of the year.


Reading the mainstream (official) press, one would believe that the NDAA is nothing more nefarious than a necessary replenishing of Pentagon funds. Readers of The New American know, however, there is much more than budget issues contained in the legislation.


For two years, the NDAA included provisions that purported to authorize the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain any person (including an American citizen) who he believes “represent[s] an enduring security threat to the United States.”


Such an immense grant of power is not only unconscionable, but unconstitutional, as well.


Regardless of promises to the contrary made every year since 2011 by President Obama, the language of the NDAA places every citizen of the United States within the universe of potential “covered persons.” Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and to nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.


Finally, there is in the NDAA for 2014 a frightening fusion of the federal government’s constant surveillance of innocent Americans and the assistance it will give to justifying the indefinite detention of anyone labeled an enemy of the regime.


Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House and Senate committees this week expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).


Section 1071(a) authorizes the secretary of defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center.’” According to the text of the latest version of the NDAA, the center’s task would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”


In order to accomplish the center’s purpose, the secretary of defense will create an information exchange in cooperation with the director of national intelligence.


Key to the functioning of this information exchange will be the collection of “captured records.” Section 1071(g)(1), defines a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”


When read in conjunction with the provision of the AUMF that left the War on Terror open-ended and the prior NDAAs’ classification of the United States as a battleground in that unconstitutional war, and you’ve got a powerful combination that can knock out the entire Bill of Rights.


Finally, when all the foregoing is couched within the context of the revelations regarding the dragnet surveillance programs of the NSA, it becomes evident that anyone’s phone records, e-mail messages, browsing history, text messages, and social media posts could qualify as a “captured record.”


After being seized by the NSA (or some other federal surveillance apparatus), the materials would be processed by the Conflict Records Research Center created by this bill. This center’s massive database of electronic information and its collaboration with the NSA converts the United States into a constantly monitored holding cell and all its citizens and residents into suspects. All, of course, in the name of the security of the homeland.


Although the outlook is dire, there are those willing to stand and oppose the threats to liberty posed by the NDAA.


For example, libertarian icon and former presidential candidate Ron Paul recently interviewed Daphne Lee, a lady who calls herself “just a mom” but who made an impassioned speech in Nevada against the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA. After talking to Lee, Paul announced that he would work to fight enforcement of unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA nationwide.


Additionally, the People Against the NDAA (PANDA) organization is promoting passage of anti-NDAA legislation in towns, counties, and states. On a website devoted to chronicling these efforts, PANDA lists 27 cities, 17 counties, and 25 states that have enacted or are considering bills or resolutions refusing to execute any element of the NDAA that violates the constitutionally protected liberties of its citizens.


While these bills are at various spots along the process of becoming laws, one state recently signed on to thwart the abuse of power authorized by the NDAA.


On October 1, Governor Jerry Brown announced that he had signed AB 351 into law.


The new statute, called the California Liberty Preservation Act, outlaws the participation of any agency of the state of California, any political subdivision of the state, employee of a state or local agency, or member of the California National Guard from


knowingly aiding an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (1) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (2) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted in 2001, or (3) any other federal law, except as specified, if the state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the California National Guard would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state by providing that aid….


… knowingly using state funds and funds allocated by the state to those local entities on and after January 1, 2013, to engage in any activity that aids an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any person within California for purposes of implementing Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA or the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, if that activity would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state, as specified.



Interpreted broadly, the Liberty Preservation Act would outlaw state cooperation in any federal act which violates the state or federal constitutions. Although Governor Brown almost certainly didn’t intend the provisions of the law to be applied this liberally, the black letter could arguably be used to protect citizens of California from deprivation of a wide panoply of fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.


It will be worth watching court dockets in California to see if anyone relies on this language to fight the state’s infamous disarmament statutes.


Originally sponsored by State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a conservative Republican (now running for governor), the bill’s senate sponsor was one of that body’s “most liberal lawmakers,” Mark Leno.


“Indefinite detention, by its very definition, means that we are abrogating, suspending, just throwing away the basic foundations of our Constitution and of our nation,” Leno said.


After being warned by some of his fellow Democrats that siding with Donnelly was tantamount to political suicide, Leno stood firm in defense of liberty. “It doesn’t matter where one finds oneself on the political spectrum,” he said. “These two sections of this national defense act are wrong, unconstitutional and never should have been included.”


Then, in November, a similar bill was introduced to the Ohio State House of Representatives by state Representatives Jim Butler and Ron Young. This concurrent resolution condemns “Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012” and urges “the Attorney General of the State of Ohio to bring suit to challenge the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”


While neither the California law nor the Ohio resolution is a perfect example of absolute nullification of an unconstitutional federal act, both stand as examples to other state legislatures of attempts to heed the counsel given by James Madison to states that want to resist federal consolidation of all power.


In The Federalist, no. 46, Madison recommended that an effective way to thwart federal overreach is for agents of the states to refuse “to cooperate with officers of the Union.”


In order for Fiscal Year 2014 NDAA to become the “law,” the House of Representatives must pass the bill this week and the Senate would have to follow suit by the end of next week. This gives Americans only a few short days to contact their federal representatives and senators and encourage them to reject any version of the NDAA that infringes on the timeless civil liberties protected by the Constitution.


This article was posted: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 1:47 pm









Infowars



Congress Rushing to Approve 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Obama asks Congress to approve military strike against Syria




U.S. President Barack Obama makes remarks on the situation in Syria, at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington August 31, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Theiler


1 of 20. U.S. President Barack Obama makes remarks on the situation in Syria, at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington August 31, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Mike Theiler






WASHINGTON | Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:10pm EDT



WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama stepped back from the brink on Saturday and delayed an imminent military strike against Syria to seek approval from the U.S. Congress in a gamble that will test his ability to project American strength abroad and deploy his own power at home.


Before Obama put on the brakes, the path had been cleared for a U.S. assault. Navy ships were in place and awaiting orders to launch missiles, and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence of a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people.


But Obama decided to seek the backing of U.S. lawmakers before attacking, as polls showed strong opposition from Americans already weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Approval will take at least 10 days, if it comes at all.


“Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move as one nation,” Obama said in a dramatic shift he announced in the White House Rose Garden.


Obama, whose credibility has been called into question for not punishing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for earlier poison gas attacks, warned lawmakers they must consider the cost of doing nothing in Syria.


“Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” he said.


Obama’s approach, which he debated with top aides on Friday night, has left in doubt whether the United States will carry through with the military steps that the president has already approved.


Backing from Congress is by no means assured, with many Democrats and Republicans uneasy about intervening in a distant civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed over the past 2-1/2 years.


Obama’s decision to consult with Congress is in line with an argument he has often made for a more collaborative approach to foreign policy in Washington than there was under his predecessor, President George. W. Bush.


But another reason to bring lawmakers into the process is that Obama might be able to share some of the responsibility with Congress if it votes for strikes on Syria that turn badly for Washington.


Lawmakers for the most part welcomed Obama’s decision but looked in no hurry to come back to Washington early from their summer recess, which lasts until September 9.


“In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9,” said John Boehner, the top U.S. Republican and speaker of the House of Representatives. “This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”


House members are to receive a classified briefing on Sunday from administration officials to hear the case against Syria. Officials briefed senators on Saturday.


British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was unable to persuade the British parliament to back action earlier in the week, welcomed Obama’s decision, as did the government of French President Francois Hollande, with whom Obama spoke on Saturday.


In rebel-held areas of Syria, there was a sense of frustration and disappointment.


“God curse everything,” said an activist in the rebel-held territory of Idlib, Ahmad Kaddour. “We’ve become just a game to people. I think this is going to make the situation worse for those of us living here.”


A Reuters reporter visited a group of fighters and activists sitting in a home in Aleppo city. They had not watched Obama’s speech, and when told of the president’s decision, they all agreed it meant there would be no U.S. strike.


“This is the same old hesitancy that the United States have tortured us with since the beginning of the revolution,” one said.


DECISION MADE FRIDAY NIGHT


At the White House, Obama’s decision surprised senior aides when he informed them of it on Friday night after they had concluded the president already had the legal authority to act on his own.


Officials said he laid out the idea of going to Congress during a 45-minute walk on the White House south grounds with chief of staff Denis McDonough, then debated the risks with others in his inner circle, some of whom argued against his logic.


Senior administration officials who briefed reporters after Obama spoke said they believed Congress will vote in favor of a U.S. military strike because of the threat chemical weapons pose to the security of U.S. ally Israel and other friends in the region.


Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who is a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said failure by Obama to get his way “could be something that not only dominates September and October, but could shadow the rest of the administration.”


Obama sent draft legislation to Congress on Saturday formally asking for approval to use military force in Syria to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade” the potential for further chemical attacks.


The August 21 attack was the deadliest single incident of the Syrian civil war and the world’s worst use of chemical arms since Iraq’s Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988.


The team of U.N. experts arrived in the Netherlands on Saturday carrying evidence and samples relating to the attack. They had flown from Beirut after crossing the border into Lebanon by road earlier in the day.


The 20-member team had arrived in Damascus three days before the attack to investigate earlier accusations of chemical weapons use. After days holed up in a hotel, they visited the sites several times, taking blood and tissue samples from victims and from soldiers at a government hospital.


War weariness cost Washington the support of its closest ally: Britain has voiced backing for action but was forced to drop any plans for a military strike after Cameron unexpectedly lost a vote over it in parliament on Thursday, straining London’s “special relationship” with Washington.


Syria and its main ally, Russia, say rebels carried out the gas attack as a provocation. Moscow has repeatedly used its U.N. Security Council veto to block action against Syria and says any attack would be illegal and only inflame the civil war there.


“I am convinced that (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday.


Syria’s Foreign Ministry repeated its denial that the government had used chemical weapons against its own people. Washington says the Syrian denials are not credible and that the rebels would not have been able to launch such an attack.


Syria’s neighbor Turkey backs the use of force. The Arab League has said Syria is to blame for the chemical attack but so far stopped short of explicitly endorsing Western military strikes. Arab League foreign ministers are due to meet in Cairo on Sunday.


Iran, Assad’s main ally in the region, has condemned plans for strikes and warned of wider war.


(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria, Patricia Zengerle, Douwe Miedema and Paul Eckert in Washington; Denis Dyomkin in Vladivostok, and Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman; Writing by Steve Holland; Editing by Alistair Bell and Mohammad Zargham)






Reuters: Politics



Obama asks Congress to approve military strike against Syria

Sunday, August 11, 2013

41%: Obama’s Approval Drops to Lowest Level in Gallup Poll Since 2011


CNS News
August 11, 2013


The percentage of Americans saying that they approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president dropped to 41% in the Gallup poll’s three-day tracking average, the lowest it has been since Dec. 28, 2011.


Obama’s approval rating plunged in polling data the evening after he gave a rare afternoon press conference.


In Gallup’s three-day tracking period that ended on Thursday, Aug. 8, 44 percent had said they approve of the job he is doing and 46 percent said they disapproved.


One day later, in the tracking period that ended on Friday, Aug. 9, Obama’s approval was at 41 percent and his disapproval at 50 percent.


This article was posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 at 4:21 am


Tags: domestic news, government corruption










Infowars



41%: Obama’s Approval Drops to Lowest Level in Gallup Poll Since 2011

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Shareholders Approve Plan to Split News Corp.


News Corporation inched closer toward separating itself into two publicly traded companies on Tuesday, as shareholders approved a plan to sever the company’s publishing assets from its more lucrative entertainment divisions.




Shareholders attended a special meeting at the media company’s New York headquarters early Tuesday where they voted in favor of the formation of two separate companies. The larger company, 21st Century Fox, will include Fox Broadcasting, cable channels like Fox News and FX, and the Hollywood studio; a newly formed News Corporation will contain newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, the HarperCollins publishing company and a handful of Australian television assets.


Investors have for years grumbled that many of News Corporation’s more than 120 newspapers were a drag on the company, in contrast to the strong performance of its cable television assets. Those complaints became more pronounced in July 2011 when a phone hacking scandal erupted at the company’s British newspaper division, prompting the chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, to abruptly close News of the World, one of News Corporation’s most profitable papers.


“With the split of our company, and the birth of the new News Corp., I have been given the extraordinary opportunity most people never get in their lifetime: the chance to do it all over again,” Mr. Murdoch told investors at a News Corporation investor day held May 28.


The vote on Tuesday was partly a foregone conclusion. The Murdoch family controls 39.4 percent of the company’s Class B voting shares. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia controls another 7 percent and typically votes in support of the Murdoch family.


Representatives from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, a charitable organization and institutional investor that owns 3,686 Class B voting shares, on Tuesday protested the dual-class stock structure that allows the Murdoch family to control voting. That structure will also exist in both 21st Century Fox and the new News Corporation.


The company is expected to split officially on June 28.




NYT > Global Home



Shareholders Approve Plan to Split News Corp.