For Obama And His Keystone Cops, This New Pipeline Poll Could Be A Game Changer


Buoyed by outspoken environmentalists, climate change doomsayers, and liberal lawmakers, President Obama has repeatedly threatened to veto any bill that Congress might send him to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a measure to move forward with the controversial pipeline project. That legislation is now in the Senate, where its fate could be an early test of GOP leader Mitch McConnell’s ability to assemble a bipartisan coalition big enough to override a presidential veto. reports that contentious debate over the measure could begin on the Senate floor as early as next week.

Democrats are aiming to use the amendment process to force Republicans into a number of tough votes, including on whether to back an amendment that states man-made climate change is happening.

Asked if the Republican caucus was ready to take that vote, McConnell said, “Yeah!”

It will be interesting to see if the results of a brand new poll on the pipeline have any influence in that Senate debate, possibly giving pro-pipeline Republicans a boost in their head-to-head with Obama.

The CNN/ORC poll whose findings were released today shows that the percentage of Americans who support the Keystone project is double the percentage who oppose the construction of the long-delayed oil pipeline.

“The 1,179-mile Canada-to-Texas pipeline is backed by 57% of the 1,011 Americans surveyed on Dec. 18-21. Just 28% oppose it, while 15% say they are unsure.”

CNN notes that the measure up for debate in the Senate would end the State Department’s six-year review of the project and give the green light to its immediate construction.

As Western Journalism has reported, proponents of the international oil pipeline cite its potential for extensive job creation and increased energy independence for Americans.

h/t: CNN

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

You May Have Seen Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Probe Go Off The Rails If This Didn’t Just Happen


On May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives voted to establish the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy was chosen as its chairman.

Since then, the bi-partisan panel has conducted numerous private interviews and held two public hearings into the attack that left four Americans dead at the U.S. compound.

In a move that attracted little media attention, the GOP-controlled House on Tuesday took action that ensures the work of the Select Committee will continue, possibly well into the 2016 election cycle.

As reported on Stars and Stripes, House members voted to continue the panel’s investigation. In one of their first orders of business after being sworn in, they reauthorized the Select Committee.

The move to reauthorize the politically charged panel was included in a rules package for the new Congress that passed 234 to 172, mostly along party lines.

Five Democrats on the select committee lamented the reauthorization, which set no limit on the committee’s budget or time frame, which means it could last well into the presidential election year.

Following the panel’s second public hearing, in December of last year, Chairman Gowdy said he wanted to hear from Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state when the Benghazi attack occurred.

Via The Hill:

Clinton, who is widely expected to run for president in 2016, was the nation’s top diplomat at the time of the attack and has been repeatedly chastised by the GOP over her handling of the episode that left four Americans dead.

A second appearance on Capitol Hill about Benghazi would be catnip for political operatives, Republican politicians and cable television producers.

If by some electoral miracle Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats had regained control of the House of Representatives, it’s a virtual certainty the Select Committee on Benghazi would have been disbanded, and Hillary Clinton would have been off Trey Gowdy’s hook.

The South Carolina Republican congressman has vowed to produce a complete account of the deadly Benghazi assault by terrorists, regardless of previous investigations or earlier reports on the attack.

Image Credit:

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: John Boehner Might Want To Switch Parties After What This Repub Just Said About Him

Louie Gohmert

After the $1.1 trillion CROmnibus bill passed the House Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) slammed Republican leadership for not negotiating with the conservative members of his base.

Appearing alongside Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) on Fox News Channel’s Hannity Thursday, Gohmert told the host,

“Some of us had gone to our leadership and said, ‘Look, we can do this very easily. Let’s do it together with conservatives. That’s the bulk of our conference. Don’t make them take a wrong vote. Let’s fund everything for two months.’

“‘Let us have a vote on defunding Obama’s amnesty and we’ll even agree that the Senate can take it out if they take the hard vote to do that and let it go from there to the President. We were willing to work with them, to compromise.’”

Both Salmon and Gohmert voted no on the measure.

The Texas Congressman continued,

“And not one word, as you know. The calls went to the White House. When in a time that the Speaker needed votes, he turned to somebody that he really identifies with – the President and liberal Democrats — and got them to help him pass this vote.”

When Hannity asked whether or not this would affect Boehner’s chances of retaining the Speaker’s gavel in January, Gohmert said, “I think he ought to be able to pick up some Democratic votes for Speaker this time.”

“He can have Denis McDonough or the President come over and get Democrats to get the votes to carry him across the finish line to Speaker. I think they would help him.”

The Senate is expected to take up the bill late Friday.


h/t The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Boom: Trey Gowdy Just Roasted Obama To A Crisp On The House Floor And Earned A Standing Ovation

Trey Screen Grab

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) really delivered when he took a stand to uplift the House members, reminding them of the purpose in their roles as leaders.

Gowdy also discussed Obama’s role as President of the United States, describing the way he has managed the duties and powers entrusted to him.

His speech is nothing short of thought-provoking.

“I want us to talk as colleagues, because our foundational document gave us as the House unique powers and responsibilities. We run every two years because they intended for us to be closest to the people. The President was given different duties and powers. The President was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, so my question, Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you?”

“We know the President can veto a bill for any reason or for no reason,” he continued. “We know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute – even one that he signs into law. We know the President can issue pardons for violations of the very laws that we pass, and we know that the President has prosecutorial discretion as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys.

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough? What are we to do when this president, or any president, decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law? What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation, when a president nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute the law?”

Gowdy continued to ask questions of the same nature throughout his address.

“You know, in the oath that brand-new citizens take, it contains six different references to ‘the law.’ If it’s good enough for us to ask brand-new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the President do the same?

If a president can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually has to enforce?

What is our recourse, Mr. Speaker? What is our remedy?”

He closed by explaining how a bill he has chosen to sponsor would permit Congress to ensure the Executive branch has to follow the laws.

“Maybe members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law.”

“Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives does not exist to pass suggestions,” Gowdy concluded. “We do not exist to pass ideas. We make law. And while you are free to stand and clap when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to do it with or without you, I will never stand and clap when any president – no matter whether he’s your party or mine – promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. We make law.”

The South Carolina Rep’s impassioned proclamation left the room cheering and applauding, with many rising to their feet, clearly in agreement with his sentiments.

Well said, Trey. Well said, indeed. It’s good to know you have America’s back.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: What This Dem Just Said May Go Down As One Of The Most Brazen Lies In Congressional History

Sheila Jackson Lee

Reaction to Wednesday’s House vote authorizing a lawsuit against Barack Obama elicited spirited debate from leaders in both parties.

Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, in an address from the floor of the House, joined a growing chorus among those in her party that the suit initiated by Speaker John Boehner is just a step toward impeachment proceeding. Republican leaders have continually denied this assertion.

“I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution,” she said Wednesday, “for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job.”

Sticking with the impeachment narrative, Lee attempted to evoke memories of Obama’s predecessor to make her point.

“A historical fact,” she continued, “President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because, as an executive, he had his authority.”

She went on to claim that, as it stands today, “President Obama has the authority.”

While her rhetoric might strike some as reasoned, a cursory review of the facts reveals a fundamental misrepresentation in her assertion. In 2008, not only did Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich move to initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush, Lee was one of the bill’s 11 co-sponsors.

At that time, she testified that she believed the House had “a very firm basis of suggesting high crimes and misdemeanors” against Bush, suggesting the body should not be “intimidated by the process or time” in determining whether to move forward with the inquiry.

“This is not a personal question,” she maintained. “This is a question of protecting the institution of the Constitution.”

Lee went so far as to cite the president’s sworn duty to uphold the nation’s laws, an issue to which proponents of impeachment against Obama have frequently alluded.

“One of the oath of office is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” she said, “and our colleague Congressman Kucinich has included those very, very precise words in one of his articles.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom