Politics Plus

Perhaps the most critical reason Democrats must win the White House in November is that the next President will likely appoint two or three Supreme Court Justices.  At 82, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is likely to retire first.  She us the most liberal Justice.  If a Republican replaces her The Fascist Five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) will become the Swastika Six, and we can kiss America goodbye.  In the meantime, will SCROTUS gut Public Unions.

Harlan Elrich is a high school teacher in California, and that means he must pay about $970 a year to a labor union. He teaches math, and he said the system did not add up.

“I get to choose what movie I want to go see,” Mr. Elrich said. “I get to choose what church I want to go to. I get to choose what gym I want to join.”

He should have the same choice, he said, about whether to support a union.

Mr. Elrich and nine other California teachers have sued the union, saying that they are being forced to pay to support positions with which they disagree, in violation of the First Amendment. Their lawsuit, if it is successful, will be the culmination of a decades-long legal campaign to undermine public unions.

And there is good reason to think they will win. The Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in the case on Monday, has twice suggested that the First Amendment bars forcing government workers to make payments to unions…

Inserted from <NY Times>

Looking at this the arguments made by Elrich, a Republican Party front, the presence of a union does not leave him without choices.  He can work for a private school or in another field.  The decision to unionize has been made by the majority of teachers, state by state.  Teachers unionized long before Elrich began the specialized education to become a teacher, knowing there was a union.  He made his choice then.

If being forced to support positions with which we disagree violates the First Amendment, most of us should  have a big tax refund coming, since paying to support positions with which we disagree is a regular feature of any Republic, even a nominal one like ours.

I started paying taxes in 1962, so each of my tax dollars spent for the Vietnam War, The Iraq War, financing Israel’s repression of the Palestinian people, capital punishment, LGBT repression, mandatory minimums, private prisons, and many more items has been forced payment to support positions with which I disagree.  Should I expect a refund check next week?

Election 2016
45 Million Americans Live in Poverty, but You Wouldn’t Know It From Watching 2016 Coverage
One of the most pressing issues facing America is ignored by our corporate media.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/45-million-americans-live-poverty-you-wouldnt-know-it-watching-2016-coverage#.VpBcCHPVNDs.care2

Pre-Event Coverage

Talking Poverty with GOP Candidates at the Kemp Forum Tomorrow
http://www.chn.org/2016/01/08/talking-poverty-with-gop-candidates-at-the-kemp-forum-tomorrow/#.VpAmjPkrIdU

New Year, New Shave, Same Poverty “Solutions”
http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/new-year-new-shave-same-poverty-solutions/

Ryan Invites 2016 GOP Field to Poverty Forum
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/21/ryan_invites_2016_gop_field_to_poverty_forum_128154.html#!
 

Fact of the Week: If Income Gains Had Been Broadly Shared – and not Concentrated in the Hands of the Richest 1 Percent – Poverty in America Could Have Been Eliminated by 1985
http://www.chn.org/2016/01/08/fact-of-the-week-if-income-gains-had-been-broadly-shared-and-not-concentrated-in-the-hands-of-the-richest-1-percent-poverty-in-america-could-have-been-eliminated-by-1985/#.VpAnl_krIdU
 

GOP Candidates Take the Stage to Discuss Poverty, But Will They Walk the Talk?
http://www.chn.org/2016/01/07/gop-candidates-take-the-stage-to-discuss-poverty-but-will-they-walk-the-talk/#.VpAoePkrIdU
 

“Bleeding-Heart,” Or Just Bloody? The GOP Poverty Show
https://ourfuture.org/20160108/bleeding-heart-or-just-bloody-the-gop-poverty-show?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

Saturday: Watch Live Video of Kemp Presidential Forum on Poverty
http://opportunitylives.com/kemp
The livestream will begin at 8:30am EST.

CONTRAST OPPORTUNITY:
Saturday: Watch Live Video of the Iowa People’s Presidential Forum
https://ourfuture.org/20160108/saturday-watch-live-video-of-the-iowa-peoples-presidential-forum

Putting Families First
Event starts Sat, Jan 9 2016 12:00 PM PST

Watch both and “you decide”, as I kept hearing on Faux

news radio broadcast driving across mid-America….and comment with what

you decided please

I started out doing a short take for today's Squatch's Open Thread about TransCanada's NAFTA challenge, but things rather mushroomed.  TC covered TransCanada in his lead article while I chose to take a broader approach.

There are two actions that TransCanada Corp has announced it is taking in regards to the Keystone XL rejection:  

1. a challenge under NAFTA against the US Government; and
2. a lawsuit filed in US federal court in Houston, Texas.

National Post — TransCanada Corp. said Wednesday it intends to file a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) seeking US$15-billion in damages from the United States government over President Barack Obama’s denial of the Keystone XL pipeline.  …

In a 27-page notice of intent to pursue the NAFTA challenge, the Calgary-based pipeline company said Obama’s denial was politically driven, directly contrary to the conclusions of own administration’s studies, and in violation of U.S. obligations under the agreement.

From the Globe and Mail

Toronto trade lawyer Lawrence Herman said … 

“I’ve thought for some time that that this was a politicized issue, and there are good arguments that decisions affecting Keystone were based on political considerations. To the degree that that is so, TransCanada has a viable if not a strong case.”

Continuing from the National Post

In addition, the Calgary-based company filed a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court in Houston claiming Obama’s decision to deny construction of Keystone XL exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution.  …

The lawsuit in Texas does not seek damages, but a declaration that the permit denial is without legal merit and that construction of the pipeline can proceed without further presidential action.  …

TransCanada has pondered a NAFTA challenge for some time, but the Texas lawsuit — it names U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Charles Johnson, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell — was not expected.

Some might remember that from the beginning, the Keystone XL and TransCanada Corp have been the focus of much talk, and not just over the water cooler.  Here are some of the Politics Plus articles going back to 2011: Keystone XL WOULD Increase Carbon Pollution, Keystone XL Defeated, Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline, New Keystone XL Investigation, Deck stacked for Keystone XL, Keystone Delayed, The Keystone Debacle.

TransCanada has admitted in the past that it substantially inflated employment numbers in the US.  During the 2012 election campaign, Republicans were pushing the "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" and invoked TransCanada as a jobs creator saying that there were tens of thousands of jobs.  Ib fact there would be a couple thousand temporary construction jobs and less than 100 permanent jobs.  Take into account that the EIS at one point was arranged and paid for by TransCanada.  Shame on TransCanada for trying to hide that conflict and on the State Department for allowing it. Here's a record of TransCanada's lobbying through the first half of 2013 . . . big money.

In Canada, former PM Stephen Harper and the Conservatives backed the Keystone XL.  DeSmog reported:

In October 2013 the Liberal party backed the Keystone XL pipeline and won confidence from oil industry supporters when Trudeau told the Calgary Petroleum Club, “Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL.”

But Trudeau also added, “Perhaps the greatest indictment of the [Conservative] government is this: it has had the better part of a decade to remove the barriers preventing the U.S. from approving this project.”

“The [Conservative government] poked and prodded, annoyed and irritated the Obama administration at every turn. Largely, I suspect, because they don’t know how to work with people who don’t share their ideology.”

…  Both Dion and Trudeau indicated that although they support the Keystone XL, they respect the decision-making authority of the Obama administration — something the Harper government continuously strained diplomatic relations by failing to do. During his years of lobbying for the pipeline, Harper forcefully said he wouldn’t “take no for an answer” and called its approval a “no brainer.”

So both Canadian governments ultimately support the pipeline, the former government being more forceful, less respectful.

But there is also another NAFTA challenge that has been before the tribunal since 2013 — Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada.  From Global Affairs Canada, 

The claimant alleges that LPRC has contractual interests relating to five contiguous exploration licences for petroleum, natural gas and underground reservoirs (“exploration licences”) located near Trois-Rivières [see map below]. These interests stem from a farmout agreement signed with the holder of these exploration licences, a Canadian company named Junex Inc. Four of the exploration licences are located on land and one is located in the St. Lawrence River.

The exploration licence located in the St. Lawrence River was revoked following the coming into force, on June 13, 2011, of a Quebec law titled An Act to limit oil and gas activities (“Act”). The Act revokes exploration licences located in the St. Lawrence River and limits the area of those that cross the water’s edge to their land portion.

The Act was passed in response to the findings of a strategic environmental study on hydrocarbon development in the maritime estuary basin and the northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence, which concludes that this environment is not conducive to hydrocarbon development activities. This study was preceded by numerous other studies that, since 2003, have been analyzing the impact of hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities on the biophysical and human environment of the St. Lawrence River.

In addition to studies on hydrocarbon development in the St. Lawrence River, the Government of Quebec devotes considerable resources to documenting and assessing the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the shale gas industry. Since February 2011, reports from Quebec’s Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (“BAPE”) and studies conducted as part of strategic environmental studies have been establishing the existence of risks to the biophysical and human environment tied to shale gas development activities involving hydraulic fracturing.

One thing to note, the St Lawrence River freezes each winter westward from Québec City, creating additional risks.  You can also review the Lone Pine Resources' challenge at the Council of Canadians website. 

Both of these challenges to the sovereignty of our two nations by corporations need to be put in their place . . . in the dumpster.  Trade agreements like NAFTA, TPP, TTIP, TISA and CETA are nothing more than corporate power grabs.  Where are the people in all these agreements?  . . . slaves to corporations.

See lists of NAFTA challenges at the following sources:

1. Global Affairs Canada, and
2. US Department of State.

The US is currently under attack, not by the Canadian Army, or the Mounties, or even a band of marauding Sasquatches, nut by a bevy of loon-paid lawyers the employ of TransCanada, the company, whose domestic operations Canadians are blocking.

TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, announced Wednesday it is filing a claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), saying that the project’s permit denial was “arbitrary and unjustified.” TransCanada is seeking $15 billion in costs and damages due to the denial, and has also filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. in federal court.

Under NAFTA, companies can sue governments that put investments at risk through regulation. If it proceeds, the case will go in front of an international tribunal. (A U.S. company sued Montreal in 2013 over a fracking ban, using the same rationale). The tribunal cannot overturn the permit denial, but it can force payment of damages.

A NAFTA challenge had been previously identified as a potential legal recourse for the company.

In the notice to submit a claim for arbitration, TransCanada notes that two previous pipelines, carrying oil from the same tar sands region across the U.S. border, were both approved. This, TransCanada claims, suggests that the denial was political in nature, which is prohibited under NAFTA.

“Environmental activists … turned opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline into a litmus test for politicians—including U.S. President Barack Obama — to prove their environmental credentials. The activists’ strategy succeeded,” TransCanada states in its filings. “Stated simply, the delay and the ultimate decision to deny the permit were politically-driven, directly contrary to the findings of the Administration’s own studies, and not based on the merits of Keystone’s application. The Administration’s actions violated U.S. obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”).”

The company even headed the notice with a quote from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest: “I would venture to say that there’s probably no infrastructure project in the history of the United States that’s been as politicized as this one.” …

Inserted from <Alternet>

I sincerely hope that TransCanada’s suit fails.  However, this is the best thing that could have happened.  It shows us how these trade agreements compromise our national sovereignty.  It demonstrates the need to stop the TPP.