Archives for January 2013

Environmental concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline have been addressed and supporters say President Obama is officially out of excuses for delaying a project that would create tens of thousands of jobs.

Keystone would connect the Canadian oil sands to the U.S. gulf coast and purportedly spark job creation in every state along the way.

In the minds of Keystone supporters, the last hurdle was cleared when Nebraska Gov. David Heineman approved a new route for the pipeline through his state that protects ecologically sensitive areas.

“That was one of the main reasons that the president rejected this back in January of 2012 was that there were environmental concerns about the route that it was going to take,” said Mississippi Rep. Gregg Harper, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and one of the strongest voices for the pipeline in Congress.

“There’s really nothing now that I can see that would be holding the president back from going ahead and making this decision and approving this, particularly in light of where we are in the economy and the wide bipartisan supportfor approving this to bring in the oil from the oil sands in Canada.  It makes perfect sense.”

The pipeline would snake through several states before reaching the Gulf of Mexico along the Texas coast.  Those states would enjoy an economic boost from the construction and maintenance of the pipeline.  However, Mississippi is not one of those states.  So why is Harper such a passionate supporter?

“None of this pipeline would go through my state, but if we’re going to become energy independent in North America, this is a key component of that,” said Harper.  “Having available, cheap energy in this country is a necessity in this country and so much of what we do depends on that for our business needs.”

“When Libya had a crisis, they only produced two percent of the world’s oil but it caused a 10 percent spike in oil prices.  If we look at that.  If we look at our balance of trade deficit as it relates to oil and how much we use per day in this country, this makes great sense,” said Harper.  “I hope it would be one of the components as we try to strive for that energy independence.”

In addition to the environmental clash in this debate, one the points of greatest debate is whether this oil will actually be consumed in the United States.  Supporters say yes, while critics say the U.S. is just a staging ground for shipping that energy overseas, particularly to China.

“There’s a false premise in that argument we get from the left, because by doing nothing, where is it going?” asked Harper.  “It’s going to go to China and China has an insatiable appetite for oil right now.  We’re going to be competing with them on the global market for much of this supply, so whether some of it goes for use here in the states or some of it is exported from the Texas gulf coast, either way it’s going to be good for our country.”

Harper says the job creation potential from the pipeline is also a major argument in favor of the project.  Most estimates show approximately 20,000 jobs could be created in the construction and maintenance of the pipeline.  He says the latest economic news should give Keystone an additional shot in the arm.

“As we look at what’s happened with the drop in the GDP, the negative growth, that typically is followed months later by by a spike or an increase in the unemployment rate,” said Harper.  “So why not get ahead of that curve a little bit and let’s have something that will be a real boost.  This is ready to go and we shouldn’t delay it any further.”

Harper holds out some hope that Obama will approve the pipeline now that Nebraska has approved the alternate route.  The pipeline has bipartisan support, especially in the Senate and several labor unions are strong supporters of the project as well.

Harper says we should know by late spring if Obama intends to relent and allow Keystone to be built.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged that Barney Frank did not get appointed to the U.S. Senate and that Dems have a tough primary.  They also shake their heads as President Obama scraps his jobs council after two years of accomplishing nothing.  And they discuss the growing scandal involving Sen. Bob Menendez and underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

Chuck Hagel’s views on everything from Israel to Iran to nuclear weapons disqualify him from leading America’s armed forces, according to a Reagan administration Pentagon official and a growing group of retired generals and admirals.

The latest point of controversy for Hagel is his support for continued reduction of American nuclear weapons and even their total elimination – regardless of whether Russia charts the same course.

Confirmation hearings for Hagel will be held Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Hagel nomination was always going to be a rocky one, especially among his fellow Republicans.  However, his apparent acceptance among Democrats supportive of Israel and at least one Republican suggests Hagel is likely to be confirmed.

Frank Gaffney is president at the Center for Security Policy and was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.  He says the fight against the Hagel nomination must persist because of the dangers he presents to America’s national security and America’s most decorated warriors are an important part of the debate.

“It’s often the case that you’ll have those who have served in uniform but who are now out of uniform weighing in on national security issues,” said Gaffney.  ” In this case we were very pleased with 14 senior general and flag officers who came together to advise the Senate from their perspective as professional military men that, in their judgment Chuck Hagel should not be the next secretary of defense.  I couldn’t agree more with them.”

The common defense of any controversial cabinet choice by a president is that the president should be allowed to surround himself with the advisers he prefers.  Gaffney says that courtesy only extends so far.

“The issue is not simply a disagreement about policy direction.  It’s an appreciation that, historically, that those in the Pentagon have kind of been an anchor to windward as the Navy might say, a break on some of the worst impulses of presidents like Barack Obama,” said Gaffney, who described Obama’s approach to foreign policy as cavalier and ideological for his efforts to “undermine” Israel, “hollow out the military” and “empower” Iran.

“In Chuck Hagel, we will clearly not have that kind of break on this president’s worst instincts,” said Gaffney.

As for Hagel’s views on nuclear weapons, Gaffney says the goal of eliminating our nuclear stockpile is foolhardy but is perfectly in line with the Obama agenda.

“There’s no question President Obama has declared he thinks it should be our policy to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  I happen to believe that’s a lunatic idea, completely unachievable and one that will, even if successful and I don’t see how it could be, make the world more likely to be in the throes of violence and war rather than less,” said Gaffney.

“Chuck Hagel has, in fact, embraced this Global Zero idea.  He has fully associated himself with it,” said Gaffney.

Given a 10-seat Democratic majority in the Senate and at least one GOP member ready to back his former colleague, do opponents still have a shot at sinking this nomination?

“There is a lot of information that I think would cause most members of the Senate to have real pause about this nomination,” said Gaffney.  “This nominee has made it abundantly clear for a very long time his animus toward Israel and his willingness to engage its enemies and ours from Hamas and Hezbollah to Iran.”

Ultimately, Gaffney says rigorous questioning and fair media coverage are critical to any efforts to derail the nomination.

“We’re going to see an airing of many of these issues in the course of this hearing.  My guess is there will be senators who haven’t decided as of now who may be influenced by the outcome of that, assuming we get a fair shake from the press,” said Gaffney.

“What we’ve sadly seen too much of, most especially during the last campaign is the press sort of tending to suppress information that would be unhelpful to this president but very material to the national security interests of the people.  I hope that won’t be the case in this instance,” said Gaffney.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of Radio America are disgusted that the U.S. economy actually got smaller in the last quarter of 2012.  They also reject Obama’s argument that anyone opposed to his version of immigration reform is guilty of an us vs. them mentality.  And they reject the efforts of some Republicans to change the electoral college so that votes are allocated by congressional district rather than a winner-take-all approach.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see President Obama drifting farther away from his vow to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay by now renewing the office tasked with achieving that goal.  They discuss more emerging problems with the latest immigration reform push.  And they touch on the dictatorial attitude of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Supporters of women serving on the front lines of combat are cheering the Obama administration’s policy change on the subject, but critics say the move hurts readiness in multiple ways and is simply a nod to the progressive cultural agenda.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis says he’s not at all surprised by the decision.  He says it was obvious this move was coming after a decision from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2012 that opened up 14,000 additional military positions to women and front line duty was heavily considered then.

“They see this as a part of their movement and part of their agenda.  For a lot of reasons, I think it’s wrongheaded,” said Maginnis.

Maginnis says his concerns center on two key areas, the simple differences in strength between the genders and the issues he fear will arise when men and women serve together in long stretches in close quarters.

When it comes to the physical differences, Maginnis says there are real, inescapable differences between the genders in strength.

“Front line combat, if you’re hauling a 60-80 pack in the mountains of Afghanistan, in severe cold or severe heat is incredibly grueling.  It’s the most physically demanding job known to man,” said Maginnis.  “Our own tests in the military have evidenced that that women have only half of the upper body strength of men, which explains why they can’t carry heavy burdens all that well.  They also have a quarter less stamina or endurance.

“Women typically aren’t as fast, so that’s why we don;t see women running in marathons against men.  That doesn’t mean women can’t run or they aren’t reasonably fast but they aren’t at the capability as the average man.  We’re dealing with hundreds of thousands of people, trying to get the best physically and mentally qualified.  Women, in many cases, are very physically capable within their own category but they can’t do these tough jobs.” said Maginnis.

Defenders of the new policy say such concerns are unwarranted because female soldiers will have to meet demanding standards before being deployed on the front lines.  However, comments from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey suggest those standards could get watered down.

“If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is then on the service to come and explain to the secretary, ‘Why is it that high?  Does it really have to be that high?'” said Dempsey.

Maginnis is not surprised that the military is already lowering standards to accommodate what he considers a policy dictated by cultural politics rather than what’s best for U.S. national security, noting that sliding standards have already been imposed at service academies, on submarines and in special forces.

“All these jobs have been gender-normed and when you gender-norm something so that you can satisfy the weakest of the two, you end up with a weaker military,” said Maginnis.  “We should not be trifling with national security.  This is not about jobs.  This is about a political agenda pushed by feminists so they can break the glass ceiling.  They think the military is the last bastion in which that exists.

“But we all depend upon our armed forces and the moms and dads of America need to understand the consequence of this is that their 18-year-old daughter will be registering for the draft just like their 18-year-old sons in the future,” said Maginnis, noting the only thing stopping that is the policy the Obama administration now wants to scrap.

He further states that America’s financial crunch will soon mean that military personnel can’t be paid as much and that will mean the return of the draft.

“Moms and dads of America, yes, your daughters will go and that’s something our political leaders of today have made a decision on.” said Maginnis.

A more delicate issue is what mixing genders will do for morale or readiness in front line units.  Maginnis says it will hurt cohesion and lead to many moral dilemmas.

“As we’ve evidenced over the last decade-plus in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There’s a lot of sex in the ranks, and even the Pentagon’s own reports say, ‘We can’t explain why there’s been a radical increase in sexual assaults,'” said Maginnis.  “What does this do to units?  It really polarizes, tears them apart, creates mistrust and of course it hurts military families.  These are issues that are not easily overcome even in local high schools or in our communities.

“We don’t expect that we’re going to put men and women in close proximity, intimate situations, for long periods of time.  Moms and dads of America understand this but apparently the progressives don’t,” said Maginnis.

When Gen. Dempsey was tapped to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011, Maginnis lauded Dempsey as a great choice.  After this decision, policies on gays in the military, failing to change rules of engagement and dismissing a professor on Islamic extremism after protests from Muslims, Maginnis says Dempsey has been a major disappointment.

“I’ve known Marty Dempsey for 40 years.  Unfortunately, general officers tend to change and he’s changed in a way that is unfavorable in my viewpoint,” said Maginnis.  “The issues are distressing, wrongheaded, not in the best interest of the military much less the country.”

But he says this shouldn’t come as a complete shock.  Maginnis says President Obama never would have nominated Dempsey if he wasn’t confident Dempsey would carry out his agenda.

“I would say this is the compromise of principles, if in fact Marty did hold those principles years ago,” said Maginnis.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad Tom Harkin is retiring and that means the GOP has a shot at picking up his seat.  They also groan as the latest immigration reform push heats up and the focus once again is on legalizing the illegals.  And Paul Ryan says a Clinton presidency would have solved our debt crisis by now.

Tuesday marked 40 years since the Supreme Court legalized abortion through the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.  On Friday, hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists descended upon Washington to announce they are still working to overturn the decisions and spread the message that all human life is to be cherished and defended.

Fr. Frank Pavone is president at Priests for Life and an active leader in the pro-life movement and at the March for Life.  He says the massive crowd on a snowy, blustery day sends a clear message.

“Just to give some perspective, the rally ended just after 1:00 and the march began and we still see no end to the crowd,” said Pavone, nearly three hours after the march began.

Once the march reached the Supreme Court, some 70 women who had abortions began sharing their testimonies of regret for having terminated their pregnancies.

As for the pro-life agenda in the coming year, Pavone says one major goal is to explain to Americans what Roe v. Wade is and what it isn’t.

“A lot of people think they support Roe v. Wade because they think it only allows abortions in the first trimesterof pregnancy or only in certain extreme circumstances,” said Pavone.  “But once we let them know two things, then things begin to change.  Number one, that Roe v. Wade allows abortions under any and all circumstances throughout all nine months of pregnancy.  And number two, that what an abortion actually is.  The medical textbooks call it decapitation and dismemberment, very disturbing words that don’t come from pro-life people but come from the actual practitioners of abortion.”

Pavone admits passing pro-life legislation in Washington will be next to impossible as long as President Obama is in the White House and Democrats control the U.S. Senate.  He says pro-life Americans should continue encouraging House Republicans to stand strong against efforts to advance further pro-choice laws.

On the other hand, Pavone says pro-life governors and state legislatures are in place in at least half of U.S. states and real progress could be seen at that level.

“We’ve got 33 pro-life governors across America and we’ve got half of the states have legislatures that are completely pro-life, which means that the leeway the courts have given to the states in passing reasonable measures like parental involvement, more informed consent clinic regulations,” said Pavone.  “In some states, now, abortion is banned after 20 weeks on the state level because of the fact that children in the womb can feel pain.  These kinds of measures, even in the current climate, have a lot of hope of passing in this particular year.”

The 2012 campaign focused more than usual on abortion, as the Obama campaign made it a centerpiece of their efforts to attract women, along with the federal mandate that employers cover all costs for contraception.  Opponents of that agenda were accused to waging a war on women.  Pavone says it’s exactly the opposite.

“The war on women, first of all, is when you tear them apart in the womb.  Secondly, those who are standing here next to me are women who bought this product of abortion thinking it would be helpful to them and they experienced exactly the opposite,” said Pavone.  “That’s the sad thing about the ideology we hear coming from the Democratic Party.  They don’t listen to the women who have had abortions.  They certainly don’t want to describe what an abortion is.

“So the war on women is a war that is making them believe the lie that abortion is something good.  There’s no disease abortion cures.  There’s no medical benefit to the procedure, but when women believe that there is, they end up standing here, as so many are right now, saying, ‘I regret my abortion.'”

Pavone says other reasons for pro-life optimism include the movement getting younger and younger, and he says he’s confident that 40 years from now, the unborn will once again be fully protected by law.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for telling conservatives not to abandon their principles but to change how they present their message to the American people.  They also explain why Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill is pointless and unconstitutional.  And they discuss Joe Biden extolling the virtues of shotguns versus “assault weapons”.

Congress would have to approve the implementation of any major new regulations coming from the executive branch, according to new legislation introduced by Indiana Rep. Todd Young.

A “major regulation” is one that is expected to impose an economic cost on the economy of $100 million or more.  Young says it’s time for the legislative branch, the one tasked with control of the federal purse strings, to have greater oversight of major moves by the executive branch. And that what the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act is designed to do.

“What the REINS Act is designed to do is give Congress ultimate authority, the ultimate say-so as to whether these regulations become the law of the land after the administrative agencies have worked their will,” stated Young, who says crippling regulations have already been implemented and many more are about to be imposed now that the elections are over.

“These regulations will rise to our attention from time to time, from boiler regulations on industrial boilers to regulations dealing with cement mixtures and its contents,” said Young, who asserts that major regulations have greatly hampered the manufacturing, financial services and coal industries in his region.

So the REINS Act would give Congress the ability to approve or reject any regulation meeting that $100 million threshold.

“First and foremost, it would prevent Congress from passing really vague laws, punting on the hard issues and then leaving those hard issues up to regulatory agencies,” said Young.

The congressman says another problem is Congress passing vaguely written legislation that leaves countless regulatory decisions to executive branch officials.  He says the Obama health care law is a prime example.

“It’s a massive, broad piece of legislation that will be reforming in so many ways one-fifth of our economy, but so many of the hard questions are left up to Health and Human Services and other regulatory agencies,” said Young.  “So it’s not entirely clear, even though we’ve been talking at great length about the legislation, what exactly is in it, exactly what’s going to be in it until we see all the regulations.”

Young says Congress does have some ability to place checks on the executive branch regulations, but the process is much more cumbersome than it would be if his bill became law.

“We have the power of the purse, so on a case by case, regulation by regulation basis we have done our work and tried to address these things,” he said.  “There are just far too many regulations out there, ten regulations a day in recent years .  In order for us to keep our eye on the ball and have an opportunity to vote down those regulations that really ought not to become law in the first place.  I think we need a systemic reform rather than a case by case reform.”

The REINS Act was introduced on Wednesday and already has 121 co-sponsors.  Young says there will be some Democratic support for the bill but Republicans will have to do the heavy lifting.