News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
According to an article posted today in the Washington Free Beacon, former Senator Joe Lieberman has stated that he believes that there is enough Democrat opposition to the nuclear treaty with Iran to override a presidential veto if the Senate does not approve the treaty and the President vetoes their disapproval. (Just for the record, that is not the way the U.S. Constitution is supposed to work, but it seems as if no one is paying attention to the U.S. Constitution at this point).
The article reports:
Lieberman said he knew members of Congress would take this vote seriously and consider its ramifications. The deal, which relieves sanctions and does not provide “anytime, anywhere” inspections of suspected nuclear activity, paves the way for the rogue regime to become a nuclear power and continue to fund terrorism worldwide.
“They know that they voted for sanctions … Strong bipartisan majorities for a single reason—that economic sanctions on Iran would only come off if Iran’s nuclear weapons program ended,” Lieberman said. “This agreement does the opposite. Take the sanctions off, and after a period of years, they get to be a nuclear power.”
Lieberman said the U.S. “conceded and conceded and conceded” to the Iranians in the agreement.
“I can’t think of a vote that I cast, apart from the ones deploying American troops into combat, that was as important as this agreement is to the future security of the United States,” Lieberman said.
Former Senator Lieberman is a good example of a principled Democrat. Although I disagree with him on many issues, he seemed to be a man of integrity who tried to do the right thing for America. It is a shame that the Democrats did not support him because he voted his conscience while he was in the Senate rather than follow the party line. I wish the Democrats had more men like him.
When asked about the pipeline, President Obama responded, “Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”
Either the President is economically ignorant or he is attempting to take advantage of the lack of economic knowledge of the average American (the tactic used to sell ObamaCare).
The editorial at the Wall Street Journal points out:
Someone should tell the President that oil markets are global and adding to global supply might well reduce U.S. gas prices, other things being equal. A tutor could add that Keystone XL will also carry U.S. light oil from North Dakota‘s Bakken Shale. So even if he thinks that bilateral trade only helps Canada, he’s still wrong about Keystone.
…Mr. Obama routinely entreats Congress to spend taxpayer money on “infrastructure” to create jobs, yet he implies that the 1,179-mile Keystone infrastructure project won’t create jobs.
Chances are that President Obama will veto the bill that passed the House and Senate regarding the Keystone Pipeline. The only reason the Senate allowed the bill to be brought up was to help Senator Landrieu win re-election. I am not sure the bill would have been brought up if the Democrats were not sure the President would veto it. I doubt enough Democrats will actually support the bill to override that veto. It would be nice if they did. Keystone would be a wonderful way to boost the American economy without charging Americans more taxes.