In Last Ditch Effort, EPA Tries To Sabotage Keystone XL Pipeline BY TERRY JONES

Will the Keystone XL pipeline ever get built? Not if President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency get their way.

Obama has threatened to veto a bill making its way out of Congress that would approve the long-awaited, 1,100 mile pipeline project, despite overwhelming support from the American public and the estimated 42,000 jobs it would create.

In an effort to keep the project stalled, the EPA this week warned the State Department that, among other things, the recent steep drop in the price of oil and the added CO2 in the atmosphere from the pipeline mean it shouldn’t be built. (The State Department’s own massive review of the project last year, you may recall, found that in fact the pipeline would have very little impact on the environment or the climate.)

But the EPA’s argument on oil prices falls apart with any scrutiny. Just as oil precipitously and unexpectedly dropped in the past year, it could just as quickly snap back to the $80 level or higher without warning. Long-term investments are based on long-term demand forecasts, not on short-term market conditions.

Moreover, the idea that the EPA is uniquely qualified to judge market conditions for oil is, well, ludicrous.

“The economics of the Keystone XL pipeline, or any pipeline for that matter, should be determined by the marketplace,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said Tuesday. “This is private capital. This is private investment. Let it follow the market and let the market determine what should or should not be built.”

“When we announced Keystone XL back in 2008,” TransCanada Corp. spokesman Shawn Howard said in a written statement picked up by the Wall Street Journal last month, “the price of oil was between $30 and $40 a barrel. No one was suggesting the project was not economic then.”

Then there’s the EPA canard about CO2. In its letter, the EPA claims the CO2 from the project would be roughly equal to “7.8 coal-fired power plants.”

It’s true that the crude from oil sands that will be shipped through the Keystone project yields a slightly higher amount of CO2 per barrel than regular crude. But that’s not the question. Canada is going to exploit its oil sands one way or another, whether the U.S. builds the pipeline or not. So the CO2 will be produced. Either we benefit from it, and refine it in our refineries, which are the best in the world at making clean fuel, or someone else will — like the Chinese, who are eager to get their hands on Canada’s bountiful petroleum resources.

Over the next 40 years or so, virtually all projections call for rising use of crude oil worldwide. It’s to our advantage as a nation to control as much of that future output as possible.

Source: Investor’s Business Daily

Appeasement as Narcissism By Victor Davis Hanson

Members of the Obama administration have insisted that the Taliban are not terrorists. Those responsible for the recent Paris killings are not radical Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular. Jihad is a “legitimate tenet of Islam.” And “violent extremism,” “workplace violence” or “man-caused disaster” better describe radical Islamic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is just as likely caused by returning U.S. combat veterans, according to one report by a federal agency.

What is the point of such linguistic appeasement?

The word “appeasement” long ago became pejorative for giving in to bullies. One side was aggressive and undemocratic; the other consensual and eager to avoid trouble through supposedly reasonable concessions.

But appeasement usually weakened the democratic side and empowered the extremist one.

The architect of appeasement – for example, Neville Chamberlain, former prime minister of Great Britain – was predictably a narcissist. Chamberlain believed that his own powers of oratory, his insights into reason and his undeniably superior morality would sway even a thug like Adolf Hitler.

President Obama currently is convinced that his singular charisma and rare insight into human nature will convince the Taliban to peacefully participate in Afghan politics. Obama will supposedly also win over the Iranian theocracy and show it how nonproliferation is really to everyone’s advantage.

“Reset” diplomacy with Putin was supposed to lessen tensions – if, after the 2012 election, Putin just had more exposure to a flexible statesman of Obama’s wisdom.

Throughout history, without the vanity of the conceder, there would never have been appeasement.

Read more at Patriot Post

O’Reilly on America’s Race Problem

Quote of the Day 02/07/15

“It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.”
George Washington (1732-1799) Founding Father, 1st US President, ‘Father of the Country’

Obama’s offensive against Netanyahu backfires By Marc A. Thiessen

The Obama administration is going all out to see that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is defeated, but the campaign of veiled threats and anonymous leaks is backfiring: Instead of sinking in the polls, Netanyahu is rising.

When Netanyahu accepted House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress in support of new sanctions on Iran, the Obama administration began a full-scale press offensive with a clear message: Netanyahu was endangering Israel by playing politics with the country’s relationship with the United States. Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned (through an anonymous aide) that “playing politics with that relationship could blunt [Kerry’s] enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender” and revealed that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency had told him that new a sanctions bill would be “like throwing a grenade” into the negotiations with Iran. A senior administration official declared ominously to Haaretz that “President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.” A member of “Obama’s inner circle” launched an attack against Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer in the New York Times, accusing him of having “repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.” The Times noted “Such officially authorized criticisms of diplomats from major allies are unusual.” The message to Israeli voters was unmistakable: If they reelect Netanyahu, Israel will pay a “price.”

While White House officials were threatening Israel, the news broke that Obama’s 2012 national field director, Jeremy Bird, was headed to Tel Aviv to manage a grass-roots campaign to oust Netanyahu. Bird would not be working to defeat Netanyahu if he thought Obama opposed it. Can you imagine Karl Rove going to London while George W. Bush was in office to help conservatives oust Prime Minister Tony Blair? It further emerged that the group behind Bird’s anti-Netanyahu effort has received State Department funding and lists the State Department as a “partner” on its Web site. Netanyahu’s Likud Party held a news conference to accuse its opponents of accepting foreign funds in violation of Israeli election laws, and Israeli newspapers published headlines on the “Obama-Labor link .”

In the context of the anonymous White House threats, having a top Obama campaign official in Israel actively working to defeat Netanyahu is naturally perceived as interference.

This campaign of intimidation and interference has begun to backfire. Obama’s popularity in Israel was already extremely low. A January 2014 poll showed that only 33 percent of Israelis approve of Obama and that only 22 percent — about one in five — trust Obama on Iran, while 64 percent do not. Asking Israelis to choose between trusting Netanyahu and trusting Obama with their security is pretty dumb.

And indeed the polls in Israel have moved in Netanyahu’s direction since the Obama attacks began. Two weeks ago, the opposition Zionist Union was leading by three seats in the Knesset. Last week, its lead had shrunk to two. Now, Likud has pulled ahead by one seat, and the Jerusalem Post reports “The poll found that the percentage of respondents who want Netanyahu to remain prime minister rose from 38% last week to 44%, tying the highest-ever result.” (The poll coincided with an attack on Israel’s northern border last Wednesday, which put security — Netanyahu’s strong suit — at the forefront of the election again.)

At least the White House could claim one victory back home: Obama officials succeeded in getting Senate Democrats to put off a vote on bipartisan legislation imposing sanctions on Iran until after March 24 — after the Israeli elections. But this was a Pyrrhic victory at best. Obama wanted to put off any vote on sanctions until this summer; now he has 13 Democrats publicly committed to move ahead with sanctions if there is no clear “framework agreement” with Iran in place by March 24 — less than two months from now.

Obama is clearly hoping that Netanyahu will lose the March elections and that a new, less hawkish Israeli government will be in place to back him on delaying sanctions before the March 24 deadline comes to pass. The irony is, his administration’s meddling in Israeli politics is making that increasingly less likely. Netanyahu is not out of the woods, to be sure, but when it comes to campaigning against Barack Obama, this much is certain: He’s no Mitt Romney

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.