TransCanada Sues Obama Over KeystoneXL

TransCanada, a Calgary based company, is suing the Obama Administration for the rejection of their application for a permit to allow the KeystoneXL pipeline to cross the American/Canadian border. Their lawsuit claims President Barack Obama overstepped his authority by taking action to deny the permit. Their suit also seeks the recovery of damages in the amount over $15 billion. The suit was filed in federal court in Texas yesterday under authority from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

TransCanada claims that when the president stepped in and swashed the KeystoneXL project he made an unconstitutional move that should be left to the Congress. The Constitution grants authority of the regulation of commerce to the Congress, not the president.

The biggest issue here should be the fact that it took 7 years for the decision on TransCanada’s permit to be decided. That is ridiculous. That long of a wait should be seen as a clear violation of Due Process. The Obama Administration may have taken the strategy of just trying to wait out TransCanada knowing that every day they waited was another day the company was losing money. If that was Obama’s plan then that is dirty pool. He deserves to be called out for it.

Obama really shot himself in the foot when he offered his explanation for the rejection. He told us he needed to worry about his image as a leader on climate change saying, “Frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.” Or in other words, if he had accepted it then it would make him look bad with the green lobby. TransCanada is correct in their description of the rejection when they said, “misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science — rhetoric won out over reason.”

Obama had his head in the clouds on this one. Don’t you just love to hear the liberal left cry about special interest groups? The green lobby controlled the president on this one and Obama’s explanation proves it. It is tough to take Obama’s words as anything other than a political job where “symbolism was chosen over merit.”


Too Much Ice Cancels Global Warming Expedition

An article in American Action News made me laugh, linked here. The article reported that an expedition to study global warming was canceled because of too much ice. That is pretty solid comedy if only it weren’t true.

Ha! Ice, solid comedy, I slay me!

Remember back in 2007 when Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for making a movie? He didn’t win a Nobel Prize for climatology or any field of science connected to the wrongly dubbed “climate change” that we hear sooooo much about. So how come all the prophecies made in Gore’s climate themed Nobel Peace Prize winning film have yet to come true? My favorite outrageous claim was that the land which houses the World Trade Center would be underwater and we would have lost Miami by now, both to raising ocean levels. But that hasn’t happened. And now NASA is saying that ice mass in the polar caps has increased since Gore went to Hollywood. Oh my.

For the millionth time; it’s called climate, not “climate change,” and it does not work on the same calendar humans use to chart our lives because the climate of the Earth is a massive, ever-changing, force of nature.

Anyways, the article in American Action News didn’t offer much other than the expedition was called off, but what was noteworthy was a comment below the article from a man named Ken Dunipace. He pulls back the curtain on the global warming “science” to oppose the climate alarmists for the frauds they are. His comment has been screen shot and pasted below in two pics, in order to fit it all (you can click on the pic for a larger version if the text is too small).

on climate 1climate 2

Another Major Accomplishment for Sec. Kerry

News broke today on Russia’s escalation of their military involvement in Syria. Russia has flown air missions that target ISIL and Syrian rebels who are fighting Assad. This coming right after Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin met with President Barack Obama. And this is, of course, coming years after Obama’s “red line” comment and prediction that Assad’s days are numbered. Our administration once again proves foolish and naïve on the world stage.

Secretary of State John Kerry was quickly put into action and just like negotiating with Iran he came through big time. Kerry told reporters that he and the Russian foreign minister “agreed on the imperative of as soon as possible, perhaps even as soon as tomorrow, but as soon as possible, having a military-to-military deconfliction discussion.” Getting to use “imperative” and “as soon as possible” in the same sentence is good work. This is clearly a major accomplishment by way of Kerry and Clinton Secretary of State standards of accomplishment. Well done.

Russia’s aggression is exactly what Republican presidential contender Senator Marco Rubio said would happen. We need a strong and knowledgeable individual in the White House. As the campaign trail continues to bend and twist Rubio continues to show the versatility and depth needed to handle the wide range of responsibilities that come across the president’s desk.

But for now let’s forget about the campaigns and cheer Secretary John Kerry for another major accomplishment; he is going to have a meeting “as soon as possible, perhaps even as soon as tomorrow, but as soon as possible.” Impressive.

Kerry on twitter

How Not to Explain the Iran Nuclear Talks

This Morning I was obliged to baby-sit my friend’s eight year-old daughter. I’m not great with kids, so I parked her in front of the TV and gave her the rest of the Jell-O that I made last night and sat at my nearby computer to get some work done. The TV was on a cable news channel and did not think to change it. We sat quietly until she suddenly asked, “What are the Iran nuclear talks?”

“The U.S. and other big countries in the world are trying to make a deal with Iran to stop them from making an atomic bomb,” I replied.


“The U.S. and the rest of the World are afraid that if Iran makes an atomic bomb then that could create the desire for other countries to make their own atomic bomb. Also Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, so the World fears that it would be dangerous if they had nuclear weapons.”

“What is a state sponsor of terrorism?”

“That means Iran gives money and weapons to groups that make terrorist attacks on other countries.”

“So Iran is bad?”

“Yes, they do bad things.”

“Then why are we talking to Iran if they are bad?”

“They are doing something that we don’t want them to do so we are trying to make a compromise with them so they will stop.”

“Even though they shouldn’t be doing it anyways?”


“Does compromise means we are giving them something so they will give us something in return?”

“That’s right.”

“What are we giving them?”

“We have been doing things to hurt Iran’s economy because they are a state sponsor of terrorism and we started doing more things to hurt their economy since they have been trying to make an atomic bomb. So if they stop trying to make a bomb, we will stop hurting their economy. That way the Iran economy can grow and become strong because right now it is in bad shape.”

“What if they stop trying to make a bomb but keep supporting terrorism?”

“I guess the U.S. we still stop hurting their economy as long as they do not make an atomic bomb. They are not really talking about the terrorist stuff right now.”

“So they can still be bad and get what they want?”

“In a way yes, because they are treating ‘Iran being bad’ to other countries and Iran making a bomb as two separate issues. Iran making a bomb is the more important issue.”

“So Iran can be terrorists if they never make a bomb?”

“Well the deal that they are talking about would only be good for 15 years. They wouldn’t be able to make an atomic bomb during the next 15 years.”

“What happens after 15 years? Can they make a bomb then?”

“Well, the World would probably talk to them out of it again and make another deal.”

“What can the World give Iran if they already get what they want now?”

“I don’t know, a lot can change in 15 years. Maybe they can give them extra stuff.”

“But if we stop hurting them then they could be strong enough not want anything else right?”

“I guess so.”

“But if we keep hurting their economy then wouldn’t Iran be too poor to make a bomb anyway?”

“Maybe, but probably not. It depends on how much the government of Iran wants the bomb vs. how bad the living situation is for its people. Like if things get really bad, then the people could overthrow the government but that is unlikely because the government has stopped uprisings before. What I mean is that making a deal with Iran is the best way to stop Iran from making a bomb short of staring a war.”

“What is the best way to stop Iran from being a terrorist?”

“I’m not sure. They haven’t mentioned anything about that.”

“So you’re saying Iran is bad so we are hurting their economy. They are also making a bomb and we want them to stop. So if they stop making a bomb, we will stop hurting their economy and they can keep being bad while their economy gets strong. But after 15 years they can make a bomb anyways?”


“So people can keep being bad without any consequences as long as they promise not do something else that they shouldn’t be doing for only a predetermined amount of time?”

“Yes, but you’ll have to wait until your mother gets back.”

Kerry Iran talks

Posted by Jeff Farmer, Winchester VA