George Soros and Warren Buffet benefited from Obama Keystone Pipeline Veto

The Democratic Party’s largest single contributors will make money off of the country losing hundreds of thousands of jobs with President Obama killing the Keystone Oil Pipeline from Canada.

Investors Business Daily:

Energy Policy: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world’s richest men get richer. North Dakota’s booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the president’s economic guru just bought.

Stop us if you see a pattern here. About the time George Soros — Hungarian billionaire and key donor to leftist groups and the Democratic Party — invested heavily in the stock of the state-run Brazilian oil company Petrobras, President Obama was curbing U.S. offshore oil production and the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $2 billion loan to Petrobras to finance deep-water drilling off the pristine beaches of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

As he was imposing curbs and moratoria on U.S. offshore drillers, President Obama wished the Brazilians well in the hope we would someday be Brazil’s best oil customer.

Apparently, oil tankers coming from Brazil are better and safer than a pipeline from Canada, whose best customer we will not be if they ship their tar sands oil to China instead.

Interestingly, another billionaire, Obama economic inspiration Warren Buffett, stands to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline delay.

As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed.

As a result, North Dakota’s booming oil producers will have to rely even more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett just bought, to ship it to refineries.

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share in cash and stock for the rest of the company.

Putin targets independent media

Financial Times:

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, has made it clear there is a limit to his patience while facing criticism from his country’s few remaining independent media outlets.

During a meeting with 30 editors he lost his temper with one radio station editor, accusing his station of “covering [him] in shit” and saying it “served the interests” of foreign countries.

The notoriously thin-skinned Mr Putin has been under fire from Russia’s opposition after parliamentary elections on December 4, which protesters say were rigged in favour of the ruling party, United Russia.

Mr Putin made it clear during the meeting with editors that Russia’s independent media continued to exist at his pleasure, in what may presage a crackdown on the press.

Jabbing a finger at Alexei Venediktov, chief editor of independent radio station Ekho Moskvy, Mr Putin scolded: “Someone wrote on your website ‘only cattle vote for Putin and I haven’t read his [Putin’s] article’,” referring to an article published earlier this week in which the prime minister laid out his vision for Russia.

“What kind of a discussion is that? How can you have a discussion with someone who thinks that the majority here, that is the majority, those who voted for me, are cattle?”

Echo Moskvy is owned by Gazprom, the nation’s gas monopoly. Nonetheless it is largely due to Mr Venediktov’s forceful defence of the station’s editorial policy that it is allowed to exist. Most media in Russia, especially television, have come under the control of either the state or of Kremlin-friendly oligarchs who enforce a pro-Putin line.

Nonetheless Mr Putin said that Russia had greater press freedom than the US because stations such as Ekho Moskvy were state financed.

 

According to an ex-KGB thug like Putin government control means freedom.

Hi Level Democrat Operative Arrested for Politically Motivated Identity Theft

Powerline:

…..That targeting has taken a sinister turn–a criminal one, in fact–as the Des Moines Register reports:

A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.

Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.

The Iowa Department of Public Safety issued a news release saying Schultz’s office discovered the scheme on June 24, 2011 and notified authorities.

Iowa blogger Shane Vander Hart has more, including this mug shot of Zachary Edwards, a Democratic operative:

Edwards is a former Obama staffer who directed “new media operations” for Obama in five states during the 2008 primaries. Thereafter, he was Obama’s Director of New Media for the State of Iowa. In the Democratic Party’s lexicon, “new media” apparently includes identity theft.

Edwards now works for LINK Strategies, a Democratic consulting firm with extraordinarily close ties to Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin. Its principal, Jeff Link, has served as Harkin’s campaign manager and chief of staff. Link, too, is a former Obama staffer. The LINK Strategies web site says that Jeff Link “served as a media consultant to the Obama for President Campaign, coordinating branding, all paid media and polling in 25 states, including seven battleground states (VA, NC, FL, CO, NM, NV, MT)….”

That Edwards allegedly tried to steal the Secretary of State’s identity in order to frame Schultz for “unethical behavior in office” is no coincidence. Iowa Democrats, as Kevin Hall of the Iowa Republican points out, have mounted a campaign of false accusations against Schultz…..

Read more HERE.

Rand Paul should sue TSA

The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the capital.

“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….”  –  Article I, Section 6.

 

Nuff said.

Supremes: Police GPS tracking without warrant is unconstitutional.

The court hit this one out of the park. While I see Scalia’s point of nuance I agree with Alito that it also covered privacy because the penumbra of the law certainly cast a shadow on the FBI’s violation.

Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police violated the Constitution when they attached a Global Positioning System tracker to a suspect’s vehicle without a valid search warrant, voting unanimously in one of the first major cases to test privacy rights in the digital era.

The decision offered a glimpse of how the court may address the flood of privacy cases expected in coming years over issues such as cellphones, email and online documents. But the justices split 5-4 over the reasoning, suggesting that differences remain over how to apply age-old principles prohibiting “unreasonable searches.”

The minority pushed for a more sweeping declaration that installing the GPS tracker not only trespassed on private property but violated the suspect’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” by monitoring his movements for a month. The majority said it wasn’t necessary to go that far, because the act of putting the tracker on the car invaded the suspect’s property in the same way that a home search would.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that as conceived in the 18th century, the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” would extend to private property such as an automobile.

“The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted,” Justice Scalia wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Advocates for privacy said that despite the differences, the court’s unanimity on the outcome sent a strong message.

“This is a signal event in Fourth Amendment history,” said Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general who represented the defendant, Antoine Jones.

The government said Federal Bureau of Investigation agents use GPS tracking devices in thousands of investigations each year. It argued that attaching the tiny tracking device to a car’s undercarriage was too trivial a violation of property rights to matter, and that no one who drove in public streets could expect his movements to go unmonitored. Police were free to employ the tactic for any reason without showing probable cause to a magistrate and getting a search warrant, the government said.

The justices seemed troubled by that position at arguments in November, where the government acknowledged it would also allow attaching such trackers to the justices’ own cars without obtaining a warrant.

Emphasizing the Fourth Amendment’s “close connection to property,” Justice Scalia wrote that even a small trespass, if committed in “an attempt to find something or to obtain information,” constituted a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.

In a surprising departure from the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor usually known for his law-and-order views, split from fellow conservatives to argue that the search violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

The court has used that test since 1967, when it held that warrants were required before police could wiretap a call made from a public telephone booth because “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”

Limiting Fourth Amendment protections to trespassing property as understood in 1791 “is unwise” and “highly artificial,” Justice Alito wrote in a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. “It is almost impossible to think of late-18th-century situations” analogous to placing a GPS tracker on a car, Justice Alito wrote, unless one imagined “a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both.”

With such rapidly advancing technology, the Scalia approach left open “particularly vexing problems,” Justice Alito wrote, particularly when police don’t have to physically touch a vehicle to conduct surveillance. He mentioned automatic toll-collection systems and smartphones that continuously track their own location as examples.

Justice Alito’s concurring opinion suggested that the GPS case had provoked a robust debate within the court over the extent to which the 1967 case, Katz v. U.S., remained good law.

Justice Scalia declined to apply the 1967 standard to this case, but emphasized that the broader approach remained in force.

Justice Scalia wrote that even surveillance without physical trespass may be “an unconstitutional invasion of privacy”—but, he added, there was no need to speculate on such problems until a specific case presented them to the court.

Read more HERE.