Written by: Shauna Bannan

Protesters sitting outside the White House, objecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Obama administration denied a permit to expand the Keystone oil sands pipeline Wednesday, saying the deadline set by congressional Republicans did not allow enough time to sufficiently review TransCanada‘s proposal.

In his statement, Obama blamed Republicans for trying to force an early decision on the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, which would deliver crude oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Texas, requiring the administration to evaluate the situation by a Feb. 21 deadline.

“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,” Obama said in his statement. “As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.”

Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer of TransCanada, the energy infrastructure company behind the project, immediately responded to Obama’s statement.

“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” said Russ Girling. “Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

For three years, the Keystone XL pipeline has been at the center of debate. TransCanada, oil industry supporters, and congressional Republicans argued that the project would create thousands of jobs and lessen the nation’s dependency on oil, while environmentalists feared that the transportation of crude oil would create a large carbon footprint, threaten the Great Plains, and make U.S. waterways more prone to oil spills.

James T. Callahan, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, said Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL was “a blow to America’s construction workers.”

“Blocking the Keystone pipeline would be an enormous mistake by the Obama administration,” said H. Sterling Burnett, lead analyst of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “We need the oil and we need the jobs it would bring. This is as ‘shovel ready’ as anything Obama has proposed, yet because his radical environmental constituency objects, he’s apparently halting the pipeline. He simply needs their support too much in an election year.”

The president clarified that, despite the denial of the Keystone XL oil sands project, the administration will continue to find alternative ways to increase energy security, in partnership with the oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: Congress, keystone oil sands, keystone pipeline, keystone xl, keystone xl pipeline, obama administration, obama rejects pipeline, tar sands, transcanada

The brave journalist fighting against the hindrance of American rights

Written by: Jill Heagerty

Chris Hedges, a well-established and accomplished journalist, is suing President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. His questioning over the legality comes from the section of the bill that allows the military the right to indefinitely detain without trial U.S. citizens suspected to be terrorists or associated with any terrorist activities.

2012’s NDAA is a major blow to the Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantees every citizen the right to due process. Terrorism is terrifying, but so is the American government stripping away the country’s core beliefs in democracy and liberty.

According to Hedges’s blog, he believes the purpose of this bill is to “thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state.” It is not hard to be considered as a terroristic suspect in our country, acts such as hoarding more than seven days of food, paying cash for a hotel, and trying to conceal a private text message in a public place are suspicious to the government. Mostly everyone I know is suspected of terrorist activity with that in mind. Hedges suspects that the Occupy movement will be added to this list for its treacherous behavior to question the motive behind corporations and the government, which is not a far off thought as Biden has already compared the actions of tea partiers to that of terrorists.

The government is afraid of anyone who questions its motives, so laws that hinder our rights are being put in place to keep us complacent and afraid. The NDAA of 2012 does not explicitly state what it considers necessary to hold citizens indefinitely. Could it include anyone speaking freely against public actions? Will the right of freedom of speech be considered treason if the speech is anti-government? Could freedom of the press go out the window with free speech?

Hedges’s lawsuit is the right step to protecting our rights. America invades foreign countries under the pretense of promoting peace and democracy, yet democracy is not even being promoted at home anymore. The country is on the road to a dictator form of government if this continues. Already we have seen police brutality with Occupy protestors, demoting the right to assembly. Now the right to a trial no matter what is extinguished, and it would not be shocking to see other Amendments be taken away with the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists. If Hedges and other fighters for liberty fail, America could be the country writers such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley only dreamed of years ago.

Technorati Tags: American rights, Chris Hedges, law, NDAA, Obama

By: Stacy Liberatore

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of speech is the first amendment in The United States Constitution. Blood has been shed to keep this and the other amendments sacred.  One could say it is written in black, white, and red.

The press has always been under the control of the wealthy and those of higher powers in the country, and because of this the public has lost its faith in the fact that the press will report the truth and nothing but the truth.  Reporting stories via the news has become a corrupt and secretive business.

The press was initially created to serve the people with issues about its nation and the world.  To inform us, warn us, and provide us with the truth.  In a democracy the news media’s role is like a watchdog, monitoring the government.  When the powers at be, control the information that is broadcasted to the public, it hinders that nation’s freedoms and weakens the relationship and trust between the public and the news media system.

But in today’s world we are bombarded with censored news from the media that we are told to trust.  Whether it is for the greater good of the people, or simply to benefit the government; with either reason, it is infringing our first amendment.  Censorship is a hand grenade of an accusation, and a writer should be serious before pulling the pin.

In September of 2006, it was said there was less than ten embedded journalists covering the war in Iraq, the public was outraged at this.  During the Vietnam War there were many more and they had the liberty of going where they wanted and covering any story they felt needed to be broadcasted.  The public is blaming the news networks for the lack of journalists on the war front, but in actuality the government only permits one embedded journalist for every 75,000 soldiers.  And in the long run, most journalists give up on their task due to the dangers that they face.  So in reality, fingers can be pointed in every direction; at government officials and the journalists themselves.

Free speech is what separates us from every other country in the world.  We, the United States have more freedoms than anyone else.  But the government tries to take away more and more, lit by little. Our founding fathers wrote the first amendment to give the people the right to speak up against the British without being punished.  Censorship is a complete contradiction to what our forefathers wanted for this nation.  If our first amendment is altered or worse removed entirely, what’s next? We might as well live in a communist country where we won’t have to think, because the government won’t allow it.  We might as well put a gag around the Statue of Liberty’s mouth, because that is the image we will be representing if censorship isn’t fought against.

Technorati Tags: 1st Amendment, America, Censorship, News

Written by: Michael Arnold

Rick Santorum has fared extremely well in the GOP race thus far. Although paid little attention until recently, the underdog runner is now being identified by many Republicans as the best conservative choice.  His ascent to the top, however, should be regarded with alarm.

Senator Santorum is a man who is frighteningly out of touch with the people he is hoping to represent. His beliefs on cultural morals, especially in regards to the LGBT community and family values, are beyond antiquated, they’re absurd and overbearing.

Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

In a recent Fox News interview, Santorum expressed his support for the reinstatement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” claiming that gay rights and black rights are not on an equal platform. In sum, he defined homosexuality as a “behavioral” choice and made the pitiful and awfully supported assertion that gay people “can stop being gay.” Rather than extending equal rights to all American citizens, Santorum believes that we must fight back against those “trying to impose their values” upon the nation.

Impose their values?  While Santorum expresses his belief in imposing the denial of fundamental rights upon a significant segment of the  American citizenry, he makes the dual claim that this segment is somehow imposing something upon America at large. The logical flaw in this argument is so blatant that it borders on arrogance.

The nation’s social values should not be dictated arbitrarily by someone who believes he understands what is best. What America needs is a president who is committed to understanding the people of the nation, what they want, and how to respect their liberties. Santorum’s record has proven that he is not that candidate.

Senator Santorum takes no shame in making the claim that traditional marriage is superior to other lifestyles; meanwhile just under half of the country currently leads a traditional “nuclear family” lifestyle. He has inserted his extreme religious beliefs into his political policy by imposing the inclusion of intelligent design and other non-scientific theories into Pennsylvania state curricula. He does not believe in every American’s implicit “right to privacy;” and he claims that the use of contraceptives are “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

The proof is there. This man simply does not respect basic American rights, and he is by no means suitable to lead a changing nation.

Acceptance and support of a diverse populace is a crucial element of being the President of the United States. While Senator Santorum’s beliefs and policies are alarming, his growing support is even more so. Voters have yet to realize that electing a leader who does not respect the rights of one group, can just as quickly strip rights from another.

Technorati Tags: Gay Rights, GOP, GOP Race, LGBT, rick santorum

By: Barbara J. Ross

Censorship in China is increasing despite a hungry public savoring for freedom of speech.  This week China’s government under the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television took measures to drastically reduce programming which they deemed as promoting “excessive entertainment and vulgar tendencies.”  The parallel of the broadcasting toll to the human toll taken in the massacre event of 1989 is noted.  Both events effectively stopped public opinion and information, be it serious political dissent or light entertainment, from reaching the mainstream public.

One primary target of the 2012 censorship was a wildly popular reality program If You Are the One.  Much to the chagrin of the government, this program garnered  record ratings in 2010 as over 50 million people were viewing the dating show on prime time.  Now the State Administration has required 34 Chinese satellite television stations to air “no more than two, 90-minute entertainment” programs each per week. Whatever programming the television stations collectively work out, only ten such programs are permitted to be broadcast nationwide per week. In addition, this mandate requires 2 hours of state-approved news per day.  All of these orders went into effect on January 1 of this year.

This action is said by some to mirror the spirit of quelling public demand for democracy and information during the Tiananmen  Square event.  There, public protestors occupied the square for seven weeks in demonstration for democratic reform after the death of former party leader Hu Yaobang.  Millions of ordinary Chinese citizens joined the movement as a call for democracy was sent out. Hundreds were shot dead by the Chinese Army to in their attempt to crush the democratic protest.

While the death of television programming is by no means equal to the death of human protestors, the event provides evidence that the control of the Chinese government has not moved toward democracy. According to Want China Times, a government spokesman said the channels will begin to air programs that promote traditional virtues and the socialist value system.  This sets forth a government view, rather than allowing views of the general public to be aired.

The government is also targeting the internet, specifically microblogs or weibos, which many Chinese use as a forum to send information to one another.  The Xinhua (China’s State News Agency) reported that Zhou Yongkang, the public security chief, was urging authorities “to solve problems regarding social integrity, morality and Internet management” with “the early introduction of laws and regulations on the management of the Internet.”  One report from the annual meeting of the Communist Party’s Central Committee  detailed an “Internet management system” which is to subject offenders who spread unapproved and harmful information to punishment.

Technorati Tags: Chinese censorship, Communist Party’s Central Committee, Xinhua

Former Gov. Mitt Romney celebrating after his narrow win over Senator Rick Santorum in the Iowa Caucuses.

2012 Iowa Caucuses Result in a Draw

Mitt Romney Defeats Rick Santorum by only 8 votes.

Written by Agathe Panaretos. For what many saw as a chance for the Republican Party to narrow its field of possible presidential candidates, Tuesday’s caucuses in Iowa resulted in a near-tie between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

The final results of the caucuses held last Tuesday have the former governor winning by the slimmest of margins, with a total of 30,015 votes over Santorum’s total of 30,007.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who many anticipated would be a dark horse in the upcoming primaries, finished in third with 26,219 votes.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry finished in fifth and sixth place, respectively. Native Iowan and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann finished last, pulling in 6,073 votes. Failing to win a single county in the state, Bachmann later withdrew her candidacy following the results on Wednesday morning.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman skipped the caucus in order to spend time campaigning in New Hampshire, whose primary is to be held on January 10.

Santorum, who up until the last week had remained near the bottom of the polls, was the latest candidate to experience a surge of support in an ongoing rollercoaster of viable contenders. While promising, his close finish in Iowa further demonstrates Republican voters’ dissatisfaction with the current crop of contenders.

A common theme among exit polls conducted throughout the state reveal voters have little faith in Santorum’s chances of beating President Obama in the November election. Thirty-one percent of voters named the ability to defeat the current President as the most important quality in choosing which candidate to support; of that percentage, only thirteen percent picked Santorum.

The Iowa Caucus is the first real litmus test in measuring a candidate’s potential of becoming the Republican nominee for President. While a poor showing in the state can quickly lead a campaign to its knees, a positive performance does not always translate to a successful bid on the national level. Of the past five Republican Caucuses held with multiple candidates, only two (Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000) have gone on to win the Republican nomination.

With only a few days left before the New Hampshire primary, the remaining candidates will likely focus their campaigns on one target: Mitt Romney. The former governor has maintained a steady following throughout the campaign and overwhelming financial support, spending over $17 million since January 2011. With a win in New Hampshire, Republican voters may finally accept Mitt Romney as the clear winner.

Technorati Tags: GOP, jon huntsman, michelle bachmann, mitt romney, newt gingrich, republican primaries, Republicans, rick santorum, Ron Paul

Technorati Tags: al-Qaeda, boko haram, nigeria, terrorism

Written by: Jacob Kleinman

Iran could cut of 1/5 of the world's oil supply by blockading the Hormuz Straight

Over the last few weeks the political climate between the United States and Iran has gone from bad to worse following the oil-rich Middle Eastern country’s declaration that they have successfully produced their first nuclear fuel rod. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post (Israel’s primary English-language newspaper), Israel and the US are working together towards a “military exercise” in the Spring in which thousands of US soldiers will be deployed to Israel along with US army machinery.

Iran’s nuclear agency has stated that the rod, a tube containing pellets of enriched uranium that provides the fuel for a nuclear reactor, will be used to generate nuclear power. Despite these claims, the US and Europe believe that Iran is, and always has been, working towards the construction of nuclear missiles.

For the time being the United States and Europe are planning to boycott Iranian oil, which fuel’s the country’s otherwise crumbling economy, in order to curtail its nuclear ambitions. Iranian officials have responded by equating the oil embargo to “economic war,” and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi defiantly stated on Thursday that his country would “weather the storm.”

Even Asian countries such Japan, South Korea and China have agreed to seek out alternative crude oil suppliers under growing pressure from the US. These three countries, along with India, important more than 60 percent of Iran’s oil exports, and have approached other nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, about purchasing oil following the increasingly tense political situation.

However, Iran still has an ace up its sleeve. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow opening which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian sea and the rest has been the recent setting for war games conducted by Iran’s navy. About 14 tankers carrying 15.5 million barrels of oil (coming from other countries as well as Iran) travel through the sea passage every day; that’s 20 percent of the world’s crude oil.

What exactly would happen if Iran decided to blockade the Hormuz straight is unclear, as is how long the Iranian army could maintain control of the passage. Iranian Admiral Mahmoud Mousavi has stated, “We won’t disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We are not after this.”

As the situation intensifies and the theoretical oil embargo becomes a reality the region’s future seems unclear. It should come as no surprise that the United States is seeking to establish a military presence within reach of Iran in order to squash any nuclear activity and maintain the stability of the global oil market.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Oil Embargo, Strait of Hormuz, United States

Written by: Tamar Auber

On December 31, 2012, six weeks after a twilight raid ousted the OWS protestors from Zuccotti Park in New York City, Occupy Wall Street was planning their own midnight attack. As millions tuned in and crowded into Times Square to watch the ball drop, a small plucky advance took back their erstwhile home, Zuccotti Park, resulting in approximately 68 arrests in the first hours of the New Year. A swift show of police force quickly reclaimed the park and emptied it of protestors. However, the unexpected raid leaves many wondering, is the Occupy Movement set to make a comeback in 2012?

Few can dispute that the last few months have taken a toll on the Occupy movement. On November 15 2011, Occupy Wall Street lost its nerve center when it was cast from Zuccotti Park where it camped day and night for nearly three months. Three days later, occupiers in Dallas were kicked out of the park they called home, followed by the dismantling of Occupy Washington DCon December 5th and other encampments nationwide. The loss of a home and protest space appeared, at least the surface, to be a deathblow to the Occupy movement whose acephalous structure demands that persons be gathered for decisions, based on consensus, to be made.

Will the Occupy Movement make a comeback in 2012?

Yet, on November 17th, the homeless Occupy Wall Street movement managed to drum up thousands of supporters for an anniversary march on Wall Street. After the loss of the Philadelphia tent city, the Philly group voted to continue meeting, and were reported in a December 30th  Huffington Post blog  as “alive and well.” Then there was the Occupy Onward conference on December 18th, which met at the New School, “to discuss the current crisis and what the Occupy Wall Street and the rest of us can do about it.” Unlikely to be the final breaths of a dying group, these events and meetings appear to be breathing new life into a wounded, but still very much viable worldwide movement.

No doubt, the Occupy movement is being aided by social media and a readily available internet to virtually connect members and keep them informed. Yet, another force seems to be feeding the groups re-birth. Despite promises of a brighter future, unemployment is still high and the economic outlook remains bleak. This national discontentment, felt strongly among young persons, provides the perfect fuel for the Occupy movement to take fire in 2012.

As the Occupy Wall Street demonstrated in the first hours of 2012, the new year will likely bring more news of Occupy protests and events worldwide, as the hobbled OWS movement and others worldwide reorganize and strategize on new ways to get their message heard loud and clear in the new year.

Technorati Tags: anniversary march on wall street, comeback, New Year's 2012, occupy, Occupy Dallas, Occupy eviction, Occupy Fort Worth, Occupy Onward, Occupy ouster, Occupy Philly, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Washington, Occupy Washington DC, OWS, social media, wall street march, Zuccotti Park

“Written by: Kathleen Mulvihill”
(As told by Joe Fly)

This is America, so I have the right to voice my opinion about the Occupy Movement and not be swatted or otherwise squashed, if you know what I mean. A lot of you wish to be a fly on the wall at one time or another. Well, here’s your chance to hear it from the real thing: me, Joe Fly.

I’ll get straight to the point: seems to me this whole Occupy thing could find itself Vacant if someone doesn’t wake up and smell the beef. Let me digress.

About four months ago, Sept. 17, 2011 to be exact, when it all began in New York City’s financial district, I was just your average Joe buzzing around for my next meal. But this ruckus is going on, right, so I land on a tent where humans are talking about things like the 99 percent rule, how they need to reclaim democracy from the greed of Wall Street, big corporations, banks and billionaires (Gates and Buffet notwithstanding). They’re ranting against economic and civil inequalities. Like how did a democratic and capitalist country like America, where every man could become a king, suddenly become more like an autocratic caste system?

I wanted to know more. My winged family members in Asia told me that the Occupy movement was inspired by the Arab Spring – you know, all those protest and resistance movements in places like Syria, Libya and Egypt. “Those folks forced out their leaders, brought down their governments and formed new democracies for their people,” my relatives said. Nice job.

But all I see in America is young people beating their drums, holding their placards, pitching their tents, yelling that they are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. Gotcha. But as the weeks and months go on, I don’t get where they’re going. I mean, where’s their business plan, what’s their strategy, who is their leader, when are they actually going to do something to bring about change? Where’s the beef?

Have they not noticed that city by city, the politicians are putting their armed police on the chess board and booting out the pawns from the public places they once occupied? Call me a bugger, but I get around like no one’s business. Just the other day, I flew to the Beltway and you should have heard the laughter from some of those legalized criminals who represent you in Congress, especially those up for reelection. They’re brushing you off like dust mites, my friends.

So here’s my advice. Get a voice, don’t become the New Silent Majority. Take a lesson from the Tea Party. That brew got up and running pretty fast and knocked out a few Democrats in fairly short order. The 2012 elections are around the corner but you still have time to fire the bums (Democrats or Republicans) by the dozens. Make your voice heard, get out your message and hoist that 1 percent square in the public’s face. What are you waiting for, an invitation to tea?

Technorati Tags: equality, government, occupy, protesters