Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

President Obama on Tuesday followed through on his vow to veto bipartisan-backed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, marking his first veto of the Republican-led Congress and only the third of his presidency. 
The president, in a brief statement, claimed the bill would "circumvent" the existing process for reviewing the pipeline, which would extend from Canada to Texas. 
"The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously," Obama said. "But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto." 
The decision, while expected, was met with tough criticism from Republicans -- and tees up another showdown with Congress in the coming days as GOP leaders try to override. 
"It's extremely disappointing that President Obama vetoed a bipartisan bill that would support thousands of good jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. "Even though the President has yielded to powerful special interests, this veto doesn't end the debate." 
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the veto a "national embarrassment." 
McConnell's office said the Senate plans to vote on overriding sometime before March 3. 
But so far, congressional leaders have not demonstrated they have the votes to override, which takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers. 
The Keystone bill garnered 62 yeas in the Senate, but they would need 67 to override. In the House, the bill got 270 votes -- but they would need 281 to override. 
It remains unclear whether moderate lawmakers could be swayed to switch in the coming weeks. 
While Tuesday's veto marked only the third of Obama's presidency -- fewer than any U.S. president since the 19th century -- his sparing use of the presidential tool is likely to change. With Republicans now in control of Congress, their efforts to chip away at the president's health care law and other legislative accomplishments are just as likely to be met with Obama's veto pen. 
To date, Obama rarely has used the veto in part because Democrats for six years controlled at least one chamber in Congress -- acting as a buffer to prevent unwanted bills from ever reaching the president's desk. That buffer is now gone. 
A look back at past presidencies, especially where control of the White House and Congress was split during at least one point, shows far more liberal use of that presidential power. 
In the Clinton presidency, the president issued 37 vetoes in his two terms. President Ronald Reagan issued 78. President George W. Bush issued 12. His father issued 44. 
Not since the Warren G. Harding administration has the number of vetoes been in the single digits; Harding issued six. 
The Keystone bill is as contentious an issue as any for Obama to fire his first veto shot of the new Congress. 
First proposed in 2008, the Keystone pipeline would connect Canada's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. 
The White House has said repeatedly it would wait to make its decision about whether to let the project go forward until after a State Department review. It regards the legislation as circumventing that process.

Islamists Cartoon

Alaska becomes third state to legalize recreational marijuana as ballot measure takes effect

Mother's Proud.

JUNEAU, Alaska –  Alaska on Tuesday became the third U.S. state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, but organizers don't expect any public celebrations since it remains illegal to smoke marijuana in public.
In the state's largest city, Anchorage police officers are ready to start handing out $100 fines to make sure taking a toke remains something to be done behind closed doors.
Placing Alaska in the same category as Washington state and Colorado with legal marijuana was the goal of a coalition including libertarians, rugged individualists and small-government Republicans who prize the privacy rights enshrined in the Alaska state constitution.
When they voted 53-47 percent last November to legalize marijuana use by adults in private places, they left many of the details to lawmakers and regulators to sort out.
That has left confusion on many matters.
The initiative bans smoking in public, but didn't define what that means, and lawmakers left the question to the alcohol regulatory board, which planned to meet early Tuesday to discuss an emergency response.
That's left different communities across the state to adopt different standards of what smoking in public means to them. In Anchorage, officials tried and failed in December to ban a new commercial marijuana industry. But Police Chief Mark Mew said his officers will be strictly enforcing the public smoking ban. He even warned people against smoking on their porches if they live next to a park.
But far to the north, in North Pole, smoking outdoors on private property will be OK as long as it doesn't create a nuisance, officials there said.
Other officials are still discussing a proposed cultivation ban for the Kenai Peninsula.
In some respects, the confusion continues a four-decade reality for Alaskans and their relationship with marijuana.
While the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision protected personal marijuana possession and a 1998 initiative legalized medicinal marijuana, state lawmakers twice criminalized any possession over the years, creating an odd legal limbo.
As of Tuesday, adult Alaskans can not only keep and use pot, they can transport, grow it and give it away. A second phase, creating a regulated and taxed marijuana market, won't start until 2016 at the earliest. That's about the same timeline for Oregon, where voters approved legalizing marijuana the same day as Alaska did but the law there doesn't go into effect until July 1. Washington state and Colorado voters legalized marijuana in 2012 and sales have started there.
And while possession is no longer a crime under state law, enjoying pot in public can bring a $100 fine.
That's fine with Dean Smith, a pot-smoker in Juneau who has friends in jail for marijuana offenses. "It's going to stop a lot of people getting arrested for nonviolent crimes," he said.
The initiative's backers warned pot enthusiasts to keep their cool.
"Don't do anything to give your neighbors reason to feel uneasy about this new law. We're in the midst of an enormous social and legal shift," organizers wrote in the Alaska Dispatch News, the state's largest newspaper.
Richard Ziegler, who had been promoting what he called "Idida-toke" in a nod to Alaska's Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, reluctantly called off his party.
There's no such pullback for former television reporter Charlo Greene, now CEO of the Alaska Cannabis Club, which is having its grand opening on Tuesday in downtown Anchorage. She's already pushing the limits, promising to give away weed to paying "medical marijuana" patients and other "club members."
Greene -- who quit her job with a four-letter walkoff on live television last year to devote her efforts to passing the initiative -- plans a celebratory toke at 4:20 p.m.
Meanwhile, Alaska Native leaders worry that legalization will bring new temptations to communities already confronting high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and suicide.
"When they start depending on smoking marijuana, I don't know how far they'd go to get the funds they need to support it, to support themselves," said Edward Nick, council member in Manokotak, a remote village of 400 that is predominantly Yup'ik Eskimo.
Both alcohol and drug use are prohibited in Nick's village 350 miles southwest of Anchorage, even inside the privacy of villagers' homes.
But Nick fears that the initiative, in combination with a 1975 state Supreme Court decision that legalized marijuana use inside homes -- could open doors to drug abuse.
Initiative backers promised Native leaders that communities could still have local control under certain conditions. Alaska law gives every community the option to regulate alcohol locally. From northern Barrow to Klawock, 1,291 miles away in southeast Alaska, 108 communities impose local limits on alcohol, and 33 of them ban it altogether.
But the initiative did not provide clear opt-out language for tribal councils and other smaller communities, forcing each one to figure out how to proceed Tuesday.

Flower Power: Christian florist rejects attorney general’s offer, won’t betray her religious beliefs

Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington State florist who declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding , has rejected a deal by the attorney general’s office that would’ve forced her to betray her religious beliefs – much like Judas betrayed Jesus.
“You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “That is something I will not do.”

Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal.

Ferguson had offered to settle the case if she paid a $2,000 penalty for violating the Consumer Protection Act, a $1 payment for costs and fees, and agreed not to discriminate in the future.
“My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said in a prepared statement.
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK!
On Feb. 18 a judge ruled Stutzman had violated the law by refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of a longtime customer. The state had not only gone after the flower shop but also Stutzman personally.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious liberty law firm representing Stutzman, said legal bills could be as high as seven figures.
“He’s using the full power of his office to personally and professionally destroy her,” ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner told me.
But the 70-year-old Southern Baptist grandmother said she will not violate her religious beliefs – no matter what. If that means losing her house – so be it.
“I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my homes and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to the attorney general. (You can read my earlier story on Stutzman’s case here.)
She said the attorney general simply does not understand her or what the conflict is all about.
“It’s about freedom, not money,” she said. “You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home.”
Stutzman’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the judge’s decision – meaning she won’t have to fork over any money just yet to Washington State.
In the meantime, she said she would continue to gladly serve the customer who filed the lawsuit.
“I truly want the best for my friend,” she wrote. “I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case.”
Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal. And that in the state of Washington using your God-given talents and abilities would be against the law.
The Seattle Times reported that Judge Ekstrom determined that “while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren’t necessarily protected.”
In other words – it’s OK to believe in God – so long as you don’t follow the tenets of your faith.
“Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences,” she wrote. “Because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.”
This is one granny that you don’t want to dig in the dirt with.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is "God Less America."

Senate Dems block GOP effort to tie DHS funding to Obama immigration actions

Senate Democrats blocked legislation Monday that would have rolled back President Obama's executive actions on immigration in exchange for funding the Department of Homeland Security through September.
But soon after the early evening vote -- the fourth Senate attempt to block Obama's controversial decision to grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested separate legislation to combat Obama's executive actions.
"The new bill I described offers another option we can turn to. It's another way to get the Senate unstuck from a Democrat filibuster and move the debate forward," McConnell said on the Senate floor after a vote to advance the House-passed bill failed 47-46, short of the 60 votes needed. Three previous attempts earlier in the month had yielded similar results.
It was not clear whether McConnell's gambit would succeed ahead of Friday's midnight deadline to fund the department or see it shut down. It was far from certain whether it would win any Democratic support, and House conservatives remain firmly opposed to any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department that does not also overturn Obama's executive actions on immigration.
If no funding deal is reached by the deadline, the DHS could partially shut down, resulting in the furloughs of roughly 30,000 DHS employees. About 200,000 others would continue to work, but they would receive no pay until Congress authorizes funding.
It's a reality that was on display during the 16-day government-wide shutdown in the fall of 2013, when national parks and monuments closed but essential government functions kept running, albeit sometimes on reduced staff.
Earlier in the day, Obama again warned that failing to act before Friday increases the risk of a domestic terror act.
At a White House gathering of governors, Obama accused Congress of creating “self-inflicted” wounds and said failing to pass the funding bill within the next several days “will have a direct impact on America’s national security.” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson appeared on all five Sunday talk shows to make a similar case.
The Tea Party Patriots group is suggesting that Senate Republicans are backing down because they fear Americans will blame them for a partial DHS shutdown.
“Senate Republicans are about to cave in to President Obama,” the group said Monday. “It’s time … to ratchet up the pressure on wobbly Senators.”
A federal district court judge in Texas last week temporarily blocked the administration's plans to carry out an executive action that protects millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.
The Justice Department on Monday asked a federal judge to lift the judge’s temporary block and make a decision by Wednesday. If the judge fails to rule in the administration’s favor, the department is expected to turn to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who leads the Senate committee that oversees the DHS, was not calling Monday for the immigration provision to be removed from the funding bill, but suggested that the courts, not Congress, will resolve the issue.
“Now that the judiciary branch is involved, the courts ultimately will decide the constitutionality of the administration’s ‘deferred action’ memorandum,” he said.

'NO EXCUSE': VA secretary admits special forces service claim was a lie

Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald has admitted that he lied about serving in the special operations forces in a conversation with a homeless veteran that was caught on camera earlier this year.
McDonald made the claim in January while he was in Los Angeles as part of the VA's effort to locate and house homeless veterans. During the tour, a homeless man told McDonald that he had served in the special operations forces. 
"Special forces? What years?" McDonald responded. "I was in special forces." The exchange was broadcast on "The CBS Evening News" Jan. 30. McDonald's misstatement was first reported by The Huffington Post.
McDonald graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975 and completed Army Ranger training before being assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division until his retirement in 1980. According to the Huffington Post, while McDonald was formally recognized as a graduate of Ranger School, he never actually served in a Ranger battalion or other special operations unit.
"I have no excuse," the website quoted McDonald as saying in its report. "I was not in special forces."
In a statement released Monday by the VA, McDonald said: "While I was in Los Angeles, engaging a homeless individual to determine his veteran status, I asked the man where he had served in the military. He responded that he had served in special forces. I incorrectly stated that I had been in special forces. That was inaccurate and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my misstatement."
McDonald told the Huffington Post that he had "reacted spontaneously and ... wrongly" in response to the homeless man's claim. 
"As I thought about it later, I knew that this was wrong," McDonald said of his false statement. 
The White House released a statement Monday evening saying that it had accepted McDonald's explanation.
"Secretary McDonald has apologized for the misstatement and noted that he never intended to misrepresent his military service," the statement said. "We take him at his word and expect that this will not impact the important work he’s doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation’s veterans."
After leaving the Army, McDonald went on to a successful corporate career, eventually becoming Chairman, President, and CEO of Proctor & Gamble. He became VA secretary this past July, as the agency was dealing with the fallout from the scandal of long patient wait times at VA hospitals.