Obama citizenship issue is now in the court system!

Too bad this wasn’t done 4 years ago. Could have saved us a lot of money and repair work to come.

Click here: thenationalpatriot.com

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/

FULL ANALYSIS OF ELIGIBILITY HEARING

By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm

For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.
What does it mean?
To answer that, one must look at the reason for the hearing to begin with.
For years, Orly Taitz and the Liberty Legal Foundation along with others, have questioned Obama’s legal right to serve. For years, that argument centered on the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in the United States.
What made this case and this hearing different, is that it mattered not where Obama was born rather, at the center of the stage, would be the nationality of Obama’s father.
Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered into the official record this morning.
Another linchpin in all of this, is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” which one must be, by writ of the Constitution, to hold the office of President. According to the plaintiffs in this hearing, that definition can be clearly found in the written opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs Happersett from 1875.
That opinion, which by the way is backed up by several other Supreme Court opinions, states that for one to be a “Natural Born Citizen” both of one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am �EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge's chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge s chambers.

Has Obama s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama s father s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama s book, Dreams from My Father  entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father s history is mentioned. It states that his father s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27^th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama s father s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between citizen  and Natural Born Citizen  using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14^th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2^nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2^nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama s mother for her passport listing Obama s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by unsharp mask  in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street by Thomas Sowell By Dr. Thomas Sowell The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly. It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and of murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society. It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: of defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been always rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been now shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties. It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and all other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor. It is the America that Obama and the Democrat Party have now created with all the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood, unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities. Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in threeyears than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of. The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America. "Socialism, in general, has a record of failure that's so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Dr. Thomas Sowell (A National Humanities Medal Winner)

-- The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are out numbered by the people that vote for a living.

Shell Commercial

Here's a link to a Shell commercial shown in Europe . Obviously,they're selling gasoline, but the cars used in the video steal the show. Ferrari pulled several of their race cars from various ages out of storage, flew them around the world, and filmed them running through the streets of Rome, Rio, New York, Hong Kong,Honolulu, and Monaco. No computer graphics---these are theoriginal cars on the original streets. Even if you're not a gear-head, this video will stir the soul. There's just something about 3 liters and 14,000 RPM !!!

Debt Generation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnDyXrSwJnA

The Buffett Ruse

Obama's ploy means the highest capital gains tax rate since 1978.

Remember the moment in 2008 when Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Senator Barack Obama why he would support raising the capital gains tax even though "revenues from the tax increased" when the rate fell? Mr. Obama's famous reply: "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Well, we were warned.
Here we are four years later, and President Obama on Tuesday night linked the term "fair" to U.S. tax and economic policy seven times. The U.S. economy is still hobbling out of recession, real family incomes are falling and 14 million Americans are unemployed, but Mr. Obama declared that his top priority is not to reform the tax code to promote growth and job creation. His overriding goal is redistributing income.

Enlarge Image

Mr. Obama endorsed the political ruse he calls the Buffett rule, which asserts as a matter of moral principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class wage earners. Specifically, Mr. Obama is proposing that anyone earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of that income to Uncle Barack.

The White House says that if a millionaire household's effective tax rate falls below 30%, it would have to pay a surcharge—in essence a new Super Alternative Minimum Tax—to bring the tax liability to 30%. For those facing this new Super AMT, all deductions and exemptions would be eliminated except for charity.
The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.)
This is because wealthy tax filers make most of their income from investments. Such income is taxed once at the corporate rate of 35% and again when it is passed through to the individual as a capital gain or dividend at 15%, for a highest marginal tax rate of about 44.75%.
This double taxation is one reason the U.S. has long had a differential tax rate for capital gains. Another reason is because while taxpayers must pay taxes on their gains, they aren't allowed to deduct capital losses (beyond $3,000 a year) except against gains in the current year. Capital gains also aren't indexed for inflation, so a lower rate is intended to offset the effect of inflated gains.
One implication of the Buffett rule is that all millionaire investment income would be taxed at the shareholder level at a minimum rate of 30%, up from 15% today. The tax rate on investment income from corporations would rise to 54.5% from 44.75%, a punitive tax on start-up or expanding businesses.
The new 30% capital gains rate would be the developed world's third highest behind only Denmark and Chile, according to the American Council for Capital Formation. This is on top of the 35% corporate rate that is already the second highest rate in the world after Japan. That giant sucking sound you hear come January 2013 would be hundreds of billions of investment dollars fleeing to China, India, Korea and other U.S. competitors. Lower capital investment in the U.S. means less wage growth, and so the people hurt most by this tax hike would be workers, according to a study by the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

Mr. Obama conceded on Tuesday that the high U.S. corporate tax is an economic loser. Yet he misses the crucial point that business owners assess the combined corporate and capital gains tax on those business profits. Lowering the corporate tax rate makes the U.S. more competitive, but the tax change is self-defeating if it is combined with an even larger rise in investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Mr. Obama isn't setting himself apart merely from conservatives with this Buffett ploy. He is rejecting 35 years of bipartisan tax policy that began with the passage of the Steiger Amendment by a Democratic Congress that cut the capital-gains rate to 28% from 35% in 1978.
As the nearby chart shows, the rate has never since risen above 28%, and the last time it moved that high was in 1986 as part of the Reagan-Rostenkowski tax reform that also cut the top marginal income tax rate to 28% from 50%. With income-tax rates so low, a differential was arguably less necessary—though it's worth noting that capital gains revenues fell dramatically after that rate increase.
A decade later Bill Clinton agreed to cut the rate back to 20% as part of the balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich. Capital gains revenues soared, helping to balance the federal budget. Nearly every study estimates that the revenue-maximizing tax rate from the capital gains tax is between 15% and 28%. Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, says that a 30% tax rate "is almost surely above the rate that maximizes tax revenues." So it's likely the Buffett trick would lose revenue for the government.
Yet in a time of the highest deficits since World War II, Mr. Obama wants to double the capital gains tax rate even as he raises the top income-tax rate to 42% or so. Mr. Obama really is taking us back to the worst habits of the 1970s. And not because he thinks higher rates will raise revenue, but merely so he can score points against Mitt Romney and stick it to the successful.
This isn't tax fairness. It's tax folly.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16

World's Greatest Drag Race

Another Obama Failed Investment

Ener1, Parent of Obama-Backed Green Company, Files for Bankruptcy - ABC News

This, again, shows the ineptness of Obama administration. They know little about investing, business, foreign policy, defense, job creation, health care. How could they? The vast majority of experience lies in community organizing, political hacking, illusion selling, pandering etc. It is really not their fault that they are failing, it should surprise no one. This administration and its leader is the most unprepared for running this country in history.

Let's see, they invested in the Volt, Solyndra, Ener1. All losers.

His signature achievement, Obamacare, was not mentioned in the State of The Union address. Why? Isn't he still proud? Could it be that he now expects the SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional, or that it was passed by slight of hand Senate maneuvers or that it is so radioactively politically unpopular he wants to distance himself?

Today, his NLRB has issued directives to business to release the names and contact information of employees to unions trying to organize. So much for individual privacy. The NLRB apparently operates outside the scrutiny of Congress. Where is the check and balance in this administration? His power grab is obvious to the most casual observer.  It should frighten us.

Back in February 2009 President Obama told Today Show host Matt Lauer that he’d be a one-term president if he didn’t fix the economy in three years. “I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “ I've got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

I doubt he is a man of his word.

The Great Intellectual

From WSJ Best of the Web, 01/27/12, James Taranto

The Great Intellectual 
A couple of readers sent us this quote from a speech President Obama gave at a UPS plant in Las Vegas yesterday:

"On Tuesday at the State of the Union, I laid out my vision for how we move forward. I laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last, that has a firm foundation. Where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and UPS drivers are dropping things off everywhere."

We got a kick out of the comments our readers made: "He sounds a lot like the kid that really hoped teacher wouldn't call on him," observes T. Young. And Jim Orheim: "My seventh- and fourth-graders (in public school!) can articulate what the economy is better than this."

Is this what James Kloppenberg means by "philosophical pragmatism"?

Will there ever be another?

Tax The Rich

“Moment Of Clarity”; is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, PhD


 "To be fair to the Democrats, the financial system melted down on their watch. And to be fair to Republicans, terrorists flew planes into buildings on theirs. Neither party asked for the trouble that dropped in their laps; none of us ever do. But we don’t pay our elected officials to be lucky and we don’t pay them to make excuses; we pay them to fix things."

       Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have forgotten the latter imperative.

        November 25, 2011 Tax Truth:  Now that the Super Committee foolishness is behind him, President Obama can focus his full attention to the more serious business of blaming all of his failures on George W. Bush. Let me say at the outset that I am no fan of George W. Bush. One of the worst things he ever did was attach his name to a sensible economic policy that worked. Yes, worked. I thought it might be useful to pre-empt the next year of carnival-barking with a number or two for my liberal friends who prefer their economics to be delivered to them in slogans. Start with this one: the FY2003 budget deficit was $377 billion. The significance of that milestone is that it is the year when the Bush tax cuts were implemented. Four years later, in FY2007, the deficit had fallen to $161 billion. The deficit shrunk by 57.3% in the first four years of the Bush tax cuts; you will not hear that on TV, in schools, or on the campaign trail in the next 12 months. You’re welcome.

       And it didn’t happen because of those famous “draconian spending cuts” Senators Clinton and Schumer made a fortune complaining to their base about back then. In fact, government spending increased over those four years by 26% - more than double the rate of inflation. Two wars, No Child Left Behind, Katrina, the Patriot Act, and Medicare Part D will do that for you. The deficit was reduced in spite of all that spending because tax receipts rose by 44%. That is what reducing tax rates on producers will do for you. In FY2003 receipts were $1,782 billion, and in FY2007 they were $2,568 billion. Yes, MSNBC junkies, tax receipts went up when top rates went down; just like Arthur Laffer said they would.

       Go ahead and hate Bush as much as you want, but don’t take it out on math. And don’t even call them the Bush Tax Cuts, as I can’t imagine that he sat down one day by himself and wrote up changes to the tax code. He was not the only one who understands the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, and besides it is Congress, not the President, who levies taxes and controls spending. Amazing what you can find out when you actually read the Constitution.

       Bill Clinton lowered capital gains rates (seriously, he did) and the resulting surge in tax receipts caused the balanced budget that Democrats and Newt Gingrich now take credit for. Clinton knew what Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and John F. Kennedy did – like the people who own it, capital will move to where it is punished the least. And capital formation is the necessary predecessor of job creation. And if you don’t like those stubborn facts about deficits during the Bush years, don’t get mad at me; take your grievance to Office of Management and Budget – President Obama’s OMB – who publish the numbers on actual receipts and actual outlays.

       Cash flow doesn’t lie, and receipts and outlays are the bottom line of fiscal policy. Tax-the-rich obsessive-compulsives will still complain that tax receipts fell as a percentage of GDP from 2003 to 2007 and they will be correct. But so what? Would you turn down a 44% raise because mine was 60%? The sad thing is, there are a whole lot of Americans who probably would; such is the state of the coveting class these days.

       In case you missed it, Bush has already been punished by the voters. Too much spending, debt, and war weariness cost the Republicans both houses of Congress in 2006. Taking office in January of 2007, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid inherited a 14,000 point Dow, a 3.5% growth rate, and unemployment at 4.4%. They promised to do much better and they got their chance, starting with the FY2008 budget. But they did not even wait for the budget process to begin; they announced their economic agenda right off the bat – increase taxes on the wealthy, increase taxes on corporations, cap and trade, (union) card check, tariff increases, more government regulation, nationalization of health care, “green” mandates, restricting energy production, and commandeering the nation’s student loan programs. Their war on capitalism was declared while the movers were still hauling boxes in and out of the Capitol. Mission accomplished, to borrow a phrase.

       In FY2011, after four years of Pelosi/Reid budgets, the federal government’s deficit is now $1.3 trillion - almost ten times what it was when they took over. 15 million Americans are unemployed. So let’s recap: Republicans controlled the House and Senate and enacted tax cuts; four years later their deficit was reduced by 57.3%. Democrats controlled the House and Senate and declared war on capitalism; four years later their deficit was increased by 819%. And they call George W. Bush dumb.

       To be fair to the Democrats, the financial system melted down on their watch. And to be fair to Republicans, terrorists flew planes into buildings on theirs. Neither party asked for the trouble that dropped in their laps; none of us ever do. But we don’t pay our elected officials to be lucky and we don’t pay them to make excuses; we pay them to fix things.

       President Obama’s idea of fixing things is to repeatedly threaten to punish job creators by repealing the “Bush tax cuts." He creates investor uncertainty every time he opens his mouth and then he blames the investors for their risk-aversion. The President himself is the risk that investors are avoiding now, and many have finally come out and said so in recent weeks. Here is what they know that the President apparently does not: the knife cuts both ways. If cutting the top selective tax rates increased tax revenues by 44% and reduced the deficit by 57%, then what do you think will happen when those tax rates are raised? That’s right, revenues will plummet, the deficit – already obscene – will blow up even worse, and the economy will crater. The $2 trillion that has accumulated on corporate balance sheets is not being hoarded to punish the working man; it is being saved for a time where it can be responsibly invested, when returns and risk can be reasonably estimated – in other words, when Mr. Obama is gone.

Picture Says It All

Obama's Keystone Delay Flouts the Law

The president's decision to stop the project for further environmental review contravenes legislation he signed in December.

By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

Banana republics have trouble attracting capital because of a reputation for arbitrarily changing the rules whenever it suits the populist in power. With last week's decision to block TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama stunned investors by demonstrating that he doesn't see anything wrong with the banana republic way of doing things.

The administration seems to think that it can use environmental claptrap to convince the American public that it is behaving ethically and legally in denying the TransCanada permit, even after the company has spent $1.9 billion over 40 months carefully adhering to the federal regulatory process. And a lot of Americans will not have the time or inclination to get into the weeds on this issue.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

A Keystone XL Pipeline protest at the White House, Sept. 2, 2011.

Yet what is unseen by the public is likely to be more dangerous to the well-being of the society than what is seen, as the 19th-century journalist and political philosopher Frédéric Bastiat famously warned. In this case, the unseen is the effect that Mr. Obama's unmitigated cynicism and abuse of power is likely to have on investors. Unlike the general public, those who have ready capital to deploy to infrastructure projects like Keystone will fully analyze this decision. Seeing how our president has behaved, they are not likely to come away feeling confident about the rule of law.

To understand how Mr. Obama is thumbing his nose at the law, recall the State Department's decision in November to delay permit approval based on a complaint from the state of Nebraska about the pipeline route there. State had already issued three environmental impact statements over three years finding that there would be "no significant impact" on the environment from the pipeline. But as it prepared to issue its final ruling, the environmental lobby descended on the White House with protests.

Within days, State announced that a rerouting in Nebraska was necessary, which implied yet another round of environmental impact studies. It was a "green" victory because it meant delaying the permitting at least another three years, not counting the inevitable litigation and notwithstanding State's forecast that it would be done in 15 months.

It was an absurd proposition. Keystone XL will run more than 2,000 miles. The disputed segment is about 100 miles and by late November the company had already begun working with Nebraska on a rerouting plan. With some 20,000 new direct construction jobs and more than 100,000 indirect jobs along the pipeline route hanging in the balance, Republicans decided to give Mr. Obama a way out of the problem he faced of having to do another long, drawn-out environmental impact study. They attached a rider to the Dec. 23 payroll-tax bill that instructed the president to rule within 60 days on whether the oil pipeline crossing the U.S. border is in the national interest.

In making the determination, the rider said, the president should consider factors like the economy, energy security, foreign policy, employment, trade and even, notably, the environment. For example, Mr. Obama could have said that oil from Canada's oil sands is bad for the global environment. Perhaps that's what he wanted to say. It is, after all, the position of some of his most generous campaign contributors.

But with unemployment at 8.5%, Iran threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz and Hugo Chávez jailing dissidents, denouncing Canadian energy isn't a winning campaign slogan. It may also be discriminatory, and thus a violation, under the North American Free Trade Agreement and U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization.

Out of options, Mr. Obama concluded last week that it is not in the national interest to grant the permit because of the State Department's view that further environmental studies are required due to the Nebraska rerouting. It's a nice try. But it directly contravenes the rider, which specifically states that the one thing Mr. Obama need not concern himself about—indeed could not consider—is any new environmental impact studies.

The three bullet points that cover this point in the rider couldn't be much clearer: First, "the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 . . . and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act." Second, "any [my emphasis] modification" to the route "shall not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement . . ." Third, "no further Federal environmental review shall be required."

Congress anticipated that Mr. Obama would try to use the complex process of environmental study as a fig leaf for further delaying the pipeline. But if the law is to be followed, since the president failed to make a national interest determination as specified in the rider, it means that "the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline . . . shall be in effect by operation of law." The only question is whether Mr. Obama can be made to obey the letter and the spirit of that law and whether Republicans will try to enforce it. Investors will be watching.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

Obama’s “Forced” Keystone Decision Rejects Jobs, Energy, and Logic

Demonstrators carry a giant mock pipeline while calling for the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in front of the White House in Washington November 6, 2011.

by Nicolas Loris

President Obama’s politically intoned decision to reject TransCanada’s permit application to construct a 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Texas refineries sent a clear message that special interest demands are of more importance than more energy and much-needed job creation.

Building the pipeline would bring over 700,000 barrels of oil per day and directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs. The Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that current pipeline operations and the addition of the Keystone XL pipeline would create 179,000 American jobs by 2035.

Since TransCanada and Nebraska politicians have agreed to reroute the pipeline, the focus should now be on completing the reroute design and beginning construction. Congress should recognize the findings in the State Department’s “Final Environmental Impact Statement” and authorize the application submitted by TransCanada in September 2008.

Given the need for jobs and more oil on the global market to offset high prices, the permit application had been moving along positively with bipartisan support without much attention until environmental activists made blocking the Keystone XL pipeline their issue to rally around for 2011. Although President Obama and the Department of State (DOS) said they’d make a decision at the end of 2011, they ultimately catered to a narrow set of special interests, punting the decision until after the 2012 elections.

The payroll tax holiday legislation signed at the end of 2011 moved that decision date up to February 21. Today, however, the President rejected the permit, claiming, “This announcement is 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.” President Obama initially delayed the decision because he claimed that additional environmental review from the DOS was necessary.

This is a stunning (though not unexpected) decision. At a time when unemployment remains unacceptably high, Iran is threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and Canada is looking to take this oil elsewhere, it is difficult to understand how the President could say no to thousands of jobs and an increase in energy supply from our ally.

Environmentalists and opponents of the pipeline are blaming Republicans for forcing the President to make a decision that he was not ready to make (purportedly because additional environmental review was necessary), but this accusation is laughable. DOS has already conducted a thorough, three-year environmental review with multiple comment periods.

DOS studied and addressed risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and endangered species. They concluded that the construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk. Keystone XL also met 57 specific pipeline safety standard requirements created by DOS and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The pipeline would be equipped with 16,000 sensors connected to satellite that would monitor the pressure of the pipeline.

Much of the concern of environmentalists and Nebraska residents has focused on the original route of the pipeline, particularly the area where the pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer—despite the fact that thousands of miles of pipeline already cross the aquifer today and DOS’s impact statement rated the potential for water contamination as minimal. Oil contamination of drinking water would not be likely in many instances because the soil composition prevents or mitigates the downward migration of oil. Simply put, this pipeline is environmentally sound, and even DOS has said so. Making excuses that we need additional environmental review is catering to special interests.

But it’s a narrow group of special interests that the President is accommodating. Plenty of Obama supporters actually support the construction of the pipeline. The most glaringly obvious is the labor unions that stand to benefit from the job creation.

Nor is this a strictly partisan project. Democratic policymakers have also voiced their support. On October 19, 2011, 22 House Democrats sent a letter to President Obama pleading that “America needs the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is in our national interest to have a Presidential Permit issued for Keystone XL as soon as possible.” The letter mentioned that “the Department of State’s Final Environmental Impact Statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements, namely, that the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.”

Understanding the economic implications, Senators Max Baucus (D–MT), Jon Tester (D–MT), Joe Manchin (D–WV), Ben Nelson (D–NE), Mark Begich (D–AK), and Mary Landrieu (D–LA) have all expressed support for the pipeline.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu did not explicitly support the pipeline but did acknowledge that “it’s not perfect, but it’s a trade off” and that Canadian oil sands producers are “making great strides in improving the environmental impact of the extraction of this oil.” These are bold words from a man who has unabashedly derided fossil fuels in support of renewable energy and welcomed high gas prices. President Obama’s former “car czar” Steve Rattner also emphasized that the President should approve the pipeline permit.

Moreover, just a day before the decision, the President’s own jobs council underscored the need for not only more oil, natural gas, and coal but also energy infrastructure projects. The report says:

Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel. The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It’s ironic that the President’s first action following the release of this report is an abrupt dismissal of one of its key recommendations.

To meet those alleged environmental concerns in Nebraska, a reroute could be managed successfully by TransCanada and Nebraska state officials to alleviate any concerns, and construction of the pipeline could commence immediately if the President approved the permit. That’s why Congress should authorize the pipeline application as submitted by TransCanada pursuant to its authority to regulate commerce with other nations. Since there is no federal entity that sites and authorizes interstate petroleum pipeline construction, the state of Nebraska could site and approve an alternative route, following the PHMSA’s construction codes.

While the decision would again ultimately end up on President Obama’s desk, it would send a strong message that this country needs the jobs, the energy, and the economic growth.