Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Thursday, January 19, 2012

The State Department Says No To Keystone!

The President of the United States had his State Department prepare a report on the Keystone Pipeline and gosh darn, they said it should be rejected.  Can you believe that? Do you think that maybe there was some direction given to the authors of the report as to what it should say?  No, that wouldn't happen in the most ethical Administration in the history of the world!

If you think we are a bit skeptical, you would be right!  First of all, why would the State Department be tasked to write a report that dealt with environmental concerns in Nebraska? Isn't it their job dealing with foreign nations? Or would the report been done by the EPA, everyone would have laughed?

We suppose the answer is that since the pipeline is between Canada and the US, it comes under the purview of State.  So where does it get the expertise to address the major concern regarding the construction of this pipeline, that being the environmental issues. Why did they not do a joint task force? I believe the words are, incompetency and politics.  It could be worse as the previous post on this topic alluded.

Secondly, our valiant President using his immense brain, hides behind the State Department  report and then blames Republicans.  Sounds like politics to me. He cannot even mount an intelligent argument why we should not attempt to be energy independent. Keystone could have become a major keystone in our oil supply. Now we might lose it to the Chinese.  

One would hope that people we elect would do what was in the best interests of the country first and themselves second. However, the entire government operates in the opposite way.  Maybe we are a Pollyanna, but one would hope that we sometime could get people who would do the right thing!

Obama must go and the sooner the better. November cannot come any sooner.

Conservative Tom

Obama Blames Republicans, Hides Behind His Own State Dep't, in Rejecting Keystone Pipeline

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney speaks during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
( – President Barack Obama, in formally denying a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline that was projected to create thousand of new jobs, blamed Republicans for forcing his hand. He also indicated that in making the politically difficult decision, he is simply going along with the recommendation of his secretary of state.
In his written statement explaining the decision, Obama mentioned the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the State Department four times in the opening paragraph -- and once again in the second and final paragraph.
“Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline,” Obama wrote. “As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.”
The State Department has been studying TransCanada’s application for a permit to extend its oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the Gulf Coast for three years. It was expected to make a decision by the end of last year, but in November, it said the decision would not come until 2013 – after the 2012 election.
The State Department said it needed more time to "undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska."

The pipeline project is supported by labor unions, a key Obama constituency, but it is strongly opposed by environmental activists, another important constituency.
Republicans in Congress, as part of their deal to support an extension of the payroll tax holiday, imposed a new deadline of Feb. 21 for the Obama administration to make a decision on the Keystone XL project.
In his written statement on Wednesday, Obama said his decision to refuse a permit was “not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”
House Speaker John Boehner, at a press conference Wednesday, said this is a purely political decision from the president:
“President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really – there’s no other way to put it: the President is selling out American jobs for politics,” Boehner said.

“The President was given the authority to block this project only – and only – if he believes it’s not in the national interest of the United States. Is it not in the national interest to create tens of thousands of jobs here in America with private investment? Is it not in the national interest to get energy resources from an ally like Canada as opposed to some countries in the Middle East?”

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Keystone Pipeline Cancellation--What does it mean?

In light of gas prices over $3.50 and forecasts of $5.00 per gallon; threats of closing the Straits of Hormuz; the Chinese appetite for oil, one would think that the President would be doing everything in his power to increase the supply, yet it is reported today by Reuters in an article by Jeff Mason, that he will reject the Keystone oil pipeline.

It might come down to a political calculation. He does not want to upset his "green" base. Environmentalists have been pressuring him to cancel the pipeline, so it appears he has caved therefore ensuring that he gets their vote in November.  Our question is, where will they go? They would not vote for a Republican and voting for anyone else would mean throwing their vote away. So what else could be the reason?

The labor unions have been in favor of the pipeline as they feel there will be jobs for their members. So, Obama is willing to anger the unions but not the environmentalists? Does that make sense?  Why would he do that?

Complicating the picture even more, Canadian officials have reportedly been telling the White House that if the pipeline is not built, they will build their own and send the oil to China. The Chinese have been aggressively been looking for alternatives to Middle East oil so this would be a windfall for them. Why would Obama put us in this position?

There might be many answers, all of which  could be partially correct, however, we feel that the reason is simple. He wants the US economy to crash which it would do at $4 per gallon or more. 

If one would take a flyer and  suppose that one or more the following events occur:
    --The Straits are closed by Iranians sinking a tanker in the shipping channel
    --One or more US refineries are hit by terrorists
    --Canada ships its oil to China
    --Mexico's oil fields are closed down to violence
    --South American sources of oil are purchased by China
    --All Gulf drilling is suspended
What would be the result? Prices would jump significantly forcing the economy into a major decline. Unemployment would increase dramatically. Dissatisfaction indexes would hit new highs.

Would that not hurt his re-election chances?  Isn't that why he is not doing the pipeline? NO, not if there are no elections! If he can make the situation deteriorate over the next ten months to the point where civil disturbances (riots) are occurring, he can declare martial law and suspend elections!

Whoa there Conservative Tom, we can hear you saying, isn't that a bit "out there?" Yes it is, however why else would he not be doing everything in his power to make the US energy independent. (I am not convinced that "green" energy will anytime in the near future provide the necessary supply to replace oil.)  Energy drives our economy yet threats  around the world makes it from other countries not a guaranteed proposition. So there must be another reason.  If not this idea, what is yours?

We are listening. Tell us your idea.

Conservative Tom


Obama set to reject Keystone oil pipeline: sources

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration was poised on Wednesday to reject the Keystone crude oil pipeline, according to sources, a decision that would be welcomed by environmental groups but inflame the domestic energy industry.
The administration could make its announcement onTransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline late on Wednesday or on Thursday, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.TransCanada Corp. shares slid more than 3 percent after the news.
"We're expecting the pipeline to be rejected," the source said.
TransCanada's planned 1,700-mile pipeline has become a potent symbol in the battle over of the future of U.S. energy policy.
With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration in November delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.
But lawmakers that support the project were able to attach a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that set a February deadline for a decision on whether the project is in the national interest.
The pipeline has placed the Obama administration in the middle of a dispute between two key parts of its voting block: green groups who oppose the pipeline over concerns about climate change and some unions who back the project because of the jobs they believe it would create.
The administration has said it needs more time to consider alternative routes for the pipeline, which originally was planned to traverse sensitive habitats and a crucial water source in Nebraska.
(Additional reporting By Roberta Rampton, Jeff Jones; Writing by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by David Gregorio)

Obama's Abandonment of Israel

Sometimes we wonder if we have ESP. Events we can see happening, do. So it is with the Palestinians and their sudden cooling of demands.  We wondered why? Now, in the following article, we see. The White House told them to wait until after the election.

For those of us who have watched in unbelief as Obama said he supported Israel, we were wondering when the other shoe would drop. Now we know, it will be after November. Should he be re-elected, Israel will be pressured to make the concessions no other victor in history has made, that being, forced to give up land won in a military victory. The security of Israel will endangered as the entire country will be able to be reached by rockets from the West Bank and Gaza.

Any person who supports Israel must view this development as a move against our only ally in the region and should show their displeasure by not voting for Obama.

The following article details more on this traitorous act conducted by the Obama Administration.

Conservative Tom

Palestinians say White House asked them to delay demands till 2nd term

Aaron Klein - Americans Stand With Israel,  January 11th, 2012

JERUSALEM – The Obama administration asked the Palestinian Authority not to make any major demands until after the presidential election in November, a senior PA official told WND.
The PA official, speaking on condition his name be withheld, said that Obama promised to renew stalled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on the basis of the 1967 borders, meaning an Israeli withdrawal from eastern sections of Jerusalem as well as from Judea and Samaria, also referred to as the West Bank.
“We were asked by the (U.S.) administration not to make special demands or scandals during the elections,” said the official.
“After elections, the negotiations will be renewed on basis of the Clinton plan and Obama’s speech in Cairo of the 1967 borders,” the official said.
The Clinton plan is a reference to the formula used during the Camp David negotiations in the summer of 2000 that saw sections of Jerusalem in which Jews predominantly live go to Israel, while areas inhabited by Arabs would become a Palestinian state. The negotiations also called for a nearly complete Israeli evacuation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
WND previously reported that several major purported Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem are actually built illegally on Jewish-owned land, resulting in an Arab majority in those sections.
Obama to ‘take on’ Netanyahu?
This is not the first time the PA claimed the Obama administration asked it to hold off until after this year’s election.
Last September, WND quoted a top PA official saying the Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority it cannot significantly help advance a Palestinian state until after the election.
The official, however, said the U.S. will press for a Palestinian state quickly if President Obama is reelected.
“The main message we received from the U.S. is that nothing will happen in a serious way before the 2012 elections,” said the official.
Earlier this month, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius said he expected Obama to “take on” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a second presidential term.
Appearing as a panel member on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” Ignatius stated: “What I hear from the White House is looking towards a second term on foreign policy, which I cover, as an opportunity to do the broad things that would establish an Obama agenda. He came into office passionate about the Middle East, about the Palestinian issue. I’d see him taking another really strong crack at that.”
“Go head to head with Netanyahu again?” Matthews then asked, according to a transcript provided by the media watchdog
“Yeah, and I think, this White House thinks … that he’s had success, that that’s an area. Who would have said that an anti-war President, candidate, four years ago, could run on a strong foreign policy record?”

Tuesday, January 17, 2012


We have been thinking about the Marines relieving themselves onto the dead bodies of Taliban fighters and have had a hard time finding the right words to make my point. However, the following article got me thinking. War is Hell and those who are participants sometimes lose their way.  This is the case of these Marines.

We cannot document it, but feel secure in saying that this is not the first time in the history of man (or the United States) that a soldier has relieved himself onto a vanquished foe.  However, it might be the first time we can see the intentionally degrading event. For those who have not been in combat, it is hard for us to understand the range of emotions that course through the body when we are involved in a kill or be killed situation. We won, they lost. That has to be a really big high!

Yet taking a move of the event is, in a word, stupid and we would expect that those who did "star" would agree with that assessment.  They will pay a price and in today's politically correct world, it will be high.   

It was not like that years ago. For example, during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, there were no enemy soldiers taken prisoner. Prisoners were taken but they did not make it to the POW camps. In the following story we read about Black Jack Pershing in the Philippines and his treatment of Muslim fighters. Seems we have forgotten that war can make men do all sorts of things they normally would not do.

We somehow expect war to be like a video game, where it is clean and only bad guys get killed. If we are unfortunate and lose our life in a game, all we have to do is reboot and we have several lives again.  Unfortunately war is not like that.

Another issue that drives me crazy is the concern for "collateral damage" both of people and buildings. Why were we not concerned when we firebombed Dresden and Tokyo in WWII?  Thousands of civilians died in both of those incidents and please remind me, who was brought up on charges? The answer none.  Yet if some unfortunate Marine fires on a crowd of people after being fired upon, he is up on charges!

This latest event, which I call Urinationgate, is the latest "feminization" of this country. We are becoming, if not already are, wimps. We fail to understand war and what happens when you go to war. It is not pretty, in fact, it is awful, and should only be the last resort for settling a dispute. However, when we use the military option, we cannot piecemeal it. We must fully engage the enemy with overwhelming force. Those enemy non-combatants must understand that their country has gone to war with us and therefore they might be part of the damage that occurs. Next time, the leaders who threaten us will think twice before taking us on.

Unless we put the manhood back in war, we will be pushed around, bullied and then taken over by our enemies.  War is hell but being defeated is worse.

Our brave Marines will be punished for their stupidity but we will be punished in much greater ways when we lose the next great battle. At that time there will be no CNN, CBS or the New York Times to report on the tragedy, we will have lost and we will be the vanquished.  

Conservative Tom


Murder, Mayhem and Tinkling on Terrorists
By GOPUSA Staff 
The story is told of General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing fighting Islamic terrorists in the Philippines in 1911. It seems that his troops had captured a number of the enemy. Knowing of the Muslim fear of even coming in contact with pigs, the story goes that Pershing forced the prisoners to dig their own graves, then stood all but one of them up in front of a firing squad. He ordered his men to slaughter several pigs and to dip their bullets in the pig’s blood. After the terrorists were executed, their bodies were thrown into the graves and the pig blood and guts were buried with them. The terrified lone survivor was turned loose to return and tell his compatriots what he had witnessed. Rumor has it that Pershing had no further problems with the Islamic population of the Philippines. While the veracity of the story is undetermined, it strikes one as the sort of tale that should have happened even if it didn't.
Can you imagine Black Jack Pershing working for the likes of Barack Obama, Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton? Can you picture General George Patton (no relation to yours truly), the man who proclaimed that "Americans love to win and can’t stand to lose" taking orders from this crowd of wimps? Try to visualize Pershing or Patton’s response to all the feigned outrage coming out of the Obama White House, Defense and State Departments over a video of four U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of a group of Taliban terrorists they had just killed. Obama, Panetta and Clinton, the three stooges of American foreign policy have expressed their outrage at this act because the U.S. is in the midst of trying to negotiate with the Taliban.
Of course, a spokesman for the Taliban concurred with the administration’s outrage. (I know it was a spokesman because any woman who attempted to speak on behalf of these savages would be stoned to death.) At any rate, I can certainly understand Obama’s reluctance to upset the Taliban. After spending the past three years bowing before Islamic radicals and cozying up to South American tyrants on his globetrotting apology tour, the president wouldn’t want to anger the people who aided and abetted Osama bin Laden in the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. That would be wrong. In fact, in the words of liberal pundits Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers on Fox News, what these marines did was "despicable." Really? Annoying, maybe. Stupid, certainly — especially for allowing it to be videotaped in this YouTube age — but despicable isn’t even in the ballpark.
Synonyms for despicable: appalling; dreadful; contemptible; wicked; shameful; disgraceful; vile; loathsome. Sorry. This doesn't even come close. Despicable is what the Taliban and their ilk did to us. Despicable is what happened in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a field near Shanksville, PA, a decade ago. Despicable is what the Iranians are trying to do with their newfound nuclear technology. Despicable is what Kim Il Sung, his son, Kim Jung Il and grandson, Kim Jung Un, have done to North Korea and its people. Despicable is what Hugo Chavez has done to Venezuela. Despicable is what Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot did to the innocents who got in their way. Tinkling on terrorists is in another category altogether.
Like General Pershing, our military should have the authority to do whatever is necessary to win against whatever enemy we ask them to fight. Our enemies should always know that no matter what happens, when we go to war, it's not going to be pretty or dignified or sporting. As Ronald Reagan once said, the strategy should be a simple one: we win, they lose, period.
Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at