Will Keystone XL Become a Reality?: Obama Decides

The Keystone Pipeline is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the U.S. that runs from Alberta to refineries in Illinois, Texas, and Oklahoma. There are four total phases of the pipeline; three are in operation, and the fourth, known as Keystone XL, is still awaiting government approval.

Thus far, the Keystone XL pipeline proposal has faced rough disapproval from environmentalists and some members of Congress. In 2012, Obama rejected the construction of the pipeline amid controversy in Nebraska (the environmentally delicate Sand Hills Region was in danger many said). Many times, a Canadian corporation has interfered to change the original proposed route of Keystone XL to minimize disturbances of land and water resources. In April, it was announced that the review of the Keystone XL pipeline will be extended, as the result of a legal challenge to a Nebraska pipeline has not yet been resolved. This issue has been in the Nebraska Supreme Court for some time.

It was recently announced by the White House press secretary John Earnest that Obama is planning to veto the Keystone XL bill if Congress passes a measure “green-lighting” the oil pipeline. Currently, the pipeline is approved by the State Department, which has already concluded that it would have minimal environmental damage. However, it has also become apparent that Keystone would create about 42,000 jobs directly, but only 50 permanent jobs.

Obama’s main issue with the legislation is that he does not want Congress to continue to attempt to take the decision out of his hands. Earnest said, “The President has been very clear that he does not think that circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is the right thing for Congress to do.” While the bill has some bipartisan support, environmentalists and all sorts of progressives have intensely lobbied the White House to oppose Keystone XL.

Democrats have been seeking to delay facing this issue by insisting that the new congress be confirmed before proceeding. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee still plans to meet this coming Thursday to vote to send it to the floor. The tactical delay by the Democrats probably means a Senate vote will not happen until late January, though the House is expected to pass its Keystone bill on Friday.

House Speaker John Boehner recently released a statement calling the President “hopelessly out of touch” with Americans and ridiculing his strategy for opposing the pipeline. Boehner said in his statement, “Fringe extremists in the President's party are the only ones who oppose Keystone, but the President has chosen to side with them instead of the American people and the government's own scientific evidence that this project is safe for the environment.”

This issue raises many questions about topics we have been learning about in class. First off, interest groups. It is interest groups (environmentally concerned ones, like the Sierra Club for example) that are making this problem so hotly contested. Secondly, the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline is rooted in policy gridlock and poor relations between the executive and legislative branches. Furthermore, this issue is an economic one, as it both creates jobs, but not sustainable ones. The questions I pose are these: in this case, are the interest groups involved in attempting to block this legislation positive or negative? How can policy gridlock be controlled? Is it vital that we create Keystone XL? Do you agree with Boehner that Obama is just listening to the Democratic extremists and not acting in America’s best interest? Is this legislation a valid use of the presidential veto?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/politics/keystone-obama-veto/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/keystone-pipeline-senate-vote-explainer/

http://www.ajc.com/feed/business/new-gop-congress-new-keystone-pipeline-bill/fxdHy/

New Sanctions Levied Against North Korea

On Friday, January 2nd, President Obama imposed new sanctions against North Korea. These sanctions come in response to the cyber attack against Sony Pictures, which the FBI has stated North Korea was behind. The hack occurred as Sony was planning to release “The Interview” a film centered on assassinating the leader of North Korea. The hackers released the personal information of employees, unreleased films and more. Despite a lot of skepticism from computer experts, the FBI insists that North Korea infiltrated Sony Pictures. Others believe that former employees may have been part of the hacking. North Korea themselves have denied any involvement in the hack.

Regardless, the new sanctions expressly forbid the transfer, sale, or purchase of United States’ property by anyone affiliated with the North Korean government. The sanctions also apply to anyone who materially assisted North Korea and the sanctions block entry into the United States for anyone who meets the criteria. Obama specifically said the sanctions apply to North Korea’s military intelligence agency, the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation (the primary weapons dealer in North Korea), and ten individuals, including leaders and executives.

Previous sanctions have not had much of an impact on North Korea. Joel Wit, a member of the US Korea Institute at John Hopkins University in Washington said, “It’s not as if they travel a lot abroad to western Europe or the United States ... They don’t have billions of dollars in western banks.” North Korea has not taken the sanctions lightly and has lashed out at the United States in response. The Foreign Ministry of North Korea said, "The policy persistently pursued by the U.S. to stifle [North Korea], groundlessly stirring up bad blood towards it would only harden its will and resolution.” In a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Obama made it clear however that "The order is not targeted at the people of North Korea, but rather is aimed at the government of North Korea and its activities that threaten the United States and others.”

What do you think of the new sanctions placed against North Korea? Do you think they will be effective or bring about any changes in North Korea? Also, do you think that the North Korea even played a role in the cyber attack against Sony Pictures? Personally, it seems like the evidence shows that North Korea was not behind the attack, however, I still believe that more sanctions aren’t a bad idea. I do wonder how effective the sanctions will be, considering the vast amount of sanctions already in place against North Korea haven’t done much.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-imposes-fresh-sanctions-on-north-korea/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/04/politics/north-korea-replies-after-sony-hack-sanctions/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/04/us-northkorea-cyberattack-sanctions-idUSKBN0KB16U20150104

A House Divided: Boehner and Republicans on Verge of Avoiding Another Government Shutdown

The divisions between the Obama Administration and the incoming Republican majority have only grown larger midst poor cooperation and an executive action authorizing new legislation for domestic immigration policies. As their feud with Democrats in Congress continues, House Republican leaders face their own fight from within their own ranks; against Tea Party conservatives who fight Republican moderates on spending deals to avoid another government shutdown. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House, although not looking to impede Republican-backed legislation, are looking to make sure their policies are included in hybrid bills that are scheduled to be passed early next week, if not later that same week. House Speaker John A. Boehner obviously has a lot on his plate in the coming weeks that needs to be dealt with tactfully in order to not alienate too many supporters and reduce the political divisions between Republican and Democratic politicians.

Mr. Boehner must examine the various components of passing the spending bill and must decide how to accumulate votes without stirring the pot too much within the House. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and other Senate members have noted that the spending bill will pass in the Senate, and that the president is open to passing this legislation without any impedance, Tea Party conservatives and House Democrats remain indefinite in their stance on the bill and are still deciding on the specifics of the final parts of the spending plan. Mr. Boehner’s plan has a complex duality to its structure: the first step allows members of the House to vote against the executive action authorized by Obama and retract the immigration legislation passed  recently, while the second step would produce a hybrid spending bill to accompany the vote and reorganize federal funding. The hybrid bill would organize spending until September 30th, or through the next fiscal year, but would only devote funding to the Department of Homeland Security until March, when a Republican majority could institute new spending plans for this specific institution in the bureaucracy.

Although House Democrats don't want to impede progress and want to avoid another government shutdown, they are concerned with the restricted funding to the Department of Homeland Security and feel that Republicans would face a deficit in funding early next year. The short-term results won't produce long-term progress and could possibly lead to a partial government shutdown, which has the capability to produce the same economic and political stresses in the country. However, House Democrats have realized the urgency in the matter and have agreed on many of the points within the bill, guaranteeing Boehner votes for the bill and completing one part of the puzzle.Meanwhile, Republican conservatives see Boehner’s passiveness and concentration on the spending bill rather than advocating for adversity against the immigration legislation as a sign of weakness and surrender to the Obama Administration. Representative Steve King from Iowa, along with 50 other members look to vote against the bill, while Senator Ted Cruz wants to take the controversy over the executive action to the Senate floor rather than pair it with a hybrid bill, thus only encouraging political gridlock rather than progress. Some conservatives have even gone as far to propose cutting funding to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, but practically cannot be accomplished since Congress cannot purposely reduce funding to an agency. While conservatives look only to ignite tensions in Congress, moderates and Democrats should fill up the needed votes for the passage of the bill, thus giving Boehner the victory he needs to keep the federal budget in order and keep the government rolling, for now.

The duality of this bill proposes various problems and creates many roadblocks for the passage of its policies, thus keeping John Boehner and Republicans on their heels until votes can be assured towards their legislation. Does the complexity of the spending plan damage its effectiveness or chance of being passed through the House and the Senate? Are Tea Party conservatives becoming too detrimental to the Republican Party when passing legislation? Do you think a government shutdown is a probable outcome from this controversy?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/house-on-brink-of-deal-to-avoid-government-shutdown.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-dont-expect-a-u-s-government-shutdown-1409506899

Senate Responds to the Military's Sexual Assault Problem

Earlier this year, the Pentagon announced to the public that 26,000 cases of sexual assault were reported in the military last year. This is not only an ongoing problem in the U.S., but also a growing one. Reports show that the number of reported cases has increased 37%. Understanding how great of an issue this has become, the government is now stepping in to find a solution.

As of now, the system for reporting sexual assault works in a way that allows the problem to continue. In the armed forces, a victim must report the case to the military commander, not to the police. As the statistics show, reporting to a person in the chain of command isn't working well, as often times, no real action is taken or the commander is buddies with the perpetrator. With this rule set so firmly in a system that values rules and authority over all else, what can be done to lower those staggering numbers?

Leading the campaign is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York Democrat who has sought to reform the system for some time now. Gillibrand points right to the Depart of Defense's failure to solve the problem over the last 20 years and the fact that they allowed the problem to escalate dramatically this past year. She says that they have done a poor job of cracking down on the commanders who fail to adequately investigate accusations. Gaining other senators to her side, Gillibrand proposed a bill that will take the power out of the commanders' hands in the sexual assault matters.

Although she faces some Republican opposition, many have joined her side. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is one who takes her side, expressing that it simply makes no sense to have victims report to their boss rather than the police.  Still many Republican lawmakers can't look past how this may effect the image of the military. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham argues that the military is a place of discipline and order, and taking the commanders out of this process would corrupt those values. In the military, one commander is supposed to hold all the power, that's just how the military works.

Last year, Gillibrand fell five votes shy of the required 60 to pass the bill, but she isn't giving up. I admire Gillibrand's fight against sexual assault in the armed forces. This is a huge problem that no one has been able to solve, and she's finally pushing a bill that has gained support and may actually institute a change. I also think it's important to note that many Republicans are rallying with her as well, a contrast to the face off we've seen in Congress lately. Although the armed forces value their ranks of power and taking care of discipline and order, I think the problem has spiraled out of control and this plan is worth sacrificing some of the military's traditional values.

What do you think about this situation? Obviously something has to be done, but should Congress uproot the military's values and traditions? Should the military remain unchanged with its own rules and manners? Finally, do you think Congress will actually push this bill through?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/us/senators-renew-push-for-bill-on-sexual-assault-in-military.html?ref=us&_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-renews-push-senate-vote-military/story?id=27308547
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/military-sexual-assault-debate/story?id=20950361

Straddling the Line Between Free Speech and Threats

​     

  Anthony Elonis, a man who posted violent rap lyrics on facebook was convicted of threatening his wife. children, and an FBI agent. The violent lyrics described him killing his wife, shooting a classroom of kindergarteners and attacking an FBI agent. A federal jury didn’t believe Elonis when he said he was only kidding. In a second post online, Elonis said "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold with a delicious side of psychological torture." Clearly these are threatening words, but where do we draw the line between free speech and illegal threats? After a three hour court hearing, Elonis’ wife Tara was able to obtain a restraining order, but Elonis continued to post threatening messages on facebook.

​ Free speech advocates say that it is easy for messages posted online to be misunderstood when viewed out of context. The American Civil Liberties Union said that "A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed.” The government however believes that it does not matter what Elonis intended with the online posts. The only test of a threat is whether or not the words make a person feel threatened. Lower courts have stood by this view that the Supreme Court has agreed with for more than four decades. When he testified, Elonis claimed he was depressed and simply venting about losing his job at an amusement park and his wife leaving him. He also claimed his posts were no different than many of the words in rap music of today. Regardless, Elonis was indicted on five counts of interstate communication of illegal threats. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison, but his appeal has now reached the Supreme Court. Elonis contends that a jury must find he actually intended to be threatening, not that a person could find the words threatening. Previously in 2003, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court stated that a person doesn’t have to intend to carry out a threat, threatening itself is a crime as it causes other people to fear for their lives. The Supreme Court aims to clarify what the government requires to convict a person of threatening someone else illegally.

​ Do you think that lower courts were correct in convicting Anthony Elonis of threatening his wife and others? Or should his online posts be protected under the first amendment's guarantee of free speech. I believe he is guilty, and the convictions against him are correct, especially due to the fact that he continued the messages after receiving a restraining order. However, it is very difficult to create a way to judge a persons supposed threats in a consistent way in every case. The Supreme Court has a tough job ahead of them as it seems like there will always be some way to claim your speech should be protected under the first amendment.

Sources:
​http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/when-does-the-first-amendment-protect-threats-elonis-united-states-supreme-court-free-speech/383255/2/
​http://www.npr.org/2014/12/01/366534452/is-a-threat-posted-on-facebook-really-a-threat
​http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-online-threat-illegal-and-when-is-it-free-speech/

Republicans Plan to Take Action Against the President and his Executive Immigration Action

President Obama has faced an array of legal challenges from the Republican Party this year, especially on his delayed release of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as Obamacare. Their reasoning was that the President released this act without the further provisions of Congress, which the Republican party felt was against the citizens rights held in the Constitution. However, the latest allegations call for a lawsuit to be placed on the President because of his intentions to protect 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. "The president's plan will allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, also known as green card holder,s to register with the federal government and , if approved, receive a three-year protection from any deportation" (Jackson). 

On one hand, the immigrants are ecstatic about this announcement because they would finally be able to become citizens of the United States which they have worked so long and so hard to become. But on the other hand, Republicans and other citizens are infuriated that the President will allow illegal immigrants to just have the ability to basically just become legal American citizens. 

The Republican Party is so enraged that a multitude of governors, and potential 2016 presidential candidates, are planning on filing a lawsuit against the President. The North Carolina Governor Pat McCoy stated that he was open to suing the President for the action he will release on Thursday because the President does not have the ability to just make a new law and enforce it without consultation from the other branches of the government as well as the states. McCoy said that the President needs to recognize that he needs to confront the state's about this issue before releasing his statement due to how affected all states will be by this incredible influx of human beings. Three other governors agree with McCoy on this topic: Texas Governor Rick Perry, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. These three other men feel the same about the President's announcement this Thursday, and how the President is working only unilaterally on this issue. Walker stated, "I think the Republicans in Washington need to take the president to court. They need to force this issue. I think it's bigger than the subject matter of immigration" (Levine). 

In my opinion, I believe that the President is completely out of line on this subject. I do believe that immigrants should be allowed into the country, but only if they have waited the specified amount of time and acquired the certain resources they needed. Allowing about 5 million immigrants to just be allowed into the country is unnecessary. Also, if the President has not consulted any other sources about his decision, I believe that he is only working by himself and what he thinks is right. When in all actuality it is the President's job to do what is best for the people, and what is best for the safety. I believe that the President should take this issue up with Congress and come to a conclusion of what the best alternative is, because allowing 5 million people to just become citizens is not acceptable in any manner. Do you believe the President is acting with all of the citizens best interest in mind? Should 5 million undocumented immigrants be allowed to become legal? Is what the President doing unconstitutional?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/immigration-executive-action_n_6189026.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/20/politics/mcrory-considers-immigration-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=po_c2
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/rick-perry-says-texas-may-sue-obama-over-immigration-action-n252046
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/30/3465876/gop-lawsuit-obamacare/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/20/obama-immigration-josh-earnest/19316835/
http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-obama-lawsuit-democrats-john-boehner-obama-impeachment-obamacare-262246

Inhofe: Global Warming is a Hoax

With the Republican takeover of Congress in the midterms, new individuals will be chosen and approved for committee leaders and other governmental offices. One such office is the leader of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. The GOP choice? Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who not only denounces global warming, but also one compared the EPA to the Gestapo.

In general, Inhofe believes that global warming is a hoax developed by liberals searching for a way to tighten restrictions on the actions of businesses. He even wrote a book in 2012 titled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future in which he describes himself as the lonely crusader against an environmental-liberal conspiracy. Repeatedly he has called for limitations to be placed on the EPA, even calling for congressional action to limit EPA regulations on clean water. He believes that the EPA requirements exceeds the agency’s authority and tramples on the rights of the states. To top it all off, Inhofe also believes that the increase in carbon emissions (one of the root causes of global warming) can be beneficial to mankind, claiming in a 2003 paper that there is a substantial amount of scientific information that carbon emissions help plant life and animal environments. In the same paper he also equated U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a “Soviet-style trial.”

Not surprisingly, Inhofe and the US as well as international science community don’t tend to get along very well. For instance, Inhofe has often claimed that hundreds of scientists disagree with the idea that global warming is the result of human activity. Unfortunately, the statistics do not back him up as 97% of international scientists working in fields related to the environmental study agree that human activity is the driving force behind current global warming trends. In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that such a statistic “doesn’t mean anything.” Likewise, Inhofe also holds that the rising temperature is simply one of the Earth’s 30-year cycles. The scientific community, however, disagrees. The 2012 Start of the Climate report by the American Meteorological Society (compiled by 384 scientists from 52 countries) emphasized that warming trends are happening much more rapidly than any natural warming process. The current state of the climate is not simply part of a “cycle.”

What is most concerning is that currently Inhofe is set to take charge of a committee that oversees public policy. While this may cause uproar among environmentalists, it will also create a headache for the GOP. A Democratic aide even called Inhofe’s potential promotion a “silver lining” to the Democrat’s losses as Democrats could potentially use Inhofe as the face of GOP scientific ignorance and know-nothingness. “Leave it to today’s GOP to put someone who doesn’t believe in basic science at the helm of the committee that oversees environmental protection,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in an email Monday.“It’s unfortunate that Republicans continue to put more stock in their rigid ideology than science and what’s best for the country.”

I believe that Inhofe’s selection for this position is an enormous misstep by the the Republican party. In recent years, the GOP has become a symbol of individuals who are out of touch and ignorant of recent scientific revolutions, often being criticized as out-of-date. With individuals like Inhofe in chanre it will only solidify this stereotype. Moreover, the decisions Inhofe may make in this position could be extremely detrimental to our nation’s environmental policy. From my perspective, a politician who does not have some form of scientific background or refuses to cooperate and work with the scientific community should not be left in charge of our countries environmental policy. What do you think? Do you believe that Inhofe has any qualifications for the position? What effect do you think it will have on the American people’s perception of the Republican party?

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inhofe-an-epa-foe-likely-to-lead-senate-environment-committee/2014/11/05/d0b4221e-64f4-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/271462/speedreads-senator-who-denies-climate-change-in-line-to-lead-environmental-panel

http://time.com/3558611/jim-inhofe-global-warming-climate-change-2014/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jim-inhofe-112757.html#ixzz3Je4ua6Dm